lieveth on the Son hath everlasting Life That is hatâ— a Right to everlasting Life Habet i. e. certo habituruâ— est as Lucas Brugensis in Poole who refers us unto John 1.12 where 't is thus Jus ad haereditatem quod Haereditatis nomine interdum venit sicut quâ— credit nempe sicut oportet credere viva side diâ—citur habere vitam aeternam C. 3.36 Sic Juris conâ—sulti is qui actionem habet ad rem ipsam rem habere videtur Well then the import of what the Reporter has here said is That Christ suffered that they who believe may have a Right to eberlasting Life and seeing Justification carries in it a Right to Life eternal it is as if it had been said That they who believe may be justified 5. That this is the manifest intendment of the Reporter may be seen by comparing the present Paragraph with the fore going which is We are all by Nature under the Curse of the Law and destitute of a Righteousness entitling to eternal Life That Vindictive Justice which is essential unto God makes it necessary that the wrath be inflicted and that there be no Right to eternal Life without a perfect meritorious Righteousness This is our State and Condition This is the Place in which we are in which if we dye we are eternally undone The Reporter having shown into what a deploable Condition we are brought by Sin and urging the necessity of an Interest in a perfect meritorious Righteousness he proceeds to show how we may obtain such a Righteousnes as is meritorious of eternal life to the end we may obtain a right thereunto â—ying ' That all who believe might escape the Wrath to come and have everlasting Life the Lord Jesus undertakes for us thereby clearing it â—hat they who believe having an Interest in Christs Righteousness may have a Right to everlasting Life that is may be justified so that here is an asserting of faith as necessary to Justification Pardon and Peace with God 6. The Reporter in giving this brief account of the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction hath followed the blessed Jesus and the â—oly Apostles as his Guides for our Lord when â—e sent out his Disciples to preach the Gospel bids them declare That whoever believe and are baptized â—hall be saved and they who believe not shall be damned In this Summary though not one word expresly of Regeneration Conversion Repentance c. nor a word of the Precedence of Faith to Justification or Pardon of Sin yet are all these included in it The â—reaching of the Apostles was frequently the same Believe and thou shalt be saved But 7. If there had been any Strength in this Objection Mr. A. doth make not only the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity and the rankest Socinians but the very Mehometanes would be very much beholding to him for it For if the not mentioning every Article of the Christian Faith particularly in the Letter where our Lord gives a Summary of the Gospel must import a Rejection or at least an Indifference about the Points not mentioned then to believe that Jesus is the Messiah is sufficient and we may burn our Systems Catechisms and larger Confessions of Faith But 8. If he saith it 's mentioned by our Lord Jesus and his Apostles elsewhere I grant it and from thence I infer that as our Lord 's not mentioning these things in a summary is not a Rejecting them so the Reporter tho' he spake not a word of them in his summary cannot without the greatest Injustice and wrong done him be charged as a Rejecter of them And 9. It 's not unworthy our observation that the Lord Jesus did in Mark 16.15 16. give a summary of the whole Gospel without the mention of the particulars specified by my Adversary but the Reporter only of the substance of the Gospel so far as we are to believe what Christ has done and suffered for Sinners without them and with God in which he hath insisted on the necessity of Faith in order to our escaping the Wrath to come and our having Everlasting Life which passage importing the necessity of Faith to our actual Right unto Glory is as much as if it had been said that it 's necessary to our Justification and Pardon But Mr. A. it 's likely not thinking himself under those Bonds which oblige to a strict adherence unto Truth in what he either saith or writes I have Reason to believe that he hath charged the Reporter for Rejecting what he himself believes in his Conscience he holds and that he hath done thus much upon a Reason which he is perswaded has nothing of strength in it so dangerous a thing it is for a Man who in his own Opinion is a Great Wit to enter on a Controversie with a design to load his Opposers with False and Reproachful Charges tho' it be to the cost and expence of his own Reputation and in an Instance wherein he cannot expose the Reporter but by casting dirt on the Cathick Church and on his own Understanding too giving â—ountenance to nothing so much as unto the vain â—retences of such Debauched Hereticks as the Licentious Antinomian and Libertines of the Age are Thus we see whither somewhat has hurried his Man and how he has brought himself into such Circumstances as may move a Christian Temper â—o Pity and Compassion for which reason I 'll say â—o more to this Objection but go on to a second The second Objection Be pleased to observe He instructs you That we are all by Nature under the Curse of the Law and destitute of a Righteousness that may intitle us to Eternal Life and that this was our Place State and Condition Reply And was not this our Place State and Condition Will Mr. A. deny it No he dares not for saith â—e This we all own and lament as too true Where â—hen is his Objection It is in the following words But then he instructs you also That Christ put himself into our Place State and Condition Will you not must you not conclude from hence That Christ also was destitute of a Righteousness to entitle him and if himself us too to Eternal Life Reply 1. That I may show how Mr. A. trifles in raising his Objection I will propose the Sentiments of the Reporter about a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us which was the Occasion of what was said about our being destitute of a Righteousness And it must be observ'd that the Reporter had his Eye on the Manuscript in which its Author speaking of a proper Commutation saith That it is the same with a proper Surrogation where the Surety or Surrogate puts on the Person and stands in the Quality State and Condition of the Debtor and lies under the same Obligation he did to answer for him Not that he apprehended the Agreement there is between Christ's Suretiship and that amongst Men to be adaequate and full nor did he allude unto a
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
Mr. A. doth insiâ—â—nate That Jesus Christ hath wrought for himself Righteousness that he might by it be entitled to Eternal Life I will consider the Import and Tendency of such an Assertion 1. As for its Import it cannot be any thing less than that the Lord Jesus Christ was once in a state of Tryal and made under the same Law for himself that we were for our selves and that Obedience was required of him to the end that he merit Eternaâ— Life for himself Whence it follows That when the Promise of Eternal Life was proposed for the Encouragement of his Obedience he had no Right nor Title to Eternal Life no not for himself But that to get a Title thereunto he was under the Obligation of the same Law that we were and to speak most modestly of Mr. A's Notion The Lord Jesus Christ God-Man was antecedently to his rendring Obedience to the Law which said Do this and live He was as destitute of a Right to Eternal Life as Adam was on his first Creation Thus whilst he would fasten on the Reporter the groundless Charge of making Christ destitute of 〈◊〉 Righteousness he makes our Blessed Lord destitute of Eternal Life ay of a Right thereunto But leâ— us consider 2. The Tendency of this Notion and that I may do it with the greater clearness I will deliver what I design to offer on this occasion as pressed by the Learned Judicious and Holy Doctor Owen who in his Day excelled most Men in these Studies And whoever will consult his Discourse of Justification from page 366 to page 378. will see That this great Man in confuting the Socinians and their next of Kin in the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and our Justification doth with much concern declare and strongly prove That Christ came not under the Law for himself but for us To set this Important Point in the clearer Light it must be observed That the Controversie is not whether the Humane Nature of Christ as it is a Raâ—ional Creature be subject unto the Law of Creaâ—ion and eternally obliged from the Nature of God â—â—d its Relation thereunto to Love him Obey him â—epend upon him and to make him its End Blessed-â—â—ss and Reward For as the Dr. admirably wel â—â—presseth it ' The Law of Creation thus considered doth not respect the World and this Life only but the Future State of Heaven and Eternity But the Point here controverted is Wheâ—â—er Christ be under the Law as it is imposed on â—reatures by especial Dispensation for some time â—â—d for some certain End with some Considerations â—â—les and Orders that belong not essentially to the â—â—w as before described as it is presented unto us â—â—â—t absolutely and eternally but whilst we are in this World and that with this special End that by Obeâ—â—â—nce thereunto we may obtain the Reward of â—ternal Life To this the Dr. answers That the Lord Jesus Christ was not made under the Law under this â—â—nsideration for himself to the end he might get a â—ale unto Eternal Life For saith the Doctor upon the first Instant of the Vnion of his Natures being holy harmless undefiled and separate from Sinners he might notwithstanding that Law he was made subject unto have been stated in Glory For he that was the Object of all Divine Worship ceded not any New Obedience to procure for him state of Blessedness And a little before Setting side saith the Doctor the consideration of the Grace and Love of Christ and the Compact beâ—ween the Father and the Son as to the Undertaking â—or us which undeniably proves all that he did in pursuit of them to be done for us and not for â—imself I say setting aside the consideration of these things and the Humane Nature of Christ bâ— vertue of its Vnion with the Person of the Son 〈◊〉 God had a Right unto and might have immedâ—ately been admitted into the Highest Gloâ—â— whereof it was capable without any Anteceder Obedience unto the Law And this is appareâ—â— from hence in that from the First Instant of thâ—Vnion the whole Person of Christ with our Natuâ—â— Existing therein was the Object of all Diviâ—â— Worship from Angels and Men wherein consisâ— the Highest Exaltation of that Nature So fâ—â— Dr. Owen Here then you see a difference between this Leaâ—ned Dr. and Mr. A. Mr. A. suggests as if Chriâ—â— were under the Law which saith Do this and livâ— for Himself as well as for us that he might be eâ—â— titled to Eternal Life but the Dr. denies it upâ—â— the weightiest consideration Besides the Doctâ—â— is the more positive in his Opinion as it doth moâ—â— effectually subvert the Notion of Socinus which 〈◊〉 That our Lord Jesus Christ was for himself or on 〈◊〉 own account obliged unto all that Obedience which 〈◊〉 performed and therefore could no more obey aâ—â— satisfie for others than any other person But thâ— Doctor proves That Christ's Obedience unto tâ—â— Law was for Vs and not for Himself and therâ— by doth most effectually enervate the strength 〈◊〉 Socinus his Argument which upon Mr. A's Notioâ— receives new Life and Vigour Whoever desires a suller understanding of thâ— Controversie will do well to consult the Doctâ—â— himself who in the pages referred unto hath 〈◊〉 fully and clearly stated this Doctrine as to obviaâ—â— Objections made against it by the Remonstrant Socinians and others but what I have here said 〈◊〉 sufficient to shew Mr. A's Mistake and what countenance it gives the Socinians and how much reason 〈◊〉 hath to be more in his Study consulting not â—ay-Books for the sake of foolish Jests but the â—oly Scriptures and the Learned Writings of D. O. â—â—d other Orthodox Divines that for the future â—rough inadvertency or otherwise he give not those â—dvantages to the common Enemies of our Holy â—eligion he hath too oft done But I pass on to third Objection The Third Objection We are sin saith the Reporter and under a Curse Can you with all your Penetration Divine the â—eason why it 's said we are sin but how â—â—e we sin why must it be phrased thus we are 〈◊〉 It was Poetically and Satyrically said That â—lexander the sixth was non tam vitiosus â—â—à m vitium non tam scelestus quà m scelus but â—â—e need to be taught how Man was sin sin it â—â—lf Reply 1. That Mr. Alsop is so very much at a loss to â—â—d out the genuine meaning of the word Sin â—en it 's said we are Sin as if it had been never â—used in Scripture doth not a little surprize it â—â—ng so common for the Holy-Ghost to express the â—â—erlative Degree by the Abstract not only in â—â—er Instances but even in this that doth so puzâ—â— and confound him For as the Devils whose â—â—s are exceeding great are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or spiritual wickedness so wicked Men are calâ—â— Wickedness particularly in 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. â—ere is an enumeration of sundry sorts of Sinners 〈◊〉 render it And
Condition without which there had been no Overtures of Mercy made to the Sons of Men p. 537 538. 5. What these Great Men have here delivered â—oth not only testifie to the Truth of what I have â—ffirmed about the Opposition the Or. hodex have â—ade against the Interpretation given of Heb. 7.22 â—â—y Mr. W. Curcellaeus and the Socinian but it also doth â—ost convincingly prove that Christ's Suretiship belongs to his Priesthood that in his Acting the part of Surety or in the Execution of his Priestly Office â—e Offered up himself a Sacrifice took on him our â—uilt and Punishment and to this end came under â—he Sanction of the violated Law For 6. The connection the Apostle affirms to be beâ—ween Christ's Suretiship and his Priestly Office is â—uch that a denying Christ to be a Surety underâ—aking to bear the Guilt and Punishment of our sins â—or that he came under the Sanction of the Law to satisfie God's Justice for us hath a direct tendency to subvert the true Notion of the Priestly Office Of this Schlictingius was so sensible that he could think on no way as Dr. O. observes to solve the Apostles mention of Christ's being a Surety in the Description of his Priestly Office but by overthrowing the Nature of that Office also Of Justif p. 261 262 263. Have we not then reason enough to be concern'd to see any amongst our selves turning aside from the Common Faith delivered to us from the Lord Jesus and his Apostles and falling in with the Inveterate Enemies of our Saviour's Satisfaction One thing more I must note 7. That the Notion Paraphrase and Exposition given by Socinians and a few other Authors of Christ's being made and called our Surety because of his Vndertaking to be Pledge and Guarranty for God to Sinners that upon their Repentance and Faith he will both pardon and bestow upon them Eternal Life is no ways either consistent with or to be reconciled unto what the same Apostle had declared chap. 6. p. 16 17. where tho' he had been discoursing of Christ's Priestly Office he doth nevertheless expresly and positively affirm that God's Word of Promise accompanied and ratified by his Oath is the whole and that praeclusive of all other means of Security and Assurance which we either need or that God hath in this matter been pleased to afford us in order to the stedfastness of our Faith the Fulness of our Consolation God being willing more abundantly to shew unto the Heirs of Promise the Immutability of his Counsel confirm'd it by an Oath that by two Immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lye we might have a strong Consolation who have fled for Refuge to lay hold upon the Hope set before us So that the Reason of his being styled the Surety of the better Testament is because of his â—â—ffering and performing those great Things for us â—owards God without which the Testamental Inheâ—â—tance bequeathed in that better Testament would â—ot have been upon any Terms acruable unto â—nd claimable by us The Fifth Objection That by saying Christ sustained the Person of Sinners Mr. L. must be thought to acknowledge That he dyed for the Reprobate as well as for the Elect and that it favours the Nestorians who maintain That Christ was constituted of two Persons Reply 1. What is objected against me in these words 〈◊〉 as much against the generation of the Orthodox â—ho use the same Phrases which I do Not that â—â—intend only the Lutherans in this Instance who are â—â—iesly concern'd in the first part of the Objection or I use it in no other sense than the Reformed â—â—nerally do 2. The Conffusion which the Author of this Objection is fallen into in his opposing the Phrase 〈◊〉 Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners has â—oved some to fear that all things are not Right â—ith him For one while this Phrase can signifie â—othing less than that Christ puts on the Disguise of â—inners Horresco referens and Acts the part of a â—age-Player at another time it must import Neâ—ianism as if Christ had taken on him the Natuâ—â—â— Person of Sinners And again the Enquiry is â—hether the Persons of Sinners are not Vnited â—nd to be considered as One Person and whether â—hrist did not die and satisfie for that One Person â—hat is for all equally which he doth not believe to â—e our sense as he declares But 3. The sense in which we use this Phrase is known to Divines of the least accquaintance with these Studies so that unless there had been a fault somewhere the Objector could not have been thus puzzled for it hath been cleared in my Defence that when it s said Christ sustained the Person of Sinners it 's not meant that the Person he took on him was either a Feigned or a Natural Person that it was only a Legal Person so that did he understand what is most plain and easie he could not but see that he had not the least Pretence for his Blasphemous Representation of our blessed Saviour's Acting the part of a Stage-Player nor for his charging us with Nestorianism 4. As for his Endeavour to infer from this Phrase of Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners the Doctrine of Universal Redemption is so destitute of the least colour of Reason that as he believes we do not hold it so it hath no Foundation for its support For the Phrase of Christ sustaining the Person of Sinners and that other oâ— Christs dying for Sinners is of one and the same Extent and the Interpretation given by the Orthodox of the one is sufficient to vindicate the other from his trifling Cavils But 5. When we say That Christ sustained the Person of Sinners we mean it of those Sinners who are given by the Father to the Son whom the Father will draw unto him who come to the Father by the Son do believe are Converted Regenerated and Saved In a word we mean it of Elect Sinners The Sixth Objection That it is both Scandalous and Blasphemous to say That Pestilent Doctrines have been oftentimes Communicated in the Language of Scripture 1. When I wrote my Defence of the Report obâ—erving how zealous Mr. W's and his Substitute â—ere for strict Adherences unto Scripture words â—nd how much against the use of some Terms and â—hrases chosen by the Orthodox to explain the Truth because not in the Letter of Scripture I â—â—ought it necessary to suggest in my Defence as did p. 59. That it hath been the way of the Hereâ—â—cks to Quarrel with such Terms and Phrases as â—he Church had chosen because not found in the â—etter of Scripture adding That amongst many â—thers it 's well observ'd by the Learned Mr. Norton â—f New-England That the most Pestilent Doctrines â—â—ve been Communicated in the Language of Scripture â—â—on which as I am told Mr. Alsop briskly deliâ—ers his charitable Censure vix That to say so is â—oth Seandalous and Blasphemous But 2. What Mr. Norton said is
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.
him his success may bear some proportion to what Laelius Socinus Blandrata and some others of that way had in Poland What Reputation Blandrata had amongst the Orthodox notwithstanding the Indefatigable Pains of so great a Man as Calvin to discover his Hypocrisie I have shown in my Growth of Errour and in this place will observe what I have met with concerning Franciscus Lismaninus who carried it so craftily as to obtain a great Interest in the Esteem of the Reformed in general and of Calvin and Zanchy in particular Lubieniecius in his Polonian History lib. 2. c. 2. saith that Calvin in a Letter to the King of Poland highly applauded Lismaninus tho' the Publisher of his Epistles did unfairly omit the mention of his Name and sure I am that he joyn'd with other Polonian Divines in a Letter to Zanchy in which he with them expresseth himself so Orthodoxly that Zanchy in answer unto them could not but rejoyce exceedingly to understand that so much Holiness and Truth was amongst them which was about the year of our Lord 1562 63. and yet long before this time Wissowatius dates Lasmaninus his being influenced by Laelius Socinus to embrace his Opinions even about the year 1552 53. And it 's very probable the Concealment of his Heresie from the Notice of the Orthodox was continued unto the Day of his Fatal Catastrophe which as Sandius Bibl. Anti-Trin p. 35. observes out of Budzinius his History was by his falling into a Well where he was Drowned when in a Phrensie occasion'd by his Wifes being suspected guilty of Adultery For it 's conjectured that his Death was not long after he joyn'd in the above mentioned Letter with Gregorius Pauli Stanislaus Lathomiski Paulus Gilovius Martinus Crovitius at that time Socinians who by sheltring themselves amongst the Orthodox had gain'd such Advantages for the Propagating their Impious Opinions as to put an effectual stop to the spreading of the Truth in that Kingdom which for the most part hath been ever since Popish and Socinian What I have said will I hope clear it to them who sincerely desire the Knowledge of what it is that doth really lye at the bottom of the present Heats That our Differences are in Points of the greatest weight and that the Contention on our part is that the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction may be secured from the Insults of Mr. Ws. and his followers For in a word the true State of the Case is thus Mr. Williams in his Writings falling in with the Learned Mr. Baxter hath corrupted the Doctrine of our Saviour's Satisfaction The first Book in which he laid the Foundation of the whole he hath since advanced came forth under the countenance of the St. Hellens Ministers for above forty of their Hands are unto a Testmonial prefixed unto it In which it is declared that the Truths and Errours therein mentioned as such are fully and rightly stated in all that is material Several Exceptions have been made against this Book fervent desires that our Brethren whose Hands are to it would recall them This never yet done but when some of the most Eminent of our Brethren sent a Paper securing the Doctrines of Christ's Satisfaction and our Justification in opposition to Mr. Williams his Errours which greatly rejoyced the hearts of the Grieved Brethren a Check was put thereunto by them who meet at Little St. Hellens and another Paper composed which broke down those Barriers which were inserted in the First Paper on purpose to secure the Truth against the Socinianizing-Arminians This last Paper encreasing the Offence given by Mr. Williams the offended Brethren earnestly desired that they would joyn with the most Eminent of their own Number in the first Paper To this never any Answer return'd but various Misrepresentations given of Matters of Fact which occasioned the Publishing a Sheet of Paper entituld The Report c. This is followed with a Scandalous Rebuke written by Mr. Alsop in which without the least provocation he Rails against all the Congregational Churches Ministers and People calling 'em Petty Foggers Intreaguers Whaffing Whelps Mastiff Dogs Rosacrusions and the like Some time after this out comes a Book called An Answer to the Report said by Mr. Williams to be composed by a Committee of the Saint Hellens Brethren to this are annexed two Letters the one from the R. Reverend the Lord Bishop of Worcester the other from the Reverend Dr. Edwards Principal of Jesus Colledge Oxon in which the Truths we own are explained and asserted Thus instead of examining Mr. Williams his Book and Recalling their Hands or witnessing against the Errours in it the Ministers at Little St. Hellens who formerly took special care to keep themselves as considered collectively at a distance from the Contest have now made themselves Parties not only by their Answer to the Report which contains in it a Plea for Mr. Williams his Notions but also by their approval of Mr. Alsop's scurrulous and false Charge against the Congregational Brethren which is not only evident from their not testifying against the Barbarity of the Abuse but from their caressing him for it And whereas they say the Difference is only about words or modes of expression you have it here fully proved that it is in such Points as affect the very Vitals of our Holy Religion For Iustification by that Righteousness of Christ which answers the Law of Works is rejected for a Righteousness of Christ which lyeth entirely and solely in the performance of the Conditions of the Mediatorial Covenant under which we never were Besides that Satisfaction which lyeth in answering the Obligations of the Violated Law by Christ's suffering a proper Punishment is rejected for a Satisfaction which only answers some Remote Ends of the Law which was done without Christ's bearing a proper Punishment And that these things are of importance I doubt not but my Lord Bishop of Worcester and the Principal of Jesus to whom I have Appealed will with Conviction demonstrate But wheras Mr. Williams to drown the Charge against himself makes a Noise of Antinomianism as embraced by the Congregational it must be noted that there was never any Charge brought in against them by Mr. Williams or any other to the Ministers at Little St. Hellens whilst they were amongst them nor any where else that I know nor did the Congregational set their Names to any Book chargeable with Antinomianism unless three or four of them with as many more of their Presbyterian Brethren to a Testimonial before Dr. Crisps Book which was before the Vnion commenced This being a short but Impartial State of the Controversie I do with the utmost Fervour beseech the Brethren who meet at St. Hellens more particularly the Reverend Mr. Hammond to clear themselves from having any hand in approving of Mr. Williams and Mr. Alsop's unbrotherly False and Railing Accusations whereby they will remove that Block which they have thrown in the way to hinder Conciliatory Endeavours and greatly exhilerate the Spirits of their Injured and Grieved Brethren who I doubt not will concur with them in witnessing against the Errours on the other Extreme if they at St. Hellens will but joyn heartily with them in Asserting those great Articles of Christ's Satisfaction and Merit which have been very distinctly taught by the Church from the beginning as Vossius and Grotius declare in the Preface to that Excellent Discourse of the Latter De Satisfactione where it 's said Cum vero duo nobis peperisse Christum dixerimus Impunitatem Praemium illud satisfactioni hoc merito Christi distinctè Tribuit vetus Ecclesia both which are effectually secured in the First Paper A Learned Brother whose Conciliating Attempts are very pleasing to me having sent me his thoughts on this Controversie I thank him heartily for it craving his Opinion of my Appeal and of this Discourse that I may dispose of his Letter to the Churches greater Service FINIS