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
innocent Brother to pass without Rebuke I subâ—it to their Consciences knowing how hateful Delators when amongst Persons of an inferiour Rank have been unto them in whom could be founâ— the least degree of Morality But however their Carriage may be towards mâ— in this respect I am not I bless God in the leaâ— gone off from my peaceable Principles or Tempeâ— being most desirous the Brethren who are unfeigneâ— Embracers of the Protestant Faith would enteâ— on such Methods as are most likely to Restore Peaâ— upon the Foundation of Necessary Truth There is nothing more needful that I can at prâ—sent think of to be spoken unto unless what relatâ—â— to Amyrald which will require more room thaâ— is here left me S. L. Books sold by Nath. Hiller at the Princes Armâ— in Leaden-Hall-Street THE Divine Institution of Congregations Churches Ministry and Ordinances as haâ— been Professed by those of that Perswasion Asseâ—â—ted and Proved from the Word of God By Isaaâ— Chauncy M. A. A Discussion of the Lawfulness of a Pastors Acting as an Officer in other Churches besides thaâ— which he is especially called to take the Oversighâ— of By the late Reverend Mr. Nath. Mather A further DEFENCE OF THE REPORT Was once as I suggested in the Preface to my Appeal Resolv'd against Answering some Objections not only as I then said because it was so difficult for their Authors either to 〈◊〉 Contradiction or forbear Personal Reflectiâ—â— but because what was objected appeared to â—â—to be very Weak Impertinent and Frivolous But â—â—â—g assured by some Learned and Judicious Diâ—â—â—s who have Read Mr. Alsop's late Rhapsodie 〈◊〉 passing by his Rude and Uncomely Invectives False and Injurious Accusations the whole of strength lieth in Noise and Clamour which he â—â—es upon the account of my saying nothing to â—e of his Trifling Objections and as he pretends â—â—use of my Quarrelling with my Brethren about â—â—â—ers of no moment c. I will without giving my 〈◊〉 the trouble of Reading that Book which hath â—â—â—d the Hearts of his most Godly Learned and â—â—icious Friends with unconceivable Grief Exaâ—â—e those Objections which when I wrote my â—ince I did not answer and give some Reasons 〈◊〉 I think the Differences amongst us are more than Verbal and that they are about some of tâ—â— most substantial Articles of our Holy Religion Section 1. I will begin with what he objects against the â—â—â—porter and my self His first Objection That the Reporter has left out of his substance the Gospel Regeneration Conversion Repentanâ—â— Holiness Sanctification a New Heart and New Oâ—dience Good Works c. A blessed Report for tâ—â— Countrey You are eased at least of one Moity 〈◊〉 your Work Reply In my Return I will give you the Passage 〈◊〉 which he refers as it is in the Report and then conâ—â—der what Reason Mr. A. had for this Objection In the Report it 's thus That all Who belief might escape the Wrath to come and have Everlastiâ—â— Life the Lord Jesus Undertakes for us by makiâ—â— satisfaction to Punitive and Remunerative Justicâ—â— and that he might do so he did put himself in our Place State and Condition so that whereas vâ—â—â— were Sin and under a Curse by this Blessed Chanâ—â— Christ is made Sin and a Curse and we deliverâ—â— from Sin and the Curse 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 This is the substance of the Gospel of Chriâ—â— this the Ground and Foundation of our Faith Out of this Passage it is that Mr. Alsop fetcheâ— the Reason why he chargeth the Reporter for lâ—â—ving out his Substance of the Gospel Regeneratioâ— Repentance c. To which I answer 1. That 't will be very hard for them who knoâ—â— the Person that is thought to be the Reporter 〈◊〉 think it possible for Mr. A. to believe one word of hâ—â— own Charge against him it being in his own Conscience so contrary to Truth and can therefore 〈◊〉 no less than a Calumny as Calumnia est cùm quis 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ta Scientia dolo injustè agit excipit But it â—â—st be further observ'd 2. That this Passage of the Reporter was only â—â—out Christ's Satisfaction as it is an Article of â—â—â—ple Belief and of distinct Consideration either â—â—â—m Matters of Practice or such Works as are â—ought in us by the Holy Spirit 3. That Matters of Simple Belief have been ever 〈◊〉 the Churches of God placed in a Formula by â—â—â—mselves And if there be any strength in the â—â—jection it must lye in this That whenever a â—â—â—mula is given of the Credenda there must be â—â—ed with it an Exact Catalogue of the Agenda 〈◊〉 that whoever Composes a Summary of Matters Simple Belief without inserting in it the Agenda Matters of Practice doth thereby Reject out of Substance of the Gospel Repentance Good Works c. â—â—e I say lyeth the strength of his Objection â—â—ch if of any force at all against the Reporter must â—â—â—â—g all the Churches of Christ from the Beginâ—â— under the same Condemnation because they had 〈◊〉 Credenda in a Formula by themselves The Reporter had in his Summary a word more â—â—is in many of the Antient Creeds For he saith â—â—â—at all who Believe might escape the Wrath to â—â—me and have Everlasting Life c. thereby â—â—ing Faith which supposes Regeneration and inâ—â—es within it the Entire Nature of Evangelical â—â—tance and is Prolifick of Good Works necesâ—â—â— to Salvation and therefore so long as this â—â—ge viz. That all who Believe might escape Wrath to come c. continues in his Summaâ—â— there will not be the least pretence for the Horâ—â—â— Noise he has made about it But. Mr. A. as one whose Conscience had whilst 〈◊〉 as making this Objection check'd him for it 〈◊〉 add But suppose this were intended only as the Substance of the Gospel so far as we arâ—â—â— to Believe what Christ has done and suffered foâ—â— Sinners without them c. Well then let us suâ—pose it and see what will follow Really as for mâ—â—â— part I can observe in it nothing less than a Fuâ—â—â— Answer to his own Objection For if the Report 〈◊〉 intended no more than the Substance of what wâ—â—â— are to Believe concerning what Christ has done aâ—â— suffered for Sinners without them and with God 〈◊〉 really he did not he was under no Obligation 〈◊〉 mention Regeneration Conversion Repentancâ— Good Works c. which are wrought in and upâ—â— Sinners and the not mentioning 'em cannot be 〈◊〉 Reason a Rejecting'em The Reporter was writing of the Substance 〈◊〉 the Gospel so far as it concern'd the Article 〈◊〉 Christ's Satisfaction 'T was no part of his Provinâ—â— to entreat of Regeneration Conversion Repâ—â—tance c. And Mr. A. might have blamed hâ—â—â— for not opening the Nature of Faith Regeneratiâ—â— or Repentance as well as for not mentioning eithâ—â— them or the Order in which they are wrought Aâ— would it not be very wisely urged The Reporter 〈◊〉 dertook to discourse of the Substance of
Creditor and Debtor to insinuate that whatever may be truly affirmed of them in Humane Courts might be safely applied unto God and Sinners as to Christ acting the part of a Surety But to explain how Christ came under the same Obligations we stood and by his Satisfaction and Merit Redeems us from that miserable state and condition our sin had cast us into and procures for us a Right to Eternal Life And therefore in Obedience to the Holy Scriptures he considered Jesus Christ as a Surety that came into the State Quality or Condition of Sinners so far and no further than to come under the same Obligations and Bonds with us to answer for us and do on our behalf what was impossible to be done by our selves And that he might make this the more clear he represented unto us that State in which we all are by Nature affirming That we are all under the Curse destitute of a Righteousness that may entitle us to Eternal Life And that except Satisfaction be made both to Punitive and Remunerative Justice it 's impossible for us to be saved For seeing the Law under which we were Created is of Everlasting Obligation we stand bound thereby both to Obedience and the Punishment and until this Debt be paid we cannot be Relieved This is our State this is our Condition and that they who believe may be brought out of this Place State and Condition and have Everlasting Life Christ came into this Place into this State and Condition that is he came under those Bonds and Obâ—igations that lay on us that by answering them we â—ight be the Redeemed and Saved But saith Mr. A. if it be thus Christ must be deâ—itute of a Righteousness to which I reply By no â—eans and if we consider how it is between a Surety and a Debtor in our Courts we may soon see â—he contrary For when one becomes Surety for another he comes into the Place State and Condition â—f that other that is under the same Bonds and Obligations to pay for him what he could not do for himself But would any Man of Sense say that the Surety coming into the same State and Condition of the Debtor to pay his Debts for him must be thereupon destitute of what is necessary in order thereunto He comes into the Place of one who is Insolvent but must he therefore be himself Insolvent and yet pay what neither the Debtor nor himself can pay Thus you see what Mr. A's Objection is at last come to But 2. The Righteousness of which our Discourse is answers that Law which said Do this and live In the day thou sinnest thou shalt die and it is to make Satisfaction both to Punitive and Remunerative Justice For whatever some may impertinently object it may be very safely said that Justice distributes Rewards and Punishments and therefore is rightly denominated Remunerative and Punitive For though it 's said That Punishment is merited by or is rather the Demerit of sin and that the Sinner when he bears the Punishment due unto him for his Iniquity partakes of the Reward of Vnrighteousness yet none can with the least pretence to Reason say That Punitive and Remunerative are Terms in all respects Coincident For it 's most notorious that when Believers are for the sake of Christ's Righteousness rewarded with Eternal Life they are not then punished though Remunerative Justice is then glorified yet Punitive Justice is not so But being assured that Mr. Alsop saith these Terms of Remunerative and Punitive Justice are Coincident I will give the Sense of some learned Protestants about it Gilbertus Voet a Man of good Learning and a right Calvinist discoursing of the Justice of God saith that Justitia Dei est vel in Dictis vel in Factis Posterior duplex scilicet Regiminis Judicii Justitia Judicii est quae secundum Opera Mercedem retribuit Estque haec duplex vel Remunerativa seu Praemians secundum Promissionem erga bene agentes vel Correctiva erga male agentes Quae etiam distinguitur in Castigantem erga Filios Vindicantem seu Punitivam proprie stricte sic dictam erga Reprobos Voet. Select Disput Pas 1. Disp de Jure Justitia pag. 357 358. And the learned Doctor Owen in his Diatribe de Justitia Divina saith the same affirming it to be the general Sense of Modern Divines not one of them who writ on the Divine Attributes being of a different Opinion And in the Margine he makes particular mention of Zanchy Voet Maresius and others directing us also unto Doctor Ames his Cases of Conscience who in the second Chapter of his fifth Book resolves this Question viz. Whether Remuneration or Punition belongs to Communicative or to Distributive Justice Whether Mr. A. understood these things or not is not in my Opinion very material it being sufficient to my purpose that in the Judgment of wiser Men than himself these Terms are not so Coincident as it 's said he doth insinuate But to return The Lord Jesus undertaking to make Satisfaction both to Punitive and Remunerative Justice that is to say the obliging himself to suffer the Punishment due to us for the Satisfaction of Punitive Justice and render Obedience to the same Law to merit the Reward we had â—ost the Righteousness the Reporter spake of lieth 〈◊〉 bearing the threatned Curse and in obeying the Preâ—â—pts of that Law we violated And I demand of â—â—r Alsop Whether the Lord Jesus was always â—ossess'd of this Righteousness Had he it the â—â—rst Instant of his undertaking or when he first â—ame into our Place State and Condition That there was no Guile in the Mouth nor Deâ—â—it in the Heart of the blessed Jesus That he â—as ever even whilst he was in a State of Exaâ—nition without Spot Holy Harmless Undefiled â—â—parate from Sinners and at the greatest distance â—â—om the least Pollution or Impurity we do firmly â—elieve And though he had not actually a satisfying-â—eritorious Righteousness before he did by his Paeâ—â—l Sufferings and his perfect Obedience to the vioâ—â—ted Law satisfy and merit yet was he at no inâ—â—ant of time destitute of what in that instant it â—ecame him to have But it s like nothing will â—â—tisfie Mr. A. but the granting That either beâ—â—re or at his undertaking or at least the first â—â—â—ment of his entring on the work of our Redempâ—on he was actually possess'd of a satisfactory â—eritorious Righteousness as if he believed that Christ before he obeyed and suffered did perfectâ—â— obey and fully satisfie How else can he make â—â—hideous a Noise about the Reporters holding at Christ was destitute of a Righteousness entiâ—â—ng himself and us too to eternal Life Once more 3. Mr. A blames the Reporter for suggesting if Christ had not a Righteousness entitling himself 〈◊〉 eternal Life To which I answer 1. That the Reporter spake not about Christs haâ—â—ng or not having a Righteousness entitling himself 〈◊〉 eternal Life But 2. Seeing
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
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
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
are not really intended c. Thus though it is not in â—e Letter said That God is Impassible without â—â—inning c. Yet these things are by other words â—â—ended Again altho' it be in the Letter that â—od sleeps awakes moves yet are they not really â—eant Dal. Vbi sup Cap. 7. and 8. 9. This Learned Person induceth sundry other authorities and at last refers to his Appendix in which is a Treatise of Theodoret which has been â—â—serted in the Works of Athanasius against 'em â—â—o are for a rigid and stiff Adherence unto the â—â—ry words of Scripture without any regard to their Contsonancy or Dissonancy unto Reason or â—â—e Analogy of Faith or Mysteries of the Gospel which the Father doth thus expostulate with ' em What shall I believe with my Heart unto Righteousness What shall I confess with my Mouth unto Salvation when it 's maliciously objected That the Father who hath sent me is greater than I shall I hastily assent unto it as thus simply Delivered and boldly deny the Son to be equal with the Father Must I not at all weigh the matter nor consider that this is to be understood in regard to the Oeconomy and Dispensation May I not observe what is said elsewhere of the Father and the Son 's being one and that we must honour the Son as we honour the Father 10. To gather up what hath been briefly suggested t is manifest that Hereticks have communicated Pestilent Doctrines in Scripture Language that they have been for a rigid Adhesion unto the very words syllables and letter of Scripture That they would Reject those Terms and Phrases used by the Orthodox to explain the Truth and distinguish it from Errour because not in the Letter of Scripture That the Church would not part with a word a syllable nor with a Letter that was necessary to express the Truth The Council of Nice would not gratify the Arians nor Nestorians in a Letter saith Dr. Manton on Jude p. 163. That the Opposers of Orthodox Terms and Phrases always did it with a design to subvert the Truth But if it be Blasphemous to detect the fraudulent Practice of Hereticks what Fence can we have against a Vitalis a Biddle a Socinian or Arian I might enlarge and expose but I will forbear and Apply my self to the Consideration of the next The Seventh Objection Mr. Lobb leaves out a considerable word in his translating a part of the Scotch Confession p. 81. There 's word QUASI which he did not think for his purpose to English He ought to have said And to appear as it were in our Person that is that Christ appeared not properly in our Person Reply 1. When I did in answer to the Request of several learned and judicious Brethren undertake to â—â—amine the Writings of Mr. W. I found his Attempts to be so like what had been used by Men â—â—ound in the Faith who have made it their Business for a while to conceal their own Notions and â—â—em to quarrel rather with the Terms and Phrases â—osen by the Orthodox to Explain the Truth than â—ith the Truth it self that I could do no less than â—â—ke notice of it to my Brethren who having not â—â—en so forward as I think they should to give â—â—eck to his Career have though not designedly â—â—couraged him and his Partizans to make further â—â—cursions on the controverted Terms and Phrases â—â—d insinuate that the whole contest is but about â—ords 2. This being the way and method of my Oppoâ—â—â—s I did in my Defence carefully endeavour to â—â—ulcate it that we contend for the controverted â—â—rases only as they are expressive of what is esâ—â—â—tial to a real proper and plenary Satisfaction to Gods â—â—tice for our Sins so that in good earnest the â—ontention is about the great and necessary Doctrine 〈◊〉 Christs Satisfaction and for the Terms and Phrases 〈◊〉 otherwise than as they are expressive of this â—octrine 3. That I might bring our true and genuine â—â—nse into so clear a Light as not to leave the least â—adow of Reason for one doubting thought â—out what it was I expresly declared That if I did but direct to the Confession where either a â—roper Satisfaction is asserted or where 't is said that Christ as our Surety suffered for us or that Christ suffered in our Place and Stead or stood in our Person when he died it might I hoped satisfy any unprejudiced Person that the Phrases contended for are in our Confessions that is The thing they signify and for which we plead is there thereby shewing that it is the Doctrine which these Terms and Phrases do most aptly and with the greatest Clearness and Distinction convey unto our Understandings that we are for 5. That these Termes and Phrases are not of our Invention but have been as I have in my Defence unanswerably proved used by the Orthodox in their Opposition unto the Arminians and Socinians in a Sense known both to our Divines and their Adversaries And that it hath been the trick of Hereticks and their Favourers to raise Doubts and Scruples about their meaning and usefulness As on the other hand it hath been the constant Practice of the Church as I have already suggested to defend them as they are most apt to explain the Truth and distinguish it from Errour For which Reason as soon as I have cleared my Translation of the Scotch Confession and detected the Impertinence and Folly of some other Cavils I will go on to the second Point I have proposed to discourse of and show that the Controversie I have with Mr. W. is about the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction that the Difference is Real in an Article that affects the Vitals of Religion But 6. The Phrase of Christs sustaining our Person has been generally received by the Orthodox as expressive of what 's Essential unto a real and Proper Satisfaction even of what Christ did to the end he might appear before Gods Tribunal under the Guilt of our Sins and bear a proper Punishment for them To suppose the Lord Christ to be guilty in 〈◊〉 his own Person is as if it had been said He had been in himself a Sinner unclean unholy But to consider him as our Surety sustaining the Person of Sinners and so to charge on him the Guilt of â—â—r Sins cannot in the least defile or pollute his â—oly and righteous Soul It hath been therefore â—â—firmed by the Orthodox that the Lord Jesus â—â—stained his own and our Person As considered in his own Person he is most remote from the Guilt â—â—d Filth of Sin As standing in our Person so he was covered with the Guilt of our Iniquities tho' â—ot touch'd with the least Moral Filth 7. The Phrase of Christs sustaining our Person â—ust be taken in Sensu forensi in Law-Sense importing that as a Surety doth in foro soli represent the â—â—ebtor so the Lord Jesus Christ when at the â—ribunal of the Father represented those Sinners â—hose
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
above his Laws 3. That we may with the more distinction take in his genuine Sense it must be noted 1. That Mr. B. is of opinion there was a dispensing with the Law not only as to the Person suffering but as to the Penalty suffered that the Sufferings of our Saviour were not by Vertue of the Penal Sanction of the Law and therefore could be in no sense a fulfilling that part of the Law 2. That he considereth not God in exacting Satisfaction as a Rector qua talis whose part it is to see that the Law be satisfied but as a Rector qua supra Leges and God considered as such may be satisfied although no proper Punishment be indured 3. Thus much premised we shall find that he uses the word Satisfaction in a very large and comprehensive sense for whatever answers some remote ends of the Law The Sanction of the Law is essential to it and cannot be satisfied but by sufferings that are properly a Punishment But such ends of the Law as are not essential thereunto and only remote may be obtained without bearing the Punishment or indeed without enduring any Sufferings at all 4. That Mr. B. aims at no more by his Notion of Christs Satisfaction than an obtaining some remote ends of the Law is manifest from the very passage my Friend tells me Mr. Alâ—op refers unto to prove my Charge to be notoriously false and a careful observing its genuine Import which will be very plain if we consu't that entiâ—e Paragraph may convince an impartial Mind That Mr. B. hath different Apprehensions in thâ—se Points from his Orthodox Brethren For sâ—â—â—h he â—ocutione remota lata Christ us dici posâ—â—â— Legis fines remotas ipst non essentiales obtinendâ—â— ei satisfecisse In a remote large Sense Christ may be said to satisfie the Law But how not by obtaining any End essential to the Law but the remote Ends of the Law for its immediately added ' That Gods hatred of Sin and his Justices are no less demonstrated by Christs Satisfaction at least in a matter no less congruous for obtaining all the ends of Government than if the Sinners themselves had been damned If we compare this clause of the Paragraph with the foregoing part we shall find that what he saith of all the Ends of Government must â—e understood as he expresses it of all the remote â—nds of the Law which are not essential to the Law â—nd may in Mr. Baxters opinion be obtained withâ—ut Christs bearing a proper Punishment the true evincement of Gods hatred to Sin 5. That I take Mr. B. right will further appear â—y considering the Paragraph next after this where â—e distinguisheth between the Near and the Remote Ends of the Law affirming ' That the Finis proximus which doth enjoyn Obedience and threatens a punishment for Disobedience is a part of the Law and it must not be said that Christ did properly satisfie this End But there is the Remote End of the Law namely the prevention of sin the exercise and preservation of Humane Righteousness and demonstration of Divine Justice which is not the Law it self altho' it 's so termed by the Jurists because these Ends may be obtained by other Means than by Punishing So that it 's manifest he holds that these Ends might be obtained by the Lord Jesus tho' he never bore the punishment of our sins The Satisfaction then that Mr. B. is for is of another nature than what is embraced by the Reformed It is what 's done without Christ's suffering a proper Punishment and without a proper satisfying of the Law For saith he properly speaking Christ did not Satisfie the Law it self nor did he properly satisfie the Near End of the Law viz. the â—oenal part Met. p. 3. c. 1. p. 47. A Second Consideration 2. The very Notion Mr. B. hath of Christ's Satisfaction is not only different from what is embraced by the Orthodox but such as is so far from comprizing within its compass Christ's suffering a proper Punishment as to exclude it It is what can be made without the Lord Christ's taking on him the Guilt of our sins and what is inconsistent with Christ's making a proper Satisfaction to the Law 1. Thus much he endeavours to prove from the definition he gives of Satisfaction which is thus Satisfactio strictè sumpta est Redditio Aequivalentis indebiti pro ipso debito vel tantundem pro eodem and by Indebitum he means somewhat of a distinct nature from what the Law exacts somewhat that is not properly Poenal and consonantly by the Equivalens or Tantundem he intends what is very different from what is Received and Believed by the Reformed For whereas the Equivalent in their Judgment respects the Punishment we deserved and in those instances in which it 's not the same it doth in its Valuation bear a just proportion thereunto His Equivalent doth not respect the Sufferings we deserved but the Remote Ends of the Law and as it 's adjusted to those Ends tho' there be nothing of the Nature of Punishment in it yet is it an Equivalent 2. That this is his sense of an Equivalent is manifest from his asserting that Qui fines Legis Remotos alio Modo quam Puniendo obtinet Tantundem praestare putatur acsi Peccatorem Punivisset ubi sup p. 47. This account Mr. B. gives of Satisfaction is in the first Argument he urgeth to prove that properly speaking Christ did not satisfie the Law it self What is saith he impossible Christ did not do but to satisfie the Law strictly speaking is impossible The Minor he thus proves Satisfactio stricte sumpta est Redditio Aequivalentis indebiti pro ipso debito At impossibile est ipsam eandem Legem de qua loquimur commutare idem pro aequivalente This is his Argument in which lieth the main stress of his Cause which methinks may be soon enervated if we consider as indeed we must that the Poenal Sanction of the Law is not Abrogated that it is only Relaxed that the Relaxation is not of the Formal Nature of the Poenalty suffered but doth respect the Person suffering and that tho' the Relaxing be an act of Dominion yet God exacts and receives satisfaction is a Rector qua talis and not as a Rector supra Leges 3. The Learned Bishop of Worcester against Crellius cap. 4. § 5. hath with great clearness shown in what respects the Sufferings of Christ were the same with what we deserved in what Instances not That they were so far the same as to be a proper Punishment and in those circumstances wherein there was a difference there was an Aequivalent No more is necessary saith his Lordship to the delivery of another Person than the satisfying the Ends of the Law and Government And if that may be done by an Aequivalent Suffering tho' not the same in all respects then it may be a proper Surrogation If David had obtained his wish that he had Died
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