Universal Redemption of Mankind, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. The Firſt Propoſition Aſſerted.
Prop. I. CHRIST in Suf…ering did not strictly and properly bear and repreſent the perſon of the Sinner, ſo as Civiliter, Moraliter, Legali…er, it might be ſaid that [we either ſatisfied or ſuffer…d in or by Chriſt.]
Explic. I am not willing to make the meer …ords here, any matter of quarrel. If any diſlike …ny term of mine, or like his own; let him ap…ly himſelf to the matter in Queſtion, and let …e words paſs. 1. I deny not that Chriſt Suf…ered noſtro loco, in our place or ſtead; ſuffering …at which we deſerved, and ſhould elſe have un…voidably ſuffered. 2. I acknowledge and main…in that our Sins were the quaſi Cauſa Meritoria, … loco cauſae meritoriae of his ſufferings; and that … became Sin for us, that is, a Curſe for Sin; …at is, he made himſelf by his own Sponſion ob…xious to the Curſe and Puniſhment due to us for … Sin: And ſo far Sin was imputed to him.
But Chriſt was neither really a Sinner, nor e…eemed of God ſo to be, and in that ſence, ſin …as not imputed to him. 4. All know that … Phyſico Chriſt did not bear our perſons.
Some will needs extend the phraſe, of [bear…g or repreſenting the perſon of another] civiliter, ſo far, as if it were applicable to every ſponſer, ſurety, or one that alterius vice & loco. doth do or ſuffer any thing: And ſo they ſay, [Chriſt bore our Perſon]: But as I think they abuſe the phraſe, by extending it ſo far; ſo I am content they uſe their liberty to expreſs themſelves as they pleaſe: only I intreat them that they misunderſtand not me; but know that my meaning is, that [the Law doth not look on any Man, no not the Elect as having either ſatisfyed or ſuffered in or by Chriſt; nor doth the Law-giver and judge ſo look on him: And ſo Chriſt did not ſtrictly in Law-Senſe bear the perſon of any Man in ſuffering, ſo as that perſon might be ſaid to have in him ſuffered]. 6. Some think Chriſt in ſuffering the penalty, as penalty, did ſtrictly bear our perſons as Sinners; but not as this ſuffering was a ſatisfaction to Gods Juſtice which is the effect of it, much leſs as it was meritorious of further Grace and Salvation. The Authors or owners of this opinion (of whom Armini… himſelf ſeems one) diſcerned the inconveniences that would follow the opinion of ſtrict Repreſentation; but while they diſcerned not the right way of avoiding them and feared leſt they ſhould ſwarve by a full denial of it, they ſeem to me to fall into the ſame place from which they leaped. Though I confeſs that at the firſt view, I began to incline to this opinion, as moſt moderate, which now I ſee to be unſafe.
The moſt of my Arguments are drawn from thoſe intollerable conſequences of the Doctrine which I oppoſe, as being ſuch as overthrow the very ſubſtance of the Goſpel. Though to the inconſiderate it may ſeem a ſmall matter.
1. Argument That Doctrine which conſequentially denyeth all Pardon of Sin, is not of God: But ſuch is the Doctrine which I here oppoſe: Therefore, &c.
The Minor only requires proof.
Where the proper debt is diſcharged, or penalty undergone, in Law-Sence by the perſon himſelf who was obnoxious, there is no room for Pardon to ſuch a Perſon: But according to the Doctrine which I oppoſe, the proper debt is diſcharged, or the penalty undergone, in Law-Sence by the Perſon himſelf who was obnoxious: Therefore according to that Doctrine, there is no place for Pardon to ſuch.
The Minor needs no proof, it being the expreſs terms of the aſſertion which I deny, that Chriſt ſo repreſented our Perſons in ſuffering or …atisfying, as that Legaliter vel Civiliter we may properly be ſaid to have ſuffered or ſatisfied in …im; ſo that though it was Chriſts Perſon naturally, yet it was ours Legally, Morally or Impu…tively.
The major I prove thus. He that oweth nothing, or to whom no penalty is due, can have …one forgiven him: But he that hath paid all the …ebt, or undergone all the puniſhment that was …e, by himſelf or another that in Law-Sence is himſelf, doth owe nothing, or to him no penalty … due: Therefore he can have none forgiven him. …ob. Major, Remiſſio eſt Debiti Remiſſio: There…re where there is no due, there can be no re…ſſion Prob. Minor To have paid or ſuffered all, … to owe ſome, are contradictory and inconſtent. Therefore he that hath paid all, owes no…ing.
The Antimonians Anſwer is this. It is true that no puniſhment is due to the Elect, and none is properly forgiven them now ſince Chriſts Death: But Chriſts aſſuming their Perſons in ſatisfying, was a Remiſſion to them: Or God did in one inſtant remit it to them and transfer it on Chriſt. Reply. 1. Chriſts aſſuming our Perſons, is not remiſſion of Sin. 2. If God did remit it to us, when he transferred it on Chriſt, and yet we Legaliter, ſuffered in Chriſt, then God did both remit the whole debt to us, and receive ſatisfaction in Law-Sence from us, at the ſame time: But that is a contradiction. Therefore, &c.
From hence I may therefore further argue.
2. Arg. That Doctrine which denyeth conſequentially, that we muſt believe for remiſſion o… Sin, or that we are juſtified by Faith, any otherwiſe than in our own conſciences, is not of God▪ But ſuch is the Doctrine I oppoſe: Therefore, &c.
The Minor is proved already: For if either there be no ſuch thing as pardon of Sin (which follows the point oppoſed) or as they ſay none but at the death of Chriſt, then the Minor is plain. The main ſcope of the Goſpel confirms the Major. It is the command to believe for remiſſion of Sin…. It is the promiſe, that if we believe we ſhall be forgiven. It is the threatning, that he that believeth not ſhall not be forgiven and is condemned already, and the wrath of God abideth on him. And that it is not only in foro conſcientiae that Me… are juſtified, (or as Mr. Owen ſpeaks, terminated in conſcience) I have fully proved by a multitude of Arguments in my Papers to Mr. Lawſ… which therefore I will not now repeat.
3. Arg. That Doctrine which denieth that great benefit of our Union with Chriſt is not of God; but ſuch is that which I oppoſe: Therefore, &c.
Pardon and Juſtification flow from our Union with Chriſt (which is by faith): Therefore to deny them, is to deny a principal part of the benefit of that our Union with him.
4. Arg. That Doctrine which deſtroyeth a main end of Baptiſm is not of God. Put ſuch is this oppoſed. Therefore, &c.
Prob. Min. We are Baptized for Remiſſion of Sin (that is, by ſealing more fully to exhibite and confirm our Law Title to Remiſſion): But this overthroweth Remiſſion (at leaſt as the end of Baptiſm).
5. Arg. That Doctrine which deſtroyeth Prayer for the Pardon of Sins, yea and teacheth Men not to be thankful for Pardon, nor to acknowledg themſelves beholden to God for it, nor to need it; is not of God. But ſuch is this oppoſed. Therefore, &c. For if it deny pardon, it muſt needs deny Prayer for it, and thanks, &c.
6. Arg. That Doctrine which maketh Men to be in Chriſt before they believe, or are entered into his Covenant, is not of God: But ſuch is this oppoſed: Therefore, &c. The Major is plain from the Scope of the Goſpel: And if it were needful I might cite an hundred Texts; which ſhew that unbelievers, are not in Chriſt, that it is by Faith that we are his Members, and Children of God … and not in him till then. The Minor is plain, that they make all the Elect to have been in Law Sence in Chriſt dying and ſatisfying; and ſo make the Members of Harlots and Satan Members o… Chriſt.
7. Arg. That Doctrine is not of God, which maketh wicked Unbelievers to be in Gods ſpecial favour as reconciled, and from under his wrath, and quite out of debt to him, as to any due puniſhment. But ſuch is this oppoſed. Therefore, &c.
Prob. Major. The Scripture ſaith that we are by nature Children of wrath; that unbelievers are condemned already; and the wrath of God abideth on them; that God hateth all the workers of iniquity; that he that juſtifieth the unrighteous is abomination to him; that Men muſt repent, believe, be Baptized and pray for Pardon, that we are juſtified by Faith. Therefore the contrary Doctrine is not of God.
The Minor's confeſſed.
8. Arg. That Doctrine is not of God, which conſequentially denieth the Juſtice of his Judgments: But ſuch is this oppoſed. Therefore, &c.
Prob. Min. That Doctrine which chargeth God with puniſhing thoſe that have made him full payment, doth conſequentially deny the juſtice of his Judgments. But ſuch is the Doctrine in queſtion. Therefore, &c. 1. That it teacheth that we have fully paid the debt in Chriſt, is paſt queſtion▪ … that God puniſheth the Elect 1. Is put out of doubt by frequent expreſs teſtimony of Scripture, 2. And is confeſsed by themſelves as many as are of competent underſtanding, and moderation. For 1. that paternal Chaſtiſements is a ſpecies of puniſhment, is known to all that know what puniſhment is; viz. Malum Paſſionis propter malum culpae: V…l privatio boni naturalis propter privationem boni moralis: Or ſuffering inflicted for a fault. 2. However, I have met with few of an ordinary underſtanding, that will deny that God puniſheth his Elect, before, Converſion, while they are Children of wrath, and condemned already, and under the Curſe of the Law.
The Major is alſo plain. It is injuſtice to puniſh thoſe to whom no puniſhment is due: But no puniſhment is due to them that have fully ſuffered for all Sin: Therefore to puniſh them that have ſo ſuffered is injuſtice. I know God is abſolute Lord of the Creature, and therefore may in that regard uſe them as he pleaſe: And therefore I ſay, as Twiſſe, that he may without injuſtice torment or afflict the moſt innocent Creature, (ſuppoſing him not to have promiſed the contrary, and to be only Dominus, & non Rector): But (ſaith Twiſſe) he cannot puniſh the innocent: For that is a contradiction and ſo impoſſible. For all puniſhment is for ſin. Affliction is but the matter of puniſhment and not the form. Beſides; God being Rector of the reaſonable Creature, and having expreſſed in his Laws, that he will not puniſh Men that deſerve it not, it is not to be charged on him. If any ſay, God is not capable of injuſtice, if you ſhould ſuppoſe the breach of his promiſe? I ſay, 1. as Abraham Gen. 18. 25. that be far from thee to do after this manner, to ſlay the Righteous with the wicked, and that the Righteous ſhould be as the wicked; that be far from thee: Shall not the judge of all the Earth do Right? 2. We cannot ſuppoſe God to reconcile contradictions: Such it is to puniſh the Innocent.
And that thoſe who have made full payment or ſuffered all that was due are not guilty, i. e. obligati ad poenam is paſt diſpute.
9. Arg. That Doctrine is not true which ſaith of the wicked, He is Righteous: But ſuch is this oppoſed. Therefore, &c. Prob. Major. Prov. 24. 24. He that ſaith to the wicked thou art Righteous. Nations ſhall Curſe him, People ſhall abhor him. Prob. Minor. He that hath fully ſatisfied for all Sin, is Righteous: But according to this Doctrine, the wicked have fully ſatisfied for all their Sin: Therefore, &c. Prob. Major. He that hath ſatisfied for all, oweth nothing, as to puniſhment and therefore is Righteous. What Law can require more then all? Or what juſtice can refuſe to acquit him that hath paid all that was due? Or to juſtifie him if he be accuſed as liable to puniſhment? If any on the old grounds ſhall ſay, that beſides the Righteouſneſs Negatiue, (which is not guilty of puniſhment) there is requiſite a poſitive righteouſneſs, to give Right to the reward, and this they want. I reply 1. One righteouſneſs, doth both, I think. 2. If it were not ſo yet Chriſts ſatisfaction is meritorious of the reward. 3. If that were not ſo, yet remember, that the ſame Men that object this, do teach alſo, that Chriſt did as ſtrictly repreſent us in obeying; and that in him we fulfilled the Law 4. If that were not ſo, yet it croſſeth the Scripture to call the wicked Righteous, in the firſt Sence, i. e. non reos poenae Pprob Minor. They ſay, all the elect have ſatisfied in Chriſt. But multitudes of the Elect are wicked. Therefore, &c. Prob. Minor. He he that doth wickedneſs is wicked, and is of the Devil, ſaith the Apoſtle: But ſuch are many of the Elect before Converſion: Therefore, &c. This argument is in ſence, but the ſame with the 7th, but that the terms differ, John ſaith, He that doth Righteouſneſs is Righteous, and this Doctrine ſaith conſequentially, He that never did Righteouſneſs is Righteous. Paul ſaith, His Servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of Sin unto death or of obedience unto Righteouſneſs. But this Doctrine ſaith, conſequently, His friends ye are whom you never obeyed; and that the Elect before converſion, who obey the Devil, and ſo are his Servants, and never had obedience unto Righteouſneſs, are yet Righteous, as having paid all their debt.
10 Arg. That Doctrine which denieth Chriſts Satisfaction for us in ſtrict Sence, is not of God: But ſuch is this oppoſed. Therefore, &c. The Major is plain. Prob. Minor. That Doctrine which affirmeth Chriſts ſufferings to have been the Idem which was required by the Law, and not the Tantundem, doth deny ſatisfaction in ſtrict Sence: But ſo doth this oppoſed: Therefore, &c. The Major is proved by the definition of ſatisfaction; which ſtrictly taken, is Redditio aequi valentis, as Scotus and other Schoolmen, and Ameſius (contra Bellar) from them approving it) or it is, ſolutio tantidem, as Grotius and others, and is diſtinct from ſolutio ejuſdem, which is ſolutio ſtrictè ſic dicta. Minor. Prob. They that affirm us to have ſuffered all that the Law required, do affirm us conſequently to have ſuffered the Idem, and not meerly the tantundem. But ſo do they that teach, that we ſuffered in Chriſt, &c. Therefore, &c. More of this anon
11. Arg. Chriſt ſuffered and ſatisfied in the Perſon of Mediator; therefore not in the Perſon of the Elect or Offender: Becauſe a mediator is a middle perſon, and Chriſt ſuſtained not two perſons as a ſufferer.
12. Arg. The Scripture oft ſpeaks of Chriſts taking on him our nature, and our Sins, but not (in ſuffering) our perſon: Therefore it is not to be affirmed, Iſa. 53. &c.
13. Arg. That Doctrine is not tollerable which makes Man his own Redeemer, or to have ſatisfied or ſuffered for his own Sins: But ſuch this ſeems therefore, &c. For if the Law ſay, that we ſatisfied in Chriſt, then in Law Sence, we ſatisfied for own Sins, and conſequently redeemed our ſelves.
As for their Objection, that no other way but repreſenting our perſons could ſuffice to ſave us by the ſatisfaction of another; it is a groſs miſtake and naked affirmation without proof.
And for them that ſay, Chriſt ſuffered in perſona noſtrâ, but not ſatisfied or merited ſo: I anſwer. They ſpeak inconſiſtencies: Satisfaction and Merit are neceſſary reſults from the nature of the ſuffering conſidered with the Dignity of the Perſon, and the Divine acceptance. Now if Chriſt ſuffered not in his own perſon, whoſe dignity was to communicate a value to his ſufferings, then his ſufferings are defective in their value. And if we did in Chriſt or by him ſuffer all that was due, it is impoſſible but God ſhould take that ſuffering for ſatisfactory, in the larger Sence, it being ſolutio ipſius debiti, in ſtrict Sence. So that if the Law or Law-giver ſay, the Elect ſuffered in Chriſt; they muſt needs ſay, the elect ſatisfied in Chriſt, or rather paid the debt of the due puniſhment. And this God could not but accept, (conſequenter ad Leges) For who can refuſe the proper debt? Or deny an acquittance to him that diſchargeth it? But from a ſponſor he might have refuſed it.
I might add many more Arguments, were it needful. As from the diſhonour that this will caſt on Gods Law, in threatning thoſe that have ſatisfied it already; in offering pardon and juſtification on conditions, to thoſe that were juſtified without pardon, 1600. years ago. For a condition ſuſpendeth the benefit till it be performed: But no juſtice can ſuſpend his juſtification who hath diſcharged all the debt. What can be required more then all? Alſo that the Covenant or Teſtament ſhould be Gods Deed of Gift, or Inſtrument of conveying Right, to that which is our own already, 1600. years ago. Alſo the Goſpel ſaith, our Life is in the Son, and all is delivered, into his Hands; but this putteth our Rights in our own Hands, even when we have no being. Alſo according to this Doctrine Men were juſtified before they were Men, and acquitted from all Sin, before they were born or had committed Sin: And ſo Sinners that were no Men and conſequently no Sinners, were acquitted from Sin that was not, and conſequently was no Sin.