A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Part 1
Whether Mr. R. B. did Socinianize.
The Chief thing diſcuſſed by the Bp in his third Chapter, is whether Mr. B. was a Socinian, from which Charge he makes as if he would Vindicate him; I ſhall briefly examine how he acquits himſelf in this difficult undertaking. The ſum and ſubſtance of Mr. B's Opinion in this Point was, That our Sins were no proper meritorious Cauſe of Chriſt's Sufferings, they were only premeritorious or occaſional Cauſes. For although the Bp would have Mr. B. mean ſomething more than occaſional, by promeritorious, yet he acquits us with Mr. B's own Explication of his meaning of premeritorious, that it is only occaſional, which the Bp ſaith is no cauſe at all, and Socinianiſm; and yet he, good Man, would defend him, though he finds it hic labor hoc opus, and fain to leave it re infecta.
The firſt proof which he would make is from Mr. B's Confeſſion, wherein all that he ſaith is no more than what a Socinian will ſay in this Point, That Chriſt gave up himſelf a Sacrifice for our Sins, and a Ranſom for us, in ſuffering for us upon the Croſs; which he doth make (according to his way of moulding of Doctrine) comport well enough with Socinian Principles. See what he gives for Antinomianiſm. 1. That Chriſt ſatisfied God's Juſtice as in the Perſon of all the Elect, this one Error, whereby he denies Jeſus Chriſt to be a Publick Perſon. 2. That in a Law-ſence, and God's account, they themſelves did ſatisfie in and by Chriſt. Here he denies Chriſt to have Suffered in our ſtead, or to have made Payment to Juſtice for our Sins, either in a Law-ſenſe, nor in God's account; and therefore he made no payment for us, neither can we ſay we ſatisfie in and by him: Whereas every Debtor can ſay ſo, who hath a Surety that makes payment in his ſtead, the Law accounting this payment to the Original Debtor; neither is it untrue that he paid in and by his Surety, but an honour to his Surety, and detraction from himſelf, when he ſaith he paid in and by his Surety. 3. That Chriſt's Sufferings were full and proper Executions of the threatning of the Law to Man. Here he denies Chriſt's Suffering under the Law that Man brake; and that his Puniſhment was no proper execution of the threatning of the Law, and therefore no proper Puniſhment. 4. And ſo acquits them ipſo facto on the meer Suffering. Here he makes up his charge by ambiguous Expreſſions — without any further means of conveyance to give them right in it by Application. 1. Here he inſinuates that there was no Diſcharge of Chriſt from the Sins of the Elect, which he ſuffered for: If ſo, no ſatisfaction. 2. He makes as if ſome held that Men have an Actual and Perſonal diſcharge, before their being by Grace or Nature; which is a falſe Charge, and a male Conſequent drawn by himſelf on the Doctrine: As if thoſe that held Chriſt's full and compleat Satisfaction by impetration, denied application. 3. He would have us believe it an Error that Chriſt purchaſed a right to Eternal Life for all the Elect, as the immediate effect of his purchaſe; and that our right comes by application, whereas our right lyes in the purchaſe only; and our claim of that right and poſſeſſion is by application.
The Socin. Error he thus repreſents, That Jeſus Chriſt did not undergo any Penalty for our Sins, as meritorious, or promeritorious Cauſe, but only as occaſional: And doth not Mr. B. ſay the ſame thing again and again in his Writings, only he foacheth in his promeritorious; which if the Socin. either did not uſe, or if they did, they would not deny it in the Senſe Mr. B. uſeth it, and as he hath explain'd himſelf. And that he did not make any Satisfaction to God's Juſtice for us, &c. there is nothing plainer in Mr. B's Writings; both in his Methodus and Univerſal Redemption. He puts for Truth as follows.
That Jeſus Chriſt as a Publick Sponſor, did bear the Puniſhment deſerved by the Sins of the World, [he means of all and every Man] and made to his Father a Satisfaction ſufficient for all.
It is ſtrange a Biſhop of the Church of England ſhould look upon this as an Orthodox and Plain Confeſſion to diſtinguiſh a Man from a Socinian; for it's plain he prevaricates in ſpeaking of Chriſt as a Publick Perſon, for in the Antin. charge, he makes it a marvelous Error to ſay Chriſt ſatisfied Juſtice in the Perſon of all the Elect, ſo he muſt mean here, that Chriſt was ſuch a Publick Perſon, that was no Repreſentative or Surety, which is no publick Perſon at all. 2. In that he ſaith Chriſt did bear the Puniſhment deſerved by Sin, he alſo prevaricates, for he doth every-where deny that our Sins were imputed to Chriſt; that he ſuffered the Puniſhment of our Sins in any proper Senſe, and that Sin was but an occaſional, no proper Cauſe thereof, and therefore his Puniſhment was but Analogical, Equivalent to the Socinian's Metaphorical. He cann't mean in reſpect of proportion in a Mathematical Senſe, for that would overthrow his whole Hypotheſis.
Mr. Lob quotes enough to overthrow all that the Bp pleads on his behalf: He ſhews that in his Methodus, he expreſly declares that the Sufferings of Chriſt were only a Natural Evil undergone by occaſion, and the remote cauſality of the Sins of Mankind, — and that Chriſt's ſufferings are only ſufferings in an Improper and Analogical Senſe. Theſe things ſaith, the Bp, were long ſince written. The chief Expreſſion is, Chriſt's Sufferings had no proper meritorious Cauſe, but yet Man's Sins were the Pro cauſa meritoria, &c. and ſaith nothing to defend it, p. 151. He conſiders whether Mr. B's own words do lay him open to the ſuſpicion of going too far towards the Socinians in this matter. Now let us ſee whether Mr. B. hath a fair deliverance at the Bp's Bar.
Bp In this caſe we muſt diſtinguiſh the Scripture Notion of Puniſhment from a Strict and Philoſophical Senſe of Puniſhment. R. This is a ſtrange diſtinction of a Learned Bp; what means he by a Philoſophical Puniſhment? Is it morally Philoſophical, i. e. ſuch Puniſhment as belongs to the breach of a Moral Law? If ſo, ſure the Scripture Puniſhment cann't be diſtinguiſhed from it; for that is legal Puniſhment; but he ſaith it's ſtrict Puniſhment, i. e. according to the exact tenor of a Moral Law; if he mean ſo, it cannot be excluded from Scripture Puniſhment.
Bp The Scripture ſpeaks in General of Chriſt's bearing our Sins, &c. but not a word of ſtrict and proper Puniſhment.
R. No ſure, the Bp is miſtaken greatly, when he might ſee in the ſame Chapter that Chriſt was wounded for our Tranſgreſſions, was not that proper Puniſhment? Doth the Scripture ſay nothing of ſtrict and proper Puniſhment, when it ſaith the Wages of Sin is Death, Curſed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the Book of the Law? Is not the Curſe of the Law ſtrict and proper Puniſhment? If this be his Philoſophical Puniſhment, there's much of it in Scripture, and it cann't be diſtinguiſh'd from it. Bp. But of that which was appointed and accepted in order to atonement for our Sins, as the impulſive Cauſe, which become meritorious by his voluntary undertaking. R. The Bp would ſuggeſt that there's ſome general improper acceptation of Puniſhment in Scripture always uſed, in which ſence Chriſt was Puniſhed; becauſe he ſaith the nature of the Expreſſions, that is, of the uſe of the word Puniſhment, doth imply as it were an impulſive cauſe; when indeed there was none but ſomething that God appointed and accepred in order to Atonement, but was not Puniſhment in ſtrict and proper Senſe. But yet becomes meritorious by his voluntary undertaking. R. That is as much as to ſay, there was nothing in Chriſt's Sufferings themſelves, that made them Meritorious, but ſomething Antecedent to them, viz. The Grace of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt in giving himſelf to be a ranſom, but the ranſom it ſelf and what he ſuffered had no merit in it. Here the Bp doth baſely Baxterize to caſt Mr. Lob in this Cauſe. To which I briefly return, that Puniſhment which was appointed by God, and accepted for full Satisfaction to his offended Juſtice, was ſtrict and proper Puniſhment, and of it ſelf meritorious, but Chriſt's Puniſhment was ſuch. The Major is true, elſe the Judge of all the World did not deal Righteouſly, in putting his Son to grief; for if he put him not to as much as the Law required, the Law was not ſatisfied; if he made only a ſhew of Puniſhing him, and did not do it, then the Scripture hath given us but a kind of Romantick account of Chriſt's Puniſhment, when indeed there was no ſuch thing, nor any ſuch cauſe as the Scripture acquaints us with.
He acquaints us that Mr. B. not content with Scripture terms, falls to enquire into the Nature and Reaſon of the thing it ſelf, ſuggeſting that he would dive deeper into the thing than Scripture.
1. That Puniſhment is a Natural Evil inflicted for a Moral.
2. That the Name of Puniſhment is ambiguous, becauſe it relates to Puniſhment juſtly inflicted, and that which is not; the former Proper, the latter Analogical. So that this Analogical Puniſhment is that which hath a repreſentation, and looks like it; but is not ſo, Similia non ſunt Idem; things alike are not the ſame. And that which is improper is unjuſtly inflicted, ergo; and hence, Chriſt's Sufferings would be unjuſt. But he ſaith, the firſt and moſt natural Senſe of puniſhment, is when the Offender ſuffers for his own fault; but there may be other reaſons of Puniſhment which he calls Analogical, and thoſe from nearneſs of Relation, as Subjects for Princes, or Vicarious; and why I pray muſt theſe be called Analogical and Improper Puniſhments? Becauſe it's Mr. B's pleaſure: Why would it not be better diſtributed, (unleſs to ſerve a turn). Puniſhment is either juſt or unjuſt: Juſt, is either that which falls on the Perſon committing the fault, or on another Relation, or Sponſor that ſuffers on his behalf, voluntarily ſubjecting to the Law in his Place; and what need we Analogical, when Proper payment is made to the Law? Bp From whence he inferrs, that ſince Chriſt did not Die as a Sinner, therefore his Puniſhment could not be proper in the ſtricteſt ſenſe. R. But if Chriſt Died for Sin, he Died as Sinners Die; though he did no Sin, and in that ſenſe was not a Sinner; yet he Died for our Sins, as the reaſon of judicial proceeding againſt him; and this being done by a juſt God, for the honour of his Law, it could not be but proper Puniſhment: For all juſt Puniſhment is proper Puniſhment.
The Bp himſelf ſhews, that this will not hold Water; for whereas Mr. B. diſtinguiſheth of Puniſhment by falſe imputation, and calls it unjuſt, but Analogical; and the Puniſhment of another by conſent he calls Analogical, but not unjuſt, the Bp Anſwers, If the Puniſhment be juſt, the Cauſe muſt be juſt; and Chriſt's could not be juſt with Relation to his own fault, for none is ſuppoſed; therefore there may be a juſt Puniſhment for another's fault; and if ſo, that [viz. the fault of another] may be truly ſaid to be the Meritorious cauſe of it, and the Puniſhment a proper Puniſhment, although for another's fault. What can be ſaid more directly and demonſtratively againſt Mr. B. in this Point? The Argument is this.
That Puniſhment which is juſt, muſt have a juſt cauſe of fault, either in the Perſon ſuffering, or ſome other; and that cauſe is truly meritorious, and the Puniſhment a proper Puniſhment. But the Puniſhment of Chriſt was ſuch, therefore a proper Puniſhment.
Having thus thrown Mr. B. on his Back, he endeavours to make ſome little excuſes for him; That which led Mr. B. in denying of it, was the Antinomians making Chriſt to undergo the proper Puniſhment of our Sin, becauſe our Perſonal Guilt was according to them transferred upon him.
R. Hence it appears, that in the Bp's Judgment, Mr. B. was more excuſeable in being a Socinian, than in being an Antinomian; for he finding, (ſaith the Bp) this Principle to be the Foundation of Antinom. that this could not be true, and therefore denied Chriſt's Puniſhment to be proper. But let me ſpeak what is truth, as to Mr. B. that I believe he had a further inſight into this Controverſie than it appears the Biſhop had; and would have told him, that theſe two Principles are inconſiſtent, and overthrow one another; Chriſt's Suffering was proper Puniſhment. And Chriſt bore no Perſonal guilt of any; ſo that the Bp's Argument that refutes Mr. B. redounds back upon himſelf. So that inſtead of fetching off Mr. B. they both fall irrecoverably together by one blow; and it's eaſie to take notice how he buffets Mr. B. afterwards, quoting Mr. B's words upon this reaſon; he ſaith, But then as you (Mr. Lob) truly cite his words, he makes our Sins not to be the meritorious Cauſe of Chriſt's Sufferings, but a kind of promeritorious or occaſional Cauſe. Therefore he means no more by promeritorious than occaſional; and in the Bp's Judgment falls under Mr. L's Charge. Yea, he ſaith we muſt do him right, [is it to acquit or condemn Mr. B? Sure to paſs ſentence againſt him,] So far as to take notice, that in ſtating the Socinian Controverſie, he makes it to conſiſt in denying that Chriſt did undergo any Penalty for our Sins, as the meritorious or promeritorious Cauſe, but only as occaſions; and yet here he makes the pro-meritorious cauſe and the occaſional the ſame; and he denies that our Sins were the meritorious cauſe; but only becauſe if we had not Sinned he had not ſuffered. What is this any more, than an occaſional cauſe? If the World had not been created, Man had not fell; if there had been no Law, there had been no Sin; and what ſaith the Bp, truly he is neceſſitated to give Sentence againſt Mr. B. though in as ſoft terms as may be. P. 156. Theſe Expreſſions, I grant, taken alone, yield too much to the Socinians, who do not deny our Sins to have been a remote impulſive and occaſional cauſe of Chriſt's Sufferings, but deny them to be the meritorious cauſe of them. What can be more plain and full to prove Mr. B. Socinianizing in theſe Points?
For all this, he will not give up Mr. B. to the Socinians; why? Becauſe he hath writ of the Doctrine of the Trinity; that he might do, and yet be a Socin. in the Doctrine of Satisfaction: But he hath written of the Doctrine of Satisfaction; yes, he hath retained the word to make his Doctrine go down the better, but hath endeavoured to deſtroy the thing to all intents and purpoſes.
Bp. Theſe may be ſaid for his Vindication, 1. By laying all the paſſages together, he muſt mean ſomething more by his promeritous Cauſe, than meerly a remote occaſional Cauſe.
A. This ſuppoſition is very unreaſonable when the Bp hath told us, from Mr B's own Mouth, what he means by his promeritorious Cauſe. It is not hard to conceive what Mr. B. meant by promeritorious, it is only that Sin Antecedently to Chriſt's Death was meritorious of Death; but this merit terminated there, and never reached as a Cauſe meritorious of the Sufferings of Chriſt: This merit the Bp ſaith is antecedent to the Legiſlator's act in accepting a Sponſor, and is but an occaſional Cauſe; and what ſaith he of an occaſional Cauſe? It's really no Cauſe at all, &c. juſt as if a Man ſaid, the Fire of London was the occaſional Cauſe of the Monument, p. 169.
Bp. Now no Man can ſay the fault antecedently was any more than an occaſional cauſe of the innocent Perſon's Suffering.
A. This is true in Mr B's ſenſe, that the fault of the Offender makes him only guilty and deſerving of Puniſhment in general; but is not transferred to the Sponſor to be any Guilt or deſert of his Puniſhment; which is truly Mr. B's meaning of his term promeritorious: And therein Mr. B. is conſonant to himſelf, in ſaying it's but an occaſional Cauſe, and that Sin is a remote impulſive Cauſe, viz. remote from Chriſt, tho' immediate and impulſive to Puniſhment. 2. This is true in the Bp's Senſe, who ſaith, Chriſt ſuffered Puniſhment for Sin, and bear the Perſonal Guilt of none, is to make the Sin of Man no more than an occaſional Cauſe: But the conſiſtency of the aſſertion lyes more on Mr. B's ſide, becauſe he knew it to be a great inconſiſtency to ſay, that Chriſt bore proper Puniſhment, when he bore the guilt of no Sin.
Bp. But taking all together, when he is admitted to ſuffer in the place of the Guilty, the Law with the Puniſhment makes the impulſive Cauſe become meritorious; and it is the immediate Reaſon of his Sufferings.
R. This the Bp ſpeaks as the truth, and intimates as if he would have it Mr. B's Senſe, but gives no proof that it is ſo; neither is it likely he ſhould, being not conſonant at all to what Mr. B. every-where maintains; and what if the Bp ſaith ſo, it's not conſonant at all to the Tenet he defends that Chriſt bore no Perſonal Guilt? For then how can the Guilt of any become the meritorious and immediate reaſon of his Sufferings?
Bp. The only queſtion then is, whether this can properly be called a meritorious cauſe. A. That may be taken in two Senſes. 1. In a ſtrict and proper ſence; ſo your ſelf deny that Chriſt merited by his own Sin. 2. In the ſenſe of the Law, [i. e. Sin was legally charged on Chriſt] and ſo that which was the near impulſive cauſe [the fault of the Tranſgreſſor] may be truly ſaid to be meritorious as to his ſufferings, becauſe they made it an act of Juſtice, which otherways had been an act of Power and Dominion. R. See now the Bp's clear conceſſion. 1. That what is here ſpoken of Chriſt, it's in the ſenſe of the Law, not in a Phyſical or Moral ſenſe. 2. He makes the near impulſive cauſe Sin, and here Sin in its merits or deſerts, the immediate reaſon of Chriſt's ſuffering; can that be any thing but the Guilt of Men's Perſons? 3. Sin is ſuch a reaſon as may diſtinguiſh Chriſt's Puniſhment from an Act of Dominion, and make it an Act of Juſtice. How is it poſſible that any Man that ſaith this, can ſay that the guilt of Man's Sin was not charged on Chriſt as our Repreſentative in a legal Senſe, i. e. in a way of Judicial proceeding
Now doth the Bp lay down this as Mr. B's ſenſe? No, he dare not; for if he did, Mr. B. (were he living) would ſay he had laid therein the Foundation of Antinomianiſm.
Bp. The queſtion between us and the Socinians, is not about meritorious, and promeritorious Cauſe. R. I wonder the Bp ſhould inſinuate ſo great a falſhood, when he knows the queſtion between us and the Socinians, is whether our Sins were the meritorious cauſe of Chriſt's ſufferings, or occaſional? And it's that which hath been at preſent under hand; Promeritorious being a word of Mr. B's bringing in; it may be they might not think of it, to hide occaſional under it, as he doth, to make Men think he did not deny all merit in this Caſe.
Bp. But the queſtion is, whether Chriſt did really undergo the Puniſhment of our Sins in order to be a Sacrifice of Atonement for them? And in this we have Mr. B's conſent expreſs'd on all occaſions. R. I wonder the Bp can ſpeak thus, why doth he not acquaint us then with his conſent in one paſſage; if he hath any ſuch paſſage, doth he mean as he ſpeaks? No, no more than the Bp, who could not, as long as he held that Chriſt bore the perſonal guilt or deſert of none.
It is now evident the Bp hath ſaid nothing to the purpoſe for vindication of Mr. B. what hath been ſaid hath been for a greater confirmation of the Charge, and wounding his own Cauſe.
He ſaith little further, but to excuſe, 1. Liberty muſt be given to Metaphyſick Heads. 2. Tells a Story of Lubbertus and Mcacovius. 3. He tells us of favourable interpretations, that are to be given to Perſons, that keep to the main point, as if this were but a trifling matter between the Socin, and us.
4. Mr. L. argues that Mr. B. ſpeaks after the Unitarians. — That Chriſt did not undergo puniſhment properly ſo called, but in a popular ſenſe of Puniſhment. The Bp in anſwer doth fill up p. 162, 163, 164, 165, 166. in ſhewing what ſlippery Gentlemen, the Writers of the Unitarian Doctrine are, but nothing to Mr. L's Charge of Mr. B. therefore yields the truth thereof, and agrees with Mr. L. in theſe words. Bp. you ſay, Rectoral Juſtice doth eſſentially reſpect the Law in its diſtributions, — Whatever a Soveraign may do in acts of Dominion. — A Rector cannot juſtly inflict Sufferings on an innocent perſon as ſuch. Here I grant you have come up to the true ſtate of the Caſe between the Socin. and us; and therefore we ſhall leave it, and let the Reader judge who is caſt at the Bp's Bar.
But before I end, it's neceſſary to conſider how the Bp. doth reconcile his two Principles.
1. That the Sin of Man was the immediate, impulſive and meritorious Cauſe of Chriſt's Sufferigns: This he holds againſt the Socinians and Mr. B.
2. That Chriſt bore not the Perſonal Guilt of any Legally, but that all Perſonal Guilt remains on the Sinner, and was not legally transferred to Chriſt. For this he ſaith, P. 167.
Bp. 1. We ſay, that Puniſhment may be juſtly inſlicted, where there was a Tranſlation of Guilt by Relaxation of the Law, as to perſonal Offenders, and admitting a Mediator to ſuffer in their ſtead.
R. No Guilt is tranſlated by Relaxation of a Law, for that diſpenceth only. 2. If the Law be relaxed as to Perſonal Offenders, the doing of thoſe things aſter the relaxation, is not Sin, which was ſo before; what needs a transferring to another? 3. If the Precept be not relaxt (which they will be loath to ſay it is) then the Penalty muſt; and if ſo, either to a part only, or to the whole: If to the whole, what need is there of a Tranſlation? If to a part only, then part of the Sin only is transferred, and Chriſt Died only for ſome part of our Sin, not all. Hence one part of our Salvation is owing to the relaxed Law, and the other to Chriſt. Hence Chriſt did not ſatisfie the Law, in the proper and ſtrict Nature of it, and Chriſt's Sufferings were improper Puniſhments, according to Mr. B. And here the Bp runs on ground.
Bp. He ſaith, 2. Abſolute Promiſes of the New-Covenant, on which ſo much weight is laid, (without comparing them with other places) ſpeak no more of Chriſt's Sufferings, than they do of any Conditions in us. Here our own Qualifications and Performances, are made to have an equality of conditionality, foederally with Chriſt's Sufferings; and if Chriſt's Sufferings be meritorious, ſo are they too.
Bp. 3. The notion of Satisfaction lays the Foundation of Antinomianiſm, which attributes unto God ſuch a ſort of vindictive Juſtice which requires an abſolute and perfect Satisfaction in the ſame kind for the Sins of Mankind. R. How much this kind of ſatisfaction borders upon Socinianiſm in the true meaning of it, it's eaſie to judge; and what little reaſon the Bp had to reject the Principles that Mr. B. built upon is manifeſt, being a firmer Foundation for his building; And after all that he hath ſaid againſt them, as too much favouring Socinianiſm, he is fain to lay hold on them to ſupport his own Fabrick. See here the pitiful ſhifts Men are put to that wander from the way of truth.