A Further Defense of the Report, Defense · Section 2

A Further Defense of the Report · Defense · Section 2

p. 42Sect. 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, p. 43but alſo for his exemplar Piety, and in ſome Inſtan…es uncommon ſelf denial. For, though they have …een of Opinion, that in oppoſing one extream, he …eemed to verge too much toward the other, …nd perhaps to fall in with Amyrald, yet they …ever thought that in the Doctrine of our Sa…iours Satisfaction, he left Grotius and fell in with Epiſcopius his Diſciples. It lies on me therefore to …roduce very clear & ſubſtantial Proof to ſupport my Charge. And that Mr. Alſop and his Aſſociates …ay be the more fully convinced, that I am far …rom Tricks to force Mr. Baxter, to deny the Suffer…ngs of Chriſt to be proper Puniſhments; I will make … my endeavour to ſhow, that in the controverted …oint about Chriſts Satisfaction, he forſook Grotius …nd the generality of the Reformed, aſſerting as his …ated Judgment, 'That our Sins, were not the meritorious Cauſe of Chriſts Sufferings; That no Sufferings are properly Paenal, but what are infliced on the Delinquent himſelf, that when Parents or Princes ſin… and their Children or Subjects ſuffer, their Sufferings are but Improperly or Analogically Poenal; and that therefore Chriſt not being the actual Tranſgreſſor, could not be in a proper Senſe puniſhed for our Sins; That properly ſpeaking he did not ſatisfie the violated Law; And agreeably adds, that the Sufferings were exacted by God, not as he was a Rector, as ſuch, but as a Rector ſupra Leges, and as an offended Lord, and Benefactor. And, that I may be the more clear in this attempt, I will ſhow; how exact the Agreement between Mr. B. Crellius, Epiſcopius, Curcellius and Limborch is, and how full a Confutation the Anſwers of Grotius to Socinus, of the Biſhop of Worceſter unto Crellius, and of the Principal of Jeſus Oxon unto the Diſciples of Epiſcopius, are, of the Principles which Mr. Baxter has advanced.

p. 44Subſect. I. Of the Meritorious Cauſe of Chriſts Sufferings.

1. That Mr. Baxter denies our ſins to be the near impulſive, and proper meritorious Cauſe of Chriſts Sufferings.

1. It's well known to the Learned, That if Chriſts ſuffering be not ex obligatione Legis, and by vertue of the Sanction of the Law, ſin cannot be the near impulſive, or proper meritorious Cauſe of them: For, as an univerſal and perfect Obedience to the Praeceptive part of the Law, as it reſpects the Promiſſary Part, would, according to the Rules of diſtributive Juſtice, have been the meritorious Cauſe of the Promiſed reward, in like manner Sin, the tranſgreſſion of the Precept, as it reſpects the Paenal Sanction, is the meritorious Cauſe of the threatned Sufferings. If then I clear it, that Mr. B. is of Opinion, That Chriſts ſufferings are not Ex obligatione Legis, it muſt be acknowledged, that he denies our ſins to be their meritorious Cauſe, which I hope to prove, even to Mr. Alſop's Conviction, and moreover, to evince it that he doth expreſly declare, that our ſins were not the meritorious Cauſe of Chriſts ſufferings. For,

2. Mr. B. in his ſixth Determination, which is in the firſt Chapter of the third Part of his Methodus, after he had ſet down his Distinctions between the Law of innocent Nature, and the Law, peculiar to the Mediator; And conſidering the Law in the firſt Senſe, which he ſaith obliged Christ himſelf, as Man, and all others, even ſinners, he adds another Diſtinction between the Obligation of this Law, as a Remote, p. 45and as a near Cauſe, and declares his Judgment thus.

1. 'The Law of Nature, altho' it did oblige both Chriſt, and us unto Obedience, yet, it did only oblige us, not Chriſt, unto Puniſhment. The Law obligeth not an innocent Perſon to Puniſhment, it condemns not the Just.

2. 'That the Law of Grace obliged Chriſt neither to Obedience, nor to Puniſhment.

3. 'By the Law, peculiar to the Mediator, called the Covenant, between the Father and the Son, Chriſt was obliged to ſuffer Puniſhment for Sinners, namely, by his Conſent and proper Sponſion, and the Fathers Will and Commandment. From this Law the near obliging Cauſe of Chriſts ſuffering Puniſhment had its Riſe.

4. 'By the Law of Nature, obliging us ſinners unto Puniſhment, Chriſt was not directly obliged to Puniſhment; However, it was the occaſion of his Puniſhment, and the Obligation we lay under was …he Remote Cauſe of Chriſts Obligation, for, if the Law had not condemned us, Chriſt had never undertaken, or ſuffered a vicarious Puniſhment. So … Mr. B.

3. From what Mr. B. has ſo freely declared, it's …ident he is of Opinion, That the Obligation Chriſt … under to ſuffer, ariſeth not from that Law we violated; but from the mediatorial Convenant, and …at the Obligation to Puniſhment, which is by …rtue of the Sanction of the Law we violated, …nder which we all are by Nature) is but an …ccaſion or Remote Cauſe, and therefore our ſins …e not the near impulſive, and proper meritorious …uſe of Chriſts ſufferings, which is conform to that he has in his other Writings, not only in his p. 46Poſthumous Diſcourſe of Univerſal Redemption, but in the Preface to his Confeſſion of Faith, pag. 4. where he ſaith, That as Chriſt could not take upon himſelf the ſame Numerical Guilt, which lay on us, ſo neither could he take upon himſelf Guilt of the ſame ſort, as having not the ſame ſort of Foundation, or Efficient; Ours ariſing from the Merit of our ſins, and the Commination of the Law, and his being rather occaſioned, than meritted by our ſin, and occaſioned by the Laws threatning of us, both which are as we may call them, but …rocauſes, as to him, &c. And in his Catho. Theol. Part II. Pag. 78. Chriſt ſuffered not by that Obligation which bound us to ſuffer.

4. Theſe Paſſages I have mentioned do ſufficiently clear it, That Mr. B. owns not, that our ſins were the near impulſive, or meritorious Cauſe of Chriſts Sufferings, the moſt he'll yield being this, viz. That our ſins were the Occaſion, or Remote Impulſive Cauſe, or the Pro-cauſe, ſomewhat in the place of a meritorious Cauſe, which is no more than Socinus, Crellius and their Followers do grant, as I will immediately ſhow.

II. The Socinians do grant, That our ſins are a Remote Impulſive Cauſe, or meer Occaſion of Chriſts ſufferings.

1. That the Socinians make ſo large a Conceſſion as this unto us, is evident from moſt of their Writings. Crellius againſt Grotius confeſſeth it, Fatemur, Peccata noſtra, poſito Dei de ſalute nobis danda— decreto, eatenus etiam fuiſſe Impulſivam mortis Chriſti Cauſam, &c. Ad partic. 2. Cap. 1. But,

2. There is ſo much to this Purpoſe in the Anſwer p. 47the Learned Biſhop of Worceſter gives, to what Crellius has on this Point, that I will ſay no more of … in this place, but proceed to the Propoſal of …hat the Biſhop offereth unto your Conſideration.

III. What Mr. Baxter and the Socinians hold about our ſins being only a Remote Impulſive Cauſe, or Occaſion of Chriſts ſufferings, oppoſed by the Orthodox, particularly by the Biſhop of Worceſter.

1. The Learned Biſhop gives the Senſe of the Socinians about the Impulſive Cauſe of Chriſts ſufferings, aſſuring us, 'That tho' Crellius Attributes …he ſufferings of Chriſt meerly to Acts of Dominion, without any reſpect to ſin, yet elſewhere he will allow a Reſpect, that was had to ſin, antecedently to the Sufferings of Chriſt, and that the Sins of Men were the Impuſive cauſe of them. And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any Lawful Antecedent Cauſe of the Death of Chriſt beſides the Will …f God and Chriſt; yet Crellius in his Vindication, …ith, by Lawful cauſe he meant Meritorious; or …ch, upon ſuppoſition of which he ought to Die: for elſewhere, he makes Chriſt to die for the Cauſe or by the occaſion of our Sins, which is the ſame, that Crellius means by an Impulſive or Procatartick Cauſe. Of Chriſts Suffer. Cap. 2. Sect. 2.

2. To this Notion of Socinus and Crellius the Biſhop, who throughly ſearch'd into this Controverſie, Anſwers, 'That we underſtand not an impulſive Cauſe in ſo remote a Senſe, as though our Sins were … meer Occaſion of Chriſts Dying, becauſe the Death of Chriſt was one Argument; among many others …o believe his Doctrine, the Belief of which would make Men leave their Sins. But we contend for a nearer and more proper Senſe.

p. 48But, when we come to conſider that other point, whether Chriſts Sufferings were a proper Puniſhment: We ſhall hear further what his Lordſhip ſaith to this particular. For he rightly informs us, That if the Sufferings of Chriſt be to be taken under the Notion of Puniſhment, then our Adverſaries grant, That our Sins muſt be an impulſive Cauſe of them, in another Senſe than they underſtand it. What that other Senſe is, will be ſhown under the next Head, about Puniſhment, where you will meet with enough to ſatisfy you, That the impulſive Cauſe, which they'l grant on a Suppoſition, that Chriſts Sufferings are properly Paenal, is a near impulſive and proper meritorious Cauſe.

3. Dr. Edwards doth alſo, in his Preſervative againſt Socinianiſm, Part 2. p. 94. ſpeak very diſtinctly to this thing. For, ſaith he, That Chriſt dyed for us, are the plain words of Scripture, He gave himſelf for us, Gal. 2.20. Eph. 5.25. 1 Theſ. 5.10. 2 Cor. 5.14, 15. And this, not only in general for our good, but he was delivered up for our Offences, Rom. 4.25. He dyed for our Sins, 1 Cor. 15.3. So to the ſame purpoſe, and for the ſame Reaſon, he is ſaid to dye for the Ʋngodly, Rom. 5.6. And it is mentioned, as the great Inſtance of Gods Love to us; that whilſt we were yet Sinners Chriſt dyed for us, ver. 10. of the ſame Chap. All which Phraſes of dying for Sins and Sinners, plainly denote to us, that Sin in thoſe places, is not to be conſidered as the Final, but as the impulſive and meritorious Cauſe of Chriſts Death.

Thus you ſee the Agreement between Mr. Baxter, Socinus and Crellius about our Sins, being the remote impulſive Cauſe, or meer occaſion of Chriſts Sufferings, to be real; and that he hath herein left the Orthodox, p. 49ſuch as Grotius, the Biſhop, and Dr. Edwards is clearly proved. I will therefore conſider, what is …aid of Chriſts Sufferings being Paenal.

Subject II. Of the Paenalneſs of Chriſts Sufferings.

1. Mr. Baxter denies Chriſts Sufferings to be a proper Puniſhment.

1. Mr. Baxter, in his Methodus, propoſeth this Queſtion.: Whether the Paſſion or Sufferings of Chriſt, were properly and formally a Puniſhment? and his Determination is ſuch as clears it, that he holds Chriſts Sufferings, to be only Improperly, Analogically and Materially, not properly and formally a Puniſhment.

2. To evince thus much, I will diſtinctly con…der what he hath premiſed, and ſhow how he determines it.

1. In his Premiſes, he tells us, 'That a proper Puniſhment is a natural Evil, inflicted for a moral Evil. The Matter is Affliction, or a natural Evil inflicted. The Form is the Relation of this Matter to its meritorious Cauſe. The Fault (or moral Evil) is either really ſuch, or by a wrong Judgment: and ſo Puniſhment is diſtinguiſhed into that which is due, … Juſtitia; or that which is undue, ex Injuſtitia: The firſt is a Puniſhment in a proper Senſe; the …ther is a Puniſhment, Analogice, and only in …he ſenſe of a Judge, and others unjuſtly judging. …he word [Puniſhment] therefore is ambiguous. Puniſhment in the firſt, and moſt famous Senſe is a natural Evil on the Delinquent himſelf. Puniſhment, … a ſecondary and Analogical Senſe, is a natural Evil; which doth not directly, but mediately only, and by p. 50accident flow from a moral Evil. This Puniſhment 'is twofold.

The one which naturally follows the Sin of another; that is, from that natural proximity there i… between the Sufferer and the Sinner. The other, which doth not naturally but by a voluntary Sponſion, ſo that, by Vertue of the Sponſion, vicarious Puniſhments are endured.

2. The Determination is, 1. That Chriſt wa… not re verâ the Sinner, and therefore his Suffering were not Penal, in the Primary and moſt Famou… Senſe.

2. Chriſt was not in the account of the Fathe… a Sinner. For, God doth not judge falſely, and therefore, he did not ſuffer an Analogical Puniſhment, ex falſâ Reputatione Dei.

3. Chriſt, being miraculouſly conceived by the Holy Ghoſt, could not ſuffer Anolagical Puniſhments for his Parents Sins.

4. Christ, being voluntarius Poenarum Sponſor did, as our Sponſor, ſuffer Analogical vicarious Puniſhments. His Sufferings therefore, as to the Reaſon of the thing, were a natural Evil, endured … occaſione, & cauſalitate remota Peccatorum human generis & proxime, from the Obligation of his prope… Sponſion and Conſent.

3. In theſe Premiſes, and this Determination, Mr▪ Baxter freely declares, That our Sins were but th… occaſion or remote, not the near impulſive Cauſe o… Chriſts Sufferings, that his Sufferings were no… properly and formally, but only Improperly and Analogically Penal. Yea,

4. There is more in it, he is expreſs, That a proper Puniſhment cannot be inflicted on any, but the Delinquent himſelf. For, ſaith he, Poena in ſenſ… primo & famoſiſſimo eſt ipſius Delinquentis malum n… ral…rale. p. 51The formal Nature of Puniſhment lying in … Relation unto Sin as its meritorious Cauſe, the Puniſhment formally conſidered, cannot he thinks, …e on any but them, by whom the Sin is committed; …nd therefore agreeably enough, in purſuit of his Principle, He denies the Sufferings of Children and …ubjects for their Parents and Princes Sins, to be …roperly and formally Penal. His diſtinction is be…ween Puniſhment taken properly, in Senſu primo & …moſiſſimo; and in an improper, ſecondary, and an Analogical Senſe. His Determination, that Puniſhment … the firſt ſenſe, is only on him that actually commit…ed the Sin. That there can be no Puniſhment …ut what is deſerved; and that no Man can deſerve …hat another ſhould be puniſhed. That when Pa…ents and Princes ſin, and their Children and Subjects …uffer, their Sufferings cannot be properly and for…ally Penal; becauſe they did not commit the Sin, …nd ſo could not deſerve it: Their Sufferings there…ore can be but improperly and analogically Penal; as …r. B. freely owns, when he ſaith, That Poena in …nſu ſecundo & analogico est duplex. Altera quae pec…atum alterius naturaliter ſequitur, id eſt, ex proximi…te naturali patientis ad peccantem, & ita ob peccata …ominorum Poenas conſequenter patiuntur vernae — … in ſenſu adhuc pleniore, filius pro Parentum peccatis … Paenas; which he thinks may be called Puniſh…ent aptly enough, becauſe they have a relation unto …n, as to an Occaſion or remote meritorious Cauſe.

2. Mr. Baxter's Agreement with Crellius, about the meritorious Cauſe of Chriſts Sufferings, and his Sufferings being a proper Puniſhment.

The Senſe of Crellius, being with the greateſt …earneſs delivered by the Biſhop of W. which (ſaith p. 52his Lordſhip,) will be beſt done, by laying down his principles as to the Ju…tice of Puniſhments, in a more diſtinct Method than himſelf hath done: I will ſhow the Agreement there is between Mr. B. and Crellius, by propoſing Crellius his Principles, in the very words of the learned Biſhop; which in his Diſc. of Christs Sufferings, Cap. 3. §. 3. you will find to be thus

1. That no Perſon can be juſtly puniſhed, either for his own or anothers Fault, but he that hath deſerved to be puniſhed by ſome Sin of his own: For, he ſtill aſſerts, That the Juſtice of Puniſhment ariſeth from his own Fault, though the actual Puniſhment may be from anothers: But he that is puniſhed without reſpect to his own Guilt, is puniſhed undeſervedly, …d he that is puniſhed undeſervedly, is puniſhed unjustly.

2 That Perſonal Guilt being ſuppoſed, one Mans Sin may be the impulſive Cauſe of anothers Puniſhment, but they cannot be the meritorious. The difference between them he thus explains, the Cauſe is that which makes a thing to be; The impulſive … that which moves one to do a thing without any Conſideration of Right that one hath to do it; Merit, is that which makes a Man worthy of a thing either good or bad, and ſo gives a right to it: if it be good to himſelf, if had to him at whoſe hands he hath deſerved it. Now he tells us, that it is impoſſible▪ That one Mans Sins ſhould make any other deſerve Punment, but the Perſon who committed them; but they may impel one to puniſh another, and that juſtly, if the Perſon hath otherwiſe deſerved to be puniſhed, unjuſtly, if he hath not. The Reaſon he gives of it is, That the vi…oſity of the Act, which is the proper Cauſe of Puniſhment, cannot go beyond the Perſon of the Offender; and therefore can oblige none p. 53to Puniſhment, but him that hath committed the Fault. And therefore he aſſerts, That no Man can be puniſhed beyond the deſert of his own Sins, but there may be ſometimes a double impulſive Cauſe of that Puniſhment, viz. his own and other Mens, whereof one made, that they ſhould be juſtly puniſhed, the other that they ſhould be actually. But the latter, he ſaith, always ſuppoſeth the former, as the Foundation of juſt Puniſhment, ſo that no part of Puniſhment, could be executed upon him, wherein his own Sins were not ſuppoſed, as the meritorious Cauſe of it. Here then you may ſee, with what clearneſs the …iſhop hath ſtated the Principles of Crellius, and if …ou'll compare them with what I have taken out of Mr. Baxter's Methodus, you'll find the Agreement to be in the following Inſtances.

1. That a proper Puniſhment cannot be inflicted, …n any but him that committed the Sin. There …n be here no difference between them, unleſs in …is, that Crellius grants more, and, if I miſtake not …omes nearer to the Orthodox than either Mr. B. … Mr. W. do, when he owns,

1. 'That a remote Conjunction, may be ſufficient for a Tranſlation of Penalty, viz. from one Generation to another.

2. 'That Sins may be truly ſaid, to be puniſhed in others, when the Offenders themſelves may eſcape Puniſhment. Thus the Sins of Parents in their Children, and Princes in their Subjects.

3. 'That an Act of Dominion in ſome, may be deſigned as a proper Puniſhment to others.

4. 'That the Nature of Puniſhment is not to be meaſured by the Senſe of it.

When I obſerve, with what indignation Mr. B. …xpreſſeth himſelf againſt our Suffering, or being …uniſhed in Chriſt; I cannot but conclude, that herein p. 54Crellius yields more to the Orthodox than Mr. B. doth, who, I believe, being aware that ſuch learned Men as the Biſhop of W. would make too great an Improvement of ſuch Conceſſions, he would not give the Advantage. For indeed, the Biſhop hath well improved what Crellius grants; as is plain from what he ſaith, in Cap. 3. §. 2. Now upon theſe Conceſſions, though our Adverſaries will not grant, That Chriſt was properly puniſhed for our Sins; yet they cannot deny, but that we may very properly be ſaid, to be puniſhed for our Sins in Chriſt; and if they will yield us this, the other may be a Strife about words. For, ſurely there may be eaſily imagined, as great a Conjunction between Chriſt and us, as between the ſeveral Generations of the Jews▪ and that laſt which was puniſhed in the Deſtruction of Hieruſalem: And though we eſcape that Puniſhment which Chriſt did undergo, yet w… might have our Sins puniſhed in him, as well as Princes theirs, in their Subjects, when they eſcap… themſelves, &c.

What I have ſuggeſted on this Occaſion, clear… it, that Mr. B differs at leaſt as much if not more from the Orthodox, than Crellius and his Admirers do.

2. They alſo agree, in holding; That the Sufferings of Children or Subjects, when their Parents o… Princes Sin, are not proper Puniſhments, either o… the Children or Subjects, and that Chriſts Sufferings becauſe he was not the Sinner, were not properly Penal.

The Oppoſition made by the Biſhop of Worceſter▪ and the Principal of Jeſus, Oxon, againſt the Principles, embraced by Mr. Baxter an… Crellius.

p. 551. The Biſhop having given a clear ſtate of the …rinciples of Crellius in this matter, as I have alrea…y ſhown, adds, 'Theſe are his [viz. Crellius] two main Principles, which we muſt now thoroughly examine, the main force of his Book lying in them. But if we can prove, that it hath been generally received by the Conſent of Mankind, that a Perſon may be puniſhed beyond the deſert of his own Actions; if God hath juſtly puniſhed ſome for the Sins of others, and there be no Injuſtice in one Mans Suffering by his own Conſent for another, then theſe Principles of Crellius, will be found not ſo firm as he imagins them.

1. That it hath been generally received, by the Conſent of Mankind, That a Perſon may be juſtly puniſhed beyond the Deſert of his own Actions. For which Pupoſe, Grotius objected againſt Socinus (who appealed to the Conſent of Nations, about one being puniſhed for anothers Fault) that the Heathens did agree, That Children might be puniſhed for their Parents Faults, and People for their Princes; and that corporal Puniſhment might be born, by one for another; did appear by the Perſians puniſhing the whole Family for the Fault of one. — In which Caſes, (ſaith the Biſhop) The Puniſhment did extend beyond the Deſert of the Perſon, who ſuffered it; for no other Reaſon is aſſigned of theſe Sufferings, beſides the Conjunction of the Perſon or his Conſent; but no antecedent Guilt is ſuppoſed as neceſſary to make the Puniſhment Juſt. — If it be ſaid that the unjuſtice lies in this; that ſuch a one ſuffers undeſervedly, and therefore unjuſtly; I anſwer, If it be meant by undeſervedly, without ſufficient Cauſe or Reaſon of Puniſhment, then we deny, that ſuch a one doth ſuffer undeſervedly. Immerito in the Greek Gloſſes is rendred by foreign and merito by— foreign, p. 56and 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 foreign, 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 properl… penal, doth at once ſubvert both the Doctrines o… our Saviour's Satisfaction and Original Sin. For, i… a Man may not be juſtly puniſhed beyond the Deſert… 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 Ʋnlawfully, barely for this Reaſon, that no man can be juſtly puniſhed, who was not a p. 57Party, 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 p. 58one 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.

p. 59Conſideration I.

1. It muſt be acknowledged, That if Chriſts Suf…erings were properly Penal, they would ſo far have …nſwered the Obligations of the violated Law, that … might be ſaid, properly ſpeaking, Chriſt ſatisfied the …aw it ſelf. On the other hand, in caſe it ſhall ap…ear, that Mr. B. denyes Chriſts ſatisfying the Law …ſelf in a proper Senſe, it muſt be yielded, that he …enyeth Chriſts Sufferings to be a proper Puniſhment. The Connection that there is between the one and …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 p. 60Mr. 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. Al…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 enti…e Paragraph, may convince an impartial Mind; That Mr. B. hath different Apprehenſions in th…ſe Points, from his Orthodox Brethren: For, ſ…h he, …ocutione remota, & lata Chriſt us dici poſ… Legis fines remotas, ipſt non eſſentiales, obtinend… 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 p. 61added, '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 …e underſtood, as he expreſſes it of [all the remote …nds of the Law, ] which are not eſſential to the Law, …nd may in Mr. Baxters opinion, be obtained with…ut Chriſts bearing a proper Puniſhment, the true evincement of Gods hatred to Sin.

5. That I take Mr. B. right will further appear, …y conſidering the Paragraph next after this, where …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 …oenal part. Met. p. 3. c. 1. p. 47.

p. 62A 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 p. 63Redditio 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 for his Son Abſolom, it had not been neceſſary in order to his Sons eſcape, that he had hanged by the hair of the head, as his Son did. And therefore, when the Lawyers ſay, Subrogatum ſapit Naturam ejus in cujus locum ſubrogatur: Covarruvias tells us, it is to be underſtood ſecundum Primordialem Naturam, non ſecundum Accidentalem; from whence it appears that all Circumſtances are not neceſſary to be the ſame in Surrogation, but that the Nature of the Puniſhment remain the ſame. But,

4. Mr. B. hath not in his Aequivalent, ſo much as the Formal Nature of Puniſhment, nor are his Aequivalent p. 64Sufferings of Chriſt ſatisfactory, as they reſpect the Proxime End of the Law, to wit, the Commination, or Sanction; but as they are adjuſted to obtain ſuch other Ends of the Law as are not Eſſential to the Law: and herein alſo lieth the Principal Reaſon of Chriſt's Satisfaction, according to the Notion he hath framed of it. Thus in one place (viz. p. 53.) he ſaith; And becauſe the reaſon of Satisfaction, lieth in its being the Payment of an Aequivalent, inſtead of the Debt it ſelf; and the Aequivalent conſiſts in its Aptitude to obtain the ſame Ends of Government, and becauſe One End of Government is the demonſtration of God's Puniſhing Juſtice, and another End the demonſtration of God's Sanctity and Love, and the vindication of the Honour of his Law; and becauſe God doth no leſs effectually ſhow his Puniſhing Juſtice in the Puniſhment of Chriſt, than if he had deſtroyed the World, and alſo hath no leſs evidently ſhown his Sanctity, his Love of Goodneſs, and the Equity and Perfection of his Law by the Perfect Holineſs and Obedience of Chriſt, than if we our ſelves had perfectly obeyed it, it follows, that the puniſhment of Christ is ſatisfaction, and the Meritorious Goodneſs of Chriſt is ſatisfaction, but not in the ſame ſenſe with the former. Thus he, who indeed ſpeaks of Puniſhing Juſtice, which cannot be meant in any other ſenſe than that, in which he takes Puniſhment it ſelf, in this Controverſie. I doubt not but that he was of Opinion. that by Extrinſecal Denomination, God's Justice may by us, through our weakneſs, be diſtinguiſhed according to its reſpect to diverſity of Objects, by inadaequate conceptions; and that the Puniſhing Justice, he ſpeakss of, in this place, connoting only an improper Puniſhment, is from that connotation, by him denominated Puniſhing Juſtice in as improper a ſenſe, as he takes the Puniſhment it ſelf to be.

p. 655. That I have not miſrepreſented Mr. B. in the account I have given of his Notion about Puniſhing Justice, is evident to me from the following conſiderations.

1. Punitive Justice, as it imports a Perfection, Natural in God, diſcovers it ſelf by inflicting proper Puniſhments on Offenders. The Sufferings that are but materially, improperly, and analogically poenal, call'd by Mr. Baxter as well as by Limborch, Vicarious Puniſhments, that is, Sufferings, which, tho' they are not themſelves Puniſhments, are nevertheleſs in their …lace and ſtead, flow not from Punitive Justice, taken …roperly, and are not Effects, or diſcoveries of it, but …t moſt they are and can be Acts only of Dominion. And that we might not miſtake Mr. Baxter, when he mentions the Demonſtration of God's Puniſheng Ju…tice, as if he had taken it in the ſame ſenſe the Or…hodox uſe the words, he cloſes the Paragraph, in which they lye thus; Sed breviter, & Simpliciter …icendum eſt, Deum peccata, & poenas nobis remittere, …ia Chriſtus hoc Meruit, & perfectione habituali, & … actuali, & Paenas vicarias ſubeundo. Thus you …e, he reduceth all he had ſaid before to the Merit …f Chriſt's Habitual and Actual Perfections, and to …is Suffering Vicarious Puniſhments, that is, mate…al, improper and analogical Puniſhments, inſtead of …ch as are properly poenal; and therefore by Punitive …ſtice, he cannot mean what the Orthodox do. …ut,

2. The reducing all to Merit doth further con…m my ſenſe of Mr. B. who in 'this very page aſſu…eth us, That the Mediator could not procure our Juſtification, and Salvation any otherwiſe than by way of Merit, and becauſe nothing can more effectually Merit from the moſt Holy God, than that which doth moſtly Pleaſe Him, and nothing more p. 66Pleaſing to him than Goodneſs, Holineſs, Love, and Juſtice, it follows that Chriſt could not more effectually Merit our Juſtification and Salvation, than by Goodneſs, Holineſs, Love, Juſtice and Obedience; and, by this method turning a proper Puniſhment into meer Sufferings, (which, as diveſted of their Poenal Nature, can no otherwiſe fall under the conſideration of a Law, but as enjoyned by a Precept, which, he ſaith, belongs to the Mediatorial Law,) theſe Sufferings alſo are made to be but Acts of Obedience, and, in conjunction with other Mediatorial Acts of the ſame nature, are affirm'd to be Meritorious; and this Merit reſolved, in its Laſt Reſult, into Divine Pleaſure; I ſay, in the Laſt Reſult, becauſe, he doth not only aſſign unto the Divine Pleaſure, the admiſſion of another on our behalf; but will have it, that the Merit it ſelf is of that kind, which is no further Meritorious than as it doth, and only as it doth ſatisfie the Divine Pleaſure, for as it is Pleaſing, ſo it merits, and proportionably as it is moſt Pleaſing, ſo it's moſt meritorious; whereby Diſtributive Juſtice altogether, as well as Punitive, (which is but one Branch of it) is excluded from having any Glory upon the account of what Chriſt did and ſuffered, the whole of the Merit being from Divine Grace, and Acceptation: So far is Mr. B. from owning, that Punitive Juſtice, taken properly is ſatisfied by the ſufferings of Chriſt. Beſides,

3. Mr. Baxter inſiſting ſo very much on Satiſfaction, as its Principal Reaſon lieth in its aptitude to obtain the Remote Ends of the Law, leaves no room for doubt concerning his ſenſe in this matter. For ſeeing the Formal Reaſon of Satisfaction, lyeth in the Aptitude of what Chriſt did or ſuffered, to obtain ſome Remote Ends, which, of what nature ſoever, ſo long as they are Rèmote from the Sanction, they p. 67cannot be ſatisfactory in the ſenſe embraced by the Reformed, and the ſufferings themſelves can be no otherwiſe a ſatisfaction, than any other eximious work may be: and any other excellent work done by him, may be as truly ſatisfactory, as his ſufferings; a Notion which he freely acknowledgeth, p 55. where he ſaith, Rector, quà ſupra Leges, ſatisfactionem recipere potest, etiam per opus aliquod Praeſtantiſſimum.

A third Conſideration.

3. That Mr. B. denies Chriſts Sufferings to be properly Penal, is further evident from his holding, that Chriſts Satisfaction is not made to God as a Rector qua talis, but to him as he is a pars offenſa; an injured Lord and Benefactor.

1. The learned Grotius, in the account he gives of the foreign, the Principal and Foundation Errour, that runs through the Socinian Scheme, ſaith, That it lies in their conſidering God in this great Tranſaction, as a pars offenſa, a Creditor, a Lord, or Soveraign; and in Oppoſition unto them, he proves, That to puniſh is not an Act competent to an offended Party, as ſuch; that naturally the Pars offenſa, as ſuch, hath no right in Puniſhment. That to inflict Puniſhment belongs primo & per ſe to a Rector, as ſuch; and that this right in the Rector, is not a right of abſolute Dominion or of Credit; That God in exacting Satisfaction, is to be conſidered only as a Rector, whence it is, that the Sufferings Chriſt endured when he made Satisfaction, muſt be owned to be an Act of Juſtice, and properly Penal.

2. Mr. Baxter on the other hand, is as expreſs, That God is not to be conſidered only as a Rector qua talis but as a Rector ſupra Leges, as a Pars offenſa, and as an injured Lord and Benefactor; that properly ſpeaking, we muſt not ſay; That Chriſt ſatisfied the p. 68Legiſtator, qua talis tantum, but the Rector, qua ſupra Leges. That although God conſidered only as a Rector exacts Puniſhments formally, as ſuch, yet God requires them qua Satisfactory, not only as a Rector, but as a Lord and Benefactor, vindicating his own Glory, ſee Meth. Part 3. p. 47, 51, 55.

3. The learned Mr. B. being ſo full in the declaration of his Mind in this Point, and over and over averring, that Deum Satisfactionem recepiſſe, non tantum qua Judicem, ſed etiam, qua Dominum & Benefactorem offenſum; we have the greateſt reaſon to conclude, that the Satisfaction he is for, cannot (as Grotius well obſerves) be at all unto God as a Rector qua talis. Non poteſt enim idem duobus diverſis tribui qua talibus; nor can it include any thing within its compaſs, that is, properly Penal, ſo long as the Act of puniſhing doth not belong only to a Rector as ſuch.

4. That I take Mr. B. right, appears to me very manifeſt, from what he hath in the firſt Part of his Methodus cap. 15. where he ſaith, That after Grotius his Book de Satisfactione had been publiſhed, 'twas made a Queſtion, Whether God puniſheth Sinners either as an abſolute Lord and Soveraign, or as pars offenſa; or only as a Rector ſecundum Leges? To which he diſtinctly anſwers in theſe words, paſſing by the Opinions of others. The Truth is, 1. No Sins do really hurt God. However, 2. They are injurious to God. 3. There is a threefold Right of God, quantum in ſe, ſtruck at. 1. A Right of Dominion by alienating and denying his own quod uſum. 2. A Right of Empire by Rebellion, and a denyal of that Obedience which is due unto him. 3. The Right of Friendſhip by with holding their Love, and by an ungrateful abuſe of his Benefits. 4. Theſe violated Rights, God may vindicate in each of theſe Relations. 5. God therefore p. 69is an Actor, not only as he is a Rector, but as he is a pars offenſa, although not realiter Laſa. 6. Thus much appears with the greateſt clearneſs, becauſe. although the publick Good is the end of humane Regiment, yet the Glory of God himſelf, his Complacency or Pleaſure, is the end of Divine Government and of every thing beſides. But, 7. To judge formally, belongs to a Rector as ſuch, and not to a Lord or Benefactor as ſuch. 8. However, when God judgeth he doth not diveſt himſelf of the Relations of a Lord and Benefactor; but theſe Relations are to be conſidered, as connoted and inſeparable in a Judge. 9. When God is called pars offenſa, we do not mean pars aequalis, or one offended againſt that Juſtice, which is meerly commutative: But we intend no more than the ſupreme Lord of all, The Rector and Benefactor is offended by them who are his own, his Subjects, but diſobedient and ungrateful, Iſa. 1.2, 3, 4. Ezek. 18.4. God therefore doth exact Puniſhment not only for conſerving the order and good of the World; but alſo finally for his own Glory, to demonſtrate his Holineſs and Juſtice. Becauſe his Glory is the end of his Government, God therefore doth exact Puniſhments, not only as a Rector but as an injured Lord and Benefactor. And although he judgeth formally, as a Rector ſecundum Leges, prius a ſe datas, yet as connoting his other Relations, that is, as a Rector who is an offended Lord and Father. So far Mr. Baxter, who ſcruples not to declare, that God in requiring Satisfaction, is not to be conſidered only as a Rector ſecundum Leges, as ſuch, but as an injured Soveraign and Benefactor, and as a Rector ſupra Leges, whence it muſt be acknowledged, that Chriſts Sufferings could not be properly Paenal. That they are no other than what are exacted by an injured Lord and Benefactor, or as a Rector ſupra Leges, who, p. 70as ſuch, exacts not Puniſhment, formally as ſuch; and that therefore the puniſhment can be but improper and analogical, as he explains it, p. 341. where he freely declares, That altho' Puniſhment, ſtrictly taken, is only the Effect of a Rector, yet a Friend, or Benefactor, wearied with Ingratitude, may Execute Analogical Puniſhments. Thus, for a Friend, not to love, A Benefactor, ceaſing to beſtow his Favours; a Father, with-holding the Effects and Tokens of his Paternal Affections; are their ways of Puniſhment. And becauſe God's Kingdom is Paternal, where all that the Subjects enjoy belong to the Ruler, and where Love bears Dominion in the Government, the with-holding Divine Benefits, is not in a forced, or improper, but in a moſt eminent ſenſe called Divine Puniſhing.

5. This paſſage of Mr. Baxter doth fully clear it, that in his Opinion Chriſt's Sufferings are not proper Puniſhments. And tho, in condeſcention to the weak, he yielded ſo far as to accommodate his way of writing to them, who differed from him, uſing ſundry Terms and Phraſes, which the Orthodox have choſen and eſtabliſhed as explicating the Truth moſt diſtinctly, and with the greateſt plainneſs, yet did he openly oppoſe the uſe of other Terms and Phraſes, ſuch as Christ's Sufferings, and Dying in the Perſon of Sinners, &c. and took particular care to diſcover his true meaning; that we might not think he did take even thoſe he uſed, in the ſame ſenſe, in which they are uſed by the Orthodox. For, it appeareth very convincingly to me, it is his ſtated Judgment, that God exacts formal and proper Puniſhment only as a Rector quà talis; and as an Injured Lord and Benefactor, he …cates Analogical Tuniſhment; and that when God, p. 71as a Benefactor, with-holds his Benefits, he may be …aid to puniſh, and ſo far, and in what ſenſe he may be ſaid to puniſh, he may be ſaid to glo…ifie his Puniſhing Juſtice; but not as an Injured Lord and Benefactor. And he not exacting Pu…aſhments taken properly and formally, the puniſhing Juſtice Mr. Baxter ſpeaks of is not taken in a proper ſenſe; for Puniſhing Juſtice thus taken, belongs only to a Rector, quà talis.

Theſe Conſiderations may ſuffice to vindicate my Charge, [That Mr. Baxter denieth Chriſt's Sufferings to be a proper Puniſhment] from the Ignorant and Rude Aſſaults of my Adverſary; who, if he had kept more cloſely to his Studies, and minded Things more than Indecent Words, could never have been impoſed upon, as in this Point he has been. And certain I am, that if the Learned and plain-hearted Mr. Baxter had been alive, he would thank neither Mr. Williams, nor Mr. Alſop for their Attempts to conceal his true ſenſe of theſe Points from the World.

Before I cloſe this Diſcourſe, I will ſet down a ſummary of Mr. Baxter's Belief in theſe matters, particularly, That Chriſt's ſufferings were not ex Obligatione Legts; That our ſins were not the near impulſive, or proper meritorious cauſe of his ſufferings; That his ſufferings were not properly and formally, poenal; That no ſufferings are properly puniſhments, but what are inflicted on the Delinquent himſelf; That when Parents ſin, and their Children ſuffer, their ſufferings are not properly and formally, but materially, improperly and analogically poenal; That Chriſt, (properly ſpeaking) did not ſatisfie the Law, nor God, as a Rector, quà talis only, but as a Rector ſupra Leges, as a pars offenſa, as an Injured Lord and Benefactor; That a p. 72proper ſtrict Satisfaction is the ſolution, or payment of an Aequivalent, which was not due for what was due; That the Aequivalence lyeth in an aptitude to anſwer the Remote Ends of the Law, That an anſwering the Remote Ends of the Law, is of a diſtinct nature from anſwering its Obligations or Poenal Sanction; That the Obligation Chriſt lay under to ſuffer, aroſe only from the Mediatorial Praecept, and Chriſt's voluntary Sponſion; That what anſwers only the Preacept of a Law, and is only an Act of Obedience, cannot, conſidered as ſuch, be a puniſhment; That the true Reaſon, why Chriſt's ſufferings are ſaid to be poenal, is becauſe of their matter, which is painful and dolorous; That the Juſtice of God, which Chriſt ſatisfied, tho' called punitive, yet muſt not be underſtood in a ſtrict ſenſe, for that puniſhing Juſtice, from whence a proper puniſhment doth flow, That Chriſt's entire Righteouſneſs was his performance of the Condition of his Covenant with the Father; and his performance of that Condition was his meritorious Title to God's promiſed Effects; That tho' the matter of the Covevenant of Works was taken into the Mediatorial Law, yet Chriſt was never under the Formal Obligation of the Law of Works, nor did he ſtrictly merit according to its Rule.

This is an impartial Account of Mr. Baxter's Sentiments touching the Nature of Chriſt's Satiſfacti…n and Merit; and, as this Notion is diſtinct from what is embraced by the Reformed, ſo, whilſt he uſes the ſame Terms the Orthodox do, yet it is in a different ſenſe. For by the works [Puniſhment, Puniſhing Justice, Christ's Righteouſneſs and Merit, yea and proper Satisfaction] he doth (as I have already ſuggeſted) intend quite another p. 73thing than the Proteſtants do: And, becauſe theſe Terms and Phraſes are not in Scripture, he is not for an inſiſting on their uſe againſt the Socinians. De Nomine [vid. Satisfactionis] non nultùm Litigandum eſt: & ſiqui Sociniani, aut alii Satisfactionis nomen, quia in Sacris Literis non re…eritur, repudiant neceſſitatem Nominis, non aſſerere lebemus: Meth. Theol. part. 3. cap. 1. Diterm. 12. …. 49.

But, in oppoſition hereunto, the Learned Dr. Edwards expreſſeth himſelf thus: The words vid. Satisfaction and Merit] are now adopted by the Church, inſerted into her Homilies and Liturgies, they are part of the Catholick Faith, and become the Common Language of all Chriſtians. So that we cannot lay them aſide, without giving infinite offence, and ſcandal to all our Friends of the Reformation, and at the ſame time of affording matter of Boaſting and Triumph to our Adverſaries of the Church of Rome; who have long ſince told the World, that we are grown weary of our Old Religion, and are all ready to turn Socinians. Beſides all this, it will juſtifie in great meaſure the Calumnies of our Modern Ʋnitarians who will exceedingly triumph to find their ſuſpicion made good, viz. that we ſecretly favour their Impious Opinions: and that if it were not for the Biaſs, that is given to our minds ly the Awe of our Superiours, and the Love of our Preferments, we would ſoon take off the Mask, ard diſcover our True Sentiments in their favour. Preſervat. againſt Socin. Part. 3. p. 110.

What this Learned Perſon offers againſt the very Notion of Mr. Baxter, as well as of Curcellaeus and Limborch, I do humbly recommed to the conſideration not only of Mr. Alſop, but of all the p. 74Brethren at Little St. Hellens, and do wiſh with all my heart, that Mr. Alſop may be enabled to weigh with deliberation and ſoberneſs, whether there be the leaſt Reaſon for his declaring ſo poſitively, That neither Mr. Williams, nor Mr. Baxter deny Chriſt's Sufferings to be proper puniſhments? Or what pleaſure it can afford him, on a Dying Bed to conſider what countenance he has given to the very Notions he now would be thought to abhor… How he hath diſcouraged, yea reviled them, who appear in the Defence of thoſe Truths, which ſo nearly affect our Salvation? And how much he hath ſtrengthened the hands of them, who hold ſuch Opinions as open a Door for the letting in the very Abominations we are at this time in moſt danger of: For, the very Engine choſen by the Socinian Combinators in the year 1546. as moſt likely to introduce their Impious Hereſies, was their corrupting the Doctrine of our Bleſſed Saviour's Satisfaction. As Wiſſowatius, in his Compendious Narration, in the mention he makes of the Italian Combinators, tells us, it was to bring the Received Opinion of the Trinity into doubt; ſo Sandius in his Anti-Trinitarian Bibiiothee. p. 18. ſpeaking of their Colledges and Conferences, adds, in quibus potiſſimùm Dogmata vulgaria de Trinitate, ac Chriſt. Satisfactione, hiſ que ſimilia in Dubium revocabant; And what is remarkable, Lubieniecius, in his Hiſtory of the Polonian Reformation, lib. 2. c. 1. Ingenuouſly confeſſeth, that 'twas alſo their care to inſinuare, that in the Article of Juſtification, an applying the Merit of Chriſt unto us by Faith alone, was one of thoſe Opinions, introduced by the Greek Philoſophers.

Of theſe things I take the more notice, becauſe at this time, as Mr. Williams doth, not omy corrupt p. 75the Doctrine of Chriſt's Satisfaction, but that other of Juſtification; in like manner, He doth as theſe Socinians did, ſubſcribe with a diſtinction, ſecuring his own ſenſe, and carries it ſo ſubdolouſly, as to influence ſome worthy Divines, who are ſound in the Faith, to give too much Reputation unto him, and conſequently to his Erroneous Opinions. I can hardly forbear the mention of an Aged Divine, who hath been Mr. Williams his Tool to the hindring a Re-Union; but at this time I will ſpare him. And only add, that Mr. Williams acts ſo like unto theſe Combinators, that unleſs ſome more than ordinary care be taken to give check unto 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 p. 76his 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 p. 77all 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 p. 78the 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 p. 79ſet 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 Ʋnion 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.

End of the text · Stephen Lobb, A Further Defense of the Report (1698)