An End to Discord, Introduction · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
Some further Examination what is Socinianism, as to the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, and what is not so; with a brief account of several Phrases used by Socinians and by the Orthodox in a very contrary sense.
A Strict Observation in how uncertain a sense Terms and Phrases are made use of, must convince one that Errors may be easily concealed from the Ignorant, and the Orthodox as easily impeached without ground by sagacious Persons who design imposing on the Vulgar. I shall give an instance in the Controversy before me, which makes it evident, that Mens Explications and main Hypothesis must be regarded above words, otherwise their sense will be mistaken.
1. I find the Socinians admit and make use of the words which some Orthodox Divines esteemed most distinguishingly expressive of their own sense, as Commutation of Persons as well as things for Persons,aCrell. vol. 2. in 2 Cor. 5. 14. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9. par. 2. Substitution and Surrogation of Christ's Person in our room.bCrell. vol. 3. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9, 10. Dying in our stead.cCrell. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9. Christ was an Expiatory Sacrifice.dCrell. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 10. Socin. de Servat. lib. 2. c. 13. His Sufferings were Punishments.eTom. 1. Prael. cap. 21, p. 580. Our Sins were an impulsive Cause of Christ's Death. fCrell. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 1. par. 11.God was moved by Christ's Death to give us Forgiveness.gCrell. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 7, 8.; Yea it was a Satisfaction. hCrell. vol. 2. in 2. Cor. 5. 14. Slicht. Tom. 2. in 2 Cor. 5. 31.Christ was made a Sinner, yea the chief Sinner. And many more such I could mention: But this evidenceth that these very Phrases are capable of a very ill sense as well as a good one. Ruarus admits Christ did in a sense impetrate our Pardon by his Death. Epist. 64. So doth Crellius Resp. ad Got. cap. 9. part. 3.
2. The last Chapter gave us such a Summary of their Assertions as demonstrates they use these Expressions in no good sense, but if you consult the places last cited, and in Chap. 5. you'll find them wrested to consist with the fore-mentioned Errors; but because it will be tedious to particularize, I shall enumerate the Causes and Ends they plainly and truly ascribe the Death of Christ to. aSlicht. in Rom. 3. 24. & Phil. 2. 9. Crell. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 2. par. 1. & cap. 4. par. 7.1. They assign Christ's Death to God's meer Dominion over him as his entire Creature, whom he would reward for it, tho not as merited.bIdem ubi sup. ad cap. 5. 2. It was an Example of Patience. cCrell. Resp. ad Grot. 215: 198, 199.3. It was a Preparation of his Sacrifice to be offered to God in Heaven for our Sins.dUbi supra cap. 7. & cap. 1. 4. It shew'd how much he desired our Salvation, tho such great Sinners, and how faithful he would be in expiating our Sins in Heaven, when he endured such dreadful things for our sakes, which God would have chiefly considered in our High-Priest. eCrell. vol. 1. 612, 613.5. His Death impressed a tender Affection and Pity towards us, that so he would succour us who were to be so extreamly afflicted, God would not have put Mankind in his hands unless he first suffered Death for Sinners: And that God might render us more assured, that if we obeyed we should have eternal Life; Christ should be so fashioned that in a sense it should appear Christ had more Tenderness for us than God himself, or otherwise it had been as to us alike, that God had saved us immediately, as to have saved us by Christ. Or,fSocin. Tom. 1. 596. Crell. vol. 620, 621. 6. To establish the new Covenant and Promises. gCrell. vol. 1. 612, 614, 616.7. To confirm his Doctrine.hSocin. Tom. 1. 578, 579. cap. 21. p. 580, 599. 8. To come pursuant to God's Decree to be crowned with Glory and Honour, and invested with Authority and Power to convert, protect, forgive, and give us eternal Life.iCrell. Tom. 1. 619. Wolz. vol. 1. Pralect. cap. 2. 9. That there might be greater Rewards promised to induce us to repent than there were before kSocin. 1. Tom. 590, 594. Slicht. Tom. 2. 37. Crell. vol. 2. in Heb. 9. 13, 14, 15.10. To take away those greater Sins which the legal Sacrifices were not appointed for.lSocin. Tom. 1. p. 667. Crell. Tom. 1. 618. 11. Beget in us a firm hope of Life, tho we should die as terrible a Death. mSocin. Tom. 1. 575, 596.12. That we might not fear Death, or the Curse, which we see conquered by him. nSocin. Tom. 1. 577, 588.13. That we might be induced to leave our Sin, when he died that we might be reclaimed from it by such hope of Pardon upon leaving of it.oSocin. Tom. 1. 586. Crell. vol. 2. par. 2. p. 285. 14. To, make known how highly kind and pacified God was to us. I pass by a compliance with Pagan Customs.
3. As they limit Christ's Death in this manner, exclusively of and in opposition to other Causes and Ends, which the proper Satisfaction of Christ more directly supposeth, as you see in the fifth Chapter. So I could easily shew how they dilute their own seeming Concessions, as well as reduce plain Scripture-Expressions to that Insignificancy, that no Man can hope by their method to apprehend any kind of words with certainty as to their meaning; one while an as if (a quasi) is all they intend by their large Grants, as if a redeeming Price, &c. God is as it were moved, and as it were obliged by Christ to pardon us: another while all is figurative, as a metaphorical Redemption. Christ's Death was an Expiatory Sacrifice, i.e. metonymically and synechdocically called so, and it chiefly signifies what by God's Decree followed upon it, viz. his Entrance into Heaven. Many more might be heaped of this kind. Socin. de Servat. par. 2. cap. 2. Crell. vol. 1. in Rom. 3. 24. vol. 3. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 8. par. 3. p. 198, 189. Socin. Tom. 1. Praelect. cap. 20.
4. They sometimes state the Difference between themselves and others, and there are some things they still adhere to and secure, however they perplex this Controversy with their seeming Grants and equivocal Expressions.
(1.) Socinus states this Question and denies it: Are our Sins blotted out by any Compensation or Satisfaction, or else by Forgiveness? Most think they are blotted out, a Satisfaction intervening: but we think they are blotted out by simple Forgiveness, or a Pardon absolutely free. Prael. cap. 15. p. 565. He also states the Difference with Covet, and puts this for the Position held by his own Party. I judg and think this to be the Orthodox Determination, That Jesus Christ is therefore our Saviour, because he hath made known to us the way of eternal Life; and in his own Person, both by the Example of his Life, and rising from the dead, hath given assurance of it, and made it evident, as also that he will give eternal Life to us who believe him. But I affirm, that he neither satisfied Divine Justice, by which we Sinners did deserve to be damned; nor was there any need that he should satisfy it. Socin. Tom. 2. de Servat. cap. 1. 121. Crellius states this Question; Did the Redemption wrought by Christ include his Payment of a true Price to God for our Sins, which he calls Satisfaction? Resp. ad Grot. cap. 8. This he denies; and he and others of them take great advantage of Covet's making use of Creditor, Debtor, and Debt, to express their Judgment in this Controversy. Other Instances might be given.
(2) The principal things they adhere to are, 1. That Christ did not appease God's Anger towards Sinners. 2. That what Christ did and suffered had no meriting Virtue; and so did not merit from God our Pardon, Acceptance and eternal Life, or properly move God to give or promise them. These are the Heart of Socinianism as to the Satisfaction of Christ; and they do exclude what Christ performs in Heaven, as well as his Death on Earth, from any proper influence Godward as to these things, tho to effect what they call Expiation, they ascribe more to Christ's abiding on God's Right-hand taking care of the Church, than to his Resurrection, and more to his Resurrection than to his Death; these two last being but the decreed intervening way of coming to the other, which they call the Expiation it self. Hence they always deny any proper redeeming Price, and say God quitted his right to punish us without any respect to Christ; and distinguish of Expiation on God's part (which they call his own Act;) and on our part, which is, say they, Christ's giving us eternal Life; wherein as contain'd a full deliverance from the Punishment of Sin. As to Expiation on God's part, that's in no wise by Christ's inclining God to forgive our Sins by his Sacrifice; yea Socinus tells us God alone expiates Sin. And when CRELLIVS blames Grotius for making Socinus to confine the Efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice to Sins future for Prevention or Pardon, and excluding the Forgiveness of Sins past, otherwise than as it begets Faith, and so turns us from Sin. What greater expiating Virtue doth he ascribe to it under the Notion of an expiating Sacrifice? it's this, it takes away the Guilt and Punishments of all Sins tho past before Conversion, and however great: But how and wherein? He answers, it's partly by declaring and granting us a right to that thing, and partly by actually taking away Divine Punishments. But is that Right or Pardon at all properly procured by this Sacrifice? No, by no means; that he had denied, and abides by the Denial here, and in the following Sections. The sum is; a crucified Saviour his being exalted, and in Heaven taking care of our Salvation, assures us, that we shall be partakers of the Pardon appointed and promised before by the meer Mercy of God without respect to Christ; and Christ as the authorized Sponsor on God's part conveys it, and assisted with the Divine Power fully removes the Punishments, or rather God himself doth it: Nay, by their Scheme you cannot well see them allow less expiating Virtue to Mens Prayers than the legal Sacrifices, yea the yearly: for, fay they, we expiate our own Sins by those Prayers; and scarce more to Christ's Sacrifice than the Legal, except as to more sorts of Sin, and its greater aptness to disswade us from Sin by the Love of God, and strong grounds of hopes of higher Rewards, being more evidenced and assured by this Sacrifice of Christ, than by those of the Law: For this Sacrifice of Christ is no other than an intervening Means, which being performed, that Discharge follows by the Divine Decree, which the self-inclined God, unmoved by any thing Christ was to do or suffer, resolved freely to bestow of his meer Mercy.
To add no more, they carefully distinguish between the Impetration of Pardon; &c. with respect to the Divine Will, and the means of the application of that Pardon to the Sinner. From the former they exclude Christ's Satisfaction and Merits, and confine their Virtue truly altogether to the latter. The thing it self is unprocured as from God, the Sinner's obtaining it is subserved by Christ by what he perfoms to make us meet for it, and possessing us in the Effects of it according to the way decreed, and that only because decreed. Socin. Tom. 1. Praelect. cap. 27. 21, 22, 23, 24. Tom. 2. de Serv. cap. 4. Crell. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 8, 9, 10.
5. It's very obvious that the Socinian Controversy lies not in those things wherein some are induced to place them, because of certain Phrases sometimes occurring in Debates concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction. To Instance a few.
(1.) It's not whether the Sufferings of a Sponsor in the stead of the Sinner be in so strict a sense a proper Punishment, as the Sufferings of the Delinquem himself would be? this is nothing with them; for their Question is, Were Christ's Sufferings such an Instance of God's rectoral Hatred against our Sins, and Anger against Sinners, as that thereby the Honour of his Justice and injured Government and Law was provided for, and vindicated, and Sinners to be deterred from Sin by God's insisting upon such a penal Compensation before he would be reconciled to us. Punishment under this Notion they expresly dispute against.
(2.) Nor is it about the Phrase Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners, they grant it; admit a Surrogation of the typical Sacrifice instead of the Sinner, and a Substitution of Christ in our place. Their Point depends not on any such mere words. But was Christ appointed, and did he consent to endure what the Sinner was to suffer, that in virtue thereof the offended God might be appeased, and the Sinner delivered? This is the thing they oppose. Crell. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9. par. 14. explaining this very Phrase.
(3.) Nor is with them the Question, Whether Christ's Sufferings were in part the Idem, and in other respects a full Equivalent to the Punishments the Sinner deserved: No, their Arguments run against the Equivalency, and on that account deny that his Sufferings could be a full Price of Redemption, or a Satisfaction; and well they may, when they call him a mere Creature. Crell. Resp. ad Grot. c. 4. par. 2. &c. 6. par. 18. It's the Proportion in the Value they most directly militate against.
(4.) Nor, whether Christ was a Sinner in judicial Esteem, or was he reputed the innocent Mediator making amends to Iustice for our Sins, that we the Offendors might be redeemed by his merits, who, to make Satisfaction, submitted to be dealt with as if he had been a Sinner. The last is enough for their Abhorrence; and tho Socinus took all Advantages to expose the Orthodox, in representing their Opinion as to the Imputation of Sin to Christ, yet grants they hold that Christ was truly innocent, and reputed so by God even when he was punished as if an Offender. De Servat. cap. 6. It's true, sometimes they would force some such Consequence on the words of the Orthodox, as if Christ must be legally reputed a Sinner, but that is to furnish themselves with an Argument to ridicule the true Doctrine of Satisfaction. And note, they deny that 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made Sin, to be Christ was made a Sacrifice for Sin; yea some render it, he was made a Sinner, as Slicht. &c. God dealt with him as a Sinner. Socin in loc.
(5.) It's far enough from the Socinian Controversy, whether Christ was immediately obliged by the Law of Works to die, i. e. Did God thus sentence him, Thou Christ hast sinned, and therefore thou shalt die? Or, was he immediately obliged to die by the Govenant of Redemption, and mediately by the Law of Works, i. e. the Sentence is to be thus apprehended? Whereas thou my Son the Mediator, hast with my Consent, declared thy willingness to expiate Sin, and ransom Sinners, justly condemned by the Curse of my Law to die: And whereas my Vindictive Iustice, the Honour of my Law and Government, required that I the Rector should exact Satisfaction and Reparation for the Crimes of these Sinners by thy Death, if I agreed to thy redeeming and saving them, and thou hast obliged thy self to die in their stead to redeem them, therefore thou shalt die this accursed, shameful Death.
This, I say, is no part of the Dispute with the Socinians, for the last account doth as directly oppose their Notions as the former, nay much more; for it asserts the Compact before his Incarnation, and consequently the Divinity, at least Preexistence of Christ.
(6.) Nor yet is it of any moment with them, whether Men say Sin would be in a more proper sense the immediate meritorious Cause of the Sinner's dying who committed the Sin, than of Christ's dying who did not commit the Sin, tho he obliged himself to make Satisfaction for it in the Sinner's stead, that the provoked God might be reconciled to him. The Point with them being this, Did our Sins, notwithstanding God's merciful Disposition, retain that Demerit in his account, as rendered Satisfaction for it by Death necessary to reconcile him to Sinners; and consequently did Christ suffer Death to make that Satisfaction which was become thus necessary by Sin, and yet impossible for the Sinner to make.
(7.) It's true, the Socinians usually say our Sins were the occasion of Christ's Death (yet oft they call them the antecedent Cause) but occasion being more common and agreeable to their Hypothesis, I wish others had waved that word to prevent Abuse. Nevertheless the mere using of that word is far from arguing any Man to Socinianize, so that he apply it to a sense opposite to what Socinians do. This will appear, if we consider in what sense the Socinians use it; they say our Sin was an occasion of Christ's Death, as Sin was that which we were to be reclaimed from, and our hope supported against. And the Death of Christ was that way in which God, who was not unreconciled before, did appoint Christ to reclaim us from our Sins; as his Death assureth us of the Truth of his Doctrine and Promises, manifesteth God's prior Reconciliation, and so his Death became an Argument to encline us to believe and repent, and also a causa sine qua non; both of a strong Motive to Holiness, viz. the endless Glory designed in Heaven for us (which was before shut up) and of that Power, Authority and Care of Christ at God's Right-hand to bring us into the Possession of it.
But when others shall call our Sins an occasion of Christ's Death, and explain it thus; That it was an occasion of Christ's Death as a penal Satisfaction to the Iustice of God, and that he endured it to pacify God to Sinners; that God's hatred of Sin, and his Justice (yea punitive Justice) might be no less demonstrated in Christ's Satisfaction, than if the Sinners had been damned. And his Obedience, and his Punishments wherein Vindictive Iustice was thus glorified, did merit the Pardon of our Sins, and eternal Life, such an Explication doth as much oppose Socinianism, as if they had used the word meritorious Cause instead of occasion.
That no Person may pretend the Reverend Mr. Baxter's Authority in favour of Socinianism, because he sometimes calls our Sins an occasion of Christ's Death, I do assure the Reader that he explains the word occasion in the last sense, and in the most direct opposition to Socinianism: nor can any pretend but the reason he useth this word, as also pro causa meritoria, or instead of a meritorious Cause, is only to distinguish Christ the Sponsor making Satisfaction to Justice for our Sins, from the Sinner himself when suffering for his own Sins. To evidence which, I have repeated his own Assertions under this seventh Head, and could easily cite his own words, which agree exactly to what's Antisocinian in the six foregoing Heads. See Method. Theol. par. 3. cap. 1. determ. 11, 12, 15.
Need I add that he says, God declared to the feeling of Christ his Displeasure against Sin, which was the Cause of all the Miseries which he endured, i. e. saith he, Christ bare those Punishments which the Anger and Displeasure of God against Sin and Sinners caused to be inflicted on him our Sponsor. Vbi sup. Disp. 4. and all this in our stead. Det. 10. He made Satisfaction for our Sins to God as Rector, and as the injured Party: Determ. 14. Christ's Death answered all the Ends of the most proper Punishments, and of the Threatning of the Law: Determ. 12. When he calls Sin an occasion of Christ's Death, he there calls it also a remote meritorious Cause: Determ. 5. And as for a proper meritorious Cause as when Children are punished for their Parents Sins: Determ. 5. His Safaction yielded to our most just Rector a sufficient ground on which to forgive penitent Believers spiritual and eternal Punishments: Dis… 2. Nay, he sees not, supposing the Law of Works, how God could forgive our Sins without the Penal Satisfaction of Christ: Disp. 2. & Determ. 15. It were endless to produce the Instances demonstrating the Orthodoxness of this great Man as to the Satisfaction of Christ against Socinianism. And by the way, such as say▪ Christ's penal Satisfaction was not necessary to the forgiveness of our Sins, do a thousand times more favour Socinianism than Mr. Baxter's Notions or Words can be wrested to.
Perhaps others who follow Episcopius and some other Arminians (when all must acquit him of Socinianism) may surmise he favoureth their Notion of Christ's Death, as if it were a Satisfaction only to the Will of God, and not a full Satisfaction to the Iustice of God. To this I answer, Mr. B. distinguisheth Satisfaction into that which is the fulfilling the Will of a Person, and that which is the Payment of what was owing by an Equivalent otherwise not due. And he affirms, that Christ's Satisfaction was not a mere fulfilling the Will of God (tho it supposeth his Consent;) but it was a full Equivalent to what Punishments we deserved, in that it better answered the Ends of Divine Government, than the Sinner's Punishment would have done; it more fully demonstrated the vindictive Justice of God, than if the Sinner had been damned, and it was a full Satisfaction to governing Justice, and the End of the Law. Vbi supra Determ. 10, 11, 12, 15.
I thought this account necessary not only for the forementioned End, but also that our Agreement in opposition to Socinianism might not exclude Mr. B. and such as approve of his Scheme, which would add strength to that Heresy, and be injurious to many worthy Persons; nor ought a few words so fully explained be pressed to brand them with that odious Title, who could more plausibly fix the same Character on Persons from things plainly asserted in the Socinian sense, and subserving their Hypothesis: As Christ's Death was not necessary to the remission of Sin, the Promise of Forgiveness is no Effect of Christ's Death. Repentance under the Gospel is an Effect of justifying Faith in Christ. The preaching of Reconciliation to Sinners, is only to publish to them that God is already reconciled to them, and to call them to be reconciled to God. Many others might be instanced; but I think it were unjust, even upon such grounds, to call any of these Socinians.