Of the Death of Christ, Discourse · Chapter 2
CAP. II.
An entrance into the whole; Of the Nature of the payment made by CHRIST; VVith the Right ſtating of the things in Difference.
MR. Baxter having Compoſed his Aphoriſmes of Juſtification, with their Explications: before the publiſhing of them in Print, he Communicated them (as ſhould appear) to ſome of his neer acquaintance: Unto ſome things in them contained, one of his ſaid friends gives in ſome Exceptions; amongſt other things he oppoſeth unto thoſe Aphoriſmes, he alſo points at my contrary Judgement in one or two particulars, with my Reaſons produced for the Confirmation thereof. This provoketh their learned Author (though unwilling) to turn aſide to the Conſideration of thoſe Reaſons. Now the Firſt of thoſe Particulars being about the payment made for ſin, in the bloud of Chriſt, of what ſort, and kind it is: I ſhall willingly carry on the Enquiry to this further Iſſue, whereunto I am drawn out.
1 He looks upon the Stating of the Queſtion as I profeſſedly laid it down at my entrance into that Diſputation, and declares, That it is nothing at all to the Queſtion he hath in hand, nor looking that way.
He diſtinguiſheth (ſaith M. Baxter) betwixt paying the very thing that is in the Obligation, and paying of ſo much in another kind: Now this is not our Queſtion, nor any thing to it. Append. p. 137.
If it be ſo, I know no reaſon why I was plucked in to the following Diſpute, nor why M. Baxter ſhould caſt away ſo many Pages of his Book, upon that which is nothing at all to the buſineſs he had in hand.
But though there be nothing to this purpoſe, Page 137 of my Book, the place he was ſent to, yet Page 140 there is: As alſo ſomething contrary to what is expreſſed in the former Place, which he intimates in theſe words;
In Page 140, he ſtates the Queſtion far otherwiſe, (and yet ſuppoſeth it the ſame) viz. Whether Chriſt paid the idem, or the tantundum? which he interpreteth thus, (that which is not the ſame, nor equivalent unto it, but only in the Gracious acceptation of the Creditor: Now what he means by (not equivalent) I cannot tell.
1 If he mean (not of equal value) then he fights with a ſhadow: He wrongeth Grotius (for ought I can find in him) who teacheth no ſuch Doctrine: However I do not ſo uſe to Engliſh (ſolutio tantidem.) But if he mean that it is not equivalent, in procuring it's end ipſo facto, delivering the Debtor, without the Intervention of a new Conceſſion or Contract of the Creditor (as ſolutio ejuſdem doth) then I confeſs Grotius is againſt him, and ſo am I.
So alſo (God's Gracious acceptance) is either in accepting leſs in value then was due, and ſo remitting the reſt without payment, (this I plead not for) or elſe it is his accepting a refuſable payment, which though equal in value, yet he may chuſe to accept according to the tenor of the Obligation: This is Gracious acceptance which Grotius maintaineth: and ſo do I: and ſo diſtinguiſh betwixt ſolutio, and ſatisfactio, payment and ſatisfaction. Thus far he.
Sundry things are here imagined, and aſſerted: 1 Several Paſſages are pointed at in my Treatiſe, and a Contradiction between them intimated. 2 Various Conjectures given at my (plain, very plain) meaning, and divers things objected anſwerable to thoſe Conjectures, &c. Wherefore to cleer the whole, I ſhall Firſt give you in the Paſſages Oppoſed, and then Vindicate them from mutual Oppoſition, with what is beſides Charged on them.
The Firſt place mentioned in my Treatiſe is in page 137. where after I had diſcourſed of the Nature of ſatisfaction, in reference both unto things Real and Perſonal, I laid down a diſtinction in theſe words:
There may be a twofold ſatisfaction: 1 By a ſolution or payment of the very thing that is in the Obligation; either, by the Party himſelf who is bound, or by ſome other in his ſtead: As if I owe a man 20 pounds, and my Friend goeth and payeth it, my Creditor is fully ſatisfied. 2 By a ſolution or paying of ſo much although in another kind, not the ſame that is in the Obligation, which by the Creditors acceptation ſtands in Lieu of it: upon which alſo, Freedom followeth from the Obligation, by vertue of an Act of Favour.
What now ſayes M. B. to this? Why? It is nothing to the buſineſs he hath in hand.
Let then this paſs, and look to the next Paſſage, which is Oppoſed, and Suppoſed to ſtand in Oppoſition to the other.
Having laid down the former Diſtinction, paſſing on to ſome other things concerning the Nature of Satisfaction, and the eſtabliſhment of That of Chriſt from the Scripture, in Page 140, I apply that Diſtinction laid down before in General, to the kind of ſatisfaction made by Chriſt, in theſe words:
Whereas I ſaid that there is a twofold Satisfaction, whereby the Debtor is freed from the Obligation, that is upon him; the one being ſolutio ejuſdem, payment of the ſame thing that was in the Obligation: The other ſolutio tantidem, of that which is not the ſame, nor equivalent unto it, but only in the Gracious acceptation of the Creditor: It is worth our Enquiry, which of theſe it was that our Saviour did perform.
And accordingly I refer it to the Firſt.
This (ſaith M. B.) is a ſtating of the Queſtion far otherwiſe then before, yet ſuppoſing it the ſame.
But this I was ſo far from once miſtruſting before, as that being informed of it, I cannot as yet apprehend it to be ſo.
In Page 137 I lay down a diſtinction in general about the ſeveral kinds of ſatisfaction, which page 140 I plainly apply to the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, without any new, much leſs changed ſtating of a Queſtion.
My whole aim in that Enquiry, was to ſearch out that kind of puniſhment, which Chriſt underwent in making Satisfaction for ſin, viz. Whether it were the ſame that was threatned to the Tranſgreſſors themſelves, or whether ſomething elſe which God accepted in Lieu thereof, relaxing the Law, not only as to the Perſon ſuffering, but alſo as to the Penalty to be undergone?
The Firſt of theſe (and that with the concurrent ſuffrage of far the greateſt number of Proteſtant Divines) I Aſſert with ſundry Arguments, Page 141, 142, &c. 154, 155, 156. Unto which Aſſertion, he neither oppoſeth himſelf, nor once attempteth to Anſwer any of the Arguments whereby I proved it.
This being my Intendment, page 137, I intimate that Chriſt paid the Same Thing that was in the Obligation, as if in Things Real a Friend ſhould pay 20 pounds for him that owed ſo much, and not any thing in another kind: and Page 140 I Affirm that he paid Idem, that is the ſame thing that was in the Obligation; and not tantundum, ſomething equivalent thereunto, in another kind.
The Firſt of theſe is Nothing to our purpoſe (ſaith M. B.) but the Latter; the Latter croſſing the Former. So he. But truly (ſuch is my dulneſs) I cannot as yet be won to his mind herein.
But though I agree with my ſelf, perhaps I do not with the Truth. That deſcription of ſolutio tantidem, viz. That it is a payment of that which is not the ſame, nor equivalent unto it, but only in the Gracious Acceptation of the Creditor, is Peculiarly oppoſed.
To make this Expreſſion obnoxious to an Exception, M. B. divides it, that ſo it may be entangled with a fallacy, foreign: And Firſt, he asks (as before) What I mean by [not equivalent] and hereunto ſuppoſſing two Anſwers, to the Firſt he oppoſſeth a Shadow, to the Latter Himſelf.
1 If (ſaith he) by [not equivalent] you mean not of equal value, you fight with a Shadow, and wrong Grotius: However I do not uſe ſo to Engliſh ſolutio tantidem.
By [not equivalent] I mean that which is not of equal value, Anſw.or certainly I miſtook the word; and if ſo, had need enough to have gone to M. B. or ſome other learned man, to have learned to Engliſh ſolutio tantidem.
But, Do I not then fight with a ſhadow?
Truly cut my words thus off in the middle of their Senſe, and they will be found fit to Cope with no other Adverſary: but take them as they lie, and as intended, and there is ſcarce any ſhadow of Oppoſition to them, caſt by M. B. paſſing by. My words are, (It is not equivalent, but only in the Gracious Acceptation of the Creditor:) Is not the plain meaning of theſe words, That tantundem in Satisfaction, is not equivalent to idem foreign, but only foreign? what is Denied of it abſolutly, is Affirmed in ſome reſpect. He that ſayes, It is not equivalent, but only in Gracious Acceptation, in that ſenſe Affirms it to be equivalent; and that it is in reſpect of that ſenſe, That the things ſo called, is ſaid to be tantundem, that is equivalent.
Now what excepts M. B. hereunto? Doth he aſſert tantundem to be in this matter equivalent unto idem foreign? It is the very thing he oppoſeth all along, maintaining that ſolutio tantidem ſtands in need of Gracious Acceptance, ejuſdem of none: and therefore they are not as to their End foreign equivalent.
Or will he deny it to be equivalent in Gods Gracious Acceptance? this he alſo contendeth for himſelf. Though refuſable, yet equivalent.
What then is my Crime? I wrong Grotius! Wherein? in impoſing on him, that he ſhould ſay, It was not of equal value to the Idem▪ that Chriſt paid. Not one ſuch word, in any of the places mentioned. I ſay, Grotius maintains, That the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, was ſolutio tantidem. Will you deny it? Is it not his main endeavour to prove it ſo? Again, tantundem I ſay is not in this caſe equivalent to Idem, foreign, but only foreign: doth not M. B. labour to prove the ſame? Where then is the difference? Were it not for Ignoratio Elenchi in the Bottom, and Fallacia plurium interrogationum at the Top, this Diſcourſe would have been very empty.
2, But he caſts my words into another Frame, to give their ſenſe another Appearance; and ſaith,
If you mean That it is not equivalent in procuring it's End, ipſo facto, delivering the Debtor without the Intervention of a new conceſſion or contract of the Creditor, as ſolutio ejuſdem doth, then I confeſs Grotius is againſt you, and ſo am I.
Of Grotius I ſhall ſpeak afterwards:Anſw. for the preſent I apply my ſelf to M. B. and ſay,
1 If he intend to oppoſe himſelf to any thing I handle and aſſert in the place he conſidereth, he doth by this Quaerie-plainly foreign, and that from a ſecond inadvertency of the Argument in hand; It is of the nature of the Penalty undergon, and not of the Efficacy of the Satisfaction made thereby, that I there Diſpute.
2 I conceive that in this Interrogation and Anſwer, he wholly gives up the Cauſe, that he pretends to plead, and joyns with me (as he conceives my ſenſe to be) againſt Grotius and himſelf.
;If (ſaith he) he mean that it is not equivalent, in procuring it's End ipſo facto, without the Intervention of a new Conceſſion or Contract as ſolutio ejuſdem doth, then I am againſt him.
Well then: M. B. maintains that ſolutio tantidem is equivalent with ſolutio ejuſdem in obtaining it's End ipſo facto: for ſaith he, If I ſay it is not equivalent, he is againſt me. foreign. But is this his mind indeed? Will his words bear any other ſenſe?
3 Whether tantundem and idem in the way of Satisfaction be equivalent to the obtaining the End ipſo facto aimed at, (which he here aſſerts, though elſewhere conſtantly denyes couching in this diſtinction the foreign of a great part of his Diſcourſe) certainly is nothing at all to the Queſtion I there agitated; maintaining, That it was idem and not tantundum that Chriſt paid, and ſo the End of it obtained ipſo facto, anſwerable to the kind of the Efficacy and procurement thereof.
But perhaps I do not conceive his mind aright: peradventure his mind is, That if I do maintain the SATISFACTION OF CHRIST to procure the End aimed at, ipſo facto, as ſolutio ejuſdem would have done, then to profeſſe himſelf my Adverſary. But,
1 This is not here expreſſed, nor intimated.
2 It is nothing at all to me, who place the matter of the Satisfaction of Chriſt, in ſolutione ejuſdem.
3 About the End of Satisfaction in the place oppoſed I ſpeak not, but only of the Nature of the Penalty undergone whereby it was made.
4 To the thing it ſelf, I deſire to enquire;
1 What M. B. intends by ſolutio ejuſdem in the buſineſſe in hand? Doth he not maintain it to be the Offendors own undergoing the Penalty of the Law? What End I pray doth this obtain ipſo facto? Can it be any other but the Glory of Gods Juſtice in the everlaſting deſtruction of the Creature? How then can it poſſibly be ſuppoſed to attain the End ſpoken of ipſo facto? If this be the only meaning of ſolutio ejuſdem, in this ſenſe, the End of it is diſtant from the End of Satisfaction foreign.
By the laying the Penalty on Chriſt, that God intended the freedom of thoſe for whom he underwent that Penalty, I ſuppoſe cannot be doubted: but in inflicting it on the Offendors themſelves, that he hath any ſuch aim, wants an Origen to aſſert.
2 Whether the Penalty due to One, may not be undergon by Another? and if ſo, Whether it be not the ſame Penalty (the idem) or no? In things Real, I gave an Inſtance before: If a man pay twenty pounds for another who owed it, doth not he pay the idem in the Obligation? And may not this hold in things Perſonal alſo?
Of the Satisfaction of Chriſt procuring it's End ipſo facto, (I mean in it's own kind, for the Death of Chriſt muſt be conſidered as Meritorious, as well as Satisfactory if deliverance be attended as the End of it) I ſhall ſpeak afterwards in it's proper place. The preſent Controverſie is no more but this;
Whether Chriſt underwent the Penalty threatned unto us, or ſome other thing accepted in ſtead thereof, by a new Conſtitution? Which is all one, Whether in laying our iniquities upon Chriſt, the Law of God was relaxed only as to the Perſons ſuffering, or alſo as to the Penalty ſuffered? That is, Whether Chriſt paid the idem in the Obligation, or tantundum? To ſuppoſe that the idem of the Obligation is not only the Penalty it ſelf, but alſo the Offendors own ſuffering that Penalty, and then to enquire, Whether Chriſt underwent the idem, is to create an eaſie Enemy, to triumph in his dejection.
That the Law was relaxed, as to the perſons ſuffering, I poſitively Aſſert; but as to the Penalty it ſelf, that is not mentioned. Of theſe two things alone then muſt be our Enquiry.
1 Whether Chriſt in making ſatisfaction, underwent that Penalty that was threatned to the Offendors themſelves?
2 Whether the Penalty though undergone by another, be not the idem of the Obligation?
Of both theſe after the cleering of the reſidue of Mr Baxters Exceptions.
Nextly he requireth what I intend by Gracious Acceptance, or rather giveth in his own ſenſe of it, in theſe words.Pa. 138, 139
So alſo (Gods Gracious Acceptance) is either his accepting leſſe in value then was due, and ſo remitting the reſt without payment: this I plead not for: or elſe it is his accepting of a refuſeable Payment, which though equal in value, yet he may chuſe to accept according to the tenor of the Obligation. This is Gracious acceptance which Grotius maintaineth: and ſo do I. Thus far, he.
Now neither is this any more to the buſineſs … have in hand. For,
1 The value of any Satisfaction in this Buſineſs, ariſeth not from the innate worth of the things whereby it is made; but purely from Gods free Conſtitution of them to ſuch an End. A diſtinction cānot be allowed of more or leſs value in the things appointed of God for the ſame End; All their value ariſeth meerly from that appointment: they have ſo much as he aſcribeth to them, and no more: Now neither idem nor tantundum are here ſatisfactory, but by vertue of divine Conſtitution: only in tantundem I require a peculiar acceptance to make it equivalent to idem in this buſineſs, that is as to ſatisfaction: or (if you pleaſe) an acceptance of that which is not idem, to make it a tantundum. So that this Gracious Acceptance, is not an accepting of that which is leſs in value then what is in the Obligation, but a free Conſtitution appointing another thing to the End, which before was not appointed.
2 He ſuppoſeth me, (if in ſo many miſtakes of his, I miſtake him not) to deny all Gracious Acceptance where the Idem is paid, which (in the preſent caſe) is falſe: I aſſert it neceſſary, becauſe not paid per eundem: yea and that other perſon not procured by the Debtor, but graciouſly aſſigned by the Creditor.
3 To make up his Gracious acceptance in his latter ſenſe, he diſtinguiſheth of payments refuſable, and not refuſable; in the Application of which diſtinction unto the payment made by Chriſt, I cannot cloſe with him.
For,
A Payment is refuſable either abſolutly and in it ſelf, or upon ſuppoſal: The Death of Chriſt conſidered abſolutly and in it ſelf, may be ſaid to be refuſable as to be made a Payment; not a refuſable payment: and that, not becauſe not refuſable, but becauſe not a payment. Nothing can poſſibly tend to the procurement and compaſſing of any End by the way of Payment, with the Lord, but what is built upon ſome free Compact, Promiſe, or Obligation of his Own. But now conſider it as an Iſſue flowing from divine Conſtitution, making it a payment, and ſo it was no way refuſable, as to the compaſſing of the End appointed. Thus alſo, as to the Obligation of the Law, for the fulfilling thereof, it was refuſable in reſpect of the perſon paying, not in reſpect of the payment made: That former reſpect being alſo taken off by divine Conſtitution, and Relaxation of the Law as to that, it becometh wholly unrefuſable: that is, As it was paid it was ſo; for ſatisfaction was made thereby upon the former ſuppoſals of Conſtitution and Relaxation.
4 Doth not Mr B. ſuppoſe, That in the very Tenure of the Obligation there is required a ſolution, tending to the ſame End as ſatisfaction doth? Nay, Is not that foreign the foreign of this Diſcourſe? Deliverance is the aim of Satisfaction, which receives it's Spring and Being from the Conſtitution thereof. But is there any ſuch thing as Deliverance once aimed at, or intended in the tenor of the Obligation? I ſuppoſe no.
5 Neither is the Diſtinction of ſolutio and ſatisfactio (which Mr B. cloſeth withal) of any weight in this Buſineſs; unleſs it would hold foreign, which it will not, and ſo is of no uſe here.
For,
1 There is ſolutio tantidem, as well as ejuſdem, and therein conſiſts ſatisfaction according to Mr B.
2 Whether Satisfaction be inconſiſtant with ſolutio ejuſdem, but not per eundem is the foreign.
After all this Mr B. ads,
Yet here Mr Owen enters the Liſt with Grotius.
Where I pray?Anſw. I might very juſtly make enquiry from the Beginning to the Ending of this Diſcourſe, to find out what it is, that this word HERE, particularly anſwereth unto. But to avoid as much as poſſible all ſtrife of words, I deſire the Reader to view the Controverſie agitated between Grotius and my ſelf, not as here repreſented by Mr Baxter, ſo changed by a new dreſs, That I might juſtly refuſe to take any acquaintance with it, but as by my ſelf laid down in the places excepted againſt; and he will quickly find it to be,
1 Not whether the Law were at all Relaxed, but whether it were relaxed as well in reſpect of the Penalty to be ſuffered, as of the Perſon ſuffering? That is, Whether God be only a Rector, or a Rector and Creditor alſo in this Buſineſſe? (which Controverſie by the way, is ſo confuſedly Propoſed, or rather ſtrangly handled by Mr B. page 145, where he adjudges me in a ſucceſſeleſs aſſault of Grotius, as makes it evident he never once peruſed it.)
2 Nor Secondly, Whether there be any need of Gods Gracious Acceptance in this buſineſſe, or no; for I Aſſert it neceſſary (as before deſcribed) in reference to ſolutio ejuſdem, ſed non per eundem.
3 Neither Thirdly, Whether the Satisfaction of Chriſt conſidered abſolutly, and in ſtatu diviſo, and materially, be refuſable, which I conſidered not, or be unrefuſable, ſuppoſing the Divine Conſtitution, which Grotius (as I take it) delivered not himſelf in. Nor,
4 About the value of the Payment of Chriſt in reference to Acceptance; but meerly (as I ſaid before,)
Whether the Lord appointing an End of Deliverance, neither intimated nor couched in the Obligation, nor any of it's Attendencies, conſtituting a way for the attainment of that End, by receiving Satisfaction to the Obligation, did appoint that the thing in the Obligation ſhould be paid though by Another, or elſe ſome new thing that (of it ſelf, and by it ſelf) never was in the Obligation, either before or after it's ſolution: As the Payment made by Chriſt muſt be granted ſuch, unleſſe it were for ſubſtance the ſame which the LAW required.
And here (with moſt Divines) I maintain the Firſt, viz. That the Law was Relaxed in reſpect of the Perſon ſuffering, but Executed in reſpect of the Penalty ſuffered: Relaxation and Execution are not in this buſineſſe oppoſed foreign but only foreign.
He that would ſee this further affirmed, may conſult what I wrote of it in the Place oppoſed, which is not once moved by any thing here ſpoken to the contrary.
By the way obſerve, I ſpeak only of the Penalty of the Law, and the Paſſive Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, ſtrictly ſo called: For his Active Righteouſneſs or Obedience to the Law, (though he did many things we were not oblieged unto, for the manifeſtation of himſelf, and Confirmation of the Doctrine of the Goſpel) that it was the very idem of us required. I ſuppoſe none can doubt.
What place that Active Righteouſneſs of Chriſt hath, or what is it's uſe in our Juſtification, I do not now enquire, being unwilling to immix my ſelf unneceſſarily in any Controverſie, though I cannot but ſuppoſe that M. B. his Diſcourſe hereabouts gives Advantage enough, even Minorum Gentium Theologis, to ordinary Divines (as he calls them) to deal with him in it.