Of the Death of Christ, Discourse · Chapter 3
CAP. III.
The Arguments of Grotius, And their Defence by Mr. Baxter, about the Penalty under-gone by CHRIST in making Satisfaction, Conſidered.
THE State of the Queſtion in hand being as above laid down, let us now ſee what Mr Baxter his Judgment is of my ſucceſſe in that undertaking: Concerning which he thus delivereth himſelf;
Yet here Mr OWEN enters the Liſt with GROTIUS, And,
1 He over-looketh his greateſt Arguments.
2 He ſlightly Anſwereth only Two.
3 And when he hath done, he ſaith as Grotius doth, and yeeldeth the whole Cauſe.
Theſe Three things I will make appear in Order. Append. pag. 139.
A moſt unhappy Iſſue as can poſſibly be imagined, made up of Deceit, Weakneſs. and ſelf-Contradiction. But how is all this proved?
To make the Firſt thing appear, He produceth the Argument over-looked.
The chief Argument of Grotius and Voſſius (ſaith he) is drawn from the Tenor of the Obligation, and from the Event. The Obligation chargeth Puniſhment on the Offendor himſelf. It ſaith [In the day thou eateſt thou ſhalt die] And [Curſed is every one that continueth not in all things, &c.] Now if the ſame in the Obligation be paid, then the Law is Executed, and not Relaxed: and then every Sinner muſt die himſelf; for that is the idem, and very thing threatned: So that here, dum alias ſoluit, ſimul aliud ſolvitur. The Law threatned not Chriſt, but us: (beſides that, Chriſt ſuffered not the loſs of Gods Love, nor his Image and Graces, nor eternity of Torment, of which I have ſpoken in the Treatiſe) What ſaith Mr Owen to any of this?
Let the Reader obſerve what it is we have in hand.Anſw. It is not the main of the Controverſie Debated by Grotius wherein I do oppoſe him: Neither yet All in that particular whereabout the Oppoſition is. Now ſuppoſe (as he doth) That the puniſhing of the Perſon Offending is in the Obligation, yet I cannot but conceive that there be Two diſtinct things here: 1 The Conſtitution of the Penalty it ſelf to be undergone. 2 The Terminating of this Penalty upon the Perſon Offending. For this Latter, I Aſſert a Relaxation of the Law, which might be done, and yet the Penalty it ſelf in Reference to it's Conſtitution be eſtabliſhed. In thoſe places then (In the day thou eateſt, &c.) there is Death and the Curſe appointed for the Penalty, and the Perſon Offending appointed for the ſufferer. That the Law is Relaxed, in the Latter I grant, That the former was Executed on Chriſt I prove.
Now what ſayes this Argument to the Contrary?
If the ſame in the Obligation be paid, then the Law is Executed, not Relaxed. Then every Sinner muſt die himſelf, for that is the idem and very thing threatned. So that here dum alias ſoluit aliud ſolvitur.
Anſwer:
1 The Matter of the Obligation having plainly a double Conſideration, as before, it may be both Executed and Relaxed in ſundry reſpects.
2 The Idem and very thing threatned in the Conſtitution of the Law, is death; The Terminating of that Penalty to the Perſon Offending, was in the Commination, and had it not been Releaſed, muſt have been in the Execution: but in the Conſtitution of the Obligation which reſpects purely the kind of Penalty, primarily it was not. Death is the reward of Sin, is all that is there.
3 We Enquire not about Payment, but Suffering. To make that ſuffering a Payment ſuppoſeth another Conſtitution: by vertue whereof Chriſt ſuffering the ſame that was threatned: it became another thing in Payment, then it would have been, if the Perſon Offending had ſuffered himſelf.
4 That the Law threatned not Chriſt but us, is moſt true: but the Queſtion is, Whether Chriſt underwent not the threatning of the Law, not we? A Commutation of Perſons is allowed, Chriſt undergoing the Penalty of the Offence, though he were not the Perſon Offending, I cannot but ſtill ſuppoſe that he paid the Idem of the Obligation.
5 For the Parentheſis about Chriſt's not ſuffering the loſs of Gods love, &c. and the like Objections, they have been Anſwered neer a thouſand times already, and that by no ordinary Divines neither; ſo that I ſhall not further trouble any therewith.
How this is the Argument, the great chief Argument of Grotius and Voſſius, which Mr Baxter affirmes I overlooked.
That I did not Expreſs it, I eaſily grant: neither will I ſo wrong the ingenious Reader as to make any long Apology for my Omiſſion of it, conſidering the ſtate of the matter in difference as before propoſed: When Mr B. or any man elſe, ſhall be able to draw out any Concluſion from thence, That granting the relaxation of the Law as to the Perſon ſuffering, the Lord Chriſt did not undergo the Penalty conſtituted therein, or that undergoing the very Penalty appointed, he did not pay the idem in the Obligation, (ſuppoſing a new Conſtitution for the converting of ſuffering into a ſatisfactory payment) I ſhall then give a Reaſon why I Conſidered it not.
In the next place Mr B. giveth in the two Arguments wherewith I deal. And for the Firſt, about an Acquitment ipſo facto upon the payment of the Idem in the Obligation, with my Anſwer, refers it to be conſidered in another place: Which though I receive no ſmall Injury by, as ſhall be there declared, yet that I may not tranſgreſs the Order of Diſcourſe ſet me, I paſſe it by alſo until then.
The Second Argument of Grotius with my Anſwer, he thus expreſſeth:
To the Second Argument that the payment of the ſame thing in the Obligation leaveth no room for Pardon, he Anſwereth thus:
1 Gods Pardoning compriſeth the whole Diſpenſation of Grace in Chriſt; As 1 The laying of our Sin on Chriſt: 2 The imputation of his Righteouſneſs to us, which is no leſſe of Grace and Mercy. However God pardoneth all to US, but nothing to CHRIST: So that the Freedome of Pardon hath it's Foundation.
1 In Gods Will freely appointing this Satisfaction of Chriſt.
2 In a Gracious Acceptation of the decreed Satisfaction in our ſtead.
3 In a free Application of the Death of Chriſt to us.
To which I Anſwer, &c. So far he.
Though this may appear to be a diſtinct Expreſſion of my Anſwer, yet becauſe it ſeems to me, That the very ſtrength of it as laid down, is omitted; I ſhall deſire the Reader to peruſe it as it is there Propoſed, and it will give him ſome light into the thing in hand. I apply my ſelf to what is here Expreſſed, and Anſwer:
1 To the Objection propoſed from Grotius as above, I gave a Threefold Anſwer.
1 That Gracious Condonation of ſin, which I conceive to be the Sum of the glad tydings of the Goſpel, ſeemeth to comprize thoſe Two Acts before recounted; both which I there prove to be free, becauſe the very Merit and Satisfaction of Chriſt himſelf was founded on a free Compact and Covenant, or Conſtitution.
Now I had Three Reaſons (among others) that prevailed with me to make Gracious Condonation of ſo large extent, which I ſhall Expreſſe, and leave them to the thoughts of every Judicious Reader, whether they are enforcing thereunto, or no; being exceedingly indifferent what his Determination is: For the weight of my Anſwer depends not on it at all.
And they are theſe:
1, Becauſe that ſingle Act of remiſſion of ſins to particular perſons, (which is nothing but a diſolution of the Obligation of the Law, as unto them, whereby they are bound over to Puniſhment) as it is commonly reſtrained, is affirmed by them whom Grotius in that Book oppoſed (into whoſe Tents he was afterwards a Renegado) to be inconſiſtent with any Satisfaction at all; yea, that which Grotius maintains per tantundem. But now if you extend that Goſpel phraſe to the Compaſſe I have mentioned, they have not the leaſt Colour ſo to do.
2. Whereas the Scripture mentioneth, That through Chriſt is Preached the forgiveneſſe of Sin, Act. 13. 38. I do ſuppoſe that phraſe to be Comprehenſive of the whole manifeſtation of God in the COVENANT of Grace.
3, God expreſly ſaith, That this is his Covenant, That he will be merciful to our unrighteouſneſs, Heb. 8. 12.
By the way I cannot cloſe with Mr B. that this place to the Hebrews, and the other of Jeremiah, 31. 32, 33. do comprize but part of the Covenant, not the whole. God ſaying expreſly, THIS IS MY COVENANT: To ſay it is not, is not to Interpret the Word, but to Deny it. It is true, it is not ſaid that is the whole Covenant; no more is it that Chriſt is the Way, the Truth, and the Life only. As the want of that term of neſtriction, doth not enlarge in that, no more doth the want of the note of Ʋ niverſality reſtrain in this. To ſay thus, becauſe here is no Condition expreſſed, is foreign. If you mean ſuch a Condition as God requireth of us, and yet worketh in us, it is there punctually expreſſed, with reference to the nature of the COVENANT, whereof it is a Condition, which is to effect all the Conditions thereof, in the Covenanters. This by the way, having reſolvedly tied up my ſelf from a Debate of thoſe Poſitions which Mr B. dogmatizeth; though a large field, and eaſie to be walked in, lies open on every hand, for the ſcattering of many Magiſterial Dictates, which with confidence enough are crudily aſſerted.
This is (to return) my Firſt Anſwer, to the forementioned Objection, with the Reaſons of it, whereunto Mr B. excepteth, as followeth.
1 Pardon implyeth Chriſts Death as a Cauſe; but I would he had ſhewed the Scripture that makes Pardon ſo large a thing, as to comprize the whole Diſpenſation of Grace; or that maketh Chriſts death to be a part of it, or comprized in it.
2 If ſuch a word were in the Scripture, will he not confeſſe it to be Figurative, and not proper, and ſo not fit for this Diſpute.
3 Elſe when he ſaith, That Chriſts Death procured our Pardon, he meaneth that it procured it ſelf.
So he.
To all which I ſay,
1 The death of Chriſt, as it is a Cauſe of Pardon, is not once mentioned in any of my Anſwers: There is a wide Difference (in Conſideration) between Gods imputation of Sin to Chriſt, and the Death of Chriſt, as the meritorious cauſe of Pardon. So that this is Pura Ignoratio Elenchi.
2 Take Pardon in the large ſenſe I intimated, and ſo the Death of Chriſt is not the meritorious cauſe of the whole, but only of that particular in it, wherein it is commonly ſuppoſed ſolely to Conſiſt, of which before: But,
In what ſenſe, and upon what grounds, I extended gracious Condonation of ſin, unto that Compaſſe here mentioned, I have now expreſſed. Let it ſtand or fall, as it ſutes the Judgement of the Reader: the weight of my Anſwer depends not on it, at all.
My Second Anſwer to that Objection I gave in theſe words.
That Remiſſion, Grace, and Pardon which is in God for Sinners, is not oppoſſed to Chriſts Merits and Satisfaction, but ours: He pardoneth all to us, but he ſpared not his only Son, he bated him not one farthing.
To this Mr B, thus expreſſing it, (But it is of Grace to us, though not to Chriſt) Anſwereth: Doth not that cleerly intimate, That Chriſt was not in the Obligation? That the Law doth threaten every man perſonally, or elſe it had been no favour to accept it of another.
It is marvelous to me,Anſw. That a Learned man ſhould voluntarily chuſe an Adverſary to himſelf, and yet Conſider the very leaves which he undertakes to Confute, with ſo much Contempt or Oſcitancy, as to labour to prove againſt him, what he poſſitively Aſſerts terminis terminantibus. That Chriſt was not in the Obligation, that he was put in as a Surety by his own Conſent, God by his Soveraignty diſpenſing with the Law as to that, yet as a Creditor exacting of him the due Debt of the Law, is the maine Intendment of the place Mr Baxter here Conſidereth.
2 Grant All that here is ſaid, how doth it prove that Chriſt underwent not the very Penalty of the Law? Is it becauſe he was not Primarily in the Obligation? He was put in as a Surety to be the Object of it's Execution. Is it becauſe the Law doth threaten every man Perſonally? Chriſt underwent Really, what was threatned to others: as ſhall be proved: but, it is not then of favour to accept it: but this is the foreign. And thus to ſet it down, is but a Petition foreign.
3 How doth this Elude the force of my Anſwer? I ſee it not at all.
After this, I give a Third Anſwer to the former Objection, manifeſting how the FREEDOM of Pardon, may Conſiſt with Chriſt Satisfaction, in theſe words:
The Freedom then of Pardon hath not its foundation in any defect of the Merit or Satisfaction of Chriſt; but in Three other things:
1 The Will of God freely appointing the Satisfaction of Chriſt: Joh. 3. 16. Rom. 5. 8. 1 Joh. 4. 9.
2 In a Gracious Acceptation of that decreed Satisfaction in our ſteads, ſo many, no more.
3 In a free Application of the Death of Chriſt unto us. Remiſſion then excludes not a full Satisfaction by the ſolution of the very thing in the Obligation, but only the Solution or Satisfaction of him to whom Pardon and Remiſſion is granted.
It being the Freedom of Pardon that is denied. Upon the ſuppoſals of ſuch a Satisfaction as I Aſſert, I Demonſtrate from whence that Freedom doth accrew unto it, notwithſtanding a ſuppoſal of ſuch a Satisfaction: not that Pardon conſiſteth in the Three things there recounted, but that it hath its Freedom from them: That is, Suppoſing thoſe Three things, notwithſtanding the Intervention of Payment made by Chriſt, it cannot be, but Remiſſion of Sin unto us muſt be a free and gracious Act.
To all this Mr B. oppoſeth divers things. For,
1 Imputation of righteouſneſs (ſaith he) is not any part of Pardon, but a neceſſary Antecedent.
2 The ſame may be ſaid of Gods Acceptation.
3 Its Application is a large Phraſe, and may be meant of ſeveral Acts; but of which here I know not.
In a word this miſtake is very great.Anſw. I affirm the Freedom of Pardon to depend on thoſe things; he Anſwereth, That Pardon doth not conſiſt in theſe things. It is the Freedom of Pardon, whence it is; not the Nature of Pardon, wherein it is, that we have under Conſideration.
But (ſaith he) how can he call it a gracious Acceptation, a gracious Imputation, a free Application, if it were the ſame thing the Law requireth that was paid?
To pay all according to the full exaction of the Obligation, needeth no favour to procure Acceptance, Imputation, or Application. Can Juſtice refuſe to accept of ſuch a payment? or can it require any more?
Though I know not directly what it is he means by ſaying (I call it) yet I paſſe it over.Anſw.
2 If all this were done by the Perſons themſelves, or any one in their ſtead, procured and appointed by themſelves, then were there ſome difficulty in theſe Queſtions; but this being otherwiſe, there is none at all, as hath been declared.
3 How the Payment made by Chriſt was of Grace, yet in reſpect of the Obligation of the Law needed no favour, nor was refuſable by Juſtice, ſuppoſing its free Conſtitution, ſhall be afterwards declared. To me the Author ſeems not to have his wonted cleerneſs in this whole Section, which might adminiſter occaſion of further Enquiry and Exceptions, but I forbear.
And thus much be ſpoken, for the cleering and vindicating my Anſwer to the Arguments of Grotius againſt Chriſts paying the Idem of the Obligation: The next ſhall further confirme the Truth.