Of the Death of Christ, Discourse · Chapter 4
CAP. IV.
Further of the matter of the Satisfaction of Chriſt, wherein is proved, That it was the ſame that was in the Obligation.
IT being ſuppoſed not to be ſufficient to have ſhewed the weakneſs of my Endeavour to Aſſert and Vindicate from Oppoſition, what I had undertaken.
Mr Baxter addeth, That I give up the Cauſe about which I contend, as having indeed not underſtood him, whom I undertook to Oppoſe, in theſe words:
Mr Owen giveth up the Cauſe at laſt, and ſaith as Grotius: (having not underſtood Grotius his meaning) as appeareth, Pag. 141, 142, 143.
Whether I underſtand Grotius or no,Anſw. will by and by appear. Whether Mr B. underſtandeth Me, or the Controverſie by me handled, you ſhall have now a TRYAL.
The Aſſertion which alone I ſeek to Maintain, is this;
That the Puniſhment which our Saviour under-went, was the ſame that the Law required of us: God relaxing his Law as to the Perſon ſuffering, but not as to the Penalty ſuffered.
Now, if from this I draw back in any of the Conceſſions following collected from pag. 141, 142, 143. I depracate not the Cenſure of giving up the Cauſe I contended for. If otherwiſe, there is a great miſtake in ſome body of the whole buſineſſe.
Of the things then Obſerve according to Mr B. his Order, I ſhall take a brief account.
1 He acknowledgeth (ſaith he) That the Payment is not made by the Party to whom Remiſſion is granted, (and ſo ſaith every man that is a Chriſtian.)
This is a part of the Poſition it ſelf I maintain,Anſw. and ſo no going back from it: So that as to this, I may paſſe as a Chriſtian.
2 He ſaith (ads he) it was a full valuable Compenſation (therefore not of the ſame.
1 This Inference would trouble Mr B. to prove.Anſw.
2 Therefore not made by the ſame, nor by any of the Debtors appointment, will follow, (perhaps) but no more.
3 That by Reaſon of the Obligation upon us, we our ſelves were bound to undergo the puniſhment. Therefore Chriſts puniſhment was not in the Obligation, but only ours, and ſo the Law was not fully Executed, but Relaxed.
1 This is my Theſis fully,Anſw. the Law was Executed as to its Penalty, relaxed as to the Perſon ſuffering.
2 The Puniſhment that Chriſt under-went, was in the Obligation, though threatned to us.
4 He ſaith, he meaneth not that Chriſt bore the ſame puniſhment due to us in all Accidents of Duration and the like: but the ſame in weight and preaſure (therfore not the ſame in the Obligation, becauſe not fully the ſame Act.
The Accidents I mention,Anſw. follow and attend the Perſon ſuffering, and not the Penalty it ſelf. All Evils in any ſuffering as far as they are ſinful, attend the Condition of the Parties that Suffer: Every thing uſually recounted by thoſe who make this and the like Exceptions, as far as they are purely penal, were on Chriſt.
5 He ſaith God had power ſo far to relax his own LAW, as to have the name of a Surety put into the Obligation, which before was not there, and then to require the whole debt of that Surety.
And what ſaith Grotius more then this? If the ſame things in the Obligation be paid, then the Law is Executed: and if Executed, then not Relaxed. Here he confeſſeth. That the Sureties name was not in the Obligation, and that God Relaxed the Law to put it in. Now the main buſineſſe that Grotius drives at there, is to prove this Relaxation of the Law, and the non-Execution of it on the Offenders threatned. Thus far Mr Baxter.
1 All this proves not at all the things intended,Anſw. neither doth any Conceſſion here mentioned, in the leaſt take off from the main Aſſertion I maintain, as is apparent any at firſt view. 2 Grotius is ſo far from ſaying more then I do, that he ſayes not ſo much. 3 This Paralogiſme if the Law be Executed, then not Relaxed; and on the contrary, ariſeth-meerly from a non-Conſideration of the nature of Contradictories: The Oppoſition fancied here is not foreign, as is required of Contradictions: 4 The Obſervation, that Crown main buſineſs is other, diſcovereth the Bottom of M. B. his miſtake. Even a ſuppoſal that I ſhould oppoſe Grotius in his main Intendment in the place Conſidered, which was not once in my thoughts. It was meerly about the nature of the Penalty that Chriſt underwent, that I Diſcourſed. How the Relaxation of the Law, as to the Commutation of Perſons may be Eſtabliſhed, whether we affirm, Chriſt to have paid the Idem or Tantundem. And that Mr B. affirms the ſame with me, I can prove by twenty Inſtances. The Reader (if he pleaſe) may conſult Pag. 18. & 25. 33, 34, 35. 42. 48. and in plain terms Pag. 81. In reſpect of puniſhment abſtracting from Perſons, the Law was not diſpenſed withal as to Chriſt? And what ſaid I more?
And ſo much (if not too much) to Mr Baxters Exceptions, which of what weight and force they are, I leave to others to judge.
That which I maintain as to this Point in Difference, I have alſo made apparent; It is wholly comprized under theſe Two Heads:
1 Chriſt ſuffered the ſame Penalty which was in the Obligation.
2 To do ſo, is to make Payment ejuſdem, and not tantidem.
The REASONS of both, I ſhall briefly ſubjoyne.
And as to the FIRST, they are theſe following:
1 The Scripture hath expreſly revealed the Tranſlation of Puniſhment in reſpect of the Subjects ſuffering it: but hath not ſpoken one word of the change of the kind of Puniſhment, but rather the contrary is affirmed. Rom. 8. 32. He ſpared not his own SON, but delivered him up for us all.
2 All the Puniſhment due to us, was contained in the Curſe and Sanction of the Law: That is the Penalty of the Obligation whereof we ſpake; but this was undergon by the Lord Chriſt. For he hath REDEEMED us from the Curſe of the LAW, being made a Curſe for us, Gall. 3. 13.
3 Where God condemneth ſin, there he condems it, in that very Puniſhment which is due unto it in the Sinner, or rather to the Sinner for it. He hath revealed but one Rule of his proceeding in this caſe. How he condemned ſin in the fleſh of Chriſt: or in him, ſent in the likeneſſe of ſinful fleſh. Rom. 8. 30. God ſending his own Son in the likeneſſe of ſinful Fleſh, and for Sin condemned ſin in the fleſh. The condemning of Sin, is the infliction of Puniſhment due to Sin.
4 The whole Penalty of Sin is Death, Gen. 2. 11. This Chriſt underwent for us. Heb. 2. 14. He taſted Death. And to die for another, is to undergo that Death which that other ſhould have undergone, 2 Sam. 18. 33. It is true, this Death may be conſidered either in Reſpect of its Eſſence, (if I may be allowed ſo to ſpeak) which is called the pains of Hell which Chriſt underwent, Pſal. 18. 6. and 22. 1. Luke 22. 44. or of its Attendencies, as Duration and the like, which he could not undergo: Pſal. 16. 20. Acts 2. So that whereas Eternal Death may be conſidered Two wayes, either as ſuch in potentia, and in its own nature, or as actually: So, our Saviour underwent it not in the latter, but firſt ſenſe, Heb. 2. 9. 14. which by the Dignity of his Perſon, 1 Pet. 3. 18. Heb. 9. 26. 28. Rom. 5. 9. which raiſes the Eſtimation of Puniſhment, is aequipotent to the other. There is a ſameneſs in Chriſts ſufferings with that in the Obligation in reſpect of Eſſence, and equivalency in reſpect of Attendencies.
5 The meeting of our Iniquities upon Chriſt, Iſa. 53. 6. and his being thereby made ſin for us, 2 Cor. 5. 21. lay the very Puniſhment of our Sin, as to us threatned, upon him.
6 Conſider the Scriptural Deſcriptions you have of his Perpeſſions, and ſee if they do not plainly hold out the utmoſt that ever was threatned to ſin. There is the foreign Iſa. 53. 5. Peters foreign, 1 Pet. 2. 24. the liver, nibex, wound, ſtripe, that in our ſtead was ſo on him, that thereby we are healed. Thoſe Expreſſions of the Condition of his Soul in his ſufferings, whereby he is ſaid foreign, Mat. 26. 34. Mark 14. 33. foreign. Luke 22. 44. Sadneſs unto death, Mat. 26. 38. That dreadful cry, Why haſt thou forſaken me? Thoſe cryes out of the deep, and mighty ſupplications under his fear, Heb. 5. 7. that were upon him do all make out, That the bitterneſs of the Death due to Sin was fully upon his Soul. Sum all his outward appearing Preaſures, Mocks, Scoffs, Scorns, Croſs, Wounds, Death, &c. And what do ſome of their afflictions, who have ſuffered for his Name, come ſhort of it? And yet how far were they above thoſe dreadful expreſſions of anguiſh, which we find upon the fellow of the Lord of Hosts, the Lyon of the Tribe of Judah, who received not the Spirit by meaſure, but was anoynted with the Oyle of Gladneſs above his Fellows? Certainly his un-conceivable ſufferings were in an other kind, and ſuch as ſet no example to any of his, to ſuffer in after him. It was no leſs then the weight of the wrath of God, and the whole puniſhment due to ſin, that he wreſtled under.
2 The Second Part of my Poſition is to me confirmed by theſe, and the like Arguments: That there is a Diſtinction to be allowed between the Penalty and the Perſon ſuffering, is a common apprehenſion: eſpecially when the nature of the Penalty is only enquired after. If a man that had but one Eye were Cenſured to have an Eye put out, and a dear Friend pitying his deplorable Condition, knowing, that by undergoing the Puniſhment decreed, he muſt be left to utter blindneſs, ſhould upon the allowance of Commutation (as in Zaleucus caſe) ſubmit to have one of his own Eyes put out, and ſo ſatisfie the Sentence given, though by having two Eyes, he avoid himſelf the miſery that would have attended the others ſuffering, who had but one. If (I ſay) in this Caſe, any ſhould ask, Whether he underwent the idem the other ſhould have done, or tantundem, I ſuppoſe the Anſwer would be eaſie. In things Real it is unqueſtionable; and in things Perſonally, I ſhall purſue it no further, leſt it ſhould prove a ſtrife of words. And thus far of the ſuffering of Chriſt in a way of Controverſie: what follows will be more Poſitive.