by John Brown of Wamphray
Mr. Goodwine tels us in his 14. Conclusion. That the sentence or Curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death: But this death of Christ was a ground or consideration to God, where upon to dispense with his Law, & to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty, or curse therein threatned. And (1) This is directly contrary to what the Apostle faith Gal. 3:13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us; for it is written, cursed is every one, that hangeth on a tree. It was the Curse of the Law, that we were under, & were to be delivered from; and this Christ hath delivered us from, by coming in our stead & bearing it for us, yea bearing it so, that he is said to have been made it, being made a Curse for us, which is a most emphatick expression, to hold forth Christ's bearing the very penalty, threatned in the Law, which cursed every one, that continued not in all things, which are written in the book of the Law to do them. vers. 10; Deut. 27:26. If Christ underwent the Curse of the Law, he, sure, did suffer the very sentence, or punishment threatned in the Law; for the Curse of the Law can import no other thing. (2) If Christ did not bear the sentence or Curse of the Law, how could he be said to have died or suffered in our place, room or stead? No man is said to suffer in the place & stead of another, who doth not suffer that same particular kind of punishment, that the other is obnoxious to, and is obliged to suffer. (3) Why was Christ said to be made sin for us 2. Cor. 5:21. & to bear our iniquities Esai. 53:6; 1. Pet. 2:24. If he did not undergoe the very punishment; that was due to us, because of sin? (4) This is to give away the cause, in a great measure, unto the Socinians; who will not yeeld, that Christ's death was any satisfaction to the justice, or payment of our criminal debt, or a suffering the punishment of sin, due to us; for if Christ did nor suffer the curse & sentence of the Law, he did not suffer the punishment, which the Law threatned, and justice required; he did not suffer any punishment at all, if he suffered not our punishment, or that which was due to us; he did not stand in our Law-place to answere all the demands of justice according to what we were liable unto by the Law? nor did he bear our sins in his own body on the cross. (5) It Christ's death was a ground or consideration to God, whereupon to dispense with his Law; then it is apparent, that the consideration of Christ's death was anterior to the dispensing with the Law: whereas the contrary is rather true, to wit, that the Lord's dispensing with the Law, was anteriour to his sending of Christ, because the Law properly knowing no mediator, and requiring none to suffer the penalty for another, must first, in order of nature, be considered, as dispensed with, before Christ be substituted in the room of sinners to undergo what they deserved. (6) If it was only a ground to God, whereupon to let fall, or suspend the execution of the penalty, then it seemeth, Christ's death was no full payment, or Satisfaction; for a full Satisfaction requireth more than a suspension of the execution of the punishment, even a full delivery there-from.
Let us heare his reason. Because (saith he) the threatning & Curse of the Law was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or Righteous, but against transgressours only. Therefore God in inflecting death upon Christ being innocent and Righteous, did not follow the purpose or intent of the Law—but in sparing & forbearing the transgressours (who according to the tenor of the Law should have bin punished) manifestly despenseth with the Law, and doth not execute it. Ans. All this being granted, yet it will not follow, that the sentence & Curse of the Law was not executed upon Christ in his death: for notwithstanding of this dispensing with the Law, as to the persons; Yet was there no Relaxation of the Law, as to the punishment threatned? Though the Law did not require, that the innocent should suffer; Yet the Supream Lord & Ruler dispensing with his own Law so far, as to substitute an innocent person, in the room & place of sinners, the Law required, that that innocent person, taking on that penalty, and thereby making himself nocent, as to the penalty, should suffer the same that was threatned, & consequently bear the Curse, threatned in the Law.
As (saith he further for explication) when Zaleucus (the Locrian Lawgiver) caused one of his own eyes to be put out, that one of his son's eyes might be spared, who according both to the letter & intent of the Law, should have lost both, he did not precisely execute the Law, but gave a sufficient account or consideration, why it should for that time be dispensed with. Ans. This speaks not home to our case, wherein we pay not the half, nor no part of the penalty. But Christ payeth the whole, as substitute in our room. If Zaleucus had substituted himself in the room of his son, & suffered both his own eyes to be put out, though the Law had been dispensed with, as to the persons, yet the penalty of the loss of both eyes had been payed, & the same punishment, which the Law required, had been exacted: And so it is in our case, as is manifest.
Yet he granteth, that in some sense, Christ may be said to have suffered the penalty or Curse of the Law; as 1. It was the Curse or penalty of the Law (saith he) as now hanging over the head of the world, & ready to be executed upon all men for sin, that occasioned his sufferings. Ans. If this were all, all the beasts & senseless creatures, may be as well said to have suffered the penalty & Curse of the Law; & consequently to have suffered for man & to have born mans sin, in order to his Redemption, as Christ; for the sin, & penalty of sin whereunto man was liable, did occasion their suffering, or being subjected to vanity Rom. 8:20, 21. Thus our whole Redemption is subverted, & the cause yeelded unto the wicked Socinians, for if this be so, Christ had not our sins laid upon him, he did not beare our sins in his body on the tree, he was not wounded for our transgressions, the chastisement of our peace was not on him; He was not made sin for us. He was not our Cautioner & High Priest; He died not in our room & stead.
Againe 2. (saith he) (& some what more properly) Christ may be said to have suffered the Curse of the Law, because the things, which he suffered were of the same nature & kinde (at least in part) with these things, which God intended by the Curse of the Law. Ans. Though this seemeth to come nigher to the truth, than the former; Yet it cannot give full satisfaction, untill it be explained, what that part, is in respect of which, only Christ's sufferings were of the same Nature & kinde, with what the Law threatned. Let us hear therefore what followeth; & see if thence satisfaction can come. But if by the Curse (saith he) of the Law, we understand either that entire systeme & historical body (as it were) of penalties & evils, which the Law itself intends in the terme; or else include & take-in the intent of the Law, as touching the quality of the persons, upon whom it was to be executed; in neither of these sense, did Christ suffer the Curse of the Law. Ans. (1) This doth not explaine to us, what that part is, in which Christ sufferings are of the same Nature & kind, with what was intended by the Curse of the Law. (2) There is need of explication here, to make us understand, what is that entire Systeme & Historical body of penalties & evils, which the Law itself intends in the terme Curse, or death: for this is but to explaine one dark thing by what is more dark; & so can give no Satisfaction. (3) But if the alternative added be explicative, & so the two particulars here mentioned be one & the same; then we deny, that that doth properly belong to the essence of the penalty, as threatned in the Law: that is, every thing that necessarily attended the punishment, as inflicted on man, did not directly & essentially belong thereunto, as threatned by the Law, such as the everlastingness of death, despaire, & the like necessarily accompanying this punishment inflicted on sinners; so that notwithstanding Christ did not, neither could, endure these accidental & consequential evils; Yet he both did & might be said to suffer the Curse & death threatned by the Law, which is to be abstracted from what floweth not from the Law itself, but meerly from the Nature of the subject, or Condition of the sinner punished. But it may be, these words of his, the intent of the Law, as touching the quality of the persons, upon whom it was to be executed, have some other import, & that he meaneth, hereby no more but this, that the intent of the Law was, that the sinner should suffer: And indeed if so, it was impossible, that Christ's sufferings could answere the intent of the Law: But we have said above, that as to this, the Law was dispensed with; & yet notwithstanding Christ the substitute Sufferer did suffer the same kinde of punishment, that the Law threatned under the termes of Death & Curse. What he addeth Further can give no Satisfaction. So that God (saith he) required the death & sufferings of Christ, not that the Law properly, either in the letter or intention of it, might be executed; but on the contrary, that it might not be executed, I meane upon those, who being otherwise obnoxious unto it should beleeve. Ans. Though it be true, that God required the death & sufferings of Christ, not that the Law either in the letter or intention of it might be executed, as to that, wherein it was dispensed with: Yet God required the death & sufferings of Christ, that the letter & intent of the Law might be executed, as to that wherein it was not dispensed with: that is, as to the punishment therein threatned; And unless the Law, as to this, had been executed, no man obnoxious to it, should have escaped, and that because of the Veracity of God, yea & because of his justice, which he had determined to have Satisfied, ere sinfull man should escape the punishment.
In the next place he tels us, that God did not require the death & sufferings of Christ, as a valuable consideration, where on to dispence with his Law towards those that beleeve, more (if so much) in a way of Satisfaction to his justice, than to his wisdom. Ans. This favoureth rankly of Socinianisme. It is not for us to make such comparisons, as if God's Wisdom & justice were not at full agreement, and were not one. The Scripture tels us, that God set forth Jesus Christ is be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his Righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, To declare, I say, at this time his Righteousness, that he might be just & the justifier of him, which beleeveth in Jesus. Rom. 3:25, 26. And so it is manifest, that Satisfaction to justice was hereby intended: And this is enough to us, who know also, that in the whole contrivance of the business, the Infinite Wisdom of God is eminently relucent; And Love not to make any such comparisons: only we think, that a Propitiation, and Satisfaction, & the like termes, used in Scripture, in the expressing of this matter, have a direct aspect, & bear a manifest relation unto justice; and correspond directly there with, yea clearly enough inferre the same, though there were no other mention made expresly of the justice of God, in his matter.
What saith he next to prove this. for (doubtless) God might (saith he) with as much justice, as wisdom (if not much more) have passed by the cransgression of his Law, without consideration of satisfaction. Ans. What God might have done by his absolute Soveraignity, antecedent to his designe & purpose, as to the punishment, or the reatus pœnæ (which must not be extended to the reatus culpæ) is not to the question. But now, the Lord, having declared his determination & purpose to rule & governe the world thus, & to have the glory of his relative justice manifested in the Salvation of lost man, could not according to justice, passe by transgressions, without a satisfaction. He adds. No man will say, that in case a man hath bin injured & wronged, that therefore he is absolutly bound in justice, to seek satisfaction, though he be never so eminent in the grace & practice of justice: but in many cases of injuries sustained, a man may be bound, in point of wisdom, & discretion, to seek satisfaction in one kind or other. Ans. This is the Socinian way of argueing: & nothing to the pointe; for we are to look upon the Lord in this matter, not as a private man, who may dispense with injuries done him; but as a Righteous Governour, who is resolved to demonstrate his justice & equitie, and who therefore cannot suffer sin to go unpunished without a due satisfaction had, for the violation of his Lawes.
Nor is it to the point to tell us, that some hold, that God, if it had pleased him, might have pardoned Adam's transgression, without the Atonement made by the death of Christ: for they speak not of what God may now do, having determined to manifest the glory of his justice; but what he might have done in signorationis ante decretum. And as for that word Heb. 2:11. It became him. &c. it will as well respect the justice of God as his wisdom, seing it became him upon the account of justice, which he would have glorified.
Mr. Baxter in his Confess. Chap. IX. Sect. 5. pag. 289. thinketh that to say, that Christ paid the same thing, that the Law required of us, & not only satisfied for our not payment, is to subvert the substance of Religion: But this is only in his apprehension, & as he taketh up their meaning, who say so; And others possibly may have no lower thoughts of some, who hold, that Christ only gave such a sacrifice to God, as might be a valuable consideration, on which he might grant us the benefites, on such conditions as are most sutable to his ends & honour; & that he did not suffer the same, which the Law threatned. The screwing up of differences to such an hight, as to make either the one, or the other, subversive of the substance of Religion, had need to be upon clear & undeniable grounds, and not founded on meer sandy and loose consequences, such as those seem to me, by which Mr. Baxter maketh out this Charge.
For he tels us. The Idem is the perfect obedience, or the full punishment that the Law requires. It is supplicium ipsius delinquentis. Ans. But now, seing such as say, that Christ paid the Idem, will say as well as he, that when Christ suffered that, which they call the Idem, the person himself that sinned, did not suffer: And I would enquire at Mr. Baxter, whether paid Christ the Idem, as to all other respects beside; that is, whether Christ suffered all that penalty, which the Law did threaten to transgressours only this excepted (which must be excepted) that he did it in another person, & that he was not the person himself, that sinned, or not? If he say, Not, then the difference goeth deeper; but why doth he not then, to make out this heavy charge, Instance some particulars, threatned in the Law, which Christ did not undergo? And why doth he insist only on this one, that he was not ipse delinquens, but another person? If he grant that in all other respects, Christ paid the Idem; no man, sure, can see such difference here, as shall make the one side subvert the Substance of Religion: for it is a meer strife about a word; & it cometh all to this, whether when one man layeth down his life, to save another condemned to death, after all satisfaction in money, lands, rents service, or what else, hath been rejected, he can be said to pay the Idem, which the Law required, or not? Some Lawyers would possibly say, he did pay, or suffer the Idem; Mr. Baxter would say not, because he was not ipsa persona delinquens, was not the very person, that was condemned, but another. And yet death, unto which the other man was condemned, was inflicted upon him, and no less would be accepted as satisfaction, at his hands; which would make some say, that all that debate, whether it was the same, or the equivalent, were a meer needless contest about a word. And if it be but just so here, in our present debate, every one will judge it very hard, to call that a subversion of Religion, which, after examination & trial, is found to be but a strife about a word. Now, how will Mr. Baxter prove that the suffering of the Idem, is only, when it is supplicium ipsius delinquentis? And not also, when the same punishment, in all its essential ingredients, is undergone & suffered by another? When the Law imposeth the penalty of death, or of such a great summe of money, on a person transgressing such a Law; common discourse would say, & I suppose the Law give allowance thereto, that, when another came, & payed the same penalty for him, without the least abatement, he payed the same penalty, which he Law imposed, and not another; and not meerly a valuable consideration. It is true, the Law threatened only the transgressour, & obliged him to suffer; but notwithstanding, another might pay the very same thing, which the Law threatned & requireth.
He saith next (p. 290.) the Law never threatned a Surety: nor granteth any liberty of substitution: that was an act of God above the Law: If therefore the thing due were payed, it was we ourselves morally or legally, that suffered. Ans. Sure, some Lawes of men will threaten Sureties, & grant liberty of substitution too: But if he speak here only of the Law of God, we grant, that it threatned only the transgressour; & that it was an act of God above the Law, & dispensing therewith, that granted a substitution; Yet notwithstanding of this it is not prove, that that Substitute did not, or could not, suffer the same punishment, which the Law threatned. And if Mr. Baxter think, that the lawes not threatning a Surety, nor granting liberty of a substitution, will prove it; it is denied. Next His other consequence is as uncleare, viz. That if the thing due were payed, it was we ourselves that suffered personally: all these consequences run upon the first false ground, that no man can pay the Idem, but the very transgressour. What he meaneth by, we ourselves morally, he would do well to explicate. And as for legally, we ourselves may be said to do legally, what our Surety & undertaker doth for us. And if this be all he meaneth, viz. that if the thing due (to wit by Law, as threatned there) be payed, either we in our own persons, or out Surety for us, & in our room & Law place, payed it, it is true, but subversive of his hypothesis: It must then be some other thing that he meaneth by morally or legally & it must be the same with, or equivalent to personally: or the like; but his next words cleare his meaning; for he addeth; And is would not be ourselves legally, because it was not ourselves naturally. And what lawyer, I pray, will yeeld to this reason? I suppose, they will tell us, that we are said to do that legally, which our Cautioner, or Surety doth for us. But if he think otherwayes here also, that nothing can be accounted to be done by us legally, but what is done by our selves Naturally (which is a word of many significations, & might occasion much discourse) that is, personally; Yet it will not follow, that no other can suffer the Idem, that was threatned, but the delinquent himself.
At length he tels us, That if it had been ourselves legally, then the strickest justice could not have denied us a present & perfect deliverance ipso facto, seing no justice can demand more, than the idem quod debitur (rather dehetur) the whole debt of obedience or punishment. Ans. But what if ourselves, in our own natural persons, had undergone the penalty, had we therefore ipso facto attained a perfect deliverance? It will be confessed, I suppose, that all that underlye this punishment, underlye it for ever: how then doth their legall suffering the idem helpe them? If it be said, that they must eternally suffer, because never able to suffer so, as to make satisfaction: Yet still it is obvious, that their undergoing the idem in their own persons naturally, doth not advantage them, as to a present & perfect deliverance ipso facto, or ever at all. And where is then the truth of this axiome? Or where is its pertinency to our purpose? When a man is punished with death, according to the Law, is he ipso facto presently & perfectly delivered? It seemeth then, that the paving of the Idem, yea, or the tantundsm by another person, is more effectual for their liberation, than their paying of the Idem in their own persons. And againe the Law, in many cases granteth liberation, even when the Idem in Mr. Baxters sense is payed, that is, when another payeth down the same: Yea & likewise if the Creditor be satisfied, when another thing is payed: So that neither part of this assertion holdeth true, universally.
But yet some may say; That if the Idem or the very same, were payed by Christ, our liberation should immediatly follow. I Ans. It will not follow; for if we, in our own persons, had made full payment of that debt of suffering (which is impossible to be done in time) it might be granted, that actuall liberation would immediatly follow: but when we did not this, in our own persons; but Christ made full payment of what the Law could demand by way of punishment, or threatned, for us, it will not follow, that our deliverance should immediatly follow thereupon: and the reason is because it was such a paying of the Idem, as was refusable, and as God himself provided out of wonderful love & free grace; and was accorded unto by a mutual compact, according to the free & wise Conditions of which the benefites were to be given out.
Mr. Baxter in his Cath. Theol. part. 2. n. 48. saith, the Very nature & Reason of the Satisfactoriness of Christ's sufferings was not in being the very same either in kind, or in degree, which were due to all for whom he suffered. Whence we see, that he denieth, that Christ suffered the same, either in kind, or in degree, that was due by the Law to those for whom he suffered. His reason, why they could not be the same, which was due by the Law, he giveth (n. 49.) is the same we heard before viz. The Law made it due to the sinner himself. Which notwithstanding, it might be the same both as to kind & degree, which Christ suffered, that the Law made due; the substitution of a new person, that the Law did not provide, altereth not the punishment either as to kind, or as to degree. He addeth: and anothers suffering for him fulfilleth not the Law (which never said either thou, or another for thee shall die) but only satisfyeth the Law-giver, as he is above his own Law, & could dispense with is, his justice being satisfied & saved, dum alius solvit, aliud solvitur. Ans. Though the Law intend only the punishment of the transgressour; Yet when the Law-giver dispenseth with the Law, & accepteth of the punishment & suffering of another, the punishment & suffering of another, doth not eo spso, that it is the punishment & suffering of another, become different in kind & degree from the punishment enjoyned by the Law; as is obvious; when one man suffereth death for another, the Law being dispensed with, that made death due to the transgressour himself: his death doth not become coipso, that it is the death of another, than of him that transgressed, another kind of death, are distinct as to degrees; it may be the same as to both: And yet this is all the force of Mr. Baxter argument, dum alius solvit, aliud solvitur; which whether it be a certaine & universal rule in the Law, I much doubt: but though it were: Yet no man can hence inferre, that aliud quoad genus & gradus, eo ipso solvitur: for it is a rule in logick, that a genere ad speciem non sequitur affirmativè, so that though, when the Law requireth, that he who sinneth shall suffer, & die, & another suffereth & dieth, in the room & stead of him who sinned, it may be said, that in so farr aliud solvitus; Yet it cannot be hence inferred, that the death or suffering of him, who sinned not, is quite of another kind, & differeth in degrees from that death, which the Law made due to the sinner.
He mentioneth afterward in the 2, 3, 4. & 5. places some particulars, which were not in Christ's sufferings, & yet would have been in the sufferings of sinners themselves: But all this is to no purpose; for the question is not, whether Christ's sufferings were the same every way with the sufferings of the damned, as to all circumstances, & consequents, flowing from the Condition of sinners suffering; But whether they were the same, as to kind, with that death & Curse, which was threatned in the Law, by way of punishment, & which was therefore due by Law unto the transgressour. Let us now see the particulars. 2. And sin (saith he) itself (though not as sin) was the greatest part of the sinners punishment. To be alienated from God, & not to Love him & delight in him, but to be corrupted & deluded & tormented by concupiscence. Ans. These are indeed necessary consequents of sin in the person, who is a sinner, and are consequently punishment; but not directly such; neither were they threatned as punishments by the Law, & so do not belong to the essence & substance of that punishment, which the Law threatned, & which Christ was called to undertake. 3. Saith he. And the immediat unavoidable consequents resulting from sin itself, were punishments, which Christ did never undergo, (as to be hateful & displeasing to God, as contrary to his holy nature, to be related as criminal, to lose right to God's Favour & Kingdom. Ans. To be hateful & displeasing unto God, agreeth only to a creature (which God doth not hate, as such) as a sinner inherently: and though Christ did not feel God's hatred & anger against his own person, yet he felt his anger & hatred against sin, & sinners. And Christ was also related as Criminal, not inherently, but by imputation, when he was made sin for us. 2. Cor. 5:21. The sinner that is such inherently only, loseth right to God's Favour, & Christ missed the sense thereof, when he cried out, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? And 4. (saith he) none of the further punishment, which supposed real faultiness, could fall on Christ, as the torment of an accusing conscience, for rejecting & offending God, for casting away our own felicity & running into hell &c. the sense of God's hatred of us, as real sinners. Ans. All this is granted, but these belonged only to the punishment as inflicted on the sinner & transgressour himself, but did not belong to its essence & substance abstractly considered, & so could not accompany the same, as inflicted upon one, who was in himself wholly free of all sin. And this is yet more manifest in that which he mentioneth. 5. Saying much less the Desertions of the Spirit of holiness, to be left without goodness, in a state of sin, & to hate God for his justice & holiness, which will be the damneds case; for these did not belong to the essence & substance of the punishment, threatned in the Law; but were only consequents thereof, as inflicted on sinners inherently. We do not say, that Christ suffered, what the damned do suffer, or that he was in the damneds case. Thus, though we make them not of the same kind, with all that the damned do suffer; Yet without any blind zeal (as he is pleased to censure) we may say, that Christ suffered the same curse & death, that was threatned in the Law properly, as a punishments, as to substance; and yet no way be guilty of intollerable blaspheming of our Saviour.
The same answer may serve to that, which he saith (n. 50.) Nor could Christ's suffering be equal in degree, intensively & extensivly, to all that was deserved by the world, as is easily discernable by perusing what is now said, seing our deserved suffering lay in things of such a nature, as to be left in sin itself, destitute of God's image & love & communion, under his hatred, tormented in conscience, besides the ever-lasting torments in hell, which are more than these, upon all the millions of sinners, which were redeemed. This is already answered; & it is not demonstrated, that all these consequents & concomitants of the punishment, as inflicted on such as were sinners inherently, did properly belong to the essence & substance of the punishment threatned, in itself considered; And of this we only speak, for as to this, we only say, that Christ suffered the same. If two men be condemned to pay, each a thousand pounds, which none of them are well able to do, & a rich man undertaketh to pay the summe for one of the two, that rich man may well be said to have payed the same summe, that the poor man was obliged to pay, though his paying of that summe be not attended with such consequents & circumstances, as it would have been, if the poor man himself had been put to pay it, or as the other poor man findeth it, who is made to pay it; in the poor man it is necessarily attended with poverty to himself & all his family, & possibly he & all his must be sold for slaves to make up the summe; but the rich man can pay it without any such concomitants, or consequents, & yet be said to have payed the same summe.
It is to be observed, that Papists & some others use all these same arguments to prove, that Christ did not suffer any thing of the penalty of sin in his soul, as may be particularly seen in Parker de descensu lib. 3. But Mr. Baxter granteth (n. 51.) that Christ did suffer more in soul, than in body: And yet what answers are made by Parker & other reformed divines, in this matter, against Papist's, may also serve our turn against Mr. Baxter & others: Socinians also, (as may be seen in Smalcis Refut. lib. de Satisf. Christ Chap. 6. & 7.) upon these same grounds, deny, that Christ's sufferings were a proper satisfaction, he thereby not paying the Idem, the same, that man should have suffered. And Socinus Præl. Theol. Cap. 18. fol. 205. saith in plaine termes, That Christ did no way satisfie the justice of God by his sufferings, unless it be said, that he suffered the same things, which we should have suffered because of our sins. Therefore there is a necessity, to hold that Christ suffered the same for substance, that the Elect were liable to suffer, that it may the more clearly appear, that his sufferings were indeed a Satisfaction.
But Mr. Baxter tels us, in the same book (n. 149.) that Solution of the debt & satisfaction, strickly taken, thus differ, that Satisfaction is solutio tantidem, vel æquivalentis, alias indebiti. And if Christ be said to have paid the very same duty & punishment, which the Law required, he is denied to have satisfied, for our non-payment; for a Law that it fully performed can require no more, nor the Law-giver neither: And therefore both Satisfaction & Pardon are shut out. Ans. Thus we seem to be hardly straitned, for if we say, that Christ paid the Idem, the Same, Mr. Baxter thinketh we destroy thereby all Satisfaction & all Pardon, and so yeeld the cause to the Socinians: If upon the other hand, we say, that Christ did not suffer the Idem, we yeeld the cause unto the Socinians, and deny all Satisfaction, in ther judgment; and their consequence seemeth to be as rational, as Mr. Baxter's. But truth may be affirmed, without all hazard: And to make such a difference betwixt Solution & Satisfaction, is to play needlesly upon words, & at length will but recurre unto this, Si alius solvit, aliud solvitur; and so by saying that Christ's Satisfaction was also a solutio ejusdem, we shall deny both Satisfaction & Pardon; or by calling it so: But, as was said above, it is not fit to lay so much weight upon the simple use of a terme or word; and sure it is most unfit for Mr. Baxter to do so, who on all occasions, venteth his displeasure so much against others, who lay so much weight on meer termes of art, or words. But, as to the thing, sure, the creditor will think himself satisfied, when the same summe, which was oweing by one, is payed by another for the debitor, & that in the same species of Silver, or of Gold. And if that hold, that si alius solvit, aliud solvitur, Mr. Baxter may see, that if another pay, his payment may become a Satisfaction, because it is so far aliud another thing, though really & upon the matter, it be the same. And here lieth the truth, that we assert, Christ paid the very same suffering, that we were obliged to pay; but he being another, and not the persons guilty themselves, his sufferings were not only a solutio debiti, a payment of our debt, but also, as being performed by him, they were a Satisfaction to justice, and so much the rather a compleet Satisfaction, that they were the same sufferings, we were liable to, & not strickly equivalent. And this appeareth to me the more clear from what Mr. Baxter said before (n. 52. & 53.) where he hath these words. [The true reason of the Satisfactorieness of Christ's suffering was, that they were a most apt meanes for the demonstration of the Governing justice, holiness, Wisdom & Mercy of God, by which God could attaine to the ends of the Law & Government, better than by executing the Law on the world in its destruction.] Where we hear no word of its being solutio equivalentis alias indebiti. And next, all this is more clear by Christ's suffering the very same, that we were to suffer, than by saying that he suffered some other thing; The most clear demonstration of the Governing justice of God was in exacting of Christ the full penalty, & the very same punishment both in Soul & Body, that the Law of God made due unto transgressours; No other thing could give such a demonstration hereof, justice could not have required more; and justice had not fully been demonstrated by exacting less: and the exacting of the very same, both as to Kinde, and as to degrees keeped a just correspondence with the requisite demonstration of the Governing justice of God. Hereby also was his Holiness Wisdom & Mercy, whereby he attained the ends of the Law & Government, most clearly manifested, when he did not execute the Law upon the sinful world, but upon the substituted Cautioner, that the Elect world might be saved: This, I am sure, was evidently a full salvo to Gods justice, when the same punishment was paid down, that Law & justice called for. Not that God might give pardon & life to sinners, upon the new termes of the Covenant of Grace (as he speaketh n. 53.) for that looketh too like the Arminian Satisfaction: as if nothing but a possibility & freedom were here obtained for God to bestow pardon & life, upon such conditions; whereby notwithstanding of this Satisfaction, it might come to passe, that not one should be saved. See Colloq. Hag. p. 172. Impetratio salutis pro omnibus, est acquisitie possibilitatis, ut nimirum Deus, illæsâ suâ justitiâ, hominem peccatorem possit recipere in gratiam. See also Grevinch. ad Ames. fol. 9. Posita & præstita Christi morte & Satisfactione, fieri potest, ut, nemine novi fœderis conditionem præftante, nemo salvarctur. Therefore I judge it saifest to say. That justice was so satisfied, as that all such, for whom the Satisfaction was given, shall in due time, and according to God's own method, certainly receive both pardon & life, both grace & glory, both grace to beleeve in Christ, and all the other graces that follow thereupon, with life everlasting.