" Neque eiiiiu hie levia aut luUicra petuutur
Praeiiiia, Icctotid Ce vita iiiiitusecjue salute Certatur."'
They are things which immediately and directly in themselves concern the eternal salvation of the souls of men ; and their consideration ought always to be attended with a due sense of their weight and importance. Secondly, Let him bring with him a due reverence of the majesty, and infinite, incomprehensiiile nature of God, as that which is not to be prostituted to the captious and sophistical scanning of men of corrupt minds, but to be humbly adored, according to the revelation that he hath made of himself. Thirdly, That he be willing to submit his soul and conscience to the plain and obvious sense of Scripture propositions and testimonies, without seeking out evasions and pretences for unbeUef. These requests I cannot but judge equal, and fear not the success where they are sincerely complied withal. I have only to add, that in handling the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ, I have proceeded on that principle which, as it is fully confirmed in the Scripture, so it hath been constantly maintained and adhered unto by the most of tliose who with judgment and success have managed these controversies against the Socinians: and this is, that the essential holiness of God, with his justice or righteousness, as the supreme governor of all, did indispensably require that sin should not abso- lutely go unpunished ; and that it should do so, stands in a repugnancy to those holy properties of his nature. This, I say, hath been always constantly maintained by far the greatest number of them who have thoroughly understood the contra- versy in this matter, and have successfully engaged in it. And as tlieir arguments fur their assertion are plainly unanswerable, so the neglect of abiiling by it is cause- lessly to forego one of the most fundamental and invincible principles in our cause. He who first laboured in the defence of the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ, after Socinus had formed his imaginations about the salvation that he wrought, and began to dispute about it, was Covetus,^ a learned man, who laid the foundation of his whole disputation in the justice of God, necessarily requiring, and indispensably, the punishment of sin. And, indeed, the state of the controversy as it is laid down l)y Socinus, in his book " De Jesu Christo Servatore," which is an answer to tliis Covetus, is genuine, and that which ought not to be receded from, as having been the direct ground of all the controversial writings on that subject which have since been published in Europe. And it is in these words laid down by Socinus himself:
1 " Nee eiiim levia aut ludicra petuutur
Prsemia, Bed Tumi de vita et sanguine certant." — Virg. ^n. xii. 764. J The only notice of this divine we can discover will be found in the Hibliothecn of Konigius (IG78). All the information he communicates respectiiiR him is in these words :-" Covetus (.laeobus) I'arisicnsis Tlicolo(;us. .Vn. 1608 obiit. Ueliquit Apolo^jiam de Justificationc." So- cinus, ill a curious preface to his work, mentioned above, " De Jesu Christo Servatore," narrates in what manner Covetus and he first hai)pe!icd to meet. They subsequently exchanged communi- cations on the points in dispute between them. It was in rejily to the arguments of Covetus in tliis corrcsj)(iiuloni-e, that Socinus wrote the work to which Dr Owen alludes. It is matter of re- pret that so little is linown of one whom Owen mentions so respectfully, and who had the honour of supplying the tirst antidote and check to the heresies of Socinus. — Ku.
TO THE READER. 369
" Communis et orthodoxa (ut asseris) sententia est, Jesum Christum ideo serva- torem nostrum esse, quia divinse justitise per quam peccatores damnari merebamur, pro peccatis nostris plene satisfecerit ; quae satisfactio, per fidem, imputatur nobis ex dono Dei credentibus." Tliis he ascribes to Covetus: '• The common and orthodox judgment is, that Jesus Christ is therefore our Saviour, because he hath satisfied the justice of God, by which we, being sinners, deserved to be condemned for all our sins" [which satisfaction, through faith, is imputed to us who through the grace of God believe.] In opposition whereunto he thus expresseth his own opinion: " Ego vero censeo, et orthodoxam sententiam esse arbitror, Jesum Chris- tum ideo servatorem nostrum esse, quia salutis ieternae viam nobis annuntia- verit, confirmaverit, et in sua ipsius persona, cum vitae exemplo, tum ex mortuis resurgendo, manifesto ostenderit; vitamque seternam nobis ei fidem habentibus ipse daturus sit. Divinse autem justitiae, per quam peccatores damnari meremur, pro peccatis nostris neque ilium satisfecisse, neque ut satisfaceret, opus fuisse arbitror;" — " I judge and suppose it to be the orthodox opinion, that Jesus Christ is therefore our Saviour, because he hath declared unto us the Avay of eternal salvation, and confirmed it in his own person ; manifestly showing it, both by the example of his life and by rising from the dead ; and in that he will give eternal life unto us, believing in him. And I affirm, that he neither made satisfaction to the justice" of God, whereby we deserved to be damned for our sins, nor was there any need that he should so do." This is the true state of the question; and the principal subtlety of Crellius, the great defender of this part of the doctrine of Socinus, in his book of the '•■ Causes of the Death of Christ," and the defence of this book, " De Jesu Christo Servatore," consists in speaking almost the same words Avith those whom he doth oppose, but still intending the same things with Socinus himself. This opinion, as was said of Socinus, Covetus opposed and everted on the principle before mentioned.