3. To make iip his gracious acceptance in this 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 absolutely and in itself, or upon supposal. The death of Christ, considered absolutely and in itself, may be said to be refusable as to be made a pay- ment,— not a refusable payment ; and that not because not refusable, but because not a pajTuent. 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 oliUgation of his own. But now consider it as an issue flowing from divine constitution making it a payment, and so it A^'as no way re- fusable as to the compassing of the end appointed. Thus, also, as to the obliga- tion 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 satisftiction was made thereby, upon the former supposals of constitution and relaxation.
4. Doth not Mr B. suppose that in the very tenor of the obligation there is required a solution, tending to the same end as satisfaction doth ? Nay, is not that aS\i\pia the -jrpZrov -iPsu^o; of this discourse ? Deliverance is the aim of satisfaction, which receives its 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 obli- gation ? 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 oXms xal -xavzui, which it will not, and so is of no use here ; for, —
(1.) There is solutio tantidem as well as ejusdem, and therein consists satisfac- tion, according to Mr B.
(2.) Whether satisfaction be inconsistent with solutio ejusdem, but not per eundem, is the ri x,fivifMvov. After all this Mr B. adds, —
" Yet here Mr Owen enters the list with Grotius."
Where, I pray? I might very justly make inquiry, from the beginning to the
442 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
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 controversy agitated between Grotius and myself, 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 myself laid down in the places excepted against, and he will quickly find it to be, —
1. Not whether the law wei*e 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 business. Which controversy, by the way, is so confusedly proposed, or rather strangely handled by Mr B., p. 145, where he adjudges me in a successless assault of Grotius, as makes it evident he never once perused it.
2. Nor, secondly, whether there be any need of God's gracious acceptance in this business or no; for I assert it necessary, as before described, in reference to solutio ejusdein, sed non per eundem.
3. Neither, thirdly, whether the satisfaction of Christ, considered absolutely, 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 merely, as I said before, whether the Lord, appointing an end of deliverance neither intimated nor couched in the obligation nor any of its attendancies, constituting a way for the attainment of that end by receiving satisfaction to the obligation, did appoint that the thing m the obligation should be paid, though by another, or else some new thing, that of itself and by itself never was in the obligation, either before or after its solution; as the payment made by Christ must be granted such, unless it were for substance the same which the law required. And here, with most divines, I maintain the first, — namely. 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 business opposed a-jrxZ;, but only xura. ri
He that would see this farther affirmed may consult what I ^\Tote 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 obliged imto, for the manifes- tation 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 its use in our justification, I do not now inquire, being unwilling to immix myself unnecessarily in any controversy; though I cannot but suppose that Mr B.'s discourse hereabouts gives advantage enough even minoram gentium theologis, " to ordinary divines," as he calls them, to deal with him in it.