CHAPTER III.
The arguments of Grotius, and their defence by Mr Baxter, about the penalty undergone by Christ in making satisfaction, considered.
TiiE State of the question in hand being as above laid down, let us now see what Mr Baxter's judgment is of niy success in that undertaking, concerning which he thus delivereth himself: " Yet here Mr Owen enters the list with Grotius." And, —
First, " He overlooketh his greatest arguments."
Secondly, " He slightly answereth only two."
THE PENALTY UNDERGONE BY CHRIST. 443
Thirdly, " And when he hath done, he saith as Grotius dolh, and yieldeth the ■whole cause. These three things I will make appear in order," Appendix, p. 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 ap- pear, he produceth the argument overlooked.
" The chief argument of Grotius and Vossius," saith he, " is dra-s^Ti from the tenor of the obligation and from the event. The obligation chargeth punishment on the offender himself. It saith, 'In the day thou eatest, thou shalt die;' and, ' Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things,' etc. 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 threatened: so that here duni alius solvit, simid aliud solvitur. The law threatened not Christ, but us (besides that Christ suffered not the loss of God's 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. It is not the main of the controversy 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, — first. The constitution of the penalty itself to be undergone; secondly. 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 itself in reference to its constitution be established. In those places, then, ' In the day thou eatest,' etc., 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 says this argument to the contrary ?
" If the same in the obligation be paid, then the law is executed, not relaxed, and then every sinner must die himself; for that is the idem and very thing threatened: so that here duni ali^s solvit, aliud solvitur."
1. The matter of the obligation having a double consideration, as before, it may be both executed and relaxed in sundry respects.
2. The idem and very thing threatened 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 relaxed, 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 inquire not about payment, but suffering. To make that suffering a pay- ment supposeth another constitution, by virtue whereof Christ suffering the same that was threatened, it became another thing in payment than it would have been if the person offending had suffered himself.
4. That the law threatened not Christ but us is most true; but the question is, whether Christ underwent not the threatening of the law, not we? A commuta- tion 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 God's love, etc., and the like objections, they have been answered near a thousand times already, and that by " no ordinary divines" neither; so that I shall not farther trouble any there- with.
Now, this is the argument, the great, chief argument, of Grotius and Vossius, •,\hich Mr Baxter afiirms I overlooked.
That I did not express it I easily gi-ant, neither will I so wrong the ingenuous reader as to make any long apology for my omission of it, considering the state
444 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
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 relaxa- tion of the law as to the jiorsons 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 con- verting of suffering into a satisfactory payment), 1 shall then give a reason why I considered it not.
In the next place, Mr B. giveth in the two arguments wherein I deal.