« AnteriorContinuar »
against the Socinians. And this is, that the essential holiness of God, with his justice or righteousness, as the supreme governor of all, did indispensibly require that sîn should not absolutely go unpunished; and that it fhould do fo, sands 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 controversy in this matter, and have successfully engaged in it. their arguments for their assertion are plainly unanswerable; so the neglect of abiding by it, is causelessly 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 fatisfaction 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 ihe foundation of his whole disputation in the justice of God, necessarily requiring, and indispenfibly, the punishment of fin. And indeed, the state of the controversy, as it is laid down by Socinus in his book, de Jesu Christo fervatore, which is an answer to this Covetus, is genuine, and that which ought
not to be receded from, as having the direct ground of all the controversial writings on. that subject, which have since been published in Europe. And it is in thefe words laid down by Socinus himself. « Communis et “ orthodoxa (ut afferis) fententia eft, Jesum “ Christum ideo fervatorem noftrum esse, “ quia divinæ justiciæ per quam peccatores “ damnari merebamur, pro peccatis noftris
plene fatisfecerit; quæ satisfactio per fidem
imputatur nobis ex dono Dei credentibus." This he ascribes to Covet. The common and orthodox judgment is, that Jesus Christ is therefore our Saviour, becaufe he hath satisfied the justice of God, by which we, being finners, deserved to be condemned for all our fins. In opposition whereunto, he thus expreffeth his own opinion. Ego vero cen- feo, et orthodoxam sententiam effe arbitror, " Iefum Chriftum ideo fervatorem nostrum “ esse, quia falutis æternæ viam nobis annun. “ ciaverit, confirmaverit, et in fua ipfius per"fona, cum vitæ exemplo, tum ex mortuis “ refurgendo, manifefte ostenderit, vitamque “ æternam nobis ei fidem habentibus ipse da“ turus fit. Divinæ autem justitiæ, per quam peccatores damnari meremur, pro peccatis
“ nostris neque illum fatisfeciffe, neque ut sa“ tisfaceret, opus fuiffe arbitror." I judge and suppose it to be the orthodox opinion, that Jesus Christ is therefore our Saviour, becaufe he hath declared unto us the way of eternal falvation, and confirmed it in his own person; manifestly shewing 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 fins; nor was there any need that he should fo do.
This is the true state of the question; and the principal subtilty 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 fervatore, consists in speaking almost the same words with 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.
The fame truth was confirmed also by Zarnovitius, who first wrote against Socinus, liis book; as also by Otto Casmannus, who engaged in the same work; and by Abraham Salinarias. Upon the same foundation do proceed Paræus, Piscator, Lubbertus, Lucius, Camero, Voetius, Amiraldus, Placæus, Rivetus, Walæus, Thysius, Altingius, Marefius, Effenius, Arnoldus, Turretinus, Baxter, with many others. The Lutherans who have managed these controversies, as Tarnovius, Meisuerus, Calovius, Stegmannus, Martinius, Franzius, with all others of their way, have constantly maintained the same great fundamental principle of this doctrine of the satisfaction of Chrift; and it hath well and fo. lidly been of late asserted among ourselves, on the same foundation. And as many of these authors do expressly blame some of the schoolmen, as Aquinas, Durandus, Biel, Tataretus, for granting a possibility of pardon without satisfaction, as opening a way to the Socinian error in this matter; so also they fear not to affirm, that the foregoing of this principle of God's vindi&tive justice indispenfibly requiring the punishment of sin, doth
only weaken the cause of the truth, but indeed leave it indefensible. However, I suppose men ought to be wary how they censure the authors mentioned, as such who expose the cause they undertook to defend to contempt; for greater, more able, and learned defenders, this truth hath not as yet found, nor doth stand in need of.