And as

against the Socinians. And this is, that the effential holinefs of God, with his justice or righteousness, as the fupreme governor of all, did indifpenfibly require that fin fhould not abfolutely go unpunished; and that it fhould do fo, flands in a repugnancy to thofe holy properties of his nature. This, I fay, 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 affertion are plainly unanswerable; fo the neglect of abiding by it, is caufelefsly to forego one of the most fundamental and invincible principles in our cause. He who firft laboured in the defence of the doctrine of the fatisfaction of Chrift, after Socinus had formed his imaginations about the falvation that he wrought, and began to difpute about it, was Covetus, a learned man, who laid the foundation of his whole difputation in the juftice of God, neceffarily requir ing, and indifpenfibly, the punishment of fin. And indeed, the state of the controverfy, as it is laid down by Socinus in his book, de Jesu Chrifto fervatore, which is an answer to this Covetus, is genuine, and that which ought

not

not to be receded from, as having the direct ground of all the controverfial writings on that fubject, which have fince been published in Europe. And it is in thefe words laid down by Socinus himself. "Communis et "orthodoxa (ut afferis) fententia eft, Jefum "Chriftum ideo fervatorem noftrum effe, "quia divinæ jufticiæ per quam peccatores "damnari merebamur, pro peccatis noftris "plene fatisfecerit; quæ fatisfactio per fidem

66

imputatur nobis ex dono Dei credentibus."

This he afcribes to Covet. The common and orthodox judgment is, that Jefus Chrift is therefore our Saviour, because he hath fatisfied the justice of God, by which we, being finners, deferved to be condemned for all our fins. In oppofition whereunto, he thus expreffeth his own opinion. Ego vero cen"feo, et orthodoxam fententiam effe arbitror, "Iefum Chriftum ideo fervatorem noftrum "effe, quia falutis æternæ viam nobis annun"ciaverit, confirmaverit, et in fua ipfius per“fona, cum vitæ exemplo, tum ex mortuis

66

66

refurgendo, manifefte oftenderit, vitamque " æternam nobis ei fidem habentibus ipfe da"turus fit. Divinæ autem juftitiæ, per quam 66 peccatores damnari meremur, pro peccatis

"noftris

"noftris neque illum fatisfeciffe, neque ut fa

tisfaceret, opus fuiffe arbitror." I judge and fuppofe it to be the orthodox opinion, that Jefus Chrift is therefore our Saviour, because he hath declared unto us the way of eternal falvation, and confirmed it in his own perfon; manifeftly fhewing it, both by the example of his life, and by rifing from the dead; and in that he will give eternal life unto us believing in him. And I affirm, that he neither made fatisfaction to the juftice 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 ftate of the question; and the principal fubtilty 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 Chrifto fervatore, confifts in fpeaking almoft the fame words with those whom he doth oppose, but still intending the fame things with Socinus himself. This opinion, as was faid of Socinus, Covetus oppofed, and everted, on the principle before-mentioned.

The

The fame truth was confirmed also by Zarnovitius, who first wrote against Socinus, his book; as alfo by Otto Cafmannus, who engaged in the fame work; and by Abraham Salinarias. Upon the fame foundation do proceed Paræus, Pifcator, Lubbertus, Lucius, Camero, Voetius, Amiraldus, Placæus, Rivetus, Walæus, Thyfius, Altingius, Marefius, Effenius, Arnoldus, Turretinus, Baxter, with many others. The Lutherans who have managed these controverfies, as Tarnovius, Meifuerus, Calovius, Stegmannus, Martinius, Franzius, with all others of their way, have conftantly maintained the fame great fundamental principle of this doctrine of the fatisfaction of Chrift; and it hath well and folidly been of late afferted among ourselves, on the fame foundation. And as many of these authors do exprefsly blame fome of the schoolmen, as Aquinas, Durandus, Biel, Tataretus, for granting a poffibility of pardon without fatisfaction, as opening a way to the Socinian error in this matter; fo alfo they fear not to affirm, that the foregoing of this principle of God's vindictive justice indispenfibly requiring the punishment of fin, doth

not

only weaken the cause of the truth, but indeed leave it indefenfible. However, I fuppofe men ought to be wary how they cenfure the authors mentioned, as fuch 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 ftand in need of.

J. OWEN