Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	death_n	sin_n	sin_v	3,111	5	9.7434	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45162	Ultimas manus being letters between Mr. John Humphrey, and Mr. Samuel Clark, in reference to the point of justification : written upon the occasion of Mr. Clark's printing his book upon that subject, after Mr. Humfrey's book entituled The righteousness of God, and published for vindication of that doctrine wherein they agree, as found, by shewing the difference of it from that of the Papist, and the mistakes of our common Protestant : in order to an impartial and more full understanding of that great article, by the improvement of that whereto they have attained, or correction of any thing wherein they err, by better judgments : together with animadversions on some late papers between Presbyterian and Independent, in order to reconcile the difference, and fix the Doctrine of Christ's satisfaction.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1698 (1698)	Wing H3715; ESTC R16520	84,030	95

of following Truth hereafter wheresoever he finds it but this that God did look on Christ as appearing in our Person and so judged and condemned him for a sinner as one I say being in our Person that deserved his Wrath and Curse and therefore laid it on him whereby our full and proper Punishment was Born the Law Executed and Justice Done and if any will add with Ravensperg farther that the torments of Hell in his Agony and Suffering on the Cross when he cried Eli Eli lamasabacthani were laid on his Soul that nothing of the very Punishment may be abated him who does not see that such a satisfaction is so strait laced as will not fit the Person of Christ and that such Divines do more to drive Men to Socinianism than Socinus himself could while they stand upon such a Satisfaction as no reasonable Man can * Vera satisfactio est plen● deliti persolutio Vnusquisque nostram mortem aternam divinae isti justitiae debelat says Socinus De Ser. l. 3. c. 3. receive And whereas Mr. Lobb therefore and other such more considering Persons do see a necessity to come off and allow that it was not and could not be our very Punishment it self it being enough that Christ was surrogated under the Primordial Nature of the Puuishment to use his words though not under the horrid Circumstances we our selves were to suffer and does yield moreover that though the Punishment yet the Desert of our sins could not be laid on Christ because that would run him into Antinomianism which Concessions do draw after them such other suitable Notions as Mr. Baxter offers so that at last we must come to this that the Ends of Gods Law and Government being secured it must be left to the Wisdom of the Father and Son to agree upon what satisfaction pleased them for demonstrating Divine Righteousness against Sin and Mercy toward the Sinner and that be sufficient for us to believe For I must add that so long as we agree in our belief that Christs Death was a Ransom for our Redemption and a Sacrifice for our Sins in the Sense of the Types of old where the sin of the Sacrificer was laid on the Beast and the Blood thereof an Expiation for it to the end he might be forgiven it what matter is it tho' one holds this Death to be Formally another only Materially our Punishment or that one says our sins were the proper Meritorious Cause and the other the Remote Cause or Occasion of it they both hold it Satisfaction and intend the maintaining the Doctrine thereof Proper Punishment is an infliction of a Natural Evil on a Person for Committing a Moral Evil But Christ that endured the Natural Evil never committed any Moral Evil and how can that be proper Punishment The Punishment laid on him was not due to him but to us The Punishment d●e to us was Hell but his Sufferings only Temporal Death Is not here then one Punishment in the room of another as one Person suffering in the room of another And what Legerdemain can cover the Eye of any as not to see this a Vicarious Punishment Again when all proper Punishment is for sin as the Meritorious Cause of it and Christ sinned not and our sins cannot according to the Bishop deserve that another should be punished for them so that here is Punishment without Desert how is this proper Formal Punishment The Law by vertue of its Sanction punishes none but the Breakers of the Preceptive Part and how then can these sufferings arise Ex obligatione-Legis If they did arise from the Obligation of the Law then was the Law executed in Christs suffering but Christ suffered that the Law might not be executed but the Penitent Believing Sinner be pardoned I might go on and offer other Positions according to what is said by Mr. Baxter in his Eighteenth Deterininations Math. Theol. Part 3. Cap. 1. before quoted and Mr. Lobb the Dr or Bishop may as well deny that two and three makes five as fundamentally to deny any of them and therefore I shall forbear more being come already to the Composition which Grotius in that one word before hath made for us Impersonaliter these sufferings as due to us may be said to be properly formally Punishment Punishment for sin as the Meritorious Cause of it Punishment arising from the Obligation of the Law upon our breaking it punishment that was the Curse of the Law and which he bare when if we had our selves born it it had been the Execution of the Law the Execution whereof these Divines who are for the Common Doctrine apprehending as Socinus to be proper Satisfaction wherein they are perfectly out for that according to the Schools is contrary to it it makes them so extream as before mentioned in their Doctrine of Satisfaction as no Man unprejudiced can abide it But Personaliter on the other hand as these sufferings are laid upon Christ instead of us that is instead not as in our Person but instead that we might escape them they are Nominally and Materially indeed but they are not they cannot be Formally and Properly Penal They arise not from sin as the Metitorious Cause nor from the Obligation of the Law and are no Execution of it Why should I go on to say the same things over and over I will make bold to conclude with Mr. Baxter against any if there be any that think they have more sagacity herein than he to oppose him and say As the Person that suffered was loco nostri the sufferings were loco paenae our sins loco causae meritoriae his Sponsion loco obligationis ex Lege an Equivalent loco Debiti and loco solutionis here is at last effected proper Satisfaction Let Mr. Baxter's Adversaries be who they will and let them do what they can they shall never make more of it Another thing which Mr. Lobb observes of Mr. Williams that I must also take notice of is this As he does hold that the Obligation which lay on Christ to do as he did arose altogether from the Mediatorial Law so does he hold that the Righteousness which consists in his Performance of that Law is that which is imputed to the Believer for his Justification wherein there does manifestly appear that slip of Mr. Williams which I have before mentioned for seeing that Law and the Righteousness thereof did belong only or was proper to the Mediator it is impossible it should be imputed otherwise to us than in the Effects which when Mr. Baxter saw and asserted and Mr. Williams does follow him in what he says else and yet leaves him in this I cannot but give him again friendly Warning to retract that slip for otherwise the whole Doctrine he is engaged in which he hath knit together out of Mr. Baxter and endeavours to maintain by this one Stitch let fall if it be not amended must unravel and come to nothing The Argument I have used in

had performed it all and of Faith whose Office it is to embrace that Righteousness so imputed there is not one word in the Sacred Letters says the Learned Grotius If the Bishop before praised dare follow that leading Man in the one Point as in the other I will come now therefore to this new Book of Mr. Lobb which he calls An Appeal that is from the Presbyterian Brethren to the Bishop of Worcester as Moderator between them They produce the Bishops Letter in their Vindication and Mr. Lobb sticks to that Letter as vindicating him and both are in the right for when they agree to the Bishop they must agree also with one another In this Appeal Mr. Lobb looking on Mr. Williams as in the Chair of Mr. Baxter to maintain his Doctrine does collect many Pussages out of Mr. Baxter which are approaching to the Socinians and supposes such Doctrine to be inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Bishop that he maintains against Crellius in his Book of the Sufferings of Christ We shall see if the Bishop writer whether he judges as Mr. Lobb or rather shall see cause of Agreement not Difference with Mr. B. in this Point That which I have to say is this There is a vast difference in the account that must be given of two Men speaking the same things about a Doctrine which is in Controversie between them when one does bring them by way of Objection for Confutation of it and the other by way of Explication for the better clearing and maintaining it in Answer to those Objections And there is a double Answer to an Objection One is by Negation when the matter is false and the other is by Concession when the matter is true and reasonable but shewing that it affects not that Doctrine which remains firm notwithstanding that Concession This is the Case of Mr. Baxter in regard to the Socinian The Socinians say many things rationally and which are true and Mr. Baxter in such matters spares not to say the like but the one says them for the Enervating the other for the Elucidating the Doctrine of Satisfaction It is most certain that Mr. Baxter holds the same Doctrine which Grotius does and follows him in the Explication shewing the consistency of it with Gods Free Grace in the remission of sin which two things Socinus thinks incompatible To wit in that when it is alius that suffers it is aliud solvitur and also it being not the Idem but the Tantundem which Christ suffered and that it was not therefore the Law it self but the Law-giver he satisfied Upon which accounts the Satisfaction was in it self refusable a Solutio recusabilis as he after Grotius does call it that is such as God in Justice was not bound to accept but in Mercy through Grace he did accept it and what is more found out this way of Satisfaction himself for us which makes it so much more of Grace so that a Free Pardon I say appears notwithstanding this Satisfaction as in the Sacrifices of the Jews for sin there was an Attonement made by their Blood in order to the Remission That Mr. Baxter does maintain this Doctrine of Grotius this Doctrine that is the Marrow of the Old and New Testament to wit the Doctrine of Pardon upon Satisfaction against the Socinian it is apparent I say as that Mr. Lobb does hold Justification upon believing against Dr. Crisp And if it shall farther appear that there is nothing of all that he hath alledged against Mr. Baxter is dissonant to the mind of Grotius and Bishop Stillingfleet he will I hope come off at last To this end let us observe that this Learned Bishop in his Letter speaking of Christs bearing our sins and distinguishing the desert of punishment from the Punishment and affirming rightly that though Christ took on him the Obligation to undergo the Punishment the Desert could not be transferr'd upon him he hath these words No Man can cease to deserve Punishment for his own Faults nor Deserve that another should be punished for them This Saying is so true plain and reasonable that though Socinus Crellius or any of their Followers shall stand upon it never so much it is not to be denied but granted for all that Upon this Foundation it follows If no Man can deserve that another be punished for him then cannot we by our sins deserve Christs sufferings We deserved the Punishment it was a deserved Punishment but we deserved not that he should bear it If our sins then deserved not that Christ should suffer they are not the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings If not the Meritorious Cause no proper Cause but the Occasion as Mr. Baxter is cited by Mr. Lobb And to go on the reason appears It was not from the Law his Obligation to suffer did arise for the Law punishes only the Transgressor Noxu caput siquitur It was not our Obligation therefore he took on him for our Obligation is an Obligation of desert Obligatio Criminis as it is call'd but his only Ex contractu And seeing it was not Obligatio ex Lege it follows that the Sufferings he bore were Materially not Formally Punishment It was the sins of Mankind says Mr. Baxter that were the Occasion of Christs Sufferings called by some an assumed Meritorious Cause because by his consent they were loco causae Meritoriae End of Contro C. 13. In which Words and all other Passages collected by Mr. Lobb what is there to be found fault with unless an over perspicacity tightness and consonancy of Judgment in all his Pieces alike made good all by the reason of that undeniable Concession that One Man cannot deserve that another should be punished for his Faults as the Bishop has it And now to come from the Bishop to Grotius It must be acknowledged that Grotius hath made it his business to shew that our sins were the Impulsive the Meritorious Impulsive Cause of Christs Sufferings in his dying for us which he hath proved no less substantially than critically by the Prepositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 15.3 Heb. 11.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 3.18 Gal. 1.4 Pro peccatis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum accusativo Rom. 4.25 Propter peccuta and Isa 53.5 Ob peccata nostra which all denote the Impulsive Cause says he and not the Final against Socinus Upon this it is supposed by Mr. Lobb that what is mentioned before as said by Mr. Baxter is contrary to this Doctrine and he hath cited such Passages therefore as Heterodox But Grotius himself must be the Man to Answer and Reconcile what he says with what is said by Mr. Baxter which he does very sufficiently with one word that Mr. Lobb hath not observed at least to make so good an use of it For Socinus in opposition to the Doctrine of Satisfaction denying that Christ could dye for sin as the Meritorious Cause of his Death which he will have to be only the Final Cause

in turning us away from it because this must make him as he argues a sinner and one deserving to die Grotius takes him up and tells us that it was for sin but Impersonaliter This he explains in that our sins did deserve that Punishment should be exacted but such was the goodness of God to spare us and lay it upon his Son who was wounded for our Transgressions and through his stripes are we healed Now that God might do so without Injustice Grotius brings many Instances from David from Ahab from the Gibeonites from the second Commandment What God himself does or allows must be just David sins and his Child dies Ahab is wicked and his Punishment is deferred to his Sons Days Saul is cruel to the Gibeonites and his Grandchildren are put to death The Fathers sin and God visits their sin on the Children to three or four Generations Here is Merit as the Antecedent Cause of the Punishment in all these Instances and yet not the Merit of the Person or Persons that suffer it And what if I shall add here this great thing a thing wherein Divines are put so hard to it in giving their account even the greater Instance of Death passing on all Men with their innocent Babes among them for Adam's Transgression It is said of Grotius and that solidly in another place Peccata paenae causa sunt non aliter quam per modum Meriti which being true Socinus does indeed seem to argue strongly that therefore prater Dei ipsius Christi voluntatem non posse ullam legitimam causam reddi mortis Christi nisi dicamus Christum meritum fuisse ut moriretur This Grotius I say takes up and Answers thus Inest quidem in antecedente causa Meritum sed Impersonaliter From hence then we must distinguish there is a double Merit of Punishment Personal and Impersonal When Grotius tells us that in Christs sufferings there was truly Punishment because that though God laid it on his Son our sins required the infliction and Mr. Baxter says no formal proper Punishment because not only without desert in Christ but which is more because our desert could not be transferr'd on him though the Punishment was they both say true but rightly understood only the one Personaliter the other Impersonaliter as Grotious hath decided it And what is this in good earnest any other but what the Bishop hath in effect determined likewise No Man can deserve that another should be punished for him and yet because the Execution of Punishment depends on the wisdom of God a Change of Persons that is of Christ to bear it in our room Christ being willing and the thing just may intervene says the Bishop in more words and all apposite If Mr. Lobb then can but reconcile the Bishop to himself unto whom he seems heartily to subscribe he must reconcile Mr. Baxter and Grotius and be also reconciled to both And that he may be so the more easily the Bishop hath given a Test for the discovery of the Orthodox from the Socinian and Mr. Baxter shall thereby be tryed The true Controversie says he between the Socinian and us is Whether the Sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a Punishment for our sins and as a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for them or only as an Act of Dominion over an innocent Person in order to his Advancement to Glory The same is affirmed after him by our Presbyterian Brethren and who is there can imagine ever Mr. Baxter denied that Christs sufferings was a Punishment for our sins and his death a Propitiatory Sacrifice for them He hath made him sin for us says Paul 2 Cor. 5.21 Upon which God hath made Christ a Sacrifice for sin says Mr. Baxter as others which Socinus denies Who his own self bare our sins in his own Body on the Tree says Peter 1 Pet. 2.24 Upon which It was the punishment of our sins which as a Sacrifice he bare in his sufferings on the Cross says Mr. Baxter But what need I quote any such particular Sayings when there is no Book of his that is great that can be without such a Testimony over and over What then you may ask shall we judge here of Mr. Lobb's great Industry Shall we look on him as the Fly upon the Axle-tree that hath raised all this Dust for nothing I will not say so seeing Dust there is that must be raised if our Wheels do but go and our Chariot drive to its designed end the quiet of the Brethren It is not enough that we are agreed indeed in this Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction though we are unless we also understand and know it Besides that when we are agreed there is need of some Anthority yet to tell us we are so that our selves may believe it The Composing a Controversie by Silence is but covering the Fire as Mr. Lobb observes not extinguishing it If the Matter be such wherein we indeed do agree the Ventilation of it must shew us the seeming Difference to be nothing and so compel a Concord If the Matter be such wherein we really disagree there is still need of beating it out that the Corn may be discovered from the Chaff by the threshing There are two Points we know among us both very great P●●●…ts and the one made difficult through the Intanglement of it with the Other One is of Christs Satisfaction wherein indeed we differ not The other is of our Justification wherein we do differ and there are two ways of Explication Mr. Baxter's and the Common Protestants Upon the Account now of this Difference in the latter Point there are many are stumbled in their Explication of the former As for Mr. Lobb he has verily given occasion for an Accomodation between the Brethren by his Appeal to the Bishop as to the Point of Satisfaction for seeing indeed there is therein no difference he is like to effect it But as for the other of Justification Mr. Lobb is behind and it will be a harder matter for any to moderate in it One thing in his strowing his way hereunto is to be preparatively considered He has read I suppose Socinus de Servatore as well as Grotius upon him and Crellius then against Grotius with other Socinians as also Dr. Crisp and other Antinomians and he is not ignorant where the Water sticks between us and them both The Socinian accounts Christ to be a good Man that taught us Holy Doctrine and dyed to bear Testimony to the Truth of it to the end we might believe it and live according to it and so be saved and upon this account is our Saviour But as for his dying for our sins any otherwise than for turning us away from them by his Doctrine and Example which is making our sins the Final Cause of his Death he understands not when as for the making it the Meritorious Cause of the Sufferings of an innocent Man and thereby satisfactory to the Justice of God

he accounting the whole Office of his Priesthood that which did not respicere Deum but Vs not reconciling God to us but us to God for the obtaining our Impunity this seems to these Men not reasonable On the other hand the Antinomian upon this Satisfaction as made to God by Christs sufferings understands our sins to be so laid on Christ as that it was not only our Punishment that he bare but our Guilt our Fault our Desert And whereas we are apt to say this is blasphemous because Christ hereby is made a sinner and the greatest of Sinners they say No for this is to say but what Luther and our Orthodox Divines have said before them and there is no hurt in it understanding it only as they all do by way of Imputation For as in the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us we are accounted of God righteous as he for our Justification so in the Imputation of our sins he is made as sinful as we for making God Satisfaction This they take up as the Common Doctrine of our former Protestants which Mr. Lobb will do well to turn over and examine whether they who have wrote before Baxter among us do not ordinarily say thus That our sins were imputed to Christ so as to be counted his That he was not made only a Sacrifice for sin but even so sin for us that is by Imputation as we are made his Righteousness For seeing this is the perpetual rule of Gods Justice that the same Soul that sinneth should dye how can it stand with Gods Justice that Christ should suffer for our sins if they were not in some sort annexed to him The Scripture evidently affirms Isa 53.6 11 12 That Christ bare not only the punishment of our sins but our sins also what aileth then the Jesuite so boldly to deny that our sins are imputed to Christ Seeing then again the Scripture so speaks why should we doubt to speak as the Scripture does that Christ was for us counted a Sinner or Transgress●r yet in himself remained Holy Just and Righteous still So we in Christ are verily reputed righteous though by nature we are Unjust and Unrighteous This I quote out of Willet's Synopsis being Passages lying near together See Cont. 19. of Justification supposing the like to be common in others In such Passages then as these which we shall find in former Divines we see no such Distinction made between our Merit of the Punishment and the Punishment as we now make with the Bishop to whom Mr. Lobb does subscribe It is essential to Punishment that it be inflicted for sin but not essential that it be inflicted on the party himself that sinned says Grotius and in another place before quoted that sin is the cause of Punishment no otherwise but per modum Meriti Now Christ having himself never sinned if the Merit of our sins was not laid upon him together with the Punishment how was it per modum Meriti that he was punished Mr. Lobb knows whether Crellius does not urge something to this purpose against Grotius and if he can solve the difficulty to defend Grotius that which he must grant to do it will defend Mr. Baxter against him But as for the Antinomian who stands upon this as no less necessary to the Doctrine of Satisfaction than that Christs Righteousness be ours as necessary to the Doctrine of Justification and accounts it to be no other but the Common Opinion of the Protestant it does appear that some bank or bound must be set to this Sea lest the opinion formerly received as Orthodox over-flow into Antinomianism and I must give notice to Mr. Lobb and those that retain and uphold it that if they persist they must come thus far as to say that on one side the Believer is by Imputation as righteous as Christ himself and on the other that Christ by Imputation is a sinner as we which to put in Dr. Crisp's words is that Christ was as compleatly sinful as we and we as compleatly righteous as he wherein as before they conceived no hurt because understood by them only by way of Imputation If Mr. Lobb will recede from the Common Opinion here he must recede from all those Notions that are concatenated together in the Explication of it And what is meant by this Imputation in the Sense of our Common Protestant The Imputation of a thing to a Person is the accounting it his in regard to our dealing with him In Gods imputing our sins to Christ he does account as they say him to be a sinner or them to be his and does so deal with him in laying our Punishment upon him In Gods imputing to us Christs Righteousness he accounts his Righteousness to be ours and so deals with us in justifying us by it So they But how can God account our sins to be Christs and his righteousness Ours when really they are not so and Gods Judgment is according to Truth They must Answer If by really we mean Physically it is indeed impossible that our Qualities should become Christs and his ours there is none that understands it so but if by really we mean only legally in sensu forensi in conspectu fori or in Law-sense as Divines express it it is really so they will say that our sins are laid on Christ and his righteousness made ours or else that neither could Christ have suffered or We be justified But what yet is this Legally or in Law-sense which is to be conceived by a Quatenus as God deals with us according to Law Why our Divines suppose that Christ did take on him our Person and so our Sins and as acting in our Person what he did and suffered in our behalf is accounted of God to be done and suffered by us even as what my Attorney at Law does for me it is in Law or as I am to be dealt with according to Law all one as if it were done by me Here then we must make a stand and consider whether Christ indeed was such a Representative as that in him as our Legal or Civil Person we are accounted of God to have fulfilled the Law both in Obedience to the Precept and bearing the Punishment so as to be perfectly righteous in his Righteousness and accordingly justified We must come thus home or say nothing There is another Explication therefore that is made of this Imputation by Mr. Baxter There is a double sense of it There is an Imputation or accounting a thing to a Person as his either in se or in the Effect Mr. Baxter denies not Imputation but explains it An Imputation of our sins to Christ and his righteousness to us in this Law sense mentioned is the Imputation in se which as the former commonly received Doctrine and unsound Mr. Baxter disowns But an Imputation in regard to the Effects that the Righteousness of Christ being truly the Meritorious Cause of our Remission Justification Adoption is imputed imputatur datur

perceive that Concatenation of Notions belonging to the way he takes will lay them so together as to make the whole agreeable knowing well that if he break one of the Set one Link he breaks all the whole Chain The fundamental Notion in the way that Mr. Baxter and I and Mr. Williams go is this That it is not by the Law but the Gospel not by the Law of Works but the Law of Grace that we are to be judged and consequently justified or condemned One other Notion of his near to this is that the Righteousness of Christ is not cannot be imputed to us that is reckoned to us as ours any otherwise than in the Effects The Righteousness of Christ is a Righteousness that answers the Law and if that be imputed to us in se for our Justification then we are justified by the Law When Mr. Williams therefore says with us that it is by the Gospel not the Law we are to be judged and yet that Besides the effects the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer that thereby he may be justified which must be understood it is a plain Inconsistency a perfect Tergiversation As for what Mr. Williams offers in Made made righteous p. 76. to 83. I have answered Pacifica p. 35 36. Let me ask him upon it when he says The very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer does he understand by the Righteousness of Christ that which his Brethren do or not If he does he is held under this Inconsistency and can never come off If he do not then the Brethren are deceived in him He appears to be of their Judgment about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness and yet understands by Christs Righteousness another thing than they do What Man before him ever said or understood that Christs Right to his Reward is the Righteousness which is imputed to a Believer I argue against him The Righteousness which is imputed to a Believer is that Righteousness which is the Meritorious Cause of his Justification But it is not Christs Right to his Reward but the Obedience of his Life and Death which two things he distinguishes and makes a double Righteousness and brings himself off with the first instead of affirming the last which is the Meritorious Cause of our Justification And as for what he says in affirming Christs Right to his Reward to be the Believers His own Right and the Believers to be the same Right it is impossible according to the Rule of Accidents as I answer him in my Pacification There is another Distinction of Mr. Williams which Mr. Alsop uses in his Rebuke directly contrary to him in the Terms yet Neither differing in the Doctrine of it that I will take this occasion to remember Dr. Crisp's Phrase of Change of Person Mr. Williams impugnes but yet grants a Change of Persons By Change of Person I doubt not but the Dr. meant a Change on both sides as appears by his Explication that Christ became a sinner as we and we righteous as he and that is a Change of Persons There is a Change of Person on one side and a Change of Person on both sides A Change of both sides is all one with a Change of Persons When Mr. Williams then upon this distinguishes between a Change of Person and Change of Persons it is his own Distinction when the Doctor never thought of any and when it is his own he may make what Construction of it he please and that he puts on it be sure shall be Orthodox for by the one he will have Dr. Crisp's Commutation understood and deny it by the other the Bishop's Commutation and hold it Here is his Doctrine found but his Distinction as he uses the Terms so forced strained unnatural that it is useless altotether but to bring himself off and serve his occasion Whereas the Distinction as used by Mr. Alsop is so apposite easie proper natural in the Terms that if it be stood to no Distinction can be of more use for deciding the Controversie of our Brethren By Change of Person Mr. Alsop understands One coming in the room of another By Change of Persons Both coming in the room of one another and when Mr. Williams grants a Change of Persons and denies a Change of Person he Mr. Alsop does hold a Change of Person and denies a Change of Persons and yet both agree I have said in the Doctrine they make of it Mr. Alsop's Distinction then fuller explained is between Christs sustaining or putting on our Person his taking our State and Condition or his obeying and suffering in our room or stead and Our sustaining or putting on Christs Persen taking on us his Quality or Condition or coming in his room or place The one he maintains and denies the other I will add he does hold and it is to be held that Christ stood in our room and stead and so may be said to put on our Person in obeying and suffering for us as necessary to the Doctrine of Satisfaction but he denies or I do as that which is to be denied that we take on us Christs Person or come in his room or stead as necessary which others affirm to our Justification To make this appear as to the right sense of it we must know that to take anothers Person or to do or suffer any thing in the room or place of another is to do or suffer the thing to free the other from the doing or suffering When Christ then is said to dye for us or for our sins which is all one as taking our Person or suffering in our room place or stead it signifies that he obeyed the Law and suffered the penalty that we might not be bound to that perfect Obedience as the Condition of Life and that we might not suffer the Curse of it and this is necessary to the making God Satisfaction that we may be pardoned and escape the same But for us to put on Christs Person or come in his room or stead does signifie our doing and suffering in him as our Legal or Civil Person what he did and suffered and so be look'd on as having fulfilled the Law both in obeying and suffering so that his Obedience both of his Life and Death is imputatively ours and we in sensu forensi as righteous as he in the sight of God and justified by the Law as Christ was This Commutation of Person therefore we deny as that Doctrine which subverts the Gospel It was a deep mistake in the much reading of Mr. Report to apprehend that the Commutation of Persons in the Sense of Grotius is conducive to the Explanation of the Doctrine of Justification according to the Common Protestant as it is to that of Satisfaction There was a Surrogation of Christs Person in our room for his making Satisfaction there is no Surrogation of our Persons in his room for receiving Justification Of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us as if we