Mr Ws doth grant that Christ by his Righteousness did not only purchase a Conditional Grant of those Effects which he had merited by his Righteousness But besides these Effects made ours the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to true Believers Gospel Truth Stated p. 39. However if we compare this passage with what is more lately and fully explain'd in his Man made Righteous p. 77 c. you will soon unravel the whole Mystery and see that whilst he is labouring to hide himself for a while in a Cloud of Words be means nothing at all by this Grant For he is most explicite in affirming That the Righteousness of Christ as it was the Performance of the Conditions of our Salvation is mediately imputed to the Believer Christs very Performance of the Conditions is saith he Imputed mediately in this manner If one give me my Liberty which he voluntarily purchased for me at a dear rate he mediately gives me what he paid for my Ransom tho' immediately I receive my Liberty and a Right thereto Now what is this more than an imputation of Christs Righteousness in the Effects Because the Effects of Christs death such as a Right to Pardon c. is given to the True Believer therefore it may be said that Christs Righteousness the procuring Cause is imputed unto him As the money which one gives for anothers Liberty may be said to be given to that other to whom Liberty is given which is only in the effects of that Money so Christs Righteousness is imputed in that the effects of it are given unto us that is to say Christs Righteousness is imputed to us mediately It is imputed to us mediante effectu or in its effects If he can make any thing more of it let him Besides so long as he against the Common Sentiment of Protestants denies a Commutation or Change of Persons between Christ and us or that Christ sustained the Person of sinners or as our Surety came under the Bond and Obligations of the violated Law of works to answer those Obligations for us it is impossible there should be on his Principles any other imputation of Christs Righteousness but what is in its effects which Mr. Humphrey clearly understanding does honestly Assert and that he must do the same or relinquish his Principles may be more distinctly proved at any time that he will tho' let him be but sincere and confess it I shall be most willing with my Reverend Brethren to consider how far we are to extend our Communion or Charity towards such wherein he will find me Charitable enough 6. The Breach being on this account begun it is now widened by a Rejecting the Assertion of a Necessity of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us for the due explaining and defending the Doctrine of Christs satisfaction and our Justification together with a Laying by the Vse of the Phrases of Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners of a Change of Persons between Christ and us of Christs being our Surety to answer for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works and the like And made more dangerous since these Phrases have been so very much Ridiculed by this Brother But there being so much wonder made at an insisting on the Vse of these Phrases I will for the sake of those Brethren who either by disuse have forgotten or by reason of a too early and constant Application unto practical Preaching never throughly understood this necessary Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction I will I say show how useful these Phrases are to explain this glorious and blessed Truth There are in the Holy Scriptures several Texts which discover and prove the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction About the Genuine Sense of these Texts the chief Controversie between the Reformed on the one hand and the Arminian and Socinian on the other doth Lye The Controverted Texts are such as speak of Christs dying for our sins and for us of his being our Surety and a Sacrifice for us and the like that relate to these Matters The different Senses which the Orthdox and their Adversaries have of these Texts I will distinctly Propose 1. When it 's said in Scripture that Christ was wounded and bruised for our Transgressions suffered and dyed for our Sins Socinus and his Followers affirm that the Expression for our sins signifies only a Final Cause as if no more was meant than that Christ dyed for our good The Orthodox expresly Asserts that For our sins in these Texts imports an impulsive meritorious Cause and Grotius proves against Socinus that these words Christ suffered for our sins cannot be understood of a Final but of Meritorious Cause And if our sins be the Meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings it necessarily follows that Christs sufferings were a Proper Punishment for them and must be satisfactory to Gods Justice which Grotius and the Right Reverend Bishop of Worcester have unanswerably Proved 2. When in Scripture it is affirmed that Christ suffered and dyed For us the Socinians who Labour to reduce all to his suffering for our good only are positive that the signification of the Proposition For â—s that Christ dyed nostro bono for our good He suffered for our sins that is say they he suffered for our good He dyed for us that is say they he dyed only for our good On the contrary the Orthodox aver that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For when it 's said Christ dyed for us signifies a Commutation or Change of persons between Christ and us which is aptly expressed by that other Phrase in our Place and Stead that is Christ suffered not only for our good but that God might be glorified in our Redemption Christ suffered in our Place and Stead Christ in his sufferings did sustinere vicem seu Persunam nostram He was put into our Place State and Condition that having the Guilt of our sins laid upon him he might according to the Rule of Justice suffer a Proper Punishment for our sins and so make Satisfaction to Gods Justice for us When it 's said Christ came into our Place State and Condition the meaning is he came under the Bonds and Obligations of the violated Law of Works lay under the Guilt and Punishment of sin on our behalfs that we by laying hold on Christ by Faith might be delivered The Phrases then of a Change of Persons between Christ and us of Christs taking on him the Person of Sinners suffering in their Person Rooms and Stead are most apt to convey unto our Vnderstandings the true the Orthodox and Genuine Sense of these Texts Christ dyed for our sins and for us in opposition to the Socinian Interpretation that is to bring all to Christs suffering for our good only which they do that they may the better subvert the Doctrine of a Real Proper and full Satisfaction to Gods Justice 3. The Term Surety when spoken of Christ in Scripture relates to us as we are Sinners endebted to the
Truth is secured Faithful Rebuke I would a thousand times sooner chuse to adhere to this Phrase Christ suffered and dyed in our Stead and Place Loco nostro vice nostrâ than to that other In the sufferings of Christ there was a Change of Persons between Christ and us for the former has had its signification strongly fixed and settled by long Usage and Praescription Whereas this latter is but of Yesterday and scarce two Persons no not the Inventors agreed amongst themselves what sense to stamp upon it Again the plainest Christians have a tolerable understanding of the former whereas the other does but Amuse and Confound them p. 37. Reply 1. If Mr. Ws. had taken this Phrase in our place and stead in it's Antient and Genuine Sense it would have argued that he was sound in the Faith and that his rejecting the Phrase of a Change of Persons between Christ and us would have been only an evincement of his want of Learning and that he understood not the Controversie he wrote of 2. That if this had been the Case the Reverend Brethren at Little St. Hellens would have been in the Right when they said Mr. Ws. cannot be understood to deny a Change of Persons between Christ and us in the general sense because he uses the Phrase of Christs suffering in our place and stead which doth signifie a Change of Persons between Christ and us But 3. He who wrote the Report had it 's like some Reasons moving him to suspect Mr. Ws. that as he did whether in ignorance or knowingly I say not concur with Socinus and Crellius in denying a Proper Commutation or Change of Persons between Christ and us so he did with some high Arminians and the English Vnitarians impose a wrong sense on the Phrase of Christs suffering in our Place and Stead who intend by it no more than that Christ suffered for our good in which sense it doth not I confess imply a Change of Persons between Christ and us nor can the Use of it be sufficient to prove that he who doth expresly deny a Change of Persons between Christ and us doth hold a Change of Persons between Christ and us which was the thing the Reporter pressed And now the Rebuker has made manifest 4. That the Phrase of Christs suffering in our place and stead is not taken by them in the sense of the Reformed for as it 's set up in contradistinction to a Change of Persons between Christ and us so it 's made to signifie no more than for our good for which reason the next Charge is IV. That an Heterodox Sense is Imposed on the Phrase of Christs suffering in our Place and Stead There are saith Turretine several Texts of Scripture in which 't is asserted That Christ dyed for us Rom. 8.32 Rom. 5.6 8. 1 Pet. 3.18 Heb. 11.9 Mat. 20.28 These and many other such Texts do either bear but a Frigid and Jejune sense or must necessarily import such a surrogation as signifieth that Christ did undergo the most cursed Death not only bono Commodo nostro for our good and profit But moreover vice ac Loco nostro in our place and stead De Satis par 1. Disput 4. Thes 2. Dr. Edwards in the Second Part of his Preservative against Socinianism having asserted That our blessed Saviour by dying and shedding his blood underwent that punishment and submitted to that Condemnation which our sins had otherwise rendred us inevitably obnoxious to and this being in it self a Sufficient Compensation made to the Justice of God for the Affronts and Injuries offered to his Authority by the violation of his Laws and likewise being accepted of by him as such It must from hence necessarily and naturally be effectual to procure for us Pardon and Impunity The Dr. having asserted thus much he adds Now this being a matter of great Consequence upon which the whole stress of the Controversie between us and our Adversaries Leans and Rests I shall a little further enlarge upon it and endeavour to make out these two Things 1. That Christ dyed for our sakes and that not only as it signifies for our Benefit and Advantage but in our room and stead p. 94. What the Dr. hath in this place declared is nothing else than what the Orthodox universally do in their Oppugning the Socinian Heresie in this great Point For they all hold that as the Phrase in our room and stead signifyeth somewhat more than for our good so it points us to that upon which the whole stress of the Controversie between us and them doth Lean. But what is this somewhat more I answer Turretine speaking of Christs Suffering vice nostrâ in our place and stead explains it thus Christ as our Surety suffered what we had deserved that by making a full satisfaction to Divine Justice we might be delivered from eternal Death and being delivered might moreover be made partakers of eternal Life To suffer you see vice nostrâ in our stead is in the Judgment of this great Man to suffer as our Surety and who knoweth not that a Surety is substituted into the room of the Debtor that between the one and the other there is a Commutation or Change of Persons besides sustinere vicem nostram is the same with sustinere personam nostram to suffer in our stead the same with suffering in our Person Further This phrase vice nostrâ in our Stead is used to interpret that other phrase For us what is done for us is done in our stead When it 's said in Scripture that Christ suffered for us the meaning is that Christ suffered in our stead and that For us doth denote a Commutation or change of Persons between Christ and Us I have already shewn out of Grotius the Bishop of Worcester and Turretine about the Import of the Praeposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For. But in Scripture it 's also said that Christ Died for our sins and for sinners and the Controversie between Us and the Socinians is whether for our sins must be considered as Importing a Final or the Impulsive and Meritorious Cause of Christ's sufferings Now Dr. Edwards gives the sense of the Orthodox when He affirms that all those phrases of Dying for sins and sinners plainly denote to us that sin in those places is not to be considered as the Final but as the Impulsive Meritorious Cause But the Socinians will have it that for us and for our sins denote only a Final Cause and signifie no more than for our good However my reverend Brother for reasons best known unto himself is express that the phrase of Christ's suffering in our Stead doth signifie no more than for our Good Ay that it 's Impossible it should signifie any more Faithful Rebuke He that by Christ's suffering in our stead intends He suffered for our good speaks the Truth p. 37. But the Caviller proceeds in our place and stead with some signifie no more than for our good
why 't is Impossible they should p. 35. Reply What English Vnitarian can more positively declare that it is Impossible for the phrase in our Place and Stead to signifie any more than for our good than my Brother has done And if it can signifie no more than for our good wherein can he who is of this Opinion distinguish himself from a Socinian when he denies a change of Persons to be between Christ and Us by saying that Christ Died in our Place and Stead For whilst he saith Christ suffered in our Stead according to this declaration he must mean no more than that Christ suffered for our good which may be without His making satisfaction to God's Justice for us Alas Sirs If you will allow us no sense of the phrase of a change of Persons between Christ and Vs but that we Died for Christ's sins this is Blasphemy when yet if there be not a change of Persons between Christ and Us there cannot be a Substitution of Christ's Person into our room and consequently Christ did not and could not suffer in our place and stead which is He did not he could not make satisfaction a Real Proper and Full Satisfaction unto God's Justice for us Here is the very natural and irrefragable Consequence which flows from my Brother's denying a change of Persons between Christ and Us. For I say if Christ suffered not in our stead He could not make Satisfaction for us as all will grant If there was not a Substitution of Christ into our place He suffered not in our place and if there was not a change of Persons between Christ and Us there could not be a Substitution of Christ into our place But you 'l say that this is a remote Consequence which ought not to be charged on my Brother well then we will let it for once pass so and see whether He is for Christ's suffering in our stead here our Enquiry is not about the word without a meaning nor with a wrong Sense But whether as it signifies somewhat more than for our good it may be said that Christ suffered in our stead To which my Brother doth directly answer That when it 's said Christ suffered in our stead it 's Impossible it should signifie any more than for our Good So clear it is that how honestly soever my Brother may mean his Words do in this place Express a Denial of Christ's Satisfaction as openly as the English Unitarians have ventured to do And yet he doth say that the Socinians when they use this phrase do it Knavishly Faithful Rebuke I had rather have the Socinians speak honestly tho' with a Knavish meaning than mean and speak both like Knaves If the Socinians will put an Unsound sense upon sound words will you quit the sound phrase because they put a wretched Sense on 't p. 35. Reply 1. I am willing to think my Brothers Wit hath prov'd a Snare to him in this place For if he be in good earnest in any sense tho' but comparatively for honest words with a Knavish meaning 't will induce some to suspect that whilst he seems so zealous for the honest phrase of Christ's suffering in our stead he hath pitch'd upon the Socinian which he calls the Knavish meaning deliberately and of choice And that of Inclination and Design he doth too often so speak and so write 2. Whatever my Brother intends it 's manifest that whilst he calls the Socinian sense Unsound Wretched and Knavish He gives the very sense of this phrase which the Socinians who use it do give and by it means if we may judge his meaning by his words no more than what Socinus Crellius and that Fraternity do consistently with their Denial of Christ's Satisfaction constantly grant But must we quit a sound phrase when ever an Unsound sense is put upon it 3. There is no need of quitting the phrase An Orthodox Explanation will be sufficient to Obviate what mischiefs are likely to arise from their wretched Interpretations which is the true reason why I am so much concern'd in this affair and press so much for the Use of these Orthodox Terms and Phrases in their sound sense For 4 It hath been the Practice of some to reject the Use of such phrases as have been pitch'd upon by the Godly Learned and are most apt to express the Truth in the Controverted Points and when for their Interest to continue their Use then insiduously to foist in a wretched sense on them chiefly for this reason that they may make the Sufferings of Christ to be but an Act of Dominion and not properly Poenal they as well as all others knowing that if Christ's Sufferings be not properly a Punishment they cannot be satisfactory to God's Justice for our sins and if Christ did not so suffer in our Place and Stead as in our Place and Stead signifie somewhat more than for our good His sufferings were not properly Poenal And agreeably hereunto my Brother as he Rejects the phrases of Christ's sustaining the Person of sinners of a change of Persons between Christ and Us and puts an Unsound sense on Christ's suffering in our Place and Stead so that word which was in the first Paper to make it evident that we esteemed Christ's Sufferings to be a proper Punishment is rejected as what can't in my Brothers Opinion bear a sound sense which brings me to the fifth charge V. Christ's Undertaking to Answer for sinners the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works is turn'd into Christ's Answering for our Violation of the Law of Works To this my Brother Replies Faithful Rebuke What is the Nice difference then between Christ's Answering for our Violation of the Law and Answering for us the Violation Or what the Critical difference between Christ's answering for them the Violation and Answering for their Violation of the Law of Works He that Answers for me the Violation of the Law Answers for my Violation of the Law p. 47. Reply 1. That Christ suffered for our sins that is for our Violation of the Law the Socinians always acknowledge but then they are so honest as to tell us that the Praeposition For in this Instance denotes only a Final cause and that the meaning of the phrase of Christ's suffering for our Violations of the Law is the same with that other of Christ's suffering for our good for which reason the yielding no more than that Christ suffered for our Violation of the Law of Works cannot be a Bar against Socinian Encroachments nor a sufficient security to the Truth of Christ's Satisfaction 2. My Brother doth in this place make a sad noise about Answering for our Violation of the Law of Works making close Enquiry where the Nice difference between for our and for us and the Critical difference between for them and for their closing his Enquiry with a but this it is to be Hypercriticks in Theology when it 's often ridiculous in Phylology whereas a Grain of Common
Sense would have help'd him to understand that here is not one word in all his Nice and Critical Disquisitions to the purpose and that it was not about the difference between for ours and for us for them and for theirs but that the strest of what she Reporter suggested on this occasion leans on the word Obligation In the first Paper it was that the Lord Christ did Answer for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works and it must be observ'd that by this phrase an Effectual 〈…〉 was laid in against the most Rotten part of the Socinian Heresie against Christ's Satisfaction And the Enquiry if so the purpose should have been what the Nice Difference between answering for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works and Answering for our Violation of the Law of Works To which I answer 3. There is a very great Difference as great as is between a Gospel Truth and a Socinian Errour in an Important Article of the Christian Faith To clear the Truth in this Point I will refer you to the learned Bishop of Worcester who truly delivers the sense of the Socinians thus They assert That God took occasion by the sins of Men to exercise an Act of Dominion upon Christ in his sufferings and that the sufferings of Christ were intended for the taking away the sins of men but they utterly deny that the sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a Punishment for sin or that Christ did suffer in our place and stead nay they contend with great vehemency that it is wholly inconsistent with the Justice of God to make one mans sins the Meritorious Cause of anothers Punishment especially One wholly Innocent and so that the Guilty shall be Freed on the account of his sufferings Thus I have endeavoured to give the true state of the Controversie with all Clearness and Brevity And the substance of it will be reduced to these two Heads Thus this learned Bishop The first Head of the two being mostly to my purpose I 'll only mention it and somewhat said of it It is this Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a Punishment of Sin or as a meer act of Dominion for that it must be one or the other of these two cannot be denied by our Adversaries for the Inflicting those Sufferings upon Christ must either proceed from an Anteceding Meritorious Cause or not If they do they are then Punishments if not they are meer Exercises of Power and Dominion whatever Ends they are Intended for and whatever Recompence be made for them Of Christ Suff. p. 267. Here then lies the Heart of the Controversie between us and them whether our sins be an Impulsive Meritorious Cause of Christ's sufferings and Christ's sufferings a proper Punishment for our sins If our sins be the Meritorious Cause of Christ's sufferings it necessarily follows that Christ bore the Punishment of our sins in a proper sense An Impulsive Cause in a remote sense as though our sins were a meer Occasion of Christ's Dying Crellius granted But as the Bishop observes We Understand not an Impulsive Cause in so remote a sense but we contend for a nearer and more proper sense viz. that the Death of Christ was primarily intended for the Expiation of our sins with a respect to God and not to Us and therefore our sins as an Impulsive Cause are to be considered as they are so displeasing to God that it was necessary for the Vindication of God's Honour and the deterring the World from sin that no less a sacrifice of Attonement should be offered than the Blood of the Son of God 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 269. And as they own a sort of no Anteceding Impulsive Cause which is but the meer Occasion of Christ's suffering so they 'l call Christ's sufferings a Punishment but then they take Punishment only in an improper sense Paenam improprie dictam fatamur So Crellius For saith He What Christ suffered hath so near a Cognation and Alliance with true Punishment that the word Punishment and those other phrases used in describing proper Punishments may for the greater Elegancy be taken into our Discourses about Christ's Passion The Agreement there is between Christ's sufferings and a proper Punishment is very considerable First in their matter for both are afflictive then in the Impulsive Procatartic cause which is sin in the sense the Bishop observed and at last in the Effect and End which is to remove guilt and bring men off from their sins tho' in the manner there is some difference But then the great Difference is as to the Formal Reason of Punishment which not being found in Christ's sufferings they can't be properly a Punishment Crel Respons ad Grot. de satisf ad cap. 1. Thus what Approaches soever they seem to make towards the Truth they utterly deny that sin is in a proper sense the Meritorious Cause of Christ's sufferings Or that Christ's sufferings are a proper Punishment There are amongst the Arminians also some who agree too much with the Socinians in denying Christ's sufferings to be properly a Punishment they holding them to be rather Dolorous than Poenal who are justly called Socinianizing-Arminians such as Episcopius Carcellaeus and Limborch who do their utmost to corrupt the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction They own that Christ was Punished Loco nostro in our Place and Stead and yet deny his Sufferings to be properly Poenal allowing 'em to be but Improperly or Analogically a Punishment That the sufferings of Christ as to the Reason of the thing were a Natural Evil endured for Sin as sin was the Occasion or remote Cause and may be aptly enough called Punishment But they would rather call them a Vicarious Punishment as they are Vice Poenae in the Room and Stead of a proper Punishment Gerardus Vossius in a Letter to Grotius is very express that in this point Episcopius differed from him For Tho' He owned that Christ's Sufferings had a respect unto God and not only unto men yet the Grand Question is saith He what respect As for the Opinion commonly Embraced viz. that Christ bore that Punishment which was due to us he could by no means admit because then He thought Christ must have been plung'd into despair and suffer the very Torments of Hell and that Pardon of sin would be made hereby Impossible That his Notion of satisfaction was that as in the Old Testament sins were Pardoned on the Offering of a Sacrifice without any suffering of a Punishment even so in the New Testament on the Intervention of Christ's Sacrifice which abundantly excels them under the Old are all our sins forgiven us That herein lay the Errour of Socinius that He Denied Christ's Sacrifice to be properly Propitiatory Epist. Praest Viror Ep. 278. Thus far Episcopius who in his publick Writing used more Caution yet to his Particular Friend He thus freely opens himself and Limborch thought it meet to acquaint the World with it