Vindication of the Faithful Rebuke to a False Report, Letter 4
LETTER IV. A farther Account of the Phrase, A Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners.
SIR, You pretend that I am a little in Debt, either contracted by my own Promise, or your Demand, to give you some farther account of this troublesome Phrase, A Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners: and admitting the Debt, I am now furnisht wherewith to pay it.
You may remember, that the Rebuke, p. 30. had said, A Change of Persons between Christ and Sinners, may possibly be capable of receiving a sound sense, and yet is more sounding towards a dangerous one: And therefore the Brethren did unanimously agree, to grant as much as the sound sense would bear, and to pass by the other, which was liable to be interpreted to a sense of Malignity, &c.
Now, Sir, I refer it to your Judgment; What could be more fairly spoken? More honestly asserted? More liberally granted? And yet the Defence shall rack, and wrest, and torture and vex these innocent Words to a meaning as odious and ugly as his own Heart can invent.
Thus p. 14. he infers from hence, That the Paragraphs, Terms and Phrases which were in the first Paper, and were waved in the third, could not (according to my Judgment) bear a sound sense; That is, I must needs affirm, the Phrase could not bear a sound sense, because I affirmed expresly, it could: What then must we do? Or how must we speak to please this Man? If his Logical Abilities be so formidable, so miraculously great, who from an Affirmative, can conclude a Negative, or his Honesty so little, that he hopes to persuade his easie Reader that he has done it, its high time to lay aside all Endeavours to answer him.
For more particular satisfaction, I desire you to consider.
§. 1. The third Paper declares the Brethrens Adherence to, and Approbation of the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England, the Consession of the Assembly at Westminster, or that at the Savoy; and I will confidently say, That whatever of a sound sense can be found in this Phrase, is found in some one or other of those Confessions: If therefore these Confessions be owned, that sound sense is owned; if any unsound sense be waved, tis also equally waved in those Consessions.
§. 2. The Brethren in their third Paper, have expresly given us both the evil sense which they reject, and the good sense which they own; and how then could he boldly face it out, that they have left out the good sense, or supposed that it could not bear one?
1. They provide in some measure against the evil sense. This Commutation of Persons with us, was not natural, in respect of either Nature, by which his individual Substance should become ours, and ours his: Nor moral, in respect of Qualities or Actions, whereby be should become inherently sinsul, and we immediately sinless: Nor was it any Change, whereby his Office of Mediator should be transferred in us: And they had good reason to provide against these Implous Senses.
2. They propound a good sense, (if the Phrase will bear it) That Christ by agreement between the Father and Him, came in our room and stead to answer for our Violation of the Law of Works; he being made Sin for us, who knew no Sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Now this is a good sense; that is, it's a great Truth; but whether it be the sense of the Phrase, is reasonably doubted, and will need much Charity to help it out; for a good-natur'd Man may be content to put that sense upon a Phrase, which is not really in it.
§. 3. If the Defender says true, That this and some other Phrases are virtually included, in that of Christ's dying in our place and stead; then the Brethren have not left out, but virtually taken in either this or whatever other sound sense the words are capable of; for whoever takes in the thing containing and including, takes in whatever is contained and included therein.
§. 4. Whilst my Eye is upon't, I will give you a Rare Specimen of our Author's Argumentative Excellencies, which I am sure will surprize you: 'Tis in p. 46. where after a hideous Outery, like that of Micah, when the Danites had plundered him of his Gods. Alas Sirs, (says he) if you will allow us no sense of the Phrase of a Change of Persons between Christ and us, but that we dyed for Christ's Sins; [as he died for ours] This is Blasphemy! But have a little patience, good Sir, do not discompose your self! they have allowed you a far better sense, that he gave himself for us; that he died in our stead, to satisfie God's Iustice: This is a sense you may have, and imports no Blasphemy; but if you will have a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners, in the true, proper, literal, and Grammatical sense, you must avoid the Blasphemy as well as you can: And now for his Argument.
If there be not a Change of Persons between Christ and us, there cannot be a Substitution of Christ's Person in our room: To which I softly return, I deny the Consequence: There may be a Substitution of Christ's Person in our Room, and yet no Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners; and that upon these Reasons. There may be a Substitution of one Person for another, where there's no Commutation between those two Persons: Substitution and Commutation are not Terms of equal latitude, the latter is larger than the former; and therefore the granting the former, will never infer the latter.
But still he argues: If there be no Substitution of Christ's Person into our Room, Christ could not suffer in our Stead: I readily grant the whole. And he might have concluded, that if there be no Substitution of Christ in our stead, Christ could not suffer in our room; and so again, if no Substitution in our Place, then no Suffering in our stead, and these are all Meridian Demonstrations.
But yet he is resolved to give this a more Genteel Turn: Here is the very natural, and irrefragable Consequence which flows from my Brothers denying a change of Persons between Christ, and us: Truly the Rebuke is not willing to invade any one of his just Titles, much less that of the Irrefragable Doctor which is the due of the Defender; but he does absolutely deny, that his denial of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners, does infer that there's no Substitution, no Suffering, no Satisfaction, for the Reason before given: However let's hear him argue, if Christ suffered not in our stead, he could not make satisfaction for us. Well! 'tis allowed: Go on! If there was not a Substitution of Christ in our place, he suffered not in our place: As true as Gospel, and much truer than our Authors Gospel: If he had not been in our place, he could not have suffer'd in our place: Now comes the mortal blow! If there was no change of Persons between Christ and us, there could not have been a Substitution of Christ in our place. And here again I deny the Consequence: That though there was a Substitution of Christs Person in our place, there was no need that there should be a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us: Thus much is true, if Christ had not suffered in our stead, he could not have satisfied for our Sins; if he had not been substituted in our stead, he could not have suffered in our stead; and if an exchange of Christ for us, had not been allowed by the Father, and consented to by himself, he could not have been substituted in our stead; but that a Commutation of Persons is necessary to support any of these Conclusions, I utterly deny. In a word, the Doctrine of Satisfaction has stood firm on its own Basis, many Centuries before this untoward Phrase was known, and shall stand unshaken when this, and all arbitrary Expressions shall be banisht out.
You see Sir, Our confident Defender for all his Hectoring has not been able to produce one Article of any one Confession to vouch for his great Phrase; A Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners, and whereas in other Cases, when his Common-Place-Book will furnish him, he uses to press us to Death with Quotations from Learned Men▪ Yet upon this Head, he is modest and sparing, and has only named, not cited three mighty Names, the Bishop of Worcester, Hugo Grotius, and Dr. I. O. three great ones I confess, and might have formed the Tresviri de Republicâ Literariâ Constituendâ; but now as for the Bishop, he has cleared himself out of their Hands, and for the two other, I will do them the same Service.
1. For Grotius: He is indeed named in the first Paper, named in the Defence, but yet not quoted, no Words of his alledged, that own a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners: And there's a mighty Reason for it, because there's no such Sentence to be found in him, I mean in his Book, De Satisfactione; a Commutation of Christs Person for Sinners, that I find; that Christ suffered and dyed in our room, that I find; that he was substituted in our room for this end, I find too: And all these fully, and solidly cleared and vindicated from the Cavils of Socinus, I find; but a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners, I can no where find.
In cap. 9. de Satisfact. he mentions a Surrogation; As when Christ is said, Heb. 2. 9. To tast Death for every Man, foreign. To die for the People. John 11. 50. That he suffered for us, foreign, 1 Pet. 2. 21. And whereas Socinus had pleaded, that the Preposition foreign, and the Latine [pro] are ambiguous, and oftentimes denote no more than for the Benefit of another; Grotius answers, that as to those two Words it may be true, yet the Preposition foreign utterly rejects that Evasion, and signifies properly a Substitution in the room of another, or the Commutation of one for another. So Math. 20. 28. Mark 10. 45. Thus when its said, Math. 2. 22. That Archelaus reigned in Iudaea, foreign, in the room of Herod his Father; there must be imported a Substitution of one in the Place of another: And thus (says he) its taken in prophane Authors, foreign, one in the room of many; I may add that of Virgil, Unum pro multis dabitur Caput: And this (says Grotius) Socinus cannot deny, but that the Phrase foreign, Commutationem quandam indicat: It does imply, that there is some sort of Commutation: But Grotius contends earnestly; that the Expression foreign, denotes veram Commutationem, a true Commutation. Now the only Question with us is this: What that Commutation is? Whether it be a single or a double Commutation? And through that whole Chapter he carries it thus to the diligent Observer, that he means only a Commutation of Christs Person for us in our stead; which is the Truth we contend for, but yet is an utter stranger to that Phrase of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners; and this is most evident from his concluding Words of the whole Discourse. Ea autem quae de Commutationis …gnificatione in Particula, pro a nobis hactenus dicta sunt, ex sacrificii expiatorii natura multum illustrantur: What we have hitherto discoursed of the meaning of a Commutation, in the Particle Pro, is very much illustrated from the Nature of an expiatory Sacrifice: Now then, we appeal to all Mankind, whether there was not a Substitution of the Sacrifice in the room of the Offender; but withall we deny, that it could be said there was Commutation of Persons between the Offender and the Sacrifice.
(2.) Consider we next his Quotation from Dr. Owen, p. 38. Here is (says the Defence) a Commutation or Change of Persons which in some respect is mutual but not in all respects so: Now here are some Things that I am obliged to make a Particular Remark upon.
1. That our Author is now run into the same Contradiction, that he once charged Mr. W's with: A Commutation, and no Commutation! a Change, and no Change! What will bring off the one, will bring off the other.
2. Observe the strong Inclination our Author has to make this Commutation mutual; 'tis in some respects so! Its Pity 'tis not so in all; for the Phrase requires it should be mutual and reciprocal; only the Mischief is, it can never be proved.
3. If a mutual Commutation between Christ and Sinners, would imply (as he says) Blasphemy; then this various respect serves to this end, to prove that in some respects it is Blasphemy, though in others not.
4. 'Tis evident, he quotes the Dr. with a guilty Conscience knowing that his Words will never reach the Proof that its produced for: Let us therefore hear the Dr. himself, A change of Persons between Christ and us, as to Sin and Righteousness, whence Christ is made our Sin, and they who believe are made the Righteousness of God in him: Now I would ask, what is here in the Doctors Words to his purpose? Christ is made our Sin: So he is in the business of Satisfaction; We are made (we who believe) his Righteousness: yes, so we are in Iustification: But these two are not ad idem; they relate to, speak not of, one and the same Thing; for the Question is, whether there be a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us in satisfaction? and in that respect, which is the only respect in which the Question stands, there's nothing mutual, nothing reciprocal, which yet should have been proved, if he would prove the Propriety of this Phrase, A Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners.
Thus fallaciously has he quoted, so miserably has he wrested that Learned Persons Words, and I doubt not we should have discovered far greater Fraud, had he dared to direct us to that place in the Doctor's, where he supposes him thus to speak.
You see, Sir, at what Rate this Gentleman Argues, and how he quotes his Authors; a notorious vein of this Fallacy runs through his whole Discourse: I have already observed to you some of 'em, and I reserve many others for a particular Paper: At present you see upon what Terms I am willing to serve you, who am,
Sir, your Faithful Servant, &c.