Pacification Touching the Doctrinal Dissent, Part 4
PART IV.
THERE remains now one thing, and a chief thing, yet to be done, which is, to offer ſomething that may ſerve to reconcile ſuch Brethren at leaſt as agree in the main, though it cannot ſuch as quite differ in the Point. I ſhall firſt dilate a little more for lights ſake, and ſo be lead thereto by the matter it ſelf. Chriſt in Scripture is ſaid to dye for us, and to dye for our Sins.
For our Sins he may be ſaid to dye or ſuffer in theſe two ſenſes. For our Sins, To expiate them, to deliver us from them, the Guilt and Condemnation due to us for them: For our Sins, As the Meritorious Cauſe of his Death and Sufferings, upon his voluntary undertaking that Expiation. Both theſe Senſes are good, and to be retained.
For us may have a double Senſe alſo, Loco noſtro; or Bono noſtro. In our ſtead; or in regard to our Benefit. The Socinians will have Chriſt to dye for us only bono noſtro, which they fetch about too, ſo as makes his dying for us of no more concern than a Martyr's. Chriſt by his Death confirmed his Doctrine: This makes us believe it: His Doctrine teaches a Holy Life: By a Holy Life we leave Sin. Chriſt therefore dyed for our Sins. But we hold Chriſt dyed loco noſtro, in our ſtead, in our room.
Now, In our ſtead, or loco noſtro, may have again a double Interpretation.
In our stead, As repreſenting our Perſons, ſo that God looks on us as having done and ſuffered what Chriſt did and ſuffered for us. As what my Attorney or Delegate does for me, I am accounted to have done. He is the Agent Naturally, but Civilly or Legally it is I: In this Interpretation we are not to hold Chriſt dyed in our ſtead, for that draws all thoſe mentioned Conſequences after it, which muſt carefully be avoided.
There is another Interpretation then of Suffering in our ſtead. In our stead, that is, To ſave us from Suffering our ſelves; and this is the Senſe we are firſt to know to be the right, and then ſtand by it. To do any thing or ſuffer it in the room of another, I have ſaid, is to do or ſuffer that thing that the other may eſcape it, and in this right ſenſe it is, that Grotius underſtands Chriſt's dying for us, and ſpeaks of a Commutation or Subrogation of Chriſt's Perſon in the room of ours in his Sufferings for us, as the Beaſt was ſubrogated in the place of him that Sacrificed it. If any ſtretch ſuch words of his farther than ſo, they abuſe both their Underſtanding and him.
Now when this In our ſtead, in uſual ſpeaking, is Suffering or doing in our Perſon, I am brought at laſt to a pauſe, as to the words we uſe, That Chriſt ſuffered and obeyed in our Perſons, is ſaid by our Divines without ſcruple, and Dr. Bates does but handſomly expreſs what they ſpeak ordinarily. Nay Mr. Baxter does acknowledge that theſe words may be uſed, if we put a right Senſe on them. And what is that Senſe? The Senſe that muſt be put on them, if right, is indeed to confound theſe two things, which I, and Mr. W. and Mr. Baxter too, do ſo carefully diſtinguiſh otherwiſe, that is, Chriſt's Suffering in our ſtead, and in our Perſons. Let theſe two Expreſſions then be underſtood as one and the ſame thing, and either of them may be uſed. If the ſaying Chriſt ſuffered in our Perſons, as Chriſt ſuffered in our ſtead, be taken in the firſt ſenſe of In our stead, ſo as to draw on theſe Conſequences, I ſay we muſt deny that he ſuffered in our Perſons, or dyed in our ſtead, the Saying is Antinomian: But if it be made to ſignifie no more than Suffering in our ſtead, in the ſecond Interpretation of In our ſtead, that is, ſo as not to draw thoſe Conſequences, the Saying is Orthodox, and we may allow it. Thus much is ſafe and ſure, from whence it appears, that ſome Diſtinction here in other words, the members whereof (Membra dividentia ſunt contraria) being made ſuch as all theſe ſaid Conſequences may be attributed to one of them, and none of them to the other, ſo that we could ſimply, only by granting the one Branch, and denying the other, reconcile in this matter, might do better. Suppoſe then I ſhould recall thoſe words, a little above where I count (or hitherto have) Chriſt's Suffering and Obeying in our Perſons, and our Obeying and Suffering in Chriſt's Perſon to be all one; and inſtead of diſtinguiſhing between, in our Stead, and in our Perſons, make theſe to be two things, I ſay, make this the Diſtinction upon which to ſet all right, by ſaying that Chriſt obeyed and ſuffered in our Perſons, underſtanding only in our stead in the right ſenſe declared, but denying that we ſuffered and obeyed in his Perſon, or that God does look on us as legally to have obeyed and ſatisfied in him, becauſe of thoſe Conſequences (I ſay ſtill) before mentioned, which if propoſed by way of Argument againſt it, none can anſwer. (Let Dr. Bates try, and if he cannot, Mr. Lobb muſt not in Modeſty think he can,) Would not this do our work?
I crave here Mr. W's Attention, becauſe in a Diſcourſe I had laſt with him, he diſtinguiſhed thus. He held he ſaid a Commutation of Perſon, but not of Perſons. I ask'd him if he had read the Diſtinction in the Civil Law, and if he had his Author I ſhould like it well. We know the Scripture ſays, Chriſt dyed for us, and obeyed for us, and that is we ſay in our room, in our ſtead. It no where ſays, we ſinned in his ſtead, our Sins were not for him, though he bare them. He ſuffered and obeyed in our Perſon as in our stead, I have ſaid, there is a Commutation of Perſon; but we ſuffered not, and obeyed not in his Perſon (ſeeing theſe Conſequences aforeſaid follow upon that,) ſo there is not of Perſons. And what if Mr. W. and I ſhould have fallen here into the ſame Conception? Nay, what if Dr. Bates, whoſe Book is cited againſt Mr. W. ſhould have been ſo profoundly careful of his words, that though he hath ſo amply owned the Sinner and Chriſt (as his Surety) to be one in Law, Judicially one, as to the paying our Debts, or bearing our Puniſhment, or in doing and ſuffering what we ought to have done and ſuffered, hath yet never expreſs'd them One ſo, as that God accounts us to have obeyed and ſuffered in him? I cannot ſay it, but if he hath, then are we very lucky in this: And why may we not agree thus (as I ſay) with that worthy and beloved Man? Chriſt was indeed Our Subſtitute, but we not Christ's: He obeyed and ſuffered in our Perſon, but not we in His; and if we did not obey and ſuffer in his Perſon, then muſt not his Righteouſneſs be Ours neither, but in the Effects. Let the Doctor chooſe here whether he will cleave to his old Friend Mr. Baxter, or his new Mr. W. and let Mr. W. conſider himſelf who is likelieſt to have ſeen deeper, he or Mr. Baxter, into the Bowels of this Point. This I ſtand upon, God looks not on us as the Performers of what Chriſt performed in our behalf; and in our behalf, in our ſtead, or room, to ſuffer, I have ſaid, and ſaid, is to ſuffer that We might not ſuffer. To ſay then that Chriſt's Suffering is Ours (or accounted Ours) is to forget what Suffering in anothers room does mean. If Chriſt ſuffered and obeyed (I preſs it) in our ſtead, place, room, that we might not ſuffer and obey (in the ſenſe in due place explained) then did not, then could not he ſuffer and obey ſo, as that God ſhould look on us as if we have ſuffered and obeyed in him. This is a Contradiction, and he that ſays Chriſt's Righteouſneſs it ſelf is imputed to us as ours, is involved in it.
Mr. Rutherford argues, If Chriſt paid the Law Debt of Satisfaction, which the Elect in their Perſons ſhould have paid, and thereby freed them from the ſame, he ſuſtained the Perſon of the Elect (or our Perſons) in his Sufferings, Co. Op. 251. I anſwer, We will grant to him here the uſe of ſuch words, Chriſt ſuſtained our Perſon, or ſuffered in our Perſons in this ſenſe quoted, that through Satisfaction given by him to the Law-giver, Elect Believers are freed from ſatisfying the Law themſelves (the Language thus pruned, for the Law was not executed, or Law-Debt paid, but Satisfaction given to ſave its Execution on the Debtor:) But when he confounds the Uſe with the other Senſe alſo as one, that in Chriſt's ſuſtaining our Perſon, God does account us to have ſuffered and ſatisfied in his, he is fallen into this Inconſiſtency, that neither Rutherford nor Bates (I doubt,) nor Williams himſelf, hath ſufficiently obſerved. What is done in our ſtead, or in our Perſon, in the one Senſe, cannot be ſo in the other. If God (I muſt ſay it again) will have Chriſt to ſuſtain our Perſons in his Sufferings, that we might not Suffer, then muſt we not alſo ſuſtain His, as that God ſhould account us to have ſuffered. This is the Inconſiſtency, and the Reader muſt pardon me the forced Repetition.
Mr. W. (who I ſay is included here) does tell us, (Man made Righteous, p. 62, 63.) That the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, as the performed Condition of the Reward, was a Faederal Righteouſneſs, above what was to be Mans Righteouſneſs by the Law of Works, which he exemplifies in ſeveral Inſtances. I argue againſt him hereupon, Therefore the very Righteouſneſs of Chriſt it ſelf cannot be imputed to us, but is imputed to us in the Effects. It was in our ſtead, therefore not ours in it ſelf: It was in our ſtead, and therefore ours in the Benefit of it, and in the Benefit only.
Thus much for Mr. W. with whom I am concerned, becauſe we being ſo near of Opinion, I would have that Satisfaction from him, as to take theſe Matters between us into his ſecond Thoughts, and to conſider what I offer, ſo as if there be light, or right Notion in it, he may make it more clear by the fulneſs of his Expreſſion (when mine is barren,) and indeed tell what Dr. Bates ſhould mean, and what I do mean, better perhaps than my ſelf. I do conjure him, ſo far as he is convinced, not to be aſhamed to own the Truth, however naked it be here, and without Friends: Or elſe to give me ſufficient reaſon for my return to his Temper, which ſeems to me ſuch, as to let his Opinion be that, or no other but that, which he can ſo defend againſt his Adverſaries, as to loſe no Repute with his Followers.
For Mr. Lobb I am not concerned, for whether I differ with him in all, or not at all, we leave one another to our own Judgments. It is the words of others he hath quoted, and I apprehend himſelf free to his own Opinion, wherein I know he hath had, and may have, Candour and Latitude; which may be therefore the ſame with mine, as theirs, if he will, and if he will not, he may chooſe. He is one that for his Induſtry in reading Books, and good Temper upon it I do value; and though there be ſome that are ſtumbled, at the Intereſt he had in King James's Court, I judge, that ſeeing it was laid out mainly to get and maintain their Liberty, the Brethren have little reaſon to cenſure, and much leſs to envy it. Mr. Lobb (I muſt tell ſome) had no Gift from that King. King James indeed knew how to toul Men into him by Liberty of Conſcience, and make that a Schooing-Horn to have drawn Popery upon the Nation, if he had not been prevented: But any one may eaſily believe, he never had ſuch a Heart to any Nonconformiſt Proteſtant, as to build us a Synagogue. I had written about a ſide upon this account, but blotting out the reſt, I will let thus much ſtand, that upon this Intereſt of Mr. Lobb, I had Admittance once into King James's Preſence, and having ſpoken what I came about, and ſomething concerning his Diſpenſing with the Law, I ſaid thus to him, That if he would maintain that Diſpenſing Power, which I counted he then exerciſed, he changed his Government, and the People would fight with him, and their Cauſe be good. I ſpake it in ſuch words, and ſome the ſame (as Mr. Lobb can witneſs) that are in the enſuing Paper, which I printed lately by it ſelf for ſerving the preſent Generation, according to my Mite; but knowing how ſuch ſingle Papers are uſed, torn, burnt, loſt, and having at firſt wrote it in theſe Sheets, I did not intend but it ſhould alſo come out with them: In a Book it will be kept, and I Prognoſticate too, will remain, to that Age to come, wherein no Man will be found, that dare write or ſay the ſame. That Doctrine was accounted good in Queen Elizabeth's Time, which in King Charles and King James's was made Treaſon, and now in King William's hath been Juſtified.