Defense of the Report, Part 2 · Section 4
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 'tis 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 foreign, [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 'tis Impoſſible they ſhould. p. 35.
Reply.
What Engliſh Ʋnitarian 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 Ʋs, 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, 'twill 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.