Defense of the Report, Part 2 · Section 5
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, Curcellaeus, who ſucceeded him in the Profeſſors Chair, declares freely, That Chriſt did not Satisfie, as is commonly apprehended, by ſuffering all thoſe Puniſhments, which we had deſerved by our Sins. Firſt, becauſe ſuffering Puniſhment belongs not to the Reaſon of a Sacrifice, and hath nothing Common with it. Sacrifices are not Debitorum Solutiones, the Payment of Debts, as appears from the Legal Inſtitutions. Curcel. Relig. Chriſts Inſtit. lib. 5. c. 19. § 14, 15.
Lemborch holds the ſame Opinion, It may be in a certain ſenſe ſaid, that Chriſt was Puniſhed for us, as there was laid upon him a Vicarious Puniſhment, that is Affliction, quae Poenae vicem ſuſtenuit, in the place and ſtead of puniſhment. Limb. Theol. Chriſt. Lib. 3. c. 22. § 2.
4. Having thus ſtated the Controverſie between the Orthodox and the Socinians, together with Epiſcepius and his Followers, I will conſider the Enquiry; What is the Nice Difference between Chriſts Anſwering the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works; and his Anſwering for our Violation of the Law of Works? And deſire my Brother to conſider, that a Man may ſubſcribe to this Aſſertion, That Chriſt anſwered for our Violation of the Law of Works, conſiſtently with his denying Chriſts Sufferings to be properly paenal: But …eeing, the violated Law of Works obliged unto a proper puniſhment, Chriſt could not Anſwer for us the Obligations of this Violated Law any otherwiſe than by ſuffering a Proper Puniſhment for our ſins; So that, tho' an inſiſting on Chriſts Anſwering for our Violation of the Law of Works, ſecures not this Great Truth of Chriſts ſuffering a proper Puniſhment for our ſins; yet his Anſwering the Obligations of the Violated Law, doth it moſt effectually. But,
5. My Brother aſſuring us, that no Terms or Paſſages were waved and paſſed by but ſuch as could not bear a ſound Senſe, and this word [Obligations] which eſtabliſhes Chriſts ſuffering a proper puniſhment being waved, is it not a plain Indication, that my Brother hath at leaſt a concern for them, who with the Socinians and Epiſcopians deny the Sufferings of Chriſt to be a proper Puniſhment, or Satisfactory to Gods Juſtice for our ſins, or hath in ignorance ſpoken all this?
6. It's now time therfore, to gather up what my Brother hath ſaid to the ſhaking the Foundations of Chriſts Satisfaction; which is ſo very much, that an Engliſh Ʋnitarian, in the way now eſteemed moſt … to ſucceed, could do no more towards it.
If any one of them hath made it his Province to expoſe the Aſſertion of a Neceſſity of a Commutation, or Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, hath rejected the Phraſes, of Christs ſustaining the Perſon of Sinners; of a Change of Perſons between Christ and us; of laying the guilt of our Iniquities upon Chriſt; of his Anſwering the Obligations of the violated Law of Works; of his bearing our ſins in his own body, as our Surety, and feeling the weight of Gods wrath in the puniſhment of our ſins tranſferr'd upon him, and expoſe them all as what can't bear a ſound Senſe, but are lyable to be Interpreted to a Senſe, and ſound of Malignity to the whole of the Goſpel; and Ridiculing ſome of them as Jargons of Art, of a very late Contrivance; fit to amaze, puzzle and confound mens Ʋnderſtandings, affirming, that their ſenſe and meaning muſt be Blaſphemy, and that the Phraſe of Christs ſuffering in our stead, cannot ſignifie more than for our good: Should, I ſay, an Engliſh Socinian ſtart up and write after this rate, would you not be apt to ſay he hath done his part to break down the Barriers of our holy Religion in the Article of Chriſts Satisfaction, he hath made many bold ſtroaks, and done his moſt to ſubvert this Glorious Doctrine. Why, theſe things are done by my Reverend Brother; who, I hope, was not aware of what he was adoing, when he wrote his Rebuke, but I'll not aggravate, I will only endeavour to Inculcate.
1. That the Rejecting ſo many ſound Terms and Phraſes, eſtabliſhed by a long Preſcription in the Church of God, as moſt apt to explain the Truth and and diſtinguiſh it from Error, may be juſtly eſteemed as a good Reaſon for ſuch an one, as obſerved thus much in a calm way and manner to do his moſt for the ſecuring the endangered Truths.
2. That the Rejecting them for the Reaſons mentioned in the Rebuke may Juſtly Allarm the Orthodox amongſt us, and Juſtifie their inſiſting on a fuller ſecurity for Truth than the third Paper Affords. But I ſhall have a fair Occaſion to preſs this Conſideration ſome what further, in my Anſwer to the following Enquiry.