moralis Representativa We will therefore before we dismiss this Phrase consult the Reverend Mr. Alsop for I know my Brother hath a great conceit of him who in his Antisozzo p. 689. saith That Christ is the Representative of all his Spiritual Seed and in p. 693. All the Spiritual Seed and Posterity of Christ are by Vertue of a New Law-constitution made Righteous by the Righteousness of their Spiritual Head and Representative To whom I 'le add what the Reverend Dr. Bates saith of it which is that Christ was to be our Representative and therefore such a Conjunction between him and us must be that God might esteem all his People to suffer in him which is no more than what is affirmed in the Close of the first Homily of Justification when it 's said That Christ is now the Righteousness of all them that truly do believe in him He for them paid their Ransom by his death He for them fulfilled the Law in his Life So that now in him and by him every True Christian may be called a Fulfiller of the Law But if Christ Represented Sinners in his Death he must be found in their Quality suffering as a Sinner that is as Mr. Alsop has it in his Anti-Sozzo p. 184. That Christs Soul was made an Offering for sin Isa 53.10 Nay he was made Sin for us tho' he know no sin that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 21. And Appearing in this Quality Death the Officer of Gods Violated Law might Justly Arrest him and the Father be pleased to bruise him For as elsewhere the same Author he was a Sinner that is by Imputation pag. 574. Christ could no otherwise be a Sinner but by imputation nor we otherwise Righteous than by Imputation Thus the Lord Christ Suffering and Obeying in the Person of Sinners as their Publick Representative it is to all intents and purposes as effectual as if they had done it themselves Personae morales Representativae quae Personam aliâ—â—um Reserant hujus vice negotia expediunt eodom cum effectu acsi ab illo ipso essent Confectae Pusend ubi sup II. What hath been urged on this Head makes it Apparent that the Phrase of Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners in his Death and Obedience is very Intelligible and Aptly used by the Orthodox such as Dr. Bates Rutherford Scherzerus Quenstedius Nowel Essenius Voetius Rivetus and many others ay the very same thing is used by the Reverend Mr. Alsop 〈…〉 insisting so very much on Christs being a Reâ—â—â—â—â—ntative who is one that sustain the Person of them 〈◊〉 Represents However it 's rejected and exposed to scorn and contempt by this Brother who thereby doth in this instance prove the Reports to be True For it being affirmed in the Report that this Phrase of Christs sustaining our Person is Rejected by them you see it to be so and the Reason assigned is because it could not bear a sound sense but is lyable to be Interpreted to a sense of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel III. A Commutation or Change of Persons between Christ and us is Denyed The Paper sent by some Presbyterian Brethren unto the Congregational intimating that the Author of Gospel Truth Stated had denyed a Commutation or Change of Persons between Christ and us the Reverend Brethren who meet at Little St. Hellens delivered their Opposite Sense thus It is manifest that when Mr. Williams useth the Phrase of no Change of Persons between Christ and us it could not be intended as a denyal of a Change of Persons between Christ and us in the general Sense But what thinks my Reverend Brother of this It appears clear enough to me that he is of Opinion That Mr. Ws. doth deny a Change of Persons between Christ and us in every Sense And yet on the other hand he seems to argue as if Mr. Ws. held a Change of Persons between Christ and us in some Sense which is Evident from what he saith of a Change and no Change tho' he had little Reason to speak of no Change seeing he is the man that is given so much to Change and his falling so severely upon the Reporter for suggesting that Mr. Ws. Denyed a Change of Persons between Christ and us in every Sense For he very triumphantly tells us Faithful Rebuke Mr. Ws. did not deny a Change of Person simpliciter sed secundum quid not universally but restrictively for the most universal Terms are not always universally to be understood pag. 38. Reply 1. This Paragraph of my Reverend Brother in Connection with what precedes and follows it doth I confess look as if he held that Mr. Ws. did not deny a Change of Persons between Christ and us in the general sense And for once we will suppose it and see how agreeable this Notion is with his way of arguing on this occasion which is thus 2. Mr. Ws. did not deny a Change of Person simpliciter sed secundum quid not universally but restrictively Well then on this supposal what follows Because Mr. Ws. did nor deny a Change of Person simpliciter and universally therefore must he be for a Change of Persons between Christ and us secundum quid restrictively Yes It must be so How then shall we Conciliate this Notion with what is in pag. 9. in which place he thus expresseth himself Where lies the necessity that because there was a Change of Christs Person for sinners there must be a Change of Person between Christ and sinners This Passage makes it evident that in the Judgment of my Brother these two Phrases A Change of Christs Person for sinners and a Change of Person between Christ and sinners are so very different and in their Meaning so Remote from each other that from the Asserting the one the other cannot be necessarily inferred How then can say I these two Passages be Conciliated Mr. Ws. must hold a Change of Persons between Christ and us secundum quid because he doth not simply and universally deny a Change of Christs Person and yet there lyes no necessity that because there is a Change of Christs Person for us there must be a Change of Persons between Christ and Us How shall we set these things together Or find in our Brothers Arguings a Defence of the Brethren at Little St. Hellens It must be thus or not at all that I can see Mr. Ws. doth not deny a change of Christ's Person Simply and Universally therefore in some respect he must be for a change of Person between Christ and Us. That is to say tho' a Man may hold a change of Christ's Person without holding a change of Persons between Christ and Us in any sense yet Mr. Ws. must be for a change of Persons between Christ and Us in some sense because he doth not deny a change of Christ's Person simply and in every sense He must own that the Apostle Peter was a good man in some
partim bono ipsorum And it was Decreed by this Synod That whereas we were unable of our selves to satisfie Gods Justice and deliver our selves from his Wrath God of his Immense Mercy gave his only begotten Son to be a Surety for us who that he might make Satisfaction for us was made Sin and a Curse on the Cross for us or vice nostra or in our stead This Decree was about the year 1623. received by the Reformed in France in the Synod of Charenton and subscribed by the Pastors and Elders of the said Synod with a Protestation in the Presence of God that through his grace they would never depart from it decreeing that it should be inviolably observed by all the Churches and Universities in that Kingdom And in the Assemblies Confession Cap. 11. Sect. 3. it is express That Christs Obedience and Satisfaction was accepted in their stead and why accepted in their stead but because Christ obeyed and satisfied in their stead which as I have shown is as much as to say Christ obeyed and satisfied in our Person But of this more immediately under the next Head 3. The Term Surety when applyed to Christ as suffering for our sins denotes to us a Change of Persons between him and us and his sustaining our Person in his sufferings Thus much is so evident that they who have any tollerable Acquaintance with this Controversie and oppose the Phrases of a Change of Persons between Christ and us and of Christs sustaining our Person do also deny that Christ suffered as our Surety Mr. Ws. himself therefore Rejects Christs being under the Law of Works as our Surety upon the old Socinian Bottom as said to be inconsistent with the Free Pardon of Sin Man made Right p. 92 96. And my Brothers many discerning Heads do not only Reject Christs taking on him the Person of Sinners as a Phrase that can't bear a Sound Sense but they also Reject this other Phrase of Christs being considered in Relation to us as our Surety bearing our sins in his own Body and least thus much should have been inferr'd from that other Phrase of Christs feeling and bearing the Weight of Gods Wrath it is also Rejected as what is lyable to a Sense and Sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel Now if I must believe as my Brother suggests that these alterations and the Rejecting of these Phrases is upon the assigned Reasons is the deliberate Act of the whole Body composed of many discerning Heads that still profess a Zeal for all the Doctrines contained in the Assemblies Confession Larger and shorter Catechism I must declare God knows with a sincere desire it may be with brokenness of Heart and the deepest Humiliation that our Case in this regard is more deplorable than I am willing to suggest tho' I can't but reflect on the Calamitous Condition into which our Brethren in France have fallen since they omitted to witness so fully as they should have done against Armyraldian Incroachments made on the Common Faith of Protestants especially seeing they are now out done by some amongst our selves If Christ was not as our Surety made under the Law If he did not endure the most grievous Torments immediately in his Soul and most painful Sufferings in his Body as feeling and bearing the Weight of Gods Wrath due to us for our sins how shall we be able to stand before the Bar of God in the great day Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of Rams or with ten thousands of Rivers of Oyl Shall I give my First-born for my Transgression the Fruit of my Body for the Sin of my Soul These things can't satisfie Gods Justice nor appease his Wrath nor make an Attonement for our Sin It must be Christs Suffering in our stead his bearing our sins in his Body as our Surety and feeling and bearing the Weight of Gods Wrath for our Sins that alone can save us But these Phrases tho' they were in the First Paper are waved and left out of the Third because as my Brother says they can't bear a sound Sense c. whilst a Zeal is pretended for the Assemblies Confession and Catechism in which the rejected Doctrines are literally asserted In the Confession Cap. 8. Sect. 3 't is express That the Father called the Lord Christ to the Office of a Mediator and Surety And in Sect. 4. this Office the Lord Christ did most willingly undertake which that he might discharge he was made under the Law and did perfectly fulfil it endured most grievous Torments in his Soul and most painful Sufferings in his Body These things the Lord Christ endured as our Surety which is more fully delivered in Answer to that Question How is Justification an Act of Gods Free Grace In which you will see Mr. Ws. his Objection against Christs being under the Bonds of the Law as our Surety taken from a supposed inconsistency between it and the forgiveness of our Sins fully removed in that it 's there declared Altho' Christ by his Obedience and Death did make a Proper Real and Full Satisfaction to Gods Justice yet in as much as God accepteth the Satisfaction from a Surety which he might have demanded of them did provide this Surety his own only Son imputing his Righteousness to them and requiring nothing of them for their Justification but Faith which also is his gift their Justification is to them of Free-Grace But if Christ as our Surety doth so will it not follow that he paid our Debts Yes it will And so saith the Assembly Confes Cap. 11. § 3. Christ by his Obedience and Death did fully discharge the Debt of all those that are thus Justified and did make a proper real and full Satisfaction Did he not then feel and bear the Weight of Gods Wrath Ay he did so And thus much is affirmed by the Assembly in the same Words it is rejected by the many discerning Heads For in Answer to this Question How did Christ humble himself in his Death It is in the Larger Catechism thus Christ humbled himself in that having been betrayed by Judas and having also conflicted with the Terrors of Death and the powers of Darkness felt and bore the weight of Gods Wrath he laid down his Life an Offering for sin Whether a Rejecting the Phrases of Christs bearing our Sins in his Body as our Surety and his feeling and bearing the weight of Gods Wrath be not a Contravening a Doctrinal Article established by the Assembly at Westminster and whether this Brother who doth so ought not to be Censured by the Body of the Vnited Ministers if we may be ever so blessed as to see such a Meeting once more I submit to more discerning Heads and sure I am that however this Matter may issue it 's plain enough to me that the Controverted Phrases are owned by the Synod of Dort◠established in the Reformed Churches in France as well as by the Assembly of Learned Judicious Godly and
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