A defence of the report, concerning the present state of the differences in doctrinals, between some dissenting ministers in London, in reply to a book, enbtitled, A faithful rebuke of that report.

II. Of Doctrinala.

IN the Report we may observe an Intimation given of sundry Points, which were in the First Paper, but left out of the Third, and the leaving 'em out of the Third insisted on as what encreased the Offence of our Grieved Brethren.

I. An Expunging that Paragraph which in the First Paper, did Assert the Necessity of a Change of Per∣sons, between Christ and Vs, in order to a due Ex∣plaining, and Defending the Doctrine of Christ's Sa∣tisfaction, and our Justification.

II. A Rejecting the Phrase of Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners.

III. The Denying a Change of Persons between Christ and Us.

IV. An Imposing a Socinian sense on the Phrase of Christ's suffering in our Place and Stead.

V. A Turning Christ's Undertaking to Answer for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works, into Christ's Answering for our Violation of the Law of Works.

VI. Why so many Orthodox Terms and Phrases, which were in the First Paper are left out of the Third?

And seeing it is boldly said, That our Controver∣sie with them is not about what is owned, or so much as Countenanced in any Publick Confessions, I will under this Head of Doctrinals make Answer to the Enquiry.

VII. In what Confessions are the Terms, or Phrases so much Contended for to be found?

Before I discourse on any of these points, 'twill be requisite, that I set before you the Reason, which my Brother gives for their rejecting those Passages, Terms and Phrases, that were in the First Paper. You shall have it in his own words.

Faithful Rebuke.

The Brethren did Unanimously agree to Grant as much as the sound Sense could Bear; and modest∣ly to wave, and pass by the other, which was liable to be Interpreted to a sense and sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel. p. 30.

Reply.

This passage of my Reverend Brother doth make it manifest, That the Paragraphs, Terms, and Phrases, which were in the first Paper, and were waved and passed by in the Composure of the Third, are look'd upon by my Brother, and as he will have us believe,

by all the Ministers, who meet at Little St. Helens, and had a Head, a Hand, and a Heart in Composing the Third, could not bear a sound sense, but were liable to be Interpreted to a sense, and sound of Ma∣lignity to the whole of the Gospel. That is to say, The Phrase of Christ's putting on the Person of Sinners; of his Answering for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works, the Term, Surety, and the Assertion of the Necessity of a Commutation, or Change of Per∣sons between Christ and Us, in order to Explain, and Defend Christ's Satisfaction, cannot in their Opinion bear a sound sense, but are liable to be Interpreted to a sense, and sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel.

This is the sense of my Reverend Brother, con∣cerning which I will only say, that tho' I think my self bound in Civility to believe what he saith of him∣self, yet I dare not be so severe as to conclude, that all my Presbyterian Brethren who meet at Little St. Hellens are in these Points of his Mind. However I desire my Reader to have Recourse unto this Passage, when He considers what I offer under the Particulars Proposed to be Examined. To the First,

I. An Expunging that Paragraph, which in the first Paper did Assert the Necessity of a Change of Per∣sons between Christ and Us, in order to a Due Ex∣plaining and Defending the Doctrine of Christ's Sa∣tisfaction, and our Justification.

That a Change of Persons between Christ and Us is ne∣cessary to a due Explication and Defence of Christ's S〈…〉〈…〉tion and our Justification, is so very manifest, that were nor but surprize us, to Hear from a Bro∣ther who pre〈…〉〈…〉 to Believe both, that it is not so.

What more Evident, than that if the Lord Christ hath not made Satisfaction to God's Justice for us,

there is nothing Left for the Relief of a Convinced Sinner, or for Healing a Wounded Spirit: for there is no Room, no Place for our being Justified in the Court of Heaven. If no Satisfaction, there can be no Justifying Righteousness found for us, to appear before the Bar of God in. 'Tis Christ's Righteous∣ness alone, that can pass the Examen in the Great Day of the Lord; and without that no Soul Living can be Justified.

But, if Christ Endured not the Punishment due to us for sin, by Answering for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works, there can be no Proper Sa∣tisfaction made to the Justice of God for Us, for Sa∣tisfaction taken strictly and in a proper sense is solu∣tio Debiti, a Suffering the Punishment due for our Sin. That the Punishment of our Sins could not be born by the Lord Jesus Christ, unless there were a Commuta∣tion of Persons between Christ and Us, whereby the Lord Jesus came under the Bonds and Engagements of the Violated Law of Works, that we might be Delivered, is as Evident.

These things are so plain, that whoever throughly Understands this Doctrine, whether the Orthodox, Socinian, or Arminian, they make no doubt of it, and therefore such as oppose the Doctrine of a Pro∣per Satisfaction, deny a Change of Persons between Christ and Us, and thereby turn Christ's Sufferings from being Properly a Punishment to be only vicarious, that is, vice poenae, Grievous, and Painful Afflictions instead of a proper Punishment.

Whether what I here Assert be not the Truth Re∣vealed to u•• in the Holy Scriptures, I appeal to all sound Divines, whether in the Church of England, Scotland, or the Reformed abroad.

However, if we may Believe my Brother, the Assertion of the Necessity of a Commutation of Persons be∣tween Christ, and Us, in order to a due Explaining

and Defending Christ's Satisfaction and our Justifica∣tion cannot bear a Sound sense, but is liable to be Inter∣preted to a sense of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel.

If this be not matter of Just Grief to the Godly Learned amongst us, what can be so? Here is an Ex∣posing to the uttermost Contempt a Truth of very great Importance.

II. The Phrase of Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners is Rejected.

That they Reject this Phrase, of Christ's Sustaining the Person of Sinners, is so manifest, that my Brother doth not only prove the Charge to be true, but Ex∣presseth himself against the Vse of this Phrase, with Vehemence and Heat. Take his own words.

Faithful Rebuke.

For Christ to take upon him the Person of sinners, as the phrase is New and Uncouth, so it is to me Unintelligible, till they who have invented it shall In∣terpret it, p. 10. — This New phrase, Christ took upon him the Person of sinners, is a phrase to Puzzle and Confound mens Understandings, p. 11. — Now succeeds the Coining Age, and they have stamped, and Counterfeited some New Phrases, Terms, and Expressions, such as Christ's taking on him the Person of Sinners. p. 32.

Reply.

1. This is no new Phrase, but Used and Contend∣ed for by the Orthodox against the Arminians many years ago. If you consult the Learned Peter du Mon∣lin, his Anatomy of Arminianism, you'l find, that near fourscore years ago, he charged the Arminians with denying, that Christ sustained the Person of the Elect when on the Cross. cap. 27. § 6. And, in the follow∣ing chapter, § 30. he thus expresseth himself,

When these Sectaries deny, that Christ did, when on the Cross, sustain the Person of the Elect, they do plainly contradict what is Affirm'd by Christ in Joh. 10.11. The good Shepherd lays down his Life for his Sheep, and those other places in Joh. 15.13. Ephes. 5.25.

Joannes Arnoldus Corvinus in his Censure on the Ana∣tomy, freely declares in the Name of the Arminians they do deny, that Christ sustained the Person of the Elect, when on the Cross. cap. 27. §. 6.

2. The Learned Du Moulin was not singular in his Opinion, for what he asserted on this Occasion was the Faith of the Reformed, which I will evince, be∣ginning with the mention of some Learned Divines amongst our selves in this Island. And it's worthy Remark, that the Reverend Dr. Bates, who is known to be no Antinomian, doth affirm in his Harmony, p 240. That, as in Civil cases, where one becomes Surety for another, He is Obliged to pay the Debt, for in the Estimate of the Law, they are but One Person, Heb. 7.22. So the Lord Jesus entring into this Relation, sustained the Person of sinners, and became Iudicially One with them; and according to the Order of Justice was liable to their Punishment.

What the Doctor hath here observed, gives Light touching the Genuine Import of the Phrase of Christ's taking on him the Person of sinners, as it is included in Christ's Sure••iship. For, when it's said, Christ is our Surety, if it be meant of his Paying our Debts to the Law, and Justice of God, as it is by the Orthodox, the Term Surety must necessarily imply Christ's su∣staining ••••r Person, it being the part of a Surety to ••ake on him the Person of a Debtor, to Represent him, and stand so in his Place and stead as to come in∣to the same Bond, and under the same Obligations the Debtor stood.

Thus much is the Import of the Term, Surety,

and signification of Christ's sustaining the Person of sin∣ners, that is, The Lord Christ came into the Bond, we Forfeited, lies under the Obligations of the Vio∣lated Law of Works, and in our Person, Representing Us, He Paid the Debt we Contracted, by suffering the Punishment we Deserved.

Tho' Christ had not any Demerit of his own upon him, yet as the learned Bishop Reynolds has it, He had the Guilt of Sin so far upon him, as it Notes the Obligation and Subjection unto Punishment, as he was our Surety, and so in sensu forensi, in the sight of Gods Court of Justice, One with us, who had deserved the Punishment imputed to him, on Psal. 110. p. 439.

Christ, as our Surety, suffered in our Person, Re∣presenting us, and as the great Placeus, in the Salmu∣rian Theses de Justificat. sect. 29. Observes, what Christ as our Surety, in our Person or Name suffered may be very truly imputed unto us. Who can, saith he, deny the Imputation of that Satisfaction unto us, which was made by our Surety, in our Name?

To the same purpose the learned Mr. Rutherford, who was not only an Enemy to Antinomian Heresies, but One, who did Unanswerably Confute them, this worthy Person, so justly celebrated, not only throughout Scotland, but by the learned in this Kingdom, and abroad for his Excelling Learning, Piety, and sound Judgment, makes it his Province to prove against the Arminians, and Socinians, that Christ in suffering sustained the Person of the Elect, and that the Orthodox signification of the phrase in our Place and Stead is, in our Name or Person; of which more hereafter in due season, but in this place I will only Remark, how he presseth, that Christ's Suretiship can import no less than his sustaining the Per∣son of them for whom he suffered. His words are,

He, who being under the Law, paid that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Debt of Satisfaction, which the Elect in their ••••••¦sons should have paid, He sustained the Person of the Elect, in his suffering. But Christ being made ••••¦der the Law, paid that Law-Debt of Satisfaction which the Elect in their Persons should have paid, Ergo. The Proposition is out of doubt. 〈…〉〈…〉 He, who saith expresly, that what is here affirmed by my Rebuking Brother to be Ʋnintelligible, fit to Puzzle and Confound mens Understandings, is so easie to be Understood, that there is no place left for doubt, for, as He adds in the next page. None who Dyeth as a Surety, or pays as a Surety, but He bears the Person of such as He Pays for. These things are Asserted by him, in his Treatise of the Covenant of Grace. Part 2. p. 252, &c.

I will add one Testimony more, and that is what I find in the Catechism of Mr. Nowell, received with the greatest Honour, above these Hundred years, in the Church of England, where you have these words; Christ for us suffered, and went through Horrible Fears, and most bitter Griefs of mind, to satisfie God's Just Judgment in all things, and to Appease his Wrath. For to Sinners, whose Person Christ did here Bear, not only the Sorrows and Pains of present Death are due, but also Death to Come and Everlasting.

But these Authorities being only in the English Tongue, can only prove, that the Phrase of Christ's bearing the Person of sinners is not so New, as my Bro∣ther affirms, I will go on to enquire, whether this odd Phrase (to use my Brothers own words) durst shew its Face in Latin? For my Brother saith it durst not.

Faithful Rebuke.

Seeing the great Struggle hath been, not about the satisfaction of Christ, as the Report Misrepre∣sents it, but about some odd Phrases, and Expres∣sions,

in which 'tis cloathed, especially these of Christ's suffering in the Person of sinners — whe∣ther if this be a sound, and safe way of Expressing that great Doctrine, it will not endure to shew its Naked Face in some other of the learned Languages? And if you please make an Experiment, how well it will look in Latin? — Now what is sustinere Personam alterius? — Whatever Excuse they can have for the English phrase, I know not, it's pretty hard to Damn all the World for an Anglicism, p. 53.

Reply.

1. What my good Brother means by these Re∣flections on the phrases of Christ's sustaining and suffer∣ing in the Person of sinners, less than that, in his Opinion, they were never used by any Author, who wrote in Latin, and that this learned Language wants apt words to express them by, I cannot comprehend. But,

2. This being the manifest sense of my reverend Brother, I shall be necessitated to Try his Skill, or Integrity, or both; For, nothing more Obvious than that they, who have wrote in Latin, on this Subject, have Used these phrases, and that Cicero himself hath found out apt words to render the Bearing the Person of another into good Latin.

3. The Authorities I design to press shall be of such Great Men, as are most distant in their Judgment, from Antinomian Notions, and passing by the Luthe∣rans, viz. Calovius, Dorsheus, Scherzerus, Quenstedius, and many other such, who are in this Article very sound, I will Confine my self to the Reformed. Esse∣nius, in his Defence of Grotius de Satisfactione, lib. 1. sect▪ 4. cap. 5. part 1. p. 128. hath it thus, That Christus Personam nostram sustinens, &c. Christ su∣staining our Person, there was a Commutation of his Death for ours, that we might attain unto Life.

Hoornbeck, who understood this Controversie as well as any one, lays it down as a General Rule, by which we are to guide our selves, in the management of it, That Christus eorum Personam sustinuit, Christ sustained the Person of them, for whom he made Satisfaction by his death, was in their Place, and State, and took on him to bear their Guilt on him∣self. Miscel. Sac. lib. 3. p. 396.

Nor can there be any thing more Remarkable upon this Occasion than what Rivet Replies to Bellarmine's Answer to the Common Argument of Protestants, for our being Justified by the Righteousness of Christ; in which place, after he had urged a great deal in detecting Bellarmine's Sophistications, he adds, That Christ is to be considered, first as in himself, and then with respect to us, whose Person he sustains; that Christ considered in himself is Just, Holy, without Spot, and separate from Sinners, but in respect to us, he is said to be made sin: He is our Surety, and so a Debtor. Rivet. Cathol. Orthod. Tom. 2. Tract. 8. Querst. 2. num. 35.

Cloppenburch is as positive; for, in his Enarrat. in 53. Isa. saith he, When it's affirmed, that our sins are imputed unto Christ, we must understand it, that he is truly made sin, tho' not in himself, yet in our Person he may be reckoned and esteemed as the Debtor: for, by reason of his Suretiship, he is Ju∣dicially esteemed One Person with us. pag. 79.

Witsius, to whom Dr. Chauncey and Mr. Williams have appealed in this Controversie, declares it as his Judgment, That Christ was so substituted for the Elect, and so sustained their Person, that there is a Permutation or Change of Persons. Animad. Iren. Cap. 2. § 8. and elsewhere, Christ did not Ʋndertake, or make Satisfaction for any, but them, whose Person he sustained. De Oecon. Faed. lib. 2. cap. 9. § 1.

To these I will only add Voetius, who having As∣serted, That Christ, as our Surety, sustained the Per∣son of all them that shall be saved by him, and so ful∣filled all that Righteousness of the Law, which they could not do, tells us, 'That the Remonstrants, who are justly suspected for Leaning too much towards the Socinians, do hold no other Satisfaction, and Merit, than such an appeasing God, the offended Party, as that, by which he is so far satisfied as to be willing to Receive Offenders into favour; and by which Christ has acquir'd for the Father, a Right of Entring into a New Covenant with Men, from whence (adds he) it follows, That Christ was not truly our Surety, that he suffered not in our Place and Stead; that he did not in a proper Sense Purchase and Procure any thing for us; nor did he, when on the Cross, sustain the Person of the Elect. Select. Disput. Theol. p. 2. de Merito Christi; pag. 133, 134. Calvin also uses it on Gal. 3.13.

These few Instances are enough to convince an Un∣byassed Mind, that the Phrase of Christs sustaining our Person, hath been commonly used, both by the Reformed at Home and Abroad; that it hath been insi∣sted on as necessary to secure the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction from Arminian and Socinian Incroach∣ments, and that it has dared to show its Face in Latin. But my Brother's further Enquiry is, Doth it appear in good Latin? To which I answer.

5. This Phrase, sustinere Personam alterius, is Cicero all over, for (saith he de Orat.) Tres Personas unus sustineo, meam, Adversarij & Judicis.

This Matter is so very plain, that how excusable soever my Brothers Instructor may be in making such Mistakes, my Brother himself, who is so good a Latinist, discovering so much Unacquaintedness, not only with Divinity, but with that Learned Language, in which, if in any thing, excepting Wit, he must be

esteemed to excel, cannot be entirely excused. For what more evident, than that, if Cicero may be Re∣garded as a Competent Judge in this Case, sustinere Personam alterius, is such good Latin, that it need not be afraid to Look my Brother in the face. How∣ever,

6. This Brother will have it, that the Phrase of Christs Sustaining our Person, is Ʋnintelligible, fit to Puzzle and Confound Mens Ʋnderstanding, uncapable of a sound Sense, and liable to be interpreted to a Sense and Sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel, as if all that have used it, such as Dr. Bates, Rutherford, Calvin, and the Generation of the Orthodox had designed to confound the World by the Use of barbarous and pernicious Phrases, and had been guilty of the unrighteous Charge, with which the English Ʋnitarians have burdened them, when they Reproach them for amusing Mankind with the Jargon of Ʋnintelligible Terms and Phrases. And as if such an Accusation had been too mean, my Brother runs higher. For

7. He exposes the Phrase of Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners, to the greatest Contempt and Scorn, as if it Represented the blessed Redeemer in the most glorious undertaking of falen Mans Recovery, to be Histrionical. His Words are,

Faithful Rebuke.

We are told of Christs sustaining the Person of Sin∣ners: — What can this Expression signifie, but that Christ wore the Mask, the Vizer, the Dis∣guise of Sinners? That he was Personatus Histrio? Like a S••••ge Player, that puts on the Person of a King, wh•••• indeed he is but some Sorry Fellow.— pag. 53.

Reply.

1. That the Phrase of Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners, should be so vilely mis-represented by any

one of them, who meet at Little St. Hellens, is equal Matter of Astonishment and Humiliation. And to be Just unto Truth, I must turn unto the Reverend Brethren, who ordinarily Assemble at that Place for their Judgment in this case, whether the Phrase of Christs sustaining the Person of sinners, can signifie nothing but his wearing the Mask, the Vizer, the Dis∣guise of Sinners, as if he had been a sorry Stage Player? This is the Case that deserves, yea, that calls for your determination; for my Brothers words are, What can these Expressions signifie, but that Christ wore the Mask, &c. Sirs, the Eyes of a whole Nation are upon you, and the Eyes of the Reformed Churches Abroad, will be upon you, to see whether you will give Countenance to such an Abuse of Truth, and its Renowned Defenders. But to Return to my Bro∣ther.

2. Why, cannot this Phrase signifie nothing else? If he had but gained a little smattering in the Civil Law, he would have seen that it could have born another meaning. There he might have Learned, That there is a Moral Person distinct both from a Physical, and Ficta Persona; That a Moral Person is one placed in the State and Office of them, whose Person he sustains; That One single Man being put into the different States and Conditions of many, puts on their Person; That a peculiar Species of Political Persons may be called Representative, be∣cause they represent the Persons they bear; for in∣stance, Ambassadors, Vice-Roys, Syntdicks, and the like. And in the more inferior Station, the Tutor sustains the Person of the Pupil, the Guardian of the Minor, and yet none of these are Stage-Players; for to a Representative Person, somewhat more be∣longs than meer Representation, they are such as do somewhat for the Advantage of them, whose Per∣son they sustain; That these True Moral Persons are

distinct from them, who are but Fictae as Stage-Players are: That the Fictae Personae, or Stage Players, are but the Ʋmbrae, or Shadows of the True. That the Essence of these Fictae Personae, consists only in Representation of the Habit, the Gesture, and the like of another. And as Pufendorf further declares, Veras Personas morales, quas pro∣ducit Impositio, haudquidquam ita est Libera, quin ejus∣modi Qualitates debeat praesupponere, quae aptae sint, ut solidus aliquis effectus in vitâ humanâ inde Eveniat. Et illas, qui circa Constituendas Personas negle xerint per vecordem Petulantiam mortalibus insultare est Censendus. Pufend. de Jure Nat. & Gent. Lib. 1. Cap. 1. Edit. 3. pag. 15.

That this good Brother therefore, whilst so Un∣acquainted with what is so much known to every body, who understands this Controversie about Christs Satisfaction, and his Suretyship, should so far forget himself as to write after the rate he hath done, may very well be a Caution to others to take heed, how they go beyond their last, or, how they suffer themselves to be hurryed on a Controversie before their Heats are over, and they have got time to deliberate, and digest what they write about. Had my Reverend Brother been more cool, had he got more time to consider, and weigh well what he did, he could never have been thus imposed upon to wound his own Re∣putation as he hath done, in the use he hath made of Milton: Milton, tho' he saith, Salmasium risum pene Legentibus Multiplici Barbarismo concitasse, could not charge Salmasius, with more Instances of Barbarism, than my Brother is fallen into mistakes in the use he makes of Milton. For,

1. Salmasius Writes not of a Moral Representative Person, but of the Natural Person of the King; there was, saith he, a Paricide Committed on the Person of the King, that is, on his Natural, his own proper Person.

2. When Milton Banters Salmasius with a Pseudo-Philip, he mentions not a word of a Moral Person nei∣••her; but speaks only of a meer Ficta Persona, as if Salmasius, by Persona, had meant a Tyrant, under the Vizer, or Mask of a King.

3. The Reason, why Milton was so severe upon Salmasius, was not so much because Salmasius used the Word Persona, as because he mislook the Abla∣tive for the Accusative Case, and wrote in Persona, when it should have been in Personam Regis.

But, tho' Salmasius gave a full Answer to every thing, that Milton, on this occasion, Played upon him for, Instancing in several Roman Writers, who have taken the word Persona in a proper Sense, and have used the Ablative Case, as he has done; yet, it not being to my present Purpose, I shall only desire to know of my Brother. What Alliance Christs sustain∣ing the Person of Sinners has, either with the Natural Person of a King; or of any other Man; or with a meer Ficta Persona? For both these are very distinct from a Moral, or Legal Person; and, it is in this Moral or Legal Sense, that the word [Person] is taken, when it's affirm'd, that Christ sustained the Person of Sinners, and it signifieth the same with Christs being their Publick Representative. He was Publica Persona mo∣ralis Representativa.

We will therefore, before we dismiss this Phrase, consult the Reverend Mr. Alsop, for I know my Bro∣ther hath a great conceit of him; who, in his Anti∣sozzo, p. 689. saith, That Christ is the Representative of all his Spiritual Seed; and in p. 693. All the Spi∣ritual Seed and Posterity of Christ, are by Vertue of a New Law-constitution, made Righteous by the Righte∣ousness 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 im∣putation, nor we otherwise Righteous than by Im∣putation.

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 ali••••um Reserant—hujus vice ne∣gotia 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 Re∣••••••••••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 Interpre∣ted 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 Au∣thor of Gospel Truth Stated, had denyed a Commu∣tation or Change of Persons between Christ and us; the Re∣verend Brethren, who meet at Little St. Hellens, deli∣vered 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 Per∣sons between Christ and us, in every Sense? For he very triumphantly tells us,

Faithful Rebuke.

Mr. Ws. did not deny a Change of Person, sim∣pliciter, sed secundum quid; not universally, but re∣strictively; 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 de∣ny 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 simplici∣ter, 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 Per∣sons between Christ and us, secundum quid, & restrictive∣ly? Yes; It must be so. How then shall we Conci∣liate this Notion with what is in pag. 9. in which place he thus expresseth himself; Where lies the neces∣sity, that because there was a Change of Christs Per∣son for sinners, there must be a Change of Person be∣tween Christ and sinners? This Passage makes it evi∣dent, 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 universal∣ly 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 be∣tween

Christ and Us? How shall we set these things together? Or, find in our Brothers Arguings a De∣fence 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 Uni∣versally, 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, with∣out 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 respect, because he doth not say, that St. Paul was Evil in every respect. The Connection between a change of Christ's Person, and a change of Persons between Christ and Us, is, in the Judgment of my Brother, no other than what is be∣tween the Piety of the one Apostle, and the Infir∣mities of the other. But,

3. My Brother is in good earnest, only for a change of Christ's Person, without a change of Persons between Christ and Ʋs, as I will soon prove, so that all this noise about a change of Christ's Person secundum quid, and Restrictively, is nothing to the purpose. The question is not, whether there be a change of Christ's Person for Sinners? No Socinian will deny thus much. But, whether there be a change of Persons between Christ and Sinners? The Brethren at St. Hellens say, There is a change of Persons between Christ and Us; at least in the general sense, and they thought, that Mr. Ws. held so too. But, if we may Judge of Mr. Ws. by his Defender, its notorious, that Mr. Ws. doth not hold a change of Persons between Christ and Us, in any sense. That this phrase is of a late contrivance, and must have a Blasphemous sense, as I will shew from my Brothers own words.

Faithful Rebuke.

The Controversie lieth in some School Terms, or Jargons of Art, of a very late Contrivance, such as a change of Persons between Christ and Ʋs. p. 30.

Reply.

1. This contemptuous Treatment, with which my Brother entertains this phrase, (which as it has been long ago used by the Church of God; so is it most apt to express that great Truth, delivered in the Holy Scriptures, where it's said, Christ died for us) can indicate nothing less than that He Believes not a change of Persons between Christ and Us.

2. He saith, that it is a phrase of a very late contri∣vance, and a School Term, whereas the learned Dr. Owen hath prov'd it to have been used by the Fathers, such as St. Austin, St. Chrysostome, Gregory Nyssen, and Justin Martyr, long before the Schoolmen had their rise. Owen of Justif. p. 41, &c. and Witsius proves it too.

My Brother goeth on to assure us, that this phrase, of a change of Persons between Christ and Us, must have a Blasphemous sense.

Faithful Rebuke.

Let us Examine the phrase: A change of persons between Christ and Us; If I understood Grammar, the sense must be, that Christ was changed for us; and we for Christ, the change must be mutual, and Interchange∣able. But though Christ Redeemed us; we never Re∣deemed Christ: Christ stood in our place, as our Re∣deemer, we never stood in his place, nor were his Redeemers: He Died for us, for our sins; we ne∣never Died for him, for his sins. p. 9.

Reply.

1. That my reverend Brother hath delivered him∣self, in a point of this Importance so hastily, doth greatly lessen him in the Esteem of some of his truest Friends. For he is positive, that the phrase of a change

of Persons between Christ and Us, must signifie, that we Died for Christ's sins, to Redeem him; Now, seeing this must be the sense of the phrase, I desire to know, whether we did, in any sense, General, or Special, Die for Christ's Sins? If this must be the sense of the phrase; except my Brother believes, that in some sense, we did Die to Redeem Christ, he can't hold a change of Persons between Christ and Us, in any sense, and whatever my reverend Brethren in Little St. Hellens did charitably hope, it's now manifest from this Rebuker, that Mr. Williams by the phrase [of no change of Persons between Christ and Us] did intend the denial of a change of Persons between Christ and Us in the General sense. Yea farther,

2. That seeing my reverend Brethren at St. Hellens are for a change of Persons between Christ and Us, they must, in the Opinion of the Rebuker, hold, that We Died for Christ's Sins, and Redeemed him, which is Blasphemy. I wish my Brother would think a little on what he Asserts, when he so boldly avers, that the sense of a change of Persons between Christ and Us, must be, that we were Chang'd for him, so as to Die for his Sins: Never did a Socinus, a Crellius, or any rash English Unitarian charge this phrase, and the generality of the Reformed, with more than Blas∣phemy. But,

3. Where is the man, that ever gave such a sense of this phrase? The learned Witsius is persuaded, That never any one, who understood Divinity, no, not a Man in his Wits, did ever Dream of such a Permutation of Persons, as that, which places the Saviour amongst the saved. Iren. Animad. cap. 2. §. 8. And sure I am, that Crellius, tho' he fastned a wrong sense upon the word Surrogation, 'twas not such a Blasphemous one. For, when he saith, There is not a proper Surrogation in Christ's Dying for us, It is (saith he) because a proper Surrogation must be such a

Commutation of Persons, that the substituted person is, in all respects, to be in the same place, and state, wherein the other was, and if it refers to Sufferings, then it is when one suffers the very same, which the other was to suffer, he being immediately delivered by the others suffering. But in answer unto Crellius it's cleared, That to endure the same Punishment in all respects, is not necessary to a proper Surrogation. That, if David, (as the Bishop of Worcester has it) had obtain'd his wish, that he had Died for his Son Absolom, it had not been necessary in order to his Sons Escape, that he had hanged by the Hair of his Head, as his Son; but his Death, tho' in other cir∣cumstances, had been sufficient. And therefore, when the Lawyers say, subrogatum sapit naturam ejus, in cujus Locum subrogatur: Coverruvias tells us, it is to be understood secundum primordia••em natu∣ram, non secundum accidentalem; from whence it ap∣pears, that all circumstances are not necessary to be the same in Surrogation, but that the Nature of the Punishment remain. Discours. of Christ's suff. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 324. But where is the man, who at any time ••••••∣cied that a Commutation of Persons between Christ a•••• Us, must signifie, that as Christ suffered for us, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 we suffered for Christ. There is a Commutation between a Surety and the Debtor, which is when the Surety, sustaining the Person of the Debtor, pays his Debts for him; but must this phrase of a change of Persons between the Surety and the Deb∣tor, signifie, that the Debtor pays the Debts of his Surety? Is it not sufficient, that it signifieth, that on the Sureties coming into the same Bonds with the Debtor, and Paying the Debt he owed, the Debtor be thereby delivered? The same may be truly said of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he being our Surety, took on him our Person, so that there was a change of Persons between him and us, He paid the Debt

we owed, that we might be delivered. Not that we Paid any Debts for Christ, for he owed none. But the Term Surety is also rejected, as what can't bear a sound sense; which may further assure us, That a Change of Person between Christ and Us, is de∣nied in the general sense. Once more,

4. As the phrase of a change of Persons between Christ and Us is entirely denied, in like manner a New Phrase of a Change of Christs Person is invented, and put into its place, Tho' what to make of it my Brother is at a loss; and when He goes about to ex∣plain it, he is miserably confounded.

Faithful Rebuke.

This phrase, the Change of the Person of Christ, may have, and truly has an Honest, and sound sense, in which it may be of some good Use to Explain the Doctrines of Satisfaction, and Justification; and it is that which the R. R. the Bishop of Worcester, with Grotius against Crellius do put upon it, Reas. of Christ's Suffer. Edit. 1. p. 144. viz. The Substitution of One Person in the room of another, &c. p. 44.

Reply.

1. There is, saith he, an Honest sense of this phrase, [the change of Christs Person] hath, and it is that, which the R. R. the Bishop of Worcester, with Grotius against Crellius put upon it. He should have said what Grotius, with the Bishop of Worcester against Crellius put upon it; for, tho' Crellius▪ wrote against Grotius, and the Bishop against Crellius, yet Grotius never wrote against Crellius.

2. What sense did these great Men put upon this phrase, of a change of Christs person? I can't conceive how they should put any sense upon it, for, 'twas not known, when they wrote on Christ's Satisfaction; nor ever invented till the Gentleman, who engaged my Brother to enter upon this sorrowful Undertaking, started it. And to speak the Truth, 'tis a phrase on∣ly

adjusted to express no more than what the Socinians do constantly grant; for they say it again and again, that Christ, tho' he suffered not the Punishment due to us for sin, yet he endured Grievous and Dolorous Pains, which is aptly enough expressed, when it's said there was a change of Christ's Person for us, for he was, say these Hereticks, Changed from Ease to Pain for our Good. However,

3. My Brother will have it, that the Bishop hath put a sound sense upon this phrase, viz. It is the Sub∣stitution of one Person into the room of another. Doth the Bishop give this Interpretation of the phrase of a change of Christ's Person? Or, doth he not rather think, that there can be no Substitution of one Per∣son into the room of another, without a change of Person between that One, and the other? Thus much undoubtedly he holds. But to Insinuate, that this great Man and Grotius are for a change of Christ's Person, without a change of Persons between Christ and Us, and make that change of Christ's Person to signifie a Substitution of Christ in our room, is to re∣present 'em to be such Self-contradictors, as indeed, my Brother and his Principal are. A change of Christ's Person, without a change of Persons between Christ and Us, must be a Change without a Substitution, for a Substitution there cannot be without a change of Persons between one, and another. To affirm that Christ was Substituted into our Place and Room, and at the same time to deny a Commutation of Per∣sons between Christ and Us, is to Say, and Unsay.

That I may therefore clear the Truth in this In∣stance, and Vindicate these learned Men from the charge of denying a change of Persons between Christ and Ʋs, and of affirming a Substitution of Christ into our room, I will give you their own words on this Subject, and add to them what the great Turretine saith of the phrase of a change of Persons between Christ and Us.

1. That Grotius is for a Change of Persons between Christ and us, I mean such a Change of Persons be∣tween the one and the other, as is more than only a Change of a Person. For, 1. Grotius his word is Com∣mutation, which imports, that what is changed hath an essential respect to the Change of another, whether it be meant of Things or Persons, the Commutation must signifie more than the Change either of one thing, or of one Person, it must be between Thing and Thing; or between Person and Person; Or, as Crellius saith, between a Thing and a Person: Tho' there may be a Change of one thing only, or of one Person; yet, a Commutation of one thing; or of one Person only is an Implication. 2. The Change, Gro∣tius speaks of, is such a Change, as is per successionem, where one goeth out of the place and another comes into it, which cannot possibly be, if the Change be only of one. As often (saith Grotius) as the Praepo∣sition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [For] is applied to Persons, it signifieth the co∣ming of one into the room and place of another by Succession. Thus Archelaus is said to Reign 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [For Herod] That is, He Succeeded Herod in the Throne. — Socinus, when pressed, dares not deny, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [For many] doth signifie a Commutation. — We were Debitores mortis, from this debt we were dischar∣ged by Christs giving somewhat, to give somewhat, that by it, we may be discharged, is to Pay or Satisfie. This Phrase therefore, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [To give for many] doth always signifie a True Commutation; not a Metaphorical One, as Socinus without any President affirms. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, For, doth necessarily denote a Commutation. Grot. de Satis. Cap. 9.

Here's not a word of the Change of one Person only; it being a Commutation, which is a Change between one Person and another, that Grotius speaks of, where he, who owed nothing, is come into the place of the Debtor, and paying the debt, the Debtor is dischar∣ged,

and thereby brought into a state of Liberty and Freedom. Here is, I say, a Commutation, or Change of Persons, which in some respect is mutual, but not in all respects so; It is, as the Learned Dr. Owen has it, a Commutation, or 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 Righte∣ousness of God in Christ, 2 Cor. 5.21.

2. The Right Reverend the Bishop of Worcester, who, in his Defence of Grotius, against Crellius, hath very Clearly stated the Controversie between the Ortho∣dox and the Socinians, and given the true sense of Gro∣tius: is very particular and distinct in his Asserting and Explaining the Doctrine of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us, in these words, In the matter of Redemption, or where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used, Crellius will by no means yield, that there was a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us; but all the Commutation he will allow here, is only a Commu∣tation between a Thing or a Price and a Person; which he therefore asserts, that so there may be no necessity of Christs undergoing the Punishment of sin, in order to Redemption, because the Price that is paid, is not sup∣posed to undergo the Condition of the Person Deli∣vered by it; which will evidently appear to have no force at all, in case we can prove, that a Proper Redemption may be obtained by the Punishment of one in the room of another; for that Punishment then comes to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Price of Redemption, and he that pays this, must be supposed to undergo Punish∣ment for it: so that the Commutation being between the one and the other, Redeemed by it, here is a Proper Commutation of Persons implied in the Payment of the price. Disc. of Christs suffer. Ed. 2. pag. 325.

In these words the Learned Bishop is very full in asserting a Proper Commutation of Persons between

Christ and us; That whereas Crellius denied a Commu∣tation of Persons that there might be no necessity of Christs undergoing the Punishment of sin, in order to Redemption, the Bishop doth with clearness detect his subtilty; and Learnedly Confute him, making it to appear, that those places of Scripture, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are joyned together, do prove a Com∣mutation, not of a price for a Person, but of one Person for another; or which is the same, a substitution of one Person in the room of another; for, these Phrases, [a Commutation of one Person for another] and [a sub∣stitution of one Person into the room of another] as the Bishop and all others, acquainted with this Controver∣sie, apprehend, do signifie so much the same thing, that whoever yields the one, can't in reason deny the other.

The Bishop, discoursing of Expiatory Sacrifices, clears it, that the Jews themselves understood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Capar, to import such an Expiation as is made by the substitution of one in the Place of another, tel∣ling us, that Buxturf has collected many Instan∣ces, wherein Capara is taken by the Rabinical Wri∣ters for such an Expiation, whereby one was to undergo a Punishment in the place of another; And (saith the Bishop) I insist on these things, only to let us understand, that the Jews never understood Capar in the sense our Adversaries contend for, when applyed to an Expiatory Sacrifice, but as im∣plying a Commutation and a Substitution of one in the place of another, so as by the punishment of that, the other in whose room he suffers, may obtain de∣liverance. Of Christs Suffer. p. 359, 360. Here you see a Commutation and a Substitution do go together, and as the Bishop adds, Which is the sense we plead for.

The thing is so very clear, that my Brother could never have mis-represented these Great Men thus, nor indeed have himself fallen into this mistake, if he had not used the word, without framing in his

Mind an Idea of its Import. If he had taken the Phrase of a Substitution of one Person into the Room of another, in the Common Sense of the Words, he could not but observe, a Commutation, or Change of Persons between the one and the other, and that if the Change had been but of one, of the Substituted Per∣son only, there could be no room for him to be placed in, that is, there could be no Substitution.

In a word, from what I have insisted on it's mani∣fest, that the Learned Bishop is most express in asser∣ting a Proper Commutation, or Change of Persons between Christ and us: So that my Reverend Brother, when he suggests the contrary, doth really mis-represent and abuse the Bishop. But

3. The Learned Turretine, who is acknowledged by all to have written of Christs Satisfaction with as much clearness, and strength as most Men, is very large in his Defence of a Commutation, or Change of Persons between Christ and us, against Socinus and Crel∣lius, For (saith he) seeing our Salvation may be con∣sidered under a fourfold Respect; (1.) With respect to God, Judging. (2.) As to Christ, Redeeming, and so there is a Permutation, because Christ is made sin, and a Curse for us, that we might be the blessed of God in him. De Satis. par. 1. Disp. 3. § 29. And in the following Disputation, § 5. When it's said Mat. 20.28. Christ gave himself a Ransom for many, the praeposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Communissimè, & maximè propriè sub∣stitutionem, & Commutationem designat; this praeposition [For] doth most frequently and properly denote a Substitution and Commutation: And this Great Man adds, Crellius against Grotius, insinuates, that we are deceived in thinking, that there is a Commutation between Christ and us, in the controverted Places, as if, when we were to give our souls, Christ in our Place gave his Soul, the Commutation is only between a Thing and a Person; between a Price, that is, the

Soul and Life of Christ, and us, as Captives and Slaves, but who did ever say, that Christs blood m•••• subrogated for us, and came into our Place▪ To th•••• of Crellius, Turretine thus answers, That whilst he endeavours to deceive others, he himself is most shamefully deluded, for these are not our words sed ver∣ba Scripturae, but it is the Scripture, quae Commutatio∣nem illam inter Christum & nos statuit, dum ex∣pressè dicit Christum seipsum dedisse pro multis, which direct to this Commutation, or Change between Christ and us; when it's said so expresly, that Christ gave him∣self for many, Mat. 20.28, &c.

This Phrase of a Change of Persons between Christ and us, is, in the Judgment of the Learned Turretine, a Scripture Phrase, intended by Christ himself when it's said, He gave himself [For] many. I might give a large Catalogue of other Authorities, but, that this is the Doctrine, commonly received by Protestants, is so manifest, that whoever hath any tollerable Acquain∣tance with their Writings, cannot but be convinced of the Truth of what I do herein affirm, much more should he, who has received a Commission from all the Systematical Divines of Germany, the Voluminous Tigur∣ines and Bulky Low-Dutch, and with those few that are left in England, be sufficienty instructed in the Knowledge of such a Plain and Common Truth.

These things then have been cleared that my Rebu∣ker doth untruly represent the Phrase of a Change of Persons between Christ and us, to be a Jargon of Art; of a very late Contrivance; that can't bear a sound sense, but must signifie Blasphemy; That he, or his guide, has invented a New Phrase of a Change of Christs Person; that he has Unrighteously Charged Grotius and the Bishop of Worcester, for using it, that the sense he feigns them to put upon it is inconsistent with his de∣nying a Change of Persons between Christ and us;

And, do he what he can, he must split either on a Contradiction; or on Blasphemy, or both.

Thus you see whither my Brothers Heats, or some∣what else has hurryed him.

But it's urged, that tho' a Change of Persons between Christ and us, is denyed; yet so long as it's owned, that the Lord Christ suffered in our Place and Stead, the Truth is secured.

Faithful Rebuke.

I would a thousand times sooner chuse to adhere to this Phrase, Christ suffered, and dyed in our Stead and Place [Loco nostro, vice nostrâ] than to that other; In the sufferings of Christ, there was a Change of Persons between Christ and us; for the former has had its signification strongly fixed, and settled by long Usage, and Praescription: Whereas this latter is but of Yesterday, and scarce two Per∣sons, no, not the Inventors agreed amongst them∣selves, what sense to stamp upon it. Again, the plainest Christians have a tolerable understanding of the former, whereas the other does but Amuse and Con∣found them. p. 37.

Reply.

1. If Mr. Ws. had taken this Phrase [in our place and stead] in it's Antient and Genuine Sense, it would have argued, that he was sound in the Faith, and that his rejecting the Phrase of a Change of Persons between Christ and us, would have been only an evincement of his want of Learning, and that he understood not the Controversie he wrote of.

2. That, if this had been the Case, the Reverend Brethren, at Little St. Hellens, would have been in the Right, when they said, Mr. Ws. cannot be understood to deny a Change of Persons between Christ and us, in the general sense because he uses the Phrase of Christs suffering in our place and stead, which doth signifie a Change of Persons between Christ and us. But

3. He who wrote the Report, had, it's like, some Reasons, moving him to suspect Mr. Ws. that as he did (whether in ignorance or knowingly, I say not) concur with Socinus and Crellius, in denying a Proper Commutation, or Change of Persons between Christ and us; so he did with some high Arminians, and the English Ʋnitarians, impose a wrong sense on the Phrase of Christs suffering in our Place and Stead, who intend by it no more than that Christ suffered for our good, in which sense it doth not, I confess, imply a Change of Persons between Christ and us; nor can the Use of it be sufficient to prove, that he who doth expresly deny a Change of Persons between Christ and us, doth hold a Change of Persons between Christ and us, which was the thing the Reporter pressed. And now the Rebuker has made manifest.

4. That the Phrase of Christs suffering in our place and stead, is not taken by them in the sense of the Reformed, for as it's set up in contradistinction to a Change of Persons between Christ and us, so it's made to signifie no more than for our good, for which reason the next Charge is,

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 Scrip∣ture, 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 bles∣sed Saviour by dying and shedding his blood, under∣went that punishment, and submitted to that Con∣demnation, 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 Con∣troversie between us, and our Adversaries Leans and Rests, I shall a little further enlarge upon it, and en∣deavour to make out these two Things, 1. That Christ dyed for our sakes, and that not only as it signi∣fies 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 Commuta∣tion, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [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 suf∣ferings? 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 Fi∣nal, 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 de∣clare, 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 Sa∣tisfaction unto God's Justice for us.

Here is the very natural and irrefragable Conse∣quence 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 Substitu∣tion 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 mean∣ing; nor with a wrong Sense. But, whether as it sig∣nifies 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 So∣cinians, 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 in∣duce 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, Wretch∣ed 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 wretch∣ed 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 pro∣perly Poenal. And, agreeably hereunto, my Brother as he Rejects the phrases of Christ's sustaining the Per∣son 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.

V. Christ's Undertaking to Answer for sinners, the Ob∣ligations 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 acknow∣ledge, 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 Encroach∣ments, 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 dif∣ference 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 deli∣vers 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 ta∣king 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 ve∣hemency, 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 re∣duced 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 suf∣ferings of Christ in general are to be considered as

a Punishment of Sin, or as a meer act of Domi∣nion? 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 Punish∣ments; 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 be∣tween us and them, whether our sins be an Impulsive Meritorious Cause of Christ's sufferings; and Christ's suf∣ferings a proper Punishment for our sins? If our sins be the Meritorious Cause of Christ's sufferings, it neces∣sarily 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 Crel∣lius granted. But as the Bishop observes, We Un∣derstand 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 there∣fore our sins as an Impulsive Cause are to be consider∣ed as they are so displeasing to God, that it was ne∣cessary 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 be∣tween 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 re∣move 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 suf∣ferings 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 just∣ly 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 Analo∣gically 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 Punish∣ment, as they are Vice Poenae, in the Room, and Stead of a proper Punishment.

Gerardus Vossius, in a Letter to Grotius, is very ex∣press, 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 Par∣don 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 Par∣ticular Friend He thus freely opens himself, and Limborch thought it meet to acquaint the World with it, Curcellaeus, who succeeded him in the Pro∣fessors 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 be∣longs not to the Reason of a Sacrifice, and hath no∣thing Common with it. Sacrifices are not Debito∣rum 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 Punish∣ment, 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 Epis∣cepius and his Followers, I will consider the Enquiry; What is the Nice Difference between Christs Answer∣ing 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 Punish∣ment 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 Pas∣sages 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 trans∣ferr'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 menti∣oned in the Rebuke may Justly Allarm the Orthodox amongst us, and Justifie their insisting on a fuller secu∣rity

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.

VI. Why so many Orthodox Terms, and Phrases, which were in the First Paper, are left out of the third?

Altho' I have already suggested what my Brother has said of the Reason; yet, it being a Matter of great Importance, I will, in this place, be more full, in setting before you what he saith of the Mature Deli∣beration, and Just Reasons, upon which they have Re∣jected those Phrases; and then show who are herein imitated, and what are the most likely Consequences of such a Practice.

As to what my Brother saith of the Brethrens Re∣jecting these Phrases, with deliberation and for just Reasons, take his own Words.

Faithful Rebuke.

5. Those Brethren, who had their Heads, their Hands, and Hearts too, in Drawing, Dressing, and signing the former Paper, when they had heard the Reason, and Arguments of the whole Body; where all Matters were managed, not in a hasty and praecipitate way, but with the greatest calmness, by slow paces, with great liberty and freedom of debate, and being now dis-in∣cumbred from the Counterpoize of Oppositions, or Insinuations; might, and did see Just Reasons to alter the Phrases, and new-model some Expressions.

6. And hereof you may be fuller Assured, inas∣much, as those individual Nine Brethren, who for, and in hopes of Peace, had signed the former Paper, had their Hands, and Heads, and Hearts too, in the Forming, Wording, and Assenting to this third: Nor did they herein alter their Judgments, or vary in the least from their Zealous Desires of Peace and Ʋnion; only they now saw this last Paper was in all things

the same with the former, saving in some few Passages, and Expressions, which carryed a Face of some dan∣gerous Tendencies; which, however they might escape the Notice of Private Brethren, could not escape the Observation of the many Discerning Heads, who with utmost Application, set themselves to prevent any Inconvenience, that might arise to the Truths of the Gospel.— The Brethren did unani∣mously agree to grant as much as the Sound Sense could bear; and modestly to wave and pass by the other, which was lyable to be Interpreted to a Sense and Sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel: pag. 29, 30.

Reply.

I. My Brother here gives a Character of such as did Sign the first Paper; and of them, who Formed, Worded and Assented unto the Third: The former are Private Brethren, who, it's like, were so hasty in what they did, that some Passages of a dangerous Aspect escaped their Notice: The other are the whole Body, many Discerning Heads, whose observation, the dangerous Passages could not Pass; who gave such Reasons and Arguments to their Private Brethren, as convinced them, that there were Just Reasons to Alter the Phrases and new Model some Expressions. Now, that you may the more rightly Judge of this Matter, I will give you the Names of these Private Brethren; who were so Hasty and Inconsiderate, tho' when with the Body, so thoughtful as to receive much light from the strong Reasons of the many Discerning Heads: They were, Dr. Bates, Mr. Howe, Mr. Stretton, Mr. Alsop, Mr. Shower, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Slauter, Mr. Quick, Mr. Evans, Mr. Veal, Mr. Hill of Roterdam, Mr. Glascock, and three or four more. The Names of the many Discerning Heads, I need not give, and there∣fore I will leave the Reader to Pause a while on the Representation my Brother hath given of this Mat∣ter,

and go on to consider what he further saith of them.

II. The Private Brethren, such as Dr. Bates, Mr. Howe, &c. received so much light from the many Discerning Heads, that as they might, so they did see Just Reasons to alter the Phrases, and New Model some Expressions, ay, to wave, and pass by some Phrases, as what could not bear a sound sense, but were liable to be Interpreted to a sense and sound of Malignity to the Gospel.

In this place 'twill be Expedient that we compare the Two Papers, and see what are the Waved, and Al∣tered Passages.

The First Paper.

1. Bearing with One ano∣thers Infirmities, and Different Sentiments a∣bout Logical, or Philo∣sophical Terms, or meerly Humane Forms of Speech, in matters of Lesser weight.

The Third Paper.

1. Bearing with One ano∣thers Infirmities, and Different Sentiments in matters of Lesser weight, not contending about Logical, or Philo∣sophical Terms, or meer Humane Forms of Speech.

The Alteration in this place, how Insignificant so∣ever, it may seem to some, is in a point, that Affects the very Vitals of our Holy Religion; For, by this Change, the words [in matters of lesser weight,] being transferr'd [from Logical Terms] unto [different senti∣ments] a matter of another kind, with an addition of [not Contending about Logical, or Philosophical Terms, &c.] without the Restriction [in matters of les∣ser weight] a Liberty to contend about these Terms in matters of greater weight, is denied, and the Assenters unto the Third Paper are brought under an Obliga∣tion to sit still, as silent Spectators, whilst the Epis∣copians,

and Socinians are Exposing to the greatest Reproach the Logical, and Philosophical Terms and Hu∣mane Forms of Speech, pitch'd upon by the Church of God to Explain the Foundation Points both of Re∣vealed and Natural Religion.

To clear thus much, I desire to Inculcate these following Particulars. 1. That it's an Unexpressible Grievance unto all sorts of Hereticks to observe in the Church of God a strict Adherence to those Logical, or Philosophical Terms that have been chosen, and settled, as what do most aptly and clearly explain those glorious Truths, discovered unto us by the Light of Nature, and Scripture Revelation; and clearly distinguish these most Important Truths from Er∣rour.

2. That it hath been the way of Heriticks to quar∣rel with these Terms, because not found in the Letter of Scripture. Tho' the Controversie is about the sense of Scripture, ay, about the sense of every Text is there a Controversie with one Heretick or other; yet, will they have us to confine our selves to Scrip∣ture phrases, in Explaining Scripture phrases.

Tho' it's undoubtedly True, that there is no bet∣ter way to Understand the genuine sense of Scrip∣ture, than by comparing Scripture with Scripture, yet it's no less True, that it's not so easie to convey the True sense unto others without the help of Hu∣mane Forms of Speech.

Amongst many others it's well observed by the learned Mr. Norton of New-England, that the most Pestilent Doctrines have often times been communica∣ted in the Language of Scripture; which was the rea∣son, why St. Hierome speaking against the Heresies of Ebion, Photinus, Marcion, and Basilides, did say, Think not the Gospel to be in the words of the Scripture, but in the sense. And Mr. Norton adds, who is Ignorant,

that the Arians speak Heresie by that Text, The Fa∣ther is greater than I, Joh. 14.28.

But Biddles Scripture Catechism is an illustrious Evincement of this Truth, for there he hath in Scrip∣ture words, delivered very gross Errours, for instance, that God hath a similitude, or shape whose Essence is confined to the Heavens, and the like; as also, that God is not Omniscient, for he knows not what will be hereafter; Whereas, in Truth, God is Omniscient, and Incomprehensible too. And though these Terms are not in the Letter of Scripture; yet the things con∣tained in these Terms and Phrases, are Expresly in the Scriptures. And as the learned Bishop of Worcester affirms. It is the Wiser and Safer Course to keep in the same Way, which the Christian Church hath used, ever since she hath agreed to express her sense in such Terms, which were thought most proper for the purpose. — And since no other can be found more significant and proper for that End, it looks like yielding too Great Advantage to our Adver∣saries, to give up the Boundaries of our Faith. Pref. to the Vindie, of the Prin. p. 2, 3. But I do also Ob∣serve,

3. That the first Attempts made by them, who for∣sake the Faith, are on these Terms and Phrases. Thus the Socinians, (as I have shewn in my Growth of Er∣rour) did about the year 1562. labour to engage the Ministers in some parts of Poland to Abstain from the use of Philosophical Terms, or Humane Forms of Speech, and as Stonius Observes, it was this year concluded in a Synod at Pin••zow, that the Ministers should not use any Philosophical Modes of Speech, such as the Trinity, Essence &c. but that every one should confine him∣self to the Terms used in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles, and in the Apostles Creed. p. 175.

Episcopius, and his Followers took the same Me∣thod, when they Attempted to subvert the com∣monly

received Doctrine about Christ's Satisfaction. In a Letter to Schotlerus, he confesses, 'twas charged upon him, that he used other phrases, than those re∣ceived by the Church, and such as seemed to Fa∣vour the Socinian Cause, and the Truth of the charge against him he does not deny. Curcellaeus doth the same, and has a Dissertation against Maresius, where∣in he defends the laying by of sundry phrases, used by the Church of God, because not found in the Letter of Scripture, but both Episcopius and Curcellaeus, did not content themselves in the laying aside the Use of these phrases, but went on to oppose the Truths Ex∣plained by 'em, and at last lodged themselves in the Socinian Tents, and are Justly, by Sandius, placed in the Anti-Trinitarian Bibliothec.

4. As it has been the Practice of Hereticks to make their first Attempts on Orthodox phrases, that they may the more effectually Introduce their Errour; in like manner, it has been the care of them, who are sound in the Faith, to keep up those Banks or Barriers, and to Defend these phrases, as the Boundaries of the Truth. When Gregorius Pauli, and many others of the Socinian Faction struggled for the Disuse of all phrases, not expresly delivered in Scripture, and Sar∣nicius with Divers others so earnestly contended for their Use, as they did most clearly express the Truth, and distinguish it from Errour, that Gregories party found it most Prudent to admit of their Use. And the Orthodox in all Ages, would by no means part with these phrases.

5. In Imitation of our Fore-fathers, and accord∣ing to the constant Practice of the Church, before and since the Reformation, the Reverend Brethren, who sent the first Paper unto the Congregational, Ob∣serving the Charge to be, that the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction was corrupted, did in the said Paper, single out, and pitch'd upon those Terms, Expressions and

Phrases, which have been Used by Protestants, to Explain this Doctrine. Such as a Change of Persons between Christ and Us; Christs taking on him our Person; and coming into our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Stead, to answer for us the Obligatio•• of the V••••••••red Law of Works; the laying the 〈…〉〈…〉 our iniquities on Christ; and that Christ 〈…〉〈…〉 as our Surety, did feel, and 〈…〉〈…〉sure of God, and the Weight of his Wrath 〈…〉〈…〉 as men found in the Faith, they 〈…〉〈…〉 matter of Offence to their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Brethren But

6. How 〈…〉〈…〉 these phrases are, how apt to explain the Truth, and how Necessary soever to distinguish it from Errour, it cannot be admitted by others, for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and secret Influences of that ve∣ry man, who 〈…〉〈…〉quished the commonly Received Doctrine of Protestants, in this Instance, are so powerful, that these phrases must be rejected; and what cannot but astonish our Brethren in the Coun∣try, the Orthodox in the Church of England, Scotland and the Reformed abroad, they are rejected, as phrases, that cannot be safely retain'd; that can't bear a sound sense; but are liable to be Interpreted to a sense of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel, which is such a bold stroke, so deep a wound given the Doctrine commonly passing in regard to Christs Satisfaction, as hath not been given it by any but by such as Episcopius, Socinus, and their Admirers; and it's carried on with so High a Hand, that whoever dares Appear to De∣tect their Attempt, tho' with the greatest softness of Expression, must be cried down as a Fire-brand and a Disturber of our Peace, and the very Man, who once Pleaded for the Faith, is turn'd with much se∣verity against his Orthodox Brethren, and as if this had been the time to follow the Blow, and strike at all, it is Inserted as a Term of Peace, in the Paper, sent from Little St. Hellens, that there must be,

7. No Contending about Logical, or Philosophical Terms; or meerly humane Forms of Speech; tho' about Matters of the greatest Importance, as appears by their removing from this Place the limitation which in the first Paper, was [in matters of Lesser Weight.]

That I may, in this place, discharge my Conscience with the greatest Impartiality, I do declare, 1. That I Charge not the Brethren at Little St. Hellens, as a Body, for I am Perswaded the greatest Part of them are not aware of the Design, or Tendency of this Alter∣ation; and that the Chief Contriver doth gaudere sinu, to Observe, how he imposes on them; and how he has Tooled my Rebuker, who, I would hope, has his Heart as yet untainted with the Errours, delivered in his Rebuke. However▪

2. It is most evident to me, that as they will An∣swer it in the great Day of the Lord, they are under the strongest Bonds of doing their utermost to put a Check to those Invasions made on the Truth by the Methods, used by the Contriver of the third Paper. I speak of them, who are convinced of the truth of the Commonly received Doctrine of Protestants, for by Countenancing this Paper, they in Fact Renounce what they Believe to be True; and by approving of this Alteration, which will by no means allow of our contending about Logical or Philosophical Phrases, tho' in Matters of greatest Weight, they open a gap for the let∣ting in all manner of errour; For

8. They, by Assenting to this Paper, have put in a Bar against their contending for any Logical Phrases, and when the Socinians shall expose to Contempt and Ridicule some Phrases, which express, what is Essen∣tial to the Principles of Natural as well as of Reveal∣ed Religion, they must break their Promise, or be silent; suffering the very Deist to carry all before him.

To clear thus much 'twill be sufficient to mention what Biddle says on this Topick; I'le give you his own

Words, Examine therefore the Expressions of God's being Infinite, and Incomprehensible; of his being a simple Act; of his subsisting in three Persons; of a Divine Cir∣cumincession; of an eternal Generation; of an eternal Procession of an Incarnation; of an Hypostatical Ʋnion, — of Original Sin; of Christs making satisfaction to God for our Sins, both past, present and to come; of Christs fulfilling the Law for us; of Christs being punished of God for us; of Christs merits, his meritorious Obedience, both Active and Passive, — of Christs enduring the wrath of God for us,— of Apprehending and Ap∣plying Christs Righteousness to our selves by Faith; of Christs being a Surety; of Christs paying our Debts; of our Sins imputed unto Christ; of Christs dying to appease the wrath of God— of infused Grace, — of irresistible workings of the Spirit in bringing men to believe — of spiritual Desertions, &c. — And thou shalt find that as these Forms of Speech are not owned by the Scripture, so neither the things contained in them. So far Biddle in his Preface to his Catechism.

That the things contained in these Forms of Speech are most plainly and expresly revealed in Scripture, and that God is Infinite and Incomprehensible, made known by the Light of Nature, is certain; But that the Phrases themselves are not Literally in the Scriptures must be acknowledged, and if we must not contend about the above-mentioned Phrases, will not the Fol∣lowers of Biddle and the English Ʋnitarians Triumph over us? And should this Paper pass as the Sense of the Dissenters, would they not provoke unto it, to the great grief of many sound and godly Divines in the Church of England, as well as of our Country Brethren?

But, I will say it again, for I believe it to be true, that there are not five of the Brethren who meet at Little St. Hellens, who are aware of this and that, on a review, they will never bring themselves under

the Obligation of not contending for the above-men∣tioned Phrases, tho' but humane Forms of Speech, suited to explain the necessary Articles of Religion, so far is my Brother from the Truth, when he saith, that the third Paper was with that deliberation, slow paces, &c. Composed.

The First Paper.

2. Altho' Regeneration, Re∣pentance towards God, Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and holy Conver∣sation, are by Gods express word manifestly necessary to the Salvation of a Sin∣ner, yet that none of these, &c.

The Third.

2. That altho' the express word of God do Assert the necessity of Regenera∣tion to our entring into the Kingdom of God, and Requires Repentance, that our sins may be blotted out, and Faith in Christ, that we may be justified, and holiness of heart and life, without which we can∣not see God; Yet that none of these, &c.

It will be expedient, that I do in this place ob∣serve,

1. That according to what my Brother de∣clares again and again, it must be supposed that this Passage in the first Paper can't be safely retained, that it can't bear a Sound Sense, but is lyable to be interpreted to a Sense and Sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel, and therefore upon mature deliber∣ation waved, and another Passage put into its place; whereas, in my Opinion, no one, that is not of the wor∣ser sort of Antinomians, even a Libertine, who denys Re∣generation, Repentance towards God, Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and Holy Conversation, to be necessary to the Salvation of Sinners, dares say, that this Passage can't bear a Sound Sense, &c. and therefore must be Altered.

That my Brother has out-run himself, and all his old avowed Principles, in this way of Writing, is enough to awaken us all to take heed, how we do in the least Point, turn aside from the Truth, nothing being more manifest than that uno absurdo dato mille sequuntur.

But tho' my Brothers Writings are in this Par∣ticular so extravagantly Erroneous, I would willingly hope, 1. Better things of him, and in Charity will place this Mistake amongst his Incogitancies, concluding that when he said, what alterations were made, were upon Just Reasons, and what was waved could not Bear a Sound Sense, he did not think on the passing by this Passage, it being very common for Men in a heat to forget themselves.

2. My Brother doth perhaps look on this Passage, in the first Paper, not to contain in it, so full a Testimony against Antinomianism, as he could wish, and thinks needful, which I should have more firmly believed, in case he had not delivered himself so positively as above: However, I think it not amiss to show what fell under Consideration, when this Point was to be stated.

1. It was thought most conducive to the great end, to avoid as much as possible, a running into the Discus∣sion, and Determination of Differences of lesser mo∣ment, which were agitated amongst the godly Ortho∣dox themselves, and therefore to keep to those Mat∣ters which did more nearly concern the Essential Ar∣ticles of Faith.

2. There being a Controversie amongst the Refor∣med themselves about the order, between Faith and Repentance, as which hath the Antecedence and Priority; and whether Repentance was a necessary praerequisite to pardon, the Composers of the First Paper waved the determination thereof; which was no more than was done in the Composing the Seven Propositions

which were renounced to the end we might express our abhorrence of Antinomian Errours; a brief ac∣count of which will be needful, not only to detect my Brothers mistakes touching matter of Fact in this one point, but to Inlighten others in this Affair.

It must then be carefully minded, 1. That the Re∣nunciation of Antinomianism, of which my Brother speaks, pag. 23. was drawn up by some Brethren of both Persuasions; of which number the very Person, my Brother takes to be the Reporter, was One, who faithfully transcribed the seven Propositions agreed unto, and by Direction carried 'em unto the B••••¦thren at Little St. Hellens, where he Read them, and expressed his great satisfaction of the Renunciation, as several of them, who do now ordinarily meet there can Testifie.

2. That whereas Mr. Williams insisted on the Asser∣tion of the necessity of Repentance in order to Par∣don, about which the Orthodox have different Sen∣timents, 'twas at last agreed to assert the necessity of Repentance, and leave this Controversie undetermi∣ned, which was done by declaring against what was Opposite in this matter unto the Assembly, as you have it in the fourth Proposition, where we renounce the Doctrine of them who hold [That any may expect Pardon without Repentance.] To return,

3. The only difference that I can see between the First and Third Paper, in this particular, must be in these words, [That God requires Repentance that our sins may be blotted out] which look as if the deter∣mining this Controversie had been designed: The reason why I can see no other difference is, because I know that the Congregational do hold, That the Ex∣press Word of God doth Assert the necessity of Regenera∣tion to our entring into the Kingdom of God; and Faith in Christ that we may be Justified, and Holiness of Heart and Life, without which we cannot see God, for these

things are all included in what is in the first Paper. And in case my Brethren, who glory in their con∣fining themselves unto Scripture Expressions, will take in the whole verse, they refer unto, when they say [That God requires Repentance that our sins may be blot∣ted out,] which is [When the times of Refreshing shall come from the Presence of the Lord] I know not a Man among the Congregational, that will scruple to Ex∣press his Assent unto this Clear and Full Testimony against Antinomians in the Fundamental Article of Justification: And, if any of them do agree with Po∣lanus, and many more sound Protestants in this Unde∣cided Controversie, it cannot advantage the Antino∣mians, especially seeing they hold, That none may ex∣pect Pardon without Repentance.

First Paper.

3. Yet that none of these, or any work done by men, or wrought by the Spirit of God in them, is under the Notion of Subor∣dination, or under any Denomination whatso∣ever any Part of that Righteousness, &c.

The Third.

3. Yet that none of these, or any work done by men, or wrought by the Spirit of God in them, is, under any Denomination whatsoever any Part of that Righteousness, &c.

1. In this place the words [Vnder the Notion of Subordination] is waved, and as my Brother will have us believe, upon the weightiest Reasons, as what can't bear a sound sense. And yet,

2. The following words which are left in [under any Denomination whatsoever] should methinks be com∣prehensive enough to take in under 'em [the Notion of Subordination] for a Subordinate Righteousness falls within the circle [of any Denomination whatso∣ever.] But,

3. My Brother can't endure to swallow a Contra∣diction, which this must be, in case the phrase [un∣der the Notion of Subordination] cannot bear a sound meaning, as it cannot in the Opinion of my Brother, because it's waved; and yet is comprized under [any Denomination whatsoever] which must bear a sound sense because not passed by, for which reason we must endeavour to save it from a Contradiction, which cannot be but by restraining this Universal Term [Ʋnder any Denomination whatsoever] thus, [un∣der any Denomination whatsoever that can bear a sound sense,] but [the Notion of Subordination] not being able to bear a sound sense it's not to be taken within the verge of under any Denomination whatsoever.] Well then,

4. If this phrase [under the Notion of Subordination] can't bear a sound sense, it must be because they hold a Subordinate Righteousness in our Justification, where it must be noted, that here is the mention on∣ly of one Iustification, which carrieth in it the Par∣don of sin, the accepting of sinners, and an Entituling them to Eternal Life; and that this Justification is not only by Christs Righteousness, but also by a Subordinate one, of our own, they both concurring to our Justifi∣cation, the one Principally, the other Subordinately. This is the only way, that I can think on to fetch my Brother off from a Contradiction, and yet do I what I can I must at last lodge him under a Contra∣diction. For,

5. This Third Paper doth expresly declare, that we are Pardoned, Accepted, and Entituled to Eternal Life only by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, and received by Faith alone. But to be Pardoned, Ac∣cepted, and Entituled unto Eternal Life only by Christs Righteousness, and yet to be Pardoned, Ac∣cepted or Entituled to Eternal Life by a Subordinate Righteousness of our own is an Implication. Being thus

necessitated to leave my Brother in these dark shades, I will return to the private Brethren, such as Dr. Bates, Mr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Mr. Alsop, and the rest of this de∣nomination, to see what Influence that light, which they received from the many discerning Heads hath had on them, which my Brother assures me was very great. For, he saith,

III. Those Individual nine Brethren, who for, and in hopes of Peace had signed the former Paper, had their Hands, their Heads, and their Hearts too, in the forming, wording, and assenting to this Third— For they now saw in the former some few ••assages and Expressions, which carried a F••••e of some dan∣gerous Tendencies; which, however they might escape the Notice of Private Brethren could not pass the observation of many discerning Heads.

In Examining this Passage, it must be remark'd.

1. That these Private Brethren, every one of the Individual Nine, saw the Face of some dangerous Tendencies, in the First Paper, which they had for∣merly Subscribed, and therefore must be now sup∣posed to Repent of that; but whether this be true or not, I appeal to their own Consciences, for, till this Brother published his Rebuke, I could not hear one word to this purpose, some of 'em assuring me, that the Alterations between the two Papers were but very Minute, such Tan••••lla as were not worth a contending about, and not of such things as were of dangerous Tendencies.

2. Several of the Nine have very lately declared their Approbation of the First paper, and one of 'em in particular told me, that my Brother was guilty of a Notorious Falshood in saying, that the Individual Nine had their Hands, their Heads, and Hearts in the form∣ing, wording and assenting to the Third Paper, for he had neither Hand, nor Head, nor Heart in it.

3. If the Individual Nine had a Hand, a Head and a Heart in composing the third, and in Waving the Phrases, rejected, because they could not bear a sound sense, then must Dr. Bates, who is one of the Nine Private Brethren. be for a waving the Phrases, of Christs sustaining the Person of sinners; and suffering the wrath of God as our Surety, as what could not bear a sound sense, and if it be so, I do humbly conclude that 'tis his Duty to answer that part of his Harmony, where these Phrases are used, and the Doctrine they express is Asserted and Defended.

But sure I am, that I have heard him say, that the Harmony was the fruit of Fervent Prayer of his closest studies, and most Impartial Examination, not only of the Orthodox, but of their Adversaries, and that, tho' twas his resolution to follow light, and if he could meet with good reasons to convince him, he was in an Errour, he would fall under it, yet hither∣to he has met with no reasons to move him to change his mind, and to this purpose he has spoke since the composure of the Third Paper.

To close my Answer to this Enquiry, it's manifest to me that my Brother and his Teacher are for reject∣ing the above mentioned Orthodox Terms and Phrases, because they have forsaken the Protestant Doctrine, as ordinarily conceived by them. Tho' I have put my Chari∣ty on the outmost stretch in favour of my Rebuking Brother, yet must I say, That, if he doth not see the Tendencies of a rejecting the aforesaid Phrases, upon the Reasons he has assigned, to be destructive of the Protestant Faith in the Article of Christs Satisfaction, He is not the sittest Man in the World to enter on a Controversie of this kind; and yet I must at the same time acknowledge, that the more unmeet any one is to enter on this Controversie, the more likely he is to be imposed on by his more seeing guide,

who doth, in the instance before us, as the nature of the thing speaks, leave the Reformed; and nothing short of this can be the import of my Brothers argu∣ings in his Rebuke.

This Assertion I do confess leads me to the consi∣deration of the seventh Enquiry, which is,

VII. In what Confessions are the Terms or Phrases, so much contended for to be found?

My Brother is very confident, that the Phrase of a Change of Persons between Christ and Us, and his taking on him the Person of Sinners is not in any one Confession of Faith. For, saith he,

Faithful Rebuke.

Observe further, That the Phrase of a Change of Persons between Christ and Us, and his taking upon him the Person of Sinners, are Terms wholly Unknown to those Confessions and Articles, which were made the Test of soundness in the Faith, by the United Ministers, nay, if you have the leisure, search the whole Body of Confessions of the Reformed Churches from Helvetia to Transilvania, thence to America, and you shall not find these Terms, Phrases, or Ex∣pressions in any one of them. p. 17.

Reply.

1. This strong Assurance of my Brother brings to my remembrance a passage I have met with in Mr. Baxters Catholick Theology of a Jocular Contemptuous Defendant; who, whilst He pretended to have a Commission from all the Systematical Divines of Germany, was so Charitably Uncharitable as to say, That never a man in his Wits affirmed, That the Righteousness of Christ was the Formal Cause of our Iustification. (Ap∣pend. to the Praemun. par. 2.) whereas, on the other hand, Davenant, who was far from being a Mad∣man, or from representing the Protestants to be so,

doth assure us, That it is the common sense of all our Divines, that the Righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, is the Formal Cause of our Justification, and as to what pertains to the thing it self, not one Prote∣stant Divine has either spoke, or written otherwise. Praelect. de Justit. hab. c. 22.

This Over-bold, Rash, and Untrue Assertion of the Jocular Defendant, ran in my Mind as soon as I entred on the Examination of what the Rebuker here says, not only because He has as little reason for what he says, but upon another account. For,

2. Do we in good earnest press for what hath not the countenance so much as of One Confession of Faith? This would really be hard, and Provocation sufficient to stir up his Ange•• against the offended Brethren. To whom, in Answer I do declare, that if I had not found these phrases in some Publick Con∣fessions; nay, if I had not met with them in the Holy Scriptures, I would have been silent and never have put Pen to Paper, on this occasion. Mistake me not, my meaning is, that the things signified by these Terms and Phrases, are expresly in our Confessions, and in the Holy Scriptures too; and perhaps it may appear that the phrase most exposed by him, will be found to be literally in one or other Confession.

3. That I may set what I now declare in the clear∣est light, I must observe unto you,

1. That the phrases, of a Commutation, or Change of Persons between Christ and us; of Christs sustaining our Person; of his being Substituted into our room; and his Suffering in our Place and Stead, are so nearly Allied to each other, that they are as Hypocrates his Twins; they Live and Dye together. Grant one and all ne∣cessarily come in with it; oppose but any one of 'em in the genuine meaning, and you oppose all of'em.

The Phrase of Christs Dying in our Place and Stead, as it imports somewhat more than for our good, im∣plies

a Substitution of Christ into our Place, which can∣not be without a change of Persons between Christ and Us; or without Christs sustaining our Person. If then any one of these phrases be found in any one Confession, there is an owning all the rest.

2. Those Scriptures, which speak of Christs Dy∣ing for us; of his being a Sacrifice; and of his being our Surety to satisfie the Law for us, do all import Christs Suffering in our stead, his being Substituted in our Place, a change of Persons between him and us, and his sustaining our Person in suffering.

What I here assert is so clear, that there is no doubt of it amongst the Orthodox, who throughly understand this Controversie. Yea further,

3. These controverted phrases do express what is essential unto a Real, Proper and Plenary satisfaction to Gods Justice for our sins, and upon this account, in what confession soever such a satisfaction is asserted, there these phrases are owned.

If then I can direct to the Confession, where either a Proper Satisfaction is asserted; or, where 'tis decla∣red, that Christ as our Surety suffered for us; or, that Christ suffered in our Place and Stead; or stood in our Person, when He Died, I hope it may satisfie any unprejudiced person, that the phrases Contended for are in our Confessions; and if I shew that all these last mentioned are in some publick Confessions or Catechisms, why may it not be enough to remove my Brother from his Fastnesses; and oblige him to conclude, that they who plead for their use are not so singular as he has Insinuated?

These things Praemised, our first Enquiry must be,

1. In what Confession is a proper Satisfaction owned? Go to the Assemblies, cap. 8. sect. 8. and there you may read, That the Lord Jesus by his Perfect Obe∣dience and Sacrifice of himself, hath fully satisfied the Justice of his Father. And cap. 11. sect. 3.

Christ by his Death and Obedience did make a Pro∣per, Real, and Full Satisfaction to his Fathers Ju∣stice on their behalf. The same is repeated in the larger Catechism in answer to the Question, What is Justification? and to that which follows it.

If my Brother can't see in the assertion of [a Proper, Real and Full Satisfaction made for us by Christ to the Justice of God.] the Phrase [of a Change of Persons between Christ and Us,] it is not because it's not there. For in a Proper Satisfaction, whatever is es∣sential thereunto, as a Commutation, or Change of Per∣sons between Christ and Us is, is contained; and whoever understands the true nature of a proper Satisfaction, cannot but see it. However for the sake of the less studied, I will by a very plain instance Illustrate thus much; affirming, that all sound Believers are Dis∣charged from that Obligation to Punishment they lay un∣der for their past sins, that the Obligation unto Punish∣ment, is in their case, dissolv'd, that this is the Do∣ctrine embraced by the Reformed. Now, if my Brother demands of me, in what Confession of Faith is this phrase [of Dissolving the Obligation to Punish∣ment] to be found; In answer, I'll refer him to the Assemblies Confession. cap. 11. sect. 1. Those whom God Effectually calleth, he also Freely Justi∣fieth — by Pardoning their Sins. If he saith, he can't in this place see the phrase [of Dissolving the Ob∣ligation to Punishment.] I'll tell him, it is there, tho' he can't see it, for in the Pardon of sin it is, it being Essential unto Pardon, that the Obligation unto Punish∣ment be dissolv'd, to talk of the Pardon of a sinner whilst he continues to lye under the Obligation unto Punishment, is to Trifle, and to say, that the dis∣solving the Obligation to Punishment cannot be read, where the Pardon of sin is expressed, is to talk after such a manner as Modesty wont give me leave to call by its most proper name.

The same is true of Christs Satisfaction, and a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Us; for, a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Us, is as essential unto a proper Satisfaction, as the dis∣solving the Obligation to Punishment is unto Pardon of sin.

2. The phrase [of Christs suffering in our place and stead,] as it imports somewhat more than for our good, implies a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Ʋs; and signifieth the same with Christs suffering in our Person, as our Surety.

That it is thus understood by the Orthodox, I have already cleared, and to what hath been said, I will add the Judgment of the Palatinate Divines, which they delivered into the Synod of Dort, which was, That one Errour, amongst the many embraced by the Remonstrants, was [the same which my Brother has in his Rebuke, viz.] That to Die for sinners must not be understood, as if Christ died Loco, aut vice ip∣sorum, in their Place and Stead, sed bono tantum, but only for their good.

This Errour these Divines, (in what they have said on the second of the five Articles) did confute, assert∣ing, in opposition unto them, that Christ our Surety according to the Scriptures died Loco Peccatorum, in the place of sinners, which in their Orthodox Antithe∣sis they thus explain, partim Loco, partim bono ipso∣rum. 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 Charen∣ton,

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 King∣dom.

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 Per∣sons 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 Par∣don 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 shor∣ter 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, imme∣diately 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, 'tis 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 be∣tween it and the forgiveness of our Sins fully remo∣ved, 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 Righte∣ousness 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 bear∣ing 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 Ʋnited 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 Orthodox Divines at Westminster.

Well, but tho' I had leisure to look into all the Confessions at home; or search the whole Body of Confessions of the Reformed Churches from Helvetia to Transylvania, thence to America, can I find, in any one of them, the least Countenance given to these Terms, Phrases, or Expressions? Or is it possible to Observe in any one of them, so much as a smile on that Phrase of Christs suffering in our Person? I answer,

1. What, tho' I can't? Is it not enough that I have shown, that the Controverted Phrases are included in the Acknowledgment of Christs making a proper Satisfaction to Gods Iustice for us? And that they are all virtually owned, which in sundry Confessions and Synods, which have openly Received the Phrase of Christs suffering in our Stead, as it signifyeth more than for our good, and is of the same Import with Christs suffering in our Person, but the owning that Christ as our Surety, felt and bore the weight of Gods Wrath, should, methinks, be sufficient. However,

2. That my Brother may see, that without going

so far as Helvetia, Transylvania or America, we may find enough nearer home to convince him, that he has very little, or no Reason for his assuming way of Writing, I will only take a turn into Scotland, where we shall find this very Phrase of Christs dying in our Person, inserted in their Confession of Faith, It became the Messiah, and Redeemer to be True God, and True Man, because he was to suffer the Punishments due for our sins, and to appear, [quasi in Persona nostrâ, coram Judicio Patris pro nostrâ transgressione, & in obedi∣entiâ pati, morte, mortis authorem superare] in our Per∣son, before the Judgment Seat of the Father to suffer for our Transgressions, and by death to destroy him that had power over Death. Vid. Carp. Confes. Ed. an. 1612. pag. 142.

Here you see that the Church of Scotland above a hundred years ago, used this very Phrase, which, my Brother assured us, could not be found in any one Confession: and which, he says, doth make a Blasphemous Representation of Gods Love in the Redemption of falen Man, but I hope, when he shall be so far reco∣vered as to be able to entertain some free Thoughts, on this Subject, he will do his part, to repair the Breaches he has, by his Rebuke, made on one of the Chief Articles of our Holy Religion, and do what in him lyeth, to clear the Orthodox from those unjust Re∣proaches he has covered them with, by making them to hold and defend Blasphemous Opinions in their use and defence of the Controverted Phrases; And that it may be thus, it shall be my Prayer, and I de∣sire it may be also the Prayer of all them who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity.

There is one thing more needful to be spoken unto, before I close my Reply: It is the Third and Last gene∣ral Head, I have proposed to be considered.