A further defence of the report. Vindicating it from Mr. Alsops Cavils, and shewing the difference between Mr. W's and my self to be real, and the charge in my appeal to be true.

A further DEFENCE OF THE REPORT.

Was once, as I suggested in the Preface to my Appeal, Resolv'd against Answering some Ob∣jections, not only, as I then said, because it was so difficult for their Authors either to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Contradiction; or forbear Personal Reflecti∣••••; but, because what was objected, appeared to ••••to be very Weak, Impertinent and Frivolous: But, ••••••g assured by some Learned and Judicious Di∣••••••s, who have Read Mr. Alsop's late Rhapsodie, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, passing by his Rude and Uncomely Invectives, False and Injurious Accusations; the whole of strength lieth in Noise and Clamour, which he ••••es upon the account of my saying nothing to ••e of his Trifling Objections; and, as he pretends ••••use of my Quarrelling with my Brethren about ••••••ers of no moment, &c. I will, without giving my 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the trouble of Reading that Book which hath ••••••d the Hearts of his most Godly, Learned and ••••icious Friends with unconceivable Grief, Exa∣••••e those Objections, which, when I wrote my ••ince, I did not answer, and give some Reasons, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I think the Differences amongst us are more

than Verbal, and that they are about some of t•••• most substantial Articles of our Holy Religion.

Section 1.

I will begin with what he objects against the ••••••¦porter, and my self.

His first Objection.

That the Reporter has left out of his substance the Gospel, Regeneration, Conversion, Repentan•••• Holiness, Sanctification, a New Heart, and New O••¦dience, Good Works, &c. A blessed Report for t•••• Countrey. You are eased at least of one Moity 〈◊〉〈◊〉 your Work.

Reply.

In my Return, I will give you the Passage 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which he refers as it is in the Report, and then con••••¦der what Reason Mr. A. had for this Objection.

In the Report it's thus;

That all, Who belief might escape the Wrath to come, and have Everlasti•••• Life, the Lord Jesus Undertakes for us, by maki•••• satisfaction to Punitive and Remunerative Justic•••• and, that he might do so, he did put himself in our Place, State and Condition; so that whereas v•••••• were Sin, and under a Curse, by this Blessed Chan•••• Christ is made Sin, and a Curse, and we deliver•••• from Sin, and the Curse, 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.13.

This is the substance of the Gospel of Chri•••• this the Ground, and Foundation of our Faith.

Out of this Passage it is, that Mr. Alsop fetche•• the Reason, why he chargeth the Reporter for l••••¦ving out his Substance of the Gospel, Regeneratio•• Repentance, &c. To which I answer.

1. That 'twill be very hard for them, who kno•••• the Person, that is thought to be the Reporter, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 think it possible for Mr. A. to believe one word of h•••• own Charge against him, it being in his own Con¦science so contrary to Truth, and can therefore 〈◊〉〈◊〉 no less than a Calumny, as Calumnia est cùm quis 〈◊〉〈◊〉

••••••ta Scientia, & dolo injustè agit, & excipit. But it ••••st be further observ'd;

2. That this Passage of the Reporter was only ••••out Christ's Satisfaction, as it is an Article of ••••••ple Belief, and of distinct Consideration, either ••••••m Matters of Practice; or, such Works, as are ••ought in us by the Holy Spirit.

3. That Matters of Simple Belief have been ever, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Churches of God, placed in a Formula, by ••••••mselves. And, if there be any strength, in the ••••jection, it must lye in this, That whenever a ••••••mula is given of the Credenda, there must be ••••ed with it an Exact Catalogue of the Agenda; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that whoever Composes a Summary of Matters Simple Belief, without inserting in it the Agenda, Matters of Practice, doth thereby Reject out of Substance of the Gospel Repentance, Good Works, &c. ••••e, I say, lyeth the strength of his Objection, ••••ch if of any force at all against the Reporter, must ••••••••g all the Churches of Christ from the Begin∣•••• under the same Condemnation, because they had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Credenda in a Formula by themselves.

The Reporter had in his Summary a word more ••••is in many of the Antient Creeds. For, he saith, ••••••at all, who Believe might escape the Wrath to ••••me, and have Everlasting Life, &c. thereby ••••ing Faith, which supposes Regeneration, and in∣••••es within it the Entire Nature of Evangelical ••••tance, and is Prolifick of Good Works, neces∣•••••• to Salvation; and therefore so long as this ••••ge, viz. [That all who Believe might escape Wrath to come, &c.] continues in his Summa∣•••• there will not be the least pretence for the Hor∣•••••• Noise he has made about it. But.

Mr. A. as one, whose Conscience had, whilst 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as making this Objection, check'd him for it, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 add, [

But suppose this were intended only as

the Substance of the Gospel so far as we ar•••••• to Believe what Christ has done and suffered fo•••• Sinners without them, &c.

] Well then, let us su••∣pose it, and see what will follow. Really, as for m•••••• part, I can observe in it nothing less than a Fu•••••• Answer to his own Objection. For, if the Report 〈◊〉〈◊〉 intended no more than the Substance of what w•••••• are to Believe concerning what Christ has done a•••• suffered for Sinners without them and with God (〈◊〉〈◊〉 really he did not) he was under no Obligation 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mention Regeneration, Conversion, Repentanc•• Good Works, &c. which are wrought in, and up•••• Sinners, and the not mentioning 'em cannot be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Reason a Rejecting'em.

The Reporter was writing of the Substance 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Gospel so: far as it concern'd the Article 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christ's Satisfaction: 'Twas no part of his Provin•••• to entreat of Regeneration, Conversion, Rep••••¦tance, &c. And Mr. A. might have blamed h•••••• for not opening the Nature of Faith, Regenerati•••• or Repentance, as well as for not mentioning eith•••• them, or the Order in which they are wrought. A•• would it not be very wisely urged, The Reporter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dertook to discourse of the Substance of one th•••• and therefore not speaking a word of another, t•••••• of a distinct Nature, he must be interpreted to ••••¦ject that other, as if he who writes of Botannicks, m•••••• be look'd on as a denyer of the Existence of ••••¦nerals, because he confines his Discourse to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 matter in hand.

6. This Objection must be either the most T•••• fling one that ever was started; or be most Fer¦•••••••• of Blasphemous Absurdities. For, if when we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 course of what Christ hath done, and suffered for ••••¦ners, without them, the not mentioning Regen••••¦tion, Conversion, Repentance, &c. be a Rejec•• them, it must be because these things are Essen••••••

P••rts of Christ's Obedience and Sufferings; what ••••ore evident than that if Regeneration, Repen∣••••••ce, Good Works, &c. be not Essential Parts of ••••at Christ has done and suffered for Sinners, the ••••orter, when he gave the Substance of what we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to believe of Christ's Obedience, and Sufferings, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he did not mention Regeneration &c. cannot 〈◊〉〈◊〉 justly esteemed a Rejecter of them; whence 〈◊〉〈◊〉 good Man's pretences for his Charge against the ••••••orter (tho' on it, as is said by many, the Sub∣••••••ce of his late Rhapsodie depends) dwindles into ••••hing, and the Objection appears to be a most ••••••fling one. But,

1. If Regeneration, Conversion, Repentance, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Obedience, &c. be essential Parts of what ••••rist has done and suffered for Sinners without 〈◊〉〈◊〉, then 'twill follow, 1. That a Man may be ••••nerated, converted and sanctified; as well as ••••ified and adopted by a mere external or relative ••••ange: And Regeneration, Sanctification, &c. ••••port no more an internal Physical Change on the ••••art and Life than Justification doth. For if they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Essentials of what only is done without us, Christs Obedience and Sufferings are acknowledg∣•••• to be in this Place, by Mr. A — himself, they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be as perfect in their own Nature, without 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as Christs Satisfaction is, which is a Notion, if ••••ad been true, that would have been very useful 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Libertines, Ranters and Debauchees of the Age; 〈◊〉〈◊〉, tho' they make no Conscience of what they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 write or do; do nevertheless, please themselves ••••th the conceit of their being in a blessed State, as generated, converted and sanctified; which, ac∣••••ding to the natural and easie Consequence, that ••••es from what strength Mr. A's. Objection has in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may be without a work wrought in them. And ••••t be thus, then Christ in doing and suffering for

Sinners, regenerated, converted, sanctified them, &c. an•• all this without them; they still remaining in themselve•• as Vile and as Vicious as ever. Again, 'twill follo••••

2. That if the Substance of what Christ hath do•••• and suffered for Sinners, without them, cannot 〈◊〉〈◊〉 given in a Formula, unless there be the mentio•• made of Regeneration, Conversion, Repentan•••• new Obedience, good Works, &c. then our Fait•• Repentance, new Obedience, &c. are included 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what Christ hath already done and suffered for Si••••¦ners, without them, as if Christ had believed and ••••∣pented for us, yea, as if he had done whatever w•••• necessary for us to have done, in order to our actu•••••• Justification, Pardon, and entrance into the etern•••• Glory.

This is the way of my Adversary, who fears no•••• to run upon the most dangerous Precipices, nor 〈◊〉〈◊〉 give Advantage to the most malignant Heretick 〈◊〉〈◊〉 how ridiculously soever, when he fancies 'tw•••••• make against his Opposers. But,

7. That I may follow this witty Gentlema•••• somewhat further, I will go on to consider wh•••• Use he makes of this Supposition, which carries 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it the genuine Sense of the Reporter, which he giv•• in these words.

Here's something saith he in th•••• Draught that gives cause of Suspicion, to tho•••• who are of no jealous Inclinations: For; where•••• he informs us that Christ suffered and satisfied, th•••• all who believe might e••cape Wrath to come, and ha•••• everlasting Life: Here's no necessity of Faith in ••••¦der to Justification; no believing necessary to Pard•••• of Sin, or Peace with God; no Faith needf•••• to Union with Christ, that we may have an I••¦terest in his Righteousness, but only to escape Wrat•• to come and the having everlasting Life.

To this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 answer. 1. What is here urged, being upon Suppo¦sition, that the Reporter intended only a summar••••

〈◊〉〈◊〉 what Christ has done and suffered for Sinners with 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and with God, and not of the Order between ••••th, and Justification, or Pardon; there is no ••••re room for suspicion in this Draught than there 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the antient Symboles, in which not a word of ••••••h's precedence to Justification or Pardon. And ••••••ld an Antinomian imitate this learned Man, in ••••way of arguing, would he not be as able to vin∣••••••e his most licentious Principles from the Apo∣•••• Creed, as Mr. A. is to fasten his Charge on the ••••ter, and after his manner, professing an extra∣••••ary Zeal for that Creed? press it, that there is ••ecessity of Faith in order to Justification; because 〈◊〉〈◊〉 word of it in that Symbole, though it contains 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the sum and substance of the Gospel. For, if 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is not mentioned in the Formula, composed by Reporter must be look'd on as rejected, because mentioned in it, then what is not in the Formula ••he Apostles, must be also look'd upon as reject∣•••• them, as if they had held, that Faith doth ••antecede Justification, and is not necessary to ••••••on or Peace with God. But 2. Why doth he Here's no believing necessary to Peace with God? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he think that a Man may escape the Wrath to ••••e and have everlasting Life, tho' his Peace with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be not made? When it's said in Scripture, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 who believe escape the Wrath to come and have ever∣••ng Life? I thought nothing less could be meant, that they had on their believing, Peace with God; is, (as Beza, Piscator, Tolet, Estius, Pareus, in Poole) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Reconciliation; or (as Vatablus (ubi supra) are re∣••••ed into Favour with God. 3. The Godly learned ••heir general Discourses about these Points, have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thought it sufficient to secure themselves from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 slanderous Accusations, as Mr. A—would fasten the Reporter; if they did but mention believing, as ••••ssary to our Deliverance from eternal Wrath, or

to our having everlasting Life. I might give a large catalogue of learned men on this occasion, but will on∣ly instance in the learned Grotius, who, in the Sum∣mary he gave of the Catholick Faith in this very Point has it thus, at nos intercedente vera Fide, a Poena Mort•• aeternae liberaremur. This great Man, writing to Christs Satisfaction, saith, that Christ did it, that o•• the Intervention of true Faith, we might be delivere•• from the Punishment of eternal Death. But 4. The Reporter has one Passage more than Grotius, (wh•• was never thought to reject the necessity of Faith in order to Justification) namely, and have everlasting Life. Thus much the Reporter took care to inser•• into the substance of the Gospel in this Article, ha∣ving a regard to that Place in John 3.36. He that be lieveth on the Son hath everlasting Life. That is, hat•• a Right to everlasting Life. Habet, i. e. certo habituru•• est, as Lucas Brugensis, in Poole, who refers us unto John 1.12. where 'tis thus,

Jus ad haereditatem quod & Haereditatis nomine interdum venit, sicut qu•• credit (nempe sicut oportet credere; viva side,) di••∣citur habe∣re vitam aeternam. C. 3.36. Sic Juris con••∣sulti, is qui actionem habet ad rem ipsam, rem habe∣re videtur.

Well then, the import of what the Re∣porter has here said, is, That Christ suffered, that they who believe may have a Right to eberlasting Life, and seeing Justification carries in it a Right to Life eternal; it is as if it had been said, That they who believe may be justified. (5.) That this is the manifest intendment of the Reporter, may be seen by comparing the present Paragraph with the fore going, which is,

We are all by Nature under the Curse of the Law, and destitute of a Righteousness entitling to eternal Life.—That Vindictive Justice, which is essential unto God, makes it necessary, that the wrath be inflicted, and that there be no Right to eter∣nal

Life without a perfect meritorious Righteous∣ness. This is our State and Condition: This is the Place, in which we are, in which if we dye, we are eternally undone.

The Reporter having shown into what a deplo∣able Condition we are brought by Sin, and urging the necessity of an Interest, in a perfect meritorious Righteousness; he proceeds to show, how we may obtain such a Righteousnes, as is meritorious of eternal life, to the end we may obtain a right thereunto, ••ying, 'That all who believe might escape the Wrath to come, and have everlasting Life; the Lord Jesus undertakes for us; thereby clearing it, ••hat they who believe having an Interest in Christs Righteousness, may have a Right to everlasting Life, that is, may be justified, so that here is an asserting of faith as necessary to Justification, Pardon and Peace with God. (6.) The Reporter in giving this brief account of the Doctrine of Christs Sa∣tisfaction, hath followed the blessed Jesus, and the ••oly Apostles as his Guides; for our Lord when ••e sent out his Disciples to preach the Gospel, bids them declare, That whoever believe and are baptized ••hall be saved, and they who believe not shall be damned. In this Summary, though not one word expresly of Regeneration, Conversion, Repentance, &c. nor a word of the Precedence of Faith to Justification or Par∣don of Sin; yet are all these included in it. The ••reaching of the Apostles was frequently the same, Believe and thou shalt be saved. But, (7.) If there had been any Strength in this Objection, Mr. A. doth make, not only the Author of the Reasonable∣ness of Christianity, and the rankest Socinians, but the very Mehometanes would be very much behold∣ing to him for it. For, if the not mentioning every Article of the Christian Faith particularly in the Letter, where our Lord gives a Summary of

the Gospel, must import a Rejection, or at least an In∣difference about the Points not mentioned; then to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, is sufficient, and we may burn our Systems, Catechisms and larger Confes∣sions of Faith.

But (8.) If he saith, it's mentioned by our Lord Jesus and his Apostles elsewhere, I grant it, and from thence I infer, that as our Lord's not mentioning these things, in a summary, is not a Rejecting them; so the Reporter, tho' he spake not a word of them in his summary, cannot without the greatest Injustice, and wrong done him, be charged, as a Rejecter of them. And (9.) It's not unworthy our observation, that the Lord Jesus did in Mark 16.15, 16. give a summary of the whole Gospel without the mention of the particulars specified by my Adversary; but the Reporter only of the substance of the Gospel so far as we are to believe what Christ has done, and suf∣fered for Sinners without them, and with God, in which he hath insisted on the necessity of Faith, in order to our escaping the Wrath to come, and our ha∣ving Everlasting Life, which passage importing the necessity of Faith to our actual Right unto Glory, is as much as if it had been said, that it's necessary to our Justification and Pardon.

But Mr. A. it's likely, not thinking himself un∣der those Bonds which oblige to a strict adherence unto Truth, in what he either saith, or writes, I have Reason to believe, that he hath charged the Repor∣ter for Rejecting what he himself believes in his Conscience he holds, and that he hath done thus much, upon a Reason, which he is perswaded has nothing of strength in it; so dangerous a thing it is for a Man, who in his own Opinion, is a Great Wit, to enter on a Controversie, with a design to load his Opposers with False and Reproachful Charges, tho' it be to the cost and expence of his own Repu∣tation,

and in an Instance wherein he cannot expose the Reporter, but by casting dirt on the Cathick Church, and on his own Understanding too, giving ••ountenance to nothing so much as unto the vain ••retences of such Debauched Hereticks as the Li∣centious Antinomian, and Libertines of the Age are.

Thus, we see, whither somewhat has hurried his Man, and how he has brought himself into such Circumstances, as may move a Christian Temper ••o Pity and Compassion, for which reason I'll say ••o more to this Objection, but go on to a second.

The second Objection.

Be pleased to observe. He instructs you, That we are all by Nature under the Curse of the Law, and destitute of a Righteousness, that may intitle us to Eternal Life, and that this was our Place, State and Condition.

Reply.

And was not this our Place, State, and Condition? Will Mr. A. deny it? No, he dares not; for, saith ••e, This we all own, and lament as too true. Where ••hen is his Objection? It is in the following words.

But then he instructs you also, That Christ put himself into our Place, State, and Condition: Will you not, must you not conclude from hence, That Christ also was destitute of a Righteousness to entitle him, and if himself, us too, to Eternal Life.

Reply.

1. That I may show how Mr. A. trifles in raising his Objection, I will propose the Sentiments of the Reporter about a Commutation of Persons between Christ, and us; which was the Occasion of what was said about our being destitute of a Righteousness. And it must be observ'd, that the Reporter had his Eye on the Manuscript, in which its Author, speak∣ing of a proper Commutation, saith,

That it is the same with a proper Surrogation, where the Surety

[or Surrogate] puts on the Person, and stands in the Quality, State, and Condition of the Debtor, and lies under the same Obligation he did to answer for him.

Not that he apprehended the Agreement there is between Christ's Suretiship, and that a∣mongst Men to be adaequate, and full; nor did he allude unto a Creditor and Debtor to insinuate, that whatever may be truly affirmed of them, in Humane Courts, might be safely applied unto God, and Sin∣ners, as to Christ acting the part of a Surety: But, to explain how Christ came under the same Obliga∣tions, we stood; and by his Satisfaction, and Merit Redeems us from that miserable state and condition our sin had cast us into, and procures for us a Right to Eternal Life; And therefore in Obedience to the Holy Scriptures, he considered Jesus Christ as a Surety that came into the State, Quality, or Con∣dition of Sinners, so far, and no further, than to come under the same Obligations, and Bonds with us, to answer for us, and do, on our behalf, what was im∣possible to be done by our selves. And that he might make this the more clear, he represented unto us that State, in which we all are by Nature, affirming, That we are all under the Curse, destitute of a Righteousness, that may entitle us to Eternal Life. And, that, except Satisfaction be made both to Pu∣nitive, and Remunerative Justice, it's impossible for us to be saved. For, seeing the Law, under which we were Created is of Everlasting Obligation, we stand bound thereby both to Obedience, and the Punish∣ment, and until this Debt be paid, we cannot be Relieved.

This is our State, this is our Condition, and that they who believe may be brought out of this Place, State, and Condition, and have Everlasting Life, Christ came into this Place, into this State, and Con∣dition, that is, he came under those Bonds, and Ob••iga∣tions

that lay on us, that, by answering them, we ••ight be the Redeemed, and Saved.

But, saith Mr. A. if it be thus, Christ must be de∣••itute of a Righteousness; to which I reply, By no ••eans; and if we consider how it is between a Surety and a Debtor, in our Courts, we may soon see ••he contrary. For, when one becomes Surety for a∣nother, he comes into the Place, State and Condition ••f that other, that is, under the same Bonds and Ob∣ligations to pay for him, what he could not do for himself. But, would any Man of Sense say, that the Surety coming into the same State and Condition of the Debtor, to pay his Debts for him, must be thereupon destitute of what is necessary in order thereunto? He comes into the Place of one who is Insolvent, but must he therefore be himself Insol∣vent, and yet pay what neither the Debtor nor him∣self can pay? Thus you see what Mr. A's. Ob∣jection is at last come to. But,

2. The Righteousness of which our Discourse is, an∣swers that Law, which said, Do this and live; In the day thou sinnest thou shalt die; and it is to make Satisfaction both to Punitive and Remunerative Justice. For whatever some may impertinently object, it may be very safely said, that Justice distributes Re∣wards and Punishments, and therefore is rightly de∣nominated Remunerative and Punitive. For though it's said, That Punishment is merited by, or is ra∣ther the Demerit of sin; and that the Sinner, when he bears the Punishment due unto him for his Ini∣quity, partakes of the Reward of Ʋnrighteousness; yet none can with the least pretence to Reason, say, That Punitive and Remunerative are Terms in all respects Coincident. For, it's most notorious, that when Believers are, for the sake of Christ's Righte∣ousness rewarded with Eternal Life, they are not then punished; though Remunerative Justice is then glorified, yet Punitive Justice is not so

But, being assured, that Mr. Alsop saith, these Terms of Remunerative and Punitive Justice are Co∣incident; I will give the Sense of some learned Pro∣testants about it. Gilbertus Voet, a Man of good Learning and a right Calvinist, discoursing of the Justice of God, saith, that Justitia Dei est vel in Dictis, vel in Factis. Posterior duplex scilicet Regi∣minis, & Judicii. Justitia Judicii est, quae secun∣dum Opera Mercedem retribuit. Est{que} haec duplex, vel, Remunerativa seu Praemians secundum Promis∣sionem erga bene agentes; vel Correctiva erga male agentes. Quae etiam distinguitur in Castigantem er∣ga Filios, & Vindicantem, seu Punitivam proprie, & stricte sic dictam erga Reprobos. Voet. Select. Disput. Pas. 1. Disp. de Jure & Justitia pag. 357, 358. And the learned Doctor Owen, in his Dia∣tribe de Justitia Divina, saith the same, affirming it to be the general Sense of Modern Divines, not one of them who writ on the Divine Attributes, being of a different Opinion: And in the Margine, he makes particular mention of Zanchy, Voet, Ma∣resius and others; directing us also unto Doctor Ames his Cases of Conscience; who in the second Chapter of his fifth Book, resolves this Question viz. Whether Remuneration or Punition belongs, to Communicative or to Distributive Justice? Whether Mr. A. understood these things or not, is not in my Opinion very material, it being sufficient to my purpose, that in the Judgment of wiser Men than himself these Terms are not so Coincident, as it's said he doth insinuate.

But to return, The Lord Jesus undertaking to make Satisfaction both to Punitive and Remunera∣tive Justice, that is to say, the obliging himself to suffer the Punishment due to us; for the Satisfac∣tion of Punitive Justice, and render Obedience to the same Law, to merit the Reward we had

••ost; the Righteousness the Reporter spake of, lieth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bearing the threatned Curse, and in obeying the Pre∣••••pts of that Law we violated. And I demand of ••••r. Alsop, Whether the Lord Jesus was always ••ossess'd of this Righteousness? Had he it the ••••rst Instant of his undertaking? or when he first ••ame into our Place, State and Condition?

That there was no Guile in the Mouth, nor De∣••••it in the Heart of the blessed Jesus; That he ••as ever, even whilst he was in a State of Exa∣••nition without Spot, Holy, Harmless, Undefiled, ••••parate from Sinners, and at the greatest distance ••••om the least Pollution or Impurity, we do firmly ••elieve: And though he had not actually a satisfying-••eritorious Righteousness before, he did by his Pae∣••••l Sufferings, and his perfect Obedience to the vio∣••••ted Law satisfy and merit; yet was he at no in∣••••ant of time destitute, of what in that instant it ••ecame him to have. But its like, nothing will ••••tisfie Mr. A. but the granting, That either be∣••••re, or at his undertaking; or at least the first ••••••ment of his entring on the work of our Redemp∣••on, he was actually possess'd of a satisfactory ••eritorious Righteousness, as if he believed, that Christ before he obeyed and suffered, did perfect∣•••• obey and fully satisfie. How else can he make ••••hideous a Noise, about the Reporters holding, at Christ was destitute of a Righteousness, enti∣••••ng himself and us too, to eternal Life? Once more. 3. Mr. A— blames the Reporter for suggesting if Christ had not a Righteousness, entitling himself 〈◊〉〈◊〉 eternal Life. To which I answer,

1. That the Reporter, spake not about Christs ha∣••••ng, or not having a Righteousness entitling himself 〈◊〉〈◊〉 eternal Life. But, 2. Seeing Mr. A. doth insi∣••••nate, That Jesus Christ hath wrought for himself Righteousness, that he might by it be entitled

to Eternal Life, I will consider the Import and Ten∣dency of such an Assertion.

1. As for its Import, it cannot be any thing less than that the Lord Jesus Christ was once in a state of Tryal, and made under the same Law for himself, that we were for our selves, and that Obedience was required of him, to the end that he merit Eterna•• Life for himself: Whence it follows, That when the Promise of Eternal Life was proposed, for the Encouragement of his Obedience, he had no Right nor Title to Eternal Life; no, not for himself: But that to get a Title thereunto, he was under the Obligation of the same Law, that we were; and to speak most modestly of Mr. A's. Notion, The Lord Jesus Christ, God-Man, was antecedently to his rendring Obedience to the Law, which said, Do this and live. He was as destitute of a Right to Eternal Life, as Adam was on his first Creation. Thus, whilst he would fasten on the Reporter the groundless Charge of making Christ destitute of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Righteousness; he makes our Blessed Lord destitute of Eternal Life, ay, of a Right thereunto: But le•• us consider,

2. The Tendency of this Notion; and that I may do it with the greater clearness, I will deliver what I design to offer on this occasion; as pressed by the Learned, Judicious and Holy Doctor Owen▪ who in his Day excelled most Men in these Studies And whoever will consult his Discourse of Justifi∣cation from page 366 to page 378. will see, That this great Man in confuting the Socinians, and their next of Kin in the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and our Justification, doth with much concern, de∣clare and strongly prove, That Christ came not under the Law for himself, but for us.

To set this Important Point in the clearer Light it must be observed, That the Controversie is not,

whether the Humane Nature of Christ, as it is a Ra∣••ional Creature, be subject unto the Law of Crea∣••ion, and eternally obliged from the Nature of God, ••••d its Relation thereunto, to Love him, Obey him, ••epend upon him, and to make him its End, Blessed-••••ss, and Reward. For as the Dr. admirably wel ••••presseth it; 'The Law of Creation, thus consi∣dered, doth not respect the World, and this Life only; but the Future State of Heaven, and Eter∣nity. But the Point here controverted is, Whe∣••••er Christ be under the Law, as it is imposed on ••reatures by especial Dispensation, for some time, ••••d for some certain End, with some Considerations, ••••les, and Orders, that belong not essentially to the ••••w, as before described, as it is presented unto us, ••••••t absolutely and eternally, but whilst we are in this World, and that with this special End, that by Obe∣••••••nce thereunto, we may obtain the Reward of ••ternal Life?

To this the Dr. answers; That the Lord Jesus Christ was not made under the Law, under this ••••nsideration, for himself, to the end he might get a ••ale unto Eternal Life.

For, (saith the Doctor) upon the first Instant of the Ʋnion of his Natures, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from Sinners, he might, notwithstanding that Law, he was made subject unto, have been stated in Glory. For, he that was the Object of all Divine Worship, ceded not any New Obedience to procure for him state of Blessedness.

And a little before.

Setting side (saith the Doctor) the consideration of the Grace, and Love of Christ, and the Compact be∣••ween the Father and the Son, as to the Undertaking ••or us, which undeniably proves all that he did in pursuit of them to be done for us, and not for ••imself.

I say,

setting aside the consideration of

these things, and the Humane Nature of Christ, b•• vertue of its Ʋnion with the Person of the Son 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God, had a Right unto, and might have immed••∣ately been admitted into the Highest Glo•••• whereof it was capable, without any Anteceder Obedience unto the Law. And this is appare•••• from hence, in that from the First Instant of th•• Ʋnion, the whole Person of Christ, with our Natu•••• Existing therein, was the Object of all Divi•••• Worship from Angels and Men, wherein consis•• the Highest Exaltation of that Nature.

So f•••• Dr. Owen.

Here then you see a difference between this Lea••∣ned Dr. and Mr. A. Mr. A. suggests as if Chri•••• were under the Law, which saith, Do this and liv•• for Himself, as well as for us, that he might be e•••• titled to Eternal Life; but the Dr. denies it up•••• the weightiest consideration. Besides, the Doct•••• is the more positive in his Opinion, as it doth mo•••• effectually subvert the Notion of Socinus, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 That our Lord Jesus Christ was for himself, or on 〈◊〉〈◊〉 own account, obliged unto all that Obedience, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 performed, and therefore could no more obey, a•••• satisfie for others, than any other person. But th•• Doctor proves, That Christ's Obedience unto t•••• Law was for Vs, and not for Himself; and ther•• by doth most effectually enervate the strength 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Socinus his Argument, which upon Mr. A's. Notio•• receives new Life, and Vigour.

Whoever desires a suller understanding of th•• Controversie, will do well to consult the Doct•••• himself; who, in the pages referred unto, hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fully, and clearly stated this Doctrine, as to obvia•••• Objections, made against it by the Remonstrant Socinians, and others; but what I have here said 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sufficient to shew Mr. A's. Mistake, and what coun∣tenance

it gives the Socinians, and how much reason 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath to be more in his Study consulting, not ••ay-Books for the sake of foolish Jests, but the ••oly Scriptures, and the Learned Writings of D. O. ••••d other Orthodox Divines, that for the future, ••rough inadvertency, or otherwise, he give not those ••dvantages to the common Enemies of our Holy ••eligion, he hath too oft done. But I pass on to third Objection.

The Third Objection.

We are sin, (saith the Reporter) and under a Curse: Can you, with all your Penetration, Divine the ••eason, why it's said, we are sin? —but how ••••e we sin?—why must it be phrased thus, we are 〈◊〉〈◊〉? It was Poetically and Satyrically said, That ••lexander the sixth, was non tam vitiosus, ••••àm vitium, non tam scelestus quàm scelus: but ••••e need to be taught how Man was sin? sin it ••••lf?

Reply.

1. That Mr. Alsop is so very much at a loss to ••••d out the genuine meaning of the word Sin, ••en it's said we are Sin, as if it had been never ••used in Scripture, doth not a little surprize; it ••••ng so common for the Holy-Ghost to express the ••••erlative Degree by the Abstract, not only in ••••er Instances, but even in this, that doth so puz∣•••• and confound him. For, as the Devils, whose ••••s are exceeding great, are called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or spiritual wickedness, so wicked Men are cal∣•••• Wickedness, particularly, in 1 Cor. 6.9, 10, 11. ••ere is an enumeration of sundry sorts of Sinners, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 render it, [And such were some of you] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ••••t is, as may be seen in Poole; talia scelera eratis, ••••th Wickednesses were some of you; and as Ca∣••arius, ut cum Sceleratum dicimus Scelus. The

like also in Ephesians 5.8. ye were Darkness, that is, as Zanchy, ut Scelus pro scelestissimo; and Bishop Reynolds observes, on Psalm 110. The Lord, to sig∣nifie that his People were most Rebellious, saith, that they were Rebellion it self, Ezek. 2.8. and many other instances of this kind might be given, which may move some of no jealous Inclinations, to su∣spect, that the Objector hath been more conversant with the Poets, than with the Prophets and Apos∣tles.

2. Well then, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, the signification of the word [Sin] is very obvious, denoting the greatness of Wickedness we are Sin; we are Sin in the Abstract, we are Sinners in the highest degree. But,

3. Doth not this Interpretation give advantage to the Objector, who saith,

you shall see the mys∣tery of his Phraseology; it was to mislead you, into that Abomination, that Christ was sinful, that h•• was a Sinner; for, if Christ was Sin in the same Acceptation, that we are, then he was sinful, h•• was a Sinner, and the greatest Sinner, that eve•• was in the World.

To this I answer, That what∣ever is here suggested, my Interpretation of the word [Sin,] gives not the least advantage to th•• Objector. For,

1. If the word [Sin] has a Sense in the Superla••∣tive Degree, in which it is true, not only of us, bu•• of Christ, without making Christ inherently sinful or personally guilty; all this noise is to no pur∣pose.

2. That Christ was Sin in an Acceptation, tha•• we are Sin without being Inherently Sinsul, i•• evident; as the word [Sin imports Guilt, I mea•• Legal Guilt, and a proper Punishment consequen thereupon. Sin in Scripture oft imports the sam••

with Legal Guilt, in the Sense described by the ••arned Bishop of Worcester, and it also oft-times ••••gnifies Punishment. My Sin, and sometimes my ••uilt, at other times my Punishment; and when ••uilt and Punishment are expressed by the word Sin, ••e are not only directed to our Sins as the merito∣••us Cause, but to the dreadful and dismal Effects. We are Sin, we are upon the account of our Trans∣••ressions exceeding Guilty, and the Punishment they ••serve is exceeding great. But,

3. If Christ be not Sin in some of the same Ac∣••ptations, in which we are Sin, then the Guilt of ••••r Sins was never transferred upon Christ, nor the ••unishment thereof inflicted on him; which is a ••ry liberal giving up the Controversie to the Soci∣••ans, who deny Christ to be made Sin in any one ••ense, in which we are Sin, and so will not own ••at our Guilt was laid upon him, or a proper Pun∣••ent inflicted on him.

4. If Christ be in no Sense Sin, in which we ••e Sin, then our Sins were never imputed unto ••hrist, nor did he, in a proper sense, bear our Guilt, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Punishment, nor was he, nor could he be a Proper ••••crifice for sin. To say, that Christ was a Sacrifice 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sin, in a proper sense, and yet not sin in any one ••se, in which we are sin, is to say he had not the ••uilt, nor the Punishment of sin upon him, and that ••e was not a proper Sacrifice for sin; for it's essen∣••al to a proper Sacrifice for sin, to have the Guilt, ••••d Punishment of sin laid upon it. Upon this ac∣••unt it is that amongst the Hebrews the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used for sin, the Guilt, the Punishment, and ••••crifice. And amongst the Greeks, and Latines the ••ne word signifies a wicked man, and an Expiatory ••••crifice.

Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is. as Dr. Owen against Biddle, cap. 22. observes, Homo pia cularis pro Lu∣stratione,

& Expiatione Patriae devotus; whence the word is often used, as scelus in Latin for a wicked man, a man fit to be destroyed and taken away Agreeably hereunto, Budaeus renders that place o•• the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4.13.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— nos tanquam piacula—we as as the accursed thing of the World, and Sacrifices for the People; it being, a may be seen in Poole in loc. the Custom of som•• Countries, in the day of their Calamity, to take th•• vilest amongst the People, and Sacrifice them, wh•• by the Athenians were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; so common hath it been for the Sinner, and the Sacrifice to bea•• the same Name even amongst the Heathen; but i•• the Holy Scriptures nothing more evident, because the Sin, for which the Sacrifice was to be offered was laid upon it in the Old Testament, whereby the Laying of our sins on the Lord Jesus, which wa•• a necessary antecedent to his Death, as he was a Sa∣crifice, was prefigured. But,

5. Mr. A. writes, as if he had either never known or had quite forgot what is so very obvious to mos•• Divines; and therefore what he saith on this occa∣sion is to be the less regarded, and to be consider∣ed as what can serve no other sort of People, tha•• the Socinians, and their Allies, tho' I still charitably hope, that he abhors their Tenents, even when hi•• Writings do, in too many instances, favour thei•• Cause.

The Fourth Objection.

That it is a mistake to conclude from Christ•• being called Surety, that therefore he came unde•• the Sanction of the Law of Works. And the rather because being stiled the Surety of a better Testament can respect only the Covenant of Grace.

Reply.

1. I do not say that this is an Objection of Mr.

Alsop's framing, nor will I answer it as such. The Episcopianism, and Socinianism, that is in it, is so clear ••n evidence of its being formed by a Well-wisher ••o the Errours of our Adversaries, that I'll not ••asten it on one in whose Writings I have not met ••ith it. But that 'tis of the same nature with ••hat Mr. W. hath advanced, is to me most certain.

2. Whatever this Objector hath, with a boldness ••ommon amongst our Adversaries, asserted, I must ••ave leave to suggest, that by this way of arguing, ••••d by these Assertions, he hath left out Orthodox Writers, and is gone over to the Tents of Limborch, ••••rcellaeus, Schlictingtons, and Crellius.

3. That herein the Objector has forsaken the Or∣••odox, I will evince by setting down the Senti∣••ents of some of the most Eminent amongst them. ••nd that I may be the more convincing in what I 〈◊〉〈◊〉, I must observe, that the hinge of this Contro∣••ersie turns on a sound determination of this Que∣••••on, viz. Whether Christs Suretiship belongs to his Priestly ••ffice, or not? For, if it belongs unto the Priestly Of∣••••e, 'twill unavoidably follow, that as our Surety, ••e Lord Jesus offered up himself a Sacrifice to God 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Expiation of the Guilt of our sins, that to ••is end he took on him our Guilt, and bore the ••unishment due to us, which he could not do but by ••••ming under the Sanction of the violated Law. The ••••nnection there is between Christ's Priesthood, ••••d his offering up a proper Sacrifice, between his ••eing a proper Sacrifice, and his bearing the Guilt, ••••d Punishment of our sins; and between his bear∣••••g the Guilt, and Punishment of our sin, and his ••eing under the Sanction of the violated Law, is so ••ose, so firmly fixed, and inviolable, that, on the ••••anting, that Christ's Suretiship belongs to him, as ••••iest, the whole here mentioned necessarily fol∣lows.

The Links are too strog to be broken. If then our Divines hold, that the Suretiship mention∣ed in Heb. 7.22. belongs to Christs Priestly Office, if they produce this Text to prove, that Christ as our Surety took on him the Guilt and Punishment of our sins, to satisfie God's Justice for them, then they do run counter herein, unto the Episcopians and Socinians, in holding that Christ came under the Sanction of the Law.

4. That, in what I have delivered, I have given the sense of the Orthodox is manifest. The Learned Bishop Reynolds on Psal. 110.4. p. 417. saith,

That Christ, being a Priest, must of necessity be a Me∣diator, and Surety between Parties, that he might have one, unto whom, and others, for whom, and in whose behalf to offer a Sacrifice. Every Priest must be a Mediator to stand between God and the People, and to intercept, and bear the Iniquity o•• their Holy things— But every Mediator is not presently a Priest, for there is a Mediator only by way of Intreaty and Prayer, &c. And there are Me∣diators by way of Satisfaction, as Sureties are be∣tween the Creditor and the Debtor; and such a Me∣diator was Christ; not only a Mediator, but also a Surety of a better Covenant, Heb. 8.6. Heb. 7.22. He was not to procure Remission of our sins by way of Favour and Request, but he was set forth to declare the Righteousness of God, Rom. 3.25. and such a Mediator between God and Us must needs be a Priest too. For the Debt, which we Owed un∣to God was Blood. Without shedding of Blood there is no Remission, Heb. 9.22.

Essenius, who is applaud∣ed for his Defence of Grotius, de Satisfactione, by Lu∣therans, as well as Calvenists, saith the same;

Quan∣tum ad Locum, Heb. 7.22. rationes à Crellio, allatas cur Christus Sponsor Novi Foederis vocetur minimè

sufficere oftendimus, Sect. 1. hujus Libri. Imò in an∣••ecedentibus, & consequentibus agitur de Sacerdotio Christi quo ipse non fungitur nomine Dei apud bomines; sed nontine Hominum, apud Deum, cui se victimam obtulit.

At{que} Ita Sponsorem egit pro hominibus apud Deum. Essen•• Triump. Crucis, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2. sect. 3. cap. 1. p. 500. Judicious Mr. Strong, his Discourse of the two Covenants, lib. 2. cap. 2. ••••ct. 1. § 2. p. 128. has it thus; 'The Lord Christ, by becoming a Surety, did give his hand; that is, be did enter into Covenant with the Lord, and so his Name is put into our Bond, Gal. 4.4, 5. He is said to be made under the Law, and that as a Co∣venant; and when the Apostle saith, He is the Surety of a better Covenant, whereas the main of Christ's Suretiship refers unto the first Covenant, the Covenant of Works broken, and therefore, in respect of our Debt, he is the Surety of the first Cove∣nant; yet the Apostle doth not so express it, but of the better Covenant, because the Commutation of the Person, the bringing in of a Surety, doth properly belong unto the Covenant of Grace, and it is a part of the Covenant of Grace, that there should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or a Propitiation, one to stand in our stead, or to make Satisfaction to the Justice of God for the Breach of the Covenant of Works; and therefore the whole Suretiship of Christ doth refer unto the Covenant of Grace, of which his standing in our stead, and paying our Debt, is a principal part. To this of Mr. Strong I will add what Mr. Alsop with about the Covenant of Grace, in his Anti-Sozzo, 717, &c.

The Covenant of Grace may be con∣sidered, either in its Constitution, or Execution:— In the Execution of the fixed Constitution—the Re∣deeming Mediator Vndertakes with God as a Righte∣ous Judge—and therefore becomes a Priest, a

Sacrifice, a Price, a Ransom, a Curse, to satisf•••••• the Iudge and his Law—Christ himself is promi∣sed in the Covenant as the Great Comprehensive Bles∣sing of the Covenant, Isa. 49.8, 9.

So that Chris•• being given in the Covenant of Grace, to Redeen us by his Death, and Sufferings, by his satisfying th•• Judge, and his Law, from that Misery, our sins ha•• brought upon us, he might very well be stiled by th•• Apostle, Heb. 7.22. a Surety of a better Covenant, o•• Testament, which shows the vanity of that part o•• the Objection, which saith, Christ cannot be said to come under the Sanction of the Law of Works, because being stiled the Surety of a better Testament, cat•• respect only the Covenant of Grace. Once more.

The Learned Dr. Owen, in opposition to the In∣terpretation given of Heb. 7.22. by Schlictingius Curcellaeus, and Hammond, (and I may justly add to that given by Mr. W.) declares.

That the genera∣lity of Expositors, Antient, and Modern, of the Ro∣man, and Protestant Churches, on the place, affirm, that the Lord Christ, as the Surety of the Cove∣nant, was properly a Surety, or Ʋndertaker unto God for us; and not a Surety, or Ʋndertaker unto us for God. And because this is a matter of great importance, wherein the Faith and Consolation of the Church is highly concerned, I shall (saith he) a little insist upon it—It is the Priesthood of Christ that the Apostle treats of in this place, [viz. Heb. 7.22.] and that alone. Wherefore he is a Surety as he is a Priest, and in the discharge of that Office, and therefore is so with God on our behalf—He undertook, as the Surety of the Covenant, to answer for all the sins of those, who are to be, and are made Partakers of the Benefits of it; that is, to undergo the Punishment due unto their sins; to make Attonement for them

by offering himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Expiation of their sins, Redeeming them by the ••••ice of his Blood from their state of Misery, and Bondage under the Law, and the Curse of it.

Isa. 53.4, 5, 6, 10. Matth. 20.28. 1 Tim. 2.6. 1 Cor. 6.20. Rom. 3.25, 26. Heb. 10.5, 6, 7, 8. Rom. 8.2, 3. 2 Cor. 5.19, 20, 21. Gal. 3.13. And his was Absolutely Necessary, that the Grace and Glory prepared in the Covenant, might be com∣municated to us. This, and much more to the me purpose hath the Learned Dr. in his Disc. of ••••stif. p. 256, &c. To whom I will only add what ••e Learned Author of the Interest of Reason in Re∣••ion offers on this Point. 'Whereas Christ is stiled saith he) the Surety of a better Covenant, it i•• be∣cause the Enacting of the Covenant of Grace re∣spects his Undertaking to he made sin, and to un∣dergo the Curse as the Moral Cause and Condition; without which there had been no Overtures of Mercy made to the Sons of Men, p. 537, 538.

5. What these Great Men have here delivered, ••oth not only testifie to the Truth of what I have ••ffirmed about the Opposition the Or. hodex have ••ade against the Interpretation given of Heb. 7.22. ••••y Mr. W. Curcellaeus, and the Socinian; but it also doth. ••ost convincingly prove, that Christ's Suretiship be∣longs to his Priesthood, that in his Acting the part of Surety, or in the Execution of his Priestly Office, ••e Offered up himself a Sacrifice, took on him our ••uilt and Punishment, and, to this end, came under ••he Sanction of the violated Law. For,

6. The connection the Apostle affirms to be be∣••ween Christ's Suretiship and his Priestly Office is ••uch, that a denying Christ to be a Surety, under∣••aking to bear the Guilt and Punishment of our sins, ••or that he came under the Sanction of the Law, to

satisfie God's Justice for us, hath a direct tendency to subvert the true Notion of the Priestly Office. Of this Schlictingius was so sensible, that he could think on no way (as Dr. O. observes) to solve the Apostles mention of Christ's being a Surety in the Description of his Priestly Office, but by overthrow∣ing the Nature of that Office also. Of Justif. p. 261, 262, 263. Have we not then reason enough to be concern'd to see any, amongst our selves, turning aside from the Common Faith delivered to us from the Lord Jesus, and his Apostles, and falling in with the Inveterate Enemies of our Saviour's Satisfa∣ction? One thing more I must note,

7. That the Notion, Paraphrase, and Exposition, gi∣ven by Socinians, and a few other Authors, of Christ's being made, and called our Surety, because of his Ʋndertaking to be Pledge, and Guarranty for God to Sinners, that upon their Repentance and Faith he will both pardon, and bestow upon them Eternal Life, is no ways either consistent with, or to be reconciled unto what the same Apostle had declared, chap. 6. p. 16, 17. where, tho' he had been discoursing of Christ's Priestly Office, he doth ne∣vertheless expresly, and positively affirm, that God's Word of Promise, accompanied, and ratified by his Oath, is the whole, and that praeclusive of all other means of Security, and Assurance, which we either need; or, that God hath in this matter been plea∣sed to afford us, in order to the stedfastness of our Faith, the Fulness of our Consolation; God being wil∣ling more abundantly to shew unto the Heirs of Promise the Immutability of his Counsel confirm'd it by an Oath, that by two Immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lye, we might have a strong Consolation, who have fled for Refuge, to lay hold upon the Hope set before us. So that the Reason of his being styled

the Surety of the better Testament is, because of his ••••ffering and performing those great Things for us ••owards God, without which the Testamental Inhe∣••••tance bequeathed in that better Testament, would ••ot have been upon any Terms acruable unto, ••nd claimable by us.

The Fifth Objection.

That by saying Christ sustained the Person of Sinners, Mr. L. must be thought to acknowledge, That he dyed for the Reprobate, as well as for the Elect, and that it favours the Nestorians, who maintain, That Christ was constituted of two Per∣sons.

Reply.

1. What is objected against me in these words, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as much against the generation of the Orthodox, ••ho use the same Phrases which I do. Not that ••••intend only the Lutherans in this Instance, who are ••••iesly concern'd in the first part of the Objection, or I use it in no other sense than the Reformed ••••nerally do.

2. The Conffusion which the Author of this Objection is fallen into, in his opposing the Phrase 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners, has ••oved some to fear, that all things are not Right ••ith him. For one while this Phrase can signifie ••othing less than that Christ puts on the Disguise of ••inners (Horresco referens) and Acts the part of a ••age-Player; at another time, it must import Ne∣••ianism, as if Christ had taken on him the Natu∣•••••• Person of Sinners; And again, the Enquiry is, ••hether the Persons of Sinners are not Ʋnited, ••nd to be considered as One Person, and whether ••hrist did not die and satisfie for that One Person, ••hat is for all equally, which he doth not believe to ••e our sense, as he declares. But,

3. The sense, in which we use this Phrase, is known to Divines of the least accquaintance with these Studies, so that unless there had been a fault somewhere, the Objector could not have been thus puzzled, for it hath been cleared in my De∣fence, that when its said Christ sustained the Person of Sinners, it's not meant that the Person he took on him, was either a Feigned or a Natural Person, that it was only a Legal Person; so that, did he understand what is most plain and easie, he could not but see that he had not the least Pretence for his Blasphemous Representation of our blessed Saviour's Acting the part of a Stage-Player; nor for his charging us with Nestorianism.

4. As for his Endeavour to infer from this Phrase of [Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners] the Doctrine of Universal Redemption, is so de∣stitute of the least colour of Reason, that as he believes we do not hold it, so it hath no Founda∣tion for its support: For the Phrase of [Christ sustaining the Person of Sinners] and that other o•• [Christs dying for Sinners] is of one and the same Extent, and the Interpretation given by the Ortho∣dox of the one, is sufficient to vindicate the other from his trifling Cavils. But,

5. When we say, That Christ sustained the Per∣son of Sinners, we mean it of those Sinners, who are given by the Father to the Son, whom the Father will draw unto him, who come to the Father by the Son, do believe are Converted, Regenerated and Saved. In a word, we mean it of Elect Sinners.

The Sixth Objection.

That it is both Scandalous and Blasphemous to say▪ That Pestilent Doctrines have been oftentimes Com∣municated in the Language of Scripture.

1. When I wrote my Defence of the Report, ob∣••erving how zealous Mr. W's and his Substitute, ••ere for strict Adherences unto Scripture words, ••nd how much against the use of some Terms and ••hrases (chosen by the Orthodox, to explain the Truth) because not in the Letter of Scripture, I ••••ought it necessary to suggest in my Defence, as did, p. 59. That it hath been the way of the Here∣••••cks to Quarrel with such Terms and Phrases as ••he Church had chosen, because not found in the ••etter of Scripture; adding, That amongst many ••thers, it's well observ'd by the Learned Mr. Norton ••f New-England, That the most Pestilent Doctrines ••••ve been Communicated in the Language of Scripture; ••••on which (as I am told) Mr. Alsop briskly deli∣••ers his charitable Censure, vix. That to say so is ••oth Seandalous and Blasphemous. But,

2. What Mr. Norton said is Matter of Fact, in Point whereof the Truth is too Notorious to be ••••nyed. And may we not transmit to Posterity the ••retched and villanaous Practices of Vile Hereticks, ••ithout falling under the censure of being both ••andalous and Blasphemous?

3. If it be Blasphemous to relate a Matter of this ••ature, some of the most Judicious and Learned ••istoriographers and Fathers of the Church, such Eusebius, Theodoret, Gregory Nazianzen, St. Jerom, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Austine, and many others, who have faithfully ••elated, with much clearness detected the Frauds ••••d confuted the detestible Errors of Hereticks ••e Guilty. And whoever will escape this Mans ••enaces and Threatings, whilst they behold the ••afty Methods of the Enemies to our Holy Re∣ligion, tho' subversive of the Truth, and ruinous 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Souls of Men, must tamely look on, and not

speak one word of them, because they deliver thei•• Pernicious Doctrines in Scripture Language. Bu••

4. As in all ages of the Church, Hereticks hav•• had their Advocates to plead their Cause, or at lea•••• to extenuate and speak favourably of their Errors in like manner, there have not been wanting some who tho' to the hazard of their Liberty, their Reputa∣tion and Lives, because of malitious Intreagues an•• Invidious Designs of Erroneous Delators, have di••∣covered the Cheat, oppugned the Errour, and de∣fended the Truth.

5 That it hath been the way of Hereticks t•• act deceitfully, and communicate their Pestilen•• Notions in Scripture Language; I will, for the sak•• of the Objector, and such as want either Ability o•• Opportunity to consult Church History, or the Fa∣thers, show out of Kracanthorp, who, in his Trea∣tise of the fifth General Council, held at Constantinopl•• under the Emperor Justinian, making a very stric•• search into these matters, comes at last to this Con∣clusion, viz.

That the Nestorians spake like Catho∣licks, but thought otherwise: Their Words wer•• holy, and Orthodoxal, but their Sense and Mean∣ing was Blasphemous, and Heretical. Neither wa•• this any New Policy of the Nestorians; the Ar••∣ans, the Pelagians, almost all Hereticks have pra∣ctised the like. Out of them all (saith he) I wil•• here alledge but one Example. Vitalis, a Presby∣ter of Antioch was accused unto Damasus to main∣tain in some part the Heresie of Apollinaris, as de∣nying Christ to have a Soul or Mind; at the motion of Damasus he delivered in Writing a Confession of his Faith—In this Confession Vitalis had pla∣ced the very words of the Scripture, not depraved not any way changed, neither the Order, nor th•• Writing of them being corrupted. But, when Vi∣talis

came among his own Fellows, to them he ••pened his secret meaning and his Fraud.

Whence ••••akanthorp observes, That an Heretical Profession ••••y be made in the very words of holy Scripture; ••hich is, as if it had been said, Pestilent Doctrines ••••y be communicated in Scripture Language. And must add,

6. That as it hath been a common practice of ••••reticks, to keep most rigidly to the Letter of Scrip∣••••re; and from time to time, provoke their Ortho∣••••x Opposers thereunto; so, the Church, to the end ••e might the more effectually discover the Heresie, & ••••retick, explain and defend the Truth, did always use apt Words, Terms, and Phrases, from which the ••••amour of Hereticks could never prevail with her 〈◊〉〈◊〉 turn.

Doctor Owen, in the Preface to his Answer unto ••••ddle, speaks very fully unto this Point, declaring, ••••t it has been his observation,

That such Words 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Expressions, as are not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 found in Scripture, ••••e Questioned and Rejected by none but such as ••y their Rejection intend and aim at the Removal ••f the Truth it self, which by them is expressed ••nd plentifully revealed in the Word.

Hence when Valens the Arian Emperor, sent Modestus the Praetorian Praefect, to persuade Basil to be an Arian, the Man intreats him not to be so rigid as ••o displease the Emperor, and trouble the Church, for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Over-strict Observance of Opinions; it being but ••••e Word, indeed one Syllable, that made the Difference. And he thought it not Prudence to stand so much upon so small a Business. The Holy Man ••eply'd,

However Children might be so dealt withal, those who are bred up in the Scriptures, or nourished with the Word, will not suffer one Syllable of Divine Truth to be betrayed. The like attempt of this of

Valens and Modestus upon Basil, was made by the Arian Bishops at the Council of Arminum, who pleaded earnestly for the Rejection of one, or two Words, not found in Scripture, laying on the Plea much weight, when it was the Eversion of the Deity of Christ, which they intended and attempted Thus Doctor O. ubisupra. p. 21.

7. After the same manner, in the present Con∣troversie, my Adversaries make an amazing Noise crying out that the Quarrel is only about some Words, Terms, Phrases and Expressions, such as Chang•• of Persons, Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners, &c. which are neither in Scripture, nor in any Publick Confessions, and thus make a horrid strife about Words, when there is an agreement in things; calling upon us, to show the Scripture, that hath the con∣troverted Words and Phrases literally in them, which you see from what I have urged out of Dr. Owen is an old Practice of Hereticks: I will further show out of the Learned Dalley, who in his Demonstra∣tion of Faith from Scripture, gives a particular ac∣count of the Reasonings of the Antient Hereticks, and of what Answers the Fathers returned unto them.

This great Man Notes it as the Practice of Arians and other Hereticks, to provoke to the Express Letter of Scripture, for the use of those Terms and Phrases that were then controverted. For instance▪

Where is it (say they) in the Letter, that the Son is Consubstantial with the Father, where in so many Words and Syllables? Away with your Syl∣logisms, and show where nakedly and literally it•• said, that the Son is the True God. So Pascentius Comes an Arian, in St. Austin, In what Text is the word Omoousios, or Consubstantial? And in Victor Vitensis, its said, that Hunnericus, an Arian

King of the Vandals, in an Edict, by which he commanded the Catholick Bishops of the Affrican Churches to meet with Men of his own Opinion about Matters of Faith, would have them show the Faith of the Omoousians to be in so many Let∣ters and Syllables of Scripture.

But,

8. This way of Arguing was exploded by the ••athers, as Absurd and Foolish, who constantly ••sserted, That altho' what they belived was not to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 found in so many express Words and Syllables, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was it very clearly and manifestly deduced from ••ain Scriptures. And as Athanasius expressed it, ••o matter whether what, we believe be in so many words the Scriptures, so long as the Truths themselves are ••erein Contained. That is said to be Written, altho' 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the very Letter, if the Sense of it there. So Chrysostom. To which add, that of ••regory Nazianzen, there are some things in Scrip∣ture intended, which are not Literally expressed; ••ere are other things Literally mentioned but are not really intended, &c. Thus though it is not in ••e Letter said,

That God is Impassible, without ••••inning, &c. Yet these things are by other words ••••ended: Again, altho' it be in the Letter, that ••od sleeps, awakes, moves, yet are they not really ••eant.

Dal. Ʋbi. sup. Cap. 7. and 8.

9. This Learned Person induceth sundry other authorities, and at last refers to his Appendix, in which is a Treatise of Theodoret (which has been ••••serted in the Works of Athanasius) against 'em, ••••o are for a rigid, and stiff Adherence unto the ••••ry words of Scripture, without any regard to their Contsonancy, or Dissonancy unto Reason, or ••••e Analogy of Faith; or Mysteries of the Gospel, which the Father doth thus expostulate with 'em.

What shall I believe with my Heart unto Righte∣ousness?

What shall I confess with my Mouth unto Salvation? when it's maliciously objected, That the Father who hath sent me is greater than I? shall I hastily assent unto it as thus simply Delivered, and boldly deny the Son to be equal with the Father? Must I not at all weigh the matter, nor consider that this is to be understood in regard to the Oecono∣my and Dispensation? May I not observe what is said elsewhere of the Father and the Son's being one, and that we must honour the Son as we honour the Father?

10. To gather up what hath been briefly sugges∣ted, tis manifest that Hereticks have communica∣ted Pestilent Doctrines in Scripture Language; that they have been for a rigid Adhesion unto the very words, syllables and letter of Scripture; That they would Reject those Terms and Phrases, used by the Orthodox to explain the Truth, and distinguish it from Errour; because not in the Letter of Scripture; That the Church would not part with a word, a syllable, nor with a Letter, that was necessary to express the Truth. The Council of Nice would not gratify the Arians nor Nestorians in a Letter, saith Dr. Manton on Jude p. 163. That the Opposers of Orthodox Terms and Phrases, always did it with a design to subvert the Truth. But, if it be Blasphe∣mous to detect the fraudulent Practice of Here∣ticks, what Fence can we have against a Vitalis, a Biddle, a Socinian or Arian? I might enlarge and expose, but I will forbear, and Apply my self to the Consideration of the next.

The Seventh Objection.

Mr. Lobb leaves out a considerable word in his translating a part of the Scotch Confession p. 81. — There's word [QUASI] which he did not think for his purpose to English.

He ought to

have said, And to appear [as it were] in our Per∣son, that is, that Christ appeared not properly in our Person.

Reply.

1. When I did, in answer to the Request of se∣veral learned and judicious Brethren, undertake to ••••amine the Writings of Mr. W. I found his At∣tempts to be so like, what had been used by Men ••••ound in the Faith, who have made it their Busi∣ness, for a while to conceal their own Notions, and ••••em to quarrel rather with the Terms and Phrases ••osen by the Orthodox to Explain the Truth; than ••ith the Truth it self; that I could do no less than ••••ke notice of it to my Brethren, who having not ••••en so forward, as I think they should, to give ••••eck to his Career, have (though not designedly) ••••couraged him and his Partizans, to make further ••••cursions on the controverted Terms and Phrases. ••••d insinuate, that the whole contest is but about ••ords.

2. This being the way and method of my Oppo∣••••••s, I did in my Defence, carefully endeavour to ••••ulcate it, that we contend for the controverted ••••rases, only, as they are expressive of what is es∣••••••tial to a real, proper and plenary Satisfaction to Gods ••••tice for our Sins, so that in good earnest, the ••ontention is about the great and necessary Doctrine 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christs Satisfaction, and for the Terms and Phrases 〈◊〉〈◊〉 otherwise than as they are expressive of this ••octrine.

3. That I might bring our true and genuine ••••nse into so clear a Light, as not to leave the least ••adow of Reason for one doubting thought, ••out what it was I expresly declared,

That if I did but direct to the Confession, where either a ••roper Satisfaction is asserted, or, where 'tis said,

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; it might I hoped, satisfy any unprejudiced Person;

that the Phrases contended for, are in our Confessions, that is, The thing they signify, and for which we plead, is there; thereby shewing, that it is the Doctrine, which these Terms and Phrases do most aptly, and with the greatest Clear∣ness and Distinction, convey unto our Understand∣ings, that we are for.

5. That these Termes and Phrases are not of our Invention, but have been (as I have in my Defence unanswerably proved) used by the Orthodox in their Opposition unto the Arminians and Socinians, in a Sense known both to our Divines and their Ad∣versaries. And that it hath been the trick of He∣reticks and their Favourers, to raise Doubts and Scruples about their meaning and usefulness; As, on the other hand, it hath been the constant Prac∣tice of the Church (as I have already suggested) to defend them, — as they are most apt to explain the Truth, and distinguish it from Errour.

For which Reason, as soon as I have cleared my Translation of the Scotch Confession, and detected the Impertinence and Folly of some other Cavils, I will go on to the second Point I have proposed to discourse of, and show, that the Controversie I have with Mr. W. is about the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction; that the Difference is Real, in an Ar∣ticle that affects the Vitals of Religion. But,

6. The Phrase of [Christs sustaining our Person] has been generally received by the Orthodox, as ex∣pressive of whats Essential, unto a real and Proper Satisfaction, even of what Christ did, to the end, he might appear before Gods Tribunal, under the Guilt of our Sins, and bear a proper Punishment for

them. To suppose the Lord Christ to be guilty in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his own Person, is as if it had been said, He had been in himself a Sinner, unclean, unholy: But to consider him as our Surety, sustaining the Person of Sinners, and so to charge on him the Guilt of ••••r Sins, cannot in the least defile or pollute his ••oly and righteous Soul. It hath been therefore ••••firmed by the Orthodox, that the Lord Jesus ••••stained his own and our Person. As considered in his own Person, he is most remote from the Guilt ••••d Filth of Sin. As standing in our Person, so he was covered with the Guilt of our Iniquities, tho' ••ot touch'd with the least Moral Filth.

7. The Phrase of Christs sustaining our Person, ••ust be taken in Sensu forensi in Law-Sense, import∣ing, that as a Surety doth in foro soli, represent the ••••ebtor, so the Lord Jesus Christ, when at the ••ribunal of the Father, represented those Sinners, ••hose Redemption and Salvation he had undertaken, ••••d whether it be said, that Christ doth put on, or ••lain, or bear our Person; the meaning is the same, ••nd they who speak, as if these three words of [put∣ing on, bearing and sustaining] the Person of Sin∣ners, had as many different meanings; do talk as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they understood not the genuine Import of the ••hrase. The same is true of the Latin Phrase, Christus sustinuit Personam nostram; Christus sustinuit quodammodo, seu, quasi Personam nostram] or the English, [Christ did sustain our Person, Christ sustain∣•••• as it were our Person] the signification is the same, ••or whether quodammodo or quasi be added or not, the meaning is, That Christ did in Sensu forensi bear ••ur Person. Take the word [Person] in Law-Sense ••nd there is no need of the word quodammodo or quasi; but if the word Person, Import a natural ••r proper Person, then to ascertain the meaning to

be Forensic, it's requisite to add, either quasi or quo∣dammodo: For, Persona moralis est quasi Persona pro∣pria. And accordingly our Divines, do indifferent∣ly use the Phrase, with or without quasi or quodam∣modo; for whether they use either of these words or not, the Sense is known to be the same, and the meaning of them who have it, and who have it not is, That Christ took on him our Person in Sensu forensi, in Law Sense, as I have cleared it in my Defence p. 24, 25, &c. so that I have not the least reason to scruple the adding that considerable word [quasi,] and for the sake of a weak Brother am con∣tent to do it, at any time when desired. For,

8. If the words [Christ sustained our Person] signi∣fie somewhat really different from [Christs sustaining as it were our Person] then it must be owned, that many Orthodox Divines, who have been thought to be of a mind, do really differ in this Point from each other. And many learned Persons, who ex∣press themselves with the greatest accuracy and cau∣tion, affirming sometimes, that Christ sustained our Per∣son, and at other times as it were our Person, do really differ from themselves, particularly Calvin, who on 2 Cor. 5.21. saith, [That Christ did susciper•• quodammodo personam nostram] and on Gal. 3.13▪ [personam nostram susceperat,] quarrell'd with himself or at least either the Reverend Mr. Poole, or Mar∣lorat did misrepresent Calvin on 2 Cor. 5.21. For as Marlorat gives the Sense of Calvin thus, personam nostram quodammodo suscepit Christus, ut Reus nostr•• nomine fieret, & tanquam Peccator judicaretur, no•• propriis sed alienis Peccatis; so Mr. Poole thus, Chris∣tus autem Personam nostram suscepit, ut Reus nostr•• nomine fieret, & tanquam Peccator judicaretur. So that the learned Mr. Poole is fallen into the very Error, Mr. W. and his Defendor charge on me; for

as I am accused for leaving out that considerable word [quasi.] Mr. Poole has left out as considerable a quodammodo. But whether Mr. P. or these Gen∣tlemen be the most skill'd in the Latin Tongue and the Civil Law, is not over difficult to determine. Once more,

9. My Learned Adversary, Mr. W. adds, that I ought to have said. [And to appear [as it were] in our Person, that is, Christ appeared not properly in our Person.] To which I answer,

1. What he means by this Passage [Christ appear∣ed not properly in our Person,] is not easy to understand. If he means, that Christ did not take upon him, nor appear in our natural or proper Person, I have over and over said it, it being most manifest, that he ap∣peared only in our Legal Person, which is what Mr. W. doth expresly oppose. The thing he is against is, Christs taking on him our Person, in Sensu forensi, in Law Sense.

2. This word therefore [properly] if he will in Op∣position unto me, abide by his Notion, that Christ did not take on him our Person in Law Sense, must be tacked to [Christs appearing,] as if he had said, Christ did not properly appear before the Judgment Seat of God to answer for our Sins, but only im∣properly, or Metaphorically. But,

10. Had it been said, That Christ did as it were, take on him our Legal Person, 'twould have been to his purpose, and have signified no more than that Christ did not really and truly take on him our Legal Person. But not a word of this in the Scotch Confession. There it is clear, that the Lord Jesus did appear before the Judgment Seat of the Father in our Legal Person, which was the point for which I produced it. And altho' the [quasi] is in the Latin, and [as it were] in the English, yet

the Doctrine therein contained, is most opposite to what is advanced by Mr. W. and his more learned and upright Coryphaeus, as I hope, to the Conviction of an unbyassed Reader to evince. For the differ∣ences amongst us are real, in matters of the biggest Importance, and nearest Concernment to our Im∣mortal Souls.

Sect. II. The present Differences more than Verbal, being about an Article, that affects the Vitals of our Holy Re∣ligion.

In my Appeal to the learned Bishop of Worcester, and the Principal of Jesus Colledge, Oxon, I charged Mr. Baxter, whose Notions Mr. W. labours to pro∣pagate, for denying Christs sufferings to be properly Paenal. And I have received a Line from a learned Friend, intimating, that Mr. Alsop hath these words in his late Rhapsodie.

The Charge against Mr. Bax∣ter is notoriously false, all the Authors Tricks to force him to deny the Sufferings of Christ to be proper Punishments.

In this Charge the Heart of the Controversie be∣twixt us doth lye, and if I make it good against Mr. Baxter, I doubt not but that my Orthodox Bre∣teren amongst the Presbyterians, will acquit me from those Censures they now load me with

The thing that lyeth on me to prove, is, That Mr. Baxter denyeth our Sins to be the meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings; or, that his Sufferings are a proper Punishment.

That this Charge sounds harsh in the Ears of the Orthodox, who do not only think highly of him, for the Services he did in confuting the real Antinomians,

but also for his exemplar Piety, and in some Instan∣••es uncommon self denial. For, though they have ••een of Opinion, that in opposing one extream, he ••eemed to verge too much toward the other, ••nd perhaps to fall in with Amyrald, yet they ••ever thought that in the Doctrine of our Sa∣••iours Satisfaction, he left Grotius and fell in with Episcopius his Disciples. It lies on me therefore to ••roduce very clear & substantial Proof to support my Charge. And that Mr. Alsop and his Associates ••ay be the more fully convinced, that I am far ••rom Tricks to force Mr. Baxter, to deny the Suffer∣••ngs of Christ to be proper Punishments; I will make 〈◊〉〈◊〉 my endeavour to show, that in the controverted ••oint about Christs Satisfaction, he forsook Grotius ••nd the generality of the Reformed, asserting as his ••ated Judgment, 'That our Sins, were not the me∣ritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings; That no Sufferings are properly Paenal, but what are inflic∣ed on the Delinquent himself, that when Parents or Princes sin•• and their Children or Subjects suf∣fer, their Sufferings are but Improperly or Analogi∣cally Poenal; and that therefore Christ not being the actual Transgressor, could not be in a proper Sense punished for our Sins; That properly speak∣ing he did not satisfie the violated Law; And a∣greeably adds, that the Sufferings were exacted by God, not as he was a Rector, as such, but as a Rector supra Leges, and as an offended Lord, and Benefactor. And, that I may be the more clear in this at∣tempt, I will show; how exact the Agreement be∣tween Mr. B. Crellius, Episcopius, Curcellius and Lim∣borch is, and how full a Confutation the Answers of Grotius to Socinus, of the Bishop of Worcester unto Crellius, and of the Principal of Jesus Oxon unto the Disciples of Episcopius, are, of the Principles which Mr. Baxter has advanced.

Subsect. I. Of the Meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings.

1. That Mr. Baxter denies our sins to be the near impulsive, and proper meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings.

1. It's well known to the Learned, That if Christs suffering be not ex obligatione Legis, and by vertue of the Sanction of the Law, sin cannot be the near impulsive, or proper meritorious Cause of them: For, as an universal and perfect Obedience to the Prae∣ceptive part of the Law, as it respects the Promissary Part, would, according to the Rules of distributive Justice, have been the meritorious Cause of the Pro∣mised reward, in like manner Sin, the transgression of the Precept, as it respects the Paenal Sanction, is the meritorious Cause of the threatned Sufferings. If then I clear it, that Mr. B. is of Opinion, That Christs sufferings are not Ex obligatione Legis, it must be acknowledged, that he denies our sins to be their meritorious Cause, which I hope to prove, even to Mr. Alsop's Conviction, and moreover, to evince it that he doth expresly declare, that our sins were not the meritorious Cause of Christs suffer∣ings. For,

2. Mr. B. in his sixth Determination, which is in the first Chapter of the third Part of his Methodus, after he had set down his Distinctions between the Law of innocent Nature, and the Law, peculiar to the Mediator; And considering the Law in the first Sense, which he saith obliged Christ himself, as Man, and all others, even sinners, he adds another Distin∣ction between the Obligation of this Law, as a Re∣mote,

and as a near Cause, and declares his Judg∣ment thus.

1. 'The Law of Nature, altho' it did oblige both Christ, and us unto Obedience, yet, it did only oblige us, not Christ, unto Punishment. The Law obligeth not an innocent Person to Punishment, it condemns not the Just.

2. 'That the Law of Grace obliged Christ nei∣ther to Obedience, nor to Punishment.

3. 'By the Law, peculiar to the Mediator, called the Covenant, between the Father and the Son, Christ was obliged to suffer Punishment for Sinners, namely, by his Consent and proper Sponsion, and the Fathers Will and Commandment. From this Law the near obliging Cause of Christs suffering Punish∣ment had its Rise.

4. 'By the Law of Nature, obliging us sinners unto Punishment, Christ was not directly obliged to Punishment; However, it was the occasion of his Punishment, and the Obligation we lay under was ••he Remote Cause of Christs Obligation, for, if the Law had not condemned us, Christ had never un∣dertaken, or suffered a vicarious Punishment. So 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mr. B.

3. From what Mr. B. has so freely declared, it's ••ident he is of Opinion, That the Obligation Christ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 under to suffer, ariseth not from that Law we violated; but from the mediatorial Convenant, and ••at the Obligation to Punishment, which is by ••••rtue of the Sanction of the Law we violated, ••nder which we all are by Nature) is but an ••ccasion or Remote Cause, and therefore our sins ••e not the near impulsive, and proper meritorious ••••use of Christs sufferings, which is conform to that he has in his other Writings, not only in his

Posthumous Discourse of Universal Redemption, but in the Preface to his Confession of Faith, pag. 4. where he saith,

That as Christ could not take upon himself the same Numerical Guilt, which lay on us, so neither could he take upon himself Guilt of the same sort, as having not the same sort of Foundation, or Efficient; Ours arising from the Merit of our sins, and the Commination of the Law, and his being rather occasioned, than meritted by our sin, and occasioned by the Laws threatning of us, both which are as we may call them, but ••ro∣causes, as to him, &c.

And in his Catho. Theol. Part II. Pag. 78.

Christ suffered not by that Obli∣gation which bound us to suffer.

4. These Passages I have mentioned do sufficiently clear it, That Mr. B. owns not, that our sins were the near impulsive, or meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings, the most he'll yield being this, viz. That our sins were the Occasion, or Remote Impulsive Cause, or the Pro-cause, somewhat in the place of a meritorious Cause, which is no more than So∣cinus, Crellius and their Followers do grant, as I will immediately show.

II. The Socinians do grant, That our sins are a Remote Impulsive Cause, or meer Occasion of Christs sufferings.

1. That the Socinians make so large a Concession as this unto us, is evident from most of their Writings. Crellius against Grotius confesseth it, Fatemur, Peccata nostra, posito Dei de salute nobis danda— decreto, eatenus etiam fuisse Impul∣sivam mortis Christi Causam, &c. Ad partic. 2. Cap. 1. But,

2. There is so much to this Purpose in the An∣swer

the Learned Bishop of Worcester gives, to what Crellius has on this Point, that I will say no more of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in this place, but proceed to the Proposal of ••hat the Bishop offereth unto your Consideration.

III. What Mr. Baxter and the Socinians hold about our sins being only a Remote Impulsive Cause, or Occasion of Christs sufferings, opposed by the Orthodox, particularly by the Bishop of Worcester.

1. The Learned Bishop gives the Sense of the Socinians about the Impulsive Cause of Christs suffer∣ings, assuring us, 'That tho' Crellius Attributes ••he sufferings of Christ meerly to Acts of Dominion, without any respect to sin, yet elsewhere he will allow a Respect, that was had to sin, antecedently to the Sufferings of Christ, and that the Sins of Men were the Impusive cause of them. And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any Lawful Ante∣cedent Cause of the Death of Christ besides the Will ••f God and Christ; yet Crellius in his Vindication, ••ith, by Lawful cause he meant Meritorious; or ••••ch, upon supposition of which he ought to Die: for elsewhere, he makes Christ to die for the Cause or by the occasion of our Sins, which is the same, that Crellius means by an Impulsive or Procatartick Cause. Of Christs Suffer. Cap. 2. Sect. 2.

2. To this Notion of Socinus and Crellius the Bishop, who throughly search'd into this Controver∣sie, Answers, 'That we understand not an impulsive Cause in so remote a Sense, as though our Sins were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 meer Occasion of Christs Dying, because the Death of Christ was one Argument; among many others ••o believe his Doctrine, the Belief of which would make Men leave their Sins. But we contend for a nearer and more proper Sense.

But, when we come to consider that other point, whether Christs Sufferings were a proper Punish∣ment: We shall hear further what his Lordship saith to this particular. For he rightly informs us,

That if the Sufferings of Christ be to be taken un∣der the Notion of Punishment, then our Adversa∣ries grant, That our Sins must be an impulsive Cause of them, in another Sense than they understand it.

What that other Sense is, will be shown under the next Head, about Punishment, where you will meet with enough to satisfy you, That the impulsive Cause, which they'l grant on a Supposition, that Christs Sufferings are properly Paenal, is a near impulsive and proper meritorious Cause.

3. Dr. Edwards doth also, in his Preservative a∣gainst Socinianism, Part 2. p. 94. speak very distinct∣ly to this thing. For, saith he,

That Christ dyed for us, are the plain words of Scripture, He gave himself for us, Gal. 2.20. Eph. 5.25. 1 Thes. 5.10. 2 Cor. 5.14, 15. And this, not only in general for our good, but he was delivered up for our Offences, Rom. 4.25. He dyed for our Sins, 1 Cor. 15.3. So to the same purpose, and for the same Reason, he is said to dye for the Ʋngodly, Rom. 5.6. And it is mentioned, as the great Instance of Gods Love to us; that whilst we were yet Sinners Christ dyed for us, ver. 10. of the same Chap. All which Phra∣ses of dying for Sins and Sinners, plainly denote to us, that Sin in those places, is not to be considered as the Final, but as the impulsive and meritorious Cause of Christs Death.

Thus you see the Agreement between Mr. Baxter, Socinus and Crellius about our Sins, being the remote impulsive Cause, or meer occasion of Christs Sufferings, to be real; and that he hath herein left the Ortho∣dox,

such as Grotius, the Bishop, and Dr. Edwards is clearly proved. I will therefore consider, what is ••aid of Christs Sufferings being Paenal.

Subject II. Of the Paenalness of Christs Sufferings.

1. Mr. Baxter denies Christs Sufferings to be a proper Punishment.

1. Mr. Baxter, in his Methodus, proposeth this Question.: Whether the Passion or Sufferings of Christ, were properly and formally a Punishment? and his Determination is such as clears it, that he holds Christs Sufferings, to be only Improperly, Ana∣logically and Materially, not properly and formally a Punishment.

2. To evince thus much, I will distinctly con∣••••der what he hath premised, and show how he de∣termines it.

1. In his Premises, he tells us, 'That a proper Punishment is a natural Evil, inflicted for a moral Evil. The Matter is Affliction, or a natural Evil inflicted. The Form is the Relation of this Matter to its meritorious Cause. The Fault (or moral Evil) is ei∣ther really such, or by a wrong Judgment: and so Punishment is distinguished into that which is due, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Justitia; or that which is undue, ex Injustitia: The first is a Punishment in a proper Sense; the ••ther is a Punishment, Analogice, and only in ••he sense of a Judge, and others unjustly judging. ••he word [Punishment] therefore is ambiguous. Punishment in the first, and most famous Sense is a natural Evil on the Delinquent himself. Punishment, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a secondary and Analogical Sense, is a natural Evil; which doth not directly, but mediately only, and by

accident flow from a moral Evil. This Punishment 'is twofold.

The one which naturally follows the Sin of ano∣ther; that is, from that natural proximity there i•• between the Sufferer and the Sinner. The other, which doth not naturally but by a voluntary Sponsion, so that, by Vertue of the Sponsion, vicarious Punish∣ments are endured.

2. The Determination is, 1.

That Christ wa•• not re verâ the Sinner, and therefore his Suffering were not Penal, in the Primary and most Famou•• Sense.

2.

Christ was not in the account of the Fathe•• a Sinner. For, God doth not judge falsely, and therefore, he did not suffer an Analogical Punish∣ment, ex falsâ Reputatione Dei.

3.

Christ, being miraculously conceived by the Holy Ghost, could not suffer Anolagical Punish∣ments for his Parents Sins.

4. Christ, being voluntarius Poenarum Sponsor

did, as our Sponsor, suffer Analogical vicarious Pun∣ishments. His Sufferings therefore, as to the Rea∣son of the thing, were a natural Evil, endured 〈◊〉〈◊〉 occasione, & causalitate remota Peccatorum human generis & proxime, from the Obligation of his prope•• Sponsion and Consent.

3. In these Premises, and this Determination, Mr▪ Baxter freely declares,

That our Sins were but th•• occasion or remote, not the near impulsive Cause o•• Christs Sufferings, that his Sufferings were no•• properly and formally, but only Improperly and Analogi∣cally Penal.

Yea,

4. There is more in it, he is express, That a proper Punishment cannot be inflicted on any, but the Delinquent himself. For, saith he, Poena in sens•• primo & famosissimo est ipsius Delinquentis malum n••∣ral••rale.

The formal Nature of Punishment lying in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Relation unto Sin as its meritorious Cause, the Punishment formally considered, cannot he thinks, ••e on any but them, by whom the Sin is committed; ••nd therefore agreeably enough, in pursuit of his Principle, He denies the Sufferings of Children and ••ubjects for their Parents and Princes Sins, to be ••roperly and formally Penal. His distinction is be∣••ween Punishment taken properly, in Sensu primo & ••••mosissimo; and in an improper, secondary, and an Analogical Sense. His Determination, that Punishment 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the first sense, is only on him that actually commit∣••ed the Sin. That there can be no Punishment ••ut what is deserved; and that no Man can deserve ••hat another should be punished. That when Pa∣••ents and Princes sin, and their Children and Subjects ••uffer, their Sufferings cannot be properly and for∣••ally Penal; because they did not commit the Sin, ••nd so could not deserve it: Their Sufferings there∣••ore can be but improperly and analogically Penal; as ••r. B. freely owns, when he saith, That Poena in ••••nsu secundo & analogico est duplex. Altera quae pec∣••atum alterius naturaliter sequitur, id est, ex proximi∣••••te naturali patientis ad peccantem, & ita ob peccata ••ominorum Poenas consequenter patiuntur vernae — 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in sensu adhuc pleniore, filius pro Parentum peccatis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Paenas; which he thinks may be called Punish∣••ent aptly enough, because they have a relation unto ••••••n, as to an Occasion or remote meritorious Cause.

2. Mr. Baxter's Agreement with Crellius, about the meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings, and his Sufferings being a proper Punishment.

The Sense of Crellius, being with the greatest ••earness delivered by the Bishop of W. which (saith

his Lordship,) will be best done, by laying down his principles as to the Ju••tice of Punishments, in a more distinct Method than himself hath done: I will show the Agreement there is between Mr. B. and Crellius, by proposing Crellius his Principles, in the very words of the learned Bishop; which in his Disc. of Christs Sufferings, Cap. 3. §. 3. you will find to be thus

1.

That no Person can be justly punished, either for his own or anothers Fault, but he that hath de∣served to be punished by some Sin of his own: For, he still asserts, That the Justice of Punishment ari∣seth from his own Fault, though the actual Punish∣ment may be from anothers: But he that is punished without respect to his own Guilt, is punished undeser∣vedly, ••••d he that is punished undeservedly, is pun∣ished unjustly.

2

That Personal Guilt being supposed, one Mans Sin may be the impulsive Cause of anothers Punish∣ment, but they cannot be the meritorious. The difference between them he thus explains, the Cause is that which makes a thing to be; The impulsive 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that which moves one to do a thing without any Consideration of Right that one hath to do it; Me∣rit, is that which makes a Man worthy of a thing ei∣ther good or bad, and so gives a right to it: if it be good to himself, if had to him at whose hands he hath deserved it. Now he tells us, that it is impossible▪ That one Mans Sins should make any other deserve Pun∣ment, but the Person who committed them; but they may impel one to punish another, and that justly, if the Person hath otherwise deserved to be punished, unjust∣ly, if he hath not. The Reason he gives of it is, That the vi••osity of the Act, which is the proper Cause of Punishment, cannot go beyond the Per∣son of the Offender; and therefore can oblige none

to Punishment, but him that hath committed the Fault.

And therefore he asserts, That no Man can be punished beyond the desert of his own Sins, but there may be sometimes a double impulsive Cause of that Punishment, viz. his own and other Mens, whereof one made, that they should be justly punished, the other that they should be actually. But the lat∣ter, he saith, always supposeth the former, as the Foundation of just Punishment, so that no part of Pun∣ishment, could be executed upon him, wherein his own Sins were not supposed, as the meritorious Cause of it. Here then you may see, with what clearness the ••ishop hath stated the Principles of Crellius, and if ••ou'll compare them with what I have taken out of Mr. Baxter's Methodus, you'll find the Agreement to be in the following Instances.

1. That a proper Punishment cannot be inflicted, ••n any but him that committed the Sin. There ••••n be here no difference between them, unless in ••••is, that Crellius grants more, and, if I mistake not ••omes nearer to the Orthodox than either Mr. B. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mr. W. do, when he owns,

1. 'That a remote Conjunction, may be suffici∣ent for a Translation of Penalty, viz. from one Generation to another.

2. 'That Sins may be truly said, to be punished in others, when the Offenders themselves may es∣cape Punishment. Thus the Sins of Parents in their Children, and Princes in their Subjects.

3. 'That an Act of Dominion in some, may be designed as a proper Punishment to others.

4. 'That the Nature of Punishment is not to be measured by the Sense of it.

When I observe, with what indignation Mr. B. ••xpresseth himself against our Suffering, or being ••unished in Christ; I cannot but conclude, that here∣in

Crellius yields more to the Orthodox than Mr. B. doth, who, I believe, being aware that such learned Men as the Bishop of W. would make too great an Improvement of such Concessions, he would not give the Advantage. For indeed, the Bishop hath well improved what Crellius grants; as is plain from what he saith, in Cap. 3. §. 2. Now upon these Concessions, though our Adversaries will not grant,

That Christ was properly punished for our Sins; yet they cannot deny, but that we may very properly be said, to be punished for our Sins in Christ; and if they will yield us this, the other may be a Strife about words. For, surely there may be easily ima∣gined, as great a Conjunction between Christ and us, as between the several Generations of the Jews▪ and that last which was punished in the De∣struction of Hierusalem: And though we escape that Punishment which Christ did undergo, yet w•• might have our Sins punished in him, as well as Prin∣ces theirs, in their Subjects, when they escap•• themselves, &c.

What I have suggested on this Occasion, clear•• it, that Mr. B differs at least as much if not more from the Orthodox, than Crellius and his Admirers do.

2. They also agree, in holding; That the Suffer∣ings of Children or Subjects, when their Parents o•• Princes Sin, are not proper Punishments, either o•• the Children or Subjects, and that Christs Suffer∣ings because he was not the Sinner, were not proper∣ly Penal.

The Opposition made by the Bishop of Worcester▪ and the Principal of Jesus, Oxon, against the Principles, embraced by Mr. Baxter an•• Crellius.

1. The Bishop having given a clear state of the ••rinciples of Crellius in this matter, as I have alrea∣••y shown, adds, 'These are his [viz. Crellius] two main Principles, which we must now thoroughly examine, the main force of his Book lying in them. But if we can prove, that it hath been generally re∣ceived by the Consent of Mankind, that a Person may be punished beyond the desert of his own Actions; if God hath justly punished some for the Sins of others, and there be no Injustice in one Mans Suf∣fering by his own Consent for another, then these Principles of Crellius, will be found not so firm as he imagins them.

1.

That it hath been generally received, by the Consent of Mankind, That a Person may be justly punished beyond the Desert of his own Actions. For which Pupose, Grotius objected against Socinus (who appealed to the Consent of Nations, about one being punished for anothers Fault) that the Hea∣thens did agree, That Children might be punished for their Parents Faults, and People for their Prin∣ces; and that corporal Punishment might be born, by one for another; did appear by the Persians punish∣ing the whole Family for the Fault of one. — In which Cases, (saith the Bishop) The Punishment did extend beyond the Desert of the Person, who suffered it; for no other Reason is assigned of these Sufferings, besides the Conjunction of the Person or his Consent; but no antecedent Guilt is supposed as necessary to make the Punishment Just. — If it be said that the unjustice lies in this; that such a one suffers undeservedly, and therefore unjustly; I answer, If it be meant by undeservedly, without sufficient Cause or Reason of Punishment, then we deny, that such a one doth suffer undeservedly. Immerito in the Greek Glosses is rendred by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and merito by— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

and in Cicero, Jure, & merito are most commonly joyned together. So that where there is a Right to punish, and sufficient reason for it. such a one doth not suffer Immerito (i. e.) undeservedly. If it be said, That such a one is not dignus poena. that im∣plies no more than the other; for Dignus, or as the Antients writ it Dicnus, comes from the Greek〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Jus, as Vossius tells us, ut dignus sit cui tribui ali∣quid aequum est: So that where there is an equity in the thing, there is a Dignity in the Person, or he may be said to be worthy to undergo it.

So far the Bishop, who hath cleared it beyond contradiction, that one may endure a proper Punishment for the sins of ano∣ther, and that thus it is in the case of Childrens and Peoples sufferings for their Parents and Princes fins▪

2. The confining a proper and just Punishment to the Person that commits the sin, denying the suf∣ferings of one for the sin of another to be properl•• penal, doth at once subvert both the Doctrines o•• our Saviour's Satisfaction and Original Sin. For, i•• a Man may not be justly punished beyond the Desert•• of his own Acts, the Lord Jesus, who never com∣mitted sin, could not bear a proper Punishment, not could any of Adam's Posterity be justly punished for his sin. In answer hereunto I will give you the sense of the Learned Dr. Edwards, who expresseth himself in these words;

Now I say, there hath not been (for ought I know) any Nation, or King∣dom in the World, that hath not in some cases and for some weighty Reasons, thought, and ad∣judged it lawful to punish one man for the sins of ano∣ther. So that over-hastily, and peremptorily; (as the Socinians, and Remonstrants do) to pronounce the Imputation of Adam's sin, and the punishing of his Posterity for it Ʋnlawfully, barely for this Reason, that no man can be justly punished, who was not a

Party, and actually engaged in the practice of the sin, is to contradict the Reason, and condemn the Usage of all Mankind: and not only so, but as this Position is roundly, and without exception laid down by them, it tends plainly to overthrow the whole Design of the Gospel, by denying the suffer∣ings of Christ to have the true Notion of a Punish∣ment, whereby he satisfied the Justice of God for the sins of Mankind.

In short; The present matter in debate between us, and our Adversaries, turns upon this point, whe∣ther in any case, a person may lawfully, and justly be punished for a Crime, which he did not personally commit? They deny it, and condemn the practice as absolutely unlawful: We, on the other hand say, This may be justly done, and for a proof of the Legality of it, we can produce the consent of all the most Civiliz'd States and Governments that have been in the World, who have accounted it in some cases Lawful, and those especially two. 1. Where there hath been the voluntary Offer, and Consent of the Party, as in the case of Sureties, Hostages, &c. Or, 2. Without that Consent, where there is either a Natural, or Civil, and Political Union between the Persons offending, and the Persons punished; such as is that between a King and his Subjects, Parents and Children. And here we have, which is a consideration of much greater weight, the particular Direction, and Example of God himself, to justifie and warrant this pra∣ctice. Saul slew the Gibeonites, and the Sons and Grand-children are executed for it, 2 Sam. 21. David sinneth in numbring the People, and God sent a Pestilence among his Subjects — 2 Sam. 24.

This and much more is in Dr. Edwards, his Preservat. part. 2. p. 50, 51, &c. making it very clear, That

one may be properly punished for anothers sin. And that thus it is in the case of Christ's suffering for us, and of Childrens and Subjects suffering for the sins of their Parents, and their Kings.

3. What I have cited out of the writings of these great Men, makes it very clear, That Mr. Baxter's denying our Sin to be the proper meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings, and his Sufferings to be a pro∣per Punishment; is a manifest contradicting the Bo∣dy of Protestant Writers on these Points, as an op∣position to the allowed Custom of Mankind, and the plainest Texts of Scripture. And his affirming that a proper Punishment, cannot be justly inflicted on any but him who committed the Sin; and that when they, who by their own Actions have not de∣served a Punishment do suffer, their Sufferings are no otherwise Penal than materially, improperly and analogically, he agrees with Socinus, Crellius, Episco∣pius and his Disciples is most evident; and what the learned Bishop and Principal have insisted on, in their answer unto our Socinian and Episcopian Adversaries, is a most direct and exact Confutation of Mr. Baxter.

4. These things are so plain, that I doubt not of the concurrence of an impartial learned Reader. However for the sake of Mr. Alsop, and others less studied or prejudiced Divines, I will offer sundry other Considerations for the fuller Proof, that Mr. Baxter differs from his Orthodox Brethren, and falls in with Episcopius and his Disciples in the Doctrine of our Saviours Satisfaction.

Subsect. 4.

Further Proof that Mr. B. hath left the common Doctrine of Protestants in the Article of Christs Satisfaction.

Consideration I.

1. It must be acknowledged, That if Christs Suf∣••erings were properly Penal, they would so far have ••nswered the Obligations of the violated Law, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 might be said, properly speaking, Christ satisfied the ••aw it self. On the other hand, in case it shall ap∣••ear, that Mr. B. denyes Christs satisfying the Law ••••self in a proper Sense, it must be yielded, that he ••enyeth Christs Sufferings to be a proper Punishment. The Connection that there is between the one and ••he other, makes good what I herein affirm, and whoever will search closely into this Controversie, will find, That the true Reason, why Christs satis∣fying the Law in a proper Sense is denyed, is because 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Satisfaction cannot in this Sense, be made to the Law any otherwise than by Christs enduring a proper Punishment. To satisfie the Law it self, is to answer the Obligation of the Law, and suffer by Vertue of its Sanction, and nothing more evident, than that Sufferings by Vertue of its Sanction, are a proper Punishment. But,

2. Mr. B. is as express in denying Christs satisfyng the Law, as he is in denying his Sufferings to be a proper Punishment. This Charge hath so much Reason for its support, that whoever will consult his Methodus, p. 3. cap. 1. Determ. 2. will see enough to convince him, there he will meet with this Ques∣tion,

Whether it may be properly said, that Christ satisfied the Law it self, as it obliged Sinners to Punishment, to which he adds in a Parenthesis (etiam si eam non patiendo implevit?) or rather ought we not to say, That Christ satisfied not the Law, but the Law giver, as above his Laws?

3. That we may with the more distinction, take in his genuine Sense, it must be noted. 1. That

Mr. B. is of opinion, there was a dispensing with the Law, not only as to the Person suffering, but as to the Penalty suffered; that the Sufferings of our Saviour were not by Vertue of the Penal Sanction of the Law, and therefore could be in no sense a fulfilling that part of the Law.

2. That he considereth not God in exacting Satis∣faction, as a Rector qua talis, whose part it is to see, that the Law be satisfied, but as a Rector qua supra Leges, and God considered as such may be satisfied, although no proper Punishment be indured.

3. Thus much premised, we shall find, that he uses the word [Satisfaction] in a very large and com∣prehensive sense, for whatever answers some remote ends of the Law. The Sanction of the Law is es∣sential to it, and cannot be satisfied but by sufferings that are properly a Punishment. But such ends of the Law as are not essential thereunto, and only re∣mote, may be obtained without bearing the Punish∣ment, or indeed without enduring any Sufferings at all.

4. That Mr. B. aims at no more by his Notion of Christs Satisfaction, than an obtaining some remote ends of the Law; is manifest from the very passage my Friend tells me, Mr. Al••op refers unto, to prove my Charge to be notoriously false; and a careful ob∣serving its genuine Import, which will be very plain if we consu't that enti••e Paragraph, may convince an impartial Mind; That Mr. B. hath different Ap∣prehensions in th••se Points, from his Orthodox Bre∣thren: For, s••••••h he, ••ocutione remota, & lata Christ us dici pos•••••• Legis fines remotas, ipst non essen∣tiales, obtinend•••• ei satisfecisse: In a remote, large Sense, Christ may be said to satisfie the Law. But how? not by obtaining any End essential to the Law, but the remote Ends of the Law; for its immediate∣ly

added, 'That Gods hatred of Sin and his Justices are no less demonstrated by Christs Satisfaction, at least in a matter no less congruous for obtaining all the ends of Government, than if the Sinners themselves had been damned. If we compare this clause of the Paragraph with the foregoing part; we shall find, that what he saith, of [all the Ends of Government] must ••e understood, as he expresses it of [all the remote ••nds of the Law,] which are not essential to the Law, ••nd may in Mr. Baxters opinion, be obtained with∣••ut Christs bearing a proper Punishment, the true evincement of Gods hatred to Sin.

5. That I take Mr. B. right will further appear, ••y considering the Paragraph next after this, where ••e distinguisheth between the Near and the Remote Ends of the Law, affirming, 'That the Finis proxi∣mus, which doth enjoyn Obedience, and threatens a punishment for Disobedience, is a part of the Law, and it must not be said that Christ did pro∣perly satisfie this End. But there is the Remote End of the Law, namely, the prevention of sin, the exer∣cise, and preservation of Humane Righteousness, and demonstration of Divine Justice, which is not the Law it self, altho' it's so termed by the Jurists, be∣cause these Ends may be obtained by other Means than by Punishing. So that it's manifest, he holds, that these Ends might be obtained by the Lord Je∣sus, tho' he never bore the punishment of our sins. The Satisfaction then that Mr. B. is for, is of ano∣ther nature, than what is embraced by the Re∣formed; It is what's done without Christ's suffer∣ing a proper Punishment, and without a proper satis∣fying of the Law; For, saith he, properly speaking, Christ did not Satisfie the Law it self, nor did he properly satisfie the Near End of the Law, viz. the ••oenal part. Met. p. 3. c. 1. p. 47.

A Second Consideration.

2. The very Notion Mr. B. hath of Christ's Sa∣tisfaction is, not only different from what is em∣braced by the Orthodox, but such as is so far from comprizing within its compass Christ's suffering a proper Punishment, as to exclude it: It is what can be made without the Lord Christ's taking on him the Guilt of our sins; and what is inconsistent with Christ's making a proper Satisfaction to the Law.

1. Thus much he endeavours to prove from the definition he gives of Satisfaction, which is thus, Sa∣tisfactio strictè sumpta, est Redditio Aequivalentis inde∣biti pro ipso debito; vel tantundem pro eodem, and by Indebitum, he means somewhat of a distinct nature from what the Law exacts; somewhat that is not properly Poenal, and consonantly by the Equivalens, or Tan∣tundem, he intends what is very different from what is Received and Believed by the Reformed. For, whereas the Equivalent, in their Judgment, respects the Punishment we deserved, and in those instances in which it's not the same, it doth in its Valuation bear a just proportion thereunto; His Equivalent doth not respect the Sufferings we deserved, but the Remote Ends of the Law, and as it's adjusted to those Ends, tho' there be nothing of the Nature of Punishment in it, yet is it an Equivalent.

2. That this is his sense of an Equivalent, is mani∣fest from his asserting, that Qui fines Legis Remotos alio Modo quam Puniendo obtinet, Tantundem prae∣stare putatur, acsi Peccatorem Punivisset; ubi sup. p. 47. This account Mr. B. gives of Satisfaction, is in the first Argument, he urgeth to prove, that properly speaking, Christ did not satisfie the Law it self. What is, (saith he) impossible, Christ did not do; but to satisfie the Law, strictly speaking, is impossible. The Minor he thus proves; Satisfactio stricte sumpta est

Redditio Aequivalentis indebiti, pro ipso debito; At im∣possibile est ipsam eandem Legem (de qua loquimur) commutare idem pro aequivalente. This is his Argu∣ment, in which lieth the main stress of his Cause, which methinks may be soon enervated, if we con∣sider, as indeed we must, that the Poenal Sanction of the Law is not Abrogated; that it is only Relaxed; that the Relaxation is not of the Formal Nature of the Poenalty suffered, but doth respect the Person suffering; and that tho' the Relaxing be an act of Dominion, yet God exacts and receives satisfaction, is a Rector qua talis, and not as a Rector supra Leges.

3. The Learned Bishop of Worcester against Crellius, cap. 4. § 5. hath with great clearness shown, in what respects the Sufferings of Christ were the same with what we deserved, & in what Instances not. That they were so far the same as to be a proper Punishment: and in those circumstances, wherein there was a diffe∣rence, there was an Aequivalent.

No more is neces∣sary (saith his Lordship) to the delivery of another Person, than the satisfying the Ends of the Law, and Government. And, if that may be done by an Aequi∣valent Suffering, tho' not the same in all respects, then it may be a proper Surrogation. If David had obtain∣ed 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 the head, as his Son did. And therefore, when the Lawyers say, Subro∣gatum sapit Naturam ejus in cujus locum subrogatur: Covarruvias tells us, it is to be understood secundum Primordialem Naturam, non secundum Accidentalem; from whence it appears that all Circumstances are not necessary to be the same in Surrogation, but that the Nature of the Punishment remain the same.

But,

4. Mr. B. hath not in his Aequivalent, so much as the Formal Nature of Punishment, nor are his Aequiva∣lent

Sufferings of Christ satisfactory, as they respect the Proxime End of the Law, to wit, the Commina∣tion, or Sanction; but as they are adjusted to obtain such other Ends of the Law as are not Essential to the Law: and herein also lieth the Principal Reason of Christ's Satisfaction, according to the Notion he hath framed of it. Thus in one place (viz. p. 53.) he saith;

And because the reason of Satisfaction, lieth in its being the Payment of an Aequivalent, instead of the Debt it self; and the Aequivalent consists in its Aptitude to obtain the same Ends of Govern∣ment, and because One End of Government is the demonstration of God's Punishing Justice, and ano∣ther End the demonstration of God's Sanctity and Love, and the vindication of the Honour of his Law; and because God doth no less effectually show his Punishing Justice in the Punishment of Christ, than if he had destroyed the World, and also hath no less evidently shown his Sanctity, his Love of Goodness, and the Equity and Perfection of his Law by the Perfect Holiness and Obedience of Christ, than if we our selves had perfectly obeyed it, it fol∣lows, that the punishment of Christ is satisfaction, and the Meritorious Goodness of Christ is satisfaction, but not in the same sense with the former.

Thus he, who indeed speaks of Punishing Justice, which cannot be meant in any other sense than that, in which he takes Punishment it self, in this Controversie. I doubt not but that he was of Opinion. that by Extrinsecal De∣nomination, God's Justice may by us, through our weakness, be distinguished according to its respect to diversity of Objects, by inadaequate conceptions; and that the Punishing Justice, he speakss of, in this place, connoting only an improper Punishment, is from that connotation, by him denominated Punish∣ing Justice in as improper a sense, as he takes the Punishment it self to be.

5. That I have not misrepresented Mr. B. in the account I have given of his Notion about Punishing Justice, is evident to me from the following consi∣derations.

1. Punitive Justice, as it imports a Perfection, Na∣tural in God, discovers it self by inflicting proper Punishments on Offenders. The Sufferings that are but materially, improperly, and analogically poenal, call'd by Mr. Baxter as well as by Limborch, Vicarious Punishments, that is, Sufferings, which, tho' they are not themselves Punishments, are nevertheless in their ••lace and stead, flow not from Punitive Justice, taken ••roperly, and are not Effects, or discoveries of it, but ••t most they are and can be Acts only of Dominion. And that we might not mistake Mr. Baxter, when he mentions the Demonstration of God's Punisheng Ju∣••tice, as if he had taken it in the same sense the Or∣••hodox use the words, he closes the Paragraph, in which they lye thus; Sed breviter, & Simpliciter ••icendum est, Deum peccata, & poenas nobis remittere, ••••ia Christus hoc Meruit, & perfectione habituali, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 actuali, & Paenas vicarias subeundo. Thus you ••e, he reduceth all he had said before to the Merit ••f Christ's Habitual and Actual Perfections, and to ••is Suffering Vicarious Punishments, that is, mate∣••••al, improper and analogical Punishments, instead of ••••ch as are properly poenal; and therefore by Punitive ••••stice, he cannot mean what the Orthodox do. ••ut,

2. The reducing all to Merit doth further con∣••••m my sense of Mr. B. who in 'this very page assu∣••eth us,

That the Mediator could not procure our Justification, and Salvation any otherwise than by way of Merit, and because nothing can more effe∣ctually Merit from the most Holy God, than that which doth mostly Please Him, and nothing more

Pleasing to him than Goodness, Holiness, Love, and Justice, it follows that Christ could not more ef∣fectually Merit our Justification and Salvation, than by Goodness, Holiness, Love, Justice and Obe∣dience;

and, by this method turning a proper Punish∣ment into meer Sufferings, (which, as divested of their Poenal Nature, can no otherwise fall under the con∣sideration of a Law, but as enjoyned by a Precept, which, he saith, belongs to the Mediatorial Law,) these Sufferings also are made to be but Acts of Obedience, and, in conjunction with other Mediato∣rial Acts of the same nature, are affirm'd to be Me∣ritorious; and this Merit resolved, in its Last Result, into Divine Pleasure; I say, in the Last Result, be∣cause, he doth not only assign unto the Divine Pleasure, the admission of another on our behalf; but will have it, that the Merit it self is of that kind, which is no further Meritorious than as it doth, and only as it doth satisfie the Divine Pleasure, for as it is Pleasing, so it merits, and proportionably as it is most Pleasing, so it's most meritorious; whereby Distributive Justice altogether, as well as Punitive, (which is but one Branch of it) is excluded from having any Glory upon the account of what Christ did and suffered, the whole of the Merit being from Divine Grace, and Acceptation: So far is Mr. B. from owning, that Punitive Justice, taken properly is sa∣tisfied by the sufferings of Christ. Besides,

3. Mr. Baxter insisting so very much on Satis∣faction, as its Principal Reason lieth in its aptitude to obtain the Remote Ends of the Law, leaves no room for doubt concerning his sense in this matter. For seeing the Formal Reason of Satisfaction, lyeth in the Aptitude of what Christ did or suffered, to obtain some Remote Ends, which, of what nature soever, so long as they are Rèmote from the Sanction, they

cannot be satisfactory in the sense embraced by the Reformed, and the sufferings themselves can be no otherwise a satisfaction, than any other eximious work may be: and any other excellent work done by him, may be as truly satisfactory, as his sufferings; a Notion which he freely acknowledgeth, p 55. where he saith, Rector, quà supra Leges, satisfactionem recipere potest, etiam per opus aliquod Praestantissimum.

A third Consideration.

3. That Mr. B. denies Christs Sufferings to be pro∣perly Penal, is further evident from his holding, that Christs Satisfaction is not made to God as a Rector qua talis, but to him as he is a pars offensa; an injured Lord and Benefactor.

1. The learned Grotius, in the account he gives of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Principal and Foundation Er∣rour, that runs through the Socinian Scheme, saith, That it lies in their considering God in this great Transaction, as a pars offensa, a Creditor, a Lord, or Soveraign; and in Opposition unto them, he proves, That to punish is not an Act competent to an offend∣ed Party, as such; that naturally the Pars offensa, as such, hath no right in Punishment. That to in∣flict Punishment belongs primo & per se to a Rector, as such; and that this right in the Rector, is not a right of absolute Dominion or of Credit; That God in exacting Satisfaction, is to be considered only as a Rector, whence it is, that the Sufferings Christ en∣dured when he made Satisfaction, must be owned to be an Act of Justice, and properly Penal.

2. Mr. Baxter on the other hand, is as express, That God is not to be considered only as a Rector qua talis but as a Rector supra Leges, as a Pars offensa, and as an injured Lord and Benefactor; that properly speaking, we must not say; That Christ satisfied the

Legistator, qua talis tantum, but the Rector, qua supra Leges. That although God considered only as a Rec∣tor exacts Punishments formally, as such, yet God re∣quires them qua Satisfactory, not only as a Rector, but as a Lord and Benefactor, vindicating his own Glory, see Meth. Part 3. p. 47, 51, 55.

3. The learned Mr. B. being so full in the decla∣ration of his Mind in this Point, and over and over averring, that Deum Satisfactionem recepisse, non tantum qua Judicem, sed etiam, qua Dominum & Benefactorem offensum; we have the greatest reason to conclude, that the Satisfaction he is for, cannot (as Grotius well observes) be at all unto God as a Rector qua talis. Non potest enim idem duobus diversis tribui qua talibus; nor can it include any thing within its compass, that is, properly Penal, so long as the Act of punishing doth not belong only to a Rector as such.

4. That I take Mr. B. right, appears to me very manifest, from what he hath in the first Part of his Methodus cap. 15. where he saith,

That after Gro∣tius his Book de Satisfactione had been published, 'twas made a Question, Whether God punisheth Sinners either as an absolute Lord and Soveraign, or as pars offensa; or only as a Rector secundum Leges?

To which he distinctly answers in these words, pas∣sing by the Opinions of others. The Truth is, 1.

No Sins do really hurt God. However, 2. They are injurious to God. 3. There is a threefold Right of God, quantum in se, struck at. 1. A Right of Dominion by alienating and denying his own quod usum. 2. A Right of Empire by Rebellion, and a denyal of that Obedience which is due unto him. 3. The Right of Friendship by with holding their Love, and by an ungrateful abuse of his Benefits. 4. These violated Rights, God may vin∣dicate in each of these Relations. 5. God therefore

is an Actor, not only as he is a Rector, but as he is a pars offensa, although not realiter Lasa. 6. Thus much appears with the greatest clearness, because. although the publick Good is the end of humane Regi∣ment, yet the Glory of God himself, his Complacen∣cy or Pleasure, is the end of Divine Government and of every thing besides. But, 7. To judge formally, belongs to a Rector as such, and not to a Lord or Be∣nefactor as such. 8. However, when God judgeth he doth not divest himself of the Relations of a Lord and Benefactor; but these Relations are to be con∣sidered, as connoted and inseparable in a Judge. 9. When God is called pars offensa, we do not mean pars aequalis, or one offended against that Justice, which is meerly commutative: But we intend no more than the supreme Lord of all, The Rector and Benefactor is offended by them who are his own, his Subjects, but disobedient and ungrateful, Isa. 1.2, 3, 4. Ezek. 18.4. God therefore doth exact Punishment not only for conserving the order and good of the World; but also finally for his own Glory, to de∣monstrate his Holiness and Justice. Because his Glory is the end of his Government, God therefore doth exact Punishments, not only as a Rector but as an injured Lord and Benefactor. And although he judgeth formally, as a Rector secundum Leges, prius a se datas, yet as connoting his other Relations, that is, as a Rector who is an offended Lord and Father.

So far Mr. Baxter, who scruples not to declare, that God in requiring Satisfaction, is not to be consider∣ed only as a Rector secundum Leges, as such, but as an injured Soveraign and Benefactor, and as a Rector supra Leges, whence it must be acknowledged, that Christs Sufferings could not be properly Paenal. That they are no other than what are exacted by an injured Lord and Benefactor, or as a Rector supra Leges, who,

as such, exacts not Punishment, formally as such; and that therefore the punishment can be but im∣proper and analogical, as he explains it, p. 341. where he freely declares,

That altho' Punishment, strictly taken, is only the Effect of a Rector, yet a Friend, or Benefactor, wearied with Ingratitude, may Execute Analogical Punishments. Thus, for a Friend, not to love, A Benefactor, ceasing to be∣stow his Favours; a Father, with-holding the Ef∣fects and Tokens of his Paternal Affections; are their ways of Punishment. And because God's Kingdom is Paternal, where all that the Subjects enjoy belong to the Ruler, and where Love bears Dominion in the Government, the with-holding Divine Benefits, is not in a forced, or improper, but in a most eminent sense called Divine Punish∣ing.

5. This passage of Mr. Baxter doth fully clear it, that in his Opinion Christ's Sufferings are not proper Punishments. And tho, in condescention to the weak, he yielded so far as to accommodate his way of writing to them, who differed from him, using sundry Terms and Phrases, which the Ortho∣dox have chosen and established as explicating the Truth most distinctly, and with the greatest plain∣ness, yet did he openly oppose the use of other Terms and Phrases, such as Christ's Sufferings, and Dying in the Person of Sinners, &c. and took parti∣cular care to discover his true meaning; that we might not think he did take even those he used, in the same sense, in which they are used by the Orthodox. For, it appeareth very convincingly to me, it is his stated Judgment, that God exacts formal and proper Punishment only as a Rector quà talis; and as an Injured Lord and Benefactor, he ••••••cates Analogical Tunishment; and that when God,

as a Benefactor, with-holds his Benefits, he may be ••aid to punish, and so far, and in what sense he may be said to punish, he may be said to glo∣••ifie his Punishing Justice; but not as an Injured Lord and Benefactor. And he not exacting Pu∣••••ashments taken properly and formally, the pu∣nishing Justice Mr. Baxter speaks of is not taken in a proper sense; for Punishing Justice thus ta∣ken, belongs only to a Rector, quà talis.

These Considerations may suffice to vindicate my Charge, [That Mr. Baxter denieth Christ's Suf∣ferings to be a proper Punishment] from the Igno∣rant and Rude Assaults of my Adversary; who, if he had kept more closely to his Studies, and minded Things more than Indecent Words, could never have been imposed upon, as in this Point he has been. And certain I am, that if the Learned and plain-hearted Mr. Baxter had been alive, he would thank neither Mr. Williams, nor Mr. Alsop for their Attempts to conceal his true sense of these Points from the World.

Before I close this Discourse, I will set down a summary of Mr. Baxter's Belief in these matters, particularly,

That Christ's sufferings were not ex Obligatione Legts; That our sins were not the near impulsive, or proper meritorious cause of his sufferings; That his sufferings were not properly and formally, poenal; That no sufferings are properly punishments, but what are inflicted on the Delinquent himself; That when Parents sin, and their Children suffer, their sufferings are not properly and formally, but materially, improperly and analogically poenal; That Christ, (properly speak∣ing) did not satisfie the Law, nor God, as a Rector, quà talis only, but as a Rector supra Leges, as a pars offensa, as an Injured Lord and Benefactor; That a

proper strict Satisfaction is the solution, or pay∣ment of an Aequivalent, which was not due for what was due; That the Aequivalence lyeth in an aptitude to answer the Remote Ends of the Law, That an answering the Remote Ends of the Law, is of a distinct nature from answering its Obli∣gations or Poenal Sanction; That the Obligation Christ lay under to suffer, arose only from the Mediatorial Praecept, and Christ's voluntary Spon∣sion; That what answers only the Preacept of a Law, and is only an Act of Obedience, cannot, considered as such, be a punishment; That the true Reason, why Christ's sufferings are said to be poenal, is because of their matter, which is painful and dolorous; That the Justice of God, which Christ satisfied, tho' called punitive, yet must not be understood in a strict sense, for that punishing Justice, from whence a proper punishment doth flow, That Christ's entire Righteousness was his performance of the Condition of his Covenant with the Father; and his performance of that Condition was his meritorious Title to God's promised Effects; That tho' the matter of the Cove∣venant of Works was taken into the Mediatorial Law, yet Christ was never under the Formal Obligation of the Law of Works, nor did he strictly merit according to its Rule.

This is an impartial Account of Mr. Baxter's Sentiments touching the Nature of Christ's Satis∣facti••n and Merit; and, as this Notion is distinct from what is embraced by the Reformed, so, whilst he uses the same Terms the Orthodox do, yet it is in a different sense. For by the works [Punish∣ment, Punishing Justice, Christ's Righteousness and Merit, yea and proper Satisfaction] he doth (as I have already suggested) intend quite another

thing than the Protestants do: And, because these Terms and Phrases are not in Scripture, he is not for an insisting on their use against the Socinians. De Nomine [vid. Satisfactionis] non nultùm Litigandum est: & siqui Sociniani, aut alii Satisfactionis nomen, quia in Sacris Literis non re∣••eritur, repudiant necessitatem Nominis, non asserere lebemus: Meth. Theol. part. 3. cap. 1. Diterm. 12. ••. 49.

But, in opposition hereunto, the Learned Dr. Edwards expresseth himself thus:

The words vid. Satisfaction and Merit] are now adopted by the Church, inserted into her Homilies and Li∣turgies, they are part of the Catholick Faith, and become the Common Language of all Christians. So that we cannot lay them aside, without giving infinite offence, and scandal to all our Friends of the Reformation, and at the same time of afford∣ing matter of Boasting and Triumph to our Ad∣versaries of the Church of Rome; who have long since told the World, that we are grown weary of our Old Religion, and are all ready to turn Socinians. Besides all this, it will justifie in great measure the Calumnies of our Modern Ʋnitarians who will exceedingly triumph to find their suspicion made good, viz. that we secretly favour their Impious Opinions: and that if it were not for the Biass, that is given to our minds ly the Awe of our Superiours, and the Love of our Preferments, we would soon take off the Mask, ard discover our True Sentiments in their fa∣vour. Preservat. against Socin. Part. 3. p. 110.

What this Learned Person offers against the very Notion of Mr. Baxter, as well as of Cur∣cellaeus and Limborch, I do humbly recommed to the consideration not only of Mr. Alsop, but of all the

Brethren at Little St. Hellens, and do wish with all my heart, that Mr. Alsop may be enabled to weigh with deliberation and soberness, whether there be the least Reason for his declaring so positively, That neither Mr. Williams, nor Mr. Baxter deny Christ's Sufferings to be proper punishments? Or what pleasure it can afford him, on a Dying Bed to consider what countenance he has given to the very Notions he now would be thought to abhor•• How he hath discouraged, yea reviled them, who appear in the Defence of those Truths, which so nearly affect our Salvation? And how much he hath strengthened the hands of them, who hold such Opinions as open a Door for the letting in the very Abominations we are at this time in most danger of: For, the very Engine chosen by the Socinian Combinators in the year 1546. as most like∣ly to introduce their Impious Heresies, was their corrupting the Doctrine of our Blessed Saviour's Satisfaction. As Wissowatius, in his Compendious Nar∣ration, in the mention he makes of the Italian Combinators, tells us, it was to bring the Received Opinion of the Trinity into doubt; so Sandius in his Anti-Trinitarian Bibiiothee. p. 18. speaking of their Colledges and Conferences, adds, in quibus po∣tissimùm Dogmata vulgaria de Trinitate, ac Christ. Satisfactione, his{que} similia in Dubium revocabant; And what is remarkable, Lubieniecius, in his Hi∣story of the Polonian Reformation, lib. 2. c. 1. In∣genuously confesseth, that 'twas also their care to insinuare, that in the Article of Justification, an applying the Merit of Christ unto us by Faith alone, was one of those Opinions, introduced by the Greek Philosophers.

Of these things I take the more notice, because at this time, as Mr. Williams doth, not omy cor∣rupt

the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, but that other of Justification; in like manner, He doth as these Socinians did, subscribe with a distinction, securing his own sense, and carries it so subdo∣lously, as to influence some worthy Divines, who are sound in the Faith, to give too much Repu∣tation unto him, and consequently to his Errone∣ous Opinions. I can hardly forbear the mention of an Aged Divine, who hath been Mr. Williams his Tool to the hindring a Re-Union; but at this time I will spare him. And only add, that Mr. Williams acts so like unto these Combinators, that unless some more than ordinary care be taken to give check unto him, his success may bear some proportion to what Laelius Socinus, Blandrata and some others of that way, had in Poland. What Reputation Blandrata had amongst the Orthodox, notwithstanding the Indefatigable Pains of so great a Man, as Calvin, to discover his Hypocrisie, I have shown in my Growth of Errour, and in this place will observe what I have met with concerning Franciscus Lismaninus, who carried it so craftily, as to obtain a great Interest in the Esteem of the Re∣formed in general, and of Calvin and Zanchy, in particular. Lubieniecius, in his Polonian History, lib. 2. c. 2. saith, that Calvin, in a Letter to the King of Poland, highly applauded Lismaninus, tho' the Publisher of his Epistles did unfairly omit the mention of his Name; and sure I am, that, he joyn'd with other Polonian Divines in a Letter to Zanchy, in which, he, with them, expresseth himself so Orthodoxly, that Zanchy in answer unto them could not but rejoyce exceedingly, to understand that so much Holiness and Truth was amongst them, which was about the year of our Lord 1562, 63. and yet long before this time Wissowatius dates Lasmaninus

his being influenced by Laelius Socinus to embrace his Opinions even about the year 1552, 53. And it's very probable, the Concealment of his Heresie from the Notice of the Orthodox, was continued unto the Day of his Fatal Catastrophe; [which, as Sandius, Bibl. Anti-Trin. p. 35. observes out of Budzinius his History, was by his falling into a Well. (where he was Drowned,) when in a Phrensie, occasion'd by his Wifes being suspected guilty of Adultery.] For it's conjectured, that his Death was not long after he joyn'd, in the above mentioned Letter, with Gregorius Pauli, Stanislaus Lathomiski, Paulus Gilovius & Martinus Crovitius, at that time Socinians, who by sheltring themselves amongst the Orthodox, had gain'd such Advantages for the Propagating their Impious Opi∣nions, as to put an effectual stop to the spreading of the Truth in that Kingdom, which, for the most part, hath been ever since Popish and Socinian.

What I have said, will, I hope, clear it to them, who sincerely desire the Knowledge of what it is that doth really lye at the bottom of the pre∣sent Heats, That our Differences are in Points of the greatest weight, and that the Contention on our part is, that the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction may be secured from the Insults of Mr. Ws. and his followers. For, in a word, the true State of the Case is thus. Mr. Williams in his Writings, falling in with the Learned Mr. Baxter, hath cor∣rupted the Doctrine of our Saviour's Satisfaction; The first Book, in which he laid the Foundation of the whole, he hath since advanced, came forth under the countenance of the St. Hellens Mi∣nisters, for above forty of their Hands are un∣to a Testmonial prefixed unto it. In which, it is declared, that the Truths, and Errours therein mentioned as such, are fully and rightly stated in

all that is material. Several Exceptions have been made against this Book, fervent desires that our Brethren, whose Hands are to it, would recall them. This never yet done, but when some of the most Eminent of our Brethren sent a Paper secu∣ring the Doctrines of Christ's Satisfaction, and our Justification, in opposition to Mr. Williams his Errours, which greatly rejoyced the hearts of the Grieved Brethren; a Check was put thereunto by them, who meet at Little St. Hellens, and another Paper composed, which broke down those Bar∣riers which were inserted in the First Paper, on purpose to secure the Truth against the Sociniani∣zing-Arminians. This last Paper encreasing the Of∣fence given by Mr. Williams; the offended Brethren earnestly desired that they would joyn with the most Eminent of their own Number in the first Paper. To this never any Answer return'd, but various Misrepresentations given of Matters of Fact, which occasioned the Publishing a Sheet of Paper, entituld, The Report, &c. This is followed with a Scandalous Rebuke, written by Mr. Alsop, in which, without the least provocation he Rails against all the Congregational Churches, Ministers and People, calling 'em Petty Foggers, Intreaguers, Whaffing Whelps, Mastiff Dogs, Rosacrusions, and the like. Some time after this, out comes a Book called, An Answer to the Report, said by Mr. Wil∣liams, to be composed by a Committee of the Saint Hellens Brethren; to this are annexed two Letters, the one from the R. Reverend the Lord Bishop of Wor∣cester, the other from the Reverend Dr. Edwards, Principal of Jesus Colledge Oxon, in which the Truths we own are explained and asserted.

Thus, instead of examining Mr. Williams his Book, and Recalling their Hands, or witnessing against

the Errours in it, the Ministers at Little St. Hellens, who formerly took special care to keep themselves (as considered collectively) at a distance from the Contest, have now made themselves Parties, not only by their Answer to the Report, which contains in it a Plea for Mr. Williams his Notions, but also by their approval of Mr. Alsop's scurrulous and false Charge against the Congregational Brethren, which is not only evident from their not testifying against the Barbarity of the Abuse, but from their caressing him for it.

And whereas they say, the Difference is only about words, or modes of expression, you have it here fully proved that it is in such Points, as affect the very Vitals of our Holy Religion. For, Iustifica∣tion, by that Righteousness of Christ which answers the Law of Works is rejected, for a Righteousness of Christ which lyeth entirely and solely in the per∣formance of the Conditions of the Mediatorial Co∣venant under which we never were. Besides, that Satisfaction, which lyeth in answering the Obliga∣tions of the Violated Law by Christ's suffering a proper Punishment is rejected, for a Satisfaction, which only answers some Remote Ends of the Law, which was done without Christ's bearing a proper Punishment. And that these things are of impor∣tance, I doubt not but my Lord Bishop of Worcester, and the Principal of Jesus, to whom I have Appeal∣ed, will with Conviction demonstrate.

But, wheras Mr. Williams, to drown the Charge against himself, makes a Noise of Antinomianism as embraced by the Congregational, it must be noted, that there was never any Charge brought in against them by Mr. Williams, or any other to the Ministers at Little St. Hellens, whilst they were amongst them, nor any where else that I know, nor did the Con∣gregational

set their Names to any Book charge∣able with Antinomianism, unless three, or four of them, with as many more of their Presbyterian Brethren to a Testimonial before Dr. Crisps Book; which was before the Ʋnion commenced.

This being a short, but Impartial State of the Controversie, I do with the utmost Fervour be∣seech the Brethren who meet at St. Hellens, more particularly the Reverend Mr. Hammond to clear themselves from having any hand in approving of Mr. Williams and Mr. Alsop's unbrotherly False and Railing Accusations, whereby they will remove that Block, which they have thrown in the way, to hinder Conciliatory Endeavours, and greatly exhi∣lerate the Spirits of their Injured and Grieved Bre∣thren, who I doubt not, will concur with them in witnessing against the Errours on the other Ex∣treme, if they at St. Hellens will but joyn heartily with them in Asserting those great Articles of Christ's Satisfaction and Merit, which have been very distinctly taught by the Church from the be∣ginning, as Vossius and Grotius declare in the Pre∣face to that Excellent Discourse of the Latter De Satisfactione, where it's said, Cum vero duo nobis pe∣perisse Christum dixerimus, Impunitatem, & Prae∣mium, illud satisfactioni, hoc merito Christi distinctè Tribuit vetus Ecclesia, both which are effectually se∣cured in the First Paper.

A Learned Brother, whose Conciliating Attempts are very pleasing to me, having sent me his thoughts on this Controversie: I thank him heartily for it, craving his Opinion of my Appeal, and of this Dis∣course, that I may dispose of his Letter to the Churches greater Service.

FINIS.