A DEFENCE OF THE REPORT, CONCERNING The Present State of the Differences in Doctrinals, between some Dissenting Ministers in London; in REPLY to a Book, ENTITLED, A Faithful Rebuke of that Report.  
If I Build again the things which I Destroyed, I make myself a Transgressor. Gal. 2.18.  
The Wisdom that is from above is first Pure, then Peaceable, Gentle, and easy to be Entreated. Jam. 3.17.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The best way of Revenging an Injury is, not to imitate or resemble him that did it. Marc. Antonin. Lib. 6. § 6.  
LONDON, Printed for Nath. Hiller, at the Prince's Arms in Leaden-Hall-Street, over against St. Mary Axe, 1698.   

TO THE READER.  
Reader,  
WHEN the Report was Published, I being in the Country, on my Return, several made Enquiry touching my Thoughts of it; to whom my Answer was; That whoever was the Author, I knew the Matters of Fact, therein contained, to be True; and Believed the Doctrines, Explained and Asserted in the Healing Paper, and pleaded for in the Report to be agreeable to God's Word; and that I should be willing, if at any time called thereunto, to do my most for their Defence.  
Some Weeks after the Report had been Abroad, a Brother, who once, according to the Talon, wherein he excelled, wrote in Vindication of the Common Faith, sent forth a Rebuke to the Report; wherein both for Matter and Manner, he has expressed himself quite otherwise than formerly he had Written, or his Truest Friends at this time expected; and has really given the Protestant Religion, in the Article of Christ's Satisfaction, a most sensible Wound.  
These Controversies, I doubt not, upon an Apprehension, that none but the Enemy to Religion will be hereby the Gainer, are very grievous to many sincere Christians; who, when they shall consider, how much the Truth, by this Collision, will be cleared; the most Important Doctrines of our Holy Religion, be more throughly understood; more Firmly Believed, as well as more Irrefragably Defended against the Opposition made unto it; will Admire the Divine Wisdom, and Adore the Riches of Glorious Grace, in bringing so much Good out of these Mischievous Divisions, which have been, and are amongst us.  
As for my own part, notwithstanding the hard Censures of my Reverend Brother, I cannot forbore telling thee, That I desire with my whole Soul to bless and praise the Lord, for the insight he has given me into the Mysteries of Christ's Gospel, since this Controversy hath been stated, and that I do now plainly see, how the very Truths, we were, through an unjustifyable Supineness, in danger of losing, will, hereby be the more clearly Discovered and effectually Secured.  
Discourses from the Pulpit, even when about the most Evangelical Parts of Christianity, having been of late Years, rather adjusted to move the Affections than enlighten the Judgement, are but a slender Fence unto Truth; And an Observance, how they, who are sound in the Faith, through a Zeal for Populacy, have neglected that Close Study, which is necessary to a through understanding the Important Doctrines now under debate, hath emboldened the Adversary to Oppugn them, and with the greater Vigour to attempt the exposing the present Ministry amongst us; and, to speak freely, one Reason why our Brethren are so much confounded with the Noise of Common Terms and Phrases, at this time Controverted and so easily Imposed on, is their Disuse of such Studies.  
But, it's hoped that these Contests will provoke our Brethren to make more diligent Inquiries into the Doctrines of Satisfaction and Justification, as it has already roused up some Great Men to resolve on a Defence of the very Points, now exagitated amongst us. For, as I have heard thus much of one very Learned Person; so I did the last Night receive the ensuing Letter from another; in which, you'll observe enough to convince you it is from one of the first Rate among the Learned, whose Sagacity, and Sharpness is Conspicuous, and his Resentments Deep.  
And, as the Truth, by these Methods will be abundantly cleared, so the surest Foundation for a solid and lasting Union will be laid: For, whatever my Censorius Brother suggests to the contrary, 'tis the resolution of the Congregational Brethren to do their most for PEACE, which they are sure can never be lasting, if at the Expense of Truth, but let our Presbyterian Brethren join with us in the Defence of some Protestant Truths now in danger, they will find us to go so far as 'tis possible, with a good Conscience for Peace and Communion with them.  
That these Great Blessings may be obtained, is the fervent Prayer, and shall be the constant Endeavour of  
Novem. 4. 1697. S. L.  
The Letter I mention, I will here insert exactly as it came to my hands.   

Books Printed for Nath. Hiller, at the Prince's Arms in Leaden-hall-street, over against St. Mary Axe.  
THE Divine Institution of Congregational Churches, Ministry and Ordinances, [As has been Professed by those of that Persuasion] Asserted and Proved from the Word of GOD. By Isaac Chauncy, M. A.  
A Discussion of the Lawfulness of a Pastors Acting as an Officer in other Churches besides that which he is specially Called to take the Oversight of. By the late Reverend Mr. Nath. Mather.   

To my Reverend, and much Esteemed Friend Mr. Stephen Lob.  
SIR,  
I Can hearty have wished, that there had been no Occasion administered for those Accusations, wherewith the Presbyterian and Congregational Divines have of late mutually charged one another. And though I do verily believe, that the Latter are as remote from all Friendliness to Antinomianism, as most of the Former are from being Tainted with Arminianism, or the having Embraced the Dogmata of Socinus; yet some Crude Writers of each Party, whose good Opinion of themselves, doth far exceed their Knowledge in those Controversies, have had the misfortune to speak less accurately, than the avoiding the being thought Infected with those Heterodoxies, would have exacted of them. But, as for your Rebuker I will venture to say, that he hath not only Departed from the Received Opinions of most Protestant Divines, but that he hath Trespassed against all the Rules of good Breeding and Modesty in his Pedantic, as well as Insolent way of Writing. For, tho' I have not the vanity to pretend the being very Conversant in the Socinian and Arminian Controversies; yet I dare affirm that the phrases, which he assumes the liberty to Ridicule, as well as to Oppose, are those that they of the greatest character for Learning, who have Written either against the Remonstrants, or them of the Racovian Belief, have both used, and judged necessary to be adopted into their Debates, not only as a Fence about the Received Faith, and a Barrier against Eruptions upon common Christianity, but as such without which the Doctrines of Christ's Satisfaction, and of our Justification, could neither be Orthodoxly nor Intelligibly expressed. And were it not, that I intent to Embark in this Dispute, in case it be further supported on his part, I could at present easily expose the Ignorance of your Rebuker, both in Classical and in Theological Authors, which whensoever I do, you may assure yourself it shall not be in the Harlequin and Scarramuchio stile. Nor do I think your Author will much raise his Reputation, by his setting up for an Ecclesiastical Droll, seeing besides the Indecency of it, he will by few be thought the more Witty for acting the Buffoon. For a small measure of Intellectuals, if accompanied with a great degree of Assurance, will qualify any man to Burlesque all that is Sacred, and thereby to advance him among such as are truly serious to the Title of Blasphemous and Atheistical. And you may easily imagine, how not only your Gentlemen of the Dry-Club (whose Libertinism was too long countenanced as well as connived at by some amongst you) but your Partisans against all Revealed Religion, will hug themselves upon the Precedent set them by this Dissenter, in his Treating the most important Articles of the Christian Faith with a Contempt as well as a Jocularness, which either a Wise or Sober Man would not allow himself to use, even in relation to the Dreams and Romances of Mahomet. And to deal with you without reserve, I will not be positive, in concluding what his Opinion is in these Controversies, tho' I fully understand the Language wherein he expresseth it, seeing I have an Exemplar before me of his sincerity, in an Harangue upon an Address in which his meaning hath since appeared ●o be Contradictions to what he said. But I will add this in Extenuation of the Author's guilt, that he useth sometimes to be Delirious, and that then both his Genius and Distemper lead him to be Divertive and Comical▪ whereas when his Lucida returns, he leaves the Stage and puts off his Buskins, and reassumes the Gravity of a Theologue, and exchangeth the Language of the Theatre for that of the Pulpit.  
Sir Adieu.   

A REPLY TO A Faithful Rebuke.  
IN my Endeavours to Clear the Report of the Present State of the Differences, in Doctrinals, between some Dissenting Ministers, in London, from the Charge of Falsehood; and Vindicate the Congregational Brethren from the Accusation of being Antinomian; I will pass over the Delicate Language, with which the Rebuker hath Adorned his Discourses, as what is becoming neither the August, and Sacred Matters treated on, nor a Divine, a Christian, or a Gentleman; Wondering, that the Checks of his Friends, and the Sense of the like Contempt and Neglect, with which some years ago, his Adversaries Accosted him, when he had a Better Cause to Defend, have had no more Influence on him: Especially considering, that He is now Drawing so very near to that Age, which few Attain unto. But being of Opinion, that what this Reverend Brother hath herein done, is as much the Effort of another Man's Heats as of his own Disturbed Thoughts, I would Hope, that on a serious Review, when he shall Reflect, not only on his way of Writing; but on the Nature, and Severity of those Accusations, which He hath, contrary to Truth, and without the least Ground, loaded his Congregational Brethren with, he will see cause to Bewail what now He seems to Triumph in. I say, passing by these things, and whatever else may rather Provoke than Enlighten; I will Confine myself to what he hath Objected against the Reporter and his Brethren, which may be Reduced to Matters of Fact, Doctrines of Faith, and Cha●ge of Antinomianism.  

I. Of Matters of Fact.  

Faithful Rebuke.  
THE Reporter hath miserably Imposed upon you in Matter of Fact, and— 1. One Specimen of his Honesty, you shall meet with at the Entrance of his Paper— And thus in a Pompous Style, He Breaks into the Business after Sundry attempts made by the Industrious Pa●●ficators, an Instrument was pi●ch'd upon, which gave satisfaction to the most Learned of both Parties: This Paper was sent by six, or seven of the Biggest Name among them, who do, or at least have gone under the Denomination of P●esbyterians, unto some Congregational Brethren, and gladly Embraced by them, p. 12.   

Reply.  
This is one part of the Charge of Falsehood against the Report, and yet there is not One Word mentioned in this Place, but what is True. For, (1.) After sundry Attempts, an Instrument was Pitched upon, which you have in the close of the Report. (2.) This was sent unto the Congregational Brethren, by six or seven of the Biggest name among the Presbyterians, of which number Mr. Alsop was one, as the Brethren to whom it was sent can, and they by whom it was sent must Testify. (3.) That it was sent by some of the Biggest Name, is manifest, for the Hands of Dr. Bates and Mr. How are to the Letter, by which it was transmitted to the Congregational. (4.) That this Paper was gladly received by the Congregational; their own Subscription doth Evince. (5.) That it gave satisfaction to the most Learned of both Parties, it is but to read over the Names of them who subscribed it, and it will be found most True. (6.) That Mr. Mather's, and Mr. Cole's hands were not set to this Paper, was not, because they Approved not of the Doctrines therein contained, for they both in the Hearing of many declared their Approval, tho' for some other Reasons declined Subscription.  
Where then is the Falsehood? No where but in my Brothers own Imaginations; who adds,   

Faithful Rebuke.  
Now Sir do you not Judge, that this Instrument— had Redintegrated the violated Union— That all Distances were removed— That they were all now got together again at Little St. Hillens? I assure you Sir, not a word of this was true. p. 13.   

Reply.  
No Sir, we had no reason to Judge thus, but the quite contrary, for there was not a word of this in the Report, where it's expressly affirmed, (1.) That when matters were brought to this Head [as above] nothing but a Reunion, and a general Amnesty was in Prospect. It was you see but in Prospect, not come to an Accomplishment; And, 'tis added, (2.) That this Reunion had ensued, had it no● been for two or three Opposers, so that, unless the Opposition made unto the Healing Instrument; and the laying it by, doth signify, that this Instrument had Redintegrated the violated Union, and brought all of 'em together again to Little St. Helen's, there is not there cannot be the least Pretence for the charge of Falsehood. And whether these Expressions signify what is most contrary to their genuine meaning, I submit it to my Brother's more sober Thoughts, and in the mean time will take it for granted, That there is nothing False in this part of the Report, and pass on to his second Instance.   

Faithful Rebuke.  
2. A second Instance of the Reporters regard to Truth, where you will easily observe how by a Wretched Sen●chdoche, he has given you a part for the whole of a Just Narrative. p. 14.   

Reply.  
1. The Reporter never Pretended to give a Narrative of the whole: He knew that the doing so would rather widen than close the wound; and therefore, it being his Design, whilst he gave an account of what was done towards the making up the Breach, and where the last Stop was, to Soften and Prepare the Minds of the Brethren for Peace, He Industriously waved, as any one might perceive, the giving a Full Narrative of the whole: and in the Title Page, He Declared, That his Report was of the Present State, and therefore, not of what had passed some years ago. How then can any, consistently with Truth, say, that by a Wretched Senechdoche, He hath given you a part for the whole of a Just Narrative?  
2. A Desire to Accommodate matters so far as possible, upon the Bottom of Truth, lieth so much upon his Heart, that he doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fixedly Resolve against what is likely to Exasperate. And therefore tho' this Brother hath given such a Partial and Untrue History of the whole, Relating to the Division, as cannot be Detected without Publishing what we ought (I think) mournfully to cover. He Obligeth me at least for the Present, to conceal such Particulars, as much as sincere Affection to the Truths of Christ's Gospel will allow; which I am the rather inclined to do, because I find, that when the Report did so calmly give but a few Intimations about what had been done for Peace, what Advances had been made towards it by divers of the most Eminent of each Party, where the stop was, and what would Heal, they have put my Brother in to such a Confusion of Thought, as moves some to Fear, that a thorough search into this History, will discover such Mistakes, and give him such a Disturbance, as to make him wholly Unfit for that good work, for which God hath given him an Excellent Talon, and to which, with a sincere Respect to him and his further Usefulness, I do Hearty Wish he would henceforward Confine himself.  
Having thus Cleared the Report from the Charge of Falsehood, as to matter of Fact, I will make what convenient hast I can, to consider what he hath Offered about Doctrinals. And to set what Relates hereunto, in the clearest Light, I must beg my Readers Patience to Observe, what is necessary to be suggested on this Occasion. For, it must be Inculcated. 1. That we have no Controversy with any Assembly of United Ministers, as such; not only because we know of no such meeting that hath been of late months at Little St. Helen's; but because, when there were such Meetings, they did not set their hands unto the Offensive Book, and never Expressed any other way their Approbation of it.  
That the meeting of Ministers at Little St Helen's, is not composed of United Brethren, is manifest, in that the Congregational, who are an essential Part of the Union, have not (if we may believe my Brother) met with them. For he assures us, That they gradually withdrew from their Assemblies, and Common-Meetings; and not only so, but set up another Opposite-Meeting in a Neighbouring Place, at the very Hour, and on the same day that the United Brethren Assembled at Dr. Annesleys; Some few of them would now and then drop in, when they had occasion to serve themselves of the Union, and commonly there was one or two to spy out their Liberty. Fa. Reb. p. 21.  
Now what manner of Union can there be between two Parties, when there is but one Party to make it up? But,  
2. The generality of those Brethren, who were Pastors of Churches, and did set their Names unto the Testimonial before the Offensive Book, did thereby rather intent to express their Just Abhorrence of Antinomian Dotages, than an Approval of the Book: for divers of them never Read the Book; nor can they bear, that the setting their hands unto the Attestation prefixed unto it, should be Interpreted, as if it had been unto the Book, but only unto the state of the Truths and Errors therein mentioned, and not unto the Preface, Explications, or Proofs.  
3. That the true Reason, which influenced several of them, who meet at Little St. Helen's to Reject the first Paper was an Apprehension, that the Testimony, it gave against Antinomianism, was not so full as they could wish and thought needful (tho' it was as full as 'tis now, in the third Paper.) Not that they disliked the Renunciation of Arminian, or Socinian Errors.  
However, it must be acknowledged to be somewhat singular, if not unparallel in them, who Reject the first Paper, that, notwithstanding the Complaints of our Offened Brethren, the Nature of the Errors, Charged on the Offensive-Book; and the many mischievous and fatal Consequences, that have attended the Setting their Hand unto the Testimonial before it, they have not hitherto, that I can hear, Condescended so far, as to Examine, whether their Names have not given Countenance to such Notions, as are contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and the Faith Professed by Protestants at Home and Abroad.  
But, seeing what is thus surprising flows from an Excess of Charity in them, to the Author of the Offensive Book, it's now hoped, that the bold stroke, which the Faithful Rebuke hath given to the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, will awaken the Presbyterian Brethren to declare their Orthodoxy by their Testifying against what doth, in it, deviate from the Truth.  
4. That the Controversy is, in good earnest, between the Congregational, and the Body of the Presbyterian Brethren on the one Part; and a few, who are with Mr. Williams, on the other. The Reasons which move me to Judge thus are▪ 1. The generality of the Presbyterian Brethren in this City, do still firmly adhere unto the Assemblies Confession, Larger and Shorter Catechism; from which, in the Controverted Points, some apprehend Mr. W's▪ tho' he hath subscribed them, doth dissent and cannot choose, whilst they have so many powerful Arguments for that Apprehension. Besides, if there had not been a real Difference between him and them, how could Mr. J. W. and his Friends boast of a Brother's coming over unto them in the Point of Justification? 2. No one hath written much in the praise of Mr. Ws his Notions, but Mr. Toland; whose Opinions are well known both in England and Ireland: and this Brother, whom I am sorry to see Listed in defence of the same Cause. What the Reverend Mr. Lorimer hath written, as it is after another manner than what my Rebuker hath done; so the most in him in these Matters is his mistaken Charity to Mr. Ws. For he is a Man, that neither thinks the Phrases of Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners, and of a Commutation of Persons between Christ, and us, to be either New or of a Dangerous sound. Nor doth he deny, that our Lord Jesus did, as our surety, come under the Bond and Curse of the Moral Law.  
5. As for the Doctrine of Justification, Mr. Ws, if he will be true to his own avowed Principles, must come over to Mr. Humphrey, in the denial of the imputed Righteousness of Christ, in any other sense, than in its Effects.  
'Tis true, Mr: Ws doth grant, that Christ by his Righteousness, did not only purchase a Conditional Grant, of those Effects, which he had merited by his Righteousness; But, besides these Effects made ours, the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to true Believers. Gospel Truth Stated, p. 39 However, if we compare this passage with what is more lately and fully explained in his Man made Righteous, p. 77, etc. you will soon unravel the whole Mystery, and see, that whilst he is labouring to hid himself, for a while, in a Cloud of Words, be means nothing at all by this Grant. For he is most explicit in affirming, That the Righteousness of Christ, as it was the Performance of the Conditions of our Salvation, is mediately imputed to the Believer. Christ's very Performance of the Conditions is (saith he) Imputed mediately in this manner. If one give me my Liberty, which he voluntarily purchased for me at a dear rate, he mediately gives me what he paid for my Ransom, tho' immediately I receive my Liberty and a Right thereto.  
Now what is this more than an imputation of Christ's Righteousness in the Effects? Because the Effects of Christ's death, such as a Right to Pardon, etc. is given to the True Believer, therefore it may be said, that Christ's Righteousness, the procuring Cause, is imputed unto him. As the money, which one gives for another's Liberty, may be said to be given to that other to whom Liberty is given, which is only in the effects of that Money; so Christ's Righteousness is imputed, in that the effects of it are given unto us: that is to say, Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us mediately; It is imputed to us mediante effectu, or in its effects. If he can make any thing more of it, let him.  
Besides, so long as he, against the Common Sentiment of Protestants, denies a Commutation, or Change of Persons between Christ and us; or, that Christ sustained the Person of sinners; or, as our Surety came under the Bond and Obligations of the violated Law of works, to answer those Obligations for us: it is impossible there should be, on his Principles, any other imputation of Christ's Righteousness, but what is in its effects, which Mr. Humphrey, clearly understanding, does honestly Assert, and that he must do the same, or relinquish his Principles may be more distinctly proved at any time, that he will, tho' let him be but sincere and confess it, I shall be most willing, with my Reverend Brethren, to consider how far we are to extend our Communion, or Charity towards such, wherein he will find me Charitable enough.  
6. The Breach being on this account begun, it is now widened by a Rejecting the Assertion of a Necessity of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us, for the due explaining and defending the Doctrine of Christ's satisfaction, and our Justification; together with a Laying by the Use of the Phrases of Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners, of a Change of Persons between Christ and us; of Christ's being our Surety, to answer for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works; and the like. And made more dangerous, since these Phrases have been so very much Ridiculed by this Brother.  
But there being so much wonder made at an insisting on the Use of these Phrases, I will, for the sake of those Brethren, who, either by disuse have forgotten; or, by reason of a too early and constant Application unto practical Preaching, never throughly understood this necessary Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction; I will, I say, show how useful these Phrases are to explain this glorious and blessed Truth.  
There are, in the Holy Scriptures, several Texts which discover and prove the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction.  
About the Genuine Sense of these Texts, the chief Controversy between the Reformed on the one hand, and the Arminian, and Socinian, on the other, doth Lye.  
The Controverted Texts are such as speak of Christ's dying for our sins, and for us; of his being our Surety, and a Sacrifice for us; and the like, that relate to these Matters.  
The different Senses, which the Orthdox, and their Adversaries have of these Texts, I will distinctly Propose.  
1. When it's said in Scripture, that Christ was wounded and bruised for our Transgressions; suffered and died for our Sins. Socinus and his Followers affirm, that the Expression [for our sins] signifies only a Final Cause, as if no more was meant than that Christ died for our good.  
The Orthodox expressly Asserts, that [For our sins] in these Texts▪ imports an impulsive meritorious Cause; and Grotius proves against Socinus, that these words, Christ suffered for our sins, cannot be understood of a Final, but of Meritorious Cause. And, if our sins be the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings, it necessarily follows, that Christ's sufferings were a Proper Punishment for them, and must be satisfactory to God's Justice, which Grotius, and the Right Reverend Bishop of Worcester, have unanswerably Proved.  
2. When, in Scripture it is affirmed, that Christ suffered, and died For us, the Socinians, who Labour to reduce all to his suffering for our good only, are positive, that the signification of the Proposition [For] ●s, that Christ died nostro bono, for our good. He suffered for our sins, that is, say they, he suffered for our good; He died for us, that is, say they, he died only for our good.  
On the contrary, the Orthodox aver, that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For, when it's said, Christ died for us, signifies a Commutation, or Change of persons between Christ and us; which is aptly expressed by that other Phrase, [in our Place and Stead] that is, Christ suffered not only for our good; but, that God might be glorified in our Redemption, Christ suffered in our Place and Stead; Christ in his sufferings, did sustinere vicem, seu Persunam nostram. He was put into our Place, State and Condition, that having the Gild of our sins laid upon him, he might, according to the Rule of Justice, suffer a Proper Punishment for our sins, and so make Satisfaction to God's Justice for us.  
When it's said, Christ came into our Place, State and Condition, the meaning is, he came under the Bonds and Obligations of the violated Law of Works, lay under the Gild and Punishment of sin on our behalves, that we, by laying hold on Christ by Faith, might be delivered.  
The Phrases then of a Change of Persons between Christ, and us, of Christ's taking on him the Person of Sinners, suffering in their Person, Rooms and Stead, are most apt to convey unto our Understandings the true, the Orthodox, and Genuine Sense of these Texts, Christ died for our sins, and for us, in opposition to the Socinian Interpretation, that is to bring all to Christ's suffering for our good only; which they do, that they may the better subvert the Doctrine of a Real, Proper and full Satisfaction to God's Justice.  
3. The Term Surety, when spoken of Christ in Scripture, relates to us as we are Sinners, indebted to the Law, and Justice of God, and imports a Change of Person between Christ, and us; Christ's sustaining our Person, coming into the Bond, we had forfeited, and in our Place and Stead, answering for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works.  
4. Christ's being made a Sacrifice for us, doth signify the same, for that Christ might be a Proper Sacrifice for us; 'twas necessary that he should be substituted into our Place and Stead, as the Bishop of Worcester, as well as Grotius, have fully proved.  
'Tis true, Episcopius and his Followers, pretend a Zeal for Christ's being a Proper Expiatory Sacrifice, but then they declare that Christ, when sacrificed for us, did not suffer a Proper Punishment for our sins: But the Orthodox have cleared it, beyond all doubt, that Christ, as our Sacrifice was substituted into our Place and Stead; that this Substitution cannot be without a Commutation of Persons between him and us; that hereupon Christ's sufferings, when he was sacrificed for us, became a Proper Punishment for our sins.  
The Use then of these Phrases [of a Commutation of Persons between Christ, and us; of Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners; of his suffering in our Place, Stead and Person; of his coming under the Bonds and Obligations of the Violated Law of Works; of his answering for us these Obligations,] are used by the Orthodox, as most apt to explain the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, and distinguish it from the Socinian Heresy.  
They are the Phrases pitched upon by the Godly Learned, to deliver unto us the sound meaning of those Scriptures, which speaks of Christ's suffering for our sins; dying for us; being our Surety, and made a Sacrifice for us.  
But, if you will Reduce all to Christ's sufferings in our Place, and Stead; and by these Expressions, avowedly Declare, that it's Impossible for that Phrase, to signify any more than for our good, and to turn nostro Loco, into nostro bono, you give up the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, and Sacrifice the Truth to the Lusts of its greatest Enemies, for Christ's suffering only for our Good, respects only Man; and the signification of Christ's making Satisfaction doth primarily respect God the Justice, and Righteousness of his Nature, which is not included in his suffering only nostro bono; for which reason if Christ suffered only for our Good, He did not by his sufferings make satisfaction unto God's Justice.  
These things, (which will be distinctly handled in my vindicating the Report from Falsehood in Doctrinals) do sufficiently show how necessary the Use of these Phrases is, how Dangerous to recede from them, and how liable to suspicion such Brethren are, who do not only Oppose, but with Scorn and Contempt Reject them.  
It now remains, that I proceed to Examine what it is, that my Reverend Brother chargeth the Report with, in matters Doctrinal.    

II. Of Doctrinala.  
IN the Report we may observe an Intimation given of sundry Points, which were in the First Paper, but left out of the Third, and the leaving 'em out of the Third insisted on as what increased the Offence of our Grieved Brethren.  
I. An Expunging that Paragraph which in the First Paper, did Assert the Necessity of a Change of Persons, between Christ and Us, in order to a due Explaining, and Defending the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, and our Justification.  
II. A Rejecting the Phrase of Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners.  
III. The Denying a Change of Persons between Christ and Us.  
iv An Imposing a Socinian sense on the Phrase of Christ's suffering in our Place and Stead.  
V A Turning Christ's Undertaking to Answer for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works, into Christ's Answering for our Violation of the Law of Works.  
VI Why so many Orthodox Terms and Phrases, which were in the First Paper are left out of the Third?  
And seeing it is boldly said, That our Controversy with them is not about what is owned, or so much as Countenanced in any Public Confessions, I will under this Head of Doctrinals make Answer to the Enquiry.  
VII. In what Confessions are the Terms, or Phrases so much Contended for to be found?  
Before I discourse on any of these points, 'twill be requisite, that I set before you the Reason, which my Brother gives for their rejecting those Passages, Terms and Phrases, that were in the First Paper. You shall have it in his own words.  

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

Reply.  
This passage of my Reverend Brother doth make it manifest, That the Paragraphs, Terms, and Phrases, which were in the first Paper, and were waved and passed by in the Composure of the Third, are looked upon by my Brother, and as he will have us believe, by all the Ministers, who meet at Little St. Helen's, and had a Head, a Hand, and a Heart in Composing the Third, could not bear a sound sense, but were liable to be Interpreted to a sense, and sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel. That is to say, The Phrase of Christ's putting on the Person of Sinners; of his Answering for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works, the Term, Surety, and the Assertion of the Necessity of a Commutation, or Change of Persons between Christ and Us, in order to Explain, and Defend Christ's Satisfaction, cannot in their Opinion bear a sound sense, but are liable to be Interpreted to a sense, and sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel.  
This is the sense of my Reverend Brother, concerning which I will only say, that tho' I think myself bound in Civility to believe what he saith of himself, yet I dare not be so severe as to conclude, that all my Presbyterian Brethren who meet at Little St. Helen's are in these Points of his Mind. However I desire my Reader to have Recourse unto this Passage, when He considers what I offer under the Particulars Proposed to be Examined. To the First,   

I. An Expunging that Paragraph, which in the first Paper did Assert the Necessity of a Change of Persons between Christ and Us, in order to a Due Explaining and Defending the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, and our Justification.  
That a Change of Persons between Christ and Us is necessary to a due Explication and Defence of Christ's S 〈…〉tion and our Justification, is so very manifest, that were nor but surprise us, to Hear from a Brother who pre 〈…〉 to Believe both, that it is not so.  
What more Evident, than that if the Lord Christ hath not made Satisfaction to God's Justice for us, there is nothing Left for the Relief of a Convinced Sinner, or for Healing a Wounded Spirit: for there is no Room, no Place for our being Justified in the Court of Heaven. If no Satisfaction, there can be no Justifying Righteousness found for us, to appear before the Bar of God in. 'Tis Christ's Righteousness alone, that can pass the Examen in the Great Day of the Lord; and without that no Soul Living can be Justified.  
But, if Christ Endured not the Punishment due to us for sin, by Answering for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works, there can be no Proper Satisfaction made to the Justice of God for Us, for Satisfaction taken strictly and in a proper sense is solutio Debiti, a Suffering the Punishment due for our Sin. That the Punishment of our Sins could not be born by the Lord Jesus Christ, unless there were a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Us, whereby the Lord Jesus came under the Bonds and Engagements of the Violated Law of Works, that we might be Delivered, is as Evident.  
These things are so plain, that whoever throughly Understands this Doctrine, whether the Orthodox, Socinian, or Arminian, they make no doubt of it, and therefore such as oppose the Doctrine of a Proper Satisfaction, deny a Change of Persons between Christ and Us, and thereby turn Christ's Sufferings from being Properly a Punishment to be only vicarious, that is, vice poenae, Grievous, and Painful Afflictions instead of a proper Punishment.  
Whether what I here Assert be not the Truth Revealed to u● in the Holy Scriptures, I appeal to all sound Divines, whether in the Church of England, Scotland, or the Reformed abroad.  
However, if we may Believe my Brother, the Assertion of the Necessity of a Commutation of Persons between Christ, and Us, in order to a due Explaining and Defending Christ's Satisfaction and our Justification cannot bear a Sound sense, but is liable to be Interpreted to a sense of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel.  
If this be not matter of Just Grief to the Godly Learned amongst us, what can be so? Here is an Exposing to the uttermost Contempt a Truth of very great Importance.   

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

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

Reply.  
1. This is no new Phrase, but Used and Contended for by the Orthodox against the Arminians many years ago. If you consult the Learned Peter du Monlin, his Anatomy of Arminianism, you'll find, that near fourscore years ago, he charged the Arminians with denying, that Christ sustained the Person of the Elect when on the Cross. cap. 27. § 6. And, in the following chapter, § 30. he thus expresseth himself, When these Sectaries deny, that Christ did, when on the Cross, sustain the Person of the Elect, they do plainly contradict what is Affirmed by Christ in Joh. 10.11. The good Shepherd lays down his Life for his Sheep, and those other places in Joh. 15.13. Ephes. 5.25.  
Joannes Arnoldus Corvinus in his Censure on the Anatomy, freely declares in the Name of the Arminians they do deny, that Christ sustained the Person of the Elect, when on the Cross. cap. 27. §. 6.  
2. The Learned Du Moulin was not singular in his Opinion, for what he asserted on this Occasion was the Faith of the Reformed, which I will evince, beginning with the mention of some Learned Divines amongst ourselves in this Island. And it's worthy Remark, that the Reverend Dr. Bates, who is known to be no Antinomian, doth affirm in his Harmony, p 240. That, as in Civil cases, where one becomes Surety for another, He is Obliged to pay the Debt, for in the Estimate of the Law, they are but One Person, Heb. 7.22. So the Lord Jesus entering into this Relation, sustained the Person of sinners, and became judicially One with them; and according to the Order of Justice was liable to their Punishment.;  
What the Doctor hath here observed, gives Light touching the Genuine Import of the Phrase of Christ's taking on him the Person of sinners, as it is included in Christ's Suretyship. For, when it's said, Christ is our Surety, if it be meant of his Paying our Debts to the Law, and Justice of God, as it is by the Orthodox, the Term Surety must necessarily imply Christ's sustaining ●●r Person, it being the part of a Surety to ●ake on him the Person of a Debtor, to Represent him, and stand so in his Place and stead as to come into the same Bond, and under the same Obligations the Debtor stood.  
Thus much is the Import of the Term, Surety, and signification of Christ's sustaining the Person of sinners, that is, The Lord Christ came into the Bond, we Forfeited, lies under the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works, and in our Person, Representing Us, He Paid the Debt we Contracted, by suffering the Punishment we Deserved.  
Tho' Christ had not any Demerit of his own upon him, yet as the learned Bishop Reynolds has it, He had the Gild of Sin so far upon him, as it Notes the Obligation and Subjection unto Punishment, as he was our Surety, and so in sensu forensi, in the sight of God's Court of Justice, One with us, who had deserved the Punishment imputed to him, on Psal. 110. p. 439.  
Christ, as our Surety, suffered in our Person, Representing us, and as the great Placeus, in the Salmurian Theses de Justificat. sect. 29. Observes, what Christ as our Surety, in our Person or Name suffered may be very truly imputed unto us. Who can, saith he, deny the Imputation of that Satisfaction unto us, which was made by our Surety, in our Name?  
To the same purpose the learned Mr. Rutherford, who was not only an Enemy to Antinomian Heresies, but One, who did Unanswerably Confute them, this worthy Person, so justly celebrated, not only throughout Scotland, but by the learned in this Kingdom, and abroad for his Excelling Learning, Piety, and sound Judgement, makes it his Province to prove against the Arminians, and Socinians, that Christ in suffering sustained the Person of the Elect, and that the Orthodox signification of the phrase in our Place and Stead is, in our Name or Person; of which more hereafter in due season, but in this place I will only Remark, how he presseth, that Christ's Suretyship can import no less than his sustaining the Person of them for whom he suffered. His words are, He, who being under the Law, paid that 〈◊〉 Debt of Satisfaction, which the Elect in their ●●●sons should have paid, He sustained the Person of the Elect, in his suffering. But Christ being made ●●der the Law, paid that Law-Debt of Satisfaction which the Elect in their Persons should have paid, Ergo. The Proposition is out of doubt. 〈…〉 He, who saith expressly, that what is here affirmed by my Rebuking Brother to be unintelligible, fit to Puzzle and Confound men's Understandings, is so easy to be Understood, that there is no place left for doubt, for, as He adds in the next page. None who Dyeth as a Surety, or pays as a Surety, but He bears the Person of such as He Pays for. These things are Asserted by him, in his Treatise of the Covenant of Grace. Part 2. p. 252, etc.  
I will add one Testimony more, and that is what I find in the Catechism of Mr. Nowell, received with the greatest Honour, above these Hundred years, in the Church of England, where you have these words; Christ for us suffered, and went through Horrible Fears, and most bitter Griefs of mind, to satisfy God's Just Judgement in all things, and to Appease his Wrath. For to Sinners, whose Person Christ did here Bear, not only the Sorrows and Pains of present Death are due, but also Death to Come and Everlasting.  
But these Authorities being only in the English Tongue, can only prove, that the Phrase of Christ's bearing the Person of sinners is not so New, as my Brother affirms, I will go on to inquire, whether this odd Phrase (to use my Brothers own words) durst show its Face in Latin? For my Brother saith it durst not.   

Faithful Rebuke.  
Seeing the great Struggle hath been, not about the satisfaction of Christ, as the Report Misrepresents it, but about some odd Phrases, and Expressions, in which 'tis clothed, especially these of Christ's suffering in the Person of sinners— whether if this be a sound, and safe way of Expressing that great Doctrine, it will not endure to show its Naked Face in some other of the learned Languages? And if you please make an Experiment, how well it will look in Latin?— Now what is sustinere Personam alterius?— Whatever Excuse they can have for the English phrase, I know not, it's pretty hard to Damn all the World for an Anglicism, p. 53.   

Reply.  
1. What my good Brother means by these Reflections on the phrases of Christ's sustaining and suffering in the Person of sinners, less than that, in his Opinion, they were never used by any Author, who wrote in Latin, and that this learned Language wants apt words to express them by, I cannot comprehend. But,  
2. This being the manifest sense of my reverend Brother, I shall be necessitated to Try his Skill, or Integrity, or both; For, nothing more Obvious than that they, who have wrote in Latin, on this Subject, have Used these phrases, and that Cicero himself hath found out apt words to render the Bearing the Person of another into good Latin.  
3. The Authorities I design to press shall be of such Great Men, as are most distant in their Judgement, from Antinomian Notions, and passing by the Lutherans, viz. Calovius, Dorsheus, Scherzerus, Quenstedius, and many other such, who are in this Article very sound, I will Confine myself to the Reformed. Essenius, in his Defence of Grotius de Satisfactione, lib. 1. sect▪ 4. cap. 5. part 1. p. 128. hath it thus, That Christus Personam nostram sustinens, etc. Christ sustaining our Person, there was a Commutation of his Death for ours, that we might attain unto Life.  
Hoornbeck, who understood this Controversy as well as any one, lays it down as a General Rule, by which we are to guide ourselves, in the management of it, That Christus eorum Personam sustinuit, Christ sustained the Person of them, for whom he made Satisfaction by his death, was in their Place, and State, and took on him to bear their Gild on himself. Miscel. Sac. lib. 3. p. 396.  
Nor can there be any thing more Remarkable upon this Occasion than what Rivet Replies to Bellarmine's Answer to the Common Argument of Protestants, for our being Justified by the Righteousness of Christ; in which place, after he had urged a great deal in detecting Bellarmine's Sophistications, he adds, That Christ is to be considered, first as in himself, and then with respect to us, whose Person he sustains; that Christ considered in himself is Just, Holy, without Spot, and separate from Sinners, but in respect to us, he is said to be made sin: He is our Surety, and so a Debtor. Rivet. Cathol. Orthod. Tom. 2. Tract. 8. Querst. 2. num. 35.  
Cloppenburch is as positive; for, in his Enarrat. in 53. Isa. saith he, When it's affirmed, that our sins are imputed unto Christ, we must understand it, that he is truly made sin, tho' not in himself, yet in our Person he may be reckoned and esteemed as the Debtor: for, by reason of his Suretyship, he is Judicially esteemed One Person with us. pag. 79.  
Witsius, to whom Dr. Chauncey and Mr. Williams have appealed in this Controversy, declares it as his Judgement, That Christ was so substituted for the Elect, and so sustained their Person, that there is a Permutation or Change of Persons. Animad. Iren. Cap. 2. § 8. and elsewhere, Christ did not Undertake, or make Satisfaction for any, but them, whose Person he sustained. De Oecon. Faed. lib. 2. cap. 9 § 1.  
To these I will only add Voetius, who having Asserted, That Christ, as our Surety, sustained the Person of all them that shall be saved by him, and so fulfilled all that Righteousness of the Law, which they could not do, tells us, ' That the Remonstrants, who are justly suspected for Leaning too much towards the Socinians, do hold no other Satisfaction, and Merit, than such an appeasing God, the offended Party, as that, by which he is so far satisfied as to be willing to Receive Offenders into favour; and by which Christ has acquired for the Father, a Right of Entering into a New Covenant with Men, from whence (adds he) it follows, That Christ was not truly our Surety, that he suffered not in our Place and Stead; that he did not in a proper Sense Purchase and Procure any thing for us; nor did he, when on the Cross, sustain the Person of the Elect. Select. Disput. Theol. p. 2. de Merito Christi; pag. 133, 134. Calvin also uses it on Gal. 3.13.;  
These few Instances are enough to convince an  Mind, that the Phrase of Christ's sustaining our Person, hath been commonly used, both by the Reformed at Home and Abroad; that it hath been insisted on as necessary to secure the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction from Arminian and Socinian Encroachments, and that it has dared to show its Face in Latin. But my Brother's further Enquiry is, Doth it appear in good Latin? To which I answer.  
5. This Phrase, sustinere Personam alterius, is Cicero all over, for (saith he de Orat.) Tres Personas unus sustineo, meam, Adversarij & Judicis.  
This Matter is so very plain, that how excusable soever my Brother's Instructor may be in making such Mistakes, my Brother himself, who is so good a Latinist, discovering so much Unacquaintedness, not only with Divinity, but with that Learned Language, in which, if in any thing, excepting Wit, he must be esteemed to excel, cannot be entirely excused. For what more evident, than that, if Cicero may be Regarded as a Competent Judge in this Case, sustinere Personam alterius, is such good Latin, that it need not be afraid to Look my Brother in the face. However,  
6. This Brother will have it, that the Phrase of Christ's Sustaining our Person, is unintelligible, fit to Puzzle and Confound men's Understanding, uncapable of a sound Sense, and liable to be interpreted to a Sense and Sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel, as if all that have used it, such as Dr. Bates, Rutherford, Calvin, and the Generation of the Orthodox had designed to confound the World by the Use of barbarous and pernicious Phrases, and had been guilty of the unrighteous Charge, with which the English unitarians have burdened them, when they Reproach them for amusing Mankind with the Jargon of unintelligible Terms and Phrases. And as if such an Accusation had been too mean, my Brother runs higher. For  
7. He exposes the Phrase of Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners, to the greatest Contempt and Scorn, as if it Represented the blessed Redeemer in the most glorious undertaking of fallen Man's Recovery, to be Histrionical. His Words are,   

Faithful Rebuke.  
We are told of Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners:— What can this Expression signify, but that Christ wore the Mask, the Vizer, the Disguise of Sinners? That he was Personatus Histrio? Like a S●●ge Player, that puts on the Person of a King, wh●● indeed he is but some Sorry Fellow.— pag. 53.   

Reply.  
1. That the Phrase of Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners, should be so vilely misrepresented by any one of them, who meet at Little St. Helen's, is equal Matter of Astonishment and Humiliation. And to be Just unto Truth, I must turn unto the Reverend Brethren, who ordinarily Assemble at that Place for their Judgement in this case, whether the Phrase of Christ's sustaining the Person of sinners, can signify nothing but his wearing the Mask, the Vizer, the Disguise of Sinners, as if he had been a sorry Stage Player? This is the Case that deserves, yea, that calls for your determination; for my Brother's words are, What can these Expressions signify, but that Christ wore the Mask, etc. Sirs, the Eyes of a whole Nation are upon you, and the Eyes of the Reformed Churches Abroad, will be upon you, to see whether you will give Countenance to such an Abuse of Truth, and its Renowned Defenders. But to Return to my Brother.  
2. Why, cannot this Phrase signify nothing else? If he had but gained a little smattering in the Civil Law, he would have seen that it could have born another meaning. There he might have Learned, That there is a Moral Person distinct both from a Physical, and Ficta Persona; That a Moral Person is one placed in the State and Office of them, whose Person he sustains; That One single Man being put into the different States and Conditions of many, puts on their Person; That a peculiar Species of Political Persons may be called Representative, because they represent the Persons they bear; for instance, Ambassadors, Vice-Roys, Syntdicks, and the like. And in the more inferior Station, the Tutor sustains the Person of the Pupil, the Guardian of the Minor, and yet none of these are Stage-Players; for to a Representative Person, somewhat more belongs than mere Representation, they are such as do somewhat for the Advantage of them, whose Person they sustain; That these True Moral Persons are distinct from them, who are but Fictae as Stage-Players are: That the Fictae Personae, or Stage Players, are but the Vmbrae, or Shadows of the True. That the Essence of these Fictae Personae, consists only in Representation of the Habit, the Gesture, and the like of another. And as Pufendorf further declares, Veras Personas morales, quas producit Impositio, haudquidquam ita est Libera, quin ejusmodi Qualitates debeat praesupponere, quae aptae sint, ut solidus aliquis effectus in vitâ humanâ inde Eveniat. Et illas, qui circa Constituendas Personas negle xerint per vecordem Petulantiam mortalibus insultare est Censendus. Pufend. de Jure Nat. & Gent. Lib. 1. Cap. 1. Edit. 3. pag. 15.;;;  
That this good Brother therefore, whilst so Unacquainted with what is so much known to every body, who understands this Controversy about Christ's Satisfaction, and his Suretyship, should so far forget himself as to write after the rate he hath done, may very well be a Caution to others to take heed, how they go beyond their last, or, how they suffer themselves to be hurried on a Controversy before their Heats are over, and they have got time to deliberate, and digest what they writ about. Had my Reverend Brother been more cool, had he got more time to consider, and weigh well what he did, he could never have been thus imposed upon to wound his own Reputation as he hath done, in the use he hath made of Milton: Milton, tho' he saith, Salmasium risum pene Legentibus Multiplici Barbarismo concitasse, could not charge Salmasius, with more Instances of Barbarism, than my Brother is fallen into mistakes in the use he makes of Milton. For,  
1. Salmasius Writes not of a Moral Representative Person, but of the Natural Person of the King; there was, saith he, a Parricide Committed on the Person of the King, that is, on his Natural, his own proper Person.  
2. When Milton Banters Salmasius with a Pseudo-Philip, he mentions not a word of a Moral Person nei●her; but speaks only of a mere Ficta Persona, as if Salmasius, by Persona, had meant a Tyrant, under the Vizer, or Mask of a King.  
3. The Reason, why Milton was so severe upon Salmasius, was not so much because Salmasius used the Word Persona, as because he mislook the Ablative for the Accusative Case, and wrote in Persona, when it should have been in Personam Regis.  
But, tho' Salmasius gave a full Answer to every thing, that Milton, on this occasion, Played upon him for, Instancing in several Roman Writers, who have taken the word Persona in a proper Sense, and have used the Ablative Case, as he has done; yet, it not being to my present Purpose, I shall only desire to know of my Brother. What Alliance Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners has, either with the Natural Person of a King; or of any other Man; or with a mere Ficta Persona? For both these are very distinct from a Moral, or Legal Person; and, it is in this Moral or Legal Sense, that the word [Person] is taken, when it's affirmed, that Christ sustained the Person of Sinners, and it signifieth the same with Christ's being their Public Representative. He was Publica Persona moralis Representativa.  
We will therefore, before we dismiss this Phrase, consult the Reverend Mr. Alsop, for I know my Brother hath a great conceit of him; who, in his Antisozzo, p. 689. saith, That Christ is the Representative of all his Spiritual Seed; and in p. 693. All the Spiritual Seed and Posterity of Christ, are by Virtue of a New Law-constitution, made Righteous by the Righteousness of their Spiritual Head, and Representative: To whom I'll add what the Reverend Dr. Bates saith of it, which is, that Christ was to be our Representative, and therefore such a Conjunction between him, and us, must be, that God might esteem all his People to suffer in him; which is no more than what is affirmed in the Close of the first Homily of Justification, when it's said, That Christ is now the Righteousness of all them that truly do believe in him. He for them paid their Ransom by his death; He, for them, fulfilled the Law in his Life: So that now in him, and by him, every True Christian may be called a Fulfiller of the Law:  
But if Christ Represented Sinners in his Death, he must be found in their Quality, suffering as a Sinner; that is, as Mr. Alsop has it, in his Antisozzo, p. 184. That Christ's Soul was made an Offering for sin, Isa. 53.10. Nay, he was made Sin for us, tho' he know no sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 21. And Appearing in this Quality; Death, the Officer of God's Violated Law, might Justly Arrest him, and the Father be pleased to bruise him. For as elsewhere, the same Author, he was a Sinner, that is, by Imputation, pag. 574. Christ could not otherwise be a Sinner, but by imputation, nor we otherwise Righteous than by Imputation.  
Thus, the Lord Christ Suffering and Obeying in the Person of Sinners, as their Public Representative, it is to all intents and purposes as effectual, as if they had done it themselves Personae morales Representativae, quae Personam ali●●um Reserant— hujus vice negotia expediunt, eodom cum effectu, acsi ab illo ipso essent Confectae. Pusend. ubi. sup. II.  
What hath been urged on this Head, makes it Apparent, that the Phrase of Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners, in his Death and Obedience, is very Intelligible and Aptly used by the Orthodox; such as Dr. Bates, Rutherford, Scherzerus, Quenstedius, Nowell, Essenius, Voetius, Rivetus, and many others; ay, the very same thing is used by the Reverend Mr. Alsop, 〈…〉 insisting so very much on Christ's being a Representative, who is one that sustain the Person of them 〈◊〉 Represents: However, it's rejected and exposed to scorn and contempt, by this Brother, who thereby doth, in this instance, prove the Reports to be True; For, it being affirmed in the Report, that this Phrase of Christ's sustaining our Person, is Rejected by them; you see it to be so, and the Reason assigned is, because it could not bear a sound sense, but is liable to be Interpreted to a sense of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel.    

III. A Commutation or Change of Persons between Christ and us, is Denied.  
The Paper sent by some Presbyterian Brethren unto the Congregational, intimating, that the Author of Gospel Truth Stated, had denied a Commutation or Change of Persons between Christ and us; the Reverend Brethren, who meet at Little St. Helen's, delivered their Opposite Sense thus, It is manifest, that when Mr. Williams useth the Phrase [of no Change of Persons between Christ and us] it could not be intended, as a denial of a Change of Persons between Christ and us, in the general Sense.  
But what thinks my Reverend Brother of this? It appears clear enough to me, that he is of Opinion, That Mr. Ws. doth deny a Change of Persons between Christ and us, in every Sense. And yet on the other hand, he seems to argue, as if Mr. Ws. held a Change of Persons between Christ and us, in some Sense, which is Evident from what he saith of a Change and no Change; [tho' he had little Reason to speak of no Change, seeing he is the man that is given so much to Change] and his falling so severely upon the Reporter, for suggesting, that Mr. Ws. Denied a Change of Persons between Christ and us, in every Sense? For he very triumphantly tells us,  

Faithful Rebuke.  
Mr. Ws. did not deny a Change of Person, simpliciter, sed secundum quid; not universally, but restrictively; for the most universal Terms are not always universally to be understood. pag. 38.;   

Reply.  
1. This Paragraph of my Reverend Brother, in Connection with what precedes, and follows it, doth, I confess, look as if he held, that Mr. Ws. did not deny a Change of Persons between Christ and us, in the general sense: And for once we will suppose it, and see how agreeable this Notion is with his way of arguing on this occasion, which is thus,  
2. Mr. Ws. did not deny a Change of Person simpliciter, sed secundum quid, not universally but restrictively. Well then; on this supposal, what follows? Because Mr. Ws. did nor deny a Change of Person, simpliciter, and universally, therefore must he be for a Change of Persons between Christ and us, secundum quid, & restrictively? Yes; It must be so. How then shall we Conciliate this Notion with what is in pag. 9 in which place he thus expresseth himself; Where lies the necessity, that because there was a Change of Christ's Person for sinners, there must be a Change of Person between Christ and sinners? This Passage makes it evident, that in the Judgement of my Brother, these two Phrases [A Change of Christ's Person for sinners;] and [a Change of Person between Christ and sinners] are so very different, and in their Meaning so Remote from each other, that from the Asserting the one, the other cannot be necessarily inferred. How then can, say I, these two Passages be Conciliated? Mr. Ws. must hold a Change of Persons between Christ and us, secundum quid, because he doth not simply and universally deny a Change of Christ's Person; and yet there lies no necessity, that because there is a Change of Christ's Person for us, there must be a Change of Persons between Christ and Us? How shall we set these things together? Or, find in our Brother's Arguings a Defence of the Brethren at Little St. Helen's? It must be thus or not at all, that I can see. Mr. Ws. doth not deny a change of Christ's Person Simply and Universally, therefore in some respect he must be for a change of Person between Christ and Us. That is to say, tho' a Man may hold a change of Christ's Person, without holding a change of Persons between Christ and Us, in any sense; yet Mr. Ws. must be for a change of Persons between Christ and Us, in some sense, because he doth not deny a change of Christ's Person simply, and in every sense. He must own that the Apostle Peter was a good man, in some respect, because he doth not say, that St. Paul was Evil in every respect. The Connection between a change of Christ's Person, and a change of Persons between Christ and Us, is, in the Judgement of my Brother, no other than what is between the Piety of the one Apostle, and the Infirmities of the other. But,  
3. My Brother is in good earnest, only for a change of Christ's Person, without a change of Persons between Christ and Us, as I will soon prove, so that all this noise about a change of Christ's Person secundum quid, and Restrictively, is nothing to the purpose. The question is not, whether there be a change of Christ's Person for Sinners? No Socinian will deny thus much. But, whether there be a change of Persons between Christ and Sinners? The Brethren at St. Helen's say, There is a change of Persons between Christ and Us; at least in the general sense, and they thought, that Mr. Ws. held so too. But, if we may Judge of Mr. Ws. by his Defender, its notorious, that Mr. Ws. doth not hold a change of Persons between Christ and Us, in any sense. That this phrase is of a late contrivance, and must have a Blasphemous sense, as I will show from my Brothers own words.   

Faithful Rebuke.  
The Controversy lieth in some School Terms, or Jargons' of Art, of a very late Contrivance, such as a change of Persons between Christ and Us. p. 30.   

Reply.  
1. This contemptuous Treatment, with which my Brother entertains this phrase, (which as it has been long ago used by the Church of God; so is it most apt to express that great Truth, delivered in the Holy Scriptures, where it's said, Christ died for us) can indicate nothing less than that He Believes not a change of Persons between Christ and Us.  
2. He saith, that it is a phrase of a very late contrivance, and a School Term, whereas the learned Dr. Owen hath proved it to have been used by the Fathers, such as St. Austin, St. chrysostom, Gregory Nyssen, and Justin Martyr, long before the Schoolmen had their rise. Owen of Justif. p. 41, etc. and Witsius proves it too.  
My Brother goeth on to assure us, that this phrase, of a change of Persons between Christ and Us, must have a Blasphemous sense.   

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

Reply.  
1. That my reverend Brother hath delivered himself, in a point of this Importance so hastily, doth greatly lessen him in the Esteem of some of his truest Friends. For he is positive, that the phrase of a change of Persons between Christ and Us, must signify, that we Died for Christ's sins, to Redeem him; Now, seeing this must be the sense of the phrase, I desire to know, whether we did, in any sense, General, or Special, Die for Christ's Sins? If this must be the sense of the phrase; except my Brother believes, that in some sense, we did Die to Redeem Christ, he can't hold a change of Persons between Christ and Us, in any sense, and whatever my reverend Brethren in Little St. Helen's did charitably hope, it's now manifest from this Rebuker, that Mr. Williams by the phrase [of no change of Persons between Christ and Us] did intent the denial of a change of Persons between Christ and Us in the General sense. Yea farther,  
2. That seeing my reverend Brethren at St. Helen's are for a change of Persons between Christ and Us, they must, in the Opinion of the Rebuker, hold, that We Died for Christ's Sins, and Redeemed him, which is Blasphemy. I wish my Brother would think a little on what he Asserts, when he so boldly avers, that the sense of a change of Persons between Christ and Us, must be, that we were Changed for him, so as to Die for his Sins: Never did a Socinus, a Crellius, or any rash English Unitarian charge this phrase, and the generality of the Reformed, with more than Blasphemy. But,  
3. Where is the man, that ever gave such a sense of this phrase? The learned Witsius is persuaded, That never any one, who understood Divinity, no, not a Man in his Wits, did ever Dream of such a Permutation of Persons, as that, which places the Saviour amongst the saved. Iren. Animad. cap. 2. §. 8. And sure I am, that Crellius, tho' he fastened a wrong sense upon the word Surrogation, 'twas not such a Blasphemous one. For, when he saith, There is not a proper Surrogation in Christ's Dying for us, It is (saith he) because a proper Surrogation must be such a Commutation of Persons, that the substituted person is, in all respects, to be in the same place, and state, wherein the other was, and if it refers to Sufferings, than it is when one suffers the very same, which the other was to suffer, he being immediately delivered by the others suffering. But in answer unto Crellius it's cleared, That to endure the same Punishment in all respects, is not necessary to a proper Surrogation. That, if David, (as the Bishop of Worcester has it) had obtained his wish, that he had Died for his Son Absolom, it had not been necessary in order to his Sons Escape, that he had hanged by the Hair of his Head, as his Son; but his Death, tho' in other circumstances, had been sufficient. And therefore, when the Lawyers say, subrogatum sapit naturam ejus, in cujus Locum subrogatur: Coverruvias tells us, it is to be understood secundum primordia●em 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.;; Discourse. of Christ's suff. 〈◊〉. p. 324. But where is the man, who at any time fancied that a Commutation of Persons between Christ a●● Us, must signify, that as Christ suffered for us, 〈◊〉 we suffered for Christ. There is a Commutation between a Surety and the Debtor, which is when the Surety, sustaining the Person of the Debtor, pays his Debts for him; but must this phrase of a change of Persons between the Surety and the Debtor, signify, that the Debtor pays the Debts of his Surety? Is it not sufficient, that it signifieth, that on the Sureties coming into the same Bonds with the Debtor, and Paying the Debt he owed, the Debtor be thereby delivered? The same may be truly said of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he being our Surety, took on him our Person, so that there was a change of Persons between him and us, He paid the Debt we owed, that we might be delivered. Not that we Paid any Debts for Christ, for he owed none. But the Term Surety is also rejected, as what can't bear a sound sense; which may further assure us, That a Change of Person between Christ and Us, is denied in the general sense. Once more,  
4. As the phrase of a change of Persons between Christ and Us is entirely denied, in like manner a New Phrase of a Change of Christ's Person is invented, and put into its place, Tho' what to make of it my Brother is at a loss; and when He goes about to explain it, he is miserably confounded.   

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

Reply.  
1. There is, saith he, an Honest sense of this phrase, [the change of Christ's Person] hath, and it is that, which the R. R. the Bishop of Worcester, with Grotius against Crellius put upon it. He should have said what Grotius, with the Bishop of Worcester against Crellius put upon it; for, tho' Crellius▪ wrote against Grotius, and the Bishop against Crellius, yet Grotius never wrote against Crellius.  
2. What sense did these great Men put upon this phrase, of a change of Christ's person? I can't conceive how they should put any sense upon it, for, 'twas not known, when they wrote on Christ's Satisfaction; nor ever invented till the Gentleman, who engaged my Brother to enter upon this sorrowful Undertaking, started it. And to speak the Truth, 'tis a phrase only adjusted to express no more than what the Socinians do constantly grant; for they say it again and again, that Christ, tho' he suffered not the Punishment due to us for sin, yet he endured Grievous and Dolorous Pains, which is aptly enough expressed, when it's said there was a change of Christ's Person for us, for he was, say these Heretics, Changed from Ease to Pain for our Good. However,  
3. My Brother will have it, that the Bishop hath put a sound sense upon this phrase, viz. It is the Substitution of one Person into the room of another. Doth the Bishop give this Interpretation of the phrase of a change of Christ's Person? Or, doth he not rather think, that there can be no Substitution of one Person into the room of another, without a change of Person between that One, and the other? Thus much undoubtedly he holds. But to Insinuate, that this great Man and Grotius are for a change of Christ's Person, without a change of Persons between Christ and Us, and make that change of Christ's Person to signify a Substitution of Christ in our room, is to represent 'em to be such Self-contradictors, as indeed, my Brother and his Principal are. A change of Christ's Person, without a change of Persons between Christ and Us, must be a Change without a Substitution, for a Substitution there cannot be without a change of Persons between one, and another. To affirm that Christ was Substituted into our Place and Room, and at the same time to deny a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Us, is to Say, and Unsay.  
That I may therefore clear the Truth in this Instance, and Vindicate these learned Men from the charge of denying a change of Persons between Christ and Us, and of affirming a Substitution of Christ into our room, I will give you their own words on this Subject, and add to them what the great Turretine saith of the phrase of a change of Persons between Christ and Us.  
1. That Grotius is for a Change of Persons between Christ and us, I mean such a Change of Persons between the one and the other, as is more than only a Change of a Person. For, 1. Grotius his word is Commutation, which imports, that what is changed hath an essential respect to the Change of another, whether it be meant of Things or Persons, the Commutation must signify more than the Change either of one thing, or of one Person, it must be between Thing and Thing; or between Person and Person; Or, as Crellius saith, between a Thing and a Person: Tho' there may be a Change of one thing only, or of one Person; yet, a Commutation of one thing; or of one Person only is an Implication. 2. The Change, Grotius speaks of, is such a Change, as is per successionem, where one goeth out of the place and another comes into it, which cannot possibly be, if the Change be only of one. As often (saith Grotius) as the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [For] is applied to Persons, it signifieth the coming of one into the room and place of another by Succession. Thus Archelaus is said to Reign 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [For Herod] That is, He Succeeded Herod in the Throne.— Socinus, when pressed, dares not deny, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [For many] doth signify a Commutation.— We were Debitores mortis, from this debt we were discharged by Christ's giving somewhat, to give somewhat, that by it, we may be discharged, is to Pay or Satisfy. This Phrase therefore, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [To give for many] doth always signify a True Commutation; not a Metaphorical One, as Socinus without any Precedent affirms.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For, doth necessarily denote a Commutation. Grot. de Satis. Cap. 9  
Here's not a word of the Change of one Person only; it being a Commutation, which is a Change between one Person and another, that Grotius speaks of, where he, who owed nothing, is come into the place of the Debtor, and paying the debt, the Debtor is discharged, and thereby brought into a state of Liberty and Freedom. Here is, I say, a Commutation, or Change of Persons, which in some respect is mutual, but not in all respects so; It is, as the Learned Dr. Owen has it, a Commutation, or Change of Persons between Christ and us, as to sin and Righteousness, whence Christ is made our sin, and they, who believe, are made the Righteousness of God in Christ, 2 Cor. 5.21.  
2. The Right Reverend the Bishop of Worcester, who, in his Defence of Grotius, against Crellius, hath very Clearly stated the Controversy between the Orthodox and the Socinians, and given the true sense of Grotius: is very particular and distinct in his Asserting and Explaining the Doctrine of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us, in these words, In the matter of Redemption, or where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, Crellius will by no means yield, that there was a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us; but all the Commutation he will allow here, is only a Commutation between a Thing or a Price and a Person; which he therefore asserts, that so there may be no necessity of Christ's undergoing the Punishment of sin, in order to Redemption, because the Price that is paid, is not supposed to undergo the Condition of the Person Delivered by it; which will evidently appear to have no force at all, in case we can prove, that a Proper Redemption may be obtained by the Punishment of one in the room of another; for that Punishment than comes to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Price of Redemption, and he that pays this, must be supposed to undergo Punishment for it: so that the Commutation being between the one and the other, Redeemed by it, here is a Proper Commutation of Persons implied in the Payment of the price. Disc. of Christ's suffer. Ed. 2. pag. 325.;;;;  
In these words the Learned Bishop is very full in asserting a Proper Commutation of Persons between Christ and us; That whereas Crellius denied a Commutation of Persons that there might be no necessity of Christ's undergoing the Punishment of sin, in order to Redemption, the Bishop doth with clearness detect his subtlety; and Learnedly Confute him, making it to appear, that those places of Scripture, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are joined together, do prove a Commutation, not of a price for a Person, but of one Person for another; or which is the same, a substitution of one Person in the room of another; for, these Phrases, [a Commutation of one Person for another] and [a substitution of one Person into the room of another] as the Bishop and all others, acquainted with this Controversy, apprehend, do signify so much the same thing, that whoever yields the one, can't in reason deny the other.  
The Bishop, discoursing of Expiatory Sacrifices, clears it, that the Jews themselves understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Capar, to import such an Expiation as is made by the substitution of one in the Place of another, telling us, that Buxturf has collected many Instances, wherein Capara is taken by the Rabinical Writers for such an Expiation, whereby one was to undergo a Punishment in the place of another; And (saith the Bishop) I insist on these things, only to let us understand, that the Jews never understood Capar in the sense our Adversaries contend for, when applied to an Expiatory Sacrifice, but as implying a Commutation and a Substitution of one in the place of another, so as by the punishment of that, the other in whose room he suffers, may obtain deliverance. Of Christ's Suffer. p. 359, 360. Here you see a Commutation and a Substitution do go together, and as the Bishop adds, Which is the sense we plead for.  
The thing is so very clear, that my Brother could never have misrepresented these Great Men thus, nor indeed have himself fallen into this mistake, if he had not used the word, without framing in his Mind an Idea of its Import. If he had taken the Phrase of a Substitution of one Person into the Room of another, in the Common Sense of the Words, he could not but observe, a Commutation, or Change of Persons between the one and the other, and that if the Change had been but of one, of the Substituted Person only, there could be no room for him to be placed in, that is, there could be no Substitution.  
In a word, from what I have insisted on its manifest, that the Learned Bishop is most express in asserting a Proper Commutation, or Change of Persons between Christ and us: So that my Reverend Brother, when he suggests the contrary, doth really  and abuse the Bishop. But  
3. The Learned Turretine, who is acknowledged by all to have written of Christ's Satisfaction with as much clearness, and strength as most Men, is very large in his Defence of a Commutation, or Change of Persons between Christ and us, against Socinus and Crellius, For (saith he) seeing our Salvation may be considered under a fourfold Respect; (1.) With respect to God, Judging. (2.) As to Christ, Redeeming, and so there is a Permutation, because Christ is made sin, and a Curse for us, that we might be the blessed of God in him. De Satis. par. 1. Disp. 3. § 29. And in the following Disputation, § 5. When it's said Mat. 20.28. Christ gave himself a Ransom for many, the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communissimè, & maximè propriè substitutionem, & Commutationem designat; this preposition [For] doth most frequently and properly denote a Substitution and Commutation: And this Great Man adds, Crellius against Grotius, insinuates, that we are deceived in thinking, that there is a Commutation between Christ and us, in the controverted Places, as if, when we were to give our souls, Christ in our Place gave his Soul, the Commutation is only between a Thing and a Person; between a Price, that is, the Soul and Life of Christ, and us, as Captives and Slaves, but who did ever say, that Christ's blood m●● subrogated for us, and came into our Place▪; To th●● of Crellius, Turretine thus answers, That whilst he endeavours to deceive others, he himself is most shamefully deluded, for these are not our words sed verba Scripturae, but it is the Scripture, quae Commutationem illam inter Christum & nos statuit, dum expressè dicit Christum seipsum dedisse pro multis, which direct to this Commutation, or Change between Christ and us; when it's said so expressly, that Christ gave himself for many, Mat. 20.28 etc.;  
This Phrase of a Change of Persons between Christ and us, is, in the Judgement of the Learned Turretine, a Scripture Phrase, intended by Christ himself when it's said, He gave himself [For] many. I might give a large Catalogue of other Authorities, but, that this is the Doctrine, commonly received by Protestants, is so manifest, that whoever hath any tolerable Acquaintance with their Writings, cannot but be convinced of the Truth of what I do herein affirm, much more should he, who has received a Commission from all the Systematical Divines of Germany, the Voluminous Tigurines and Bulky Low-Dutch, and with those few that are left in England, be sufficienty instructed in the Knowledge of such a Plain and Common Truth.  
These things than have been cleared that my Rebuker doth untruly represent the Phrase of a Change of Persons between Christ and us, to be a Jargon of Art; of a very late Contrivance; that can't bear a sound sense, but must signify Blasphemy; That he, or his guide, has invented a New Phrase of a Change of Christ's Person; that he has Unrighteously Charged Grotius and the Bishop of Worcester, for using it, that the sense he feigns them to put upon it is inconsistent with his denying a Change of Persons between Christ and us; And, do he what he can, he must split either on a Contradiction; or on Blasphemy, or both.  
Thus you see whither my Brother's Heats, or somewhat else has hurried him.  
But it's urged, that tho' a Change of Persons between Christ and us, is denied; yet so long as it's owned, that the Lord Christ suffered in our Place and Stead, the Truth is secured.   

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

Reply.  
1. If Mr. Ws. had taken this Phrase [in our place and stead] in its Ancient and Genuine Sense, it would have argued, that he was sound in the Faith, and that his rejecting the Phrase of a Change of Persons between Christ and us, would have been only an evincement of his want of Learning, and that he understood not the Controversy he wrote of.  
2. That, if this had been the Case, the Reverend Brethren, at Little St. Helen's, would have been in the Right, when they said, Mr. Ws. cannot be understood to deny a Change of Persons between Christ and us, in the general sense because he uses the Phrase of Christ's suffering in our place and stead, which doth signify a Change of Persons between Christ and us. But  
3. He who wrote the Report, had, it's like, some Reasons, moving him to suspect Mr. Ws. that as he did (whether in ignorance or knowingly, I say not) concur with Socinus and Crellius, in denying a Proper Commutation, or Change of Persons between Christ and us; so he did with some high Arminians, and the English unitarians, impose a wrong sense on the Phrase of Christ's suffering in our Place and Stead, who intent by it no more than that Christ suffered for our good, in which sense it doth not, I confess, imply a Change of Persons between Christ and us; nor can the Use of it be sufficient to prove, that he who doth expressly deny a Change of Persons between Christ and us, doth hold a Change of Persons between Christ and us, which was the thing the Reporter pressed. And now the Rebuker has made manifest.  
4. That the Phrase of Christ's suffering in our place and stead, is not taken by them in the sense of the Reformed, for as it's set up in contradistinction to a Change of Persons between Christ and us, so it's made to signify no more than for our good, for which reason the next Charge is,    

IU. That an Heterodox Sense is Imposed on the Phrase of Christ's suffering in our Place and Stead.  
There are, saith Turretine, several Texts of Scripture, in which 'tis asserted, That Christ died for us Rom., 8.32 Rom. 5.6, 8. 1 Pet. 3.18. Heb. 11.9. Mat. 20.28. These and many other such Texts, do either bear but a Frigid, and Jejune sense; or must necessarily import such a surrogation, as signifieth, that Christ did undergo the most cursed Death, not only bono, & Commodo nostro, for our good and profit, But moreover, vice ac Loco nostro, in our place and stead. De Satis. par. 1. Disput. 4. Thes. 2.  
Dr. Edward's, in the Second Part of his Preservative against Socinianism, having asserted, That our blessed Saviour by dying and shedding his blood, underwent that punishment, and submitted to that Condemnation, which our sins had otherwise rendered us, inevitably obnoxious to; and this being in itself a Sufficient Compensation made to the Justice of God, for the Affronts and Injuries offered to his Authority by the violation of his Laws; and likewise being accepted of by him as such: It must from hence necessarily and naturally be effectual to procure for us Pardon, and Impunity. The Dr. having asserted thus much, he adds, Now this being a matter of great Consequence, upon which the whole stress of the Controversy between us, and our Adversaries Leans and Rests, I shall a little further enlarge upon it, and endeavour to make out these two Things, 1. That Christ died for our sakes, and that not only as it signifies for our Benefit and Advantage, but in our room and stead, p. 94.  
What the Dr. hath in this place declared, is nothing else than what the Orthodox universally do, in their Oppugning the Socinian Heresy, in this great Point; For they all hold, that as the Phrase, in our room and stead, signifieth somewhat more than for our good, so it points us to that upon which the whole stress of the Controversy between us and them doth Lean.  
But what is this somewhat more? I answer,  
Turretine, speaking of Christ's Suffering vice nostrâ, in our place and stead, explains it thus, Christ, as our Surety suffered what we had deserved, that by making a full satisfaction to Divine Justice, we might be delivered from eternal Death, and being delivered, might moreover, be made partakers of eternal Life.  
To suffer, you see, vice nostrâ, in our stead, is in the Judgement of this great Man, to suffer as our Surety, and who knoweth not, that a Surety is substituted into the room of the Debtor; that between the one and the other there is a Commutation, or Change of Persons, besides, sustinere vicem nostram is the same with sustinere personam nostram; to suffer in our stead the same with suffering in our Person. Further,  
This phrase [vice nostrâ, in our Stead] is used to interpret that other phrase, [For us] what is done for us, is done in our stead.  
When it's said in Scripture, that Christ suffered [for us,] the meaning is that Christ suffered [in our stead,] and that [For us] doth denote a Commutation, or change of Persons between Christ and Us, I have already shown out of Grotius, the Bishop of Worcester, and Turretine about the Import of the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [For.]  
But in Scripture it's also said, that Christ Died for our sins; and for sinners, and the Controversy between Us, and the Socinians, is, whether [for our sins] must be considered as Importing a Final, or the Impulsive and Meritorious Cause, of Christ's sufferings? Now Dr. Edwards gives the sense of the Orthodox, when He affirms that all those phrases of Dying for sins, and sinners, plainly denote to us, that sin in those places, is not to be considered as the Final, but as the Impulsive Meritorious Cause; But the Socinians will have it, that [for us] and [for our sins] denote only a Final Cause, and signify no more than for our good.  
However my reverend Brother, for reasons best known unto himself, is express, that the phrase of Christ's suffering in our Stead, doth signify no more than for our Good, Ay, that it's Impossible it should signify any more.  

Faithful Rebuke.  
He that by Christ's suffering in our stead, intends He suffered for our good speaks the Truth. p. 37.  
But the Caviller proceeds; in our place and stead (with some) signify no more than for our good why 'tis Impossible they should. p. 35.   

Reply.  
What English Vnitarian can more positively declare, that it is Impossible for the phrase [in our Place, and Stead] to signify any more, than for our good than my Brother has done? And if it can signify no more than for our good, wherein can he, who is of this Opinion, distinguish himself from a Socinian, when he denies a change of Persons to be between Christ and Us, by saying, that Christ Died in our Place and Stead? For, whilst he saith Christ suffered in our Stead, according to this declaration, he must mean no more than that Christ suffered for our good, which may be without His making satisfaction to God's Justice for us. Alas Sirs! If you will allow us no sense of the phrase of a change of Persons between Christ and Us, but that we Died for Christ's sins, this is Blasphemy, when yet, if there be not a change of Persons between Christ and Us, there cannot be a Substitution of Christ's Person into our room, and consequently Christ did not, and could not suffer in our place and stead, which is, He did not, he could not make satisfaction, a Real, Proper, and Full Satisfaction unto God's Justice for us.  
Here is the very natural and irrefragable Consequence which flows from my Brother's denying, a change of Persons between Christ and Us. For (I say) if Christ suffered not in our stead, He could not make Satisfaction for us, as all will grant. If there was not a Substitution of Christ into our place, He suffered not in our place, and if there was not a change of Persons between Christ and Us, there could not be a Substitution of Christ into our place.  
But you'll say, that this is a remote, Consequence, which ought not to be charged on my Brother; well then, we will let it for once pass so; and see whether He is for Christ's suffering in our stead, here our Enquiry is not about the word, without a meaning; nor with a wrong Sense. But, whether as it signifies somewhat more than for our good; it may be said, that Christ suffered in our stead? To which my Brother doth directly answer, That when it's said Christ suffered in our stead, it's Impossible it should signify any more than for our Good: So clear it is, that how honestly soever my Brother may mean, his Words do in this place Express a Denial of Christ's Satisfaction; as openly as the English Unitarians have ventured to do; And yet he doth say, that the Socinians, when they use this phrase, do it Knavishly.   

Faithful Rebuke.  
I had rather have the Socinians speak honestly, tho' with a Knavish meaning, than mean, and speak, both like Knaves— If the Socinians will put an Unsound sense upon sound words, will you quit the sound phrase, because they put a wretched Sense on't? p. 35.   

Reply.  
1. I am willing to think my Brother's Wit hath proved a Snare to him in this place. For, if he be in good earnest in any sense, tho' but comparatively, for honest words with a Knavish meaning, 'twill induce some to suspect, that whilst he seems so zealous for the honest phrase of Christ's suffering in our stead, he hath pitched upon the Socinian, which he calls the Knavish, meaning deliberately, and of choice; And that of Inclination and Design he doth too often so speak, and so write.  
2. Whatever my Brother intends, it's manifest, that whilst he calls the Socinian sense Unsound, Wretched and Knavish, He gives the very sense of this phrase, which the Socinians, who use it, do give; and by it means (if we may judge his meaning by his words) no more than what Socinus, Crellius, and that Fraternity, do consistently with their Denial of Christ's Satisfaction, constantly grant. But must we quit a sound phrase, when ever an Unsound sense is put upon it?  
3. There is no need of quitting the phrase. An Orthodox Explanation will be sufficient to Obviate what mischiefs are likely to arise from their wretched Interpretations; which is the true reason, why I am so much concerned in this affair, and press so much for the Use of these Orthodox Terms and Phrases in their sound sense. For,  
4 It hath been the Practice of some to reject the Use of such phrases, as have been pitched upon by the Godly Learned, and are most apt to express the Truth in the Controverted Points; and when for their Interest to continue their Use, then insiduously to foist in a wretched sense on them; chief for this reason, that they may make the Sufferings of Christ to be but an Act of Dominion; and not properly Penal; they, as well as all others knowing that if Christ's Sufferings be not properly a Punishment, they cannot be satisfactory to God's Justice for our sins; and if Christ did not so suffer in our Place and Stead, as [in our Place and Stead] signify somewhat more than for our good, His sufferings were not properly Penal. And, agreeably hereunto, my Brother as he Rejects the phrases of Christ's sustaining the Person of sinners; of a change of Persons between Christ and Us, and puts an Unsound sense on Christ's suffering in our Place and Stead; so that word, which was in the first Paper, to make it evident, that we esteemed Christ's Sufferings to be a proper Punishment is rejected, as what can't in my Brother's Opinion bear a sound sense, which brings me to the fifth charge.    

V Christ's Undertaking to Answer for sinners, the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works, is turned into Christ's Answering for our Violation of the Law of Works. To this my Brother Replies.  

Faithful Rebuke.  
What is the Nice difference then between Christ's Answering for our Violation of the Law; and Answering for us the Violation? Or, what the Critical difference between Christ's answering for them the Violation; and Answering for their Violation of the Law of Works: He that Answers for me the Violation of the Law, Answers for my Violation of the Law. p. 47.   

Reply.  
1. That Christ suffered for our sins, that is, for our Violation of the Law, the Socinians always acknowledge, but then they are so honest as to tell us, that the Preposition [For] in this Instance denotes only a Final cause, and that the meaning of the phrase of Christ's suffering for our Violations of the Law is the same with that other of Christ's suffering for our good; for which reason the yielding no more than that Christ suffered for our Violation of the Law of Works, cannot be a Bar against Socinian Encroachments, nor a sufficient security to the Truth of Christ's Satisfaction.  
2. My Brother doth in this place make a sad noise about Answering for our Violation of the Law of Works, making close Enquiry, where the Nice difference between for our, and for us; and the Critical difference between for them, and for their closing his Enquiry with a but this it is to be Hypercriticks in Theology, when it's often ridiculous in Phylology, whereas a Grain of Common Sense would have helped him to understand, that here is not one word in all his Nice and Critical Disquisitions to the purpose, and that it was not about the difference between for ours, and for us, for them and for theirs, but that the strest of what she Reporter suggested on this occasion leans on the word [Obligation.] In the first Paper it was, that the Lord Christ did Answer for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works, and it must be observed, that by this phrase an Effectual 〈…〉 was laid in against the most Rotten part of the Socinian Heresy against, Christ's Satisfaction. And the Enquiry, if so the purpose, should have been, what the Nice Difference between answering for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works; and Answering for our Violation of the Law of Works? To which I answer;  
3. There is a very great Difference, as great as is between a Gospel Truth, and a Socinian Error, in an Important Article of the Christian Faith.  
To clear the Truth in this Point, I will refer you to the learned Bishop of Worcester, who truly delivers the sense of the Socinians thus. They assert, That God took occasion by the sins of Men to exercise an Act of Dominion upon Christ in his sufferings, and that the sufferings of Christ were intended for the taking away the sins of men; but they utterly deny, that the sufferings of Christ were to be considered, as a Punishment for sin, or that Christ did suffer in our place and stead, nay they contend with great vehemency, that it is wholly inconsistent with the Justice of God to make one man's sins, the Meritorious Cause of another's Punishment; especially One wholly Innocent, and so that the Guilty shall be Freed on the account of his sufferings. Thus I have endeavoured to give the true state of the Controversy, with all Clearness and Brevity. And the substance of it will be reduced to these two Heads.;  
Thus this learned Bishop. The first Head of the two, being mostly to my purpose, I'll only mention it and somewhat said of it. It is this, Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a Punishment of Sin, or as a mere act of Dominion? for that it must be one or the other of these two, cannot be denied by our Adversaries; for the Inflicting those Sufferings upon Christ, must either proceed from an Anteceding Meritorious Cause, or not. If they do, they are then Punishments; if not, they are mere Exercises of Power and Dominion; whatever Ends they are Intended for and whatever Recompense be made for them. Of Christ Suff.; p. 267.  
Here then lies the Heart of the Controversy between us and them, whether our sins be an Impulsive Meritorious Cause of Christ's sufferings; and Christ's sufferings a proper Punishment for our sins? If our sins be the Meritorious Cause of Christ's sufferings, it necessarily follows, that Christ bore the Punishment of our sins in a proper sense.  
An Impulsive Cause, in a remote sense, as though our sins were a mere Occasion of Christ's Dying Crellius granted. But as the Bishop observes, We Understand not an Impulsive Cause in so remote a sense,— but we contend for a nearer and more proper sense, viz. that the Death of Christ was primarily intended for the Expiation of our sins, with a respect to God. and not to Us, and therefore our sins as an Impulsive Cause are to be considered as they are so displeasing to God, that it was necessary for the Vindication of God's Honour, and the deterring the World from sin, that no less a sacrifice of Atonement should be offered than the Blood of the Son of God. 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 269.  
And as they own a sort of no Anteceding Impulsive Cause, which is but the mere Occasion of Christ's suffering so they'll call Christ's sufferings a Punishment, but then they take Punishment only in an improper sense, Paenam improprie dictam fatamur. So Crellius, For, saith He, What Christ suffered hath so near a Cognation and Alliance with true Punishment, that the word Punishment; and those other phrases used in describing proper Punishments, may for the greater Elegancy be taken into our Discourses about Christ's Passion. The Agreement there is between Christ's sufferings and a proper Punishment is very considerable. First in their matter, for both are afflictive, then in the Impulsive Procatartic cause: which is sin in the sense the Bishop observed, and at last in the Effect, and End, which is to remove guilt, and bring men off from their sins, tho' in the manner there is some difference. But then the great Difference is as to the Formal Reason of Punishment, which not being found in Christ's sufferings they can't be properly a Punishment. Crel. Respons. ad Grot. de satisf. ad cap.; 1.  
Thus, what Approaches soever they seem to make towards the Truth, they utterly deny that sin is in a proper sense the Meritorious Cause of Christ's sufferings; Or, that Christ's sufferings are a proper Punishment.  
There are amongst the Arminians also, some who agree too much with the Socinians in denying Christ's sufferings to be properly a Punishment, they holding them to be rather Dolorous than Penal, who are justly called Socinianizing-Arminians; such as Episcopius, Carcellaeus, and Limborch, who do their utmost to corrupt the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction. They own that Christ was Punished Loco nostro, in our Place and Stead, and yet deny his Sufferings to be properly Penal, allowing 'em to be but Improperly, or Analogically a Punishment. That the sufferings of Christ, as to the Reason of the thing, were a Natural Evil, endured for Sin, as sin was the Occasion, or remote Cause, and may be aptly enough called Punishment. But they would rather call them a Vicarious Punishment, as they are Vice Poenae, in the Room, and Stead of a proper Punishment.  
Gerardus Vossius, in a Letter to Grotius, is very express, that in this point Episcopius differed from him. For, Tho' He owned that Christ's Sufferings had a respect unto God and not only, unto men; yet the Grand Question is, saith He, what respect? As for the Opinion commonly Embraced, viz. that Christ bore that Punishment, which was due to us, he could by no means admit, because than He thought Christ must have been plunged into despair, and suffer the very Torments of Hell; and that Pardon of sin would be made hereby Impossible— That his Notion of satisfaction was that as, in the Old Testament, sins were Pardoned on the Offering of a Sacrifice without any suffering of a Punishment; even so, in the New Testament on the Intervention of Christ's Sacrifice, which abundantly excels them under the Old, are all our sins forgiven us: That herein, lay the Error of Socinius, that He Denied Christ's Sacrifice to be properly Propitiatory. Epist. Praest. Viror. Ep.; 278. Thus far Episcopius, who, in his public Writing used more Caution, yet to his Particular Friend He thus freely opens himself, and Limborch thought it meet to acquaint the World with it, Curcellaeus, who succeeded him in the Professors Chair, declares freely, That Christ did not Satisfy, as is commonly apprehended, by suffering all those Punishments, which we had deserved by our Sins. First, because suffering Punishment belongs not to the Reason of a Sacrifice, and hath nothing Common with it. Sacrifices are not Debitorum Solutiones, the Payment of Debts, as appears from the Legal Institutions. Curcel. Relig. Christ's Instit. lib. 5. c. 19 § 14, 15.  
Lemborch holds the same Opinion, It may be in a certain sense said, that Christ was Punished for us, as there was laid upon him a Vicarious Punishment, that is Affliction, quae Poenae vicem sustenuit, in the place and stead of punishment. Limb. Theol. Christ. Lib. 3. c. 22. § 2.  
4. Having thus stated the Controversy between the Orthodox and the Socinians, together with Episcepius and his Followers, I will consider the Enquiry; What is the Nice Difference between Christ's Answering the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works; and his Answering for our Violation of the Law of Works? And desire my Brother to consider, that a Man may subscribe to this Assertion, That Christ answered for our Violation of the Law of Works, consistently with his denying Christ's Sufferings to be properly penal: But ●eeing, the violated Law of Works obliged unto a proper punishment, Christ could not Answer for us the Obligations of this Violated Law any otherwise than by suffering a Proper Punishment for our sins; So that, tho' an insisting on Christ's Answering for our Violation of the Law of Works, secures not this Great Truth of Christ's suffering a proper Punishment for our sins; yet his Answering the Obligations of the Violated Law, doth it most effectually. But,  
5. My Brother assuring us, that no Terms or Passages were waved and passed by but such as could not bear a sound Sense, and this word [Obligations] which establishes Christ's suffering a proper punishment being waved, is it not a plain Indication, that my Brother hath at least a concern for them, who with the Socinians and Episcopians deny the Sufferings of Christ to be a proper Punishment, or Satisfactory to God's Justice for our sins, or hath in ignorance spoken all this?  
6. It's now time therefore, to gather up what my Brother hath said to the shaking the Foundations of Christ's Satisfaction; which is so very much, that an English Vnitarian, in the way now esteemed most 〈◊〉 to succeed, could do no more towards it.  
If any one of them hath made it his Province to expose the Assertion of a Necessity of a Commutation, or Change of Persons between Christ and us, hath rejected the Phrases, of Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners; of a Change of Persons between Christ and us; of laying the guilt of our Iniquities upon Christ; of his Answering the Obligations of the violated Law of Works; of his bearing our sins in his own body, as our Surety, and feeling the weight of God's wrath in the punishment of our sins transferred upon him, and expose them all as what can't bear a sound Sense, but are liable to be Interpreted to a Sense, and sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel; and Ridiculing some of them as Jargons' of Art, of a very late Contrivance; fit to amaze, puzzle and confound men's Understandings, affirming, that their sense and meaning must be Blasphemy, and that the Phrase of Christ's suffering in our stead, cannot signify more than for our good: Should, I say, an English Socinian start up and write after this rate, would you not be apt to say he hath done his part to break down the Barriers of our holy Religion in the Article of Christ's Satisfaction, he hath made many bold strokes, and done his most to subvert this Glorious Doctrine. Why, these things are done by my Reverend Brother; who, I hope, was not ware of what he was adoing, when he wrote his Rebuke, but I'll not aggravate, I will only endeavour to Inculcate.  
1. That the Rejecting so many sound Terms and Phrases, established by a long Prescription in the Church of God, as most apt to explain the Truth and and distinguish it from Error, may be justly esteemed as a good Reason for such an one, as observed thus much in a calm way and manner to do his most for the securing the endangered Truths.  
2. That the Rejecting them for the Reasons mentioned in the Rebuke may Justly Alarm the Orthodox amongst us, and Justify their insisting on a fuller security for Truth than the third Paper Affords. But I shall have a fair Occasion to press this Consideration some what further, in my Answer to the following Enquiry.    

VI Why so many Orthodox Terms, and Phrases, which were in the First Paper, are left out of the third?  
Although I have already suggested what my Brother has said of the Reason; yet, it being a Matter of great Importance, I will, in this place, be more full, in setting before you what he saith of the Mature Deliberation, and Just Reasons, upon which they have Rejected those Phrases; and then show who are herein imitated, and what are the most likely Consequences of such a Practice.  
As to what my Brother saith of the brethren's Rejecting these Phrases, with deliberation and for just Reasons, take his own Words.  

Faithful Rebuke.  
5. Those Brethren, who had their Heads, their Hands, and Hearts too, in Drawing, Dressing, and signing the former Paper, when they had heard the Reason, and Arguments of the whole Body; where all Matters were managed, not in a hasty and praecipitate way, but with the greatest calmness, by slow paces, with great liberty and freedom of debate, and being now dis-incumbred from the Counterpoise of Oppositions, or Insinuations; might, and did see Just Reasons to alter the Phrases, and new-model some Expressions.;  
6. And hereof you may be fuller Assured, inasmuch, as those individual Nine Brethren, who for, and in hopes of Peace, had signed the former Paper, had their Hands, and Heads, and Hearts too, in the Forming, Wording, and Assenting to this third: Nor did they herein alter their Judgements, or vary in the least from their Zealous Desires of Peace and Union; only they now saw this last Paper was in all things the same with the former, saving in some few Passages, and Expressions, which carried a Face of some dangerous Tendencies; which, however they might escape the Notice of Private Brethren, could not escape the Observation of the many Discerning Heads, who with utmost Application, set themselves to prevent any Inconvenience, that might arise to the Truths of the Gospel.— The Brethren did unanimously agree to grant as much as the Sound Sense could bear; and modestly to wave and pass by the other, which was liable to be Interpreted to a Sense and Sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel: pag. 29, 30.;;;   

Reply.  
I. My Brother here gives a Character of such as did Sign the first Paper; and of them, who Form, Worded and Assented unto the Third: The former are Private Brethren, who, it's like, were so hasty in what they did, that some Passages of a dangerous Aspect escaped their Notice: The other are the whole Body, many Discerning Heads, whose observation, the dangerous Passages could not Pass; who gave such Reasons and Arguments to their Private Brethren, as convinced them, that there were Just Reasons to Alter the Phrases and new Model some Expressions. Now, that you may the more rightly Judge of this Matter, I will give you the Names of these Private Brethren; who were so Hasty and Inconsiderate, tho' when with the Body, so thoughtful as to receive much light from the strong Reasons of the many Discerning Heads: They were, Dr. Bates, Mr. How, Mr. Stretton, Mr. Alsop, Mr. Shower, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Slauter, Mr. Quick, Mr. Evans, Mr. Veal, Mr. Hill of Rotterdam, Mr. Glascock, and three or four more. The Names of the many Discerning Heads, I need not give, and therefore I will leave the Reader to Pause a while on the Representation my Brother hath given of this Matter, and go on to consider what he further saith of them.  
II. The Private Brethren, such as Dr. Bates, Mr. How, etc. received so much light from the many Discerning Heads, that as they might, so they did see Just Reasons to alter the Phrases, and New Model some Expressions, ay, to wave, and pass by some Phrases, as what could not bear a sound sense, but were liable to be Interpreted to a sense and sound of Malignity to the Gospel.  
In this place 'twill be Expedient that we compare the Two Papers, and see what are the Waved, and Altered Passages.  

The First Paper.  
1. Bearing with One another's Infirmities, and Different Sentiments about, Logical, or Philosophical Terms, or merely Humane Forms of Speech, in matters of Lesser weight.   

The Third Paper.  
1. Bearing with One another's Infirmities, and Different Sentiments in matters of Lesser weight, not contending about Logical, or Philosophical Terms, or mere Humane Forms of Speech.   
The Alteration in this place, how Insignificant soever, it may seem to some, is in a point, that Affects the very Vitals of our Holy Religion; For, by this Change, the words [in matters of lesser weight,] being transferred [from Logical Terms] unto [different sentiments] a matter of another kind, with an addition of [not Contending about Logical, or Philosophical Terms, etc.] without the Restriction [in matters of lesser weight] a Liberty to contend about these Terms in matters of greater weight, is denied, and the Assenters unto the Third Paper are brought under an Obligation to sit still, as silent Spectators, whilst the Episcopians, and Socinians are Exposing to the greatest Reproach the Logical, and Philosophical Terms and Humane Forms of Speech, pitched upon by the Church of God to Explain the Foundation Points both of Revealed and Natural Religion.  
To clear thus much, I desire to Inculcate these following Particulars. 1. That it's an Unexpressible Grievance unto all sorts of Heretics to observe in the Church of God a strict Adherence to those Logical, or Philosophical Terms that have been chosen, and settled, as what do most aptly and clearly explain those glorious Truths, discovered unto us by the Light of Nature, and Scripture Revelation; and clearly distinguish these most Important Truths from Error.  
2. That it hath been the way of Heriticks to quarrel with these Terms, because not found in the Letter of Scripture. Tho' the Controversy is about the sense of Scripture, ay, about the sense of every Text is there a Controversy with one Heretic or other; yet, will they have us to confine ourselves to Scripture phrases, in Explaining Scripture phrases.  
Tho' it's undoubtedly True, that there is no better way to Understand the genuine sense of Scripture, than by comparing Scripture with Scripture, yet it's no less True, that it's not so easy to convey the True sense unto others without the help of Humane Forms of Speech.  
Amongst many others it's well observed by the learned Mr. Norton of New-England, that the most Pestilent Doctrines have often times been communicated in the Language of Scripture; which was the reason, why St. Hierome speaking against the Heresies of Ebion, Photinus, Martion, and Basilides, did say, Think not the Gospel to be in the words of the Scripture, but in the sense. And Mr. Norton adds, who is Ignorant, that the Arians speak Heresy by that Text, The Father is greater than I, Joh. 14.28.  
But Biddles Scripture Catechism is an illustrious Evincement of this Truth, for there he hath in Scripture words, delivered very gross Errors, for instance, that God hath a similitude, or shape whose Essence is confined to the Heavens, and the like; as also, that God is not Omniscient, for he knows not what will be hereafter; Whereas, in Truth, God is Omniscient, and Incomprehensible too. And though these Terms are not in the Letter of Scripture; yet the things contained in these Terms and Phrases, are Expressly in the Scriptures. And as the learned Bishop of Worcester affirms. It is the Wiser and Safer Course to keep in the same Way, which the Christian Church hath used, ever since she hath agreed to express her sense in such Terms, which were thought most proper for the purpose.— And since no other can be found more significant and proper for that End, it looks like yielding too Great Advantage to our Adversaries, to give up the Boundaries of our Faith. Pref. to the Vindie, of the Prin. p. 2, 3. But I do also Observe,  
3. That the first Attempts made by them, who forsake the Faith, are on these Terms and Phrases. Thus the Socinians, (as I have shown in my Growth of Error) did about the year 1562. labour to engage the Ministers in some parts of Poland to Abstain from the use of Philosophical Terms, or Humane Forms of Speech, and as Stonius Observes, it was this year concluded in a Synod at Pin●zow, that the Ministers should not use any Philosophical Modes of Speech, such as the Trinity, Essence etc. but that every one should confine himself to the Terms used in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles, and in the Apostles Creed. p. 175.  
Episcopius, and his Followers took the same Method, when they Attempted to subvert the commonly received Doctrine about Christ's Satisfaction. In a Letter to Schotlerus, he confesses, 'twas charged upon him, that he used other phrases, than those received by the Church, and such as seemed to Favour the Socinian Cause, and the Truth of the charge against him he does not deny. Curcellaeus doth the same, and has a Dissertation against Maresius, wherein he defends the laying by of sundry phrases, used by the Church of God, because not found in the Letter of Scripture, but both Episcopius and Curcellaeus, did not content themselves in the laying aside the Use of these phrases, but went on to oppose the Truths Explained by 'em, and at last lodged themselves in the Socinian Tents, and are Justly, by Sandius, placed in the Anti-Trinitarian Bibliothec.  
4. As it has been the Practice of Heretics to make their first Attempts on Orthodox phrases, that they may the more effectually Introduce their Error; in like manner, it has been the care of them, who are sound in the Faith, to keep up those Banks or Barriers, and to Defend these phrases, as the Boundaries of the Truth. When Gregorius Pauli, and many others of the Socinian Faction struggled for the Disuse of all phrases, not expressly delivered in Scripture, and Sarnicius with Divers others so earnestly contended for their Use, as they did most clearly express the Truth, and distinguish it from Error, that Gregory's party found it most Prudent to admit of their Use. And the Orthodox in all Ages, would by no means part with these phrases.  
5. In Imitation of our Forefathers, and according to the constant Practice of the Church, before and since the Reformation, the Reverend Brethren, who sent the first Paper unto the Congregational, Observing the Charge to be, that the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction was corrupted, did in the said Paper, single out, and pitched upon those Terms, Expressions and Phrases, which have been Used by Protestants, to Explain this Doctrine. Such as a Change of Persons between Christ and Us; Christ's taking on him our Person; and coming into our 〈◊〉 and Stead, to answer for us the Obligation of the V●●●●red Law of Works; the laying the 〈…〉 our iniquities on Christ; and that Christ 〈…〉 as our Surety, did feel, and 〈…〉 sure of God, and the Weight of his Wrath 〈…〉 as men found in the Faith, they 〈…〉 matter of Offence to their 〈◊〉 Brethren But  
6. How 〈…〉 these phrases are, how apt to explain the Truth, and how Necessary soever to distinguish it from Error, it cannot be admitted by others, for the 〈◊〉, and secret Influences of that very man, who 〈…〉 quished the commonly Received Doctrine of Protestants, in this Instance, are so powerful, that these phrases must be rejected; and what cannot but astonish our Brethren in the Country, the Orthodox in the Church of England, Scotland and the Reformed abroad, they are rejected, as phrases, that cannot be safely retained; that can't bear a sound sense; but are liable to be Interpreted to a sense of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel, which is such a bold stroke, so deep a wound given the Doctrine commonly passing in regard to Christ's Satisfaction, as hath not been given it by any but by such as Episcopius, Socinus, and their Admirers; and it's carried on with so High a Hand, that whoever dares Appear to Detect their Attempt, tho' with the greatest softness of Expression, must be cried down as a Firebrand and a Disturber of our Peace, and the very Man, who once Pleaded for the Faith, is turned with much severity against his Orthodox Brethren, and as if this had been the time to follow the Blow, and strike at all, it is Inserted as a Term of Peace, in the Paper, sent from Little St. Helen's, that there must be,  
7. No Contending about Logical, or Philosophical Terms; or merely humane Forms of Speech; tho' about Matters of the greatest Importance, as appears by their removing from this Place the limitation which in the first Paper, was [in matters of Lesser Weight.]  
That I may, in this place, discharge my Conscience with the greatest Impartiality, I do declare, 1. That I Charge not the Brethren at Little St. Helen's, as a Body, for I am Persuaded the greatest Part of them are not ware of the Design, or Tendency of this Alteration; and that the Chief Contriver doth gaudere sinu, to Observe, how he imposes on them; and how he has Tooled my Rebuker, who, I would hope, has his Heart as yet untainted with the Errors, delivered in his Rebuke. However▪  
2. It is most evident to me, that as they will Answer it in the great Day of the Lord, they are under the strongest Bonds of doing their utermost to put a Check to those Invasions made on the Truth by the Methods, used by the Contriver of the third Paper. I speak of them, who are convinced of the truth of the Commonly received Doctrine of Protestants, for by Countenancing this Paper, they in Fact Renounce what they Believe to be True; and by approving of this Alteration, which will by no means allow of our contending about Logical or Philosophical Phrases, tho' in Matters of greatest Weight, they open a gap for the letting in all manner of error; For  
8. They, by Assenting to this Paper, have put in a Bar against their contending for any Logical Phrases, and when the Socinians shall expose to Contempt and Ridicule some Phrases, which express, what is Essential to the Principles of Natural as well as of Revealed Religion, they must break their Promise, or be silent; suffering the very Deist to carry all before him.  
To clear thus much 'twill be sufficient to mention what Biddle says on this Topick; I'll give you his own Words, Examine therefore the Expressions of God's being Infinite, and Incomprehensible; of his being a simple Act; of his subsisting in three Persons; of a Divine Circumincession; of an eternal Generation; of an eternal Procession of an Incarnation; of an Hypostatical Union,— of Original Sin; of Christ's making satisfaction to God for our Sins, both past, present and to come; of Christ's fulfilling the Law for us; of Christ's being punished of God for us; of Christ's merits, his meritorious Obedience, both Active and Passive,— of Christ's enduring the wrath of God for us,— of Apprehending and Applying Christ's Righteousness to ourselves by Faith; of Christ's being a Surety; of Christ's paying our Debts; of our Sins imputed unto Christ; of Christ's dying to appease the wrath of God— of infused Grace,— of irresistible workings of the Spirit in bringing men to believe— of spiritual Desertions, etc.— And thou shalt find that as these Forms of Speech are not owned by the Scripture, so neither the things contained in them. So far Biddle in his Preface to his Catechism.  
That the things contained in these Forms of Speech are most plainly and expressly revealed in Scripture, and that God is Infinite and Incomprehensible, made known by the Light of Nature, is certain; But that the Phrases themselves are not Literally in the Scriptures must be acknowledged, and if we must not contend about the  Phrases, will not the Followers of Biddle and the English unitarians Triumph over us? And should this Paper pass as the Sense of the Dissenters, would they not provoke unto it, to the great grief of many sound and godly Divines in the Church of England, as well as of our Country Brethren?  
But, I will say it again, for I believe it to be true, that there are not five of the Brethren who meet at Little St. Helen's, who are ware of this and that, on a review, they will never bring themselves under the Obligation of not contending for the  Phrases, tho' but humane Forms of Speech, suited to explain the necessary Articles of Religion, so far is my Brother from the Truth, when he saith, that the third Paper was with that deliberation, slow paces, etc. Composed.  

The First Paper.  
2. Although Regeneration, Repentance towards God, Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and holy Conversation, are by God's express word manifestly necessary to the Salvation of a Sinner, yet that none of these, etc.   

The Third.  
2. That altho' the express word of God do Assert the necessity of Regeneration to our entering into the Kingdom of God, and Requires Repentance, that our sins may be blotted out, and Faith in Christ, that we may be justified, and holiness of heart and life, without which we cannot see God; Yet that none of these, etc.   
It will be expedient, that I do in this place observe,  
1. That according to what my Brother declares again and again, it must be supposed that this Passage in the first Paper can't be safely retained, that it can't bear a Sound Sense, but is liable to be interpreted to a Sense and Sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel, and therefore upon mature deliberation waved, and another Passage put into its place; whereas, in my Opinion, no one, that is not of the worse sort of Antinomians, even a Libertine, who denys Regeneration, Repentance towards God, Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and Holy Conversation, to be necessary to the Salvation of Sinners, dares say, that this Passage can't bear a Sound Sense, etc. and therefore must be Altered.  
That my Brother has outrun himself, and all his old avowed Principles, in this way of Writing, is enough to awaken us all to take heed, how we do in the least Point, turn aside from the Truth, nothing being more manifest than that uno absurdo dato mille sequuntur.  
But tho' my Brothers Writings are in this Particular so extravagantly Erroneous, I would willingly hope, 1. Better things of him, and in Charity will place this Mistake amongst his Incogitancies, concluding that when he said, what alterations were made, were upon Just Reasons, and what was waved could not Bear a Sound Sense, he did not think on the passing by this Passage, it being very common for Men in a heat to forget themselves.  
2. My Brother doth perhaps look on this Passage, in the first Paper, not to contain in it, so full a Testimony against Antinomianism, as he could wish, and thinks needful, which I should have more firmly believed, in case he had not delivered himself so positively as above: However, I think it not amiss to show what fell under Consideration, when this Point was to be stated.  
1. It was thought most conducive to the great end, to avoid as much as possible, a running into the Discussion, and Determination of Differences of lesser moment, which were agitated amongst the godly Orthodox themselves, and therefore to keep to those Matters which did more nearly concern the Essential Articles of Faith.  
2. There being a Controversy amongst the Reformed themselves about the order, between Faith and Repentance, as which hath the Antecedence and Priority; and whether Repentance was a necessary praerequisite to pardon, the Composers of the First Paper waved the determination thereof; which was no more than was done in the Composing the Seven Propositions which were renounced to the end we might express our abhorrence of Antinomian Errors; a brief account of which will be needful, not only to detect my Brothers mistakes touching matter of Fact in this one point, but to enlighten others in this Affair.  
It must then be carefully minded, 1. That the Renunciation of Antinomianism, of which my Brother speaks, pag. 23. was drawn up by some Brethren of both Persuasions; of which number the very Person, my Brother takes to be the Reporter, was One, who faithfully transcribed the seven Propositions agreed unto, and by Direction carried 'em unto the Brothers at Little St. Helen's, where he Read them, and expressed his great satisfaction of the Renunciation, as several of them, who do now ordinarily meet there can Testify.  
2. That whereas Mr. Williams insisted on the Assertion of the necessity of Repentance in order to Pardon, about which the Orthodox have different Sentiments, 'twas at last agreed to assert the necessity of Repentance, and leave this Controversy undetermined, which was done by declaring against what was Opposite in this matter unto the Assembly, as you have it in the fourth Proposition, where we renounce the Doctrine of them who hold [That any may expect Pardon without Repentance.] To return,  
3. The only difference that I can see between the First and Third Paper, in this particular, must be in these words, [That God requires Repentance that our sins may be blotted out] which look as if the determining this Controversy had been designed: The reason why I can see no other difference is, because I know that the Congregational do hold, That the Express Word of God doth Assert the necessity of Regeneration to our entering into the Kingdom of God; and Faith in Christ that we may be Justified, and Holiness of Heart and Life, without which we cannot see God, for these things are all included in what is in the first Paper. And in case my Brethren, who glory in their confining themselves unto Scripture Expressions, will take in the whole verse, they refer unto, when they say [That God requires Repentance that our sins may be blotted out,] which is [When the times of Refreshing shall come from the Presence of the Lord] I know not a Man among the Congregational, that will scruple to Express his Assent unto this Clear and Full Testimony against Antinomians in the Fundamental Article of Justification: And, if any of them do agree with Polanus, and many more sound Protestants in this Undecided Controversy, it cannot advantage the Antinomians, especially seeing they hold, That none may expect Pardon without Repentance.  

First Paper.  
3. Yet that none of these, or any work done by men, or wrought by the Spirit of God in them, is under the Notion of Subordination, or under any Denomination whatsoever any Part of that Righteousness, etc.   

The Third.  
3. Yet that none of these, or any work done by men, or wrought by the Spirit of God in them, is, under any Denomination whatsoever any Part of that Righteousness, etc.   
1. In this place the words [Under the Notion of Subordination] is waved, and as my Brother will have us believe, upon the weightiest Reasons, as what can't bear a sound sense. And yet,  
2. The following words which are left in [under any Denomination whatsoever] should methinks be comprehensive enough to take in under 'em [the Notion of Subordination] for a Subordinate Righteousness falls within the circle [of any Denomination whatsoever.] But,  
3. My Brother can't endure to swallow a Contradiction, which this must be, in case the phrase [under the Notion of Subordination] cannot bear a sound meaning, as it cannot in the Opinion of my Brother, because it's waved; and yet is comprised under [any Denomination whatsoever] which must bear a sound sense because not passed by, for which reason we must endeavour to save it from a Contradiction, which cannot be but by restraining this Universal Term [Under any Denomination whatsoever] thus, [under any Denomination whatsoever that can bear a sound sense,] but [the Notion of Subordination] not being able to bear a sound sense it's not to be taken within the verge of under any Denomination whatsoever.] Well then,  
4. If this phrase [under the Notion of Subordination] can't bear a sound sense, it must be because they hold a Subordinate Righteousness in our Justification, where it must be noted, that here is the mention only of one justification, which carrieth in it the Pardon of sin, the accepting of sinners, and an Entituling them to Eternal Life; and that this Justification is not only by Christ's Righteousness, but also by a Subordinate one, of our own, they both concurring to our Justification, the one Principally, the other Subordinately. This is the only way, that I can think on to fetch my Brother off from a Contradiction, and yet do I what I can I must at last lodge him under a Contradiction. For,  
5. This Third Paper doth expressly declare, that we are Pardoned, Accepted, and Entitled to Eternal Life only by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, and received by Faith alone. But to be Pardoned, Accepted, and Entitled unto Eternal Life only by Christ's Righteousness, and yet to be Pardoned, Accepted or Entitled to Eternal Life by a Subordinate Righteousness of our own is an Implication. Being thus necessitated to leave my Brother in these dark shades, I will return to the private Brethren, such as Dr. Bates, Mr. 〈◊〉, Mr. Alsop, and the rest of this denomination, to see what Influence that light, which they received from the many discerning Heads hath had on them, which my Brother assures me was very great. For, he saith,  
III. Those Individual nine Brethren, who for, and in hopes of Peace had signed the former Paper, had their Hands, their Heads, and their Hearts too, in the forming, wording, and assenting to this Third— For they now saw in the former some few passages and Expressions, which carried a F●●e of some dangerous Tendencies; which, however they might escape the Notice of Private Brethren could not pass the observation of many discerning Heads.;  
In Examining this Passage, it must be remarked.  
1. That these Private Brethren, every one of the Individual Nine, saw the Face of some dangerous Tendencies, in the First Paper, which they had formerly Subscribed, and therefore must be now supposed to Repent of that; but whether this be true or not, I appeal to their own Consciences, for, till this Brother published his Rebuke, I could not hear one word to this purpose, some of 'em assuring me, that the Alterations between the two Papers were but very Minute, such Tan●●lla as were not worth a contending about, and not of such things as were of dangerous Tendencies.  
2. Several of the Nine have very lately declared their Approbation of the First paper, and one of 'em in particular told me, that my Brother was guilty of a Notorious Falsehood in saying, that the Individual Nine had their Hands, their Heads, and Hearts in the forming, wording and assenting to the Third Paper, for he had neither Hand, nor Head, nor Heart in it.  
3. If the Individual Nine had a Hand, a Head and a Heart in composing the third, and in Waving the Phrases, rejected, because they could not bear a sound sense, then must Dr. Bates, who is one of the Nine Private Brethren. be for a waving the Phrases, of Christ's sustaining the Person of sinners; and suffering the wrath of God as our Surety, as what could not bear a sound sense, and if it be so, I do humbly conclude that 'tis his Duty to answer that part of his Harmony, where these Phrases are used, and the Doctrine they express is Asserted and Defended.  
But sure I am, that I have heard him say, that the Harmony was the fruit of Fervent Prayer of his closest studies, and most Impartial Examination, not only of the Orthodox, but of their Adversaries, and that, tho' 'twas his resolution to follow light, and if he could meet with good reasons to convince him, he was in an Error, he would fall under it, yet hitherto he has met with no reasons to move him to change his mind, and to this purpose he has spoke since the composure of the Third Paper.  
To close my Answer to this Enquiry, it's manifest to me that my Brother and his Teacher are for rejecting the above mentioned Orthodox Terms and Phrases, because they have forsaken the Protestant Doctrine, as ordinarily conceived by them. Tho' I have put my Charity on the outmost stretch in favour of my Rebuking Brother, yet must I say, That, if he doth not see the Tendencies of a rejecting the aforesaid Phrases, upon the Reasons he has assigned, to be destructive of the Protestant Faith in the Article of Christ's Satisfaction, He is not the sittest Man in the World to enter on a Controversy of this kind; and yet I must at the same time acknowledge, that the more unmeet any one is to enter on this Controversy, the more likely he is to be imposed on by his more seeing guide, who doth, in the instance before us, as the nature of the thing speaks, leave the Reformed; and nothing short of this can be the import of my Brothers arguings in his Rebuke.  
This Assertion I do confess leads me to the consideration of the seventh Enquiry, which is,    

VII. In what Confessions are the Terms or Phrases, so much contended for to be found?  
My Brother is very confident, that the Phrase of a Change of Persons between Christ and Us, and his taking on him the Person of Sinners is not in any one Confession of Faith. For, saith he,  

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

Reply.  
1. This strong Assurance of my Brother brings to my remembrance a passage I have met with in Mr. baxter's Catholic Theology of a Jocular Contemptuous Defendant; who, whilst He pretended to have a Commission from all the Systematical Divines of Germany, was so Charitably Uncharitable as to say, That never a man in his Wits affirmed, That the Righteousness of Christ was the Formal Cause of our justification. (Append. to the Praemun. par. 2.) whereas, on the other hand, Davenant, who was far from being a Madman, or from representing the Protestants to be so, doth assure us, That it is the common sense of all our Divines, that the Righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, is the Formal Cause of our Justification, and as to what pertains to the thing itself, not one Protestant Divine has either spoke, or written otherwise. Praelect. de Justit. hab. c. 22.  
This Overbold, Rash, and Untrue Assertion of the Jocular Defendant, ran in my Mind as soon as I entered on the Examination of what the Rebuker here says, not only because He has as little reason for what he says, but upon another account. For,  
2. Do we in good earnest press for what hath not the countenance so much as of One Confession of Faith? This would really be hard, and Provocation sufficient to stir up his Ange● against the offended Brethren. To whom, in Answer I do declare, that if I had not found these phrases in some Public Confessions; nay, if I had not met with them in the Holy Scriptures, I would have been silent and never have put Pen to Paper, on this occasion. Mistake me not, my meaning is, that the things signified by these Terms and Phrases, are expressly in our Confessions, and in the Holy Scriptures too; and perhaps it may appear that the phrase most exposed by him, will be found to be literally in one or other Confession.  
3. That I may set what I now declare in the clearest light, I must observe unto you,  
1. That the phrases, of a Commutation, or Change of Persons between Christ and us; of Christ's sustaining our Person; of his being Substituted into our room; and his Suffering in our Place and Stead, are so nearly Allied to each other, that they are as Hypocrates his Twins; they Live and Dye together. Grant one and all necessarily come in with it; oppose but any one of 'em in the genuine meaning, and you oppose all of'em.  
The Phrase of Christ's Dying in our Place and Stead, as it imports somewhat more than for our good, implies a Substitution of Christ into our Place, which cannot be without a change of Persons between Christ and Us; or without Christ's sustaining our Person. If then any one of these phrases be found in any one Confession, there is an owning all the rest.  
2. Those Scriptures, which speak of Christ's Dying for us; of his being a Sacrifice; and of his being our Surety to satisfy the Law for us, do all import Christ's Suffering in our stead, his being Substituted in our Place, a change of Persons between him and us, and his sustaining our Person in suffering.  
What I here assert is so clear, that there is no doubt of it amongst the Orthodox, who throughly understand this Controversy. Yea further,  
3. These controverted phrases do express what is essential unto a Real, Proper and Plenary satisfaction to God's Justice for our sins, and upon this account, in what confession soever such a satisfaction is asserted, there these phrases are owned.  
If then I can direct to the Confession, where either a Proper Satisfaction is asserted; or, where 'tis declared, that Christ as our Surety suffered for us; or, that Christ suffered in our Place and Stead; or stood in our Person, when He Died, I hope it may satisfy any unprejudiced person, that the phrases Contended for are in our Confessions; and if I show that all these last mentioned are in some public Confessions or Catechisms, why may it not be enough to remove my Brother from his Fastnesses; and oblige him to conclude, that they who plead for their use are not so singular as he has Insinuated?  
These things Praemised, our first Enquiry must be,  
1. In what Confession is a proper Satisfaction owned? Go to the Assemblies, cap. 8. sect. 8. and there you may read, That the Lord Jesus by his Perfect Obedience and Sacrifice of himself, hath fully satisfied the Justice of his Father. And cap. 11. sect. 3. Christ by his Death and Obedience did make a Proper, Real, and Full Satisfaction to his Father's Justice on their behalf. The same is repeated in the larger Catechism in answer to the Question, What is Justification? and to that which follows it.  
If my Brother can't see in the assertion of [a Proper, Real and Full Satisfaction made for us by Christ to the Justice of God.] the Phrase [of a Change of Persons between Christ and Us,] it is not because it's not there. For in a Proper Satisfaction, whatever is essential thereunto, as a Commutation, or Change of Persons between Christ and Us is, is contained; and whoever understands the true nature of a proper Satisfaction, cannot but see it. However for the sake of the less studied, I will by a very plain instance Illustrate thus much; affirming, that all sound Believers are Discharged from that Obligation to Punishment they lay under for their past sins, that the Obligation unto Punishment, is in their case, dissolved, that this is the Doctrine embraced by the Reformed. Now, if my Brother demands of me, in what Confession of Faith is this phrase [of Dissolving the Obligation to Punishment] to be found; In answer, I'll refer him to the Assemblies Confession. cap. 11. sect. 1. Those whom God Effectually calleth, he also Freely Justifieth— by Pardoning their Sins. If he saith, he can't in this place see the phrase [of Dissolving the Obligation to Punishment.] I'll tell him, it is there, tho' he can't see it, for in the Pardon of sin it is, it being Essential unto Pardon, that the Obligation unto Punishment be dissolved, to talk of the Pardon of a sinner whilst he continues to lie under the Obligation unto Punishment, is to Trifle, and to say, that the dissolving the Obligation to Punishment cannot be read, where the Pardon of sin is expressed, is to talk after such a manner as Modesty want give me leave to call by its most proper name.  
The same is true of Christ's Satisfaction, and a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Us; for, a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Us, is as essential unto a proper Satisfaction, as the dissolving the Obligation to Punishment is unto Pardon of sin.  
2. The phrase [of Christ's suffering in our place and stead,] as it imports somewhat more than for our good, implies a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Us; and signifieth the same with Christ's suffering in our Person, as our Surety.  
That it is thus understood by the Orthodox, I have already cleared, and to what hath been said, I will add the Judgement of the Palatinate Divines, which they delivered into the Synod of Dort, which was, That one Error, amongst the many embraced by the Remonstrants, was [the same which my Brother has in his Rebuke, viz.] That to Die for sinners must not be understood, as if Christ died Loco, aut vice ipsorum, in their Place and Stead, sed bono tantum, but only for their good.  
This Error these Divines, (in what they have said on the second of the five Articles) did confute, asserting, in opposition unto them, that Christ our Surety according to the Scriptures died Loco Peccatorum, in the place of sinners, which in their Orthodox Antithesis they thus explain, partim Loco, partim bono ipsorum., And it was Decreed by this Synod, That whereas we were unable of ourselves to satisfy God's Justice, and deliver ourselves from his Wrath, God of his Immense Mercy, gave his only begotten Son to be a Surety for us; who, that he might make Satisfaction for us, was made Sin, and a Curse on the Cross for us, or vice nostra, or in our stead.  
This Decree was about the year 1623. received by the Reformed in France in the Synod of Charenton, and subscribed by the Pastors and Elders of the said Synod, with a Protestation in the Presence of God, that through his grace, they would never departed from it; decreeing that it should be inviolably observed by all the Churches, and Universities in that Kingdom.  
And, in the Assemblies Confession, Cap. 11. Sect. 3. it is express, That Christ's Obedience and Satisfaction was accepted in their stead; and why accepted in their stead? but because Christ obeyed and satisfied in their stead? which, as I have shown, is as much as to say, Christ obeyed and satisfied in our Person. But of this more immediately under the next Head.  
3. The Term [Surety] when applied to Christ, as suffering for our sins, denotes to us a Change of Persons between him and us, and his sustaining our Person, in his sufferings.  
Thus much is so evident, that they who have any tolerable Acquaintance with this Controversy, and oppose the Phrases of a Change of Persons between Christ and us, and of Christ's sustaining our Person, do also deny that Christ suffered as our Surety. Mr. Ws. himself therefore Rejects Christ's being under the Law of Works, as our Surety, upon the old Socinian Bottom, as said to be inconsistent with the Free Pardon of Sin. Man made Right. p. 92, 96. And my Brothers many discerning Heads do not only Reject Christ's taking on him the Person of Sinners, as a Phrase that can't bear a Sound Sense, but they also Reject this other Phrase [of Christ's being considered in Relation to us, as our Surety, bearing our sins in his own Body] and least thus much should have been inferred from that other Phrase of [Christ's feeling and bearing the Weight of God's Wrath] it is also Rejected as what is liable to a Sense and Sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel.  
Now, if I must believe, as my Brother suggests, that these alterations and the Rejecting of these Phrases is upon the assigned Reasons is the deliberate Act of the whole Body, composed of many discerning Heads, that still profess a Zeal for all the Doctrines contained in the Assemblies Confession; Larger and shorter Catechism. I must declare, God knows, with a sincere desire, it may be with brokenness of Heart, and the deepest Humiliation, that our Case, in this regard, is more deplorable than I am willing to suggest, tho' I can't but reflect on the Calamitous Condition, into which our Brethren in France have fallen, since they omitted to witness so fully as they should have done against Armyraldian Encroachments made on the Common Faith of Protestants, especially seeing they are now out done, by some amongst ourselves.  
If Christ was not as our Surety, made under the Law; If he did not endure the most grievous Torments, immediately in his Soul, and most painful Sufferings in his Body, as feeling and bearing the Weight of God's Wrath due to us for our sins, how shall we be able to stand before the Bar of God in the great day? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of Rams, or with ten thousands of Rivers of Oil? Shall I give my Firstborn for my Transgression, the Fruit of my Body for the Sin of my Soul? These things can't satisfy God's Justice, nor appease his Wrath, nor make an Atonement for our Sin. It must be Christ's Suffering in our stead, his bearing our sins in his Body, as our Surety, and feeling, and bearing the Weight of God's Wrath for our Sins, that alone can save us.  
But these Phrases, tho' they were in the First Paper, are waved, and left out of the Third, because, as my Brother says, they can't bear a sound Sense, etc. whilst a Zeal is pretended for the Assemblies Confession and Catechism, in which the rejected Doctrines are literally asserted. In the Confession, Cap. 8. Sect. 3, 'tis express, That the Father called the Lord Christ to the Office of a Mediator, and Surety: And in Sect. 4. this Office the Lord Christ did most willingly undertake, which that he might discharge, he was made under the Law, and did perfectly fulfil it, endured most grievous Torments in his Soul, and most painful Sufferings in his Body.  
These things the Lord Christ endured as our Surety; which is more fully delivered in Answer to that Question, How is Justification an Act of God's Free Grace? In which you will see Mr. Ws. his Objection against Christ's being under the Bonds of the Law, as our Surety, taken from a supposed inconsistency between it and the forgiveness of our Sins fully removed, in that it's there declared, Although Christ, by his Obedience and Death, did make a Proper, Real and Full Satisfaction to God's Justice; yet in as much as God accepteth the Satisfaction from a Surety, which he might have demanded of them, did provide this Surety, his own only Son, imputing his Righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their Justification but Faith, which also is his gift, their Justification is to them, of Freegrace.  
But if Christ, as our Surety, doth so, will it not follow, that he paid our Debts? Yes, it will; And so, saith the Assembly, Confess. Cap. 11. § 3. Christ, by his Obedience and Death, did fully discharge the Debt of all those that are thus Justified, and did make a proper, real, and full Satisfaction. Did he not then feel and bear the Weight of God's Wrath? Ay, he did so: And thus much is affirmed by the Assembly in the same Words, it is rejected by the many discerning Heads; For, in Answer to this Question▪ How did Christ humble himself in his Death? It is in the Larger Catechism, thus, Christ humbled himself in that, having been betrayed by Judas— and having also conflicted with the Terrors of Death, and the powers of Darkness, felt and bore the weight of God's Wrath; he laid down his Life an Offering for sin.;  
Whether a Rejecting the Phrases of Christ's bearing our Sins in his Body, as our Surety, and his feeling and bearing the weight of God's Wrath, be not a Contravening a Doctrinal Article, established by the Assembly, at Westminster? and whether this Brother who doth so, ought not to be Censured by the Body of the United Ministers, if we may be ever so blessed, as to see such a Meeting once more. I submit to more discerning Heads; and sure I am, that, however this Matter may issue, it's plain enough to me, that the Controverted Phrases are owned by the Synod of Dort●, established in the Reformed Churches in France, as well as by the Assembly of Learned, Judicious, Godly and Orthodox Divines at Westminster.  
Well, but tho' I had leisure to look into all the Confessions at home; or search the whole Body of Confessions of the Reformed Churches from Helvetia to Transylvania, thence to America, can I find, in any one of them, the least Countenance given to these Terms, Phrases, or Expressions? Or is it possible to Observe in any one of them, so much as a smile on that Phrase of Christ's suffering in our Person? I answer,  
1. What, tho' I can't? Is it not enough that I have shown, that the Controverted Phrases are included in the Acknowledgement of Christ's making a proper Satisfaction to God's justice for us? And that they are all virtually owned, which in sundry Confessions and Synods, which have openly Received the Phrase of Christ's suffering in our Stead, as it signifieth more than for our good, and is of the same Import with Christ's suffering in our Person, but the owning that Christ as our Surety, felt and bore the weight of God's Wrath, should, methinks, be sufficient. However,  
2. That my Brother may see, that without going so far as Helvetia, Transylvania or America, we may find enough nearer home to convince him, that he has very little, or no Reason for his assuming way of Writing, I will only take a turn into Scotland, where we shall find this very Phrase of Christ's dying in our Person, inserted in their Confession of Faith, It became the Messiah, and Redeemer to be True God, and True Man, because he was to suffer the Punishments due for our sins, and to appear, [quasi in Persona nostrâ, coram Judicio Patris pro nostrâ transgressione, & in obedientiâ pati, morte, mortis authorem superare] in our Person, before the Judgement Seat of the Father to suffer for our Transgressions, and by death to destroy him that had power over Death. Vid. Carp. Confess. Ed. an. 1612. pag. 142.  
Here you see that the Church of Scotland above a hundred years ago, used this very Phrase, which, my Brother assured us, could not be found in any one Confession: and which, he says, doth make a Blasphemous Representation of God's Love in the Redemption of fallen Man, but I hope, when he shall be so far recovered as to be able to entertain some free Thoughts, on this Subject, he will do his part, to repair the Breaches he has, by his Rebuke, made on one of the Chief Articles of our Holy Religion, and do what in him lieth, to clear the Orthodox from those unjust Reproaches he has covered them with, by making them to hold and defend Blasphemous Opinions in their use and defence of the Controverted Phrases; And that it may be thus, it shall be my Prayer, and I desire it may be also the Prayer of all them who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity.  
There is one thing more needful to be spoken unto, before I close my Reply: It is the Third and Last general Head, I have proposed to be considered.     

III. The Charge of Antinomianism.  
1. MY Brother, that he may put the fairer Gloss, upon the New Notions, he has undertaken the Defence of, applieth himself to the same Artifices, by which the Socinian●, of old, used to Propagate their Heresies, which was to expose the Ref●r●●ed, as Men of Antinomian Principles, Men of a very bad Character, and ill Designs.  
2. That he has, without any provocation given him, thus Aspersed his Congregational Brethren, in the Bulk, without a Salvo to the Reputation of any one of them, I will particularly evince.  
1. The Charge of Antinomianism; He lays in thus, The True Reason of their (the Congregational brethren's) severe displeasure conceived against the Third Paper is, that it has so clearly and fully born its Testimony against the Antinomians in the Fundamental Article of Justification. Reb. p. 56. A little before this, ' I wish (saith he) you could inform me, Whether they, [viz. the Congregational] have received any New Revelations, or made any New Discoveries of these great Secrets, and Indispensible Necessity of these New Notions? [that is, if the Terms, Phrases, and Doctrines, long ago openly embraced by the Reformed] ' Whether they [the Congregational still] are become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Adepts, in the Rosacrucian Mysteries, or have found out the Philosopher's Stone to turn all Antinomianism into pure Gold. pag. 50.  
I will here, only tell you, that these Rosacrucians' are a People, who hold, that by the help of a Spirit which Penetrates the Universe, they are adorned with such Angelical Wisdom, as excels the Knowledge, conveyed to us by the Holy Scriptures, by which they may understand whatever is done, or can be known in the World— They are a sort of Chemists, who, in their Laboratories' desired Instruction, either from the Stars, or after the manner of Enthusiasts, expect secret Inspirations and Revelations; as also Converses and Conferences with Spirits, and great Assistances from them; whereupon many have been strangely deluded by the Devil, who transforms himself into an Angel of Light. These are the Rosacrucians', my Brother speaks of, and as one in doubt, wishes to be informed, whether the Congregational, are not Adepts, great Proficients in their Hellish Mysteries.  
2. The Character he further gives of them is, That they are Pettyfoggers, whose work it is to sow the Seeds of Strife, pag. 31. whose desultory Humours (or giddy Brains) can no more be fixed than Proteus can be bound. pag. 33. who are no longer of an Opinion than till the next Crotchet comes into their Heads to invent another. pag. 33. Great Intreaguers, p. 29. Unreasonable Men, Malicious Slanderers, Guilty of a more heinous Sin, in that they Usurp the Privilege of God to Judge the Heart. p. 34. whose Grief, to observe how much the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction is in danger, may remember you of what you Read in some Naturalists, That the Crocodile weeps over his Pre●, and then devours it; whose Tears are all Mockery. p. 54. who lie Mr. Ws. to the Stake to be Baited, (by their Party, that is, (by the English Molossi, or Mastiff-Dogs, and every Whaffing Whelp, that could bark, tho' not by't, Unreasonably Cruel, putting such Terms upon Mr. Williams, as are not so Merciful, as those put upon the Men of Jabesh Gilead by Nahash, 1 Sam. 11.2. who would only thrust out their Right Eyes, but these [viz The Congregational] would cut off his Right Hand too. p. 58. whose Terms favour too much of Empire over Souls, and Dominion over the Consciences and Faith of Men. p. 59 Who, when they promise not to make further Public Contests, yet will then be for Private Whisper, Evil Surmises, Insinuated Slanders, and Clandestine Reproaches, whilst Mr. W. is alive, and 'tis to be feared will feed upon his Carcase, and Survive his Dust and Ashes. That these Bigots will never forgive them, who have joined with the Brethren of a more Benign Temper in the Third Paper. p. 60.  
This is the way he takes to Treat a whole Party of Brethren in this City, who are known to be Men of Integrity, soundness in the Faith, and successful Labourers in the Vineyard of our Lord; But I will make no other Return than to assure him, it's my prayer, he may see, and consider what he has done, and that the Lord will soften his heart, and forgive him. As for what he saith of the Reporter, I will not repeat one word of it, only I will acquaint you with what little Reason my Brother had to Insinuate, as if the Reporter had been a favourer of Dr. Crisp's Errors, and what Obligations he lieth under to clear himself from the suspicion of Antinomianism; for such indeed is the Nature of Error, that how distant soever some Heresies are, in their appearances from each other, they frequently centre in one and the same Point.  
To evince what I have here suggested, 'twill be sufficient to propose what my Brother saith of the Reporters Zeal for Dr. Crisps, and make my Reply.  

Faithful Rebuke.  
The Proposal of a full Testimony against Antinomianism, is the unpardonable Sin against Dr. Crisp, which shall never be forgiven by the Reporter. p. 57   

Reply.  
1. That my Answer may be the more clearly understood, it must be noted, that I speak of the Person, who is by my Brother taken for the Reporter, whether he be Right, or not, in his Conjecture; and by the Rebuker, I mean the Man that is Famed to be so. This premised, I affirm,  
2. That there is not the least pretence for his insinuating, that the Reporter is a favourer of Dr. Crisps Notions; but there are divers reasons for my insisting on it, that my Rebuker is not free from the suspicion, if not liable to a charge of giving Countenance to them, and so stands bound to clear himself.  
1. It's well known unto me, That when the Reporter did, about seventeen years ago, writ against Antinomianism, with a particular Reference unto some assertions of Dr. Crisp, my Brother gave him sufficient encouragement to expect his Mid-wising it into the World by a Praefatory Epistle, which upon some noise made on the mention of the Doctor's Name, he declined to do. When my Brother shall call to mind what he wrote in a Letter to Φ Χ, He can't, I presume, but remember that what I here intimate, tho' so long ago, is very true.  
2. When a New Impression of the Doctor's Works, with an addition of some Sermons came into the World about seven or eight years since, the Reporter was desired to set his Name to the Attestation before it; but He, apprehending it would be taken for granted, at least by the Common People, that His Name would stand there as an approval of all the Notions, in that Book, and ensnare many to a closure with the very Errors my Brother now seems to declaim against, Refused to set his Name unto it: And yet he himself, notwithstanding the Antinomian Heresies, Horrid Opinions, and Abominable Doctrines that He chargeth his Congregational Brethren with in his One and twenty Positions, pag. 25, 26. did set his Hand unto the Attestation before Dr. Crisps Book. And there it still remains without a public recalling it. And I think he can't easily forget, when, and where he was charged with it, and called upon to give satisfaction, but was so Inflexible, that no other could be obtained, than that the Charge was Rude and Ignorant, and so braved it out.  
3. The Reporter is one never like to make any Apologies for the Doctor's Notions, as differing from the common Belief of Protestants; But, this Brother's Hand is set to a Plea for them.  
In a Preface, before Mr. Flavels blow at the Root, Subscribed by the Rebuker, we have the following defence of those very points, wherein Dr. Crisp forsook the Orthodox. For, it is there declared.  
1. That the Difference between Dr. Crisp, and other good Men, seems to lie, not so much in the Things, which the one, or the other of them Believe, as about their Order and Reference to one another  
This is one passage, that my Brother has Subscribed: which clears it, That, if He did it with consideration and sincerity, He could not look on Dr. Crisp to hold either Antinomian Heresies, or any other horrid Opinions, but that as to the things themselves, the Doctor is of the same Faith with my Rebuker, which thing once granted, makes it evident, that there could be no such powerful reasons to influence Mr. Ws. to write against the Doctor as my Brother suggests, p. 16. for, when Differences are only about the Order, and Reference of one thing to another, where, as to the Things themselves, there is an Agreement, than it becomes the Duty of those Brethren, who, in these lesser matters, differ from each other, to exercise mutual forbearance; and, it must be, in Mr. Ws. and those zealous Brethren, who did set him on this Work, a Violation of the Rule of Christian Love and Forbearance, to make this Strife; whence it must unavoidably follow, that 'twas Mr. Ws. who made the First breach on the Union, and that my Rebuker, so long as his Name abides to this Preface, can never clear him.  
2. You will say, There may be Agreement as to the things themselves, and yet about their Order, and reference to one another, very material difference. I grant it may be so. Tho' for my own part, I do look on the difference between the Orthodox and Dr. Crisp to be much greater than this sort of Palliating Preface will allow it to be, and that whilst my Brother's Name continues (without a Retractation) to be before the Doctor's Book, and under this Preface, 'twill be a Snare to multitudes; especially, seeing He adds his further sense in these words.  
3. But we reckon, that notwithstanding what is more Controversible, in Dr. Crisps Writings, there are much more Material Things, wherein they cannot but Agree, and would have come much nearer each other, even in these things, if they did take some Words or Terms in the same sense.  
What can be said more fully, in Favour of Dr. Crisps Notions? Did ever the Reporter talk thus? I'll go further, if there be any thing dangerous in the Doctors Writings, as I believe there is, what can be said more to ensnare poor People to receive that as Sound and True? Did Dr. Chauncey ever say more? Show me where he has at any time said so much. 'Tis true, he brings in the Antinomian, saying as much as he can in his own defence; but he also, if I mistake not, tells you, that you are not to look for his Judgement there, but where he brings in Calvin moderating between Neonomian and Antinomian. Once more,  
4. Whereas my Brother doth, in his Rebuke, p. 25, 26. insinuate, as if the Cataing●● of Artino●ian Heresies, horrid Opinions, and abominable Doctrines, had been offered to the Congregational, that they might give satisfaction to the United Brethren, but would not, (tho' to this day, did I never hear, 'twas tendered to the Congregational for their Purgation) there is reckoned amongst these Abominations, this, as the eleventh. A believer is to work from life, & not for life.  
And what thinks my Brother of this? There is (saith he) an Expression in Vol 1. p. 46. That Salvation is not the end of any good work we do; which is like that of another, We are to Act from Life, not for Life. Neither of which are (saith he) to be rigidly taken as 'tis likely, they were never meant, in the strict Sense.;  
This is the Plea my Brother makes for Crispian Notions, in which, if he was not sincere, He ought to be as public in taking the shame of it, as the setting his Name hath been; If he was sincere, and has received convincing Light from his Master Mr. Ws. let him own it to the World, and recall his Hand from the Attestation before the Doctors Writings, and from this Preface. But if he did sincerely set his hand, and is still of the same mind, let him consider what it is that hath put him upon this ●elf-contradicting Province, which brings him the more under the Reprehension and Just Notice of his being a Favourer of that Antinomianism, which is in Dr. Crisps Books.  
Thus I have, so far as the Paper allotted me would give leave, Examined the Faithful Rebuke of my Brother, which I call [Faithful] not because I can see so much as one grain of Faithfulness in it, but because 'tis the Name He has given it. And what I have don● has been with Impartiality; For, I thank God, that I having Felt the Displeasure of some of my Congregational and Presbyterian Brethren, because a Conviction of Truth hath necessitated me in some instances, relating to the True Way to Peace, to differ from them both, I am the less concerned tho' I please neither, so long as I am enabled to discharge a good Conscience towards God and All Men. And as I have been Impartial, so it hath been my care to write according to the Unforeseen advice, which the Learned and Grave Mr. Humphrey hath given me in his Friendly Interposer (for which I thank him) in that I have been, not only unmoved in myself; but have made it my endeavour, that nothing might fall from my Pen, expressive of undue resentments. It is Truth I pursue, and glad shall I be to see more of that, whether conveyed to my Understanding in the angry way, in which my Rebuking Brother delivers his sense; or in a more clear, distinct and calm Representation.  
Hitherto I must acknowledge, that the commonly Received Doctrine of Protestants, is in my Conscience most agreeable to the Word of God in Scripture; But if at any time, whether in reading what Mr. Humphrey has delivered in the several Tracts he has Published on this Occasion, in which there is another Spirit, and other Matter, and more Mature Thoughts than in my Rebuker, or otherwise from any Letters he speaks of hereafter; or in reading any Books written on this Subject by any others, I shall be convinced, I am in a mistake, I will not be afraid to own it, being persuaded, that the Truths of God need neither men's Lies, nor their Hypocritical Methods to support them. And I must confess it, I am the better pleased with Mr. Humphrey, in that I do see by this Interposition, that the halting, the offensive halting of Mr. Ws. which I have formerly observed, and in these Papers myself reprehended, is, in the Point of Justification, made so Judiciously, and Fully manifest, in this Piece, upon his own Repugnant Principles, that if he will be a Follower of Truth, as much as a Leader of the People, he must go quite over to Mr. H. (as I have already noted) or come back to the Received Doctrine, which he makes now to serve him only for a Gloss, but Recedes from it. Whether he be sincere, or no, he must now show it.  
FINIS.