A further DEFENCE OF THE REPORT. Vindicating it from Mr. Alsops' Cavils, AND Showing the Difference between Mr. W's and myself to be Real, and the Charge in my Appeal to be True.  1 Cor. 4.13. 
Being defamed we entreat.  
LONDON: Printed for Nath. Hiller, at the Prince's Arms in Leaden-Hall-Street, over against St, Marry Axe, 1698.   

TO THE READER.  
MY sincere Aim being still to clear the Truth, in order unto Peace, I have not only waved the Examination of History, given by Mr. W. and Mr. A. which sundry Instances, is so very distant from Truth, ●●t 'twill be difficult for them to bear a Dete●●●●●on; But being assured by my Presbyterian, as ●●●●ll as other Brethren, that Mr. Alsop's Vindication of his Rebuke, is extravagantly provoking, I would not put myself to the pain of ●ading it. However, some worthy Persons, ●●ving examined that Rhapsody, did send me ●●at they apprehended needful for me to Answer; ●●ich I have considered, and in the ensuing ●●pers have given a Reply unto. And that ●●at I thought necessary to urge, might be so desired, as rather to induce unto, than drive ●im the things, which make for Peace, I have ●●deavoured to observe that Rule, the Larned ●●d Pious Dr. Manton, now in Glory, hath on ●●e Ninth Verse of Judas, given about Answering a Railing, Scoffing Adversary. Do not saith the Dr.) imitate him in his Foolish Passion,— But yet Answer him to the purpose, with solid Arguments:— Beat down his Presumption and Ignorance with a mee● Reply, such as may check his Pride, but no● imitate his Folly.  
There is one Calumny I must remove, but to do i● with that softness, which is most consonant to my Inclination, Principles and Temper; the Nature of the Thing will not easily allow: For which Reason I was once resolved to say nothing of it. But being assured, that the Lie, my Adversaries have industriously attempted to spread throughout the Land, is made their Principal Refuge: For the sake of God's Glory, my continued usefulness in the Ministry, and that I may clear myself from so vile a Reproach, most unjustly cast upon me by Mr. Williams' and Mr. Alsop's Innuendoes, Insinuations and Suggestions; and the Lies they have sent down into the Country as a Key to unlock their Meaning, That my entering on this Controversy is to Disserve the Protestant, and Promote the Popish Cause; And to compass such base and unworthy ends, I am (they say) engaged in the most villainous Attempts, I must, and do solemnly declare; and if ever I am necessitated to give a History of my Concernment in this Affair, I doubt not but that I shall be able convincingly to demonstrate, That there is nothing more abhorred by me, than such Methods and Designs, as are charged upon me; That my sincere endeavour hath been, and still is, That God may glorified, in a lasting Establishment of 〈◊〉 Protestant Faith; And it's well known to ●●se, who are most inwardly acquainted with me, 〈◊〉 to the Consciences of these Accusers, That it 〈◊〉 my hearty Labour to serve, not only the Protestant's in general; but my Dissenting Brethren particular, that occasioned their Enemies, as 〈◊〉 as mine to do their most to fasten these very calumnies upon me; And I have a Letter of 〈◊〉 Alsop's in my Custody to Testify how Indu●ously and Faithfully, I did, to his knowledge, ●●ve the Protestant Dissenters. And ever since ●●ve been discharged from that Expensive Ser●●●●, I have confined myself to my Ministerial ●●●k, extending my Correspondencies no fur●●● than to matters relating to my Improvement in ●●erature, the Service of Christ's Churches, and my ●●●ily Concern; conversing with very few be●●● my own Brethren; And in my Deportment ●ords them and all others, I have obliged my 〈◊〉 to those Rules of Civility, which become a ●●●leman, a Christian, and a Minister of Christ's ●●spel.  
And I must add, That had I not been most ●●ote from the Gild they now would cover me 〈◊〉, Mr. Williams was so very well known to me, 〈◊〉 Spirit, his Principles, and somewhat else, ●●ch I forbear to mention, that I would assoon 〈◊〉 put my hand into the Fire, as engage in 〈◊〉 Contrast, and adventure on his Displease. But my Innocency, which has oft passed ●●●●ugh the Ordeal, feared none of these ●●ngs.  
Besides, Had I been the Man, they represent me to be, I would never have undertaken the Defence of those Points, which are most opposite to what, they say, I would promote. But I would have fallen in with Mr. Williams, whose Notions have so near an Alliance with, and so natural a● Tendency unto the Introduction of Popery; It being manifest, that Popish Designs can never be better carried on, than by bringing into Reputation, some main Branches of the Popish Religion; which is done effectually by Mr. Williams and some of his Followers, by their insisting on a Justification by Works, and their Arminianizing. But how my Zeal against those Doctrines, some of which are Popish, and others prepare for Popery, should be a Reason for their charging me with favouring that way, is beyond the Comprehension of Persons, whose Understandings are much larger than mine.  
In a word, my Part in this Controversy, is to Tear up that Sovereign Drug, which the Jesuits planted in this Kingdom, to Purge Protestant's (as they expressed it in their Letter to the Father Rector at Bruxills) from their Heresy. And they were Men of deep Judgement, sound in the Faith; and as great Enemies to Popery, as ever breathed in English Air; who in the Reign of King Charles I. discovered their Fears, concerning a Change in Religion, upon the daily growth and spreading of Arminianism, which in their esteem, was a cunning way to bring in Popery, whilst they Judged the Professors of these Opinions to be the Common Disturbers 〈◊〉 the Protestant Churches; and Incendiaries, ●n those Estates, in which they had gotten any Head, being Protestants in show; but Jesuits 〈◊〉 Opinion, and Practice. And it was no ●●all part of the Glory of King James I. and of ●he House of Nassau, that they laboured to crush ●he Errors, I Oppugn, as having a tendency 〈◊〉 introduce Popery; and Supported those Divines who Defended the very Cause, for which Plead. And it's well known, that of all Armi●ians, they who Socinianize in the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, as Mr. W's doth, are the ●●st Dangerous.  
It is not then a Design to promote the Popish ●nterest, directly or indirectly, but a Detecting ●he Craft and Errors of this Man, whose Principles tend to the bringing in of Popery, that is my ●rime; from which neither their severest Menaces, nor the worst they can do unto me (I trust 〈◊〉 the mercy of the Lord) shall be able to divert 〈◊〉. For as in former, so in this Persecution ●rom them, the Lord hath been and still is my strength, who in his own time, will not only indicate all opposed Truth, but clear my Innocency. Whether it be either pious or wise, for the ●●t. Helen's Brethren to leave such Charges upon an innocent Brother, to pass without Rebuke, I sub●it to their Consciences, knowing how hateful Delators, when amongst Persons of an inferior Rank, have been unto them, in whom could be foun● the least degree of Morality.  
But however their Carriage may be towards m● in this respect, I am not, I bless God, in the lea● gone off from my peaceable Principles or Tempe● being most desirous the Brethren, who are unfeigned Embracers of the Protestant Faith, would ente● on such Methods as are most likely to Restore Pea● upon the Foundation of Necessary Truth.  
There is nothing more needful, that I can at present think of, to be spoken unto, unless what relat●● to Amyrald, which will require more room tha● is here left me.  
S. L.   

Books sold by Nath. Hiller, at the Prince's Arm● in Leaden-Hall-Street.  
THE Divine Institution of Congregations Churches, Ministry and Ordinances, [as ha● been Professed by those of that Persuasion] Asse●●ted and Proved from the Word of God. By Isaa● Chauncy. M. A.  
A Discussion of the Lawfulness of a Pastors Acting as an Officer in other Churches, besides tha● which he is especially called to take the Oversight of. By the late Reverend Mr. Nath. Mather.   

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

Section 1.  
I will begin with what he objects against the ●●●porter, and myself.  

His first Objection.  
That the Reporter has left out of his substance the Gospel, Regeneration, Conversion, Repentance Holiness, Sanctification, a New Heart, and New O●dience, Good Works, etc. A blessed Report for t●● Country. You are eased at least of one Moiety 〈◊〉 your Work.  

Reply.  
In my Return, I will give you the Passage 〈◊〉 which he refers as it is in the Report, and then con●●der what Reason Mr. A. had for this Objection.  
In the Report it's thus; That all, Who belief might escape the Wrath to come, and have Everlasting Life, the Lord Jesus Undertakes for us, by maki●● satisfaction to Punitive and Remunerative Justic●● and, that he might do so, he did put himself in our Place, State and Condition; so that whereas v●●● were Sin, and under a Curse, by this Blessed Chan●● Christ is made Sin, and a Curse, and we deliver●● from Sin, and the Curse, 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.13.  
This is the substance of the Gospel of Chri●● this the Ground, and Foundation of our Faith.  
Out of this Passage it is, that Mr. Alsop fetche● the Reason, why he chargeth the Reporter for l●●ving out his Substance of the Gospel, Regeneration Repentance, etc. To which I answer.  
1. That 'twill be very hard for them, who kno●● the Person, that is thought to be the Reporter, 〈◊〉 think it possible for Mr. A. to believe one word of h●● own Charge against him, it being in his own Conscience so contrary to Truth, and can therefore 〈◊〉 no less than a Calumny, as Calumnia est cùm quis 〈◊〉 ●●●ta Scientia, & dolo injustè agit, & excipit. But it ●●st be further observed;  
2. That this Passage of the Reporter was only ●●out Christ's Satisfaction, as it is an Article of ●●●ple Belief, and of distinct Consideration, either ●●●m Matters of Practice; or, such Works, as are ●ought in us by the Holy Spirit.  
3. That Matters of Simple Belief have been ever, 〈◊〉 the Churches of God, placed in a Formula, by themselves. And, if there be any strength, in the ●●jection, it must lie in this, That whenever a ●●●mula is given of the Credenda, there must be ●●ed with it an Exact Catalogue of the Agenda; 〈◊〉 that whoever Composes a Summary of Matters Simple Belief, without inserting in it the Agenda, Matters of Practice, doth thereby Reject out of Substance of the Gospel Repentance, Good Works, etc. ●●e, I say, lieth the strength of his Objection, ●●ch if of any force at all against the Reporter, must ●●●●g all the Churches of Christ from the Begin●● under the same Condemnation, because they had 〈◊〉 Credenda in a Formula by themselves.  
The Reporter had in his Summary a word more ●●is in many of the Ancient Creeds. For, he saith, ●●●at all, who Believe might escape the Wrath to ●●me, and have Everlasting Life, etc. thereby ●●ing Faith, which supposes Regeneration, and in●●es within it the Entire Nature of Evangelical ●●tance, and is Prolific of Good Works, neces●●● to Salvation; and therefore so long as this ●●ge, viz. [That all who Believe might escape Wrath to come, etc.] continues in his Summa●● there will not be the least pretence for the Hor●●● Noise he has made about it. But.  
Mr. A. as one, whose Conscience had, whilst 〈◊〉 as making this Objection, checked him for it, 〈◊〉 add, [But suppose this were intended only as the Substance of the Gospel so far as we ar●●● to Believe what Christ has done and suffered fo●● Sinners without them, etc.] Well then, let us suppose it, and see what will follow. Really, as for m●●● part, I can observe in it nothing less than a Fu●●● Answer to his own Objection. For, if the Report 〈◊〉 intended no more than the Substance of what w●●● are to Believe concerning what Christ has done a●● suffered for Sinners without them and with God (〈◊〉 really he did not) he was under no Obligation 〈◊〉 mention Regeneration, Conversion, Repentance Good Works, etc. which are wrought in, and up●● Sinners, and the not mentioning 'em cannot be 〈◊〉 Reason a Rejecting'em.  
The Reporter was writing of the Substance 〈◊〉 the Gospel so: far as it concerned the Article 〈◊〉 Christ's Satisfaction: 'Twas no part of his Provin●● to entreat of Regeneration, Conversion, Repentance, etc. And Mr. A. might have blamed h●●● for not opening the Nature of Faith, Regenerati●● or Repentance, as well as for not mentioning either them, or the Order in which they are wrought. A● would it not be very wisely urged, The Reporter 〈◊〉 dertook to discourse of the Substance of one th●● and therefore not speaking a word of another, t●●● of a distinct Nature, he must be interpreted to ●●ject that other, as if he who writes of Botannicks, m●●● be looked on as a denier of the Existence of ●●nerals, because he confines his Discourse to 〈◊〉 matter in hand.  
6. This Objection must be either the most T●● fling one that ever was started; or be most Fer●●●● of Blasphemous Absurdities. For, if when we 〈◊〉 course of what Christ hath done, and suffered for ●●ners, without them, the not mentioning Regen●●tion, Conversion, Repentance, etc. be a Reject them, it must be because these things are Essen●●● P●rts of Christ's Obedience and Sufferings; what ●●ore evident than that if Regeneration, Repentance, Good Works, etc. be not Essential Parts of ●●at Christ has done and suffered for Sinners, the ●●orter, when he gave the Substance of what we 〈◊〉 to believe of Christ's Obedience, and Sufferings, 〈◊〉 he did not mention Regeneration etc. cannot 〈◊〉 justly esteemed a Rejecter of them; whence 〈◊〉 good Man's pretences for his Charge against the ●●●orter (tho' on it, as is said by many, the Sub●●●ce of his late Rhapsody depends) dwindles into ●●hing, and the Objection appears to be a most ●●●fling one. But,  
1. If Regeneration, Conversion, Repentance, 〈◊〉 Obedience, etc. be essential Parts of what ●●rist has done and suffered for Sinners without 〈◊〉, than 'twill follow, 1. That a Man may be ●●nerated, converted and sanctified; as well as ●●ified and adopted by a mere external or relative ●●ange: And Regeneration, Sanctification, & c. ●●port no more an internal Physical Change on the ●●art and Life than Justification doth. For if they 〈◊〉 the Essentials of what only is done without us, Christ's Obedience and Sufferings are acknowledg●● to be in this Place, by Mr. A— himself, they 〈◊〉 be as perfect in their own Nature, without 〈◊〉 as Christ's Satisfaction is, which is a Notion, if ●●ad been true, that would have been very useful 〈◊〉 the Libertines, Ranters and Debauchees of the Age; 〈◊〉, tho' they make no Conscience of what they 〈◊〉 write or do; do nevertheless, please themselves ●●th the conceit of their being in a blessed State, as generated, converted and sanctified; which, acceding to the natural and easy Consequence, that ●●es from what strength Mr. A's. Objection has in 〈◊〉 may be without a work wrought in them. And ●●t be thus, then Christ in doing and suffering for Sinners, regenerated, converted, sanctified them, etc. an● all this without them; they still remaining in themselves as Vile and as Vicious as ever. Again, 'twill follows  
2. That if the Substance of what Christ hath do●● and suffered for Sinners, without them, cannot 〈◊〉 given in a Formula, unless there be the mention made of Regeneration, Conversion, Repentance new Obedience, good Works, etc. then our Fait● Repentance, new Obedience, etc. are included 〈◊〉 what Christ hath already done and suffered for Si●●ners, without them, as if Christ had believed and repent for us, yea, as if he had done whatever w●● necessary for us to have done, in order to our actu●●● Justification, Pardon, and entrance into the eternal Glory.  
This is the way of my Adversary, who fears no●● to run upon the most dangerous Precipices, nor 〈◊〉 give Advantage to the most malignant Heretic 〈◊〉 how ridiculously soever, when he fancies 'tmake against his Opposers. But,  
7. That I may follow this witty Gentlema●● somewhat further, I will go on to consider wh●● Use he makes of this Supposition, which carries 〈◊〉 it the genuine Sense of the Reporter, which he giv● in these words. Here's something saith he in th●● Draught that gives cause of Suspicion, to tho●● who are of no jealous Inclinations: For; where●● he informs us that Christ suffered and satisfied, th●● all who believe might escape Wrath to come, and ha●● everlasting Life: Here's no necessity of Faith in ●●der to Justification; no believing necessary to Pard●● of Sin, or Peace with God; no Faith needful to Union with Christ, that we may have an Interest in his Righteousness, but only to escape Wrath to come and the having everlasting Life. To this 〈◊〉 answer. 1. What is here urged, being upon Supposition, that the Reporter intended only a summarily 〈◊〉 what Christ has done and suffered for Sinners with 〈◊〉, and with God, and not of the Order between ●●th, and Justification, or Pardon; there is no ●●re room for suspicion in this Draught than there 〈◊〉 the ancient Symbols, in which not a word of ●●●h's precedence to Justification or Pardon. And ●●●ld an Antinomian imitate this learned Man, in ●●way of arguing, would he not be as able to vin●●●e his most licentious Principles from the Apo●● Creed, as Mr. A. is to fasten his Charge on the ●●ter, and after his manner, professing an extra●●ary Zeal for that Creed? press it, that there is necessity of Faith in order to Justification; because 〈◊〉 word of it in that Symbol, though it contains 〈◊〉 the sum and substance of the Gospel. For, if 〈◊〉 is not mentioned in the Formula, composed by Reporter must be looked on as rejected, because mentioned in it, than what is not in the Formula ●he Apostles, must be also looked upon as reject●● them, as if they had held, that Faith doth ●antecede Justification, and is not necessary to ●●●on or Peace with God. But 2. Why doth he Here's no believing necessary to Peace with God? 〈◊〉 he think that a Man may escape the Wrath to ●●e and have everlasting Life, tho' his Peace with 〈◊〉 be not made? When it's said in Scripture, that 〈◊〉 who believe escape the Wrath to come and have evering Life? I thought nothing less could be meant, that they had on their believing, Peace with God; is, (as Beza, Piscator, Tolet, Estius, Pareus, in Pool) 〈◊〉 Reconciliation; or (as Vatablus (ubi supra) are re●●ed into Favour with God. 3. The Godly learned ●heir general Discourses about these Points, have 〈◊〉 thought it sufficient to secure themselves from 〈◊〉 slanderous Accusations, as Mr. A— would fasten the Reporter; if they did but mention believing, as ●●ssary to our Deliverance from eternal Wrath, or to our having everlasting Life. I might give a large catalogue of learned men on this occasion, but will only instance in the learned Grotius, who, in the Summary he gave of the Catholic Faith in this very Point has it thus, at nos intercedente vera Fide, a Poena Mort● aeternae liberaremur. This great Man, writing to Christ's Satisfaction, saith, that Christ did it, that o● the Intervention of true Faith, we might be delivere● from the Punishment of eternal Death. But 4. The Reporter has one Passage more than Grotius, (wh● was never thought to reject the necessity of Faith in order to Justification) namely, and have everlasting Life. Thus much the Reporter took care to inser● into the substance of the Gospel in this Article, having a regard to that Place in John 3.36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting Life. That is, hat● a Right to everlasting Life. Habet, i. e. certo habituru● est, as Lucas Brugensis, in Pool, who refers us unto John 1.12. where 'tis thus, Jus ad haereditatem quod & Haereditatis nomine interdum venit, sicut qu● credit (nempe sicut oportet credere; viva side,) di●citur habere vitam aeternam. C. 3.36. Sic Juris con●sulti, is qui actionem habet ad rem ipsam, rem habere videtur. Well then, the import of what the Reporter has here said, is, That Christ suffered, that they who believe may have a Right to eberlasting Life, and seeing Justification carries in it a Right to Life eternal; it is as if it had been said, That they who believe may be justified. (5.) That this is the manifest intendment of the Reporter, may be seen by comparing the present Paragraph with the fore going, which is,  
We are all by Nature under the Curse of the Law, and destitute of a Righteousness entitling to eternal Life.— That Vindictive Justice, which is essential unto God, makes it necessary, that the wrath be inflicted, and that there be no Right to eternal Life without a perfect meritorious Righteousness. This is our State and Condition: This is the Place, in which we are, in which if we die, we are eternally undone.  
The Reporter having shown into what a deploable Condition we are brought by Sin, and urging the necessity of an Interest, in a perfect meritorious Righteousness; he proceeds to show, how we may obtain such a Righteousness, as is meritorious of eternal life, to the end we may obtain a right thereunto, ●ying, ' That all who believe might escape the Wrath to come, and have everlasting Life; the Lord Jesus undertakes for us; thereby clearing it, ●hat they who believe having an Interest in Christ's Righteousness, may have a Right to everlasting Life, that is, may be justified, so that here is an asserting of faith as necessary to Justification, Pardon and Peace with God. (6.) The Reporter in giving this brief account of the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, hath followed the blessed Jesus, and the ●oly Apostles as his Guides; for our Lord when ●e sent out his Disciples to preach the Gospel, bids them declare, That whoever believe and are baptised ●hall be saved, and they who believe not shall be damned. In this Summary, though not one word expressly of Regeneration, Conversion, Repentance, etc. nor a word of the Precedence of Faith to Justification or Pardon of Sin; yet are all these included in it. The ●reaching of the Apostles was frequently the same, Believe and thou shalt be saved. But, (7.) If there had been any Strength in this Objection, Mr. A. doth make, not only the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity, and the rankest Socinians, but the very Mehometanes would be very much beholding to him for it. For, if the not mentioning every Article of the Christian Faith particularly in the Letter, where our Lord gives a Summary of the Gospel, must import a Rejection, or at least an Indifference about the Points not mentioned; then to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, is sufficient, and we may burn our Systems, Catechisms and larger Confessions of Faith.  
But (8.) If he saith, it's mentioned by our Lord Jesus and his Apostles elsewhere, I grant it, and from thence I infer, that as our Lord's not mentioning these things, in a summary, is not a Rejecting them; so the Reporter, tho' he spoke not a word of them in his summary, cannot without the greatest Injustice, and wrong done him, be charged, as a Rejecter of them. And (9) It's not unworthy our observation, that the Lord Jesus did in Mark 16.15, 16. give a summary of the whole Gospel without the mention of the particulars specified by my Adversary; but the Reporter only of the substance of the Gospel so far as we are to believe what Christ has done, and suffered for Sinners without them, and with God, in which he hath insisted on the necessity of Faith, in order to our escaping the Wrath to come, and our having Everlasting Life, which passage importing the necessity of Faith to our actual Right unto Glory, is as much as if it had been said, that it's necessary to our Justification and Pardon.  
But Mr. A. it's likely, not thinking himself under those Bonds which oblige to a strict adherence unto Truth, in what he either saith, or writes, I have Reason to believe, that he hath charged the Reporter for Rejecting what he himself believes in his Conscience he holds, and that he hath done thus much, upon a Reason, which he is persuaded has nothing of strength in it; so dangerous a thing it is for a Man, who in his own Opinion, is a Great Wit, to enter on a Controversy, with a design to load his Opposers with False and Reproachful Charges, tho' it be to the cost and expense of his own Reputation, and in an Instance wherein he cannot expose the Reporter, but by casting dirt on the Cathick Church, and on his own Understanding too, giving ●ountenance to nothing so much as unto the vain pretences of such Debauched Heretics as the Licentious Antinomian, and Libertines of the Age are.  
Thus, we see, whither somewhat has hurried his Man, and how he has brought himself into such Circumstances, as may move a Christian Temper ●o Pity and Compassion, for which reason I'll say ●o more to this Objection, but go on to a second.    

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

Reply.  
And was not this our Place, State, and Condition? Will Mr. A. deny it? No, he dares not; for, saith ●e, This we all own, and lament as too true. Where ●hen is his Objection? It is in the following words.  
But then he instructs you also, That Christ put himself into our Place, State, and Condition: Will you not, must you not conclude from hence, That Christ also was destitute of a Righteousness to entitle him, and if himself, us too, to Eternal Life.   

Reply.  
1. That I may show how Mr. A. trifles in raising his Objection, I will propose the Sentiments of the Reporter about a Commutation of Persons between Christ, and us; which was the Occasion of what was said about our being destitute of a Righteousness. And it must be observed, that the Reporter had his Eye on the Manuscript, in which its Author, speaking of a proper Commutation, saith, That it is the same with a proper Surrogation, where the Surety [or Surrogate] puts on the Person, and stands in the Quality, State, and Condition of the Debtor, and lies under the same Obligation he did to answer for him. Not that he apprehended the Agreement there is between Christ's Suretyship, and that amongst Men to be adequate, and full; nor did he allude unto a Creditor and Debtor to insinuate, that whatever may be truly affirmed of them, in Humane Courts, might be safely applied unto God, and Sinners, as to Christ acting the part of a Surety: But, to explain how Christ came under the same Obligations, we stood; and by his Satisfaction, and Merit Redeems us from that miserable state and condition our sin had cast us into, and procures for us a Right to Eternal Life; And therefore in Obedience to the Holy Scriptures, he considered Jesus Christ as a Surety that came into the State, Quality, or Condition of Sinners, so far, and no further, than to come under the same Obligations, and Bonds with us, to answer for us, and do, on our behalf, what was impossible to be done by ourselves. And that he might make this the more clear, he represented unto us that State, in which we all are by Nature, affirming, That we are all under the Curse, destitute of a Righteousness, that may entitle us to Eternal Life. And, that, except Satisfaction be made both to Punitive, and Remunerative Justice, it's impossible for us to be saved. For, seeing the Law, under which we were Created is of Everlasting Obligation, we stand bound thereby both to Obedience, and the Punishment, and until this Debt be paid, we cannot be Relieved.  
This is our State, this is our Condition, and that they who believe may be brought out of this Place, State, and Condition, and have Everlasting Life, Christ came into this Place, into this State, and Condition, that is, he came under those Bonds, and Ob●igations that lay on us, that, by answering them, we ●ight be the Redeemed, and Saved.  
But, saith Mr. A. if it be thus, Christ must be de●itute of a Righteousness; to which I reply, By no ●eans; and if we consider how it is between a Surety and a Debtor, in our Courts, we may soon see ●he contrary. For, when one becomes Surety for another, he comes into the Place, State and Condition ●f that other, that is, under the same Bonds and Obligations to pay for him, what he could not do for himself. But, would any Man of Sense say, that the Surety coming into the same State and Condition of the Debtor, to pay his Debts for him, must be thereupon destitute of what is necessary in order thereunto? He comes into the Place of one who is Insolvent, but must he therefore be himself Insolvent, and yet pay what neither the Debtor nor himself can pay? Thus you see what Mr. A's. Objection is at last come to. But,  
2. The Righteousness of which our Discourse is, answers that Law, which said, Do this and live; In the day thou sinnest thou shalt die; and it is to make Satisfaction both to Punitive and Remunerative Justice. For whatever some may impertinently object, it may be very safely said, that Justice distributes Rewards and Punishments, and therefore is rightly denominated Remunerative and Punitive. For though it's said, That Punishment is merited by, or is rather the Demerit of sin; and that the Sinner, when he bears the Punishment due unto him for his Iniquity, partakes of the Reward of unrighteousness; yet none can with the least pretence to Reason, say, That Punitive and Remunerative are Terms in all respects Coincident. For, it's most notorious, that when Believers are, for the sake of Christ's Righteousness rewarded with Eternal Life, they are not then punished; though Remunerative Justice is then glorified, yet Punitive Justice is not so  
But, being assured, that Mr. Alsop saith, these Terms of Remunerative and Punitive Justice are Coincident; I will give the Sense of some learned Protestants about it. Gilbertus' Voet, a Man of good Learning and a right Calvinist, discoursing of the Justice of God, saith, that Justitia Dei est vel in Dictis, vel in Factis. Posterior duplex scilicet Regiminis, & Judicii. Justitia Judicii est, quae secundum Opera Mercedem retribuit. Estque haec duplex, vel, Remunerativa seu Praemians secundum Promissionem erga bene agentes; vel Correctiva erga male agentes. Quae etiam distinguitur in Castigantem erga Filios, & Vindicantem, seu Punitivam proprie, & strict sic dictam erga Reprobos. Voet. Select. Disput. Pas. 1. Disp. de Jure & Justitia pag. 357, 358. And the learned Doctor Owen, in his Diatribe de Justitia Divina, saith the same, affirming it to be the general Sense of Modern Divines, not one of them who writ on the Divine Attributes, being of a different Opinion: And in the Margin, he makes particular mention of Zanchy, Voet, Maresius and others; directing us also unto Doctor Ames his Cases of Conscience; who in the second Chapter of his fifth Book, resolves this Question viz. Whether Remuneration or Punition belongs, to Communicative or to Distributive Justice? Whether Mr. A. understood these things or not, is not in my Opinion very material, it being sufficient to my purpose, that in the Judgement of wiser Men than himself these Terms are not so Coincident, as it's said he doth insinuate.  
But to return, The Lord Jesus undertaking to make Satisfaction both to Punitive and Remunerative Justice, that is to say, the obliging himself to suffer the Punishment due to us; for the Satisfaction of Punitive Justice, and render Obedience to the same Law, to merit the Reward we had ●ost; the Righteousness the Reporter spoke of, lieth 〈◊〉 bearing the threatened Curse, and in obeying the Precepts of that Law we violated. And I demand of ●●r. Alsop, Whether the Lord Jesus was always possessed of this Righteousness? Had he it the ●●rst Instant of his undertaking? or when he first ●ame into our Place, State and Condition?  
That there was no Guile in the Mouth, nor De●●it in the Heart of the blessed Jesus; That he ●as ever, even whilst he was in a State of Exa●nition without Spot, Holy, Harmless, Undefiled, ●●parate from Sinners, and at the greatest distance ●●om the least Pollution or Impurity, we do firmly ●elieve: And though he had not actually a satisfying-●eritorious Righteousness before, he did by his Penal Sufferings, and his perfect Obedience to the violated Law satisfy and merit; yet was he at no in●●ant of time destitute, of what in that instant it become him to have. But it's like, nothing will satisfy Mr. A. but the granting, That either be●●re, or at his undertaking; or at least the first ●●●ment of his entering on the work of our Redemp●on, he was actually possessed of a satisfactory meritorious Righteousness, as if he believed, that Christ before he obeyed and suffered, did perfect●● obey and fully satisfy. How else can he make ●●hideous a Noise, about the Reporters holding, at Christ was destitute of a Righteousness, enticing himself and us too, to eternal Life? Once more. 3. Mr. A— blames the Reporter for suggesting if Christ had not a Righteousness, entitling himself 〈◊〉 eternal Life. To which I answer,  
1. That the Reporter, spoke not about Christ's ha●●ng, or not having a Righteousness entitling himself 〈◊〉 eternal Life. But, 2. Seeing Mr. A. doth insi●●nate, That Jesus Christ hath wrought for himself Righteousness, that he might by it be entitled to Eternal Life, I will consider the Import and Tendency of such an Assertion.  
1. As for its Import, it cannot be any thing less than that the Lord Jesus Christ was once in a state of Trial, and made under the same Law for himself, that we were for ourselves, and that Obedience was required of him, to the end that he merit Eternal Life for himself: Whence it follows, That when the Promise of Eternal Life was proposed, for the Encouragement of his Obedience, he had no Right nor Title to Eternal Life; no, not for himself: But that to get a Title thereunto, he was under the Obligation of the same Law, that we were; and to speak most modestly of Mr. A's. Notion, The Lord Jesus Christ, God-Man, was antecedently to his rendering Obedience to the Law, which said, Do this and live. He was as destitute of a Right to Eternal Life, as Adam was on his first Creation. Thus, whilst he would fasten on the Reporter the groundless Charge of making Christ destitute of 〈◊〉 Righteousness; he makes our Blessed Lord destitute of Eternal Life, ay, of a Right thereunto: But le● us consider,  
2. The Tendency of this Notion; and that I may do it with the greater clearness, I will deliver what I design to offer on this occasion; as pressed by the Learned, Judicious and Holy Doctor Owen▪ who in his Day excelled most Men in these Studies And whoever will consult his Discourse of Justification from page 366 to page 378. will see, That this great Man in confuting the Socinians, and their next of Kin in the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and our Justification, doth with much concern, declare and strongly prove, That Christ came not under the Law for himself, but for us.  
To set this Important Point in the clearer Light it must be observed, That the Controversy is not, whether the Humane Nature of Christ, as it is a Rational Creature, be subject unto the Law of Creation, and eternally obliged from the Nature of God, ●●d its Relation thereunto, to Love him, Obey him, ●epend upon him, and to make him its End, Blessed-●●ss, and Reward. For as the Dr. admirably well ●●presseth it; ' The Law of Creation, thus considered, doth not respect the World, and this Life only; but the Future State of Heaven, and Eternity. But the Point here controverted is, Whe●●er Christ be under the Law, as it is imposed on creature's by especial Dispensation, for some time, ●●d for some certain End, with some Considerations, ●●les, and Orders, that belong not essentially to the ●●w, as before described, as it is presented unto us, ●●●t absolutely and eternally, but whilst we are in this World, and that with this special End, that by Obe●●●nce thereunto, we may obtain the Reward of ●ternal Life?  
To this the Dr. answers; That the Lord Jesus Christ was not made under the Law, under this ●●nsideration, for himself, to the end he might get a ●ale unto Eternal Life. For, (saith the Doctor) upon the first Instant of the Union of his Natures, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from Sinners, he might, notwithstanding that Law, he was made subject unto, have been stated in Glory. For, he that was the Object of all Divine Worship, ceded not any New Obedience to procure for him state of Blessedness. And a little before. Setting side (saith the Doctor) the consideration of the Grace, and Love of Christ, and the Compact between the Father and the Son, as to the Undertaking ●or us, which undeniably proves all that he did in pursuit of them to be done for us, and not for himself. I say, setting aside the consideration of these things, and the Humane Nature of Christ, b● virtue of its Union with the Person of the Son 〈◊〉 God, had a Right unto, and might have immediately been admitted into the Highest Glo●● whereof it was capable, without any Anteceder Obedience unto the Law. And this is appare●● from hence, in that from the First Instant of th●Vnion, the whole Person of Christ, with our Nature Existing therein, was the Object of all Divi●● Worship from Angels and Men, wherein consist the Highest Exaltation of that Nature. So f●● Dr. Owen.  
Here than you see a difference between this Learned Dr. and Mr. A. Mr. A. suggests as if Chri●● were under the Law, which saith, Do this and liv● for Himself, as well as for us, that he might be e●● titled to Eternal Life; but the Dr. denies it up●● the weightiest consideration. Besides, the Doctor is the more positive in his Opinion, as it doth mo●● effectually subvert the Notion of Socinus, which 〈◊〉 That our Lord Jesus Christ was for himself, or on 〈◊〉 own account, obliged unto all that Obedience, which 〈◊〉 performed, and therefore could no more obey, a●● satisfy for others, than any other person. But th● Doctor proves, That Christ's Obedience unto t●● Law was for Us, and not for Himself; and ther● by doth most effectually enervate the strength 〈◊〉 Socinus his Argument, which upon Mr. A's. Notion receives new Life, and Vigour.  
Whoever desires a suller understanding of th● Controversy, will do well to consult the Doctor himself; who, in the pages referred unto, hath 〈◊〉 fully, and clearly stated this Doctrine, as to obviate Objections, made against it by the Remonstrant Socinians, and others; but what I have here said 〈◊〉 sufficient to show Mr. A's. Mistake, and what countenance it gives the Socinians, and how much reason 〈◊〉 hath to be more in his Study consulting, not ●ay-Books for the sake of foolish Jests, but the ●oly Scriptures, and the Learned Writings of D. O. ●●d other Orthodox Divines, that for the future, ●rough inadvertency, or otherwise, he give not those advantages to the common Enemies of our Holy religion, he hath too oft done. But I pass on to third Objection.    

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

Reply.  
1. That Mr. Alsop is so very much at a loss to ●●d out the genuine meaning of the word Sin, ●en it's said we are Sin, as if it had been never ●used in Scripture, doth not a little surprise; it ●●ng so common for the Holy-Ghost to express the ●●erlative Degree by the Abstract, not only in ●●er Instances, but even in this, that doth so puz●● and confound him. For, as the Devils, whose ●●s are exceeding great, are called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or spiritual wickedness, so wicked Men are cal●● Wickedness, particularly, in 1 Cor. 6.9, 10, 11. ●ere is an enumeration of sundry sorts of Sinners, 〈◊〉 render it, [And such were some of you] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●●t is, as may be seen in Pool; talia scelera eratis, ●●th Wickednesses were some of you; and as Ca●arius, ut cum Sceleratum dicimus Scelus. The like also in Ephesians 5.8. ye were Darkness, that is, as Zanchy, ut Scelus pro scelestissimo; and Bishop Reynolds observes, on Psalm 110. The Lord, to signify that his People were most Rebellious, saith, that they were Rebellion itself, Ezek. 2.8. and many other instances of this kind might be given, which may move some of no jealous Inclinations, to suspect, that the Objector hath been more conversant with the Poets, than with the Prophets and Apostles.  
2. Well then, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, the signification of the word [Sin] is very obvious, denoting the greatness of Wickedness we are Sin; we are Sin in the Abstract, we are Sinners in the highest degree. But,  
3. Doth not this Interpretation give advantage to the Objector, who saith, you shall see the mystery of his Phraseology; it was to misled you, into that Abomination, that Christ was sinful, that h● was a Sinner; for, if Christ was Sin in the same Acceptation, that we are, than he was sinful, h● was a Sinner, and the greatest Sinner, that eve● was in the World. To this I answer, That whatever is here suggested, my Interpretation of the word [Sin,] gives not the least advantage to th● Objector. For,  
1. If the word [Sin] has a Sense in the Superla●tive Degree, in which it is true, not only of us, bu● of Christ, without making Christ inherently sinful or personally guilty; all this noise is to no purpose.  
2. That Christ was Sin in an Acceptation, tha● we are Sin without being Inherently Sinsul, i● evident; as the word [Sin imports Gild, I mea● Legal Gild, and a proper Punishment consequen thereupon. Sin in Scripture oft imports the sam● with Legal Gild, in the Sense described by the ●arned Bishop of Worcester, and it also ofttimes signifies Punishment. My Sin, and sometimes my ●uilt, at other times my Punishment; and when ●uilt and Punishment are expressed by the word Sin, ●e are not only directed to our Sins as the merito●us Cause, but to the dreadful and dismal Effects. We are Sin, we are upon the account of our Transgressions exceeding Guilty, and the Punishment they ●serve is exceeding great. But,  
3. If Christ be not Sin in some of the same Ac●ptations, in which we are Sin, than the Gild of ●●r Sins was never transferred upon Christ, nor the punishment thereof inflicted on him; which is a ●ry liberal giving up the Controversy to the Soci●ans, who deny Christ to be made Sin in any one ●ense, in which we are Sin, and so will not own ●at our Gild was laid upon him, or a proper Pungent inflicted on him.  
4. If Christ be in no Sense Sin, in which we ●e Sin, than our Sins were never imputed unto ●hrist, nor did he, in a proper sense, bear our Gild, 〈◊〉 Punishment, nor was he, nor could he be a Proper sacrifice for sin. To say, that Christ was a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 sin, in a proper sense, and yet not sin in any one ●se, in which we are sin, is to say he had not the ●uilt, nor the Punishment of sin upon him, and that ●e was not a proper Sacrifice for sin; for it's essen●al to a proper Sacrifice for sin, to have the Gild, ●●d Punishment of sin laid upon it. Upon this acount it is that amongst the Hebrews the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for sin, the Gild, the Punishment, and sacrifice. And amongst the Greeks, and Latines the ●ne word signifies a wicked man, and an Expiatory sacrifice. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is. as Dr. Owen against Biddle, cap. 22. observes, Homo pia cularis pro Lustratione, & Expiatione Patriae devotus; whence the word is often used, as scelus in Latin for a wicked man, a man fit to be destroyed and taken away Agreeably hereunto, Budaeus renders that place o● the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4.13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— nos tanquam piacula— we as as the accursed thing of the World, and Sacrifices for the People; it being, a may be seen in Pool in loc. the Custom of som● Countries, in the day of their Calamity, to take th● vilest amongst the People, and Sacrifice them, wh● by the Athenians were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so common hath it been for the Sinner, and the Sacrifice to bea● the same Name even amongst the Heathen; but i● the Holy Scriptures nothing more evident, because the Sin, for which the Sacrifice was to be offered was laid upon it in the Old Testament, whereby the Laying of our sins on the Lord Jesus, which wa● a necessary antecedent to his Death, as he was a Sacrifice, was prefigured. But,  
5. Mr. A. writes, as if he had either never known or had quite forgot what is so very obvious to mos● Divines; and therefore what he saith on this occasion is to be the less regarded, and to be considered as what can serve no other sort of People, tha● the Socinians, and their Allies, tho' I still charitably hope, that he abhors their Tenants, even when hi● Writings do, in too many instances, favour thei● Cause.    

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

Reply.  
1. I do not say that this is an Objection of Mr. Alsop's framing, nor will I answer it as such. The Episcopianism, and Socinianism, that is in it, is so clear ●n evidence of its being form by a Wellwisher ●o the Errors of our Adversaries, that I'll not ●asten it on one in whose Writings I have not met ●ith it. But that 'tis of the same nature with ●hat Mr. W. hath advanced, is to me most certain.  
2. Whatever this Objector hath, with a boldness ●ommon amongst our Adversaries, asserted, I must ●ave leave to suggest, that by this way of arguing, ●●d by these Assertions, he hath left out Orthodox Writers, and is gone over to the Tents of Limborch, ●●rcellaeus, Schlictingtons', and Crellius.  
3. That herein the Objector has forsaken the Or●odox, I will evince by setting down the Sentiments of some of the most Eminent amongst them. ●nd that I may be the more convincing in what I 〈◊〉, I must observe, that the hinge of this controversy turns on a sound determination of this Que●●on, viz. Whether Christ's Suretyship belongs to his Priestly office, or not? For, if it belongs unto the Priestly Of●●e, 'twill unavoidably follow, that as our Surety, ●e Lord Jesus offered up himself a Sacrifice to God 〈◊〉 the Expiation of the Gild of our sins, that to ●is end he took on him our Gild, and bore the punishment due to us, which he could not do but by ●●ming under the Sanction of the violated Law. The connection there is between Christ's Priesthood, ●●d his offering up a proper Sacrifice, between his ●eing a proper Sacrifice, and his bearing the Gild, ●●d Punishment of our sins; and between his bearing the Gild, and Punishment of our sin, and his ●eing under the Sanction of the violated Law, is so ●ose, so firmly fixed, and inviolable, that, on the ●●anting, that Christ's Suretyship belongs to him, as ●●iest, the whole here mentioned necessarily follows. The Links are too strog to be broken. If then our Divines hold, that the Suretyship mentioned in Heb. 7.22. belongs to Christ's Priestly Office, if they produce this Text to prove, that Christ as our Surety took on him the Gild and Punishment of our sins, to satisfy God's Justice for them, than they do run counter herein, unto the Episcopians and Socinians, in holding that Christ came under the Sanction of the Law.  
4. That, in what I have delivered, I have given the sense of the Orthodox is manifest. The Learned Bishop Reynolds on Psal. 110.4. p. 417. saith, That Christ, being a Priest, must of necessity be a Mediator, and Surety between Parties, that he might have one, unto whom, and others, for whom, and in whose behalf to offer a Sacrifice. Every Priest must be a Mediator to stand between God and the People, and to intercept, and bear the Iniquity o● their Holy things— But every Mediator is not presently a Priest, for there is a Mediator only by way of Entreaty and Prayer, etc. And there are Mediators by way of Satisfaction, as Sureties are between the Creditor and the Debtor; and such a Mediator was Christ; not only a Mediator, but also a Surety of a better Covenant, Heb. 8.6. Heb. 7.22. He was not to procure Remission of our sins by way of Favour and Request, but he was set forth to declare the Righteousness of God, Rom. 3.25. and such a Mediator between God and Us must needs be a Priest too. For the Debt, which we Owed unto God was Blood. Without shedding of Blood there is no Remission, Heb. 9.22. Essenius, who is applauded for his Defence of Grotius, de Satisfactione, by Lutherans, as well as Calvenists, saith the same; Quantum ad Locum, Heb. 7.22. rationes à Crellio, allatas cur Christus Sponsor Novi Foederis vocetur minimè sufficere oftendimus, Sect. 1. hujus Libri. Imò in an●ecedentibus, & consequentibus agitur de Sacerdotio Christi quo ipse non fungitur nomine Dei apud bomines; sed nontine Hominum, apud Deum, cui se victimam obtulit. Atque Ita Sponsorem egit pro hominibus apud Deum. Essen● Trump. Crucis, 〈◊〉. 2. sect. 3. cap. 1. p. 500 Judicious Mr. Strong, his Discourse of the two Covenants, lib. 2. cap. 2. ●●ct. 1. § 2. p. 128. has it thus; ' The Lord Christ, by becoming a Surety, did give his hand; that is, be did enter into Covenant with the Lord, and so his Name is put into our Bond, Gal. 4.4, 5. He is said to be made under the Law, and that as a Covenant; and when the Apostle saith, He is the Surety of a better Covenant, whereas the main of Christ's Suretyship refers unto the first Covenant, the Covenant of Works broken, and therefore, in respect of our Debt, he is the Surety of the first Covenant; yet the Apostle doth not so express it, but of the better Covenant, because the Commutation of the Person, the bringing in of a Surety, doth properly belong unto the Covenant of Grace, and it is a part of the Covenant of Grace, that there should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a Propitiation, one to stand in our stead, or to make Satisfaction to the Justice of God for the Breach of the Covenant of Works; and therefore the whole Suretyship of Christ doth refer unto the Covenant of Grace, of which his standing in our stead, and paying our Debt, is a principal part. To this of Mr. Strong I will add what Mr. Alsop with about the Covenant of Grace, in his Antisozzo, 717, etc. The Covenant of Grace may be considered, either in its Constitution, or Execution:— In the Execution of the fixed Constitution— the Redeeming Mediator Undertakes with God as a Righteous Judge— and therefore becomes a Priest, a Sacrifice, a Price, a Ransom, a Curse, to satisf●●● the judge and his Law— Christ himself is promised in the Covenant as the Great Comprehensive Blessing of the Covenant, Isa. 49.8, 9 So that Chris● being given in the Covenant of Grace, to Redeen us by his Death, and Sufferings, by his satisfying th● Judge, and his Law, from that Misery, our sins ha● brought upon us, he might very well be styled by th● Apostle, Heb. 7.22. a Surety of a better Covenant, o● Testament, which shows the vanity of that part o● the Objection, which saith, Christ cannot be said to come under the Sanction of the Law of Works, because being styled the Surety of a better Testament, cat● respect only the Covenant of Grace. Once more.  
The Learned Dr. Owen, in opposition to the Interpretation given of Heb. 7.22. by Schlictingius Curcellaeus, and Hammond, (and I may justly add to that given by Mr. W.) declares. That the generality of Expositors, Ancient, and Modern, of the Roman, and Protestant Churches, on the place, affirm, that the Lord Christ, as the Surety of the Covenant, was properly a Surety, or Undertaker unto God for us; and not a Surety, or Undertaker unto us for God. And because this is a matter of great importance, wherein the Faith and Consolation of the Church is highly concerned, I shall (saith he) a little insist upon it— It is the Priesthood of Christ that the Apostle treats of in this place, [viz. Heb. 7.22.] and that alone. Wherefore he is a Surety as he is a Priest, and in the discharge of that Office, and therefore is so with God on our behalf— He undertook, as the Surety of the Covenant, to answer for all the sins of those, who are to be, and are made Partakers of the Benefits of it; that is, to undergo the Punishment due unto their sins; to make Atonement for them by offering himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Expiation of their sins, Redeeming them by the ●●ice of his Blood from their state of Misery, and Bondage under the Law, and the Curse of it. Isa. 53.4, 5, 6, 10. Matth. 20.28. 1 Tim. 2.6. 1 Cor. 6.20. Rom. 3.25, 26. Heb. 10.5, 6, 7, 8. Rom. 8.2, 3. 2 Cor. 5.19, 20, 21. Gal. 3.13. And his was Absolutely Necessary, that the Grace and Glory prepared in the Covenant, might be communicated to us. This, and much more to the me purpose hath the Learned Dr. in his Disc. of ●●stif. p. 256, etc. To whom I will only add what ●e Learned Author of the Interest of Reason in Region offers on this Point. ' Whereas Christ is styled saith he) the Surety of a better Covenant, it i● because the Enacting of the Covenant of Grace respects his Undertaking to he made sin, and to undergo the Curse as the Moral Cause and Condition; without which there had been no Overtures of Mercy made to the Sons of Men, p. 537, 538.  
5. What these Great Men have here delivered, ●oth not only testify to the Truth of what I have affirmed about the Opposition the Or. hodex have ●ade against the Interpretation given of Heb. 7.22. ●●y Mr. W. Curcellaeus, and the Socinian; but it also doth. ●ost convincingly prove, that Christ's Suretyship belongs to his Priesthood, that in his Acting the part of Surety, or in the Execution of his Priestly Office, ●e Offered up himself a Sacrifice, took on him our ●uilt and Punishment, and, to this end, came under ●he Sanction of the violated Law. For,  
6. The connection the Apostle affirms to be between Christ's Suretyship and his Priestly Office is ●uch, that a denying Christ to be a Surety, undertaking to bear the Gild and Punishment of our sins, ●or that he came under the Sanction of the Law, to satisfy God's Justice for us, hath a direct tendency to subvert the true Notion of the Priestly Office. Of this Schlictingius was so sensible, that he could think on no way (as Dr. O. observes) to solve the Apostles mention of Christ's being a Surety in the Description of his Priestly Office, but by overthrowing the Nature of that Office also. Of Justif. p. 261, 262, 263. Have we not then reason enough to be concerned to see any, amongst ourselves, turning aside from the Common Faith delivered to us from the Lord Jesus, and his Apostles, and falling in with the Inveterate Enemies of our Saviour's Satisfaction? One thing more I must note,  
7. That the Notion, Paraphrase, and Exposition, given by Socinians, and a few other Authors, of Christ's being made, and called our Surety, because of his Undertaking to be Pledge, and Guarranty for God to Sinners, that upon their Repentance and Faith he will both pardon, and bestow upon them Eternal Life, is no ways either consistent with, or to be reconciled unto what the same Apostle had declared, chap. 6. p. 16, 17. where, tho' he had been discoursing of Christ's Priestly Office, he doth nevertheless expressly, and positively affirm, that God's Word of Promise, accompanied, and ratified by his Oath, is the whole, and that praeclusive of all other means of Security, and Assurance, which we either need; or, that God hath in this matter been pleased to afford us, in order to the steadfastness of our Faith, the Fullness of our Consolation; God being willing more abundantly to show unto the Heirs of Promise the Immutability of his Counsel confirmed it by an Oath, that by two Immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong Consolation, who have fled for Refuge, to lay hold upon the Hope set before us. So that the Reason of his being styled the Surety of the better Testament is, because of his ●●ffering and performing those great Things for us ●owards God, without which the Testamental Inheritance bequeathed in that better Testament, would ●ot have been upon any Terms acruable unto, ●nd claimable by us.    

The Fifth Objection.  
That by saying Christ sustained the Person of Sinners, Mr. L. must be thought to acknowledge, That he died for the Reprobate, as well as for the Elect, and that it favours the Nestorians, who maintain, That Christ was constituted of two Persons.  

Reply.  
1. What is objected against me in these words, 〈◊〉 as much against the generation of the Orthodox, ●ho use the same Phrases which I do. Not that ●●intend only the Lutherans in this Instance, who are grisly concerned in the first part of the Objection, or I use it in no other sense than the Reformed ●●nerally do.  
2. The Conffusion which the Author of this Objection is fallen into, in his opposing the Phrase 〈◊〉 Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners, has ●oved some to fear, that all things are not Right ●ith him. For one while this Phrase can signify ●othing less than that Christ puts on the Disguise of ●inners (Horresco referens) and Acts the part of a ●age-Player; at another time, it must import Ne●ianism, as if Christ had taken on him the Natu●●● Person of Sinners; And again, the Enquiry is, ●hether the Persons of Sinners are not United, ●nd to be considered as One Person, and whether ●hrist did not die and satisfy for that One Person, ●hat is for all equally, which he doth not believe to ●e our sense, as he declares. But,  
3. The sense, in which we use this Phrase, is known to Divines of the least accquaintance with these Studies, so that unless there had been a fault somewhere, the Objector could not have been thus puzzled, for it hath been cleared in my Defence, that when it's said Christ sustained the Person of Sinners, it's not meant that the Person he took on him, was either a Feigned or a Natural Person, that it was only a Legal Person; so that, did he understand what is most plain and easy, he could not but see that he had not the least Pretence for his Blasphemous Representation of our blessed Saviour's Acting the part of a Stage-Player; nor for his charging us with Nestorianism.  
4. As for his Endeavour to infer from this Phrase of [Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners] the Doctrine of Universal Redemption, is so destitute of the least colour of Reason, that as he believes we do not hold it, so it hath no Foundation for its support: For the Phrase of [Christ sustaining the Person of Sinners] and that other o● [Christ's dying for Sinners] is of one and the same Extent, and the Interpretation given by the Orthodox of the one, is sufficient to vindicate the other from his trifling Cavils. But,  
5. When we say, That Christ sustained the Person of Sinners, we mean it of those Sinners, who are given by the Father to the Son, whom the Father will draw unto him, who come to the Father by the Son, do believe are Converted, Regenerated and Saved. In a word, we mean it of Elect Sinners.    

The Sixth Objection.  
That it is both Scandalous and Blasphemous to say▪ That Pestilent Doctrines have been oftentimes Communicated in the Language of Scripture.  
1. When I wrote my Defence of the Report, observing how zealous Mr. W's and his Substitute, ●ere for strict Adherences unto Scripture words, ●nd how much against the use of some Terms and phrases (chosen by the Orthodox, to explain the Truth) because not in the Letter of Scripture, I ●●ought it necessary to suggest in my Defence, as did, p. 59 That it hath been the way of the Heretics to Quarrel with such Terms and Phrases as ●he Church had chosen, because not found in the ●etter of Scripture; adding, That amongst many others, it's well observed by the Learned Mr. Norton ●f New-England, That the most Pestilent Doctrines ●●ve been Communicated in the Language of Scripture; ●●on which (as I am told) Mr. Alsop briskly delivers his charitable Censure, vix. That to say so is ●oth Seandalous and Blasphemous. But,  
2. What Mr. Norton said is Matter of Fact, in Point whereof the Truth is too Notorious to be ●●nyed. And may we not transmit to Posterity the wretched and villanaous Practices of Vile Heretics, without falling under the censure of being both ●andalous and Blasphemous?  
3. If it be Blasphemous to relate a Matter of this ●ature, some of the most Judicious and Learned historiographers and Fathers of the Church, such Eusebius, Theodoret, Gregory Nazianzen, St. Jerom, 〈◊〉 Austin, and many others, who have faithfully ●elated, with much clearness detected the Frauds ●●d confuted the detestible Errors of Heretics ●e Guilty. And whoever will escape this Man's menaces and Threating, whilst they behold the rafty Methods of the Enemies to our Holy Religion, tho' subversive of the Truth, and ruinous 〈◊〉 the Souls of Men, must tamely look on, and not speak one word of them, because they deliver thei● Pernicious Doctrines in Scripture Language. Bu●  
4. As in all ages of the Church, Heretics hav● had their Advocates to plead their Cause, or at lea●● to extenuate and speak favourably of their Errors in like manner, there have not been wanting some who though to the hazard of their Liberty, their Reputation and Lives, because of malicious Intrigues an● Invidious Designs of Erroneous Delators, have discovered the Cheat, oppugned the Error, and defended the Truth.  
5 That it hath been the way of Heretics t● act deceitfully, and communicate their Pestilent Notions in Scripture Language; I will, for the sak● of the Objector, and such as want either Ability o● Opportunity to consult Church History, or the Fathers, show out of Kracanthorp, who, in his Treatise of the fifth General Council, held at Constantinopl● under the Emperor Justinian, making a very stric● search into these matters, comes at last to this Conclusion, viz. That the Nestorians spoke like Catholics, but thought otherwise: Their Words wer● holy, and Orthodoxal, but their Sense and Meaning was Blasphemous, and Heretical. Neither wa● this any New Policy of the Nestorians; the Ar●ans, the Pelagians, almost all Heretics have practised the like. Out of them all (saith he) I wil● here allege but one Example. Vitalis, a Presbyter of Antioch was accused unto Damasus to maintain in some part the Heresy of Apollinaris, as denying Christ to have a Soul or Mind; at the motion of Damasus he delivered in Writing a Confession of his Faith— In this Confession Vitalis had placed the very words of the Scripture, not depraved not any way changed, neither the Order, nor th● Writing of them being corrupted. But, when Vitalis came among his own Fellows, to them he opened his secret meaning and his Fraud. Whence ●●akanthorp observes, That an Heretical Profession ●●y be made in the very words of holy Scripture; ●hich is, as if it had been said, Pestilent Doctrines ●●y be communicated in Scripture Language. And must add,  
6. That as it hath been a common practice of heretics, to keep most rigidly to the Letter of Scripture; and from time to time, provoke their Orthodox Opposers thereunto; so, the Church, to the end ●e might the more effectually discover the Heresy, & heretic, explain and defend the Truth, did always use apt Words, Terms, and Phrases, from which the ●●amour of Heretics could never prevail with her 〈◊〉 turn.  
Doctor Owen, in the Preface to his Answer unto ●●ddle, speaks very fully unto this Point, declaring, ●●t it has been his observation, That such Words 〈◊〉 Expressions, as are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 found in Scripture, ●●e Questioned and Rejected by none but such as ●y their Rejection intent and aim at the Removal ●f the Truth itself, which by them is expressed ●nd plentifully revealed in the Word. Hence when Valens the Arian Emperor, sent Modestus the Praetorian Praefect, to persuade Basil to be an Arian, the Man entreats him not to be so rigid as ●o displease the Emperor, and trouble the Church, for 〈◊〉 Over-strict Observance of Opinions; it being but ●●e Word, indeed one Syllable, that made the Difference. And he thought it not Prudence to stand so much upon so small a Business. The Holy Man replied, However Children might be so dealt withal, those who are bred up in the Scriptures, or nourished with the Word, will not suffer one Syllable of Divine Truth to be betrayed. The like attempt of this of Valens and Modestus upon Basil, was made by the Arian Bishops at the Council of Arminum, who pleaded earnestly for the Rejection of one, or two Words, not found in Scripture, laying on the Plea much weight, when it was the Eversion of the Deity of Christ, which they intended and attempted Thus Doctor O. ubisupra. p. 21.  
7. After the same manner, in the present Controversy, my Adversaries make an amazing Noise crying out that the Quarrel is only about some Words, Terms, Phrases and Expressions, such as Chang● of Persons, Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners, etc. which are neither in Scripture, nor in any Public Confessions, and thus make a horrid strife about Words, when there is an agreement in things; calling upon us, to show the Scripture, that hath the controverted Words and Phrases literally in them, which you see from what I have urged out of Dr. Owen is an old Practice of Heretics: I will further show out of the Learned Dalley, who in his Demonstration of Faith from Scripture, gives a particular account of the Reasonings of the Ancient Heretics, and of what Answers the Fathers returned unto them.  
This great Man Notes it as the Practice of Arians and other Heretics, to provoke to the Express Letter of Scripture, for the use of those Terms and Phrases that were then controverted. For instance▪ Where is it (say they) in the Letter, that the Son is Consubstantial with the Father, where in so many Words and Syllables? Away with your Syllogisms, and show where nakedly and literally it● said, that the Son is the True God. So Pascentius Comes an Arian, in St. Austin, In what Text is the word Omoousios', or Consubstantial? And in Victor Vitensis, it's said, that Hunnericus, an Arian King of the Vandals, in an Edict, by which he commanded the Catholic Bishops of the African Churches to meet with Men of his own Opinion about Matters of Faith, would have them show the Faith of the Omoousians to be in so many Letters and Syllables of Scripture. But,  
8. This way of Arguing was exploded by the ●athers, as Absurd and Foolish, who constantly asserted, That altho' what they belived was not to 〈◊〉 found in so many express Words and Syllables, 〈◊〉 was it very clearly and manifestly deduced from ●ain Scriptures. And as Athanasius expressed it, ●o matter whether what, we believe be in so many words the Scriptures, so long as the Truths themselves are ●erein Contained. That is said to be Written, altho' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the very Letter, if the Sense of it there. So Chrysostom. To which add, that of gregory Nazianzen, there are some things in Scripture intended, which are not Literally expressed; ●ere be other things Literally mentioned but are not really intended, etc. Thus though it is not in ●e Letter said, That God is Impassable, without ●●inning, etc. Yet these things are by other words ●●ended: Again, altho' it be in the Letter, that ●od sleeps, awakes, moveth, yet are they not really ●eant. Dal. Vbi. sup. Cap. 7. and 8.  
9 This Learned Person induceth sundry other authorities, and at last refers to his Appendix, in which is a Treatise of Theodoret (which has been ●●serted in the Works of Athanasius) against 'em, ●●o are for a rigid, and stiff Adherence unto the ●●ry words of Scripture, without any regard to their Contsonancy, or Dissonancy unto Reason, or ●●e Analogy of Faith; or Mysteries of the Gospel, which the Father doth thus expostulate with 'em. What shall I believe with my Heart unto Righteousness? What shall I confess with my Mouth unto Salvation? when it's maliciously objected, That the Father who hath sent me is greater than I? shall I hastily assent unto it as thus simply Delivered, and boldly deny the Son to be equal with the Father? Must I not at all weigh the matter, nor consider that this is to be understood in regard to the Oeconomy and Dispensation? May I not observe what is said elsewhere of the Father and the Son's being one, and that we must honour the Son as we honour the Father?  
10. To gather up what hath been briefly suggested, 'tis manifest that Heretics have communicated Pestilent Doctrines in Scripture Language; that they have been for a rigid Adhesion unto the very words, syllables and letter of Scripture; That they would Reject those Terms and Phrases, used by the Orthodox to explain the Truth, and distinguish it from Error; because not in the Letter of Scripture; That the Church would not part with a word, a syllable, nor with a Letter, that was necessary to express the Truth. The Council of Nice would not gratify the Arians nor Nestorians in a Letter, saith Dr. Manton on Judas p. 163. That the Opposers of Orthodox Terms and Phrases, always did it with a design to subvert the Truth. But, if it be Blasphemous to detect the fraudulent Practice of Heretics, what Fence can we have against a Vitalis, a Biddle, a Socinian or Arian? I might enlarge and expose, but I will forbear, and Apply myself to the Consideration of the next.   

The Seventh Objection.  
Mr. Lob leaves out a considerable word in his translating a part of the Scotch Confession p. 81.— There's word [QUASI] which he did not think for his purpose to English. He ought to have said, And to appear [as it were] in our Person, that is, that Christ appeared not properly in our Person.  

Reply.  
1. When I did, in answer to the Request of several learned and judicious Brethren, undertake to ●●amine the Writings of Mr. W. I found his Attempts to be so like, what had been used by Men ●●ound in the Faith, who have made it their Business, for a while to conceal their own Notions, and ●●em to quarrel rather with the Terms and Phrases ●osen by the Orthodox to Explain the Truth; than ●ith the Truth itself; that I could do no less than ●●ke notice of it to my Brethren, who having not ●●en so forward, as I think they should, to give ●●eck to his Career, have (though not designedly) ●●couraged him and his Partisans, to make further ●●cursions on the controverted Terms and Phrases. ●●d insinuate, that the whole contest is but about ●ords.  
2. This being the way and method of my Opponens, I did in my Defence, carefully endeavour to ●●ulcate it, that we contend for the controverted ●●rases, only, as they are expressive of what is essential to a real, proper and plenary Satisfaction to God's ●●tice for our Sins, so that in good earnest, the contention is about the great and necessary Doctrine 〈◊〉 Christ's Satisfaction, and for the Terms and Phrases 〈◊〉 otherwise than as they are expressive of this doctrine.  
3. That I might bring our true and genuine ●●nse into so clear a Light, as not to leave the least ●adow of Reason for one doubting thought, rout what it was I expressly declared, That if I did but direct to the Confession, where either a ●roper Satisfaction is asserted, or, where 'tis said, that Christ, as our Surety suffered for us; or that Christ suffered in our Place and Stead, or stood in our Person when he died; it might I hoped, satisfy any unprejudiced Person; that the Phrases contended for, are in our Confessions, that is, The thing they signify, and for which we plead, is there; thereby showing, that it is the Doctrine, which these Terms and Phrases do most aptly, and with the greatest Clearness and Distinction, convey unto our Understandings, that we are for.  
5. That these Terms and Phrases are not of our Invention, but have been (as I have in my Defence unanswerably proved) used by the Orthodox in their Opposition unto the Arminians and Socinians, in a Sense known both to our Divines and their Adversaries. And that it hath been the trick of Heretics and their Favourers, to raise Doubts and Scruples about their meaning and usefulness; As, on the other hand, it hath been the constant Practice of the Church (as I have already suggested) to defend them,— as they are most apt to explain the Truth, and distinguish it from Error.  
For which Reason, as soon as I have cleared my Translation of the Scotch Confession, and detected the Impertinence and Folly of some other Cavils, I will go on to the second Point I have proposed to discourse of, and show, that the Controversy I have with Mr. W. is about the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction; that the Difference is Real, in an Article that affects the Vitals of Religion. But,  
6. The Phrase of [Christ's sustaining our Person] has been generally received by the Orthodox, as expressive of what's Essential, unto a real and Proper Satisfaction, even of what Christ did, to the end, he might appear before God's Tribunal, under the Gild of our Sins, and bear a proper Punishment for them. To suppose the Lord Christ to be guilty in 〈◊〉 his own Person, is as if it had been said, He had been in himself a Sinner, unclean, unholy: But to consider him as our Surety, sustaining the Person of Sinners, and so to charge on him the Gild of ●●r Sins, cannot in the least defile or pollute his ●oly and righteous Soul. It hath been therefore ●●firmed by the Orthodox, that the Lord Jesus ●●stained his own and our Person. As considered in his own Person, he is most remote from the Gild ●●d Filth of Sin. As standing in our Person, so he was covered with the Gild of our Iniquities, tho' ●ot touched with the least Moral Filth.  
7. The Phrase of Christ's sustaining our Person, ●ust be taken in Sensu forensi in Law-Sense, importing, that as a Surety doth in foro soli, represent the ●●ebtor, so the Lord Jesus Christ, when at the tribunal of the Father, represented those Sinners, ●hose Redemption and Salvation he had undertaken, ●●d whether it be said, that Christ doth put on, or ●lain, or bear our Person; the meaning is the same, ●nd they who speak, as if these three words of [putting on, bearing and sustaining] the Person of Sinners, had as many different meanings; do talk as 〈◊〉 they understood not the genuine Import of the phrase. The same is true of the Latin Phrase, Christus sustinuit Personam nostram; Christus sustinuit quodammodo, seu, quasi Personam nostram] or the English, [Christ did sustain our Person, Christ sustain●● as it were our Person] the signification is the same, ●or whether quodammodo or quasi be added or not, the meaning is, That Christ did in Sensu forensi bear ●ur Person. Take the word [Person] in Law-Sense ●nd there is no need of the word quodammodo or quasi; but if the word Person, Import a natural ●r proper Person, then to ascertain the meaning to be Forensic, it's requisite to add, either quasi or quodammodo: For, Persona moralis est quasi Persona propria. And accordingly our Divines, do indifferently use the Phrase, with or without quasi or quodammodo; for whether they use either of these words or not, the Sense is known to be the same, and the meaning of them who have it, and who have it not is, That Christ took on him our Person in Sensu forensi, in Law Sense, as I have cleared it in my Defence p. 24, 25, etc. so that I have not the least reason to scruple the adding that considerable word [quasi,] and for the sake of a weak Brother am content to do it, at any time when desired. For,  
8. If the words [Christ sustained our Person] signify somewhat really different from [Christ's sustaining as it were our Person] then it must be owned, that many Orthodox Divines, who have been thought to be of a mind, do really differ in this Point from each other. And many learned Persons, who express themselves with the greatest accuracy and caution, affirming sometimes, that Christ sustained our Person, and at other times as it were our Person, do really differ from themselves, particularly Calvin, who on 2 Cor. 5.21. saith, [That Christ did susciper● quodammodo personam nostram] and on Gal. 3.13▪ [personam nostram susceperat,] quarrelled with himself or at least either the Reverend Mr. Poole, or Marlorat did misrepresent Calvin on 2 Cor. 5.21. For as Marlorat gives the Sense of Calvin thus, personam nostram quodammodo suscepit Christus, ut Reus nostr● nomine fieret, & tanquam Peccator judicaretur, no● propriis sed alienis Peccatis; so Mr. Poole thus, Christus autem Personam nostram suscepit, ut Reus nostr● nomine fieret, & tanquam Peccator judicaretur. So that the learned Mr. Poole is fallen into the very Error, Mr. W. and his defender charge on me; for as I am accused for leaving out that considerable word [quasi.] Mr. Poole has left out as considerable a quodammodo. But whether Mr. P. or these Gentlemen be the most skilled in the Latin Tongue and the Civil Law, is not over difficult to determine. Once more,  
9 My Learned Adversary, Mr. W. adds, that I ought to have said. [And to appear [as it were] in our Person, that is, Christ appeared not properly in our Person.] To which I answer,  
1. What he means by this Passage [Christ appeared not properly in our Person,] is not easy to understand. If he means, that Christ did not take upon him, nor appear in our natural or proper Person, I have over and over said it, it being most manifest, that he appeared only in our Legal Person, which is what Mr. W. doth expressly oppose. The thing he is against is, Christ's taking on him our Person, in Sensu forensi, in Law Sense.  
2. This word therefore [properly] if he will in Opposition unto me, abide by his Notion, that Christ did not take on him our Person in Law Sense, must be tacked to [Christ's appearing,] as if he had said, Christ did not properly appear before the Judgement Seat of God to answer for our Sins, but only improperly, or Metaphorically. But,  
10. Had it been said, That Christ did as it were, take on him our Legal Person, 'twould have been to his purpose, and have signified no more than that Christ did not really and truly take on him our Legal Person. But not a word of this in the Scotch Confession. There it is clear, that the Lord Jesus did appear before the Judgement Seat of the Father in our Legal Person, which was the point for which I produced it. And altho' the [quasi] is in the Latin, and [as it were] in the English, yet the Doctrine therein contained, is most opposite to what is advanced by Mr. W. and his more learned and upright Coryphaeus, as I hope, to the Conviction of an  Reader to evince. For the differences amongst us are real, in matters of the biggest Importance, and nearest Concernment to our Immortal Souls.     

Sect. II. The present Differences more than Verbal, being about an Article, that affects the Vitals of our Holy Religion.  
In my Appeal to the learned Bishop of Worcester, and the Principal of Jesus College, Oxon, I charged Mr. Baxter, whose Notions Mr. W. labours to propagate, for denying Christ's sufferings to be properly Penal. And I have received a Line from a learned Friend, intimating, that Mr. Alsop hath these words in his late Rhapsody. The Charge against Mr. Baxter is notoriously false, all the Author's Tricks to force him to deny the Sufferings of Christ to be proper Punishments.  
In this Charge the Heart of the Controversy betwixt us doth lie, and if I make it good against Mr. Baxter, I doubt not but that my Orthodox Breterens amongst the Presbyterians, will acquit me from those Censures they now load me with  
The thing that lieth on me to prove, is, That Mr. Baxter denyeth our Sins to be the meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings; or, that his Sufferings are a proper Punishment.  
That this Charge sounds harsh in the Ears of the Orthodox, who do not only think highly of him, for the Services he did in confuting the real Antinomians, but also for his exemplar Piety, and in some Instan●es uncommon self denial. For, though they have ●een of Opinion, that in opposing one extreme, he ●eemed to verge too much toward the other, ●nd perhaps to fall in with Amyrald, yet they ●ever thought that in the Doctrine of our Saviour's Satisfaction, he left Grotius and fell in with Episcopius his Disciples. It lies on me therefore to produce very clear & substantial Proof to support my Charge. And that Mr. Alsop and his Associates ●ay be the more fully convinced, that I am far ●rom Tricks to force Mr. Baxter, to deny the Sufferings of Christ to be proper Punishments; I will make 〈◊〉 my endeavour to show, that in the controverted ●oint about Christ's Satisfaction, he forsook Grotius ●nd the generality of the Reformed, asserting as his ●ated Judgement, ' That our Sins, were not the meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings; That no Sufferings are properly Penal, but what are infliced on the Delinquent himself, that when Parents or Prince's sin● and their Children or Subjects suffer, their Sufferings are but Improperly or Analogically Penal; and that therefore Christ not being the actual Transgressor, could not be in a proper Sense punished for our Sins; That properly speaking he did not satisfy the violated Law; And agreeably adds, that the Sufferings were exacted by God, not as he was a Rector, as such, but as a Rector supra Leges, and as an offended Lord, and Benefactor. And, that I may be the more clear in this attempt, I will show; how exact the Agreement between Mr. B. Crellius, Episcopius, Curcellius and Limborch is, and how full a Confutation the Answers of Grotius to Socinus, of the Bishop of Worcester unto Crellius, and of the Principal of Jesus Oxon unto the Disciples of Episcopius, are, of the Principles which Mr. Baxter has advanced.  

Subsect. I. Of the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings.  

1. That Mr. Baxter denies our sins to be the near impulsive, and proper meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings.  
1. It's well known to the Learned, That if Christ's suffering be not ex obligatione Legis, and by virtue of the Sanction of the Law, sin cannot be the near impulsive, or proper meritorious Cause of them: For, as an universal and perfect Obedience to the Praeceptive part of the Law, as it respects the Promissory Part, would, according to the Rules of distributive Justice, have been the meritorious Cause of the Promised reward, in like manner Sin, the transgression of the Precept, as it respects the Penal Sanction, is the meritorious Cause of the threatened Sufferings. If then I clear it, that Mr. B. is of Opinion, That Christ's sufferings are not Ex obligatione Legis, it must be acknowledged, that he denies our sins to be their meritorious Cause, which I hope to prove, even to Mr. Alsop's Conviction, and moreover, to evince it that he doth expressly declare, that our sins were not the meritorious Cause of Christ's sufferings. For,  
2. Mr. B. in his sixth Determination, which is in the first Chapter of the third Part of his Methodus, after he had set down his Distinctions between the Law of innocent Nature, and the Law, peculiar to the Mediator; And considering the Law in the first Sense, which he saith obliged Christ himself, as Man, and all others, even sinners, he adds another Distinction between the Obligation of this Law, as a Remote, and as a near Cause, and declares his Judgement thus.  
1. ' The Law of Nature, altho' it did oblige both Christ, and us unto Obedience, yet, it did only oblige us, not Christ, unto Punishment. The Law obligeth not an innocent Person to Punishment, it condemns not the Just.  
2. ' That the Law of Grace obliged Christ neither to Obedience, nor to Punishment.  
3. ' By the Law, peculiar to the Mediator, called the Covenant, between the Father and the Son, Christ was obliged to suffer Punishment for Sinners, namely, by his Consent and proper Sponsion, and the Father's Will and Commandment. From this Law the near obliging Cause of Christ's suffering Punishment had its Rise.  
4. ' By the Law of Nature, obliging us sinners unto Punishment, Christ was not directly obliged to Punishment; However, it was the occasion of his Punishment, and the Obligation we lay under was ●he Remote Cause of Christ's Obligation, for, if the Law had not condemned us, Christ had never undertaken, or suffered a vicarious Punishment. So 〈◊〉 Mr. B.  
3. From what Mr. B. has so freely declared, it's ●ident he is of Opinion, That the Obligation Christ 〈◊〉 under to suffer, ariseth not from that Law we violated; but from the mediatorial Convenant, and ●at the Obligation to Punishment, which is by ●●rtue of the Sanction of the Law we violated, ●nder which we all are by Nature) is but an ●ccasion or Remote Cause, and therefore our sins ●e not the near impulsive, and proper meritorious ●●use of Christ's sufferings, which is conform to that he has in his other Writings, not only in his Posthumous Discourse of Universal Redemption, but in the Preface to his Confession of Faith, pag. 4. where he saith, That as Christ could not take upon himself the same Numerical Gild, which lay on us, so neither could he take upon himself Gild of the same sort, as having not the same sort of Foundation, or Efficient; Ours arising from the Merit of our sins, and the Commination of the Law, and his being rather occasioned, than merited by our sin, and occasioned by the Laws threatening of us, both which are as we may call them, but ●rocauses, as to him, etc. And in his Catho. Theol. Part II. Pag. 78. Christ suffered not by that Obligation which bond us to suffer.  
4. These Passages I have mentioned do sufficiently clear it, That Mr. B. owns not, that our sins were the near impulsive, or meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings, the most he'll yield being this, viz. That our sins were the Occasion, or Remote Impulsive Cause, or the Pro-cause, somewhat in the place of a meritorious Cause, which is no more than Socinus, Crellius and their Followers do grant, as I will immediately show.   

II. The Socinians do grant, That our sins are a Remote Impulsive Cause, or mere Occasion of Christ's sufferings.  
1. That the Socinians make so large a Concession as this unto us, is evident from most of their Writings. Crellius against Grotius confesseth it, Fatemur, Peccata nostra, posito Dei de salute nobis danda— decreto, eatenus etiam fuisse Impulsivam mortis Christi Causam, etc. Ad partic. 2. Cap. 1. But,  
2. There is so much to this Purpose in the Answer the Learned Bishop of Worcester gives, to what Crellius has on this Point, that I will say no more of 〈◊〉 in this place, but proceed to the Proposal of ●hat the Bishop offereth unto your Consideration.   

III. What Mr. Baxter and the Socinians hold about our sins being only a Remote Impulsive Cause, or Occasion of Christ's sufferings, opposed by the Orthodox, particularly by the Bishop of Worcester.  
1. The Learned Bishop gives the Sense of the Socinians about the Impulsive Cause of Christ's sufferings, assuring us, ' That tho' Crellius Attributes ●he sufferings of Christ merely to Acts of Dominion, without any respect to sin, yet elsewhere he will allow a Respect, that was had to sin, antecedently to the Sufferings of Christ, and that the Sins of Men were the Impusive cause of them. And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any Lawful Antecedent Cause of the Death of Christ besides the Will ●f God and Christ; yet Crellius in his Vindication, ●ith, by Lawful cause he meant Meritorious; or ●●ch, upon supposition of which he ought to Die: for elsewhere, he makes Christ to die for the Cause or by the occasion of our Sins, which is the same, that Crellius means by an Impulsive or Procatartick Cause. Of Christ's Suffer. Cap. 2. Sect. 2.  
2. To this Notion of Socinus and Crellius the Bishop, who throughly searched into this Controversy, Answers, ' That we understand not an impulsive Cause in so remote a Sense, as though our Sins were 〈◊〉 mere Occasion of Christ's Dying, because the Death of Christ was one Argument; among many others ●o believe his Doctrine, the Belief of which would make Men leave their Sins. But we contend for a nearer and more proper Sense.  
But, when we come to consider that other point, whether Christ's Sufferings were a proper Punishment: We shall hear further what his Lordship saith to this particular. For he rightly informs us, That if the Sufferings of Christ be to be taken under the Notion of Punishment, than our Adversaries grant, That our Sins must be an impulsive Cause of them, in another Sense than they understand it. What that other Sense is, will be shown under the next Head, about Punishment, where you will meet with enough to satisfy you, That the impulsive Cause, which they'll grant on a Supposition, that Christ's Sufferings are properly Penal, is a near impulsive and proper meritorious Cause.  
3. Dr. Edward's doth also, in his Preservative against Socinianism, Part 2. p. 94. speak very distinctly to this thing. For, saith he, That Christ died for us, are the plain words of Scripture, He gave himself for us, Gal. 2.20. Eph. 5.25. 1 Thes. 5.10. 2 Cor. 5.14, 15. And this, not only in general for our good, but he was delivered up for our Offences, Rom. 4.25. He died for our Sins, 1 Cor. 15.3. So to the same purpose, and for the same Reason, he is said to die for the , Rom. 5.6. And it is mentioned, as the great Instance of God's Love to us; that whilst we were yet Sinners Christ died for us, ver. 10. of the same Chap. All which 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 and meritorious Cause of Christ's Death.  
Thus you see the Agreement between Mr. Baxter, Socinus and Crellius about our Sins, being the remote impulsive Cause, or mere occasion of Christ's Sufferings, to be real; and that he hath herein left the Orthodox, such as Grotius, the Bishop, and Dr. Edward's is clearly proved. I will therefore consider, what is ●aid of Christ's Sufferings being Penal.    

Subject II. Of the Paenalness of Christ's Sufferings.  

1. Mr. Baxter denies Christ's Sufferings to be a proper Punishment.  
1. Mr. Baxter, in his Methodus, proposeth this Question.: Whether the Passion or Sufferings of Christ, were properly and formally a Punishment? and his Determination is such as clears it, that he holds Christ's Sufferings, to be only Improperly, Analogically and Materially, not properly and formally a Punishment.  
2. To evince thus much, I will distinctly con●●der what he hath premised, and show how he determines it.  
1. In his Premises, he tells us, ' That a proper Punishment is a natural Evil, inflicted for a moral Evil. The Matter is Affliction, or a natural Evil inflicted. The Form is the Relation of this Matter to its meritorious Cause. The Fault (or moral Evil) is either really such, or by a wrong Judgement: and so Punishment is distinguished into that which is due, 〈◊〉 Justitia; or that which is undue, ex Injustitia: The first is a Punishment in a proper Sense; the ●ther is a Punishment, Analogice, and only in ●he sense of a Judge, and others unjustly judging. ●he word [Punishment] therefore is ambiguous. Punishment in the first, and most famous Sense is a natural Evil on the Delinquent himself. Punishment, 〈◊〉 a secondary and Analogical Sense, is a natural Evil; which doth not directly, but mediately only, and by accident flow from a moral Evil. This Punishment' is twofold.  
The one which naturally follows the Sin of another; that is, from that natural proximity there i● between the Sufferer and the Sinner. The other, which doth not naturally but by a voluntary Sponsion, so that, by Virtue of the Sponsion, vicarious Punishments are endured.  
2. The Determination is, 1. That Christ wa● not re verâ the Sinner, and therefore his Suffering were not Penal, in the Primary and most Famous Sense.  
2. Christ was not in the account of the Father a Sinner. For, God doth not judge falsely, and therefore, he did not suffer an Analogical Punishment, ex falsâ Reputatione Dei.  
3. Christ, being miraculously conceived by the Holy Ghost, could not suffer Anolagical Punishments for his Parents Sins.  
4. Christ, being voluntarius Poenarum Sponsor did, as our Sponsor, suffer Analogical vicarious Punishments. His Sufferings therefore, as to the Reason of the thing, were a natural Evil, endured 〈◊〉 occasione, & causalitate remota Peccatorum human generis & proxime, from the Obligation of his prope● Sponsion and Consent.  
3. In these Premises, and this Determination, Mr▪ Baxter freely declares, That our Sins were but th● occasion or remote, not the near impulsive Cause o● Christ's Sufferings, that his Sufferings were no● properly and formally, but only Improperly and Analogically Penal. Yea,  
4. There is more in it, he is express, That a proper Punishment cannot be inflicted on any, but the Delinquent himself. For, saith he, Poena in sens● primo & famosissimo est ipsius Delinquentis malum n●ral●rale. The formal Nature of Punishment lying in 〈◊〉 Relation unto Sin as its meritorious Cause, the Punishment formally considered, cannot he thinks, ●e on any but them, by whom the Sin is committed; ●nd therefore agreeably enough, in pursuit of his Principle, He denies the Sufferings of Children and subjects for their Parents and Princes Sins, to be properly and formally Penal. His distinction is between Punishment taken properly, in Sensu primo & ●●mosissimo; and in an improper, secondary, and an Analogical Sense. His Determination, that Punishment 〈◊〉 the first sense, is only on him that actually committed the Sin. That there can be no Punishment ●ut what is deserved; and that no Man can deserve ●hat another should be punished. That when Pa●ents and Prince's sin, and their Children and Subjects ●uffer, their Sufferings cannot be properly and formally Penal; because they did not commit the Sin, ●nd so could not deserve it: Their Sufferings therefore can be but improperly and analogically Penal; as ●r. B. freely owns, when he saith, That Poena in ●●nsu secundo & analogico est duplex. Altera quae pec●atum alterius naturaliter sequitur, id est, ex proximi●●te naturali patientis ad peccantem, & ita ob peccata ●ominorum Poenas consequenter patiuntur vernae— 〈◊〉 in sensu adhuc pleniore, filius pro Parentum peccatis 〈◊〉 Paenas; which he thinks may be called Punishment aptly enough, because they have a relation unto ●●●n, as to an Occasion or remote meritorious Cause.   

2. Mr. Baxter's Agreement with Crellius, about the meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings, and his Sufferings being a proper Punishment.  
The Sense of Crellius, being with the greatest ●earness delivered by the Bishop of W. which (saith his Lordship,) will be best done, by laying down his principles as to the Justice of Punishments, in a more distinct Method than himself hath done: I will show the Agreement there is between Mr. B. and Crellius, by proposing Crellius his Principles, in the very words of the learned Bishop; which in his Disc. of Christ's Sufferings, Cap. 3. §. 3. you will find to be thus  
1. That no Person can be justly punished, either for his own or another's Fault, but he that hath deserved to be punished by some Sin of his own: For, he still asserts, That the Justice of Punishment ariseth from his own Fault, though the actual Punishment may be from another's: But he that is punished without respect to his own Gild, is punished undeservedly, ●●d he that is punished undeservedly, is punished unjustly.  
2 That Personal Gild being supposed, one Man's Sin may be the impulsive Cause of another's Punishment, but they cannot be the meritorious. The difference between them he thus explains, the Cause is that which makes a thing to be; The impulsive 〈◊〉 that which moves one to do a thing without any Consideration of Right that one hath to do it; Merit, is that which makes a Man worthy of a thing either good or bad, and so gives a right to it: if it be good to himself, if had to him at whose hands he hath deserved it. Now he tells us, that it is impossible▪ That one Man's Sins should make any other deserve Punment, but the Person who committed them; but they may impel one to punish another, and that justly, if the Person hath otherwise deserved to be punished, unjustly, if he hath not. The Reason he gives of it is, That the vinosity of the Act, which is the proper Cause of Punishment, cannot go beyond the Person of the Offender; and therefore can oblige none to Punishment, but him that hath committed the Fault. And therefore he asserts, That no Man can be punished beyond the desert of his own Sins, but there may be sometimes a double impulsive Cause of that Punishment, viz. his own and other men's, whereof one made, that they should be justly punished, the other that they should be actually. But the latter, he saith, always supposeth the former, as the Foundation of just Punishment, so that no part of Punishment, could be executed upon him, wherein his own Sins were not supposed, as the meritorious Cause of it. Here than you may see, with what clearness the bishop hath stated the Principles of Crellius, and if ●ou'll compare them with what I have taken out of Mr. Baxter's Methodus, you'll find the Agreement to be in the following Instances.  
1. That a proper Punishment cannot be inflicted, ●n any but him that committed the Sin. There ●●n be here no difference between them, unless in ●●is, that Crellius grants more, and, if I mistake not ●omes nearer to the Orthodox than either Mr. B. 〈◊〉 Mr. W. do, when he owns,  
1. ' That a remote Conjunction, may be sufficient for a Translation of Penalty, viz. from one Generation to another.  
2. ‛ That Sins may be truly said, to be punished in others, when the Offenders themselves may escape Punishment. Thus the Sins of Parents in their Children, and Princes in their Subjects.  
3. ' That an Act of Dominion in some, may be designed as a proper Punishment to others.  
4. ' That the Nature of Punishment is not to be measured by the Sense of it.  
When I observe, with what indignation Mr. B. ●xpresseth himself against our Suffering, or being punished in Christ; I cannot but conclude, that herein Crellius yields more to the Orthodox than Mr. B. doth, who, I believe, being ware that such learned Men as the Bishop of W. would make too great an Improvement of such Concessions, he would not give the Advantage. For indeed, the Bishop hath well improved what Crellius grants; as is plain from what he saith, in Cap. 3. §. 2. Now upon these Concessions, though our Adversaries will not grant, That Christ was properly punished for our Sins; yet they cannot deny, but that we may very properly be said, to be punished for our Sins in Christ; and if they will yield us this, the other may be a Strife about words. For, surely there may be easily imagined, as great a Conjunction between Christ and us, as between the several Generations of the Jews▪ and that last which was punished in the Destruction of Jerusalem: And though we escape that Punishment which Christ did undergo, yet w● might have our Sins punished in him, as well as Prince's theirs, in their Subjects, when they escape themselves, etc.  
What I have suggested on this Occasion, clear● it, that Mr. B differs at least as much if not more from the Orthodox, than Crellius and his Admirers do.  
2. They also agree, in holding; That the Sufferings of Children or Subjects, when their Parent's o● Prince's Sin, are not proper Punishments, either o● the Children or Subjects, and that Christ's Sufferings because he was not the Sinner, were not properly Penal.   

The Opposition made by the Bishop of Worcester▪ and the Principal of Jesus, Oxon, against the Principles, embraced by Mr. Baxter an● Crellius.  
1. The Bishop having given a clear state of the principles of Crellius in this matter, as I have already shown, adds, ' These are his [viz. Crellius] too main Principles, which we must now thoroughly examine, the main force of his Book lying in them. But if we can prove, that it hath been generally received by the Consent of Mankind, that a Person may be punished beyond the desert of his own Actions; if God hath justly punished some for the Sins of others, and there be no Injustice in one Man's Suffering by his own Consent for another, than these Principles of Crellius, will be found not so firm as he imagines them.  
1. That it hath been generally received, by the Consent of Mankind, That a Person may be justly punished beyond the Desert of his own Actions. For which Pupose, Grotius objected against Socinus (who appealed to the Consent of Nations, about one being punished for another's Fault) that the Heathens did agree, That Children might be punished for their Parents Faults, and People for their Princes; and that corporal Punishment might be born, by one for another; did appear by the Persians punishing the whole Family for the Fault of one.— In which Cases, (saith the Bishop) The Punishment did extend beyond the Desert of the Person, who suffered it; for no other Reason is assigned of these Sufferings, besides the Conjunction of the Person or his Consent; but no antecedent Gild is supposed as necessary to make the Punishment Just.— If it be said that the unjustice lies in this; that such a one suffers undeservedly, and therefore unjustly; I answer, If it be meant by undeservedly, without sufficient Cause or Reason of Punishment, than we deny, that such a one doth suffer undeservedly. Immerito in the Greek Glosses is rendered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and merito by— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in Cicero, Jure, & merito are most commonly joined together. So that where there is a Right to punish, and sufficient reason for it. such a one doth not suffer Immerito (i. e.) undeservedly. If it be said, That such a one is not dignus poena. that implies no more than the other; for Dignus, or as the Ancients writ it Dicnus, comes from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Jus, as Vossius tells us, ut dignus sit cui tribui aliquid aequum est: So that where there is an equity in the thing, there is a Dignity in the Person, or he may be said to be worthy to undergo it. So far the Bishop, who hath cleared it beyond contradiction, that one may endure a proper Punishment for the sins of another, and that thus it is in the case of children's and People's sufferings for their Parents and Princes fins▪  
2. The confining a proper and just Punishment to the Person that commits the sin, denying the sufferings of one for the sin of another to be properly penal, doth at once subvert both the Doctrines o● our Saviour's Satisfaction and Original Sin. For, i● a Man may not be justly punished beyond the Deserts of his own Acts, the Lord Jesus, who never committed sin, could not bear a proper Punishment, not could any of Adam's Posterity be justly punished for his sin. In answer hereunto I will give you the sense of the Learned Dr. Edward's, who expresseth himself in these words; Now I say, there hath not been (for aught I know) any Nation, or Kingdom in the World, that hath not in some cases and for some weighty Reasons, thought, and adjudged it lawful to punish one man for the sins of another. So that over-hastily, and peremptorily; (as the Socinians, and Remonstrants do) to pronounce the Imputation of Adam's sin, and the punishing of his Posterity for it Unlawfully, barely for this Reason, that no man can be justly punished, who was not a Party, and actually engaged in the practice of the sin, is to contradict the Reason, and condemn the Usage of all Mankind: and not only so, but as this Position is roundly, and without exception laid down by them, it tends plainly to overthrow the whole Design of the Gospel, by denying the sufferings of Christ to have the true Notion of a Punishment, whereby he satisfied the Justice of God for the sins of Mankind.  
In short; The present matter in debate between us, and our Adversaries, turns upon this point, whether in any case, a person may lawfully, and justly be punished for a Crime, which he did not personally commit? They deny it, and condemn the practice as absolutely unlawful: We, on the other hand say, This may be justly done, and for a proof of the Legality of it, we can produce the consent of all the most Civilised States and Governments that have been in the World, who have accounted it in some cases Lawful, and those especially two. 1. Where there hath been the voluntary Offer, and Consent of the Party, as in the case of Sureties, Hostages, etc. Or, 2. Without that Consent, where there is either a Natural, or Civil, and Political Union between the Persons offending, and the Persons punished; such as is that between a King and his Subjects, Parents and Children. And here we have, which is a consideration of much greater weight, the particular Direction, and Example of God himself, to justify and warrant this practice. Saul slew the Gibeonites, and the Sons and grandchildren are executed for it, 2 Sam. 21. David sinneth in numbering the People, and God sent a Pestilence among his Subjects— 2 Sam. 24. This and much more is in Dr. Edward's, his Preservat. part. 2. p. 50, 51, etc. making it very clear, That one may be properly punished for another's sin. And that thus it is in the case of Christ's suffering for us, and of children's and Subject's suffering for the sins of their Parents, and their Kings.  
3. What I have cited out of the writings of these great Men, makes it very clear, That Mr. Baxter's denying our Sin to be the proper meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings, and his Sufferings to be a proper Punishment; is a manifest contradicting the Body of Protestant Writers on these Points, as an opposition to the allowed Custom of Mankind, and the plainest Texts of Scripture. And his affirming that a proper Punishment, cannot be justly inflicted on any but him who committed the Sin; and that when they, who by their own Actions have not deserved a Punishment do suffer, their Sufferings are no otherwise Penal than materially, improperly and analogically, he agrees with Socinus, Crellius, Episcopius and his Disciples is most evident; and what the learned Bishop and Principal have insisted on, in their answer unto our Socinian and Episcopian Adversaries, is a most direct and exact Confutation of Mr. Baxter.  
4. These things are so plain, that I doubt not of the concurrence of an impartial learned Reader. However for the sake of Mr. Alsop, and others less studied or prejudiced Divines, I will offer sundry other Considerations for the fuller Proof, that Mr. Baxter differs from his Orthodox Brethren, and falls in with Episcopius and his Disciples in the Doctrine of our Saviour's Satisfaction.   

Subsect. 4.  
Further Proof that Mr. B. hath left the common Doctrine of Protestants in the Article of Christ's Satisfaction.  

Consideration I.  
1. It must be acknowledged, That if Christ's Sufferings were properly Penal, they would so far have answered the Obligations of the violated Law, that 〈◊〉 might be said, properly speaking, Christ satisfied the ●aw itself. On the other hand, in case it shall appear, that Mr. B. denies Christ's satisfying the Law ●●self in a proper Sense, it must be yielded, that he ●enyeth Christ's Sufferings to be a proper Punishment. The Connection that there is between the one and ●he other, makes good what I herein affirm, and whoever will search closely into this Controversy, will find, That the true Reason, why Christ's satisfying the Law in a proper Sense is denied, is because 〈◊〉 Satisfaction cannot in this Sense, be made to the Law any otherwise than by Christ's enduring a proper Punishment. To satisfy the Law itself, is to answer the Obligation of the Law, and suffer by Virtue of its Sanction, and nothing more evident, than that Sufferings by Virtue of its Sanction, are a proper Punishment. But,  
2. Mr. B. is as express in denying Christ's satisfing the Law, as he is in denying his Sufferings to be a proper Punishment. This Charge hath so much Reason for its support, that whoever will consult his Methodus, p. 3. cap. 1. Determ. 2. will see enough to convince him, there he will meet with this Question, Whether it may be properly said, that Christ satisfied the Law itself, as it obliged Sinners to Punishment, to which he adds in a Parenthesis (etiam si eam non patiendo implevit?) or rather ought we not to say, That Christ satisfied not the Law, but the Law giver, as above his Laws?  
3. That we may with the more distinction, take in his genuine Sense, it must be noted. 1. That Mr. B. is of opinion, there was a dispensing with the Law, not only as to the Person suffering, but as to the Penalty suffered; that the Sufferings of our Saviour were not by Virtue of the Penal Sanction of the Law, and therefore could be in no sense a fulfilling that part of the Law.  
2. That he considereth not God in exacting Satisfaction, as a Rector qua talis, whose part it is to see, that the Law be satisfied, but as a Rector qua supra Leges, and God considered as such may be satisfied, although no proper Punishment be endured.  
3. Thus much premised, we shall find, that he uses the word [Satisfaction] in a very large and comprehensive sense, for whatever answers some remote ends of the Law. The Sanction of the Law is essential to it, and cannot be satisfied but by sufferings that are properly a Punishment. But such ends of the Law as are not essential thereunto, and only remote, may be obtained without bearing the Punishment, or indeed without enduring any Sufferings at all.  
4. That Mr. B. aims at no more by his Notion of Christ's Satisfaction, than an obtaining some remote ends of the Law; is manifest from the very passage my Friend tells me, Mr. Al●op refers unto, to prove my Charge to be notoriously false; and a careful observing its genuine Import, which will be very plain if we consued that enti●e Paragraph, may convince an impartial Mind; That Mr. B. hath different Apprehensions in th●se Points, from his Orthodox Brethren: For, s●●●h he, ●ocutione remota, & lata Christus dici pos●●● Legis fines remotas, ipst non essentiales, obtinend●● ei satisfecisse: In a remote, large Sense, Christ may be said to satisfy the Law. But how? not by obtaining any End essential to the Law, but the remote Ends of the Law; for its immediately added, ' That Gods hatred of Sin and his Justices are no less demonstrated by Christ's Satisfaction, at least in a matter no less congruous for obtaining all the ends of Government, than if the Sinners themselves had been damned. If we compare this clause of the Paragraph with the foregoing part; we shall find, that what he saith, of [all the Ends of Government] must ●e understood, as he expresses it of [all the remote ●nds of the Law,] which are not essential to the Law, ●nd may in Mr. Baxters' opinion, be obtained without Christ's bearing a proper Punishment, the true evincement of God's hatred to Sin.  
5. That I take Mr. B. right will further appear, ●y considering the Paragraph next after this, where ●e distinguisheth between the Near and the Remote Ends of the Law, affirming, ' That the Finis proximus, which doth enjoin Obedience, and threatens a punishment for Disobedience, is a part of the Law, and it must not be said that Christ did properly satisfy this End. But there is the Remote End of the Law, namely, the prevention of sin, the exercise, and preservation of Humane Righteousness, and demonstration of Divine Justice, which is not the Law itself, altho' it's so termed by the Jurists, because these Ends may be obtained by other Means than by Punishing. So that it's manifest, he holds, that these Ends might be obtained by the Lord Jesus, tho' he never bore the punishment of our sins. The Satisfaction than that Mr. B. is for, is of another nature, than what is embraced by the Reformed; It is what's done without Christ's suffering a proper Punishment, and without a proper satisfying of the Law; For, saith he, properly speaking, Christ did not Satisfy the Law itself, nor did he properly satisfy the Near End of the Law, viz. the penal part. Met. p. 3. c. 1. p. 47.   

A Second Consideration.  
2. The very Notion Mr. B. hath of Christ's Satisfaction is, not only different from what is embraced by the Orthodox, but such as is so far from comprising within its compass Christ's suffering a proper Punishment, as to exclude it: It is what can be made without the Lord Christ's taking on him the Gild of our sins; and what is inconsistent with Christ's making a proper Satisfaction to the Law.  
1. Thus much he endeavours to prove from the definition he gives of Satisfaction, which is thus, Satisfactio strictè sumpta, est Redditio Aequivalentis indebiti pro ipso debito; vel tantundem pro eodem, and by Indebitum, he means somewhat of a distinct nature from what the Law exacts; somewhat that is not properly Penal, and consonantly by the Equivalens, or Tantundem, he intends what is very different from what is Received and Believed by the Reformed. For, whereas the Equivalent, in their Judgement, respects the Punishment we deserved, and in those instances in which it's not the same, it doth in its Valuation bear a just proportion thereunto; His Equivalent doth not respect the Sufferings we deserved, but the Remote Ends of the Law, and as it's adjusted to those Ends, tho' there be nothing of the Nature of Punishment in it, yet is it an Equivalent.  
2. That this is his sense of an Equivalent, is manifest from his asserting, that Qui fines Legis Remotos alio Modo quam Puniendo obtinet, Tantundem praestare putatur, acsi Peccatorem Punivisset; ubi sup. p.; 47. This account Mr. B. gives of Satisfaction, is in the first Argument, he urgeth to prove, that properly speaking, Christ did not satisfy the Law itself. What is, (saith he) impossible, Christ did not do; but to satisfy the Law, strictly speaking, is impossible. The Minor he thus proves; Satisfactio stricte sumpta est Redditio Aequivalentis indebiti, pro ipso debito; At impossibile est ipsam eandem Legem (de qua loquimur) commutare idem pro aequivalente. This is his Argument, in which lieth the main stress of his Cause, which methinks may be soon enervated, if we consider, as indeed we must, that the Penal Sanction of the Law is not Abrogated; that it is only Relaxed; that the Relaxation is not of the Formal Nature of the Poenalty suffered, but doth respect the Person suffering; and that tho' the Relaxing be an act of Dominion, yet God exacts and receives satisfaction, is a Rector qua talis, and not as a Rector supra Leges.  
3. The Learned Bishop of Worcester against Crellius, cap. 4. § 5. hath with great clearness shown, in what respects the Sufferings of Christ were the same with what we deserved, & in what Instances not. That they were so far the same as to be a proper Punishment: and in those circumstances, wherein there was a difference, there was an Equivalent. No more is necessary (saith his Lordship) to the delivery of another Person, than the satisfying the Ends of the Law, and Government. And, if that may be done by an Equivalent Suffering, tho' not the same in all respects, than it may be a proper Surrogation. If David 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 the head, as his Son did. And therefore, when the Lawyers say, Subrogatum sapit Naturam ejus in cujus locum subrogatur: Covarruvias tells us, it is to be understood secundum Primordialem Naturam, non secundum Accidentalem; from whence it appears that all Circumstances are not necessary to be the same in Surrogation, but that the Nature of the Punishment remain the same. But,  
4. Mr. B. hath not in his Equivalent, so much as the Formal Nature of Punishment, nor are his Equivalent Sufferings of Christ satisfactory, as they respect the Proxime End of the Law, to wit, the Commination, or Sanction; but as they are adjusted to obtain such other Ends of the Law as are not Essential to the Law: and herein also lieth the Principal Reason of Christ's Satisfaction, according to the Notion he hath framed of it. Thus in one place (viz. p. 53.) he saith; And because the reason of Satisfaction, lieth in its being the Payment of an Equivalent, instead of the Debt itself; and the Equivalent consists in its Aptitude to obtain the same Ends of Government, and because One End of Government is the demonstration of God's Punishing Justice, and another End the demonstration of God's Sanctity and Love, and the vindication of the Honour of his Law; and because God doth no less effectually show his Punishing Justice in the Punishment of Christ, than if he had destroyed the World, and also hath no less evidently shown his Sanctity, his Love of Goodness, and the Equity and Perfection of his Law by the Perfect Holiness and Obedience of Christ, than if we ourselves had perfectly obeyed it, it follows, that the punishment of Christ is satisfaction, and the Meritorious Goodness of Christ is satisfaction, but not in the same sense with the former. Thus he, who indeed speaks of Punishing Justice, which cannot be meant in any other sense than that, in which he takes Punishment itself, in this Controversy. I doubt not but that he was of Opinion. that by Extrinsecal Denomination, God's Justice may by us, through our weakness, be distinguished according to its respect to diversity of Objects, by inadaequate conceptions; and that the Punishing Justice, he speakss of, in this place, connoting only an improper Punishment, is from that connotation, by him denominated Punishing Justice in as improper a sense, as he takes the Punishment itself to be.  
5. That I have not misrepresented Mr. B. in the account I have given of his Notion about Punishing Justice, is evident to me from the following considerations.  
1. Punitive Justice, as it imports a Perfection, Natural in God, discovers itself by inflicting proper Punishments on Offenders. The Sufferings that are but materially, improperly, and analogically penal, called by Mr. Baxter as well as by Limborch, Vicarious Punishments, that is, Sufferings, which, tho' they are not themselves Punishments, are nevertheless in their ●lace and stead, flow not from Punitive Justice, taken properly, and are not Effects, or discoveries of it, but ●t most they are and can be Acts only of Dominion. And that we might not mistake Mr. Baxter, when he mentions the Demonstration of God's Punisheng Justice, as if he had taken it in the same sense the Orthodox use the words, he closes the Paragraph, in which they lie thus; Sed breviter, & Simpliciter ●icendum est, Deum peccata, & poenas nobis remittere, ●●ia Christus hoc Meruit, & perfectione habituali, & 〈◊〉 actuali, & Paenas vicarias subeundo. Thus you ●e, he reduceth all he had said before to the Merit ●f Christ's Habitual and Actual Perfections, and to ●is Suffering Vicarious Punishments, that is, mate●●al, improper and analogical Punishments, instead of ●●ch as are properly penal; and therefore by Punitive ●●stice, he cannot mean what the Orthodox do. ●ut,  
2. The reducing all to Merit doth further conium my sense of Mr. B. who in ' this very page assu●eth us, That the Mediator could not procure our Justification, and Salvation any otherwise than by way of Merit, and because nothing can more effectually Merit from the most Holy God, than that which doth mostly Please Him, and nothing more Pleasing to him than Goodness, Holiness, Love, and Justice, it follows that Christ could not more effectually Merit our Justification and Salvation, than by Goodness, Holiness, Love, Justice and Obedience; and, by this method turning a proper Punishment into mere Sufferings, (which, as divested of their Penal Nature, can not otherwise fall under the consideration of a Law, but as enjoined by a Precept, which, he saith, belongs to the Mediatorial Law,) these Sufferings also are made to be but Acts of Obedience, and, in conjunction with other Mediatorial Acts of the same nature, are affirmed to be Meritorious; and this Merit resolved, in its Last Result, into Divine Pleasure; I say, in the Last Result, because, he doth not only assign unto the Divine Pleasure, the admission of another on our behalf; but will have it, that the Merit itself is of that kind, which is no further Meritorious than as it doth, and only as it doth satisfy the Divine Pleasure, for as it is Pleasing, so it merits, and proportionably as it is most Pleasing, so it's most meritorious; whereby Distributive Justice altogether, as well as Punitive, (which is but one Branch of it) is excluded from having any Glory upon the account of what Christ did and suffered, the whole of the Merit being from Divine Grace, and Acceptation: So far is Mr. B. from owning, that Punitive Justice, taken properly is satisfied by the sufferings of Christ. Besides,  
3. Mr. Baxter insisting so very much on Satisfaction, as its Principal Reason lieth in its aptitude to obtain the Remote Ends of the Law, leaves no room for doubt concerning his sense in this matter. For seeing the Formal Reason of Satisfaction, lieth in the Aptitude of what Christ did or suffered, to obtain some Remote Ends, which, of what nature soever, so long as they are Rèmote from the Sanction, they cannot be satisfactory in the sense embraced by the Reformed, and the sufferings themselves can be no otherwise a satisfaction, than any other eximious work may be: and any other excellent work done by him, may be as truly satisfactory, as his sufferings; a Notion which he freely acknowledgeth, p 55. where he saith, Rector, quà supra Leges, satisfactionem recipere potest, etiam per opus aliquod Praestantissimum.   

A third Consideration.  
3. That Mr. B. denies Christ's Sufferings to be properly Penal, is further evident from his holding, that Christ's Satisfaction is not made to God as a Rector qua talis, but to him as he is a pars offensa; an injured Lord and Benefactor.  
1. The learned Grotius, in the account he gives of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Principal and Foundation Error, that runs through the Socinian Scheme, saith, That it lies in their considering God in this great Transaction, as a pars offensa, a Creditor, a Lord, or Sovereign; and in Opposition unto them, he proves, That to punish is not an Act competent to an offended Party, as such; that naturally the Pars offensa, as such, hath no right in Punishment. That to inflict Punishment belongs primo & per se to a Rector, as such; and that this right in the Rector, is not a right of absolute Dominion or of Credit; That God in exacting Satisfaction, is to be considered only as a Rector, whence it is, that the Sufferings Christ endured when he made Satisfaction, must be owned to be an Act of Justice, and properly Penal.  
2. Mr. Baxter on the other hand, is as express, That God is not to be considered only as a Rector qua talis but as a Rector supra Leges, as a Pars offensa, and as an injured Lord and Benefactor; that properly speaking, we must not say; That Christ satisfied the Legistator, qua talis tantum, but the Rector, qua supra Leges. That although God considered only as a Rector exacts Punishments formally, as such, yet God requires them qua Satisfactory, not only as a Rector, but as a Lord and Benefactor, vindicating his own Glory, see Meth. Part 3. p. 47, 51, 55.  
3. The learned Mr. B. being so full in the declaration of his Mind in this Point, and over and over averring, that Deum Satisfactionem recepisse, non tantum qua Judicem, sed etiam, qua Dominum & Benefactorem offensum; we have the greatest reason to conclude, that the Satisfaction he is for, cannot (as Grotius well observes) be at all unto God as a Rector qua talis. Non potest enim idem duobus diversis tribui qua talibus; nor can it include any thing within its compass, that is, properly Penal, so long as the Act of punishing doth not belong only to a Rector as such.  
4. That I take Mr. B. right, appears to me very manifest, from what he hath in the first Part of his Methodus cap. 15. where he saith, That after Grotius his Book de Satisfactione had been published, 'twas made a Question, Whether God punisheth Sinners either as an absolute Lord and Sovereign, or as pars offensa; or only as a Rector secundum Leges? To which he distinctly answers in these words, passing by the Opinions of others. The Truth is, 1. No Sins do really hurt God. However, 2. They are injurious to God. 3. There is a threefold Right of God, quantum in se, struck at. 1. A Right of Dominion by alienating and denying his own quod usum. 2. A Right of Empire by Rebellion, and a denial of that Obedience which is due unto him. 3. The Right of Friendship by with holding their Love, and by an ungrateful abuse of his Benefits. 4. These violated Rights, God may vindicate in each of these Relations. 5. God therefore is an Actor, not only as he is a Rector, but as he is a pars offensa, although not realiter Lasa. 6. Thus much appears with the greatest clearness, because. although the public Good is the end of humane Regiment, yet the Glory of God himself, his Complacency or Pleasure, is the end of Divine Government and of every thing besides. But, 7. To judge formally, belongs to a Rector as such, and not to a Lord or Benefactor as such. 8. However, when God judgeth he doth not divest himself of the Relations of a Lord and Benefactor; but these Relations are to be considered, as connoted and inseparable in a Judge. 9 When God is called pars offensa, we do not mean pars aequalis, or one offended against that Justice, which is merely commutative: But we intent no more than the supreme Lord of all, The Rector and Benefactor is offended by them who are his own, his Subjects, but disobedient and ungrateful, Isa. 1.2, 3, 4. Ezek. 18.4. God therefore doth exact Punishment not only for conserving the order and good of the World; but also finally for his own Glory, to demonstrate his Holiness and Justice. Because his Glory is the end of his Government, God therefore doth exact Punishments, not only as a Rector but as an injured Lord and Benefactor. And although he judgeth formally, as a Rector secundum Leges, prius a se datas, yet as connoting his other Relations, that is, as a Rector who is an offended Lord and Father. So far Mr. Baxter, who scruples not to declare, that God in requiring Satisfaction, is not to be considered only as a Rector secundum Leges, as such, but as an injured Sovereign and Benefactor, and as a Rector supra Leges, whence it must be acknowledged, that Christ's Sufferings could not be properly Penal. That they are no other than what are exacted by an injured Lord and Benefactor, or as a Rector supra Leges, who, as such, exacts not Punishment, formally as such; and that therefore the punishment can be but improper and analogical, as he explains it, p. 341. where he freely declares, That altho' Punishment, strictly taken, is only the Effect of a Rector, yet a Friend, or Benefactor, wearied with Ingratitude, may Execute Analogical Punishments. Thus, for a Friend, not to love, A Benefactor, ceasing to bestow his Favours; a Father, withholding the Effects and Tokens of his Paternal Affections; are their ways of Punishment. And because God's Kingdom is Paternal, where all that the Subjects enjoy belong to the Ruler, and where Love bears Dominion in the Government, the withholding Divine Benefits, is not in a forced, or improper, but in a most eminent sense called Divine Punishing.  
5. This passage of Mr. Baxter doth fully clear it, that in his Opinion Christ's Sufferings are not proper Punishments. And tho, in condescension to the weak, he yielded so far as to accommodate his way of writing to them, who differed from him, using sundry Terms and Phrases, which the Orthodox have chosen and established as explicating the Truth most distinctly, and with the greatest plainness, yet did he openly oppose the use of other Terms and Phrases, such as Christ's Sufferings, and Dying in the Person of Sinners, etc. and took particular care to discover his true meaning; that we might not think he did take even those he used, in the same sense, in which they are used by the Orthodox. For, it appeareth very convincingly to me, it is his stated Judgement, that God exacts formal and proper Punishment only as a Rector quà talis; and as an Injured Lord and Benefactor, he polecats Analogical Tunishment; and that when God, as a Benefactor, withholds his Benefits, he may be ●aid to punish, and so far, and in what sense he may be said to punish, he may be said to glorify his Punishing Justice; but not as an Injured Lord and Benefactor. And he not exacting Pu●●ashments taken properly and formally, the punishing Justice Mr. Baxter speaks of is not taken in a proper sense; for Punishing Justice thus taken, belongs only to a Rector, quà talis.  
These Considerations may suffice to vindicate my Charge, [That Mr. Baxter denieth Christ's Sufferings to be a proper Punishment] from the Ignorant and Rude Assaults of my Adversary; who, if he had kept more closely to his Studies, and minded Things more than Indecent Words, could never have been imposed upon, as in this Point he has been. And certain I am, that if the Learned and  Mr. Baxter had been alive, he would thank neither Mr. Williams, nor Mr. Alsop for their Attempts to conceal his true sense of these Points from the World.  
Before I close this Discourse, I will set down a summary of Mr. Baxter's Belief in these matters, particularly, That Christ's sufferings were not ex Obligatione Legts; That our sins were not the near impulsive, or proper meritorious cause of his sufferings; That his sufferings were not properly and formally, penal; That no sufferings are properly punishments, but what are inflicted on the Delinquent himself; That when Parent's sin, and their Children suffer, their sufferings are not properly and formally, but materially, improperly and analogically penal; That Christ, (properly speaking) did not satisfy the Law, nor God, as a Rector, quà talis only, but as a Rector supra Leges, as a pars offensa, as an Injured Lord and Benefactor; That a proper strict Satisfaction is the solution, or payment of an Equivalent, which was not due for what was due; That the Aequivalence lieth in an aptitude to answer the Remote Ends of the Law, That an answering the Remote Ends of the Law, is of a distinct nature from answering its Obligations or Penal Sanction; That the Obligation Christ lay under to suffer, arose only from the Mediatorial Precept, and Christ's voluntary Sponsion; That what answers only the Preacept of a Law, and is only an Act of Obedience, cannot, considered as such, be a punishment; That the true Reason, why Christ's sufferings are said to be penal, is because of their matter, which is painful and dolorous; That the Justice of God, which Christ satisfied, tho' called punitive, yet must not be understood in a strict sense, for that punishing Justice, from whence a proper punishment doth flow, That Christ's entire Righteousness was his performance of the Condition of his Covenant with the Father; and his performance of that Condition was his meritorious Title to God's promised Effects; That tho' the matter of the Covevenant of Works was taken into the Mediatorial Law, yet Christ was never under the Formal Obligation of the Law of Works, nor did he strictly merit according to its Rule.  
This is an impartial Account of Mr. Baxter's Sentiments touching the Nature of Christ's Satisfaction and Merit; and, as this Notion is distinct from what is embraced by the Reformed, so, whilst he uses the same Terms the Orthodox do, yet it is in a different sense. For by the works [Punishment, Punishing Justice, Christ's Righteousness and Merit, yea and proper Satisfaction] he doth (as I have already suggested) intent quite another thing than the Protestants do: And, because these Terms and Phrases are not in Scripture, he is not for an insisting on their use against the Socinians. De Nomine [vid. Satisfactionis] non nultùm Litigandum est: & siqui Sociniani, aut alii Satisfactionis nomen, quia in Sacris Literis non re●eritur, repudiant necessitatem Nominis, non asserere lebemus: Meth. Theol. part. 3. cap. 1. Diterm. 12. ●. 49.  
But, in opposition hereunto, the Learned Dr. Edward's expresseth himself thus: The words vid. Satisfaction and Merit] are now adopted by the Church, inserted into her Homilies and Liturgies, they are part of the Catholic Faith, and become the Common Language of all Christians. So that we cannot lay them aside, without giving infinite offence, and scandal to all our Friends of the Reformation, and at the same time of affording matter of Boasting and Triumph to our Adversaries of the Church of Rome; who have long since told the World, that we are grown weary of our Old Religion, and are all ready to turn Socinians. Besides all this, it will justify in great measure the Calumnies of our Modern unitarians who will exceedingly triumph to find their suspicion made good, viz. that we secretly favour their Impious Opinions: and that if it were not for the Bias, that is given to our minds lie the Awe of our Superiors, and the Love of our Preferments, we would soon take off the Mask, ard discover our True Sentiments in their favour. Preservat. against Socin. Part. 3. p. 110.  
What this Learned Person offers against the very Notion of Mr. Baxter, as well as of Curcellaeus and Limborch, I do humbly recommed to the consideration not only of Mr. Alsop, but of all the Brethren at Little St. Helen's, and do wish with all my heart, that Mr. Alsop may be enabled to weigh with deliberation and soberness, whether there be the least Reason for his declaring so positively, That neither Mr. Williams, nor Mr. Baxter deny Christ's Sufferings to be proper punishments? Or what pleasure it can afford him, on a Dying Bed to consider what countenance he has given to the very Notions he now would be thought to abhors How he hath discouraged, yea reviled them, who appear in the Defence of those Truths, which so nearly affect our Salvation? And how much he hath strengthened the hands of them, who hold such Opinions as open a Door for the letting in the very Abominations we are at this time in most danger of: For, the very Engine chosen by the Socinian Combinators in the year 1546. as most likely to introduce their Impious Heresies, was their corrupting the Doctrine of our Blessed Saviour's Satisfaction. As Wissowatius, in his Compendious Narration, in the mention he makes of the Italian Combinators, tells us, it was to bring the Received Opinion of the Trinity into doubt; so Sandius in his Anti-Trinitarian Bibiiothee. p. 18. speaking of their Colleges and Conferences, adds, in quibus potissimùm Dogmata vulgaria de Trinitate, ac Christ. Satisfactione, hisque similia, in Dubium revocabant; And what is remarkable, Lubieniecius, in his History of the Polonian Reformation, lib. 2. c. 1. Ingenuously confesseth, that 'twas also their care to insinuare, that in the Article of Justification, an applying the Merit of Christ unto us by Faith alone, was one of those Opinions, introduced by the Greek Philosophers.  
Of these things I take the more notice, because at this time, as Mr. Williams doth, not omy corrupt the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, but that other of Justification; in like manner, He doth as these Socinians did, subscribe with a distinction, securing his own sense, and carries it so subdolously, as to influence some worthy Divines, who are sound in the Faith, to give too much Reputation unto him, and consequently to his Erroneous Opinions. I can hardly forbear the mention of an Aged Divine, who hath been Mr. William's his Tool to the hindering a Reunion; but at this time I will spare him. And only add, that Mr. William's acts so like unto these Combinators, that unless some more than ordinary care be taken to give check unto him, his success may bear some proportion to what Laelius Socinus, Blandrata and some others of that way, had in Poland. What Reputation Blandrata had amongst the Orthodox, notwithstanding the Indefatigable Pains of so great a Man, as Calvin, to discover his Hypocrisy, I have shown in my Growth of Error, and in this place will observe what I have met with concerning Franciscus Lismaninus, who carried it so craftily, as to obtain a great Interest in the Esteem of the Reformed in general, and of Calvin and Zanchy, in particular. Lubieniecius, in his Polonian History, lib. 2. c. 2. saith, that Calvin, in a Letter to the King of Poland, highly applauded Lismaninus, tho' the Publisher of his Epistles did unfairly omit the mention of his Name; and sure I am, that, he joined with other Polonian Divines in a Letter to Zanchy, in which, he, with them, expresseth himself so Orthodoxly, that Zanchy in answer unto them could not but rejoice exceedingly, to understand that so much Holiness and Truth was amongst them, which was about the year of our Lord 1562, 63. and yet long before this time Wissowatius dates Lasmaninus his being influenced by Laelius Socinus to embrace his Opinions even about the year 1552, 53. And it's very probable, the Concealment of his Heresy from the Notice of the Orthodox, was continued unto the Day of his Fatal Catastrophe; [which, as Sandius, Bibl. Anti-Trin. p. 35. observes out of Budzinius his History, was by his falling into a Well. (where he was Drowned,) when in a Frenzy, occasioned by his Wife's being suspected guilty of Adultery.] For it's conjectured, that his Death was not long after he joined, in the above mentioned Letter, with Gregorius Pauli, Stanislaus Lathomiski, Paulus Gilovius & Martinus Crovitius, at that time Socinians, who by sheltering themselves amongst the Orthodox, had gained such Advantages for the Propagating their Impious Opinions, as to put an effectual stop to the spreading of the Truth in that Kingdom, which, for the most part, hath been ever since Popish and Socinian.  
What I have said, will, I hope, clear it to them, who sincerely desire the Knowledge of what it is that doth really lie at the bottom of the present Heats, That our Differences are in Points of the greatest weight, and that the Contention on our part is, that the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction may be secured from the Insults of Mr. Ws. and his followers. For, in a word, the true State of the Case is thus. Mr. Williams in his Writings, falling in with the Learned Mr. Baxter, hath corrupted the Doctrine of our Saviour's Satisfaction; The first Book, in which he laid the Foundation of the whole, he hath since advanced, came forth under the countenance of the St. Helen's Ministers, for above forty of their Hands are unto a Testmonial prefixed unto it. In which, it is declared, that the Truths, and Errors therein mentioned as such, are fully and rightly stated in all that is material. Several Exceptions have been made against this Book, fervent desires that our Brethren, whose Hands are to it, would recall them. This never yet done, but when some of the most Eminent of our Brethren sent a Paper securing the Doctrines of Christ's Satisfaction, and our Justification, in opposition to Mr. William's his Errors, which greatly rejoiced the hearts of the Grieved Brethren; a Check was put thereunto by them, who meet at Little St. Helen's, and another Paper composed, which broke down those Barriers which were inserted in the First Paper, on purpose to secure the Truth against the Socinianizing-Arminians. This last Paper increasing the Offence given by Mr. Williams; the offended Brethren earnestly desired that they would join with the most Eminent of their own Number in the first Paper. To this never any Answer returned, but various Misrepresentations given of Matters of Fact, which occasioned the Publishing a Sheet of Paper, entituld, The Report, etc. This is followed with a Scandalous Rebuke, written by Mr. Alsop, in which, without the least provocation he Rails against all the Congregational Churches, Ministers and People, calling 'em Petty Foggers, Intreaguers, Whaffing Whelps, Mastiff Dogs, Rosacrusions, and the like. Some time after this, out comes a Book called, An Answer to the Report, said by Mr. Williams, to be composed by a Committee of the Saint Helen's Brethren; to this are annexed two Letters, the one from the R. Reverend the Lord Bishop of Worcester, the other from the Reverend Dr. Edward's, Principal of Jesus College Oxon, in which the Truths we own are explained and asserted.  
Thus, instead of examining Mr. William's his Book, and Recalling their Hands, or witnessing against the Errors in it, the Ministers at Little St. Helen's, who formerly took special care to keep themselves (as considered collectively) at a distance from the Contest, have now made themselves Parties, not only by their Answer to the Report, which contains in it a Plea for Mr. William's his Notions, but also by their approval of Mr. Alsop's scurrilous and false Charge against the Congregational Brethren, which is not only evident from their not testifying against the Barbarity of the Abuse, but from their caressing him for it.  
And whereas they say, the Difference is only about words, or modes of expression, you have it here fully proved that it is in such Points, as affect the very Vitals of our Holy Religion. For, justification, by that Righteousness of Christ which answers the Law of Works is rejected, for a Righteousness of Christ which lieth entirely and solely in the performance of the Conditions of the Mediatorial Covenant under which we never were. Besides, that Satisfaction, which lieth in answering the Obligations of the Violated Law by Christ's suffering a proper Punishment is rejected, for a Satisfaction, which only answers some Remote Ends of the Law, which was done without Christ's bearing a proper Punishment. And that these things are of importance, I doubt not but my Lord Bishop of Worcester, and the Principal of Jesus, to whom I have Appealed, will with Conviction demonstrate.  
But, whereas Mr. Williams, to drown the Charge against himself, makes a Noise of Antinomianism as embraced by the Congregational, it must be noted, that there was never any Charge brought in against them by Mr. Williams, or any other to the Ministers at Little St. Helen's, whilst they were amongst them, nor any where else that I know, nor did the Congregational set their Names to any Book chargeable with Antinomianism, unless three, or four of them, with as many more of their Presbyterian Brethren to a Testimonial before Dr. Crisps Book; which was before the Union commenced.  
This being a short, but Impartial State of the Controversy, I do with the utmost Fervour beseech the Brethren who meet at St. Helen's, more particularly the Reverend Mr. Hammond to clear themselves from having any hand in approving of Mr. Williams and Mr. Alsop's unbrotherly False and Railing Accusations, whereby they will remove that Block, which they have thrown in the way, to hinder Conciliatory Endeavours, and greatly exhilerate the Spirits of their Injured and Grieved Brethren, who I doubt not, will concur with them in witnessing against the Errors on the other Extreme, if they at St. Helen's will but join hearty with them in Asserting those great Articles of Christ's Satisfaction and Merit, which have been very distinctly taught by the Church from the beginning, as Vossius and Grotius declare in the Preface to that Excellent Discourse of the Latter De Satisfactione, where it's said, Cum vero duo nobis peperisse Christum dixerimus, Impunitatem, & Praemium, illud satisfactioni, hoc merito Christi distinctè Tribuit vetus Ecclesia, both which are effectually secured in the First Paper.  
A Learned Brother, whose Conciliating Attempts are very pleasing to me, having sent me his thoughts on this Controversy: I thank him hearty for it, craving his Opinion of my Appeal, and of this Discourse, that I may dispose of his Letter to the Churches greater Service.      
FINIS.