were so hasty in what they did that some Passages of a dangerous Aspect escaped their Notice The other are the whole Body many Discerning Heads whose observation the dangerous Passages could not Pass who gave such Reasons and Arguments to their Private Brethren as convinced them that there were Just Reasons to Alter the Phrases and new Model some Expressions Now that you may the more rightly Judge of this Matter I will give you the Names of these Private Brethren who were so Hasty and Inconsiderate tho' when with the Body so thoughtful as to receive much light from the strong Reasons of the many Discerning Heads They were Dr. Bates Mr. Howe Mr. Stretton Mr. Alsop Mr. Shower Mr. Burgess Mr. Slauter Mr. Quick Mr. Evans Mr. Veal Mr. Hill of Roterdam Mr. Glascock and three or four more The Names of the many Discerning Heads I need not give and therefore I will leave the Reader to Pause a while on the Representation my Brother hath given of this Matter and go on to consider what he further saith of them II. The Private Brethren such as Dr. Bates Mr. Howe c. received so much light from the many Discerning Heads that as they might so they did see Just Reasons to alter the Phrases and New Model some Expressions ay to wave and pass by some Phrases as what could not bear a sound sense but were liable to be Interpreted to a sense and sound of Malignity to the Gospel In this place 't will be Expedient that we compare the Two Papers and see what are the Waved and Altered Passages The First Paper 1. Bearing with One anothers Infirmities and Different Sentiments about Logical or Philosophical Terms or meerly Humane Forms of Speech in matters of Lesser weight The Third Paper 1. Bearing with One anothers Infirmities and Different Sentiments in matters of Lesser weight not contending about Logical or Philosophical Terms or meer Humane Forms of Speech The Alteration in this place how Insignificant soever it may seem to some is in a point that Affects the very Vitals of our Holy Religion For by this Change the words in matters of lesser weight being transferr'd from Logical Terms unto different sentiments a matter of another kind with an addition of not Contending about Logical or Philosophical Terms c. without the Restriction in matters of lesser weight a Liberty to contend about these Terms in matters of greater weight is denied and the Assenters unto the Third Paper are brought under an Obligation to sit still as silent Spectators whilst the Episcopians and Socinians are Exposing to the greatest Reproach the Logical and Philosophical Terms and Humane Forms of Speech pitch'd upon by the Church of God to Explain the Foundation Points both of Revealed and Natural Religion To clear thus much I desire to Inculcate these following Particulars 1. That it 's an Unexpressible Grievance unto all sorts of Hereticks to observe in the Church of God a strict Adherence to those Logical or Philosophical Terms that have been chosen and settled as what do most aptly and clearly explain those glorious Truths discovered unto us by the Light of Nature and Scripture Revelation and clearly distinguish these most Important Truths from Errour 2. That it hath been the way of Heriticks to quarrel with these Terms because not found in the Letter of Scripture Tho' the Controversie is about the sense of Scripture ay about the sense of every Text is there a Controversie with one Heretick or other yet will they have us to confine our selves to Scripture phrases in Explaining Scripture phrases Tho' it 's undoubtedly True that there is no better way to Understand the genuine sense of Scripture than by comparing Scripture with Scripture yet it 's no less True that it 's not so easie to convey the True sense unto others without the help of Humane Forms of Speech Amongst many others it 's well observed by the learned Mr. Norton of New-England that the most Pestilent Doctrines have often times been communicated in the Language of Scripture which was the reason why St. Hierome speaking against the Heresies of Ebion Photinus Marcion and Basilides did say Think not the Gospel to be in the words of the Scripture but in the sense And Mr. Norton adds who is Ignorant that the Arians speak Heresie by that Text The Father is greater than I Joh. 14.28 But Biddles Scripture Catechism is an illustrious Evincement of this Truth for there he hath in Scripture words delivered very gross Errours for instance that God hath a similitude or shape whose Essence is confined to the Heavens and the like as also that God is not Omniscient for he knows not what will be hereafter Whereas in Truth God is Omniscient and Incomprehensible too And though these Terms are not in the Letter of Scripture yet the things contained in these Terms and Phrases are Expresly in the Scriptures And as the learned Bishop of Worcester affirms It is the Wiser and Safer Course to keep in the same Way which the Christian Church hath used ever since she hath agreed to express her sense in such Terms which were thought most proper for the purpose And since no other can be found more significant and proper for that End it looks like yielding too Great Advantage to our Adversaries to give up the Boundaries of our Faith Pref. to the Vindie of the Prin. p. 2 3. But I do also Observe 3. That the first Attempts made by them who forsake the Faith are on these Terms and Phrases Thus the Socinians as I have shewn in my Growth of Errour did about the year 1562. labour to engage the Ministers in some parts of Poland to Abstain from the use of Philosophical Terms or Humane Forms of Speech and as Stonius Observes it was this year concluded in a Synod at Pinâ—zow that the Ministers should not use any Philosophical Modes of Speech such as the Trinity Essence c. but that every one should confine himself to the Terms used in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles and in the Apostles Creed p. 175. Episcopius and his Followers took the same Method when they Attempted to subvert the commonly received Doctrine about Christ's Satisfaction In a Letter to Schotlerus he confesses 't was charged upon him that he used other phrases than those received by the Church and such as seemed to Favour the Socinian Cause and the Truth of the charge against him he does not deny Curcellaeus doth the same and has a Dissertation against Maresius wherein he defends the laying by of sundry phrases used by the Church of God because not found in the Letter of Scripture but both Episcopius and Curcellaeus did not content themselves in the laying aside the Use of these phrases but went on to oppose the Truths Explained by 'em and at last lodged themselves in the Socinian Tents and are Justly by Sandius placed in the Anti-Trinitarian Bibliothec. 4. As it has been the Practice of Hereticks to make
wound and therefore it being his Design whilst he gave an account of what was done towards the making up the Breach and where the last Stop was to Soften and Prepare the Minds of the Brethren for Peace He Industriously wav'd as any one might perceive the giving a Full Narrative of the whole and in the Title Page He Declared That his Report was of the Present State and therefore not of what had passed some years ago How then can any consistently with Truth say that by a Wretched Senechdoche He hath given you a part for the whole of a Just Narrative 2. A Desire to Accommodate matters so far as possible upon the Bottom of Truth lyeth so much upon his Heart that he doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fixedly Resolve against what is likely to Exasperate And therefore tho' this Brother hath given such a Partial and Vntrue History of the whole Relating to the Division as cannot be Detected without Publishing what we ought I think mournfully to cover He Obligeth me at least for the Present to conceal such Particulars as much as sincere Affection to the Truths of Christ's Gospel will allow which I am the rather inclined to do because I find that when the Report did so calmly give but a few Intimations about what had been done for Peace what Advances had been made towards it by divers of the most Eminent of each Party where the stop was and what would Heal they have put my Brother in to such a Confusion of Thought as moves some to Fear that a thorough search into this History will discover such Mistakes and give him such a Disturbance as to make him wholly Unfit for that good work for which God hath given him an Excellent Talent and to which with a sincere Respect to him and his further Usefulness I do Heartily Wish he would henceforward Confine himself Having thus Cleared the Report from the Charge of Falshood as to matter of Fact I will make what convenient hast I can to consider what he hath Offered about Doctrinals And to set what Relates hereunto in the clearest Light I must beg my Readers Patience to Observe what is necessary to be suggested on this Occasion For it must be Inculcated 1. That we have no Controversie with any Assembly of Vnited Ministers as such not only because we know of no such meeting that hath been of late months at Little St. Hellens but because when there were such Meetings they did not set their hands unto the Offensive Book and never Expressed any other way their Approbation of it That the meeting of Ministers at Little St Hellens is not composed of Vnited Brethren is manifest in that the Congregational who are an essential Part of the Union have not if we may believe my Brother met with them For he assures us That they gradually with-drew from their Assemblies and Common-Meetings and not only so but set up another Opposite-Meeting in a Neighbouring Place at the very Hour and on the same day that the United Brethren Assembled at Dr. Annesleys Some few of them would now and then drop in when they had occasion to serve themselves of the Vnion and commonly there was one or two to spie out their Liberty Fa. Reb. p. 21. Now what manner of Union can there be between two Parties when there is but one Party to make it up But 2. The generality of those Brethren who were Pastors of Churches and did set their Names unto the Testimonial before the Offensive Book did thereby rather intend to express their Just Abhorrence of Antinomian Dotages than an Approval of the Book for divers of them never Read the Book nor can they bear that the setting their hands unto the Attestation praefixed unto it should be Interpreted as if it had been unto the Book but only unto the state of the Truths and Errors therein mentioned and not unto the Preface Explications or Proofs 3. That the true Reason which influenced several of them who meet at Little St. Hellens to Reject the first Paper was an Apprehension that the Testimony it gave against Antinomianism was not so full as they could wish and thought needful tho' it was as full as 't is now in the third Paper Not that they dislik'd the Renunciation of Arminian or Socinian Errours However it must be acknowledged to be somewhat singular if not unparallel in them who Reject the first Paper that notwithstanding the Complaints of our Offened Brethren the Nature of the Errours Charged on the Offensive-Book and the many mischievous and fatal Consequences that have attended the Setting their Hand unto the Testimonial before it they have not hitherto that I can hear Condescended so far as to Examine whether their Names have not given Countenance to such Notions as are contrary to the Holy Scriptures and the Faith Professed by Protestants at Home and Abroad But seeing what is thus surprizing flows from an Excess of Charity in them to the Author of the Offensive Book it 's now hoped that the bold stroke which the Faithful Rebuke hath given to the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction will awaken the Presbyterian Brethren to declare their Orthodoxy by their Testifying against what doth in it deviate from the Truth 4. That the Controversie is in good earnest between the Congregational and the Body of the Presbyterian Brethren on the one Part and a few who are with Mr. Williams on the other The Reasons which move me to Judge thus are 1. The generality of the Presbyterian Brethren in this City do still firmly adhere unto the Assemblies Confession Larger and Shorter Catechism from which in the Controverted Points some apprehend Mr. W's tho' he hath subscribed them doth dissent and cannot choose whilst they have so many powerful Arguments for that Apprehension Besides if there had not been a real Difference between him and them how could Mr. J. W. and his Friends boast of a Brother's coming over unto them in the Point of Justification 2. No one hath written much in the praise of Mr. Ws his Notions but Mr. Toland whose Opinions are well known both in England and Ireland and this Brother whom I am sorry to see Listed in defence of the same Cause What the Reverend Mr. Lorimer hath written as it is after another manner than what my Rebuker hath done so the most in him in these Matters is his mistaken Charity to Mr. Ws. For he is a Man that neither thinks the Phrases of Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners and of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us to be either New or of a Dangerous sound Nor doth he deny that our Lord Jesus did as our surety come under the Bond and Curse of the Moral Law 5. As for the Doctrine of Justification Mr. Ws if he will be true to his own avowed Principles must come over to Mr. Humphrey in the denial of the imputed Righteousness of Christ in any other sense than in its Effects 'T is true
my Brothers Instructor may be in making such Mistakes my Brother himself who is so good a Latinist discovering so much Unacquaintedness not only with Divinity but with that Learned Language in which if in any thing excepting Wit he must be esteemed to excel cannot be entirely excused For what more evident than that if Cicero may be Regarded as a Competent Judge in this Case sustinere Personam alterius is such good Latin that it need not be afraid to Look my Brother in the face However 6. This Brother will have it that the Phrase of Christs Sustaining our Person is Vnintelligible fit to Puzzle and Confound Mens Vnderstanding uncapable of a sound Sense and liable to be interpreted to a Sense and Sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel as if all that have used it such as Dr. Bates Rutherford Calvin and the Generation of the Orthodox had designed to confound the World by the Use of barbarous and pernicious Phrases and had been guilty of the unrighteous Charge with which the English Vnitarians have burdened them when they Reproach them for amusing Mankind with the Jargon of Vnintelligible Terms and Phrases And as if such an Accusation had been too mean my Brother runs higher For 7. He exposes the Phrase of Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners to the greatest Contempt and Scorn as if it Represented the blessed Redeemer in the most glorious undertaking of falen Mans Recovery to be Histrionical His Words are Faithful Rebuke We are told of Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners What can this Expression signifie but that Christ wore the Mask the Vizer the Disguise of Sinners That he was Personatus Histrio Like a Sâ—â—ge Player that puts on the Person of a King whâ—â— indeed he is but some Sorry Fellow pag. 53. Reply 1. That the Phrase of Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners should be so vilely mis-represented by any one of them who meet at Little St. Hellens is equal Matter of Astonishment and Humiliation And to be Just unto Truth I must turn unto the Reverend Brethren who ordinarily Assemble at that Place for their Judgment in this case whether the Phrase of Christs sustaining the Person of sinners can signifie nothing but his wearing the Mask the Vizer the Disguise of Sinners as if he had been a sorry Stage Player This is the Case that deserves yea that calls for your determination for my Brothers words are What can these Expressions signifie but that Christ wore the Mask c. Sirs the Eyes of a whole Nation are upon you and the Eyes of the Reformed Churches Abroad will be upon you to see whether you will give Countenance to such an Abuse of Truth and its Renowned Defenders But to Return to my Brother 2. Why cannot this Phrase signifie nothing else If he had but gained a little smattering in the Civil Law he would have seen that it could have born another meaning There he might have Learned That there is a Moral Person distinct both from a Physical and Ficta Persona That a Moral Person is one placed in the State and Office of them whose Person he sustains That One single Man being put into the different States and Conditions of many puts on their Person That a peculiar Species of Political Persons may be called Representative because they represent the Persons they bear for instance Ambassadors Vice-Roys Syntdicks and the like And in the more inferior Station the Tutor sustains the Person of the Pupil the Guardian of the Minor and yet none of these are Stage-Players for to a Representative Person somewhat more belongs than meer Representation they are such as do somewhat for the Advantage of them whose Person they sustain That these True Moral Persons are distinct from them who are but Fictae as Stage-Players are That the Fictae Personae or Stage Players are but the Vmbrae or Shadows of the True That the Essence of these Fictae Personae consists only in Representation of the Habit the Gesture and the like of another And as Pufendorf further declares Veras Personas morales quas producit Impositio haudquidquam ita est Libera quin ejusmodi Qualitates debeat praesupponere quae aptae sint ut solidus aliquis effectus in vitâ humanâ inde Eveniat Et illas qui circa Constituendas Personas negle xerint per vecordem Petulantiam mortalibus insultare est Censendus Pufend. de Jure Nat. Gent. Lib. 1. Cap. 1. Edit 3. pag. 15. That this good Brother therefore whilst so Unacquainted with what is so much known to every body who understands this Controversie about Christs Satisfaction and his Suretyship should so far forget himself as to write after the rate he hath done may very well be a Caution to others to take heed how they go beyond their last or how they suffer themselves to be hurryed on a Controversie before their Heats are over and they have got time to deliberate and digest what they write about Had my Reverend Brother been more cool had he got more time to consider and weigh well what he did he could never have been thus imposed upon to wound his own Reputation as he hath done in the use he hath made of Milton Milton tho' he saith Salmasium risum pene Legentibus Multiplici Barbarismo concitasse could not charge Salmasius with more Instances of Barbarism than my Brother is fallen into mistakes in the use he makes of Milton For 1. Salmasius Writes not of a Moral Representative Person but of the Natural Person of the King there was saith he a Paricide Committed on the Person of the King that is on his Natural his own proper Person 2. When Milton Banters Salmasius with a Pseudo-Philip he mentions not a word of a Moral Person neiâ—her but speaks only of a meer Ficta Persona as if Salmasius by Persona had meant a Tyrant under the Vizer or Mask of a King 3. The Reason why Milton was so severe upon Salmasius was not so much because Salmasius used the Word Persona as because he mislook the Ablative for the Accusative Case and wrote in Persona when it should have been in Personam Regis But tho' Salmasius gave a full Answer to every thing that Milton on this occasion Played upon him for Instancing in several Roman Writers who have taken the word Persona in a proper Sense and have used the Ablative Case as he has done yet it not being to my present Purpose I shall only desire to know of my Brother What Alliance Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners has either with the Natural Person of a King or of any other Man or with a meer Ficta Persona For both these are very distinct from a Moral or Legal Person and it is in this Moral or Legal Sense that the word Person is taken when it 's affirm'd that Christ sustained the Person of Sinners and it signifieth the same with Christs being their Publick Representative He was Publica Persona
respect because he doth not say that St. Paul was Evil in every respect The Connection between a change of Christ's Person and a change of Persons between Christ and Us is in the Judgment of my Brother no other than what is between the Piety of the one Apostle and the Infirmities of the other But 3. My Brother is in good earnest only for a change of Christ's Person without a change of Persons between Christ and Vs as I will soon prove so that all this noise about a change of Christ's Person secundum quid and Restrictively is nothing to the purpose The question is not whether there be a change of Christ's Person for Sinners No Socinian will deny thus much But whether there be a change of Persons between Christ and Sinners The Brethren at St. Hellens say There is a change of Persons between Christ and Us at least in the general sense and they thought that Mr. Ws. held so too But if we may Judge of Mr. Ws. by his Defender its notorious that Mr. Ws. doth not hold a change of Persons between Christ and Us in any sense That this phrase is of a late contrivance and must have a Blasphemous sense as I will shew from my Brothers own words Faithful Rebuke The Controversie lieth in some School Terms or Jargons of Art of a very late Contrivance such as a change of Persons between Christ and Vs p. 30. Reply 1. This contemptuous Treatment with which my Brother entertains this phrase which as it has been long ago used by the Church of God so is it most apt to express that great Truth delivered in the Holy Scriptures where it 's said Christ died for us can indicate nothing less than that He Believes not a change of Persons between Christ and Us. 2. He saith that it is a phrase of a very late contrivance and a School Term whereas the learned Dr. Owen hath prov'd it to have been used by the Fathers such as St. Austin St. Chrysostome Gregory Nyssen and Justin Martyr long before the Schoolmen had their rise Owen of Justif p. 41 c. and Witsius proves it too My Brother goeth on to assure us that this phrase of a change of Persons between Christ and Us must have a Blasphemous sense Faithful Rebuke Let us Examine the phrase A change of persons between Christ and Us If I understood Grammar the sense must be that Christ was changed for us and we for Christ the change must be mutual and Interchangeable But though Christ Redeemed us we never Redeemed Christ Christ stood in our place as our Redeemer we never stood in his place nor were his Redeemers He Died for us for our sins we ne-never Died for him for his sins p. 9. Reply 1. That my reverend Brother hath delivered himself in a point of this Importance so hastily doth greatly lessen him in the Esteem of some of his truest Friends For he is positive that the phrase of a change of Persons between Christ and Us must signifie that we Died for Christ's sins to Redeem him Now seeing this must be the sense of the phrase I desire to know whether we did in any sense General or Special Die for Christ's Sins If this must be the sense of the phrase except my Brother believes that in some sense we did Die to Redeem Christ he can't hold a change of Persons between Christ and Us in any sense and whatever my reverend Brethren in Little St. Hellens did charitably hope it 's now manifest from this Rebuker that Mr. Williams by the phrase of no change of Persons between Christ and Us did intend the denial of a change of Persons between Christ and Us in the General sense Yea farther 2. That seeing my reverend Brethren at St. Hellens are for a change of Persons between Christ and Us they must in the Opinion of the Rebuker hold that We Died for Christ's Sins and Redeemed him which is Blasphemy I wish my Brother would think a little on what he Asserts when he so boldly avers that the sense of a change of Persons between Christ and Us must be that we were Chang'd for him so as to Die for his Sins Never did a Socinus a Crellius or any rash English Unitarian charge this phrase and the generality of the Reformed with more than Blasphemy But 3. Where is the man that ever gave such a sense of this phrase The learned Witsius is persuaded That never any one who understood Divinity no not a Man in his Wits did ever Dream of such a Permutation of Persons as that which places the Saviour amongst the saved Iren. Animad cap. 2. § 8. And sure I am that Crellius tho' he fastned a wrong sense upon the word Surrogation 't was not such a Blasphemous one For when he saith There is not a proper Surrogation in Christ's Dying for us It is saith he because a proper Surrogation must be such a Commutation of Persons that the substituted person is in all respects to be in the same place and state wherein the other was and if it refers to Sufferings then it is when one suffers the very same which the other was to suffer he being immediately delivered by the others suffering But in answer unto Crellius it 's cleared That to endure the same Punishment in all respects is not necessary to a proper Surrogation That if David as the Bishop of Worcester has it had obtain'd his wish that he had Died for his Son Absolom it had not been necessary in order to his Sons Escape that he had hanged by the Hair of his Head as his Son but his Death tho' in other circumstances had been sufficient And therefore when the Lawyers say subrogatum sapit naturam ejus in cujus Locum subrogatur Coverruvias tells us it is to be understood secundum primordiaâ—em naturam non secundum accidentalem from whence it appears that all circumstances are not necessary to be the same in Surrogation but that the Nature of the Punishment remain Discours of Christ's suff 〈◊〉 p. 324. But where is the man who at any time â—â—â—cied that a Commutation of Persons between Christ aâ—â— Us must signifie that as Christ suffered for us 〈◊〉 we suffered for Christ There is a Commutation between a Surety and the Debtor which is when the Surety sustaining the Person of the Debtor pays his Debts for him but must this phrase of a change of Persons between the Surety and the Debtor signifie that the Debtor pays the Debts of his Surety Is it not sufficient that it signifieth that on the Sureties coming into the same Bonds with the Debtor and Paying the Debt he owed the Debtor be thereby delivered The same may be truly said of our Lord Jesus Christ for he being our Surety took on him our Person so that there was a change of Persons between him and us He paid the Debt we owed that we might be delivered Not that we Paid any Debts for Christ for
Curcellaeus who succeeded him in the Professors Chair declares freely That Christ did not Satisfie as is commonly apprehended by suffering all those Punishments which we had deserved by our Sins First because suffering Punishment belongs not to the Reason of a Sacrifice and hath nothing Common with it Sacrifices are not Debitorum Solutiones the Payment of Debts as appears from the Legal Institutions Curcel Relig. Christs Instit lib. 5. c. 19. § 14 15. Lemborch holds the same Opinion It may be in a certain sense said that Christ was Punished for us as there was laid upon him a Vicarious Punishment that is Affliction quae Poenae vicem sustenuit in the place and stead of punishment Limb. Theol. Christ Lib. 3. c. 22. § 2. 4. Having thus stated the Controversie between the Orthodox and the Socinians together with Episcepius and his Followers I will consider the Enquiry What is the Nice Difference between Christs Answering the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works and his Answering for our Violation of the Law of Works And desire my Brother to consider that a Man may subscribe to this Assertion That Christ answered for our Violation of the Law of Works consistently with his denying Christs Sufferings to be properly paenal But â—eeing the violated Law of Works obliged unto a proper punishment Christ could not Answer for us the Obligations of this Violated Law any otherwise than by suffering a Proper Punishment for our sins So that tho' an insisting on Christs Answering for our Violation of the Law of Works secures not this Great Truth of Christs suffering a proper Punishment for our sins yet his Answering the Obligations of the Violated Law doth it most effectually But 5. My Brother assuring us that no Terms or Passages were waved and passed by but such as could not bear a sound Sense and this word Obligations which establishes Christs suffering a proper punishment being waved is it not a plain Indication that my Brother hath at least a concern for them who with the Socinians and Episcopians deny the Sufferings of Christ to be a proper Punishment or Satisfactory to Gods Justice for our sins or hath in ignorance spoken all this 6. It 's now time therfore to gather up what my Brother hath said to the shaking the Foundations of Christs Satisfaction which is so very much that an English Vnitarian in the way now esteemed most 〈◊〉 to succeed could do no more towards it If any one of them hath made it his Province to expose the Assertion of a Necessity of a Commutation or Change of Persons between Christ and us hath rejected the Phrases of Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners of a Change of Persons between Christ and us of laying the guilt of our Iniquities upon Christ of his Answering the Obligations of the violated Law of Works of his bearing our sins in his own body as our Surety and feeling the weight of Gods wrath in the punishment of our sins transferr'd upon him and expose them all as what can't bear a sound Sense but are lyable to be Interpreted to a Sense and sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel and Ridiculing some of them as Jargons of Art of a very late Contrivance fit to amaze puzzle and confound mens Vnderstandings affirming that their sense and meaning must be Blasphemy and that the Phrase of Christs suffering in our stead cannot signifie more than for our good Should I say an English Socinian start up and write after this rate would you not be apt to say he hath done his part to break down the Barriers of our holy Religion in the Article of Christs Satisfaction he hath made many bold stroaks and done his most to subvert this Glorious Doctrine Why these things are done by my Reverend Brother who I hope was not aware of what he was adoing when he wrote his Rebuke but I 'll not aggravate I will only endeavour to Inculcate 1. That the Rejecting so many sound Terms and Phrases established by a long Prescription in the Church of God as most apt to explain the Truth and and distinguish it from Error may be justly esteemed as a good Reason for such an one as observed thus much in a calm way and manner to do his most for the securing the endangered Truths 2. That the Rejecting them for the Reasons mentioned in the Rebuke may Justly Allarm the Orthodox amongst us and Justifie their insisting on a fuller security for Truth than the third Paper Affords But I shall have a fair Occasion to press this Consideration some what further in my Answer to the following Enquiry VI. Why so many Orthodox Terms and Phrases which were in the First Paper are left out of the third Altho' I have already suggested what my Brother has said of the Reason yet it being a Matter of great Importance I will in this place be more full in setting before you what he saith of the Mature Deliberation and Just Reasons upon which they have Rejected those Phrases and then show who are herein imitated and what are the most likely Consequences of such a Practice As to what my Brother saith of the Brethrens Rejecting these Phrases with deliberation and for just Reasons take his own Words Faithful Rebuke 5. Those Brethren who had their Heads their Hands and Hearts too in Drawing Dressing and signing the former Paper when they had heard the Reason and Arguments of the whole Body where all Matters were managed not in a hasty and praecipitate way but with the greatest calmness by slow paces with great liberty and freedom of debate and being now dis-incumbred from the Counterpoize of Oppositions or Insinuations might and did see Just Reasons to alter the Phrases and new-model some Expressions 6. And hereof you may be fuller Assured inasmuch as those individual Nine Brethren who for and in hopes of Peace had signed the former Paper had their Hands and Heads and Hearts too in the Forming Wording and Assenting to this third Nor did they herein alter their Judgments or vary in the least from their Zealous Desires of Peace and Vnion only they now saw this last Paper was in all things the same with the former saving in some few Passages and Expressions which carryed a Face of some dangerous Tendencies which however they might escape the Notice of Private Brethren could not escape the Observation of the many Discerning Heads who with utmost Application set themselves to prevent any Inconvenience that might arise to the Truths of the Gospel The Brethren did unanimously agree to grant as much as the Sound Sense could bear and modestly to wave and pass by the other which was lyable to be Interpreted to a Sense and Sound of Malignity to the whole of the Gospel pag. 29 30. Reply I. My Brother here gives a Character of such as did Sign the first Paper and of them who Formed Worded and Assented unto the Third The former are Private Brethren who it 's like