here beg your most critical Attention 1. We are Sin and under a Curse can you with aâ— your Penetration divine the Reason why it 's said wâ— are Sin That we are Sinners by Nature that we are sinful is an acknowledged Truth but how are we Sin we are altogether delighted with Sin we are under thâ— Condemnation of the Law for Sin but that is no other than to be under the Curse why must it be phraseâ— thus we are Sin It was Poetically and Satyrically said That Alexander the Sixth was Non tam vitiosus quam viâ—tium non tam scelest us quam scelus but we need to be taught how man was Sin Sin it self 2. You shall now see the Mystery of his Phraseology it was to mis-lead you into that Abomination thaâ— Christ was Sinful that he was a Sinner for if Christ was Sin in the same Acceptation that we are then he was sinful he was a Sinner and the greatest Sinner thaâ— ever was in the World That Christ was made Sin Sacrifice for Sin that he bore the Curse due to Sin is so express the Language of Scripture that he that denies thâ— former must disbelieve the latter but what needed he say that we were Sin and then that Christ was made Sin unless he would insinuate that Christ was Sin in â—he same Sense that we were Sin that is sinful but this is the Fruit of going to Cambridge to learn to Quibble 5. Will you observe with me the last Words of his â—cheme and Substance of the Gospel of Christ By his blessed Change Christ is made Sin and Curse and we delivered from Sin and Curse Ipso facto no doubt But I humbly conceive without the usual Complement â—f submitting to better Judgments That whatever Christ suffered however he was made Sin and Curse yet here 's an Order setled by the Divine Will in which â—e Application of the Sufferings of Christ and Satisâ—ction given thereon shall be made and that whoeer expects to partake of the Benefits thereof â—aust by â—race Believe Repent and Accept of Christ as God as offered him in the Gospel and that the Elect are â—ot justified from that Moment wherein Christ suffered â—nd gave Satisfaction to Justice for their Sins This â—ght to have been more clearly worded before it had â—een proposed to or imposed upon our Faith as the substance of the Gospel of Christ. 6. You would be satisfied and so would I why â—is Gentleman could not be contented to give us the Doctrine of Redemption and Satisfaction as they are â—ady drawn up to our Hands in the Confession of Faith â— the Church of England as in that of the Assembly at Westminster or in that of the Savoy but that we must â—ve a superâ—oeâ—ation of Articles new Schemes of Reliâ—on every New-Year spawning of Creeds and equipâ—ng of Confessions every Campaign when the Thing â—s been done so ofâ—en already and much better for â—e that cannot allow him to be a faithful Reporter in â—atter of Fact can much less trust him to pen for us â—atter of Faith that he took on him the Person of Sinners you must understand that he now refers to a certain Paper drawn up by some private Ministers whereof you will hear more in due time Now their Words run thus We conceive that the Doctrine of Iustification and of Christ's Satisfaction on which it depends cannot be duly explained and defended consistently with the denial of any Commutation of Persons between Christ and Believers So then according to this Paper there must be some Commutation of Persons between Christ and Believers But 1. He has foisted in those Words taking on him the Person of Sinners 2. That the Commutation those Brethren speak of is between Christ and Believers and therefore I am convinced that this Reporter will never be trusted in his Arguings or repeating of other Mens Words § 3. And to what end does he thus needlesly multiply Terms of Art without any apparent necessity that the Controversy has of ' em All that the Case of Sinners required for Satisfaction to Divine Justice was a Substistute or Sacrifice to be offered for our Sins for the Substitute to take on him the Punishment due to them but to take upon him the Person of Sinners as the Phrase is new and uncouth so it 's to me unintelligible till they who have invented it shall interpret it and if ever they should be so ill advised as to give it a fixed Sense they must either make it signify no more than that Christ died in our stead or else enlarge it to such a Breadth as will admit all the Extravagancies of Antinomianism § 4. For I will make a fair Motion or propound a modest Question This Phrase of Christ's taking upon him the Person of Sinners Does it signify more or less than Christ's taking on him our Sins and suffering for them in our Place and Stead or does it signify neither more nor less but is just adaequate and commensurate to and with it If it signifies less then it limits and narrows the End of Christ's Sufferings and will be a Sense only serving the turn of a Socinian If it signifies more than that then it comes of evil and leads to evil even to the Dreggs of Antinomianism but if it signifies neither more nor less than Christ's standing and suffering in our Place and Stead when he offer'd himself to God then I embrace it subscribe it with my whole Soul But then what need is there to pester and vex the Christian Faith with a Word which signifies neither more nor less than that old Term which has obtain'd so long in the World that we cannot be deceived in it whereas this new Phrase Christ suffered in or took upon him the Person of Sinners is a Phrase to puzzle and confound Mens Understandings § 5. I think therefore we ought in the first place to inquire what they mean by the Person of Sinners and then to inquire about Christ's taking it up Does it import that all Sinners are united and are to be supposed conceived considered as one Person and so Christ died suffered satisfied for that one Person very good then I perceive we are tackt about to the Tents of the Arminians and do suppose that Christ died for all equally for if all Sinners be one or to be reputed as one Person and Christ took upon him that one Person it will be difficult for all their diviâ—ing and prescinding Skill to make it out how he died for one and not for another seeing all these Sinners as in Christ's Eye are but one single Person Now I do not once conceive that this is their Sense for they are too far gone the other way but by this way of expressing my self I would provoke and tempt 'em to fix a tolerable meaning upon the Phrase though it were more reasonable that they should choose a sound Phrase for a sound Meaning than torture an incorrigible Phrase into an honest
Doctrine of Justification upon its â—roper Basis namely Divine Revelation upon which botâ—om God himself had establisht it and then it stands unmoveable and the Gates the Power and Policy of Hell â—all not prevail against it Now hearken to the Report of â—is Canon a great Report without Ball. It 's impossible to establish the Doctrine of Iustification on its â—ue and proper Basis any otherwise than by clearing the point of Commutation of Persons Impossible what a huge Opinion have these Men of â—he vast extent of their Intellectuals They can admeaâ—ure it to a Hairs Breadth just where the possible ends and where the impossible begins It had been more modest to have qualified the Word with for ought I know or 〈◊〉 apprehend but if that great Doctrine cannot possibâ—â— be establish'd upon its Basis without clearing the Poiâ—â— of Commutation of Persons why do they not why havâ— they not long since cleared it Dr. Crisp has cleared iâ— and to say Truth though he be erroneous yet he speaâ— clearly we see his Sense but these Gentlemen speaâ— dubiously darkly at best but in the Twilight anâ— whether there be a sound Sense under those obscurâ— Phrases we know not nor perhaps they neither This Doctrine had need be well setled and in ordâ—â— thereto the Basis of it well cleared for I have ever tâ—ken it to be Articulus stantis out cadentis ecclesiae If thâ— Article fails the Church fails and falls with it and 〈◊〉 were better the whole World should fall than either Give me leave to offer a few things to his high Conâ—â—dence 1. He that will build a Castle in the Air must bâ— content with a Foundation of Air to support it and 〈◊〉 that will form an Imaginary Notion of Justification muâ—â— provide a Basis in his own Imagination for it to rest uâ— on If indeed Justification admits no Faith as Dr. Criâ—â— has contrived it then we must admit his Pedestal to se â—e it upon To reckon our selves in Christ's Person anâ— Christ in ours which is his Commutation of Persons but 〈◊〉 the Holy Ghost unites the Soul to Christ by Faith iâ— no such impossible thing to conceive how both our Siâ—â— may be imputed to Christ and his Righteousness to thâ— be lieving Sinner 2. This great Doctrine of Justification is already seâ—â—led upon Divine Revelation there it has stood from thâ— Beginning there it shall stand to the end of Time anâ— Things and needs not the presumptuous Fancies 〈◊〉 towring Wits to place it on a more from Bottom Buâ— are we not brought to a sine pass we must trust Goâ— no farther than we can see him believe no more thaâ— we can understand a Reason for that is we must wheeâ— about to the main Principle of the Socinians to admit no more into our Creed than we can comprehend He that will settle the great revealed Doctrines of Religion on a humane Foundation overthrows it The Scripture has sufficiently revealed the Doctrine of Justification to be through Christ's Righteousness accepted of God received by Faith and for this Commutation of Persons in their Sense it knows nothing of it Let not therefore this Gentleman be so over-officious â—o erect a Basis for Justification of his own Head or of wiser Heads than his the Holy Spirit has done that already left putting forth his daring Hand to stay the Ark which he dreams begins to totter he should meet with the fate of presumptuous Uzzah 3. I would ask this modest Question Where has this Doctrine of Justification been setled all this while since the Reformation since the purest Primo-Primitive Times What! has it hung like Mahomet's Tomb in â—he Air or floated like the Ark upon the Water No! It has stood firm and unmoveable upon Scriptural Founâ—ations against all the Assaults of Papists Socinians Arâ—inians and Antinomians It has stood visible in the Arâ—icles of the Church of England in the Confessions of the Assembly at Westminster in that of the Savoy in the Caâ—echisms shorter and larger and yet this uncouth Phrase never yet heard of It is strange to me that Councils General and Provincial Synods Assemblies of Holy Learned Men should so often so strenuously assert and confirm by the Word of God this great Truth and yet never once dream of Dr. Crisp's Commutation of Persons â—pon which to superstruct the Doctrine of Justification Nay I would intreat these Gentlemen to look at home â—nd inquire whether any particular Congregation of â—hat denomination soever did ever insert any of these Terms amongst their Credenda even that to which he â—ay belong or over which he may preside and yet I will presume they have the Doctrine of Justification Orthodoxly propounded judiciously explained and solidly confirmed without these Innovations and strange Term of Commutation of Persons Christ's taking on him the Person of Sinners or dying in the Person of Sinners 4. This Phrase the Change of the Person of Christ may have and truly has an honest and sound Sense in which it may be of some good use to explain the Doctrines of Satisfaction and Justification and it is that which the Right Reverend the Bishop of Worcester with Grotius against Crellius do put upon it Reason of Christ's Suffer Edit 1. p. 144. viz. the Substitution of one Person in the room of another and pag. 143. A proper Redemption may be obtained by the Punishment of one in the Room of another which is neither more nor less than that Christ suffered and died in our room and stead And this is it which the former and latter Papers which Mr. Williams and all others do freely own and that which is denied is only such a Sense of the Phrase as his Antagonist asserts 〈◊〉 therefore Christ's dying by way of Change or Exchange be all they would have 't is no more than what is granted in that other Expression he died in our place and stead but if they must have a further Sense we are afraid oâ— Nonsense if they must have a higher Reach we are afraid of an Over-reach and therefore let them tell us how much larger a Sense they have some secret Services for and when we know it will be told them whether we judge it Orthodox or otherwise 4. Casting my Eye upon the Manuscript I meet with a small Cavil against Commutation of Persons as iâ— stands either in the Third Paper or in Mr. Williams and if it be indifferent to him whether of them be misrepresented or reproached it shall be as indifferent to me if either of them be set right or vindicated Now the Words he cavils at as he quotes them run thus It is apparent that Commutation of Persons is to be understooâ— in a legal or judicial Sense as we may call it He by Agreement between the Father and him came into our room and stead to answer for our Violation of the Law of Works At which he cavils thus As we may call it not that it is really so in a
Change of Person between Christ and us in a general Sense but only in Opposition to the Opinion of his Adversary he wrote against for in that very Place he expresly affirms That Christ suffered and died in our stead That is Mr. Williams did not deny a Change of Person simpliciter sed secundum quid not universally but restrictively for the most universal Terms are not always universally to be understood But the Manuscript will not acquiesce in this Answer § 1. He therefore says That his denial of a Change of Persons between Christ and the Elect or between Christ and Believers is so express and full that he leaves no room for a distinction limitation or restriction c. To which I return this Mr. Williams has left room enough for all the Distinctions that are proper to the Matter in hand for thus he expresses himself Gosp. Truth p. 33. 2 Edit The difference lies in these Points 1. Whether there be a Change of Person between Christ and the Elect yea or between Christ and Believers This the Doctor affirms and I deny Whence I argue Mr. Williams denies nothing was concerned to deny nothing but what the Doctor had affirmed but the Doctor had affirmed a wild monstrous Sense of Change of Person between Christ and the Elect or Believers and therefore Mr. Williams did not could not deny any thing else according to all the Rules and Laws of pertinent Discourse Now then the Determination of what Mr. Williams denies must depend on the knowing what it was the Doctor affirm'd and for this see pag. 31. where he cites Dr. Crisp speaking thus Marke it well Christ himself is not so compleatly Righteous but we are as Righteous as he nor we so compleatly sinful but Christ became being made Sin as compleatly sinful as we Nay more we are the same Righteousness for we are made the Righteousness of God That very sinfulness which we were Christ is made the very sinfulness So that here is a direct Change Christ takes our Person and Condition and stands in our stead we take Christ's Person and Condition and stand in his stead So that if you reckon well you must always reckon your selves in anothers Person and that other in your Person And now you have it what is that Change of Persons which the Doctor affirms and Mr. Williams denies which had he not he had denied his Redeemer and betrayed the Gospel § 2. But the Manuscript comes upon Mr. Williams with his Logical Talent p. 8. The Negation of a Change is so general that unless no Change signify a Change and a Negative is of the same import with an Affirmative you will never be able to find him allowing of a Change of Person between Christ and us c. This case is very hard I confess for of all Morsels I never loved to swallow a Contradiction But the Question is where the Contradiction lies They that would find it between Mr. Williams and the United Brethren must seek elsewhere They affirm the same things If they will find it between Mr. Williams and Dr. Crisp they need not look far the Doctor affirms Mr. Williams denies but now to find Mr. Williams contradicting himself that would be sweet Why does not he own a Change and yet deny a Change he does so yet without any Contradiction to himself or the Truth There is nothing more nauseous to an understanding Reader than to see a Man Paratragaediate in Trifles and to raise a mighty Storm in a sorry Bucket of Water A Change and no Change Yea and Nay Did this Gentleman in good earnest never hear or read that single Terms or Propositions which are really contradictory must be spoken or intended Ad idem eodem modo eodem respectu eodem Tempore Suppose I should tell him Lazarus was dead and Lazarus was not dead he 'll cry out perhaps O horrid Contradiction O barbarous Nonsense But be not so fierce both are true he was dead before Christ raised him and not dead when Christ said loose him and let him go To what purpose then do they fill our Ears with the Din of an imaginary Contradiction which has no Ground but in the Fansy and Wind of their own Heads To conclude there may be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seeming where there is no real Contradiction Ay but our Manuscript thinks he has nickt it p. 9. He should have told us the sense in which his Adversary affirmed a Change But to what purpose should he tell you it when you stop your Ears or to what end shew you it when you are blinded with Prejudice or Wink very hard and will not see He has told it to all the World besides every one else can hear it see it or read it only he has not told it you because you do male audire i. e. are thick of hearing But what would they have this poor Man do will they allow him to hold his Liberty of Writing by no other Tenure than than that of Villanage what are the Conditions of his 〈◊〉 he has written for a whole Page together in what Sense his Adversary takes it and I have here given you enough you may have more if you please to open your Eyes and yet he has not told you one Word of it But this reminds me of a Passage I once heard from a Reverend and Learned Divine in the Pulpit who discoursing upon the Words of the Apostle Paul Rom 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law and comparing them with â—hose of Jam. 2. 24. Ye see then how that by works a man â— justified and not by faith only Here as that Learned â—erson observed is a seeming Contradiction not by works â—nd yet by works by faith only and not by faith only for â—e clearing of which he prudently wav'd all the comâ—on Solutions and upon the whole thus determined â—hat if God should reveal contradictory Propositions to our Faith we were obliged to believe them both to be true This would be a compendious way I confess in salving Contradictions only it has an odd Inconvenience in it for â—hen God must give us other Faculties than these we now have for according to those poor ones we are at preâ—ent Masters of whatever God may oblige us to I am certain it 's simply impossible that both the Propositions â—an be true and I think too it 's as certain God can neâ—er reveal or oblige us to believe a Lie 3. But the Reporter in my Opinion has discharged more formidable Argument against the Paperâ—nd â—nd Mr. Williams too p. 6. For whereas the Third Paâ—er had said or the Cover to it That on our so happy â—stablishing the Doctrine of Iustification we need say but litâ—le to the point of Commutation of Persons And to speak a â—lain Truth That little they said was enough because â—hey had establisht the
the Divine Juâ—ice that Men may not dare to represent him as a Tyâ—nt in making so many Millions to Damn them Eterâ—lly to Damn them without respect had to their Deâ—erits Especially I would have a strong 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plaâ—d about the Doctrine of Iustification and that Faith made indispensably necessary to it in all the Adult And I am the more urgent in this Matter for if Faith be not necessary to Iustification perhaps it may not bâ— so to Salvation because if God can delight and takâ— Complacency in an unbelieving Sinner an impeniten Wretch that hates Him his Son and Spirit and all hiâ— Ways and Laws for one Minute there 's nothing iâ— the Nature of the thing that hinders but he may takâ— Complacency in him to Eternity But if this Gentleman will hedge about this Doctrine as I take him to be a good Hedger if I were worthy to advise him he should never set a Hedge of Human Invention about a Doctrine of Divine Revelation Leâ— the Garden and the Hedge be both of a Piece and leâ— him never think that the Doctrine of the Gospel will eveâ— be secured by his own â—ond Contrivances § 7. Whereas this Reporter with his Brother Manuscript have pretended such a marvellous Kindness if noâ— Foundness and to be so desperately enamoured of thâ— First Paper they are grieved and afflicted and I know not what that it was rejected and yet that Paper expresses a Bearing with one anothers Infirmities and different Sentiments about Logical or Philosophical Terms or meerly Humane Forms of Speech why they should make such a hideous Out-cry and Hubbub about Christ's taking oâ— him the Person dying in the Person of Sinners when these are meer Humane Forms of Speech at best as Humane denotes Infirm though not as it signifies Rational I would be satisfied further why that first Paper did not think it reasonable or just to charge upon any Brother such Consequences of any Expression or Opinion of his which he himself shall disown and yet Mr. Williams shall noâ— have the Benefit of the Clergy to explain his own Words and such Consequences must be forced on him and them as the Words do not admit and the Author does abhor § 8. Seeing the great struggle has been not about the Satisfaction of Christ as the Report misrepresents it but about some odd Phrases and Expressions in which 't is cloathed especially these of Christ's suffering in the Person of Sinners c. whether if this be a sound and safe Way of expressing that great Doctrine it will not endure to shew its naked Face in some other of the learned Languages and if you please make an Experiment how well it will look in Latin Christus passus â—est in Personâ Peccatorum seu peccantium How do you like it what do you think of it again we are told p. 7. of Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners Now good Sir what is sustinere Personam alterius What then can these Expressions signify but that Christ wore the Mask the Vizor the Disguise of Sinners That he was Personatus Histrio Like a Stage Player that puts on the Person of a King when indeed he is but some sorry Fellow now what a wretched blasphemous Representation of all the Love and Goodness of our glorious Redeemer is this which yet shone forth in his Cross though much eclipsed by his dreadful Sufferings You may possibly have read Salmasius his Defensio Regia which he enters upon with the News De parricidio apud Anglos in personâ Regis c. To which I. Milton who wrote and understood Latin as well as the great Critick makes this Return Quid quaeso est parricidium in personâ Regis admitter Quid in Personâ Regis Quae unquam Latinitas sic Locuta est nisi nobis aliquem forte Pseudo-Philippum narras qui Personam Regis indutus nescio quid Parricidii apud Anglos patraverit Whatever excuse they can make for the English Phrase I know not but this I know it 's pretty hard to damn all the World for an Anglicism § 9. Tell me freely what do you think of that strange Spirit that runs through the whole of the Report and Manuscript They would both make us believe how grieved how afflicted they are that this Third Paper was sent and the former rejected by the Body of the United Brethren p. 5. this is one thing that grieves the Offended Brethren and another Passage increaseth their Sorrow c. And p. 7. we cannot but be grieved to observe c. and p. 11. they have added to the Grief of the offended Brethren Now do not you in the Country fancy from these Expressions that they have been melted and drowned in Floods of Grief and Sorrow And why then did they not grieve to make the Breach in the Union to break it again when it seemed to be closed up in all which they were certainly the Aggressors And why did not they advance one single Step towards the Re-union upon the signing of the First Paper They had time enough between that and the sending of the other which may remember you of what you read in some Naturalists that the Crocodile weeps over his Prey and then devoures it Of the same Temper you will interpret the Reporter's strange Transport of Passion with which he concludes To the All Wise God be render'd Honour and Glory that the indefatigable pains of the Pacificators have issued out in so happy an Agreement of the most Godly Learned and Iudicious Ministers in and about this City c. To which he should have added Et quorum pars ego Magna fui Yea no doubt an indefatigable Pacificator who was first imployed to Lowze Mr. Williams his Book that he might pick Quarrels with it and as little question of his Godliness Learning and Iudiciousness but these Tears these Praises are all Moâ—kery And these Doxologies are like the Modern Te Deums which take Pay on both Sides and are calculated for any Elevation and will serve indifferently Paris and Vienna I have much more to observe to you and Paper would sooner fail me than Matter but I will spare you and indeed my self If you blame me for Writing thank your self from whom I received the first News and Sight that there was such a Creature as the Report to your self therefore justly belongs the Answer Now I am aware they will say that you are no real Person but like Letters which they use in Law-Cases for which any in the Alphabet will serve the turn but because I know you well as you me I recommend you to the Protection of the Almighty and with you I. and B. c. Yours in all Faithfulness A POSTSCRIPT READER THOU mayest possibly wonder that the Report and Manuscript should bear so hard upon the Third Paper and yet so graciously smile upon the First and what sufficient Causes there can be conceived to justify their height of Passion against
sortiri Here is Learning enougâ— in all Conscience the Mischief is 't is but a scrap boâ—rowed out of Calvin's Lexicon Iuridicum and will neveâ— do the Business of him that quotes it for that Term 〈◊〉 Surrogate he might have fetcht it nearer hand from Dâ—ctors Commons and for his suffectus in locum alterius yoâ— have it interpreted Consul suffectus est qui pro alio substtuitur sic enim appellabatur qui in demortui Consulis locuâ— sufficiebatur Ab ordinari is autem consulibus non autem suffâ—ctis Anni computabantur id circo minor eos honor mâ—nor Laus sequebatur Now what is their parallel betweeâ— this Suffectâ—s Consul and our blessed Lord Jesus as surrgated and placed in the room of Sinners This Substitute not in Being till the former be dead This Substituâ—â— was of less Honour than the Former nothing was reâ—koned in his Name but in the others and thereforâ— though he might Sortiri Officium yet not Naturam 〈◊〉 supplied the Office but acted not in his Person he wâ—â— substituted in locum alterius non in Personam alterius I have observed all along and shall now once for alâ— give you my Observation That this Reporter begaâ— at first to hint a Change In a while he smoothly slidâ— into a Change of Persons between Christ and us Then insensibly he steals into Christ's taking upon him the Person of Sinners And at last he silently comes to Christ's dying in the Person of Sinners And I note it for no greater end but that I may requite his Civility with a little Thred of the Civil Law as I find it Tit. digestorum de verb. signif No. 177. Natura Cavillationis haec est ut ab eviâ—denter veris per brevissimas mutationes disputatio ad ea quae videnter falsa sunt prâ—ducatur This is the Nature of Cavilling when from some things evidently true the Disputation is lead by short Changes to those as evidently false Sir It 's time high time that I ease you and my self of this trouble and I will effectually discharge you when I have left with you a few Queries which you may consider at your Leasure § 1. Do you understand the true Reason why these Gentlemen in the City will not be persuaded to settle the true Notion of Christ's taking on him the Person of Sinners dying in the Person of Sinners For I find that the true Reason why some do not subscribe it is because they do not understand it and yet on the other side there are some who say they understand it too well to subscribe it there are yet some who affirm that the Words have only this honest plain Meaning that Christ suffered and died in the place and stead of Sinners to make Satisfaction to Divine Justice for them and for their Obligations to his violated Law but then should they declare as much all the Design would be defeated and utterly blown up for then Mr. Williams would certainly subscribe it § 2. Pray Sir inform me Quo Warranto By what Right do these Gentlemen impose such hard Terms of Union and Communion Why must all the World be Hereticated that dare not subscribe to these Apocryphal Phrases which neither Scripture nor Ancient Fathers nor General nor Particular Councils nor Synods nor Assemblies nor Nation reformed nor single Churches ever brought into their Creeds Confessions or Articles of Faith to be the Standard or Test of Orthodoxy or the Terms of Communion And I am the more earnest in this Query because the Dissenters formerly have complained heavily That some things were imposed on them as necessary to Communion which were nâ— ways necessary to Salvation § 3. And I would be satisfied how it comes to pass that if these Terms insisted on be necessary to support the Doctrines of Satisfaction and Iustification they themselves never once mentioned or moved or insisted on them that they might be inserted into the Heads of Agreement upon which they united in 1691. nor into those Articles debated agitated at Great Pinners-Hall and afterwards agreed to at Little St. Hellens where yet the highest hottest and greatest Names of the Contenderâ— did subscribe to the Articles of the Person of the Mediator and of Iustification when yet not a Word or Syllable oâ— Christ's taking on him the Person of Sinners dying in thâ— Person of Sinners c. was once spoke of and therefore conclude were never then thought of 1692. § 4. I wish you could inform me whether they have received any new Revelations or made any new Discoveries of these great Secrets and the indispensible necessity of these new Notions Whether they are become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Adepts in the Rosacrucian Mysteries 〈◊〉 have found out the Philosopher's Stone to turn all Antinomianism into pure Gold or whether the true Reason of all this Pother be not that they are resolved to beat their Brains till they have found out some terrible Term that shall check Mr. Williams his Faith and gravel his Conscience that so he may be discarded for Non-subscriber Though I am pretty confident if 〈◊〉 understand him he 's both wiser than to be bubled and made a Cully and honester than to be hectored out of his Understanding § 5. I would propound it as a Moot Point whether â—e Socinians who have blasphemously degarded the â—erson of Christ into a God by Office though a meer Man by Nature or the Antinomians who own him a God by Nature yet affirm him to have been a Sinner â—he greatest of Sinners nay sinfulness it self do more â—erogate from the Honour of our Redeemer he that â—enies me to be a Man does less reproach me than he â—at affirms me to be the greatest Villain And it might â—rther be queried whether it was not the absurdest â—ing in the Heathens to confess that their Gods were â—oly Dan. 4. 8. the Spirit of the Holy Gods and yet to â—ll such Stories of their Rapes Adulteries and Thefts â—at bear the greatest contrariety to Holiness § 6. Whether therefore it be not equally a Duty to â—oviate the Deâ—estable Doctrines of the one as well as â—e other If this be a Day as the Reporter p. 4. assures 〈◊〉 it is wherein Socinianism is Rampant it 's a Day too â—herein Antinominism is no less Triumphant And thereâ—â—re the United Brethren like wise men have provied against both whereas some like Foolish Mariners â—ontent themselves to stop one leak in the Ship though will as certainly be sunk by the other If therefore â—word was so wise as to set a Hedge a Bar a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about 〈◊〉 Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction why should not Pruâ—ence advise to set a Hedge about the others And First would have a Hedge a Thorn Hedge set about the â—octrine of God's Holiness that he be not made the â—uthor of Sin as some Mens Principles inevitably do â—nd I would have a Bar a Barriere stronger than that Flanders against the French set about
the One and yet the most endeared Affection towards the Other But the Secret will manifest it self when thou shalt consider that all this is nothing but a Trial of Skill between the Apocryphal Story of Tobias and the Canonical History of Daniel Now that I may deliver thee from this uneasy posture of Soul I will set before thee the Mystery in a clear Light that so thou mayest be capable of using thy Eyes and therefore know I. That the true Reason of their severe Displeasure conceived against the Third Paper is that it has so clearly and fully born its Testimony against the Antinomians in the Fundamental Article of Iustification And thus it speaks We further declare as to to the special matters in difference concerning Justification That although the express Word of God doth assert the necessity of Regeneration to our entring into the Kingdom of God and requires Repentance that our Sins may be blotted out and Faith in Christ that we may be justified and Holiness of Heart and Life without which we cannot see God Yet that none of these or any Work done by Man or wrought by the Spirit of God in them is under any Denomination whatsoever any part of that Righteousness for the sake or on the account of which God doth pardon justify or accept Sinners or intitle them to Eternal Life That being only the Righteousness of Christ without them imputed to them and received by Faith alone From hence it is most evident that the Brethren have secured the Doctrine of Iustification against the Socinian Papal and Arminian Errors and themselves too from all even the least Suspicion of any Inclination that way with all impartial reasonable and indifferent Persons by the latter Clause Yet the former by which they were willing to give a fair Opportunity to the opposite Party to vindicate themselves from all Jealousy of leaning towards Antinomianism is the unpardonable Sin against Dr. Crisp which shall never be forgiven by the Reporter and his Brother Manuscript if they may carry the Keys of Admission and Exclusion Absolution and Condemnation at their Girdles II. As I have now given the secret Reason of their immortal Pike against the Third Paper so will I gratify the Reader with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or secret Reason of their over-passionate Fondness to the former and that must be wholly ascribed to its Severity upon Mr. Williams And let it be observed that a few hard Words and Censures upon him shall at any time even in their most morose Hours purchase their Good Will and Friendship And this Paper having honoured them herein to the utmost could not fail of insinuating it self into their Favours Mark therefore the Conditions of his Peace and the Terms of being restored to some small degree of Acceptance If therefore Mr. Williams shall concur with us in what we have declared touching the Doctrine of Iustification and in the sense we have given of a Change of Persons between Christ and Believers and of Christ's undertaking the Displeasure of his Father for our Sins and shall give Satisfaction about any thing else that any Brother excepts against in the rest of his Writings agreeably to the abovesaid Articles and Confessions we shall so far acquiesee therein as not to make them the Matter of further publick Contest or Altercation amongst our selves Was ever a poor Creature thus tyed to a Stake to be baited by the English Molossi and every whaffing Whelp that could bark though not bite Must a Man stand in the Pillory all his Days there to be palted with rotten Eggs till they can find no more to throw at him how much more merciful were the Terms put upon the Men of Iabesh-Gilead by Nahash 1 Sam. 11. 2. he would only thrust out their right Eyes but these would cut off his right Hand too And now because the Brethren in their Third Paper exprest more Humanity durst not be so unreasonably cruel but proposed more moderate Terms the Former Paper must be cried up above the Skies and the Latter thrown down to Hell Reader thou shalt pardon me if I exercise thy Patience in making some Remarks upon the Conditions of Mr. Williams his Absolution the rather because they are wiser than to allow any for their own And first I will observe the Conditions required and then the Grace promised upon fulfilling the Conditions § 1. And for the Conditions required The Three former Conditions I will not mention to save time and Paper but the last Condition which is a Complex of many I will a little though gently examine If he shall give Satisfaction about any thing else that any Brother excepts against in the rest of his Writings Now here we have what he must give and then to whom he must give it and then how far he must give Satisfaction 1. What is it they expect Mr. Williams should give Satisfaction But what will satisfy he has given already â—ust and reasonable Satisfaction he has subscribed the Assemblies Confession of Faith he has subscribed the Article of Iustification drawn up by themselves 1692. he has subscribed the Article of Iustification in the Third Paper which satisfies all but Socinians Arminians Papists and Antinomians And must he satisfy them that are resolved nothing shall satisfy These Terms savour too much of Empire over Souls and Dominion over the Consciences and Faith of Men Let them tell him explicitly and plainly what will content them and not vex Men with indefinite unlimited Satisfaction 2. But to whom must he give this Satisfaction why truly to any Brother I wish they had confined their Number to About Twenty Thousand That had given some Possibility at least some little Hope that he might at last have given Satisfaction But to any Brother is really hard For in what Sense must he interpret Brother In a general Sense it may reach all Mankind in a much narrower it may include all Protestants Reformed at least But suppose it extends to none but Independents where there are no Clergy-Brethren nor Lay-Brothers it would find him picking Work for one Ten Years at least But what if these any Brothers should prove weak and injudicious What if cavilling and captious What if proud and imperious Their Character as well as Number would render it next to impossible to satisfy them and what if one will be satisfied and another dissatisfied this will suspend the Performance of the Promise for his Life and I know no way for him to satisfy all but by leaving the World to which I will never advise him least some other should be set up in his Place and Stead with whom to quarrel and of whom to demand Satisfaction and I am not sure but I may be the Man 3. How far must this Satisfaction extend To any thing else excepted against in the rest of his Writings I am glad however this allows no Exceptions against his Thoughts though the Manuscript has adventured upon that too Here 's a wide