to the Articles they had chosen to insist upon whereas we might have provided against each of Dr. Crisp's Errors A good issue of this Paper was expected by many of us But to our grief it was rejected and no Answer sent us concerning it to this very day Yea a Coalition hereupon was chearfully hoped for by us even after their Friends had Nov. 7. 1694. Necessitated four of our Number to leave the Lecture at Pinners-Hall and all such of the dissenting Brethren who were managers of â—he reiief for Poor Ministers had deserted their Assoiates with other things not so directly belonging to the Body of United Ministers as such But alas as they had generally absented from us long before all the Breâ—hren call'd Congregational except the Reverend and Upright Mr. Barker and a very few more joyned as a separate Party from us in the Monday 's Meeting at Pinners-Hall with the Ministers who had opposed the Union ever since it was concluded The temper of our Brethrens Spirits the methods taken to expose us their disappointing us so often when we thought they had been obliged And the unsuccessfulness of so many probable attempts for Re-union might well discourage any further endeavours yet when we heard that any of these Brethren had the least disposition towards Peace we applyed our selves to an Accommodation In order thereunto the Reverend Dr. Bates Mr. Hammond Mr. Hill and Mr. Slater in concurrence with Mr. How and Mr. Williams were desired to draw up a proposal which they brought to our Meeting as that wherein they were all agreed and after we had several days considered the same it was unanimously assented to and sent by us in a Letter to our Brethren The Paper by the Report called the third Paper which was sent by the Vnited Brethren to such as had left the Vnion WHereas some unhappy Differences have arisen among us principally about the Doctrin of Justification as set forth in Mr. Williams's Book entituled Gospel Truth Stated to which several of our Names are preâ—ixt we being willing to give all reasonable satisfaction therein for the removing the present and preventing all future Differences which will otherwise tend to the dishonour of God disquiet of his Churches and danger of Souls do here by declare our Judgment concerning the same That we adhere to our former Approbation of the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England or Confession of Faith compiled by the Assembly at VVestminster or that at the Savoy as agreeable to the word of God and particularly to the Articles collected by us out of the Confession with the Catechisms compiled by the same Assembly printed 1693. Aâ—d further declare That if any shall express himself disagreeably thereto in any momentous Points of Doctrin we will with Brotherly candour and kindness endeavour to give and receive just satisfaction therein bearing with one anothers Infirmities and different Sentiments in matters of lesser weight not contending about Logical or Philosophical Terms or meer Human Forms of Speech not judging it reasonable or just to charge upon any such consequences of any expression or opinion of his which he himself shall disown And we further declare as to the special matters in difference I. Concerning Justification That altho the express word of God do 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 Men or wrought by the Spirit of God in them is under any Denomination whatsoever any part of the Righteousness for the sake or on the account whereof God doth pardon justifie or accept Sinners or entitle them to Eternal Life that being only the Righteousness of Christ without them imputed to them and received by Faith alone II. Of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us As we are to consider our Lord Jesus Christ in his Obedience and Sufferings as God and Man invested with the Office of Mediator So it is apparent this Commutation of Persons with us was not natural in respect of either nature by which his Individual Substance should become ours and ours his nor Moral in respect of Qualities or Actions whereby he should become inherently Sinful and we immediately Sinless Nor was it any change whereby his office of Mediator should be transfered on us But it is to be understood in a Legal or Judicial Sense as we may call it viz. He by agreement between the Father and Him came into our room and stead not to repent and believe for us which the Gospel requires of us as our Duty tho he hath undertaken the Eleâ—t shall in due time be inabled thereto But to answer for our violation of the Law of Works He being made sin for us that knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5 21. III. Of God's being pleased or displeased with Christ as standing and suffering in our stead We judge that God was always pleased with Christ both in his Person and execution of all his Offices which is exprest most particularly in that of his Priestly 1â— Iohn 17 18 Therefore doth my father love me because I lay down my life c. And no otherwise displeased than as having a dispassionate Will to inflict upon him the punishment of our Sins which he had undertaken to bear that God might without injury to his Justice or Honour pardon and save penitent Believers for his satisfaction and Intercession founded thereon Mr. VVilliams freely declareth his Concurrence with us in these three particulars and that his Judgment was never contrary to the sence of this Paper for which he appeals to the said Book So it is manifest that when he useth the prhase of no change of Person between Christ and the Elect it could not be intended as a denial oâ— a change of Persons between Christ and us in the General Sence but only in opposition to the Opinion of his adversary he wrote against for in that very place he expresly affirms That Christ suffer'd and dyed in our Room and stead And we do declare that whosoever shall be found to express themselves in their Preaching or Writing agreeably to this Paper and to the mentioned Articles or Confessions we shall esteem them to deliver the sincere Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and it shall be remote from us to oppose or reflect upon but we shall to our utmost Encourage and give Countenance to one anothers Ministry therein Such of us whose Names are prefixed to the said Book do declare they were given to the State of Truth and Errors as formerly exprest in the Paper intituled The agreement in Doctrine Subscribed and Published Anno Dom. 1692. They who framed this Proposal had before them two Papers one which the report calls the first
them in Mr. Williams's Book for Six of the Dissenters did not only object some particular Passages but they deny those to be Truths which are called Truths and such to be Errors which are called Errors In the 2.5.7.8.12.16.18 and 19. Chapters of that Book Yea they say They find not Truth and Error rightly Stated in other places besides these Thus they say Mr. Chauncyes Neonomianism unmasked Par. 3. p. 96. Whereas many of our Brethren Subscribed that each of these were rightly Stated He that will Read the Truths and Errors in those several Chapters may judge of the difference and whether any of Dr. Crisp's Errors will be disowned 2. In the forcited Articles 1694. You 'll find that when we had owned such to be Errors which they required of us yet they refused to disown those Errors which we added and therefore the difference at that time respected whatever they refused to agree with us in and was not ever since Accommodated 3. The Reporter cannot be Ignorant that September 15. 1695. This Vote unanimously passed among the United Brethren upon reading a Paper relating to several dangerous Expressions in favour of Antinomianism if that any thing objected out of Books written against Antinomianism be required to be disowned as a Term of Union that those things read this Day and further to be Collected of that kind out of the Books on the other side shall be required to be disowned Some things Collected out of the Books of Mr. Chauncy Mr. Cole Mr. Mather and Mr. Trail TO talk of a Gospel threat is a Catechresis at best and nothing else can save it from being a Bull. Pardon is rather the Condition of Faith and much more having a causal influence thereunto than Faith and Repentance are of Pardon It was sin as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christ bore the fault of sin was laid upon Christ the sin it self as opposed to guilt Christ was reputed a Criminal not only by Man but by God As to the Elect there was never any Guilt upon them in respect of the Righteous Judgment of God in foro Dei but that which Accompanied the Letter of the Law setting in with the Conscience Justification is before effectual Vocation The Doctrine of Justification before Faith is not an Error but a Great and Glorious Truth Justification in regard of Application must be before believing The first Application ordine naturae saltem is to an ungodly Man eo nomine that he may believe we believe that we may be justified declaratively It is denied that God requires Faith as an Indispensible Qualification in them whom he will justify for Christs merits He denies that unbelief is the Cause why Men are barred from Justification and Obnoxious to Misery He saith you talk of an offer to the Non elect and that offer you say must be serious c. But I Pray where is any offer of Grace to the Non-elect at all as such And shew me any Grace given or Gospel Duties required of the Non-elect or Benefits promised to the Non-elect upon their performance of Grace and Duties c. And what if the Non-elect be in as bad a Case as the Devils Is God bound to be any better to them than to the Devils God hath not said I will save a Non-elect Person if he believe more than he hath said a Horse shall be a Man if he can use Reason or speak or a Man shall be a Horse if he hath four Feet God was reconciled to the elect at Christs Death but we are reconciled to God by the Gospel Ministry Union with Christ is before Faith at least Natura and we partake of the Spirit by Virtue of that Union there is a Compleat Union with Christ before the Act of Faith All that a believer can pray for is the further manifestation of Pardon for he knows that all his sins are Pardoned A believer is to work from Life and not for Life It 's a great Truth that God sees no sin in a believer sin can do no real hurt to a believer God is not displeased with his People and is not angry with the Persons of believers for their sins Legal Convictions before saving Faith are no more than sin it 's but the Filthy Conscience polluting guilt of sin There is no Preparatory work distinct from Gods Act in effectual Calling The Gospel is no Rule of Judgment that 's the Law only The Gospel is not any part of the Rule of Judgment at the last day that 's only the Law of Creation Denies that at the Judgment Day there will be a Tryal upon which some will be justified others Condemned Christs Precepts are not Laws with a Sanction Approves of these words sanctification is not the way of a justified Person to Heaven If you look upon Graces and Duties and Salvation as two distinct things I deny that they are necessary to give a right to Salvation All imperfect Holiness is sin Turn ye turn ye why will you dye Is but the Triumph of the Law over a Dead sinner An unsaved Person can do nothing in order to salvation God was displeased with Christ as our surety We in Christ satisfied the Justice of God We through Christs Righteousness have a right to Glory by Adams Covenant Adam for one good work should have entred into full possession and a confirmation therein To teach that a Christian upon the Actings of Graces and Performance of Duties may in the Virtue of the promise made to the exercise of those Graces or Duties expect any of those promised Blessings is to teach a low and servile Spirit The Eternal Life in which the Angels were Created and Confirmed by Christ differs from that Eternal Life which believers have in Christ the one is a Creature Life or a Created Life the other is the Eternal Life of God Communicated in time Believers are as Righteous as Christ I mean not in a way of Similitude but in a way of Equality Christs Incarnation was no part of his Humiliation we Coalesoe upon believing into one mystical Person with Christ which is distinguisht from Legal Union which is before Faith The Gospel hath no Law-Sanction it 's plainly denied that the Gospel is a Law of Grace Faith is neither a Condition nor Qualification in the Office of Justification with several things of the same sort as above recited Most of these were then included in the Paper the Vote refers to which with the other things further Collected shall be proved to be in the Printed Books of the foresaid Authors and Book and Page cited for each when it shall be required Yea at great deal more if not worse of the same sort By these things it 's manifest what the difference is about tho' a noise hath been raised about things remote from the true occasion that while we seemed to be only on the defensive part their Errors might receive Countenance as if unopposed and the abettors thereof might less appear
the cause of our Divisions Answ. 3. Altho' Brethren from a Zeal for Peace condescended to mention but three particulars in the third Paper yet it 's too evident that the Dissenters adhere to their own Paper called the first and refuse ours because this doth provide some Defence against some of the Errors which our difference is about the same cause for which they rejected the Articles in 1694. And it 's plain by what their Paper saith of Justification they had this our Paper of Ninety four before them and therefore must know that we insisted under that Head to have it clearly expressed That none are justified in the sight of God or Entitled to Eternal Life before they are effectually called or whilst they are unregenerate or in unbelief And that Men must repent in order to forgiveness as also that continued Repentance Faith and Holyness of Heart and Life are by the constitution of the Gospel as well as in the Nature of the things themselves necessary to salvation c. Our Dissenting Brethren knew this and yet insert nothing in that first Paper sufficient to this purpose By the Reporters arguing against us their not mentioning those things is their disowning of them and owning the contrary yea we have more reason to infer thus because what they omit was sent by the body of United Ministers to them as a mean of Union whereas what 's omitted by us was not sent to us much less to that end nor adjusted by our appointment But we need not to insist on this when by comparing the first and third Papers it 's evident that the foresaid Errors are inconsistent with the few variations in our Paper bnt very consistent with theirs tho' not in the sense designed by our Subscribing Brethren In the first part of the Head of Justification their Paper saith Repentance Faith and a Holy Conversation are by Gods express word manifestly necessary to Salvation They do not say Repentance is necessary to Pardon nor Faith to Iustification tho' that be the Head treated of No these are necessary to no more than a Holy Conversation is necessary to i. e. to Eternal Salvation nor do they say that the necessity of these to salvation it self is by the Gospel Constitution or any enacted Connexion between Duty and Benefit Things being thus worded it may pass with such who tell us the Gospel hath neither Precept Threatning nor Conditional promise Repentance is not antecedently necessary to Pardon nor Faith to the Justification of our Persons but only to manifest to our Consciences for our inward Peace that our Persons were justified before God whilst in our unbelief But such things are prevented by our Paper which saith That the Word of God requires Repentance that our Sins may be blotted out and Faith that we may be justified And afterwards the Gospel requires of us as our Duty that we repent and believe and God Pardons penitent Believers In like manner their Paper in the other Heads expresseth things so as that such may subscribe it who think the filth and fault of sin were Transacted on Christ he was the Criminal the Murtherer c. in Gods Account that God was really displeased with Christ and abhorred him as our surety tho' not considered in himself and sundry the like that our Paper gives no Countenance to which our subscribing Brethren do abhor It 's not then without Reason that the Dissenters insist on the first Paper whether they be such who hold those Errors or resolve to indulge such as do so And yet there wants not Art in placing the differences upon our omitting a Phrase in the third Paper wherein the true sense of it is expressed for the Reporter well saw a quarrel with us for the omission of a Phrase of so uncertain a sense is as yet more plausible than their struggle for Errors of so ill a sound would be Answ. 4. But if the Doctrines about which we differ are not yet sufficiently evident we shall with a desire of Union make this proposal If our Dissenting Brethren will declare their agreement with us First That Repentance towards God is Commanded in order to Remission of Sin Secondly That Faith in Christ is Commanded by the Gospel in order to the Justification of our Persons before God for the sake of thâ— alone Righteousness of Christ. Thirdly That the Word of God requires perseverance in true Faith and Holyness that we may be Partakers of the Heavenly Glory Fourthly That the Gospel promiseth Pardon through the Blood of Christ to the penitent Justificaion before God to the Believer and the Heavenly Glory to such as persevere in Faith and Holyness and also declareth that God will not Pardon the Impenitent justify the Unbeliever nor glorify the Apostate or Unholy Fifthly That justifying Faith is not only a perswasion of the understanding but also a receiving and resting upon Christ alone for Salvation Sixthly That by change of Person is meant that whereas we were Condemned for our sins the Lord Jesus was substituted in our Room to bear the Punishment of our sins for the satisfaction of Divine Iustice That whoever believes on him may be acquitted and saved But it is not intended that the Filth of sin was upon Christ nor that he was a Criminal in Gods Account Seventhly That by Christs being our surety is meant that Jesus Christ our Mediator obliged himself to expiate our sins by his Blood and to purchase Eternal Life for all that believe and Faith and every saving Grace for the Elect but it 's not intended that we were legally reputed to make satisfaction or purchase Eternal Life Eighthly That by Christs Answering for us the Obligations of the violated Law of Works is intended that whereas the Law obliged us to dye for our sins Christ became obliged to dye in our stead and whereas we were after we had sinned still obliged to yield perfect obedience Christ perfectly obeyed the Law that upon the Account of his Active and Passive obedience believers might be forgiven and entituled to Eternal Life but it 's not intended that the Sense of the Law of Works should be that if we or Christ obeyed we should live and if Christ suffered we should not dye tho' we sinned Nor that Believers are justified or to be judged by the Law of Works but by the Gospel altho' the Righteousness for the sake of which they are justified be as perfect as that Law of Works required and far more valuable If our Dissenting Brethren will Subscribe to these Propositions and Explications we will subscribe with them even to the Words Change of Persons surety and Answering for us the Obligations of the violated Law of Works as well as we have already subscribed that no work done by Men nor wrought by the Spirit of God in them Is any part of that Righteousness for the sake or on the Account whereof we are justified that being only the Righteousness of Christ without ut imputed
applauded by Iustin Martyr and Dr. E. c. If it be the meer phrase all the Churches of Christ are Condemned because their Confessions omit it If it be the Sense of the Reporter and Crispians then the Reverend Bishop Stillingfleet Grotius Dr. E. and our Celebrated Antisocinian Authors are in as bad a Case as we for they reject that Sense But if it be the sound Sense expressed by Dr. Edwards as cited in the remarks which deserves these Praises they cannot be denied to us no not to Mr. Williams for his Book asserts Not only that Christs Blood was shed instead of ours his life went in exchange for ours and that to satisfy Justice and Answer the Law but also that Christs sufferings were â—unishments You 'll presently see the Judgment of the Learned Dr. Edwards whom he recites as a favourer of his cause against Mr. Williams Fifthly If the Congregational Brethren have no more than their Signing the First Paper to clear them from the Charge of Antinomianism they must still abide under that charge Notwithstanding all that 's said p. 9 10 11. the invalidity of his Reasons will appear by our Answer to each 1. How can their present Declaration of their adhering to their approbation of the Articles of the Church of England or to the Confessions of Faith c. Prove They are far from being tainted with Antinomianism When several of them have Published their Antinomian Opinions both before and since the like Declaration 2. They do still affirm that neither Repentance nor Faith are necessary to a Sinners Pardon or Justification before God but only follow that whatever they be to final salvation Nor doth this Paper say any thing against it 3. It 's palpably false that the first Paper affirms that God doth not Pardon Justify or accept a Sinner nor Entitle him to Eternal Life before the Righteousness of Christ be applyed and received by Faith it's strange he said not before repentance too but it 's not true as to Faith it self The Paper saith The only Righteousness for the sake of which God Pardons Iustifies or Accepts Sinners or Intitles them to Eternal Life is the a lone Righteousness of Christ without them imputed to them and received by Faith alone Note he puts applyed for imputed which he would not say is by Faith and here is not so much as that it 's only the believing Sinner who is justified But above all he knows of his Party who explains such words by publishing that Christs Righteousness when applyed and received by Faith is only for a manifestation to their Consciences for their quiet that Christs Righteousness had been applyed to the Justification of their Persons before God long before they believed This is all the Justification by Christs Righteousness as received by Faith but they were Pardoned and Entituled to Life as much before tho' they knew it not And this Opinion the Paper denies not 4. The Paper saith Christ came into the Room of Sinners not to repent or believe for them which the Gospel requires The remarker knew if the Gospel requires these by its Precepts it was a slip overlook'd by such of them who deny the Gospel to be a Law therefore he wordeth it The elect are not exempt from an obligation of doing it themselves But he as well knows they hold there 's no obligation on them to repent or believe as a condition or Term of obtaining any benefit purchased by Christ as to that they have nothing to do Also that it was the Law of Works and that only which commandeth Faith and Repentence with any Sanction And the Paper contradicteth them not 5. Tho the Paper saith there is not such a Moral change whereby Christ became Inherently sinful and we immediately sinless yet they do and may still hold that the filth fault and fact of sin are so Transacted on Christ that he was in Gods Account a very Criminal the Blasphemer c. And that we are as Righteous as Christ in equality And the Legal Sense of the â—â—ange is such that we are legally reputed to have made satisfaction our selves by obeying and dying because Christ did it in our Persons and we did it in his Person 6. The Paper saith the Father was not offended much less abhorred Christ considered as he was in himself But as in Relation to us as our surety and the Father was displeased with Christ as the guilt of our Iniquities was laid upon him And he knows his Friends do hold that God was displeased with and abhorred Christ because of the fault and filth of sin upon him as our surety which the Paper at least forbids not It 's worth observing that this Article was framed in opposition to one of the two only Errors objected here against Mr. Williams's Book Whose words are these That God testified his threatned indignation against sin in the awful sufferings of Christ in his Soul and Body c. And that Christ endured the effects of Gods wrath yet the Father was not displeased with Christ much less abhorred him because of the â—ilthiness of sin upon him p. 31 32. Here 's the Error and but once mentioned that required one of the three Articles to oppose it Our Third Paper hath given them far more ground to make this the point in Controversy than that of Change of Persons which it asserts both as to Name and Sense But they insist not on this because of the odious sound of what they must assert in opposition to it As to the Remarkers hint from the Assemblies words that Christ endured the weight of Gods wrath Let us mind him that displicency is opposed to Complacential Love and therefore none can be the object of Gods displeasure but one who is evil and wicked in the sight of the Lord and therefore hateful to him as such But the effects of Gods Rectoral wrath may fall on Christ tho beloved as our surety yea who was not hated but loved for dying according to his own Voluntary Engagements Review these things and judge what a poor Vindication from Antinomianism the first Paper affordeth Unless they â—hiâ—k he must be far enough from this Error that â—â—â—eth the Law of Works to be in full force and the only Law altho they also hold that the elect have fulfilled this Law perfectly in Christ and therefore are themselves to yield no sort of obedience in order to any benefit or preventing of any punishment Here 's all the Zeal for the Law which they think enough to acquit them from Antinomians and all who think that we under the Gospel are any further obliged are to be Neonomians But. 7. Yet as great a Liberty as this Paper gives Antinomians to subscribe it observe in what a faint and dark manner they do subscribe even this poor defence their words are We are glad to find so good an agreement among us as this Paper doth express This is all But wherein or how far Or under what
persevere in Faith and true Holineâ— Also declaring all impenitent Unbelievers whâ—le suâ—h to be in a state of Condemnation So by the same Gospel it is evident that none of these nor any wâ—â—k done by Men or wrought by the Spirit of God in them are under any denomination any part of thâ— Righâ—eoâ—sness for the sake or on the account whereof any Blessing is merited or procured much less Justification or Eternal life But God justifies pardons accepts and entitles Sinners to Eternal life only for the sake of the Righteousness of Christ without them imputed to them and received by Faith alone 2. O Coâ—mutation oâ—â—ersons Whereas sinners were obnoxioâ—s to suffer the Punishments threatned by the Law for their Transgressions The Lord Jesus by his Compact with the Father became our mediating Surety and as such he obeyed the Law and our Punishments were judicially transferred on him which for our Redemption he endured in our room and stead to the satisfaction of Justice that we mâ—ght be justified when we believe and be dealt with accordingly Nevertheless we deny that by a Commutation of Persons there is such a reciprocal change of condition betwixt Christ and Sinners or such an imputation or translation of qualities as implies that Christ was as Sinfull as we and we as Righteous as Christ. And though we assert that Christ hath undertaken the Elect shall in due time repent and believe yet we deny that Christ came into the room of the Elect to repent or believe for them or that Believers are accounted to have done and suffered what Christ did or that they are justified by the Law of Works See more in the next Head 3. Of the â—athers being disâ—leasâ—d with Christ Thougâ— the Phrase be not proper yet we declare The Lord Jesus having engaged in the Covenant of Redemption as our mediation Surety to suffer the punishment of our Sins for the expiating thereof He did bear the guilt of our Iniquities to suffer as Sinners suffer and to be dealt with as God threatned to deal with them whom he is displeased with as far as was consistent with Christ's being innocent and one who became subject to those Punishments by his own consent in Obedience to the Father and for the Redemption of Sinners And therefore Christ was under the wrath of God as that was his will to punish him yea he endured the weight of that wrath in the punishment of our Sins which sins as to the obligation to endure those punishments were laid on Christ It pleased the Lord to bruise him having laid on him the iniquities of us all But we deny that our Sins as to their filâ—h or fault were transferr'd on Christ or that he was inherently or in legal esteem or looked on by the Father as one contrary to his holy Nature and Will either as he was our Surety or in any other respect And therefore if by displeased with Câ—riâ—t is meant that the Father hated or abhorred Christ which is proper only to one evil in the sight of the Lord because of our sins imputed to him So the Father was not displeased with Christ. But on the contrary the Father was always well-pleased with him at all times accounting him even as our High Priest holy harmless undefiled and separate from Sinners and therefore such when he offer'd himself an expiating Sacrifice yea for that he loved him Then follows Mr. William's Concurrence in these three Points with Citations at large out of his Book that he had oft affirmed the very same and that the places objected did not at all contradict any of these things And then further declareth that as he had oft proposed it so now he is willing to an Union with the dissenting Brethren either by mutual forbearance wherein we differ in judgment or if satisfaction be insisted on as to any other expressions that have been or shall be objected out of any of his Books where he knows nothing but what is orthodox he is willing to give it in the same time and manner as Mr. Cole Mr. Mather Mr. Chauncy Mr. Trayl c shall be obliged to give satisfaction as to many material exceptions he hath made and shall yet make to what they have published in their Books But otherwise he will no farther concern himself but keep to the Voâ—e past Sept. 16. 1695. notwithstanding that now for Peace-sake he hath waved the demand thereof in Answering the above mentioned Exceptions when they are not required to do the like Lastly There is the form of Words for the Subscribers of Mr. Williams's Book which you have before p. 4 cited out of the Agreement 1692 only with this Addition That Mr. W. did not write his Book nor they subscribe the Approbation with any design to oppose our Congregational Brethren as such or to divide from them This Paper was read and received but Mr. W. desired it might be waved when a proposal was made by a Subscriber of the first Paper that we should draw up the third Paper out of this and another Paper called the first which were both voted to be laid aside altho that called the first â—aper was never read in the Meeting nor once proposed to be received there A LETTER from the Right Reverend Dr. Stillingfleet Bishop of Worcester in Answer to one from Mr. Williams who desired his Iudgment as to the following Questions because his Lordship's Book is in the first Paper aâ—d the Report pleaded against Mr. Williams SIR I Return you Thanks for the Papers you were pleased to send me by which I am able to Understand something more than formerly of the Present state of the Difference about the Change of Persons between Christ and us But I shall meddle no farther in it than I am Obliged to do it in Answer to the Questions you propose to me And I wish I may be able to do any service therein The first is about my sense of Commutation of Persons It is said in the first Paper that I do with Gâ—otius expressly affirm and irreâ—ragably prove it with the common sentiment of Protestants and that the Doctrines of Iustification and Christs satisfaction cannot be duely Explained and Defended consistently with the Denial of any Commutation of Persons between Christ and Believers This had been fairly Represented in Case there could be no other sense of Commutation of Persons than what is asserted by Dr. Crisp but there is a 3 fold sense of it very different from each other 1. Such a Change of Persons as implies that One is Appointed and allowed to Act on behalf of others and for their Advantage and this sort of Commutation of Persons the Socinians never denied as I have shewed in the Discourse of Sâ—tisfastion p. 62. 190 191. It is not therefore the Use of the Words but the sense of them is to been enquired into For some may Affirm a Change of Persons and yet be Socinians and others may deny a Change and be far enough
to us and received by Faith alone which is the procuring cause of all saving Good How gladly would we Re-unite with them might this but remove the difference And since we are content to use their very Words and Phrases explained in the Orthodox Sense the omission whereof is what is excepted against us we hope that such of the Dissenters as shall refuse to agree with us will not hereafter say that a difference in the Doctrines pretended by the Report is the Reason why they unite not with us But Acknowledge that they keep up the differences from their Zeal for the foresaid Opinions of Dr. Crisp and the Antinomians which we think to be very Erroneous Secondly The Report saith that the third Paper was taken and sent from some who meet at Little St. Hellens Answ. These some had with them all of our Brethren who subscribed the first Paper yea several of them were the Framers of it as well as the whole Body of the United Ministers as far as we know consented to it Thirdly The Reporter gives the Reasons why the Dissenters did not approve of the third Paper which are these 1. He saith the third Paper omitted to mention that a Change of Persons is the common Doctrine of Protestants and that neither Justification nor Christs satisfaction can be duly explained or defended without it and that Grotius and the Reverend Bishop of Worcester have proved a Change of Persons p. 4. Answ. 1. The third Paper asserts a Commutation of Persons therefore we wonder he p. 5. affirms that we have not mentioned it but having therein fully asserted it in opposition to Socinianism is it not strange our Paper should be scrupled because we duly explained Justification and Christs satisfaction thereby but did not say They could not be explained without it c. Which tho' we may think yet the meer saying so is not the hinge of the Controversy nor would it add any strength to the hedge which we have made without it or else surely some of our Protestant Confessions would at least have made mention thereof and therefore these Brethren must reject every one of those as well as ours Answ. 2. We have affirmed and explained a Change of Persons in the same Sense as Grotius and the Reverend Dr. Stillingfleet Bishop of Worcester have done as will appear to any who consult those Authors but they are far from approving the Crispian Explication of that Phrase as we shall evidence by a Letter of the said Reverend Bishop to Mr. Williams Answ. 3. As we durst not imitate the Reporters liberty perswading the World we denyed and rejected a Commutation or Change of Persons when we asserted it in express Terms so we assure him we designed not to offend our Brethren who he saith p. 6. are grieved because our Letter saith That on our so happy establishing the Doctrine of Iustification we need say but little in the Point of Commutation of Persons By which words it's plain we meant not that we said little of it in our Paper where in the second and third Heads we said enough to clear it even twice more than what we said of Justification But we say little of it in our Letter where we have enlarged on Justification because for several Years the Dissenters pretended all their great Quarrel was about that Doctrine and may not we justly grieve that for our Industry in clearing our selves beyond all their Challenges as to this we should be Hereticated by this Report in the New Controversy started by Mr. Lobb The Second Reason occurs so often that we cannot avoid Answering it again and again 3. Reason There is such a wrong Description given of a Change of Person in the Third Paper as perverts the Doctrine of satisfaction p. 6. yea p. 7. It tells us Christ did not yea could not make satisfaction upon what you affirm Answ. 1. We shall first enquire what description the Reporter gives of a Change of Persons which is such â—s must with wise Men justify our careful expressing our Sense of this Phrase p. 7. He saith a Commutation is the same with a proper Surrogation where the surety puts on the Quality State and Condition of the Debtor p. 5. He tells us we are all by Nature under the Curse of the Law And destitute of a Righteousness Entituling to Eternal Life and addeth this is our State and Condition this is the place we are in a few Lines after he saith that Christ put himself into our Place State and Condition so that whereas We were sin and under a Curse by this blessed change Christ was made sin and a Curse Here he plainly expresseth his sense of the Change of Persons As to what he speaks of Christs being a Curse we object not further than that Christ was not so by Nature but the things we observe-are that he saith Our State Place and Condition was that we were destitute of a Righteousness Entituling to Eternal Life this was it He saith that Christ put himself into this our State Place and Condition if so then with him Christ was destitute of a Righteousness Entituling to Eternal Life To make this more evident he saith we were Sin this was our Place State and Condition into which Christ put himself and by this change was made sin Now how were we sin We were not a sin-offering but sinful vile offenders we were sinful and destitute of all Righteousness that was our Condition yet he saith Christ came into our condition as we were sin which must be that he was changed to be a sinful vile offender not an offering for sin for that was not our Condition By which it's evident our Reporters Commutation of Persons is not that Christ became a sin offering and in our stead subject to the punishments which by the Law Sinners deserved that they might be delivered No that will not content him But that Christ was changed to be a sinful Person destitute of a Righteousness Entituling to Eternal Life this is his change this is his Christs taking on him the Person of Sinners which is a position not only unworthy of the Praises he bestows on it p. 5. But so horrid that we hope some of our Dissenting Brethren will be provoked to clear themselves from the Imputation this Reporter seems fond to lay them under Answ. 2. The Arguments must be strong by which he saith Our Account of a change of Person is attaqued if they will prove that we have thereby perverted the Doctrine of satisfaction yea and rendred it impossible Whether the Arguer and Reporter be the same Person we enquire not but of the same Spirit none can doubt In return whereto we wish them more Charity and Modesty for the future However some might expect they would have consulted their own Credit so far as not to Proclaim the very same Men the most Learned and most Orthodox and yet very Ignorant and Grossly Heretical And that as to the very same Point