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
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
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
The first Character the Reporter bestows on them for subscribing the first Paper yet it abates nothing to them of the last seeing they will frame and approve of the Third Paper But it greatly concerns all of us to peruse the Arguments which follow Arg. 1. When we Discourse of a Commutation we should consider Christ who is invested with the Office of Mediator as our surety in the Execution of his Priestly Office c. But wording it as they do is Calculated for their Meridian who hold Christ suffered only in the Person of a Mediator not in the Person of Sinners For which Reason we may perceive why there must not be the least mention of Christs suretyship in the Third Paper Answ. 1. Christs surethyship did not divest him of the Office of his Mediatorship but Connotes that as Mediator he engaged himself to suffer for Condemned Sinners yea and to do much more for them than what 's included in the Execution of his Priestly Office Viz. To teach them overcome their Enemies c. Nay more all Christs sufferings as a Priest were his sufferings as one mediating for Sinners and not one become himself a Sinner as he is represented to be by making such a vast difference between him as our Mediator and as surety Answ. 2. Tho' we mention not the word Surety which we Scruple not yet we did plainly express the thing designed by that Word as far as belongs to a subsequent surety in Criminal Causes tho not pecuniary and as is cousistent with Christs being a Mediator in all his Engagements and Performances for us A disregard to both which occasioneth such confused and mistaken Notions concerning these Doctrines Arg. 2. Their Account of a Commutation is It 's to be understood in a Legal or Judicial Sense as we may call it not that it is really so only we may so call it Answ. 1. As we may call it Is not opposed to really but we use it as an Apology for the Term Judicial added to Legal and as unscriptural we mean that wherein Christ suffered he was judicially dealt with as if he had been the Condemned Sinners in whose Room he suffered But knowing that many give a dangerous sense of the Word Legal when without Explication or Limitation we added judicial thereto Answ. 2. The Reporter might have spared saying They 'll not Quarrel about the Term may the thing they contend for be granted them Instead of complaining of a disrespect to Fifty or Sixty Ministers we 'll desire all our Brethren were as temperate which would End all Quarrels about Humane Words when the Sense is granted nor would this disparage the Reporter who seems so fond of a set of Words as if he highly valued himself for his discoverâ— of them to his Associates and therefore he will contend for them so stiffly that neither Union Orthodox Explications nor his reverence for some of us when useful to him shall signify or amount to any thing if all his Phrases be not still made use of Arg. 3. We apprehend this to be their meaning because in their Explication there is not a word proper and peculiar to a Commutation in a Legal Sense c. What tho' Christ dyed in the Person of a Mediator to Answer for our violation of the Law of Works yet if he dyed not in the Person of Sinners to Answer for them the violated Law of Works he did not he could not make satisfaction to Vindictive or Remunerative Justice Answ. 1. We shall not insist how proper satisfaction is to Remunerative Justice nor how unfair it is to argue as if we had said Christ dyed only in the Person of a Mediator when our Paper hath no such thing only because himself had said our words are Calculated for the Meridian of such who hold so Answ. 2. Our own words will convince the unbiassed whether there be strength or truth in this Argument take what we say in the second and third Heads in our Paper which must be Connected to express our Sense Christ our Mediator by agreement with the Father came into our room and stead 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 and with Christ as standing in our stead God was no otherwise displeased than as having a will to inflict on 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 beâ—â—â—â—â—rs through his satisfaction and intercession 〈◊〉 ed thereon Can any read these words and honestly infer That we have not a word proper to a Commutation in a Legal Sense or that we denyed Christs satisfaction or that Christs satisfaction was impossible by the Account we give thereof And yet we are charged in the report with each of these But for the better information of the Reader we shall shew what our Account containeth First The Father as the offended Rector proposeth and agrees upon Terms with Christ our Mediator upon which Condemned Sinners shall be Pardoned and Saved Secondly The Terms proposed and agreed are such as sufficiently secure Gods Honour and make amends to Justice so that neither are to suffer any injury by Pardoning the Sinner and they are such as Answered for all our Violations of the Law of Works and they are such as render Christs sufferings a punishment for our Sins Thirdly The Father and Son agree not only that these Terms are sufficient but that also they shall be Accounted to us and performed in our room and stead we mean vice nostra loco nostro that therein he was to Answer for our Violations of the Law and that we should be Pardoned and Saved thereupon Fourthly Upon this agreement the Father as a just Ruler provoked by us Sinners doth justly inflict the punishment of our sins on Christ for satisfaction to his Iustice which is the same as that his Justice might not be injured Fifthly Christ suffers those punishments in our stead and is therein a sin-offering for us tho' not deputed by us That we might be made the Righteousness of God in him Sixthly What he suffered is a satisfaction his intercession is founded upon that satisfaction for and by which the penitent believer is Pardoned and Saved If we have not herein affirmed and explained a Legal Commutation and Christs suretyship in a sound sense tho' not the Reporter's and affirmed Christs satisfaction yea enumerated the essentials of it we despair that we ever can And if Men will not Acknowledge the Reporter doth mis-represent us and intend his Phrases to be a cover for several Errors when this Orthodox Sense of them could not satisfy him we can but bewail their prejudice and partiality Answ. 3. We do not see why our words Viz. Christ dyed in our room and stead which he leaves out to Answer for our Violations of the Law of
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
sins to the satisfaction of Iustice p. 48. And it 's freely granted that Christ suffered and dyed for the Persons of Sinners and for the sins of their Persons and in the room and stead of their Persons And that he suffered and dyed to make satisfaction to the Iustice to the Vindicative Iustice of God c. What pretends Mr. Lob against so full conviction No other than that we by the Third Paper rejected this Phrase obligations of the violated Law But this is not true we only waved it and Mr. R. saith no more But Mr. Lob saith the Phrase which we put in its stead Viz. Christ came to Answer for sinners violation of the Law of Works differs as much from their Phrase answering for us the obligations of the violated Law of Works as a Gospel Truth and a Socinian Error p. 50. One would think it 's still a true Phrase after his mangling it But pray take it as in our Paper Christ came into our room and stead to Answer for our Violations of the Law add what follows and the Punishment of our sins was inflicted on Christ that God might without injury to his Justice Pardon and Save penitent Believers Is this a Socinian Error Or is a word wanting to make Christs sufferings proper Punishments Nay what is it for Christ in our stead to Answer for our Violations But go yet lower Is not to Answer for our sins another thing than Socinians hold even this is no less than suffering the Punishment of our sins if we were for Violating the Law under its obligations to suffer those Punishments But I come to Mr. Lob's charge against Mr. R. from the words cannot bear a sound Sense 4. Because Mr. R. used certain warm words once and that only against the unsound Sense of that single Phrase Commutation of Persons which yet he there saith may be capable of receiving a sound meaning Mr. Lob makes Mr. R. to intend those warm words against the sound Sense of that Phrase against that Phrase it self and a great many other good Phrases which himself makes use of as very safe yea against the sound Sense of many other Phrases which Mr. R. pleads for I shall fully recite the only place upon which Mr. Lob grounds his charge Reb. p. 30. A change of Persons which may possibly be capable of receiving a good meaning elsewhere explained and yet is more sounding towards a dangerous Sense the Brethren did unanimously agree to grant as much as the sound Sense could bear and modestly to wave and pass by the other which was liable to be interpreted to a Sense and sound of malignity to the whole of the Gospel You see the other which could not bear a sound Sense but was liable to a sound of malignity is but one thing for other is not nomen multitudinis and agrees with the Verb WAS which is in the singular Number This other to which these words are appropriated cannot be the Phrase Commutation of Persons for that is not waved but retained by us in the Third Paper nor can it be the sound Sense of that Phrase for that 's provided for by Mr. R. much less can it be all the Phrases and Passages in the first Paper omitted in the Third It must then be confined to some one thing expressive of the unsound Sense which the Crispians put upon the Phase Change of Persons Mr. R's following words point at And the Brethren are now more fully perswaded they are in the right by the Reporters Notions What 's that Such a change as makes Christ to be destitute of a Righteousness Entitling to Enternal Life and to become sin as we are sin Rep. p. 5.7 i. e. filthy sinners Yet upon this foresaid Passage of Mr. R. Mr. Lob says p. 14. This Passage of my Reverend Brothren doth make it manifest that the Paragraphs Terms and Phrases which were in the First Paper and were waved and passed by in the Composure of the Third are looked upon by my Brother as what could not bear a sound Sense but a sound of malignity to the whole of the Gospel that is to say the Phrase of Christs taking on him the Person of Sinners of Answering for us the obligations of the Violated Law of Works the Term surety and the Assertion of the necessity of a Commutation of Persons This is the Sense of my Reverend Brother And so these words cannot bear a sound c. Are trumped up I believe forty times with these by tail p. 48. to 65. nay in this last p. 65. According to what my Brother declares it must be supposed this Passage Viz. Regeneration Repentance towards God Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and a Holy Conversation are by Gods word manifestly necessary to the salvation of a Sinner Cannot bear a sound Sense but is liable to be interpreted to a Sense and Sound of malignity Must not Mr. R. tho thus loudly warned find it impossible to guard himself against this Man 5. Mr. R. p. 17. saith These Phrases Terms or Expressions Viz. Change of Persons between Christ and us and his taking on him the Person of Sinners are unknown to our Confessions and not to be found in the Body of Confessions Mr. Lob exposeth him by Citing a Confession that useth some Phrases Mr. R. makes use of and others which he never denied but mentions no Confession that hath the Phrases Mr. R. said could not be found Upon this poor work he toiles from p. 71. to 80. I must stay a little on what occurs p. 73. and ask 1. When Mr. R. denied only that these Phrases not the sound Sense were in the Confessions why should Mr. Lob make him deny that the Confessions gave any Countenance to the sound Sense of those Phrases 2. When Mr. Lob declares he had silent if he had not found these Phrases in some Confessions and Ridicules Mr. R. for denying they were in them Why did not he shew these Phrases or one of them in some or other Confession 3. If these Phrases as to the Letters and Syllables which Mr. R. called for are wherever the sound Sense of them is to be found Which is what Mr. Lob pretends or fondly argues why doth he deny that the very Phrases Christ taking on him the Person of Sinners c. Are in the Third Paper and say they are rejected by us seeing the sound Sense of those very Phrases is there 4. Mr. Lob saith The Phrases of Change of Persons of Christs sustaining our Person of his being substituted into our Room and his suffering in our place and stead are so nearly allied that they live and dye together grant one and all necessarily come in with it c They must then be of the same adequate Sense with each other or the Confession could not assert Christs sustaining in our Person by its saying Christ dyed in our stead But if the Sense be adequate then Mr. R. denies the right Sense of none of these
Subject in his Prayers Sermons and Peaceable behaviour and advices What Fetters are some in If once addressing the Late King by a few big words must Eternally Proclaim a Man an Hypocrite unless he be now a Non-juror Nonassociator Plotter and director of other Ministers in imitation of himself to pray so for the King as either of the two Kings may be intended if they must at all seem to Pray for King William I hope few will be gull'd into such a Character from the fancied obligations of former addresses tho some of them were highly inconsiderate nor any discouraged from persevering Loyalty by the forecited Aspersion This would admit enlargement which provocations might improve But I retain a respect sufficient to forbid it nor had I inserted the least hint at such things except as a warning against the like instances when His First-Rate Man is to Execute his Fiery threats and his very Learned Person already Roused alike obnoxious stretcheth forth his Claws Let Men take their way but the common interest will not long be Sacrificed ere some now imposed on will find out the Instruments and Designs of our Breaches I hope the Reverend Rebuker will Pardon my Interposal and that I acquainted him not therewith His abilities for a reply I acknowledge such that if these short hints serve for a foile to that he is preparing and in the interim abate the ill Impressions of Mr. Lobs attempt I shall Account these few hours well employed which otherwise had been more feelingly spent in resenting those base reflections that I am his Leader Master Principal and what else became scarce any Man besides Mr. Lob their Author Mr. Lob p. 8. owneth I asserted besides the effects made ours the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers but adds I mean nothing by this grant Because I use a simile to illustrate the manner in Man made Righteous p. 77. If one give me my Liberty which he Voluntarily purchased for me at a dear rate He mediately gives me what he paid for my Ransom tho immediately he gives me my Liberty and a right thereto A. Had he Cited the Apodosis which is in the next words He had spoiled his suggestion I shall Contract what I there enlarge on I make Pardon and Adoption to be benefits or effects following upon the Imputation of Christs Righteousness And the Righteousness of Christ I distinguish into 1. His performance of the conditions of redemption 2. His right or jus adjudicatum by the Covenant of redemption to our Pardon and Adoption for his performance of the conditions adjusted in that Covenant The former I said is mediately imputed The latter I said is immediately imputed it 's reckoned to us when believers because it was acquired expressly for believers Iohn 3.16 Isa. 53.10 11. The judicial imputation of this right of Christ intervening the Righteousness of Christ as a performance of the conditions is imputed as our Plea for that Pardon it being the procuring cause of that right of Christs which is immediately imputed to us And this right I also distinguish from that which the Gospel-promise made to believers doth invest them in for the former right results immediately to Christ from the Covenant of Redemption and is subjectively in him tho imputed to us Whereas the promise he that believes shall be forgiven or saved not only supposeth the former Transactions and is the Instrument by which God imputeth Christs Righteousness to the believer But it also as a conditional promise giveth believers a right to Forgiveness whereof they are the immediate Subjects Here Mr. Lob may see the Vanity of his Objection it is not Pardon or such possessed effects that intermediate between Christs Righteousness and us nor only the right given by the Gospels conditional grant No it 's Christs own right and that imputed to us by God himself and that immediately to us And Pray Is Gods imputing to us Christs performance of the conditions so far as to be our Plea and Foundation of Claim no imputation of his Righteousness at all because the imputation of Christs acquired right Intervenes Nothing is left out but Gods Legal accounting us to have performed all that by which Christ merited and made Atonement Yet without this Proud assumption nothing will please Mr. Lob. Being so often pressed to it by Mr. Humfreys and Mr. Lob I will endeavour their satisfaction If Christ had acquired by his Death a Power indefinitely to forgive sins without a Compact determining either by Name or Qualification the Persons that should be Pardoned in the Virtue of his Death or only purchased the Gospel Covenant as conditionally offering Pardon I should agree with Mr. H. but it being otherwise I differ from him And add as the possessed effects are not properly imputed so I will not confine the support of my Faith ultimately and only to the Gospel conditional promise tho that 's infallible when God hath made the Compact between the Father and our Mediator to be my security and Christs performance of the conditions of that Compact to be my Plea with God among which conditions was what Answers the Law of Works which I have Transgressed Altho I own I must try my interest by Christs Gospel Law as what describeth the Person who is Entitled to Pardon and injoyneth us to be such with a promise of that interest In short a believer having for his Security and Plea the Gospel promise the Covenant of Redemption and the Value of Christs Death I 'll retain each and therefore still say Besides the effects possessed by me the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to me as above Accounted for On the other hand could I think it was by the Covenant of Works that Christ was constituted our surety so that his obligations to suffer the Punishment of our sins did immediately result from that Law And that we Sinners were Principals in Redemption Work and Christ such a surety as to be Ioint Party with us in that Work of Redemption And that the Law of Works required the Divine Nature to give a value to what it Accounted to be Righteousness And lastly that this Law promiseth Pardon to sinners for the sake of a Mediators sufferings I should then agree with Mr. Lob that we satisfied for our sin dyed and obeyed in Christs Person and he and we paid the Idem Nay be a full Crispian and say I was justified at the time of Christs Death I had nothing to do to become partaker of the effects of that Death I was as Righteous as Christ deny any proper forgiveness Nay own that Christ was really a sinner for I am sure the Law could immediately oblige no other to dye But I must disagree with Mr. Lob and them Because I am well perswaded God never proposed the Work of Redemption to Condemned Sinners but to Christ our Mediator Also that to the Redemption of Sinners God in Justice requiring for the Honour of his Violated Law that a perfect
obedience and the suffering of what was equivalent to its threatned Punishments should in the Humane Nature be summitted to by the Redeemer Our Blessed Mediator obliged himself to yield that obedience and bear those Punishments upon condition that such sinners should be forgiven in his right who should comply with the Gospel Terms agreed upon between the Father and him And pursuant hereto our Mediator did in our Nature perfectly obey and suffer the Punishments of our sins whereby he had a right to a believers Pardon and believers do obtain it in the way above described And Lastly I am sure the Law of Works never promiseth Pardon to sinners for the sake of Christs sufferings the Payment of the full Idem was impossible tho there was a supra-equivalent and the Law accounteth that Righteousness perfect which an Innocent Holy Creature renders tho he have not the Divine Nature to give that value to his obedience without which very thing we had been entirely lost Here Mr. Lob may find a surety Viz. An obliged Mediator And under the Law Viz. As an Article taken into the Covenant of Redemption whereby Christ was obliged And in our stead Viz. We were Condemned to suffer we are by and for his sufferings to be saved Nay he may find the â—ound meaning of his other Phrases as Change of Persons yea Christs suffering in the Person of sinners That is Christ our obliged Mediator suffers in our stead what we were to suffer yet it was that we might be delivered for it but not legally reputed our selves to suffer And yet here 's place leâ—t for Pardon a Gospel Law Terms of Application c. That none may mistake Note 1. I instance Pardon c. for brevity sake but exclude no saving benefits and distinguish saving benefits which are used as Motives to Duty in the Gospel from the Duties which are Conditions of those benefits 2. And therefore I speak not of Christ's peculiar purchasing Grace for the Elect effectually to perform those Conditions whereby together with the Decree their eventual salvation is secured This is my Judgment but I ought not to confound this with that adjustment of things whereby the Gospel-Offer of salvation to all men and the Gospel-Rule of conferring its benefits and of our final Judgment are provided for Mr. Lob oft objects a Contradiction if I affirm a Change of Persons and yet say I deny there is a Change of Person Answ. Besides Answers already given I say without any design'd Affront it 's no greater than Answer not a Fool according to his Folly yet Answer a Fool according to his Folly By thus gratifying Mr. Lob's Imperious Humour I am the freer to tell him 1. I am sorry that he so boldly averreth many gross mistakes in mattter of Fact p. 35. I invented the Phrase Change of Person whereas I cite and use it as Dr. Crisp's Phrase P. 26.43 I deny a Change of Persons Whereas I never denied it what I denied was Dr. Crisp's Change of Person and fully asserted the Sense of the other P. 22. I appealed to the Learned Witsius But this I never did P. 7. That onely Mr. Toland wrote much in praise of my Book Whereas he being then in Holland and not the Man he since appears desired them who gave an account of Published Books to give their Judgment of my Book and the great Praises are theirs and others have since commended it above its worth P. 63. That I was the Contriver of the Third Paper Whereas others had drawn it up before I saw it His vile Reflections on Mr. R. with respect to this and his Nine Subscribers of the First Paper p. 70. makes an account of that Matter necessary The United Ministers appointed Dr. Bates Mr. Hamond Mr. Slater Mr. Hill with Mr. How and my self to compose an Expedient c. Two of the Brethren drew it up which is this Third Paper and brought it to the rest of us met together After some Alterations we did all agree to it and brought it as our agreed Act to the Meeting at Saint Hellen. There among the rest Mr. Stretton Mr. Quick and Mr. Evans agreed to it Mr. Alsop Mr. Burgess and Mr. Showers not being present any of the times when it was read in the Meeting it was brought to the View of Mr. Alsop who approved of it I am very sure also it was shewn to Mr. Burgess his Informer who appeared to agree to it and Mr. Showers did to more than one express his Approbation of it So that Mr. Lob hath all the Nine Subscribers to my book enumerated Mr. Lob somewhere saith all the Phrases of the first Paper not into the Third were rejected by my means And yet several of them are in my own Paper called the Sccond Which I am glad was Printed ere I read his Defence He saith the Third Paper denies a Commutation of Persons p. 14. when both Phrase and Sense are in it Other instances are not wanting It 's false that the generality of the Pastors do not approve my Book though they were asked only to subscribe the state of Truth and Errors 2. The cause he undertakes is miserably defended against the Rebuke He appears to give p. 13. a Scheme of his project Viz. The points left out of the Third Paper which offended the Brethren but where 's his Proof that the United Ministers were obliged to retain so many Phrases of the first Paper as they did If they had used none but what the Church of England and the Assembly of Divines Confessions included the Heads of Vnion were observed by them and violated by such as exacted more Where makes he it good that the United Ministers rejected all the Phrases of the First Paper which they omitted especially when it was never read nor proposed to them Or that the omission of those Phrases warrants the breach of Vnion Such matters ought not to pass unargued without which none can tell what honest cause the Report pretends to unless the traducing Men sound in the Faith to cover the Turbulency of the Erroneous should be so Accounted As these are waved so he trifles in what he pretendeth to insist on Mr. R. demands the difference between a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners and Christs dying properly in the sinners stead Mr. Lob grants they are the same and yet poureth out a Flood of impertinent words against the R. as if they widely differed Mr. Lob makes Christs suffering the Punishment of our sins to the satisfaction of Justice the thing which distinguisheth the Orthodox from the Socinians and yet he represents Mr. R. as a Socinian who oft asserteth Christ suffered the Punishment of our sins to the satisfaction of Justice even Vindicative Justice Mr. R. chargeth his Account of Change of Persons Rep. p. 5. with little less than Blasphemy he bears that with profoundest silence Mr. R. blames him that he gave not a full Report of our difference and from its Rise To