Meaning against its Will The Purer Primitive Times were wisely concerned for the preserving the Truth that they decreed in the Sixth General Council that it should not be lawful to introduce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any unusual way of speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any new invented Terms upon great Penalties and a modest regard to this Canon had prevented a world of Miscief and all this Blunder and Confusion which 〈◊〉 arbitrary Terms have produced among 〈◊〉 § 6. I will shut up this Head of Discourse with this modest Proposal Let this Matter be thus worded That Christ in his suffering and dying was considered by God and placed himself in the place and stead of all the Elect so that he made Satisfaction to the Divine Iustice for all their Sins the Benefits and Advantages whereof every individual Person shall partake of in that Order and Method and upon those Terms which the Wise and Holy God has prescribed in the Gospel Which Proposition you and I and all sober Persons in the City and Country would readily subscribe and leave these Gentlemen who it seems are at leisure to invent new Controversies to their own imperious Humours II. The Reporter has miserably imposed upon you in Matter of Fact nor has he shewn that due Regard to Truth which he and all of us owe to so great a Soveraign A few Instances I will give you that you may be convinced how little Reason you have to take him or his Narrative upon their bare Words 1. One Specimen of his Honesty you shall meet with at the Entrance of his Paper and its ominous to stumble at the Threshold lest he should break the Neck of his whole Discourse And thus in a pompous Stile he breaks into the Business After sundry Attempts made by the industrious Pacificators an Instrument was pitcht upon which gave Satisfaction to the most Learned of both Parties This Paper was sent by Six or Seven of the biggest Name among them who do or at least have gone under the Denomination of Presbyterians unto some Congregational Brethren and gladly embraced by them Now Sir do you not judge that this Instrument which gave such Satisfaction to and was so gladly imbraced by the Congregational Men had redintegrated the violated Union had reclaimed them who had deserted their former Station that all Distances were wholly removed and Jealousies and Suspicions of Socinianism on the one side and Antinomianism on the other were cured and that a Coalition between the Two Parties had hereupon ensued that they were all now got together again at Little St. Hellens I assure you Sir not one Word of this was true and that you shall truly learn from these Particulars 1. Whereas he affirms This gave Satisfaction to the most Learned of each Party what does he then think of Mr. Tho. Cole and Mr. Nath. Mather are not these to be reckon'd in the Number of the most Learned of that Party These great Persons will hardly return him Thanks for expunging them the Catalogue unless they judge him no competent Judge of their Learning 2. Whereas he tells us that it gave Satisfaction to the most Learned of each Party it appears it gave no Satisfaction at all For they of the Congregational Interest never intended to receive such Satisfaction as to return to a Re-union and this was openly avowed by one of that Number who was not of the least Name nor made the smallest Figure amongst them That they never designed to enter into an Union with the Presbyterians and of this I can produce incontestible Proof this Rational Jealousy was the Reason why Mr. G. Hammond refused his Hand to that Paper yet declaring if the Reporter says true he would gladly have done it if it might be a mean to restore Union which he had just Grounds to believe it never would and therefore refused The Truth is it was known from first to last through the whole Transaction of that Affair that this Expedient would never Retrieve the Union only if they could get any Advantage by it to put a Slur upon Mr. D. Williams this they would gladly embrace and then let the Union shift for it self 3. But will you see with your own Eyes how these Gentlemen were satisfied and how gladly they embraced the first Paper Thus it was After all the Pains taken after much Attendance great Courting of and Waiting upon them they obtained this Little this Noâ—hing or Nothing to the Purpose of Re-union They are glad to find so good an Agreement amongst us as this Paper doth express No doubt a little is better than nothing and so much Agreement as this comes to is better than going to Logerheads But are there any Expressions that intimate they are satisfied upon the Terms of this Paper to unite do they express any embracing of Communion with one another 2. I come now to a Second Instance of the Reporters regard to Truth where you will easily observe how by a wretched Synecdoche he has given you a part for the whole of a just Narrative This is called the Politicks of the Pismire which nibbles off the Grain at both Ends that it may never grow but come to nothing Or rather this Report is framed according to the Law of a Good Heroick Poem which our Criticks tell us must always commence at the middle of the Story This is the Method of our Reporter who enters upon his Report about the Middle of his Matter and therefore expect a pure Poetical Fiction He begins with the Mention of Pacification I think he should have informed his Country Friend That there was once an Union that this Union was broken and then who they were that made the Breach and upon what Grounds and how the Breach was pieced up again and then how it was without any visible Reason broken again and then he might seasonably have enter'd upon the Story of his so celebrated Attempts for Pacification Now Sir to supply the Deficiency of his Story I 'll give you a full and faithful Account of the whole wherein I shall inform you of nothing but what you know already § 1. In the Year 1691. After many Meetings of Ministers of both Persuasions after frequent Applications to the Throne of Grace certain Heads of Agrement were drawn up and assented to by about Eighty Ministers in and about the City of London and by some others in a little time This Agreement was solemnly transacted and seriously concluded with this Protestation As we Assent to the forementioned Heads of Agreement so we Unanimously Resolve as the Lord shall enable us to Practise according to them Amongst those Heads assented to the Eighth contains the Test and Standard of Orthodoxy and speaks thus As to what appertains to Soundness of Iudgment in Matters of Faith we esteem it sufficient that a Church acknowledge the Scriptures to be the Word of God the Perfect and only Rule of Faith and Practice and own either the Doctrinal Part
Change of Person between Christ and us in a general Sense but only in Opposition to the Opinion of his Adversary he wrote against for in that very Place he expresly affirms That Christ suffered and died in our stead That is Mr. Williams did not deny a Change of Person simpliciter sed secundum quid not universally but restrictively for the most universal Terms are not always universally to be understood But the Manuscript will not acquiesce in this Answer § 1. He therefore says That his denial of a Change of Persons between Christ and the Elect or between Christ and Believers is so express and full that he leaves no room for a distinction limitation or restriction c. To which I return this Mr. Williams has left room enough for all the Distinctions that are proper to the Matter in hand for thus he expresses himself Gosp. Truth p. 33. 2 Edit The difference lies in these Points 1. Whether there be a Change of Person between Christ and the Elect yea or between Christ and Believers This the Doctor affirms and I deny Whence I argue Mr. Williams denies nothing was concerned to deny nothing but what the Doctor had affirmed but the Doctor had affirmed a wild monstrous Sense of Change of Person between Christ and the Elect or Believers and therefore Mr. Williams did not could not deny any thing else according to all the Rules and Laws of pertinent Discourse Now then the Determination of what Mr. Williams denies must depend on the knowing what it was the Doctor affirm'd and for this see pag. 31. where he cites Dr. Crisp speaking thus Marke it well Christ himself is not so compleatly Righteous but we are as Righteous as he nor we so compleatly sinful but Christ became being made Sin as compleatly sinful as we Nay more we are the same Righteousness for we are made the Righteousness of God That very sinfulness which we were Christ is made the very sinfulness So that here is a direct Change Christ takes our Person and Condition and stands in our stead we take Christ's Person and Condition and stand in his stead So that if you reckon well you must always reckon your selves in anothers Person and that other in your Person And now you have it what is that Change of Persons which the Doctor affirms and Mr. Williams denies which had he not he had denied his Redeemer and betrayed the Gospel § 2. But the Manuscript comes upon Mr. Williams with his Logical Talent p. 8. The Negation of a Change is so general that unless no Change signify a Change and a Negative is of the same import with an Affirmative you will never be able to find him allowing of a Change of Person between Christ and us c. This case is very hard I confess for of all Morsels I never loved to swallow a Contradiction But the Question is where the Contradiction lies They that would find it between Mr. Williams and the United Brethren must seek elsewhere They affirm the same things If they will find it between Mr. Williams and Dr. Crisp they need not look far the Doctor affirms Mr. Williams denies but now to find Mr. Williams contradicting himself that would be sweet Why does not he own a Change and yet deny a Change he does so yet without any Contradiction to himself or the Truth There is nothing more nauseous to an understanding Reader than to see a Man Paratragaediate in Trifles and to raise a mighty Storm in a sorry Bucket of Water A Change and no Change Yea and Nay Did this Gentleman in good earnest never hear or read that single Terms or Propositions which are really contradictory must be spoken or intended Ad idem eodem modo eodem respectu eodem Tempore Suppose I should tell him Lazarus was dead and Lazarus was not dead he 'll cry out perhaps O horrid Contradiction O barbarous Nonsense But be not so fierce both are true he was dead before Christ raised him and not dead when Christ said loose him and let him go To what purpose then do they fill our Ears with the Din of an imaginary Contradiction which has no Ground but in the Fansy and Wind of their own Heads To conclude there may be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seeming where there is no real Contradiction Ay but our Manuscript thinks he has nickt it p. 9. He should have told us the sense in which his Adversary affirmed a Change But to what purpose should he tell you it when you stop your Ears or to what end shew you it when you are blinded with Prejudice or Wink very hard and will not see He has told it to all the World besides every one else can hear it see it or read it only he has not told it you because you do male audire i. e. are thick of hearing But what would they have this poor Man do will they allow him to hold his Liberty of Writing by no other Tenure than than that of Villanage what are the Conditions of his 〈◊〉 he has written for a whole Page together in what Sense his Adversary takes it and I have here given you enough you may have more if you please to open your Eyes and yet he has not told you one Word of it But this reminds me of a Passage I once heard from a Reverend and Learned Divine in the Pulpit who discoursing upon the Words of the Apostle Paul Rom 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law and comparing them with â—hose of Jam. 2. 24. Ye see then how that by works a man â— justified and not by faith only Here as that Learned â—erson observed is a seeming Contradiction not by works â—nd yet by works by faith only and not by faith only for â—e clearing of which he prudently wav'd all the comâ—on Solutions and upon the whole thus determined â—hat if God should reveal contradictory Propositions to our Faith we were obliged to believe them both to be true This would be a compendious way I confess in salving Contradictions only it has an odd Inconvenience in it for â—hen God must give us other Faculties than these we now have for according to those poor ones we are at preâ—ent Masters of whatever God may oblige us to I am certain it 's simply impossible that both the Propositions â—an be true and I think too it 's as certain God can neâ—er reveal or oblige us to believe a Lie 3. But the Reporter in my Opinion has discharged more formidable Argument against the Paperâ—nd â—nd Mr. Williams too p. 6. For whereas the Third Paâ—er had said or the Cover to it That on our so happy â—stablishing the Doctrine of Iustification we need say but litâ—le to the point of Commutation of Persons And to speak a â—lain Truth That little they said was enough because â—hey had establisht the
Doctrine of Justification upon its â—roper Basis namely Divine Revelation upon which botâ—om God himself had establisht it and then it stands unmoveable and the Gates the Power and Policy of Hell â—all not prevail against it Now hearken to the Report of â—is Canon a great Report without Ball. It 's impossible to establish the Doctrine of Iustification on its â—ue and proper Basis any otherwise than by clearing the point of Commutation of Persons Impossible what a huge Opinion have these Men of â—he vast extent of their Intellectuals They can admeaâ—ure it to a Hairs Breadth just where the possible ends and where the impossible begins It had been more modest to have qualified the Word with for ought I know or 〈◊〉 apprehend but if that great Doctrine cannot possibâ—â— be establish'd upon its Basis without clearing the Poiâ—â— of Commutation of Persons why do they not why havâ— they not long since cleared it Dr. Crisp has cleared iâ— and to say Truth though he be erroneous yet he speaâ— clearly we see his Sense but these Gentlemen speaâ— dubiously darkly at best but in the Twilight anâ— whether there be a sound Sense under those obscurâ— Phrases we know not nor perhaps they neither This Doctrine had need be well setled and in ordâ—â— thereto the Basis of it well cleared for I have ever tâ—ken it to be Articulus stantis out cadentis ecclesiae If thâ— Article fails the Church fails and falls with it and 〈◊〉 were better the whole World should fall than either Give me leave to offer a few things to his high Conâ—â—dence 1. He that will build a Castle in the Air must bâ— content with a Foundation of Air to support it and 〈◊〉 that will form an Imaginary Notion of Justification muâ—â— provide a Basis in his own Imagination for it to rest uâ— on If indeed Justification admits no Faith as Dr. Criâ—â— has contrived it then we must admit his Pedestal to se â—e it upon To reckon our selves in Christ's Person anâ— Christ in ours which is his Commutation of Persons but 〈◊〉 the Holy Ghost unites the Soul to Christ by Faith iâ— no such impossible thing to conceive how both our Siâ—â— may be imputed to Christ and his Righteousness to thâ— be lieving Sinner 2. This great Doctrine of Justification is already seâ—â—led upon Divine Revelation there it has stood from thâ— Beginning there it shall stand to the end of Time anâ— Things and needs not the presumptuous Fancies 〈◊〉 towring Wits to place it on a more from Bottom Buâ— are we not brought to a sine pass we must trust Goâ— no farther than we can see him believe no more thaâ— we can understand a Reason for that is we must wheeâ— about to the main Principle of the Socinians to admit no more into our Creed than we can comprehend He that will settle the great revealed Doctrines of Religion on a humane Foundation overthrows it The Scripture has sufficiently revealed the Doctrine of Justification to be through Christ's Righteousness accepted of God received by Faith and for this Commutation of Persons in their Sense it knows nothing of it Let not therefore this Gentleman be so over-officious â—o erect a Basis for Justification of his own Head or of wiser Heads than his the Holy Spirit has done that already left putting forth his daring Hand to stay the Ark which he dreams begins to totter he should meet with the fate of presumptuous Uzzah 3. I would ask this modest Question Where has this Doctrine of Justification been setled all this while since the Reformation since the purest Primo-Primitive Times What! has it hung like Mahomet's Tomb in â—he Air or floated like the Ark upon the Water No! It has stood firm and unmoveable upon Scriptural Founâ—ations against all the Assaults of Papists Socinians Arâ—inians and Antinomians It has stood visible in the Arâ—icles of the Church of England in the Confessions of the Assembly at Westminster in that of the Savoy in the Caâ—echisms shorter and larger and yet this uncouth Phrase never yet heard of It is strange to me that Councils General and Provincial Synods Assemblies of Holy Learned Men should so often so strenuously assert and confirm by the Word of God this great Truth and yet never once dream of Dr. Crisp's Commutation of Persons â—pon which to superstruct the Doctrine of Justification Nay I would intreat these Gentlemen to look at home â—nd inquire whether any particular Congregation of â—hat denomination soever did ever insert any of these Terms amongst their Credenda even that to which he â—ay belong or over which he may preside and yet I will presume they have the Doctrine of Justification Orthodoxly propounded judiciously explained and solidly confirmed without these Innovations and strange Term of Commutation of Persons Christ's taking on him the Person of Sinners or dying in the Person of Sinners 4. This Phrase the Change of the Person of Christ may have and truly has an honest and sound Sense in which it may be of some good use to explain the Doctrines of Satisfaction and Justification and it is that which the Right Reverend the Bishop of Worcester with Grotius against Crellius do put upon it Reason of Christ's Suffer Edit 1. p. 144. viz. the Substitution of one Person in the room of another and pag. 143. A proper Redemption may be obtained by the Punishment of one in the Room of another which is neither more nor less than that Christ suffered and died in our room and stead And this is it which the former and latter Papers which Mr. Williams and all others do freely own and that which is denied is only such a Sense of the Phrase as his Antagonist asserts 〈◊〉 therefore Christ's dying by way of Change or Exchange be all they would have 't is no more than what is granted in that other Expression he died in our place and stead but if they must have a further Sense we are afraid oâ— Nonsense if they must have a higher Reach we are afraid of an Over-reach and therefore let them tell us how much larger a Sense they have some secret Services for and when we know it will be told them whether we judge it Orthodox or otherwise 4. Casting my Eye upon the Manuscript I meet with a small Cavil against Commutation of Persons as iâ— stands either in the Third Paper or in Mr. Williams and if it be indifferent to him whether of them be misrepresented or reproached it shall be as indifferent to me if either of them be set right or vindicated Now the Words he cavils at as he quotes them run thus It is apparent that Commutation of Persons is to be understooâ— in a legal or judicial Sense as we may call it He by Agreement between the Father and him came into our room and stead to answer for our Violation of the Law of Works At which he cavils thus As we may call it not that it is really so in a