Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	justify_v	law_n	moral_a	5,360	5	10.3036	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66343	The answer to the report, &c., which the united ministers appointed their committee to draw up, as in the preface also letters of the Right Reverend the Bishop of Worcester, and the Reverend Dr. Edwards to Mr. Williams, against whom their testimony was produced by Mr. Lob : and animadversions on Mr. Lob's defence of The report / by Daniel Williams.	Williams, Daniel, 1643?-1716.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.; Edwards, John, 1637-1716.	1698 (1698)	Wing W2645; ESTC R9333	67,736	107

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 th● 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

persevere in Faith and true Holine● Also declaring all impenitent Unbelievers wh●le su●h to be in a state of Condemnation So by the same Gospel it is evident that none of these nor any w●●k done by Men or wrought by the Spirit of God in them are under any denomination any part of th● Righ●eo●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 Co●mutation o●●ersons Whereas sinners were obnoxio●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 m●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 ●athers being dis●leas●d with Christ Thoug● 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 fil●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 C●ri●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 Vo●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 ●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 a●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 G●otius expressly affirm and irre●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 S●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

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

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 ●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 Bre●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 pre●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. A●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 Ele●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 1● 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 o● 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

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 ●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 ●●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 ●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 ●hi●k he must be far enough from this Error that ●●●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