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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that Christ bore, the fault of sin was laid up∣on 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 re∣gard

of Application must be before believing—The first Application, ordine naturae saltem, is to an un∣godly Man, eo nomine that he may believe; we be∣lieve 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 Obnoxi∣ous 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 Be∣nefits promised to the Non-elect, upon their perfor∣mance 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 Com∣pleat Union with Christ before the Act of Faith. All that a believer can pray for, is the further manifesta∣tion 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 an∣gry 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 Gos∣pel 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, up∣on which some will be justified, others Condemned. Christs Precepts are not Laws with a Sanction. Ap∣proves 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 displea∣sed with Christ as our surety: We in Christ satisfied the Justice of God. We through Christs Righteous∣ness 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 pro∣mise 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 Crea∣ture Life, or a Created Life, the other is the Eter∣nal Life of God Communicated in time. Believers are as Righteous as Christ, I mean not in a way of Si∣militude, but in a way of Equality. Christs Incarna∣tion was no part of his Humiliation; we Coalesoe upon believing into one mystical Person with Christ, which is distinguisht from Legal Union, which is be∣fore 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 fur∣ther 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 on∣ly on the defensive part, their Errors might receive Countenance as if unopposed, and the abettors there∣of might less appear the cause of our Divisions.

Answ. 3. Altho' Brethren from a Zeal for Peace condescended to mention but three particulars in the third Paper, yet it's too evident, that the Dissenters adhere to their own Paper (called the first) and refuse ours, because this doth provide some Defence against some of the Errors, which our difference is about, (the same cause for which they rejected the Articles in 1694.) And it's plain by what their Paper saith of Ju∣stification, they had this our Paper of Ninety four be∣fore 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 Eter∣nal 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 con∣tinued 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 Uni∣on, whereas, what's omitted by us, was not sent to us, much less to that end, nor adjusted by our appoint∣ment. But we need not to insist on this, when by com∣paring 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 Conversa∣tion, 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 antece∣dently necessary to Pardon, nor Faith to the Justificati∣on of our Persons, but only to manifest to our Consci∣ences for our inward Peace, that our Persons were ju∣stified 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 blot∣ted out, and Faith that we may be justified; And after∣wards, the Gospel requires of us as our Duty; that we repent and believe, and God Pardons penitent Believ∣ers. 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 con∣sidered in himself: and sundry the like (that our Paper gives no Countenance to) which our subscribing Bre∣thren do abhor.

It's not then without Reason, that the Dissenters in∣sist 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 up∣on 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 Bre∣thren 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 Justificati∣on 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, Justifica∣ion 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 Impeni∣tent, justify the Unbeliever, nor glorify the Apostate or Unholy. Fifthly, That justifying Faith is not only a perswasion of the understanding, but also a receiv∣ing and resting upon Christ alone for Salvation. Sixth∣ly, That by change of Person is meant, that whereas we were Condemned for our sins, the Lord Jesus was sub∣stituted in our Room, to bear the Punishment of our sins, for the satisfaction of Divine Iustice, That whoe∣ver

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. Se∣venthly, That by Christs being our surety is meant, that Jesus Christ our Mediator obliged himself to ex∣piate 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 obey∣ed we should live, and if Christ suffered we should not dye, tho' we sinned: Nor that Believers are justifi∣ed, 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 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 omis∣sion 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 Do∣ctrines 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 fore∣said 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 Bre∣thren, 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) con∣sented to it.

Thirdly, The Reporter gives the Reasons why the Dis∣senters 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 with∣out 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 Justifica∣tion 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 Reve∣rend 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 re∣jected a Commutation or Change of Persons, when we asserted it in express Terms, so we assure him, we de∣signed 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 lit∣tle 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 Justi∣fication; because for several Years the Dissenters pre∣tended 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 Do∣ctrine 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 ••s must with wise Men justify our careful expressing our Sense of this Phrase, p. 7.

He saith, a Commuta∣tion 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 E∣ternal Life; this was it: He saith, that Christ put him∣self 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 Con∣dition, 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 conditi∣on 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 con∣tent him; But that Christ was changed to be a sinful

Person, destitute of a Righteousness Entituling to E∣ternal 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 Gross∣ly Heretical: And that as to the very same Point: The first Character the Reporter bestows on them, for sub∣scribing 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 pe∣ruse the Arguments which follow.

Arg. 1. When we Discourse of a Commutation, we should consider Christ (who is invested with the Of∣fice of Mediator) as our surety in the Execution of his Priestly Office, &c. But wording it as they do, is Cal∣culated for their Meridian, who hold Christ suffered on∣ly 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 surety∣ship in the Third Paper.

Answ. 1. Christs surethyship did not divest him of the Office of his Mediatorship, but Connotes, that as Medi∣ator he engaged himself to suffer for Condemned Sin∣ners,

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 suffer∣ings▪ 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 sub∣sequent 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 dis∣regard 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 valu∣ed himself, for his discover•• of them to his Associates;

and therefore he will contend for them so stiffly, that neither Union, Orthodox Explications, nor his reve∣rence 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 pro∣per and peculiar to a Commutation in a Legal Sense, &c. What tho' Christ dyed in the Person of a Media∣tor, to Answer for our violation of the Law of Works, yet if he dyed not in the Person of Sinners, to An∣swer 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 ar∣gue, 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 Fa∣ther, 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 dis∣pleased, 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 be••••••••••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 con∣taineth.

• First, The Father as the offended Rector proposeth, and agrees upon, Terms with Christ our Mediator, up∣on 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 inter∣cession 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 satisfacti∣on, 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 be∣wail 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 Works, &c. Should not make Christs satisfaction possible; yea, and affirm it, as well as their words (Viz.) Christ put on the Person of Sinners and came into their room and stead, to Answer for them the Obligations of the vio∣lated Law of Works. Putting on the Person of Sinners, can have no good sense beyond Christs coming into our room and stead, which we have asserted; the words, for them, have but the same import: And seeing the vio∣lated Law obliged us to dye, for our Violations of that Law; if Christ in our stead Answered for our Viola∣tions of that Law, for which it put us under those Ob∣ligations to Dye; then Christ Dyed to Answer for us the obligations of that violated Law, i. e. its obligati∣ons on us to dye for our sins; to which Christs satisfa∣ction (which is the point in hand) refers.

Answ. 4. From what we observe so oft repeated by the Reporter, had he justly represented the Third Paper, and dealt sincerely, he must have reduced all his Rea∣sons and Arguments to prove his heavy charge against us, and to justify the Dissenters refusal of that Paper, to this one Argument, (Viz.)

They, who in a Paper expresly affirm and explain the satisfaction of Christ, omitting to mention these words, Christ took upon him the Person of Sinners, do per∣vert, deny and make the satisfaction of Christ imposible.

But the Presbyterians (in the Third Paper) expresly affirm and explain the satisfaction of Christ, omitting to mention these words, Christ took upon him the Person of Sinners; Therefore the Presbyterians do in the Third Paper, pervert, deny, and make the satisfaction of Christ impossible.

Upon this Argument, the true weight of the Re∣porters cause and charge doth hang; and if the Major be true, the Conseqence will be, that all the Churches of Christ in their Confessions pervert and deny, and make impossible the satisfaction of Christ. For to our Remembrance these words, Christ took on him the Per∣son of Sinners, are omitted in the Confessions of all the Churches; and we had much more Reason to omit them, when we knew for what End they are insisted on, by such as the Reporter.

Arg▪ 4. They impose a Sense in express Contra∣diction to the Letter, and General Scope of Mr. Wil∣liams's Book, that when he saith,

There is no Change of Persons between Christ and the Elect, It could not be in∣tended as a denial of a Change of Persons, between Christ and us in the General Sense, but only in oppo∣sition to his adversary he wrote against; for in that very place he expressly affirms, Christ suffered and dyed in our room and stead; for his words are as ex∣clusive of a Change of Persons in every Sense, as words can be, &c. p 37. to 41. Gospel Truth: first E∣dition.

Answ. 1. Mr. Williams no where saith, there is not a Change of Persons in the Plural Number, but of Per∣son Singular; yet the Paper as Subscribed made him to say the first; however, the Report doth change it now, nor is this a small mistake with him, when he takes a Change of Persons, to refer thus to intelligent beings, (Viz.) Christ dying in the Room of Condemned Sin∣ners, which he affirms: But a Change of Person to de∣note a Change, as to Office, Acts, Qualities, Adjuncts,

&c. Really inseparable, and peculiar to either Christ on the one part, or Men on the other; as is plain by all his Arguments against a Change of Person, p. 41.

There is no Change of Person between Christ and the Elect, for Christ was the Saviour; and never ceased to be so; we are the Saved and not the Saviours, Christ was the Redeemer, we the Redeemed and not the Re∣deemers: Christ was he who by his own merits forgives us, but never was forgiven; we are forgiven, and ne∣ver had merits of our own to forgive our selves, or others. It's profane Arrogance for us to pretend to his Prerogatives, and it's Blasphemy to debase him among them who were Enemies without strength and sinners, for whom he was the dying Sacrifice; it's enough that he reserving the peculiars of a Redeemer, should agree to dye for our sins; it is enough that we are pardoned for his sake, when we deserved endless woe, and are never capable of making the least Attonement.

Here you have all which Mr. Williams hath written against a Change of Person, wherein is not a word against Change of Persons, and it's evident, he took Change of Person in the afore-recited Sense.

Answ. 2. When he confutes the Sense wherein Dr. Crisp explains a Change of Person, he must in denying his Sense, deny it under that Phrase (Change of Per∣son) of which the Dr. gave that Sense:

Take then the Doctors words, Christ himself is not so Compleatly Righteous, but we are as Righteous as he; nor we so compleatly sinful, but Christ became as compleatly sin∣ful as we; that very sinfulness that we were Christ is made, that very sinfulness before God; so that here is a direct change, Christ takes our Person and Condi∣tion, we take Christs Person and Condition; with much of this sort, p. 38.

Here's the Change of Per∣son which Dr. Crisp affirms, this is the change Mr. Williams denies.

Answ. 3. Mr. W. is so far from denying a change of Per∣sons in the general Sense, that in that Book he oft asserts and proves what the Orthodox intend by that Phrase, yea, in the very places where he denies a change of Person. See p. 37.39.

Christs sufferings and obedi∣ence were so in our stead, that God cannot exact from us any other Atonement for Sin, p. 42. He thus ex∣plains the Imputation of Christs sufferings; to im∣pute to one, what is suffered by another, is to esteem the one undertaken for in the sufferings of the other, and to deal with him as if himself had suf∣fered the same things, p. 43. Had not Christ suffered for us, we could not have been absolved for the sake of his sufferings, p. 47. God hath provided for his Iustice and Honour (in saving true Christians) by the satisfaction of Christ, p. 247. The Punishment of our Sins, yea, the Guilt of them as an obligation to pun∣ishment was laid upon Christ our Sponsor.

See p. 79.13. What words can more distinctly and properly express the Orthodox Sense of a change of Persons?

Answ. 4. His Cavils, p. 9. against Mr. Williams, as not affirming the Sense of a change of Persons, tho he say, Christ suffered and dyed in our room and stead; are weak and individious for,

First, Mr. Williams when he had a fit occasion (as the Reporter knows) duely asserts Christs suretyship, and proves;

That Christ suffered not only for our good but in our stead, and that he was a proper 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, See this at large, Man made Righteous, p. 91 &c.

Secondly, The Racovian Catechism in the Amsterdam Edition (and not only Modern Socinians) affirm, Christ dyed in our stead; and Socinus, Crelliu•• and others, as∣serted a change of Persons between Christ and us, and the Sense in which the first take dying in our stead is as Metaphorical, and Improper, as the last do take a change of Persons in. But if our Reporter finds a Soci∣nian,

to use a Phrase explained in an ill Sense by them∣selves, and others make use of that Phrase in a contrary. Sense never so expressly, his way is presently to charge upon them the use of that Phrase in the Socinian Sense; the same dealings towards him were equally just, when he useth the Phrases the Antinomians are wont to do.

Thirdly, After all he hath said, to make the stress of our cause against the Socinians, to depend upon the Terms, change of Persons, &c. An insight into that Controversy would convince him, that there are o∣ther things which do fa•• more certainly define that Controversy about the satisfaction, (Viz.) Was Christ in his Death, an Expiatory Sacrifice? Did he make Atonement to the Justice of God? Did Christ endure the Punishment of our Sins? &c. All these Mr. Willi∣ams in Gospel Truth asserts. To what's repeated before out of that Book, we will add, p. 7.

Our sins were imputed to Christ with respect to the Guilt thereof, so that he by the Fathers appointment and his own consent became obliged as Mediator, to bear the Pun∣ishment of our Sins, and he did bear those Punish∣ments to the full satisfaction of Justice, and to our Actual Remission, when we believe.

If he that writes thus must Socinianize, none are free besides the Antinomian••. But what can be safely said in the Opi∣nion of the Reporter, who tells us, p. 10. It was a Ri∣diculing Dr. Crisp, when Mr. Williams shewing the ground of his mistakes saith, p. 52.

Because Christ suffered in our stead, that the Fruit of his sufferings might be our deliverance from suffering and our be∣ing saved at last, therefore he thinks there is a change of Person:

Which very words do evidence plainly, that Mr. Williams by, in our stead, allows the sound Sense of a change of Persons, while he opposeth Dr. Crisps Erroneous Sense of his change of Person; and that Mr. W. took a change of Person and a change of Per∣sons in a very different Sense; tho the Disputer or Reporter,

seem not to distinguish between a Surrogation, upon which an Innocent expiates anothers Crime, and his becoming the very sinning Criminal; or, to use his own Metaphor with him, He that is a surety to pay the Drunkards Debt, must in Quality, Nature and Condi∣tion be the Drunkard too.

Fourthly, Whatever the Reporter saith of the Scope, or offensiveness of that Book of Mr. William's, called, Gos∣pel Truth Stated; Those Brethren whom he calleth of biggest Name, who Subscribed the first Paper, have de∣clared they intended not by that Paper to censure the passages against which the Dissenters objected; but were so far from Condemning any Passage therein, that they Subscribed the first Paper, because they were sure, that upon enquiry it would appear, there was nothing in that Book of Mr. Williams's contrary to the Sense of that first Paper; and they still as well as formerly de∣clare, it is an useful Book, and that it's the ca••se of truth it pleads, and have given it under their hands that the State of Truth and Error is not at all enlarged or changed, since they first Subscribed, nor did they mean so in the first Paper; but only that there were in the Book, besides the State of Truth and Error, several Ex∣plications and Arguments added thereunto; nor indeed could the State of Truth and Error be enlarged or changed, because (as it is attested by several, even of those sixteen that were the first, who Subscribed to the first Edition) the Book as far as it contained the State of Truth and Error was Printed before they Subscribed the Attestation; nor do we know of any of the Subscri∣bers of that Attestation, who do dis-allow the said Book, nor any whose Names are affixed thereto without their consent—We shall conclude with these further remarks.

1. Besides the mis-representation of the points in difference, and of the Account given by us (in the Third Paper) of these Doctrines, &c. We could de∣tect great mistakes as to Matters of Fact▪ Some re∣fused

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

to Subscribe the first Paper, as Mr. Slater; some who say they never Subscribed it, as Mr. Barker, are yet set down as Subscribers; others are said to express their approbation of it, who vehemently declared their disallowance of it, as Dr. Annesley, &c. The Re∣porter saith, he cannot Learn, there are five Pastors of Churches Dissenting from it, when it's Notorious to Persons, more retired, that from the first about Twen∣ty Pastors of Churches Assented not; yea, we know not one of our Meeting who did Subscribe it, but were soon convinced that an Explication of it was needful, and therefore agreed to the Third Paper. Other mi∣stakes might be added.

2. It was unjust and disingenuous, for the Reporter to Publish this first Paper with the Names of our Bre∣thren affixed thereto. They, from a Zeal for Union, con∣descended to prepare a way for it by Subscribing, but then they declared they Subscribed not as their conclu∣sive Act, but agreed thereto upon condition the Meet∣ing of the United Ministers would approve of it, and to whom they did wholly refer it. Yet he publisheth it as a consummate Instrument (tho the Copy was neve deliver'd as such, and the Original not at all) and this without their conse••t, and after he knew they had laid it aside, and agreed to another Paper as the Instrument of Union. Such a course must Minister Jealousie, that the Reporter when Active in carrying on that Paper; did more design a breach among the United, than Uni∣on with the Dissenters, and that his disappointment produceth this report; when he saw our Union among our selves Consolidated of late, and that one of our Articles is to this effect, that we'll suffer none com∣monly called Lay-men, to Preach in our Pulpits.

3. The Reporter hath no reason▪ to glory in any of our Brethrens agreement with him in Doctrine, in any point wherein the first Paper differs from the third:

by which third Paper they supply what was wanting, and explain what was doubtfull in the first Paper, and determine their sense of those Doctrines: nor did they ever intend the weight of their Assertions should be laid upon any unscriptnrall words, but upon the or∣thodox sense of them, which our Paper stateth.

4. It's matter of grief to us, that in opposiition to the preface of both Papers, Law-terms and humane forms of speech, in Doctrines so fully expressed in the Gospel and capable of being expressed in the words used and appointed by the Holy Ghost, should be made Engines of Division among persons who agree in the sense of such phrases, and yet dare not say, that God designed to limit or extend his Revelations by what such terms may signify in humane Laws or Usages, especially when they need Explications and Limitations to prevent what's grosly erroneous; to instance, Christ took on him the person of Sinners; if it be taken in its extent, it will not only be true, that it was of all Sinners, but that he took upon him all that belonged to sinners as such, and he was to be reputed as sinfull as they, yea, as all of them: But the Churches of Christ have been wiser than to insert such phrases into their Confessions, knowing it would confound the Minds and perplex the Consciences of Christians in points of greatest concernment to their Salvation.

5. This report gives a pregnant instance what Zeal for a party will tempt Men to; even to misrepresent Persons and Things, to invent and applaud slight pre∣tences against Union with their Brethren, break all rules of Decency in praising or dispraising men, as their turn is served; raise endless noise and clamours, let the juncture be never so unseasonable; nay, cover and plead for the errors of their associates, which at other times they themselves have condemned.

There is occasion enough to invite our enlargement: but we design to irritate no man; the vindication of

our selves from a printed charge so severe (as the per∣verting, denying and making the satisfaction of Christ impossible) is so necessary, that all Men must justify our publishing this defence: Without a Narrative of matters of fact as to doctrines (for other things we omit) transacted with the Brethren who left the Union, our Apology had been dark and imperfect; otherwise we had mentioned nothing of that kind. It's this Re∣porter must bear the blame, that we are compell'd to say so much to convince the World, that if the Brethren had such a disposition to Peace, as we have all along expressed, the union had never been broken; after they had made a breach we had soon re united; and when a re-union was refused by them, we yet had lived in quietness, and prevented their heats, which have stumbled the well-meaning, and advantaged our ene∣mies, by producing such clamorous debates, and un∣just reflections and misrepresentations. We have not to our knowledge omitted any thing consistent with integrity to prevent our breaches, or to heal them. Another supplicatory Letter to the Brethren for Union was written in Reply to the discouraging Answer they had given to our former; being contented to repeat those self-denying Methods, which many would judge hardly meet or prudent. But this Report hath pre∣vented the sending of this Letter, which was delayed by the time taken up in confirming the Union among our selves. In this our Answer to the Report, we have for a reunion proposed to subscribe the very Phrases they insist on, provided their sense may be duly adjusted, and those plain Truths secured, upon which practicall Godliness and a true Gospel-ministry so much depend. By which proposall we hope many of our dissenting Brethren, who have been imposed on, will be so undeceived, as to reunite with us, and leave such to themselves who will still divide for the sake of such errors as these Brethren cannot approve, and

therefore will not for the strengthening of their hands be longer contented to bear the imputation of those Opinions, and contribute to the propagation of them; neither of which can be avoided, if they continue to be of a party with those who so publickly plead for those errors, and divide from us only for defending the opposite Truths. Their own observation will furnish them with many more Arguments at last to change their course, especially if they'll consider where it's like to end; it's already come to this pass, that with a stock of these errors, their ignorant Lay-men set up for the only Gospel-preachers, and are crouded after. Many of their own people are so infected as to decry themselves for Legalists, when they dare preach of any thing besides Believers priveledges, and the Priesthood of Christ; such things cannot but affect all them who mind the interest of Christ above their own; of which number we are perswaded many of the Dissenters be, and will approve themselves. We conclude unfeignedly praying, that the God of Peace will encrease all our Light and Love, that with a truly Christian Spirit we may joyntly serve the interest of our common Lord.

We shall add some Reflections on a Paper called, Re∣marks, &c. Which soon follow'd the Report; and too much resemble each other. But having already An∣swer'd what's most material, few further reflections will suffice: And we shall speak of the Authors as if but one Man.

First, It was needful to applaud the publishing his reported Paper, as refreshing to himself, p. 1. Because it's so offensive to all serious Persons; nor see we, how even he could be refreshed thereby, further than as he Glorieth in deceiving the simple, loves divisions, and hath a Prospect of attaining some mischievous purpose by our Breaches.

Secondly, These his Papers, instead of removing, do Proclaim and fix that reproach upon him and his adhe∣rents,

Viz. That they divide for dividing sake, and know not about what they differ, p. 6. for he assigneth their Di∣visions to one or two meer words or Law Terms, as to the Sillables and Letters, and not to the Sense, upon which they will not openly fix their disagreement. But if he would remove this reproach, let him plainly and honestly contend for their Errors which we oppose, and no longer deceive the world by impertinently nibbling at a few expressions, and from thence charging us with Opinions which, he is convinced, all of us abhor. Only he thinks it will be a greater reproach to Ac∣knowledge, they divide for such horrid Errors, than that they divide for dividing sake, and differ about they know not what; Custome and Nature being some excuse for both these.

Thirdly, The confidence of this remarker is more than ordinary, that p. 7.15. can tell the World, That the Points in Controversy are by his Paper made manifest. Which, he saith, is about a Change of Persons. Where∣as this change of Persons never was the whole, nor any part of the Controversy between us. Nota Part, For it is asserted expressly by all of us in the Third Pa∣per, assoon as it was objected to us, and the sound Sense of it affirmed in Mr. Williams's Book long before. Far less was this the whole of the Controversy; for tho' he Accounts the bottom in the first Paper to be gene∣rous, because our Bre••hren therein made so little Pro∣vision against the Crispian Errors, yet we must mind him these Errors gave rise to our differences, and the abettors thereof still refuse to give us satisfaction; yea, even as to the most pernicious of their Opinions.

Fourthly, Sure he is conscious, what we must think of him, when p. 7, 8, 9. He heaps so many words to shew that the Difference among us, concerning a Commutation of Persons, is not about trifles, or matters of lesser weight, but what's essential to salvation. He cannot blame us to ask. Is it the meer phrase, change of Persons, or the sound

••ense of that phrase, which he saith is the Corner-stone of Christs satisfaction, and what's so applauded by Iustin Martyr and Dr. E. &c. If it be the meer phrase, all the Churches of Christ are Condemned, because their Con∣fessions 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 ci∣ted 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 in∣stead 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. Wil∣liams.

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 Declarati∣on 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 Pub∣lished 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 ap∣plyed

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 Inti∣tles 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 Righte∣ousness had been applyed to the Justification of their Persons before God, long before they believed. This is all the Justification by Christs Righteousness as re∣ceived by Faith; but they were Pardoned and Entitu∣led 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 be∣lieve 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 Pa∣per contradicteth them not. 5. Tho the Paper saith, there is not such a Moral change whereby Christ be∣came 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 legal∣ly reputed to have made satisfaction our selves by obey∣ing 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 ab∣horred 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 Com∣placential 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 Vo∣luntary

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 per∣fectly in Christ, and therefore are themselves to yield no sort of obedience in order to any benefit, or pre∣venting of any punishment. Here's all the Zeal for the Law which they think enough to acquit them from An∣tinomians, 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 Limitations▪ Or in hopes of what future advances this agreement is to be con∣strued? They have reserved sufficient liberty to explain as occasion offers; and cannot deny the reader a leave to guess, especially when he seeth the Reporter alrea∣dy to differ so very much from our Brethren, in his ex∣plication of a Change of Persons, and other things contained in that Paper. 8. But yet further, as poor a defence against Antinomianism as the Paper is, if plain∣ly assented to; And as meer a nullity as the Subscrip∣tion is, there were several of the Congregational who refused to do even thus much; and refused to set their hands to this. Which the Reporter well knows, what∣ever Art he hath used to hear what they all have done.

May not we hope upon so plain evidence. That such of our Congregational Brethren as are not Antinomi∣ans, will be convinced, it's necessary to do yet more for their Vindication than thus signing this Paper; seeing that, not only they, who are far from being tainted with

this Poison, but they who are most infected may safely Sub∣scribe as it requires, and they have done, who in the ad∣justing of this Paper could not be brought to grant, that Regeneration is necessary to bring us into a good State.

6. Notwithstanding his Complement to a few Subscribers, p. 12, 13, 15. The Presbyterians need not subscribe the first Paper to acquit them from the Socini∣an slander, that they are Arminians: No, nor yet from the Reporters slander, that they are Socinians.

They have done it more effectually in the published agreement in Doctrine, 1692. They have done it yet more in the Articles 1694. Which had been also pub∣lished, if these Dissenters could have cleared them∣selves of Antinomianism, as the Presbyterians did of Ar∣minianism. Yea, they have done it as fully by the Third Paper as can be by the First: That retains the same words in the Head of Justification, and in all the rest, as far as they oppose Arminianism. Nay, do not we and Mr. Williams Book, assert Christs sufferings to be a punishment in satisfaction to punitive Justice? which the remarker, p. 14.15. declares to be the distin∣guishing point; are not our words, Christ came into our room and stead to dye, to answer for our violations of the Law of Works, and that the punishment of our sins were in∣flicted on Christ, that God might without injury to his Iu∣stice or Honour, Pardon Sinn••rs for his satisfaction? What a slanderous Spirit Acteth this Man, that makes Christs satisfaction to punitive Justice, to be that which distinguisheth the Arminians and Socinians from the Or∣thodox? And yet ranketh us among the former, tho he knows all of us assented to the Third Paper, which affirmeth Christs sufferings were a satisfaction to pu∣nitive Justice.

7. But how long will this Man acquit any of the Pres∣byterians, from the slander of being Arminians and Soci∣nians too? He is sure, the World will soon know that even they of our Brethren, who Subscribed the first

Paper, have several of them framed, and the others as∣sented to the Third Paper, as an Explication of their Sense of the ••••rs••. The Reporter saith, the Third Pa∣per perverts and denies the ••a••isfaction of Christ, in the Ac••ount given of a Change of Persons; If so, he must Account these Brethren hereafter no other than Armi∣nians and Socinians in common with the rest of us; per∣haps he'll Pro••laim them Apostates too, for not adhe∣ring to the First ••aper, in opposition to the ••hird. And he is too well known for us to doubt that when it serves his turn, no Presbyterian shall be sound in the Faith, be∣cause he is not a Crispian in Doctrine.

8. All his artifice, p. 15, 16. hath not, nor ever can reduce the controversy among us into a narrower Room than this. Is Repentance required by the Gospel, in order to the Forgiveness of Sin? and Faith in Christ in order to the Justification of our Persons before God. Unless he'll reduce it to this, Is any Duty on Mans part required by the Gospel in order to his obtaining any saving benefit, or any kind of sin, a bar to his Title to any such benefits by the Gospel constitution? here's the Controversy, and the Third Paper is refused because it is express, for the affirmative beyond the first.

9. We are sorry we have so much Reason to fear, that if this pretended point of a Change of Persons, were Accommodated to the Crispians liking, Mr. Lob would find some occasion to continue our heats and di∣visions, wherein he had the greatest Hand under the Name of a Pacificator, as soon as other Agents became a little quiet. What de••ign he proposeth, or some o∣thers by him, if detrimental to the Common Good, we hope, God will disappoint it, and at last favour such who may be repairers of our breach, and restor∣ers of Paths to dwell in.

Reader, Note that our Answer comes out so late, because the Reporter Published his Paper, when he knew our Meetings were laid down, and that we were not to come together till September.

The Report and Answer make mention of a second Paper, which to render the whole matter more plain, is here annexed, with the Occasion of it.

Septemb. 7. 1696. At a meeting of the United Mini∣sters, Mr. Williams spake to this effect:

Mr. Mode∣rator, I hear by some persons, that since our recess, there is a disposition in some of the Congregational Brethren to Peace, if not to Re-union: And that the only pretended obstacle is the want of satisfacti∣on concerning the Orthodoxness of all of us in the Points of Iustification, Commutation of Persons, and the Fathers displeasure with Christ. For their dissatis∣faction, they instance somewhat out of my Book as a denial of a Commutation of Persons, and insinuate as if the other two were not duly asserted. All proposals for Re-union should begin with this Board, nor ought particular Members conclude them∣selves in a matter of this kind till you are consulted. But though, I confess, I know not what can be justly offered, which we have not done already, and all that concerns my Book is long since adjusted; yet that nothing may seem wanting on our part to promote Peace, I would not lose the advantage of their present inclination to it. And being that only my Book is objected against, I have drawn up in this Paper the Heads of a Proposal, to be sent to P. Hall, which I submit to the Judgment of this Board.

That called the Second Paper.

The Preface is made up of what's Cited p. 4. out of the Agreement 1692; and what is in the Preface of the first and third Papers. The Three Doctrinals are in these words. We declare,

1. Of Iustification, As the Gospel plainly requi∣reth Repentance towards God in order to a Sinner's partaking of the Remission of sins, and Faith in our Lord Jesus in order to Justification, and a godly Con∣versation in order to eternal Glory, promising Justi∣fication

and Forgiveness of Sin to all penitent Believers, and eternal Li••e to such as 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 Righ∣teous 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 Be∣lievers 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 impu∣ted 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 of∣fer'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 pro∣posed 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 far∣ther 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 Sub∣scribers 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 op∣pose our Congregational Brethren as such, or to divide from them.

This Paper was read and received; but Mr. W. de∣sired 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, al∣tho 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 An∣swer 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 Diffe∣rence 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 express∣ly affirm and irre••ragably prove it with the common senti∣ment of Protestants, and that the Doctrines of Iustification and Christs satisfaction, cannot be duely Explained and De∣fended 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 from Socinianism,

according to the sence in which they are understood.

2. Such a Change of Persons as supposes One to be substituted in the Place of others to become an Attone∣ment for the•• in order to their Redemption and Deli∣verance. And when such a substitution is by the Will of God and Consent of the Person who suffers; here is a Real Change of Persons as to that Particular End with is designed by it. And in this sense I did Assert a Change of Persons between Christ and us, because by the will of the Father and his own Consent, he became a Sacrifice of Propitiation for our Sins in order to their Remission, and our Recontiliation with God on such Terms as are declared in the Gospel; as may be seen at large in the Discourse already mentioned, particular∣ly ch. 4. §. 4

3. Such a Change of Persons as implies an Actual Tra••••lation of the Personal guilt of all the Sins of Be∣lievers on Christ, and his Personal Righteousness on them, without Regard to any Conditions on their Part, but meerly by the free Grace and favour of God. And this I take to be Dr. Crisp's sence of the Change of Per∣sons; of which I shall discourse when I come to the last Question.

But the Authors of the first Paper and of the Report, p. 4. seem to take it for granted that there can be but One Sense of Commutation of Persons; wherein they do not discover their profound Knowledge in these Matters, if they thought so; or their Ingenuity, if they knew otherwise, and designed to impose upon those who did not. For it appears that there is a Sense i•• which it may and ought to be denied, with∣out the least Prejudice to the Doctrine of Christ's satis∣faction. Although that cannot be Explained or Defended without some kind of Commutation of Persons; yet it very well may and ought to be Defended without and against Dr. Crisps sense of it, as will be made appear afterwards.

The Author of the Report, p. 5. saith, this is the very Hinge on which the Controversy between the Orthodox and Socinian doth turn; which shews him to be not very deep∣ly skilled in it; for the Hinge of the Controversy is not about the Words, but the sense of Commutation of Per∣sons: and even the sense is not the Original Contro∣versy, but Consequential, upon our Asserting Christs Sacrifice to be a Propitiation for our Sins; for upon this they ask how the Act of one Person can be so Benificial to others? and to that we Answer, that altho One Man's Act cannot become anothers, yet if by Consent both of the Father and Son, he becomes our Mediatour, and suffers in our stead, in order to our Reconciliation, then as to that End and Purpose, here is a Change of Persons: for whereas in strictness we ought to have suf∣fered the Desert of our own Sins, God was pleased to Accept of his suffering instead of ours, and so by vir∣tue of that Propitiation we hope for the Remission of Sins and the Favour of God, according to the Terms of the Gospel. And therein consists the true Controversy between the Socinians and us: viz. whether the suffer∣ings of Christ were to be Considered as a Punishment for our Sins, and as a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for them; o•• only as an Act of Dominion over an Innocent Person in order to his Advancement to glory.

But it is said in the ••eport▪ p 5. that if there be no Change of Persons between Christ and us, there can be no Translation o•• the Guilt, nor a just infliction of the Punish∣ment of our Sins on Christ; that is, there can be no prope•• Satisfaction.

To this I answer, that there is a twofold Translati∣on of Guilt to be Considered.

1. Of the Personal Guilt, which Results from the Acts of sin committed by such Persons. If this guilt be translated, Christ must become the very Person who committed the sins; and so he must be looked on not only as an Actual Sinner, but as the Person that Com∣mitted

all the Sins of those for whom he died: which comes so near to horrid Blasphemy, that I wonder Per∣sons that bear any Reverence to our Blessed Saviour do not abhorr ••he very thoughts of it.

2. Of Legal Guilt, which lies in the Obligation to Punishment, by virtue of the Sanction of the Divine Law. Now this Guilt implies two things;

• 1. The Desert of Punishment which follows Person∣nal guilt, and cannot be transferred by a Change of Persons; For no man can cease to deserve Punishment for his own faults; nor deserve that another should be punished for them.
• 2. The Obligation to undergo the deserved Pu∣nishment, but because the Execution of Punishment depends both on the Wisdom and Justice of the Legislatour; therefore here a Change of Persons may intervene, and by the wisdom and Justice of God a Mediatour may be Accepted in such a Manner as him∣self determines, and upon the Acceptante of his Sacrifice the Offenders may be Pardon'd and Received into the Grace and Favour of God, on such Terms as he hath declared in the Gospel. And in this sense the guilt of our Sins was charged upon Christ as our Mediatour, who was to bear the Punishment of our sins; so as by virtue of his sufferings, we may not only hope to escape the Just Punishment of our Offences, but to be Admit∣ted into the Privileges of the Children of God.

But the Reporter out of a certain Manuscript gives another Account of Commutation of Persons, viz. that Commutation in a legal sense is the same with a proper sur∣rogation, where the surety puts on the Person, and stands in the Quality, state and condition of the Debtor, and lies un∣der the same Obligation to answer for him.

But this I have shewed long since to be a very wrong Notion of Christs Satisfaction; and which in Effect gives up the Cause to the Socinians: For if sins be con∣sidered as Debts, God may freely forgive them (with∣out

disparagement to his Wisdom and Justice) with∣out any Satisfaction: and the Right of Punishment then depends on God•• Absolute Dominion; and Satisfaction must be by way of Compensation; of whiah I have treated at large, Ch. 1. §. 2. ul••. But I cannot but won∣der at the learned Author of the M. S. that he doth at the same time assert our sins to be considered as Debts, and the Necessity of Vindictive Iustice: For, what vindi∣ctive justice belongs to a Creditor? May not a Creditor part with his own Right, and forgive what and whom he pleases, without any violation of Justice? I can hardly think, that those who write so rudely and inconsistently, ever penetrated into these Matters in their own thoughts; but only take up with a sett of Phrases and Common Expressions among those they Converse with, which they look on as the standard and Measure of Truth about these Matters.

But he finds fault with some men who hold that Christ only suffered in the Pe••son of a Mediatour, and not in the Person of Sinners. What is the Meaning of this? I had thought, that a Mediatour interposing for that end, that by his sufferings there might be a Propitiation for sins, did so far sustain the Person of Sinners, as to take upon himself the Punishment of their sins, and Procure Grace and Favour for them. But if he means any thing beyond this, he must Explain himself. Christ suffered in the Person of Sinners. Is it that he suffered that others might not suffer? That is not denied by those who say that Christ suffered in the Person of a Me∣diatour. For a Mediatour is a Publick Person, and Acts in the stead and on the behalf of others; and if this be called sustaining the Person of Sinners, I suppose they will not quarrel with the Expression. But if more be meant by it, viz. that the Personal Guilt of sinners, in Dr. Cris••s sense, is transferred upon Christ, that they have to deny; as I hope to make it appear in Answer to the third Question.

The 2d Question is, whether the Author of Gospel Truth stated, viz. Mr. Williams be chargeable with Socinianism, in what he said, p. 37.40?

The charge stands thus in the Report, p. 4. that he saith, there is no Change of Persons between Christ and Sin∣ners: which is there said to be inconsistent with the Do∣ctrine of Christ's Satisfaction; which must suppose a Commu∣tation of Persons. ••nd therefore he that denies any Change, cannot assert the Doctrine of Satisfaction.

This is the force of the Objection. And being desired to give my Opinion of it, I examin'd and com∣pared several passages in that Book, that I might judge truely and impartially concerning it. And I found the Author, p. 3. saying concerning the Difference with Dr. Crisp, that it was not whether Christ had made full At∣tonement for sin; which he thereby owned to be his sense. And p. 7. more fully he owns that our sins were imputed to Christ with Respect to the Guilt thereof, so that he by the Fathers appointment, and his own Consent, became obliged as Mediatour to bear the Punishments to the full satisfaction of Iustice and to our actual Remission when we believe. Can any thing be more clear and express against Socinianism than this? There are other passages, p. 10.19.28. &c. to the same purpose, but these are sufficient to shew, that he could not absolutely deny any Com∣mutation of Persous

But in what Words doth he deny it? For it is pos∣sible there may be such Words used as may Restrain and limit the sense; and then it is very hard to force such a sense upon them, as is inconsistent with what he had said before, for no man Loves to Contradict himself; especially, when he knows what advantage will be taken by it. The words are these, p. 40 The difference lies in these points. 1. Whether there be a change of Person between Christ and the Elect? Yea, or betwi••t Christ and Believers. This the Doctor affirms, and I de∣ny. How can any Persons, in common Ingennity, un∣derstand

this otherwise, than that he deni••d such Change of Persons as Dr. Crisp affirmed? But against this it is urged by the Author of the MS. in the Re∣port, p. 81. that his Denial of a Change of Persons, is so Express and ••ull▪ as leaves no room for any distinction, limitation or Restriction, or for an owning it in any sense. What! not in the sense that himself had owned it in before? This is very hard; especially when he mentions what the Doctor affirmed ••nd he denied▪ There is a very good passage to this purpose in the first Paper, mentioned in the Report, p. 12. Not thinking it Reasonable or just to charge upon any Brother such Conse∣quences of any Expression or Opinion of his, which he him∣self shall disown. Why then should such a sense be charged upon him, which he disowns at the same time? There must be something farther in this Matter, than appears to an Indifferent and Impartial Reader; what it is, is no Part of my business to enquire.

But that which must give the best Light into it, will be the Resolution of the last Question.

The 3d Question is, concerning Dr. Crisp's Sense of the Change of Persons, whether it be true or false? Which, I s••ppose, is truly set down by the Author of the Gospel-Truth stated; in these words, p. 38. Mark 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 sinful as we; Nay, more, we are the same righteousness; for we are made the righteousness of God; that very sinfulness that we were, Christ is made that very sinfulness before God. So that here is a direct Change, Christ takes our Person and Condi∣tion, and stands in our stead, and we take Christ's Person, and stand in his stead.

Here is indeed a Change of Persons supposed, but I do not find it proved; and therefore is only to be look'd on as an Imaginary Change, which it is possible for Men to fancy; but that is no Ground to build a

Matter of Faith upon; and such as the Salvation of their Souls is so nearly concerned in. But to deliver my Opinion freely and distinctly about it, I shall shew,

• 1. That it hath no Foundation in Scripture.
• 2. That it is contrary to the Tenour of it, and the Terms of Salvation contained in the Gospel.
• 3. That it is attended with very bad Consequences, which naturally follow from it.

1. That it hath no Foundation in Scripture For which I desire it may be considered, that our blessed Saviour himself in all his Preaching, who came to Re∣veal the Will of God to Mankind, saith nothing at all of it: and can any possibly think that he would o∣mit such a Point, wherein, I perceive, some do think the Substance of the Gospel is conta••ned? All that our Saviour saith to this purpose, is, That he came to give his Life a Ransom for many, Mat. 20.28. and that his Blood was shed for many for the Remission of sins, Mat. 26.28. What other Change of Persons is herein im∣plied, but that of a Ransom, and a Sacrifice of Propiti∣ation? He that knew best for what End he suffered, saith not one word of his taking upon himself the Per∣son of sinners, in any other sense than as he suffered in their stead, and for their advantage. Here is nothing like his being as compleatly sinful as we; and our being made as righteous as he. And yet certainly he com∣municated to his Disciples those Points on which their Justification and Salvation depended. But how could they apprehend any such Change of Persons in this sense, from any words used by himself to them? And all necessary Points of Faith were deliver'd by our Sa∣viour to his Disciples: And therefore to make such a Change of Persons necessary, and yet not mention'd by him, is to charge him with failing in his Propheti∣cal Office, which all those ought to consider, who lay such stress upon this Matter.

But doth not St. Paul say, that God hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him? 2 Cor. 5.21. I grant he doth so. But do not these words imply such a Change of Persons as Dr. Crisp asserts? By no means, Which I thus prove: Dr. Crisp's Notion of the Change of Per∣sons, supposes the Benefits of this Change to be ante∣cedent to any Conditions on our side, viz. that it was by a Transaction between the Father and the Son, without Regard to any Act of ours: But when the A∣postle speaks of Christ's being made sin for us, and our being made the righteousness of God in him; he supposes, that before we can have the Benefit of it, we must be first Reconciled to God, which is an Act on our Part. For to this purpose he saith, v. 18, 19. that after the Reconciliation made by Christ at his Death, he had gi∣ven to the Apostles the Ministry of Reconciliation. To what purpose? Was it only to let them know what Christ had already done for Mankind? That were to set up a Ministry of Consolation for Believers; but not of Reconciliation. But the Apostle lays great force up∣on it, that God had committed to them the Word of Recon∣ciliation. Now then, saith he, we are Ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God, v. 20. They were by this Ministry of Reconciliation, after what Christ had done and suffered, prayed; and with great earnestness, to be Recon••iled to God? To what End? If according to this Change of Persons, they were more than Reconciled to God already, if they were true Belie∣vers; for they were as righteous as Christ himself, and therefore must be in the Grace and Favour of God. If they were not Believers, then, according to this Scheme of the Change of Persons, they could have no Benefit by it; and consequently, this Ministry of Re∣conciliation, is wholly subverted, as to the great Pur∣pose and Design of it. For either they were Recon∣ciled

already, or they never could be. And yet the Apostle, after those words, v. 21. immediately sub∣joyns Ch. 6.1. We then as Workers together with him, be∣seech you also, that ye receive not the Grace of God in vain. What can the meaning of these Words be, if Dr. Crisp's Sense of the Change of Persons hold good? Can they who are compleatly righteous, ever receive the Grace of God in vain? And to what purpose doth he speak of their working together with God, and beseeching them not to do a thi••g utterly impossible? For it would be to undo what had long since been done be∣tween the Father and the Son in the Change of Persons. So that this Notion of the Change of Persons is as dif∣ferent from St. Pauls, as may be; for that supposes no conditions on our side; and the Ministry of Reconcilia∣tion in St. Paul, is wholly founded upon it, and really sig∣nifies nothing, as to the Ends he proposes without it. For to what purpose is that appointed to perswade Men to be Reconciled to God, if all that ever shall be admitted to Heaven were long since Reconciled at the Death of Christ, and they were made as compleatly Righteous as Christ himself?

It may be said, That the Ministry of Reconciliation is not useless, because it is the means whereby God doth ••ffectu∣ally convey his Grace into the Hearts of Believers. But this cannot satisfy any one that considers St. Pauls Ex∣pressions: For his Words are, We pray you in Christs stead, be ye Reconciled to God. If he had said, That God had made Christ to be sin for you already, and you as Righteous as Christ was; How would it have looked to have said after this, We pray you to be Reconciled to God? For, what need they any Reconciliation, who were alrea∣dy so much in his favour?

But is there no Change of Persons then implied in those Words of St. Paul; Who made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him? Yes certainly. Such a Change, whereby Christ

did undergo the Punishments of our sins; and so Erasmus observes, that Christ is not called a sinner here, as Dr. Crisp would have it, but sin; i. e. a Sacrifice for sin, accor∣ding to the Scripture sense: And we are made the Righte∣ousness of God in him, i. e. That God upon the Account of his Sacrifice, and our Reconciliation to him, would treat us as Righteous Persons; or receive us into his Grace and Favour; which is all that I can find that St. Paul understood by this Expression.

2. I am now to shew, that this Notion of the Change of Persons, which Dr. Crisp asserts, is contrary to the whole Tenour of the Scripture, and the Terms of Sal∣vation contained in the Gospel. I am sensible how large a Field I am enter'd upon: And if I should pur∣sue this matter as it deserves, it would take up much more room than I can allow to this Answer. I could easily prove that in all the Transactions between God and Mankind, some Conditions on our side were re∣quired in order to his Favour. So it was in the State of Innocency; So it continued after Mans Fall, as ap∣pears by those Remarkable Words of God to Cain; If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the Door, Gen. 4.7. So it was in Gods dealing with the Patriarchs, and the most excellent Persons in the Old Testament, Abraham, Moses, Da∣vid, Iob, &c. But I pass over these, (altho' I suppose they will not be denied to have been of the Elect, and to have had the Benefit of Christs Righteousness as well as Christians) and come to the Terms of Salvation, as declared by Christ himself. Let any one seriously per∣use the Doctrine which he Preached from the time, when he began to Preach and to say, Repent, for the King∣dom of Heaven is at Hand, Mat. 4.17. And he shall find the main business of his Preaching was to put Men upon performing such Conditions, as were neces∣sary to their Salvation: And for that Reason. As may be seen in his Sermon on the Mount, in which he

begins with promising Blessedness to the Humble, Mer∣ciful, Pure in Heart, Mat. 5.3, 4. &c. What do these things mean, if they be not Conditions on our Parts necessary in order to Happiness? And that they are considered by God as such? Why doth he say, Except your Righteousness exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no Case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 5. if such a Righteousness, be not a Condition required in order to such Entrance? And if it be, no Change of Persons without inward and re∣al Righteousness can be sufficient. Our Saviour doth not speak of what will be Eventually in some Persons, but of what is required to be done in order to an End. And therefore he concludes his Sermon with saying, Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doth them, I will liken him to a wise Man, who built his House upon a ••ock, &c. Mat. 7.24. Not he that believes that he is one of those who is made Compleatly Righteous by a Change of Persons, without any Change of Temper or Disposition of Mind: He never promises the least De∣gree of Happiness to such; but still insists on our own Endeavours, By striving to enter in at the straight Gate, which St. Paul Calls, working out our own Salvation with Fear and Trembling, and St. Peter, giving all Diligence to make our Calling and Election sure. For, saith he, If ye do these things ye shall never Fall.

Do not these Expressions Note the necessity of the Performance of Conditions on our side? And there∣fore all Imaginary Notions of such a Change of Persons, as hath no Regard to any Acts of ours, is wholly Re∣pugnant to the main Scope and Design of the Gospel. I meddle not with the dispute about the Mortal Law, which must continue to oblige us as long as the Rea∣son of it continues; but the main Argument to me is from the Gospel, as it is delivered by Christ and his Apostles, who certainly understood the Substance and Design of it far better than Dr. Crisp, or the Reporter

doth. What was Transacted between the Father and the Son, we know no more than they have Revealed to us; and we know they had no Design to Impose upon Mankind, by laying so much weight upon such Condi∣tions as God had no Regard to; and by Concealing from them such a Change of Persons as made them Com∣pleatly Righteous without any Act of theirs. Men could never be Reconciled to the just Veneration and Esteem we have of the Sacred Penmen of the Scriptures, nor to their Knowledge of the Mysteries of the Gospel, nor to their Fidelity in declaring them for the Good of Mankind. So that if we find nothing of this Change of Persons in their Writings, and so much as is utterly inconsistent with it, we have all the Reason in the World to Reject it.

This Notion of the Change of Persons is attended with very bad Consequences. Which I do not charge on those who do not see them, or are carrried by some higher Principles above them; but we are not to Judge of Persons but of Things, and the Natural Tendency of Principles.

And so the Change of Persons in this Sense hath these very had Consequences: That it is apt to Lessen our Reverence of the Divine Perfections; our just Sense of the Differences of Good and Evil; Our Obligations to all sorts of Duties; It tends to the Disparagement of that Free Grace they pretend to Exalt; and Exposes the Gospel to the Reproach and Contempt of Infidels, and leaves the Minds of those who embrace it, under Great Temptations to Presumption.

These things I can only mention, because you des••r∣ed a short Answer to your Questions, and I have brought it into as narrow a Compass as I could.

I am Sir, Your Faithful Friend and Servant, ED. WIGORN.

Nov. 10. 97.

The Learued Doctor Edwards's Answer to the same Three Questions; in a Letter to Mr. Williams; occasioned by Mr. Lob's Remarks. Wherein he pretends the Doctor's Preservative against Socinianism, condemns Mr. Williams's Iudgment concerning a change of Persons.

SIR,

I Have perused the Passages which you refer to, (viz. Gospel-Truth stated, p. 37, 40. the places objected among the rest) besides severel other parts of your Books, though I have not as yet had Leisure sufficient to read them over; However I have read enough to know your Opinion, and to un∣derstand how you state the Matter in debate between you and your Antinomian Adversaries; and thereby am sufficiently instructed to answer your Queries To the First therefore I say, That when speaking of the Sufferings of our Saviour, I assert, as other Divines usually do, a Permutation of Persons: I mean no more than what you affirm; viz. That Christ not only died for the good, but likewise vice, or loco peccato∣rum, in the room and place of Sinners. But whe•• we assert an Exchange, or Permutation of Persons, this must always be understood under such Restrictions and Limitations as may help us to avoid those two Dan∣gerous Errors which the Antinomians have Fallen into. And therefore, First, We must affirm, we mean no more thereby then an obligation to Punishment, which he no otherwise Contracted then by his own Free and Voluntary consent and undertaking, to undergo that Punishment which the Law threatned, and our Sins de∣served, Viz. Death. But this must by no means be so far misconstrued, as to imagine that thereby the Filth

and Turpitude of our sins were Transferred upon him: For tho in the former Sense, he is said to be made sin for us; yet in the latter he still continued Holy, Harmless, Undefiled, separate from Sinners, and at an Eternal distance from them. Neither, Se∣condly, Must this Permutation be extended so far as to imply a Reciprocal Exchange of Persons, Viz. Of us Sinners, into the Room and Place of Christ; As if God did look upon us as doing all that Christ did, and consequently, that we do Merit Pardon, attone Justice, compleatly satisfy and fulfill the Law, so that we are actually discharged from Punishment without more ado. No, we continue still under the sentence of the Law, Notwithstanding all that Christ did to free us from it, till we perform those Conditions upon which the application of Pardon is suspended. The immediate therefore Effect and Consequence of the Permutation which we are speaking of, is only this, that Christ by dying in our room, had so far recon∣ciled us to his Father, as that he is willing to Pardon and admit us to his favour, provided that we on our Parts perform the Conditions of the New Covenant, Viz. Repentance and Faith. For tho Christ by dying for us hath merited our Pardon, yet it still continues so far in his own Power, as that he will not dispose of it, but upon such Terms as have been agreed upon be∣tween him and his Father; which indeed are no other then such, as without which we are neither capable of Pardon, nor can God in Honour bestow it upon us. To apply Pardon to a Sinner while he continues in his obstinacy and impenitence, is not only contrary to the Holyness of God, but inconsistent with his wisdom, and destructive of his Authority and Government. And therefore the Graces before mentioned must be looked upon by us, to be both the necessary Parts of e∣very Christians Duty, and the indispensible conditions of his Happyness. (In another Letter) I intend no

more by an Exchange of Persons, than what you have affirmed in your Writings. As to your Second Query, I Judge those Assertions and Acknowledgments fre∣quently made by you in your Books concerning the sufferings of Christ, and the satisfaction thereby made to the Justice of God for the Sins of Men, do fully ac∣quit you from giving any Countenance to the Errors of Socinus in that point. (In another Letter) you have very rightly, and in an Orthodox manner Stated the Doctrine of Christs satisfaction: And it is in perfect agreement with the Doctrine of our own and all the reformed Churches, and therefore fully acquits you from the Imputation of Socinianism. Thirdly, As to the Doctrine of Dr. Crisp and others of that Sect, who affirm such a Permutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners; as if to all intents and purposes, they were to be looked upon in the Room and Place of each other; So that Christ is to be Accounted the Swearer, Drunkard, Blasphemer on one Hand, and the Sinner to be perfectly Righteous on the other; I cannot but look upon it to be not only false, absurd, impossible, but likewise an Impious and Blasphemous Opinion; as be∣ing highly Dishonourable to our Saviour, repugnant to the Wisdom and Justice of God, and tends plainly to subvert the whole design of Christianity; which is hereby exposed to the just and unanswerable Reproa∣ches of its Adversaries, which can never be wiped off, if the Opinion be true. I would say a great deal more upon this occasion, if it were necessary, but what I have thus briefly suggested, may I suppose be sufficient for your present purpose. And if you think that what I have wrote may be any way Serviceable to the common cause of our Holy Religion, I give you leave to make what use you think fit of it; and in the mean time remain

Sir, Your assured Servant, Jonathan Edwards▪

Iesus Coll. Oxon. Oct. 28. 97.

I had not given this trouble to these Great Men; But that Mr. Lob makes frequent use of their Testi∣mony against my Judgment, in favour of them whom I oppose. And being no Authors better understand, and more effectually oppose Socinianism, I was sure their Vindication of me would be past exception, and therefore made bold to propose to them, whether they intended more by a Commutation of Persons than I did affirm in my Books (which I sent them.) Secondly, Whether I was by the Passages excepted against in my Book (by the First Paper and Mr. Lob) chargeable with Socinianism. Thirdly, What their Judgment was concerning that Change of Persons which I oppose, and Dr. Crisp and others of that Sect affirm. To these Questions they were pleased to send these Answers, with a Permission to Print them. I think, every Man will conclude from what they say, that they Account our Holy Religion is struck at by what Errors I oppose; and that Mr. Lob doth wrest their Books when he cites them in Confutation of what I affirm. I might have added another Letter of this R. R. Bishop to the same effect, and wherein he proves that God was not displeased with Christ: And also of the said Reverend Doctor Edwards. But these published abundantly suffice.