Defense of the Report, Part 1 – Part 2
I. Of Matters of Fact.
Faithful Rebuke.
THE Reporter hath miſerably Impoſed upon you in Matter of Fact, and — 1. One Specimen of his Honeſty, you ſhall meet with at the Entrance of his Paper — And thus in a Pompous Stile, He Breaks into the Buſineſs after Sundry attempts made by the Induſtrious Pa…ficators, an Inſtrument was pi…ch'd upon, which gave ſatisfaction to the moſt Learned of both Parties: This Paper was ſent by ſix, or ſeven of the Biggeſt Name among them, who do, or at leaſt have gone under the Denomination of P…esbyterians, unto ſome Congregational Brethren, and gladly Embraced by them, p. 12.
Reply.
This is one part of the Charge of Falſhood againſt the Report, and yet there is not One Word mentioned in this Place, but what is True. For, (1.) After ſundry Attempts, an Inſtrument was Pitch'd upon, which you have in the cloſe of the Report. (2.) This was ſent unto the Congregational Brethren, by ſix or ſeven of the Biggeſt name among the Presbyterians, of which number Mr. Alſop was one, as the Brethren to whom it was ſent can, and they by whom it was ſent muſt Teſtifie. (3.) That it was ſent by ſome of the Biggeſt Name, is manifeſt, for the Hands of Dr. Bates and Mr. Howe are to the Letter, by which it was tranſmitted to the Congregational. (4.) That this Paper was gladly received by the Congregational; their own Subſcription doth Evince. (5.) That it gave ſatisfaction to the moſt Learned of both Parties, it is but to read over the Names of them who ſubſcribed it, and it will be found moſt True. (6.) That Mr. Mather's, and Mr. Cole's hands were not ſet to this Paper, was not, becauſe they Approved not of the Doctrines therein contained, for they both in the Hearing of many declared their Approval, tho' for ſome other Reaſons declined Subſcription.
Where then is the Falſhood? No where but in my Brothers own Imaginations; who adds,
Faithful Rebuke.
Now Sir do you not Judge, that this Inſtrument — had Redintegrated the violated Union — That all Diſtances were removed — That they were all now got together again at Little St. Hillens? I aſſure you Sir, not a word of this was true. p. 13.
Reply.
No Sir, we had no reaſon to Judge thus, but the quite contrary, for there was not a word of this in the Report, where it's expreſly affirmed, (1.) That when matters were brought to this Head [as above] nothing but a Re-union, and a general Amneſty was in Proſpect. It was you ſee but in Proſpect, not come to an Accompliſhment; And, 'tis added, (2.) That this Re-union had enſued, had it no… been for two or three Oppoſers, ſo that, unleſs the Oppoſition made unto the Healing Inſtrument; and the laying it by, doth ſignifie, that this Inſtrument had Redintegrated the violated Union, and brought all of 'em together again to Little St. Hellens, there is not there cannot be the leaſt Pretence for the charge of Falſhood. And whether theſe Expreſſions ſignifie what is moſt contrary to their genuine meaning, I ſubmit it to my Brother's more ſober Thoughts, and in the mean time will take it for granted, That there is nothing Falſe in this part of the Report, and paſs on to his ſecond Inſtance.
Faithful Rebuke.
2. A ſecond Inſtance of the Reporters regard to Truth, where you will eaſily obſerve how by a Wretched Sen…chdoche, he has given you a part for the whole of a Juſt Narrative. p. 14.
Reply.
1. The Reporter never Pretended to give a Narrative of the whole: He knew that the doing ſo would rather widen than cloſe the wound; and therefore, it being his Deſign, whilſt he gave an account of what was done towards the making up the Breach, and where the laſt Stop was, to Soften and Prepare the Minds of the Brethren for Peace, He Induſtriouſly wav'd, as any one might perceive, the giving a Full Narrative of the whole: and in the Title Page, He Declared, That his Report was of the Preſent State, and therefore, not of what had paſſed ſome years ago. How then can any, conſiſtently with Truth, ſay, that by a Wretched Senechdoche, He hath given you a part for the whole of a Juſt Narrative?
2. A Deſire to Accommodate matters ſo far as poſſible, upon the Bottom of Truth, lyeth ſo much upon his Heart, that he doth foreign fixedly Reſolve againſt what is likely to Exaſperate. And therefore tho' this Brother hath given ſuch a Partial and Ʋntrue Hiſtory of the whole, Relating to the Diviſion, as cannot be Detected without Publiſhing what we ought (I think) mournfully to cover. He Obligeth me at leaſt for the Preſent, to conceal ſuch Particulars, as much as ſincere Affection to the Truths of Chriſt's Goſpel will allow; which I am the rather inclined to do, becauſe I find, that when the Report did ſo calmly give but a few Intimations about what had been done for Peace, what Advances had been made towards it by divers of the moſt Eminent of each Party, where the ſtop was, and what would Heal, they have put my Brother in to ſuch a Confuſion of Thought, as moves ſome to Fear, that a thorough ſearch into this Hiſtory, will diſcover ſuch Miſtakes, and give him ſuch a Diſturbance, as to make him wholly Unfit for that good work, for which God hath given him an Excellent Talent, and to which, with a ſincere Reſpect to him and his further Uſefulneſs, I do Heartily Wiſh he would henceforward Confine himſelf.
Having thus Cleared the Report from the Charge of Falſhood, as to matter of Fact, I will make what convenient haſt I can, to conſider what he hath Offered about Doctrinals. And to ſet what Relates hereunto, in the cleareſt Light, I muſt beg my Readers Patience to Obſerve, what is neceſſary to be ſuggeſted on this Occaſion. For, it muſt be Inculcated. 1. That we have no Controverſie with any Aſſembly of Ʋnited Miniſters, as ſuch; not only becauſe we know of no ſuch meeting that hath been of late months at Little St. Hellens; but becauſe, when there were ſuch Meetings, they did not ſet their hands unto the Offenſive Book, and never Expreſſed any other way their Approbation of it.
That the meeting of Miniſters at Little St Hellens, is not compoſed of Ʋnited Brethren, is manifeſt, in that the Congregational, who are an eſſential Part of the Union, have not (if we may believe my Brother) met with them. For he aſſures us, That they gradually with-drew from their Aſſemblies, and Common-Meetings; and not only ſo, but ſet up another Oppoſite-Meeting in a Neighbouring Place, at the very Hour, and on the ſame day that the United Brethren Aſſembled at Dr. Anneſleys; Some few of them would now and then drop in, when they had occaſion to ſerve themſelves of the Ʋnion, and commonly there was one or two to ſpie out their Liberty. Fa. Reb. p. 21.
Now what manner of Union can there be between two Parties, when there is but one Party to make it up? But,
2. The generality of thoſe Brethren, who were Paſtors of Churches, and did ſet their Names unto the Teſtimonial before the Offenſive Book, did thereby rather intend to expreſs their Juſt Abhorrence of Antinomian Dotages, than an Approval of the Book: for divers of them never Read the Book; nor can they bear, that the ſetting their hands unto the Atteſtation praefixed unto it, ſhould be Interpreted, as if it had been unto the Book, but only unto the ſtate of the Truths and Errors therein mentioned, and not unto the Preface, Explications, or Proofs.
3. That the true Reaſon, which influenced ſeveral of them, who meet at Little St. Hellens to Reject the first Paper was an Apprehenſion, that the Teſtimony, it gave againſt Antinomianiſm, was not ſo full as they could wiſh and thought needful (tho' it was as full as 'tis now, in the third Paper.) Not that they diſlik'd the Renunciation of Arminian, or Socinian Errours.
However, it muſt be acknowledged to be ſomewhat ſingular, if not unparallel in them, who Reject the firſt Paper, that, notwithſtanding the Complaints of our Offened Brethren, the Nature of the Errours, Charged on the Offenſive-Book; and the many miſchievous and fatal Conſequences, that have attended the Setting their Hand unto the Teſtimonial before it, they have not hitherto, that I can hear, Condeſcended ſo far, as to Examine, whether their Names have not given Countenance to ſuch Notions, as are contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and the Faith Profeſſed by Proteſtants at Home and Abroad.
But, ſeeing what is thus ſurprizing flows from an Exceſs of Charity in them, to the Author of the Offenſive Book, it's now hoped, that the bold ſtroke, which the Faithful Rebuke hath given to the Doctrine of Chriſts Satisfaction, will awaken the Presbyterian Brethren to declare their Orthodoxy by their Teſtifying againſt what doth, in it, deviate from the Truth.
4. That the Controverſie is, in good earneſt, between the Congregational, and the Body of the Presbyterian Brethren on the one Part; and a few, who are with Mr. Williams, on the other. The Reaſons which move me to Judge thus are▪ 1. The generality of the Preſbyterian Brethren in this City, do ſtill firmly adhere unto the Aſſemblies Confeſſion, Larger and Shorter Catechiſm; from which, in the Controverted Points, ſome apprehend Mr. W's▪ tho' he hath ſubſcribed them, doth diſſent and cannot chooſe, whilſt they have ſo many powerful Arguments for that Apprehenſion. Beſides, if there had not been a real Difference between him and them, how could Mr. J. W. and his Friends boaſt of a Brother's coming over unto them in the Point of Juſtification? 2. No one hath written much in the praiſe of Mr. Ws his Notions, but Mr. Toland; whoſe Opinions are well known both in England and Ireland: and this Brother, whom I am ſorry to ſee Liſted in defence of the ſame Cauſe. What the Reverend Mr. Lorimer hath written, as it is after another manner than what my Rebuker hath done; ſo the moſt in him in theſe Matters is his miſtaken Charity to Mr. Ws. For he is a Man, that neither thinks the Phraſes of Chriſts ſuſtaining the Perſon of Sinners, and of a Commutation of Perſons between Chriſt, and us, to be either New or of a Dangerous ſound. Nor doth he deny, that our Lord Jeſus did, as our ſurety, come under the Bond and Curſe of the Moral Law.
5. As for the Doctrine of Juſtification, Mr. Ws, if he will be true to his own avowed Principles, muſt come over to Mr. Humphrey, in the denial of the imputed Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, in any other ſenſe, than in its Effects.
'Tis true, Mr: Ws doth grant, that Chriſt by his Righteouſneſs, did not only purchaſe a Conditional Grant, of thoſe Effects, which he had merited by his Righteouſneſs; But, beſides theſe Effects made ours, the very Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is imputed to true Believers. Goſpel Truth Stated, p. 39. However, if we compare this paſſage with what is more lately and fully explain'd in his Man made Righteous, p. 77, &c. you will ſoon unravel the whole Myſtery, and ſee, that whilſt he is labouring to hide himſelf, for a while, in a Cloud of Words, be means nothing at all by this Grant. For he is moſt explicite in affirming, That the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, as it was the Performance of the Conditions of our Salvation, is mediately imputed to the Believer. Chriſts very Performance of the Conditions is (ſaith he) Imputed mediately in this manner. If one give me my Liberty, which he voluntarily purchaſed for me at a dear rate, he mediately gives me what he paid for my Ranſom, tho' immediately I receive my Liberty and a Right thereto.
Now what is this more than an imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs in the Effects? Becauſe the Effects of Chriſts death, ſuch as a Right to Pardon, &c. is given to the True Believer, therefore it may be ſaid, that Chriſts Righteouſneſs, the procuring Cauſe, is imputed unto him. As the money, which one gives for anothers Liberty, may be ſaid to be given to that other to whom Liberty is given, which is only in the effects of that Money; ſo Chriſts Righteouſneſs is imputed, in that the effects of it are given unto us: that is to ſay, Chriſts Righteouſneſs is imputed to us mediately; It is imputed to us mediante effectu, or in its effects. If he can make any thing more of it, let him.
Beſides, ſo long as he, againſt the Common Sentiment of Proteſtants, denies a Commutation, or Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us; or, that Chriſt ſuſtained the Perſon of ſinners; or, as our Surety came under the Bond and Obligations of the violated Law of works, to anſwer thoſe Obligations for us: it is impoſſible there ſhould be, on his Principles, any other imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, but what is in its effects, which Mr. Humphrey, clearly underſtanding, does honeſtly Aſſert, and that he muſt do the ſame, or relinquiſh his Principles may be more diſtinctly proved at any time, that he will, tho' let him be but ſincere and confeſs it, I ſhall be moſt willing, with my Reverend Brethren, to conſider how far we are to extend our Communion, or Charity towards ſuch, wherein he will find me Charitable enough.
6. The Breach being on this account begun, it is now widened by a Rejecting the Aſſertion of a Neceſſity of a Commutation of Perſons between Chriſt and us, for the due explaining and defending the Doctrine of Chriſts ſatisfaction, and our Juſtification; together with a Laying by the Ʋſe of the Phraſes of Chriſts ſuſtaining the Perſon of Sinners, of a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us; of Chriſts being our Surety, to anſwer for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works; and the like. And made more dangerous, ſince theſe Phraſes have been ſo very much Ridiculed by this Brother.
But there being ſo much wonder made at an inſiſting on the Ʋſe of theſe Phraſes, I will, for the ſake of thoſe Brethren, who, either by diſuſe have forgotten; or, by reaſon of a too early and conſtant Application unto practical Preaching, never throughly underſtood this neceſſary Doctrine of Chriſts Satisfaction; I will, I ſay, ſhow how uſeful theſe Phraſes are to explain this glorious and bleſſed Truth.
There are, in the Holy Scriptures, ſeveral Texts which diſcover and prove the Doctrine of Chriſts Satisfaction.
About the Genuine Senſe of theſe Texts, the chief Controverſie between the Reformed on the one hand, and the Arminian, and Socinian, on the other, doth Lye.
The Controverted Texts are ſuch as ſpeak of Chriſts dying for our ſins, and for us; of his being our Surety, and a Sacrifice for us; and the like, that relate to theſe Matters.
The different Senſes, which the Orthdox, and their Adverſaries have of theſe Texts, I will diſtinctly Propoſe.
1. When it's ſaid in Scripture, that Chriſt was wounded and bruiſed for our Tranſgreſſions; ſuffered and dyed for our Sins. Socinus and his Followers affirm, that the Expreſſion [for our ſins] ſignifies only a Final Cauſe, as if no more was meant than that Chriſt dyed for our good.
The Orthodox expreſly Aſſerts, that [For our ſins] in theſe Texts▪ imports an impulſive meritorious Cauſe; and Grotius proves againſt Socinus, that theſe words, Chriſt ſuffered for our ſins, cannot be underſtood of a Final, but of Meritorious Cauſe. And, if our ſins be the Meritorious Cauſe of Chriſts Sufferings, it neceſſarily follows, that Chriſts ſufferings were a Proper Puniſhment for them, and muſt be ſatisfactory to Gods Juſtice, which Grotius, and the Right Reverend Biſhop of Worceſter, have unanſwerably Proved.
2. When, in Scripture it is affirmed, that Chriſt ſuffered, and dyed For us, the Socinians, who Labour to reduce all to his ſuffering for our good only, are poſitive, that the ſignification of the Propoſition [For] …s, that Chriſt dyed noſtro bono, for our good. He ſuffered for our ſins, that is, ſay they, he ſuffered for our good; He dyed for us, that is, ſay they, he dyed only for our good.
On the contrary, the Orthodox aver, that the Prepoſition foreign, For, when it's ſaid, Chriſt dyed for us, ſignifies a Commutation, or Change of perſons between Chriſt and us; which is aptly expreſſed by that other Phraſe, [in our Place and Stead] that is, Chriſt ſuffered not only for our good; but, that God might be glorified in our Redemption, Chriſt ſuffered in our Place and Stead; Chriſt in his ſufferings, did ſuſtinere vicem, ſeu Perſunam noſtram. He was put into our Place, State and Condition, that having the Guilt of our ſins laid upon him, he might, according to the Rule of Juſtice, ſuffer a Proper Puniſhment for our ſins, and ſo make Satisfaction to Gods Juſtice for us.
When it's ſaid, Chriſt came into our Place, State and Condition, the meaning is, he came under the Bonds and Obligations of the violated Law of Works, lay under the Guilt and Puniſhment of ſin on our behalfs, that we, by laying hold on Chriſt by Faith, might be delivered.
The Phraſes then of a Change of Perſons between Chriſt, and us, of Chriſts taking on him the Perſon of Sinners, ſuffering in their Perſon, Rooms and Stead, are moſt apt to convey unto our Ʋnderſtandings the true, the Orthodox, and Genuine Senſe of theſe Texts, Christ dyed for our ſins, and for us, in oppoſition to the Socinian Interpretation, that is to bring all to Chriſts ſuffering for our good only; which they do, that they may the better ſubvert the Doctrine of a Real, Proper and full Satiſfaction to Gods Justice.
3. The Term Surety, when ſpoken of Chriſt in Scripture, relates to us as we are Sinners, endebted to the Law, and Juſtice of God, and imports a Change of Perſon between Chriſt, and us; Chriſts ſustaining our Perſon, coming into the Bond, we had forfeited, and in our Place and Stead, anſwering for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works.
4. Chriſts being made a Sacrifice for us, doth ſignifie the ſame, for that Chriſt might be a Proper Sacrifice for us; 'twas neceſſary that he ſhould be ſubſtituted into our Place and Stead, as the Biſhop of Worcester, as well as Grotius, have fully proved.
'Tis true, Epiſcopius and his Followers, pretend a Zeal for Chriſts being a Proper Expiatory Sacrifice, but then they declare that Chriſt, when ſacrificed for us, did not ſuffer a Proper Puniſhment for our ſins: But the Orthodox have cleared it, beyond all doubt, that Chriſt, as our Sacrifice was ſubſtituted into our Place and Stead; that this Subſtitution cannot be without a Commutation of Perſons between him and us; that hereupon Chriſts ſufferings, when he was ſacrificed for us, became a Proper Puniſhment for our ſins.
The Uſe then of theſe Phraſes [of a Commutation of Perſons between Chriſt, and us; of Chriſts ſuſtaining the Perſon of Sinners; of his ſuffering in our Place, Stead and Perſon; of his coming under the Bonds and Obligations of the Violated Law of Works; of his anſwering for us theſe Obligations,] are uſed by the Orthodox, as moſt apt to explain the Doctrine of Chriſts Satisfaction, and diſtinguiſh it from the Socinian Hereſie.
They are the Phraſes pitched upon by the Godly Learned, to deliver unto us the ſound meaning of thoſe Scriptures, which ſpeaks of Chriſts ſuffering for our ſins; dying for us; being our Surety, and made a Sacrifice for us.
But, if you will Reduce all to Chriſt's ſufferings in our Place, and Stead; and by theſe Expreſſions, avowedly Declare, that it's Impoſſible for that Phraſe, to ſignifie any more than for our good, and to turn noſtro Loco, into noſtro bono, you give up the Doctrine of Chriſt's Satisfaction, and Sacrifize the Truth to the Luſts of its greateſt Enemies, for Chriſt's ſuffering only for our Good, reſpects only Man; and the ſignification of Chriſt's making Satisfaction doth primarily reſpect God the Juſtice, and Righteouſneſs of his Nature, which is not included in his ſuffering only noſtro bono; for which reaſon if Chriſt ſuffered only for our Good, He did not by his ſufferings make ſatisfaction unto God's Juſtice.
Theſe things, (which will be diſtinctly handled in my vindicating the Report from Falſhood in Doctrinals) do ſufficiently ſhew how neceſſary the Uſe of theſe Phraſes is, how Dangerous to recede from them, and how liable to ſuſpicion ſuch Brethren are, who do not only Oppoſe, but with Scorn and Contempt Reject them.
It now remains, that I proceed to Examine what it is, that my Reverend Brother chargeth the Report with, in matters Doctrinal.
II. Of Doctrinala.
IN the Report we may obſerve an Intimation given of ſundry Points, which were in the Firſt Paper, but left out of the Third, and the leaving 'em out of the Third inſiſted on as what encreaſed the Offence of our Grieved Brethren.
I. An Expunging that Paragraph which in the Firſt Paper, did Aſſert the Neceſſity of a Change of Perſons, between Chriſt and VsUs, in order to a due Explaining, and Defending the Doctrine of Chriſt's Satisfaction, and our Juſtification.
II. A Rejecting the Phraſe of Chriſt's ſuſtaining the Perſon of Sinners.
III. The Denying a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and Us.
IV. An Impoſing a Socinian ſenſe on the Phraſe of Chriſt's ſuffering in our Place and Stead.
V. A Turning Chriſt's Undertaking to Anſwer for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works, into Chriſt's Anſwering for our Violation of the Law of Works.
VI. Why ſo many Orthodox Terms and Phraſes, which were in the Firſt Paper are left out of the Third?
And ſeeing it is boldly ſaid, That our Controverſie with them is not about what is owned, or ſo much as Countenanced in any Publick Confeſſions, I will under this Head of Doctrinals make Anſwer to the Enquiry.
VII. In what Confeſſions are the Terms, or Phraſes ſo much Contended for to be found?
Before I diſcourſe on any of theſe points, 'twill be requiſite, that I ſet before you the Reaſon, which my Brother gives for their rejecting thoſe Paſſages, Terms and Phraſes, that were in the Firſt Paper. You ſhall have it in his own words.
Faithful Rebuke.
The Brethren did Unanimouſly agree to Grant as much as the ſound Senſe could Bear; and modeſtly to wave, and paſs by the other, which was liable to be Interpreted to a ſenſe and ſound of Malignity to the whole of the Goſpel. p. 30.
Reply.
This paſſage of my Reverend Brother doth make it manifeſt, That the Paragraphs, Terms, and Phraſes, which were in the firſt Paper, and were waved and paſſed by in the Compoſure of the Third, are look'd upon by my Brother, and as he will have us believe, by all the Miniſters, who meet at Little St. Helens, and had a Head, a Hand, and a Heart in Compoſing the Third, could not bear a ſound ſenſe, but were liable to be Interpreted to a ſenſe, and ſound of Malignity to the whole of the Goſpel. That is to ſay, The Phraſe of Chriſt's putting on the Perſon of Sinners; of his Anſwering for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works, the Term, Surety, and the Aſſertion of the Neceſſity of a Commutation, or Change of Perſons between Chriſt and Us, in order to Explain, and Defend Chriſt's Satisfaction, cannot in their Opinion bear a ſound ſenſe, but are liable to be Interpreted to a ſenſe, and ſound of Malignity to the whole of the Goſpel.
This is the ſenſe of my Reverend Brother, concerning which I will only ſay, that tho' I think my ſelf bound in Civility to believe what he ſaith of himſelf, yet I dare not be ſo ſevere as to conclude, that all my Presbyterian Brethren who meet at Little St. Hellens are in theſe Points of his Mind. However I deſire my Reader to have Recourſe unto this Paſſage, when He conſiders what I offer under the Particulars Propoſed to be Examined. To the Firſt,