Answer to the Report of the United Ministers, Part 2

Answer to the Report of the United Ministers · Part 2

p. 73Some Animadversions on Mr. Lob's DEFENCE of the REPORT. By D. W. Note, I call the Author of the Rebuke, Mr. R.

THough I have the Testimony of the Ministers and Elders of all the Dissenting Congregations in Dublin (except One) for my Peaceableness and Diligence in the promoting of Union there; yet being p. 74industriously branded as the great Divider in this place, it's necessary to represent the Cause of Mens Mistakes. To me is ascribed the Rise of our Divisions, because at the Request of several Ministers, after other means were unsuccessful, I wrote Gospel-Truth stated; when Dr. Crisp's Re-printed Book so obtained as to threaten… our Ministry. The Continuance of our Breaches I am charged with, on no better pretence than this, A beaten Man makes all that Noise which proceeds from the furious blows that fall upon his Person. I consented to that Expedient 1692. wherein all objected against my Book was adjusted, and gave no Cause for the Objectors to violate that Agreement. Mr. Chauncy, Mr. T. Mr. K. Mr. E. &c. wrote Volumes against that Book; to all which I replied in a Defence of Six Sheets; thinking that sufficient, and in hopes some Rest might be obtained by silence. Mr. M. revives the Assault with a Charge of Blasphemy and Damning Errors; This extorted one small book more. Then by Contrivances I was voted out of the Lecture at Pinners-Hall. Whereupon Dr. Bates, Mr. How, Mr. Alsop and my self, remove to Salters-Hall. About two Months after this my Morals (upon a search back to my Childhood) are Impeached, the united Ministers unanimously adjudged and declared me clear and innocent of all that was laid to my Charge. I forbear Recriminations against many, for which I am furnished. The same Book comes again upon the Stage with Mr. Lobs Objections, which I answered in one sheet. Mr. Lob rejoineth, but at the Reverend Doctor Bates request, I laid aside a Book ready for the Press. The Doctor and I fully agree in Sense, Notwithstanding he had used some Phrases which Mr. Lob hoped to divide us by. They stop not here, as the result of many private Meetings with my Adversaries; A Paper is gotten Subscribed (when I was at Bath) by some at least of my Friends, who fully agreed with me in Doctrine. p. 75Herein there were several mistakes in matters of Fact refering to the Subscription to my Book, many insinuated reflections (not designed by all) against the Doctrine of that Book, with such Ambiguities and Omissions, as endangered the Truths by me defended, and those Terms proposed to me, which might startle a Man they had no Power over, and justly expected better treatment at least from such whose cause I pleaded. Yet when this Paper was laid aside, and the Third Paper agreed to, I sate still, tho I knew that First Paper (unprinted) was sent through the Nation to my great Detriment. Might not one expect some quiet after such various attempts against this Book and its Author? (Which I do not ascribe to the Congregational, as a body, nor had I mentioned most of these things, if I were not charged with all our divisions.) My hopes are disappointed; Mr. Lob Printeth his Report, wherein the United Ministers for my sake are branded for Socinians, and therein inserts that unhappy Paper. Nay, he soon follows this with his Remarks, to fasten his charge the deeper upon me. Stops he here? No, in this his Defence I am still pelted, my Doctrine grossly Arraigned, the Learned Mr. R. Censured as a Socinian for defending me. My Book sustains the Clamour, because it denies the Crispian Change of Person, Nay, he hopeth it hath some invisible evil thing within its Bowels, which if I do not bring forth (for no bodv else can) I must be one offensive and halting, p. 88. Nay, as if first in intention, the last Words in his Book are, whether Mr. Williams be sincere or no, he must now shew it; FINIS. The English of this is, if I be sincere I must shew my self Erroneous, that they may have somewhat to justify their past Clamours; for as yet they can prove nothing, and yet (will you not wonder) he gives me, p. 9. more hopes of their Charity and Communion, if I will but write Errors plainly, than they can now allow p. 76me when I assert the opposite Truths. Am not I in a streight? He and others call and provoke me to write, (and they might do it long enough, if the interest of the Gospel, and such injuries to my Friend assisted not their Calls.) Yet if I write, I shall be deem'd, the cause of all our Divisions: But so 'twill be if I write not; Nay, if I be not felo de se. I shall therefore adventure, so pressed by Mr. Lob, to give him some hasty thoughts. I may well Call it an adventure, for I foresee, unless he is much changed since he wrote this Defence, He will mis-represent what is written with the greatest Caution, and if his Readers shall think him a fair adversary, he is sure to have the better of any Man, as will soon appear. Mr. Lob, p. 35. The Phrase of a Change of Christs Person was never invented, till the Gentleman who engaged my Brother to enter upon this sorrowful undertaking, started it. And to speak the Truth, it's a Phrase only adjusted, to express no more than what the Socinians do constantly grant, for they say that Christ, tho he suffered not the Punishment due to us for sin, yet he endured grievous and dolorous Pains, which is aptly enough expressed, when it is said, there was a Change of Christs Person for us, for he was, say these Hereticks, Changed from Ease to Pain for our good.

Note, 1. The Phrase, Change of Person, was used by Dr. Crisp, and therefore not invented by me, (whom he meaneth) it's from him I cited it. 2. Is it so ill a Phrase, and serves only a Socinian purpose? Then Mr. Lob should not make me a Socinian, only for denying this Phrase. He saith, (and that when he will speak the Truth) it's adjusted only to express what the Socinians constantly grant, and yet Quarrels me for denying this dangerous expression. 3. If this bad Phrase, Change of Person, and that good Phrase Change of Persons differ so far as Heterodox and Orthodox; p. 77did not Mr. Lob deal unfairly all this while, in telling the World I denied that Good Phrase Change of Persons, only because I had denied this bad Phrase Change of Person? for I assure you, I no where deny a Change of Persons in the Plural Number (tho according to his Liberty he saith I did, p. 42.) and I fully assert the sound Sense of it, as the R. R. the Bishop of Worcester and the Reverend Dr. Edwards do Witness, and they are Men he makes great use of in his Book, as very sound in this point: But being more concerned for my Friend, Mr. Rebuker, I shall with this place, begin an Account of some of the Stabbing injuries he receives from Mr. Lob, with an Art thou in Health my Brother?

1. Mr. Lob makes Mr. R— here to say (with the Socinians) that there was a Change only in the Person of Christ, without an Exchange at all with Sinners▪ because Mr. R. saith, there was a Change of the Person of Christ, in exchange for the Persons of Sinners (tho not reciprocally in all respects) this is plain; for a meer Change from Ease to Pain, is only a Change in Christs Person, p. 31. he saith, My Brother is in good earnest only for a Change of Christs Person, without a Change between Christ and us: When Reb. p. 44. this Phrase the Change of the Person of Christ, hath truly an honest sound Sense, Viz. The substitution of one Person in the Room of another; And a proper redemption may be obtained by the Punishment of one in the Room of another — If therefore Christs dying by way of Change, or Exchange, be all they would have, its granted, &c.] Yet from this very place Mr. Lob infers, as above.

2. Mr. Lob represents Mr. R. to hold with the Socinians, that Christ suffered only so for our Good, as not to suffer truly in our stead. Because Mr. R. affirmed, that Christs suffering properly in our stead was for our good. Mr. Lob saith, p. 47. Whatever my Brother p. 78intends, it's manifest, that while he Calls the Socinian Sense of Christs dying in our stead, Knavish— He gives the very Sense of this Phrase, which the Socinians who use it do give, and by it means (if we may Judge his meaning by his words) no more than what Socinus Crellius, and that fraternity do consistently with a denial of Christs satisfaction constantly grant. He saith worse the lines before. See also, p. 36. and 10 times repeats, &c. The Place he grounds this upon is, Reb. p. 35. [The Caviller proceeds, in our place and stead, with some signify no more, than for our good; Why, it's impossible they should: That which Christ suffered in our stead is for our Good, to bear the Punishment of our sins, to satisfy Divine Iustice, was certainly for our good, &c. Therefore for our good because in our stead.] Reader, is not Christs bearing the Punishment of our sins to satisfy Divine Justice, suffering properly in our stead? And is suffering properly in our stead, and suffering in our stead in the Socinian Sense, (Viz. Improperly and not at all) the same thing? But Mr. R. said, it's impossible in our stead, should signify any more than for our good. I Answer, That it is considered with respect to our concernment therein, as it is a benefit designed for us; but not to exclude its being in our place and stead, which he fully asserts, and without which we had been ruined for ever. Is not Mans chief end to be happy in the Enjoyment of God? And doth not Christs dying properly in our stead subserve that end? Mr. Lob might better say, Mr. R. denied that Christs dying in our stead was for Gods Glory, to which our good is Subordinate, than that he denied that Christ dyed properly in our stead, because as to our own felicity it did no more than subserve it, or was it for our hurt, or could it be more beneficial to us than for our good, for it's only as to our benefit he applies the Words.

p. 793. Mr. Lob Represents Mr. R. to deny (with the Socinians) that Christs sufferings are a Proper Punishment for our Sins: When Mr. R. doth most expressly assert, that Christs sufferings were the Punishments of our Sins, for satisfaction to the Vindicative Justice of God. Mr. Lob, p. 48. agreeably hereto (the Socinians trifling in a wretched Sense, and rejecting of Phrases to make Christs sufferings not penal) my Brother, as he rejects the Phrases of sustaining the Person of Sinners, and puts an unsound Sense on Christs suffering in our place and stead; so that word (answering the obligation of the Violated Law) which was in the first Paper, to make it evident that we esteemed Christs sufferings to be proper Punishments, is rejected; as what cannot in my Brothers Opinion bear a sound Sense. This charge that Mr. R. denies Christs sufferings to be Punishments, he imposeth in very many Pages. Whereas Mr. R. saith, p. 35. Christ did bear the Punishment of our sins to the satisfaction of Iustice, p. 48. And it's freely granted that Christ suffered and dyed for the Persons of Sinners, and for the sins of their Persons, and in the room and stead of their Persons; And that he suffered and dyed to make satisfaction to the Iustice, to the Vindicative Iustice of God, &c.

What pretends Mr. Lob against so full conviction? No other than that we by the Third Paper rejected this Phrase, obligations of the violated Law: But this is not true, we only waved it, and Mr. R. saith no more. But Mr. Lob saith, the Phrase which we put in its stead, Viz. Christ came to Answer for sinners violation of the Law of Works, differs as much from their Phrase, answering for us the obligations of the violated Law of Works, as a Gospel Truth and a Socinian Error, p. 50. One would think it's still a true Phrase after his mangling it. But pray take it as in our Paper. Christ came into our room and stead to Answer for our Violations of the Law (add what follows) and the p. 80Punishment of our sins was inflicted on Christ, that God might without injury to his Justice Pardon and Save penitent Believers. Is this a Socinian Error? Or, is a word wanting to make Christs sufferings proper Punishments? Nay, what is it for Christ in our stead to Answer for our Violations? But go yet lower: Is not to Answer for our sins, another thing than Socinians hold? even this is no less than suffering the Punishment of our sins, if we were for Violating the Law under its obligations, to suffer those Punishments: But I come to Mr. Lob's charge against Mr. R. from the words, cannot bear a sound Sense.

4. Because Mr. R. used certain warm words once, and that only against the unsound Sense of that single Phrase, Commutation of Persons (which yet he there saith, may be capable of receiving a sound meaning) Mr. Lob makes Mr. R. to intend those warm words against the sound Sense of that Phrase, against that Phrase it self, and a great many other good Phrases which himself makes use of as very safe, yea, against the sound Sense of many other Phrases which Mr. R. pleads for. I shall fully recite the only place upon which Mr. Lob grounds his charge, Reb. p. 30. [A change of Persons, which may possibly be capable of receiving a good meaning (elsewhere explained) and yet is more sounding towards a dangerous Sense, the Brethren did unanimously agree to grant as much as the sound Sense could bear, and modestly to wave and pass by the other, which was liable to be interpreted to a Sense, and sound of malignity to the whole of the Gospel.] You see the other which could not bear a sound Sense, but was liable to a sound of malignity, is but one thing, for other is not nomen multitudinis, and agrees with the Verb WAS, which is in the singular Number. This other, to which these words are appropriated, cannot be the Phrase, Commutation of Persons, for that is not waved, but retained by us in the Third Paper; p. 81nor can it be the sound Sense of that Phrase, for that's provided for by Mr. R. much less can it be all the Phrases and Passages in the first Paper omitted in the Third. It must then be confined to some one thing expressive of the unsound Sense, which the Crispians put upon the Phase Change of Persons; Mr. R's. following words point at, [And the Brethren are now more fully perswaded they are in the right by the Reporters Notions.] What's that? Such a change as makes Christ to be destitute of a Righteousness Entitling to Enternal Life, and to become sin as we are sin: Rep. p. 5.7, i. e. filthy sinners.

Yet upon this foresaid Passage of Mr. R. Mr. Lob says, p. 14. [This Passage of my Reverend Brothren doth make it manifest, that the Paragraphs, Terms and Phrases, which were in the First Paper, and were waved and passed by in the Composure of the Third, are looked upon by my Brother, as what could not bear a sound Sense, but a sound of malignity to the whole of the Gospel; that is to say, the Phrase of Christs taking on him the Person of Sinners, of Answering for us the obligations of the Violated Law of Works, the Term surety, and the Assertion of the necessity of a Commutation of Persons— This is the Sense of my Reverend Brother.] And so these words cannot bear a sound, &c. Are trumped up I believe forty times with these by tail, p. 48. to 65. nay, in this last, p. 65. [According to what my Brother declares, it must be supposed; this Passage, (Viz. Regeneration, Repentance towards God, Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and a Holy Conversation, are by Gods word manifestly necessary to the salvation of a Sinner) Cannot bear a sound Sense, but is liable to be interpreted to a Sense and Sound of malignity.] Must not Mr. R. tho thus loudly warned, find it impossible to guard himself against this Man?

p. 825. Mr. R. p. 17. saith, [These Phrases, Terms, or Expressions, Viz. Change of Persons between Christ and us, and his taking on him the Person of Sinners, are unknown to our Confessions and not to be found in the Body of Confessions.] Mr. Lob exposeth him by Citing a Confession that useth some Phrases, Mr. R. makes use of, and others which he never denied, but mentions no Confession that hath the Phrases Mr. R. said, could not be found. Upon this poor work he toiles from, p. 71. to 80. I must stay a little on what occurs, p. 73. and ask, 1. When Mr. R. denied only that these Phrases (not the sound Sense) were in the Confessions? why should Mr. Lob make him deny that the Confessions gave any Countenance to the sound Sense of those Phrases? 2. When Mr. Lob declares he had silent, if he had not found these Phrases in some Confessions, and Ridicules Mr. R. for denying they were in them; Why did not he shew these Phrases, or one of them in some or other Confession? 3. If these Phrases, as to the Letters and Syllables (which Mr. R. called for) are wherever the sound Sense of them is to be found, (Which is, what Mr. Lob pretends, or fondly argues) why doth he deny that the very Phrases Christ taking on him the Person of Sinners, &c. Are in the Third Paper, and say they are rejected by us, seeing the sound Sense of those very Phrases is there? 4. Mr. Lob saith, [The Phrases of Change of Persons, of Christs sustaining our Person, of his being substituted into our Room, and his suffering in our place and stead, are so nearly allied that they live and dye together, grant one and all necessarily come in with it, &c] They must then be of the same adequate Sense with each other, or the Confession could not assert Christs sustaining in our Person, by its saying, Christ dyed in our stead: But if the Sense be adequate, then Mr. R. denies the right Sense of none of these Phrases, for he asserts, Christ dyed properly in our p. 83place and stead, and that he was substituted in our Room. Whence it will be no better by Mr. Lobs own Confession, than that he makes all this Noise to shew his Copia Verborum: He will have the mentioning of each of the various words of the same signification, to be Terms of Communion, and the omission of any one as great a bar to it, as if the very sense of all those words were denied; Ay, and that when the full just sense of any of those words is granted. For my part, after all his big words, from p. 58. to 65. about Logical Terms, or meer humane forms of Speech, (Tho I believe, they who drew up the Third Paper never dreamt of such designs, as he wtih somewhat too like, malice fastens on them) I would think him a Turbulent, uncharitable Scismatick, who would divide from others meerly because they scrupled this or that humane form of words, so they held and plainly expressed the Scriptural Truth designed by those words, yea, tho they expressed it by Terms less proper. How much more culpable is it then, to raise such storms only for our omitting a Phrase, because less intelligible to the People, more capable of being abused by the Etimology and Acceptation thereof among the Vulgar, and known to be grossly abused by the Crispians from that occasion. May not Mr. Lob Commence as just a War, of People should omit his fine Phrase, Zeal for Populacy, and yet be willing to use their plain Phrase, Zeal for Popularity. But to conclude this head: I deny that his Change of Persons, or Christs suffering in our Person, or in the Crispian Sense, or his own, as Stated, Rep. p. 5. are included in or to be proved from the Confession: to pretend the litereal Phrases from such words as Christ dyed in our stead, was substituted in our Room, is sordid, and the Confessors meaning in those words, is contrary to the Crispian and Reporters Sense; And therefore Mr: Lobs Phrases are not at all proved from the Confessions; unless a thing be proved where the p. 84Phrase is unmentioned and the Sense opposed.

6. Mr. Lob, that he might bring his English Reader to Judge Mr. R. a baffled Man, leaves out a considerable word in his Translating a part of the Scotch Confession, p. 81. [It became the Redeemer to be true God, and true Man, because he was to suffer the Punishments due for our sins, and to appear [Quasi in persona, nostra coram judicio patris, pro nostra transgressione & in obedientia pati, in our Person before the Judgment-Seat of the Father, to suffer for our Transgressions and Disobedience.] Thus Mr. Lob Englisheth the Latin words, and boasteth—Here you see the Church of Sco…land useth this very Phrase, &c. But least his admirers should applaud his conquest to an indecency, it's fit they know there's a word QVASI, which Mr. Lob did not think for his purpose to English. He ought to have said thus; And to appear [AS IT WERE] in our Person, that is, Christ appeared nor properly in our Person; that Phrase is too hard, tho there be somewhat towards it in some certain respect; As Calvin in this case useth Quodamodo. But Mr. Lob, by leaving out Quasi, performs what he undertook, p. 73. Perhaps it may appear (i. e. to the Englishman) that the Phrase most exposed by him will be found literally in one or other Confession. These words Cited are all, by which he makes it to appear, and Quasi Answers to perhaps. Nay, had the diminutive Quasi been out, he is not sure it had served his turn.

But considering the wonted Freedom of the Man, I wonder he left not out this Quasi. For I could give many instances, where the very next words omitted by him, would have defeated his purpose by what he Citeth. But, To prevent a snare, I'll prefer that in His Letter to Dr. Bates, p. 17. he saith, many held Christ and us to be one Person in Law; (And) that it may be said, that we suffered in Christ, is the import of that assertion which saith, that Christ suffered as our p. 85surety; and is allowed by Mr. Baxter; (just against this, Mr. Lob Cites in the Margin) It is not so aptly said he satisfied, as that he suffered in the Person of sinners, Mr. Baxter, Cath. Theol. Part 2. p. 79. (It should be, p. 76, 77.) Amazed, I took Mr. Baxters Book, and found the very next words were; Note, That it is not any other Mans Person that Christ suffered in, but his own, and we mean, that he took upon him the Person of a Sinner himself, in as much as he consented to suffer for sin, and so Personating here, is not becoming any other Mans Person in Law-Sense, so as that other legally suffered what he did; but it is only his own Person's becoming a sufferer in the stead of sinners for their sins—(And two or three lines before Mr. Baxter tells us) To say that Christ satisfied in our Person, and we by him; is false, and subverts the Gospel.

Or why did not Mr. Lob split the word Quasi, and leave out the last sillable si, then qua being oft redulplicative, had better fitted, thus he served me, Man made Righteous, p. 108. I had said, Therefore Christ HEREIN is what the Civilians Call, An ex promissor, he suffered alone, tho he Acts for another. Mr. Lob in his Letter to Dr. Bates, p. 12.13. to expose me as unlearned, and himself skilful, Recites several properties of an Expromissor, and will have me to mean that all these did belong to Christ, and then infers what pleased himself; whereas I had by the entire word Herein, limited it to one property of an Ex promissor, Viz. He is obliged alone tho he Acts for another, (in Redemption-work.) Mr. Lob seeing the word Herein would mar his project, He fairly splits the word, leaves out In, and makes it (a local) HERE and so found Scope for his purpose. These few Instances of many, may convince how unsit Mr. Lob is to report other Mens words, tho his Talent seems confined to the Collecting and Publishing what Authors write; 'twere well for his Readers, he did it with more of true Judgment, p. 86and less of Trick; for thereby his Quotations would more edify, and require less care and pains to become sure the Authors are not mis-represented.

7. Men will scarce Judge it decent or prudent in Mr. Lob, (if in his Friend) to publish by that Letter to himself, a reflection on the Rebuker for his Loyalty to the present Government, as inconsistent with a few Rhetorical expressions, in address to the Late King Iames, (to whom his obligations were somewhat peculiar:) But whereby doth his meaning appear so insincere at that time? Or what is done by him since, so contradictious to what he said, as to render him an exemplar of insincerity now? No other than swearing allegiance to King William, Signing the Association and Carrying it, becoming a Loyal Subject in his Prayers, Sermons, and Peaceable behaviour and advices? What Fetters are some in, If once addressing the Late King by a few big words, must Eternally Proclaim a Man an Hypocrite, unless he be now a Non-juror, Nonassociator, Plotter, and director of other Ministers (in imitation of himself) to pray so for the King, as either of the two Kings may be intended, if they must at all seem to Pray for King William ▪ I hope, few will be gull'd into such a Character, from the fancied obligations of former addresses (tho some of them were highly inconsiderate), nor any discouraged from persevering Loyalty by the forecited Aspersion. This would admit enlargement, which provocations might improve. But I retain a respect sufficient to forbid it, nor had I inserted the least hint at such things, except as a warning against the like instances, when His First-Rate Man is to Execute his Fiery threats, and his very Learned Person already Roused (alike obnoxious) stretcheth forth his Claws. Let Men take their way, but the common interest will not long be Sacrificed, ere some (now imposed on) will find out the Instruments and Designs of our Breaches. I hope, the Reverend Rebuker p. 87will Pardon my Interposal, and that I acquainted him not therewith. His abilities for a reply, I acknowledge such, that if these short hints serve for a foile to that he is preparing, and in the interim abate the ill Impressions of Mr. Lobs attempt, I shall Account these few hours well employed, which otherwise had been more feelingly spent in resenting those base reflections, that I am his Leader, Master, Principal, and what else became, scarce any Man besides Mr. Lob, their Author.

Mr. Lob, p. 8. owneth, I asserted, besides the effects made ours, the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers, but adds, I mean nothing by this grant: Because I use a simile to illustrate the manner, in Man made Righteous, p. 77. If one give me my Liberty, which he Voluntarily purchased for me at a dear rate. He mediately gives me what he paid for my Ransom, tho immediately he gives me my Liberty and a right thereto.

A. Had he Cited the Apodosis, which is in the next words, He had spoiled his suggestion, I shall Contract what I there enlarge on. I make Pardon and Adoption to be benefits, or effects following upon the Imputation of Christs Righteousness. And the Righteousness of Christ I distinguish into, 1. His performance of the conditions of redemption. 2. His right (or jus adjudicatum) by the Covenant of redemption, to our Pardon and Adoption; for his performance of the conditions adjusted in that Covenant. The former I said, is mediately imputed. The latter I said, is immediately imputed; it's reckoned to us when believers, because it was acquired expressly for believers, Iohn 3.16. Isa. 53.10, 11. The judicial imputation of this right of Christ intervening; the Righteousness of Christ (as a performance of the conditions) is imputed as our Plea for that Pardon, it being the procuring cause of that right of Christs, which is immediately imputed to p. 88us. And this right I also distinguish from that which the Gospel-promise made to believers doth invest them in, for the former right results immediately to Christ, from the Covenant of Redemption, and is subjectively in him, tho imputed to us: Whereas the promise, he that believes shall be forgiven, or saved, not only supposeth the former Transactions, and is the Instrument by which God imputeth Christs Righteousness to the believer; But it also, as a conditional promise, giveth believers a right to Forgiveness, whereof they are the immediate Subjects. Here Mr. Lob may see the Vanity of his Objection; it is not Pardon, or such possessed effects that intermediate between Christs Righteousness and us, nor only the right given by the Gospels conditional grant. No, it's Christs own right, and that imputed to us by God himself, and that immediately to us. And Pray, Is Gods imputing to us Christs performance of the conditions, so far as to be our Plea and Foundation of Claim, no imputation of his Righteousness at all, because the imputation of Christs acquired right Intervenes? Nothing is left out but Gods Legal accounting us to have performed all that, by which Christ merited and made Atonement. Yet without this Proud assumption, nothing will please Mr. Lob.

Being so often pressed to it by Mr. Humfreys and Mr. Lob, I will endeavour their satisfaction. If Christ had acquired by his Death a Power indefinitely to forgive sins, without a Compact determining (either by Name or Qualification) the Persons that should be Pardoned in the Virtue of his Death, or only purchased the Gospel Covenant, as conditionally offering Pardon; I should agree with Mr. H. but it being otherwise, I differ from him. And add, as the possessed effects are not properly imputed, so I will not confine the support of my Faith ultimately, and only to the Gospel conditional promise (tho that's infallible) p. 89when God hath made the Compact between the Father and our Mediator, to be my security, and Christs performance of the conditions of that Compact to be my Plea with God, among which conditions was what Answers the Law of Works, which I have Transgressed. Altho I own I must try my interest by Christs Gospel Law, as what describeth the Person who is Entitled to Pardon, and injoyneth us to be such, with a promise of that interest. In short, a believer having for his Security and Plea, the Gospel promise, the Covenant of Redemption and the Value of Christs Death, I'll retain each; and therefore still say, Besides the effects possessed by me, the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to me, as above Accounted for.

On the other hand, could I think it was by the Covenant of Works, that Christ was constituted our surety, so that his obligations to suffer the Punishment of our sins, did immediately result from that Law; And that we Sinners were Principals in Redemption Work, and Christ such a surety as to be Ioint Party with us in that Work of Redemption. And that the Law of Works required the Divine Nature, to give a value to what it Accounted to be Righteousness. And lastly, that this Law promiseth Pardon to sinners for the sake of a Mediators sufferings; I should then agree with Mr. Lob, that we satisfied for our sin, dyed, and obeyed in Christs Person, and he and we paid the Idem. Nay, be a full Crispian and say, I was justified at the time of Christs Death; I had nothing to do to become partaker of the effects of that Death, I was as Righteous as Christ, deny any proper forgiveness, Nay, own that Christ was really a sinner; for I am sure the Law could immediately oblige no other to dye.

But I must disagree with Mr. Lob and them, Because I am well perswaded, God never proposed the Work of Redemption to Condemned Sinners, but to Christ our Mediator. Also that to the Redemption p. 90of Sinners, God in Justice requiring for the Honour of his Violated Law, that a perfect obedience, and the suffering of what was equivalent to its threatned Punishments, should in the Humane Nature be summitted to by the Redeemer. Our Blessed Mediator obliged himself to yield that obedience, and bear those Punishments, upon condition that such sinners should be forgiven in his right, who should comply with the Gospel Terms agreed upon between the Father and him. And pursuant hereto, our Mediator did in our Nature perfectly obey and suffer the Punishments of our sins, whereby he had a right to a believers Pardon, and believers do obtain it in the way above described. And Lastly, I am sure the Law of Works never promiseth Pardon to sinners for the sake of Christs sufferings, the Payment of the full Idem was impossible, (tho there was a supra-equivalent) and the Law accounteth that Righteousness perfect, which an Innocent Holy Creature renders, tho he have not, the Divine Nature to give that value to his obedience; without which (very thing) we had been entirely lost.

Here Mr. Lob may find a surety, Viz. An obliged Mediator. And under the Law, Viz. As an Article taken into the Covenant of Redemption, whereby Christ was obliged: And in our stead, Viz. We were Condemned to suffer, we are by and for his sufferings to be saved. Nay, he may find the …ound meaning of his other Phrases, as Change of Persons, yea, Christs suffering in the Person of sinners. That is, Christ our obliged Mediator suffers in our stead what we were to suffer; yet it was that we might be delivered for it, but not legally reputed our selves to suffer. And yet here's place le…t for Pardon, a Gospel Law, Terms of Application. &c.

That none may mistake, Note, 1. I instance Pardon, &c. for brevity sake, but exclude no saving benefits, and distinguish saving benefits, which are used as Motives p. 91to Duty in the Gospel, from the Duties which are Conditions of those benefits. 2. And therefore I speak not of Christ's peculiar purchasing Grace for the Elect effectually to perform those Conditions whereby, together with the Decree, their eventual salvation is secured. This is my Judgment; but I ought not to confound this with that adjustment of things, whereby the Gospel-Offer of salvation to all men, and the Gospel-Rule of conferring its benefits, and of our final Judgment, are provided for.

Mr. Lob oft objects a Contradiction, if I affirm a Change of Persons, and yet say, I deny there is a Change of Person.

Answ. Besides Answers already given, I say, without any design'd Affront, it's no greater than Answer not a Fool according to his Folly, yet Answer a Fool according to his Folly.

By thus gratifying Mr. Lob's Imperious Humour, I am the freer to tell him,

1. I am sorry that he so boldly averreth many gross mistakes in mattter of Fact, p. 35. I invented the Phrase Change of Person; whereas I cite and use it as Dr. Crisp's Phrase. P. 26.43. I deny a Change of Persons. Whereas I never denied it; what I denied was Dr. Crisp's Change of Person, and fully asserted the Sense of the other. P. 22. I appealed to the Learned Witsius. But this I never did. P. 7. That onelyonly Mr. Toland wrote much in praise of my Book. Whereas he being then in Holland (and not the Man he since appears) desired them who gave an account of Published Books, to give their Judgment of my Book, and the great Praises are theirs; and others have since commended it above its worth. P. 63. That I was the Contriver of the Third Paper. Whereas others had drawn it up before I saw it. His vile Reflections on Mr. R. with respect to this, and his Nine Subscribers of the First Paper, p. 70. makes an account of that Matter necessary. The United Ministers p. 92appointed Dr. Bates, Mr. Hamond, Mr. Slater, Mr. Hill, with Mr. How and my self, to compose an Expedient, &c. Two of the Brethren drew it up (which is this Third Paper) and brought it to the rest of us met together: After some Alterations we did all agree to it, and brought it as our agreed Act to the Meeting at Saint Hellen. There, among the rest, Mr. Stretton, Mr. Quick and Mr. Evans agreed to it. Mr. Alsop, Mr. Burgess, and Mr. Showers not being present any of the times when it was read in the Meeting; it was brought to the View of Mr. Alsop, who approved of it. I am very sure also it was shewn to Mr. Burgess (his Informer) who appeared to agree to it; and Mr. Showers did to more than one express his Approbation of it. So that Mr. Lob hath all the Nine Subscribers to my book enumerated. Mr. Lob somewhere saith, all the Phrases of the first Paper, not into the Third, were rejected by my means; And yet several of them are in my own Paper, called the Sccond. Which I am glad was Printed ere I read his Defence. He saith the Third Paper denies a Commutation of Persons, p. 14. when both Phrase and Sense are in it. Other instances are not wanting. It's false that the generality of the Pastors do not approve my Book, though they were asked only to subscribe the state of Truth and Errors.

2. The cause he undertakes is miserably defended against the Rebuke: He appears to give, p. 13. a Scheme of his project, Viz. The points left out of the Third Paper which offended the Brethren, but where's his Proof that the United Ministers were obliged to retain so many Phrases of the first Paper as they did? If they had used none but what the Church of England and the Assembly of Divines Confessions included, the Heads of Vnion were observed by them, and violated by such as exacted more. Where makes he it good, that the United Ministers rejected all the Phrases p. 93of the First Paper which they omitted; especially when it was never read nor proposed to them: Or that the omission of those Phrases warrants the breach of Vnion? Such matters ought not to pass unargued, without which none can tell what honest cause the Report pretends to, unless the traducing Men sound in the Faith to cover the Turbulency of the Erroneous, should be so Accounted. As these are waved, so he trifles in what he pretendeth to insist on. Mr. R. demands the difference between a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners, and Christs dying properly in the sinners stead. Mr. Lob grants they are the same, and yet poureth out a Flood of impertinent words against the R. as if they widely differed. Mr. Lob makes Christs suffering the Punishment of our sins to the satisfaction of Justice, the thing which distinguisheth the Orthodox from the Socinians, and yet he represents Mr. R. as a Socinian, who oft asserteth, Christ suffered the Punishment of our sins to the satisfaction of Justice, even Vindicative Justice, Mr. R. chargeth his Account of Change of Persons, Rep. p. 5. with little less than Blasphemy, he bears that with profoundest silence. Mr. R. blames him, that he gave not a full Report of our difference, and from its Rise. To this he saith, he pretended not to give a Narrative of the whole. And yet, Rep. p. 4. The difference hitherto hath been about the satisfaction of Christ. And in his Remarks, oft leads his Reader to Judge we never had any other Controversy. Indeed his Present State of difference was such a Piece of Art, as he thought it so much pity to spoil it by a fuller Account, that their violation of the Agreement in Doctrines, 1692. He Answers only with a groan. Their refusal of the Paper, 1694. Because a disowning of sundry Antinomian Errors was added, he excuseth no better than by an abrupt Dismiss, after a Suggestion, p. 94that nothing had been added but that about Repentance, which is not true; and yet this being in the Assemblies Words, he impeacheth the Refusers as insincere in subscribing this in the Assemblies Confessio…, and yet refusing it in that Paper. To the horrid Passages out of his Brethren's Books, collected to justifie a Demand of Satisfaction, and a fit Antidote when he formed their Creeds: with him 'tis enough they were not sent to P. H. as if it matter'd not that he knew they were in their Books, and before the united Ministers. What saith he to Mr. R.'s Citations out of my Book, fully asserting Christ's Satisfaction? ne foreign quidem, but caluminates still; where states he a fair Question with the R? Instead of that he pursues a Logomachy, cites Authors to prove what Mr. R. pleads for, and to confute what his Party reckons he defends; yea, what himself oft-times asserts. Phrases he tires, when the Sense is so disregarded, that I would thank him to shew one Error of Mr. R. (unless by gross wresting of his Words) he once remarketh; or one Doctrinal Truth he pretends to prove, which Mr. R. hath not expresly own'd. Upon the whole, the Cause of the Rebuke is still unhurt, otherwise than as its Author is pelted with his smoothest Brothers rotten Eggs; such as not having a Grain of Sense, heretical, false, delirous, Changeling, and what not? But as for the Cause of the Report, the Defendant hath wisely got that into a Wood, in Hopes his Party shall not find it's dead by the Rebukers Wounds.

3. I'll foretell from what I already hear and see, how several sorts are likely to judge, and stand affected to his Performance. His Disciples may say, All we have learned is even this. A Change of Persons and Christs suffering in our Person, if explained to a sound Sense, are no more than Christ's suffering properly in our stead: And yet Christ's suffering properly in p. 95our stead, is not so much a Change of Persons, or Suffering in our Person, But that we mnst call them Socinians, who hold Christ suffered in our stead, if they will omit any of our Masters other Phrases, altho they own the Sense of all. The Sagacious Crispians (if any such) will say he hath betrayed our Cause; yea, himself condemns it, and anon espouseth it. But one good turn is done, he hath toiled hard to spoil what is a real Confutation of it. The factious Biggots may glory, whatever becomes of Truth, yet it's worth our Contribution, that he has spoiled all Hopes of that ill thing, Union and Peace too, and put the Vnited Ministers to groan we are abused, and as far as this Pacificator can influence, our Breaches shall still be wider. They whom he remarked, saying, The Dissenters differ about they know not what, will loudly boast, we now see with a witness, even the onelyonly Man of close study, that no Man can guess what it is about. They who used to trust to Quotations from Authors, must grow suspicious, and resolve always to examine. Hard Students (some such there are besides Mr. L.) will dread a Common place Book of Phrases, least they should divert them from their more important Sense, and confound themselves to the distracting of the Church, and torment of all Mankind. It's well if some of his reproached Preachers say not, we study Things more than Words, and yet Words more than to speak false English, that we may strut in Bombastick Phrases; and both to better purpose than our assuming Dictator, who brands us with Ignorance, and a Zeal for Populacy, whilst his Gain by our more common Acceptance, qualifies him for a sort of closer Study; but in time we may become more Politique. But which more affects me, plain serious Christians with Grief will cry, we know not what to think, if the way to Heaven be thus perplexed, p. 76and the Articles of our Faith so intricate as these heaps of Obscure Phrases represent them. The Profane are tempted to scoff at Religion as a wordy Noise, and our Enemies well pleased to see us destroy each other by dividing, and this for what exposeth us as much to Contempt as Ruine. How much should we pray for Godly sincerity in our appeals to God, and Serviceableness to a common good in our pretended pleadings for Truth! And not still amuse Men, as Mr. Lob hath done, by … Book, the Substance whereof is no more than a Misrepresentation of the R's words, that the Reader may believe him an Heretick in grain, when the plain sense of his Expression seems oft contended for by Mr. Lob. Nor can people propose a benefit by multiplied Quotations of a Phrase, when the Authors, who use it, design by that Phrase no more than Mr. R. grants. And his Exception is nor …gainst their sense of that Phrase, but against impo… it is a Term of Union, after the Crispians and Mr. Lob so perverted it.

FINIS.

End of the text · Daniel Williams, Answer to the Report of the United Ministers (1698)