A REPORT OF THE Present State OF THE Differences in Doctrinals, BETWEEN SOME Dissenting Ministers IN LONDON, In a LETTER to a Friend in the Country.  
LONDON: Printed for Nath. Hiller in Leaden-Hall-Street, at the Princes-Arms over against St. Mary-Ax, 1697.   

Worthy Sir,  
MAtters of Fact, touching the present controversy between our Brethren in the City, are quiter otherwise than as they appear to be in the Country: It is not about Church-Order but Doctrinals; and may be reduced to Two General Heads, viz. Christ's Satisfaction, and the Penal Sanction of the Law: Tho hitherto the greatest struggle hath been about the first, unto which my Papers confine me.  
That you may frame a just Conception of it, it must be remarked, That after sundry Attempts made by the Industrious Pacificators, an Instrument was pitched upon, which gave satisfaction to the most Learned of each Party. This Paper was sent by six or seven of the biggest Name amongst them, who do, or at least have gone under the Denomination of Presbyterians, unto some Congregational Ministers, and gladly embraced by them.  
When Matters were brought to this Head, nothing but a Re-union, and a general Amnesty was in prospect, which had ensued, had it not been for two or three Opposers, one of which number calling this Pacifick Paper, and those Peaceable Endeavours into Question, offered a Second, which was compared with the First, and out of them a Third was taken, and sent from some Brethren, who meet at Little St. Hellens, unto them who had for some time, absented themselves from that Place.  
This Third Paper surprising the Congregational, they return'd a short Answer, pressing earnestly, that the first Paper might be considered, as what was most likely to compose these Differences. To this no Reply hath been, that I can learn, made by the Brethren at St. Hollens.  
But why did not the Dissenting Brethren approve of the Third Paper? some of the Reasons assigned I will acquaint you with.  
§. I. There is, say they, a Passage in the first Paper of extraordinary Importance, which is left out of the Third. It is this, And whereas, in a Book written by Mr. Williams, entitled, Gospel-Truth Stated and Vindicated, it is said( p. 37, 40, 41.)[ There is no change of Persons betwixt Christ and Believers] which the Learned Hugo Grotius, and the Reverend Dr. Stillingfleet, now Bishop of Worcester, do not only expressly Assert, but irrefregably Prove, in concurrence with the common sentiment of Protestants; in as much as we conceive the Doctrine of Justification and Christ's Satisfaction, on which it depends, cannot be duly Explained and Defended, consistently with the denial of any commutation of Persons between Christ and Believers, We do therefore Declare our disallowance of that Proposition in the general sense thereof.  
This Paragraph, as it contains in it a Charge against Mr. Williams, falls not now under Consideration, but as in it 'tis asserted, That a Change of Persons between Christ and us is the common Doctrine of Protestants; and that neither Justification, nor Christ's Satisfaction can be duly Explained or Defended consistently with the denial of it.  
This then is one thing that grieves the offended Brethren, and occasions their Dislike of the Third Paper, viz. That in a Day wherein socinianism is so Rampant, such a Passage as this should be rejected. Had a change of Persons, say they, been but a 〈◇〉, a Barrè, a Hedge about the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, to keep Men off, far off from making Invasions on it, the Explosian would have amazed them: But a commutation or change of Persons being so essential to a proper Satisfaction, that without it there can be no such thing, they dread what the Pursuances hereof are like to be, and judge themselves the more obliged to insist on the First Paper, in which the necessity of a change of Persons is so distinctly and expressly asserted.  
This being the very Hinge on which the controversy between the Orthodox and Socinians doth turn, who can blame them for their stiff adherence to the Truth in this particular? If one Link of the Chain of Truth be given up in an instance of this kind, its defence is become impossible. If there be no change of Persons between Christ and us, there can be no translation of the Guilt, nor a just infliction of the Punishment of our Sins on Christ, that is, there can be no proper satisfaction.  
We are all by Nature under the Curse of the Law, and destitute of a Righteousness entituling to Eternal Life. This is our state and condition: This is the place in which we are, in which if we die, we are eternally undone. For vindictive Justice, which is essential unto God, makes it necessary that the Wrath be inflicted; and that there be no right to Eternal Life without a Perfect meritorious righteousness.  
That all who believe, might escape the Wrath to come, and have Everlasting Life, the Lord Jesus undertakes for us, by making satisfaction both to punitive and remuner ative Justice; and that he might do so, he put himself into our place, state and condition; so that, whereas we were Sin and under a Curse, by this blessed change, Christ is made Sin and a Curse, and we delivered from Sin and the Curse, 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.13.  
This is the substance of the Gospel of Christ, this the Ground and Foundation of our Faith. Without this, our Preaching and your Believing is vain. So necessary is the Assertion of a Change of Persons between Christ and us, you see, that consistently with the denial of it, it cannot be truly said, that Christ was made Sin, made a Curse; or that he took on him the person of sinners, and in their person bore their Guilt, and endured their Punishment, that is to say, without a change of persons between Christ and us, there is, there can be no proper satisfaction made to God's Justice.  
This is one thing, which doth, I perceive, grieve the offended Brethren; and in the Letter sent from St. Hellens to cover the Third Paper, there is another Passage, that increaseth their sorrow, namely[ That, on our so happy establishing the Doctrine of Justification, We need say but little to the Point of Commutation of Persons.] Whereas, on the contrary, it's impossible to establish the Doctrine of Justification on its true and proper Basis, any otherwise than by clearing the Point of Commutation of Persons. For if no Commutation of Persons between Christ and us, there can be no imputation of our sin to Christ, or of Christ's Righteousness to us, there can be no Justification by imputed Righteousness. But to their second Reason.  
§. II. The Third Paper say they, doth not only expunge the Paragraph about the necessity of a commutation; but doth also reject those Terms and Phrases, used by the Orthodox to explain Christ's Satisfaction, such as, Christ's being our surety, his coming into our place so as to take on him our Person, and satisfy the obligations of the violated Law of Works for us, which is the more grievous to 'em, in that it hath been the common way taken to introduce such Opinions in matters Religious, as have proved hurtful to the Church of God.  
§. III. There is such a wrong description given of a change of Persons, in the Third Paper, as perverts the Doctrine of Satisfaction.  
That you may see the force of this reason, I will offer their sense in the words of some one or other of themselves, as now before me in Manuscript, who in a Letter to a Learned Person, sets down the excepted Passage, and by Argument attacks it. 'Tis thus:  
Of a Commutation of Persons. As we are to consider our Lord Jesus Christ, in his obedience and sufferings as God-Man, invested with the Office of a mediator, so it is apparent, this commutation of Persons is to be understood in a legal or judicial sense( as we may call it) he by agreement between the Father and him, came into our room and stead, to answer for our violation of the Law of Works.]  
Here, saith he, 'tis to be observed, That when we discourse of a commutation of Persons, we are to consider our Lord Jesus, God-Man,( who is invested with the Office of Mediator) as our Surety in the execution of his Priestly Office, which is but a part of his Mediatorial Undertaking. The Wording it then after this manner, seems to be calculated for their Meridian, who hold, that Christ suffered only in the Person of a Mediator, not in the Person of sinners; for which reason we may easily perceive why there must not be in this Third Paper, the least mention of Christ's suretyship; or of his sustuining the person of sinners, agreeably hereunto.  
2. The Account given of a Commutation is thus, [ It is to be understood in a Legal or Judicial sense, as we may call it.] Not that it is really in a Legal or Judicial sense, only we may so call it. They'll not quarrel about the Term, may the thing they contend for, be granted ' em.  
3. We apprehended this to be their meaning; because, in their Explication there is not a Word proper and peculiar to a commutation in a Legal sense. A Commutation in a legal sense is the same with a proper surrogation, where the surety puts on the Person, and stands in the Quality, State and Condition of the Debtor, and lies under the same obligation to answer for him. What more common amongst the Learned than Subrogatum & suffectum in locum alterius, ejus naturam sortiri. But in this Paper,[ Christ's putting on the person of sinners, and his Undertaking to answer for them the obligations of the Law of Works.] is left out. And not a Word put into their place that is peculiar to a proper Satisfaction. What, tho Christ died in the Person of a mediator to answer for our violation of the Law of Works; yet, if he died not in the Person of sinners, to answer for them the obligations of the violated Law of works, he did not, he could not make satisfaction to Vindictive and Remunerative Justice.  
§. IV. We cannot but be grieved to observe, That this Third Paper, instead of Healing, doth rather increase the Wound, by imposing a sense on one of the most offensive Passages in the above-mentioned [ State of Gospel Truth,] which is in express contradiction to the very Letter, and general scope of the said Book. It is manifest( they are the words of this Paper) that when Mr. W. useth the Phrase of[ no change of Persons between Christ and the Elect,] it could not be intended as a denial of a change of Person between Christ and us, in the general sense, but only in opposition to the Opinion of his Adversary he wrote against: For in that very place he expressly affirms, that Christ Suffered and Dyed in our Stead. To this we answer.  
1. That his Denial of a change of Persons between Christ and the Elect, or between him and believers, is so express and full, that he leaves no room for a distinction, limitation or restriction, or for an owning it in any sense. His Words are as exclusive of a change of Persons in every sense, as Words can be. He saith it again and again, There is no change of Person between Christ and Believers, Gosp. true. stated, p. 37, 40, 41. The negation of a change is so general, that unless No Change signify A Change; and a negative is of the same import with an affirmative, Yea and Nay are words of the same signification, you will never be able to find him allowing of a change of person between Christ and us in a legal, or in any other sense, except Metaphorical and imperfect, which in Truth is no real Change.  
2. Seeing the Testimonial prefixed to his Book, contains in it a Declaration, That the Subscribers do judge the Author hath in all that is material, rightly and fully stated the Truths and errors mentioned as such, 'tis reasonably supposed, that in stating this Point, the Author hath not omitted any one Distinction if at all material; and yet without any distinction he hath oft declared in the general, There is No Change of Person between Christ and us. How then can any say, It could not be intended of a denial of a change in the general sense?  
3. Whereas 'tis added, It must be taken only as intended against the Opinion of his Adversary against whom he wrote, 'tis Replied.  
If this had been really the Intention of the Author, as he should not have delivered his sense by such Negations of a change, as exclude every change; so in a state that is right and full, in all that is material, he should have  told us the sense in which his Adversary affirmed a change. But thus much he hath done no otherwise than by saying in the General, his Adversary holds a change, and he denies it. The difference( saith he) lieth in these Points, 1. Whether there be a change of person between Christ and the Elect, yea, or between Christ and Believers? This the Doctor( viz. his Adversary) affirms and I deny. Gosp. Tr. Stated, p. 40. Thus you see the difference between him and his Adversary is, Whether there be a change or no change in the general? A change, saith his Adversary; No change saith he. Is it possible for the Wit of Man to invent Words more expressive of the denial of a change in the general sense than our Author hath done?  
But it's said, In that very place he expressly affirms, That Christ Suffered and Dyed in our Stead. In Return hereunto it must be observed.  
1. That our Modern Innovators have assumed to themselves the Prerogative of imposing an Heterodox Sense on sound Terms and Phrases, and that these words [ In our Place and Stead] do not with many now-a-days, signify a surrogation, or a proper change of persons in a legal sense, but imports no more than for our good and benefit.  
2. That tho Socinus and Crellius, who granted, that there was a Metaphorical, or rather an improper change of persons, vehemently opposed the use of these Phrases, 'vice nostrâ, loco nostro, in our place and stead.] because they looked on 'em to signify what in truth they do, to wit, a surrogation, or a proper change of Persons; yet now the English Socinians are of another Mind, Declaring, That the great Point in controversy, between them, and us, turns not on the Words[ in our stead.] That Men of the Racovian way do consider our Saviour, as suffering for us, and in our stead, Agreem. of Un. page. 39. So that, to vindicate One, who, in express Words denies a change of Persons, itis not enough to say, that Christ suffered in our stead; for, you see, this Phrase is used by them, who are most set against a Surrogation, or Change of Persons betwixt Christ, and us, and may Import no more than that, if the Lord Christ had not suffered, we should have been punished; which is consistent enough with the Assertion of Socinus and his Admirers. But,  
3. That our Author takes these Terms [ in our Place, and Stead] in a Sense, which doth not interfere with his Denying a change of Persons in the General, seems clear from his ridiculing Dr. crisp for affirming a change of Persons upon this Ground, that Christ suffered in our stead.[ Because Christ suffered in our stead, therefore, saith he, the Dr. thinks there is a change of Person, Gosp. Tr. Stat. p. 52.] whereas if by the Words [ in our stead] he meant a change of Persons, he could never have assigned this as the Reason of the Doctors mistake; nothing being more plain and easy than to conclude, that if Christ suffered in our stead, there was a change of Person between Christ and us. Thus far the Author of my Manuscript.  
By this time you may understand, what have been the Matters in Difference betwixt our Brethren in the City? And what it is that hath hindered a Re-Union; namely, an Apprehension, that the Author of Gospel Truth Stated doth in some Instances forsake the Truth, and that the Names set to the Testimonial presix'd to his Book gave too much Countenance thereunto: Besides, I must add, that their Dissatisfaction hath been increased, by the appearing backwardness in some, either to testify against the errors charged on the offensive Book; or, to condescend so far as to Examine whether the Charge be true, tho their Names are unto the Attestation set before it. Once more, they, who rejected the first Paper, tho it hath nothing in it but an Impartial Stating the Truth, as it lies between the Antimonian, the Arminian, and Socinian extremes, and is most aptly adjusted to a Joyous Conciliation in Matters Doctrinal, have thereby added to the Grief of our offended Brethren. But it must be withal remarked, that they who are against the Doctrines contained in the first Paper are but a very small number, and not one of the biggest Character that I can on the strictest Scrutiny observe. And that you may be the more able to Judge aright of this Matter, there is nothing further needful than to consult the first Paper, which I here sand you as it came to my Hands.  

The First Paper.  
WHereas some unhappy Differences have arisen amongst us, principally about the Doctrine of Justification, occasioned by a Book, Written by Mr. Williams, entitled, Gospel Truth Stated and Vindicated, to which some of our Names were prefixed, and against which several Exceptions were made by Mr. Grissith, Mr. coal, Mr. madder, Mr. Chauncey, Mr. trail, and Mr. Richard tailor, which if continued amongst the Ministers of Christ may be much to the Dishonour of God, and Danger to the Souls of Men.  
For the Composing whereof, as we formerly expressed our Approbation of the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England, or the Confession of Faith, compiled by the Assembly at Westminster, or that at the Savoy, as agreeable to the Word of God, unto that Approbation we still adhere: Declaring further, that if any of us shall at any Time hereafter be apprehended to have expressed himself disagreeing thereunto; we will with Brotherly Candour and Kindness, mutually endeavour to give, and receive just Satisfaction herein: Bearing with one anothers Infirmities, and different Sentiments about Logical, or Philosophical Terms, or merely human Forms of Speech, in Matters of lesser Weight: Not thinking it reasonable or just to Charge upon any Brother such Consequences of any Expression, or Opinion of his, which he himself shall Disown.  
And We do further Declare, with respect to the special Matters in Difference amongst us; that, Altho Regeneration, Repentance towards God, Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and Holy Conversation are by Gods express Word manifestly necessary to the Salvation of a Sinner; yet, that none of these, or any Work done by Men, or wrought by the Spirit of God in them, is under the Notion of Subordination, or under any Denomination whatsoever, any Part of that Righteousness for the sake, or on the account whereof God doth Pardon, justify, or accept Sinners, or entitle them to Eternal Life; that being only the Righteousness of Jesus Christ without them, Imputed unto them, and Received by Faith alone.  
And whereas, in the above mentioned Book it is said, [ There is no Change of Person betwixt Christ and Believers]( page. 37, 40, 41.) which the Learned H. Grotius, and the Reverend Dr. Stillingfleet, now Bishop of Worcester, do not only Assert, but Irrefragably Prove, in Concurrence with the Common Sentiment of Protestants; in as much as we conceive the Doctrine of Justification, and of Christs Satisfaction, on which it depends cannot be duly Explained and Defended, consistently with the Denial of any Commutation of Persons between Christ, and Believers.  
We do therefore Declare our Disallowance of that Proposition in the general Sense thereof, giving our Sense thus. That as it is Apparent, this cannot be a Physical Change, by which Christ and Believers do in Substance become one another: Nor again a Moral Change, whereby Christ should become inherently sinful, and Believers become immediately thereby Innocent, and Sinless: So, we doubt not, there is a Commutation of Persons in a Legal Sense, Christ by Consent between the Father, and Him, Putting on the Person, and coming into the Room, and Stead of Sinners; not to Repent, or Believe for them, which the Gospel requires( tho He hath undertaken the Elect shall in due time be enabled hereunto) but to Answer for them the Obligations of the violated Law of Works, Being made Sin for them, tho He knew no Sin, that they might be made the Righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21. And what is contrary hereunto, we Judge Erroneous and False.  
And as there is a Change of Persons betwixt Christ and Believers, so the guilt of our Iniquities being laid upon Christ, the Father was displeased with him. Not that He was ever moved to any Passion against Him, which in the General, the Perfection of the Divine Nature admits not, on any account whatsoever; nor that he was in any Sense offended with him, much less abhorred him, considered as He was in himself, for so he was most perfectly sinless; but considered in Relation to us, as our Surety, bearing our Sins in his own Body; so, if by Displeasure, or Wrath, be only meant[ a Dispassionate Will to Punish] the Lord Christ did Feel, and Bear the Displeasure of God, and the weight of his Wrath, in the Punishment of our Sins, transferred upon him; for it pleased the Father to bruise him, having laid upon him the Iniquities of us all. And we do further Declare, that whosoever shall be found to express themselves in their Preaching or Writings agreeably hereto, and the mentioned Articles, and Confessions, we shall esteem them to deliver the Sincere Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And it shall be remote from us to oppose, or reflect upon: But we shall to our uttermost encourage and give Countenance to one anothers Ministry herein.  
If therefore Mr. Williams shall concur with us in what we have declared touching the Doctrine of Justification, and in the sense we have given of a change of persons between Christ and Believers, and of Christ's enduring the displeasure of the Father for our sins; and shall give satisfaction about any thing else that any Brother excepts against in the rest of his Writings, agreeably to the abovesaid Articles and Confessions, We shall so far acquiesce therein, as not to make them the matter of further public Contest or Altercation amongst ourselves.   
This is the First Paper that was offered as an Expedient for the composing those Differences which are amongst our London Brethren; in which you cannot but observe the Air of a most Christian Temper, a combination of Peaceable Principles, together with a clear and candid stating the great Doctrines of Christ's Gospel. This is the Paper in which our offended Brethren rejoiced; and it was the Rejecting This Paper, that filled them both with Grief and Wonder. That a Paper so happily composed for the healing the Wound, should meet with the least check, could not but astonish and afflict them.  
However, to the alwise God be rendered Honour and Glory, that the indefatigable Pains of the Pacificators have issued in so happy an Agreement of the most Godly, Learned and Judicious Ministers in and about this City. This is so great a Mercy, that 'tis pity the Country should be altogether unacquainted with it. Take therefore the Names of such of 'em as came to my hands, with this caution, That I not being able to procure a List of all, we must not esteem every one, whose Name is not here inserted, to be against this Paper; for I cannot learn, that there are Five Pastors of Churches Dissenting from it.  
The Names of them whose Hands were set before Mr. Williams his Book, and Subscribed this Paper:  
W. Bates D. D. John Howe, Rich. Stretton, V. Alsop, J. Shower, D. burgess, S. Slater, J. Quick, D. Evans.  
I have not sent you what was Drawn up to signify how far their Approval was to be extended, for some having seen the Book, and others not, and some extending their Attestation further than others did, the same Words were insufficient to express their sundry senses. But the other Brethren did unanimously deliver their Sentiments thus:  
We who subscribed not our Names to the Testimonial Prefixed to Mr. Williams's s Book, are glad to find so good an Agreement amongst us as this Paper doth express.  
George Griffith, Matthew Barker, Matthew Mead, John James, Isaac Chauncey, Richard Wavel, Edw. Terrey, Edw. veal, Rob. trail, Jos. Hill, Rob. Franklin, Jos. Cawthorne, Stephen lob, Richard tailor, Franc. Glascocke, Walter cross, Tho. row, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Gouge, John Nesbit, Jonathan own, J. Walker, mat. clerk.  
There were several others who expressed their Approbation of this Paper, such as Dr. Annesley, Mr. Will. tailor, Mr. Beverly; and Mr. George Hammond himself said, That he had nothing to object against it, but might it be a Mean to Restore the Union, he would gladly set his Hand unto it. I am  
Sir, 
 Yours— July 14. 97.   

Advertisement.  
PIetas in Patriam: Or, The Life of Sir William Phips, Late Captain General, and governor in Chief of the Province of the Massachuset-Bay New-England, Containing the Memorable Changes undergone, and Actions performed by him, together with an Account of his Conversion. Printed for Nath. Hiller at the Princes-Arms in Leaden-Hall Street, over against St. Mary-Ax. Price Bound 1 s.