CRISP. 475 the dangerous opinions which the doctor held. The con- troversy, however, was at rest till the year 1690, when his son, Samuel Crisp, esq. published a new edition of the above sermons, with the addition of ten more, making in all fifty-two ; and procured to the work the attestation of several ministers, that the discourses were the doctor's own productions, and copied from his manuscripts. This occa- sioned a new controversy, which, for seven years, was carried on with great warmth and intemperate zeal. Many eminent divines engaged in this controversy. Among those who took a leading part in the dispute was Dr. Daniel Williams. He considered many of Crisp's assertions as exceedingly dangerous. And concerning the commutation of persons between Christ and the sinner,, he could not but look upon it to be " not only false, absurd, and impossible, but also an impious and blasphemous opinion, as being dishonourable to our Saviour, repugnant to the wisdom and justice of God, and leading plainly to subvert the whole design of christianity." Here, says our author, lay the root of Dr. Crisp's error, which shot its fibres into almost every subject. Heviewed the union between Christ and believers to be of such a kind as actually to make a Saviour of the sinner, and a sinner of the Saviour. He speaks as if God considered the sinner as doing and suffering what Christ did and suffered; and Christ as having committed their sins, and as being actually guilty of them. The confusion and dreadful mistakes arising hence can scarcely be described. If we add, as already intimated, that his mind was perplexed about the divine decrees, and that he confounded them with God's revealed will, and strangely blended the divine purpose and the execution of it, as if they were one and the same thing, the reader will perceive the cause of his mistakes. The unhallowed influence of these opinions, the doctor appears not to have felt ; but, scattering them among the multitude, hewas like a man throwing fire-brands, arrows, and death. ThisAmhappy controversy produced a separa- tion among two respectable parties of the dissenters, which continues to this day.. For a more ample account of this controversy, see Bogue and Bennett's Dissenters, vol. i. p. 401 -409.-Wilson's Hist. of Dissenting Churches, vol. ii. p. 201-209.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=