An Answer to Mr. J. Humphrey' s Second Printed Letter, wherein he publisheth Mr. Lob' s Objections against Mr. W' s. Books.  
SIR,  
YOUR First Letter misrepresents my Judgement in many things, as if you little considered my Books, whence you pretend your Objections: This Letter I suffer to pass without further Animadversion, than to inform you, that my Adversaries have boldly assured the World, that I say, The Righteousness of Christ is imputed only as to Effects; whereas you truly represent my words, that besides the Effects, the Righteousness of Christ itself, is imputed to us. It's true, you had prevented your Plea against it, had you consulted Man made Righteous, p. 77, 78, 79, 80. Yet have I no reason to complain of my Treatment; whilst struck at by both Extremes, when deeper thoughts would perceive the truth stated against the excess of both?  
But your Second Letter necessitates a Vindication of myself from the Falsehoods imposed on you; the Publication whereof is poorly excused by saying, You have not my Books now to examine the Quotations. Will your Experience allow you to be a Tool to a Man you call learned, because Industrious to divide Brethren, under a pretence of Reconciling a Breach, which is made and maintained to serve a turn, against all the selfdenying Methods that were possible on our part. This Sheet allows not arguing any Point; my Concern is to show how unjustly I am represented, by the Objections offered by your Author.  
1. Obj. Christ, where he is called a Surety, was a Surety of a better Covenant, and therefore not of the Law of Works. It was not a Covenant that obliged us to die for sin, or perfectly obey in a way of Merit, that he is called a Surety of. Man made Righteous, p. 102.  
Ans. 1. He leaves out the word here, and so changeth the sense. My words are, That the Covenant he is called a Surety of here, viz. Heb. 7. 22.  
Ans. 2. In stating the Question that leads to these words, I declared what I affirmed concerning Christ's Surety-ship, and what I did deny. 1. I granted that Christ hath undertaken in the Covenant of Redemption, that he would make Satisfaction to Justice for us, and obey the whole Will of God, etc. He was a real Sponsor, engaging to do all that belonged to him. Christ accordingly died in our Nature, and that not only for our good, but in our stead, nostro loco. We were liable to die, he stepped in and died, that we might not die; who otherwise must have died, but now live by his dying for us. He was a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He gave his Life for ours; yea, and this to vindicate the Glory of God, in exempting us from Death, etc. Then I proved that Christ did suffer properly in our stead, was a Sacrifice for us, etc. And concluded, Thus far the Word of God directs us to call Christ, either Surety, Sponsor, Representative, etc. p. 90, 91, 92. 2. The thing that I did deny, was, That Christ by his Obedience made Atonement, or merited for us, as a proper Pecuniary Surety in the Law of Works. This I confuted by several Arguments; and the words objected are the sixth Argument, viz. that in Heb. 7. 22. where Christ is called a Surety, it is of the better Covenant; which is not the Covenant of Works. Sir, judge you, whether I affirm not Christ to be a Surety, Name and Thing; though I affirm that it's the better Covenant he is called Surety of in Heb. 7. 22. And deny him to be a Money Surety.  
2. Obj. Christ can be bound by the Covenant, of which he is surety, to no more than what we are engaged to do and suffer by the Gospel-Covenant. Man made Righteous, p. 105.  
Ans. My words are, The Covenant Christ is Surety of in this place, viz. Heb. 7. 22. is the Gospel-Covenant; and if so, he can even as a Money Surety hereby be bound with us to no more than what we are engaged to do and Suffer by this Gospel-Covenant. It's true, by the Covenant of Redemption, he was engaged to suffer Death in the Humane Nature for Satisfaction, and this in our place, and also to obey the whole Law. Sir, can you not see that the Objector leaves out, in this place, Money, and hereby. And he also makes that to be my Assertion, what I only infer from a Supposition, which I denied, and leaves out if so. He would suggest me to say, Christ is to Repent and Believe for us; which, as I expressly deny, p. 91. So I oft declare, that his Surety-ship, as to the Gospel-Covenant, consists in his undertaking that the Covenant shall be performed on God's, and on the Believers part. And lastly, he stops just at the words which confute his whole Imputation, viz. That Christ was engaged by the Covenant of Redemption to Suffer, etc.  
3. Obj. Though in Gal. 4. 4, 5. it's said, that Christ was made under the Law, it is not meant of the Moral Law, but Ceremonial Law.  
Ans. I was proving that though the Righteousness of Christ, for which we are justified, be a Righteousness adequate to the Law, yea, Supra legal, as well as in substance truly Legal; yet that Righteousness is not a Surety-ship Righteousness, that can infer us equally Righteous as Christ. Pursuant hereto, I propose Gal. 4. 4, 5. as an Objection, to which I made these four Answers. 1. I might show how the Context confines to the following sense, viz. That Christ was made under the Jewish Law, delivered Four Hundred Years after the Promise, etc. And in this sense it is not the Law of Innocency, as a Proper Covenant of Works, etc. The Objection is pretended hence; but I said the Jewish Law, not the Ceremonial Law, which is but part of it: The Moral Law was also a part thereof, though not delivered to them as a proper Covenant of Innocency. 2. My next Answer, and in the very same Page, was, I grant that Christ in taking our Nature, became a Servant, and subject to the Law of Innocency, to its Precepts, and its Punishments, as a Mediator, according to the terms adjusted in the Covenant of Redemption. Here I affirmed what he saith I deny. My Fourth Answer was, Christ did not then become a Surety, or Undertaker to die for us, by being made under the Law, but he was made under the Law, because he had undertaken to die for us. His very being made under the Law of Works, was but a performance of a Previous Engagement to the Lawgiver; this being one Article in the Covenant of Redemption, that he should take our Nature, be a Servant under the Law, and make his Soul an Offering for Sin. Ubi sup. p. 110, 111.  
4. Obj. Calling God Creditor, and Sin Debts, is Metaphorical; and using such words as proper, hath given Advantage to the Socinians.  
Ans. I acknowledge it, and such as understand the way of Confuting the Socinians, are of the same mind. And therefore grant, if God were a Creditor, and Sin a Debt, God might forgive without Satisfaction; and if the Idem be paid, it's not a Satisfaction, nor is there room for Pardon, nor for Gospel-terms. See this urged by Leideker, Synopsis Theol. l. 4. cap. 6. S. 4, 5, 6, 7. 11. 20. 45. B. Stillingfleet, Suff. of Christ, Cap. 1. Grotius de Satisf. p. 60. 71. Essen. Trium. Crucis, 340. 390. Dr. Owen, of Satisf. 141. saith, they are the most improper Expressions in this matter.  
5. Obj. There is no change of Person between Christ and the Elect, or between him and Believers. Gospel Truth, p. 37. 41.  
Ans. 1. If by change of Person be meant simply a change of Persons or Men; that is, that Sinners were to die for their Transgressions, but Christ, by God's Appointment, and his own Consent, was substituted to obey, and die in Sinners stead; and Christ stood obliged so to Obey and Suffer what for substance the Law required. I have hundreds of times asserted it in my Books. I have not room to instance. See in Man made Righteous, Eight Propositions clearing this. In one I say, Divine Grace and Sovereignty exert themselves to answer the ends of the Law, by substituting Christ a Saviour of lost Souls, etc. p. 11, 12, 13.  
Ans. 2. The change of Person I there denied, is only that which Dr. Crisp and Followers assert, and which is the strict meaning of a change of Person, viz. A mutual complete change of Condition and Character; and not a transferring a Punishment from a Criminal to an Hostage. This is evident, 1. By the Error I there confute, i. e. that every Elect Person is as Righteous as Christ; there is a perfect change of Person and Condition between Christ and the Elect: He was what we are, and we are what he was, viz. perfectly Holy, etc. Christ himself is not so completely Righteous, but we are as Righteous as he; nor we so completely Sinful, but Christ became as sinful as we, etc. That very sinfulness that we were, Christ is made that very Sinfulness before God: So that there is a direct change of Person. 2. It's plain that I denied this change of Person in Crisp's sense, by what I offer to overthrow it; wherein nothing opposeth Christ's dying in our stead, by God's Substitution or Surrogation. My words are, Christ was the Saviour, we the saved, and not the Saviour's. Christ was the Redeemer, and not the Redeemed; we are the Redeemed, and never the Redeemers. Christ was he who by his Merits forgives us, but never was forgiven; we are forgiven, and never had Merits of our own to forgive ourselves or others. He was the dying Sacrifice. 3. I do in the very Chapter whence the words are objected, oft assert as much, as the Orthodox intent by Christ's being substituted in our place to die for us. To instance a few of many, p. 39 Christ's Sufferings were so in our stead, that God cannot exact from us any other Atonement for Sin, or meriting Price of any Gospel-Blessings. p. 43. The Efficient Merit of Justification is in Christ, the Effect of the Judicial Absolution for that Merit is in us. Had not he obeyed, and suffered for us, we could not have been absolved for the sake of his Obedience and Sufferings. P. 52. Christ suffered in our stead, that the Fruit of his Sufferings might be our deliverance from Sufferings, and our being saved at last. How many might I add out of that very Chapter? It's worth the Objector's leisure to consider, how he lays such stress on a change of Person in Crisp's sense, and yet contends for Christ and us being one Legal Person. How could Christ and we be One Person in Law, and yet Christ's Person and our Persons be mutually changed in Law, unless that both Persons were changed from what they once were, into a tertium quid, that neither were before?  
6. Obj. There is a change of the Penal Sanction of the Law, Pref. Gospel-Truth. The Gospel doth not denounce Death for the same sins, and for every sin, as Adam's Law did. Def. Gosp. Truth, p. 30.  
Ans. 1. The first Clause is false represented: I will recite my words, After I had said, the Gospel includes the Moral Preceptive part of the first Law, etc. And that the Gospel is taken in a large sense, when I say, it includes the Moral Precepts. But yet the Gospel doth so, and they are the Commands of a Redeemer, as well as the Law of a Creator. I then added, The Gospel hath another Sanction to the Preceptive part of the Law, than the Covenant of Works had: Though nothing be abated in the Rule of Sin and Duty, yet Blessings are promised to lower degrees of Duties; and a continuance in a state of Death, with a Bar to the Blessing, are not threatened against every degree of Sin, as the Covenant of Works did; doth it threaten Damnation, or a continuance therein on any true Penitent, Believing, Godly Man, because he is imperfect? Sir, judge you, is a Change of the Penal Sanction of the Moral Law, the same as the Gospel hath another Sanction to the Preceptive part of the Law, as those Precepts are taken into the Gospel. May not the Law have its own Sanction still as a Covenant of Works? And yet the Gospel have another Sanction as a Covenant of Grace, though it includes the Moral Precepts as a Rule of Duty? It seems the Objector thinks with his Associates, either the Gospel hath neither Precept, Threatening, nor Conditional Promise. Or if it hath a Sanction, it's this, that though a Man be a sincere Penitent Believer, yet he shall die if he be guilty of one evil Thought; and shall not be saved, if he be not Perfect.  
Answ. 2. As to the second Clause, my words were, The Gospel Law doth not denounce death for the same Sins, as Adam's Law did: That Law threatened Death for the least Sin; yea, for one Sin. The Gospel doth not bar every Sinner from relief, but the impenitent, unbelieving, and utterly ungodly Hypocrite: And it binds not damnation on us, unless we are finally impenitent Unbelievers, But the Objector wisely leaves out the last part, to traduce me by the first.  
7. Obj. Christ purchased the Covenant of Grace.  
Answ. I speak not of God's decree or purpose, but of the actual promulgated Promise to the World, that he that believeth shall be saved: And I can as soon think, God might perform this Promise, without respect to Christ's Merits; as not provide for the Glory of his Justice by Christ's satisfaction, in the making this Promise.  
8. Obj. The Condition of the Covenant of Grace, is an antecedent condition. Answ. My words quoted from Mr. Flavel are, An antecedent Condition signifies no more than an act of ours; which though it be neither perfect in every degree, nor in the least meritorious of the benefit, nor performed in our own natural strength: Yet, according to the constitution of the Covenant, it is required of us, in order to the blessings consequent thereupon, by virtue of the Promise. Gospel Truth, p. 54. You see I mean only antecedent to subsequent benefits by Gospel Constitution, but speak not of Election. Sir, you omit one part of the Objection, viz. That I should say, the Conditions are legal, etc. I never call them so. Nay, p. 56. I affirmed, That the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace differ from the Conditions of the Covenant of Works, and proved it in five instances; one whereof is, that the blessings of the Covenant of Grace, are merely of Grace, they be for another's sake, and not our own, etc.  
9 Obj. Faith and Repentance are not Covenant Benefits.  
Answ. He pretends to Cite no place out of my Books for this, and I never wrote any such thing. But I have said, God hath promised, and Christ engaged in the Covenant of Redemption, that the Elect shall believe. Gospel Truth, p. 60. The first Grace by which we perform the Condition is absolutely given, p. 61. Christ purchased all Grace for us, and by his Spirit worketh all Grace in us, 248. There is a promise of the first Grace made to Christ, and by virtue of that Promise, the Elect consent to the Covenant, 66. Now Sir, compare all these things and judge whether your Author deserveth such trust, as to adventure your Publication of these things upon his Credit. Sincerity inclineth you to be too credulous for some Associates: But I proceed to the other Objections your Author makes, though he never vouchsafed me a Copy of what he gave to many others privately.  
10. Obj. The Father was never displeased with Christ, Gospel Truth, p. 31. Answ. I said the Soul of Christ endured the effects of God's Wrath, and was amazed thereat; but was never displeased with Christ. It seems the Objector would have me say with Crisp, that Christ was odious to God, hated worse than a Toad, etc. because of the filthiness of sin upon him.  
11. Obj. All Communications of Comfort could not be interrupted, whilst the Personal Union remained, p. 33.  
Answ. My words are, This Union could not be dissolved; nor could all Communications of Comfort or Strength from the Divine Nature be interrupted, while the Union remained. He leaves out, or strength, and changeth a disjunctive Proposition into an absolute. I distinguish between the arbitrary Communications of Comfort, and those which were necessary to Christ's Hope, Trust, Peace of Conscience as to his own Innocency, to his Holiness, Strength, and the prevention of Despair; what degrees of Comfort were necessary to these, I affirm, were not interrupted.  
12. Obj. Christ and we are not one in Conspectu fori, and therefore tells us, that 'tis Blasphemy to debase him among the numbers of Transgressor's. Gospel Truth, 41.  
Answ. 1. Not one in Conspectu fori, is not in any of my Books. The words partly Cited, are part of my Argument, against the Crispian Change of Person; whereby we are as Righteous as Christ, and he as sinful as we, they are these; it is profane Arrogance for us to pretend to Christ's Prerogatives, and its Blasphemy to debase Christ among Enemies and Sinners, for whom he is the dying Sacrifice: it's enough, that he reserving the peculiars of a Redeemer, should agree to die for our Sins: it's enough, that we are pardoned and adopted for his sake, who deserved endless Woe; and were never capable of making the least Atonement.  
Answ. 2. If the Objector intends to represent me denying the guilt of Sin, being once upon Christ; he knows I plainly state and affirm the contrary. P. 7. Our Sins were laid upon Christ, with respect to the guilt thereof: So that by the Father's Appointment, and his own Consent, he became obliged as Mediator to bear those Punishments, to the full satisfaction of Justice. And p. 9 Christ did bear the guilt of our Sins, which is, that respect to the threatening of the Law, whereby there is an Obligation to bear the Punishment. Answ. 3. I Suppose the Objector is now offended that I did not say with Crisp and his Party, that Sin itself, the filth and fault, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as opposed to the guilt, was laid on Christ; and that he was in God's esteem the very murderer and Idolater. Answ. 4. I grant God esteemed Christ and Sinners so one; as he that freely engageth to die to redeem Sinners, by dying in their stead, and they in whose stead he so dieth, are one. But I shall ever deny, that Christ and Sinners were so one in Conspectu fori, as that God esteemed Sinners to die to make satisfaction; though they, when Believers, are saved by Christ's Death, as if they had made Atonement. And also, That Christ was the Sinner in God's Account, when he died, sustaining the Person of a Mediator.  
13. Obj. Mr. W. differs from himself, having in his Writings several inconsistencies and self-contradictions.  
Answ. 1. This is put in for a Provision against all that occurs in my Books; to debar the false Charge against me, oh he contradicts himself, when he utters things in fullest opposition to Socinianism, etc. Answ. 2. And wherein do I Contradict myself? The Objector thinks, if I deny the Crispian change of Person, or pecuniary Suretyship, and one legal Person, in a sense inferring our making Satisfaction, by our own dying in the Laws estimate. Then whatever I say of Christ's Satisfaction, must be Socinianism; and all I can utter against Socinianism, is self-contradicting. But if he call me to it, I shall demonstrate, that Christ being a Mediator, Sponsor, or subsequent Surety ex re gesta, constituted such by the Covenant of Redemption, and made under the Law, pursuant to that prior engagement to obey, and suffer in our stead what answered the ends of the Law, that we might be saved in a way consistent with God's Glory as our Lawgiver; will argue as great a change of Persons and Suretyship, as will solve his feigned Contradictions. And yet shall deny such a Complete Change of Person, which argues Christ to be the Sinner, and the Redeemed to be as Righteous as Christ. And in like manner shall deny such a legaloness and strict pecuniary Suretyship, as argues we paid all our own Debts, we satisfied the Law by obeying its Precepts, and enduring its Penalty, and so the Law of Works, not the Gospel absolves us. You may see the point partly statted, in the last Leaf of Defence of Gospel Truth. As to what he saith of my pretending an agreement with some Modern Divines, who disagree with me; I am sure, I have truly recited their own words, which so far express my Sentiments, let him prove them self-contradictors if he can.  
His flying Charge from the Premises, as if Socinianism were abetted, deserves no farther reply, than to call it Slanderous. All my arguments against Christ's pecuniary Suretyship, he never read in any Book; and had a Socinian urged them against a Truth, they are not the less valid if urged against errors destructive to Christianity. And what if some Socinians use some Expressions in a sense contrary to that wherein I plainly use them? They do also own a Commutation of Person, and then they must be Socinians by as strong a Consequence, who use that phrase. If I have not in my Books said enough to clear me from all suspicion of that Error, the objector's Malice must be the standard of Socinianism, and not the fundamental positions, which have by all its Celebrated opposers, been hitherto confuted. To omit Christ's eternal Generation as the Son of God, of one Essence with the Father, which I oft assert. Can I say more as to his Satisfaction, than I have ex professo done, and oft with enforcing Reasons, See Man made Righteous, p. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 35, to 42, 229, etc. I place the necessity of satisfaction in God's essential justice; I describe it by Christ's perfectly obeying the Law of Works, in its essentials and doing much more; as also in his suffering death in our stead. I assert his Sufferings to be Punishments satisfactory to justice for our Sins; that Christ was a proper Sacrifice, and himself the Priest that offered it on earth. I make his Obedience properly meritorious of all our saving Benefits; himself a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his death, with much more, which I challenge him to prove consistent with Socinianism. But some Men think they can gain a point among their Credulous silly Admirers, by branding with a scandalous name, all they bear an ill will to, if not affright the Persons injured, or at least their Friends But I bless God, I have found more of his defence, and am more assured of the goodness of my Cause, than to be affrighted from my Duty, by such Bug-bears: And should all they of the same judgement with me expose the truth by little arts, and trimming methods, in pretence of designs never so plausible, I shall have peace, when my testimony is faithfully given, as occasion shall offer, by whatever implacable rage I am pursued. I conclude, Sir, blameing your Credulity in Printing things as mine, before Examination, though in most you declare yourself to be of my side, and in the rest farther from my Enemies. Nor perceive I your Author's self-denial, or peaceableness, unless you think, because I have been so injured, therefore I must still by farther Suffering, justify the injurious; and bear the name of a hinderer of the Union, because they who never were of it, persecute me for my diligence in making, and care to preserve that Union, against their various and unwearied attempts from the first, to break it. And let me tell you, that as they rested not till by their Errors, noise of Doctrines, and other Arts, they had gained several to make this breach; so a Compliance, even to the allowing their Errors, and Sacrificing the truth to their Lusts, would be insignificant to bring such into the Union, who refused it long before any of my Books were written; or firmly restore such, who by their influence deserted it; unless God give a Spirit, that shall prefer public good to little designs, and incline to Love and Peace, above Division and Wrath. Experience of the unsuccessfulness of many overtures for Peace, (a narrative whereof would amaze the World) induceth this Conjecture: And yet no hardships I have endured, shall abate a desire of a solid Union upon honest Terms. You will find Dr. B's, Mr. H. and Mr. A design no more, than what's agreeable to what I affirm, and they hate the Errors I oppose. And which, though so dangerous, M. L. for Partysake, will promote by blasting my Confutation, and pressing an implicit disowning my Books, as a term of Union with those, who rejected it as sinful, long before my Books were written: Yea, who influenced the dividing of P. Hall Lecture, to break the Fond for poor Ministers; that both these added to their stated separate Meeting of Ministers, (at the same hour the United Brethren met) a perfect Breach might be proclaimed. And for a Grave-stone over it, the only four Pastors in London, who never came into the Union, are with two more, the only Lecturers at P. H. Can than the Subscribes to my Book, be so false to Truth and their Ministry, as to abate their Testimony, Will a general Union ensue? No, Unless the Dissenters former Declaration against it were a Trick: Why then so insisted on? It's because it will not be yielded to, and so they get an Excuse long after this Subscription, why they United not before it, Or if complied with, then besides a Countenance to their Errors, Men will judge the Presbyterians cause these Divisions; although they ask nothing of the Dissenters but to meet with them, and be quiet. And Lastly, the English and Foreign Churches would affix the Crispian dotages to the Presbiterians, for thus revoking their Testimony against them: A Censure of which sort, on a lighter occasion, was going into the Press, just as my Book so Subscribed came out. I am,  
Your Brother and Servant 〈◊〉 WILLIAMS