THERE is a Book of Mr Williams's, call'd, Goſpel Truth stated, from whence Occaſion hath been taken for Diviſion. It is a good Book, a uſeful Book, eſpecially for young Miniſters, and ſuch of the People, who being a little Learned, or Bookiſh, turn Diſputative, to ſave them from Error. I do therefore thank him for it, and eſpecially for what he hath ſaid on Phil. 3. and that he hath abided by it. It is what I ſaid in my Sheet of Juſtification in the firſt Edition, ſo many Years agoe, and Sir Charles Woleſley after me. I have read his Book over and over, and conſidering the multitude of matters, with common Allowance to Human Frailty, I can find few Faults in compariſon, and ſhould have found none had I not already, unleſs this be one. That he hath got ſo many Hands to it; or, which is worſe, that when his Book was ſufficient for its own defence, he ſhould, upon the writing of one againſt it, go to vindicate it. If he had not wrote again, he had then overcome; but is overcome now if he don't. In this Book there are two Expreſſions which the Brethren would have him retract: One is, There is not a Change of Perſon between Chriſt and the Elect. The other is, The Father was never diſpleaſed with Chriſt. I will humbly motion here a drawn Battel, or mutual Condeſcention; that is, for Mr Williams to withdraw one of theſe Paſſages they except againſt; and, for the Brethren to withdraw the other Exception.

As for the firſt Paſſage, whatſoever is to be underſtood by Commutation of Perſons, the Brethren underſtand thus much, That Chriſt put on the Perſon of Sinners, for theſe are their Words. Now Mr Williams, I ſuppoſe, denies this, and they would have him retract his Denial. By Perſon therefore we are to conſider, that two things may be ſignified, the Perſon of the Sinner himſelf, Suppoſitum rationale; or the Quality or Condition of a Sinner, as, when a Man acts a Drunkard on the Stage, he perſonates Drunkenneſs, if a King, he perſonates Majeſty. Chriſt, GOD-Man, ſtood in the room of us Sinners, in what he did and ſuffer'd for us, quatenus He and we are Suppoſita rationalia, and in this firſt ſence of the word Mr Williams allows a Commutation of Perſons, ſo as when the Suffering was Chriſt's, the Benefit was Ours, which is that Grotius intends only againſt the Socinians. But Mr Williams denies that Chriſt took upon him the Quality or Condition of Sinners; that is, in the ſecond ſence of the word, he denies what they affirm, to wit, That He put on the Perſon of Sinners. Chriſt did not repreſent or act the part of Sinners, nor was look'd on by God as a Sinner, when our Surety: A commutatio Hominum there was, no commutatio Actionum. He repreſented Ʋs that are Sinners, he repreſented not the Sinner. A Sinner is one that breaks the Law of God, and Chriſt did not ſo, he acted no ſuch Part, and God never accounted that he did; and there is therefore no change of The diſtinction of theſe terms is not made ordinarily by Divines. (which excuſes the Brethrens Citation of one for the other) but I uſe it as peculiar for explaining Mr Williams's Sence: if any ſhall still chuſe to confound them, and expreſs our Sence otherwiſe, it is all one to me, and may be to him. Perſon, though a change of Perſons, according to Mr. Williams. When in this ſence therefore of the word Perſon he is in the right, let us conſider further as to the other ſence of it, (as it ſignifies our Human Nature, not our Sinful Nature, or Sinful Qualities) that tho' Chriſt did ſuſtain our Perſons (giving the Brethren liberty of ſuch words) as to what he did and ſuffer'd in our ſtead, yet is there nothing wherein we reciprocally ſuſtain his Perſon, as he did ours; nothing that we are to be ſaid or accounted to have done what he did; and therefore do I in my late Book, Pacification, ſay, That here is only a change of Perſon, but not of Perſons. A ſtrange thing really, that when the ſame ſence is intended by me and Mr Williams, the ſame Diſtinction uſed, and both ſay true, yet the Terms of that Diſtinction are contrarily apply'd by us. I muſt deſire Mr Williams therefore to conſider, whether his uſe of the word Perſon be notAs they ſpeak of Chriſt's judicially ſuſtaining our Perſon, for in this ſecond ſence of the word Perſon, (or Mr Williams's ſence) Chriſt acted no Perſon but the Perſon of a Mediator. Foreign to our Divines, and it were not better to put what he means in ſuch Terms as are eaſier of reception, and that may be only by diſtinguiſhing of Chriſt's taking on him our Perſons, or bearing our Sins, in regard to the Fault, or the Puniſhment; and to ſay, he ſuſtained not our Perſons, or took on him our Sins quoad reatum culpae (in theſe known words) ſo as to be accounted of God a Sinner; but quoad reatum poenae propter culpam noſtram, ſo only as voluntarily oblig'd to our Puniſhment. Here is the ſame thing in ſence, and if ſo good an end as Re-union might be obtained by it, he may (underſtanding with me) retract the words in his Book [There is not a change of Perſon] and grant a change of Perſon, ſo long as he maintains ſtill with me no change of Perſons, for his buſineſs is done thereby as well as by his ſticking to a Word. The Lord Jeſus, in what he did and ſuffer'd for us, ſuſtained our Perſons, (I give way to ſuch Phraſes for Peace) inſomuch as we ſtill ſay, That what he did and ſuffer'd for us was accounted by God as done and ſuffer'd in our room, that we might have the benefit of it; but not accounted by him as if we had done and ſuffer'd in Chriſt's Perſon what he did and ſuffer'd for us; and ſo, in that reſpect, is there a change of Perſon, but not of Perſons; whereby I mean plainly, not ſuch a change as to make Chriſt's Righteouſneſs Legally or in Law-ſence Ours (or to be imputed in ſe, for that, let Mr Williams know, is all one), which whoever affirms (without Shifts), let him be as great in our eſteem as he will, I ſay, he ſpeaks it in Ignorance hitherto of what this draws after it, To wit, that (beſides the Conſequences I ſhew, Pacif. p. 36.) he makes us to be juſtified by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, per modum cauſae formalis, which is an unadviſed, abſurd, and dangerous Poſition, as that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of our former great Divines, which gave the riſe to Antinomianiſm. Be it known therefore to the deſervedly-beloved Dr. Bates, and the deſervedly envied Mr. Williams, (for there muſt be ſomething overtopping others in the man, which is envied), and the worthy Brethren th • drew, or ſigned this Paper, that here is the Point which (I believe) they have not bent the Minds to ſearch into, ſo far as to be willing to ſpeak out, and tell me if I ask, When Fait • which is our Evangelical Perſonal Righteouſneſs, does concurr ſome way with the Right • ouſneſs of Chriſt to our Juſtification, and Chriſt's Righteouſneſs (we know) does concu •• ſub genere cauſae Efficientis procatar • ticae (and Materialis alſo with Mr Baxter) per modum M •• riti, and no otherwiſe: What is then, let any one of them tell me, That wherein the form •• Cauſe or Reaſon of Juſtification is to be placed, or can Juſtification be, or conſtare, withoutJuſtificationis formam juſtitia conſtare certum eſt: A Middle W •• therefore here▪ between Pr • teſtant and Papiſt, deſi • e •• tur. An •…

For this Advice now, which, according to my Natural Genius, I ſhould have given Mr Williams, (See 1 Pet. iii. 15.) I apprehended not prejudicial to Goſpel Truth, if his ſen •• is upheld, that is the Truth of his Book, while the Quarrel about a Word be compos' •• It is plain, that Mr. Williams, and I, and They, hold the ſame thing; for he is no Socinia •• but holds, Chriſt died for us in the Sence of in our ſtead; That he was our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , impo •• ing a Surrogation of Chriſt's Perſon in our room, when he became a Sacrifice for us, which is as much (I ſay again) as Grotius, to whom they appeal, did intend. It is nothing therefore, in my eſteem, for Mr. Williams to withdraw an Expreſſion in that ſence which offends, ſeeing in the Antinomian ſenſe, wherein he denies a change of Perſon, the Brethren agree 〈◊〉 the Negative with him; and in the Orthodox ſence, which they own, Mr. Williams agrees 〈◊〉 the Affirmative with them. It is not baſe here, but generous, and to be Victor to give way • it being enough that they both have declared themſelves. Beſides, if the Brethren be 〈◊〉 earneſt to ſearch into the matter, and would order their words ſo as we might come to Co • cord both in Words and Sence, I have chalked out here, from my late Book, this Accommodation: I will allow them a change of Perſon in the Orthodox ſence of the word, ſo as 〈◊〉 grant Chriſt did ſuſtain our Perſon in what he did and ſuffer'd; And they ſhall allow to m •• that there is not a change of Perſons, ſo, as God did look on us to have done in Chriſt's Perſ •• what he did, tho' he did it in our behalf; and they ſhall henceforth frame their Words a • cordingly. And that our Brethren may bend to ſome Reconciliation in this propoſal, I 〈◊〉 find, ſince I wrote my Pacification, the ſame Conception in Dr Owen. We do not ſay, th •• God judgeth or eſteemeth that we did and ſuffer'd in our Perſons what Chriſt did and ſuffer'd; b •• only that he did it and ſuffer'd it in our ſtead. Of Juſtif. p. 295.

As for the latter Paſſage, That the Father was never diſpleaſed with Chriſt; thus much mu •• be premiſed and underſtood from what is ſaid on the former; That in the ſence he ſuſtain •• our Perſons he was made Sin for us, as the Apoſtle ſpeaks, tho' he knew no Sin, that is to be underſtood Effectivè. He was not made Sin or a Sinner formaliter, but I ſay effectivè, in regard to the Effect of Sin, that is the bearing our Puniſhment, as before. Our Saviour therefore may be conſider'd as bearing our Perſons (according to theſe Brethren) and ſo our Sin •• or in his own Perſon. God could not be diſpleaſed with him in the one, no, nor in the oth •• Conſideration, becauſe it was of his own appointment. God, in the Puniſhment on his Son (not of his Son) was diſpleaſed with the Sin and Sinners whoſe Perſon he bare, but he was never diſpleaſed with the Perſon of his Son, and much leſs now, when he was fulfilling th • Command of his Father, in giving himſelf for us an Offering and Sacrifice of a ſweet-ſmellin • Savour unto him. He muſt have a witty Invention, I think, that can find any thing to ma •• himſelf differ from Mr. Williams in this Point. And what, when they and he agree in Senc •• would our Brethren have Mr. Williams retract theſe Words? Nay, it is They muſt withdraw here, Or they may bid him next go contradict the Voice of God from Heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleaſed.

There is one thing yet I cannot but take notice of, that in their late written Paper, unto which I have alluded all this while, as likewiſe in their printed Agreement (1692) our Brethren do declare their Approbation of the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England, the Aſſembly's Confeſſion of Faith, and that at the Savoy, as the Rule of their Preaching, ſo as to be liable to Rebuke if they preach otherwiſe; which whether they underſtand disjunctively or conjunctively, (as in the Paper, or in that Agreement) it being more than any Authority call'd them to, I would have them lay it to Heart, and think, Whether if this Impoſition which they have impoſed on themſelves were impoſed on them by the Biſhops, they would not ſome of them ſtick at it? For my part, I declare, that a Subſcription to the 36 Doctrinal Articles, without liberty of Explication, is the hardeſt part of Conformity; and if there ſhould be a Comprehenſion with this Injunction, I ſhould repent I had ſought it. But as for our ſelves, why any one that can chuſe, ſhould bind himſelf up to any Rule of his Preaching but the Bible, I ſee no reaſon, and muſt propoſe rather to our Brethren on both ſides, That ſeeing their Union is broken at preſent, they begin a new one, not in drawing certain Theſes in ſuch a Latitude of Words, which All may ſubſcribe, this being no Ʋnion when the Tongue is only One, and the Mind cloven, (as I have formerly expreſs'd myſelf) but in forbearing and bearing with one-another as to all things but what is of neceſſity to Salvation. In neceſſariis Ʋnitas, in non neceſſariis Libertas. This I ſhall inculcate while I am