Animadversions BEING The Two Last BOOKS OF MY Reverend Brother Mr. Williams The One Entituled A Postscript to Gospel-Truth The Other An End of Discord Conscientiously Examined In Order to a Free Entertainment of the Truth in some Momentous Points in Divinity controverted among the Nonconformist Brethren occasionally here Determined for the sake of those Honest among Us that seek it without Trick or Partiality By Iohn Humfrey the Aged What thy Hand findeth to do do it with thy Might For there is no Work nor Device nor Wisdom in the Grave whither thou goest Eccles 9.10 LONDON Printed by Tho. Snowden for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns the lower end of Cheapside near Mercers Chapel 1699. Animadversions on his Postscript The Introduction Mr. WIlliams having Printed his Book called Gospel Truth with many Presbyterian hands set to it there was some heat and several Exceptions raised against it by some of the Independent Brethren whereof one of the chief was this That he held the Righteousness of Christ to be imputed only in the Effects Here instead of his owning this Truth and standing to it he denies that he held it and for his proof produces this passage out of his Book That besides the Effects being made ours the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers This passage of his I took and gave him notice of in a Letter Printed in my Middle Way of Justification disliking it as receding from Mr. Baxter But Mr. Williams to uphold himself against this Accusation is unhappily engaged and sets his Wits in his Man made Righteous to from a notion that might serve him to maintain his own Doctrine which is Baxterian and yet answer the Brethren as he has by this denial and so satisfie his followers A great conceit at present I perceive he took of his Notion which shews him honest by that passage in the Sheet he called an Answer to my Letter where he complains of his being struck at by both Extreams when deeper thoughts says he would perceive the Truth stated quoting p. 77 78 79 80. of that Book against the excess of both The Brethren and common Protestant say Christ's Righteousness is imputed in se Mr. Baxter and I that it is imputed and can be made ours only quoad Effectus Either the Brethren or We are in the right But Mr. Ws. has an invention to middle the matter so as we shall both be out and in an extream and yet he hold with us both These deeper thoughts therefore of his I took into consideration in my Book called Pacification and he offering something in reply in some other after Books I took it again into consideration in my Appendix To my last book But finding this Reverend Brother keeping still his course in holding with the Hound as the Proverb is and running with the Hare I must pursue him in his Notion till I have hunted it down For it is a cloudy perplexed troublesome Notion that can serve us nothing but to entangle the understanding without any profit to others or significancy to himself As I have made my Animadversions therefore on his Books preceding I do make these on these later Books seeing he persists in his Notion which were writ in two Letters the first to himself the second to another and are as follows Reverend Brother Reading your Postscript I come in p. 525. to the Point whether the Gospel be a Law and I turned to your Defence as you bid for your sense of it where you shew in what sense you allow it and in what you do not As for the sense in which you allow it and then maintain the same with your Reasons I approve but as to the sense wherein you do not allow it though I except not against the rest I make a stand at the second to wit the sense you say our Divines fix upon the Arminians and upon that prejudice do you condemn it when if you had not miscited it you had as well yield to your Adversaries that it is no Law at all as to deny this sense of it I say therefore in opposition to you The Gospel is a Law in this sense that acts of Obedience to it that is a sincere or sound Faith working by Love which it requires is the Righteousness when perform'd by which we are justified as perfect Obedience was under the Law of Adam You do this harmless honest and right tenent open wrong in saying for which the Arminians as well as we do all know that it is Christ's Satisfaction and Merit not ours is that for which we are justified but it is our Faith it self the Faith which is the condition of the Gospel that is St. Jame's Faith and Works also is that Righteousness when perform'd which constitutes us righteous and by which we are justified Pray Mr. Williams believe it and be confirm'd that as perfect Obedience was the Condition of Life in the Law of Works and if that Condition had been performed it had been Adams Righteousness by which he had been justified so is Faith the Condition of the Law of Grace and if that Condition be fulfilled it does become a Righteousness according to this Law so as by it we are justified In the one I must add to prevent what you may alledge the reward would have been of Merit or Debt because it was for the performance sake In the other it is of Grace because it is for Christs sake that it is so accepted I was sorry at my heart that in the Letters between me and my Learned holy humble and worthy Brother Mr. Clark though no Man be more for Conditions under the Gospel than he and that the Gospel is a Law and that Law by which we shall be judged yet did he stick at yielding this which is so open and undeniably consequent to wit that whatsoever it be which is required by a Law as the Condition thereof before it is fulfilled when that Condition is fulfilled it does and must become the Righteousness of that Law and if a Man be judged thereby he must be justified It is that very Righteousness is the formalis ratio of his Justification For that there must be some Justitia wherein Justificationis forma does Constare there is no Man's Reason but must how Being a Condition it is a Righteousness as to Judicial proceedings by that Law which appoints that Condition say you p. 274. Faith Def. p. 22. is not the Justifying Righteousness but is the Condition of our being justified by Christs Righteousness By such expressions contradicting this before what mean you You pretend at least one may think so to speak as the common Protestant but do you understand as they to wit that upon our believing Christs Righteousness is so imputed as to be legally ours for our Justification If you believe not this why do you not say quite otherwise That tho' it is Christs Righteousness is the meritorious cause of our Justification and so
very distinguishable Having laid down what precedes I do as it were give instance in this Citation unto the which I do the more deliberately answer The Impetration of our Justification by Christs performing the Mediatory Law is indeed one thing and the Application of it by our performing the Law of the Gospel is another But Justification it self is one Omneens est unum and not two things or acts and consequently ought to be defined and understood as one act so that when in one place it is said we are justified by Christs Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through his Blood and in others we are justified by Faith this makes yet but one act one Justification described in one place by the meritorious in the others by the formal cause thereof which both are to be put together in the Definition I must confess Mr. Baxter as I remember does ordinarily speak at your rate as if we were to be justified both by Law and Gospel and furthermore does not scruple to make as many Particular Justifications as there can be Charges laid against us but with the assertion that there is also a Justification Universal and which I apprehend the Gospel alone does yield us Indeed how to reconcile Mr. Baxter herein to his own Doctrine I must confess I have not yet observed from him but crave your help to find out In the mean time I must warn you that you understand him not after the manner you write for if indeed there are two Barrs at which we must be justified as well as two Righteousnesses that goes into our Justification If to be justified by Faith is one Justification and to be justified by Christs Blood be another so that the Believer must have both as one subordinate to the other unto which apprehension your way of expression leads then must Christs Righteousness be indeed ours in se and not only in the Effects as you appear to maintain against me and him for at one of these Barrs nothing less will serve and then must we return all three to the Road of the common Protestant Doctrine and grant that it is not by our own Works whether Legal or Evangelical no not by Faith as a Work not by Faith as productive of Repentance and New Obedience that is not by St. James's Faith and Works also but by Faith only and by Faith taken objective for Christs Righteousness made ours by Faith so as to be our Formal Righteousness or formally to justifie us And if so there may be an end of Controversies with Mr. Baxters Books as one of them is called which concern Justification his Practical Books may still be in credit but his Controversal Works may be all burnt for you who for maintaining one expression not well advised must forsake him and your self and all almost of weight that you have writ besides There is a Distinction therefore which that accurate Man Mr. Baxter who otherwise has so many does yet want as to this Point of Justification which is that Justification may be taken Strictly or Largely seeing the Scripture so speaks of it If we will take it strictly we consider only what respects the form and definition and Justification so taken is Gods constituting by his Law of Grace and accounting a Man righteous upon his believing for Christs sake or imputing his Faith for Righteousness When Justification largely taken may comprehend its Antecedents as Redemption and Consequents as Pardon and Life together with it See my Righteousness of God p. 55 56 57. In such a large sense of it Mr. Baxter and our Divines may take liberty to speak of it in such a manner as they or others do or as they please but there are these words in that Learned Gentleman Sir Charles Wolsley his Letter to me that are more accurate to my purpose than any that I most like in Mr. Baxter The Scripture says he that were written not with any relation to those nice and subtle Distinctions which Men have since used in interpreting them do chiefly intend to express their plain and genuine meaning of things and in an especial manner by various expressions of the same thing does set forth the amplitude of Gospel Salvation Justification is spoken of in Scripture sometimes in its Cause which is imputing Righteousness by Faith and sometimes in its Effect which is Pardon Therefore I am well pleased to say with you to adjust and comprehend that matter right that the formalis ratio of Justification is Gospel Faith and Obedience that is as imputed to us of God for Righteousness and taking Justification passively meaning as I and Pardon of sin as the necessary consequeent concomitant and effect of it He that will give any other account of it must I believe make use of some other Doctor than St. Paul One thing more I will note in this Postscript and have done and that is the particular p. 312. wherein you say you were ready to subscribe with Mr. Cole You look to your self indeed by such words that you may not lye but do you think your meaning and Mr. Coles can indeed stand in one Stable I will therefore express the truth of this sixth Particular for you with little alteration When a Man believes that very Faith and sincere Gospel Works which proceed from it is you say is not the matter of that Righteousness whereby you to save your Not before put in for which a sinner is justified and so intitled to Pardon and Glory Yet is the Righteousness of Christ alone that for which the Gospel gives the Believer a right to these and all saving blessings who in this respect is justified through Christ or through his Righteousness though by Faith Faith being indeed the Matter or Material Cause and Gods Imputing that Faith not Christs Righteousness to us for Righteousness the Form and Formal Cause of our Justification Reverend Brother What will be the issue of this present endeavour according to my small Ability I know not But I will end with this Story Luther one day being with Melancton Phillip says he I am afraid we are gone too far in that matter of the Sacrament Master says Melancton then let us amend and retract it No says Luther if we do so Phillip we shall be believed in nothing Alas what pity it was and what prejudice to the Protestants Cause that Luther had not hearkned to Melancton It must be no wonder therefore if you hearken not to me now in my farewell Admonition which is to chuse in this small matter of Difference between us not to follow Luther but St. Augustine who is so much commended by all for his Book of Retractations Your very respectful Brother JOHN HUMFREY Animadversions ON HIS End of Discord Learned and Worthy Sir I Wrote a Sheet or two in a Letter to Mr. Williams upon his Postscript to Gospel Truth before this later Book called An End of Discord came out I had no Answer to it nor my Copy back and therefore I wrote out of my soul Papers that Letter over and sent it to you to read and
I now send you these three or four Sheets more upon this new Book which shews the Author a Man still growing in Learning and Industry a Man of Temper and Discretion of prudent Parts and weighty Judgment as well as excellent in his Faculty of Elocution I am pleased that he gave me a while ago a Visâ— but especially for this that upon his Discourse with me I came to believe heartily that he is a Man sincere to God in the Books he writes and I am glad that I so believe for I know thereby that I love him because I am glad of it Nevertheless I am not ever the more pleased with his new-fangled Invention of such an Imputation of Christs Righteousness in se as no body ever thought on before but am displeased with it as a needless cluttersome perplexed indigestible Notion that does deprave the sound Doctrine of Mr. Baxter and proves at last insignificant to himself This Book of his I look on as his Gospel Truth fit to be read by Ministers such as are of no higher Rank than I as well as others as informing and profitable But it is another work which he had to do that is to defend the Truth and not by such a Dose to lay it asleep and leave it wounded to heal of it self when no Party is cured He was so well prepared for this work that I cannot like that he has tyed up his hands by this Book so as in point of ingenuity he could go no further unless some body Printed upon him to unloose them It is but a friendly part therefore for me to Print these Letters to give him occasion to deliver himself from the double Fetters that are on him this one on his Hands and the other on his Judgment in that perplexed Notion mentioned that must be retracted and laid quite aside if ever he will write clear worthy himself and profit his Readers Here is this Book call'd by him An End of Discord which if Mr. Lobb had liv'd and joyn'd with him in the Composure might have born such a Title The Discord is between him and the Independent Brethren and how is there an End made of it without the Brethren or some one in their behalf and with their consent to agree to it The Imputation of Christs Righteousness in se is denied by Mr. Baxter and the Brethren supposing him to be of the same Opinion have been at Discord with him about it Now though he be indeed of Mr. Baxters Judgment so as that in the sense the Brethren hold it he opposes it as much as we yet in a sense he hath framed by a new Notion of his own he sets himself on one side with the Brethren as holding an Imputation in se and me and Mr. Baxter on another The Question then is Whether the Brethren approve this Accommodation and you know as Mr. Lobb has signified they are so far from it that it does but incense them the more for the shew of his being on their side when he is against them And is this an End of Discord No no Sir my Brother Williams hath been out and the Nonconformists out in their going about at first to make an Union between Presbyterian and Independent by drawing up certain Theses and Positions in that latitude of words as all might subscribe them and then call that Union when such an Union is no Union where the Tongue is one but the Mind cloven Whereas if upon a Toleration given both from the State they had fallen in with it by a tolerating one another in Opinion leaving the Pro and Con to any as they please and are able and united only in Practice according to a Letter of mine to them at the end of my Middle Way of Justification they had done their business and it is like had never been broken which seeing they are what should the Brethren do but begin again and though it be late yet do so now Upon such a bottom as this the design of this Book were abundantly agreeable to my Soul I am one that would not fall out with any for their Opinion I think generally they be wiser than I. I am for Unity for Protestants conformist and Nonconformist with care against the two Rocks of Socinianism and Antinomianism As for Arminianism or the Five Points Mr. Baxter hath made it his business to bring the Difference to so little compass that however the Synod of Dort in their day when Protestants who had but newly got loose from Popery and a part of them from Lutheranism were so much engaged about it I could wish that those Names of Calvinism and Arminianism as those of Guelphs and Gibellines and our of Whig and Tory were sunk for ever Let any of us or our Brethren Preach the strongest Calvinism we can and not exceed it when our Doctrine hath been Calvinistical our Use must be Arminian or we must leave Preaching to the People There is indeed a difference in the Fifth Point about Perseverance wherein the Synodiâ— and Arminian do really differ and both from St. Augustine who will allow that the Regenerate the Justified the Sanctified may fall away but never the Elect. Now ther are some Scriptures to prove that the Once new born of God cannot finally fall away which the Arminians cannot answer and some Scriptures to argue that they may as the Calvinist cannot answer which makes it fit and equal that neither of them should be so fierce but give leave to one another to make the good use and not the bad of their own Opinions The Controversie as to the other Five Points will come all to this Dispute only Whether the Grace of God be Resistible as they have expressed it and when the Will cannot be compelled or forced so that it hath and must have a power to resist it appears hard to say it is irresistible My Opinion is this that though it is true that Man hath a Natural power still to resist yet when Electing or Effectual Grace once comes it takes away the Moral power of resisting and upon that account it may be called irresistible As the Reprobate hath a Natural power or his faculties to believe repent and so may be saved if he will Yet having such an indisposition which is his Moral Impotency thereunto as he has he never will and because he will not he is damned So the Elect hath his Natural power to resist if he will but the Grace of God does so dispose him as that Morally he cannot and therefore he will not and so by Grace he is saved As for the Arminian they plead for Grace to prevent us to assist us to co-operate with us as much as we and that we can do nothing without it in order to be saved Neither may their contending that all may be saved if they will offend any of us
Law of Works Nor fall so low as a meer participation of the Effects of Christs Righteousness but assent to an Imputation of Christs Righteousness it self relatively to those Effects Alas for Mr. Ws. Into what shifts for want of an Ingenuous confession is he brought Do not I and Mr. Baxter say this Is this indeed a Middle Way in good earnest Have not we said the same before him And is not Mr. Ws. setled Judgment and which he maintains as well as I and Mr. Baxter that Legally which our former Divines have still stood upon the Righteousness of Christ is not imputed to us and when he says Relatively after us in regard to the Effects is not this it which Mr. Baxter and I say when we affirm against the common Doctrine that Christs Righteousness is imputed not in se but only in the Effects You see it more fully in my Letter to his Postscript Alas what a little Self-denyal here would have served him to make the Acknowledgment of taking this from us and of his Agreement with it And is this the Meant between them that rise too high and us that fall too low when it is the very same we say and he takes it from us The contradiction onely excepted for when the in se and the Effects are Opposed he will have Christs Righteousness ours in its self upon our saying it is Relatively ours in regard to the Effects I come to the Chapter that concerns me the Title whereof is this An Attempt to accommodate the Difference between such as judge Christs Righteousness is imputed only in the Effects and not in se and those of us who think it is imputed in se These words and those of us I take all from Mr. Ws. This is that Mr. Lobb if we may believe his Books and I think Mr. Chancy took so ill from him as to write so engagedly against him that he pretends to hold with the Brethren in maintaining the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in se against those that deny it that is such as I Mr. Baxter Wotton Forbs Mr. Baxter names Bradshaw Grotius when yet he is fundamentally of our Opinion and so far as concerns the Brethren nothing at all for them If he be offended at my saying that he agrees with us excepting his new Notion which signifies not I can't help it for I can say no otherwise and methinks that which is said but now should make him ashamed of it You see there no Middle way for him The Brethren and common Protestant do understand that Christ in his dying for us did suffer in our stead which can bear no other true sense in their Judgment but this that he was our Representative so as what he did and suffered in our behalf is in Law-sense accounted of God as done and suffered by us so that his Satisfaction and Obedience thereupon is Legally I say or in the acceptation of Law reckoned by him as our Righteousness for being received by Faith it becomes ours so as that it does formally justifie us Here is most fairly that which hath been and is to be understood by an Imputation in se to wit such as our former Protestants accounted Orthodox and have generally held But Mr. Baxter letting these Brethren know in the way that when we grant against the Socinian that Christ died in our stead by which we mean that he dyed to save us from dying who must else have dyed our selves we do not understand as they that we dyed and suffered in him for to dye in our room that we might not dye and to be accounted of God to have dyed or dyed in him is an inconsistency that may convince them that Reverend Man and faithful Servant of Christ being sensible how this Doctrine does argumentatively lead to Antinomianism and did hurry so many of this Nation into it as it did before he wrote he being stirred up we may believe by God as an Instrument to eradicate the Antinomian Heresie did set himself with assistance in many Books to refute this Opinion as necessary to that end Upon this true and short account given I ask then Is Mr. Ws. in good earnest now of the Judgment of the Brethren or of Mr. Baxters He knows in his Conscience and we all see by this Book and all his others a manifest confirmation every where with great strength and weight and diligent reading which may shame those that despise him as not Learned of the Doctrine taught by that profound Divine and most sincere Minister of Jesus Christ And shall this Elisha that hath still followed his Elijah go now in Words for it is no more to cast away his Mantle and disown his Master I cannot endure that when Mr. Ws. makes here two sides he should rank the Brethren and He on the one side and I and Mr. Baxter on the other If any other had wrote the Title to this Chapter I would have said it is false Mr. Ws. and I and Mr. Baxter are of one Opinion P. 104. There are some that say the Righteousness of Christ is imputed in se for Justification and some that say it is not imputed in se but quoad Effectus He numbers himself among the former Of the former then there are belike two sorts with him such as think the Elect or Believer to be accounted by God to have obliged and suffered in Christ which he disproves and therefore tells of another sort that is such as do not think that God does judicially account any to have obeyed and suffered in Christ for that he stoutly denies in all his Books as well as Mr. Baxter and I and yet do hold an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in se which indeed is a Rarity for I believe there is not any but himself and it is fit therefore to hear how Mr. Ws. single self does hold this even in opposition to the Brethren as well as us but that I have already canvased that new perplexed Contrivance which he invented for the sake of those tender Brethren that cannot bear with the sound Doctrine of Mr. Baxter though there is none of them I believe that regard the Invention in my Pacification my Appendix to him at large in the End of my Ultima Manus and also in my Letter before to his Postscript so that there is nothing left more to do but to wonder at this Reverend Man what he means thus to persist especially in telling us of a variety among this sort in wording their Conceptions but they all come to one which indeed is well said for he alone in the one and only one that ever entertained such an Imagination Well what then is this that one sense it comes to Why this that God according to the Covenant of Redemption where he promises to Christ to save the Believer he judicially accounts what Christ hath done and suffered to be his pleadable Security This we take to be Imputation We what we None surely but himself he
dare not say as they must who indeed hold an Imputation in se that God does judicially account what Christ hath done and suffered to be Legally the Believers this is the Doctrine of an Imputation in se which he militates against in all his Books as Mr. Baxter in all his but to be his pleadable security And what is that Is that Justification Is that I say again an Imputation of what Christ hath done and suffered to the Believer so as to be that Righteousness in se whereby he is justified No what Imputation then in se is it Did he that wrote the rest of the Book write this Did he write it when he was awake or asleep If he was a wake let him tell what That the Performance of the Covenant of Redemption by Christ does afford us a pleadable security that if we believe we shall be saved there is no body questions That this pleadable security is an Effect and Benefit of that performance is not to be questioned neither That the Imputation then of the Righteousness of Christ to us for this pleadable Security if there be any such Imputation is an Imputation of it only in the Effects or quoad Effectus and not in seâ—â— I have it already in my former Letter That this pleadable Security arises from the promise of the Gospel Covenant as well as from that to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption Mr. Ws. says And if from the Gospel there arises no Imputation of Christs Obedience to us in se how does it from the Law of Mediation That God does impute Christs Performance to us for Righteousness is said by Divines but I say again where is it said in Scripture or by any Divine of Note that he imputes it to us for our pleadable Security only by himself it is true that we may impute or apply it to our selves so but where or by whom is it said that God so imputes it and judicially so imputes it Is this the work of Judgment And why does our otherwise very worthy Brother take upon him by making such Speeches for God as he does to put him upon the saying any thing more than needs What needs such a Speech Thou believer I judicially esteem and pronounce thee to be one that I promised to my Son in the Covenant of Redemption to save in reward to his performance of that Covenant therefore I judicially also account what Christ hath done and suffered to be thy pleadable Security that thou shalt be saved Is it not enough that God says this Thou sinner being one that haft believed and repented and so performed through my Grace the Covenant of the Gospel I do therefore according to my promise therein to thy self and all Mankind judicially sentence thee to Life everlasting Let the Believer have this Sentence pronounced by the Covenant of the Gospel he will not need and scarce over thought of any other by the Covenant of Redemption P. 107. As for those that say Christs Righteousness is not imputed in se but in the Effects they oppose all this says he but they great the Righteousness of Christ to be the meritorious Cause of our Justification they narrow not their Opinion to a procuring only a Covenant of Grace or Law of the Gospel but say Christ purchased the Benefits first which that Covenant bestows they are sound in the Doctrine of Satisfaction they abhor the presenting our Faith or Evangelical Obedience to God as any Satisfaction to Justice Attonement for Sin or Prince of Salvation Upon these Accounts more at large expressed better by him a forbearance is very charitably and commendably pleaded for these Brethren by this good Brother in their behalf who no doubt is well inclined to it himself for this is certainly a very ingenious kind of Apologizing for Mr. Baxter's and Mine and his Own Opinion Nevertheless I have two or three things to take Notice of further in this Chapter One is P. 109. Our Opinion quoad Effectus he says does amount to an Imputation in se because the Divine Mind must apply the Merits of Christ to our Faith to make it a Righteousness But how so Why if so the Divine Mind he counts must apply his Righteousness to our persons If through Christs Merits our Faith is made a Righteousness then his Merits must make our persons Righteous This is his sense which he hath in diverse expressions three times in the Paragraph Very well now I say that if through Christs Merits God does impute our Faith for Righteousness then must the Imputation of Christs Righteousness be an Imputation only quoad Effectus for this is a grand Effect of it that our Faith which of it self is none is through those Merits imputed for Righteousness And if the Righteousness of Christ be Imputed only quoad Effectus it is not Imputed in se for our Justification The Divine Mind says he does apply Christs Righteousness to the Person which in plain words is God does Impute it to a Person But what Imputation is it is it not an Imputation quoad Effectus It is doubtless for that Effect which Christs Righteousness has to make our Faith a Righteousness it hath the same to make the Person accepted as a Gospel Righteous Person and for his sake to be dealt with accordingly but not as a Legally Righteous Person as Christ is It is thus and no otherwise whereas he speaks of it as if it were an Imputation in se which our Opinion he says amounts unto nay supposes and infers he says as Necessary But if it were an Imputation in se then should Christs Righteousness not our Faith be imputed to us for Righteousness which falls in he knows with the Opinion of the Brethren and makes it the Formal Cause of our Justification Alas that this perplexing Notion should lead this considering Brother into those Blunderings which seeing it does I do write this Book on purpose to prosecute it if I can to the death not to hurt him but to rid him of it That what he says is very handsome for perswading the contrary minded to bear with if not receive our Opinion because it hath all the Conveniency as to the Substantial Doctrine of the Protestant which the Brethren can make of theirs Yet he is short in his discernment of that very Critical Point wherein the hinge of this Controversie among us does turn which is the Question whether the Righteousness of Christ or of Faith be the Formal Righteousness that justifies us I wonder that this very searching and judicious Brother should not see here his Defect An imputed Righteousness in se makes Christs Righteousness the Formal Cause an imputed Righteousness only quoad Effectus makes his Righteousness the Meritorious Cause alone of our Justification Another is P. 11. I could wish a very worthy Person of this Opinion would review in his own account of Justification where he faith it is that act whereby God imputes to every sound believer his
considering how our Non-conform'd People stand affected who cannot bear the open intelligible yet more accurate Doctrine of Mr. Baxter having found out something he thinks as may inable him to hold the Truth and their Affections also by continuing the phrase of an Imputation in se which he would have thought even by us to be allowable I cannot but take notice of these fair seemingly innocent smooth tempting words which he has p. 155. the contents whereof comes to this that it is wise for him to do as he does and has done His words are these That we contend with him only because he will not joyn with us in offending the weak and hazarding Truth by rejecting a phrase which well explaind doth properly express what both intend Unto which words forbearing the falseness of them the hazard of the Truth and real offence in his Notion never to be made out lying on his side I must conscientiously reply these two things The one is that here are words indeed fair but God looks through them The other is that I will therefore lay down this Rule First That which is honest and then that which is wise Mr. Ws. by this new-fangled Notion that hath intoxicated him hath brought such a perplexity on the Doctrine of Justification to himself and consequently to others if any go to confound themselves in following him that he hath done or is like to do more hurt in regard to our understanding that great Article than ever he can do good by any Elucidation thereof until he come to the purgation of himself fully and wholly of all this Leaven with which he hath leavend it and then write some new Book or Books for the clearing himself and maintaining the Doctrine he is otherwise engaged in against his Opposers without it 16. Besides what is said before in respect to the brethren the using the phrase of an Imputation in se in general is using a phrase which is false dangerous as tempting to Antinomianism and the using the same still after this publick notice and canvassing cannot be justified by that which is to us an Equivocation 17. Before I give my last Reasons it is fit seeing I publish this Letter for preventing of that prejudice by reason of our Difference which may turn to the diminution of any of that just and due esteem that my self and others have of Mr. Ws's Worth and Writings I do signifie that the Difference betwixt us is not De re but De nomine only There is nothing that Mr. Baxter or I do urge against an Imputation in se in that sense as we oppose it but he agrees to it and presses the same And that which he urges or hath invented for an Imputation in se in the sense which is his peculiar it is not by me gainsaid so that the matter is true for Mr. Ws's Writings are no Romances but it proves nothing there is no Imputation in se can be inferred from it And seeing his Notion proves it not it is dictum minus rectum and so scandalum that must be avoided You may say if your Difference be only de nomine why do you write this Book against him I answer That because it is no more he should retract it The phrase of the imputation of Christs Righteousness we allow which he might contend for And when I have said before that we allow this why is not this enough The phrase with it in se also must by no means be allowed for these many Reasons mentioned especially for the Real Scandal that is and must be in his own use of it 18. Though the Difference be but de nomine yet so long as his Notion holds it not out if Mr. Ws. contines to maintain his Notion and shall draw some of our Friends to receive it he will do this mischief which he is not aware of that is make a Division and Parties among Mr. Baxters true Followers who all are against the Imputation in se of the Brethren He and some partial men may say that I make Division by writing against his Notion but it is his Notion it self a new Notion if it be followed by any must make it if I wrote notâ— I conclude then that though thâ—se Papers have been stopt in the Press two or three Months upon the desire of Mr. Ws's Friends to deliberate about it they must in point of Conscience get out if it were only to prevent so far as I can this evil if there were no other 19. To knock the Nail quite home there is nothing can be said to be imputed to a Man which he has unless for another thing than what it is as Faith is imputed for Righteousness Or for another End than that he should have it as Sin is imputed to be punished It follows that for a thing then to be a Man's and to be imputed to a Man that is to be his in se and to be his only to an end use or benefit are two thing so that an Imputation in se is indeed an impossible for that thing which is diverse from another cannot be the same with that from which it is diverse Let Mr. Ws. then hammer his Notion as much as long and how he will he shall make nothing of it for there is not such thing in rerum natura to be made and this I hope will do If I have said otherwise unawares in any Book my self I revoke it Lastly Mr. Ws. therefore I fear hath done ill either ignorantly or wilfully and doth ill upon these several accounts and I must suppose it his duty to retrieve the evil or the hurt he does or hath done by retracting this new-fangled Invention of his as insignificant to the deciding any Difference among our Brethren whatsoever Truth it may have otherwise in a plain open single-hearted confession of his mistake in it that God may have the glory our Cause be strengthened and his End of Discord indeed fulfilled Unto this Retractation therefore I do advise admonish and call him and call him publickly seeing private will not do and take my Text for it out of Leviticus Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart but thou salt love thy Brother in thy heart which I do Thou shalt in any wise rebuke him and not suffer sin upon him POSTSCRIPT Reader THese Sheets were prepared to be Printed before Michaelmas Term and to come out then I signified my intention of Printing them to Mr. Ws. thinking that by an Answer to my Letter I should see his mind how he would take it he wrote me no Answer so that about a Week after I put them to the Press and thought he was indifferent and like to be concerned no more about these Animadversions than my others on his former Writings But after two or three Sheets were Printed or Composed a Friend of his came to one and told me that such and such Books were coming out against Mr. Ws. and he cast down about it and that it would be a cruel thing in me who was a friend to fall upon him when he was like to he Assaulted with Enemies I had moreover a Letter out of Staffordshire Porson of Quality who wrote that he was informed from some worthy hands in London that I was about to write a Book against Mr. Ws. and he perceived they had rather I should wave it but he thought good to acquaint me only with what was written and leave the matter to my prudent determination The Reason which these Worthy Persons who so ever they are did urge for this was left the Dissenters differing among themselves should give advantage at this season to some as would if they could deprive them of their Liberty I was content therefore upon Mr. Ws. speaking himself to the Bookseller to let the Book be stopt thus long till he and his Friend may see there is no such Books coming out against him nor any danger of our losing any Liberty nor indeed any Controversie or Difference as to the main Doctrine of Justification wherein Mr. Ws. and I agree with Mr. Baxter but only in regard to a peculiar Notion of his which I do exagitate only to get him to retract and relinquish it which seeing I could not do by private Advice I would by publick Judgment For though I could be willing to let the Book be delayed I could not yield to have it supprest unless upon the condition that I might have half a dozen of the whole Copy Printed out for my Vindication in case I should need it as knowing that many could not chuse but have a mind to see that Book which some was so earnest to have stopt and not doubting but the most of the Judicious of either Party will be ready to subscribe to the words of the forementioned person unto whom as one so well learned and studied in the Point a deference may be paid which I will set down for the conviction of Mr. Ws's Friends who may do more with him than I seeing the publication can do that person no hurt and may do Mr. Ws. good His words at the end of his Letter to me are these I am of Opinion Mr. Williams will not be able to answer what you say He has endeavoured to go in a middle way between both but his notion will not bold He must come over to one side or the other ERRATA PAge 11 line 7 for prudent read pregnant p. 13 l. 8 r. Sydonifts l. 33 mend the pointing p. 17 l. 6 put the Parenthesis at disobedient l. 34 for faults 1. fault p. 20 l. 15 for obliged 1. obeyed p. 21 l. 12 make the fulpoint after se a comma and l. 15 put out the fulpoint after redemption p. 30 l. 7 for but r. he FINIS