Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
grace_n condition_n covenant_n faith_n 16,833 5 6.5270 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A45121 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 brethen, occasionally here determined, for the sake of those honest among us that seek it, without trick or partiality / by John Humfrey ... Humfrey, John, 1621-1719. 1699 (1699) Wing H3666; ESTC R16328 37,926 42

There are 5 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Faith for Righteousness upon the account of Christs Satisfaction and Merits and gives Pardon and Life as the benefits of it I cannot but desire to know this Person seeing as these words render him he should be living for what this Author says is so agreeable to my Mind that if it were not but that I know the Commendation he gives him is not belonging to me I should have thought they were my own Words The following Saying he cites accordingly Though Christs Sacrifice the Defects of Faith which is our Righteousness are pardoned and by his Merits that imperfect Duty is accounted or imputed to us for Righteousness which it is not in its self Both I think exceeding well But Mr. Ws. objects How can Pardon be the effect of imputing Faith for Righteousness which is Justification and yet God cannot impute faith for Righteousness unless he first pardon its defects for the sake of Christs Sacrifice This Objection I foresaw and have prevented That he adds besides is stumbling at a Straw and ought not to retard us in my Book of the Righteousness of God p. 24. where having defined Justification after this same manner I ●m the concluding my Explication thereof have these words After this I distinguish this pardoning and bearing with the defects of our Faith Repentance New Obedience which are Conditions of the Gospel Covenant and so our Gospel Righteousness or that which is imputed for Righteousness And that General or Total Pardon which the Covenant promises and becomes absolute upon performing the Condition The one of these is that very Grace or Act of Grace it self that goes into that Act of Imputation or Act that imputes our Faith for Righteousness when the other I say still is the Effect or Benefit following Justification I will add The one let us note farther is dispensed by God as Dominus or Absolute Lord so I apprehend and is more or less to one person than another at his will and pleasure that hath no bounds to be set to it When the other is dispensed by him as Rector and Judge to every Man alike upon the performed Condition I will yet add And this may give some more Line to the Assertors of Free-Grace than they every yet thought on for Improvement and that solid comfort I raise from hence in my Pacification p. 27 28 29. quoted again in my Righteousness of God p. 21. in the Margin which I commend to the Reader as my Blessing while alive and dead The lat is p. 112. The reason for our denial of an Imputation in se he renders truly as the chief reason to be an apprehension that there is no such Imputation unless we are accounted of God to have done and suffered what Christ did which would induce the Antinomian Scheme This is so it is the reason and that the meaning and intent of that phrase is no other than this I know no body like to deny unless himself But that I deny says he to be the only import of that phrase for when that Righteousness it self is imputed Relatively to the special Effects of it it is truly an Imputation in se Here is a double deceit errour or falshood One in the Logick of it the other in the matter of it In the Logick the words it self must not be put in we deny an Imputation of this Righteousness it self or in it self This it self therefore is a Petitio Principis that is fallacious which must be left out and then as to the matter I say an affirming Christs Righteousness to be imputed that is reckoned or made ours Relatively only in regard to the Effects is the denyal of it to be so in se according to the received sense of that Distinction But indeed if we might coyn here a new Distinction between Mr. Ws. and I and not do hurt by it making an Imputation in se to be either a Legal or Relative Imputation only So long as Mr. Ws. does maintain that Christs Righteousness is not imputed in se Legally to a Believer and stands on the Negative against the Brethren herein as much as I If I grant to him this Imputation in se which is Relative only I see not but he and I are perfectly agreed and so all the new-fangled Notion of another Imputation of Christs Right to us in it self or of his Obedience to the Mediatorial Law for our pleadable Security instead of for our Righteousness that is instead of an Imputation in se an Imputation only quoad hunc effectum an open prevarication which will never be made to signifie any thing may be spared and that clutter be quite over But I cannot in conscience grant him the use of an Imputation in se according to this sense because an Imputation quoad Effectus is understood to be Membrum dividens and consequently contrary to an Imputation in se according to our common understanding of that distinction Besides that the use of the term in se in such a latitude may be dangerous to many and the untrue use of it so long by him has done as I doubt too much hurt already I cannot therefore but be a little more severe herein and must observe that when Mr. Ws. does deny the Brethrens sense to be the only import of the phrase in se he denys it upon the account of the term Relatively which term he took from me I am confident and had no thoughts of it or such a meaning or evasion when he at first said that Besides the Effects the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer Now when I or Mr. Baxter from which of us he takes it use the Term in contradistinction to that in se while we explain our Opinion thus purposely that the Effects are ours Really but Christs Righteousness ours only in regard to these Effects and Mr. Ws. takes the term from me without telling that but proposing it as his own does come so long after in his Postscript and this Book to give us this account of that Assertion of his as aforesaid and telling us that if the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us in the Effects then it must be it self Relatively ours in regard to them I cannot see how any one can count that there is either satisfaction or ingenuity in it For when this word it self is I say sophistical and must not be taken for in it self as if we were proprietors of that Righteousness whereof Christ only is the proprietor but of the benefit he hath procured us by it which is the perfect sense and truth and all the truth which in good earnest it contains Mr. Ws. methinks should not be so shameless as any longer to persist If he had said this at first if indeed he had had this and no other meaning but this of Relative at first then could not I or any of Mr. Baxters Friends have been offended as if he had departed from us in this bottom Point of difference between the
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 se●● 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
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
have Christ engaged for the Elects performance if these I say should have framed this Notion of one Sentence and two Rules of Judgment it might have appeared something agreeable But for Mr. Ws. who distinguishes these Covenants or Laws and yet puts them together and connexes both into the Rule of Judgment it is something monstrous espcially seeing he hath kept such a stir about and laid such a stress upon the Distinction not considering as I am now to tell that when he and others do speak of this Covenant of Redemption expressing a transacttion between God and Christ as passed between them in God's requiring of Christ that he shall make his Soul an offering for sin and promising him to have a seed and that upon their believing they should be saved Let them use as many or few Words as they will the whole Frame of this Covenanting is made out of the fifty third of Esay which is a Prophecy of Christ to come telling what he should be and what he should do as if it had been already done Now when this is but a Prophecy so that there is nothing of it but yet in the Decree and Determination of God and Mr. Ws. speaks of this Covenant as if these Matters were all transacted before and apart from the Covenant of the Gospel when the transaction I say is but prophecy'd of and was to be accomplished by Christ when come and so these matters all to be fulfill'd for then the Messiah came and was such a one and did according as the Prophecy tells making his Soul an offering for the satisfaction of God's Justice and procuring an Act of Grace Law or Covenant that those who should become Christ's Seed by believing should be pardoned and Saved which is really the same thing altogether and no other but what was in the Prophecy For Mr. Ws. Now I say who seems to have had more considerate Thoughts about this Distinction than our former Divines and does indeed still speak so risentively hereof in his Books as if there could be no sound Divinity about those two great Points of Satisfaction and Justification without the compleat understanding and application of it and does yet further herein lean so much to his own understanding as he does which leaning is such a position of the Thoughts that if the thing leaned upon does fail his notion must be all thrown down I say for him to make two Matters of that which is but one seeing that which was in the Prophecy and that which is in the Fulfilling of it must be the same and intended for the same It gives me just cause for some Reprimand and Admonition to him to consider over and over all such Expressions as he has p. 133. where he is apprehensive that the want of the consideration of this Distinction is the cause of all our Disputes when I am afraid that a distinguishing ubi Lex non distinguit and Mr. Ws. leaning here so much upon this Distinction which I suppose has been coined but of late by same of our own Divines English or Scotch and scarce to be found one Century ago and perhaps not come in play till after the Assemblies Catechisms has given occasion of so much roving Fancy and thereby more Confusion to himself and may do through him if it be not prevented to others than ever had like to have been in those great Points without it I have set my self thus to give him the deeper advertisement hereof because I see not by any thing or by all the things which in this seeming notion of his he is still farther devising that the thing is proved for which it is devised The thing he should shew or prove is an Imputation in se but how does his confounding and confounded devise prove this Where hath he laid all his Conceptions together or any of them alone so clear as may be an Argument or Medium of Probation not to put him to Syllogisms as will evince his Conclusion When this is wanting his whole Notion is impertinent and all his Contrivings abortive And when any Man writes a Book and this is wanting so that the Id quod probandum erat is not proved that Author let him have otherwise many good Truths in it does herein need Hallebore rather than an Answer P. 120. He finds nothing he tells us plainer than that on one hand we are made righteous by Christ's Obedience and on the other that we are justified by Faith citing Scriptures on both sides This now without setting the Scriptures on two sides is to be consider'd for the Gospel doth hold forth a double Righteousness the Righteousness of Christ and the Righteousness of Faith that do both go to our Justification Being justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus In another place It is of Faith says the Apostle that it may be of Grace so that our Justification by Faith is through Christs Redemption which is all one as through his Satisfaction and Merit or through his Righteousness imputed according to the Gospel as the Law or Rule of Judgment Here now I must ask Mr. Ws. seeing there are two Righteousnesses and each a justifying Righteousness as he speaks in his Books whether there be also two Justifications Of this I perceive he is discerningly aware and says he hopes that none will think he holds so for indeed if there were two Justifications by these two Righteousnesses then the one must be a Legal and the other an Evangelical Justification and if a Legal one there must be a perfect Righteousness to answer the Law and then Christ's Righteousness must be imputed in se so as to be legally our formal Righteousness which must make Mr. Baxter and I and Mr. Ws. to retract our Books and the currant Doctrine of the common Protestant run on But seeing he does deny two Justifications you may ask what then does he mean by his two Laws the Creator's Law and the Redeemer's Law Why I had thought when I read his Postscript this had inferr'd two Justications but now he explains himself by fancying only two Rules of Judgments and those not the Law of Works and Grace as others would but the Law of Mediation though that can not belong to us as is said before and the Law of the Gospel when yet there is but one Sentence according to him and so which is well one Justification An admirable Invention this which I apprehend but thought not on till since his Postscript but how does he prove it The Scriptures mentioned prove it not but I think the contrary Nay and that he is more concern'd to Answer I ask what does this prove If the Mediatorial Law were the Rule of Judgment how would that make Christ's Righteousness be imputed so as to become ours in se or any otherwise than the Gospel makes it Let this be shown let me see how his imputation in se arises from it and from the one more than