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
the Subject and that he performed it in order to the Impetration of the benefits we have by his Life and Death or by his Redemption Of the other we are all Subjects and are to perform it our selves in order to the Application of that Redemption or participation of those benefits he hath obtained for us This Distinction whether necessary or no for I think it to be of our own late Divines and no antient one is good so far as thus used But as for your Notion which you so industriously build upon it though it hath something of truth in it it is too perplext over-loading and superfluous so that it edifies not For why I pray do you trouble your self and us with this teaching that we have a pleadable security from Gods Promise to Christ in his Covenant of Redemption that if we believe we shall be saved when we have an express Promise thereof to every one our selves in the Gospel and is not that security enough if this moreover had not been started by you It is apparent that seeing the Righteousness of Christ which you count to be imputed to us Is his performance of the Mediatorial Law this is a Righteousness whereof we are uncapable and consequently not that Righteousness which the common Protestant hath accounted to be imputed or made ours in their sense for our Justification It must yet be acknowledged that the Righteousness of the Law of Works which we were bound to perform is part of that Mediatorial Law which he performed and I suppose the common Protestant have understood that part thereof consisting in his active and passive Obedience to be the Righteousness which is imputed to Believers And here it is certain that you fall not in with them in this Opinion but hold that the Righteousness of Christ which you call our Justifying Righteousness and that which besides the Effects as you speak is imputed to the Believer is his Mediatorial Righteousness as appears by your expression of it when you say it is imputed to Believers as their pleadable security for their pardon and title to eternal life in the Right of Christ In the Right of Christ this makes it plain that you understand his Mediatorial Righteousness but I hope you do not still mean that the same numerical Right which is his can be ours You know the accident of one subject cannot migrate into another so that Really it cannot and if you grant it to be Legally ours take heed lest you grant all away for then may your Brethren say Christs performance it self is ours also in that sense and Mr. Baxter and I and you are gone But not to stop this being only in the way the Righteousness of Christ you mean being his Mediatorial Righteousness you account then that there is a subordinate Righteousness which we must have in order to the Imputation of this to us for our Justification Hereupon you set up two Barrs the Barr of the Law and Barr of the Gospel the Creators Barr and the Redeemers Barr as you call them insomuch as together with a double Righteousness and double Barr you make us also as any one may think two Specifical Justifications But not after this narration if the Distinction you laid down before be tight that the Law whereto Christ subjected himself in order to the Impetration of our Redemption was the Mediatorial Law and his performance of that Law our Justifying Righteousness according as you affirm then can there be no Creators Barr or Barr of the Law of Works here erected for us to stand at seeing it was Christ alone was accountable for that performance And further seeing Christ as he took on him our Nature did voluntarily come also under the Law the Law of Works as well as Jewish Law as part of his Fathers Commandment and perfectly fulfilled the same and suffered moreover for our transgressing it he did thereby as the Apostle tells us redeem us from the Law And what I pray is this Redemption from that Law but a delivering us fromits Barr if you understand the thing so as we are not to be judged by it Though we are under the Law still as a Rule of Living we are freed from it as the Rule of Judgment as I say in my Pacification Again I must inculcate upon this Hypothesis the Law of Mediation being that Law Christ performed for the Impetration of those benefits which we have by him and the law of the Gospel that we perform for Application of those benefits I pray let me ask is not Justification one of those benefits Christ hath impetrated merited purchased for us As Pardon and Salvation so are Justification whereof these are Effects and the Law of Grace it self which justifies us all of them benefits that Christ hath purchased by performing the Law of Mediation Well Justification then it self being one of those benefits when Christs performance of the Mediatorial Law is that Righteousness alone which goes to the Impetration of it and in this regard that may be said ours It is our performance of the Law of Grace which goes to and is the Righteousness alone which is or can be ours in the Application or enjoyment of it To come at last then to a full point in this matter it being Christs performance which we agree hath merited impetrated procured all our benefits and so is the Principal Righteousness as you may call it if you please when yet there must be a Righteousness of our own to go before as the Condition which this Law of the Gospel requires of us to give us right to these benefits it appears in what sense our Faith or Evangelical Obedience is to be held a Righteousness subordinate seeing Mr. Baxter hath so termed it unto Christs which is no more than this that our Gospel Righteousness of Faith is prerequired in order to the having the Righteousness of Christ imputed according to you and Mr. Baxter But how imputed for here is the upshot Does Mr. Baxter mean imputed in se besides the Effects as you speak No this were to make it Legally ours and he allows no Imputation of Christs Righteousness in any sense of its being made ours but Relatively in regard to the Effects only So that if the phrase of the Imputing Christs Righteousness was left out altogether of our Books as it is in our Bibles and our Divines had said nothing but that upon our believing and repenting we are for Christs sake and through the Law of Grace made partakers of the benefits he hath purchased and so of Pardon and Life the Doctrine of Satisfaction wherein we agree being first Preached the Article of Justification might have been explained well enough for honest Peoples Edification P. 279. Justification by the Righteousness of Christ you should say though and not by and Justification by the Righteousness of Faith are so connected and inseparable in the subject that they are expressed as if but one only Act and yet they are
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
the Righteousness for which yet it is Faith is the Justifying Righteousness or that Righteousness by which we are justified Do not you again concur p. 258. Seeing the Gospel is a Law promising pardon and life to all such as believe to be exercised in vertue of Christs Obedience it is Faith being the performed Condition is imputed to us for Righteousness or is that upon which God accounts us righteous and so these benefits thereby belong to us Justification being a forinsick act say you more fully p. 276. that upon which the Law a Man is tried by doth acquit him from its threatned penalty and entitles him to is promised benefits is so far Justifying Righteousness by that Law An impartial acknowledgment P. 263. You state a difference which you have or make with others by the Question Whether the Death of Christ is legally esteemed to be endured by us and his Obedience by us to be performed Or whether they are imputed to Believers as their pleadable security for their pardon and title to Eternal Life in the right of Christ Here you say the former they affirm and you deny the latter you affirm and they deay But see what it is to be fudled with a Notion and that such as disturbs the brain more than strong Drink There is not and never was any such question and difference broached by any but your self It is true that as to the former the Antinomian maintains but you deny and upon Reasons that are good For if that were so then must the Believer be in Gods sight as righteous as Christ as you argue and that is inconsistent with pardon But when you say as to the latter that you affirm and they deny it I pray where is the Man that ever opposed you or once thought of the matter to deny it Who ever besides you made such a Distribution Who ever before you offered this Question whether Christs performance of the Covenant of Redemption does afford us a pleadable security that if we believe and repent we shall be saved Why do you pretend a difference with any in this matter that no body ever questioned or perhaps thought on How can Mr. H. deny say you p. 269. such a pleadable security Why Mr. H. denies â—t not and none else â— Let this which you teach us and we never considered before be granted how does this prove the Point that the Righteousness of Christ therefore is imputed to us otherwise than in the Effects It is imputed to us for our pleadable security Be it so and is not that pleadable security an Effect of Christs performance It is we must both acknowledge it and do we not agree in this that Christs Righteousness is indeed imputed to us in the Effects Where is the difference We both assert that Christs Righteousness is no Legally to be esteemed ours and neither of us deny this pleadable security to be every true Believers How then do we differ This pleadable security is not Christs Righteousness it self is it It is an Effect arising from it is it not How then does this make good your assertion that Besides the Effects the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed when it makes out no more but that here is an Effect in regard to which it is imputed or which the Believer has by vertue of it He that enjoys a benefit as merited for him by anothers act be hath that act imputed to him as his pleadable security for his possessing that merited blessing you say and I say so too that is imputed in regard to that Effect and no otherwise than so P. 268. The application of Christs Death to Believers Gods Judicial accounting them the persons in whom the Promise made to Christ is performed and his giving them pardon and eternal life as the merited Reward of his Death and Obedience gives just ground for us to say the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers I say no all this straining will not do It is indeed a ground and proof that it is imputed therefore in the Effects but not otherwise You add they do not only enjoy pardon and such Effects but his Righteousness it self is imputed to them relatively in that pardon Oh Sir Are you come hither How much more ingenuous had it been then for you to make the acknowledgment of your coming up here to me and Mr. Baxter and said plainly that though you have said that Besides the Effects made ours the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers you mean nothing but as we do or your meaning is but this that the Effects being indeed made ours his Righteousness is relatively only to be said ours in regard to those Effects In my Book Ult. Man p. 5. supposing there the Question what we are to apprehend by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness which is no Scripture expression I say there are these two things in it The one is that God did indeed account or allow of what Christ did and suffered to be in our behalf for our sakes for us in our stead as to the Impetration of the benefits we have by him upon condition And the other is our having those benefits as to the Application upon the performance and that is the having his Righteousness to be ours Really in the Effects and Relatively in regard to them In my Appendix to you p. 83. I have the same where asking how the very Righteousness of Christ is or can be ours or reckoned to us as ours I answer The Effects are ours Really and his Righteousness ours Relatively in regard to those Effects I do not doubt but I can find in some Book of Mr. Baxters words to the same purpose or these same words When we three then thus agree why should not you being put upon it and brought into the case of confession have acknowledged this Agreement as to us and Disagreement with the Brethren for herein it is wherein Mr. Baxter hath broke loose from the commonly received Doctrine of the Protestants who have still talked of Christs Righteousness it self to be the Believers which they meant all even the Antinomian that is learned only Legally and we say not so but Relatively only in regard to the Effects How then comes it to pass that in so many places in your Books you bring in the Charm of Christs Righteousness imputed and as it were sometimes by head and shoulders as it seems purposely to make folks believe as if you were one that maintained the same Doctrine with your Brethren whom you oppose How can this pass and not appear to be without sincerity so long as you are not of their mind As for what you else have in this Postscript that may concern me I would say something more particularly to if I could gather it up and digest it You distinguish between the Covenant of Redemption and Covenant of Grace or Mediatorial Law and Law of the Gospol Of the one you say well that Christ only is
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
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