Animadversions on the Books of Mr Williams, Text 2

Animadversions on the Books of Mr Williams · Text 2

p. 11Animadverſions 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 Viſ…; 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, p. 12to 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, p. 13and 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 Synodi… 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, at leaſt that hold Univerſal Redemption; for this is true, that whoſoever will, may? Only we do add, that when any will, that is yet farther of ſpecial Grace.

Having ſaid this according to Charity, a little ſurpaſſing this Author, I think fit to take notice of one Chapter in this Book that concerns me. It is the Eighth, but in order to it I find in the ſeventh theſe two Queſtions raiſed, to wit, How our ſins were imputed to Chriſt as to his Satisfaction, and how his Righteouſneſs is imputed to p. 14us in our Juſtification. The difference in Opinion herein does ſpring (he tells us) from the diverſe conceptions we have of Chriſts Suretiſhip, whereof we have mention but once in Scripture, and I will ſay but this little about it! That, there in nothing oftentimes, ſo much hinders the right underſtanding of a Text of Scripture, or words of an Author, as the apprehenſion that there is ſome more profoundneſs in it than there is: And ſo it is here as to this word Surety, whereof I am perſwaded there is nothing to be underſtood by it, but Chriſts Interceding as Mediator in our behalf, and undertaking the doing that in regard to his Prieſthood (of which the Apoſtle is ſpeaking in the place) as was neceſſary to the reconciling God to us, ſo as to be willing to make and as h might in Juſtice make, that Covenant, or grant the Conditions of the Goſpel to us. As for Mr. Ws. and others telling us farther things of this Suretiſhip, to wit, of Chriſts engaging on Gods part that he ſhall perform what he promiſes, and on our part, that the Elect ſhall perform the Condition, it is Gratis diſcourſe; for on Gods part he needs no ſuch Surety, and as for us, the Covenant is univerſal; and if Chriſt was a Surety in a proper ſenſe for our performance, then ſhould all perform it, and be ſaved. Let us conceive therefore of nothing intended by this word Surety, for Chriſt to do, but what is neceſſary to Gods making, not his, or our keeping, this Covenant, and let who will make the moſt of it. I come to the firſt Queſtion, How our ſins were imputed to Chriſt.

P. 73. Having told us what on one ſide we think, wherein I wiſh he could have cited Mr. Baxter to explain it, for his mind is ſo over full of his Notion, as he is not fit to do it for us. The other ſide (ſays he) think Chriſt came into the ſame bond as a Pecuniary Surety with us, or was our Repreſent alive in ſuch a ſenſe as that we are Legally esteemed to do or ſuffer what he did: This Opinion of the Brethren Mr. Baxter thought ſo dangerous, that he ſet himſelf againſt it, Book after Book, as that which does argumentatively bring in Antinomianiſm, and according to his frequent words, ſubvert the Goſpel. But Mr. Ws. is ſo ſugard here, ſo gracious, ſo mealy, as to tell them, that this would be dangerous indeed, if they did not renounce all aſſuming boaſts as if they were as righteous as Chriſt, or ſtood on terms with God, needing no more acts of Mercy than that one, of appointing Chriſt to be their Mediator. But what if they be all ſo humble (as I believe they are) as none of them to have ſuch boasting, yet ſo long as that Tenent does argumentatively infer ſuch conſequences as this, and no leſs indeed than this, (wherein Mr. Ws. ſhews his ſtrength) how can he daub thus with ſuch untempered Mortar as he here makes? As if the Opinion, as well as the p. 15Brother that holds it, was to be own'd. And how many the like conſequences of this Doctrine, does Mr. Baxter ſhew in his Books?

P. 75, 76. The Brethren ſuppoſing (as before) that we obeyed and ſuffered in Chriſt do ground it (he counts here) upon Adams being a figure of Chriſt, in the 5th of the Romans, and he is informing them, that we muſt not ſay that we obey in Chriſt, as we are ſaid to have ſinned in Adam, becauſe we were all in Adam as our Root; but none of us, not the Elect, not the Believer, ſo in Chriſt, as in him, which he has ſome where elſe alſo; I cannot turn to the place, but having ſpent ſome thoughts hereupon without Book, I will ſet my ſelf to ſet them down. What Chriſt did for us in the fleſh, he did for Mankind, but all Mankind are not in him as we were in Adam, that is certain, tho' Redemption be univerſal. The Believer only is his Seed, who is not thus neither, that is ſeminally in him. Beſides that, if the Believer or the Elect be accounted of God to have done what Chriſt did, he muſt be accounted of God to have fulfilled the Law in him, and ſo to have nothing to do himſelf for his Salvation, which is to leap into the Gulph of Antinomianiſm, which we avoid. This Notion now is not any peculiar one of Mr. Ws. but what others alſo inſiſt upon, yet am not I contented with it. I do not ſee how we can be ſaid to ſin in Adam (the words foreign in the Text does not prove it) upon this account of Mr. Ws. that we was in his Loins. If you prove it by that Text, which ſays, Levi paid Tythes to Melchiſedeck in Abraham, I prove the contrary by another, where it is ſaid of the Children unborn, that they had neither done any good ar evil. One of theſe Texts is certainly as argumentative, as the other. We may be ſaid to eat of the Tree, and to dreſs the Garden, and to do all that ever Adam did Phyſically, as being in his Loins, but we did not ſin in him, which is a Moral evil. Original corruption is ſin, but not his, or this ſin. There is no ſuch ſin or Moral good without the Will. Actus non facit reum, niſi mens ſit rea, and in this ſenſe that Axiom, Actiones (as to good and evil) ſunt ſuppoſitorum is undeniable. What then ſhall we ſay to this Chapter, which tells us, that by Adams diſobedience we were made ſinners, and by Chriſts obedience made righteous, and the like? I anſwer to ſo much as concerns our purpoſe, that I have pitcht on this Solution in my Ultima Manus (p. 6.) where ſtanding to our Principles, I affirm, That this Imputation which is ſuppoſed here on both ſides, as to Adams ſin, and Chriſts obedience, is to be underſtood only in regard to the Effects. We are made ſinners in Adams ſin, in regard to the fruit of it, for we all dye by reaſon of it: So we are made righteous by Chriſts obedience, in regard to the benefits of it, as Juſtification, and ſo Pardon and p. 16Salvation, which we have by it upon believing. We are not Formaliter righteous by Chriſts obedience (this we carefully deny), nor Formaliter ſinners by Adams ſin: But Effective we are ſo, in regard to the fruit, or quoad Effectus as to both. This is a ſolid determination, and which I ſtand to: See the place in that Book. It may be objected, If this be ſo, here is a difficulty ariſes, We are puniſhed, and that with Death for the ſin of another, how can that be juſt? And if God may puniſh us with Temporal Death for Adams ſin, he may with Eternal. I anſwer therefore. That though Death inflicted on Adam for his ſin, was indeed a puniſhment on him; yet is Death in it ſelf no puniſhment on us. Adam was made of the Earth Mortal as we, but he was put into the Garden where was the Tree of Life, whereof, ſo long as he might eat, it would ſave his Life; but upon his ſin, God excluded him from it, and having not the Free to eat on, when his time came, he muſt needs dye. The Sentence of Death was in effect executed on him in excluding him Paradiſe: But as for us we never had the Tree to eat on, and cannot be puniſhed by the excluſion from what we never had, but according to Nature, we being Mortal, and of courſe appointed to dye, our Death, as Natural, is neither good nor evil in it ſelf, but in regard to what follows it, that is the reward to come, according as out Lives have been in the World, and if good, it is but a Gate to Bleſſedneſs. After this you may ask, What think you then of the more common Doctrine, that it is not as we were in Adams Loins, but as we were in Adams Covenant that we ſinned in him, and ſo were liable to the ſame puniſhment? I anſwer; beſides that, it can never be proved, that thoſe words, In the day thou eateſt thereof; was ſaid to you or I, when they were ſaid to Adam; this Aſſertion is too grievous for my embrace, becauſe it makes the Conſtitution only of God, that is his Will alone, without any of the ſinner, to be the cauſe of Mans damnation. I will yet not leave, but ſeeing I am fallen on the Point, I will conſider what Original Sini… is that I own. There are three things according to the common Doctrine wherein original Sin conſiſts the Want of Original Righteouſneſs, Adams firſt guilt, and the Corruption of our Nature, from whence Actual Tranſgreſſions proceed. For the ſecond I have ſpoke to For the firſt, The Schools have conceived that Adam was Endowed with a ſupernatural Grace, beſides his Natural Righteous Conſtitution, which by his Fall he loſt, and ſo we, but our naturals and Free-will remains. Now I believe no ſuch thing, as that Adam had any Righteouſneſs or Grace ſupernatural, but only Nature entire; for Grace is indeed a Medicinal thing, or Auxiliatory for fallen Nature, which Adam needed not, p. 17and there can be no loſs of that which never was. If by Original Righteouſneſs, the integrity of Adams Nature be meant only, the want or loſs of this is included in the third. As for which I believe that Adam falling, depraved his Nature, and being depraved himſelf he begets Children with this Corruption in their Nature, The Mind and Will is infected with ignorance and diſobedience, the Ataxy in his Faculties upon his Fall, is begotten in ours, and ſo I hold Original Sin according to the Article of the Church of England, which ſpeaks of this, and nothing elſe, though I did not therefore ſo take it up. Omnes peccaverunt, id eſt, in omnes propagatum eſt malum, quod est peccatum (ſays Melancthon) and ſo we are by Nature filii ira, not upon Adams, but our own account. This, or thus much I hold with the Church againſt Pelagius; ſo that there is a neceſſity therefore of Grace in order to Salvation: But whether of ſpecial Grace againſt Arminius alſo, which I have hitherto imbibed, I leave others to their own Sentiments.

P. 77. Mr. Ws. and I do hold that Chriſts Obligation to bear our puniſhment was a ſingle Obligation, or an Obligation of his own, not our Obligation, though our puniſhment. Our Obligation is ex delicto, his ex voluntario contractu, ſo that he ſuffered not as a Sinner: But the Brethren think otherwiſe, That our ſins were ſo imputed to Chriſt, as to give him the denomination and judicial acceptation of a Sinner in the esteem of God and the Law. This being ſo, what ſays Mr. Ws. to it, to end the Diſcord? Why, Notwithstanding this, ſo long as they deny that Chriſt bad any defilement in him, or any ſin of his own, only our ſins imputed to him, and he was but a Legal Sinner; this difference cannot justifie mutual Cenſure. What? And can it not indeed? Then I promiſe you we muſt be more friendly to the Antinomian alſo; for it is very abuſive for any to think that ſuch a one as Dr. Criſps or any Univerſity Graduate, did ever believe that the Accident of one Subject could migrate into another, ſo that we are to take their words how broad ſoever (as when they account Chriſt took on him the fault, as well as the puniſhment, to wit, our faults, and only Legally) in the ſenſe of thoſe Orthodox Divines as have commonly ſaid he ſuffered as a Sinner, and Luther, as the greateſt Sinner: Yet are ſuch ſayings reprehenſible, by, and according to us, who deny that he was our Legal Perſon, though a Days-man betwixt God and us, he bore our puniſhment, that we might not bear it. An Opinion may be of ill conſequence, and he that holds it not ſee it; and a Man may hold a Tenent in the Theory, which he does not in the Practice, but live as free from thoſe ill conſequences as he that holds the contrary Opinion. In ſuch p. 18a caſe ſuch a Brother is not to be cenſured, but born with, but the Opinion the Tenent is to be cenſured and refuted, and ſuch Cenſure to be juſtified.

P. 80, 81. The Apology he makes there for our Opinion (that is his, I mean, and mine and Mr. Baxters) againſt the common Proteſtants is ſo well, handſome, humble, true, clear and taking, that I cannot but commend it, Ut nihil ſupra. The following Pages are as judicious, in clearing us from Popery. I thank him for them.

P. 84. He ſpeaks of the Manner of Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, and tells us the double ſenſe thereof; on the one ſide, the ſenſe of the Brethren, which is the ſame (that God reckons us to have Legally done and ſuffered what Chriſt did) as before, but in more words: And on the other ſide our ſenſe, which he might diſpatch in two words, Quoad Effectus, but he clouds it ſo with his Notion of Gods adjudging that the Obedience and Sufferings of Chriſt is our Pleadable Security for his benefits purchaſed, that I cannot tell what to make of it. For what an idle impertinent thing is this to talk of Gods adjudging Chriſts Obedience to be our Pleadable Security for the enjoyment of that, whereof he does adjudge us upon the account hereof to the very enjoyment!

P. 86. By this you ſee (ſays he) that we riſe …ot ſo high, as to ſay we are accounted to do or ſuffer what Chriſt did, and ſo to be abſolved immediately by the Sentence of the 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 19I 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 p. 20others, 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 p. 21what 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 p. 22firſt 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, p. 23becauſe 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 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 p. 24ſet 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 p. 25the 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 common Proteſtant and us in the matter of Juſtification. Nor could he have been offended at the Brethren, as if they wrong'd him, by ſaying he agreed with Mr. Baxter in this Poſition, that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is not imputed to the Believer in ſe, but in the Effects; for in the true ſenſe of the Poſition Mr. Ws. as well as I, agrees with Mr. Baxter: But ſeeing he ſaid not, nor thought any ſuch thing at firſt, (for he could not have ſaid Beſides the Effects, if he had meant quoad Effectus) but ſays this now, I can ſay no leſs, but that if another had ſaid ſo, it is falſe, abſurd, a piece of Plagiariſm, which is bold-fac'd, diſingenious, not fit for any man to have ſaid that has been Univerſity bread. I remember one Axiom I learned there, Membra dividentia ſunt contraria, (for contraria ſunt vel in Dividendo, vol in Inhaerendo) which infers, that if a Diſputant affirms a thing of one branch of a Diſtinction, and is brought to the allowing or affirming the ſame of the other (as Mr. Ws. here is reduc'd) the man is brought to a ſelf contradiction, and ſo Non-pluſt. Let Mr. Ws. therefore ſet up his Staff p. 26here, and come to a plain Determination. If the Brethren be right in their Imputation in ſe, let him take it in their ſenſe, and cleave to them: If Mr. Baxter be right quoad Effectus, then let him follow us. If he will follow neither, he muſt halt by himſelf.

The laſt Chapter of Mr. Ws. is an Abſtract (as he calls it) of what helpt him to avoid ſome perplexities (when there as no need of ſuch, unleſs he had made them) concerning Juſtification: Which Abſtract in fine comes to this, that he takes the Rule of Judgment to be the Goſpel Law in a ſubordinate connexion with the Law of Mediation, which makes the Juſtification of a Believer to be equivalent to a twofold Juſtification, but he hopes (notwithſtanding his talk of a double Bar in his Postſcript) that none would think that he ſaid there is a twofold Justification: For the Sentence is but one (he ſays) though equivalent to a twofold Juſtification. This is very dainty, I muſt needs ſay, but I intend not any Critical Examination of the Matter; Only I think I can tell what is that hath helpt Mr. Ws. into his perplexities better than he can tell what will help him out. It is this that he hath brought himſelf into the belief of ſome real truth in his Notion as will bear him out to ſpeak as the Brethren, and ſo avoid (as he accounts) the offending the weak, and yet hold ſtill with Mr. Baxter: And it is no wonder if this brings him into his perplexity, when all his new-fangled Conceptions do ſerve only to put him upon freſh abſurdities, and encreaſe it. He is come now to let his thoughts run upon fancying a double Rule of Judgment comprizing both the Law of Mediation, as well as the Law of the Goſpel. The Law of Mediaion was a Law we know that Chriſt alone was under; and though a Law may be Norma Officii, which is not Norma Judicii, yet cannot that Law be Norma Judicii, which was not before Norma Officii: And this Law being not ſuch to any Mortal, but to Chriſt only, it can by no means be unto us a Rule of Judgment. But for the goſpel, that the Law thereof is the Rule of Judgment, there is no queſtion with Mr. Ws. himſelf. We ſhall be judged by the Law of Liberty, ſays St. James, and St. Paul, According to my Gospel. As for the Sentence being one, there is Sententia Juris, and Sententia Judicis, and they are one. Such as is the Sentence of the Goſpel, ſuch will be the Sentence of the Judge: And ſuch as will be the Sentence of God at Judgment, ſuch is the Sentence now of every mans Juſtification or Condemnation by the Goſpel. Well, and what is Sententia Juris? Why this, He that believes ſhall be ſaved. And what is Sententia Judicis? Why this, Come ye bleſſed of my Father, for when I was hungry you fed me. That is, you that have believed ſo as your Faith hath wrought by love, or performed the condition of the Goſpel Covenant, I do declare p. 27you righteous according to that Law, and I do adjudge you to thereward that I by my Satisfaction and Merit have procured for you, of Pardon and Salvation. Here is the Doctrine of Juſtification according to my Book of the Righteouſneſs of God made good, and here is the farther Notion about the Mediatorial Law, being alſo the Rule of Judgment laid aſide; ſo that I may here deliver my ſelf in Mr. Ws. words (p. 121, and 122.) and take my reſt. By one Rule of Judgment the Justifying Sentence is pronounced upon Chriſts Righteouſneſs, and that of a believing ſinner, ſo long as the one Rule of Judgment is the Goſpel promiſe of the Redeemer, He that believes ſhall be ſaved. Hereby the Justifying Sentence does directly paſs upon a man as a Believer, and adjudges him to a right in whatſoever the Goſpel promiſes Believers qua ſuch: And conſidering that the chief deſign of the Gospel is to induce fallen ſinners to believe upon a ſuppoſition and aſſurance given that Satisfaction is already made by our Redeemer, and not now to be made or adjusted: I do confine my thoughts of Justification to this as the alone Rule of Judgments, and ſo long alſo as the account of the final Judgment generally ſtates it in this manner, I declare this to be a ſafe and eaſie Method, and ſo, I ſay, I might leave off.

But although as to thus much, Mr. Ws. muſt conſent, (for they are his words applyed to my ſelf) ſo far as concerns his owning the Goſpels being the Rule of Judgment, yet in regard to his conceit of another Rule alſo in connexion with it, I muſt not make an end without ſaying ſomething more, and ſomething of moment. I uſe the word [confine] after him, becauſe he has it, he having this conceit, but I who conceive that conceit of his to be vain, ſhould, inſtead of ſaying I confine my thoughts (being his words), ſay, I conclude with my ſelf, that it is not only a ſafe and eaſie, but the only Method, or this Rule is the only Rule of Judgment without the other. As for his three Reaſons for his conceit, I take them to be ſuch, as any man may raiſe for any thing, when he muſt ſay ſomething; and all I have need to ſay, is, it is no matter for them. For there is this one thing to be conſidered to make it good which Mr. Ws. ſeems not to have laid to his thoughts, which will come in, by and by. There are indeed Divines that will allow no Covenant of Grace but that which was made with Chriſt, or with us in him; and if theſe men who will have but one Covenant, and yet two Conditions, ſo different, as that Chriſt alone was to perform the one, and we the other, only they will 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 p. 28Covenants 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 p. 29come 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, p. 30I 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 other. As for his Pleadable Security, I have ſpoke to it already, we will return therefore to the two Righteouſneſſes. That there are two diſtinct Righteouſneſſes is out of queſtion, and that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is juſtifying, and our Faith juſtifying, (by the Virtue and Merit of his) may be received. And if this worthy Brother hereupon had firſt underſtood, and then told us, that though there be two Righteouſneſſes apart, they make together but one juſtifying Righteouſenſs, that is, theſe two Righteouſneſſes are two parts of one whole Juſtifying Righteouſneſs, according to one Sentence and one Juſtification; he had been happy, and might then have ſpared his making two Rules of Judgment. As for our Faith or Evangelical Righteouſneſs, we declare it merits not our Juſtification nor the benefits of it. It is Chriſt's Righteouſneſs alone has merited the Reward. When we define Juſtification then to be an Act of Grace, whereby God according to the Goſpel Law (or Rule of Judgment) does account the Believer Righteous, and through the ſatisfaction and merits of our Redeemer does judge him to the Reward of impunity and Life, it is all one as to impute Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to him, or to adjudge him to the participation thereof; for this Impunity and Life being the effects of his Righteouſneſs, his Righteouſneſs is made ours (when the Effects are) in relation to thoſe Effects, and can be no otherwiſe imputed to us. When Mr. Baxter then does tell us of a Righteouſneſs of ours ſubordinate to Chriſt's, his meaning is, that our Faith or Evangelical Righteouſneſs, being the conditon of our enjoying the Benefits Chriſt hath purchaſed for us, the performance of the Condition, or this Righteouſneſs Evangelical is required, and muſt proceed in order to our having his Righteouſneſs quoad hos effectus; for his Righteouſneſs p. 31I have ſaid, is had (or imputed to us) only in our enjoyment of the Effects. To conclude then, our Faith is Juſtifying, or juſtifies us, per modum juſtitiae conſtituentis: Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is juſtifying, or juſtifies per modum Efficientis, or per modum meriti. They both of them are to be put into the Definition, the one I ſay, (when imputed for Righteouſneſs) per modum cauſae formalis, and the other per modum cauſae meritoriae, concurring (as two-parts of one juſtifying Righteouſneſs) to the Sinners juſtification.

I have done, and now what remains, but that Mr. Ws. be perſuaded to retract his Notion, and that I offer him my Reaſons for it, which are as follow.

1. In the firſt place let us conſider his Notion, which is this, that God adjudges the Believer to be one, whoſe abſolution, adoption and glory were promis'd to Chriſt in reward of his Death, by the Covenant of Redemption; and for his actual Intereſt and enjoyment thereof, and alſo acceptance and treatment, as a righteous Perſon againſt all Challenges, God judicially accounts what Chriſt hath done and ſuffered to be his pleadable Security. This we take to be Imputation. The former part here is matter of fair ful and proper Words, but as for the latter part, where the point is toucht, this ſeems to me ſtrange. Chriſt's Obedience is the Believers Pleadable Security, when he ſhould aſſert it to be the Believers Righteouſneſs. Is an imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs for a pleadable Security, and Imputation of it in ſe? Who does not ſee this to be contrary, and the thing we ſtand upon? That which Chriſt hath done and ſuffered, is through Gods promiſe (whether to Chriſt, or us) a Security which we may plead with God for our Pardon and Salvation upon our believing, but is Chriſts performance therefore imputed in ſe for our performance? What is that Mr. Ws. takes for Imputation? Is it not the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs to the Believer? And is the imputing of Chriſts Righteouſneſs to be the Believers, and to be his Pleadable Security (that is an Imputation of it to that Effect) all one? My Neighbours honeſty and faithfulneſs is my Security that ſuch a Debt ſhall be paid me; but is his honeſty and fidelity therefore in ſe my honeſty and faithfulneſs? O ſtrange that my Reverend Brother ſhould be ſo intoxicated with this Notion, even ſo as to be out of his ſenſes, and take one thing for another! I pray is not the Point between us and the Brethren this, Whether Chriſts Righteouſneſs be imputed in ſe for our Juſtification? And is the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs to us for our Pleadable Security our Justification? Gods judicial imputing Chriſts Righteouſneſs to a perſon in ſe does juſtifie him: Could his imputing it to him (if there were any p. 32ſuch thing) for his Pleadable Security, and not for his Righteouſneſs, which in ſe denotes) juſtifie him? How does his Notion come up to the Point of Juſtification? As for what he adds, that God does Judicially account what Chriſt hath done ſuffered to be the Believers Pleadable Security, it is as a man that is not only intoxicated, but plays bold pranks. This is indeed ſaid ordinarily by ſome Divines, that Chriſt doth judicially account what Chriſt hath done and ſuffered to be our Righteouſneſs, that anſwers the Law, and juſtifies us. Now for Mr. Ws. to invert this judicial proceſs of God to his Pleadable Security, and then ſay, This we take for Imputation, it ſeems to me ſuch an audacious impoſing upon his followers, ſuch a piece of confidence (in ſo momentous a Point) as it is not to be endured.

2. An Imputation in ſe does neceſſarily infer Chriſt to be our Legal Perſon, which overturns the whole Doctrine of Mr. Ws. and I, and Mr. Baxter. It is impoſſible God ſhould account Chriſts Righteouſneſs to be another mans in ſe, but Legally; and if it be ours Legally, then muſt he be our Legal Perſon, and ſo have acted and ſuffered in our ſtead as ſuch. The Lord Chriſt now we acknowledge did ſuffer and dye for us, or in our ſtead in this ſenſe, that we might not dye or ſuffer, upon our believing, but not that God ſhould account us to have ſuffered and done what he did. That is, he acted only as our Mediator. To ſuffer, that we might not ſuffer, and to ſuffer, that his ſufferings ſhould be accounted ours, are contradictory things; ſo that by no means Chriſt muſt not be accounted our Legal Perſon in what he did and ſuffered for us. In this Point it was Mr. Baxter broke looſe from the common Doctrine; and he that holds an Imputation in ſe, (unleſs this new-fangle be ſo with us) muſt break from him. An Impuation in ſe makes the Believer in Law-ſenſe as righteous as Chriſt, and ſo brings in all the conſequences of Antinomianiſm, which may be ſeen if Mr. Baxter.

3. From thoſe two Reaſons thus at firſt laid down. I argue; Either there is another Imputation in ſe which Mr. Ws. has found out, or, either the Imputation in ſe which Mr. Ws. has made out by his new Notions, is really a true Imputation in ſe, or elſe an Imputation in ſe muſt be denied. But the Imputation in ſe which Mr. Ws. thinks he has made out by his new Notion, is nothing but a meer imagination thereof, and not true Imputation in ſe, and therefore an Imputation in ſe muſt be denied. The Major appears, and is confirmed by my ſecond Reaſon, and the Minor by my firſt laid down.

4. It is apparent to all that are diſcerning, that Mr. Ws. does agree with Mr. Baxter and me in our Opinion ſo far as concerns the Brethren, that is, that in the ſenſe of the Imputation they hold, he is againſt p. 33them as much as we, and unleſs what he hath invented be another, there is no other Imputation in ſe but theirs.

5. The going about to cover this Agreement with us by his new deviſed Notion, which none elſe ever had, or yet underſtood, and that which will never hold, muſt needs betray him to a deeper cenſure than he deſerves, and lay him but the more open to any Pen that ſhall be employed to expoſe him. Not that I call this New Notion only a Cover if it prove the thing he counts it to do; but ſo long as it proves it not, it is no other.

6. It is not for a man of gravity to play the Child, which hides its head in the Mothers Apron, and thinks that no body ſees him; as if the Vail of this perplexed Conception ſhould be a ſafeguard to Mr. Ws. againſt the Aſſaults of any Enemy, which it is like rather to provoke, and will afford him no more Armour againſt them than a Cobweb, which every Waſp (and ſuch he muſt look for) will break through, when ſome ſilly Flies are entangled with it.

7. The only thing that he can ſay to excuſe himſelf to good men (when they ſee his Notion inſignificant), and which perhaps does ſatisfie him fully now, is that by this Deviſe he does prevent, or endeavour to prevent, the Offence of the Weak Brethren, who are not able to digeſt ſtronger Meat: But here will be the Queſtion, Whether he does not herein ſymbolize with Peter, who for fear of diſpleaſing the Jews by eating with the Gentiles, did really ſcandalize the Gentiles by withdrawing, and made Paul reprove him. Let Mr. Ws. examine this to the bottom, it concerns him, not me, for he muſt give an account thereof to God.

8. He does a kind of open wrong to me, and Mr. Clark, and Mr. Baxter, by giving occaſion to ſuch as have a regard to him, or his Books, to account us Heterodox, while he ſets himſelf and the Brethren on one ſide, and us upon the other, even in that wherein he agrees with us, but only that he is warpt by his Notion, that makes nothing indeed for the Brethren, nor againſt us, though there were, as he thinks, ſomething indeed in it: Whereas if he did ſtand by us as of his Party, it would hearten them, to own us alſo, ſo as it would in time render the Offence inſignificant, and the Acknowledgment honourable, as the name Chriſtian now is, that was otherwiſe.

9. When the Brethren accuſe him for Agreement with Mr. Baxter, and he inſtead of confeſſing the ſame, does ſay they wrong him (as Peter ſaid the Damſel did in accuſing him for one being with Chriſt) and flies to his Notion, which if it would hold, he ſhould not yet do; for he agrees with us for all that: Is this like a Diſciple of Mr. Baxter, p. 34who never baulked ſpeaking his mind out of fear of loſs, either of Reputation, Money, or Life.

10. The Caſe is brought in the Conteſts of the preſent day, to a kind of Caſe of Confeſſion, whether we are for an Imputation in ſe, or Quoad Effectus; and if any that are leading men inſtead of a plain owning of the Truth (as they conceive it) ſhall uſe any ſhift to ſave that Confeſſion (and when there is no need), I cannot but remember (I do not apply) that Text. Ye are they who justifie your ſelves before men, but God knoweth your hearts: For that which is highly eſteemed among men, is abomination in the ſight of God.

11. By Mr. Ws. new Notion, he is not only kept himſelf from the Confeſſion which he is bound to make when brought to it (that is againſt an Imputation in ſe) but it does keep others, though they be convinced in their Judgments, and believe as we, from confeſſing or profeſſing the ſame alſo: And if any will not confeſs the Truth as they believe in their heart (if they be put to it) before men, when there is no danger but of Credit, how will they confeſs their Faith if there were danger of Life? If a man does ſhrink at being a Confeſſor, how will he abide the being a Martyr? And how ſhall be that is Truth confeſs him before God their Father in Heaven? Not that I would have any think that Mr. Ws. uſes a phraſe againſt his Judgment; for I believe he apprehends ſomething verily in his Notion that proves an Imputation in ſe which I apprehend not; when yet that belief does prove him an honeſt man, which I do apprehend, and ſignifie ſo much, to prevent my ſinning againſt my Brother, by giving occaſion to any of thinking of him otherwiſe, from what I write.

12. If any good Chriſtian ſhall ſay to me, I am offended that you and Mr. Baxter deny the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs; I will anſwer, Mr. Baxter and I do hold the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs as much as really can be held, that is, an Imputation as to the Effects. If one ſays, unleſs you grant more, he will be offended ſtill; I will ſay again, there is, there can be no ſuch thing as that Chriſts Righteouſneſs ſhould be really (or in ſe) ours; and when we grant that it is Relatively ours, that is, ours in regard to the Benefits or Effects (as the Ranſom-money is the Captives in his Liberty) it is all that can be ſaid, or deſired. And if any be offended for all that, then I ſay, Is he offended? let him alone.

13. As for the phraſe of Imputation then, though it be not in Scripture (I mean in regard to Chriſts Righteouſneſs) let no body miſtake us, we allow it. Our Divines do uſe it, Mr. Ws. may uſe it, Mr. Baxter is for it; they wrong him and me if any ſay we are againſt it. But as p. 35for an Imputation in ſe, if Mr. Ws. will uſe that pl…aſe, and the Brethren with others follow him, this is an Offence given of another nature than that of diſpleaſing men; for in the ſenſe the Brethren and others uſe it, it is an Error in Mr. Ws's. own account, and ſo he does and ſays, that (in pleaſing men, there is the danger) which gives them occaſion to Err, or continue in their Errour. This is a real and certainly forbidden ſcandal (which might be ſhewn out of the eighth Chapter of the firſt to the Corinthians) unto which we muſt not ſay, Let them alone. Scandalum eſt dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens alteri occaſionem ruinae.

14. Mr. Ws. 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 p. 36ſtill 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 not… I conclude then, that though th…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, p. 37that 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.