Animadversions on the Books of Mr Williams, Text 1
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 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 …t not, and none elſe … 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 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 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 (foreign, 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.