Animadversions: BEING The Two Last BOOKS OF MY Reverend Brother Mr. Williams, The One Entitled, A Postscript to Gospel-Truth: The Other, An End of Discord. Conscientiously Examined. In Order to a Free Entertainment of the Truth, in some Momentous Points in Divinity, controverted among the Nonconformist Brethren, occasionally here Determined, for the sake of those Honest among Us that seek it, without Trick, or Partiality.  
By john Humphrey, the Aged.  
What thy Hand findeth to do, do it with thy Might: For there is no Work, nor Device, nor Wisdom in the Grave whither thou goest,  Eccles. 9.10. 
LONDON: Printed by Tho. Snowden, for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns, the lower end of Cheapside, near Mercer's Chapel. 1699.   

Animadversions on his Postscript.  
The Introduction.  
Mr. Williams' having Printed his Book called Gospel Truth, with many Presbyterian hands set to it, there was some heat, and several Exceptions raised against it, by some of the Independent Brethren; whereof one of the chief was this, That he held the Righteousness of Christ to be imputed only in the Effects. Here, instead of his owning this Truth, and standing to it, he denies that he held it, and for his proof, produces this passage out of his Book, That besides the Effects being made ours, the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers. This passage of his I took, and gave him notice of, in a Letter Printed in my Middle Way of Justification, disliking it as receding from Mr. Baxter: But Mr. Williams, to uphold himself against this Accusation, is unhappily engaged, and sets his Wits in his Man made Righteous, to from a notion that might serve him to maintain his own Doctrine (which is Baxterian) and yet answer the Brethren, as he has, by this denial, and so satisfy his followers. A great conceit at present I perceive he took of his Notion (which shows him honest) by that passage in the Sheet he called an Answer to my Letter, where he complains of his being struck at by both Extremes, when deeper thoughts (says he) would perceive the Truth stated (quoting p. 77, 78, 79, 80. of that Book) against the excess of both. The Brethren and common Protestant say, Christ's Righteousness is imputed in se, Mr. Baxter and I, that it is imputed, and can be made ours only, quoad Effectus. Either the Brethren or We are in the right: But Mr. Ws. has an invention to middle the matter so, as we shall both be out, and in an extreme; and yet he hold with us both. These deeper thoughts therefore of his I took into consideration, in my Book called Pacification, and he offering something in reply in some other after Books, I took it again into consideration in my Appendix To my last book: But finding this Reverend Brother keeping still his course, in holding with the Hound, (as the Proverb is) and running with the Hare, I must pursue him in his Notion, till I have hunted it down: For it is a cloudy, perplexed troublesome Notion, that can serve us nothing but to entangle the understanding, without any profit to others, or significancy to himself. As I have made my Animadversions therefore on his Books preceding, I do make these on these later Books, seeing he persists in his Notion, which were writ in two Letters; the first to himself, the second to another, and are as follows.   

Reverend Brother,  
Reading your Postscript, I come in p. 525. to the Point, whether the Gospel be a Law, and I turned to your Defence, as you bid, for your sense of it; where you show 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 performed) by which we are justified, as perfect Obedience was under the Law of Adam. You do this harmless, honest, and right tenant, 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 itself (the Faith which is the condition of the Gospel, that is, St. Jame's Faith, and Works also) is that Righteousness (when performed) which constitutes us righteous, and by which we are justified.  
Pray Mr. Williams believe it, and be confirmed, that as perfect Obedience was the Condition of Life in the Law of Works; and if that Condition had been performed, it had been Adam's 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 allege) 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 Christ's 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 proceed, 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 Christ's 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, Christ's 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 Christ's 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 virtue of Christ's 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 threatened penalty, and entitles him to is promised benefits, is so far Justifying Righteousness by that Law. An impartial acknowledgement.  
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 fuddled 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 yourself. 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 God's 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 Christ's 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 Christ's performance? It is, we must both acknowledge it, and do we not agree in this, that Christ's Righteousness is indeed imputed to us in the Effects? Where is the difference? We both assert that Christ's 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 Christ's Righteousness itself, 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 virtue of it? He that enjoys a benefit as merited for him by another's 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 Christ's 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 itself 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 acknowledgement 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 Christ's 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 ask 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 lose from the commonly received Doctrine of the Protestants, who have still talked of Christ's Righteousness itself 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 Christ's 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 ourselves 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 ancient 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 perplexed, 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 ourselves 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 than may your Brethren say, Christ's performance itself 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 Bar of the Law, and Bar of the Gospel; the Creator's Bar, and the Redeemers Bar, as you call them, insomuch as together with a double Righteousness and double Bar, 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 tied, 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 Creator's Bar, or Bar 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 Father's 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 Bar (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 Judgement, 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 itself which justifies us, all of them benefits that Christ hath purchased by performing the Law of Mediation. Well, Justification then itself being one of those benefits, when Christ's 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 Christ's 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 Christ's, 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 see besides the Effects, as you speak? No, this were to make it Legally ours and he allows no Imputation of Christ's 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 Christ's 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 Christ's 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 People's 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 Christ's 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 itself is one (Omneens est unum) and not two things, or acts, and consequently aught to be defined and understood as one act; so that when in one place it is said we are justified by Christ's Blood (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, through his Blood), and in others we are justified by Faith, this makes yet but one act, one Justification described in one place by the meritorious, in the others by the formal cause thereof, which both are to be put together in the Definition.  
I must confess Mr. Baxter, as I remember, does ordinarily speak at your rate, as if we were to be justified both by Law and Gospel; and furthermore does not scruple to make as many Particular Justifications as there can be Charges laid against us, but with the assertion that there is also a Justification Universal, and which I apprehend the Gospel alone does yield us. Indeed how to reconcile Mr. Baxter herein to his own Doctrine, I must confess I have not yet observed from him, but crave your help to find out. In the mean time I must warn you that you understand him not after the manner you writ; 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 Christ's 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 Christ's Righteousness be indeed ours in see, 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' Faith and Works also, but by Faith only, and by Faith taken objective, for Christ's Righteousness made ours by Faith, so as to be our Formal Righteousness, or formally to justify 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 yourself, 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 Christ's 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 chief intent 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 yourself indeed by such words that you may not lie, 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 entitled 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 Christ's 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, Philip, 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 Philip, we shall be believed in nothing. Alas! what pity it was, and what prejudice to the Protestants Cause, that Luther had not harkened to Melancton? It must be no wonder therefore if you harken not to me now in my farewell Admonition, which is to choose (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 HUMPHREY.   

Animadversions ON HIS End of Discord,  
Learned and Worthy Sir,  
I Wrote a Sheet or two in a Letter to Mr. Williams upon his Postscript to Gospel Truth before this later Book called An End of Discord came out. I had no Answer to it, nor my Copy back, and therefore I wrote out of my soul Papers that Letter over, and sent it to you to read, and I now send you these three or four Sheets more upon this new Book, which shows the Author a Man still growing in Learning and Industry, a Man of Temper and Discretion, of prudent Parts and weighty Judgement, 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 hearty 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 Christ's 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 itself, when no Party is cured. He was so well prepared for this work, that I cannot like that he has tied up his hands by this Book, so as in point of ingenuity he could go no further, unless some body Printed upon him to unloose them. It is but a friendly part therefore for me to Print these Letters, to give him occasion to deliver himself from the double Fetters that are on him, this one on his Hands, and the other on his Judgement 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 called by him An End of Discord, which if Mr. Lob had lived and joined 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 Christ's 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' Judgement, 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 than is, Whether the Brethren approve this Accommodation, and you know (as Mr. Lob has signified) they are so far from it, that it does but incense them the more for the show 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 lose from Popery, and a part of them from Lutheranism, were so much engaged about it, I could wish that those Names of Calvinism and Arminianism, as those of Guelphs and Gibellines, and our of Whig and Tory were sunk for ever. Let any of us, or our Brethren, Preach the strongest Calvinism we can, and not exceed it, when our Doctrine hath been Calvinistical, our Use must be Arminian, or we must leave Preaching to the People. There is indeed a difference in the Fifth Point about Perseverance, wherein the 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 there 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 Controversy 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 cooperate 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 us in our Justification. The difference in Opinion herein does spring (he tells us) from the divers conceptions we have of Christ's Suretyship, 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 persuaded there is nothing to be understood by it, but Christ's 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 Suretyship, to wit, of Christ's engaging on God's 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 God's 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. shows his strength) how can he daub thus with such untempered Mortar as he here makes? As if the Opinion, as well as the Brother that holds it, was to be owned. And how many the like consequences of this Doctrine, does Mr. Baxter show 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 Adam's 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 myself 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 Gulf 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Tithes 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 are 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 Adam's disobedience we were made sinners, and by Christ's obedience made righteous, and the like? I answer to so much as concerns our purpose, that I have pitched 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 Adam's sin, and Christ's obedience, is to be understood only in regard to the Effects. We are made sinners in Adam's sin, in regard to the fruit of it, for we all die by reason of it: So we are made righteous by Christ's obedience, in regard to the benefits of it, as Justification, and so Pardon and Salvation, which we have by it upon believing. We are not Formaliter righteous by Christ's obedience (this we carefully deny), nor Formaliter sinners by Adam's 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 Adam's 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 itself 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 die. 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 die, our Death, as Natural, is neither good nor evil in itself, 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 Adam's Loins, but as we were in Adam's 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 Man's 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, Adam's 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  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, and there can be no loss of that which never was. If by Original Righteousness, the integrity of Adam's 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 adam's, 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 Christ's 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 bade 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 justify 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 say 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 a 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. baxter's) 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 Christ's 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 Christ's 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 mere participation of the Effects of Christ's Righteousness, but assent to an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness itself 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. settled Judgement, 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 Christ's 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-denial here would have served him, to make the Acknowledgement, 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 only excepted, for when the in se, and the Effects are Opposed, he will have Christ's Righteousness ours in its self, upon our saying it is Relatively ours in regard to the Effects.  
I come to the Chapter that concerns me, the Title whereof is this An Attempt to accommodate the Difference between such as judge Christ's 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. Lob (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 Christ's 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 Judgement 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 justify 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 died to save us from dying, who must else have died ourselves, we do not understand as they, that we died and suffered in him, for to die in our room, that we might not die, and to be accounted of God to have died, or died 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 Heresy, 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 Judgement of the Brethren, or of Mr. Baxters? He knows in his Conscience, and we all see by this Book, and all his others, a manifest confirmation every, where with great strength and weight, and diligent reading (which may shame those that despise him as not Learned) of the Doctrine taught by that profound Divine, and most sincere Minister of Jesus Christ. And shall this Elisha that hath still followed his Elijah go now in Words (for it is no more) to cast away his Mantle, and disown his Master? I cannot endure that when Mr. Ws. makes here two sides, he should rank the Brethren and He on the one side, and I and Mr. Baxter on the other. If any other had wrote the Title to this Chapter, I would have said it is false, Mr. Ws. and I, and Mr. Baxter are of one Opinion.  
P. 104. There are some that say, the Righteousness of Christ is imputed in se for Justification; and some that say it is not imputed in se, but quoad Effectus. He numbers himself among the former. Of the former then, there are belike two sorts with him, such as think the Elect or Believer to be accounted by God to have obliged and suffered in Christ, which he disproves, and therefore tells of another sort, that is, such as do not think that God does judicially account any to have obeyed and suffered in Christ (for that he stoutly denies in all his Books, as well as Mr. Baxter and I) and yet do hold an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in se, which indeed is a Rarity, for I believe there is not any but himself, and it is fit therefore to hear how Mr. Ws. single self does hold this (even in opposition to the Brethren, as well as us) but that I have already canvased that new perplexed Contrivance (which he invented for the sake of those tender Brethren that cannot bear with the sound Doctrine of Mr. Baxter, though there is none of them I believe that regard the Invention) in my Pacification, my Appendix to him at large in the End of my Ultima Manus, and also in my Letter before to his Postscript; so that there is nothing left more to do, but to wonder at this Reverend Man, what he means thus to persist, especially in telling us of a variety among this sort in wording their Conceptions, but they all come to one, which indeed is well said, for he alone in the one, and only one that ever entertained such an Imagination. Well, what then is this that one sense it comes to? Why this, that God according to the Covenant of Redemption where he promises to Christ to save the Believer, he judicially accounts what Christ hath done and suffered to be his pleadable Security. This we take to be Imputation. We! what we? None surely but himself. he dare not say, as they must, who indeed hold an Imputation in se, that God does judicially account what Christ hath done and suffered to be Legally the Believers (this is the Doctrine of an Imputation in se, which he militates against in all his Books, as Mr. Baxter in all his) but to be his pleadable security. And what is that? Is that Justification? Is that I say again an Imputation of what Christ hath done and suffered to the Believer so as to be that Righteousness in se, whereby he is justified? No, what Imputation then in se is it? Did he that wrote the rest of the Book write this? Did he write it when he was awake, or asleep? If he was a wake, let him tell what. That the Performance of the Covenant of Redemption by Christ does afford us a pleadable security, that if we believe we shall be saved, there is no body questions. That this pleadable security is an Effect and Benefit of that performance, is not to be questioned neither. That the Imputation then of the Righteousness of Christ to us for this pleadable Security (if there be any such Imputation) is an Imputation of it only in the Effects. (or quoad Effectus) and not in 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 Christ's Obedience to us in se, how does it from the Law of Mediation? That God does impute Christ's 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 ourselves so; but where, or by whom is it said that God so imputes it, and judicially so imputes it? Is this the work of Judgement? 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 repent, and so performed (through my Grace) the Covenant of the Gospel, I do therefore according to my promise therein to thyself 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 Christ's Righteousness is not imputed in se, but in the Effects they oppose all this (says he) but they great the Righteousness of Christ to be the meritorious Cause of our Justification: they narrow not their Opinion to a procuring only a Covenant of Grace or Law of the Gospel, but say Christ purchased the Benefits first which that Covenant bestows: they are sound in the Doctrine of Satisfaction: they abhor the presenting our Faith or Evangelical Obedience to God as any Satisfaction to Justice, Atonement 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 Christ's Merits our Faith is made a Righteousness, than his Merits must make our persons Righteous. This is his sense, which he hath in divers expressions three times in the Paragraph. Very well now I say, that if through Christ's Merits God does impute our Faith for Righteousness, then must the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness be an Imputation only quoad, Effectus, for this is a grand Effect of it, that our Faith, which of itself 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 Christ's 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 Christ's 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 Christ's 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 Blundering, 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 persuading the contrary minded to bear with (if not receive) our Opinion, because it hath all the Conveniency as to the Substantial Doctrine of the Protestant, which the Brethren can make of theirs: Yet he is short in his discernment of that very Critical Point, wherein the hinge of this Controversy 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 Christ's 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 Christ's 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 citys accordingly, Though Christ's 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 Christ's 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 itself that goes into that Act of Imputation, or Act that imputes our Faith for Righteousness, when the other, I say still, is the Effect or Benefit following Justification. I will add, The one let us note farther is dispensed by God as Dominus or Absolute Lord (so I apprehend), and is more or less to one person than another at his will and pleasure, that hath no bounds to be set to it: When the other is dispensed by him as Rector and Judge to every Man alike upon the performed Condition. I will yet add, And this may give some more Line to the Assertors of Freegrace 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 itself is imputed Relatively to the special Effects of it, it is truly an Imputation in se. Here is a double deceit, error, or falsehood. One in the Logic of it, the other in the matter of it. In the Logic the words [it self] must not be put in, we deny an Imputation of this Righteousness itself (or in itself.) This itself therefore is a Petitio Principis, that is fallacious, which must be left out, and then as to the matter, I say, an affirming Christ's Righteousness to be imputed (that is reckoned or made ours) Relatively only in regard to the Effects, is the denial of it to be so in se, according to the received sense of that Distinction. But indeed if we might coin 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 Christ's Righteousness is not imputed in see 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 Christ's Right to us in itself, 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 signify any thing, may be spared, and that clutter be quite over. But I cannot in conscience grant him the use of an Imputation in se according to this sense, because an Imputation quoad Effectus is understood to be Membrum dividens, and consequently contrary to an Imputation in se according to our common understanding of that distinction. Besides that, the use of the term in se, in such a latitude, may be dangerous to many, and the untrue use of it so long by him, has done (as I doubt) too much hurt already. I cannot therefore but be a little more severe herein, and must observe, that when Mr. Ws. does deny the brethren's 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 Christ's 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, than it must be itself 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 itself, 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, than 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 wronged 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 boldfaced, disingenuous, 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 reduced) the man is brought to a self contradiction, and so Nonplussed. Let Mr. Ws. therefore set up his Staff here, 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 helped 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 Judgement 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 intent not any Critical Examination of the Matter; Only I think I can tell what is that hath helped 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 increase it. He is come now to let his thoughts run upon fancying a double Rule of Judgement comprising 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 Judgement. But for the gospel, that the Law thereof is the Rule of Judgement, 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 Judgement, such is the Sentence now of every man's 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 you 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 Judgement laid aside; so that I may here deliver myself in Mr. Ws. words (p. 121, and 122.) and take my rest. By one Rule of Judgement the Justifying Sentence is pronounced upon Christ's Righteousness, and that of a believing sinner, so long as the one Rule of Judgement 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 Judgements, and so long also as the account of the final Judgement generally states it in this manner, I declare this to be a safe and easy Method, and so, I say, I might leave off.  
But although as to thus much, Mr. Ws. must consent, (for they are his words applied to myself) so far as concerns his owning the Gospel's being the Rule of Judgement, 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 myself, that it is not only a safe and easy, but the only Method, or this Rule is the only Rule of Judgement 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 Judgement, it might have appeared something agreeable: But for Mr. Ws. who distinguishes these Covenants or Laws, and yet puts them together, and connexes both into the Rule of Judgement, 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 prophesied of, and was to be accomplished by Christ when come, and so these matters all to be fulfilled; 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 complete understanding and application of it, and does yet further herein lean so much to his own understanding as he does, (which leaning is such a position of the Thoughts, that if the thing leaned upon does fail, his notion must be all thrown down): I say, for him to make two Matters of that which is but one, seeing that which was in the Prophecy, and that which is in the Fulfilling of it must be the same, and intended for the same: It gives me just cause for some Reprimand and Admonition to him, to consider over and over all such Expressions as he has, p. 133. where he is apprehensive, that the want of the consideration of this Distinction, is the cause of all our Disputes, when I am afraid that a distinguishing ubi Lex non distinguit, and Mr. Ws. leaning here so much upon this Distinction, which I suppose has been coined but of late by same of our own Divines English or Scotch, and scarce to be found one Century ago, (and perhaps not come in play till after the Assemblies Catechisms) has given occasion of so much roving Fancy, and thereby more Confusion to himself, (and may do through him, if it be not prevented, to others) than ever had like to have been in those great Points without it. I have set myself 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 show 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 Contriving 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 considered, 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 Christ's 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 Judgement. 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 ware, and says, he hopes that none will think he holds so, for indeed, if there were two Justifications by these two Righteousnesses, than the one must be a Legal, and the other an Evangelical Justification; and if a Legal one, there must be a perfect Righteousness to answer the Law, and then Christ's Righteousness must be imputed in se, so as to be legally our formal Righteousness, which must make Mr. Baxter, and I and Mr. Ws. to retract our Books, and the currant Doctrine of the common Protestant run on. But seeing he does deny two Justifications, you may ask what then does he mean by his two Laws, the Creator's Law, and the Redeemer's Law? Why, I had thought when I read his Postscript, this had inferred two Justications, but now he explains himself by fancying only two Rules of Judgements, 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 concerned to Answer, I ask, what does this prove? If the Mediatorial Law were the Rule of Judgement, how would that make Christ's Righteousness be imputed so, as to become ours in see, 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 Judgement. 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 Judgement) 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 I 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 promised 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 full and proper Words, but as for the latter part, where the point is touched, 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 God's promise (whether to Christ, or us) a Security which we may plead with God for our Pardon and Salvation upon our believing, but is Christ's performance therefore imputed in se for our performance? What is that Mr. Ws. takes for Imputation? Is it not the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to the Believer? And is the imputing of Christ's Righteousness to be the Believers, and to be his Pleadable Security (that is an Imputation of it to that Effect) all one? My Neighbour's honesty and faithfulness is my Security that such a Debt shall be paid me; but is his honesty and fidelity therefore in see 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 Christ's Righteousness be imputed in se for our Justification? And is the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us for our Pleadable Security our Justification? God's judicial imputing Christ's Righteousness to a person in se does justify him: Can his imputing it to him (if there were any such thing) for his Pleadable Security, and not for his Righteousness, which in se denotes) justify 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 Christ's Righteousness to be another man's 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 die for us, or in our stead in this sense, that we might not die 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 lose from the common Doctrine; and he that holds an Imputation in se, (unless this newfangle 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 mere 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 them 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 Mother's Apron, and thinks that no body sees him; as if the Veil 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 satisfy 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 symbolise with Peter, who for fear of displeasing the Jews by eating with the Gentiles, did really scandalise 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 warped 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 Acknowledgement 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, who 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 justify yourselves 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 Judgements, 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 Judgement; 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 signify so much, to prevent my sinning against my Brother, by giving occasion to any of thinking of him otherwise, from what I writ.  
12. If any good Christian shall say to me, I am offended that you and Mr. Baxter deny the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness; I will answer, Mr. Baxter and I do hold the Imputation of Christ's 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 Christ's 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, than 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 Christ's 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 for an Imputation in se, if Mr. Ws. will use that please, 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'. 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 Error. This is a real and certainly forbidden scandal (which might be shown 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-conformed People stand affected, who cannot bear the open intelligible (yet more accurate) Doctrine of Mr. Baxter, having found out something (he thinks) as may enable 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 join with us in offending the weak, and hazarding Truth by rejecting a phrase which well explaind, doth properly express what both intent: 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 leavened it, and then write some new Book, or Books, for the clearing himself, and maintaining the Doctrine he is otherwise engaged in against his Opposers, without it.  
16. Besides what is said before in respect to the brethren, the using the phrase of an Imputation in se in general, is using a phrase which is false, dangerous, as tempting to Antinomianism, and the using the same still after this public notice and canvasing, 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 myself and others have of Mr. Ws'. Worth and Writings, I do signify 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' Writings are not 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 Christ's 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 ware of, that is, make a Division and Parties among Mr. baxter's 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 itself (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 stopped in the Press two or three Months upon the desire of Mr. Ws' Friends, to deliberate about it, they must in point of Conscience get out, if it were only to prevent (so far as I can) this evil, if there were no other.  
19 To knock the Nail quite home, there is nothing can be said to be imputed to a Man which he has, unless for another thing than what it is, as Faith is imputed for Righteousness: Or for another End than that he should have it, as Sin is imputed to be punished. It follows, that for a thing then to be a Man's, and to be imputed to a Man, that is, to be his in se, and to be his only to an end, use, or benefit, are two thing, so that an Imputation in se is indeed an impossible; for that thing which is divers from another, cannot be the same with that from which it is divers. 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 myself, 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 publicly, seeing private will not do) and take my Text for it out of Leviticus; Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart (but thou salt love thy Brother in thy heart, which I do) Thou shalt in any wise rebuke him, and not suffer sin upon him.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
Reader,  
THese Sheets were prepared to be Printed before Michaelmas Term, and to come out then. I signified my intention of Printing them to Mr. Ws. thinking that by an Answer to my Letter I should see his mind how he would take it. he wrote me no Answer, so that about a Week after I put them to the Press, and thought he was indifferent, and like to be concerned no more about these Animadversions than my others on his former Writings: But after two or three Sheets were Printed, or Composed, a Friend of his came to one, and told me. that such and such Books were coming out against Mr. Ws. and he cast down about it, and that it would be a cruel thing in me who was a friend to fall upon him, when he was like to he Assaulted with Enemies. I had moreover a Letter out of Staffordshire, Porson of Quality, who wrote, that he was informed from, some worthy hands in London, that I was about to write a Book against Mr. Ws. and he perceived they had rather I should wave it; but he thought good to acquaint me only with what was written, and leave the matter to my prudent determination. The Reason which these Worthy Persons (who so ever they are) did urge for this was, left the Dissenters differing among themselves, should give advantage at this season to some as would (if they could) deprive: them of their Liberty. I was content therefore upon Mr. Ws. speaking himself to the Bookseller, to let the Book be stopped thus long, till he, and his Friend may see, there is no such Books coming out against him, nor any danger of our losing any Liberty; nor indeed any Controversy or Difference as to the main Doctrine of Justification, wherein Mr. Ws. and I agree with Mr. Baxter, but only in regard to a peculiar Notion of his, which I do exagitate only, to get him to retract and relinquish it, which seeing I could not do by private Advice, I would by public Judgement. For though I could be willing to let the Book be delayed, I could not yield to have it suppressed, unless upon the condition that I might have half a dozen of the whole Copy Printed out for my Vindication, in case I should need it, as knowing that many could not choose but have a mind to see that Book, which some was so earnest to have stopped, and not doubting but the most of the Judicious of either Party, will be ready to subscribe to the words of the forementioned person (unto whom as one so well learned, and studied in the Point, a deference may be paid) which I will set down for the conviction of Mr. Ws'. Friends (who may do more with him than I) seeing the publication can do that person no hurt, and may do Mr. Ws. good. His words at the end of his Letter to me are these; I am of Opinion Mr. Williams will not be able to answer what you say; He has endeavoured to go in a middle way between both, but his notion will not bold; He must come over to one side, or the other.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 11 line 7 for prudent read pregnant, p. 13 l. 8 r. Sydonifts, l. 33 mend the pointing, p. 17 l. 6 put the Parenthesis at disobedient, l. 34 for faults 1. fault, p. 20 l. 15 for obliged 1. obeyed, p. 21 l. 12 make the fulpoint after see a comma, and l. 15 put out the fulpoint after redemption, p. 30 l. 7 for but r. he.  
FINIS.