Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	great_a	see_v	word_n	2,798	5	3.6685	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45162	Ultimas manus being letters between Mr. John Humphrey, and Mr. Samuel Clark, in reference to the point of justification : written upon the occasion of Mr. Clark's printing his book upon that subject, after Mr. Humfrey's book entituled The righteousness of God, and published for vindication of that doctrine wherein they agree, as found, by shewing the difference of it from that of the Papist, and the mistakes of our common Protestant : in order to an impartial and more full understanding of that great article, by the improvement of that whereto they have attained, or correction of any thing wherein they err, by better judgments : together with animadversions on some late papers between Presbyterian and Independent, in order to reconcile the difference, and fix the Doctrine of Christ's satisfaction.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1698 (1698)	Wing H3715; ESTC R16520	84,030	95

obeyed and suffered both in our stead That Notion I cannot swallow I cannot apprehend that we are bound to obey and suffer both But I think this is spoken to in the Thesis whither I refer you Thus I have gone through the several Paragraphs in your Letter whereby you will find your labour has not been in vain but has had some success upon me I am a Searcher after and a Servant of Truth and don 't count my self too old to learn especially of you who have look'd so throughly into and round about this Point of Justification How far forth my Reply in those things wherein we differ will approve it self to you and find acceptance with you must be left to the Tryal In the whole I have design'd nothing but words both of Truth and Kindness and so do hope that you will find no reason to judge otherwise of me than that I am Your respectful Friend and Fellow-labourer Samuel Clark To Mr. Clark Dear and worthy Brother JUstification is Constitutive and Sentential Juris and Judicis Constitutive is making accounting and using us as just Sentential declares us so at the great day This I hold to be good from Mr. Baxter who in all his Books says the like but in his own manner and words See Cath. Theol. Book I. Part. II. Pag. 69 70. Life of Faith Pag. 326. End of Controversies Pag. 242. Justification then with us is Making Esteeming and Using us as Righteous which are distinguished but not to be divided Constitutive Justification you say is a phrase of Mr. Baxter's coyning and the word Justifie which you have so throughly canvased neither in the Hebrew or Greek will bear it For my part so long as the English and Latine word Justify as Sanctifie Glorifie does speak making just and we have the very term expressed Rom. 5.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made righteous which is all one as to be justified I think that place alone ground enough for Mr. Baxter's word Constitutive and whether the word will or no the matter will bear it When I read Contarenus de Justificatione I admired to see the Doctrine of the Protestant so fully embraced by a Cardinal who telling us of a twofold Righteousness we attained by Faith a Justitia inbarons and a Justitia donata imputata Christi and proposing the Question Utra num debeamus niti existimal nos justificari coram Deo id est sanctos justos haberi an hac an illa he cleaves to the last with these words I have quoted Pacif. p. 15. Ego prorsus existimo And moreover he tells us Fide justificamur non formaliter but † It is false that Faith justifies us Efficiently but it is true that Faith justifieth Constitutively so far as it is it self our personal inherent rightcousness Bax. End of Cont. p. 270. Efficienter which is directly against my Judgment yet do I observe that this he lays down at first as a thing unquestionable that Justificari is Justum fieri propterea justum haberi I confess my self was long before I could assent to Mr. Baxter in this because he seemed to me uncertain or confused when by making just he sometimes understands as you Regeneration sometimes Pardon after Mr. Wotton from whom I believe he took it and sometimes both as appears in the place you cite Cath. Theol. Book II. Pag. 239. By and upon believing we are first made just by free-given Pardon and Right to Life and true Sanctification with it and we are sentenced just because so first made just The Papist say Justification makes us just by the infusion of inherent Holiness and that this infused Grace or inherent Holiness is therefore the formal Cause of our Justification which we know confounds Justification and Sactification The Protestant in opposition to this have generally said that we are made just Rom. 5.19 by Christs Righteousness and that his Righteousness imputed must be consequently our formal Righteousness tho' several of late more cautious take heed how they say that Sententia illorum qui Christi Obedientiam justitiam nobis imputatam statuunt esse formalem causam justificationis communis est nostrorum omnium sententia says Davenant Mr Wotton that Scholastically deep Man in opposition to both does say that it is Pardon makes the sinner righteous and consequently that Pardon is the Form or formal Reason of our Justification Mr. Baxter you see before accounts we are made righteous by Regeneration and Pardon both our Evengelical Righteousness must be with him both the formal Cause though the Righteousness of Christ be the material he says and meritorius Cause of it Leading Calvin hath gone before our Assembly and tells us Nos Justificationem simpliciter interpretamur acceptionem qua nos Deus in gratiam receptos pro justis habet Eamque in peccatorum remissione ac justitiae Christi imputatione positam esse dicimus Inst l. 3. c. 11. For my own part I am here exactly for neither of these but say that it is the Righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel that makes us just and that this is the formal Reason of our Justification I will recite it The Infusion of inherent Grace is Justification Active with the Papist and this inherent Grace infused Justification Passive The Imputation of Christs Righteousness is Justification Active with the Protestant and that Righteousness imputed Justification Passive Pardon with Mr. Wotton Both Pardon and a Righteousness subordinate to Christs with Mr. Baxter But as to me I continue and say the Imputation of the Righteousness of God or of Faith for Righteousness is Active Justification and the Righteousness of God or Faith so imputed is Justification Passive or the formal Cause as Passive of it This one thing I take to be certain that the Righteousness of God which the Apostle tells us is now revealed and therefore before tho' occult in the World as Austin hath it is that Righteousness in opposition to any other whereby we are justified and you having given us so good an account and right Notion of it in your Annotations on the Old and on the New Testament besides what you have said in your present Book it is fit you go thro' and perfect it By this Righteousness of God you understand not the Righteousness of Christ with the Protestants ordinarily nor yet the Righteousness Inherent the Papists contend for whereof indeed you are over-afraid Not by the Works of Righteousness we have done says the Apostle in one place where he means the Righteousness according to the Law of Nature or our Natural Righteousness which is Mans not this Righteousness of God but that which by Adam's Fall we have quite lost insomuch as there could be no Righteousness in the Earth any more as I say in my Books if it were not for another brought in and there is one brought in by the Messiah and as slain in Daniel that is procured by Christs Death and which you in your

ULTIMA MANUS BEING LETTERS BETWEEN Mr. John Humfrey and Mr. Samuel Clark In reference to the Point of Justification Written upon the Occasion of Mr. Clark's Printing his Book on that Subject after Mr. Humfrey's Book entituled The Righteousness of God and published for Vindication of that Doctrine wherein they agree as sound by shewing the difference of it from that of the Papist and the Mistake of our common Protestant In order to an impartial and more full understanding of that great Article by the Improvement of that whereto they have attained or Correction of any thing wherein they err by better Judgments Together with Animadversions on some late Papers between Presbyterian and Independent in order to reconcile the Difference and fix the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction Mediocria firma LONDON Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns the lower End of Cheapside near Mercers Chapel 1698. THE LETTERS To Mr. CLARK My very worthy Brother I Received your Letter and your Book that elaborate Book writ long since and desir'd to be printed by Mr. Baxter and which I longed to see And whereas I find it upon reading it twice over to be an industrious clear honest and faithful Work so methodical easie for the Reader profitable and full in exhausting its Subject besides so concordant in the main with my Sentiments and when we differ so much more entertaining for the variety you may be sure that for all these Faults I can do no less than judge it to the Press where it must confess them seeing you committed it to my Judgment As for your Letter and Remarks with it on mine I thank you I shall at present say two things to you 1. The one is That whereas I make our Gospel-righteousness the Form or formal Cause of our Justification which you can hardly swallow the reason of the stop is not really I judge because you have considered more of the matter but less I wonder not at you to be shy about this when Mr. Baxter himself has not spoken here so fully as being against the stream of our Protestants and he had never digested the Notion I think of the Righteousness of God which you have done Faith you acknowledge to be our formal Righteousness and understand it clearly as you seem to do all you assent to Your words are I freely grant that Faith or Gospel obedience is formal Righteousness that is It has the Form of Righteousness to wit Conformity to the Law of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace And yet you are so maidenly modest for all that as you dare not say it doth justifie us formaliter or is the formal Reason of our Justification It is in regard to the common Sentiment and what you have not found asserted that you are so tender about it 2. There is a Sentence you will find somewhere in my Book which has not I perceive entred your Mind as it has mine that does bring light with it It could not have been said at first but by one more thoroughly studied Academically in the Learned part of this Controversie than you or I and accordingly is worthy your reception The Sentence is this Performalem justificationis causam justi constituimur It is profound Truth Consider now I pray what is that Righteousness which you believe indeed to be it quâ or per quam justi constituimur Is it Christs Righteousness or our performance of the Evangelick Condition If with you and I it be the last what then is Justification active or the Form of it but Gods imputing this to us for Righteousness And what Justification Passive but this Evangelick Performance so imputed Certainly my Brother till you come up to this you do but grope in the dark You and but in fear of all you say and can have no stedfastness or foundation in the point 3. Mr. Anthony Wotton who understood himself so thoroughly and was the Man who broke the Ice in the denial of Christs Righteousness to be our formal Righteousness does set up therefore as he must another thing in the room of it A Righteousness there must be that constitutes us Righteous and if it be not Christs what is it Why Mr. Wotton makes this to be Pardon the Righteousness of Pardon Righteousness I say is the Form of Justification or the Form of Justification does consist in a Righteousness and Mr. Wotton sets himself to prove that Pardon is it which others avouch after him as the only Righteousness whereof a Sinner is capable It is this therefore is another saying of the same Sort and Author which must be here taken in as it is also in my Book Justifications forman justitiâ constare cerium est Well this Justitia which is Justificationis forma our former learnedst Protestant Divines have generally own'd and held to be the Righteousness of Christ imputed A conceit very strangely hard I believe at first to be let in and too crude at last to be digested To make Pardon it has a great deal of sense in it but the Scripture never calls this our Righteousness nor will the word it self allow it It being a third thing which is it you have hit on the right and that is the Righteousness of God which you understand so well and you define The way or method of becoming righteous which is of Gods ordaining or appoinring A Righteousness which is of on which we attain by Faith This is that Righteousness in opposition to Works when the righteousness of Christ can't be so opposed that Paul has reveal'd This is that justitia which is the Justificationis forma we seek in the business 4. And herein you seeing more I believe than Mr. Baxter there is one thing that he saw and you see not Justification you say is Gods accounting and using us as just but you have not taken in what he saith further That it is also the making us just I apprehend the first thoughts of Mr. Baxter here sprang from his reading Mr. Wotton who will have such a Righteousness to justifie us as makes us righteous that is I have told Pardon which by Constituting a man just I think Mr. Baxter at first understood too But whatsoever he thought first or last I am come to see what you must come to see also that by Constitutive Justification God must first both make and account us just or by Sentential he cannot declare us so at the great Day Now how that is you have in my Book p. 24. Not by Infusion as the Papist nor by Non-imputation as Wotton but by Imputation God imputing our Faith for Righteousness God by his Evangelick Law has constituted Faith and Repentance to be a Righteousness to serve us instead of perfect Works When a Man then believes and repents he is thereby constituted Righteous By vertue I say of that Law he is made such or accepted as such in regard to the benefit as if he were such by the Law of Works when yet

three parts of One Constitutive Justification In your Denyal at first that Justification makes us Righteous you forgot your own Book where are these words As condemning the righteous is taking away his righteousness Is 5.23 So justifying the righteous must be a conferring a Righteousness upon him viz Not in a Physical or moral Sense but Judicial that is he shall be righteous in the Eye of the Law Scrip. Just P. 12. By Righteous and not Guilty I hope you do not mean Innocent as Mr. Gilbert in your Quotation of him seems to understand and to make Christs Righteousness which is a Righteousness according to the Law of Innocency to be that by which we are justified I do not know his Book whether it be so but there is indeed no Legal Justification and Justification by the Gospel is the Justification of a Sinner one Ungodly still in the Eye of the Law and Righteous or Not guilty only Quoad hoc in respect to the Law of the Gospel and that not but he hath sinned against the Law and against the Gospel but yet is Not guilty in regard to the Accusation of his Non-performance of the Condition If God looks on him as cloathed with Christs Righteousness he must be look'd on as one that never sinned when he shall be look'd on as never innocent but pardoned as I have had it even in Heaven For the other Point wherein you were at first more near and grew farther off in your latter Letters our Difference appears by your Words and my Notes to depend at last altogether upon this nice Matter Whether Justification Active and Passive be one or two Justifications And by my Notes and your Words or Grant too it appears they may be both They are one to please you they are two to please me For the Matter is the same in both but being distinguished and so different their Forms must be two They are Materally one threefore but Formally two they are Formally two but Materially one and the same Justification I will end now after all with the Confession That what I offer in these two Letters and my late three Books on this Subject is but Digging It is but the Ore I say there I turn up which must be refined and made good Metal if it can by better Workmen wherein you for one have not been wanting in your Endeavour For my own part it is Truth and Peace and no Interest that I seek I will conclude therefore with that Passage of Dr. Owen However our Protestants have differed in the Way and Methods of its Declaration yet in this they are generally agreed that it is the Righteousness of Christ and not our own Merits on Account whereof we receive pardon of sin acceptance with God are declared righteous by the Gospel and have a title to the heavenly Inheritance There is but this one Word Merit I put in and I also can accord with them and add this That the whole merit of our Salvation from first to last is by you and I as well as by him and our other Brethren attributed not to our own Works but wholly to the Obedience Active and Passive as they go both into his Satisfaction of our Saviour Jesus Christ The Dr. goes on Herein I say they were generally agreed first against the Papist and afterwards against the Socintan And when this is granted I will not contend with any Man about his way of declaring the Doctrine of it For this benevolence of the Doctor I thank him The Digger must needs put off his Cap and shall therefore for the present lay down his Mattock and leave Work Deo gloria Mihi condonatio John Humfrey Sir Charles Wolseley TO Mr. Humfrey UPON His sight of the foregoing LETTERS My very worthy Friend THE Sheets you were pleased to send me containing your Letters and Mr. Clark's please me very well and you have obliged me by them I know no Man has travelled into the Controversie of Justification with better success than your self You have I think with great Accuracy and Judgment searched into and found out the genuine Meaning of St. Paul's Expressions touching that important Point And particularly in your clearing to us what is meant by the Righteousness of God so often mentioned by St. Paul It has generally been taken for the Righteousness of Christ you have made it very evident to me to be meant of the Righteousness of Faith and that is a Key of singular use to unlock us into the true Notion of Gospel-Justification I like what you have written so very well that what I have to say to it will be contained in these two words Probatum est I am not a little satisfied to find that what I have formerly written on that subject does so perfectly Coalesce with your Sentiments throughout There is only one thing wherein you and I seem any thing to differ either in Sense or Expression and that is touching Pardon of Sin to which you may possibly think I do allow a greater share in Justification than I ought but I think you will find that you and I are upon very good Terms of concord therein Faith and Gospel obedience I acknowledge do constitute us Evangelically Righteous but are not such a Righteousness as to make God reckon us for innocent Persons for so we are not for every Man that is in Heaven is there as a pardoned Sinner as well as a righteous Person in Gospel Sense for that is a Righteousness contrived by God to qualifie an Offender for Pardon and stands in direct opposition to that Righteousness by Works St. Paul inveighs so much against but it serves us in as much stead as if we were so for it entitles us to all the Benefits of Christs Satisfaction qualifies us for helps us to Pardon of Sin and Acceptance with God and so our Gospel-righteousness in effect is but to procure Pardon and therefore it is that the Scriptures that were not writ with any Relation to those nice and subtle distinctions which Men have since used in interpreting of them do chiefly intend to express their plain and genuine Meaning of Things and in an especial manner by various Expressions of the same thing do set forth the amplitude of Gospel-salvation 'T is evident from the 4th of the Romans and the 7th that imputing Righteousness and Forgiveness of Sin are inseparable and therefore sometimes Justification is spoken of in Scripture 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 and Pardon of sin the necessary Consequent Concomitant and Effect of it and he that will give any other account of it must I believe make use of some other Doctor than St. Paul To think of obtaining Pardon any other way than by performing the Gospel-conditions of Faith and

Obedience is a great Antinomian folly and a dangerous Error I am very sensible that those that pretend above others to exalt free Grace and take no notice of the Gospel Conditions upon the Performance of which it is only dispensed do it seemingly but not in truth and reality and as it should be done and are dangerous Mis-leaders Such Notions do generally gratifie all false Professors and often insnare and misguide the truest Christs part is certainly performed the great business is to stir Men up to perform their's for when Christ had perfected the Salvation of the World what then Was there a a Proclamation published from Heaven That all Men were thereupon actually saved No 't was far otherwise but God thereupon enters into a new Covenant with the World and proclaims a Law of Grace with this Condition annexed He that believes shall be saved and he that believes not shall be condemned He becomes the Author of Eternal Salvation only to those that obey him 'T is in other words to say He that believes the Gospel and becomes obedient to it shall have the benefit of Christs purchase I look upon it as a most prophane Error to say that God ever intended to carry any Man to Heaven without a personal Righteousness such an Opinion stands in direct opposition to the purity of his Attributes and the Oeconomy of his Government What both you and I have written does truly and according to Gods way of dispensing it exalt Grace as much as it can be for we ascribe all that we have under the Gospel intirely to Grace When we speak of Faith and Gospel-obedience we only speak of the method in which the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ are dispensed for we acknowledge that our Faith and Obedience in themselves are very impotent and defective and of no value as to the Point of Justification farther than God is pleased to impute and reckon them out of Grace and Favour to our advantage as Methods by him appointed to bring us into all the blessed effects of Christs purchase Sir I am also to thank you for that you have in your late Writings Collected Adjusted and Interpreted the dispersed Notions upon this Subject in the Works of that most Excellent Person your particular Friend and mine Mr. Baxter who was the early Promulger and constant Defender of the Right Scripture Doctrine of Justification Tho' no Man pays a greater deference than I do to his Memory yet this I must needs say to you touching what he has writ about this Point and many others his Writings are haunted with a crowd of Logical Distinctions which do much obscure I had almost said deface his clear and excellent Sense he needed not have chosen that method of expressing himself for tho' he never wore the Gowns of either University upon his back yet he had the Learning of them both in his Head and that was very perspicuous in all his Writings I am also to thank you for rectifying the Notions of that exceeding pious and learned Person Doctor Owen touching this Matter wherein I think you have been very succesiful I suppose you know his Book of Justification was particularly written against mine Very many have pressed me to answer it which I acknowledge to you I did not look upon as duram provinciam The great Friendship that was between him and me might well seem sufficient to have byassed me not to reply but the true reason was I thought that little Cottage I had erected was in no great danger of being shocked or demolished by any thing in that Book The Doctrine of personal Imputation of Christs Righteousness to every Believer which that most Learned Person asserts and defends is so Unscriptural having not one Text to defend it has so many Unjustifiable and contradictory Consequences attending it and indeed there are so many Triumphs over it by those that have written against it in the Booksellers Shops that it is scarce worth any Mans while to harness himself for the defence of that Point If when Men speak of imputing Christs Righteousness to every Believer they mean the imputing of it only in the Effects and Advantages of it they say what you and I say Sir I am very well satisfied you have done this Age very good Service to convince Men of the necessity of performing the Gospel-Conditions if ever they will reap the benefit of what Christ hath done for us Faith and sincere Obedience is the way by which God justified and saved Abraham the Father of the Faithful and in him gave an instance how all Men to the Worlds end are to obtain Heaven and Salvation even by treading in the steps of their Father Abraham Two ways we see Men generally miscarry either by a prophane Neglect of the Gospel or an hypocritical Profession of it Happy would the World be if delivered from Prophaneness on the one hand and false Godliness on the other I have nothing to add but that I am Your very affectionate and obliged Friend and Servant Charles Wolseley The Animadversions THere was a Sheet called The Report which I read and four or five called A Rebuke of that Report which I read likewise I suppose the Author of the first thought it necessary to inform the Country of the true State of the Difference about Doctrinals there was in the City and made that Report according to his Conscience I suppose also that the Author of the second thought it fit in conscience to rebuke that Report as giving wrong Information And if any have been offended at either it is that supposed necessity must excuse both There were four Sheets I wrote as a Friendly Interposer between them and these I write now I intended as a Second Port in regard to that Title Since these there came out a Defence of the Report and more lately a Vindication of the Rebuke which Books having not the excuse of such necessity are faulty and their fault being openly committed is openly to be reproved and that is that they knowingly sometimes abuse one another Mr. Rebuke upon an Objectors saying In our place and stead with some does signifie no more than for our good answers It is impossible they should Mr. Report takes up this passage and exagitates it as a piece of Socinianism when it is manifest that Mr. Rebuke speaks it as a piece of Wit not meaning that Christ dyed only for our good but because what he did and suffered in our place and stead was for our good On the other hand Mr. Report speaking of the particular matter he was concern'd about says This is the substance of the Gospel Mr. Rebuke hereupon tells him of Regeneration Repentance Faith Good Works that are parts of the Gospel and thereby endeavours to expose him for Antinomianism as one that excludes these things out of the Gospel and in the end of his Vindication he cites some words out of Mr. Report 's Appeal and congratulates his return to himself

that now acknowledges Repentance necessary to Pardon and Faith to Justfication in some such words which are all manifest Abuse on both sides for neither does Mr. Report believe Mr. Rebuke a Socinian nor Mr. Rebuke believe Mr. Report an Antinomian they may as well say they are two Dears or two Birds as to say that either is a Socinian or Antinomian I must confess there is one Chapter in the Vindication about Christs dying in our stead that is so well so solid so appositely scriptured so brief and convincing against the Socinian that excepting all Application to his Adversary I have been seldom pleased and satisfied with any thing more and I must confess moreover my pleasure in reading the Book that I left not though it be ten Sheets unless for a spirt till I had done Yet does not all his Wit nor his Erudition recompence so ill an Example as the rendring evil for evil that is Abuse for Abuse which is not only a fault as to Men but a sin as to God and I pray God forgive them both and I pray them to forgive me the telling them of it I shall let alone therefore these Books mentioned and take notice only of these two more that is the Answer of our Presbyterian Brethren to Mr. Lobb set out by Mr. Williams and the Appeal of Mr. Lobb to the Bishop of Worcester and shall offer a few Animadversions upon some Passages which others it is like would not at least with that impartiality whether they offend or not as I do A great part I perceive of these Books is about the Phrase Commutation of Persons for Explication whereof the Presbyterian Brethren distinguish of a Natural Moral and Legal Change p. 12. and tell us that there is no change of Christs Natural Person into Ours or Ours into His and that Christs Qualities likewise are not made Ours nor Ours His which is most true without doubt but who ever thought otherwise Who ever questioned any such thing that there is need of such a distinction If any think that Dr. Crisp by Christs taking our Quality and Condition and we his did understand these Brethrens Moral Change as if the Accidents of one Subject could migrate into another they abuse the Doctor supposing him such a Blockhead as no Scholar is to be supposed No when he tells us that Christ was as compleat a sinner as we and we as compleatly righteous as he it must be construed only by way of Imputation We must not wrest any words of his to make him think otherwise It is true now here that in this Imputation of our sins to Christ he understands it not only quod reatum paenae but Culpae also which is his Error but as for this distinction of a Moral Change it does not affect him any more than the Brethren themselves so that they do thereby only beat the Air not him It is no more to the confuting Antinomianism than might be spared And as for the word Legal Change upon which they pitch they do it not without fear of danger as themselves acknowledge and have reason so that indeed in the Explication of this Phrase Change of Persons they should not have distinguish'd upon the word Change but the word Person The word Person is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lyable to a diverse Acceptation the word Change to none Change is Change but Person is not Person There is a Natural Person and a Legal Person which are two of their three Terms but the Term Moral as to Person hath no place here And it is Christ Natural Person tho' there be no Natural Change which comes in the room of our Natural Persons to bear the Punishment of our sins that is the Commutation of Persons as is necessary to the Explication of the Doctrine of Satisfaction If there be any change of Person else in regard to the Term Legal Person let any of the Brethren that can make it our By this Distinction mentioned it is one thing with them for Christ to take on him our Person and another our Quality State or Condition and our Brethren therefore do impugne Mr. Lobb's saying That Christ put himself into our Place State and Condition P. 31. when even these words are and may be used as well as sustaining our Person and suffering in our stead giving them the same Orthodox Construction Such Expressions must be taken not simpliciter but secundum quid not in regard to every thing but to one thing Christ did take on him our State Condition or Quality as we were lyable to Punishment or as obnoxious to the Curse for our sins and so became a Curse and Sacrifice for us But when Mr. Lobb says further that we were Sinners and destitute of Righteousness he must be construed to speak so also in regard to the Punishment due to us thereupon and that Christ took upon him that Condition only whereby he was lyable in our stead But to press him therefore with the consequence that Christ must be a sinner and destitute of Righteousness is to press him too hard for he is one we know that denies the Crispian Sense of Change of Persons as well as the Brethren And tho' they do here but take him on the hip upon a slip of Words they by and by do him plain wrong when upon the right Interpretation they make they say This will not content him for it will and does content him and he means no otherwise than they and as for their making him hold That Christ was changed to be a sinful Person destitute of Righteousness as they go on in the place A lapsus linguae is no Error mentis and the arguing him into what he abhors is not doing as good Men would be done by themselves They are in good earnest here too heavy upon him In these Papers of the Brethren there is a Letter from the Bishop of Worcester and part of some Letters from Dr. Edwards That which is quoted out of the Dr. seems to me open obvious and edifying That which is said by the Bishop is writ with Prudence and Caution with Ability and Authority but not with that openness altogether as I who speak as a Fool could wish The Commutation of Persons between Christ and us according to his Lordship may have a threefold sense One which implies Christ being appointed to Act in our behalf for our benefit which the Socinians will grant Another which implies not only his acting for our benefit but his being substituted in our stead in bearing our Punishment to become an Attonement for us that is to satisfie Gods Justice that so by an Act or New Law of Grace he might grant us Pardon and Life upon the Conditions of the Gospel which is the sound Sense of this Change of Persons according to Grotius this Learned Bishop our Presbyterian Brethren and Mr. Lobb also which he will not gainsay tho' whether he will have more to it let himself tell For

Sinners so by the Obedience of one shall many be made righteous This is true per modum Meriti but not per modum formae To wit we being all by the Fall of Adam become corrupt so that there is and can be no Righteousness according to the Law of Works in the World the Lord Jesus by what he hath done hath procured a Law of Grace and Righteousness thereby so that the sinner that repents and believes in Christ is by that Law made righteous and enjoys the Benefits as much as if he were as perfectly Righteous as the Law requires In this Sense we may say Christs Righteousness is imputed to us that is per modum meriti in the Effects For as to impute sin is to inflict punishment So to impute Righteousness is to confer the Priviledges to a Person as belongs to him that is righteous and such the Believer has Pardon and Life Eternal He hath made him sin that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him The Righteousness of God is the Righteousness of Faith and to be made the Righteousness of God in him is to be made righteous thro' him by believing or through his merits to be justified by our Faith As our sins are imputed to Christ which I say is only in the effect of his suffering for them so is his Righteousness imputed to us say our Divines But Christ is not made formally a sinner by our sins Nor therefore we made formally righteous by his Righteousness I might proceed to other Texts and then shew how upon this account though a Disciple of Christ must learn to deny himself take up his Cross and follow him yet are not his Commandments grievous but his Yoke easie and Burden light Because in that sweet recumbency trust or rest which the Soul has upon the goodness and mercy of God for Acceptance of his Performance though but Conatu●et Desiderio and notwithstanding all its Imperfection unto Life thro' the Merits of Christ there arises unspeakable Consolation The true and solid Benefit hereof by the other Doctrine upon an only pretended shew of more is Ecclipsed See Pacif. P. 27 28 29. THE Common Protestant Doctrine is that by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness we are justified where the Righteousness of Christ is the Matter and Gods Imputation the Form of our Justification actively taken and consequently the Righteousness of Christ imputed the Form of it passively taken The Righteousness of Christ is the Matter both of Active and Passive Justification but the Form of Active is the Imputation of it and the Form of Passive is that Righteousness imputed So it is said in our Protestant Schools Imputata Christi Obedientia est formalis causae nostrae Justificationis My Opinion now is different that it is not by the Righteousness of Christ but by the Righteousness of God imputed to us that we are justified The Righteousness of God is the Righteousness of Faith and Faith or the Evangelick Condition performed is the Matter and the Imputation of this Faith for Righteousness is the Form of our Justification Faith is opposed to Works and the Righteousness of Faith or Righteousness of God opposed to the Righteousness of Works Faith then cannot be taken Objectivè for Christs Righteousness because Christs Righteousness is not opposed to but is it self a Righteousness of Works It is not Christs Righteousness then is that which is imputed to the Believer for Righteousness that is to be his formal Righteousness but it is that for the sake of which or the meritorious Cause for which Righteousness is imputed to him upon his believing I deny not with Mr. B. an Imputation of Christs Righteousness to a Believer tho' there be no text for 't but I with him explain it Our Explication is that it is imputed no otherwise to us for our Justification than for our Salvation and other purchased Benefits This is what we intend by an Imputation not in se but in the Effects and that is to say imputed per modum meriti only To be imputed in the Effects only and not in se Note it at last is in the full meaning this that the Righteousness of Christ is the Meritorious Cause but not the Formal Cause of our Justification and that does determine all Controversie with the truly understanding FINIS AN APPENDIX With respect to the Reverend Mr. Williams THere is one thing in Mr. Williams Books remarkable as to me above any other because it is altogether de proprio and concerns me and Mr. Baxter and that is a laborate I may not say elaborate endeavour or contrivance for making good some Words of his to this Sense That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to a Believer otherwise or more than in the effects which is Mr. Baxter's Explanation of that Phrase And having wrote what I have said by way of Opposition in one or two Places in these Sheets supposing that Mr. Williams might write and then be engaged to take notice of it so as to yield or Answer to it I let it stand But lest he should not I will my self say something to it The Original Words of Mr. VVilliams are these Gosp Truth P. 39. Besides the Effects being made ours the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to true Believers as what was designed for their Salvation Tea is pleadable by them as their Security and useful as if themselves had done and suffered what Christ did Not that God looks upon the Believer as having done in Christs Person what Christ did he never thought so but that it is as good or for his use as much as if he had The very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer Here I must ask first what he means by Imputed And I suppose he means Being made ours as he says of the Effects or Reckoned of God as ours for else he must understand by himself till we know what he means I ask secondly How is the very Righteousness of Christ Ours or reckoned to us as Ours And I answer It is ours in the Effects and can be no otherwise The Effects are ours Really and his Righteousness ours Relatively only in regard to those Effects Mr. Williams says somewhere The Effects are not imputed Very true There is no Man said they are but that Christs Righteousness is imputed or made ours in the Effects I ask thirdly When Mr. Baxter and I and he say thus much does Mr. Williams say more And seeing he does What is that more Does he account that Christs very Righteousness is made ours so as God does account us righteous in his Righteousness and that to be our Justification according to the Common Protestant No sure he does not for Gods Judgment being according to Truth he cannot look on that which is a Quality or Accident in Christ to be also in us for that is such an Imputation as the Antinomian himself is not to be supposed without wrong to believe But it is conceived that