he accounting the whole Office of his Priesthood that which did not respicere Deum but Vs not reconciling God to us but us to God for the obtaining our Impunity this seems to these Men not reasonable On the other hand the Antinomian upon this Satisfaction as made to God by Christs sufferings understands our sins to be so laid on Christ as that it was not only our Punishment that he bare but our Guilt our Fault our Desert And whereas we are apt to say this is blasphemous because Christ hereby is made a sinner and the greatest of Sinners they say No for this is to say but what Luther and our Orthodox Divines have said before them and there is no hurt in it understanding it only as they all do by way of Imputation For as in the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us we are accounted of God righteous as he for our Justification so in the Imputation of our sins he is made as sinful as we for making God Satisfaction This they take up as the Common Doctrine of our former Protestants which Mr. Lobb will do well to turn over and examine whether they who have wrote before Baxter among us do not ordinarily say thus That our sins were imputed to Christ so as to be counted his That he was not made only a Sacrifice for sin but even so sin for us that is by Imputation as we are made his Righteousness For seeing this is the perpetual rule of Gods Justice that the same Soul that sinneth should dye how can it stand with Gods Justice that Christ should suffer for our sins if they were not in some sort annexed to him The Scripture evidently affirms Isa 53.6 11 12 That Christ bare not only the punishment of our sins but our sins also what aileth then the Jesuite so boldly to deny that our sins are imputed to Christ Seeing then again the Scripture so speaks why should we doubt to speak as the Scripture does that Christ was for us counted a Sinner or Transgressâ—r yet in himself remained Holy Just and Righteous still So we in Christ are verily reputed righteous though by nature we are Unjust and Unrighteous This I quote out of Willet's Synopsis being Passages lying near together See Cont. 19. of Justification supposing the like to be common in others In such Passages then as these which we shall find in former Divines we see no such Distinction made between our Merit of the Punishment and the Punishment as we now make with the Bishop to whom Mr. Lobb does subscribe It is essential to Punishment that it be inflicted for sin but not essential that it be inflicted on the party himself that sinned says Grotius and in another place before quoted that sin is the cause of Punishment no otherwise but per modum Meriti Now Christ having himself never sinned if the Merit of our sins was not laid upon him together with the Punishment how was it per modum Meriti that he was punished Mr. Lobb knows whether Crellius does not urge something to this purpose against Grotius and if he can solve the difficulty to defend Grotius that which he must grant to do it will defend Mr. Baxter against him But as for the Antinomian who stands upon this as no less necessary to the Doctrine of Satisfaction than that Christs Righteousness be ours as necessary to the Doctrine of Justification and accounts it to be no other but the Common Opinion of the Protestant it does appear that some bank or bound must be set to this Sea lest the opinion formerly received as Orthodox over-flow into Antinomianism and I must give notice to Mr. Lobb and those that retain and uphold it that if they persist they must come thus far as to say that on one side the Believer is by Imputation as righteous as Christ himself and on the other that Christ by Imputation is a sinner as we which to put in Dr. Crisp's words is that Christ was as compleatly sinful as we and we as compleatly righteous as he wherein as before they conceived no hurt because understood by them only by way of Imputation If Mr. Lobb will recede from the Common Opinion here he must recede from all those Notions that are concatenated together in the Explication of it And what is meant by this Imputation in the Sense of our Common Protestant The Imputation of a thing to a Person is the accounting it his in regard to our dealing with him In Gods imputing our sins to Christ he does account as they say him to be a sinner or them to be his and does so deal with him in laying our Punishment upon him In Gods imputing to us Christs Righteousness he accounts his Righteousness to be ours and so deals with us in justifying us by it So they But how can God account our sins to be Christs and his righteousness Ours when really they are not so and Gods Judgment is according to Truth They must Answer If by really we mean Physically it is indeed impossible that our Qualities should become Christs and his ours there is none that understands it so but if by really we mean only legally in sensu forensi in conspectu fori or in Law-sense as Divines express it it is really so they will say that our sins are laid on Christ and his righteousness made ours or else that neither could Christ have suffered or We be justified But what yet is this Legally or in Law-sense which is to be conceived by a Quatenus as God deals with us according to Law Why our Divines suppose that Christ did take on him our Person and so our Sins and as acting in our Person what he did and suffered in our behalf is accounted of God to be done and suffered by us even as what my Attorney at Law does for me it is in Law or as I am to be dealt with according to Law all one as if it were done by me Here then we must make a stand and consider whether Christ indeed was such a Representative as that in him as our Legal or Civil Person we are accounted of God to have fulfilled the Law both in Obedience to the Precept and bearing the Punishment so as to be perfectly righteous in his Righteousness and accordingly justified We must come thus home or say nothing There is another Explication therefore that is made of this Imputation by Mr. Baxter There is a double sense of it There is an Imputation or accounting a thing to a Person as his either in se or in the Effect Mr. Baxter denies not Imputation but explains it An Imputation of our sins to Christ and his righteousness to us in this Law sense mentioned is the Imputation in se which as the former commonly received Doctrine and unsound Mr. Baxter disowns But an Imputation in regard to the Effects that the Righteousness of Christ being truly the Meritorious Cause of our Remission Justification Adoption is imputed imputatur datur
dispatch'd I must say this over Here is Punishment and deserved Punishment deserved by our sins as the Meritorious Cause of it and therefore Punishment not Pain only but proper Punishment and that to be inflicted sed Impersonaliter with Grotius and there is our Point maintained But that this Punishment is inflicted on Christ and not on the sinner there is no Cause besides the fitness of the Person can be rendred but only the will the good will of Father and Son in pitty to Mankind which is said also by Grotius and in effect acknowledged by the Bishop when he says That One Man for his sin cannot deserve anothers Punishment and therefore when Mr. Baxter says our sins were the Occasion of Christs sufferings with those other Expressions the Occasion and Occasion only but of what the Occasion only Of the Punishment No there was Cause of that an Impulsive Cause that is an Efficient Protatarctick or Meritorious Cause to wit our sins but of the laying it on Christ and not us take it so and there is nothing to be found fault with in what Mr. Baxter says unless it be that his deeper Judgment than others I have said be faulty by Mr. Lobb or any other ingenuous Man any more than there was in what Grotius says by Revensperg who falls upon him as Socinianizing against the Orthodox because he did not maintain that Christ underwent the very infernal Pains which we were to suffer seeing Calvin and some others after him did so teach and construe Christs descent into Hell by his enduring such Pains in his Agony as those are there which is a private Opinion and Grotius accounts Christs sufferings not the Idem but Tantundem and thereupon I say did Ravensperg fall upon him as one that did but betray our Cause and agree with Socinus which he hath so substantially defended against him in his excellent Book of Satisfaction There remains two or three Notes more I must have upon Mr. Lobb One is that whereas he observes that Mr. Williams does make the Obligation that lay upon Christ to suffer for us or to make Satisfaction by his sufferings to arise from the Mediatorial Law only the Law of Redemption or Commandment of his Father which was proper to him through his voluntary Sponsion or Submission to it and not from the Law of Works which was a Bond that he never was in neither at first as Mr. Lobb grants nor at last in regard to his sufferings because he never brake it he argues from thence both sagaciously as industriously that Mr. Williams must hold therefore with Mr. Baxter that the sufferings of Christ was not properly or formally penal and when this is the only Accusation in these Sheets which he aims at if Mr. Williams denies the Accusation Mr. Lobb hath carried his Cause for the Accusation is true the Consequence being irrefragible But will Mr. Williams deny that he herein agrees with Mr. Baxter I suppose he will not What though Dr. Edwards and Bishop Stillingfleet by whose Letters he is vindicated do say that Christs sufferings were a proper Punishment and stand upon it so much as if the holding thereof was necessary to the maintaining the Doctrine of Satisfaction if Mr. Lobb be not mistaken in his Construction of them will he for all that stand by Mr. Baxter Yes I think he will because he must the Consequence does hold him I must confess Mr. Lobb hath put these three Persons here hard to it He hath put Mr. Williams to it who must either forsake Mr. Baxter and so himself or else disagree here with those two worthy Men his Vindicators He hath put the Bishop to it who must forsake his Reason in what he hath so clearly and truly asserted That one Man cannot deserve that another should be punished for his Faults or else he must consent with Mr. Baxter and consequently acknowledge that seeing Christ himself never sinned and our sins in the Merit of them could not be laid on him his sufferings were Materially but Formally no Punishment And he hath put the worthy Dr. to it who being willing to shew his kindness to Mr. Williams in bringing him off is carried whether he will or no to stand by Mr. Lobb And notwithstanding this there is no hurt done unless the giving occasion of letting out more Light be any hurt for Mr. Williams and Mr. Baxter as well as Mr. Lobb Dr. Edwards and the Bishop and Grotius do all maintain the Doctrine of Satisfaction against Socinus one as well as the other That Mr. Williams does the Doctor the Bishop and his Preabyterian Brethren do quote such Passages as justifies him besides his own constant Profession That Mr. Baxter does I shall quote one Passage only in his Methodus Theol. In his Aphorisms he proposed the Question as I remember What is that which is the first immediate or chief End or Benefit of Christs Death And he speaking then with Hesitancy he does here in his 17th Determination Part 3. Cap. 1. after so long study give this peremptory Resolution Proximum mortis Christi Effectum seu finemesse satisfactionem Deo offenso per Justitiae ejus demonstrationem Remotiorem peccatorum nostrorum remissionem salutis donum sub conditione fideist paenitentiae per foedus Gratiae That Man who understood himself so well as he did that does declare this for his settled and determined Judgment that the chief and most immediate End Effect Fruit or Benefit of Christs Death is the satisfaction of an Offended God through the demonstration of his Justice thereby must be acquitted from Socintanism by all the World that know what Socinus wrote And that Man I will add that does maintain the Doctrine of Election according to Augustine and the Synod of Dort however free and conciliating he be otherwise in the five Points must be acquitted also from Arminianism by all those that know what Arminius Episcopius Curcelleus Limborch and the Antisynodalists have wrote And therefore I do acknowledge here the Honesty that is Truth and Candour of Mr. Lobb in his Epistle where he discharges Mr. Baxter from such Accusations and though he looks in his Sheets like one that read Mr. Baxter only to carp and find fault with him when in my Reading the same things I must confess I did look and do still on all as light and Instruction I do yet for all that apprehend and hope a better end in it to wit that upon his proposing these Expressions to such worthy and ingenuous Persons as the Doctor and the Bishop he may by their return in time have such a moderated and smoothed State of the whole Matter they taking in the light Mr. Baxter offers with them as shall be reconciliatory both to himself and to his Brethren with him If by Christs dying for us and for our sins there is nothing will serve the Common Doctrine which is that Mr. Lobb upholds in the behalf of his Brethren reserving I will suppose the Liberty
be loco nostro as it is the paying the price the making Satisfaction and so the impetrating the Benefits we have by it but it can be onely bono nostro as to any Benefit it self which is all one as bono nostro only in the Application Pray see Pacif. P. 30 31 32. Upon which words Repeated Right of God P. 35 36. I have desired Mr. William's and Mr. Clark's and now beg the Bishop's fuller Consideration The Arminians upon the Point of Satisfaction are cautious in what they grant as Mr. Baxter is in both and they will have Christs sufferings to be a Vice-punishment or Vicarious Punishment rather than a proper and formal Punishment Which Expression ought not to offend Mr. Lobb nor any worthy Person because when the Scripture says Christ died for us and we understand by for us Vice nostri in our room or stead the Death or Punishment it self must be in our stead that is a Vicarious Punishment how can it be otherwise And because there is nothing can be urged more effectually against the Doctrine of Socinus than this that the Justice of God requiring a Punishment to be inflicted according to his Law for our breaking it God was contented or satisfied with a Vicarious Punishment inflicting one though not all that was in the Obligation on his Son The Punishment in this sense being Vicarious the Meritorious Cause our sins are accordingly said Pro-meritorious loco causae meritoriae or an Assumed Meritorious Cause as Mr. Baxter before and the infliction as Personal be Materially not Formally Punishment If this offends any when said by Episcopius Curcellaeus Limborch whom they suspect as favouring Socinianism it oâ—â—ght â—n when said by Mr. Baxter whom none can suspect Nay though there be some Socinians who under such Expressions do shelter themselves and by appearing Orthodox seduce others which may raise some zeal in Mr. Lobb against them not considering their end and ours in such Expressions theirs being as hinted before at last to deny ours to own Satisfaction Yet is not this sufficient to conclude against the same because there is more of Antidote than Danger by them For seeing all proper Punishment is for sin and sin causes Punishment as hath been said by way of Merit and no otherwise the Merit of our sins as well as our sins in the Punishment must be laid on Christ or else it is no proper Punishment and if the Merit of our sins as well as the Punishment be granted to be laid on Christ we are then ingulph'd into Antinomianism according to this excellent Bishop the worthy Dr. Edwards and Mr. Lobb himself assenting to them and what Mr. Lobb hath to say to this he must consider The Case therefore being this that either we must admit that our sins in the Merit were laid on Christ as well as the Punishment or else that Christs sufferings was no proper formal Punishment I suppose Mr. Lobb will rather fall in with Mr. Baxter than Dr. Crisp and yield in some sense at least that it was no proper Punishment which is verily true as proper is opposed to Vicarious for a Vicarious Punishment it was for certain being inflicted on Another and not the Person or Persons that sinned and being also not the same for that should have been Hell to them but an Equivalent that so it might be Satisfaction not Payment which would preclude Remission And seeing it was not the same infliction nor inflicted on the sinner himself the Obligation to undergo it could not arise from the Law which punishes only the Transgressor of it and consequently tho' Materially yet Formally was not Punishment as laid on the innocent Person of Christ All this Mr. Baxter says and it must be said as true plain undeniable and nevertheless there being a Punishment due to us for our sins and our sins the Meritorious Cause of it and the Obligation to the suffering it arising from the Law as broken by us here is consequently a proper formal Punishment to be inflicted Impersonally as Grotius before And it being not against the Justice of God to take this Punishment Impersonally considered and lay it either on Another or the Person or Persons that sinned so long as no dishonour to his Law nor prejudice to his Government comes thereby Severity being shewen against sin as pitty to the sinner and Christ Jesus being willing to take on him the Punishment no wrong being done to the willing it being his Fathers and his Own Appointment that he who was the Second Person in the Trinity should become Man to be a fit Person for the Work it pleased God and him that he did actually take on him this Punishment in such a manner as he was capable of it that is not in regard to the Merit or that he should be held longer than he was under it and suitable to such a Person which made his Temporal suffering an Equivalent so that by enduring the same in our behalf Satisfaction was made and God thereupon relaxes his Law of Works by passing a New Law or remedying Law of Grace whereby Deliverance and Life Pardon and Salvation is to be had on the Terms of the Gospel This is that Doctrine which whosoever imbraces be he Arminian or Calvinist let him be Episcopius or Baxter Mr. Williams or Mr. Lobb it is all one for that Bring us the Test let us see their Books and if we find in them a constant acknowledgment that the sufferings of Christ was a Punishment for our sins and a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for them let them differ as they will in accuracy we are at Unity in the Point Only let not any one that is more accurate about it despise him that is less accurate nor he that is less accurate be scandalized at him that is more accurate and cautious lest by denying or contradicting what is reasonable to be granted he should harden the Adversary and blunt his own Faith Knowing this that be he as cautious as he can he will hardly be out of danger of one of the Extreams and also that as I humbly think he must however be more accurate than to go the Common way of the ordinary Protestant or by avoiding the extream of Socinianism on one hand he will fall into Antinomianism on the other into which many are already fallen that disclaim it In short The sufferings of Christ may be considered Personally in Relation to himself or Impersonally in relation to us Personally in relation to himself there being no Merit of his own and no Merit of ours imputable to that Holy Person his sufferings could not be formally Penal Impersonally in relation to us the Punishment being in our room was ours and consequently must be a formal proper Punishment and this Commutation only thus construed is enough for the explaining and upholding the Doctrine of Satisfaction And yet again that this Business this difficult Business the reconciling Mr. Baxter and Grotius be dispatched and thoroughly
of following Truth hereafter wheresoever he finds it but this that God did look on Christ as appearing in our Person and so judged and condemned him for a sinner as one I say being in our Person that deserved his Wrath and Curse and therefore laid it on him whereby our full and proper Punishment was Born the Law Executed and Justice Done and if any will add with Ravensperg farther that the torments of Hell in his Agony and Suffering on the Cross when he cried Eli Eli lamasabacthani were laid on his Soul that nothing of the very Punishment may be abated him who does not see that such a satisfaction is so strait laced as will not fit the Person of Christ and that such Divines do more to drive Men to Socinianism than Socinus himself could while they stand upon such a Satisfaction as no reasonable Man can * Vera satisfactio est plenâ— deliti persolutio Vnusquisque nostram mortem aternam divinae isti justitiae debelat says Socinus De Ser. l. 3. c. 3. receive And whereas Mr. Lobb therefore and other such more considering Persons do see a necessity to come off and allow that it was not and could not be our very Punishment it self it being enough that Christ was surrogated under the Primordial Nature of the Puuishment to use his words though not under the horrid Circumstances we our selves were to suffer and does yield moreover that though the Punishment yet the Desert of our sins could not be laid on Christ because that would run him into Antinomianism which Concessions do draw after them such other suitable Notions as Mr. Baxter offers so that at last we must come to this that the Ends of Gods Law and Government being secured it must be left to the Wisdom of the Father and Son to agree upon what satisfaction pleased them for demonstrating Divine Righteousness against Sin and Mercy toward the Sinner and that be sufficient for us to believe For I must add that so long as we agree in our belief that Christs Death was a Ransom for our Redemption and a Sacrifice for our Sins in the Sense of the Types of old where the sin of the Sacrificer was laid on the Beast and the Blood thereof an Expiation for it to the end he might be forgiven it what matter is it tho' one holds this Death to be Formally another only Materially our Punishment or that one says our sins were the proper Meritorious Cause and the other the Remote Cause or Occasion of it they both hold it Satisfaction and intend the maintaining the Doctrine thereof Proper Punishment is an infliction of a Natural Evil on a Person for Committing a Moral Evil But Christ that endured the Natural Evil never committed any Moral Evil and how can that be proper Punishment The Punishment laid on him was not due to him but to us The Punishment dâ—e to us was Hell but his Sufferings only Temporal Death Is not here then one Punishment in the room of another as one Person suffering in the room of another And what Legerdemain can cover the Eye of any as not to see this a Vicarious Punishment Again when all proper Punishment is for sin as the Meritorious Cause of it and Christ sinned not and our sins cannot according to the Bishop deserve that another should be punished for them so that here is Punishment without Desert how is this proper Formal Punishment The Law by vertue of its Sanction punishes none but the Breakers of the Preceptive Part and how then can these sufferings arise Ex obligatione-Legis If they did arise from the Obligation of the Law then was the Law executed in Christs suffering but Christ suffered that the Law might not be executed but the Penitent Believing Sinner be pardoned I might go on and offer other Positions according to what is said by Mr. Baxter in his Eighteenth Deterininations Math. Theol. Part 3. Cap. 1. before quoted and Mr. Lobb the Dr or Bishop may as well deny that two and three makes five as fundamentally to deny any of them and therefore I shall forbear more being come already to the Composition which Grotius in that one word before hath made for us Impersonaliter these sufferings as due to us may be said to be properly formally Punishment Punishment for sin as the Meritorious Cause of it Punishment arising from the Obligation of the Law upon our breaking it punishment that was the Curse of the Law and which he bare when if we had our selves born it it had been the Execution of the Law the Execution whereof these Divines who are for the Common Doctrine apprehending as Socinus to be proper Satisfaction wherein they are perfectly out for that according to the Schools is contrary to it it makes them so extream as before mentioned in their Doctrine of Satisfaction as no Man unprejudiced can abide it But Personaliter on the other hand as these sufferings are laid upon Christ instead of us that is instead not as in our Person but instead that we might escape them they are Nominally and Materially indeed but they are not they cannot be Formally and Properly Penal They arise not from sin as the Metitorious Cause nor from the Obligation of the Law and are no Execution of it Why should I go on to say the same things over and over I will make bold to conclude with Mr. Baxter against any if there be any that think they have more sagacity herein than he to oppose him and say As the Person that suffered was loco nostri the sufferings were loco paenae our sins loco causae meritoriae his Sponsion loco obligationis ex Lege an Equivalent loco Debiti and loco solutionis here is at last effected proper Satisfaction Let Mr. Baxter's Adversaries be who they will and let them do what they can they shall never make more of it Another thing which Mr. Lobb observes of Mr. Williams that I must also take notice of is this As he does hold that the Obligation which lay on Christ to do as he did arose altogether from the Mediatorial Law so does he hold that the Righteousness which consists in his Performance of that Law is that which is imputed to the Believer for his Justification wherein there does manifestly appear that slip of Mr. Williams which I have before mentioned for seeing that Law and the Righteousness thereof did belong only or was proper to the Mediator it is impossible it should be imputed otherwise to us than in the Effects which when Mr. Baxter saw and asserted and Mr. Williams does follow him in what he says else and yet leaves him in this I cannot but give him again friendly Warning to retract that slip for otherwise the whole Doctrine he is engaged in which he hath knit together out of Mr. Baxter and endeavours to maintain by this one Stitch let fall if it be not amended must unravel and come to nothing The Argument I have used in
say thus but not others Our Divines say Faith is the Condition or the Instrument but not the Form or formal Cause of our Justification This I acknowledge and Answer that the Reason is apparent because our former Divines did apprehend that it is by the Law of Works that we are to be justified and there being no Righteousness but Christs which Answers that Law it must be his alone that can justifie us But this being a mistake the fundamental mistake of our Divines formerly Protestant and Papist and it being not by the Law or according to the Law of Works but by the Law of Grace or according to the Gospel that we are to be judged and justified it is impossible that Christ's Righteousness which is a Righteousness according to the Law should be that Righteousness that justifies us according to the Gospel It is impossible that Christs Righteousness should be that Righteousness of God which in opposition to Works does justifie us according to the Apostle or that Righteousness of God which without the Law is manifested seeing this is a Righteousness with the Law being perfectly conformable to it And it is impossible Logically impossible but Faith which is that which the Gospel requires as the Condition of Life instead of the perfect Obedience of the Law when performed and imputed for Righteousness should be and must be that Righteousness which is the Form or formal Cause of our Evangelical Justification I will now speak to a Passage that put me to many Thoughts in another Letter in regard to our speaking of Justification as passively taken You seem say you to make Justification Active and Passive two things The former Gods imputing the latter Faith imputed for Righteousness If they are different you make two Justifications which you condemn in me If they are one they must both have the same Form or formal Cause But Justification is Gods Act and it is impossible Faith or any thing should be the formal Cause of Gods Act it may be the Condition not formal Cause As for this Passage I did wonder to see you so much in earnest which may be objected against Christs being the meritorius Cause as well against our Faith being the formal Cause and against its being the Condition of our Justification What Because I am not for making a double Justification which are of two kinds one by the Law another by the Gospel do you think I may not therefore distinguish Justification into Active and Passive when we mean nothing else by it but that Justification may be Actively and Passively taken And as for the Metaphysical Point you are concern'd alike with me It is the Will of God by giving us his Law of Grace that when a Man believes he shall by that Law be Made Accounted and Used as a righteous Person and so be free from Punishment and Saved Of this Will of God now ex parte Agentis we must know there is nothing without him can be Cause or Condition God is Actus purus God acts only by his Essence and his Essence is immutable yet does that Will which is one and the same cause all Diversity and he that is immutable cause Mutations And as that Act of his Will or Will which is all one is terminated on the Object and recipitur in passo it causeth its effects and is extrinsecally denominated by them In these Effects there is an Order and one thing the cause of another according to that of Aquinas Deus vult hoc propter hoc tho' propter hoc he does not velle hoc Now when in our Justification which is Gods Act the Will of God by his Law of Grace does make that Change of State in a Believer or of his Relation toward God so as to have thereby a Right conferred to Pardon and Life there are Causes of that Change and Right which being new in the Object Ex connotatione Objecti Effectus denominate Gods Act. It is impossible say you that Faith or anything should be the formal Cause of Gods Act. Very good that were absurd indeed But what is Gods Act here His Act here is exprest in the word Imputing and who thinks Faith the Form of that Nothing in us can be the cause of Gods Act it 's true but something in us may be the Object upon which Gods Act is terminated and that here is our Faith as he imputes it for Righteousness and this being the Effect of that Act in passo this Faith so imputed is the formal Cause of our Justification so effected As for the Question Whether Justification Active and Passive Justificare and Justificari be one or two Justifications it is a nicer Matter I thought than need be answered but seeing it falls in and must I say There is no distinction without a difference and where things differ and are diverse their Form and Definition must be diverse Justification Active and Passive therefore must have two Forms but the Matter is the same Faith in the Imputation of it and in its being imputed to us for Righteousness is the same So that formally they are two materially they are one and the same Justification Well Justification to proceed upon what hath been said tho' Gods Act yet passively taken as other things in the sense shewn must have its Causes Sanctification is an Act of Gods Grace as well as Justification and you will not deny our inherent Grace to be the formal Cause of Sanctification for all that But how Not as Actively but Passively taken As for the Causes then of Passive Justification Of the Efficient the Final the Meritorious there is no dispute but of the Material and Formal there is and it is fit to be considered Mr. Baxter hath taught that Christs Righteousness is not only the Meritorious but Material Cause of our Justification And you have cited Mr. Anthony Burgesse holding Christs Active Obedience as well as Passive to be the Matter but denying that we are formally justified by it Where he speaks after Amesius I suppose seeing it is upon the same Reason that if it were so we must be as righteous as Christ which I have mentioned before as Bellarmine's Objection against that Doctrine and which by Ames his waving it he acknowledges unanswerable when yet we know that Doctrine to have been the Common Protestants formerly as Davenant before tells us and some more weighty Divines than Mr. Burgesse tells us yet thus much further Mirum hic videri non debet Christi justitiam non Meritoriae solum sed Materialis immo formalis causae rationem habere cum id fiat diversimodè nempe qua illa est propter quod in quo sive ex quo per quod justificamur So the Leiden Divines For my own part I have in my Book taken up with Mr. Baxter upon trusting to his profounder Judgment but I will now shew also my Opinion The Meritorius Cause comes under the Efficient and is the
Efficient Protatarctick or Impulsive Cause according to my first Oxford-Learning and the Efficient Material Formal and Final Causes being the different Species of Cause in general I cannot but think they are to be so held in this Point of Justification The Efficient Cause then I say is God The Meritorius is Christs Righteousness The Material is not the same with that coming under the Efficient but is I count our inherent Grace or Faith as infused in our Regeneration The Formal then is the imputing this Faith or Grace inherent as the Evangelick Condition is performed by it to us for Righteousness when being imperfect otherwise it were none Inherent Grace is the Matter and the Form is brought into it by this Imputation This I have before though transiently fuller explained I think and as for my giving way to Mr. Baxter I am sensible that he understanding how nothing ab extra not Christs Merits is possible to move God or be impulsive to any Act in him who is uncapable of Mutation did apprehend Christs Merits to fall under the same Cause as our Merits would if we had them which is only a Dispositio Recipientis according to him and so the Material Cause because there can be no impulsive Cause in regard to God But seeing our Divines do commonly and the Holy Scripture speak of God Justifying Pardoning Saving and continually Blessing us for the sake of Christ or his Merits for all that there is nothing indeed ab extra can move him and this kind of speaking is warranted by the extrinsick denomination of Gods Law yea his Will by meer Connotation of the various and new Effects it causes it was I think but an over deep curiosity in this excellent Man which turn'd him from the obvious and right Notion as commonly received that it is per modum Causae Efficientis Protatarcticae when we say Meritoriae and not per modum Materialis or Formalis that Christs Righteousness does conduce to our Justification It is true I will say again that Ex parte Volentis what Christ himself hath done for us procures no new Act of Grace toward us because the simplicity of the Divine Nature is not capable of any but Ex parte rei volitae to say it procured no new Effects of his Grace for us but only disposes and qualifies us for the receiving those Effects is a mater so nice so subtle and out of the way that if it were true it could not be taught and is most likely to be untrue both therefore and because it seems derogatory to Christs Satisfaction and Merits to his Sufferings and Obedience which the Scripture speaks of as a Price as a Ransom a Purchase not to dispose us for but to obtain for us our Redemption and consequently those other Effects of his Grace likewise our Justification and Salvation I have now no more to answer and it is time for me to have done Only I must summ up what I have here wrote as to the matter between us You and I my dear Brother agree in the main Doctrine of Justification by Faith but have been differing in two Points about it which you say are but little but I say are very momentous Matters The two Points are these One is Justification I say makes us just and does not only sentence us so You say or have said Justification is the accounting but not making us just The other Point is this As Justification makes us righteous I say there is a Righteousness within Faith or our Evangelical Righteousness which justifying us must therefore be and is the Form or formal Cause of our Justification And this you receive not or have very hardly received I will speak it more short Justification I say makes us righteous and that righteousness whereby we are made righteous is and must be the formal Cause of it Here are both Points wrapt together and you do or have questioned both I will offer you therefore one Argument and that is Ad hominem for your conviction You maintain Justification by Faith as our Evangelical Righteousness as I do Now if Justification do not make us righteous then must we be justified by that inherent Righteousness which is the Righteousness only of Regeneration there being with you no other And then are you the strongest Papist as to me as ever writ for here is a most convincing Book of yours which is all almost Scripture and yet maintains Justification by inherent Grace and Faith as the Papists do Here then you can by no means extricate your self from them when I thus say we are made righteous by Justificationâ— and by that Righteousness only justified do escape As for the Consequence now of these two Points I think fit before I come to it that it be first considered how these consist how necessary they are to and indeed sustain and infer one another For if Justification makes us just then must there be a Righteousness so made that is the Form of our Justification and the Righteousness which is that Form is the Righteousness that constitutes us just or justifies us This being asserted there are these two things then as the consequence of these two Points appears and has been shewn in this Letter One is for I must recal them that whereas our late Protestants who have been more wary and come to see the Absurdity of our former Divines who in opposition to the Papists making our inherent Grace the formal Cause of our Justification would put Christs Righteousness in its room so making the Righteousness of another our formal Righteousness are convincedly brought off from their Opinion they have been and are ever since at a loss and must be to pitch upon that which is indeed the formal Cause of our Justification And when you or I or you and I together have been so happy to have found out that Righteousness even the Righteousness of God which is this formal Cause for them Is this in earnest with you but a little matter What! And is the clearing the difference of your and my way from the Papists which was the great difficulty lay upon you before a little matter also It was otherwise at your first writing to me and it is an Archeivement now worthy our mutual Letters The other Consequence is That when the Protestants I say and have said and our Brethren are among themselves at difference so much about this Great Article there is by this means some thing found out yet further as may reconcile them and that as it were I say in my first Letter by a Word For if we can but tell any thing in such short Terms as does Characterize or is a Characteristical Note to distinguish the Sound Protestant from the Unsound then may the Sound presently Unite and Drop the other if they still will be Absurd Now here is such a Characteristical Note and let the World that please know the same Justification by Christs Righteousness and not our
Own per modum meriti is Sound Protestantism Justification by Christs Righteousness and not our Own formaliter is fundamentally Antinomianism This many of our Brethren having not understood so well as they should hitherto have been but wildred and not found their way out to an Orthodox Coalition Not that I say such a Union a Union in Doctrinals is to be sought in the present case of our Brethrens many of whom have scarce thought of this Term formal Cause so far have they been from the use of it in this Point The Form of a Thing is illud per quod res est id quod est and denominates the Thing If we know not the Form of Justification we know not what Justification is and how then can we tell when we say any thing right about it To be justified hath a Form passively denominating a Man just from some Righteousness according to all Divines that understand themselves Protestants or Papists What that Righteousness is is the Question The Papists say one thing the Common Protestants another You and I come between them and what it is we have shewn Christian Righteousness says Luther on Gal. 3.6 consists in two things Faith in the Heart and Gods Imputation Faith is indeed a formal Righteousness yet this Righteousness is not enough it is imperfect wherefore the other part of Righteousness must needs be added to finish the same to wit Gods Imputation There are more the like words from whence I have been thinking since I wrote my Book See Righteousness of God Pag. 10. and 20. that it was happily such a kind of Notion as ours that Luther had in his first Thoughts arising from the Scripture howsoever himself or others after him came to run it up to that exorbitancy as from an Acceptation of our Faith and inchoate Obedience so long as it is sincere through the Merits of Christ unto Life instead of the Righteousness of the Law it is come or came to the cloathing the Person with the Righteousness of Christ which is a Righteousness according to the Law Meritorious and Perfect so that he does stand as just in the sight of God and as in Christs Person to be justified by the Law of Works altho' the holy Prophet does tell us Ps 143.2 that in the sight of God and the holy Apostle Gal. 3.11 by the Law shall no Flesh living be justified This Opinion therefore being so carried as to subvert the Gospel we leave it Your assured Friend And loving Brother John Humfrey To Mr. Humfrey Reverend and Dear Sir THere hath passed many Letters and there hath been long Debate between us about two Points One is of Constitutive Justification the other is of the Form or the formalis Causa of it This Letter shall speak of those two Points there being little or no Disagreement in regard to others I will begin with the last as having cost more pains in regard to the many Arguments and Answers bandied and tossed to and fro concerning it The result of all which is contained and will be found in what follows 1. We are fully agreed as to the Nature of Justification only differ about applying this Term Formal Cause as to the Point 2. You grant that Faith or Gospel-righteousness is not accounted by other Divines that are Protestants to be the Form or formal Cause hereof so that this is I have said a Vestrum as some Physitians have their Nostrum and therefore requires so much more caution 3. You apply it to Justification Passive and make our Faith to be only the Form of Justification passively taken and assign another Form or formal Cause to Justification Active for you say Gods making or constituting us just by the imputation of Faith to us for Righteousness is Justification Active Our being made just or constituted righteous by that imputation is Justification Passive Which you further explain thus Justification may be taken either Subjectivè as in God so it is his gracious condescention to accept our Faith or imperfect Obedience unto Pardon and Life Or Terminativè as in us and so it is nothing else but this Faith imputed for Righteousness as so imputed and this is the Causa formalis of our passive Justification 4. Against this I argue thus 1. a Hereby you make two Justifications or Justification Active and Passive to be two different Things because they have two Forms one Gods imputing or accepting Faith for Righteousness the other Faith imputed or so accepted for Righteousness Of which more anon a It is true and if you hold there and when you cite me as saying Faith is the formal Cause of our Justification you will supply what you find here that I mean Faith only as so imputed and also that I understand Justification passively taken I shall have little to answer to all that follows for Justification Active and Passive have indeed two Forms and must have or else they could not be distinguished and it is your fundamental if not only Mistake that you have a belief to the contrary 2. Justification is Gods Act but nothing in us can be the Causa formalis of Gods Act. To this you return several Answers 1. Sanctification is Gods Act as well as Justification But I hope you doubt not to say our inherent Grace is the formal Cause of our Sanctification But how Not as actively but passively taken The same is to be said of the other Answ God is the Efficient Grace infused the Material the Act of infusing or bestowing the b Formal b Right And if the infusion or bestowing of Grace or Holi-Holiness on a Man be the Form of Gods Sanctifying Act then must this Grace or Holiness infused or bestowed be the Form of his Sanctified State Vocabulum formae usurpari solet non modo de formis substantialibus quae dant esse simpliciter sed de Accidentalibus quae dant Esse tale Hoc sensu dicimus Doctrinam esse illam formam per quam homo Doctus justitiam per quam Justus efficitur I hope you can trust Davenant thought 〈◊〉 me for this Information Dav. De. Jus Val c. 27. 2. You answer further thus God is Actus purus and nothing is the Cause or Condition of his Will Ex parte Agentis but as Gods Acts are denominated in regard of the effects upon us these Effects must have their formal Cause or else be nothing Answ The formal Cause is Gods c Imputation c Right again The Imputation of our Faith for Righteousness is the Form of Gods Justifying Act and Faith imputed for Righteousness is therefore the Form of our justified State It is strange that the Intus existens should keep out such open Evidence 3. Another Answer you give is this It is impossible say you that Faith or any thing in us should be the Cause of Gods Act. Very good That were absurd indeed Nothing in us can be the Cause of Gods Act. True but something in us may be the Object about which
Gods Act is conversant and that here is Faith as he imputes it for Righteousness and this being the effect of that Act in passo this Faith so imputed I say is the formal Cause of our Justification so effected Answ The Object of Gods Act is Faith or the Believer The Effect of it in us Justification Imputation is the formal Cause as has been (d) And already satisfied already said 5. The Arguments which you produce for the proof of it I have gathered together out of the several places of their dispersion and they are these Argu. 1. All our Divines both Protestant and Papist do agree upon it that that Righteousness whatever it be that denominates and makes us righteous in Gods sight is and must be the Form or formal Cause of Justification And certainly these Divines understood this Metaphysical Term better than you or I. And when wee use it in their Sense and no otherwise there can be no fear But neither Regeneration nor Christs Righteousness nor Pardon is that which justifies us per modum causae formalis and therefore it must be (e) As imputed for Righteousness that is with Luther Faith and Gods Imputation together not Faith of its self Faith Not Christs Righteousness for that is the meritorious Cause Not Regenerating Grace for that must precede Justification not Pardon for that comes after it And therefore if Justification has any formal Cause which it must have or it is nothing for forma dat esse it must be one of these or something else What is that Why the Righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel as that Righteousness alone which justifies the Believer Answ It is something else viz. Gods f Imputation f To this and the former Answer I say that is true it is Imputation as to Active Justification or as to God justifying us Therefore something imputed must be the formal Cause of the Persons being Justified And what is that Christs Righteousness or the Righteousness of Faith We agree as to the last Argu. 2. As Adam if he had perfectly obey'd his Obedience had been his formal Righteousness in regard to the Law so is this ours in regard to the Gospel Right of God p. 20. So again Works were the formal Righteousnest of Justification by the Law Therefore Faith is the formal Righteousness of Justification by the Gospel Right of God p. 20. Again presently after Two things go to this formal Righteousness Faith and the Imputation of it To these I answer in order Answ To the first and second 1. It 's without doubt that Adams Obedience was g formal Righteousness and so Faith is now but so it might be and yet not be the Form of his Justification as I at first said The formal Cause of Adam's Justification was Gods owning accounting or judging him righteous upon the account of his perfect Obedience as Gods Imputation of Faith for Righteousness is the Formal Cause of our Justification g To be our formal Righteousness and to be the Righteousness and to be the Righteousness that is the Form of our Justification is all one so spoken and understood by Divines Gods accounting Adam perfectly righteous was Active Justification Adam's being righteous and so accounted was Justification Passive and Gods imputing our Faith for Righteousness and our Faith imputed is the same likewise Here is nothing but what is prevented already 2. I deny the Consequence in the first Assertion That if Adam's Law-obedience was his formal Righteousness then our Gospel-Obedience is our formal Righteousness because though Faith comes in the room of Law-Works in some respects yet not in all for it doth not h merit the reward as Law-Works would have done h Whether the reward be of Grace or Merit that is nothing to the purpose so long as Faith is the Condition of the Covenant of Grace as perfect Obedience was of the Covenant of Works The Performance of the Evangelick Condition is the formal Righteousness of the one The Performance of the Legal was the formal Righteousness of the other The formality lies in the Condition performed not in the Meritoriousness or Nonmeritoriousness of the Performance Answ To the third If Faith and Imputation i both go to this formal Righteousness then Faith alone is not the Form of it i By this you see that we are agreed I say and you say that Faith is the Matter as will appear more hereafter and Imputation that which brings the Form into the Matter so that it is not Faith alone but Faith as imputed for Righteousness is the formal Cause of Justification Argu. 3. If Justification has a Form and that Form must be some Righteousness Justificationis formam justicia constare certum est What Righteousness is that It is Gods counting or judging us Righteous say you But is this an Answer to the Question What Righteousness is it whereby we are justified When I ask What Righteousness it is whereby we are justified or what Righteousness that is which is the Form of Justification I ask What Righteousness that is whereby or wherewith or by reason of which God accounts or judges us righteous It is not regenerating Grace infused but regenerating Grace imputed that is Faith imputed for Righteousness That which makes a Man righteous in Gods sight according to the Gospel is that which justifies us so as to be the Causa formalis of it Per formalem Justificationis causam justi constituimur What then is that Righteousness which makes or constitutes us just It is Gods imputing this Faith before infused that makes us righteous and consequently is the Causa formalis of our Justification Answ 1. I say the Causa formalis of Justification is Gods counting or judging us righteous so say you too Your Words are these Gods judging us righteous upon believing is the k Form k The Form of a thing does constitute and denominate the thing If Gods judging us righteous or imputing our Faith for Righteousness does actually make and denominate God our Justifier then must our being judged righteous and our Faith imputed for Righteousness make and passively denominate us justified There is the same Efficient and Material Cause in both but the Form double Answ 2. I answer directly The Righteousness whereby we are justified as the meritorious Cause of our Justification is the Righteousness of Christ The Righteousness of Faith the material Cause But the formal is l Gods judging us righteous as you agree l Here you are plainly gone I ask what Righteousness that is and you Answer Gods judging There is some Righteousness as all our Divines agree that does make and denominate us righteous and that which so makes and denominates us according to the Gospel is that which justifies us When you don't tell this you are gone I say as I have said It is true that Gods judging or imputing something to us for Righteousness is the Form of Gods justifying Act but that something that is judged and imputed to
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
in turning us away from it because this must make him as he argues a sinner and one deserving to die Grotius takes him up and tells us that it was for sin but Impersonaliter This he explains in that our sins did deserve that Punishment should be exacted but such was the goodness of God to spare us and lay it upon his Son who was wounded for our Transgressions and through his stripes are we healed Now that God might do so without Injustice Grotius brings many Instances from David from Ahab from the Gibeonites from the second Commandment What God himself does or allows must be just David sins and his Child dies Ahab is wicked and his Punishment is deferred to his Sons Days Saul is cruel to the Gibeonites and his Grandchildren are put to death The Fathers sin and God visits their sin on the Children to three or four Generations Here is Merit as the Antecedent Cause of the Punishment in all these Instances and yet not the Merit of the Person or Persons that suffer it And what if I shall add here this great thing a thing wherein Divines are put so hard to it in giving their account even the greater Instance of Death passing on all Men with their innocent Babes among them for Adam's Transgression It is said of Grotius and that solidly in another place Peccata paenae causa sunt non aliter quam per modum Meriti which being true Socinus does indeed seem to argue strongly that therefore prater Dei ipsius Christi voluntatem non posse ullam legitimam causam reddi mortis Christi nisi dicamus Christum meritum fuisse ut moriretur This Grotius I say takes up and Answers thus Inest quidem in antecedente causa Meritum sed Impersonaliter From hence then we must distinguish there is a double Merit of Punishment Personal and Impersonal When Grotius tells us that in Christs sufferings there was truly Punishment because that though God laid it on his Son our sins required the infliction and Mr. Baxter says no formal proper Punishment because not only without desert in Christ but which is more because our desert could not be transferr'd on him though the Punishment was they both say true but rightly understood only the one Personaliter the other Impersonaliter as Grotious hath decided it And what is this in good earnest any other but what the Bishop hath in effect determined likewise No Man can deserve that another should be punished for him and yet because the Execution of Punishment depends on the wisdom of God a Change of Persons that is of Christ to bear it in our room Christ being willing and the thing just may intervene says the Bishop in more words and all apposite If Mr. Lobb then can but reconcile the Bishop to himself unto whom he seems heartily to subscribe he must reconcile Mr. Baxter and Grotius and be also reconciled to both And that he may be so the more easily the Bishop hath given a Test for the discovery of the Orthodox from the Socinian and Mr. Baxter shall thereby be tryed The true Controversie says he between the Socinian and us is Whether the Sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a Punishment for our sins and as a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for them or only as an Act of Dominion over an innocent Person in order to his Advancement to Glory The same is affirmed after him by our Presbyterian Brethren and who is there can imagine ever Mr. Baxter denied that Christs sufferings was a Punishment for our sins and his death a Propitiatory Sacrifice for them He hath made him sin for us says Paul 2 Cor. 5.21 Upon which God hath made Christ a Sacrifice for sin says Mr. Baxter as others which Socinus denies Who his own self bare our sins in his own Body on the Tree says Peter 1 Pet. 2.24 Upon which It was the punishment of our sins which as a Sacrifice he bare in his sufferings on the Cross says Mr. Baxter But what need I quote any such particular Sayings when there is no Book of his that is great that can be without such a Testimony over and over What then you may ask shall we judge here of Mr. Lobb's great Industry Shall we look on him as the Fly upon the Axle-tree that hath raised all this Dust for nothing I will not say so seeing Dust there is that must be raised if our Wheels do but go and our Chariot drive to its designed end the quiet of the Brethren It is not enough that we are agreed indeed in this Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction though we are unless we also understand and know it Besides that when we are agreed there is need of some Anthority yet to tell us we are so that our selves may believe it The Composing a Controversie by Silence is but covering the Fire as Mr. Lobb observes not extinguishing it If the Matter be such wherein we indeed do agree the Ventilation of it must shew us the seeming Difference to be nothing and so compel a Concord If the Matter be such wherein we really disagree there is still need of beating it out that the Corn may be discovered from the Chaff by the threshing There are two Points we know among us both very great Pâ—â—â—…ts and the one made difficult through the Intanglement of it with the Other One is of Christs Satisfaction wherein indeed we differ not The other is of our Justification wherein we do differ and there are two ways of Explication Mr. Baxter's and the Common Protestants Upon the Account now of this Difference in the latter Point there are many are stumbled in their Explication of the former As for Mr. Lobb he has verily given occasion for an Accomodation between the Brethren by his Appeal to the Bishop as to the Point of Satisfaction for seeing indeed there is therein no difference he is like to effect it But as for the other of Justification Mr. Lobb is behind and it will be a harder matter for any to moderate in it One thing in his strowing his way hereunto is to be preparatively considered He has read I suppose Socinus de Servatore as well as Grotius upon him and Crellius then against Grotius with other Socinians as also Dr. Crisp and other Antinomians and he is not ignorant where the Water sticks between us and them both The Socinian accounts Christ to be a good Man that taught us Holy Doctrine and dyed to bear Testimony to the Truth of it to the end we might believe it and live according to it and so be saved and upon this account is our Saviour But as for his dying for our sins any otherwise than for turning us away from them by his Doctrine and Example which is making our sins the Final Cause of his Death he understands not when as for the making it the Meritorious Cause of the Sufferings of an innocent Man and thereby satisfactory to the Justice of God
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 Conatuâ—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
Father is communicable with the Believer That is Whether Christs Right to have a Seed and such as shall believe on him can possibly be the Believers Or whether the Promise that Christ shall have some to believe in him and so be saved be of the same import with that which says He that believes shall be saved Again Whether there be any Imputation by God of Christs Performance to the Believer as there is or may be an Application of it by the Believer for his security in regard to the Benefits And Whether such an Imputation if there be such of Christs Performance for the Believers Security be of the same import as the Imputation of it for his Justification These and the like are Questions which require the second thoughts of Mr. Williams In fine there is one Consideration especially the Consideration of what confusion it must make in the minds of most to understand by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness another Righteousness than that our Divines hither to have understood and to draw their Words to a Sense they never thought which is to make them all equivocate or lie is a matter of such dangerous Consequence that I must come to a Resolution and Answer to my Reverend Brother which is that omitting the Reply that this Right of Christ he insists on is it self one Effect of his Performance and if that become Ours the Righteousness of his performance here is imputed or made ours still in regard to the Effects only And omitting the questionableness of this Right being ours already mentioned I must say plainly that this Talk of his in his Answer to the Report that there is a Judicial Imputation of this Right of Christ which is one Effect immediately intervening between the Imputation of his Performance which is Mediate in order to the Effect of our Justification and Pardon which he must intend or all is nothing to the Point I say is to me a Figmentum a Fiction an Imaginary and Operose something which indeed is nothing even according to himself who tells us that The effects are not imputed Alas when it is so hard to take in what our Divines say of the Imputation of Christs Performance for our Justification for how much easier is it of understanding to say that for the sake of what Christ hath done God does forgive and save us on the Terms of the Gospel or does accept of Faith instead of perfect Obedience than to talk of Imputation which is a Phrase as applyed to Christs Righteousness invented by Man though as applyed to Faith express Scripture to come to the multiplying and doubling these Imputations of Christs Right as well as of his Performance is a matter of so troublesom a Notion so cluttersom an invention Eutia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate so turning and over-turning what hath been said by our Divines as it were topsie turvy and indeed so presumptuous as well as untrue according to his own Axiom upon that account that if it were not that by this means he gets a Liberty of Compliance to use the Phrase with the Brethren who the most of them never concern'd themselves as to his Explanation it would not be endured Be it therefore known to all Men by these presents that I J. Humfrey do acquit Mr. Williams of the Inconsistency I supposed in his Doctrine which concerns me and Mr. Baxter upon this Notion or Invention if this invention of his be good but if it be found not good but upon further Consideration a piece of humane Wisdom only and a Shift I do yet conjure him to retract it But to offer something before I have done moreover for satisfaction to my Friend Mr. Lobb There is a Compact it is conceived by him of Christ with the Father that he will come under the Law both in regard to the Precept and Sanction and that the Sanction thereupon takes hold on him his voluntary Sponsion Anteceding not Intereeding the laying the Penalty on him This now cannot be That Christ entred not our Bond at first with us Mr. Lobb sees and says The Bond ran not that if we or our Surety performed it the Obligation should be void for then upon Christs keeping the Law there could be no Punishment due to him or us but he entred our Bond when we had broken it he entred into the Obligations of the violated Law of Works he says and so the Law taking him as under that Violation and Consequently as under its Sanction it laid the Punishment immediately on him as the Person to be punished and in that regard even in regard to the Sanction it was he acconnts a proper Punishment This I take to be the Error of the Common Protestant and so Mr. Lobbs upon that account It is true that Christ voluntarily undertook or compacted to come under the Precept of the Law unto which yet it self as a Divine Person Actiones being Suppositorum he could not have been obliged otherwise say Divines and to undergo the Curse or Punishment due to us but not to come under the Sanction that being impossible because the Sanction as to the Comminatory Part we understand does punish only him that breaks the Precept which Christ never did but we do so that it is the Punishment not the Fault or Merit thereof that he took on him which consequently arose not from the Sanction but his Undertaking and that Undertaking being to suffer in our room it could not be a proper Punishment in Mr. Lobb's Sense of Proper which is Arising from the Sanction but a Vicarious Punishment as Mr. Baxter over and over does tell us If Christ came under the Sanction of the Law so as the Punishment was due to him Ex obligatione Legis which Mr. Lobb holds but as pleading only the Common Protestants Cause I will suppose then must he be accounted of God as a Sinner nay as the greatest of Sinners and be punished as such which hath indeed been formerly affirmed by great Divines and so taken up by the Antinomian accounting that our sins was laid on him in the Merit as well as in the Punishment which my Friend seeing that here indeed is the Gulph he makes his stand and comes off in an Approbation of the Bishop for his opposing Antinomianism and particularly in this Point that there is such a Change of Persons which implies a Translation of the Personal Guilt or Merit of their sins which is all one of the Believer on Christ which he confutes as the Doctrine of the Antinomian and which Mr. Lobb disclaims as heartily as any O thou my Friend therefore Mr. Common Protestant be it known to all that Christ suffered not as a Sinner but as an Interceder and not from the Obligation of the violated Law of Works which he violated not but of his Fathers Commandment which was proper to him or of the Law of Redemption as Mr. Williams after Mr. Baxter does stedfastly teach Christ indeed took on
had performed it all and of Faith whose Office it is to embrace that Righteousness so imputed there is not one word in the Sacred Letters says the Learned Grotius If the Bishop before praised dare follow that leading Man in the one Point as in the other I will come now therefore to this new Book of Mr. Lobb which he calls An Appeal that is from the Presbyterian Brethren to the Bishop of Worcester as Moderator between them They produce the Bishops Letter in their Vindication and Mr. Lobb sticks to that Letter as vindicating him and both are in the right for when they agree to the Bishop they must agree also with one another In this Appeal Mr. Lobb looking on Mr. Williams as in the Chair of Mr. Baxter to maintain his Doctrine does collect many Pussages out of Mr. Baxter which are approaching to the Socinians and supposes such Doctrine to be inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Bishop that he maintains against Crellius in his Book of the Sufferings of Christ We shall see if the Bishop writer whether he judges as Mr. Lobb or rather shall see cause of Agreement not Difference with Mr. B. in this Point That which I have to say is this There is a vast difference in the account that must be given of two Men speaking the same things about a Doctrine which is in Controversie between them when one does bring them by way of Objection for Confutation of it and the other by way of Explication for the better clearing and maintaining it in Answer to those Objections And there is a double Answer to an Objection One is by Negation when the matter is false and the other is by Concession when the matter is true and reasonable but shewing that it affects not that Doctrine which remains firm notwithstanding that Concession This is the Case of Mr. Baxter in regard to the Socinian The Socinians say many things rationally and which are true and Mr. Baxter in such matters spares not to say the like but the one says them for the Enervating the other for the Elucidating the Doctrine of Satisfaction It is most certain that Mr. Baxter holds the same Doctrine which Grotius does and follows him in the Explication shewing the consistency of it with Gods Free Grace in the remission of sin which two things Socinus thinks incompatible To wit in that when it is alius that suffers it is aliud solvitur and also it being not the Idem but the Tantundem which Christ suffered and that it was not therefore the Law it self but the Law-giver he satisfied Upon which accounts the Satisfaction was in it self refusable a Solutio recusabilis as he after Grotius does call it that is such as God in Justice was not bound to accept but in Mercy through Grace he did accept it and what is more found out this way of Satisfaction himself for us which makes it so much more of Grace so that a Free Pardon I say appears notwithstanding this Satisfaction as in the Sacrifices of the Jews for sin there was an Attonement made by their Blood in order to the Remission That Mr. Baxter does maintain this Doctrine of Grotius this Doctrine that is the Marrow of the Old and New Testament to wit the Doctrine of Pardon upon Satisfaction against the Socinian it is apparent I say as that Mr. Lobb does hold Justification upon believing against Dr. Crisp And if it shall farther appear that there is nothing of all that he hath alledged against Mr. Baxter is dissonant to the mind of Grotius and Bishop Stillingfleet he will I hope come off at last To this end let us observe that this Learned Bishop in his Letter speaking of Christs bearing our sins and distinguishing the desert of punishment from the Punishment and affirming rightly that though Christ took on him the Obligation to undergo the Punishment the Desert could not be transferr'd upon him he hath these words No Man can cease to deserve Punishment for his own Faults nor Deserve that another should be punished for them This Saying is so true plain and reasonable that though Socinus Crellius or any of their Followers shall stand upon it never so much it is not to be denied but granted for all that Upon this Foundation it follows If no Man can deserve that another be punished for him then cannot we by our sins deserve Christs sufferings We deserved the Punishment it was a deserved Punishment but we deserved not that he should bear it If our sins then deserved not that Christ should suffer they are not the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings If not the Meritorious Cause no proper Cause but the Occasion as Mr. Baxter is cited by Mr. Lobb And to go on the reason appears It was not from the Law his Obligation to suffer did arise for the Law punishes only the Transgressor Noxu caput siquitur It was not our Obligation therefore he took on him for our Obligation is an Obligation of desert Obligatio Criminis as it is call'd but his only Ex contractu And seeing it was not Obligatio ex Lege it follows that the Sufferings he bore were Materially not Formally Punishment It was the sins of Mankind says Mr. Baxter that were the Occasion of Christs Sufferings called by some an assumed Meritorious Cause because by his consent they were loco causae Meritoriae End of Contro C. 13. In which Words and all other Passages collected by Mr. Lobb what is there to be found fault with unless an over perspicacity tightness and consonancy of Judgment in all his Pieces alike made good all by the reason of that undeniable Concession that One Man cannot deserve that another should be punished for his Faults as the Bishop has it And now to come from the Bishop to Grotius It must be acknowledged that Grotius hath made it his business to shew that our sins were the Impulsive the Meritorious Impulsive Cause of Christs Sufferings in his dying for us which he hath proved no less substantially than critically by the Prepositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 15.3 Heb. 11.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 3.18 Gal. 1.4 Pro peccatis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum accusativo Rom. 4.25 Propter peccuta and Isa 53.5 Ob peccata nostra which all denote the Impulsive Cause says he and not the Final against Socinus Upon this it is supposed by Mr. Lobb that what is mentioned before as said by Mr. Baxter is contrary to this Doctrine and he hath cited such Passages therefore as Heterodox But Grotius himself must be the Man to Answer and Reconcile what he says with what is said by Mr. Baxter which he does very sufficiently with one word that Mr. Lobb hath not observed at least to make so good an use of it For Socinus in opposition to the Doctrine of Satisfaction denying that Christ could dye for sin as the Meritorious Cause of his Death which he will have to be only the Final Cause