just by bestowing Faith is Regeneration which I distinguish from Justification as you and all Protestants do Justification makes just otherwise In the next place you tell me of Relative Grace being founded on Real Grace but I see not wherein that serves you or opposes me Real Grace I take it is that which makes a change on the Person but Relative Grace only on the State giving right to the benefits which belongs to the Person I apprehend so of that Distinction and if I do not apprehend you right you must help my Understanding Well now Regeneration I count with you must precede Justification that is Real Grace Upon this Real Grace then is founded that making us righteous which is Relative There is Faith already wrought and presupposed and God in justifying us does by his Gospel-Law I count constitute or make that Faith to be a Righteousness which otherwise it was not that gives right to the benefits that a perfect Righteousness if performed would give The Regenerate Man I say believes Upon his believing the Gospel-Law or God by that Law does impute that believing to him for Righteousness By which Imputation be is made accounted and used as a righteous Person and so reaps the benefit All which together is his Justification Let us here set our Horses together There is a Righteousness or the Grace of Regeneration or a Righteousness or the Grace of Justification One is Real Grace and the other Relative you say and therefore two Nevertheless when you say the Righteousness that makes us just is Regeneration you do not see that this Righteousness must not therefore be that which justifies us or that which I say is the formal Cause of our Justification It is true that our Righteousness or Faith wrought in us by Vocation Regeneration or Sanctification is the same Righteousness materially but not the same formally with this Righteousness of Justification for if a Man were the most righteous Person upon Earth there were no reward due to it being imperfect and it could not be this Righteousness in Gods sight giving right to the benefit that is this Relative Grace but for the Law of Grace and his Institution by it A right to Impunity and Life is Righteousness and that is not the Righteousness of Regeneration You say God Regenerates us and that makes us righteous Very well and I tell you that this is the Righteousness of the Person which justifies not and so I am no Papist but it is a Righteousness of the State the Righteousness I say which is made so by the Gospel-Law or that Relative Righteousness which does give right to the reward or benefit when the other imperfect cannot is the Righteousness we intend When a Man then is made righteous by God or by his Law upon his believing who was made righteous before by Regeneration or when a Man hath Faith bestowed on him in his effectual Vocation and that Faith after is imputed to him for Righteousness it is not his Faith and Righteousness as inherent but as so imputed is that Righteousness which justifies him or that Righteousness that is the Form or formal Cause of his Justification You may see here how by going to avoid Popery by denying that we are made just by Justification you take away that Medium which by the granting and maintaining we must obtain our purpose God says Mr. Baxter as Law-giver above his Laws maketh us just by his pardoning Law or Covenant and as determining Judge be justifies us by Esteeming and Sentencing us just and as Executioner he uses us as just All know such things are spoken in order of nature not of time which I need not mention before or now but to avoid Cavil You deny this Constitutive Justification but what say you to the Matter Does God by his Law of Grace make a Man just upon his believing To be made righteous is to be justified in Law-sense and justifiable by Sentence If God do so as the Law is general then must a particular Man believing be in the applying only that Law to him made righteous made so in order to his being accounted and used as such And if God by that Law applyed to him makes the Person righteous it is that Righteousness must be and is the formal Cause of his Justification This my dear Brother you did not perceive nor as I think Mr. Baxter quite who came so near it He never let the right understanding of the Righteousness of God preceding actual Pardon sink into his Thoughts if he had he would have set it into such a Light as there would have been no need of my Book and if he had roundly told you as I what is the formal Righteousness that justifies the Believer notwithstanding other Protestants say it not you might have received it Though as to that Particular Justification or Part of Justification against the Gospel-charge that a Man is an Unbeliever and Impenitent and hath no right to Pardon and Life he accounts that his Faith and Repentance is that Subordinate Righteousness which justifies him and that must be formaliter as I say And to satisfie Mr. Baxter fully there is and there can be no charge but this against any for the Gospel-Law it self the Universal Pardon or Grace of the Gospel it self which in the Righteousness of God as to Gods part is included does alone take off or answers all others But now seeing I am yet in doubt that your fear of me and therefore of other Friends is not yet gone in regard to my allowing that we are justified by a Righteousness within us or by our inherent Grace for that I percieve it is you fear even as rank Popery under the present apprehension when Justification yet by Works you maintain without scruple I will endeavour over again to deliver you and them out of it Faith you know and conceive to be Grace inherent and a Righteousness in us and you are not afraid I hope to affirm that we are justified by Faith Well then there is according to your Self before and the Truth a double Grace Real Grace and Relative Grace and Justification you say is Relative Grace Regeneration Real I say again accordingly there must be a double Righteousness the Righteousness of Sanctification or Regeneration and the Righteousness of Justification 0103 0 The one entitles to no Reward being short of perfect the other through the imputation of Christs Merits entitles to Impunity and Life for the imputing Christs Merits to our Faith or inherent Grace to make it accepted as hath already been intimated for Righteousness which else were none is to be understood in Gods imputing our Faith for Righteousness It is the Righteousness of the last now be it known and not of the former by which we are justified It is the Righteousness of the last not of the former which is the formal Cause of our Justification Here then do I at once discharge you from your Fear The Papists say
that is to be tender-mouth'd as most I perceive are apt to be I mean not you my worthy Brother when they come over to any such hard saying as they see will make their Disciples draw back and walk no more with them I must add that although an abstracting this great Doctrine from Logical or Metaphisical Terms according to the Bishop of Wrocester and you may be adviseable with the limitation as much as we can in regard to the Vulgar or in our Preaching to the People yet in regard to the Learned and the Versed in this Controversie it is quite otherwise or at least there must be an exception as to this Particular which is not here only necessary in regard to such but is the all in all in the business The point is hereby brought as it were to a word as in the matter of the Trinity it was brought to that of Homoousios no more to be discarded I will yet say that here is the Criterion according to a more shallow or deep imbibing whereof I do reckon for my own part such or so much to be the measure of knowledge that I have attained as to the critical bottom of this Matter With reverence be it spoken to extraordinary Men who being above all mean or colloguing ends do we may suppose very throughly see the same when prudentially they decline to say it and when they yet would be more generous too in a Contribution of their Testimony to it To this end was I born saith our Saviour and for this cause came I into the World that I should bear witness to the Truth 11. I will yet instance for your Conviction The Scripture in one place is express By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous One may ask here Is not Christs Obedience therefore ours Is not the being made righteous to be justified I Answer Yes Christs Obedience is ours in the Effects and as to this effect in making us righteous upon our Faith and so justifying us But here is the resolution of the point Christs Obedience does make us righteous or justifies us per modum cousae meritoriae but not per modum causae formalis which the Doctrine of Imputation intended at first nostrae justificationis We are to enlarge here by shewing how Adam's sin brought in death which passes upon all Men and so is imputed to all as to that effect Likewise how Christ's obedient suffering or suffering obedience has procured the Grace that we may be justified by Faith without Works and are so upon our believing We are made sinners then by Adam's sin and made righteous by Christs obedience per modum meriti not otherwise This is satisfaction to this Text this the core of the Controversie Again Christ is made sin for us in another place our sins procuring his sufferings and we the righteousness of God in him How is that Per modum meriti I say still Effective in short non Formaliter See what need we have of such Terms See how speedily and compleatly they do our business when a whole Book at once is as good as wrapt up in them 12. As for your Dissertation upon the Question whether Christ's Active as well as Passive Obedience is imputed in our Justification I did think to advise you to be content with what is said in the Book and so leave it My Reasons are two 1. Because this Dispute is a Point not proper for you and I but needless They that hold a Formal Justification by Christ's Righteousness may contend which of the two is imputed But we that say it is not Christ's Righteousness imputed but the Righteousness of God that justifies us may leave them fighting and we be quiet 2. Because as to the Point I think such may with Anth. Burgesse be well at a stand about it You say Christ being a Divine not Human person was under no obligation of duty How then does Christ say His Father was greater than He and that in regard to his Authority How came he down to do his Fathers Commandment and yet be under no Obligation Here you must come off and say He was not bound on his own account but for Vs he was Well then for us he was bound to obey and how then do you say he only suffered for us and not obeyed for us You must come off again and say For us may be taken for our Benefit or in our stead He was indeed bound to obey for our benefit but not in our stead Well! but what if you are out here at last Let me mind you that Christ who redeemed us from the Condemnation of the Law redeemed us also from the Obligation of perfect fulfilling it as the Condition of Life And as by his sufferings he freed us not from all suffering but Eternal so by his Obedience though he freed us not from obeying God according to the Gospel yet he did from obeying him according to the Law as the Condition of Salvation In this sense and to this purpose he obeyed that we might not so obey as well as he suffered that we might not so suffer that is upon this account not all accounts obeyed and suffered both in our stead Before I leave you for the sake of the Reader when this is Printed I must wish you again to take heed that when I say that Christ hath obeyed for us in the sense of in our stead you do not misconstrue me To do a thing in ones stead is to do it so as to free the other from doing it Though Christ's perfect obeying the Law did I apprehend free us from those Terms yet did he not obey the Law for us so as some would have it that no other Obedience is necessary to our Justification or that his Obeying does thereby become ours or is in se imputed to us as formally to justifie us This is that Doctrine you dispute against in your Dissertation and I find in some Notes which I writ for a Memor andum to my self upon reading some Author whether the words be my own or his or mixt thus much which I will set down to confirm your Determination There is a double Debt the Principal perfect Obedience and Nomine poena satisfaction for our failing It is said Christ paid both for us and both imputed But if his Obedience being such as that he omitted no duty and committed no sin be imputed there is no need of his suffering It is replied we must suppose his satisfaction for sin to precede and when we are pardoned and freed from punishment then must his Active Obedience be also imputed to give us right to Heaven It is answered 1. Supposing a Righteousness now required it must not be his Righteousness imputed for then we must be reputed as never lapsed nor once omitted any duty and that is inconsistent with his Satisfaction preceding 2. Punishment is Damni or Sensus Though one might be freed from the poena sensus and yet
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
Form upon believing there 's the Matter or Condition Or judging us to have performed the Condition of the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Law so that we are thereby Recti in curia innocent or guiltless in the eye of the Law which is making us righteous judicially and then dealing with us as such by acquitting us from legal Guilt as Mr. Gilbert expresses it or the Curse of the Law and giving us right to Life This hath been a tedious Point the other of Justification Constitutive will be of quicker dispatch yet since this Point also hath been much argued pro and con by us whereby I have gained clearer Apprehensions of some things about it than I had before I will first gather up your Sense which you have expressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sundry parcells and then give you my Thoughts which have been the result of the Debate between us For the sense of this Constitutive Justification which you have exprest in several Letters upon the best consideration I could take I have reduced the Matter to these Particulars following 1. You distinguish between making just by Sanctification and by Justification There is a making us just you say which is Sanctification and that being imperfect and insufficient to save us there is the making us just also by Justification which is the accepting that imperfect Righteousness of ours through Christ for Righteousness to give us Right to Impunity and Glory This doth fully and clearly distinguish your Opinion from the Papists who make Justification to be nothing but giving us inherent Righteousuess and that is meerly by Infusion whereas this is by Imputation as you observe well For these Words do contain the clearest Account or Description of Justification Constitutive that I have ever yet met with 2. The Constituting us just does in order of Nature go before Accounting or Using us as just 3. Constitutive Justification consists in three Things Making us just Accounting us just and Using us as just These are the three parts of Constitutive Justification which though one preceds the other in order of Nature as Parts yet as they all three make one whole they must in order of Time consist together And therefore more fully thus Justification is a judicial Act and that by the Law of Grace God by that Law and the Act of that Law Makes Pronounces and by pronouncing makes the Believer a righteous Person and being so made accounts him so 4. Our Righteousness wrought in us by Vocation Regeneration or Sanctification is the same Righteousness materially but not formally with this Righteousness of Justification for if a Man were the most righteous Person upon Earth there was no reward due to it and it were not Righteousness in Gods sight without the Law of Grace and Justification by it But when by that Law God imputes it declares pronounces it to be such or the Man who has it to be righteous then does that Righteousness by vertue of that Law Declaration Sentence give him a Right to Impunity and Salvation 5. The bestowing Faith upon us which is our Gospel righteousness is one thing and the accounting us just upon believing is another This is your Sense and I shall now give you my Thoughts which have been the result of this Debate between us I grant 1. That we must be made righteous before we can be counted or declared so or rather that Gods counting or judging us righteous according to Gospel-Law is his making righteous Judically that is making guiltless or innocent in the Eye of Gospel-Law and you express your self to the same purpose also God pronounces and by pronouncing makes the Believer righteous 2. The Righteousness of Justification is one thing and the Righteousness of Sanctification another For one is Grace Real and the other but Relative in reference to the Law of the Gospel that we are conformable to it One of the Person the other of the State One Physical by Infusion or bestowing a Principle of Grace or Holiness upon us the other Judical by Sentence first of the Law secondly of the Judge applying the Law to a particular Person For in Justification God may be considered 1. As a Law-giver and so he Enacts that Law that Faith shall be accounted for Gospel-Righteousness 2. As a Judge applying that Law to a Believer and so he judges him to be Evangeiically Righteous which is making him so Judicially or imputing his Faith for Righteousness 3. This makes the difference between the Popish Doctrine of Justification and ours to be very plain They make it to consist in the Infusion of Real inherent Grace We make it to consist in the Imputation of Faith or that Grace infused for Righteousness or a Conformity to the Gospel-Law which is but Relative Grace and so does consist in something without us whereas theirs doth consist in something within So that upon the matter you and I are agreed in this Particular as to the Thing only I confess I cannot approve of the Term Constitutive Justification as opposed to and distinct from Sentential and Executive True the Words of the Text Rom. 5.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be constituted righteous sound that way But certainly the Righteousness there spoken of or that being made righteous there must be understood in the full Latitude so as to include the whole of Christs Performance in order to our Justification viz. 1. That by the Obedience and Merit of his Sufferings he obtained a Covenant of Grace whereby Faith is counted for Righteousness 2. That all the Elect should be judged by God to be righteous in a Gospel Sense And so By the obedience of one many are made righteous So that this Righteousness does include both Constitutive and Sentential Justification and therefore not to be appropriated to one of them distinct from the other The two Points at first mentioned being now spoken to there remains no more but that I may rest for hereafter and ever Your Affectionate Friend Samuel Clark To Mr. Clark Worthy and Dear Sir IT being time to give you rest I have chose rather to write my Notes upon what I differ from you in than to send them to make you more work Our Velitations have been on two Points One whether Justification does constitute us just as well as accoun us so The other about the formal Cause of it For the former which you have last treated you was at first more at distance and came nearer still in your Letters till at last you are brought to perfect Agreement de re only de nomine the word Constitutive you yet boggle at and it is no matter for that Constitutive Justification is Justificatio Juris Sentential Judicis at the great day When a Man is a True Believer the Gospel-Law does give him Right to Pardon and Life This Right goes before the actual Pardon and this Right is a Righteousness that makes him righteous and being so Made he is so Accounted and Vsed which are
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
have no right to Heaven we cannot be freed from the poena damni also the loss of the Reward but we must have right to Heaven together with our freedom from Condemnation It may be said further a man may be forgiven but yet not reputed never to have broken the Law God cannot account any thing other than it is and the man was a sinner This now being true it appears how Christ's Righteousness therefore cannot be thus imputed as our formal Righteousness because then as he we should be look'd on as if we had never sinned when we shall ever even in Heaven be judged as such that once had sinned but now forgiven The root of the Errour as I have said ever lies here to think we must be justified by the Law of Innocency as Christ himself which does subvert the Gospel Your assured Friend and loving Brother John Humfrey To Mr. Humfrey Reverend and dear Sir THAT you have taken so much pains to open my Understanding and to make an Eye-salve to clear my sight I count a great favour and take my self to be much obliged to you for it For I desire to understand my Errors in every sense I am willing to open my eyes and all my Powers to let in Light which is so sweet and grateful Eccles 11.7 I say not vale as he but salvelumen amicum Some points indeed are clog'd with Interest which dims the sight or bribes and biasses the Judgment that either it cannot discern the Truth or at least not entertain and embrace it Either secular Interest lies in the way as in the Controversie about Conformity or carnal Interest as in the Antinomian Opinions which serve to gratifie Persons in a Licentious Course of Life and so they find it agreeable to espouse them for as what we would have to be true we are easily perswaded that it is true so what we would have not to be true we are hardly convinc'd that it is true Here it must be a strong and a clear Light that will pierce a Mans eyes which he purposely shuts against it But that is not the case here There is nothing but the power of Truth to sway the Judgment either one way or other which unto those that dig and delve for it as for bid Treasures that do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 12.14 hunt and pursue after it by an impartial Examination and Consideration it will be found one time or other and manifest it self in its native Beauty Prov. 2. v. 1 5. How far forth the Light in your Papers has cleared my Eye-sight and contributed towards a cure of my Mistakes will be seen in what follows Only premising this That besides what I have said by way of Answer or Reply I have added some Figures at the beginning of every Break in your Letter without reference to the sense and not considering whether that will bear them or no but only for convenience of Quotation that the Passages I reply to may be more readily found out In the beginning you tell me that my Discourse is very concordant in the main with my Sentiments I am sure we did not confer Notes nor play the Plagiaries one with another my Discourse being writ almost twenty Years ago and with little assistance from Books more than the Bible and Concordance as is exprest in the Epistle § 1. You observe my shiness to admit of Faith or Gospel-righteousness to be the Form of Justification I granted it may be Formal-righteousness or Gospel-righteousness and yet not the formal Cause of Justification for Love Hope Fear of God c. are gospel-Gospel-graces and consequently Gospel-righteousness and yet none of our Protestants say that they are the formal Cause of our Justification though you say Faith working by Love is and therefore I thought there might be a distinction between them and that one did not necessarily infer the other But upon further consideration of what you say upon that point I don't see at present how I can evade or avoid the dint and force of your Reasoning to prove that Faith is the formal Cause of Justification But however I would not lay too much stress upon a Logical Notion or Term of Art He that will grant we are justified by Faith in a plain sense without Tropes or Figures shall pass for found in the Faith with me whether he will call it the Form or formal Cause of Justification or no I 'll contend with no Body about such Terms and why you should insist so vehemently upon that Term I know not This serves for Answer also to § 2. and § 3. which do but persesecute the same point § 4. 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 of us just How is that Not by Infusion as the Papists nor by Non-imputation as Mr. Wotton but by Imputation God imputing our Faith for Righteousness To this I Reply In my Explication of Justification Active as you call it or bestowed by God say I I took in every thing that I found any ground in Scripture for for I fetch'd it wholly out of those places of Scripture there quoted And whereas it is commonly said to be a Law Term and therefore we must have recourse to Lawyers to understand the true sense of it I have there I think fully opened the nature of it purely out of Scripture and if I mistake not more fully and plainly than was done before and I have sometimes thought that that was one of the clearest things in all my Book If you think my account defective and would have any thing else added to it give me your Scripture for it as I have done for what I say and I 'll add it Till then here I stick But to make my sense more plain I 'll give you a Scheme according to my conception of the whole Matter There are these several things which must be carefully distinguish'd and considered as distinct in this case 1. Christ has obtained at Gods hands That Faith should be accounted for Righteousness This is enacting the Law fixing and establishing the Rule according to which Judgment must pass None can say that this is either making us just or justifying us because it is but a General as all Laws are 2. There is the bestowing of Faith upon us which is our Gospel righteousness and this now is making us just with the righteousness of Sanctification or enduing us with the Righteousness of God whereby we become conformable to the Rule Neither is this Justification but Sanctification or effectual Calling Regeneration Conversion Forming Christ in us all which with some other such Expressions I take to be Synonymous and to signifie the first Grace 3. Then comes Justification which is judging us conformable to the Rule or to have performed the
Annotations tells us right is this Righteousness of God intended by the Apostle Of God being of his institution in distinction to that of Nature or of Man and is otherwhere call'd the Righteousness which is of Faith and the Righteousness of Faith Which is of Faith that is say you obtained by Faith and of Faith Faith it self being it as imputed to us for Righteousness by the Law of the Gospel which is styled therefore the Ministration of Righteousness Now when we shall find this Notion in the particular places of your Annotations so well proposed you must give me leave to carry it thro' to what it leads and let you know which indeed makes it signifie that it is this Righteousness and no other is that which is the Form formal Cause or formal Reason of our Justification Note I pray once for all that in putting in the word our Justification by me is signified to be passively taken as it must be taken and is by Protestants and Papists in their Dispute about it and by the Apostle when he disputes that it is by Faith and not Works that Abraham was and we are justified And here then have we indeed an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing you have found out wherein the Cautious of our Protestants of late have been and are at a loss even the knowledge when they durst neither allow Christs Righteousness nor our own to be the formal Cause what indeed the formal Cause is For making which appear and that I speak not without Book be pleased to know It is an Objection which must needs be ready to come into every ones mind that if we be justified by Christs Righteousness imputed that is so as his Righteousness be accounted ours formally to justifie us then must we be thereby as righteous in Law sense as Christ himself This Argument being urged by Bellarmine our Amesius thus Answers Has non est nostra sententia sed Christi justitiam eatenus robis imputari ut ejus virtute nos perinde justi censeamur coram Deo ac si nosmetipsi in nobis haberemus quo justi censeamur See here the streight this throwly vers'd Man in these Disputes is brought to He must deny this at first that Christs Righteousness is nostra formalis justitia which Davenant with others maintain And if Christs be not what is A Righteousness there must be to make us Righreous and to be the Form of our Justification and what is it Note Secondly That Christs Righteousness must be imputed but nor imputed as ours for then it will be our formal Righteousness But so far imputed Note Thirdly that by verture of it we shall be accounted just before God Well then Note fourthly I must ask what Righteousness that is wherein or whereby we are accounted righteous before God Is it his No for then it were imputed to us as ours and it were our formal Righteousness which at first he renounces as not the Protestant Opinion It it our own inherent Righteousness He dares not own that as supposing it altogether the Papists Opinion What Righteousness then Why such whatsoever it be that is all one as if we our selves had in us that whereby we may be adjudged righteous before God Note it it is not qua referring to Christs Righteousuess but quo referring to one understood that is not in us but as good as if it were in us and that not Christs I say neither but one by vertue of his Righteousness imputed and is not If Dr. Ames had known our middle way there needed no such shifting as this to make us justified without a Righteousness or formal Righteousness neither in Christ for fear of this Objection nor in our selves for fear of Popery For God be thanked there is a Righteousness and that whereby we are justified that is neither of them even the Righteousness of God which is not the Righteousness of Christ who is God nor the Righteousness of Works or Papistical Righteousness but a Righteousness revealed in the Gospel in opposition to Works or the Righteousness of Faith imputed to the Believer for Righteousness through the vertue or merit of our Redeemer for his Justification and Salvation Whenever we read if imputing or accounting to a Man a thing that is good it is an Act of Grace and signifies something which is not says Mr. Truman It is so in the imputing Faith for Righteousness for there is a donation of two things by it which in us are not One is Christs Merit or the virtue of it to render our Faith accepted and the other a Right to the benefits or reward which a perfect Righteousness would give us if we had it Our Faith or Evangelical Righteousness being imperfect and no Righteousness by the Law it is upon these two things conferred made such a Righteousness being imputed to us for Righteousness by the Law of the Gospel I hope now Brother you will be less afraid of our falling in with the Papists though Justification is the making us just as well as accounting us just and though our inchoate Grace our Faith our Evangelick Performance acceped through Christ be our formal Righteousness which you are so backward to consent to because besides that this Righteousness hath not the same Rule to be judged by with theirs nor is of the same Quality as theirs for they measure the same by the Law and yet maintain a Meritorius Righteousness and Perfection which difference you find in my Book I say besides this the inherent Righteousness it self of our Justification is not the same with theirs of Regeneration It is the Righteousness of God which is of his institution to be distinguished from that of ours whether it be the Righteousness of Nature as before which we have not or of the inherent Grace we have the one coming to us by Infusion the other by Imputation God imputing I say to us that imperfect Grace for Righteousness by this Law of the Gospel This will appear yet further by my proceeding to your Animadversions I grant you say in one of your Letters that we must be made just before we can be accounted just but that is by bestowing Faith upon us Justification is relative Grace and that is founded in Real or supposes Real Grace as the Foundation of it and making us just which is Real Grace must not be reduced to Justification that is Grace Relative This is something in the Ore but let us melt it and improve it and I say that here is Confusion indeed but I hope not mine You mistake first in not distinguishing making just All making just is not Real Grace or by giving Faith but there is a making just also which is Relative Grace if Justification it self be Relative Grace and that is not by bestowing but by imputing Faith already bestowed to us for Righteousness You mistake next in thinking I reduce your making just to Justification by reducing you mean rendring them one for your making
we are justified by the Righteousness of Regeneration and they are out We say and are right by the other Let me say this yet fuller again for when the Mind is prepossest with a contrary belief and the Intùs existens does prohibit alienum there is no hope for a New Notion to be received without inculcation which therefore is to be used and approved Thus far for certain you and I do agree Regeneration is one thing and Justification another when the Papist say they are the same We agree consequently that there is a double Grace and Righteousness of the one and of the other We agree still that one is Real Grace the other Relative and must be different The one I have said makes a change on the Person the other on the State only or Condition that is the one does endue the Soul with a New Quality which of a wicked Man makes him godly the other confers no New Quality but a New Relation upon that Quality Relative Grace as you say being founded on Real that is the Relation of a justified Person or righteous Man in Gods sight which brings a right to the Benefits or Reward due to a righteous Person or due to one if he had perfectly fulfill'd the Law of God This sure are we agreed in that Justification does confer a right of Impunity and Glory which is the Summ of those Benefits to a Person which was not due to his Faith and imperfect Obedience but that God does impute them to him for Righteousness so that this Right therefore does come to him not by Infusion I say in my Book but Imputation To be short and full Righteousness consists in a Conformity to a Law A Law hath its Precepts and Sanction Faith is a Conformity to and a Righteousness according to the Precept of the Law of Grace A Right to pardon and Glory is a Conformity to and Righteousness according to the Premium Sanction When a Man believes the Law of Grace or God by that Law does impute his Faith to him for Righteousness and thereby constitutes him righteous and with that Righteousness confers on him a Right to the Reward of it This Right to the Reward or Righteousness consisting in this Right is and can be only Relative Grace not Regeneration or Sanctifification which is Real Grace but the Righteousness of Justication and this distinguishes our Doctrine from the Papists A Right I must say it again to Impunity and Life is a Righteousness and that Righteousness not the Righteousness of Regneration but Justification The Papists I repeat do say it is by the One that we are justified We say it is by the Other Here you have my account of Justification Constitutive and hence you may have an account of that Text which is else so hard in Words and various in the Interpretation God justifies the Vngodly The Man who is justified is a Believer but notwithstanding his Faith and imperfect Obedience he is legally Unrighteous Ungodly a Sinner Now if Justification be only the Accounting not Making a Man Righteous how can God justifie the Unrighteous or him that is Ungodly The Judgment of God is according to Truth and it were impossible But when Justification is the Making or Constituing a Man righteous to wit not by Infusion I say but by Imputation and propterea as Contarenus before hath it the Accounting and Using him as such we see how the Believer though Ungodly is justified If any Catholick hereupon shall receive this and will express his Doctrine of Inherent Grace as I do and say that it is not by a Righteousness according to the Law of Nature which though insused and by the Spirit is Mans Righteousness still and imperfect but by the Righteousness of God which is ours and yet not ours as to what is imputed to it that is by a Righteousness of Gods making or instituting by the law of the Gospel that he is justified then were he in the right and I should embrace that Papist as I do you and Mr. Baxter Let a Man be a Calvinist or Arminian or Papist or Socinian the truth in his Mouth is truth as well as in the Mouth of our Dr. Bates or in the Confession of the Assembly As for the Scheme you offer in laying matters together upon supposition that Justification is not Constitutive or Making but only the accounting and using us as just I acknowledge it very agreeable but we must not yield to you you see all this while we must not that supposition it would undo us No we must for the fuller comprehending this Frame or Order of Things take more compass than you do and which may confirm what is spoken We must first then consider that there is an Act of Grace procured for us by Christ which is the Law of the Gospel whereby all Persons notwithstanding our sins shall upon their Faith and Repentance be pardoned and saved and in order hereunto this Law does Enact That such Persons as believe and repent shall as set before God be judged righteous according to this Act notwithstanding there is no Man but is unrighteous according to the Law of Nature and upon that Judgment of him to be righteous or upon that judicial Proceeding in the mind of God as we must suppose Justification to be he shall have the Benefit of the Act and no otherwise Now Sir the first thing in the applying the Act to the Believer therefore is this that upon his believing and repenting it Makes him righteous for else his being a sinner notwithstanding his Faith he could not be judged righteous but being made so he is judged so by the same Acts and is to be so used It is not the Pardon which makes him righteous because he must be judged by the Law and found righteous before he have that Pardon or Benefit of the Act which is That and Life And it is not Regeneration or Faith makes him righteous because that is prerequired as the Condition to his being made so and that is no Righteousness as yet But it is God by this Act imputing this Faith and Repentance which is wrought in our Regeneration for Righteousness that makes him righteous and being I say so made he does judge account and use him so in conferring the Benefits which altogether go in to Justification I proceed to another passage in your Letter I do not see at present say you how to avoid the dint and force of your Reasoning that Faith is the formal Cause of our Justification However I would not lay too much stress upon a Logical or Metaphisical Term. They that will grant we are justified by Faith is aplain sense without Tropes or Figures shall pass for sound in the Faith for me whether they call it the Form or formal Cause or no. I thank my Friend for this Item It is by Tropes and Figures our Protestants speak or dinarily when they say we are justified by Faith Objectivè in sensu
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
us for our Righteousness is the Form of our justified State or Condition Argu. 4. Divines do generally fix it upon some Righteousness The Righteousness of Inherent Grace say the Papists The Righteousness of Christ saith Davenant and the Protestants generally The Righteousness of Pardon saith Mr. Wotton Answ 1. I do not pretend to compare my self in the least with those Learned Men who maintain any of the former Particulars to be the formal Cause of Justification but I am willing to suspect my own Judgment rather than theirs Perhaps it may be my m Ignorance in the proper Notion of a formal Cause that hinders me from assenting to them And yet m The Form of a thing you know is that whereby the thing is that which it is that which differences the thing defines denominates it A Defini-nition is made of a Genus Differentia call'd by others the Form a Genus and a Form to wit that which specifies and differences the thing from others that which makes the Ens unum Vnum is indivisum in se divisum ah aliis The Form makes the thing divisum ab omnibus aliis and whatsoever differs from another must have its Form its Deffinition that makes it differ or else it is nothing It is not for want of Knowledge of this but the want of Consideration of it makes you here disagree with me for so long as there is no Distinction without a Difference and Justification is thus distinguished into Active and Passive they must have their different Forms and if that be acknowledged our Contest is at an end 2. You n agree with me that it is Gods Imputation or judging us Righteous But yet that I may yield to you as far as I can I add n How I agree with you it is manifest as to justification Active and that you may agree with me as to Justification Passive you say enough in that which follows 3. That upon the o same ground that any of these may be said to be the formal Cause of Justification I see not but that the Righteousness of Faith or the Righteousness of God by Faith may be allowed to be the formal Cause of it If it be proper in any of the other Cases or Instances for ought that I know it is proper also in this If it be proper to call Christs Righteousness the formal Cause or Pardon the formal Cause of Justification it is proper I think to call Faith so too There is the same Reason for one as for the other in my apprehension o As for what you yield here to me it is but honest and tho' condescending no more than what cann't be denyed If we use the Terms of other Divines we must use them in their sense or we cannot else be in the right I thank you for your sincerity in this Argu. 5. But the most plausible Argument of all because it is Scriptural you have omitted which is That the Scripture saith expresly p We are are justi-fied by Faith p This is what is to be understood in my Book all over when I say that tho' the Id propter quod be Christs Righteousness the Id per quod we are justified is Faith and Faith therefore as imputed for Righteousaess is the formal Cause of our Justification Here then we must consider What interest Faith has in our Justification This I have said in my Book is as the q Condition Way or Means whereby we come to have an interest in this Priviledge q That Faith Repentance and New Obedience are the Condition and Way of Life as to the Exercise and Practice of them does not hinder but that performed and imputed by God for Righteousness they become the Form its self of our Justification You say As the formal Cause but at last upon mature deliberation you make it to be the material Cause and Imputation the formal and so at last you seem to r give up the Cause you are contending for your words being these The Efficient Cause is God The Meritorious Christs Righteousness The Material is not the same with that coming under the Efficient but is I count our inherent Grace or Faith infused in our Regeneration The formal then is the imputing this Faith or Grace inherent as the Evangelick Condition performed by it to us for Righteousness when being imperfect otherwise it were none Inherent Grace is the Matter and the Form is brought in by this Imputation s This is not well observed that when I set my Cause in its true Light and evince the truth of it so to your self that you cannot but assent to it you should count that I give you my Cause when I give you my Light and when the Cause which I and you intend and defend is the same in this particular altogether And why do you contend Do not you know that in such Collisions that are only for Light whenever there is struck one Spark that does take the work is done for what is but rightly said in one place is to regulate all that is said besides otherwhere when the Reader deals ingenuously with him he Reads But then to s bring your self off you make it to be the formal Cause only of Justification Active and Faith to be the formal Cause of Justification Passive and so you make two Justifications distinct from each other because they have different Forms So that all the Controversie between us now is reduced to this one single Point whether there be two Justifications distinct from each other For if Faith be the formal Cause only of Justification Passive and there be no such thing as Justification Passive distinct from Justification Active then Faith is cashier'd and put out of its Office of being Causa formalis of Justification s It is not to bring my self off but to keep the truth on foot that I distinguish as other Divines do Who knows not that Justificare Justificari are distinguished or that Justification is actively and passively taken Alas that you should not consider that all the Disputes of our Divines Whether we be justified by Faith or Works are and can be about Justification no otherwise but as passively taken As for the Question Whether Justification Active and Passive be one or two I have given a brief determination in this second Letter as now printed p. 28. and did not do so in my Cursory Letter because I was indeed puzzled with it at first starting and could not at present tell what well to say to it It is very true and judiciously declared here by you that upon this one would have thought but nice thing does depend all our difference so that if Justification Passive have a distinct Form from Justification Active then my all you say be true as it is of the One and what I say to be true too of the Other Now whether they have two Forms or no seeing you and I were at present in doubt and came very strangely to be resolved
on a contrary Judgment let us appeal to one that can tell us Justification says Mr. Baxter taken actively as the Act of the Justifier hath one Form Justification passively taken for the State of the Justified hath another Form And each of these are subdivided into many Acts and many Effects which have each their Form End of Contro p. 263. This was the reason of the variation in what I writ When I first propounded this Objection and thereby discovered this Consequence you wrote to me thus This distinction is a distribution of a Subject into its Adjuncts where the Form I apprehend to be the same only applyed diversly as the Subject is actively or passively taken But in your very next Letter you revoke this and say That upon further consideration Justification Active and Passive are two Things in earnest and have two Forms Seeing therefore this is that you stick to I will try my skill to drive you out of this hold 1. How t can Faith be the material Cause of one and the formal of the other t Very well Faith as infused and a part of our Regeneration is the Matter you agree to this Faith imputed for Righteousness is the Form I say of our Passive Justification 2. What u is the Efficient and Material Cause of Justification Passive u The Efficient and Material Cause is the same in Justification Active and Passive I say both but the Form is diverse and must be so long as they differ from one another 3. You x are certainly in the right when you make Justification Active and Passive to be but a distribution of a Subject into its Adjuncts and that they have the same Form Therefore the Subject is the same only diversified by its different respects to its Agent and Object x You are certainly in the wrong in your understanding this thus In a distribution of a Subject into its Adjuncts the Subject is one and hath one Form Vnius rei unica forma and the Adjuncts partake of that Form but their own Forms are diverse and must be as that by which they differ from one another I am sorry here I gave you occasion to be confirm'd in your mistake But this good shall come of it I will shew my Reason why I admit of two Justifications Active and Passive and not two by the Law and by the Gospel Justification by the Law and by the Gospel is a distribution of a Genus into its Species But Justification Active and Passive is a distribution of a Subject into its Adjuncts only When I can admit but of one kind of Justification only that is by the Gospel I may allow that to have diverse Considerations 4. When y I say God justifies Paul and Paul is justified of God can any one be so void of sense as to say these are two Things Is not the Act the same tho' the Agent and Object be different When I say the Sun enlightens the Air and the Air is enlightned by the Sun is not the enlightning the same in both The Propositions indeed are distinct in a Grammatical Construction but they are the same in a Physical Sense For y When you say God justifies Paul and Paul is justified of God here is a Justificare and a Justificari that is Justification Active and Passive and they must have two Forms But seeing the Matter is the same wherein you and I agree they are formally two but materially one and the same Justification 5. Justification z is only of a Person The Person to whom this Act of God is applyed is the Subject or Object of Gods Act about whom it is conversant Justification cannot possibly be considered but as referring to some Person and therefore there cannot be two Justifications z The Subject the Efficient the Material Cause are the same but the Form different in Active and Passive Justification I pray turn to my Determination at first I had not then thought enough and I did not think it so necessary as now you make it to determine this in my Cursory Letters which you must forgive You see then Brother where the deficiency of Sense does lye which seeing you have been able to say so much for and have so much presumption for may be excused even with some applause though you have been mistaken in it There is one thing in the forgoing Discourse that perhaps will need a little farther Explication and that is where Faith is said to be the (†) It is worth our Observation that in this Notion that our Faith or inchoate Grace is the Materal and Imputation the formal Cause of our Justification you and I should both in our Letters coincidere without any Item one from another material Cause of our Justification Those Terms in Matters of Morality are subject to much uncertainty as appears by the Learned in assigning the Material and formal Causes of Justification I apprehend it thus When Faith is said to be imputed for Righteousness here Imputing is the Act and Faith the Object Now we agree that this Act of Imputing is the Form and this Act falling upon this Object is the Form falling on the Matter as you express it very well or introduced into it The Act applyed to the Object is the Form introduced into the Matter For why may not the Act and Object in Morality correspond or be the same with the Form and Matter in Naturality I know some make the Righteousness of Christ to be the Material Cause of Justification but against that Assertion I have this Argument The Meritorious cannot be the Material But Christs Righteousness is the Meritorious Cause none can deny that Therefore it cannot be the Material The Major I prove thus The same thing cannot be both an External and Internal Cause But the Meritorious is an External Cause for it belongs to the Efficient as you have also observed the Material is an Internal Cause Therefore the Righteousness of Christ which is certainly the Meritorious cannot also be the Material And this Argument will also hold against its being the Formal Cause Mr. Banter seems to make Faith to be the Material Cause End of Cont. p. 250. This I have long inclined unto which may be illustrated thus When a Malefactor is Arraigned and Tryed the Law is the Efficient Cause of his Acquittal or Condemnation the Sentence pronounced by the Judge is the Formal Matter of Fact or what hath appeared upon Tryal is the Material So here Gods judging us righteous according to the Law of the Gospel is the formal Cause of our Justification and our Gospel-righteousness or Faith which is as it were Matter of Fact seems to be the Material But as I said there is no certainty in affixing or appropriating these Logioal Term in Morality at least in all Cases and therefore for my part I will contend with no Body about them I will add but one word more about this point Justification is Gods judging us righteous there 's the
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
my Pacification Pag. 40. which Book I expected to have been answered by him or the Truth as to what concerns him acknowledged before this The last thing I will Note in Mr. Lobb is Though a righteousness he says which Answers the Obligation in the plural that is therefore both of the Preceptive and Comminatory Part of the violated Law of Works be necessary to our Justification yet we are not justified by the Law because we did it not our selves as the Law required but by the Gospel he apprehends in that the Gospel provides us such a Righteousness that is Christs Righteousness made ours by Faith as answers the Law that we may be justified Here is that apprehended which is as clearly thought as any one that will maintain the Common Doctrine can speak but I must Answer him That if the Gospel must provide us such a Righteousness as answers the Law that we may be justified by it then must that necessarily presuppose that it is by the Law we are to be judged but when indeed that is not so for if it be by the Gospel and not the Law as himself accounts that we are justified it is by the Gospel we must be judged for to be judged is either to be justified or condemned and accordingly it is not the Righteousness of Christ which answers the Law that the Gospel provides for us but it is the Righteousness of God that is manifested without the Law a Righteousness revealed in the Gospel in opposition to the Works of the Law that it hath provided for the Sinners Justification To be more full and satisfactory as we draw to an End The Law is sometimes taken strictly as it requires perfect Obedience to its Precepts that we may live in them and so it is opposed to the Gospel Or it is taken largly for the whole Doctrine of the Old Testament which contains Promises of Pardon and Life upon Mens Faith and Repentance as well as the Gospel In the first Sense St. Paul says the Righteousness of God is manifest without the Law In the second that yet it hath the witness of the Law and the Prophets For Moses tells us that God is Gracious Merciful forgiving Iniquities Transgression and Sin and the Prophets call on the People to Repent and cast away their Transgressions that they may live and not die which is all one with what the Gospel Teaches It is strange now that when this Doctrine of Faith and Repentance which is so plain in both Testaments The just Man shall live by his faith should be obscured by the Doctrine of Imputation which is a devised Doctrine not in Scripture I mean the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sense of per modum formae or formalis causae when in the sense of per modum Meriti it does but explain and confirm the same Insomuch as those Scriptures which are usually brought for such Imputation do effectually prove the contrary to it I mean that it is not Christs Righteousness imputed to us but our Faith or Evangelick Righteousness imputed to us for Righteousness that justifies us This may appear by the Explication of such as these Scriptures following The Jews being ignorant of Gods Righteousness and going about to establish their own have not submitted to the Righteousness of God That is not to that way of becoming Righteous which God hath founded or instituted and so declared in the Gospel which in opposition to their Righteousness is by Faith in Jesus Christ For Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth The Law in general was an Instruction in order to the coming of the Messiah that we should believe in him and obey him when come and thereby be justified and saved So the Apostle otherwhere Wherefore the Law was our School-Master unto Christ that we might be justified by Faith By Christs being the end of the Law then we may understand either The end or design of the Law requiring perfect Obedience which no Man does or can perform is to drive us to Christ But how drive us to him Is it to his Righteousness to be made ours No there is no such thing said any where but to him for Righteousness through believing Or and for Christ is the end of the Law in that he by the Obedience of his Life and Death fulfilling the same in our behalf hath freed us from the Condition thereof requiring only our Faith instead of That and so Righteousness now or Justification is to every one who without the Works of the Law does perform the Terms of the Gospel There is no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit That is They that are in Christ by Faith and their Faith is sound so as it causes them to walk sincerely before God they are freed from Condemnation For the Law of the Spirit of Life in Jesus Christ hath made me free from the Law of Sin and Death That is for the Law of Grace which is the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ doth free such from the Curse of the Law of Works For what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the Flesh God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh and for sin condemned sin in the Flesh That is The Law being not able to free us from Condemnation or to justifie us seeing thro' our Frailty we break it which else would do it God sent his Son to take our sins on him and by condemning sin in him or punishing him for them he hath bereft sin of its Damnatory Power over the Believer That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit That is that the Justification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we should have by the Law if we could perform it may be had by our performing only the Conditions of the Law of Grace which is walking not after the Flesh but after the Spirit or not after the Law but after the Gospel Do we then make void the Law by Faith Yea we establish the Law The Law taken largely as before declares Gods Ordination of a Sinners Justification by Faith and Repentance as the Gospel does and thereby is most plainly established or accomplished But to say further The Law is established says St. Augustine by the fulfilling it Now Faith if it be sound does work by Love and Love is fulfilling the Law But how does Faith and Love fulfil it Not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in the Rigour of it but the Equity or according to Acceptation thro' Christ When God then for Christs sake does accept of our Faith or our sincere though imperfect Obedience for Righteousness this is that julfilling the Law which is all that can be in this Earth and thereby the establishing of it As by one Mans Disobedience many were made
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