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-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
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
correlativo that is by Christ or his Righteousness apprehended by Faith Put Christ says Mr. Baxter for Faith and read such and such Scriptures and see what strange sense it will make It is our Doctrine which is plain without such Tropes and Figures And for what you say that if any shall set forth the true Doctrine without any Logical and Metaphisical Terms you shall approve them I say the same if they can indeed but soundly do it without them But for all that we must by your leave keep fast to this Term for there is more weight lies upon it than to part with it and the consequence is yet more than you see We know what Controversies we Protestants have among our selves as well as with the Papists about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness and you may be pleased also to know that a right and savoury Use of this Term will reconcile the sound among us I mean be a ground for it or at least go so far toward it as to shield us from the Antinomian Errors which are here mainly to be feared If a Man in good earnest shall believe that Christs Righteousness is so imputed to him as to be made formally his he must then needs think that God can see no sin in such a Righteousness as his and that then he hath no need of Repentance or indeed of any farther Holy Living retaining but still his Faith in order to obtain Heaven You know the train unto which such Doctrine does lead Whereas if we but distinguish now of Christs Righteousness being ours meritoriè not formaliter if we say we are justified by it per modum meriti not per modum causae formalis which is all one as to say it is imputed but not as ours in se but in the effects then is this great Article presently stated the Protestants I say that are sound reconciled the Antinomian Conclusions discarded and all danger in our Differences quite over There are Scriptures He is made to us Righteousness By his Obedience we are made Righteous The Lord our Righteousness and the like I never could come to have satisfaction about them in my mind but by the Impression of this distinction upon it The definition of Justification by the Assembly if our being accounted righteous for the Righteousness of Christ were understood formaliter it were not to be born And yet how few of our Ministers themselves have understood otherwise and knew it not but they understood it right There are Passages collected out of Dr. Bates's Harmony to confront some others out of the Books of Mr. Williams the industrious Collector did wisely to make the Doctor not himself the Accuser But let this grain of Salt be applyed with the consent of the good Doctor and the jarr may cease easily when our Brethren in their Differences else are Andabata to one another without it Bellarmine who in his Dispute with us about Justification does reduce all our Differences with them to this Point whether it be Christs Righteousness or our own inherent Righteousness that is the Causa formalis of it and supposing he hath evinced that it cannot be Christs he fears not to be thus lavish in granting to us as follows Dicitur Christus justitia nosira quoniam satisfecit Patri pro nobis eam satisfactionem ita nobis donat communicat cum nos justificat ut nostra satisfactio justitia dici potest Hoc modo nou esset absurdum si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi justitiam merita cum nobis donarentur applicentur ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus By this passage of the Cardinal who looks on his cause not to suffer by his giving thus much that is more than what I can tell in his sense to make of so long only as the Righteousness of Christ be not made our formal Righteousness the negative whereof be sure he holds fast and it must be yielded him I am convinced and will make bold to avouch that let our Protestants express their Sentiments about this great Article with so much variety as they do and as much as they will yet if they in their fiercest Contests for a Righteousness without us against a Righteousness within us to be justified do but understand and will yield to be understood with this Salvo or under this Confinement of Per modum Meriti non formaliter which Bellarmine alone thinks worthy the confuting the danger I said before is over and they agreed Alas what an absurd thing was it at first to the Papists for the Protestants to say that we are justified by Christs Righteousness it was all one as to say a Man is learn'd with anothers Learning or Rich with anothers Riches Let me tell you Brother that to say we are justified formaliter by Christs Righteousness is the same absurd Thing still and the Absurdity is seen sufficiently of late by our more considerate Divines as appears in my Quotation of Dr. Ames in yours of Mr. Anthony Burgesse in Mr. Baxter of Prideux and many others occasionally in his Books Upon which account you are to consider that whereas you and I do go a middle way between Protestant and Papist and consequently dissent from and agree with both in some respects there is this great Reason which you demand of me for our keeping up these Terms which Protestant and Papist were engaged in because we have hereby a ground for the sure forming of our Difference in regard to the Common Protestant when otherwise it would be difficult to say what that is wherein we differ from them without raising great prejudice against our Cause While we seek to make our Difference from the Papist more clear than yet it hath been made we may be glad that we need no more but the use of these Terms Form formal Cause for declaring our Difference from the Brethren that are for maintaining the formerly received Doctrine of the Protestant in this great Article Justificabitur ille fide says Calvin qui operum justitia exclusus Christi justitiam per fidem apprehendit qua vestitus in Dei conspectis non ut peccator sed tanquam justus apparet Note I pray the word tanquam which manifestly shews a Reluctancy in that great Mans Mind so that he could not say justus which our Common Protestant apprehends Nay indeed if we were thus cloathed with Christs Righteousness and that as to our Persons when our acceptation through Christ is of what we sincerely Do God being no Accepter of Persons or if Faith so receives his Righteousness as to make it ours in se for our Justification then could it not be said by the Apostle that God justifies the Vngodly unto which non pecoator sed justus apparet is directly contrary and that in the true sense of it before spoken You object and in one of your Letters told me that as some Physitians have their Nostrum this is my Vestrum that is that I
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
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
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
Gods Act is conversant and that here is Faith as he imputes it for Righteousness and this being the effect of that Act in passo this Faith so imputed I say is the formal Cause of our Justification so effected Answ The Object of Gods Act is Faith or the Believer The Effect of it in us Justification Imputation is the formal Cause as has been (d) And already satisfied already said 5. The Arguments which you produce for the proof of it I have gathered together out of the several places of their dispersion and they are these Argu. 1. All our Divines both Protestant and Papist do agree upon it that that Righteousness whatever it be that denominates and makes us righteous in Gods sight is and must be the Form or formal Cause of Justification And certainly these Divines understood this Metaphysical Term better than you or I. And when wee use it in their Sense and no otherwise there can be no fear But neither Regeneration nor Christs Righteousness nor Pardon is that which justifies us per modum causae formalis and therefore it must be (e) As imputed for Righteousness that is with Luther Faith and Gods Imputation together not Faith of its self Faith Not Christs Righteousness for that is the meritorious Cause Not Regenerating Grace for that must precede Justification not Pardon for that comes after it And therefore if Justification has any formal Cause which it must have or it is nothing for forma dat esse it must be one of these or something else What is that Why the Righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel as that Righteousness alone which justifies the Believer Answ It is something else viz. Gods f Imputation f To this and the former Answer I say that is true it is Imputation as to Active Justification or as to God justifying us Therefore something imputed must be the formal Cause of the Persons being Justified And what is that Christs Righteousness or the Righteousness of Faith We agree as to the last Argu. 2. As Adam if he had perfectly obey'd his Obedience had been his formal Righteousness in regard to the Law so is this ours in regard to the Gospel Right of God p. 20. So again Works were the formal Righteousnest of Justification by the Law Therefore Faith is the formal Righteousness of Justification by the Gospel Right of God p. 20. Again presently after Two things go to this formal Righteousness Faith and the Imputation of it To these I answer in order Answ To the first and second 1. It 's without doubt that Adams Obedience was g formal Righteousness and so Faith is now but so it might be and yet not be the Form of his Justification as I at first said The formal Cause of Adam's Justification was Gods owning accounting or judging him righteous upon the account of his perfect Obedience as Gods Imputation of Faith for Righteousness is the Formal Cause of our Justification g To be our formal Righteousness and to be the Righteousness and to be the Righteousness that is the Form of our Justification is all one so spoken and understood by Divines Gods accounting Adam perfectly righteous was Active Justification Adam's being righteous and so accounted was Justification Passive and Gods imputing our Faith for Righteousness and our Faith imputed is the same likewise Here is nothing but what is prevented already 2. I deny the Consequence in the first Assertion That if Adam's Law-obedience was his formal Righteousness then our Gospel-Obedience is our formal Righteousness because though Faith comes in the room of Law-Works in some respects yet not in all for it doth not h merit the reward as Law-Works would have done h Whether the reward be of Grace or Merit that is nothing to the purpose so long as Faith is the Condition of the Covenant of Grace as perfect Obedience was of the Covenant of Works The Performance of the Evangelick Condition is the formal Righteousness of the one The Performance of the Legal was the formal Righteousness of the other The formality lies in the Condition performed not in the Meritoriousness or Nonmeritoriousness of the Performance Answ To the third If Faith and Imputation i both go to this formal Righteousness then Faith alone is not the Form of it i By this you see that we are agreed I say and you say that Faith is the Matter as will appear more hereafter and Imputation that which brings the Form into the Matter so that it is not Faith alone but Faith as imputed for Righteousness is the formal Cause of Justification Argu. 3. If Justification has a Form and that Form must be some Righteousness Justificationis formam justicia constare certum est What Righteousness is that It is Gods counting or judging us Righteous say you But is this an Answer to the Question What Righteousness is it whereby we are justified When I ask What Righteousness it is whereby we are justified or what Righteousness that is which is the Form of Justification I ask What Righteousness that is whereby or wherewith or by reason of which God accounts or judges us righteous It is not regenerating Grace infused but regenerating Grace imputed that is Faith imputed for Righteousness That which makes a Man righteous in Gods sight according to the Gospel is that which justifies us so as to be the Causa formalis of it Per formalem Justificationis causam justi constituimur What then is that Righteousness which makes or constitutes us just It is Gods imputing this Faith before infused that makes us righteous and consequently is the Causa formalis of our Justification Answ 1. I say the Causa formalis of Justification is Gods counting or judging us righteous so say you too Your Words are these Gods judging us righteous upon believing is the k Form k The Form of a thing does constitute and denominate the thing If Gods judging us righteous or imputing our Faith for Righteousness does actually make and denominate God our Justifier then must our being judged righteous and our Faith imputed for Righteousness make and passively denominate us justified There is the same Efficient and Material Cause in both but the Form double Answ 2. I answer directly The Righteousness whereby we are justified as the meritorious Cause of our Justification is the Righteousness of Christ The Righteousness of Faith the material Cause But the formal is l Gods judging us righteous as you agree l Here you are plainly gone I ask what Righteousness that is and you Answer Gods judging There is some Righteousness as all our Divines agree that does make and denominate us righteous and that which so makes and denominates us according to the Gospel is that which justifies us When you don't tell this you are gone I say as I have said It is true that Gods judging or imputing something to us for Righteousness is the Form of Gods justifying Act but that something that is judged and imputed to
three parts of One Constitutive Justification In your Denyal at first that Justification makes us Righteous you forgot your own Book where are these words As condemning the righteous is taking away his righteousness Is 5.23 So justifying the righteous must be a conferring a Righteousness upon him viz Not in a Physical or moral Sense but Judicial that is he shall be righteous in the Eye of the Law Scrip. Just P. 12. By Righteous and not Guilty I hope you do not mean Innocent as Mr. Gilbert in your Quotation of him seems to understand and to make Christs Righteousness which is a Righteousness according to the Law of Innocency to be that by which we are justified I do not know his Book whether it be so but there is indeed no Legal Justification and Justification by the Gospel is the Justification of a Sinner one Ungodly still in the Eye of the Law and Righteous or Not guilty only Quoad hoc in respect to the Law of the Gospel and that not but he hath sinned against the Law and against the Gospel but yet is Not guilty in regard to the Accusation of his Non-performance of the Condition If God looks on him as cloathed with Christs Righteousness he must be look'd on as one that never sinned when he shall be look'd on as never innocent but pardoned as I have had it even in Heaven For the other Point wherein you were at first more near and grew farther off in your latter Letters our Difference appears by your Words and my Notes to depend at last altogether upon this nice Matter Whether Justification Active and Passive be one or two Justifications And by my Notes and your Words or Grant too it appears they may be both They are one to please you they are two to please me For the Matter is the same in both but being distinguished and so different their Forms must be two They are Materally one threefore but Formally two they are Formally two but Materially one and the same Justification I will end now after all with the Confession That what I offer in these two Letters and my late three Books on this Subject is but Digging It is but the Ore I say there I turn up which must be refined and made good Metal if it can by better Workmen wherein you for one have not been wanting in your Endeavour For my own part it is Truth and Peace and no Interest that I seek I will conclude therefore with that Passage of Dr. Owen However our Protestants have differed in the Way and Methods of its Declaration yet in this they are generally agreed that it is the Righteousness of Christ and not our own Merits on Account whereof we receive pardon of sin acceptance with God are declared righteous by the Gospel and have a title to the heavenly Inheritance There is but this one Word Merit I put in and I also can accord with them and add this That the whole merit of our Salvation from first to last is by you and I as well as by him and our other Brethren attributed not to our own Works but wholly to the Obedience Active and Passive as they go both into his Satisfaction of our Saviour Jesus Christ The Dr. goes on Herein I say they were generally agreed first against the Papist and afterwards against the Socintan And when this is granted I will not contend with any Man about his way of declaring the Doctrine of it For this benevolence of the Doctor I thank him The Digger must needs put off his Cap and shall therefore for the present lay down his Mattock and leave Work Deo gloria Mihi condonatio John Humfrey Sir Charles Wolseley TO Mr. Humfrey UPON His sight of the foregoing LETTERS My very worthy Friend THE Sheets you were pleased to send me containing your Letters and Mr. Clark's please me very well and you have obliged me by them I know no Man has travelled into the Controversie of Justification with better success than your self You have I think with great Accuracy and Judgment searched into and found out the genuine Meaning of St. Paul's Expressions touching that important Point And particularly in your clearing to us what is meant by the Righteousness of God so often mentioned by St. Paul It has generally been taken for the Righteousness of Christ you have made it very evident to me to be meant of the Righteousness of Faith and that is a Key of singular use to unlock us into the true Notion of Gospel-Justification I like what you have written so very well that what I have to say to it will be contained in these two words Probatum est I am not a little satisfied to find that what I have formerly written on that subject does so perfectly Coalesce with your Sentiments throughout There is only one thing wherein you and I seem any thing to differ either in Sense or Expression and that is touching Pardon of Sin to which you may possibly think I do allow a greater share in Justification than I ought but I think you will find that you and I are upon very good Terms of concord therein Faith and Gospel obedience I acknowledge do constitute us Evangelically Righteous but are not such a Righteousness as to make God reckon us for innocent Persons for so we are not for every Man that is in Heaven is there as a pardoned Sinner as well as a righteous Person in Gospel Sense for that is a Righteousness contrived by God to qualifie an Offender for Pardon and stands in direct opposition to that Righteousness by Works St. Paul inveighs so much against but it serves us in as much stead as if we were so for it entitles us to all the Benefits of Christs Satisfaction qualifies us for helps us to Pardon of Sin and Acceptance with God and so our Gospel-righteousness in effect is but to procure Pardon and therefore it is that the Scriptures that were not writ with any Relation to those nice and subtle distinctions which Men have since used in interpreting of them do chiefly intend to express their plain and genuine Meaning of Things and in an especial manner by various Expressions of the same thing do set forth the amplitude of Gospel-salvation 'T is evident from the 4th of the Romans and the 7th that imputing Righteousness and Forgiveness of Sin are inseparable and therefore sometimes Justification is spoken of in Scripture in its Cause which is imputing Righteousness by Faith and sometimes in its Effect which is Pardon Therefore I am well pleased to say with you to adjust and comprehend that matter right that the formalis ratio of Justification is Gospel-faith and Obedience and Pardon of sin the necessary Consequent Concomitant and Effect of it and he that will give any other account of it must I believe make use of some other Doctor than St. Paul To think of obtaining Pardon any other way than by performing the Gospel-conditions of Faith and
There is a third Sense of this Commutation which implies a translation of our sins upon Christ and of his Righteousness upon us which admits of a double Sense one of Dr. Crisp and the Antinomians and the other of such we call Orthodox embracing the Common Protestant Doctrine of Justification This third Sense as owned by Dr. Crisp the Bishop hath in short words set out right which is in two Points differing from the Orthodox One is that Dr. Crisp accounts our sins to be translated on or imputed to Christ not only as to the Obligation of Punishment but in regard to the guilt of the Fault The other is that Christs Righteousness is translated on the Elect before they believe and consequently they are justified without Faith Now the Bishop sets himself against this third Crispian Sense and bestows a great part of his Letter to confute this known exploded Error so that as I have said of our Brethrens Distinction before that they did but beat the Air and confute no Body I must needs say of the Bishop that he does indeed beat some Body that is confute the Crispian but his beating is besides the Cushion This excellent Bishops Work were to consider whether he shall admit or confute Mr. Lobb Dr. Owen and those that hold such a translation of our sins on Christ and his Righteousness on us as is maintained without either of these Crispian Errors To prove that a Man must believe before he is justified needs no more than these words of the Apostle We have believed that we may be justified The elaborate proving such Doctrine to be against the Scripture is but a prudential declination of that difficult Task that calls here for his undertaking The common Protestant I will suppose when the Scripture speaks of our sins being laid on Christ or Christ bearing our sins on the Cross or the like do understand no other thing than the Bishop that is he took on him our sins in regard to the Legal Guilt not Personal to use his words understanding by those Terms reatum paenae not culpae in the ordinary distinction for when the Bishop makes Legal Guilt to imply desert of Punishment as well as the Obligation to it his personal Guilt is one with Legal besides the term Legal Guilt is dangerous lest any thereby should understand Christ to be our Legal Person so as to be in us Guilty and we righteous in him or to speak surest he took on him our Punishment without the desert of it and so neither I or the Bishop or our Presbyterian Brethren differ in the least as to this part of the Translation which is to be granted as necessary to the Explanation of the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction But as to the other part of this Translation which is the transferring his Righteousness on the Believer not on the Elect before Faith for that is Antinomianism in such a sense as is necessary to the making out the Doctrine of Justification according to the Common Protestant here is the Point which requires the Determination of this most Learned Bishop whereof if he dare venture his Credit so as to tell his Judgment plainly which would tend to the establishment of many he shall do a great thing a daring matter wherein yet he is thus far advanced that he hath in this Letter made an on-set on the greatest strength of the Antagonist which is That they raise upon the words of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.21 He hath made him sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him Unto which Text the Bishop answers That by Christs being made sin is meant a Sacrifice for sin according the Scripture Sense And we are made the Righteousness of God in him in that God upon the account of his Sacrifice and our Reconciliation to him does treat us as Righteous Persons or receive us into his Grace and Favour upon our believing I add upon our believing as what is understood by him And this is all he says that he can find St. Paul understood by this Expression Here we see this Text brought off so cleverly as that there is no Arrow hath toucht him but withal so cautiously and prudentially for fear of shot that I cannot but take notice of that Learned Gentleman that hath wrote on this Subject Sir Charles Wolseley's greater Resolution who hath said the same thing upon this Text with the Bishop but without dread of the Bullets The meaning is says he this Christ that was without sin was ordained of God to be a Sacrifice for sin that we might thereby be made righteous with the Gospel-Righteousness for that is the general meaning every where of the Righteousness of God Sir C. W's Evan. Just p. 64. The direct answer to this Text is this That the Righteousness of God in him is not the Righteousness of Christ according to our Common Protestant Divines which is manifest because God and Him are two as I have it in my Right of God P. 11. with this Argument Justitia Dei est finis sive effectum ex eo quod Christus peccatum pro nobis factus est Hoc autem ipsum est Christs obedientia E'go justitia Dei non est Christi Obedientia Wotton The Common Protestant Opinion accounted Orthodox is that we are justified by Faith Objective that is by Christs Righteousness which is its Object received by Faith as the Instrument making it ours so that God looks upon us as righteous in his Righteousness or accounts us so which is our Justification The Opinion I hold as what I think those that go Mr. Baxter's way are to come to I declare to be that we are justified by Faith Formaliter and through Christs Righteousness Si justitia est opus Dei quomodo erit opus Dei ut credatur in eum nisi ipsa sit justitia ut credamus in cum Aug. in Jo. 6.29 as the Meritorious Cause only The Scripture is manifest that by Faith we are justified Was not Abraham justified by Faith The just shall live by Faith This is stedfastly attested by the Apostle By Faith so that Faith is the id per quod as the Righteousness of Christ the id propter quod the Believer is justified The Meritorious Cause is the Efficient Protatarctick and cannot be the Formal That Christs Righteousness therefore is not the Believers formal Righteousness I must lay down among the set of Notions as certainly appertaining to Mr. Baxters way of Justification so that the Maintenance of or Departure from that Assertion does assuredly make or marr the right conception of that Article There is no Point of moment but hath its set of Notions as I say belonging to it and whether the Bishop will go the Common way of the Protestant or a way of his own altogether or the way of Mr. Baxter which I and Mr. Williams do go as to the main I suppose that excellent Person who is able to
he accounting the whole Office of his Priesthood that which did not respicere Deum but Vs not reconciling God to us but us to God for the obtaining our Impunity this seems to these Men not reasonable On the other hand the Antinomian upon this Satisfaction as made to God by Christs sufferings understands our sins to be so laid on Christ as that it was not only our Punishment that he bare but our Guilt our Fault our Desert And whereas we are apt to say this is blasphemous because Christ hereby is made a sinner and the greatest of Sinners they say No for this is to say but what Luther and our Orthodox Divines have said before them and there is no hurt in it understanding it only as they all do by way of Imputation For as in the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us we are accounted of God righteous as he for our Justification so in the Imputation of our sins he is made as sinful as we for making God Satisfaction This they take up as the Common Doctrine of our former Protestants which Mr. Lobb will do well to turn over and examine whether they who have wrote before Baxter among us do not ordinarily say thus That our sins were imputed to Christ so as to be counted his That he was not made only a Sacrifice for sin but even so sin for us that is by Imputation as we are made his Righteousness For seeing this is the perpetual rule of Gods Justice that the same Soul that sinneth should dye how can it stand with Gods Justice that Christ should suffer for our sins if they were not in some sort annexed to him The Scripture evidently affirms Isa 53.6 11 12 That Christ bare not only the punishment of our sins but our sins also what aileth then the Jesuite so boldly to deny that our sins are imputed to Christ Seeing then again the Scripture so speaks why should we doubt to speak as the Scripture does that Christ was for us counted a Sinner or Transgressâ—r yet in himself remained Holy Just and Righteous still So we in Christ are verily reputed righteous though by nature we are Unjust and Unrighteous This I quote out of Willet's Synopsis being Passages lying near together See Cont. 19. of Justification supposing the like to be common in others In such Passages then as these which we shall find in former Divines we see no such Distinction made between our Merit of the Punishment and the Punishment as we now make with the Bishop to whom Mr. Lobb does subscribe It is essential to Punishment that it be inflicted for sin but not essential that it be inflicted on the party himself that sinned says Grotius and in another place before quoted that sin is the cause of Punishment no otherwise but per modum Meriti Now Christ having himself never sinned if the Merit of our sins was not laid upon him together with the Punishment how was it per modum Meriti that he was punished Mr. Lobb knows whether Crellius does not urge something to this purpose against Grotius and if he can solve the difficulty to defend Grotius that which he must grant to do it will defend Mr. Baxter against him But as for the Antinomian who stands upon this as no less necessary to the Doctrine of Satisfaction than that Christs Righteousness be ours as necessary to the Doctrine of Justification and accounts it to be no other but the Common Opinion of the Protestant it does appear that some bank or bound must be set to this Sea lest the opinion formerly received as Orthodox over-flow into Antinomianism and I must give notice to Mr. Lobb and those that retain and uphold it that if they persist they must come thus far as to say that on one side the Believer is by Imputation as righteous as Christ himself and on the other that Christ by Imputation is a sinner as we which to put in Dr. Crisp's words is that Christ was as compleatly sinful as we and we as compleatly righteous as he wherein as before they conceived no hurt because understood by them only by way of Imputation If Mr. Lobb will recede from the Common Opinion here he must recede from all those Notions that are concatenated together in the Explication of it And what is meant by this Imputation in the Sense of our Common Protestant The Imputation of a thing to a Person is the accounting it his in regard to our dealing with him In Gods imputing our sins to Christ he does account as they say him to be a sinner or them to be his and does so deal with him in laying our Punishment upon him In Gods imputing to us Christs Righteousness he accounts his Righteousness to be ours and so deals with us in justifying us by it So they But how can God account our sins to be Christs and his righteousness Ours when really they are not so and Gods Judgment is according to Truth They must Answer If by really we mean Physically it is indeed impossible that our Qualities should become Christs and his ours there is none that understands it so but if by really we mean only legally in sensu forensi in conspectu fori or in law-Law-sense as Divines express it it is really so they will say that our sins are laid on Christ and his righteousness made ours or else that neither could Christ have suffered or We be justified But what yet is this Legally or in Law-sense which is to be conceived by a Quatenus as God deals with us according to Law Why our Divines suppose that Christ did take on him our Person and so our Sins and as acting in our Person what he did and suffered in our behalf is accounted of God to be done and suffered by us even as what my Attorney at Law does for me it is in Law or as I am to be dealt with according to Law all one as if it were done by me Here then we must make a stand and consider whether Christ indeed was such a Representative as that in him as our Legal or Civil Person we are accounted of God to have fulfilled the Law both in Obedience to the Precept and bearing the Punishment so as to be perfectly righteous in his Righteousness and accordingly justified We must come thus home or say nothing There is another Explication therefore that is made of this Imputation by Mr. Baxter There is a double sense of it There is an Imputation or accounting a thing to a Person as his either in se or in the Effect Mr. Baxter denies not Imputation but explains it An Imputation of our sins to Christ and his righteousness to us in this Law sense mentioned is the Imputation in se which as the former commonly received Doctrine and unsound Mr. Baxter disowns But an Imputation in regard to the Effects that the Righteousness of Christ being truly the Meritorious Cause of our Remission Justification Adoption is imputed imputatur datur
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