Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
state_n	faith_n	grace_n	justification_n	1,459	5	9.0615	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

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

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