have both beaten one another out of your Own Mr. Report before I end I cannot but speak to you of one or two things because I look on you as one that have been as forward formerly as any for composing Theses for Agreement and I am moved at those Nine Articles which Mr. Rebuke mentions upon the Resarciation of the first Breach among the Brethren whereof the Fifth is of Justification in which there are allowing the rest as unquestionable these Words Not imputing Faith it self the Act of Believing or any other Evangelical Obedience to them as their Righteousness which Words are such that if you had taken care on purpose to say something for contradicting the Scripture you could not have done your Work more effectually Not by imputing Faith it self say you the Act of Believing to them for their Righteousness when the Scripture says expresly Abraham believed God and it it that Act of Believing was imputed to him for Righteousness Again Not by imputing the Act of any Obedience when the Scripture says expresly Then stood up Phinehas and executed Judgment and it was counted to him for Righteousness How could you find in your Heart Brother especially how could those of your Independent Brethren that out of opposition to the Doctrine of that Holy and Excellent Man Mr. Baxter who found fault with this in the Savoy Confession find in their Hearts to compose or cause to be composed such an Article for the Subscription of both Parties What my Reverend Brethren Are you for a plain Conspiracy against the Holy Scripture What cause have I therefore for this Doctrine of mine not before throughly handled to contradict you The Lord of Truth be Witness between us You may say That not only the Savoy Confession but the Assemblies Confession and Catechisms do countenance so much I answer If not only the Ministers at the Savoy but an Assembly nay the Ministers of the whole Earth could joyn in drawing up the Article of Justification in these Words they must be all laid flat on their Backs by those of the Apostle And it was imputed to him for Righteousness Upon this account that I could not subscribe my self to such an Article I must add as to your way of Concord by Theses I like it not For though a Church that is Establish'd by Authority where the Preacher is answerable for his Doctrine to his Superiours may by such means be upheld by their taking care that Holy Mother does nihil detrimenti capere it is not so with the Nonconformists whose Preaching depends on their Liberty and they so divided And therefore it is not a Union in Doctrinals I apprehend but a Union in Practicals and in Love that is adviseable and that not without the leaving every Man acknowledging only the Holy Scriptures and the Three Creeds to the Liberty of their own Opinions I have no more now but to let you know that whereas the design of this Letter being the same with that of my Books the Middle Way my Pacification my Righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel there is a new Book on the Point coming out or come out by the Reverend and Learned Mr. Clark known by his Annotations upon the Old and New Testament upon the occasion whereof there hath passed many Letters between him and me for the clearing this Middle Way which we take or to some Difficulties appearing in it which Letters I intend as far as is fit to Print and this Paper being some Abstract of the Sense which I could not have thus suddenly wrote if I had not been thereby furnished though fully comprehended by my self it cannot be taken in by others so fully as by those Letters which have their Enlargement and came more naturally from me and therefore I desire you to suspend your Judgment as to the main great Matter or Article till you have read these Letters also which I do purpose to shew to you and to Mr. Williams before I Print them because I think that he so far as he differs from me and you too are both out and can be reconciled never but by a Third way between you that I propose and if that be Truth I do believe so worthily of you both that either of you will think it a greater Victory to yield to the Truth than to overcome one another The Title of these Letters when Printed which I hope you will find them make good shall be this Letters between Mr. John Humfrey and Mr. Samuel Clark in reference to the Point of Justification Written upon the Occasion of Mr. Clark's Printing his Book on that Subject before it came out and Published by Consent for the Vindication of that Doctrine wherein they agree as sound by shewing the Difference of it from that of the Papist and the mistake of our Common Protestant In order to an impartial and more full Vnderstanding of that great Article by the Improvement of that whereto they have attained or Correction of any thing wherein they err by better Judgments Having finisht here that which I intended for Four Sheets with the Half Sheet at the End the Printer gave me Notice that there would be a Leaf or two wanting to be fill'd After thus much then there being more to be said I must acknowledge Mr. Report that there is nothing wherein you can pinch Me and Mr. Williams more than by fixing on this one thing which I suppose you do that a Commutation a Substitution or Surrogation of one Person in the room of another for the Doing or Suffering any thing in his behalf must imply the Doing or Suffering that very thing which the other was to do or suffer or else it is no strict or proper Substitution and consequently that Christ as you hold bearing the very Punishment of our Sins we are to be counted in him as our Surrogate to have our selves born that Punishment seeing what is done by a Surrogate or Substitute is reckoned in Law to have been done by him for whom he hath Officiated Likewise Christ having obeyed the Law for us we are to be reckoned to have obeyed and so to be Righteous in his Righteousness and Justified by it For my speaking therefore something more to this we must consider there are Terms used by Divines and in Scripture as that of Surety once which we are not to take Strictly and slavishly in their Vulgar Conception for that were rude coarse and raw to do so but they must be Largely generously Construed with the Liberty of more Accurateness and Consonancy to the Analogy of Faith and consequently to be understood as in our Ethicks we have it Pro ut prudens desinierit Upon which account I must answer that forasmuch as you have taken these Terms from Grotius it is fit it is reasonable you should also take his Sense and meaning of them and that is such which you know well enough that though he does account that there is a Commutation and Surrogation of
suffered To suffer that we might not suffer and to suffer that we may be accounted to have suffered is a contradiction For the Matter I deny not but hold That it is through Christ's Righteousness we are justified yet that Faith and Repentance are not only required as the Condition but when the Condition is performed it is our Gospel-Righteousness so that though it be Christ's Righteousness is that propter quod it is the Righteousness of Faith is that per quod we are justified There is therefore here a double Righteousness and twofold Concurrence to be distinguished and received The double Righteousness is the Righteousness of Christ and Righteousness of Faith the double Concurrence is a Concurrence per modum meriti or per modum causae formalis Now the Righteousness of Christ I must affirm concurs per modum meriti and the Righteousness of Faith per modum Causae formalis to our Justification This is the Doctrine which in opposition both to the Papists and the Absurdity brought into it by the Protestants I do maintain as you see in my late Book and may see farther The Papists say That Justification is by the infusion of Inherent Grace and that Inherent Grace therefore is the Form or Formal Cause of Justification The Protestants in opposition to them say That it is by the Righteousness of Christ we are justified and that it is Christ's Righteousness imputed is the Formal Cause of it I say it is by neither of these but by the Righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel in opposition to Works which is God's Gracious Condescention in his accepting of our Faith and imperfect Obedience through the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ unto Life that we be justified and that it is Faith imputed for Righteousness is the Form or Formal Cause of our Justification It is not then I say the infusion of Faith and Grace into us which distinguishes it from the Papists but it is the imputing that Faith and Grace infused which distinguishes it from the common Protestant for Righteousness that is our formal Justification Alas Mr. Report What an absurd thing was it at first to the Papists that the Protestants should hold That a Sinner was made or accounted Righteous without a Righteousness or by another's Righteousness whieh is all one as to be Learned with another's Learning or Holy by another's Holiness Now let me tell you in good earnest which perhaps you have never throughly reflected upon that the same Absurdity remains if we say That we are Formaliter made Righteous or Formaliter Justified by Christ's Righteousness which our former Divines having taught we must now leave them And one thing more which I am more sure you never thought on I will tell you That the Doctrine which I substitute in the room of this is that I conjecture which was indeed the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Luther as appears by his words and those of his immediate Followers I have quoted in my Book pag. 10. and 20. Justification with them consists in two things Faith in the Heart or inchoate Obedience and God's Imputation Our Faith and inchoate Grace being imperfect and so no Righteousness according to the Law God does for the sake of Christ or through his Satisfaction and Merits accept of it so as by his Gospel Law to impute constitute and allow it to us for Righteousness and thereby give us Right to Impunity and Salvation This first true notion not sufficiently digested by Luther others seeking to advance through the interpreting it by an application of Christ's Righteousness to the Believer's Person instead of applying it to his Performance came to pervert it and our former Divines took it up and stood upon it so much against the Papists that Bellermine accounts the Difference with the Protestants about Jâ—stification to be as nothing besides and yet is this term Form or Formal Cause so much out of use of late in our present Divinity that many of our Brethren being not sensible of their grand importance as to the Negation of the Doctrine so held and of the Absurdity in the root they do retain the Sense without the Words or at least maintain so much of it as the rest does follow and yet do so seriously fall upon them that own the Consequences that I cannot wonder if you and that Brother of yours that have undertaken the cause should have such a kind of Spirit rais'd in you as was in Elihu when he was angry with Job's Friends who were ready to accuse him when they had nothing they could say without blame in themselves Then was kindled the Wrath of Elihu the Son of Barachael against Job and against his three Friends was his Wrath kindled because they had found no answer and yet had condemned Job There is one thing I will say therefore of that Brother of yours which is more kind perhaps than others will which is That in that Language of his which is so harsh and in that Matter as quoted by others which is so broad that they are beyond enduring yet do I apprehend methinks a Zeal in the one and an Integrity in the other A Zeal in that Heat and Wrath he hath against any that shall gainsay a Doctrine which he hath imbibed from his Youth and places his Salvation upon and a sincerity in that he being a rational Man and seeing more deeply than others into the Consequences of it he scorns to baulk any of them and so is broad when others shift which he I perceive abominates And this does prompt me therefore to say something in regard to you and him and that Presbyterian Brother you both have writ against In general I would ask all three Whether before reading this you had come to any such Consideration of this Matter that if I had ask'd you the Question What is the Form or Formal Cause of Justification you would have given me a fix'd Answer to it I do suppose you would acknowledge you had not nor thought it so material to know But you and some greater Men than you are out there The Form of a Thing is that by which the Thing is that which it is If you know not the Form of Justification you know not what Justification is and when it may be known and you don't know it How can you tell as another that does what is right or wrong that you say about it The Form does Dare the Nomen and the Esse as it gives the Being it denominates the Thing Justificatus accordingly hath his Form passively denominating him so from Justitia and that Righteousness which makes and denominates us Righteous must be the Form of our Justification Now what that Righteousness is I have here and in my Book discoursed and told it you as to my Opinion and that of the common Protestant And as for you then and your Reverend Brother who have I suppose taken up the Protestant Doctrine as formerly received without questioning whether
Legal Person as such a Surety and therefore upon the same Reasons not to be admitted Besides to have lhe Debt paid is one thing and Satisfaction only made is another Solutio ejusdem and redditio equivalentis aliter indebiti are two things with Scotus and inconsistent with one another Cum alius soluit you know Grotius aliud soluitur Moreover the Term Surety is but once read but the Word Mediator several times and that which is more frequent must give the Construction to the other Christ's Suretiship is a Mediatory Suretiship or a Surety-Mediatorship and what he did and suffered for us was not therefore strictly done in our Persons but in the Person of a Mediator and that not by Way of Payment but by Way of Satisfaction in Order to the obtaining our Reconciliation with God from whence it is that of the new Covenant he is said to be Surety and Mediator as thereby procuring it for us So in my Pacif. p. 15. And yet there is this one thing more the most undeniable to wit that in whatsoever Sense he was our Surety it must be such as is agreeable to the general Doctrine of the Scripture so as to cross nothing of that it hath taught Now that Christ hath redeemed all Mankind according to the Churches Catechism that he hath dyed for all 2 Cor. 5.14 for every Man Heb. 9.12 for the whole World 2 Cor. 5.19 1 John 2.2 is certain Scripture and there must be some Sense wherein it is to be admitted of all Hands In that Sense therefore or in such a Sense as is consistent with the Grace of God that bringeth Salvation to all Men that is with this Doctrine must the Suretiship of Christ be understood and received and in any other Sense not consistent with this Grace of God or this Doctrine it is to be Refused as contrary to the Gospel and all good Reason Thus much being said as to the Matter as well as to the Phrase of Commutation of Persons I will for Peace sake yield to you and I will yield to Mr. Rebuke both I yield to you that you are in the Right as to the Phrase and I will say as much for it you shall presently see as can be and I yield to him that he is in the Right as to the substantial Sense and therefore do I proceed There are three Constructions may be made of this Commutation of Persons One is that Christ taking on him our Nature hath dyed to satisfie the Justice of God in behalf of us as the Sacrifices of Old and the Commutation of Persons in this Sense must be understood thus that whereas Christ was an Innocent Person and so not liable to Suffering and we were Sinners and obnoxious Christ here comes in the room of the Obnoxious and suffers putting us in the room of him that was not obnoxious and not lyable to escape upon the Terms of the Gospel This Construction in short comes to this Christ suffers that we might not suffer and this is the true and only Construction I think of this Commutation of Persons that is to be admitted both according to Grotius and Bishop Stillingfleet whom you quote for your Authority in this Matter Another Construction may be this The Lord Christ did suffer the Law according to you that we may be freed from Punishment and Christ obey'd the Law that we might have right to Heaven This I suppose You as representing the Independent Brethren do hold and there is now this Commutation of Persons here that God does look on what Christ suffered and did for us as done by Christ in our Persons and on what he did and suffered for us to be done by us in his Person or more short that in what Christ did and suffered God looks on it as done by Christ in Our Person and by us in Christs Person Here is a Change of Persons who can gain say it Especially if it be added as you must hold that without this we could not have and by this we therefore have Deliverance from Wrath and Right to Salvation If Christ's Righteousness be not ours you may urge it cannot justifie us and if it be ours it can be ours in good earnest in Law-sense no otherwise This is high but there is a Third Construction goes farther which is that as Christ stood in our Room and put on our Person to suffer for us so we are put into his Room to be Righteous for us or put on his Person to stand before God for Justification and Life Both these Constructions whatsoever is made of them are too much and to be discarded upon the account of our Reasons already mentioned and yet more There is no such Commutation warrantable but there are Texts wrested to this Sense which must have another Interpretation There is neither of them but makes us justifiable by the Law which subverts the Gospel There is neither of them but makes his Righteousness to justifie us formaliter or to be the formal Cause of our Justification This being therefore a fundamental Mistake of the Protestant and the first of these Constructions being the only true Construction it is fit I should make Answer to all that seems weighty in both the other and do say that when Christ hath suffered for us and obeyed the Law for us which others wont say but I do that is not bono nostro only but loco nostro in this Sense that by his Sufferings we are freed from Suffering not Castigatory Punishments but of the Curse of the Law and by his Obedience we are freed from that perfect obeying the Law required as the Condition of Life though not from obeying the Gospel which requires Faith and Repentance and good Works in Sincerity in the room thereof and hath not obeyed the Law for us or in our stead otherwise the Righteousness of Christ consisting of both his Sufferings and Obedience is imputed to us and made ours though not in se yet in the Effects so that upon the account of his Righteousness or for his Sake we are justified This being said I have two things to Answer one is in regard to your Phrase as Mr. Rebuke calls it the other is in regard to the Matter For your Phrase Christ's suffering in our Person may be understood so as when we deserved to die he died in our rooms that we might not suffer but be free from it according to the first construction Or so as that Good looks upon us to have suffered in him as what our Attorney doth we are in Law accounted our selves to have done according to the other Constructions In the first sense if you please these Terms may be used but not in the other There are sundry Reasons intimated already for it but this more especially here at this time because it is contradictory to the first If Christ hath suffered that we might not suffer then hath he not suffered that God might look on us as if we had
Christ's Person in our room in Suffering for us that we may be freed from the Punishment yet does he not understand it so as that Christ did undergo the very same Punishment as due to us by the Law and consequently your Argument failes you but that it was an Equivalent to it That it was not the Idem but the Tantundem That it was Satisfaction not Payment That which Grotius vindicates is Christs Satisfaction and if Christ had paid the very Debt it would destroy Satisfaction The Law was not executed on our Surety nor on Us but Christ satisfied the Lawgiver not the Law that it might not be executed and seeing he did so he did it not therefore that God should look on us as if we had our selves been punished The Punishment the Law threatned was on the Person that sinned Noxa caput sequitur But when Sinless Christ suffers as that is not the Person so that is not the Thing which is in the Threat but while alius soluit aliud soluitur as Grotius before has it The Punishment threatned by the Law includes a Deprivation of Gods Favour as well as Pain but Christ was not capable of that nor of Etarnal Wrath. Besides it is not this Law that could lay any Obligation of Suffering on Christ that was not Obnoxious but his Obligation arose from the Law proper to him the Law of our Redemption and his voluntary undertaking to make God Satisfaction It was not ex delicto but ex contractu as you know our Divines say And consequently it was an Obligation not our Obligation to the Punishment he took on him If the very Debt we owed had been paid by us or our Surety then could there have been no Pardon Punishment and Pardon are contraries If a Man be punished or suffers the Law in himself or Substituto he is not Pardoned If he be pardoned he is not punished This Suffering of Christ then for us must not be the same as the Law inflicts but an Equivalent and such as God might have refused to take which makes it Satisfaction not Payment and us capable of Pardon This Doctrine of Pardon upon Satisfaction is the sound Doctrine propugned by Grotius Thus much then for your Doctrine now for Mr. Williams who agrees so much with me Our Doctrine is this that Christ's Obeying and Suffering in our stead admits of two Senses 1. So in our Stead as that God exacteth not from us that doing or suffering yet gives us the Benefit of it 2. So in our Stead as that we are legally reputed to do and suffer what Christ did as one Civil Person with him In the first Sense that Christ obeyed the Law and suffered in our stead we all agree In the second Sense I and Mr. Williams deny it and you hold it Here then may you argue and I argue That which you may argue is If according to us Christ obeyed and suffered not in our stead so as to be one legal Person with us then cannot what he did and suffered be legally Ours and then cannot his Righteousness be imputed to us in se but in the Effects only But Mr. Williams says Besides the Effects the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers This Mr. Williams must Answer That which I argue is If according to you Christ did obey and suffer in our Stead as one Civil or Legal Person with us then as we have his Righteousness to Justifie us we must have it to Redeem us He that is made of God our Righteousness is made our Redemption But we have it not it is not ours to Redeem us and therefore not to Justifie us or therefore it is not it cannot be in se imputed to us for our Justification This you must Answer For my part now I suppose neither of you can but that you must come off And if so not you to him or he to you but both to me or to that Third way I have proposed and do yet propose to your farther Considerations That the Righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel is that Righteousness which Justifies us there is none do Question but what this Righteousness is is the Question But now is the Righteousness of God without the Law made manifest It cannot be Christs Righteousness for this is a Righteousness with the Law a perfect Conformity to the whole Law when this is an inchoate imperfect Righteousness that according to the Law is none but made a Righteousness by the Gospel In another Place the Apostle has it the Righteousness of God in him in or through Christ and therefore not his But how of God If not that of Christ who is God No for God and Christ there are two But of Gods Ordination because this is the Way or Method of becoming Righteous that God hath ordained Vnder the Gospel as Mr. Clark expresses it though I should rather say According to the Gospel for no doubt this Righteousness was under the Law and ever in the World or else no Man could have been saved The Apostle therefore after he hath said without the Law does yet adde being witnessed by the Law and Prophets And what Righteousness is that which hath this Witness There never was Man under the Law I am perswaded that thought he was Righteous by anothers Righteousness or that the Obedience of the Life and Death of the Messiah to come was imputed to him as his Righteousness whereby God held him and dealt with him as a Righteous Person What Man of free Thought can believe that But if by the Righteousness of God we understand his Grace and Condescension to every sincere Person that walked uprightly before him in accepting them to Life notwithstanding their failings when yet they knew not upon what account it was as we under the Gospel This without Question we have every where witnessed in the Old Testament There is no Place where any Pious Soul applies it self to God for his Favour with Faith or Trust in his Goodness or Mercy when yet he knew that if God should deal with him in Severity he could not by the Law be justified but that Place is a most evident witness of this Righteousness That Place which speaks of the Word to be Nigh them and in their Heart which is the Word of Faith says the Apostle does witness it Any Place or Places where God Promises to write the Law in their Hearts or give them a new Heart or put a Fear or Love in their Heart if to the end that they may be saved Any Place or Places where it is said of the Righteous that they shall Live in their Righteousness And that Place which says the Righteous shall Live by Faith do all witness to this Righteousness of God which otherwhere is express'd the Righteousness which is of God by Faith and the Righteousness of Faith Faith it self which is sound and Works by Love that is all one with Evangelical Obedience being that which for Christ's sake God
imputes to us for Righteousness and that is our Justification I suppose here my Sheets will be fill'd and that I have room for no more but this Prayer That it may please the God of Truth to inlighten you by the Scripture so as to have the Knowledge and such a Sense of this Righteousness of God on your Spirit that falling down and Blesing his Name with me from the bottom of your Heart for this that it is not by a Righteousness of Works but by a Righteousness the failings whereof are pardoned and the little how little soever if sincere done accepted through Christ's Satisfaction and Merits that we are justified you may receive the Truth in the Experience and Love of it first in your self and then improve it to the good of others Amen Your True Friend and Servant in Christ JOHN HVMFREY The Half-sheet Writ in Reference to the Paper Printed by Mr. Report IN the Book of Mr. Williams called Gospel Truths there are two Expressions which the Brethren would have him Retract One is There is not a Change of Person between Christ and the Elect. The other is The Father was never displeased with Christ. I will humbly motion here a drawn Battel or mutual Condescention that is for Mr. Williams to withdraw one of these Passages they except against and for the Brethren to withdraw the other Exception As for the first Passage whatsoever is to be understood by Commutation of Persons the Brethren understand thus much That Christ put on the Person of Sinners for these are their Words Now Mr. Williams I suppose denies this and they would have him retract his Denial By Person therefore we are to consider that two things may be signified the Person of the Sinner himself Suppositum rationale or the Quality or Condition of a Sinner as when a Man acts a Drunkard on the Stage he personates Drunkenness if a King he personates Majesty Christ GOD-Man stood in the room of us Sinners in what he did and suffer'd for us quatenus He and we are Supposita rationalia and in this first sence of the Word Mr. Williams allows a Commutation of Persons so as when the Suffering was Christ's the Benefit was Ours which is that Grotius intends only against the Socinians But. Mr. Williams denies that Christ took upon him the Quality or Condition of Sinners which is that Doctrine he suppose Dr. Crisp to maintain and that is in the second sence of the Word he denies what they affirm to wit That He put on the Person of Sinners Christ did not represent or act the part of Sinners nor was look'd on by God as a Sinner when our Surety A commutatio Hominum there was no commutatio Actionum He represented Vs that are Sinners he represented not the Sinner A Sinner is one that breaks the Law of God and Christ did not so he acted no such Part and God never accounted that he did and there is therefore no Change of * The Distinction of these Terms is not made so far as I know by any Divines which excuses the Brethrens Citation of one for the other but I use it as peculiar for explaining Mr. Williams's Sence so that if any shall still chuse to confound them and express our Sence otherwise it is all one to me and may be to him Person though a Change of Persons according to Mr. Williams When in this sence therefore of the Word Person he is in the right let us consider further as to the other sence of it as it signifies our Humane Nature not our Sinful Nature or Sinful Qualities that tho' Christ did sustain our Persons giving the Brethren liberty of such Words as to what he did and suffer'd in our stead yet there is no one such thing wherein we reciprocally sustain his Person as he did ours nothing whereby we are to be said or accounted to have done what he did and therefore do I in my late Book Pacif. pag. 39. say That here is only a Change of Person but not of Persons A strange thing really that when the same Sence is intended by me and Mr. Williams the same Distinction used and both say true yet the Terms of that Distinction are contrarily apply'd by us I must desire Mr. Williams therefore to consider whether the use of the Word Person be not foreign to our Divines and it were not better to put what he means in such Terms as are easier of reception and that may be only by distinguishing of Christ's taking on him our Persons or bearing our Sins in regard to the Fault or the Punishment and to say he sustained not our Persons or took on him our Sins quoad reatum culpae in these known Words so as to be accounted of God a Sinner but quoad reatum poenae propter culpam nostram so only as voluntarily oblig'd to our Punishment Here is the same thing in sence and if so good an end as Re-union might be obtained by it he may understanding with me retract the Words in his Book There is not a Change of Person and grant a Change of Person so long as he maintains still no Change of Persons for his business is done thereby as well as by his sticking to a Word The Lord Jesus in what he did and suffer'd for us sustained our Persons I give way to such Phrases for Peace insomuch as we still say That what he did and suffer'd for us was accounted by God as done and suffer'd in our room that we might have the Benefit of it but not accounted by him as if we had done and suffer'd in Christ's Person what he did and suffer'd for us and so in that respect is there a Change of Person but not of Persons whereby I mean plainly not such a Change as to make Christ's Righteousness Legally or in Law-sence Ours or to be imputed in se for that let Mr. Williams know is all one which whoever affirms without Shifts let him be in as great Esteem as he will I say he speaks it in Ignorance hitherto of what this draws after it To wit that besides the Consequences I shew Pacif. pag. 36. he makes us to be justified by Christ's Righteousness per modum causae formalis which is an unadvised absurd and dangerous Position as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our former great Divines which gave the rise to Antinomianism Be it known therefore to the deservedly-beloved Dr. Bates and the deservedly-envied Mr. Williams for there must be something overtopping others in the Man which is envied and the Worthy Brethren that drew or signed this Paper that here is the Point which I believe they have not bent their Minds to search into so far as to be willing to speak out and tell me if I ask When Faith which is our Evangelical Personal Righteousness does concur some way with the Righteousness of Christ to our Justification and Christ's Righteousness we know does concur sub genere causae Efficientis