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
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
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
by this he is still unrighteous And when you believe this so you need no further consideration to understand what that Righteousness is and how it so becomes which is the Form formal Cause or formal Reason of our Justification If this term formal cause will not yet pass with you I will make it pass The imputing of our Faith to us for Righteousness I have said is Justification I will more unfold these words and say thus Gods making or constituting us just by the imputing our Faith to us for Righteousness is Justification Active Our being made just or constituted righteous by that Imputation is Justification Passive This I hope is plain and undeniable Now this Faith then thus imputed being the Righteousness whereby God constitutes and we are constituted righteous which is instrumentally by his Law of the Gospel it must be the Form or formal Cause of our Justification According to the saying mentioned Performalem Justificationis causam justi constituimur which I take to be as good as any Oracle to declare to us how that Term was formerly and is still to be understood The Protestants I will repeat say Christ's Righteousness being imputed is that whereby we are made just in Gods sight and so becomes our formal Righteousness I say it is the Righteousness of God in him that is through him or through his Merits imputed to us for Righteousness that makes us so and is this formal Righteousness and it is but an absurd thing to say the other for which Time alone will give satisfaction 5. Let me yet inculcate this The Papists you know say Justification is making us just the first way before by Infusion and that our inherent Righteousness therefore it the Form of our Justification You say that this making us just in their sense is Sanctification and our inherent Righteousness is indeed the Form formal Cause or formal Reason of our Sanctification Well now the Papists and we do not differ in our Notion of the Term Form or formal Cause For if Justification was that they say it is the making us just you grant it were the Form formal Cause or formal Reason thereof You understand me Brother when I tell you that which you knew not before that Justification is the making us just and I tell you how as well as the accounting us just I tell you also and I tell you how this Righteousness is and must thereby become the formal Cause of it Our Terms we take from the Papists and the Schools And when our Learnedst Protestants have made Christ's Righteousness the formal Cause in the sense they made that so you and I must make the Righteousness of God so or we stand not to our tackle but fail in Judgment 6. The other thing I must tell you is That there are two leaves inserted in your Book at the end of the ninth Chapter which you call a Scheme of Justification which was a puzling Matter to my self when I wrote my own Book They speak of a twofold Charge of the Law and of the Gospel and accordingly of a twofold Justification Principal and Primary you say Subordinate and Consequent You seem to me to have put this into your Book after another rate than the rest which you weighed so well before you wrote Something there is you are afraid of but do you know what Mr. Baxter and others have said some such thing and you have some misgiving lest a disrespect be offer'd to Christ's Righteousness if you say not the like too Thus the ingenuous Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Williams when they have made and held out a Gospel-righteousness and Justification accordingly must have a Legal one also that Christ's Righteousness may be imputed or else their Doctrine will not down The Brethren else will be offended and that is it 7. It is true that Christ by his Satisfaction consisting of his Passive and Active Obedience both for performing the Law of our Redemption has freed us from the Law of Works and Condemnation by it but is this Justification No it is not This is Redemption which precedes and is in order as a means to our Justification which is plain by the Text Being justified freely by his grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus The freeing us from the Law is freeing us from it as a Rule of Judgment when it remains a Rule of Life as you may see at large in my Pacification and seeing we are not to be judged by it we cannot be condemned and justified by it By the Law shall no flesh living be justified When it is by the Gospel therefore that we are to be judged there can be no other but one Evangelical Justification 8. The truth is Mr. Baxter has confounded us with two Justifications Principal and Subordinate or else you and others confound your selves by understanding him so when there is indeed according to Him and the Truth a double Righteousness you may call them Principal and Subordinate with him if you please but this double Righteousness must not make a double Justification as you apprehend seeing they both go or are fellow-ingredients into one and the same Justification The one as the Meritorions the other as the Formal Cause of it You see what need there is when a Man has wrote a Book for himself or some other to come after to enlighten and confirm the same Doctrine 9. Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Williams especially are gravel'd here about the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness which sticks so much with that considerable Man Let me therefore tell you truly what there is in it There are these two things in it The one is that God did account or allow indeed of what Christ did and suffered to be really in our behalf for our sakes for us in our stead so as it may be said in se imputed as to the Impetration of the benefits we have by him upon condition And the other is our having those benefits as to the Application upon the performance and that is the having his Righteousness to be ours really in the Effects and relatively in regard to them This is all and no more in it Pray see my Pacification p. 30 31 32. or my last Book p. 35 36. where in the Margin the same is repeated and give me your considered and impartial Judgment thereupon which before this I expected in print from Mr. Williams but am frustrate of that Satisfaction 10. As for your Remarks our difference is not tanti that I should examine them Only one Question you ask me that I must not pass over Will it not serve as well to all intents and purposes to say That we are justified by Faith as the condition or way only as by the term Causa formalis of our Justification I Answer No by no means my prudential Brother If I should rest there when I acknowledge both I should account my self one that sought to please Men or save my self rather than serve the Truth
Annotations tells us right is this Righteousness of God intended by the Apostle Of God being of his institution in distinction to that of Nature or of Man and is otherwhere call'd the Righteousness which is of Faith and the Righteousness of Faith Which is of Faith that is say you obtained by Faith and of Faith Faith it self being it as imputed to us for Righteousness by the Law of the Gospel which is styled therefore the Ministration of Righteousness Now when we shall find this Notion in the particular places of your Annotations so well proposed you must give me leave to carry it thro' to what it leads and let you know which indeed makes it signifie that it is this Righteousness and no other is that which is the Form formal Cause or formal Reason of our Justification Note I pray once for all that in putting in the word our Justification by me is signified to be passively taken as it must be taken and is by Protestants and Papists in their Dispute about it and by the Apostle when he disputes that it is by Faith and not Works that Abraham was and we are justified And here then have we indeed an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing you have found out wherein the Cautious of our Protestants of late have been and are at a loss even the knowledge when they durst neither allow Christs Righteousness nor our own to be the formal Cause what indeed the formal Cause is For making which appear and that I speak not without Book be pleased to know It is an Objection which must needs be ready to come into every ones mind that if we be justified by Christs Righteousness imputed that is so as his Righteousness be accounted ours formally to justifie us then must we be thereby as righteous in Law sense as Christ himself This Argument being urged by Bellarmine our Amesius thus Answers Has non est nostra sententia sed Christi justitiam eatenus robis imputari ut ejus virtute nos perinde justi censeamur coram Deo ac si nosmetipsi in nobis haberemus quo justi censeamur See here the streight this throwly vers'd Man in these Disputes is brought to He must deny this at first that Christs Righteousness is nostra formalis justitia which Davenant with others maintain And if Christs be not what is A Righteousness there must be to make us Righreous and to be the Form of our Justification and what is it Note Secondly That Christs Righteousness must be imputed but nor imputed as ours for then it will be our formal Righteousness But so far imputed Note Thirdly that by verture of it we shall be accounted just before God Well then Note fourthly I must ask what Righteousness that is wherein or whereby we are accounted righteous before God Is it his No for then it were imputed to us as ours and it were our formal Righteousness which at first he renounces as not the Protestant Opinion It it our own inherent Righteousness He dares not own that as supposing it altogether the Papists Opinion What Righteousness then Why such whatsoever it be that is all one as if we our selves had in us that whereby we may be adjudged righteous before God Note it it is not qua referring to Christs Righteousuess but quo referring to one understood that is not in us but as good as if it were in us and that not Christs I say neither but one by vertue of his Righteousness imputed and is not If Dr. Ames had known our middle way there needed no such shifting as this to make us justified without a Righteousness or formal Righteousness neither in Christ for fear of this Objection nor in our selves for fear of Popery For God be thanked there is a Righteousness and that whereby we are justified that is neither of them even the Righteousness of God which is not the Righteousness of Christ who is God nor the Righteousness of Works or Papistical Righteousness but a Righteousness revealed in the Gospel in opposition to Works or the Righteousness of Faith imputed to the Believer for Righteousness through the vertue or merit of our Redeemer for his Justification and Salvation Whenever we read if imputing or accounting to a Man a thing that is good it is an Act of Grace and signifies something which is not says Mr. Truman It is so in the imputing Faith for Righteousness for there is a donation of two things by it which in us are not One is Christs Merit or the virtue of it to render our Faith accepted and the other a Right to the benefits or reward which a perfect Righteousness would give us if we had it Our Faith or Evangelical Righteousness being imperfect and no Righteousness by the Law it is upon these two things conferred made such a Righteousness being imputed to us for Righteousness by the Law of the Gospel I hope now Brother you will be less afraid of our falling in with the Papists though Justification is the making us just as well as accounting us just and though our inchoate Grace our Faith our Evangelick Performance acceped through Christ be our formal Righteousness which you are so backward to consent to because besides that this Righteousness hath not the same Rule to be judged by with theirs nor is of the same Quality as theirs for they measure the same by the Law and yet maintain a Meritorius Righteousness and Perfection which difference you find in my Book I say besides this the inherent Righteousness it self of our Justification is not the same with theirs of Regeneration It is the Righteousness of God which is of his institution to be distinguished from that of ours whether it be the Righteousness of Nature as before which we have not or of the inherent Grace we have the one coming to us by Infusion the other by Imputation God imputing I say to us that imperfect Grace for Righteousness by this Law of the Gospel This will appear yet further by my proceeding to your Animadversions I grant you say in one of your Letters that we must be made just before we can be accounted just but that is by bestowing Faith upon us Justification is relative Grace and that is founded in Real or supposes Real Grace as the Foundation of it and making us just which is Real Grace must not be reduced to Justification that is Grace Relative This is something in the Ore but let us melt it and improve it and I say that here is Confusion indeed but I hope not mine You mistake first in not distinguishing making just All making just is not Real Grace or by giving Faith but there is a making just also which is Relative Grace if Justification it self be Relative Grace and that is not by bestowing but by imputing Faith already bestowed to us for Righteousness You mistake next in thinking I reduce your making just to Justification by reducing you mean rendring them one for your making
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
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
perceive that Concatenation of Notions belonging to the way he takes will lay them so together as to make the whole agreeable knowing well that if he break one of the Set one Link he breaks all the whole Chain The fundamental Notion in the way that Mr. Baxter and I and Mr. Williams go is this That it is not by the Law but the Gospel not by the Law of Works but the Law of Grace that we are to be judged and consequently justified or condemned One other Notion of his near to this is that the Righteousness of Christ is not cannot be imputed to us that is reckoned to us as ours any otherwise than in the Effects The Righteousness of Christ is a Righteousness that answers the Law and if that be imputed to us in se for our Justification then we are justified by the Law When Mr. Williams therefore says with us that it is by the Gospel not the Law we are to be judged and yet that Besides the effects the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer that thereby he may be justified which must be understood it is a plain Inconsistency a perfect Tergiversation As for what Mr. Williams offers in Made made righteous p. 76. to 83. I have answered Pacifica p. 35 36. Let me ask him upon it when he says The very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer does he understand by the Righteousness of Christ that which his Brethren do or not If he does he is held under this Inconsistency and can never come off If he do not then the Brethren are deceived in him He appears to be of their Judgment about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness and yet understands by Christs Righteousness another thing than they do What Man before him ever said or understood that Christs Right to his Reward is the Righteousness which is imputed to a Believer I argue against him The Righteousness which is imputed to a Believer is that Righteousness which is the Meritorious Cause of his Justification But it is not Christs Right to his Reward but the Obedience of his Life and Death which two things he distinguishes and makes a double Righteousness and brings himself off with the first instead of affirming the last which is the Meritorious Cause of our Justification And as for what he says in affirming Christs Right to his Reward to be the Believers His own Right and the Believers to be the same Right it is impossible according to the Rule of Accidents as I answer him in my Pacification There is another Distinction of Mr. Williams which Mr. Alsop uses in his Rebuke directly contrary to him in the Terms yet Neither differing in the Doctrine of it that I will take this occasion to remember Dr. Crisp's Phrase of Change of Person Mr. Williams impugnes but yet grants a Change of Persons By Change of Person I doubt not but the Dr. meant a Change on both sides as appears by his Explication that Christ became a sinner as we and we righteous as he and that is a Change of Persons There is a Change of Person on one side and a Change of Person on both sides A Change of both sides is all one with a Change of Persons When Mr. Williams then upon this distinguishes between a Change of Person and Change of Persons it is his own Distinction when the Doctor never thought of any and when it is his own he may make what Construction of it he please and that he puts on it be sure shall be Orthodox for by the one he will have Dr. Crisp's Commutation understood and deny it by the other the Bishop's Commutation and hold it Here is his Doctrine found but his Distinction as he uses the Terms so forced strained unnatural that it is useless altotether but to bring himself off and serve his occasion Whereas the Distinction as used by Mr. Alsop is so apposite easie proper natural in the Terms that if it be stood to no Distinction can be of more use for deciding the Controversie of our Brethren By Change of Person Mr. Alsop understands One coming in the room of another By Change of Persons Both coming in the room of one another and when Mr. Williams grants a Change of Persons and denies a Change of Person he Mr. Alsop does hold a Change of Person and denies a Change of Persons and yet both agree I have said in the Doctrine they make of it Mr. Alsop's Distinction then fuller explained is between Christs sustaining or putting on our Person his taking our State and Condition or his obeying and suffering in our room or stead and Our sustaining or putting on Christs Persen taking on us his Quality or Condition or coming in his room or place The one he maintains and denies the other I will add he does hold and it is to be held that Christ stood in our room and stead and so may be said to put on our Person in obeying and suffering for us as necessary to the Doctrine of Satisfaction but he denies or I do as that which is to be denied that we take on us Christs Person or come in his room or stead as necessary which others affirm to our Justification To make this appear as to the right sense of it we must know that to take anothers Person or to do or suffer any thing in the room or place of another is to do or suffer the thing to free the other from the doing or suffering When Christ then is said to dye for us or for our sins which is all one as taking our Person or suffering in our room place or stead it signifies that he obeyed the Law and suffered the penalty that we might not be bound to that perfect Obedience as the Condition of Life and that we might not suffer the Curse of it and this is necessary to the making God Satisfaction that we may be pardoned and escape the same But for us to put on Christs Person or come in his room or stead does signifie our doing and suffering in him as our Legal or Civil Person what he did and suffered and so be look'd on as having fulfilled the Law both in obeying and suffering so that his Obedience both of his Life and Death is imputatively ours and we in sensu forensi as righteous as he in the sight of God and justified by the Law as Christ was This Commutation of Person therefore we deny as that Doctrine which subverts the Gospel It was a deep mistake in the much reading of Mr. Report to apprehend that the Commutation of Persons in the Sense of Grotius is conducive to the Explanation of the Doctrine of Justification according to the Common Protestant as it is to that of Satisfaction There was a Surrogation of Christs Person in our room for his making Satisfaction there is no Surrogation of our Persons in his room for receiving Justification Of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us as if we