Letters Between Humfrey and Clark, Letters

Letters Between Humfrey and Clark · Letters

ULTIMA MANUS. BEING LETTERS BETWEEN M^r. John Humfrey, and M^r. Samuel Clark, In reference to the Point of Juſtification; Written upon the Occaſion of Mr. Clark's Printing his Book on that Subject, after Mr. Humfrey's Book entituled The Righteouſneſs of God; and publiſhed for Vindication of that Doctrine wherein they agree, as ſound, by ſhewing the difference of it from that of the Papiſt, and the Miſtake of our common Proteſtant.

In order to an impartial and more full underſtanding of that great Article, by the Improvement of that whereto they have attained, or Correction of any thing wherein they err, by better Judgments.

Together with Animadverſions on ſome late Papers between Presbyterian and Independent, in order to reconcile the Difference, and fix the Doctrine of Chriſt's Satisfaction.

Mediocria firma.

LONDON, Printed for Tho. Parkhurſt at the Bible and Three Crowns, the lower End of Cheapſide, near Mercers Chapel. 1698.

p. 1THE LETTERS.

To Mr. CLARK.

My very worthy Brother,

I Received your Letter, and your Book; that elaborate Book, writ long ſince, and deſir'd to be printed by Mr. Baxter, and which I longed to ſee. And whereas I find it, upon reading it twice over, to be an induſtrious, clear, honeſt and faithful Work; ſo methodical, eaſie for the Reader, profitable and full in exhauſting its Subject; beſides, ſo concordant in the main with my Sentiments, and when we differ, ſo much more entertaining for the variety; you may be ſure that for all theſe Faults, I can do no leſs than judge it to the Preſs (where it muſt confeſs them) ſeeing you committed it to my Judgment.

As for your Letter and Remarks with it on mine, I thank you. I ſhall at preſent ſay two things to you;

1. The one is, That whereas I make our Goſpel-righteouſneſs the Form, or formal Cauſe of our Juſtification, which you can hardly ſwallow, the reaſon of the ſtop is not really (I judge) becauſe you have conſidered more of the matter, but leſs. I wonder not at you to be ſhy about this, when Mr. Baxter himſelf has not ſpoken here ſo fully, as being againſt the ſtream of our Proteſtants, and he had never digeſted the Notion (I think) of the Righteouſneſs of God, which you have done. Faith, you acknowledge to be our formal Righteouſneſs, and underſtand it clearly (as you ſeem to do all you aſſent to.) Your words are, I freely grant that Faith, or Goſpel obedience, is formal Righteouſneſs; that is, It has the Form of Righteouſneſs, to wit, Conformity to the Law of the Goſpel, or Covenant of Grace: And yet you are ſo maidenly modeſt for all that, as you dare not ſay it doth juſtifie us formaliter, or is the formal Reaſon of our Juſtification. It is in regard to the common Sentiment, and what you have not found aſſerted, that you are ſo tender about it.

2. There is a Sentence you will find ſomewhere in my Book, which has not (I perceive) entred your Mind, as it has mine, that does bring light with it. It could not have been ſaid at firſt, but by one p. 2more thoroughly ſtudied (Academically) in the Learned part of this Controverſie than you or I, and accordingly is worthy your reception. The Sentence is this. Performalem juſtificationis cauſam juſti conſtituimur. It is profound Truth. Conſider now, I pray, what is that Righteouſneſs which you believe indeed to be it quâ, or per quam juſti conſtituimur? Is it Chriſts Righteouſneſs, or our performance of the Evangelick Condition? If with you and I it be the laſt, what then is Juſtification active (or the Form of it) but Gods imputing this to us for Righteouſneſs? And what Juſtification Paſſive, but this Evangelick Performance ſo imputed? Certainly, my Brother, till you come up to this, you do but grope in the dark: You and but in fear of all you ſay, and can have no ſtedfaſtneſs or foundation in the point.

3. Mr. Anthony Wotton, who underſtood himſelf ſo thoroughly, and was the Man who broke the Ice, in the denial of Chriſts Righteouſneſs to be our formal Righteouſneſs, does ſet up therefore (as he muſt) another thing in the room of it. A Righteouſneſs there muſt be that conſtitutes us Righteous, and if it be not Chriſts, what is it? Why, Mr. Wotton makes this to be Pardon; the Righteouſneſs of Pardon, Righteouſneſs, I ſay, is the Form of Juſtification; or, the Form of Juſtification does conſiſt in a Righteouſneſs; and Mr. Wotton ſets himſelf to prove that Pardon is it; which others avouch after him, as the only Righteouſneſs whereof a Sinner is capable. It is this therefore is another ſaying of the ſame Sort and Author, which muſt be here taken in, as it is alſo in my Book. Juſtifications forman juſtitiâ conſtare cerium eſt. Well, this Juſtitia, which is Juſtificationis forma, our former learnedſt Proteſtant Divines, have generally own'd and held to be the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt imputed: A conceit very ſtrangely hard, I believe, at firſt to be let in, and too crude at laſt to be digeſted. To make Pardon it, has a great deal of ſenſe in it, but the Scripture never calls this our Righteouſneſs; nor will the word it ſelf allow it. It being a third thing which is it, you have hit on the right, and that is the Righteouſneſs of God, which you underſtand ſo well, and you define, The way or method of becoming righteous, which is of Gods ordaining or appoinring; A Righteouſneſs which is of, on which we attain by Faith. This is that Righteouſneſs in oppoſition to Works (when the righteouſneſs of Chriſt can't be ſo oppoſed) that Paul has reveal'd. This is that juſtitia, which is the Juſtificationis forma, we ſeek in the buſineſs.

4. And herein, you ſeeing more (I believe) than Mr. Baxter, there is one thing that he ſaw and you ſee not. Juſtification, (you ſay) is Gods accounting and uſing us as juſt; but you have not taken in what he ſaith further, That it is alſo the making us juſt I apprehend p. 3the firſt thoughts of Mr. Baxter here, ſprang from his reading Mr. Wotton, who will have ſuch a Righteouſneſs to juſtifie us, as makes us righteous; that is, (I have told) Pardon; which, by Conſtituting a man juſt, I think Mr. Baxter at firſt underſtood too. But whatſoever he thought firſt or laſt, I am come to ſee, what you muſt come to ſee alſo, that by Conſtitutive Juſtification God muſt firſt both make and account us juſt, or by Sentential, he cannot declare us ſo at the great Day. Now how that is you have in my Book (p. 24.) Not by Infuſion, as the Papiſt; nor by Non-imputation; as Wotton; but by Imputation: God imputing our Faith for Righteouſneſs. God by his Evangelick Law, has conſtituted Faith and Repentance to be a Righteouſneſs, to ſerve us inſtead of perfect Works. When a Man then believes and repents, he is thereby conſtituted Righteous. By vertue, (I ſay) of that Law he is made ſuch, or accepted as ſuch (in regard to the benefit) as if he were ſuch by the Law of Works; when yet 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 p. 4our 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) p. 5and 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; that is, to be tendermouth'd, as moſt I perceive are apt to be (I mean not you my worthy Brother) when they come over to any ſuch hard ſaying, as they ſee will make their Diſciples draw back, and walk no more with them. I p. 6muſt add, that although an abſtracting this great Doctrine from Logical or Metaphiſical Terms, according to the Biſhop of Wroceſter and you, may be adviſeable (with the limitation, as much as we can) in regard to the Vulgar, or in our Preaching to the People, yet in regard to the Learned, and the Verſed in this Controverſie, it is quite otherwiſe, or at leaſt, there muſt be an exception as to this Particular, which is not here only neceſſary in regard to ſuch, but is the all in all in the buſineſs. The point is hereby brought, as it were, to a word: as in the matter of the Trinity, it was brought to that of Homoouſios, no more to be diſcarded. I will yet ſay, that here is the Criterion, according to a more ſhallow or deep imbibing whereof I do reckon for my own part, ſuch or ſo much to be the meaſure of knowledge that I have attained, as to the critical bottom of this Matter. With reverence be it ſpoken to extraordinary Men, who being above all mean or colloguing ends, do, we may ſuppoſe very throughly ſee the ſame, when prudentially they decline to ſay it; and when they yet would be more generous too, in a Contribution of their Teſtimony to it. To this end was I born (ſaith our Saviour) and for this cauſe came I into the World, that I ſhould bear witneſs to the Truth.

11. I will yet inſtance for your Conviction. The Scripture in one place is expreſs, By the obedience of one, ſhall many be made righteous. One may ask here, Is not Chriſts Obedience therefore ours? Is not the being made righteous, to be juſtified? I Anſwer, Yes: Chriſts Obedience is ours in the Effects, and as to this effect, in making us righteous upon our Faith, and ſo juſtifying us. But here is the reſolution of the point, Chriſts Obedience does make us righteous, or juſtifies us per modum couſae meritoriae, but not per modum cauſae formalis (which the Doctrine of Imputation intended at firſt) noſtrae juſtificationis. We are to enlarge here by ſhewing how Adam's ſin brought in death, which paſſes upon all Men, and ſo is imputed to all, as to that effect: Likewiſe, how Chriſt's obedient ſuffering, or ſuffering obedience, has procured the Grace, that we may be juſtified by Faith without Works, and are ſo, upon our believing. We are made ſinners then by Adam's ſin, and made righteous by Chriſts obedience per modum meriti, not otherwiſe. This is ſatisfaction to this Text; this the core of the Controverſie. Again, Chriſt is made ſin for us, in another place (our ſins procuring his ſufferings) and we the righteouſneſs of God in him. How is that? Per modum meriti, I ſay ſtill; Effective, in ſhort, non Formaliter. See what need we have of ſuch Terms. See how ſpeedily and compleatly they do p. 7our buſineſs, when a whole Book at once is as good as wrapt up in them.

12. As for your Diſſertation upon the Queſtion, whether Chriſt's Active as well as Paſſive Obedience is imputed in our Juſtification, I did think to adviſe you to be content with what is ſaid in the Book, and ſo leave it. My Reaſons are two.

1. Becauſe this Diſpute is a Point not proper for you and I, but needleſs. They that hold a Formal Juſtification by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, may contend which of the two is imputed: But we that ſay, it is not Chriſt's Righteouſneſs imputed, but the Righteouſneſs of God that juſtifies us, may leave them fighting, and we be quiet.

2. Becauſe as to the Point, I think ſuch may with Anth. Burgeſſe be well at a ſtand about it.

You ſay Chriſt being a Divine, not Human perſon, was under no obligation of duty. How then does Chriſt ſay, His Father was greater than He, and that in regard to his Authority? How came he down to do his Fathers Commandment, and yet be under no Obligation? Here you muſt come off and ſay, He was not bound on his own account, but for Ʋs he was. Well then, for us he was bound to obey; and how then do you ſay, he only ſuffered for us, and not obeyed for us? You muſt come off again, and ſay, For us may be taken for our Benefit, or in our ſtead. He was indeed bound to obey for our benefit, but not in our ſtead. Well! but what if you are out here at laſt? Let me mind you that Chriſt who redeemed us from the Condemnation of the Law, redeemed us alſo from the Obligation of perfect fulfilling it as the Condition of Life. And as by his ſufferings he freed us not from all ſuffering but Eternal: ſo by his Obedience, though he freed us not from obeying God according to the Goſpel, yet he did from obeying him according to the Law as the Condition of Salvation. In this ſenſe, and to this purpoſe he obeyed, that we might not ſo obey, as well as he ſuffered, that we might not ſo ſuffer: that is, upon this account, not all accounts, obeyed and ſuffered both in our ſtead.

Before I leave you, for the ſake of the Reader when this is Printed, I muſt wiſh you again to take heed that when I ſay that Chriſt hath obeyed for us, in the ſenſe of in our ſtead, you do not miſconſtrue me. To do a thing in ones ſtead, is to do it ſo as to free the other from doing it. Though Chriſt's perfect obeying the Law did (I apprehend) free us from thoſe Terms, yet did he not obey the Law for us ſo as ſome would have it, that no other Obedience is neceſſary to our Juſtification, or that his Obeying does thereby become ours, or is in ſe imputed to us, as formally to juſtifie us. This is that Doctrine you diſpute againſt in your Diſſertation; and I find in ſome Notes which p. 8I writ for a Memor andum to my ſelf upon reading ſome Author (whether the words be my own, or his, or mixt) thus much which I will ſet down to confirm your Determination.

There is a double Debt, the Principal perfect Obedience: and Nomine poena, ſatisfaction for our failing. It is ſaid, Chriſt paid both for us, and both imputed. But if his Obedience, being ſuch as that he omitted no duty, and committed no ſin, be imputed, there is no need of his ſuffering. It is replied, we muſt ſuppoſe his ſatisfaction for ſin to precede, and when we are pardoned, and freed from puniſhment, then muſt his Active Obedience be alſo imputed to give us right to Heaven. It is anſwered.

1. Suppoſing a Righteouſneſs now required; it muſt not be his Righteouſneſs imputed; for then we muſt be reputed as never lapſed, nor once omitted any duty, and that is inconſiſtent with his Satisfaction preceding.

2. Puniſhment is Damni or Senſus.

Though one might be freed from the poena ſenſus, and yet have no right to Heaven, we cannot be freed from the poena damni alſo, the loſs of the Reward, but we muſt have right to Heaven together with our freedom from Condemnation. It may be ſaid further, a man may be forgiven, but yet not reputed never to have broken the Law; God cannot account any thing other than it is, and the man was a ſinner. This now being true, it appears how Chriſt's Righteouſneſs therefore cannot be thus imputed (as our formal Righteouſneſs) becauſe, then as he, we ſhould be look'd on as if we had never ſinned, when we ſhall ever even in Heaven be judged as ſuch that once had ſinned, but now forgiven. The root of the Errour (as I have ſaid ever) lies here, to think we muſt be juſtified by the Law of Innocency as Chriſt himſelf, which does ſubvert the Goſpel.

Your aſſured Friend and loving Brother, John Humfrey.

To Mr. Humfrey.

Reverend and dear Sir,

THAT you have taken ſo much pains to open my Underſtanding, and to make an Eye-ſalve to clear my ſight, I count a great favour, and take my ſelf to be much obliged to you for it: For I deſire to underſtand my Errors, in every ſenſe. I am willing to open my eyes and all my Powers to let in Light, which is ſo ſweet and grateful; Eccleſ. 11.7. I ſay, not vale, as he, but ſalvelumen amicum. Some points indeed are clog'd with Intereſt, which dims the ſight, p. 9or bribes and biaſſes the Judgment, that either it cannot diſcern the Truth, or at leaſt, not entertain and embrace it: Either ſecular Intereſt lies in the way, as in the Controverſie about Conformity; or carnal Intereſt, as in the Antinomian Opinions, which ſerve to gratifie Perſons in a Licentious Courſe of Life, and ſo they find it agreeable to eſpouſe them; for, as what we would have to be true we are eaſily perſwaded that it is true; ſo what we would have not to be true, we are hardly convinc'd that it is true: Here it muſt be a ſtrong and a clear Light that will pierce a Mans eyes, which he purpoſely ſhuts againſt it. But that is not the caſe here. There is nothing but the power of Truth to ſway the Judgment, either one way or other; which, unto thoſe that dig and delve for it, as for bid Treaſures, that do foreign, (Heb. 12.14) hunt and purſue after it, by an impartial Examination and Conſideration, it will be found one time or other, and manifeſt it ſelf in its native Beauty, Prov. 2. v. 1,—5.

How far forth the Light in your Papers has cleared my Eye-ſight, and contributed towards a cure of my Miſtakes, will be ſeen in what follows.

Only premiſing this, That beſides what I have ſaid by way of Anſwer or Reply, I have added ſome Figures at the beginning of every Break in your Letter, without reference to the ſenſe, and not conſidering whether that will bear them or no, but only for convenience of Quotation, that the Paſſages I reply to, may be more readily found out.

In the beginning you tell me, that my Diſcourſe is very concordant in the main with my Sentiments. I am ſure we did not confer Notes, nor play the Plagiaries one with another; my Diſcourſe being writ almoſt twenty Years ago, and with little aſſiſtance from Books, more than the Bible and Concordance; as is expreſt in the Epiſtle.

§ 1. You obſerve my ſhineſs to admit of Faith, or Goſpel-righteouſneſs to be the Form of Juſtification. I granted it may be Formal-righteouſneſs or Goſpel-righteouſneſs, and yet not the formal Cauſe of Juſtification; for Love, Hope, Fear of God, &c. are Goſpelgraces, and conſequently Goſpel-righteouſneſs, and yet none of our Proteſtants ſay that they are the formal Cauſe of our Juſtification, (though you ſay Faith working by Love is) and therefore I thought there might be a diſtinction between them, and that one did not neceſſarily infer the other: But upon further conſideration of what you ſay upon that point, I don't ſee at preſent how I can evade or avoid the dint and force of your Reaſoning, to prove that Faith is p. 10the formal Cauſe of Juſtification. But however, I would not lay too much ſtreſs upon a Logical Notion, or Term of Art. He that will grant we are juſtified by Faith in a plain ſenſe, without Tropes or Figures, ſhall paſs for found in the Faith with me, whether he will call it the Form or formal Cauſe of Juſtification or no, I'll contend with no Body about ſuch Terms; and why you ſhould inſiſt ſo vehemently upon that Term, I know not.

This ſerves for Anſwer alſo to § 2. and § 3. which do but perſeſecute the ſame point.

§ 4. Herein you ſeeing more (I believe) than Mr. Baxter, there is one thing that he ſaw and you ſee not. Juſtification, you ſay, is Gods accounting and uſing us as juſt; but you have not taken in what he ſaith further, That it is alſo the making of us juſt.—How is that? Not by Infuſion, as the Papiſts; nor by Non-imputation, as Mr. Wotton; but by Imputation; God imputing our Faith for Righteouſneſs.] To this I Reply, In my Explication of Juſtification Active, (as you call it) or beſtowed by God, ſay I, I took in every thing that I found any ground in Scripture for; for I fetch'd it wholly out of thoſe places of Scripture, there quoted: And whereas it is commonly ſaid to be a Law Term, and therefore we muſt have recourſe to Lawyers to underſtand the true ſenſe of it, I have there, I think, fully opened the nature of it, purely out of Scripture; and, if I miſtake not, more fully and plainly than was done before; and I have ſometimes thought that that was one of the cleareſt things in all my Book. If you think my account defective, and would have any thing elſe added to it, give me your Scripture for it, as I have done for what I ſay, and I'll add it. Till then, here I ſtick.

But to make my ſenſe more plain, I'll give you a Scheme, according to my conception of the whole Matter. There are theſe ſeveral things which muſt be carefully diſtinguiſh'd and conſidered as diſtinct in this caſe.

1. Chriſt has obtained at Gods hands, That Faith ſhould be accounted for Righteouſneſs. This is enacting the Law; fixing and eſtabliſhing the Rule, according to which Judgment muſt paſs. None can ſay that this is either making us juſt, or juſtifying us, becauſe it is but a General, as all Laws are.

2. There is the beſtowing of Faith upon us, which is our Goſpel righteouſneſs; and this now is making us juſt, with the righteouſneſs of Sanctification; or enduing us with the Righteouſneſs of God, whereby we become conformable to the Rule: Neither is this Juſtification, but Sanctification, or effectual Calling, Regeneration, p. 11Converſion, Forming Chriſt in us; all which, with ſome other ſuch Expreſſions, I take to be Synonymous, and to ſignifie the firſt Grace.

3. Then comes Juſtification, which is judging us conformable to the Rule, or to have performed the Conditions of the Covenant; and this includes three things, which are ſo many Branches or Ingredients of which it does conſiſt.

(1.) Counting us juſt.

(2.) Dealing. with us as juſt, by beſtowing the benefits of the Covenant, viz. Pardon (that comes in here) and a Right or Title to the heavenly Inheritance.

(3.) Solemnly pronouncing us juſt at the day of Judgment, or to have performed the Conditions of the Covenant, and ſo abſolving or acquitting us from the Curſe or penalty of the Law, and Adjudging us to Life Eternal.

§ 5. The ſubſtance of your Diſcourſe in this Paragraph is ſpoken to already in § 4. and your Concluſion in § 1.

§ 6. You have hit the Nail on the Head, and gueſt very right, both that thoſe two Leaves were inſerted after (it was many Years after) the Book was finiſhed: As alſo that I am afraid of ſpeaking the leaſt tittle that may be derogatory to the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, I ſay it again, and can never inculcate it often enough, That I am afraid of ſpeaking any thing that may be derogatory to the Honour of Chriſt in any reſpect, and would not for all the World be guilty of it: And therefore if any thing ſaid by me here, or there, or any where, be really ſo, I renounce, revoke, recal and condemn it all. Upon this account I added thoſe Leaves to clear the Point, as I thought under conſideration. I cannot call to mind particularly all that is in them; but I think the Scheme in general may be uſeful, though that particular of two Juſtifications ſhould not paſs the Teſt: And indeed as to that, your Argument (§ 7.) is good; The freeing as from the Law (ſay you) is freeing us from it, as a Rule of Judgment, whenas it remains a Rule of Life; (this is ſo plain, that there can be no ſcruple about it, being underſtood of Believers) and ſeeing we are not to be judged by it, we cannot be condemned or juſtified by it. By the Law ſhall no fleſh living be juſtified. Since therefore it is by the Goſpel that we are to be judged, there can be no other, but one Evangelical Juſtification. This Argument has fully ſatisfied me, that but one Juſtification is to be admitted; and ſo I aſſent to what you add § 8.

§ 9. If I apprehend your Notion and Senſe aright, it plainly amounts to this, That Chriſt by his Sufferings obtained of God (there is his Impetration) that Faith ſhould be counted for Righteouſneſs: When we believe, all the ſaving benefits of his Death or Sufferings p. 12(which is his Righteouſneſs or Obedience) are actually applied to, and beſtowed on us. And this I take to be the plain truth alſo.

§ 10. Your Anſwer to my Queſtion does not ſatisfie me: You don't ſhow what intents and purpoſes the phraſe of formal Righteouſneſs ſerves for, which the word [Way, or Condition] will not anſwer; ſurely there is not as wide a difference between Form and Condition in this caſe, as between foreign and foreign in the point of the Deity of the Son of God: Neither doth ſo great a weight in point of Doctrine hang upon our difference, as doth upon that. Certainly, forbearing to uſe a word that may be offenſive, and ſubſtituting another leſs exceptionable in the room of it, may be done without deſerting the Truth, or deſerving a blot. I grant an apt word doth ſometimes decide a Controverſie, where there is a good foundation for it; but that is the Queſtion here, and there does not appear to me any ſuch neceſſity for the uſe of it: Tho' that you maintain ſhould be a Truth, yet all Truth is not to be inſiſted upon at all times; eſpecially when it is but a fourth or fifth-rate Truth. What I have ſaid in my Diſcourſe concerning the intereſt of Faith in Juſtification, I think is both ſafe, inoffenſive and ſatisfactory.

§ 11. I fully agree to all.

§ 12. To what you ſay about the Theſis or Diſſertation, I conceive it may very fitly be annexed to the Diſcourſe of Juſtification; not only for the clearing of that Queſtion, which is there handled, but for what you can't deny, to wit, the ſtrengthening of what is there delivered. Your Reaſons for me to omit them don't ſatisfie me. Not the firſt; for tho' we don't hold that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs imputed is the formul Cauſe of our Juſtification; yet we hold it is the meritorious Cauſe; and ſo 'tis as proper for us to diſcuſs this point as for them. For whatſoever difficulty occurs concerning the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt conſidered as the formal Cauſe of Juſtification, the ſame occurs alſo concerning it, conſidered as the meritorious Cauſe. Nor the ſecond; for when I ſay, that Chriſt being a Divine, not Human Perſon, was under no obligation of duty, I underſtand it Originally; purely upon the account of his being Man, and antecedently to his own voluntary undertaking.

You Object, How doth Chriſt ſay his Father was greater than he?] Tell me how you will reconcile that with Phil. 2.6. He thought it no robbery to be equal with God; and you will anſwer your ſelf.

Here you muſt come off and ſay] I thank you for the Aſſiſtance you lend me; but I am of Age to Anſwer for my ſelf; which with your leave, I do thus,

1. How came he down, ſay you, to do p. 13his Fathers Commandement, and yet be under no Obligation?] I anſwer, Becauſe he voluntarily took that work upon himſelf; for that is it (as far as I remember) that I am there ſpeaking of, That he was not bound by vertue of his Aſſumption of the Humane Nature, to obey the Law, but only becauſe he agreed ſo to do.

2. How do you ſay he only ſuffered for us, and not obeyed for us?] I anſwer, I deny not his obeying for us in ſome Senſe, but reckon it to his Sufferings.

3. Well, but what if you are out here at laſt?] I anſwer, It's poſſible I may; but how does it appear that I am out at laſt? Your enlargement afterwards (for it does not ſeem to me to have the force of a Reaſon or Argument, which) if it were to the purpoſe, muſt be formed thus, Chriſt was obliged to obey the Law for us, becauſe he redeemed us from the Obligation of perfect fulfilling it, as the Condition of Life (for that is it you inſiſt upon, to prove that I am out;) But this (ſay I) is foreign; nothing to the purpoſe.

That Chriſt redeemed us from the Obligation of perfect fulfilling the Law, as the Condition of Life, I agree; but how does that prove, that he obeyed the Law in our ſtead? However, as to the thing it ſelf, his freeing us from perfect obedience to the Law as the Condition of Life, I don't take to be the immediate effect of his Obedience: I don't reckon that that was obtain'd immediately by his obeying the Law in our ſtead, but by his obtaining the New Covenant for us, which promiſes Life upon eaſier Terms than the Law, or Old one did.

He obeyed and ſuffered both in our ſtead.] That Notion I cannot ſwallow. I cannot apprehend that we are bound to obey and ſuffer both. But I think this is ſpoken to in the Theſis, whither I refer you.

Thus I have gone through the ſeveral Paragraphs in your Letter, whereby you will find your labour has not been in vain, but has had ſome ſucceſs upon me. I am a Searcher after, and a Servant of Truth, and don't count my ſelf too old to learn, eſpecially of you, who have look'd ſo throughly into and round about this Point of Juſtification. How far forth my Reply, in thoſe things wherein we differ, will approve it ſelf to you, and find acceptance with you, muſt be left to the Tryal. In the whole I have deſign'd nothing but words both of Truth and Kindneſs; and ſo do hope that you will find no reaſon to judge otherwiſe of me than that I am,

Your reſpectful Friend and Fellow-labourer, Samuel Clark.

p. 14To Mr. Clark.

Dear and worthy Brother,

JUſtification is Conſtitutive and Sentential; Juris and Judicis: Conſtitutive is making, accounting and uſing us as juſt; Sentential declares us ſo at the great day. This I hold to be good from Mr. Baxter, who in all his Books ſays the like; but in his own manner and words. See Cath. Theol. Book I. Part. II. Pag. 69, 70. Life of Faith. Pag. 326. End of Controverſies. Pag. 242. Juſtification then with us is Making, Eſteeming and Uſing us as Righteous, which are diſtinguiſhed, but not to be divided. Conſtitutive Juſtification (you ſay) is a phraſe of Mr. Baxter's coyning, and the word [Juſtifie] (which you have ſo throughly canvaſed) neither in the Hebrew or Greek, will bear it. For my part ſo long as the Engliſh and Latine word Juſtify (as Sanctifie, Glorifie) does ſpeak making juſt, and we have the very term expreſſed (Rom. 5.19.) foreign, made righteous (which is all one as to be juſtified.) I think that place alone ground enough, for Mr. Baxter's word Conſtitutive, and whether the word will or no, the matter will bear it. When I read Contarenus de Juſtificatione, I admired to ſee the Doctrine of the Proteſtant ſo fully embraced by a Cardinal, who telling us of a twofold Righteouſneſs we attained by Faith, a Juſtitia inbarons, and a Juſtitia donata & imputata Chriſti, and propoſing the Queſtion, Utra num debeamus niti & exiſtimal nos juſtificari coram Deo, id eſt, ſanctos & juſtos haberi, an hac an illa; he cleaves to the laſt with theſe words I have quoted. Pacif. p. 15. Ego prorſus exiſtimo— And moreover he tells us, Fide juſtificamur, non formaliter but††It is falſe that Faith juſtifies us Efficiently: but it is true that Faith juſtifieth Conſtitutively, ſo far as it is it ſelf our perſonal inherent rightcouſneſs. Bax. End of Cont. p. 270. Efficienter, which is directly againſt my Judgment, yet do I obſerve, that this he lays down at firſt as a thing unqueſtionable, that Juſtificari is Juſtum fieri, & propterea juſtum haberi. I confeſs my ſelf was long before I could aſſent to Mr. Baxter, in this, becauſe he ſeemed to me uncertain, or confuſed, when by making juſt, he ſometimes underſtands (as you) Regeneration; ſometimes Pardon, after Mr. Wotton, from whom I believe he took it; and ſometimes both, as appears in the place you cite, Cath. Theol. Book II. Pag. 239. By and upon believing, we are firſt made juſt, by free-given Pardon and p. 15Right to Life, and true Sanctification with it, and we are ſentenced juſt, becauſe ſo firſt made juſt.

The Papiſt ſay, Juſtification makes us juſt, by the infuſion of inherent Holineſs, and that this infuſed Grace or inherent Holineſs is therefore the formal Cauſe of our Juſtification, which we know confounds Juſtification and Sactification. The Proteſtant in oppoſition to this have generally ſaid that we are made juſt, (Rom. 5.19.) by Chriſts Righteouſneſs, and that his Righteouſneſs imputed, muſt be conſequently our formal Righteouſneſs, tho' ſeveral of late more cautious, take heed how they ſay that. Sententia illorum qui Chriſti Obedientiam & juſtitiam nobis imputatam ſtatuunt eſſe formalem cauſam juſtificationis, communis eſt noſtrorum omnium ſententia, ſays Davenant, Mr: Wotton, that Scholaſtically deep Man, in oppoſition to both, does ſay that it is Pardon makes the ſinner righteous, and conſequently that Pardon is the Form or formal Reaſon of our Juſtification. Mr. Baxter you ſee before accounts we are made righteous by Regeneration and Pardon both our Evengelical Righteouſneſs muſt be with him both the formal Cauſe, though the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt be the material (he ſays) and meritorius Cauſe, of it. Leading Calvin hath gone before our Aſſembly, and tells us, Nos Juſtificationem ſimpliciter interpretamur acceptionem qua nos Deus in gratiam receptos pro juſtis habet: Eam que in peccatorum remiſſione, ac juſtitiae Chriſti imputatione poſitam eſſe dicimus. Inſt. l. 3. c. 11. For my own part, I am here exactly for neither of theſe, but ſay, that it is the Righteouſneſs of God revealed in the Goſpel, that makes us juſt, and that this is the formal Reaſon of our Juſtification.

I will recite it; The Infuſion of inherent Grace, is Juſtification Active with the Papiſt, and this inherent Grace infuſed, Juſtification Paſſive. The Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs is Juſtification Active with the Proteſtant, and that Righteouſneſs imputed Juſtification Paſſive. Pardon with Mr. Wotton. Both Pardon and a Righteouſneſs ſubordinate to Chriſts, with Mr. Baxter. But as to me, I continue and ſay, the Imputation of the Righteouſneſs of God, or of Faith for Righteouſneſs, is Active Juſtification, and the Righteouſneſs of God or Faith, ſo imputed, is Juſtification Paſſive, or the formal Cauſe (as Paſſive) of it.

This one thing I take to be certain, that the Righteouſneſs of God, which the Apoſtle tells us, is now revealed, and therefore before, tho' occult in the World, as Auſtin hath it, is that Righteouſneſs in oppoſition to any other whereby we are juſtified, and you having given p. 16us ſo good an account and right Notion of it in your Annotations on the Old, and on the New Teſtament, beſides what you have ſaid in your preſent Book, it is fit you go thro' and perfect it. By this Righteouſneſs of God, you underſtand not the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, with the Proteſtants ordinarily, nor yet the Righteouſneſs Inherent the Papiſts contend for, whereof indeed you are over-afraid. Not by the Works of Righteouſneſs we have done, ſays the Apoſtle in one place, where he means the Righteouſneſs according to the Law of Nature, or our Natural Righteouſneſs, which is Mans, not this Righteouſneſs of God, but that which by Adam's Fall we have quite loſt, inſomuch as there could be no Righteouſneſs in the Earth any more (as I ſay in my Books) if it were not for another brought in, and there is one brought in by the Meſſiah, and as ſlain in Daniel, that is, procured by Chriſts Death, and which you in your 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 foreign, 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 p. 17urged 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 p. 18Faith 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 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 p. 19Grace 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; p. 20it 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 p. 21inherent 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 we are juſtified by the Righteouſneſs of Regeneration, and they are out: We ſay, and are right, by the other.

Let me ſay this yet fuller again, for when the Mind is prepoſſeſt with a contrary belief, and the Intùs exiſtens does prohibit alienum, there is no hope for a New Notion to be received without inculcation, which therefore is to be uſed and approved. Thus far for certain you and I do agree: Regeneration is one thing, and Juſtification another, when the Papiſt ſay they are the ſame. We agree conſequently that there is a double Grace and Righteouſneſs, of the one, and of the other. We agree ſtill, that one is Real Grace, the other Relative, and muſt be different. The one, I have ſaid, makes a change on the Perſon, the other on the State only, or Condition; that is, the one does endue the Soul with a New Quality, which of a wicked Man makes him godly; the other confers no New Quality, but a New Relation upon that Quality; (Relative Grace, as you ſay, being founded on Real) that is, the Relation of a juſtified Perſon, or righteous Man in Gods ſight, which brings a right to the Benefits or Reward due to a righteous Perſon, or due to one if he had perfectly fulfill'd the Law of God: This ſure are we agreed in, that Juſtification does confer a right of Impunity and Glory (which p. 22is the Summ of thoſe Benefits) to a Perſon which was not due to his Faith and imperfect Obedience, but that God does impute them to him for Righteouſneſs; ſo that this Right therefore does come to him, not by Infuſion, (I ſay in my Book) but Imputation.

To be ſhort and full: Righteouſneſs conſiſts in a Conformity to a Law. A Law hath its Precepts and Sanction. Faith is a Conformity to, and a Righteouſneſs according to the Precept of the Law of Grace. A Right to pardon and Glory is a Conformity to, and Righteouſneſs according to the Premium Sanction. When a Man believes the Law of Grace (or God by that Law) does impute his Faith to him for Righteouſneſs, and thereby conſtitutes him righteous, and with that Righteouſneſs confers on him a Right to the Reward of it. This Right to the Reward, or Righteouſneſs conſiſting in this Right, is (and can be only) Relative Grace, not Regeneration or Sanctifification, which is Real Grace, but the Righteouſneſs of Juſtication, and this diſtinguiſhes our Doctrine from the Papiſts. A Right (I muſt ſay it again) to Impunity and Life is a Righteouſneſs, and that Righteouſneſs not the Righteouſneſs of Regneration, but Juſtification. The Papiſts, I repeat, do ſay it is by the One that we are juſtified, We ſay it is by the Other.

Here you have my account of Juſtification Conſtitutive, and hence you may have an account of that Text which is elſe ſo hard in Words, and various in the Interpretation. God juſtifies the Ʋngodly. The Man who is juſtified is a Believer, but notwithſtanding his Faith and imperfect Obedience he is legally Unrighteous, Ungodly, a Sinner. Now if Juſtification be only the Accounting, not Making a Man Righteous, how can God juſtifie the Unrighteous, or him that is Ungodly? The Judgment of God is according to Truth, and it were impoſſible. But when Juſtification is the Making or Conſtituing a Man righteous (to wit, not by Infuſion, I ſay, but by Imputation) and propterea (as Contarenus before hath it) the Accounting and Uſing him as ſuch, we ſee how the Believer, though Ungodly, is juſtified.

If any Catholick hereupon ſhall receive this, and will expreſs his Doctrine of Inherent Grace, as I do, and ſay, that it is not by a Righteouſneſs according to the Law of Nature, which though inſuſed, and by the Spirit is Mans Righteouſneſs ſtill and imperfect, but by the Righteouſneſs of God, (which is ours, and yet not ours as to what is imputed to it) that is, by a Righteouſneſs of Gods making or inſtituting, by the law of the Goſpel, that he is juſtified; then were he in the right, and I ſhould embrace that Papiſt, as I do you and Mr. Baxter. Let a Man be a Calviniſt, or Arminian, or Papiſt, p. 23or Socinian, the truth in his Mouth is truth, as well as in the Mouth of our Dr. Bates, or in the Confeſſion of the Aſſembly.

As for the Scheme you offer in laying matters together upon ſuppoſition, that Juſtification is not Conſtitutive, or Making, but only the accounting and uſing us as juſt, I acknowledge it very agreeable; but we muſt not yield to you (you ſee all this while, we muſt not) that ſuppoſition; it would undo us. No, we muſt for the fuller comprehending this Frame or Order of Things, take more compaſs than you do, and which may confirm what is ſpoken. We muſt firſt then conſider that there is an Act of Grace procured for us by Chriſt, which is the Law of the Goſpel, whereby all Perſons, notwithſtanding our ſins, ſhall upon their Faith and Repentance be, pardoned and ſaved; and in order hereunto this Law does Enact That ſuch Perſons as believe and repent ſhall (as ſet before God) be judged righteous, according to this Act, (notwithſtanding there is no Man but is unrighteous, according to the Law of Nature) and upon that Judgment of him to be righteous, or upon that judicial Proceeding in the mind of God (as we muſt ſuppoſe Juſtification to be) he ſhall have the Benefit of the Act, and no otherwiſe. Now Sir, the firſt thing in the applying the Act to the Believer therefore is this, that upon his believing and repenting, it Makes him righteous, for elſe his being a ſinner, notwithſtanding his Faith, he could not be judged righteous, but being made ſo, he is judged ſo by the ſame Acts, and is to be ſo uſed. It is not the Pardon which makes him righteous, becauſe he muſt be judged by the Law and found righteous, before he have that Pardon, or Benefit of the Act, which is That, and Life. And it is not Regeneration or Faith makes him righteous, becauſe that is prerequired as the Condition to his being made ſo, and that is no Righteouſneſs as yet: But it is God by this Act imputing this Faith and Repentance (which is wrought in our Regeneration) for Righteouſneſs, that makes him righteous, and being (I ſay) ſo made, he does judge, account and uſe him ſo, in conferring the Benefits, which altogether go in to Juſtification.

I proceed to another paſſage in your Letter. I do not ſee at preſent (ſay you) how to avoid the dint and force of your Reaſoning, that Faith is the formal Cauſe of our Juſtification: However I would not lay too much ſtreſs upon a Logical or Metaphiſical Term. They that will grant we are juſtified by Faith is aplain ſenſe, without Tropes or Figures, ſhall paſs for ſound in the Faith for me, whether they call it the Form or formal Cauſe, or no. I thank my Friend for this Item. It is p. 24by Tropes and Figures our Proteſtants ſpeak or dinarily, when they ſay we are juſtified by Faith Objectivè, in ſenſu correlativo, that is by Chriſt, or his Righteouſneſs apprehended by Faith. Put Chriſt (ſays Mr. Baxter) for Faith, and read ſuch and ſuch Scriptures, and ſee what ſtrange ſenſe it will make. It is our Doctrine which is plain without ſuch Tropes and Figures. And for what you ſay, that if any ſhall ſet forth the true Doctrine, without any Logical and Metaphiſical Terms, you ſhall approve them; I ſay the ſame, if they can indeed but ſoundly do it without them. But for all that, we muſt (by your leave) keep faſt to this Term; for there is more weight lies upon it than to part with it, and the conſequence is yet more than you ſee. We know what Controverſies we Proteſtants have among our ſelves, as well as with the Papiſts, about the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs; and you may be pleaſed alſo to know, that a right and ſavoury Uſe of this Term will reconcile the ſound among us, I mean be a ground for it, or at leaſt go ſo far toward it as to ſhield us from the Antinomian Errors, which are here mainly to be feared. If a Man in good earneſt ſhall believe that Chriſts Righteouſneſs, is ſo imputed to him as to be made formally his, he muſt then needs think that God can ſee no ſin in ſuch a Righteouſneſs as his, and that then he hath no need of Repentance, or indeed of any farther Holy Living (retaining but ſtill his Faith) in order to obtain Heaven. You know the train unto which ſuch Doctrine does lead. Whereas if we but diſtinguiſh now of Chriſts Righteouſneſs being ours meritoriè, not formaliter, if we ſay we are juſtified by it per modum meriti, not per modum cauſae formalis, which is all one as to ſay it is imputed, but not as ours, in ſe, but in the effects, then is this great Article preſently ſtated; the Proteſtants, I ſay, that are ſound, reconciled, the Antinomian Concluſions diſcarded, and all danger in our Differences quite over.

There are Scriptures, He is made to us Righteouſneſs. By his Obedience we are made Righteous. The Lord our Righteouſneſs, and the like. I never could come to have ſatisfaction about them in my mind, but by the Impreſſion of this diſtinction upon it. The definition of Juſtification by the Aſſembly, if our being accounted righteous for the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, were underſtood formaliter, it were not to be born. And yet how few of our Miniſters themſelves have underſtood otherwiſe, and knew it not but they underſtood it right? There are Paſſages collected out of Dr. Bates's Harmony, to confront ſome others out of the Books of Mr. Williams (the induſtrious Collector did wiſely to make the Doctor, not himſelf the Accuſer): But p. 25let this grain of Salt be applyed (with the conſent of the good Doctor) and the jarr may ceaſe eaſily, when our Brethren in their Differences elſe are Andabata to one another without it. Bellarmine, who in his Diſpute with us about Juſtification, does reduce all our Differences with them to this Point, whether it be Chriſts Righteouſneſs or our own inherent Righteouſneſs that is the Cauſa formalis of it; and ſuppoſing he hath evinced that it cannot be Chriſts, he fears not to be thus laviſh in granting to us as follows, Dicitur Chriſtus juſtitia noſira, quoniam ſatisfecit Patri pro nobis, & eam ſatisfactionem ita nobis donat & communicat cum nos juſtificat, ut noſtra ſatiſfactio & juſtitia dici poteſt. Hoc modo nou eſſet abſurdum ſi quis diceret nobis imputari Chriſti juſtitiam & merita, cum nobis donarentur & applicentur ac ſi nos ipſi Deo ſatisfeciſſemus. By this paſſage of the Cardinal, who looks on his cauſe, not to ſuffer by his giving thus much, (that is, more than what I can tell in his ſenſe to make of) ſo long only as the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt be not made our formal Righteouſneſs, (the negative whereof be ſure he holds faſt, and it muſt be yielded him) I am convinced, and will make bold to avouch, that let our Proteſtants expreſs their Sentiments about this great Article, with ſo much variety as they do, and as much as they will, yet if they, in their fierceſt Conteſts for a Righteouſneſs without us, againſt a Righteouſneſs within us to be juſtified, do but underſtand, and will yield to be underſtood with this Salvo, or under this Confinement of Per modum Meriti, non formaliter, (which Bellarmine alone thinks worthy the confuting) the danger (I ſaid before) is over, and they agreed.

Alas! what an abſurd thing was it at firſt, to the Papiſts for the Proteſtants to ſay that we are juſtified by Chriſts Righteouſneſs, it was all one as to ſay a Man is learn'd with anothers Learning, or Rich with anothers Riches. Let me tell you Brother, that to ſay we are juſtified formaliter by Chriſts Righteouſneſs, is the ſame abſurd Thing ſtill, and the Abſurdity is ſeen ſufficiently of late by our more conſiderate Divines, as appears in my Quotation of Dr. Ames, in yours of Mr. Anthony Burgeſſe, in Mr. Baxter of Prideux, and many others occaſionally in his Books. Upon which account you are to conſider, that whereas you and I do go a middle way, between Proteſtant and Papiſt, and conſequently diſſent from, and agree with both in ſome reſpects, there is this great Reaſon (which you demand of me) for our keeping up theſe Terms, which Proteſtant and Papiſt were engaged in, becauſe we have hereby a ground for the ſure forming of our Difference in regard to the Common Proteſtant, p. 26when otherwiſe it would be difficult to ſay, what that is wherein we differ from them, without raiſing great prejudice againſt our Cauſe. While we ſeek to make our Difference from the Papiſt more clear than yet it hath been made, we may be glad that we need no more but the uſe of theſe Terms [Form, formal Cauſe] for declaring our Difference from the Brethren, that are for maintaining the formerly received Doctrine of the Proteſtant in this great Article. Juſtificabitur ille fide (ſays Calvin) qui operum juſtitia excluſus, Chriſti juſtitiam per fidem apprehendit, qua veſtitus in Dei conſpectis non ut peccator, ſed tanquam juſtus apparet. Note I pray, the word [tanquam] which manifeſtly ſhews a Reluctancy in that great Mans Mind, ſo that he could not ſay juſtus, which our Common Proteſtant apprehends. Nay, indeed if we were thus cloathed with Chriſts Righteouſneſs, (and that as to our Perſons, when our acceptation through Chriſt is of what we ſincerely Do, God being no Accepter of Perſons) or if Faith ſo receives his Righteouſneſs, as to make it ours in ſe, for our Juſtification, then could it not be ſaid by the Apoſtle, that God juſtifies the Ʋngodly, unto which non pecoator ſed juſtus apparet is directly contrary, and that in the true ſenſe of it before ſpoken.

You object, and in one of your Letters told me that as ſome Phyſitians have their Noſtrum, this is my Veſtrum, that is, that I ſay thus, but not others. Our Divines ſay, Faith is the Condition, or the Inſtrument; but not the Form or formal Cauſe of our Juſtification. This I acknowledge, and Anſwer, that the Reaſon is apparent, becauſe our former Divines did apprehend that it is by the Law of Works that we are to be juſtified, and there being no Righteouſneſs but Chriſts which Anſwers that Law, it muſt be his alone that can juſtifie us: But this being a miſtake, the fundamental miſtake of our Divines formerly Proteſtant and Papiſt; and it being not by the Law, or according to the Law of Works, but by the Law of Grace, or according to the Goſpel that we are to be judged and juſtified, it is impoſſible that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, which is a Righteouſneſs according to the Law, ſhould be that Righteouſneſs that juſtifies us according to the Goſpel. It is impoſſible that Chriſts Righteouſneſs ſhould be that Righteouſneſs of God, which in oppoſition to Works does juſtifie us according to the Apoſtle, or that Righteouſneſs of God, which without the Law is manifeſted, ſeeing this is a Righteouſneſs with the Law, being perfectly conformable to it. And it is impoſſible (Logically impoſſible) but Faith (which is that which the Goſpel requires as the Condition of Life, inſtead of the perfect Obedience p. 27of 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: p. 28But 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 p. 29up with Mr. Baxter, upon truſting to his profounder Judgment, but I will now ſhew alſo my Opinion. The Meritorius Cauſe comes under the Efficient, and is the Efficient Protatarctick, or Impulſive Cauſe, according to my firſt Oxford-Learning, and the Efficient, Material, Formal and Final Cauſes being the different Species of Cauſe in general, I cannot but think they are to be ſo held in this Point of Juſtification. The Efficient Cauſe then, I ſay, is God; The Meritorius is Chriſts Righteouſneſs; The Material is not the ſame with that coming under the Efficient, but is, I count, our inherent Grace, or Faith as infuſed in our Regeneration; The Formal then is the imputing this Faith or Grace inherent, (as the Evangelick Condition is performed by it) to us for Righteouſneſs, when being imperfect, otherwiſe it were none. Inherent Grace is the Matter, and the Form is brought into it by this Imputation.

This I have before, though tranſiently, fuller explained, I think, and as for my giving way to Mr. Baxter, I am ſenſible that he underſtanding how nothing ab extra, not Chriſts Merits, is poſſible to move God, or be impulſive to any Act in him, who is uncapable of Mutation, did apprehend Chriſts Merits to fall under the ſame Cauſe as our Merits would if we had them, which is only a Diſpoſitio Recipientis according to him, and ſo the Material Cauſe, becauſe there can be no impulſive Cauſe in regard to God. But ſeeing our Divines do commonly, and the Holy Scripture ſpeak of God Juſtifying, Pardoning, Saving, and continually Bleſſing us for the ſake of Chriſt or his Merits (for all that there is nothing indeed ab extra. can move him) and this kind of ſpeaking is warranted by the extrinſick denomination of Gods Law, yea his Will, by meer Connotation of the various and new Effects it cauſes, it was I think but an over deep curioſity in this excellent Man, which turn'd him from the obvious and right Notion, as commonly received, that it is per modum Cauſae Efficientis Protatarcticae, when we ſay, Meritoriae, and not per modum Materialis, or Formalis, that Chriſts Righteouſneſs does conduce to our Juſtification.

It is true, I will ſay again, that Ex parte Volentis, what Chriſt himſelf hath done for us, procures no new Act of Grace toward us, becauſe the ſimplicity of the Divine Nature is not capable of any: but Ex parte rei volitae, to ſay it procured no new Effects of his Grace for us, but only diſpoſes and qualifies us for the receiving thoſe Effects, is a mater ſo nice, ſo ſubtle, and out of the way, that if it were true it could not be taught, and is moſt likely to be untrue, both therefore, and becauſe it ſeems derogatory to Chriſts Satisfaction p. 30and Merits, to his Sufferings and Obedience, which the Scripture ſpeaks of as a Price, as a Ranſom, a Purchaſe, not to diſpoſe us for, but to obtain for us, our Redemption, and conſequently thoſe other Effects of his Grace likewiſe, our Juſtification and Salvation.

I have now no more to anſwer, and it is time for me to have done. Only I muſt ſumm up what I have here wrote as to the matter between us. You and I (my dear Brother) agree in the main Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith, but have been differing in two Points about it, which you ſay are but little, but I ſay are very momentous Matters. The two Points are theſe. One is, Juſtification, I ſay, makes us juſt, and does not only ſentence us ſo: You ſay (or have ſaid) Juſtification is the accounting, but not making us juſt. The other Point is this, As Juſtification makes us righteous, I ſay, there is a Righteouſneſs within, Faith, or our Evangelical Righteouſneſs, which juſtifying us, muſt therefore be, and is the Form or formal Cauſe of our Juſtification: And this you receive not, or have very hardly received. I will ſpeak it more ſhort. Juſtification, I ſay, makes us righteous, and that righteouſneſs whereby we are made righteous is, and muſt be the formal Cauſe of it. Here are both Points wrapt together, and you do, or have queſtioned both. I will offer you therefore one Argument (and that is Ad hominem) for your conviction. You maintain Juſtification by Faith as our Evangelical Righteouſneſs as I do. Now if Juſtification do not make us righteous, then muſt we be juſtified by that inherent Righteouſneſs, which is the Righteouſneſs only of Regeneration, there being with you no other. And then are you the ſtrongeſt Papiſt as to me, as ever writ, for here is a moſt convincing Book of yours, which is all almoſt Scripture, and yet maintains Juſtification by inherent Grace, and Faith, as the Papiſts do. Here then you can by no means extricate your ſelf from them, when I thus ſay, we are made righteous by Juſtification…, and by that Righteouſneſs only juſtified, do eſcape.

As for the Conſequence now of theſe two Points, I think fit before I come to it, that it be firſt conſidered how theſe conſiſt, how neceſſary they are to, and indeed ſuſtain and infer one another. For if Juſtification makes us juſt, then muſt there be a Righteouſneſs ſo made, that is the Form of our Juſtification: and the Righteouſneſs which is that Form, is the Righteouſneſs that conſtitutes us juſt, or juſtifies us. This being aſſerted, there are theſe two things then as the conſequence of theſe two Points appears, and has been ſhewn in this Letter. One is (for I muſt recal them) that whereas p. 31our late Proteſtants, who have been more wary, and come to ſee the Abſurdity of our former Divines, (who in oppoſition to the Papiſts making our inherent Grace the formal Cauſe of our Juſtification, would put Chriſts Righteouſneſs in its room, ſo making the Righteouſneſs of another our formal Righteouſneſs) are convincedly brought off from their Opinion, they have been, and are ever ſince at a loſs, and muſt be, to pitch upon that which is indeed the formal Cauſe of our Juſtification: And when you (or I, or you and I together) have been ſo happy to have found out that Righteouſneſs (even the Righteouſneſs of God) which is this formal Cauſe, for them; Is this in earneſt with you but a little matter? What! And is the clearing the difference of your and my way from the Papiſts, which was the great difficulty lay upon you before, a little matter alſo? It was otherwiſe at your firſt writing to me, and it is an Archeivement now worthy our mutual Letters. The other Conſequence is, That when the Proteſtants (I ſay, and have ſaid) and our Brethren are among themſelves at difference, ſo much about this Great Article, there is by this means ſome thing found out yet further, as may reconcile them, and that, as it were, (I ſay in my firſt Letter) by a Word. For if we can but tell any thing in ſuch ſhort Terms, as does Characterize, or is a Characteriſtical Note, to diſtinguiſh the Sound Proteſtant from the Unſound, then may the Sound preſently Unite and Drop the other, if they ſtill will be Abſurd. Now here is ſuch a Characteriſtical Note, and let the World that pleaſe know the ſame. Juſtification by Chriſts Righteouſneſs, and not our Own, per modum meriti, is Sound Proteſtantiſm: Juſtification by Chriſts Righteouſneſs and not our Own, formaliter, is fundamentally Antinomianiſm. This many of our Brethren having not underſtood ſo well as they ſhould hitherto, have been but wildred, and not found their way out to an Orthodox Coalition.

Not that I ſay ſuch a Union (a Union in Doctrinals) is to be ſought in the preſent caſe of our Brethrens, many of whom have ſcarce thought of this Term [formal Cauſe] ſo far have they been from the uſe of it in this Point. The Form of a Thing is, illud per quod res eſt id quod eſt, and denominates the Thing. If we know not the Form of Juſtification, we know not what Juſtification is; and how then can we tell when we ſay any thing right about it? To be juſtified, hath a Form paſſively denominating a Man p. 32juſt, 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.

p. 33To 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; p. 34and 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. Ʋal. 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 Gods Act is converſant, and that here is Faith as he imputes it for Righteouſneſs, and this being the effect of that Act in paſſo, this Faith ſo imputed, I ſay, is the formal Cauſe of our Juſtification ſo effected.

Anſw. The Object of Gods Act is Faith or the Believer: The Effect of it in us, Juſtification. Imputation is the formal Cauſe, as has been(d)(d)And already ſatisfied. already ſaid.

p. 355. The Arguments which you produce for the proof of it, I have gathered together out of the ſeveral places of their diſperſion, and they are theſe:

Argu. 1. All our Divines, both Proteſtant and Papiſt, do agree upon it that that Righteouſneſs whatever it be that denominates and makes us righteous in Gods ſight, is and muſt be the Form or formal Cauſe of Juſtification. And certainly theſe Divines underſtood this Metaphyſical Term, better than you or I. And when wee uſe it in their Senſe, and no otherwiſe, there can be no fear. But neither Regeneration, nor Chriſts Righteouſneſs, nor Pardon is that which juſtifies us per modum cauſae formalis; and therefore it muſt be (e)(e)As imputed for Righteouſneſs, that is with Luther, Faith and Gods Imputation together; not Faith of its ſelf.Faith. Not Chriſts Righteouſneſs, for that is the meritorious Cauſe; Not Regenerating Grace, for that muſt precede Juſtification, not Pardon, for that comes after it. And therefore if Juſtification has any formal Cauſe (which it muſt have, or it is nothing, for forma dat eſſe) it muſt be one of theſe or ſomething elſe. What is that? Why the Righteouſneſs of God, revealed in the Goſpel, as that Righteouſneſs alone which juſtifies the Believer.

Anſw. It is ſomething elſe, viz. Gods (f) Imputation.

(f) To this and the former Anſwer, I ſay that is true, it is Imputation, as to Active Juſtification, or as to God juſtifying us: Therefore ſomething imputed muſt be the formal Cauſe of the Perſons being Justified: And what is that? Chriſts Righteouſneſs, or the Righteouſneſs of Faith? We agree, as to the laſt.

Argu. 2. As Adam if he had perfectly obey'd, his Obedience had been his formal Righteouſneſs, in regard to the Law: ſo is this ours in regard to the Goſpel. Right. of God. p. 20. So again, Works were the formal Righteouſneſt of Juſtification by the Law: Therefore Faith is the formal Righteouſneſs of Juſtification by the Goſpel. Right. of God. p. 20. Again preſently after, Two things go to this formal Righteouſneſs, Faith and the Imputation of it.

To theſe I anſwer in order.

Anſw. To the firſt and ſecond. 1. It's without doubt that Adams Obedience was (g) formal Righteouſneſs, (and ſo Faith is now) but ſo it might be and yet not be the Form of his Juſtification, as I at firſt ſaid. The formal Cauſe of Adam's Juſtification was Gods owning, accounting, or judging him righteous, upon the account of his perfect Obedience, as p. 36Gods Imputation of Faith for Righteouſneſs, is the Formal Cauſe of our Juſtification.

(g) To be our formal Righteouſneſs, and to be the Righteouſneſs, and to be the Righteouſneſs that is the Form of our Juſtification is all one (ſo ſpoken and underſtood by Divines.) Gods accounting Adam perfectly righteous was Active Juſtification, Adam's being righteous and ſo accounted was Juſtification Paſſive; and Gods imputing our Faith for Righteouſneſs, and our Faith imputed is the ſame likewiſe. Here is nothing but what is prevented already.

2. I deny the Conſequence in the firſt Aſſertion, That if Adam's Law-obedience was his formal Righteouſneſs, then our Goſpel-Obedience is our formal Righteouſneſs, becauſe though Faith comes in the room of Law-Works in ſome reſpects, yet not in all; for it doth not (h) merit the reward, as Law-Works would have done.

(h) Whether the reward be of Grace or Merit, that is nothing to the purpoſe, ſo long as Faith is the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, as perfect Obedience was of the Covenant of Works. The Performance of the Evangelick Condition, is the formal Righteouſneſs of the one; The Performance of the Legal was the formal Righteouſneſs of the other. The formality lies in the Condition performed, not in the Meritoriouſneſs, or Nonmeritoriouſneſs of the Performance.

Anſw. To the third, If Faith and Imputation (i) both go to this formal Righteouſneſs, then Faith alone is not the Form of it.

(i) By this you ſee that we are agreed: I ſay, and you ſay, that Faith is the Matter (as will appear more hereafter) and Imputation that which brings the Form into the Matter; ſo that it is not Faith alone, but Faith as imputed for Righteouſneſs is the formal Cauſe of Juſtification.

Argu. 3. If Juſtification has a Form, and that Form muſt be ſome Righteouſneſs, [Juſtificationis formam juſticia conſtare certum eſt] What Righteouſneſs is that? It is Gods counting or judging us Righteous, ſay you. But is this an Anſwer to the Queſtion, What Righteouſneſs is it whereby we are juſtified? When I ask, What Righteouſneſs it is whereby we are juſtified, or what Righteouſneſs that is, which is the Form of Juſtification; I ask, What Righteouſneſs that is whereby, or wherewith, or by reaſon of which, God accounts or judges us righteous? It is not regenerating Grace infuſed, but regenerating Grace imputed, that is, Faith imputed for Righteouſneſs. That which makes a Man righteous in Gods ſight, according to the Goſpel, is that which juſtifies us, ſo as to be the Cauſa formalis of it [Per formalem Juſtificationis cauſam juſti conſtituimur]: What then is that Righteouſneſs which makes or conſtitutes us juſt? It is Gods imputing p. 37this Faith before infuſed, that makes us righteous, and conſequently is the Cauſa formalis of our Juſtification.

Anſw. 1. I ſay the Cauſa formalis of Juſtification is Gods counting or judging us righteous, ſo ſay you too. Your Words are theſe, Gods judging us righteous upon believing, is the (k) Form.

(k) The Form of a thing does conſtitute and denominate the thing. If Gods judging us righteous, or imputing our Faith for Righteouſneſs does actually make, and denominate God our Juſtifier; then muſt our being judged righteous, and our Faith imputed for Righteouſneſs, make and paſſively denominate us juſtified. There is the ſame Efficient and Material Cauſe in both, but the Form double.

Anſw. 2. I anſwer directly. The Righteouſneſs whereby we are juſtified, as the meritorious Cauſe of our Juſtification, is the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt: The Righteouſneſs of Faith the material Cauſe: But the formal is (l) Gods judging us righteous, as you agree.

(l) Here you are plainly gone. I ask what Righteouſneſs that is, and you Anſwer Gods judging: There is ſome Righteouſneſs, as all our Divines agree, that does make and denominate us righteous, and that which ſo makes and denominates us, according to the Goſpel, is that which juſtifies us. When you don't tell this, you are gone. I ſay, (as I have ſaid) It is true that Gods judging, or imputing ſomething to us for Righteouſneſs, is the Form of Gods juſtifying Act, but that ſomething that is judged and imputed to us for our Righteouſneſs, is the Form of our juſtified State or Condition.

Argu. 4. Divines do generally fix it upon ſome Righteouſneſs. The Righteouſneſs of Inherent Grace, ſay the Papiſts: The Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, ſaith Davenant, and the Proteſtants generally: The Righteouſneſs of Pardon, ſaith Mr. Wotton.

Anſw. 1. I do not pretend to compare my ſelf in the leaſt with thoſe Learned Men, who maintain any of the former Particulars, to be the formal Cauſe of Juſtification; but I am willing to ſuſpect my own Judgment rather than theirs. Perhaps it may be my (m) Ignorance in the proper Notion of a formal Cauſe, that hinders me from aſſenting to them. And yet,

(m) The Form of a thing (you know) is that whereby the thing is that which it is; that which differences the thing, defines, denominates it. A Defininition is made of a Genus & Differentia, call'd by others the Form (a Genus and a Form) to wit, that which ſpecifies and differences the thing from others, that which makes the Ens unum. Ʋnum is indiviſum in ſe, & diviſum ah aliis: The Form makes the thing diviſum ab omnibus aliis, and whatſoever differs from another, muſt have its Form (its Deffinition) that makes it differ, or elſe it is nothing. It is not for want of Knowledge of this, but the want of Conſideration of it, makes you here diſagree with me, for ſo long as there is no Diſtinction without a Difference, and Juſtification is thus diſtinguiſhed into Active and Paſſive, they muſt have their different Forms, and if that be acknowledged, our Conteſt is at an end.

p. 382. You (n) agree with me, that it is Gods Imputation or judging us Righteous: But yet that I may yield to you as far as I can, I add,

(n) How I agree with you it is manifeſt, as to juſtification Active, and that you may agree with me, as to Juſtification Paſſive, you ſay enough in that which follows.

3. That upon the (o) ſame ground that any of theſe may be ſaid to be the formal Cauſe of Juſtification, I ſee not but that the Righteouſneſs of Faith, or the Righteouſneſs of God by Faith, may be allowed to be the formal Cauſe of it. If it be proper in any of the other Caſes or Inſtances, for ought that I know it is proper alſo in this. If it be proper to call Chriſts Righteouſneſs the formal Cauſe, or Pardon the formal Cauſe of Juſtification, it is proper, I think, to call Faith ſo too. There is the ſame Reaſon for one as for the other in my apprehenſion.

(o) As for what you yield here to me, it is but honeſt, and tho' condeſcending, no more than what cann't be denyed. If we uſe the Terms of other Divines, we muſt uſe them in their ſenſe, or we cannot elſe be in the right. I thank you for your ſincerity in this.

Argu. 5. But the moſt plauſible Argument of all (becauſe it is Scriptural) you have omitted, which is, That the Scripture ſaith expreſly, (p) We are are juſti-fied by Faith.

(p) This is what is to be underſtood in my Book all over, when I ſay, that tho' the Id propter quod, be Chriſts Righteouſneſs, the Id per quod, we are juſtified, is Faith, and Faith therefore, as imputed for Righteouſaeſs, is the formal Cauſe of our Juſtification.

Here then we muſt conſider, What intereſt Faith has in our Juſtification. This I have ſaid in my Book is as the (q) Condition, Way or Means, whereby we come to have an intereſt in this Priviledge.

(q) That Faith, Repentance and New Obedience are the Condition and Way of Life, as to the Exerciſe and Practice of them, does not hinder but that performed and imputed by God for Righteouſneſs, they become the Form its ſelf of our Juſtification.

You ſay, As the formal Cauſe, but at laſt upon mature deliberation, you make it to be the material Cauſe, and Imputation the p. 39formal, and ſo at laſt you ſeem to (r) give up the Cauſe you are contending for, your words being theſe, The Efficient Cauſe is God: The Meritorious Chriſts Righteouſneſs: The Material is not the ſame with that coming under the Efficient, but is, I count, our inherent Grace, or Faith infuſed in our Regeneration: The formal then is the imputing this Faith or Grace inherent, (as the Evangelick Condition performed by it) to us for Righteouſneſs, when being imperfect, otherwiſe it were none. Inherent Grace is the Matter, and the Form is brought in by this Imputation.

(ſ) This is not well obſerved, that when I ſet my Cauſe in its true Light, and evince the truth of it ſo to your ſelf, that you cannot but aſſent to it, you ſhould count that I give you my Cauſe, when I give you my Light, and when the Cauſe which I and you intend and defend is the ſame in this particular altogether. And why do you contend? Do not you know that in ſuch Colliſions that are only for Light, whenever there is ſtruck one Spark that does take, the work is done? for what is but rightly ſaid in one place, is to regulate all that is ſaid beſides otherwhere, when the Reader deals ingenuouſly with him he Reads.

But then to (ſ) bring your ſelf off, you make it to be the formal Cauſe only of Juſtification Active, and Faith to be the formal Cauſe of Juſtification Paſſive; and ſo you make two Juſtifications diſtinct from each other, becauſe they have different Forms. So that all the Controverſie between us now, is reduced to this one ſingle Point, whether there be two Juſtifications diſtinct from each other: For if Faith be the formal Cauſe only of Juſtification Paſſive, and there be no ſuch thing as Juſtification Paſſive diſtinct from Juſtification Active, then Faith is caſhier'd and put out of its Office of being Cauſa formalis of Juſtification.

(ſ) It is not to bring my ſelf off, but to keep the truth on foot, that I diſtinguiſh, as other Divines do. Who knows not that Juſtificare & Juſtificari are diſtinguiſhed, or that Juſtification is actively and paſſively taken? Alas! that you ſhould not conſider, that all the Diſputes of our Divines, Whether we be juſtified by Faith or Works, are and can be about Juſtification, no otherwiſe but as paſſively taken. As for the Queſtion, Whether Juſtification Active and Paſſive be one or two; I have given a brief determination in this ſecond Letter as now printed (p. 28.) and did not do ſo in my Curſory Letter, becauſe I was indeed puzzled with it at firſt ſtarting, and could not at preſent tell what well to ſay to it. It is very true and judiciouſly declared here by you, that upon this (one would have thought) but nice thing, does depend all our difference; ſo that if Juſtification Paſſive have a diſtinct Form from Juſtification Active, then my all you ſay be true (as it is) of the One, and what I ſay to be true too of the Other. Now whether they have two Forms or no, ſeeing you and I were at preſent in doubt, and came very ſtrangely to be p. 40reſolved on a contrary Judgment, let us appeal to one that can tell us. Juſtification (ſays Mr. Baxter) taken actively, as the Act of the Juſtifier, hath one Form: Juſtification paſſively taken, for the State of the Juſtified, hath another Form: And each of theſe are ſubdivided into many Acts and many Effects, which have each their Form. End of Contro. p. 263. This was the reaſon of the variation in what I writ.

When I firſt propounded this Objection, and thereby diſcovered this Conſequence, you wrote to me thus; This diſtinction is a diſtribution of a Subject into its Adjuncts, where the Form I apprehend to be the ſame, only applyed diverſly, as the Subject is actively or paſſively taken. But in your very next Letter, you revoke this, and ſay, That upon further conſideration, Juſtification Active and Paſſive are two Things in earneſt, and have two Forms. Seeing therefore this is that you ſtick to, I will try my skill to drive you out of this hold.

1. How (t) can Faith be the material Cauſe of one, and the formal of the other?

(t) Very well: Faith as infuſed and a part of our Regeneration is the Matter (you agree to this.) Faith imputed for Righteouſneſs is the Form (I ſay) of our Paſſive Juſtification.

2. What (u) is the Efficient and Material Cauſe of Juſtification Paſſive?

(u) The Efficient and Material Cauſe is the ſame in Juſtification Active and Paſſive (I ſay) both, but the Form is diverſe, and muſt be ſo long as they differ from one another.

3. You (x) are certainly in the right when you make Juſtification Active and Paſſive to be but a diſtribution of a Subject, into its Adjuncts, and that they have the ſame Form; Therefore the Subject is the ſame, only diverſified by its different reſpects to its Agent and Object.

(x) You are certainly in the wrong, in your underſtanding this thus. In a diſtribution of a Subject into its Adjuncts, the Subject is one, and hath one Form, Ʋnius rei unica forma, and the Adjuncts partake of that Form, but their own Forms are diverſe, and muſt be as that by which they differ from one another. I am ſorry here I gave you occaſion to be confirm'd in your miſtake. But this good ſhall come of it, I will ſhew my Reaſon why I admit of two Juſtifications, Active and Paſſive, and not two by the Law and by the Goſpel. Juſtification by the Law and by the Goſpel, is a diſtribution of a Genus into its Species: But Juſtification Active and Paſſive, is a diſtribution of a Subject into its Adjuncts only. When I can admit but of one kind of Juſtification only that is by the Goſpel, I may allow that to have diverſe Conſiderations.

p. 414. When (y) I ſay God juſtifies Paul, and Paul is juſtified of God, can any one be ſo void of ſenſe as to ſay, theſe are two Things? Is not the Act the ſame, tho' the Agent and Object be different? When I ſay the Sun enlightens the Air, and the Air is enlightned by the Sun, is not the enlightning the ſame, in both? The Propoſitions indeed are diſtinct in a Grammatical Conſtruction, but they are the ſame in a Phyſical Senſe. For,

(y) When you ſay God juſtifies Paul, and Paul is juſtified of God, here is a Juſtificare and a Juſtificari, that is, Juſtification Active and Paſſive, and they muſt have two Forms; But ſeeing the Matter is the ſame (wherein you and I agree) they are formally two, but materially one and the ſame Juſtification.

5. Juſtification (z) is only of a Perſon: The Perſon to whom this Act of God is applyed is the Subject or Object of Gods Act about whom it is converſant. Juſtification cannot poſſibly be conſidered, but as referring to ſome Perſon: and therefore there cannot be two Juſtifications.

(z) The Subject, the Efficient, the Material Cauſe, are the ſame; but the Form different in Active and Paſſive Juſtification. I pray turn to my Determination, at firſt I had not, then thought enough, and I did not think it ſo neceſſary, as now you make it, to determine this in my Curſory Letters, which you muſt forgive. You ſee then Brother, where the deficiency of Senſe does lye, which, ſeeing you have been able to ſay ſo much for, and have ſo much preſumption for, may be excuſed even with ſome applauſe, though you have been miſtaken in it.

There is one thing in the forgoing Diſcourſe, that perhaps will need a little farther Explication, and that is, where Faith is ſaid to be the(†)(†)It is worth our Obſervation that in this Notion that our Faith or inchoate Grace is the Materal, and Imputation the formal Cauſe of our Juſtification, you and I ſhould both in our Letters coincidere, without any Item one from another. material Cauſe of our Juſtification. Thoſe Terms in Matters of Morality, are ſubject to much uncertainty (as appears by the Learned in aſſigning the Material and formal Cauſes of Juſtification. I apprehend it thus. When Faith is ſaid to be imputed for Righteouſneſs, here Imputing is the Act, and Faith the Object. Now we agree that this Act of Imputing is the Form, and this Act falling upon this Object is the Form falling on the Matter (as you expreſs it very well) or introduced into it. The Act applyed to the Object, is the Form introduced p. 42into the Matter. For why may not the Act and Object in Morality correſpond, or be the ſame with the Form and Matter in Naturality? I know ſome make the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt to be the Material Cauſe of Juſtification, but againſt that Aſſertion I have this Argument. The Meritorious cannot be the Material: But Chriſts Righteouſneſs is the Meritorious Cauſe (none can deny that: Therefore it cannot be the Material. The Major I prove thus; The ſame thing cannot be both an External and Internal Cauſe. But the Meritorious is an External Cauſe (for it belongs to the Efficient, as you have alſo obſerved); the Material is an Internal Cauſe. Therefore the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt (which is certainly the Meritorious) cannot alſo be the Material. And this Argument will alſo hold againſt its being the Formal Cauſe; Mr. Banter ſeems to make Faith to be the Material Cauſe. End of Cont. p. 250.

This I have long inclined unto, which may be illuſtrated thus: When a Malefactor is Arraigned and Tryed, the Law is the Efficient Cauſe of his Acquittal, or Condemnation; the Sentence pronounced by the Judge is the Formal; Matter of Fact or what hath appeared upon Tryal, is the Material. So here, Gods judging us righteous according to the Law of the Goſpel is the formal Cauſe of our Juſtification; and our Goſpel-righteouſneſs or Faith (which is as it were Matter of Fact) ſeems to be the Material. But, as I ſaid, there is no certainty in affixing or appropriating theſe Logioal Term in Morality, at leaſt in all Caſes, and therefore for my part I will contend with no Body about them.

I will add but one word more about this point. Juſtification is Gods judging us righteous, (there's the Form) upon believing (there's the Matter or Condition): Or judging us to have performed the Condition of the Covenant of Grace or Goſpel-Law, ſo that we are thereby Recti in curia, innocent or guiltleſs in the eye of the Law (which is making us righteous judicially) and then dealing with us as ſuch, by acquitting us from legal Guilt (as Mr. Gilbert expreſſes it) or the Curſe of the Law, and giving us right to Life.

This hath been a tedious Point, the other of Juſtification Conſtitutive, will be of quicker diſpatch; yet ſince this Point alſo hath been much argued pro and con by us, whereby I have gained clearer Apprehenſions of ſome things about it, than I had before; I will firſt gather up your Senſe which you have expreſſed [foreign] 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,

p. 441. 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 Lawgiver, 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. foreign 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 p. 45to 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 Ʋſed; which are 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 p. 46the 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.