ULTIMA MANUS. BEING LETTERS BETWEEN Mr. John Humphrey, and Mr. Samuel Clark, In reference to the Point of Justification; Written upon the Occasion of Mr. Clark's Printing his Book on that Subject, after Mr. Humfrey's Book entitled The Righteousness of God; and published for Vindication of that Doctrine wherein they agree, as sound, by showing 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 Judgements.  
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 Mercer's Chapel. 1698.   

THE LETTERS.  

To Mr. CLARK.  
My very worthy Brother,  
I Received your Letter, and your Book; that elaborate Book, writ long since, and desired 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, easy 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 Judgement.  
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 justify 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) entered your Mind, as it has mine, that does bring light with it. It could not have been said at first, but by one more thoroughly studied (Academically) in the Learned part of this Controversy 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 Christ's Righteousness, or our performance of the Evangelic 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 Evangelic 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 steadfastness 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 Christ's 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 Christ's, 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 foreman justitiâ constare cerium est. Well, this Justitia, which is Justificationis forma, our former learnedst Protestant Divines, have generally owned 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 itself 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 revealed. 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 God's 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 the first thoughts of Mr. Baxter here, sprang from his reading Mr. Wotton, who will have such a Righteousness to justify 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 Evangelic Law, has constituted Faith and Repentance to be a Righteousness, to serve us instead of perfect Works. When a Man then believes and reputes, he is thereby constituted Righteous. By virtue, (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 God's sight, and so becomes our formal Righteousness: I say, it is the Righteousness of God in him (that is, through him, or through his Merits imputed to us for Righteousness) that makes us so, and is this formal Righteousness; and it is but an absurd thing to say the other: for which Time alone will give satisfaction.  
5. Let me yet inculcate this. The Papists, you know, say, Justification is making us just (the first way before, by Infusion) and that our inherent Righteousness therefore it the Form of our Justification. You say that this making us just (in their sense) is Sanctification, and our inherent Righteousness is indeed the Form, formal Cause, or formal Reason of our Sanctification. Well, now the Papists and we do not differ in our Notion of the Term [Form or formal Cause:] For if Justification was that they say it is, the making us just, you grant it were the Form, formal Cause, or formal Reason thereof. You understand me, Brother, when I tell you that which you knew not before, that Justification is the making us just (and I tell you how) as well as the accounting us just; I tell you also, and I tell you how, this Righteousness is and must thereby become the formal Cause of it. Our Terms we take from the Papists and the Schools: And when our Learnedest 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 Judgement.  
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 puzzling Matter to myself, 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 offered 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 Judgement, when it remains a Rule of Life (as you may see at large in my Pacification) and seeing we are not to be judged by it, we cannot be condemned and justified by it: By the Law shall no flesh living be justified. When it is by the Gospel therefore that we are to be judged, there can be no other but one Evangelical Justification.  
8. The truth is, Mr. Baxter has confounded us with two Justifications, Principal and Subordinate; or else you and others confound yourselves 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. William's especially, are gravelled 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 see 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 Judgement 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 myself one that sought to please Men, or save myself, rather than serve the Truth; that is, to be tender-mouthed, 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 must 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 Controversy, 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 Christ's Obedience therefore ours? Is not the being made righteous, to be justified? I Answer, Yes: Christ's 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, Christ's 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 showing 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 Christ's obedience per modum meriti, not otherwise. This is satisfaction to this Text; this the core of the Controversy. 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 completely they do our business, when a whole Book at once is as good as wrapped 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 fight, and we be quiet.  
2. Because as to the Point, I think such may with Anth. Burgess 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 Father's Commandment, and yet be under no Obligation? Here you must come off and say, He was not bound on his own account, but for Us 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 one's 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 see imputed to us, as formally to justify us. This is that Doctrine you dispute against in your Dissertation; and I find in some Notes which I writ for a Memor andum to myself upon reading some Author (whether the words be my own, or his, or mixed) 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 than 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 looked 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 Error (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 Humphrey.   

To Mr. Humphrey.  
Reverend and dear Sir,  
THAT you have taken so much pains to open my Understanding, and to make an Eyesalve to clear my sight, I count a great favour, and take myself 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 clogged with Interest, which dims the sight, or bribes and biasses the Judgement, 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 Controversy about Conformity; or carnal Interest, as in the Antinomian Opinions, which serve to gratify 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 persuaded that it is true; so what we would have not to be true, we are hardly convinced that it is true: Here it must be a strong and a clear Light that will pierce a Man's 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 Judgement, either one way or other; which, unto those that dig and delve for it, as for bid Treasures, that do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (Heb. 12.14) hunt and pursue after it, by an impartial Examination and Consideration, it will be found one time or other, and manifest itself in its native Beauty, Prov. 2. v. 1,— 5.  
How far forth the Light in your Papers has cleared my Eyesight, 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 expressed 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, etc. are Gospel-graces, and consequently Gospel-righteousness, and yet none of our Protestants say that they are the formal Cause of our Justification, (though you say Faith working by Love is) and therefore I thought there might be a distinction between them, and that one did not necessarily infer the other: But upon further consideration of what you say upon that point, I don't see at present how I can evade or avoid the dint and force of your Reasoning, to prove that Faith is the formal Cause of Justification. But however, I would not lay too much stress upon a Logical Notion, or Term of Art. He that will grant we are justified by Faith in a plain sense, without Tropes or Figures, shall pass for found in the Faith with me, whether he will call it the Form or formal Cause of Justification or no, I'll contend with no Body about such Terms; and why you should insist so vehemently upon that Term, I know not.  
This serves for Answer also to § 2. and § 3. which do but persesecute the same point.  
§ 4. Herein you seeing more (I believe) than Mr. Baxter, there is one thing that he saw and you see not. Justification, you say, is Gods accounting and using us as just; but you have not taken in what he saith further, That it is also the making of us just.— How is that? Not by Infusion, as the Papists; nor by Non-imputation, as Mr. Wotton; but by Imputation; God imputing our Faith for Righteousness.] To this I Reply, In my Explication of Justification Active, (as you call it) or bestowed by God, say I, I took in every thing that I found any ground in Scripture for; for I fetched 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 distinguished and considered as distinct in this case.  
1. Christ has obtained at God's hands, That Faith should be accounted for Righteousness. This is enacting the Law; fixing and establishing the Rule, according to which Judgement must pass. None can say that this is either making us just, or justifying us, because it is but a General, as all Laws are.  
2. There is the bestowing of Faith upon us, which is our Gospel righteousness; and this now is making us just, with the righteousness of Sanctification; or enduing us with the Righteousness of God, whereby we become conformable to the Rule: Neither is this Justification, but Sanctification, or effectual Calling, Regeneration, Conversion, Forming Christ in us; all which, with some other such Expressions, I take to be Synonymous, and to signify 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 Judgement, 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, recall 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 Judgement, 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 (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 satisfy 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Controversy, 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 satisfy 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 yourself.  
Here you must come off and say] I thank you for the Assistance you lend me; but I am of Age to Answer for myself; which with your leave, I do thus, 

1. How came he down, say you, to do his Father's Commandment, 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 virtue 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 form 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 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 itself, 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 obtained 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 done't count myself too old to learn, especially of you, who have looked so throughly into and round about this Point of Justification. How far forth my Reply, in those things wherein we differ, will approve itself to you, and find acceptance with you, must be left to the Trial. In the whole I have designed 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.   

To 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 coining, and the word [Justify] (which you have so throughly canvased) neither in the Hebrew or Greek, will bear it. For my part so long as the English and Latin word Justify (as Sanctify, Glorify) does speak making just, and we have the very term expressed (Rom. 5.19.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 itself our personal inherent rightcousness. Bax. End of Cont. p. 270.  Efficienter, which is directly against my Judgement, 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 myself 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 Right 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 Christ's 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: Eamque 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 Christ's Righteousness is Justification Active with the Protestant, and that Righteousness imputed Justification Passive. Pardon with Mr. Wotton. Both Pardon and a Righteousness subordinate to Christ's, 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 us 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 through 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 Man's, 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 Christ's 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 called 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 itself 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 through to what it leads, and let you know (which indeed makes it signify) that it is this Righteousness, and no other is that which is the Form, formal Cause, or formal Reason, of our Justification.  
Note I pray, once for all, that in putting in the word, [our] Justification, by me, is signified to be passively taken, as it must be taken, and is by Protestants and Papists, in their Dispute about it; and by the Apostle, when he disputes that it is by Faith, and not Works, that Abraham was, and we are justified. And here then have we indeed an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a thing you have found out, wherein the Cautious of our Protestants of late have been, and are at a loss, even the knowledge (when they durst neither allow Christ's 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 one's mind, that if we be justified by Christ's Righteousness imputed, that is, so as his Righteousness be accounted ours formally, to justify us, then must we be thereby as righteous (in Law sense) as Christ himself. This Argument being urged by Bellarmine, our Amesius thus Answers, Has non est nostra sententia, sed Christi justitiam eatenus robis imputari, ut ejus virtute nos perinde justi censeamur coram Deo, ac si nosmetipsi in nobis haberemus quo justi censeamur. See here the straight this throughly versed Man in these Disputes is brought to. He must deny this at first, that Christ's Righteousness is nostra & formalis justitia, which Davenant, with others maintain. And if Christ's 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 Christ's Righteousness must be imputed, but nor imputed as ours, for than it will be our formal Righteousness. But so far imputed. (Note Thirdly) that by virtue 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 than 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 ourselves had in us that, whereby we may be adjudged righteous before God. Note it; it is not qua, referring to Christ's Righteousuess, but quo, referring to one understood, that is, not in us, but as good as if it were in us; and that not Christ's (I say) neither, but one by virtue 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 ourselves 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 virtue 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 Christ's Merit, or the virtue of it to render our Faith accepted, and the other a Right to the benefits, or reward, which a perfect Righteousness would give us if we had it. Our Faith or Evangelical Righteousness, being imperfect and no Righteousness by the Law, it is, upon these two things conferred, made such a Righteousness (being imputed to us for Righteousness) by the Law of the Gospel.  
I hope now Brother you will be less afraid of our falling in with the Papists, though Justification is the making us just, as well as accounting us just; and though our inchoate Grace, our Faith, our Evangelic 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 itself 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 itself 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 rendering 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 Grace only on the State, giving right to the benefits which belongs to the Person. I apprehend so of that Distinction, and if I do not apprehend you right, you must help my Understanding. Well, now Regeneration, I count with you, must precede Justification, that is, Real Grace. Upon this Real Grace than 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 God's 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 intent. When a Man then is made righteous by God, or by his Law upon his believing, who was made righteous before by Regeneration; or when a Man hath Faith bestowed on him in his effectual Vocation, and that Faith after is imputed to him for Righteousness; it is not his Faith and Righteousness as inherent, but as so imputed, is that Righteousness which justifies him, or that Righteousness that is the Form or formal Cause of his Justification.  
You may see here how by going to avoid Popery, by denying that we are made just by Justification, you take away that Medium, which by the granting and maintaining, we must obtain our purpose. God (says Mr. Baxter) as Lawgiver 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 applied 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 satisfy Mr. Baxter fully, there is, and there can be no charge but this against any; for the Gospel-Law itself, the Universal Pardon, or Grace of the Gospel itself (which in the Righteousness of God, as to God's part, is included) does alone take off, or answers all others. But now seeing I am yet in doubt that your fear of me, and therefore of other Friends, is not yet gone, in regard to my allowing that we are justified by a Righteousness within us, or by our inherent Grace, for that I perceive 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 yourself 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 Christ's Merits) entitles to Impunity and Life; for the imputing Christ's 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 prepossessed 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 God's sight, which brings a right to the Benefits or Reward due to a righteous Person, or due to one if he had perfectly fulfilled the Law of God: This sure are we agreed in, that Justification does confer a right of Impunity and Glory (which is the Sum 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 . 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 justify the Unrighteous, or him that is Ungodly? The Judgement 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 Catholic 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 Man's Righteousness still and imperfect, but by the Righteousness of God, (which is ours, and yet not ours as to what is imputed to it) that is, by a Righteousness of Gods making or instituting, by the law of the Gospel, that he is justified; then were he in the right, and I should embrace that Papist, as I do you and Mr. Baxter. Let a Man be a Calvinist, or Arminian, or Papist, or Socinian, the truth in his Mouth is truth, as well as in the Mouth of our Dr. Bates, or in the Confession of the Assembly.  
As for the Scheme you offer in laying matters together upon supposition, that Justification is not Constitutive, or Making, but only the accounting and using us as just, I acknowledge it very agreeable; but we must not yield to you (you see all this while, we must not) that supposition; it would undo us. No, we must for the fuller comprehending this Frame or Order of Things, take more compass than you do, and which may confirm what is spoken. We must first then consider that there is an Act of Grace procured for us by Christ, which is the Law of the Gospel, whereby all Persons, notwithstanding our sins, shall upon their Faith and Repentance be, pardoned and saved; and in order hereunto this Law does Enact That such Persons as believe and repent shall (as set before God) be judged righteous, according to this Act, (notwithstanding there is no Man but is unrighteous, according to the Law of Nature) and upon that Judgement of him to be righteous, or upon that judicial Proceeding in the mind of God (as we must suppose Justification to be) he shall have the Benefit of the Act, and no otherwise. Now Sir, the first thing in the applying the Act to the Believer therefore is this, that upon his believing and repenting, it Makes him righteous, for else his being a sinner, notwithstanding his Faith, he could not be judged righteous, but being made so, he is judged so by the same Acts, and is to be so used. It is not the Pardon which makes him righteous, because he must be judged by the Law and found righteous, before he have that Pardon, or Benefit of the Act, which is That, and Life. And it is not Regeneration or Faith makes him righteous, because that is prerequired as the Condition to his being made so, and that is no Righteousness as yet: But it is God by this Act imputing this Faith and Repentance (which is wrought in our Regeneration) for Righteousness, that makes him righteous, and being (I say) so made, he does judge, account and use him so, in conferring the Benefits, which altogether go in to Justification.  
I proceed to another passage in your Letter. I do not see at present (say you) how to avoid the dint and force of your Reasoning, that Faith is the formal Cause of our Justification: However I would not lay too much stress upon a Logical or Metaphisical Term. They that will grant we are justified by Faith is aplain sense, without Tropes or Figures, shall pass for sound in the Faith for me, whether they call it the Form or formal Cause, or no. I thank my Friend for this Item. It is by Tropes and Figures our Protestants speak or dinarily, when they say we are justified by Faith Objectiuè, 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 sound 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 Protestant's have among ourselves, as well as with the Papists, about the Imputation of Christ's 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 Christ's 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 Christ's 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' Harmony, to confront some others out of the Books of Mr. Williams (the industrious Collector did wisely to make the Doctor, not himself the Accuser): But let this grain of Salt be applied (with the consent of the good Doctor) and the jar 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 Christ's Righteousness or our own inherent Righteousness that is the Causa formalis of it; and supposing he hath evinced that it cannot be Christ's, 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 & communicate 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 Christ's Righteousness, it was all one as to say a Man is learned with another's Learning, or Rich with another's Riches. Let me tell you Brother, that to say we are justified formaliter by Christ's 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 Burgess, 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 descent from, and agree with both in some respects, there is this great Reason (which you demand of me) for our keeping up these Terms, which Protestant and Papist were engaged in, because we have hereby a ground for the sure forming of our Difference in regard to the Common Protestant, when otherwise it would be difficult to say, what that is wherein we differ from them, without raising great prejudice against our Cause. While we seek to make our Difference from the Papist more clear than yet it hath been made, we may be glad that we need no more but the use of these Terms [Form, formal Cause] for declaring our Difference from the Brethren, that are for maintaining the formerly received Doctrine of the Protestant in this great Article. Justificabitur ille fide (says Calvin) qui operum justitia exclusus, Christi justitiam per fidem apprehendit, qua vestitus in Dei conspectis non ut peccator, sed tanquam justus apparet. Note I pray, the word [tanquam] which manifestly shows a Reluctancy in that great Man's Mind, so that he could not say justus, which our Common Protestant apprehends. Nay, indeed if we were thus clothed with Christ's 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 see, for our Justification, then could it not be said by the Apostle, that God justifies the , 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 Physicians 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 Christ's which Answers that Law, it must be his alone that can justify 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 Christ's Righteousness should be that Righteousness of God, which in opposition to Works does justify us according to the Apostle, or that Righteousness of God, which without the Law is manifested, seeing this is a Righteousness with the Law, being perfectly conformable to it. And it is impossible (Logically impossible) but Faith (which is that which the Gospel requires as the Condition of Life, instead of the perfect Obedience of the Law) when performed and imputed for Righteousness, should be and must be that Righteousness which is the Form or formal Cause of our Evangelical Justification.  
I will now speak to a Passage, that put me to many Thoughts in another Letter, in regard to our speaking of Justification as passively taken. You seem (say you) to make Justification, Active and Passive two things. The former, Gods imputing; the latter, Faith imputed for Righteousness. If they are different, you make two Justifications, which you condemn in me: If they are one, they must both have the same Form, or formal Cause. But Justification is God's Act, and it is impossible Faith or any thing should be the formal Cause of God's 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 Christ's 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 concerned 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 God's Act, the Will of God by his Law of Grace, does make that Change of State in a Believer, or of his Relation toward God, so as to have thereby a Right conferred to Pardon and Life, there are Causes of that Change and Right, which being new in the Object, Ex connotatione Objecti & Effectus, denominate Gods Act.  
It is impossible (say you) that Faith or anything should be the formal Cause of Gods Act. Very good! that were absurd indeed: But what is God's Act here? His Act here is expressed in the word [Imputing] and who thinks Faith the Form of that? Nothing in us can be the cause of God's 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 divers, their Form and Definition must be divers. 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' God's Act, yet passively taken, as other things, in the sense shown, must have its Causes. Sanctification is an Act of God's 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 Christ's Righteousness is not only the Meritorious but Material Cause of our Justification: And you have cited Mr. Anthony Burgess, holding Christ's 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. Burgess, tells us yet thus much further, Mirum hic videri non debet Christi justitiam, non Meritoriae solum, sed & Materialis, immo & formalis causae rationem habere, cum id fiat diversimodè, nempe, qua, illa est propter quod, in quo, sive ex quo, & per quod justificamur. So the Leiden Divines. For my own part, I have in my Book taken up with Mr. Baxter, upon trusting to his profounder Judgement, but I will now show 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 Christ's 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 Evangelic 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 Christ's Merits, is possible to move God, or be impulsive to any Act in him, who is uncapable of Mutation, did apprehend Christ's 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 extrinsic denomination of God's Law, yea his Will, by mere Connotation of the various and new Effects it causes, it was I think but an over deep curiosity in this excellent Man, which turned 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 Christ's 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 matter 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 Christ's Satisfaction and 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 sum 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 wrapped 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 than you can by no means extricate yourself 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 shown in this Letter. One is (for I must recall them) that whereas our 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 Christ's 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 , 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 Christ's Righteousness, and not our Own, per modum meriti, is Sound Protestantism: Justification by Christ's 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 brethren's, many of whom have scarce thought of this Term [formal Cause] so far have they been from the use of it in this Point. The Form of a Thing is, illud per quod res est id quod est, and denominates the Thing. If we know not the Form of Justification, we know not what Justification is; and how then can we tell when we say any thing right about it? To be justified, hath a Form passively denominating a Man just, from some Righteousness, according to all Divines, that understand themselves, Protestants or Papists: What that Righteousness is, is the Question. The Papists say one thing, the Common Protestants another. You and I come between them, and what it is we have shown.  
Christian Righteousness (says Luther, on Gal. 3.6.) consists in two things, Faith in the Heart, and God's 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, God's 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 clothing 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 Christ's 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 Humphrey.   

To Mr. Humphrey.  
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 Physicians 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 Subjectiuè, as in God; so it is his gracious condescension to accept our Faith or imperfect Obedience, unto Pardon and Life: Or Terminatiuè, as in us; and so it is nothing else but this Faith imputed for Righteousness, as so imputed, and this is the Causa formalis of our passive Justification.  
4. Against this I argue thus.  
1. (a) Hereby you make two Justifications, or Justification Active and Passive to be two different Things, because they have two Forms; one Gods imputing, or accepting Faith for Righteousness; the other Faith imputed, or so accepted for Righteousness: Of which more anon.  
(a) It is true, and if you hold there, and when you cite me, as saying Faith is the formal Cause of our Justification, you will supply what you find here, that I mean Faith only, as so imputed; and also that I understand Justification passively taken, I shall have little to answer to all that follows, for Justification Active and Passive have indeed two Forms, and must have, or else they could not be distinguished, and it is your fundamental, if not only Mistake, that you have a belief to the contrary.  
2. Justification is God's Act, but nothing in us can be the Causa formalis of Gods Act. To this you return several Answers.  
1. Sanctification is God's 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 God's 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. Dau. De. Jus. Val. c. 27.  
2. You answer further, thus, God is Actus purus, and nothing is the Cause or Condition of his Will, Ex parte Agentis: but as God's 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 God's Act is Faith or the Believer: The Effect of it in us, Justification. Imputation is the formal Cause, as has been 
(d) And already satisfied.  already said.  
5. The Arguments which you produce for the proof of it, I have gathered together out of the several places of their dispersion, and they are these:  
Argu. 1. All our Divines, both Protestant and Papist, do agree upon it that that Righteousness whatever it be that denominates and makes us righteous in God's 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 we use it in their Sense, and no otherwise, there can be no fear. But neither Regeneration, nor Christ's Righteousness, nor Pardon is that which justifies us per modum causae formalis; and therefore it must be 
(e) As imputed for Righteousness, that is with Luther, Faith and God's Imputation together; not Faith of its self.  Faith. Not Christ's 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? Christ's Righteousness, or the Righteousness of Faith? We agree, as to the last.  
Argu. 2. As Adam if he had perfectly obeyed, 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 Adam's 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 God's owning, accounting, or judging him righteous, upon the account of his perfect Obedience, as God's 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.) God's 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, than 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 Evangelic 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, than 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 God's sight, according to the Gospel, is that which justifies us, so as to be the Causa formalis of it [Per formalem Justificationis causam justi constituimur]: What then is that Righteousness which makes or constitutes us just? It is Gods imputing this Faith before infused, that makes us righteous, and consequently is the Causa formalis of our Justification.  
Answ. 1. I say the Causa formalis of Justification is Gods counting or judging us righteous, so say you too. Your Words are these, Gods judging us righteous upon believing, is the (k) Form.  
(k) The Form of a thing does constitute and denominate the thing. If Gods judging us righteous, or imputing our Faith for Righteousness does actually make, and denominate God our Justifier; then must our being judged righteous, and our Faith imputed for Righteousness, make and passively denominate us justified. There is the same Efficient and Material Cause in both, but the Form double.  
Answ. 2. I answer directly. The Righteousness whereby we are justified, as the meritorious Cause of our Justification, is the Righteousness of Christ: The Righteousness of Faith the material Cause: But the formal is (l) God 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 myself 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 Judgement 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 Defini-nition is made of a Genus & Differentia, called 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. Vnum 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.  
2. You (n) agree with me, that it is God's 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 aught that I know it is proper also in this. If it be proper to call Christ's 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 can't be denied. 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 expressly, (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 Christ's 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 than 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 Privilege.  
(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 formal, 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 Christ's 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 Evangelic 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 yourself, 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 intent 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 yourself 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 Controversy 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, than Faith is cashiered and put out of its Office of being Causa formalis of Justification.  
(s) It is not to bring myself 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, than 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 resolved on a contrary Judgement, 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 applied diversely, 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 divers, and must be so long as they differ from one another.  
3. You (x) are certainly in the right when you make Justification Active and Passive to be but a distribution of a Subject, into its Adjuncts, and that they have the same Form; Therefore the Subject is the same, only diversified by its different respects to its Agent and Object.  
(x) You are certainly in the wrong, in your understanding this thus. In a distribution of a Subject into its Adjuncts, the Subject is one, and hath one Form, Vnius rei unica forma, and the Adjuncts partake of that Form, but their own Forms are divers, and must be as that by which they differ from one another. I am sorry here I gave you occasion to be confirmed in your mistake. But this good shall come of it, I will show 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 divers Considerations.  
4. When (y) I say God justifies Paul, and Paul is justified of God, can any one be so void of sense as to say, these are two Things? Is not the Act the same, tho' the Agent and Object be different? When I say the Sun enlightens the Air, and the Air is enlightened by the Sun, is not the enlightening 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 applied is the Subject or Object of God's 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 lie, 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 foregoing 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 applied to the Object, is the Form introduced into the Matter. For why may not the Act and Object in Morality correspond, or be the same with the Form and Matter in Naturality? I know some make the Righteousness of Christ to be the Material Cause of Justification, but against that Assertion I have this Argument. The Meritorious cannot be the Material: But Christ's 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 Tried, 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 Trial, 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 Gild (as Mr. Gilbert expresses it) or the Curse of the Law, and giving us right to Life.  
This hath been a tedious Point, the other of Justification Constitutive, will be of quicker dispatch; yet since this Point also hath been much argued pro and con by us, whereby I have gained clearer Apprehensions of some things about it, than I had before; I will first gather up your Sense which you have expressed [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in sundry parcels, 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 expressed 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 merely 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 God's 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 virtue of that Law, Declaration, Sentence, give him a Right to Impunity and Salvation.  
5. The bestowing Faith upon us, which is our Gospel righteousness, is one thing, and the accounting us just upon believing is another.   
This is your Sense, and I shall now give you my Thoughts, which have been the result of this Debate between us. I grant,  
1. That we must be made righteous before we can be counted or declared so; or rather that Gods counting or judging us righteous according to Gospel-Law, is his making righteous Judically, that is, making guiltless or innocent in the Eye of Gospel-Law; and you express yourself 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Christ's Performance, in order to our Justification, viz. 

1. That by the Obedience and Merit of his Sufferings he obtained a Covenant of Grace, whereby Faith is counted for Righteousness.  
2. That all the Elect should be judged by God to be righteous in a Gospel Sense.   And so, By the obedience of one many are made righteous. So that this Righteousness does include both Constitutive and Sentential Justification, and therefore not to be appropriated to one of them distinct from the other.  
The two Points at first mentioned being now spoken to, there remains no more, but that I may rest for hereafter and ever;  
Your Affectionate Friend, Samuel Clark.   

To Mr. Clark.  
Worthy and Dear Sir,  
IT being time to give you rest, I have chose rather to write my Notes upon what I differ from you in, than to send them, to make you more work.  
Our Velitations have been on two Points; One whether Justification does constitute us just as well as accoun us so? The other about the formal Cause of it. For the former, which you have last treated, you was at first more at distance, and came nearer still in your Letters till at last you are brought to perfect Agreement de re, only de nomine, the word [Constitutive] you yet boggle at, and it is no matter for that. Constitutive Justification is Justificatio Juris; Sentential, Judicis, at the great day. When a Man is a True Believer the Gospel-Law does give him Right to Pardon and Life. This Right goes before the actual Pardon, and this. Right is a Righteousness that makes him righteous; and being so Made, he is so Accounted and Used; which are three parts of One Constitutive Justification. In your Denial 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 Christ's Righteousness, which is a Righteousness according to the Law of Innocency, to be that by which we are justified. I do not know his Book, whether it be so; but there is indeed no Legal Justification, and Justification by the Gospel is the Justification of a Sinner, one Ungodly still in the Eye of the Law, and Righteous, or Not guilty, only Quoad hoc, in respect to the Law of the Gospel, and that not but he hath sinned against the Law, and against the Gospel, but yet is Not guilty in regard to the Accusation, of his Non-performance of the Condition. If God looks on him as clothed with Christ's Righteousness, he must be looked on as one that never sinned, when he shall be looked 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 Humphrey.    

Sir Charles Wolseley TO Mr. Humphrey, UPON His sight of the foregoing LETTERS.  
My very worthy Friend,  
THE Sheets you were pleased to send me, containing your Letters and Mr. Clark's, please me very well, and you have obliged me by them. I know no Man has traveled into the Controversy of Justification with better success than yourself: You have I think with great Accuracy and Judgement searched into, and found out the genuine Meaning of St. Paul's Expressions, touching that important Point; And particularly in your clearing to us, what is meant by the Righteousness of God, so often mentioned by St. Paul. It has generally been taken for the Righteousness of Christ, you have made it very evident to me to be meant of the Righteousness of Faith, and that is a Key of singular use to unlock us into the true Notion of Gospel-Justification. I like what you have written so very well, that what I have to say to it will be contained in these two words, Probatum est. I am not a little satisfied to find that what I have formerly written on that subject, does so perfectly Coalesce with your Sentiments throughout. There is only one thing wherein you and I seem any thing to differ, either in Sense or Expression, and that is touching Pardon of Sin, to which you may possibly think I do allow a greater share in Justification than I ought; but I think you will find that you and I are upon very good Terms of concord therein. Faith and Gospel obedience I acknowledge do constitute us Evangelically Righteous, but are not such a Righteousness as to make God reckon us for innocent Persons, for so we are not, (for every Man that is in Heaven is there as a pardoned Sinner) as well as a righteous Person in Gospel Sense, for that is a Righteousness contrived by God to qualify an Offender for Pardon, and stands in direct opposition to that Righteousness by Works St. Paul inveighs so much against; but it serves us in as much stead as if we were so, for it entitles us to all the Benefits of Christ's Satisfaction, qualifies us for, helps us to Pardon of Sin, and Acceptance with God, and so our Gospel-righteousness in effect is but to procure Pardon, and therefore it is that the Scriptures that were not writ with any Relation to those nice and subtle distinctions, which Men have since used in interpreting of them, do chief intent to express their plain and genuine Meaning of Things, and in an especial manner by various Expressions of the same thing do set forth the amplitude of Gospel-salvation. 'Tis evident from the 4th of the Romans and the 7th, that imputing Righteousness, and Forgiveness of Sin are inseparable, and therefore sometimes Justification is spoken of in Scripture in its Cause, which is imputing Righteousness by Faith, and sometimes in its Effect, which is Pardon; Therefore I am well pleased to say with you, to adjust and comprehend that matter right, that the formalis ratio of Justification is Gospel-faith and Obedience, and Pardon of sin the necessary Consequent, Concomitant and Effect of it, and he that will give any other account of it, must (I believe) make use of some other Doctor than St. Paul. To think of obtaining Pardon any other way than by performing the Gospel-conditions of Faith and Obedience, is a great Antinomian folly, and a dangerous Error. I am very sensible that those that pretend above others to exalt free Grace, and take no notice of the Gospel Conditions upon the Performance of which it is only dispensed, do it seemingly, but not in truth and reality, and as it should be done, and are dangerous Misleaders: Such Notions do generally gratify all false Professors, and often ensnare and misguide the truest. Christ's part is certainly performed, the great business is to stir Men up to perform theirs; for when Christ had perfected the Salvation of the World, what then? Was there a a Proclamation published from Heaven, That all Men were thereupon actually saved? No, 'twas far otherwise: but God thereupon enters into a new Covenant with the World, and proclaims a Law of Grace with this Condition annexed, He that believes shall be saved, and he that believes not shall be condemned. He becomes the Author of Eternal Salvation only to those that obey him: 'Tis in other words to say, He that believes the Gospel and becomes obedient to it shall have the benefit of Christ's purchase. I look upon it as a most profane Error to say, that God ever intended to carry any Man to Heaven without a personal Righteousness, such an Opinion stands in direct opposition to the purity of his Attributes, and the Oeconomy of his Government. What both you and I have written, does truly and according to God's way of dispensing it, exalt Grace as much as it can be, for we ascribe all that we have under the Gospel entirely to Grace: When we speak of Faith and Gospel-obedience, we only speak of the method in which the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ are dispensed, for we acknowledge that our Faith and Obedience in themselves are very impotent and defective, and of no value, as to the Point of Justification, farther than God is pleased to impute and reckon them out of Grace and Favour to our advantage, as Methods by him appointed to bring us into all the blessed effects of Christ's purchase.  
Sir, I am also to thank you for that you have in your late Writings, Collected, Adjusted and Interpreted the dispersed Notions upon this Subject, in the Works of that most Excellent Person, your particular Friend and mine, Mr. Baxter, who was the early Promulger and constant Defender of the Right Scripture Doctrine of Justification. Tho' no Man pays a greater deference than I do to his Memory, yet this I must needs say to you, touching what he has writ about this Point and many others, his Writings are haunted with a crowd of Logical Distinctions, which do much obscure, I had almost said deface his clear and excellent Sense; he needed not have chosen that method of expressing himself, for tho' he never wore the Gowns of either University upon his back, yet he had the Learning of them both in his Head, and that was very perspicuous in all his Writings. I am also to thank you for rectifying the Notions of that exceeding pious and learned Person Doctor Owen touching this Matter, wherein I think you have been very succesiful. I suppose you know his Book of Justification was particularly written against mine. Very many have pressed me to answer it, which I acknowledge to you I did not look upon as duram provinciam. The great Friendship that was between him and me, might well seem sufficient to have biased me not to reply; but the true reason was, I thought that little Cottage I had erected was in no great danger of being shocked or demolished by any thing in that Book. The Doctrine of personal Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to every Believer, which that most Learned Person asserts and defends is so Unscriptural, having not one Text to defend it, has so many Unjustifiable and contradictory Consequences attending it; and indeed there are so many Triumphs over it by those that have written against it in the Booksellers Shops, that it is scarce worth any Man's while to harness himself for the defence of that Point. If when Men speak of imputing Christ's Righteousness to every Believer, they mean the imputing of it only in the Effects and Advantages of it, they say what you and I say.  
Sir, I am very well satisfied you have done this Age very good Service, to convince Men of the necessity of performing the Gospel-Conditions, if ever they will reap the benefit of what Christ hath done for us. Faith and sincere Obedience is the way by which God justified and saved Abraham, the Father of the Faithful, and in him gave an instance how all Men, to the World's end, are to obtain Heaven and Salvation, even by treading in the steps of their Father Abraham. Two ways we see Men generally miscarry, either by a profane Neglect of the Gospel, or an hypocritical Profession of it. Happy would the World be, if delivered from Profaneness on the one hand, and false Godliness on the other. I have nothing to add but that I am  
Your very affectionate and obliged Friend and Servant, Charles Wolseley.   

The Animadversions.  
THere was a Sheet called The Report, which I read, and four or five called A Rebuke of that Report, which I read likewise. I suppose the Author of the first thought it necessary to inform the Country of the true State of the Difference about Doctrinals there was in the City, and made that Report according to his Conscience: I suppose also that the Author of the second thought it fit in conscience to rebuke that Report, as giving wrong Information: And if any have been offended at either, it is that supposed necessity must excuse both. There were four Sheets I wrote as a Friendly Interposer between them, and these I writ now, I intended as a Second Port, in regard to that Title. Since these, there came out a Defence of the Report, and more lately a Vindication of the Rebuke, which Books having not the excuse of such necessity are faulty, and their fault being openly committed, is openly to be reproved, and that is, that they knowingly (sometimes) abuse one another. Mr. Rebuke upon an Objectors saying, In our place and stead, with some does signify no more than for our good, answers, It is impossible they should. Mr. Report takes up this passage and exagitates it as a piece of Socinianism, when it is manifest that Mr. Rebuke speaks it as a piece of Wit, not meaning that Christ died only for our good, but because what he did and suffered in our place and stead was for our good. On the other hand Mr. Report, speaking of the particular matter he was concerned about, says, This is the substance of the Gospel: Mr. Rebuke hereupon tells him of Regeneration, Repentance, Faith, Good Works, that are parts of the Gospel, and thereby endeavours to expose him for Antinomianism, as one that excludes these things out of the Gospel; and in the end of his Vindication he citys some words out of Mr. Report's Appeal, and congratulates his return to himself, that now acknowledges Repentance necessary to Pardon, and Faith to Justfication, in some such words, which are all manifest Abuse on both sides, for neither does Mr. Report believe Mr. Rebuke a Socinian, nor Mr. Rebuke believe Mr. Report an Antinomian; they may as well say they are two Dears or two Birds, as to say that either is a Socinian or Antinomian. I must confess there is one Chapter in the Vindication, about Christ's dying in our stead, that is so well, so solid, so appositely scriptured, so brief and convincing against the Socinian, that (excepting all Application, to his Adversary) I have been seldom pleased and satisfied with any thing more; and I must confess moreover my pleasure in reading the Book, that I left not, though it be ten Sheets (unless for a spirit) till I had done: Yet does not all his Wit, nor his Erudition recompense so ill an Example as the rendering evil for evil, that is, Abuse for Abuse, which is not only a fault as to Men, but a sin as to God; and I pray God forgive them both, and I pray them to forgive me the telling them of it. I shall let alone therefore these Books mentioned, and take notice only of these two more, that is, the Answer of our Presbyterian Brethren to Mr. Lob, set out by Mr. Williams, and the Appeal of Mr. Lob to the Bishop of Worcester, and shall offer a few Animadversions upon some Passages, which others it is like would not, at least with that impartiality (whether they offend or not) as I do.  
A great part I perceive of these Books is about the Phrase Commutation of Persons, for Explication whereof the Presbyterian Brethren distinguish of a Natural, Moral and Legal Change (p. 12.) and tell us that there is no change of Christ's Natural Person into Ours, or Ours into His, and that Christ's Qualities likewise are not made Ours, nor Ours His, which is most true without doubt, but who ever thought otherwise? Who ever questioned any such thing, that there is need of such a distinction? If any think that Dr. Crisp, by Christ's taking our Quality and Condition, and we his, did understand these brethren's Moral Change, as if the Accidents of one Subject could migrate into another, they abuse the Doctor, supposing him such a Blockhead as no Scholar is to be supposed. No, when he tells us that Christ was as complete a sinner as we, and we as completely righteous as he, it must be construed only by way of Imputation: We must not wrest any words of his to make him think otherwise. It is true now here, that in this Imputation of our sins to Christ he understands it not only quod reatum paenae, but Culpae also, which is his Error, but as for this distinction of a Moral Change, it does not affect him any more than the Brethren themselves; so that they do thereby only beat the Air, not him; It is no more to the confuting Antinomianism than might be spared: And as for the word Legal Change, upon which they pitch, they do it not without fear of danger, as themselves acknowledge, and have reason, so that indeed in the Explication of this Phrase [Change of Persons] they should not have distinguished upon the word [Change] but the word [Person.] The word [Person] is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, liable to a divers Acceptation; the word [Change] to none: Change is Change, but Person is not Person. There is a Natural Person, and a Legal Person, which are two of their three Terms; but the Term [Moral] as to Person, hath no place here. And it is Christ Natural Person (tho' there be no Natural Change) which comes in the room of our Natural Persons, to bear the Punishment of our sins, that is, the Commutation of Persons, as is necessary to the Explication of the Doctrine of Satisfaction. If there be any change of Person else, in regard to the Term [Legal Person] let any of the Brethren that can make it our.  
By this Distinction mentioned, it is one thing with them for Christ to take on him our Person, and another our Quality, State or Condition, and our Brethren therefore do impugn Mr. Lobb's saying, That Christ put himself into our Place, State and Condition, (P. 31.) when even these words are, and may be used as well as sustaining our Person, and suffering in our stead, giving them the same Orthodox Construction. Such Expressions must be taken not simpliciter, but secundum quid, not in regard to every thing, but to one thing. Christ did take on him our State, Condition or Quality, as we were liable to Punishment, or as obnoxious to the Curse for our sins, and so became a Curse and Sacrifice for us: But when Mr. Lob says further, that we were Sinners and destitute of Righteousness, he must be construed to speak so also in regard to the Punishment due to us thereupon, and that Christ took upon him that Condition, only whereby he was liable, in our stead: But to press him therefore with the consequence, that Christ must be a sinner and destitute of Righteousness. is to press him too hard, for he is one we know, that denies the Crispian Sense of Change of Persons, as well as the Brethren: And tho' they do here but take him on the hip upon a slip of Words, they by and by do him plain wrong, when upon the right Interpretation they make, they say, This will not content him, for it will and does content him, and he means not otherwise than they; and as for their making him hold, That Christ was changed to be a sinful Person, destitute of Righteousness, as they go on in the place, A lapsus linguae is no Error mentis, and the arguing him into what he abhors, is not doing as good Men would be done by themselves. They are in good earnest here too heavy upon him.  
In these Papers of the Brethren, there is a Letter from the Bishop of Worcester, and part of some Letters from Dr. Edward's. That which is quoted out of the Dr. seems to me open, obvious, and edifying. That which is said by the Bishop is writ with Prudence and Caution, with Ability and Authority, but not with that openness altogether as I, who speak as a Fool, could wish.  
The Commutation of Persons between Christ and us, according to his Lordship, may have a threefold sense. One which implies Christ being appointed to Act in our behalf, for our benefit, which the Socinians will grant. Another, which implies not only his acting for our benefit, but his being substituted in our stead, in bearing our Punishment, to become an Atonement for us, that is, to satisfy God's Justice, that so by an Act (or New Law) of Grace he might grant us Pardon and Life, upon the Conditions of the Gospel, which is the sound Sense of this Change of Persons, according to Grotius, this Learned Bishop, our Presbyterian Brethren and Mr. Lob also, which he will not gainsay, tho' whether he will have more to it, let himself tell. For,  
There is a third Sense of this Commutation, which implies a translation of our sins upon Christ and of his Righteousness upon us, which admits of a double Sense, one of Dr. Crisp and the Antinomians, and the other of such we call Orthodox, embracing the Common Protestant Doctrine of Justification. This third Sense, as owned by Dr. Crisp, the Bishop hath in short words set out right, which is in two Points differing from the Orthodox. One is, that Dr. Crisp accounts our sins to be translated on, or imputed to Christ, not only as to the Obligation of Punishment, but in regard to the guilt of the Fault: The other is, that Christ's Righteousness is translated on the Elect before they believe, and consequently they are justified without Faith. Now the Bishop sets himself against this third Crispian Sense and bestows a great part of his Letter to confute this known exploded Error; so that as I have said of our brethren's Distinction before, that they did but beat the Air, and confute no Body, I must needs say of the Bishop, that he does indeed beat some Body, that is, confute the Crispian, but his beating is besides the Cushion. This excellent Bishop's Work were to consider, whether he shall admit or confute Mr. Lob, Dr. Owen, and those that hold such a translation of our sins on Christ, and his Righteousness on us, as is maintained without either of these Crispian Errors. To prove that a Man must believe before he is justified, needs no more than these words of the Apostle, We have believed, that we may be justified: The elaborate proving such Doctrine to be against the Scripture, is but a prudential declination of that difficult Task, that calls here for his undertaking.  
The common Protestant I will suppose when the Scripture speaks of our sins being laid on Christ, or Christ bearing our sins on the Cross, or the like, do understand no other thing than the Bishop, that is, he took on him our sins, in regard to the Legal Gild, not Personal, to use his words, understanding by those Terms reatum paenae, not culpae, in the ordinary distinction (for when the Bishop makes Legal Gild to imply desert of Punishment, as well as the Obligation to it, his personal Gild is one with Legal, besides the term [Legal Gild] is dangerous, lest any thereby should understand Christ to be our Legal Person, so as to be in us Guilty, and we righteous in him) or to speak surest, he took on him our Punishment without the desert of it, and so neither I or the Bishop, or our Presbyterian Brethren differ in the least, as to this part of the Translation, which is to be granted as necessary to the Explanation of the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction: But as to the other part of this Translation, which is the transferring his Righteousness on the Believer (not on the Elect before Faith, for that is Antinomianism) in such a sense as is necessary to the making out the Doctrine of Justification, according to the Common Protestant, here is the Point which requires the Determination of this most Learned Bishop: whereof if he dare venture his Credit, so as to tell his Judgement plainly (which would tend to the establishment of many) he shall do a great thing, a daring matter, wherein yet he is thus far advanced, that he hath in this Letter, made an onset on the greatest strength of the Antagonist, which is That, they raise upon the words of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5.21. He hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him: Unto which Text the Bishop answers, That by Christ's being made sin, is meant a Sacrifice for sin, according the Scripture Sense: And we are made the Righteousness of God in him, in that God, upon the account of his Sacrifice and our Reconciliation to him, does treat us as Righteous Persons, or receive us into his Grace and Favour upon our believing. I add, upon our believing, as what is understood by him. And this is all (he says) that he can find St. Paul understood by this Expression. Here we see this Text brought off so cleverly, as that there is no Arrow hath touched him, but withal, so cautiously and prudentially for fear of shot, that I cannot but take notice of that Learned Gentleman that hath wrote on this Subject, Sir Charles Wolseley's greater Resolution, who hath said the same thing upon this Text with the Bishop, but without dread of the Bullets. The meaning is (says he) this, Christ that was without sin was ordained of God to be a Sacrifice for sin, that we might thereby be made righteous with the Gospel-Righteousness, for that is the general meaning every where of the Righteousness of God. Sir C. W's Evan. Just. p. 64. The direct answer to this Text is this, That the Righteousness of God in him, is not the Righteousness of Christ, according to our Common Protestant Divines, which is manifest, because God and Him are two, as I have it (in my Right. of God. P. 11.) with this Argument, Justitia Dei est finis sive effectum ex eo quod Christus peccatum pro nobis factus est. Hoc autem ipsum est Christs obedientia. E'go justitia Dei non est Christi Obedientia. Wotton.  
The Common Protestant Opinion accounted Orthodox, is that we are justified by Faith Objective, that is by Christ's Righteousness, which is its Object, received by Faith as the Instrument making it ours, so that God looks upon us as righteous in his Righteousness, or accounts us so, which is our Justification. The Opinion I hold (as what I think those that go Mr. Baxter's way, are to come to) I declare to be, that we are justified by Faith Formaliter, and through Christ's Righteousness, 
Si justitia est opus Dei, quomodo erit opus Dei ut credatur in eum, nisi ipsa sit justitia, ut credamus in cum? Aug. in Jo. 6.29.  as the Meritorious Cause only. The Scripture is manifest, that by Faith we are justified. Was not Abraham justified by Faith? The just shall live by Faith. This is steadfastly attested by the Apostle. By Faith; so that Faith is the id per quod, as the Righteousness of Christ the id propter quod, the Believer is justified. The Meritorious Cause is the Efficient Protatarctick, and cannot be the Formal. That Christ's Righteousness therefore, is not the Believers formal Righteousness, I must lay down among the set of Notions, as certainly appertaining to Mr. Baxters' way of Justification, so that the Maintenance of, or Departure from that Assertion, does assuredly make, or mar, the right conception of that Article.  
There is no Point of moment, but hath its set of Notions (as I say) belonging to it, and whether the Bishop will go the Common way of the Protestant, or a way of his own altogether, or the way of Mr. Baxter, which I and Mr. Williams do go, as to the main, I suppose that excellent Person, who is able to perceive that Concatenation of Notions, belonging to the way he takes, will lay them so together, as to make the whole agreeable, knowing well, that if he break one of the Set, one Link, he breaks all, the whole Chain. The fundamental Notion in the way that Mr. Baxter, and I, and Mr. Williams go, is this, That it is not by the Law, but the Gospel, not by the Law of Works, but the Law of Grace, that we are to be judged, and consequently justified or condemned. One other Notion of his, near to this, is, that the Righteousness of Christ is not, cannot be imputed to us (that is, reckoned to us as ours) any otherwise than in the Effects. The Righteousness of Christ is a Righteousness that answers the Law, and if that be imputed to us in se, for our Justification, than we are justified by the Law. When Mr. Williams therefore says with us, that it is by the Gospel (not the Law) we are to be judged, and yet that Besides the effects, the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer, that thereby he may be justified (which must be understood) it is a plain Inconsistency, a perfect Tergiversation. As for what Mr. Williams offers in Made made righteous, p. 76. to 83. I have answered, Pacifica. p. 35, 36. Let me ask him upon it, when he says, The very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer, does he understand by the Righteousness of Christ, that which his Brethren do, or not? If he does, he is held under this Inconsistency, and can never come off: If he do not, than the Brethren are deceived in him. He appears to be of their Judgement, about the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and yet understands by Christ's Righteousness another thing than they do. What Man before him, ever said or understood that Christ's Right to his Reward, is the Righteousness which is imputed to a Believer? I argue against him. The Righteousness which is imputed to a Believer, is that Righteousness which is the Meritorious Cause of his Justification: But it is not Christ's Right to his Reward, but the Obedience of his Life and Death (which two things he distinguishes, and makes a double Righteousness, and brings himself off with the first, instead of affirming the last) which is the Meritorious Cause of our Justification. And as for what he says in affirming, Christ's Right to his Reward, to be the Believers, His own Right, and the Believers to be the same Right, it is impossible according to the Rule of Accidents, as I answer him in my Pacification.  
There is another Distinction of Mr. Williams, which Mr. Alsop uses in his Rebuke, directly contrary to him in the Terms, yet Neither, differing in the Doctrine of it, that I will take this occasion to remember. Dr. Crisp's Phrase of Change of Person, Mr. Williams impugns, but yet grants a Change of Persons. By Change of Person, I doubt not but the Dr. meant a Change on both sides, as appears by his Explication, that Christ became a sinner as we, and we righteous as he, and that is a Change of Persons. There is a Change of Person on one side, and a Change of Person on both sides. A Change of both sides is all one with a Change of Persons. When Mr. Williams then upon this, distinguishes between a Change of Person, and Change of Persons, it is his own Distinction, when the Doctor never thought of any; and when it is his own, he may make what Construction of it he please, and that he puts on it be sure shall be Orthodox; for by the one he will have Dr. Crisp's Commutation understood, and deny it; by the other, the Bishop's Commutation, and hold it. Here is his Doctrine found, but his Distinction, as he uses the Terms so forced, strained, unnatural, that it is useless altotether, but to bring himself off, and serve his occasion: Whereas the Distinction, as used by Mr. Alsop, is so apposite, easy, proper, natural in the Terms, that if it be stood to, no Distinction can be of more use for deciding the Controversy of our Brethren. By Change of Person, Mr. Alsop understands, One coming in the room of another; By Change of Persons, Both coming in the room of one another; and when Mr. Williams grants a Change of Persons, and denies a Change of Person, he (Mr. Alsop) does hold a Change of Person, and denies a Change of Persons, and yet both agree (I have said) in the Doctrine they make of it. Mr. Alsop's Distinction then fuller explained, is between Christ's sustaining or putting on our Person, his taking our State and Condition, or his obeying and suffering in our room or stead, and Our sustaining or putting on Christ's Persen, taking on us his Quality or Condition, or coming in his room or place. The one he maintains, and denies the other. I will add, he does hold, and it is to be held, that Christ stood in our room and stead, and so may be said to put on our Person in obeying and suffering for us, as necessary to the Doctrine of Satisfaction; but he denies, or I do, (as that which is to be denied) that we take on us Christ's Person, or come in his room or stead, as necessary (which others affirm) to our Justification.  
To make this appear (as to the right sense of it) we must know, that to take another's Person, or to do or suffer any thing in, the room or place of another, is to do or suffer the thing, to free the other from the doing or suffering. When Christ then is said to die for us, or for our sins, which is all one as taking our Person, or suffering in our room, place or stead, it signifies that he obeyed the Law, and suffered the penalty, that we might not be bound to that perfect Obedience, as the Condition of Life, and that we might not suffer the Curse of it, and this is necessary to the making God Satisfaction, that we may be pardoned and escape the same: But for us to put on Christ's Person, or come in his room or stead, does signify our doing and suffering in him, as our Legal or Civil Person, what he did and suffered, and so be looked on as having fulfilled the Law, both in obeying and suffering; so that his Obedience, both of his Life and Death, is imputatively ours, and we in sensu forensi, as righteous as he in the sight of God, and justified by the Law as Christ was. This Commutation of Person therefore we deny, as that Doctrine which subverts the Gospel.  
It was a deep mistake in the much reading of Mr. Report, to apprehend that the Commutation of Persons, in the Sense of Grotius, is conducive to the Explanation of the Doctrine of Justification, according to the Common Protestant, as it is to that of Satisfaction. There was a Surrogation of Christ's Person in our room, for his making Satisfaction; there is no Surrogation of our Persons in his room, for receiving Justification. Of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, as if we had performed it all, and of Faith whose Office it is to embrace that Righteousness so imputed, there is not one word in the Sacred Letters, says the Learned Grotius: If the Bishop before praised, dare follow that leading Man in the one Point, as in the other.  
I will come now therefore to this new Book of Mr. Lob, which he calls An Appeal, that is, from the Presbyterian Brethren, to the Bishop of Worcester, as Moderator between them. They produce the Bishop's Letter in their Vindication, and Mr. Lob sticks to that Letter, as vindicating him, and both are in the right; for when they agree to the Bishop, they must agree also with one another. In this Appeal, Mr. Lob, looking on Mr. Williams, as in the Chair of Mr. Baxter, to maintain his Doctrine, does collect many Pussages out of Mr. Baxter, which are approaching to the Socinians, and supposes such Doctrine to be inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Bishop, that he maintains against Crellius, in his Book of the Sufferings of Christ. We shall see, if the Bishop writer, whether he judges as Mr. Lob, or rather shall see cause of Agreement, not Difference, with Mr. B. in this Point. That which I have to say is this.  
There is a vast difference in the account that must be given of two Men, speaking the same things about a Doctrine, which is in Controversy between them, when one does bring them by way of Objection for Confutation of it, and the other by way of Explication, for the better clearing and maintaining it, in Answer to those Objections. And there is a double Answer to an Objection, One is by Negation, when the matter is false; and the other is by Concession, when the matter is true and reasonable, but showing that it affects not that Doctrine, which remains firm notwithstanding that Concession. This is the Case of Mr. Baxter in regard to the Socinian. The Socinians say many things rationally, and which are true; and Mr. Baxter in such matters spares not to say the like; but the one says them for the Enervating, the other for the Elucidating the Doctrine of Satisfaction. It is most certain, that Mr. Baxter holds the same Doctrine which Grotius does, and follows him in the Explication, showing the consistency of it with God's Free Grace, in the remission of sin, which two things Socinus thinks incompatible. To wit, in that when it is alius that suffers, it is aliud solvitur, and also it being not the Idem, but the Tantundem, which Christ suffered, and that it was not therefore the Law itself, but the Lawgiver he satisfied: Upon which accounts the Satisfaction was in itself refusable, a Solutio recusabilis as he, after Grotius, does call it, that is, such as God in Justice, was not bound to accept, but in Mercy through Grace he did accept it, and what is more, found out this way of Satisfaction himself for us, which makes it so much more of Grace; so that a Free Pardon, I say, appears notwithstanding this Satisfaction, as in the Sacrifices of the Jews for sin, there was an Atonement made by their Blood, in order to the Remission. That Mr. Baxter does maintain this Doctrine of Grotius, this Doctrine that is the Marrow of the Old and New Testament, to wit, the Doctrine of Pardon upon Satisfaction against the Socinian, it is apparent I say, as that Mr. Lob does hold Justification upon believing against Dr. Crisp. And if it shall farther appear, that there is nothing of all that he hath alleged against Mr. Baxter, is dissonant to the mind of Grotius, and Bishop Stillingfleet, he will I hope come off at last.  
To this end let us observe, that this Learned Bishop in his Letter, speaking of Christ's bearing our sins, and distinguishing the desert of punishment from the Punishment, and affirming rightly, that though Christ took on him the Obligation to undergo the Punishment, the Desert could not be transferred upon him, he hath these words; No Man can cease to deserve Punishment for his own Faults, nor Deserve that another should be punished for them. This Saying is so true, plain and reasonable, that though Socinus, Crellius, or any of their Followers, shall stand upon it never so much, it is not to be denied, but granted for all that. Upon this Foundation it follows: If no Man can deserve that another be punished for him, then cannot we by our sins deserve Christ's sufferings. We deserved the Punishment (it was a deserved Punishment) but we deserved not that he should bear it. If our sins then deserved not that Christ should suffer, they are not the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings. If not the Meritorious Cause, no proper Cause, but the Occasion, as Mr. Baxter is cited by Mr. Lob. And to go on, the reason appears, It was not from the Law his Obligation to suffer did arise, for the Law punishes only the Transgressor: Noxu caput siquitur. It was not our Obligation therefore he took on him, for our Obligation is an Obligation of desert (Obligatio Criminis, as it is called) but his only Ex contractu. And seeing it was not Obligatio ex Lege, it follows that the Sufferings he bore were Materially, not Formally, Punishment. It was the sins of Mankind (says Mr. Baxter) that were the Occasion of Christ's Sufferings, called by some an assumed Meritorious Cause, because by his consent they were loco causae Meritoriae. End of Contro. C. 13. In which Words, and all other Passages collected by Mr. Lob, what is there to be found fault with, unless an over perspicacity, tightness, and consonancy of Judgement in all his Pieces alike, made good all by the reason of that undeniable Concession, that One Man cannot deserve that another should be punished for his Faults, as the Bishop has it.  
And now to come from the Bishop to Grotius; It must be acknowledged that Grotius hath made it his business to show, that our sins were the Impulsive, the Meritorious Impulsive Cause of Christ's Sufferings, in his dying for us, which he hath proved no less substantially than critically, by the Prepositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 15.3. Heb. 11.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Pet. 3.18. Gal. 1.4. Pro peccatis: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cum accusativo, Rom. 4.25: Propter peccuta; and Isa. 53.5. Ob peccata nostra; which all denote the Impulsive Cause (says he) and not the Final, against Socinus. Upon this, it is supposed by Mr. Lob, that what is mentioned before, as said by Mr. Baxter, is contrary to this Doctrine, and he hath cited such Passages therefore as Heterodox: But Grotius himself must be the Man to Answer and Reconcile what he says, with what is said by Mr. Baxter, which he does very sufficiently, with one word, that Mr. Lob hath not observed, at least to make so good an use of it. For Socinus in opposition to the Doctrine of Satisfaction, denying that Christ could die for sin, as the Meritorious Cause of his Death, (which he will have to be only the Final Cause in turning us away from it) because this must make him (as he argues) a sinner, and one deserving to die, Grotius takes him up, and tells us, that it was for sin, but Impersonaliter. This he explains in that our sins did deserve that Punishment should be exacted, but such was the goodness of God to spare us, and lay it upon his Son, who was wounded for our Transgressions, and through his stripes are we healed.  
Now that God might do so without Injustice, Grotius brings many Instances, from David, from Ahab, from the Gibeonites, from the second Commandment. What God himself does, or allows, must be just. David sins, and his Child dies. Ahab is wicked, and his Punishment is deferred to his Sons Days. Saul is cruel to the Gibeonites, and his Grandchilds are put to death. The Father's sin, and God visits their sin on the Children, to three or four Generations. Here is Merit, as the Antecedent Cause of the Punishment, in all these Instances, and yet not the Merit of the Person or Persons that suffer it. And what if I shall add here this great thing, (a thing wherein Divines are put so hard to it, in giving their account) even the greater Instance of Death passing on all Men (with their innocent Babes among them) for Adam's Transgression. It is said of Grotius, and that solidly in another place, Peccata paenae causa sunt non aliter quam per modum Meriti; which being true, Socinus does indeed seem to argue strongly, that therefore prater Dei & ipsius Christi voluntatem non posse ullam legitimam causam reddi mortis Christi nisi dicamus Christum meritum fuisse ut moriretur. This Grotius, I say, takes up and Answers thus; Inest quidem in antecedente causa Meritum, sed Impersonaliter: From hence then we must distinguish, there is a double Merit of Punishment, Personal and Impersonal. When Grotius tells us, that in Christ's sufferings there was truly Punishment, because that, though God laid it on his Son, our sins required the infliction; and Mr. Baxter says, no formal proper Punishment, because not only without desert in Christ, but which is more, because our desert could not be transferred on him, though the Punishment was, they both say true, (but rightly understood only) the one Personaliter, the other Impersonaliter, as Grotious hath decided it.  
And what is this in good earnest any other but what the Bishop hath in effect determined likewise? No Man can deserve that another should be punished for him, and yet because the Execution of Punishment depends on the wisdom of God, a Change of Persons (that is, of Christ to bear it in our room, Christ being willing, and the thing just) may intervene, says the Bishop, in more words, and all apposite. If Mr. Lob than can but reconcile the Bishop to himself, (unto whom he seems hearty to subscribe) he must reconcile Mr. Baxter and Grotius, and be also reconciled to both. And that he may be so the more easily, the Bishop hath given a Test for the discovery of the Orthodox from the Socinian, and Mr. Baxter shall thereby be tried. The true Controversy (says he) between the Socinian and us, is, Whether the Sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a Punishment for our sins, and as a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for them: or only as an Act of Dominion over an innocent Person, in order to his Advancement to Glory. The same is affirmed after him by our Presbyterian Brethren, and who is there can imagine ever Mr. Baxter denied that Christ's sufferings was a Punishment for our sins, and his death a Propitiatory Sacrifice, for them? He hath made him sin for us, says Paul (2 Cor. 5.21.) Upon which, God hath made Christ a Sacrifice for sin, says Mr. Baxter, as others, which Socinus denies. Who his own self bore our sins in his own Body, on the Tree, says Peter, (1 Pet. 2.24.) Upon which, It was the punishment of our sins, which as a Sacrifice, he bore in his sufferings on the Cross, says Mr. Baxter. But what need I quote any such particular Say, when there is no Book of his that is great, that can be without such a Testimony, over and over?  
What then you may ask, shall we judge here of Mr. Lobb's great Industry? Shall we look on him as the Fly upon the Axletree, that hath raised all this Dust for nothing? I will not say so, seeing Dust there is, that must be raised, if our Wheels do but go, and our Chariot drive to its designed end, the quiet of the Brethren. It is not enough that we are agreed indeed in this Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, though we are, unless we also understand and know it: Besides that when we are agreed, there is need of some Authority yet to tell us we are so, that ourselves may believe it. The Composing a Controversy by Silence, is but covering the Fire, as Mr. Lob observes, not extinguishing it. If the Matter be such, wherein we indeed do agree, the Ventilation of it must show us the seeming Difference to be nothing, and so compel a Concord: If the Matter be such wherein we really disagree, there is still need of beating it out, that the Corn may be discovered from the Chaff, by the threshing.  
There are two Points we know among us, both very great P●●●…ts, and the one made difficult through the Intanglement of it with the Other. One is of Christ's Satisfaction, wherein indeed we differ not: The other is of our Justification, wherein we do differ; and there are two ways of Explication, Mr. Baxter's, and the Common Protestants. Upon the Account now of this Difference in the latter Point, there are many are stumbled in their Explication of the former.  
As for Mr. Lob he has verily given occasion for an Accommodation between the Brethren by his Appeal to the Bishop, as to the Point of Satisfaction, for seeing indeed there is therein no difference, he is like to effect it: But as for the other, of Justification, Mr. Lob is behind, and it will be a harder matter for any to moderate in it. One thing, in his strowing his way hereunto, is to be preparatively considered. He has read (I suppose) Socinus de Servatore, as well as Grotius upon him, and Crellius then against Grotius, with other Socinians; as also Dr. Crisp, and other Antinomians, and he is not ignorant where the Water sticks between us and them both. The Socinian accounts Christ to be a good Man, that taught us Holy Doctrine, and died to bear Testimony to the Truth of it, to the end we might believe it, and live according to it, and so be saved; and upon this account is our Saviour: But as for his dying for our sins, any otherwise than for turning us away from them by his Doctrine and Example, which is making our sins the Final Cause of his Death, he understands not; when as for the making it the Meritorious Cause of the Sufferings of an innocent Man, and thereby satisfactory to the Justice of God (he accounting the whole Office of his Priesthood, that which did not respicere Deum, but Us, not reconciling God to us, but us to God) for the obtaining our Impunity, this seems to these Men not reasonable. On the other hand, the Antinomian, upon this Satisfaction as made to God by Christ's sufferings, understands our sins to be so laid on Christ, as that it was not only our Punishment that he bore, but our Gild, our Fault our Desert: And whereas we are apt to say this is blasphemous, because Christ hereby is made a sinner, and the greatest of Sinners; they say No; for this is to say but what Luther, and our Orthodox Divines have said before them, and there is no hurt in it, understanding it only (as they all do) by way of Imputation. For as in the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us, we are accounted of God righteous as he, for our Justification; so in the Imputation of our sins, he is made as sinful as we, for making God Satisfaction. This they take up as the Common Doctrine of our former Protestants, which Mr. Lob will do well to turn over, and examine, whether they who have wrote before Baxter among us, do not ordinarily say thus. That our sins were imputed to Christ so as to be counted his. That he was not made only a Sacrifice for sin, but even so sin for us, that is, by Imputation, as we are made his Righteousness. For seeing this is the perpetual rule of God's Justice, that the same Soul that sinneth should die, how can it stand with God's Justice that Christ should suffer for our sins, if they were not in some sort annexed to him? The Scripture evidently affirms, (Isa. 53.6, 11, 12) That Christ bore not only the punishment of our sins, but our sins also; what aileth then the Jesuit, so boldly to deny, that our sins are imputed to Christ? Seeing then (again) the Scripture so speaks, why should we doubt to speak as the Scripture does, that Christ was for us counted a Sinner or Transgressor, yet in himself remained Holy, Just and Righteous still? So we in Christ are verily reputed righteous, though by nature we are Unjust and Unrighteous. This I quote out of Willet's Synopsis, being Passages lying near together, (See Cont. 19 of Justification) supposing the like to be common in others.  
In such Passages then as these, which we shall find in former Divines, we see no such Distinction made, between our Merit of the Punishment, and the Punishment, as we now make, with the Bishop, to whom Mr. Lob does subscribe. It is essential to Punishment, that it be inflicted for sin, but not essential that it be inflicted on the party himself that sinned, says Grotius; and in another place before quoted, that sin is the cause of Punishment no otherwise but per modum Meriti. Now Christ having himself never sinned, if the Merit of our sins was not laid upon him together with the Punishment, how was it per modum Meriti that he was punished? Mr. Lob knows whether Crellius does not urge something to this purpose against Grotius, and if he can solve the difficulty, to defend Grotius, that which he must grant to do it, will defend Mr. Baxter against him. But as for the Antinomian, who stands upon this, as no less necessary to the Doctrine of Satisfaction, than that Christ's Righteousness be ours, as necessary to the Doctrine of Justification, and accounts it to be no other but the Common Opinion of the Protestant, it does appear that some bank or bound must be set to this Sea, lest the opinion formerly received as Orthodox overflow into Antinomianism; and I must give notice to Mr. Lob, and those that retain and uphold it, that if they persist, they must come thus far, as to say that on one side the Believer is by Imputation as righteous as Christ himself; and on the other that Christ by Imputation is a sinner as we, which to put in Dr. Crisp's words, is that Christ was as completely sinful as we, and we as completely righteous as he, wherein, as before, they conceived no hurt, because understood by them only by way of Imputation. If Mr. Lob will recede from the Common Opinion here, he must recede from all those Notions that are concatenated together in the Explication of it.  
And what is meant by this Imputation, in the Sense of our Common Protestant? The Imputation of a thing to a Person, is the accounting it his, in regard to our dealing with him. In God's imputing our sins to Christ, he does account (as they say) him to be a sinner, or them to be his, and does so deal with him, in laying our Punishment upon him. In God's imputing to us Christ's Righteousness, he accounts his Righteousness to be ours, and so deals with us in justifying us by it. So they. But how can God account our sins to be Christ's, and his righteousness Ours, when really they are not so, and God's Judgement is according to Truth? They must Answer, If by really we mean Physically, it is indeed impossible that our Qualities should become Christ's, and his ours; there is none that understands it so: but if by really we mean only legally, in sensu forensi, in conspectu fori, or in Law-sense, as Divines express it, it is really so (they will say) that our sins are laid on Christ, and his righteousness made ours, or else that neither could Christ have suffered, or We be justified. But what yet is this Legally, or in Law-sense, which is to be conceived by a Quatenus, as God deals with us according to Law? Why our Divines suppose that Christ did take on him our Person, and so our Sins, and as acting in our Person, what he did and suffered in our behalf, is accounted of God to be done and suffered by us, even as what my Attorney at Law does for me, it is in Law, or as I am to be dealt with according to Law, all one as if it were done by me. Here than we must make a stand, and consider whether Christ indeed was such a Representative, as that in him as our Legal or Civil Person, we are accounted of God to have fulfilled the Law, both in Obedience to the Precept, and bearing the Punishment, so as to be perfectly righteous, in his Righteousness, and accordingly justified. We must come thus home, or say nothing.  
There is another Explication therefore that is made of this Imputation by Mr. Baxter. There is a double sense of it. There is an Imputation, or accounting a thing to a Person as his, either in se, or in the Effect. Mr. Baxter denies not Imputation, but explains it. An Imputation of our sins to Christ, and his righteousness to us in this Law sense mentioned, is the Imputation in se, which as the former commonly received Doctrine, and unsound, Mr. Baxter disowns: But an Imputation in regard to the Effects, that the Righteousness of Christ, being truly the Meritorious Cause of our Remission, Justification, Adoption is imputed (imputatur datur adjudicatur, says he) to us, as the price given to the Victor, is imputed to the Captive in his Deliverance, is that which he says, with Bradshaw and Grotius (I'll add Forbes modestae Questiones) he does maintain. Meth. The. Part 3. P. 54. The Scholastically Learned and Industrious Mr. Wotton, has this Distinction in other words; for speaking of Christ's being made sin, and Christ's righteousness ours, he tells us, it must be understood not Formaliter, but Effectiuè. This is all one as not in se, but in the Effects. Thus our sins are imputed to Christ in his bearing only the Punishment, when by an Imputation in se, or formaliter, he must bear the merit also: And thus shall Christ's Righteousness become ours (Effectiuè) though we are but Meritoriously, and not Formally justified by it.  
As for Reasons against Imputation in the Common Sense before mentioned, to wit, that God does not look on us to have obeyed and suffered in Christ as our Legal Person, and what follows, there are so many in Mr. Baxter's Books, that I need not bring any; Only one, among the other Antinomian Consequences, I will mention, as what is most obvious and convincing, which is, that if this were so, then should the Elect be immediately freed from Punishment, and immediately justified, before they believed or repent, or without Faith and Repentance, for no terms could be imposed on them, in order to their Justification and Glory, if they be accounted already to have fulfilled the Law in Christ. This being a Doctrine therefore so directly, as dangerously contrary to the Gospel, it is to be discarded.  
And yet for once I will thus argue, and call Mr. Lob to hearken to me. There is nothing can be imputed to us, but either that which we have not, and then it is imputed that we may have it, that is, to have it made ours, or reputed as ours: Or else if we have it, it must be imputed to some other end than to have it, or for some other thing than that itself, which is imputed. Now if Christ did obey and suffer in our Persons, or as our Legal Person, so as in Law-sense we have, and are accounted to have obeyed and suffered in him, then can his Righteousness (consisting of his Obedience and Sufferings) be neither imputed to us, that we may have it, or to be made ours, or reckoned to us as ours, seeing we have it already, It is ours, it is reckoned as ours, in that it was performed in our Persons: Nor can it be imputed to us to any other end, or for any other thing, but Ad Justitiam, for Righteousness, (justifying Righteousness) which is to the same end and for the same thing, and can be no other. Mr. Lob here is a Man of Sense, and can see Reason, and of Ingenuity (if any other be) so as if it convince him, to acknowledge it. If he keep to the Common Opinion he can't Answer to Socinus. There can be no Imputation upon this account, of Christ's Righteousness to any. But if he come off, and say Christ suffered not for us, in the Sense of in our Person, so as in Law-sense, we must be reckoned to have suffered and satisfied in him, but suffered for us, in our stead, in the sense only, as to save us from suffering, then is there room for an Imputation of his Satisfaction to us, that it may be made ours, or accounted to us as ours, which otherwise is Christ's only. But how then ours, or accounted ours? Not ours in see, (for that brings us back to having satisfied in his Person) but ours in the Effects. This, as I take it, is a matter of deep Consideration: I appeal to Mr. Lobb's, as well as to Mr. W's, own impartial Judgement.  
One thing remains, as yet not suggested by any other. I have intimated that the entanglement of the two Points, [Satisfaction and Justification] in our discoursing of them one with another, does give occasion of clouding them, and that it will be an edifying matter to endeavour to sever them so, by putting a right difference between them, in relation to the Controversy, as we may bring some light that will clear our Understandings in the Doctrine of them both. To this end then let us know, that when the Scripture rel us of Christ's dying for us, and bearing our sins, with the like Expressions, and we are agreed against the Socinians, that what Christ did and suffered for us, was not only bono nostro, but loco nostro, in our stead, our room, our place: Here is the thing I offer to Consideration, that what is done by Christ loco nostro, must be applied to his making God Satisfaction for us, not to the Point of our Justification. For explaining this, let us farther know (as signified before) that to do or suffer any thing in another's stead or room, is to do or suffer it to save the other from doing or suffering. Now in the Point of Satisfaction, there is nothing that we do, or is required of us to do in order to make it, or procure it to be made, so that what was done or suffered, in order thereunto, must certainly be in our room or stead, we being perfectly free from doing or suffering ourselves any thing towards it: But as for the Point of Justification, it is as certain that there is our Duty required, our Faith and Repentance, and sincere Walking in order to it, and there is nothing done or suffered by Christ, that frees us from it. It is true, that the perfect Obedience of Christ to the Law of Works, is to be accounted (in my apprehension, I have said) to be performed in our place, stead, or room (and not only in regard to his own Person as Justitia personae) because we are freed we know from that Obligation, as the Condition of Life, which we were by nature under, and that therefore his Obedience, as well as Sufferings, I do account, does go into his Satisfaction: But as for that Evangelical Obedience that is required of us, our believing, our repenting in order to our Pardon and Justification, there is nothing done by Christ in the room of it. The fulfilling the Law by Christ (which he did both in regard to the Precept and Sanction) was in our room, place or stead, in order to his Satisfaction, but his fulfilling the Law was not in our place, stead or room, in order to our Justification. It was in order to it, for obtaining Pardon and Justification upon the Gospel Conditions; but it was not in our room, place or stead, in order to it. Whether in saying this, I say something to the purpose, or no, I appeal to the Judicious Bishop. Only I must add thus much, that this is that which (in effect) I have said in former Books, speaking to that Commutation of Persons, which Dr. Owen hath stood so much upon, and now Mr. Lob, that it is to be acknowledged, as to the Impetration, but not to go into the Application of our Redemption.  
The Death of Christ must be loco nostro, as it is the paying the price, the making Satisfaction, and so the impetrating the Benefits we have by it; but it can be only bono nostro, as to any Benefit itself, which is all one as bono nostro only in the Application. Pray see Pacif. P. 30, 31, 32. Upon which words (Repeated, Right. of God. P. 35, 36.) I have desired Mr. William's, and Mr. Clark's, and now beg the Bishop's fuller Consideration.  
The Arminians upon the Point of Satisfaction are cautious in what they grant, as Mr. Baxter is in both, and they will have Christ's sufferings to be a Vice-punishment, or Vicarious Punishment, rather than a proper and formal Punishment: Which Expression ought not to offend Mr. Lob, nor any worthy Person, because when the Scripture says, Christ died for us, and we understand by [for us▪] Vice nostri. in our room or stead, the Death or Punishment itself must be in our stead, that is, a Vicarious Punishment, how can it be otherwise? And because there is nothing can be urged more effectually against the Doctrine of Socinus than this, that the Justice of God requiring a Punishment to be inflicted, according to his Law for our breaking it, God was contented or satisfied with a Vicarious Punishment, inflicting one (though not all that was in the Obligation) on his Son. The Punishment in this sense being Vicarious, the Meritorious Cause, our sins are accordingly said Pro-meritorious, loco causae meritoriae, or an Assumed Meritorious Cause, as Mr. Baxter before, and the infliction as Personal, be Materially not Formally Punishment. If this offends any, when said by Episcopius, Curcellaeus, Limborch, whom they suspect as favouring Socinianism, it o●●ght ●n when said by Mr. Baxter, whom none can suspect. Nay, though there be some Socinians who, under such Expressions, do shelter themselves, and by appearing Orthodox, seduce others (which may raise some zeal in Mr. Lob against them, not considering their end and ours in such Expressions, theirs being (as hinted before) at last to deny, ours to own Satisfaction): Yet is not this sufficient to conclude against the same, because there is more of Antidote than Danger by them. For seeing all proper Punishment is for sin, and sin causes Punishment (as hath been said) by way of Merit, and no otherwise, the Merit of our sins, as well as our sins in the Punishment must be laid on Christ, or else it is no proper Punishment, and if the Merit of our sins as well as the Punishment, be granted to be laid on Christ, we are then ingulph'd into Antinomianism, according to this excellent Bishop, the worthy Dr. Edward's, and Mr. Lob himself assenting to them, and what Mr. Lob hath to say to this, he must consider.  
The Case therefore being this, that either we must admit that our sins in the Merit, were laid on Christ as well as the Punishment, or else that Christ's sufferings was no proper formal Punishment: I suppose Mr. Lob will rather fall in with Mr. Baxter than Dr. Crisp, and yield in some sense at least, that it was no proper Punishment, which is verily true, as proper is opposed to Vicarious, for a Vicarious Punishment it was for certain, being inflicted on Another, and not the Person or Persons that sinned, and being also not the same (for that should have been Hell to them) but an Equivalent, that so it might be Satisfaction, not Payment, which would preclude Remission: And seeing it was not the same infliction, nor inflicted on the sinner himself, the Obligation to undergo it, could not arise from the Law, which punishes only the Transgressor of it, and consequently, tho' Materially, yet Formally was not Punishment as laid on the innocent Person of Christ. All this Mr. Baxter says, and it must be said as true, plain, undeniable: and nevertheless there being a Punishment due to us for our sins, and our sins the Meritorious Cause of it, and the Obligation to the suffering it, arising from the Law as broken by us, here is consequently a proper formal Punishment to be inflicted Impersonally, as Grotius before. And it being not against the Justice of God to take this Punishment Impersonally considered, and lay it either on Another, or the Person or Persons that sinned, so long as no dishonour to his Law, nor prejudice to his Government comes thereby, Severity being shown against sin, as pity to the sinner, and Christ Jesus being willing to take on him the Punishment (no wrong being done to the willing) it being his Fathers and his Own Appointment, that he who was the Second Person in the Trinity, should become Man, to be a fit Person for the Work, it pleased God and him, that he did actually take on him this Punishment, in such a manner as he was capable of it, (that is, not in regard to the Merit, or that he should be held longer than he was under it) and suitable to such a Person (which made his Temporal suffering an Equivalent) so that by enduring the same in our behalf, Satisfaction was made, and God thereupon relaxes his Law of Works, by passing a New Law, or remedying Law of Grace, whereby Deliverance and Life, Pardon and Salvation is to be had on the Terms of the Gospel.  
This is that Doctrine, which whosoever embraces, be he Arminian or Calvinist, let him be Episcopius or Baxter, Mr. Williams or Mr. Lob, it is all one for that: Bring us the Test, let us see their Books, and if we find in them a constant acknowledgement that the sufferings of Christ was a Punishment for our sins, and a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for them, let them differ as they will in accuracy, we are at Unity in the Point. Only let not any one that is more accurate about it, despise him that is less accurate, nor he that is less accurate be scandalised at him that is more accurate, and cautious, lest by denying or contradicting what is reasonable to be granted, he should harden the Adversary, and blunt his own Faith: Knowing this, that be he as cautious as he can, he will hardly be out of danger of one of the Extremes, and also that (as I humbly think) he must however be more accurate than to go the Common way of the ordinary Protestant, or by avoiding the extreme of Socinianism on one hand, he will fall into Antinomianism on the other, into which many are already fallen that disclaim it.  
In short, The sufferings of Christ may be considered Personally, in Relation to himself; or Impersonally, in relation to us. Personally, in relation to himself, there being no Merit of his own, and no Merit of ours imputable too that Holy Person, his sufferings could not be formally Penal: Impersonally, in relation to us, the Punishment being in our room, was ours, and consequently must be a formal proper Punishment, and this Commutation only, thus construed, is enough for the explaining and upholding the Doctrine of Satisfaction.  
And yet again, that this Business, this difficult Business, the reconciling Mr. Baxter and Grotius, be dispatched, and thoroughly dispatched, I must say this over. Here is Punishment, and deserved Punishment, deserved by our sins as the Meritorious Cause of it, and therefore Punishment, not Pain only, but proper Punishment, and that to be inflicted sed Impersonaliter, with Grotius, and there is our Point maintained: But that this Punishment is inflicted on Christ and not on the sinner, there is no Cause (besides the fitness of the Person) can be rendered but only the will, the good will of Father and Son in pity to Mankind, which is said also by Grotius, and (in effect) acknowledged by the Bishop, when he says, That One Man for his sin cannot deserve another's Punishment; and therefore when Mr. Baxter says, our sins were the Occasion of Christ's sufferings, with those other Expressions, the Occasion, and Occasion only, but of what the Occasion only? Of the Punishment? No, (there was Cause of that, an Impulsive Cause, that is, an Efficient Protatarctick or Meritorious Cause, to wit, our sins) but of the laying it on Christ, and not us; take it so, and there is nothing to be found fault with in what Mr. Baxter says, (unless it be that his deeper Judgement than others (I have said) be faulty) by Mr. Lob or any other ingenuous Man, any more than there was in what Grotius, says, by Revensperg, who falls upon him as Socinianizing against the Orthodox; because he did not maintain, that Christ underwent the very infernal Pains which we were to suffer, seeing Calvin, and some others after him, did so teach and construe Christ's descent into Hell, by his enduring such Pains in his Agony, as those are there, which is a private Opinion, and Grotius accounts Christ's sufferings not the Idem, but Tantundem; and thereupon (I say) did Ravensperg fall upon him, as one that did but betray our Cause, and agree with Socinus (which he hath so substantially defended against him) in his excellent Book of Satisfaction.  
There remains two or three Notes more, I must have upon Mr. Lob.  
One is, that whereas he observes, that Mr. Williams does make the Obligation that lay upon Christ to suffer for us, or to make Satisfaction by his sufferings to arise from the Mediatorial Law only, the Law of Redemption, or Commandment of his Father, which was proper to him, through his voluntary Sponsion or Submission to it, and not from the Law of Works which was a Bond that he never was in, neither at first, as Mr. Lob grants, nor at last, in regard to his sufferings, because he never broke it, he argues from thence both sagaciously as industriously, that Mr. William's must hold therefore with Mr. Baxter, that the sufferings of Christ was not properly or formally penal, and when this is the only Accusation in these Sheets, which he aims at, if Mr. Williams denies the Accusation, Mr. Lob hath carried his Cause, for the Accusation is true, the Consequence being irrefragible. But will Mr. Williams deny that he herein agrees with Mr. Baxter? I suppose he will not. What, though Dr. Edward's, and Bishop Stillingfleet, by whose Letters he is vindicated, do say that Christ's sufferings were a proper Punishment, and stand upon it so much, as if the holding thereof was necessary to the maintaining the Doctrine of Satisfaction (if Mr. Lob be not mistaken in his Construction of them) will he for all that stand by Mr. Baxter? Yes: I think he will, because he must, the Consequence does hold him. I must confess, Mr. Lob hath put these three Persons here hard to it. He hath put Mr. Williams to it, who must either forsake Mr. Baxter, and so himself, or else disagree here with those two worthy Men, his Vindicators. He hath put the Bishop to it, who must forsake his Reason in what he hath so clearly and truly asserted, That one Man cannot deserve that another should be punished for his Faults, or else he must consent with Mr. Baxter, and consequently acknowledge, that seeing Christ himself never sinned, and our sins in the Merit of them, could not be laid on him, his sufferings were Materially, but Formally no Punishment. And he hath put the worthy Dr. to it, who being willing to show his kindness to Mr. Williams, in bringing him off, is carried, whether he will or no, to stand by Mr. Lob.  
And notwithstanding this, there is no hurt done, unless the giving occasion of letting out more Light be any hurt, for Mr. Williams and Mr. Baxter, as well as Mr. Lob, Dr. Edward's, and the Bishop, and Grotius do all maintain the Doctrine of Satisfaction against Socinus, one as well as the other. That Mr. Williams does, the Doctor, the Bishop, and his Preabyterian Brethren, do quote such Passages as justifies him, besides his own constant Profession. That Mr. Baxter does, I shall quote one Passage only in his Methodus Theol. In his Aphorisms he proposed the Question, (as I remember) What is that which is the first immediate, or chief End or Benefit of Christ's Death? And he speaking then with Hesitancy, he does here (in his 17th Determination, Part 3. Cap. 1.) after so long study give this peremptory Resolution, Proximum mortis Christi Effectum seu finemesse satisfactionem Deo offenso per Justitiae ejus demonstrationem: Remotiorem, peccatorum nostrorum remissionem & salutis donum sub conditione fideist paenitentiae per foedus Gratiae. That Man who understood himself so well as he did, that does declare this for his settled and determined Judgement, that the chief and most immediate End, Effect Fruit or Benefit of Christ's Death, is the satisfaction of an Offended God, through the demonstration of his Justice thereby, must be acquitted from Socintanism, by all the World that know what Socinus wrote: And that Man (I will add) that does maintain the Doctrine of Election, according to Augustine and the Synod of Dort, however free and conciliating he be otherwise in the five Points, must be acquitted also from Arminianism, by all those that know what Arminius, Episcopius, Curcelleus, Limborch and the Antisynodalists have wrote. And therefore I do acknowledge here the Honesty, that is, Truth and Candour, of Mr. Lob in his Epistle, where he discharges Mr. Baxter from such Accusations; and though he looks in his Sheets like one that read Mr. Baxter only to carp and find fault with him, (when in my Reading the same things, I must confess I did look, and do still, on all as light and Instruction) I do yet, for all that apprehend and hope a better end in it, to wit, that upon his proposing these Expressions to such worthy and ingenuous Persons, as the Doctor and the Bishop, he may, by their return, in time have such a moderated and smoothed State of the whole Matter (they taking in the light Mr. Baxter offers with them) as shall be reconciliatory both to himself, and to his Brethren with him.  
If by Christ's dying for us, and for our sins, there is nothing will serve the Common Doctrine (which is that Mr. Lob upholds, in the behalf of his Brethren, reserving, I will suppose, the Liberty of following Truth hereafter wheresoever he finds it) but this, that God did look on Christ, as appearing in our Person, and so judged and condemned him for a sinner, as one (I say, being in our Person) that deserved his Wrath and Curse, and therefore laid it on him, whereby our full and proper Punishment was Born, the Law Executed, and Justice Done: and if any will add with Ravensperg farther, that the torments of Hell in his Agony and Suffering on the Cross, when he cried, Eli, Eli, lamasabacthani, were laid on his Soul, that nothing of the very Punishment may be abated him, who does not see that such a satisfaction is so straight laced, as will not fit the Person of Christ, and that such Divines do more to drive Men to Socinianism than Socinus himself could, while they stand upon such a Satisfaction as no reasonable Man can 
* Vera satisfactio est plen● deliti persolutio: Vnusquisque nostram mortem aternam divinae isti justitiae debelat, says Socinus. De Ser. l. 3. c. 3.  receive.  
And whereas Mr. Lob therefore, and other such more considering Persons, do see a necessity to come off, and allow that it was not and could not be our very Punishment itself, it being enough that Christ was surrogated under the Primordial Nature of the Pwishment (to use his words) though not under the horrid Circumstances, we ourselves were to suffer; and does yield moreover, that though the Punishment, yet the Desert of our sins could not be laid on Christ, (because that would run him into Antinomianism) which Concessions do draw after them such other suitable Notions, as Mr. Baxter offers; so that at last we must come to this, that the Ends of God's Law and Government being secured, it must be left to the Wisdom of the Father and Son to agree upon what satisfaction pleased them, for demonstrating Divine Righteousness against Sin, and Mercy toward the Sinner, and that be sufficient for us to believe. For, I must add, that so long as we agree in our belief, that Christ's Death was a Ransom for our Redemption, and a Sacrifice for our Sins, in the Sense of the Types of old, where the sin of the Sacrificer was laid on the Beast, and the Blood thereof an Expiation for it, to the end he might be forgiven it; what matter is it tho' one holds this Death to be Formally, another only Materially our Punishment, or that one says, our sins were the proper Meritorious Cause, and the other the Remote Cause or Occasion of it, they both hold it Satisfaction, and intent the maintaining the Doctrine thereof.  
Proper Punishment is an infliction of a Natural Evil on a Person, for Committing a Moral Evil: But Christ that endured the Natural Evil, never committed any Moral Evil, and how can that be proper Punishment? The Punishment laid on him, was not due to him, but to us: The Punishment d●e to us was Hell, but his Sufferings only Temporal Death: Is not here then one Punishment in the room of another, as one Person suffering in the room of another? And what Legerdemain can cover the Eye of any, as not to see this a Vicarious Punishment? Again, when all proper Punishment is for sin, as the Meritorious Cause of it, and Christ sinned not, and our sins cannot (according to the Bishop) deserve that another should be punished for them; so that here is Punishment without Desert; how is this proper Formal Punishment? The Law by virtue of its Sanction, punishes none but the Breakers of the Preceptive Part, and how then can these sufferings arise Ex obligatione-Legis? If they did arise from the Obligation of the Law, than was the Law executed in Christ's suffering, but Christ suffered that the Law might not be executed, but the Penitent Believing Sinner be pardoned.— I might go on and offer other Positions, according to what is said by Mr. Baxter in his Eighteenth Deterininations (Math. Theol. Part 3. Cap. 1. before quoted) and Mr. Lob, the Dr, or Bishop, may as well deny that two and three makes five, as fundamentally to deny any of them, and therefore I shall forbear more, being come already to the Composition which Grotius, in that one word before, hath made for us. Impersonaliter these sufferings as due to us, may be said to be properly, formally, Punishment, Punishment for sin, as the Meritorious Cause of it, Punishment arising from the Obligation of the Law, upon our breaking it, punishment that was the Curse of the Law, and which he bore, when if we had ourselves born it, it had been the Execution of the Law, the Execution whereof these Divines, who are for the Common Doctrine, apprehending (as Socinus) to be proper Satisfaction (wherein they are perfectly out, for that, according to the Schools, is contrary to it) it makes them so extreme, as before mentioned, in their Doctrine of Satisfaction, as no Man unprejudiced can abide it: But Personaliter, on the other hand, as these sufferings are laid upon Christ, instead of us (that is, instead, not as in our Person, but instead, that we might escape them) they are Nominally and Materially indeed, but they are not, they cannot be Formally and Properly Penal. They arise not from sin, as the Metitorious Cause, nor from the Obligation of the Law, and are no Execution of it. Why should I go on to say the same things over and over? I will make bold to conclude with Mr. Baxter against any, if there be any that think they have more sagacity herein than he, to oppose him, and say, As the Person that suffered was loco nostri, the sufferings were loco paenae, our sins loco causae meritoriae, his Sponsion loco obligationis ex Lege, an Equivalent loco Debiti, and loco solutionis here is at last effected proper Satisfaction. Let Mr. Baxter's Adversaries be who they will, and let them do what they can, they shall never make more of it.  
Another thing which Mr. Lob observes of Mr. Williams, that I must also take notice of, is this. As he does hold, that the Obligation which lay on Christ to do as he did, arose altogether from the Mediatorial Law; so does he hold that the Righteousness which consists in his Performance of that Law, is that which is imputed to the Believer for his Justification, wherein there does manifestly appear that slip of Mr. Williams, which I have before mentioned, for seeing that Law, and the Righteousness thereof, did belong only, or was proper to the Mediator, it is impossible it should be imputed otherwise to us, than in the Effects, which when Mr. Baxter saw and asserted; and Mr. Williams does follow him in what he says else, and yet leaves him in this: I cannot but give him again friendly Warning to retract that slip, for otherwise the whole Doctrine he is engaged in, which he hath knit together out of Mr. Baxter, and endeavours to maintain by this one Stitch let fall (if it be not amended) must unravel, and come to nothing. The Argument I have used in my Pacification, (Pag. 40.) which Book I expected to have been answered by him, or the Truth (as to what concerns him) acknowledged, before this.  
The last thing I will Note in Mr. Lob is, Though a righteousness (he says) which Answers the Obligation (in the plural, that is therefore both of the Preceptive and Comminatory Part) of the violated Law of Works, be necessary to our Justification, yet we are not justified by the Law, because we did it not ourselves as the Law required; but by the Gospel he apprehends, in that the Gospel provides us such a Righteousness (that is, Christ's Righteousness, made ours by Faith) as answers the Law, that we may be justified. Here is that apprehended, which is as clearly thought, as any one that will maintain the Common Doctrine can speak: but I must Answer him, That if the Gospel must provide us such a Righteousness as answers the Law, that we may be justified by it, then must that necessarily presuppose, that it is by the Law we are to be judged: but when indeed that is not so, for if it be by the Gospel, and not the Law (as himself accounts) that we are justified, it is by the Gospel we must be judged (for to be judged is either to be justified or condemned) and accordingly it is not the Righteousness of Christ, which answers the Law that the Gospel provides for us, but it is the Righteousness of God, that is manifested without the Law, a Righteousness revealed in the Gospel, in opposition to the Works of the Law, that it hath provided, for the Sinners Justification.  
To be more full and satisfactory, as we draw to an End. The Law is sometimes taken strictly, as it requires perfect Obedience to its Precepts, that we may live in them, and so it is opposed to the Gospel: Or it is taken largely, for the whole Doctrine of the Old Testament, which contains Promises of Pardon and Life, upon men's Faith and Repentance, as well as the Gospel. In the first Sense St. Paul says, the Righteousness of God is manifest without the Law: In the second, that yet it hath the witness of the Law. and the Prophets. For Moses tells us, that God is Gracious, Merciful, forgiving Iniquities, Transgression and Sin, and the Prophets call on the People to Repent, and cast away their Transgressions, that they may live and not die, which is all one with what the Gospel Teaches. It is strange now that when this Doctrine of Faith and Repentance, which is so plain in both Testaments [The just Man shall live by his faith] should be obscured by the Doctrine of Imputation, which is a devised Doctrine, not in Scripture; I mean the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, in the sense of per modum formae, or formalis causae, when in the sense of per modum Meriti, it does but explain and confirm the same: Insomuch as those Scriptures, which are usually brought for such Imputation, do effectually prove the contrary to it. I mean, that it is not Christ's Righteousness imputed to us, but our Faith or Evangelick Righteousness imputed to us, for Righteousness, that justifies us. This may appear by the Explication of such as these Scriptures following.  
The Jews, being ignorant of God's Righteousness, and going about to establish their own, have not submitted to the Righteousness of God: That is, not to that way of becoming Righteous, which God hath founded or instituted, and so declared in the Gospel, which in opposition to their Righteousness, is by Faith in Jesus Christ, For Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness, to every one that believeth. The Law in general was an Instruction, in order to the coming of the Messiah, that we should believe in him, and obey him when come, and thereby be justified and saved. So the Apostle otherwhere, Wherefore the Law was our Schoolmaster unto Christ, that we might be justified by Faith. By Christ's being the end of the Law then, we may understand, either, The end, or design of the Law, requiring perfect Obedience, which no Man does or can perform, is to drive us to Christ. But how drive us to him? Is it to his Righteousness, to be made ours? No, there is no such thing said any where, but to him for Righteousness, through believing: Or, and for, Christ is the end of the Law in that he, by the Obedience of his Life and Death, fulfilling the same in our behalf, hath freed us from the Condition thereof, requiring only our Faith instead of That, and so Righteousness now (or Justification) is to every one who without the Works of the Law, does perform the Terms of the Gospel.  
There is no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit. That is, They that are in Christ by Faith, and their Faith is sound, so as it causes them to walk sincerely before God, they are freed from Condemnation. For the Law of the Spirit of Life in Jesus Christ, hath made me free from the Law of Sin and Death. That is, for the Law of Grace, which is the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ, doth free such from the Curse of the Law of Works. For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the Flesh, God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the Flesh. That is, The Law being not able to free us from Condemnation, or to justify us, seeing through our Frailty we break it, which else would do it, God sent his Son to take our sins on him, and by condemning sin in him, or punishing him for them, he hath bereft sin of its Damnatory Power over the Believer. That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit. That is, that the Justification (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which we should have by the Law, if we could perform it, may be had by our performing only the Conditions of the Law of Grace, which is walking not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit, or not after the Law, but after the Gospel.  
Do we then make void the Law by Faith? Yea, we establish the Law. The Law taken largely (as before) declares God's Ordination of a Sinners Justification by Faith and Repentance, as the Gospel does, and thereby is most plainly established or accomplished. But to say further, The Law is established (says St. Augustine) by the fulfilling it. Now Faith, if it be sound, does work by Love, and Love is fulfilling the Law. But how does Faith and Love fulfil it? Not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not in the Rigour of it, but the Equity, or according to Acceptation through Christ. When God then for Christ's sake, does accept of our Faith, or our sincere, though imperfect Obedience, for Righteousness, this is that julfilling the Law, which is all that can be in this Earth, and thereby the establishing of it.  
As by one Man's Disobedience many were made Sinners: so by the Obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. This is true, per modum Meriti, but not per modum formae: To wit, we being all by the Fall of Adam become corrupt, so that there is, and can be no Righteousness according to the Law of Works in the World, the Lord Jesus by what he hath done, hath procured a Law of Grace, and Righteousness thereby, so that the sinner that reputes and believes in Christ, is by that Law made righteous, and enjoys the Benefits as much as if he were as perfectly Righteous as the Law requires. In this Sense we may say Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us, that is, (per modum meriti) in the Effects. For as to impute sin, is to inflict punishment: So to impute Righteousness is to confer the Privileges to a Person, as belongs to him that is righteous, and such the Believer has, Pardon and Life Eternal.  
He hath made him sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him. The Righteousness of God, is the Righteousness of Faith; and to be made the Righteousness of God in him, is to be made righteous through him, by believing; or through his merits, to be justified by our Faith. As our sins are imputed to Christ; (which, I say, is only in the effect of his suffering for them) so is his Righteousness imputed to us, say our Divines. But Christ is not made formally a sinner by our sins: Nor therefore we made formally righteous, by his Righteousness.  
I might proceed to other Texts, and then show how upon this account, though a Disciple of Christ must learn to deny himself, take up his Cross and follow him, yet are not his Commandments grievous, but his Yoke easy, and Burden light; Because in that sweet recumbency, trust, or rest which the Soul has upon the goodness and mercy of God, for Acceptance of his Performance, though but Conatu●et Desiderio, and notwithstanding all its Imperfection, unto Life, through the Merits of Christ, there arises unspeakable Consolation. The true and solid Benefit hereof by the other Doctrine, upon an only pretended show of more, is Eclipsed. See Pacif. P. 27, 28, 29.  
THE Common Protestant Doctrine, is that by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, we are justified; where the Righteousness of Christ is the Matter, and God's Imputation the Form of our Justification, actively taken; and consequently the Righteousness of Christ imputed, the Form of it passively taken. The Righteousness of Christ is the Matter, both of Active and Passive Justification, but the Form of Active, is the Imputation of it, and the Form of Passive, is that Righteousness imputed. So it is said in our Protestant Schools, Imputata Christi Obedientia est formalis causae nostrae. Justificationis: My Opinion now is different, that it is not by the Righteousness of Christ, but by the Righteousness of God, imputed to us, that we are justified. The Righteousness of God is the Righteousness of Faith, and Faith, or the Evangelic Condition performed is the Matter; and the Imputation of this Faith for Righteousness, is the Form of our Justification. Faith is opposed to Works, and the Righteousness of Faith (or Righteousness of God) opposed to the Righteousness of Works. Faith than cannot be taken Objectiuè for Christ's Righteousness, because Christ's Righteousness is not opposed to, but is itself a Righteousness of Works. It is not Christ's Righteousness than is that which is imputed to the Believer for Righteousness; (that is to be his formal Righteousness) but it is that for the sake of which (or the meritorious Cause for which) Righteousness is imputed to him upon his believing. I deny not with Mr. B. an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to a Believer, tho' there be no text for't, but I with him explain it. Our Explication is, that it is imputed no otherwise to us for our Justification, than for our Salvation, and other purchased Benefits. This is what we intent by an Imputation, not in se, but in the Effects; and that is to say, imputed per modum meriti only. To be imputed in the Effects only, and not in se, Note it at last, is in the full meaning this, that the Righteousness of Christ is the Meritorious Cause, but not the Formal Cause of our Justification, and that does determine all Controversy, with the truly understanding.  
FINIS.   

AN APPENDIX, With respect to the Reverend. Mr. Williams.  
THere is one thing in Mr. William's Books remarkable (as to me) above any other, because it is altogether de proprio, and concerns me and Mr. Baxter, and that is a laborate (I may not say elaborate) endeavour or contrivance for making good some Words of his to this Sense, That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to a Believer otherwise, or more than in the effects, which is Mr. Baxter's Explanation of that Phrase. And having wrote what I have said, by way of Opposition, in one or two Places in these Sheets, supposing that Mr. Williams might write, and then be engaged to take notice of it, so as to yield, or Answer to it, I let it stand: But lest he should not, I will myself say something to it. The Original Words of Mr. William's are these: Gosp. Truth. P. 39 Besides the Effects being made ours, the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to true Believers, as what was designed for their Salvation: Tea, is pleadable by them as their Security, and useful as if themselves had done and suffered what Christ did. Not that God looks upon the Believer, as having done in Christ's Person what Christ did, he never thought so, but that it is as good, or for his use, as much as if he had. The very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer! Here I must ask first what he means by Imputed? And I suppose he means, Being made ours, as he says of the Effects, or Reckoned of God as ours, for else he must understand by himself, till we know what he means. I ask secondly, How is the very Righteousness of Christ Ours, or reckoned to us as Ours? And I answer, It is ours in the Effects, and can be no otherwise. The Effects are ours Really, and his Righteousness ours Relatively, only in regard to those Effects. Mr. Williams says somewhere, The Effects are not imputed: Very true; There is no Man said they are, but that Christ's Righteousness is imputed, or made ours, in the Effects. I ask thirdly, When Mr. Baxter, and I and he say thus much, does Mr. Williams say more? And seeing he does, What is that more? Does he account that Christ's very Righteousness is made ours so as God does account us righteous in his Righteousness, and that to be our Justification, according to the Common Protestant? No sure, he does not, for God's Judgement being according to Truth, he cannot look on that which is a Quality or Accident in Christ to be also in us, for that is such an Imputation as the Antinomian himself is not to be supposed (without wrong) to believe: But it is conceived that he looks on us as having obeyed and suffered in Christ, as our Legal Person, and so to have his Righteousness reckoned to us as Ours, in Law Sense, for our Justification. This is the Notion of the Common Protestant, and Mr. Lob, as undertaking their Cause, understandingly baulks it not: But does Mr. Williams by his Imputation own this? Certainly, by all his Books, he sets himself to beat this down, as that which is, or must lead to the Antinomian Error. This being so, I must begin here to open my Eyes, and see that in this saying of Mr. Williams, there lies not any Opposition to Mr. Baxter or me, and that therefore I may attend to what he offers to make it good, and be glad if he can come off well in it. That which he says, we have in the Book and Place before quoted, and in his Answer to the Report. p. 87. The Righteousness of Christ he distinguishes into his Performance of the Conditions of Redemption, and into his Right (or Jus adjudicatum) by that Covenant to the Believers Pardon and Salvation. As to the one, which is that our Divines all understand and speak of, as including the Obedience of his Life and Death, he says that it is imputed only Mediately, which is all one, as imputed only in the Effects, with Mr. Baxter, for he explains it by the very simile Mr. Baxter does. The Redeemed Captive hath the Ransom or Money only in his Liberty. But as to the other Righteousness of Christ, which with him consists in his Right to his Reward, he says it is imputed Immediately, that is, imputed in se, in our phrase, and upon that account makes good this saying, that Besides the Effects being ours, the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers.  
God promises Christ, that if he perform these Conditions, he shall see his Seed, and by his Knowledge (or Faith in him) shall many be justified. Mr. Williams now phrases this, the Righteousness of Christ, as it is his adjudged Right, to the Believers Pardon, and Salvation, and this Right of Christ's, the very Right is also (as he counts) the Believers. They have (says he) Christ's Right; They are invested in Christ's Right to the Benefits. By all which, he must intent an Imputation in se; for I argue for him upon this Supposition, that if this Right of Christ is an Effect of his Performance, and his Right be ours, the Effects, we all agree, are ours in see; ours really, when the Performance itself is not ours, but relatively in those Effects. If his Invention then here be sound, he hath brought himself clear off as to me and Mr. Baxter, and this saying of his not hurting us, I will say something in its behalf, in answer to my own Objections.  
One and the first is, that Christ's Righteousness is a perfect Righteousness, and answered the Law: If that be imputed in se, for our Justification, than we are judged and justified by the Law, and not the Gospel. The answer to this is, that according to the Hypothesis of the Common Protestant, the Righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to us, is his fulfilling the Law in our behalf, and Mr. Williams agrees with us, that this Righteousness of his is imputed only Mediately, that is only in the Effects. But it is the other Righteousness which is itself an Effect of Christ's Perfor mance that is imputed to us in se; so that upon the account thereof he hath affirmed, that the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer. We have not Christ's own Performance, which is a Real Righteousness, but we have his Right, which is a Relative Righteousness, to be ours (he counts) for our Justification.  
A second Objection is, that the Brethren are hereby deceived in him, who may think he means the same Righteousness as they and others do, when it is another. The Answer to this is, It is true, they are, or may be deceived in him, but not by him, seeing he hath made his Explanation in six or seven Pages, in the Book mentioned, whereby he hath acquitted himself of this Accusation, as to me and Mr. B. very well; whether it be so well to them, let themselves judge.  
A third Objection is, that the Right of Christ, and the Right of the Believer cannot be one. The Right of the Believer can be no more the very Right of Christ, than the Believers Person can be Christ. This is from my Pacification; the answer to it is this. It is true, that Christ's Right and the Believers Right, cannot be the same Physically, that is indeed impossible; but they may be the same Legally, (as our Divines understand the Imputation of Christ's Obedience to us) and that is plainly Mr. William's meaning here, as appears by his Simile, of a Man buying Part of a Purchase, the Purchasers Right to the whole is in Law his Right for that Part he hath of it.  
A last Objection is from the Argument here offered, That Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for our Justification, which is the Meritorious Cause of it. It is not this Right of Christ to his Reward, but his Performance, was that. The answer to this, which as to the Common Protestant, that knows no other Righteousness of Christ, but this Performance, is unanswerable, must be left to him to answer, who hath found out another, and the Major must be denied. It is true, that Righteousness which is Meritorious, is imputed, but not that alone, but Christ's Right also. This Immediately, that Mediately; but both together, I suppose he intends it.  
It must be asked therefore after this, what we are indeed to judge of this Hypothesis of Mr. Williams, as to the Reality and Truth of it? Here is a prudential sober sort of Notion proposed, not arising from any Scripture or Sense thereof, constraining it, but invented rather (I say) for the retaining that Phrase, the gratifying the prepossessed, and subscribing such Confessions as the Savoys, yet without forsaking any of the Doctrines, which he owns after Mr. Baxter; which being not an ordinary attempt, but showing a Person that studies Men what they can bear, as well as Scripture what that enjoins, I cannot but in Interest approve, and in Sincerity declare my suspicion of it.  
It must be granted, that there is a Covenant (as our Divines conceive) made between Christ and God, as there is one made with us in the Gospel, That there was a Promise of God to Christ, as a Promise to us, upon his Performance, as upon ours, and that a double Security may he had and pleaded from thence, that upon believing we shall be pardoned and saved, Mr. Williams may make as much of this as he pleases, as a greater matter of Security than others, who trust to the Gospel-promise only, without more concernment, for such Doctrine is innocent, harmless, affecting perhaps to some, and unexceptionable, so as to be received without Question: But whether the Right to his Reward, which Christ had by his Performance of the Commandment given him by his Father, is communicable with the Believer? That is, Whether Christ's Right to have a Seed, and such as shall believe on him, can possibly be the Believers? Or, whether the Promise that Christ shall have some to believe in him, and so be saved, be of the same import with that which says, He that believes shall be saved? Again Whether there be any Imputation by God, of Christ's Performance to the Believer as there is, or may be an Application of it, by the Believer, for his security, in regard to the Benefits? And, Whether such an Imputation (if there be such) of Christ's Performance for the Believers Security, be of the same import as the Imputation of it for his Justification? These and the like, are Questions which require the second thoughts of Mr. Williams.  
In fine, there is one Consideration, especially the Consideration of what confusion it must make in the minds of most, to understand by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, another Righteousness than that our Divines hither to have understood, and to draw their Words to a Sense they never thought, which is to make them all equivocate or lie, is a matter of such dangerous Consequence, that I must come to a Resolution and Answer to my Reverend Brother; which is, that omitting the Reply, that this Right of Christ, he insists on, is itself one Effect of his Performance, and if that become Ours, the Righteousness of his performance here is imputed (or made ours) still in regard to the Effects only: And omitting the questionableness of this Right being ours, already mentioned, I must say plainly, that this Talk of his, (in his Answer to the Report) that there is a Judicial Imputation of this Right of Christ (which is one Effect) immediately, intervening between the Imputation of his Performance, which is Mediate, in order to the Effect of our Justification and Pardon (which he must intent, or all is nothing to the Point) I say, is to me a Figmentum, a Fiction, an Imaginary and Operose something, which indeed is nothing, even according to himself, who tells us that The effects are not imputed. Alas! when it is so hard to take in what our Divines say of the Imputation of Christ's Performance for our Justification (for how much easier is it of understanding to say, that for the sake of what Christ hath done, God does forgive and save us on the Terms of the Gospel, or does accept of Faith instead of perfect Obedience, than to talk of Imputation, which is a Phrase, as applied to Christ's Righteousness, invented by Man, though as applied to Faith express Scripture?) to come to the multiplying and doubling these Imputations, of Christ's Right, as well as of his Performance, is a matter of so troublesome a Notion, so cluttersom an invention (Eutia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) so turning and overturning what hath been said by our Divines, as it were topsie turvy, and indeed so presumptuous (as well as untrue, according to his own Axiom) upon that account, that if it were not that by this means he gets a Liberty of Compliance, to use the Phrase with the Brethren (who the most of them never concerned themselves as to his Explanation) it would not be endured.  
Be it therefore known to all Men, by these presents, that I J. Humphrey do acquit Mr. Williams, of the Inconsistency I supposed in his Doctrine, which concerns me and Mr. Baxter, upon this Notion or Invention, if this invention of his be good: but if it be found not good, but upon further Consideration, a piece of humane Wisdom only and a Shift, I do yet conjure him to retract it.  
But to offer something before I have done moreover, for satisfaction to my Friend Mr. Lob. There is a Compact, it is conceived by him, of Christ with the Father, that he will come under the Law, both in regard to the Precept and Sanction, and that the Sanction thereupon takes hold on him, his voluntary Sponsion Anteceding not Intereeding, the laying the Penalty on him. This now cannot be. That Christ entered not our Bond at first with us, Mr. Lob sees, and says. The Bond ran not, that if we, or our Surety performed it, the Obligation should be void, for then upon Christ's keeping the Law there could be no Punishment due to him or us: but he entered our Bond when we had broken it, he entered into the Obligations of the violated Law of Works (he says) and so the Law taking him as under that Violation, and Consequently as under its Sanction, it laid the Punishment immediately on him, as the Person to be punished, and in that regard, even in regard to the Sanction, it was (he acconnts) a proper Punishment. This I take to be the Error of the Common Protestant, and so Mr. Lobbs upon that account. It is true, that Christ voluntarily undertook or compacted to come under the Precept of the Law (unto which yet itself, as a Divine Person (Actiones being Suppositorum) he could not have been obliged otherwise, say Divines) and to undergo the Curse, or Punishment due to us, but not to come under the Sanction, that being impossible, because the Sanction (as to the Comminatory Part, we understand) does punish only him that breaks the Precept, which Christ never did, but we do, so that it is the Punishment, not the Fault, or Merit thereof that he took on him, which consequently arose not from the Sanction but his Undertaking, and that Undertaking being to suffer in our room, it could not be a proper Punishment in Mr. Lobb's Sense of Proper, which is Arising from the Sanction, but a Vicarious Punishment, as Mr. Baxter over and over does tell us.  
If Christ came under the Sanction of the Law, so as the Punishment was due to him Ex obligatione Legis, which Mr. Lob holds (but as pleading only the Common Protestants Cause, I will suppose) then must he be accounted of God as a Sinner, nay, as the greatest of Sinners, and be punished as such, which hath indeed been formerly affirmed by great Divines, and so taken up by the Antinomian, accounting that our sins was laid on him in the Merit, as well as in the Punishment, which my Friend seeing, that here indeed is the Gulf, he makes his stand, and comes off in an Approbation of the Bishop, for his opposing Antinomianism, and particularly in this Point, that there is such a Change of Persons, which implies a Translation of the Personal Gild (or Merit of their sins, which is all one) of the Believer on Christ, which he confutes as the Doctrine of the Antinomian, and which Mr. Lob disclaims, as hearty as any. O thou my Friend therefore, Mr. Common Protestant, be it known to all, that Christ suffered not as a Sinner, but as an Interceder, and not from the Obligation of the violated Law of Works (which he violated not) but of his Father's Commandment, which was proper to him, or of the Law of Redemption, as Mr. Williams after Mr. Baxter does steadfastly teach. Christ indeed took on him the Obligation to suffer for our sins, but not Our Obligation: He bore the Punishment of our sins (let me say), yet Personally not Our Punishment. When Christ is said to be made under the Law (Gal. 4.4.) I understand it of the Law of Moses, as a Jew born, for redeeming the Jews from it: Yet as one of Mankind was he also under the Law of Works as to the Precept, and fulfilled it for freeing us from that perfect Performance, as the Condition of Life, and from its being to us the Rule of Judgement: but he was not under the Penal Sanction, nor could be, being innocent. He was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Gal. 3.13.) made a Curse, but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Gal. 3.10.) under the Curse, which none but the Transgressor is. And seeing Mr. Lob is come already to see he must part with the Common Doctrine, somewhere, or fall into Antinomianism, he is so rational and fair a Man (I believe) as his own Genius (when once he can be cool and consider) will suggest to him, that it is better not to set out at all, than to halt by the way, and not to go quite home. If he be convinced that the Personal Gild of our sins could not be translated on Christ, so as to make him a Legal Sinner (which is all that the Crispian, as well as the Common Protestant Doctrine, ever meant), then will he see that the Personal Righteousness of Christ cannot be translated neither on us, so as that we should be Legally Righteous in him; and consequently agree with Mr. Baxter and me (leaving Mr. William's, if he want come on, behind) in the Doctrine both of Satisfaction, and Justification.  
I must add as a Corollary, that the Phrases (my Friend does stand so much upon) of Christ's suffering in our Person, or in our stead, if they be used as the same, and signify no more but that Christ being a Divine Person, did suffer a Temporal Death, as an Equivalent to save us from suffering Eternal Damnation, they are equally to pass: But if either of them be made to bear such a Sense, as that Christ did Legally personate us, so as we are to be accounted to have done or suffered in him, that which he did or suffered, or what may seem less, that this Commutation of Persons, did put Christ under Our Obligation of the violated Law of Works, so making him to be accounted of God a Sinner, and dealt with as a Sinner, to the end that his sufferings may be maintained to be a proper Punishment, the Phrase, or Phrases are stretched beyond the Staple, become dangerous, the Sense Antinomian, and to be disallowed.  
And now to dismiss Mr. William's and Mr. Lob both. The sum of Mr. Lobb's Appeal comes to this Syllogism. That Person who holds that the sufferings of Christ was not a Proper Punishment, but a Vicarious Punishment; Not Formally, but Materially Punishment; That our Sins were not the Proximious Meritorious Cause, but the Remote, the Pro-meritorious Cause, or Occasion of them; That they arose not from the Obligation of the Law, or from the Sanction of the Law of Works (which includes with Mr. Lob that Commutation of Persons, as makes Christ Guilty, taken, judged, and executed in our Person) but from his voluntary Sponsion, or submission to his Father's Commandment proper to him (which implies with Mr. Lob, that the inflicting of Sufferings on Christ, could be no act of Gods Rectoral Justice, but of Dominion, when I take it to be an act of God both as Rector, and Supra Leges together, and such a Relaxation of his Law as Zaleucus Fact was); That consequently the Law (in the Threat) was not fulfilled by him, such a Person is a Socinian, and denies the Doctrine, or denies that which is necessary to explain the Doctrine, of Christ's Satisfaction. But Mr. William's is such a Person. Ergo Mr. William's is one that denies that which is necessary to this Explanation.  
Here Mr. Lob makes it his business to prove the Minor, which he hath effectually done in quoting Mr. Baxter in many places (and many more might be added) saying these things, and then producing Considerations and Passages out of Mr. William's to prove that he must be of the same Opinion. Now if Mr. William's denies the Minor, and goes to vindicate himself as to that, he may be ashamed, for Mr. Lob has done his Work. But Mr. William's, I suppose, as well as I, will deny the Major. And what hath Mr. Lob to say for that, but all Gratis? Why here is a Supposition presumed that the Satisfaction Christ made for our sins, was to be such and such as they have fancied, or else it must be no satisfaction, when the mistake is so great, that if all that were necessary thereto, which they pretend, the Lord Christ was a Person uncapable to make it, and so there must be none, and we be all Socinians. I have therefore two Answers to give Mr. Lob.  
The First shall be from himself, who when Mr. Williams is arguing, That if we may very properly be said to be punished in Christ for our sins, then must it be granted, that we made satisfaction in Christ, and are our own Redeemers, He answers, No, because the satisfaction arose not (says he) from our sufferings in Christ, nor indeed from Christ's Sufferings, considered absolutely and in se, but from the Father's acceptation of the Sons sufferings. This is judiciously said, The words he adds, as they were Ex obligatione Legis, and an Equivalent to the demerit of our sins are Petitio Principii, for he might put in 〈◊〉 well; as our sins were the Proximous Meritorious Cause of them, and as they were a proper Punishment.  
I answer him therefore accordingly, That seeing the Satisfaction Christ made was not indeed a Satisfaction of the Law itself but of the Lawgiver, who though Rector, is also Supra Leges (the Law indeed which requires Supplicium delinquentis, being not executed, but Satisfaction made, that it might not be fulfilled on the Sinner) and seeing the Satisfaction lay Fundamentally in the Acceptation of the Father, or as performed according to the Will of both; What if it pleased God to appoint and accept of a Vicarious Punishment, instead of a proper Punishment, who is there can have any more to say against it.  
I will add in regard to some fresh Sheets of Mr. Lob come out, called, A further Defence, which in setting forth Mr. baxter's Doctrine as opposite to that which is commonly Received (according to Dr. Edward's, and others) has done Mr. Baxter Right and Honour, as I account; That for as much as God acts (according to him, and Truth) both as Rector and Lord also Supra Leges, and the great Ends of Government in general, such as the Demonstration of God's Righteousness, his hatred to sin, the deterring the Sinner by exemplary Punishment, and even his greater Glory, might be attained in the way which God took, without fulfilling the direct end of the Law in a proper punishment, on the Sinner, (or on Christ, as a Sinner) It is such a Satisfaction as Mr. Baxter offers (that is, a Satisfaction of the Lawgiver) and not that Mr. Lob stands upon (a Satisfaction of the Law) which is to be maintained: For this being Socinus fundamental Error, That True Satisfaction lies only in a full payment of the Debt, and Eternal Death being due to every Sinner, the Doctrine of Satisfaction seems to him apparently False, Christ suffering not that Punishment; and those Divines now that fall in with him into that Conception, have not an Answer to give Socinus: whereas Mr. Lob hath set out Mr. Baxter's Doctrine in the several branches, to be so tied and uniform, that the light thereof (though wrapped in his Clouds of Blame about it) does appear most convictive and irresistible; and I cannot but think that Mr. Lob himself, when he can be cool, and lay by opposition, must be ready to embrace it. It is Mr. Baxter's Satisfaction, which can be justified against Socinus. Mr. Baxter's Doctrine is such as does force even the Socinians to yield, and acknowledge themselves overcome by it. This is such Doctrine as needs no more but the same more friendly display of it (See Mr. Baxter's own 18 Determinations together) for Mr. Baxter's Vindication, and Mr. Lobb's Reduction.  
The Second Answer I have, is made already in these Sheets, and that is, that there is one Word, and that taken from Grotius himself, which hath done it. The word [Impersonaliter] does reconcile Grotius and Baxter, Mr. Williams and Mr. Lob, the Bishop and us all; and that word therefore, without any thing more, is enough to solve the difficulty; and consequently to explain and make good this Great Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 9 line 27. my read your. p. 14. l. 21. r. existimare. p. 22. l. 9 Premium: r. Praemiant. p. 74 in the Margin, deliti, r. debiti.   

THE BOOKSELLER TO THE READER.  
Reader,  
THese Letters and Animadversions, put thus together by my Appointment, were intended to come out asunder; the Animadversions as a second Part of the Friendly Interposer, and the Letters as the finishing Work to that Doctrine proposed by Mr. H. in his Middle Way, and confirmed in his Righteousness of God; unto which Book he would have had them annexed alone by themselves: But in regard that the several Papers of his, concerning the late Difference among the Nonconformists in Doctrinals (whereof the Point of Justification is the chief) will come with these to forty Sheets, I have thought best myself (and have found good Cause so to do) to bind the whole in one handsome Book, that any that will (so long as each of a sort holds out) may have it.  
T. P.