A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. Of the Formal Cauſe of Iuſtification.
Section 1. Mr. H's Diſtinction of by and for, according to Bellarmine. §. 2. The Diſtinction conſidered. §. 3. Juſtification purchaſed by Christ. §. 4. They advance not God's Grace in Justification. §. 5. Papiſts truer than Neonomians in the Doctrine. §. 6. They ſay the ſame with the Papiſts, and confeſs it. §. 7. The Errors and Weakneſſes of their Opinions. §. 8. Of Active and Paſſive Juſtification. §. 9. Of Condition and Duty.
Sect. 1. MR. H. for the better eſtabliſhment of the Neonomian Doctrine hath taken up a diſtinction from his friend Cardinal Bellarmine. The Proteſtants (ſaith Mr. H.) have denied that Faith is our formal Righteouſneſs; (Righ. p. 46.) the reaſon of the denial hath bin much, becauſe they have confounded the cauſa per quam, & propter quam, by Faith ſaith the Scripture we are juſtified, by is id per quod cauſa formalis, but Chriſts Righteouſneſs is id propter quod: Let us ſee out of whoſe Shop he took this Diſtinction, Bellarmine (de juſt. lib. 2. c. 2.) having ſtated the Queſtion. Whether Righteouſneſs inherent in us, be the formal cauſe of abſolute Juſtification or not? In order to his defence of it in the Affirmative, hath this diſtinction, and chargeth Kemnitius with fraudulent dealing in ſtating the Queſtion, becauſe he put id propter quod, inſtead of per quam, ſaith: If one will ſpeak properly, he muſt not uſe the Word propter, but per, when he will point out the formal cauſe of Juſtification. If any one ask by what doth a Man live? By what do the Stars ſhine? By what is the Fire hot? It will be anſwer'd by his Soul, by the Light, by the Heat, which are the formal cauſes; but if any ask wherefore did the Emperour Triumph, wherefore did the Souldiers fight. It will be anſwered not by giving the formal cauſe, but the meritorious and final, the Souldiers fight that they may overcome, the Emperour triumphs becauſe he overcame; ſo Kemnitius if he had ſpoken without fraud and properly ſhould have ſaid, what is that by which a Man is Juſtified; whether the Righteouſneſs given to him of God, and inherent through the Merits of Chriſt, or the Merits of Chriſt from without him imputed? Now Bellarmine having ſo fully acquainted us with the diſtinction, according to the full ſenſe of Mr. H. I think it will be but loſs of Paper and Time to tranſcribe what Mr. H. ſaith of it, again and again, being but all to the ſame intention of the Cardinal.
§. 2. This diſtinction duly conſidered is but one of the Papiſts ſhifts and Evaſions, for Firſt, In all juridical proceedings cauſa per quam eſt cauſa propter quam, for a Mans righteouſneſs is that by which and for which he is juſtified, and ſo his tranſgreſſion is that by which and reaſon wherefore he is condemned, and if meritorious righteouſneſs of a Mans own or of anothers is brought into Plea and be admitted, he is ſaid to be juſtified by it, if it be enquired how came ſuch an one to be acquitted, the Anſwer will be by his Innocency; how came ſuch an one to be condemned, the Anſwer will as ſoon be by, as for Wickedneſs, all Righteouſneſs by which any one is Juſtified is propter quam, its that by Reaſon whereof he is Juſtified, why doth the New Law juſtifie him that hath performed the condition, is his Righteouſneſs the Juſtifying condition, is not the Juſtification propter conditionem, if it doth refuſe to Juſtifie, becauſe the condition is not performed, then it juſtifies not, becauſe it is not performed; in all conditional Covenants the promiſe is performed, by reaſon of the performance of the condition. 2. Again, if this Diſtinction were True as applied, then we ſhould be ſaid to be juſtified or reconciled ſtill propter ſanguinem Chriſti, but we are ſaid to be juſtified by his Death. foreign, is rendred (') by (') not, for, Rom. 5.9. Are reconciled to God, foreign, By the Death of his Son, for dia with a Genitive Caſe ſignifies per, with an Accuſative propter, ver. 10. So, we have Redemption, foreign, So, Coloſ. 1.14.20. Is rendred through, but they that have knowledge of the prepoſitions know by or through are the ſame, when a thing is done by, its done through, See, Acts 20.28. the Church of God which he hath purchaſed, foreign, ſo that its evident that the diſtinction will not hold to make Evangelick Obedience cauſa per quam, and Chriſts Obedience propter quam, becauſe Chriſts Obedience is ſaid to be per quam, when it is intended thereby to be the very righteouſnes unto Juſtification, ergo, per quam and propter quam are of the ſame import in a juridical ſence; but that which our N…onom…ans and Papiſts aim at is an immediate and mediare righteouſneſs, that we are juſtified by one as immediate for the ſake of Chriſt's the mediate.
§. 3. The Papiſts by this diſtinction would make way for a double righteouſneſs in our Juſtification; for the Council of Trent doth anathematize thoſe that ſay, a man is juſtified only by the imputation of the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, or only by remisſion of ſins, without inherent Grace and Charity. To this purpoſe our Neonomian Mr. Cl. p. 35. That the merit of Chriſt's Death and Sufferings [he excluding his active obedience] hath purchaſed this priviledge for us among others, that ſincere faith ſhould be accounted for righteouſneſs, and that God will account us righteous if we be poſſest thereof.
Reſp. In both theſe we ſee Chriſt's righteouſneſs is made the propter quam, and our own the per quam, Chriſt's the meritorious of our Juſtification by our own righteouſneſs, whereby the aſcribing any eſſential cauſality to Chriſt's righteouſneſs is out of doors: For
1. The Juſtification by our own (') is entire in all eſſential cauſes without Chriſt's; for our righteouſneſs imputed muſt be the material as well as the formal part of our Juſtification.
2. It muſt be firſt imputed and we juſtified by it, for they make not only the Condition but the Imputation thereof, and Juſtification thereby (') to be conditional of our pardon and acceptance by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs.
3. The very righteouſneſs of our own is imputed, not Chriſts Righteouſneſs at all, only the effects; cauſe and effects are oppoſita, therefore if the effects only, then not the righteouſneſs it ſelf.
4. To ſay that Chriſt purchaſed Juſtification by our own righteouſneſs, is but to make Chriſt ſuch a remote cauſe of Juſtification as Election is. Now to talk that the condition by which we are juſtified is a formal cauſe, and yet to be no cauſe, is non-ſence, for a formal cauſe, altho it be ſine qua non, and ſo is every cauſe, yet the four immediate cauſes are not only ſo, and this diſtinguiſheth them as propter immediate cauſes, whoſe vis caters the effect, when cauſa ſine qua non, as to the effect, is only antecedent, or cauſa cauſae, and enters not the effect ſpoken of.
But Mr. H. ſaith, its a cauſe as well as a condition, it is both, if we made our works to juſtifie us ſub genere cauſae efficientis, procatarct and ſo the meritorious cauſe, it were to bring our works into the office of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, and derogate from Grace.
Reſp. So they do notwithſtanding all they ſay, for if they thruſt out Chriſt's Righteouſneſs from any eſſential part of our Juſtification, as they do, not allowing it materiality or formality therein, they put our own Works into Chriſt's Office; and nothing can be more derogatory to the Grace of God; they ſay, they make it medus efficientis, cauſa procatarchtica, an external motive to the efficient; the effect then in that reſpect falls on the efficient, but the effect of the efficient is another thing: Suppoſing God juſtifies as Judge, Chriſt's Righteouſneſs by way of Merit falls upon him, and procures of him that he takes our righteouſneſs in payment. We may uſe this Similitude, a Man is proſecuted before a Judge for an hundred Pounds, a Friend of the Defendant tampers with the Jury and Judge, and procures of them that the Debtor pay but 10 l. I pray, whether is he juſtified by paying the 10 l. in Court, or by that which the Judge and Jury received, which is not brought in Plea at all? ſo that all meritorious righteouſneſs is brought in Plea coram Judice, and accordingly being imputed or not, Judgment paſſeth. The Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, whatever it may purchaſe out of the Court of the New Law, its not allowed there as a Plea, and is never, nay cannot be imputed (theſe men ſay) though pleaded, therefore no Juſtification thereby, for no man is juſtified legally, but by what is imputed.
§. 4. But when we make it the formal cauſe only (of our paſſive Juſtification) we do nothing thereby but advance God's Grace and Chriſt's Merits, as having obtained for us, not only that God ſhould require of us no oth…r condition but our Faith or inchoate Righteouſneſs unto life, but alſo that he ſhould corſtitute by his New Law this condition performed to be our righteouſneſs, in the room of that perfect one required of the old. p. 47. of right.
Reſp. Note, 1. They do ſomething beſides advancing the Grace of God, becauſe it makes Juſtification due to us upon Debt, for he that hath a formal right-ouſneſs of his own legally imputed to him, he may demand Juſtification as due to him by the law it ſelf, and this is not to advance Grace, but contrary, if the Apoſtle ſpeak ſence, Rom. 4.
2. It is not an advance of Chriſt's Merits, for it caſts it out of Imputation and Juſtification, and makes it but a cauſa ſine quanon, it caſts them out of the eſſential cauſes, and it makes them but an adjuvant cauſe, or con-cauſe, a co-ordinate (according to Mr. H.) it makes not Chriſt's Merits the only righteouſneſs; it makes our own righteouſneſs the inchoate and foundation righteouſneſs, the Corner Stone of our Juſtification; and whereas the Scriptures make Chriſt's, it makes Chriſt's Righteouſneſs but to belong to another law, whereby they ſay we are not juſtified and our own to that which juſtifies, and the only juſtifying righteouſneſs of the new law; it makes Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and our Pardon by it, to be a conſequent of Juſtification by our own, and that without imputation thereof extra-judicial, but our own very righteouſneſs to be imputed to us; it makes that righteouſneſs within its ſelf and own nature, (ſaith Mr. H. again and again) to be righteouſneſs legal for our Juſtification, and rejects Chriſt's perfect Righteouſneſs as to Imputation and Juſtification, which is contrary to the Holineſs and Juſtice of God.
3. He makes the Grace of God to conſiſt in conſtituting a Law for Juſtification, which is but part of diſtributive Juſtice, the exerciſe of a Legiſlative Power, and not of Grace to Sinners.
4. The conſtitution of this inchoste righteouſneſs is harder terms than the conſtitution of the righteouſneſs of the Covenant of Works, for Reaſons before given.
5. We ſee what their meaning is of Chriſt's Merits, its only that he purchaſed a new Law, and we ſee what is the Neonomian Commutation that they have of late made ſuch a ſtir about, they are for a Commutation; what's that? its a commutation of our righteouſneſs, i. e. bringing into the room of the righteouſneſs of the law (i. e. Chriſt's) in Juſtification, they deny it in Dr. C's ſence, i. e. that our ſins were imputed to Chriſt, and his Righteouſneſs to us; for they expreſly deny both the one and the other.
§. 5. Mr. H. So as Adam, if he had perfectly obeyed, his obedience had been his formal righteouſneſs in regard of the law.
Reſp. His Obedience had bin his material Righteouſneſs, and this imputed to Juſtification had bin his Righteouſneſs clothed with the Form and End, and unleſs we have a material and formal righteouſneſs in regard to the ſame law, we can never be juſtified. So is this ours in regard to the Goſpel. Reſp. The Goſpel is not a new Law, neither doth it allow our own righteouſneſs, for any in our Juſtification; and is therefore Goſpel, becauſe it doth not. He tells us, both Proteſtant and Papiſt are both out in ſaying the Law is the rule of that Righteouſneſs which both ſay is the formal reaſon of their Juſtification.
Reſp. It is the Neonomians are out, and worſe than the Papiſts in this Point, in that they will bring any other rule of Righteouſneſs for Juſtification, the Law of Works is only norma officii & judicii for Righteouſneſs and Juſtification. They are both out, for the Papiſts ſpeaks for inherent Grace, and his Works, ſo as he would have them meritorious, and perfect (pleading for Merit and Perfection) but can never bring them to anſwer the law, but muſt ſtill pray forgive us our treſpaſſes.
Reſp. The Papiſts are righter and more rational here than Neonomians, if they differ from them in Merit, they ought not, and Mr. B. aſſerts it in his End of Controverſies; but whereever the performance of the condition of a law requires Juſtification by the law, there is Merit and muſt be; for ſuch a Performer deſerves and merits Juſtification, and the remuneration thereof as much as Adam's ſtanding and performing the condition of the Law of Works, had merited Juſtification thereby. Likewiſe, as to Perfection they are right, for that is a man's Perfection which the Law makes ſo, and juſtifies a man by, the Law matters not what other laws make perfect performance; the Old Law is no rule to the New Law, that's a man's Perfection which the Law that juſtifies him ſaith is the performance of the condition. Mr. H. quotes Mr. B. for ſaying, the New Law acquits a man from non-performance of the condition; and what need ſuch an one pray for Pardon any more than they that ſay, they are juſtified in Chriſt's Righteouſneſs (the great Cry they make againſt Juſtification in Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, what need ſuch an one pray for Pardon?) for if their Juſtification in and by their own righteouſneſs, be not as perfect diſcharging from guilt by Pardon, as ours is in Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, its not worth a Fig, we deſire no ſuch trifling Juſtifications.
§. 6. The Proteſtants on the other ſide plead for Chriſt's righteouſneſs which arſwers the Rule; but this being without us (though it be upon the account thereof) id propter quod, or cujus merito, we are juſtified; the Papiſts ſay ſtiffly it can never be made formally ours, ſo as to be propter quod we are juſtified, …d I muſt ſay the ſame, for the Truth is Truth.
Reſp. Here you have Mr. H. plainly confeſſing himſelf a Papiſt in the Point of Juſtification, and hence its no wrong to him to ſay he is a Papiſt upon his own Confeſſion, and the truth is the truth. He ſaith with the Papiſts, that this being without us cannot o… imputed; can nothing but what is perſonally done by us be Imputed to us? I find no Proof that he makes any where that one man's righteouſneſs cannot be imputed to another, and here it is only becauſe it is without us: What is more common than Sureties to pay the De…ts of inſolvent Perſons? and that Chriſt made Payment and Satisfaction for Sinners is moſt plain from Scriptures, though theſe men will deny that the Scripture ſaith any thing thereof, which denial will be tried by us whether there is any weight in it? There are two great Points to be cleared in this Controverſie:
1. Whether the Scripture excludes all inherent righteouſneſs from the Juſtification of a Sinner before God?
2. Whether the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt be imputed to a Sinner for his Juſtification before God? Theſe Queſtions ſhall be maintained by us in the Affirmative, God willing, in their due place.
§. 7. Whereas Mr. H. Prides himſelf exceedingly in the ſingularity of his Notion of our Righteouſneſs being the formal cauſe of our Juſtification, any one may ſee it in Cardinal Bellarmine and J. Goodwyn, from both whom its eaſie to ſhew how the Neonomians have taken up their Doctrine; as for the Notion it ſelf it labours under many weakneſſes.
1. That Righteouſneſs in it ſelf is not the formal but the material reaſon of Juſtification, that which induceth the form is a legal Imputation; for if a man be never ſo innocent and righteous, if the Court do not impute him ſo, he ſhall not be juſtified, and if a man be never ſo unrighteous, if the Court impute righteouſneſs to him, he ſhall be juſtified; ſo its here, Imputation is the legal form of Juſtification, and righteouſneſs is but the material only.
2. He makes a formal reaſon without material; for if our own righteouſneſs be the formal reaſon where's the material? he will not make Chriſt's Merits the material; for he brings in them ſub genere cauſae efficientis, beſides he cannot, for it would be very abſurd to place the matter in one ſubject, and the form in another, therefore his formal reaſon is immaterial, and its indeed but an imagenary Chymaera, both his New Law and his Formal Righteouſneſs.
3. Our Righteouſneſs if it be the formal reaſon of our Juſtification, its ſuch as per quam homo juſtus eſt, and that is in law always propter quod, for no law juſtifies any one; but becauſe he is righteous, his righteouſneſs muſt conſtitute him juſt, and the law eſteeming him ſo, he is juſtified as legally meritorious thereof: the noiſe Mr. B. J. G. and others make of the diſtinction between conſtitutive and declarative Juſtification, is Popiſh, and hath nothing in it; conſtitutive Juſtification is no more than Imputation, it is that which in law conſtitutes any one juſt and meritorious of declarative Juſtification.
§. 8. Mr. H. makes a diſtinction of Juſtification, that its active and paſſive, whereas Juſtification is but one, and it doth not conſtitute properly a phyſical effect, but a legal relation, it doth neither find nor make any ſinner inherently righteous (for Juſtification of a righteous perſon finds him inherently ſo, this Juſtification we ſpeak not of) but Mr. H. will have a paſſive Juſtification upon this account, becauſe it finds the ſinner righteous inherently; he ſaith indeed, the infuſion of this preceeding righteouſneſs is not his Juſtification, according to the Papiſts, but his Juſtification is for the righteouſneſs which it finds infuſed, and ſo its the formal cauſe of Juſtification: He might with much better reaſon ſay, that Sanctification is double, active ſanctifying, and paſſive ſanctified; but where there is the cauſe working, there is the effect wrought, and the juſtified is but the effect, and conſtitutes no diſtinct ſpecies of it. But we ſay, the Grace of Juſtification of a Sinner, proceeding from Grace, is wholly in and from God, and hath no cauſe in a Sinner material or formal, nor is there any cauſe external of that Grace, the moving cauſe only is the good will and pleaſure of God; he is gracious to whom he will; graciouſneſs, pardoning Iniquity is only from his Grace and for the glory of his Grace, which cannot be in the Juſtification of a righteous perſon, but becauſe, not ſimply Grace, but alſo Juſtice ſhall be glorified in a ſinner's juſtification, and God in his pardon, will not clear the guilty, he hath graciouſly provided and beſtowed on the ſinner a righteouſneſs accepted by the Law, and imputed to him, that he may appear therein juſt, and ſo juſt in adminiſtration of righteouſneſs as not to infringe his Juſtice in the leaſt, but to the higheſt honor of the Law ſtanding in its full force againſt the ſinner, without the leaſt Relaxation. This is done quite contrary to the Neonomian Doctrine; therefore Gods Juſtification falling upon a Sinner, makes actually a correlate to Gods juſtifying, and faith is no more than the Sinners reception of this Grace; no part of that righteouſneſs by which faith or for which the Sinner is juſtified, neither is it a grain of that righteouſneſs which is imputed to him.
§. 9. Mr. H. alſo hath another diſtinction between condition and duty, which I will not ſtay upon becauſe its frivolous and it is becauſe he will have the duties of the Law to be performed by us, tho we be not juſtified by them, he inſiſts upon a Relaxation of the old Law but not a total Abolition, Mr. Bax. Opinion is that its abrogated as much as the Ceremonial Law, wherein both penalty and duty is taken away, and indeed Mr. B. is in the right according to his notion, for the introduction of a New Law in the room of it and for the ends that the old Law was eſtabliſht is certainly the nulling of the ſaid old Law, but how then can Mr. B. be ſecured from a juſt charge of Antinomian viz. that moral duties are not required of us, which is more Antinomian than I ever ſaw in any he chargeth with it, he hath one poor ſhift, which is that the duties of the old-Law are taken or ſpunged up in the conditions of the New; but however the broken pieces are pickt up, the Law it ſelf is gone, and there's no tranſgreſſion upon that account, Mr. H. ſaith the Law's only relaxed but his relaxation is no better than a Crack in the middle of a Glaſs and heart of it; and he hath not told us how far this relaxation goes, and every man will be ready to plead for his own ſin that the Law in that reſpect is relaxt. But he would have us believe, that the moral duties ſtill remain, how relaxt or not? If relaxt then at leaſt to an indifferency, a man may do them or not without any ſin; but he ſaith they are re-eſtabliſhed in the New-Law, if ſo they are re-eſtabliſhed without the Relaxation and then the New-Law is as ſtrict as the Old, or with the relaxation, and then all duties are required with abatement as to quality and quantity, with an allowance of ſin, our poſſe or velle, and what is more Antinomianiſm? But, ſaith he, the Conditions are not Duties, It was never affirmed by men of reaſon, that the Condition of a Law is not a Duty; for that which is required of us upon pain of puniſhment is always a Duty, and to the Condition of the New-Law the higheſt, becauſe it hath the Sanction of a Law of the Higheſt, he that continueth not in all things by way of performance that it requireth is curſed by it, if it be but imperfect obedience; it ſaith, he that continueth not in imperfect obedience is curſed by it, therefore when the Saints come to Heaven, and fall into perfect obedience they fall under the Curſe of the new law, or elſe its out of doors before they come there, or the laſt day, and the World can't be judged by it. Laſtly, What are the conditions of imperfect obedience? are they not Duties of Righteouſneſs by the performance whereof Mr. H. will have us juſtified? Yes, this cannot be denied, but the diſtinction will hold with a quatenus, as they refer to the abſolute, relaxed Laws they are Duties, i. e. as they reſpect no Law, or a lawleſs Law; and as they refer to the New Law they are Conditions and are not Duties. Hence its no Duty to perform the Conditions of the New Law for Juſtification thereby, and this is the Truth which we ſtand by, though infer'd truly from Mr. H's Logick and Divinity.