A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Chapter 1

A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane · Chapter 1

CHAPTER I. Of the Doctrine of Iuſtification, and the Neonomian Oppoſition thereto.

Section 1. The Article of the Aſſembly. §. 2. How oppoſed in the univerſality of Grace, and qualification of the perſon juſtified. §. 3. How Neonomianiſm agrees with Papiſts and Quakers in Juſtification by Infuſed Righteouſneſs. §. 4. How they oppoſe in Pardon of Sin and Imputing Righteouſneſs. §. 5. Their agreement with the Papiſts in Juſtification by Works. §. 6. The Papiſts Talk of a New Law. §. 7. Quakers Doctrine of Juſtification. §. 8. The Socinian Doctrine of Juſtification. §. 9. The Arminian Juſtification. §. 10. Inference. §. 11. They aſſert, Juſtification not for Chriſt's ſake alone. 12. Neonomians affirm, Imputation of the Act of Faith. §. 13. They deny the Imputation of Chriſts Obedience and Satisfaction. §. 14. How they account Faith a qualifying Condition. §. 15. Concluſion.

Sect. 1. ASſembl. conf. cap. 11. §. 1. Thoſe whom God effectually calleth, he alſo freely juſtifieth, not by infuſing Righteouſneſs into them, but by pardoning their Sins, and by accounting p. 2and accepting their Perſons as righteous: Not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Chriſt's ſake alone; nor by imputing Faith it ſelf, the Act of believing, nor any other Evangelical Obedience to them as their righteouſneſs, but by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Chriſt unto them, they receiving and reſting on him and his righteouſneſs by faith, which Faith they have not of themſelves, it is the gift of God.

To this Doctrine here delivered with the greateſt Exactneſs, according to the Word of God, is the Doctrine of Neonomianiſm diametrically oppoſite, as will abundantly appear.

§. 2. They ſay, Whom God effectually calleth he juſtifieth.] Mr. B. ſaith, God juſtifieth all the World; and he and Mr. H. 'That Chriſt redeemed all the World, in which there are Millions that were never, or will be effectually called. 2. That God freely juſtifieth.] This is fuller expreſſed in the Larger Catechiſm, Q. 70. Juſtification is an act of God's free grace unto Sinners, Rom. 3.21, 23, 24. for the free Grace is demonſtrated in the Object that Juſtification falls upon. Juſtification conſidered in it ſelf is an act of Juſtice, but the Free Grace lies in bringing Juſtification upon a Sinner, as ſuch, not as qualified by righteouſneſs of his own, under any Denomination whatſoever; Chriſt died for the ungodly, for enemies, while yet ſinners, Rom. 5.6, 7, 8, 9. it is ſuch chap. 3. that are ſaid to be juſtified (chap. 4.5.) by free Grace; it is ſuch that have ſinned, and come ſhort of the glory of God, as all, he ſaith, have, both Jews and Gentiles; ſuch as are deſcribed, from v. 10. of whom none are righteous, no not one, but full of all ſin and wickedneſs, as expreſſed with the higheſt aggravation unto v. 19. Now our Neonomians ſay, its of Free Grace, becauſe Juſtification is an Inſtance of Grace; but by Mr. Cl's. favour, it muſt be in the Juſtification of a Sinner, not of a juſt one; and therefore its ſaid freely by Grace, becauſe he hath nothing, nor brings any thing in or from himſelf. 2. He ſaith, Its in reſpect of what is required of us, or in us, Faith is wrought in us, and its of Free Grace that he accepts of Faith, and imputes it to us for righteouſneſs: This by the Aſſembly is rejected as Falſe Doctrine; altho Faith, and all the Graces of the Spirit, are of Grace, yet neither Faith, or any of them, are our righteouſneſs for Juſtification, neither doth God accept it as ſuch, nor impute it: Mr. Cl. mightily perverts Rom. 4.16. therefore it is of faith; 'i. e. the righteouſneſs before ſpoken of, is ſuch as he received by faith (he ſaith not therefore it is faith) that it might be of grace, becauſe as Grace gives freely, ſo Faith receiveth freely, and is not ſo proud as to call it ſelf, righteouſneſs, but gladly, humbly and thankfully receives the gift of righteouſneſs, which Grace beſtows, and Juſtice accepts and imputes to Juſtification.

§. 3. Not by infuſing righteouſneſs into them.] The Aſſembly doth p. 3here exclude the Popiſh Juſtification, at which Mr. H. inveighs, and ſo doth J. G. for indeed there's but a pair of Shears between the Papiſts and Neonomians; for the Papiſts mean only, That we have the righteouſneſs for Juſtification by infuſion, and ſo ſays the other; they ſay indeed, Infuſion is of Sanctification, and it is ſo, and we ſay, Juſtification is only a relative Grace, as it finds nothing in the juſtified, ſo it puts nothing; but the Neonomians ſay, It muſt find a righteouſneſs infuſed, and there implanted in the juſtified, for which he is juſtified, or by which; its all one, as we ſhall make appear anon; in a word, tho the Neonomians ſay. The infuſion of grace is not juſtification, yet they ſay, Grace infuſed is our righteouſneſs for Juſtification; and here they do concur with the Papiſts, Quakers and others in confounding Juſtification and Sanctification together.

§. 4. But by pardoning their ſins.] The Neonomians will not have Pardon to be any part of Juſtification, but an effect of it only; we affirm it to be an eſſential part of Juſtification. [By accounting and accepting their perſons as righteous.] The Neonomians ſay, its by accounting and accepting their imperfect obedience for righteouſneſs; God's Juſtification is firſt of the Perſon, and then of their Services, as Abel's, but their Juſtification is firſt of their Services, and ſo it is always in legal Juſtification, never in that of Free Grace; for in a meer Legal Juſtification, Perſons cannot be accepted before the Work done, but the Perſon is accepted for the Work ſake.

Not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them.] The Papiſts, Neonomians, Quakers, Socinians, Arminians, all ſay its for or by what's wrought in us, or done by us, Pap. Conſ. Trid. There is one only formal cauſe of Juſtification, and that is the righteouſneſs of God, not that whereby he is righteous, but whereby he makes us righteous, with which we being endowed, are renewed in the ſpirit of our minds, and are truly called righteous, and are righteous, &c. Upon which Bellarmine ſaith the State of the whole Controverſie may be reduc'd to this plain Queſtion, Whether our inherent righteouſneſs be the formal cauſe of our own abſolute Justification? which he maintains in the Affirmative, and this is the Queſtion in Controverſie exactly, which our Neonomians plead for in the like manner, tho ſome more obſcurely and ſophiſtically, but others more honeſtly in ſpeaking out plainly what they mean, ſuch as Mr. B. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Bellarmine alſo blames Kemnitius for dealing fraudulently in not diſtinguiſhing between propter and per, ſaying with the Council of Trent, That Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is the propter, the cauſe for which we we are juſtified, and our own inherent Righteouſneſs is the p…r, the formal cauſe by which we are juſtified. This Diſtinction Mr. H. having taken up from Bellarmine, makes very much of. More of it anon.

p. 4§. 5. Take one or two for all, to avoid tediouſneſs to the Reader. Mr. H. in Medioc. p. 42. Herein doth appear the ground of reconciliation between the Papiſts and us in this point; the ſum of what he ſaith is, Provided they ſay that the works they plead for our righteouſneſs, be the works of the new law, and not of the old, we are agreed, and then tells us, That Gods judging a man to have performed the condition of the Covenant (i. e. the New Law) is the accounting and declaring him righteous, That righteouſneſs which makes a man righteous, and denominates him righteous, is that righteouſneſs which does make God account him righteous, and that is the righteouſneſs which he doth. Note it, for it is expreſs; and this he ſaith is not the righteouſneſs of the law of works, but of the law of grace, which he ſaith is a righteouſneſs which he doth, but not work in doing, which is pretty abſurd, that a man ſhould do works of righteouſneſs and not work; but the meaning is, he doth not work perfect works (I will not wrong him:) But do not thoſe that work imperfect works work? Yea, ſaith he, they that do abſolutely ſinful works, are called workers of iniquity. A little after he tells us, Chriſt's Redemption was to bring in a New Law— for when Man fell it was impoſſible he ſhould be righteous any more unleſs there were a new Law brought in, by performance whereof he might attain to that again which he loſt—now this was the main buſineſs of Chriſt's Redemption, the procuring a new law, or another law with lower Terms, which ſome men performing, they do thereby become righteous, and ſo have righteouſneſs, according to that Law imputed to them for Remiſſion and life eternal — And thus you ſee what everlaſting righteouſneſs Chriſt brought in, Dan. 9. and in his Piece, Of Righteouſneſs, which comes forth with Epiſco. Approbation, p. 3. It is true againſt the Papiſts, there is no ſuch righteouſneſs inherent, as to render God appeaſed with the ſinner, or that the Conſcience can reſt on it [then it is good for nothing] as that propter quod he is forgiven or ſaved [by his favour Bellarmine doth not ſay it is] but that Chriſt's righteouſneſs is the propter quam. Therefore the Papiſts and they are agreed in this ſence. —It is true alſo againſt the common Proteſtant, [therefore the Neonomians are not Proteſtants, unleſs ſuch as have cauſa formalis of Papists] that there is not any righteouſneſs without us that can be made ours, ſo as we ſhould be accounted righteous in another's righteouſneſs, or be that thing per quod we are juſtified, there is no ſuch matter in reality, but in notion only— This righteouſneſs, as imperfect as it is (wrought by the Spirit) is that, and muſt be that which is the form per quam, he is accepted and juſtified, we grant the righteouſneſs of Chriſt is the meritorious cauſe per quam we are pardoned and ſaved.

§. 6. About the New Law there's little difference between the Papiſts and Neonomians, tho the Papiſte are on the ſurer ſide p. 5of the Notion, Mr. Fox Mart. about the difference between Ancient Rome and preſent, p. 34. tells us, The Church of Rome teach the People that there's no difference between Moſes and Chriſt, ſave only that Moſes was the giver of the old law, but Chriſt the giver of a new and more perfect law. And its moſt rational, that the new law ſhould be a more perfect law, and not a law of imperfection; we do not mend perfect things, and if there be any reaſon for particular ends, its with thoſe things that more perfectly anſwer thoſe ends, and therefore their remedying law ought to be perfecter and moſt compleat.

§. 7. Next a-kin to theſe men are the Quakers in their moſt refined Doctrine, put out in the name of Barclay, but I heard Mr. Keath, that was a Neonomian Quaker, ſay, Barclay's Book was chiefly his work. Works are neceſſary to Juſtification as well as Faith, James 2. both equally required to Juſtification; works of the Law are excluded as done by us, Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. [this is Mr. H. juſt] To be juſtified by Grace is to be juſtified or ſaved by Regeneration, which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace and by the Spirit, 1 Cor. 6.11. The law gives not power to obey, and ſo falls ſhort of Juſtification; but there's power under the Goſpel by which the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly, Rom. 8.3, 4. Works are the Condition upon which Life is propoſed under the New Covenant. Tho we place Remiſſion of Sins in the Righteouſneſs and Obedience of Chriſt performed in the Fleſh, as to what pertains to the remote procuring cauſe, and that we hold our ſelves formally juſtified by Chriſt formed and brought forth in us; yet can we not (as ſome Proteſtants have done unwarily) exclude works from Juſtification, for tho properly we are not juſtified for them, yet are we juſtified in them, &c.

§. 8. The Socinians ſay, No other Imputation is in our eternal Salvation than that whoever ſincerely obeys the Commands of Chriſt is from them accounted of God righteous, Socin. de ſerv. When God is ſaid to impute Faith for Righteouſneſs, the meaning is, that God hath ſo great a value for Faith, that he eſteems it for a Righteouſneſs to Juſtification, Crel. on Gal. 3.6. And Mr. B. ſaith, I abhor the Opinion that Chriſt's righteouſneſs given us is all without us, Preface to Doct. of Chr. p. 3. but more of this in what follows.

§. 9. The Arminians bring up the Rear, and I ſhall name the Man from whom I can prove Mr. B. hath taken up moſt of his corrupt Notions about General Redemption and Juſtification, and its J. G. The Queſtion in preciſe Terms is this, Whether the Faith of him that truly believes in Chriſt, or whether the righteouſneſs of Chriſt himſelf— be that which God imputes to a Believer p. 6for righteouſneſs, or unto Righteouſneſs in his Juſtification, J. G. of Juſtification, p. 7. he concludes it is faith— As a Merchant that grows rich by ſuch a Commodity, i. e. he grew rich by the Gain and Return he made of that Commodity— So we may be ſaid to be juſtified by the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and yet not have the righteouſneſs it ſelf upon us by Imputation, or otherwiſe, but only a righteouſneſs procured or purchaſed by it really and eſſentially differing from it, p. 12. This Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is not that that is imputed unto any man for righteouſneſs, but is that for which righteouſneſs is imputed to every man that believeth— Paul neither eat his Fingers, nor ſpun out the fleſh of his hands into cloathing, and yet was both fed and cloathed with them [Here's the true ſenſe of being juſtified by the effects of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs.] So may a Believer be ſaid to be cloathed with the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and yet the righteouſneſs of Chriſt not be his cloathing but only that which procured this cloathing unto him. Chap. 7. p. 88. is to evince, That that which God imputes for Righteouſneſs in Juſtification is not the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt himſelf (in the ſenſe refuſed in the Firſt Chapter,) 'but faith in Chriſt. In the concluſion of the Chap. he ſays, If God in the New Covenant of the Goſpel (i. e. the New Law) requires Faith in Chriſt for our Juſtification, inſtead of the righteouſneſs of the Law in the old, and this faith will not paſs with him in account for ſuch righteouſneſs, both his Commandment and Covenant for believing, and the Obedience it ſelf of believing, will become void, and of none effect.

§. 10. You ſee by theſe inſtances, that by this Doctrine the Neonomions fall into that Sink of Errour, that the higheſt oppoſers of the Goſpel of Chriſt have profeſſed; its no doubt but they will ceaſe inveighing againſt the Quakers, as introducers of Popery, but rather applaud them, and bring them into their Pulpits.

§ 11. But for Chriſt's ſake alone.] This they deny and ſay, Our Juſtification paſſively taken, that which we do our ſelves thro Grace is this our formal righteouſneſs, and that is the condition of our Juſtification actively taken (i. e. the righteouſneſs of Chriſt the meritorious cauſe) So that in a large ſenſe here is two righteouſneſſes for our Juſtification, Chriſt's and ours, p. 6. Mr. Cl. hath a Chapter to prove how the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt concurs to our Juſtification, the ſum of all is this, That by the Merits of Chriſt's Death, he has 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 p. 7poſſeſt thereof, p. 35. Chriſt hath done his part, but hath appointed us a neceſſary part which muſt be done by our ſelves; this is not to ſupply any deficiency in Chriſt [i. e. he hath done well enough for the part alotted him] but it is that which ſubordinately is required of us as the condition of Pardon and Life by his own Law or Covenant of Grace, and ſo far [as a part] 'it is imputed to us for righteouſneſs, Scr. G. p. 35. From what hath been quoted before, it is plain the reſt alſo do hold, that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs at beſt doth but concur to our Juſtification, it is not that only whereby we are juſtified. See Mr. Cl. Chap. 13.

§. 12. Not by imputing faith it ſelf, the act of believing, or any other Evangelical Obedience to them for righteouſneſs.] All this the Neonomians in all their Writings deny, Mr. B. in his S. G. def. p. 32. quaeries, Whether Faith be imputed to us for righteouſneſs, or Chriſt's Righteouſneſs believed on? A. A ſtrange and bold Quaery— Read over the Text and put but [Chriſt's Righteouſneſs every where inſtead of the word Faith] and ſee what a ſcandalous Paraphraſe you will make—to have righteouſneſs imputed, plainly ſignifieth to be reckoned or judged righteous, and it is ſtrange that it muſt not be our own righteouſneſs that is imputed and reckoned to us as our own. The ſame ſay Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. This Faith that is our righteouſneſs they will have the ſame with our Evangelical Obedience, as containing all in it. So Mr. B. Faith by which we are juſtified is one moral act, containing many phyſical acts, even our fiducial conſent to the Baptiſmal Covenant, and Dedication of our ſelves to God the Father, p. 42. Mr. Cl. Faith is our ſubordinate Goſpel-righteouſneſs, he gives his reaſons, p. 64. Mr. H. When a man performs the Evangelick Condition, it is the Evangelick Law (or God by it as his inſtrument) makes him, or conſtitutes him righteous, and being thereby ſo made, God muſt account him ſo; this conſtitutive Juſtification preceeds Pardon and Life in order of nature. J. G. denys that Faith juſtifies in relation to its Object, tho it cannot be ſeparated from it, but by vertue of the intervention of ſome Law, Covenant or Decree, i. e. as a condition of the new Law in the Neonomian ſenſe. Mr. H. in his right. of God, p. 54. Our Effectual Calling doth enter our Juſtification, for the Works of it, Faith, Repentance, new Obedience, are imputed to us for that righteouſneſs that juſtifies us, and our Juſtification and inchoate righteouſneſs does enter, and is the infancy of Glory. I need not blot Paper by quoting the Council of Trent; briefly, they damn any man that ſaith, that a man is juſtified without the righteouſneſs that Chriſt did merit for us, p. 8whereby he is formally juſt, and damn ſuch as ſay, that a man is juſtified only by the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, or Remiſſion of Sins, without inherent Grace and Charity.

§. 13. But by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Chriſt unto them.] Mr. H. in his Right. &c. p. 34. ſays to this part of the Aſſemblies deſcript. of Juſtification, and ſeems to flatter them a little, and thinks their Catechiſm may ſerve the People, yea, that a groſſer ſort of the knowledge of the Principles of Religion is better for ordinary People than more exact, whereby you may ſee what high thoughts and apprehenſions he hath of the exactneſs of his groſs Divinity. In Juſtification I acknowledge a forgiveneſs, and an imputation of Chriſt's Obedience, but I do not acknowledge either as our formal righteouſneſs, Forgiveneſs is a benefit we receive, but not the formal reaſon. I acknowledge Chriſt's righteouſneſs imputed ſub genere cauſae efficientis & modum meriti, received by faith, but in the merit of it only. And I give notice, that thinking More doth ſay, that Chriſt's righteouſneſs in ſe, is made ours legally (tho he diſowns it as phyſically and morally) that man muſt make it juſtifie us ſub ratione cauſa formalis, which is an unadviſed Poſition, which I look upon as that foreign of our former great Divines, which gave the riſe to Antinomianiſm. Now what a happineſs is it that ſo great a Divine is riſen up, to find out ſuch an Error in the very heart of our Reformation, in our great Divines, and indeed in our Proteſtant Religion, that we have been all under a Cheat and Deluſion in this grand Point of Life and Salvation, building upon a wrong righteouſneſs for Juſtification. Again he ſaith, That we ſhould be juſtified by faith, was obtained by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs or Performance; but it is our Faith, not Chriſt's Performance, is imputed unto us for righteouſneſs in our ſ…aſtification, Chriſt's righteouſneſs is that for which, not that by which cauſa propter quam. not per quam, we have this benefit, that upon believing we are juſtified: to the ſame purpoſe he hath words above an hundred times. Mr. R. B. God never judgeth falſly, but knoweth all things to be what they are, and therefore he reputeth Chriſt's Mediatorial Righteouſneſs and Sacrifice to be the meritorious cauſe for which we are juſtified by the law of Grace, ſo he truly reputeth our Faith and Repentance, and Covenantconſent to be our moral qualification for the gift, and our holineſs and perſeverance to be our moral qualification for final Juſtification, which qualifications being the matter of the Law of Grace, and Condition of its Promiſe, is ſo far our righteouſneſs, therefore God may be ſaid in this ſenſe, to impute Righteouſneſs to us [i. e. our own] and to impute Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to us [i. e. as to the p. 9effects] 'to impute our faith to us for righteouſneſs. See the end of Controv. p. 257, 258. and 260, 261. Scr. G. d. p. 61.70, 71.

Socinus. No other imputation is in our eternal Salvation than that whoſoever ſincerely obeys the Commands of Chriſt is from them accounted of God as righteous, De Serv. This is the expreſs ſenſe of the Neonomians.

§. 14. They receiving and reſting on him and his righteouſneſs by faith.] The Neonomians ſay, to be juſtified by it as that which God hath promiſed Juſtification on, as the qualifying condition, and ſaith the quae & quâ is a quibbling and juggling about a meer ſound of words in a ludicrous Diſputation; he ſaith it juſtifies not inſtrumentaliter, for that is the foreign credere in ſpecie; Faith in Chriſt doth not juſtifie qua talis, as that Faith, but it is that qualifying condition which the Promiſe annexeth Juſtification to, Scr. G. d. p. 42, 43.

Mr. Cl. chap. 12. §. 8. From hence I infer, that juſtifying Faith is the ſame thing in ſubſtance with Effectual Calling, Repentance, Regeneration, Converſion, Sanctification. Renovation, &c. J. G. It is the common Plea, that Faith juſtifieth in relation to its Object, its not receiving, but lawful receiving that juſtifieth, and therefore it juſtifieth by vertue of that law or agreement men are under, i. e. as a Covenant-condition; therefore he peremptorily denys that Faith juſtifies in relation to its Object, and our Neonomians are one with him, ſee him Of Juſtification.

Bellarmine alſo ſpendeth much Paper, That Faith alone doth not juſtifie, but that Fear, Hope, Love, and every Grace doth the ſame.

§. 15. Thoſe Points wherein the Neonomians declare themſelves diametrically oppoſite to the Aſſembly, and other Proteſtants in the Doctrine of the Obedience and Satisfaction of Chriſt, muſt be matter of another Treatiſe, it being too much to come within the compaſs of theſe Sheets; likewiſe, there are two Points which I have already publickly inſiſted on. 1. In ſhewing the Nullity of any New Law with Sanction. 2. To diſprove their Ʋniverſal Redemption, and ſhew the Abſurdity thereof, tho more may be ſaid of both (God willing) hereafter. And the Aſſembly, and we with them, aſſerting the Imputation of the active and paſſive Obedience of Chriſt to the Juſtification of a Sinner, and the Neonomians denying the active righteouſneſs to have any influence on our Juſtification, no further than as to the fitneſs of his Perſon to the exerciſe of his Mediatorial Office, falling in with Piſcator, Gataker and others in this Point, and cannot be handled here, but muſt be matter of after-conſideration in treating of Satisfaction. Let not the Reader take it for granted that we grant Mr. Clark that Point, viz. the denial of the active righteouſneſs of Chriſt in our Juſtification, wherein he hath ſpent a great part of his Treatiſe.