A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Of Imputation of Righteouſneſs unto the Iuſtification of a Sinner.
Sect. 1. Righteouſneſs imputed, and what? §. 2. Cardinal Bellarmine a Middle-way-man, and ſo Quakers too, and Socinians. §. 3. How conſonant Neonomians are to that Fraternity. §. 4. They make inherent Holineſs to be our Righteouſneſs. §. 5. Why pardoned after justified, and of ſubordinate righteouſneſs. §. 6. Of Legal and Evangelical Guilt. §. 7. Of Mr. Cl's definition of Justification, and of incompleat Justification in this life.
Sect. 1. THat Righteouſneſs is imputed to the Juſtification of a ſinner before God, is held on all ſides; but the great Controverſie lies here, What Righteouſneſs is it? Is it our own inherent righteouſneſs, or the righteouſneſs of another? the Neonomians with the Papiſts ſay, its our own which is the formal cauſe of our Juſtification; we ſay, that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is the material cauſe of our Juſtification, and Imputation the formal. Mr. H. excludes the Merits of Chriſt from any of the eſſential cauſes, and makes it only modum efficientis, ſomething in the hand of the efficient, it may be an inſtrument, but at the beſt its but cauſa miniſtrans, by way of efficiency, but enters not that effect as any eſſential Cauſe. Mr. H. would find out ſome little Difference between the Papiſts and himſelf, but its ſo little that he can hardly render it viſible. The Counſel of Trent ſaith thus, There is only one formal Cauſe of Juſtification which is the Righteouſneſs of God, not whereby he is Righteous, but whereby he makes us Righteous; viz. which he hath beſtowed on us, whereby we are renewed in the Spirit of our minds, and are not only reputed Juſt, but are truly called Righteous and are ſo — and it follows, In this is the Juſtification of the Ʋngodly, whilſt for the Merit of that moſt Holy Paſſion, the Love of God is ſhed abroad by the Holy Ghoſt in the Hearts of them that are juſtified, and inherent in them, whence in Juſtification it ſelf with Remiſſion of Sins this is together with it infuſed, &c. Seſs. 6. c. 7.
Mr. H. agrees with them, that our inherent Righteouſneſs is the formal Cauſe, and that it is for the Merits of Chriſt, that this Righteouſneſs is wrought in us, that therefore it's called the Righteouſneſs of God. Bellarmine in Defence of the Doctrine of the C. of Tr. ſays, the State of this whole Controverſie may be reduced to this one Queſtion. Whether or no the formal Cauſe of Abſolute Juſtification be Righteouſneſs inhering in us? Which he endeavours to maintain in the Affirmative. Mr. H. would have ſome difference from the Papiſts in that they ſay Juſtification is by Infuſion of Righteouſneſs, whereas he ſaith Infuſion of Grace is Sanctification, but Juſtification is by Grace infuſed; of the two, I take the Papiſt to be righteſt in conſtitutive Juſtification, and to have leſs of Merit in it; whereas Mr. H. Juſtification is by Sanctification wrought firſt, which carries more of Merit and leſs of Grace, for here Juſtification appears at firſt ſight to be ex condigno the good qualification of the Subject. Yea the Papiſts go further then Mr. H. for he will not have Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs nor Remiſſion of Sins to have any place in Juſtification, which the Papiſts own to be Parts of our Juſtification, for the Council of Trent do Anathametize thoſe only that teach, that a Man is juſtified only by Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs and Remiſſion of Sins, without inherent Grace and Charity; yea I do not find that this Neonomian Doctrine comes any whit ſhort of the Popiſh Doctrine of Juſtification, nay it out-does it in daring Contradiction to the the Goſpel.
§. 2. See what a Middle-way Man the Cardinal is if he go far enough. He gives his Senſe of Rom. 3.24. Juſtified freely, i.e. from his mere liberality as to our Merits, for we cannot deſerve to be juſtified by any Work of ours, and this Bounty of God is the efficient Cauſe, but we are juſtified by his Grace, i. e. by a Righteouſneſs given and infuſed by him [is not this Mr. H. exactly, what doth he trifle for about Infuſion] and this is the formal Cauſe, we are juſtified alſo by the Redemption of Chriſt, and this is the meritorious Cauſe, Laſtly, we are juſtified by Faith in the Blood of a Propitiator, and this the diſpoſing Cauſe; from hence we may learn that every ſincere Neonomian is a Papiſt in the Point of Juſtification, and that the Popiſh Doctrine of Juſtification is the Middle-way between the Calviniſts and Arminians. See but a Taſte, how the Quakers and Socinian fall in with this Doctrine of Juſtification by Works. Quakers, Works and Faith are equally required to Juſtifie, Works of the Law are excluded as done by us, to be juſtified by Grace is to be juſtified by Regeneration, which cannot exclude Works wrought by Grace, ſince the Law gives not Power to obey and ſo fall ſhort of Juſtification, there's Power under the Goſpel whereby the Law comes to be fulfilled inwardly, Works through the Power of the Spirit is a Condition upon which Life is propoſed under the New Covenant. It appears from divers Scriptures, that the Apoſtle excludes only our own Righteouſneſs, as being the Righteouſneſs of the Law from being neceſſary to Juſtification, Barcl. Socinian, There was never but one way of Juſtification by Faith—This Faith is nothing elſe but under the hope of Eternal Life to obey the Commands of Chriſt, and this we apprehend to be underſtood in Scripture where-ever we read of Salvation promiſed to them that believe in Chriſt. Socin. de offic. Chr. Them. 42.43. To believe in Chriſt is nothing elſe than to obey God, according to the Rule and Preſcription of Criſt, and in doing it to expect of Chriſt a Crown of Eternal Liſe, Socin. de Servatori. To the attaining Eternal Life not any Merits are required, but the obeying Chriſts Precepts, to which Eternal Life is the conſtituted Price, or Reward; not that Obedience it ſelf deſerved it, but becauſe it hath pleaſed the moſt gracious God to deal ſo with Mankind. Socin. Reſpon. ad Obj. cut.
§. 3. Now let us ſee how Conſonant our Neonomians be to this Fraternity in the Doctrine, we'll take it from Mr. H. one of the honeſteſt of the Pack and freeſt from Juggling. Medeocr. p. 16, 17. Our Works do not Merit, becauſe they are not perfect [i. e. therefore do not Merit as related to the Old-Covenant, but Merit notwithſtanding, ex pacto in relation to the New-law-Covenant] but we are juſtified by Works as we are by Faith, becauſe Faith juſtifies only as productive of Works [thence you ſee he placeth the Righteouſneſs of Faith in it ſelf as a Work done, and that it juſtifies only ſo, and hath no more juſtifying Nature or End then the Fruits thereof] — It is Faith as productive of Works, that receive the Reward of perfect Righteouſneſs [in that this imperfect ſtands in the Room of perfect] but we are ſtill to remember for Chriſts ſake. [Bellarmine remembred that and the Council of Trent] God judgeth and will judge all Men according to the Goſpel, thoſe who perform the Condition of it, he accounts and pronounceth righteous; thoſe whom he accounts righteous are juſtified; I will add that the righteouſneſs of Chriſt which is the meritorious cauſe of our Juſtification, and always comes under the efficient, cannot by the ſame reaſon be the formal and material cauſe of it: It is not infuſion of righteouſneſs with the Papiſt which is our Sanctification, nor the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs with the Proteſtant, which is not to be underſtood in genere cauſae efficiente, nor Remiſſion of Sin with Proteſtant and Papiſt [you ſee here how far he goes beyond the Papiſt] but to impute to a perſon his performance of the New Covenant for Righteouſneſs, or pronouncing him righteous according to that Covenant, is the formal cauſe of his Juſtification. Med. p. 46. Here is to be remarkt that Mr. H. doth peremptorily exclude from our Juſtification the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, and Remiſſion of Sins, and places the whole of it in imputation of our own works for righteouſneſs, as active obedience.
§. 4. Theſe Men do as the Papiſts and the reſt, make our inherent Holineſs in Sanctification, to be that very righteouſneſs by which we are juſtified. Take Mr. Cl's words wherein he fully expreſſeth Mr. H's ſenſe in differing from the Papiſt about Infuſion. Herein lieth the true difference between Juſtification and Sanctification: In Sanctification we are made holy, righteous and good, by the infuſion of thoſe Graces into us; but in Juſtification we are only accounted and declared ſuch; in the one the change is but relative, and in the other real. Come in Quakers, and ſhake this Friend by the hand as one of you, you have quarrelled with the Pulpits a great while, and now you may aſcend them your ſelves when you pleaſe, and be not ſo angry at them, for you ſhall not hear theſe men call your Doctrine Popiſh any more; but you'll hear them call all men that are not of your Opinion Antinomians briſkly. See now the depth of this diſtinction. Juſtification is not by infuſion of Sanctification, but yet Juſtification is by Sanctification infuſed. Is it not much more rational to ſay, that Juſtification is by making a man righteous that was not ſo before; for Juſtification of a ſinner muſt be ſuch: Beſides, is it not much more Evvngelical as to juſtifying the ungodly? as Bellarmine ſaith. But theſe Men ſay, We are firſt made righteous [that is godly] and then pardoned [he ſhould have ſaid juſtified, for his Juſtification comes in between his ſanctifying Righteouſneſs and Pardon] and not on the contrary, firſt pardoned, and then righteous, Mr. C. p. 19.
Reſp. Were ever ſuch Abſurdities aſſerted by Men of Reaſon?
1. We are firſt made righteous, and quatenus made ſo, are ſanctified and not juſtified; therefore Juſtification makes no man righteous, but finds them ſo; but it declares Men, what? what it finds them, i. e. ſanctified. Hence to declare a Man ſanctified is his Juſtification: and I pray now, how comes in Mr. H's. cauſa formalis? how doth Juſtification differ formally (nam ad formam pertinet proprium & differentia) from Sanctification, when Imputation, or God's accounting a man holy and ſanctified is his Juſtification? Is not God's Judgment according to Truth? Is it not certain that God accounts every thing to be as it is, a holy man holy? If this be all your Juſtification, its no more than as God juſtified at the Creation, he ſaw that every thing was good.
2. If we are firſt made righteous, and then juſtified becauſe we are ſo, its meritum ex condigno, whereon we are juſtified, all the World cannot hinder it.
3. First righteous, and then pardoned; What ſenſe is in that? for a righteous perſon needs no Pardon in that thing wherein he is righteous; for therein to be righteous and want Pardon, is to ſpeak Daggers, and the abſurdeſt contradiction in the World.
§. 5. Well, But why muſt our Neonomians be pardoned when righteous and juſtified before? becauſe indeed their Righteouſneſs and Juſtification by it is not worth a Fig by their own confeſſion; for Mr. Cl. ſaith, —for ſince ſubordinate Goſpel Righteouſneſs is an imperfect righteouſneſs, conſiſtent with manifold failings and infirmities, therefore notwithſtanding that, there's need of pardon, and that continually: This is alſo Mr. H's Doctrine, therefore I need not tranſcribe his very words which are to this purpoſe in many places. Reſp. I find they are not fully agreed about the intervening Righteouſneſs between Chriſt and us, what to call it. Mt. Cl. calls it ſubordinate, and ſo doth Mr. B. but Mr. H. liking not that Name ſo well, had rather call it co-ordinate; but I know not from the Notion of the thing duly conſidered, why they may not go one ſtep further, and call it the Principal or ſupream juſtifying righteouſneſs, for that which hath the principal place in any thing aſcribed to it, is the principal, but our own righteouſneſs hath the principal place in the thing aſcribed to it, which is Juſtification, therefore its the chief and ſupream righteouſneſs: For they ſay we are juſtified by the imputation of this righteouſneſs only, and by no other, therefore all conducing righteouſneſſes to the introducing this, are ſubordinate to it. Again, That which hath its place only in the external cauſes, and in the modality of their operation as to the production of the effect, is much inferiour to the eſſential cauſes that enter the very effect, and are conſtitutive to it, but Chriſt's Righteouſneſs by theſe men is no more, and therefore muſt be a ſubordinate righteouſneſs to ours; ours being cauſa formalis juſtificationis, an eſſential cauſe, Chriſt's being but cauſa protarch. a remote cauſe, adjuvant to the efficient, therefore the righteouſneſs of Chriſt can have no more than a remote cauſality in purchaſing the New Law, by the righteouſneſs whereof we are juſtified, which is no better indeed than cauſa ſine qua non, its in ordine ad the juſtifying righteouſneſs, therefore ſubordinate to it. 2. He ſaith, This ſubordinate Goſpel Righteouſneſs is an imperfect righteouſneſs. Truly I am ſorry for it, that Goſpel Righteouſneſs ſhould be imperfect; I doubt there's little dependance upon it, ſince the righteouſneſs of the law that condemns us is perfect, its little likelihood that an imperfect righteouſneſs ſhould ſave us from it; ay, but they will ſay, its Chriſt's perfect righteouſneſs muſt ſave us from the perfect righteouſneſs of the law condemning us. Say you ſo? and therefore why ſhould not this righteouſneſs of Chriſt have the honour of juſtifying us? it ſeems we are ſaved by Chriſt's righteouſneſs, and juſtified by our own, as if Juſtification were not Salvation: But is our Goſpel-righteouſneſs imperfect? this is no Goſpel, for its ill News; I muſt tell theſe men its a rotten foundation they build upon, and their Building will drop not being built on Chriſt, the Corner Stone in Juſtification. 3. He ſaith, Its imperfect, conſiſtent with many failings and infirmities. Reſp. I pray how comes this to paſs? is it from the Legiſlator that conſtituted ſuch a Law, whoſe condition is obedience conſiſtent with ſin; or is it from the Operator or Worker under this Law? if from the former, then the Law makes it in fault, if there be any; but if he hath made a law with ſuch condition of obedience conſiſtent with ſin, then performance of ſuch is no ſin, nor needs a Pardon, for ſin is the tranſgreſſion of the law the ſubject is under: Now if Believers are under the New Law for Juſtification, and perform there what's required, what need have they of a Pardon from a righteouſneſs borrowed from another law? If it be from the laſt, viz. the fault and defect of the operator of righteouſneſs, that his righteouſneſs is not the performance of the condition of the New Law, as required, then this New Law cannot juſtifie him, our Neonomians, in this Point, will be on Scilla or Charybdis in ſpite of the World. In a word, 1. That righteouſneſs that cannot juſtifie us at the Bar of the old Law, or Covenant of Works, is no juſtifying righteouſneſs, but none of our own righteouſneſs, New Law or other, will not juſtifie us at the Bar of the Covenant of Works by the Neonomians own confeſſion, therefore we cannot be juſtied by any ſuch righteouſneſs. 2. Again, that righteouſneſs which needs pardon is no juſtifying righteouſneſs, but is condemned by the law, for whatever is pardoned is condemned by the law firſt, neither is that perſon juſtified, who by the law is unpardoned, Pardon being an eſſential part of Juſtification in Mens Courts, where many Indictments ly againſt a Man, if he be quitted of ſome, and not of all, he is not diſcharged as juſtified; but here its worſe, I do not find that at the New Law Bar a man (as they ſay) juſtified, is quite diſcharged from any Indictment at all, for there's none fully pardoned; wherefore our Neonomians ſay that their Juſtification is not perfect in this life. So Mr. Cl. Our Juſtification in this world is not perfect and compleat, &c. p. 18.
§. 6. Mr. Cl. ſaith, There's a twofold guilt, Legal and Evangelical, Legal Guilt is an obligation to eternal puniſhment; this is fully pardoned in Juſtification, and can never return again, becauſe Chriſt hath taken it all upon himſelf, and made full ſatisfaction to his Father's Juſtice for it, but Goſpel-guilt which is an obligation to Goſpel-Puniſhment, i. e. fatherly chaſtiſements for ſins after Juſtification, returns upon commiſſion of new ſins, and is removed upon repentance, ſometimes wholly, ſometimes in part. This is alſo Mr. H's Doctrine.
Reſp. The diſtinction is naught, for we deny any Evangelical Guilt, Evangelical Guilt, Threat or Puniſhment is a Bull, a downright Contradiction, if we know what Goſpel is, and they that will be ignorant, and call this Aſſertion Antinomian Poyſon, let them be ignorant ſtill, I thank God for the knowledge of the Goſpel ſo far, as that it is quite contrary to Guilt, Threat and Puniſhment, or Obligation to it in the true legal ſenſe thereof: Likewiſe he ſhould have diſtinguiſhed of Guilt as uſual, reatus culpae, and reatus paenoe, the firſt properly Guilt, and that in judicio legis, vel judicio conſcientiae, if a Man be ſub reatu culpae judicio legis, as they ſay the juſtified ones are, he is unjuſtified, for the law cannot juſtifie a man and declare him guilty, i. e. not guilty and guilty at the ſame time. Obligation to Puniſhment is not Guilt in the true ſenſe of it; for we ſay a man caſt in Court is guilty of the charged Fault, and therefore the Law binds him over to Puniſhment. We never ſay a Man is guilty of the puniſhment but deſerves, he is found guilty, and therefore the Sentence of the Law binds him to Puniſhment; but he ſaith, Legal Guilt is fully pardoned in Juſtification: Pardon is always of a fault, and includes not punire: but is ſin pardoned fully in Juſtification as to an obligation to eternal puniſhment, then 1. Pardon is included in Juſtification, contrary to what he aſſerts in the foregoing Page. 2. Juſtification is perfect and compleat, ſo far as the taking off eternal puniſhment. 3. He cannot but own this to be the main part of Juſtification at leaſt, and this it ſeems is owing to the full ſatisfaction made by Chriſt to the Juſtice of God, our righteouſneſs of the New Law hath nothing to do here in the matter of Eternal State: Where are we now? what a Juſtification is this by the New Law, wherein our eternal ſtate is not concerned. Well! but our Juſtification in this life is not yet perfect; not by Chriſt becauſe he takes off only eternal puniſhment, but temporal he hath left to us to remove by Repentance, performing the righteouſneſs of the New Law, I hope this righteouſneſs falling in to help Chriſt's, it will produce perfect Juſtification. No it wont, this righteouſneſs takes away our Sins and Puniſhment wholly but ſometimes. and ſometimes only in part, and what's the reaſon? where's the fault? why it falls upon this New Law, which is always fulfilling and never fulfilled; it will never juſtifie any one till the laſt day, and it cannot do it then without the perfect righteouſneſs of the Old Law.
§. 7. Let's take Mr. Cl's Definition of Juſtification into conſideration a little, He ſaith, The Definition of Juſtification ſo far as it relates to God is thus, Juſtification is an act of God whereby he accounts us righteous at preſent, and treats us as ſuch, and will ſolemnly declare and pronounce us ſo at the laſt day of Judgment.
Reſp. He ſhould have told us what act of God, whether immanent or tranſient, whether an act of Grace or Juſtice, or both, he ſhould have told us the object of that act, whether a meer ſinner or a righteous perſon? he will tell us anon, its a righteous perſon, and he ſaith, accounting him ſo at preſent, if this accounting him be in a law ſenſe, its but Imputation at moſt, and this is that, and all that he doth at preſent, he finds them holy and righteous, and judgeth them to be as they be; but doth not God declare them righteous at preſent, neither in foro Legis, nor in foro Evangelii, nor in foro conſcientiae? in none of theſe at preſent, when then? the very Sentence of Juſtification is not till the laſt day; ſo that indeed there is none juſtified till then; for a ſuſpended ſentence keeps the perſon (whatever Opinion the Judge hath of him) under the Law, in Priſon, and in continual fear of Condemnation; ſo that they are all the day long for fear of Death ſubject to Bondage.
§. 8. Hence he infers two things. 1. That Juſtification while we are in this life is but partial, imperfect and incompleat, and that we ſhall not obtain fully compleat, entire and final Justification for all the effects of ſin till the Day of Judgment. To which I anſwer, Where there is but an imperfect, partial Juſtification there muſt be a partial Condemnation; it cannot be denied but the Apoſtle denys it, and ſaith, there's no condemnatien to them that are in Chriſt Jeſus.
2. The law knows no ſuch thing, a man is either perfectly juſtied for the ſame thing, or perfectly condemned, there's no Medium betwixt Juſtification and Condemnation.
3. If the New Law do not perfectly juſtifie a perſon, then it condemns too at the ſame time, that when ever the Parator of righteouſneſs takes himſelf to be juſtified, he is bound to believe himſelf condemned alſo; and whether will ſtand good at the laſt Day he knows not, either his Juſtification or Condemnation.