A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Of Pardon.
Section 1. Whether Remiſſion of Sin belongs to Juſtification. §. 2. Remiſſion diſtinguiſhed by Mr. H. §. 3. Of general Remiſſion. §. 4. Conditional Pardon antecedent to a mans Juſtification. §. 5. Actual Pardon ſubſequent to a mans Juſtification.
Sect. 1. MR. Cl's Second Inference is, That Juſtification doth not properly conſiſt in Pardon; afterward he ſaith, a man is firſt righteous and then pardoned; to which we have ſpoken ſomething. Mr. H. makes a fearful pudder about this Point, we will a little inſpect his Notions, Mediocr. p. 44, 55. Our Divines do generally place Juſtification in remiſſion of Sins, and ſo do the Papiſts, and ſo did I my ſelf. Reſp. Remiſſion of Sins is upon good grounds placed in Juſtification as an eſſential part of the Juſtification of a Sinner, and I can boldly deny that ſinner to be juſtified, whoſe ſins are not forgiven, and to ſeparate them is as poſſible as to ſeparate homo & animal rationale. The Law, any Law, nay your New Law cannot juſtifie a ſinner and declare him righteous, unleſs in that very act of declaring him righteous his ſins are taken away in foro legis, and this is God's Remiſſion (tho not Man's) for his ways are not as mans; and whereas Mr. H. makes remiſſion of ſins to be a benefit after Juſtification as an effect of it, we ſay it is a benefit in Juſtification, and the firſt thing in it in Nature; for its impoſſible any one ſhould ſtand righteous in the eye of any Law, that ſtands chargeable as a tranſgreſſor thereof. But remiſſion muſt not (ſaith Mr. H.) be the formal reaſon of Juſtification. Reſp. The form of an Act, and the formal reaſon of that Act are two things, the material reaſon of Juſtification is righteouſneſs, and the formal cauſe is imputation of that righteouſneſs, Juſtification comes in as the acquitting Sentence, oppoſed (as Mr. B. ſaith) to condemnation, which ex natura rei, muſt formally carry in it forgiveneſs of ſins. He proceeds, To forgive a mans ſins and declare him rigeteous are two inconſiſtencies one with another in the ſame reſpect. Reſp. Cujus contrarium verum; in Juſtification of a Sinner they are moſt conſiſtent, and inſeparable, that in declaring a ſinful man righteous his ſins are alſo done away; its true, in mans way of Pardon there is ſome inconſiſtency, becauſe his is by diſpenſing with his Law, but God's way of forgiveneſs is in and through the ſatisfaction of his Law; but I muſt tell him, that here no Man is looked upon as righteous in the eye of man's law that hath tranſgreſſed it, till he is firſt pardoned, —and therefore when God pronounceth a man juſt, it is according to the law of faith, when he pardons his ſins it is in reſpect of the law of works. Reſp. Here are two Bars, now he ſaith elſewhere, he likes not two bars, I would fain know now at which of theſe Bars a ſinner is moſt juſtified, either by the law of Works, where all his ſins are forgiven, and therefore conſequently muſt be made righteous; or at the Bar of the New Law where he ſaith, the man is declared juſt, but imperfectly ſo, and therefore goes away with his ſins upon his Back to the Law of Works to have them pardoned: Is it not pretty Divinity then, to ſay a man is declared righteous firſt at the Bar of the Law of Faith, and then all the Bed-role of his ſins are pardoned at the Bar of the Law of Works?
§. 2. He comes to diſtinguiſh of Remiſſion, Its either conditional and univerſal, as it lies in the Covenant, and is the purchaſe of Chriſt, or actual, as it lies in application thereof to particular perſons upon performance of the conditions. Reſp. This Diſtinction is a great Point among the Neonomians, Mr. B. makes much uſe of it in his Ʋniverſal Redemption, the Story is this, They feign that God finding the inconvenience of the law of works, by reaſon of the Fall, his Son ſatisfied not the law broken, but compounded with God as Lord above Law, that this law ſhould be relapſed; ſaith Mr. H. Mr. B. ſaith that it might be abrogated, which is more rational, tho it is more downright Antinomianiſm, which ſcares Mr. H. Chriſt accordingly dies to purchaſe a New Law, with condition of imperfect obedience inſtead of the perfect, the propounding or promulgating this New Law to all the world is univerſal remiſſion, it being the offer of Remiſſion on the condition of imperfect obedience to all the World; in this ſence all the world, they ſay, is redeemed, juſtified and forgiven before they perform that condition. Now, if any others, beſides Neonomians ſhould talk at this rate, they would be in danger of being taken up and ſent to Bethlem for Madmen. As if a Company, ſuppoſe the E. India, ſet up their Bills for a Sale at a certain time after prefixt, with the reſpective Prizes; if one or all ſhould run about the City before the day of Sale prefixt, and ſay, they had ſold their Goods at ſuch and ſuch Prizes, all men will call them Liars or Madmen. So, becauſe God proffers eternal life upon performance of a condition, therefore all men are redeemed, juſtified and forgiven, i. e. ſay they, conditionally, and that's not at all till they perform the condition; but Neonomians may talk non-ſence, and contradict by the New Law, yea and aſſert Juſtification before Faith, while they call others Antinomians who do it, when they are the greateſt Antinomians themſelves in the World. Now the noiſe that they make about the Merit and Purchaſe of Chriſt, its no more than his purchaſing the New Law of Works, and they are juſtified by the performing the condition of the new law for the ſake of Chriſt's Merits, its only becauſe, as Mr. H. tells us, that Chriſt by his Merits was an efficient of the New Law; ſo that generally, in all they talk of Chriſt's Satisfaction and Merits, there's ſome cheat or Amphibology. Mr. H. indeed ſpeaks out moſt honeſtly, in as good as telling us, that Neonomians are Papiſts in the Point of Juſtification. But to proceed,
§. 3. When Divines ſay we can do nothing our ſelves for procuring reconciliation and remiſſion, it is to be underſtood of conditional, univerſal remiſſion. Reſp. What Divines underſtand ſo? they are not the Proteſtants, its only the Neonomians who are no Proteſtants in the Point of Juſtification: Theſe Divines underſtand only, that we cannot purchaſe the conditional, univerſal Remiſſion, the Purchaſe of that it ſeems was peculiar to Chriſt; but as for particular Remiſſion, theſe men purchaſe, and Reconciliation too; Chriſt purchaſed that we might purchaſe, and tho he purchaſed the new law, and promulgation of it, yet he purchaſed not the performance of the Condition; for ſuch hard terms they will keep Chriſt too that he may not entrench on their Dignity.
§. 4. Conditional Pardon is antecedent to a mans Juſtification, and contained in our redemption, in whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveneſs of ſins. Reſp. Conditional Pardon is none, its no more than the offer of a Bargain to any that will come to the Terms: As if I ſhould offer to Lett my Houſe for ſo much Money by a Bill over the Door, and then ſay, I have Lett my Houſe to all the men in London. And its ſtrange, that all men ſhould be pardoned and redeemed and not juſtified, but I think R. B. ſaith they are juſtified, and I am ſure they may be as well juſtified as pardoned. However he owns Pardon in Redemption, and this antecedent to Faith; ſure then Juſtification (which with us) is inſeparable from Faith, is not Antinomianiſm. And is it poſſible any Divine ſhould abuſe the Scripture ſo, as to wreſt it to ſuch a ſenſe, that the Apoſtle ſhould by Remiſſion there, mean ſuch as is contained in univerſal Redemption, Col. 1.14. whereas the Apoſtle ſpeaks of Redemption in particular application, for the words preceeding, v. 13. are who hath delivered us from the power of darkneſs, and hath tranſlated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son. verſe 14. In whom we have redemption.
§. 5. Actual Remiſſion is ſubſequent to Juſtification, for we muſt be ſuppoſed firſt to have performed the condition, and be pronounced righteous, and then pardoned, when there is no remiſſion then but doth go before or follow Juſtification, it cannot be made the very act it ſelf of Juſtification. Reſp. Let us try a little for it: 1. He ſaith, actual remiſſion is ſubſequent to Juſtification; now we are come into Mr. Cl's. road, he ſeems not to be ſo well acquainted with the Myſtery of the antecedent remiſſion, and its ſo indeed, for it ſeems it is but potential remiſſion, its not actual, nay its a contingent potentia, there is pardon, and none pardoned, the meaning is, that the New Law made all the world pardonable upon a contingent condition.
2. We find a pretty odd invention, here's Juſtification beſet with Remiſſion, before and behind, and yet no Remiſſion in it; a man pardoned and not juſtified, and then juſtified and not pardoned; and truly, if this ſubſequent Pardon be no better than the antecedent, the Neonomian Juſtification is deſtitute of Pardon before and behind too. I wonder all Proteſtant Divines do not nauſeate ſuch Whims as theſe.
3. But is it poſſible that he ſhould ſay, that pardon cannot be made the act of Juſtification; ſurely theſe forget what they are talking of, is it not conditional Pardon the New Law promiſeth, how can there be Juſtification by the New Law of him that performs the condition, but by pardon in the act of Juſtification; for if the New Law ſaith, believe and thou ſhalt be pardoned, the new law when it juſtifies the Believer muſt pardon him, and now we have help at a dead lift, juſt now it was, that tho our new law could juſtifie, yet it could not pardon; but we are fain to go to the old Law Bar to fetch a Pardon, and trouble Chriſt about it too, but we have found now that the new law can pardon; for if it pardon all the World conditionally, it can pardon particular perſons actually, when they perform the conditions.