A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. An Anſwer to Mr. H's Arguments againſt Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs.
Section 1. Arguments Artificial or Inartificial. §. 2. His Firſt Argument againſt the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs anſwered. §. 3. His Second Argument Anſwered. §. 4. His Third Argument Anſwered. §. 5. Mr. H's Argument for Faith and Obedience, being the formal part of Juſtification, Firſt Anſwer. §. 6. The Aſſumption by parts. §. 7. Argument the Second Anſwered. §. 8. Mr. H's Third Argument Anſwered, with his Fourth Argument. §. 9. Of Conſtitutive Juſtification.
Sect. 1. NOw it is time to come to Examine the grounds of Mr. H. and Mr. C's Doctrine, in this Point of Juſtification. And Firſt, I ſhall treat of them that are the reaſoning Arguments, Artificial as called in Logick, the weakeſt in Divinity, and then thoſe that are pretended from Scripture, which in Logick are called inartificial, but if grounded upon Divine Teſtimony, the beſt and ſtrongeſt.
§. 2. Againſt the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, he argues thus. How can God account our Sins to be Chriſts and his Righteouſneſs ours when really they are not ſo, and Gods Judgment is according to Truth.
Reſp. this is uſed again and again by Mr. B, to which I ſhall Anſwer, 1. By retorting the Medium and not ſo tedious to put it into any other form, how can God account our own New Law righteouſneſs to be juſtifying righteouſneſs, when in its own nature its no righteouſneſs (Mr. H. ſaith ſo over and over) and Gods judgment is according to Truth, now ſee the honeſty of theſe Men, God muſt not make a Judgment according to Truth in imputing Chriſts perfect righteouſneſs to us, becauſe it was not perſonally performed by us, and imputing our Sins to Chriſt, becauſe they were not actually committed by him, and yet God makes a judgment according to Truth, in imputing our own paultry ſinful righteouſneſs to us for our righteouſneſs, when they themſelves ſay its really no righteouſneſs. 2. Is not his righteouſneſs ours? The Scripture ſaith it is, and our Sins made his; they ſay it doth not, that we will try, God willing, but for the preſent we ask what if God give us this Righteouſneſs? What is freer than Gift? and what makes a better propriety than Free Gift? Is not Gods Judgment according to Truth, when he imputes that to us which he hath given? Its the Gift of Righteouſneſs, Rom. 5. E. gr. A poor debtor is ſued in Court for an 100 l. and upon Trial he is found inſolvent, and Verdict is going to be given againſt him, the Judge throws him a Bag of 100 l. in Court and bids him pay the debt, ſhall not the Court impute this to him a lawful Payment, and give him a diſcharge, and is not the Judgment according to Truth? on the other hand another hath the like Tryal, but is found inſolvent, the Judge or ſome other gives him a Bag of Counters, and bids him to pay his Creditor, he refuſeth the Money, ſaith its Braſs; well ſaith the Judge we will impute it to him for a lawful tender and good Payment, we will make that which is no righteouſneſs by our imputation to be a legal righteouſneſs, ſo the Creditor may take the Bags of Counters and go ſhake his Ears, we call it good Money; now I appeal to theſe Men whether this be a Judgment according to Truth? And let them weigh it well and make application thereof, and if they can't make a rational reply, let them lay their Hands on their Mouth, and hold their peace for ever hereafter.
§. 3. A ſecond great Argument taken from Mr. B. is, That if it be ſo that Chriſts righteouſneſs is imputed to us for Juſtification, then ſhould the Elect be immediately freed from puniſhment, and immediately juſtified before they believed and repented, 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 of Chriſt. And this is one (as he ſaith) of the Antinomian conſequences.
Reſp. Let it be ſo, we ſay then Firſt, If it be an Antinomian conſequence, what is the reaſon Mr. B. and Mr. H. are ſuch Antinomians, to ſay all the World are pardoned before Faith and Repentance, yea, whether they believe or no? Why doth Mr. B. aſſert two Juſtifications before Faith? 2. We reckon it no Antinomianiſm to ſay, that Election perfectly freed the Elect from coming under the execution of the Vindictive Wrath of God and Curſe of the Law: Why elſe ſhould the Scripture ſay, who ſhall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? and whereas it may be ſaid before Converſion, the Law will charge, for they are under the Law, its replied, its Chriſt that died, yea rather is riſen, having fully ſatisfied the Law of God, that they ſhall not fall under the Execution of the Curſe of it, and they are ſecured before God both by Election and Redemption, or elſe Chriſt died and roſe again in vain; and as they have this ſecurity, ſo they have an immediate right in Chriſt to the Life of Grace and Glory; They want the application and the receiving of this righteouſneſs, and a poſſeſſion thereof, which reception is by Faith that is not their own, but purchaſed and given by Chriſt; which was never purchaſed and given for their righteouſneſs, but as an Organ of Spiritual Life, whereby a Man created in Chriſt Jeſus may be ſenſible, and have the comfort of what is freely given to him of God; for by Faith a Man takes up the Peace which Chriſt hath made, and hath acceſs into the juſtifying Grace of God wherein he ſtands, and therefore comes from under the Law in his own Conſcience, and rejoiceth in the hope of the glory of God. 3. As for impoſing of Terms, its Idle, to think that Chriſt ſhould do what he did for Sinners in his Prieſtly Office, their Juſtification, and Salvation, and then to impoſe an impoſſibility upon them, without the performance of which all that he hath done ſhould be nothing to them; and do Men talk Sence when they talk of impoſing Terms upon Sinners for Eternal Life, the Terms ſhould be put upon them to be performed before they have Spiritual Life in their meer natural Eſtate, and then to make their notion to ſtand on its right bottom; they muſt be Pelagians, its Eternal Life that is begun in Juſtification applied to the Believer and his Perſon by the Spirit, and its received Vitally and Senſibly by Faith, when the Sinner is made a live by the Sanctifying work of the Spirit, his Life of Faith is part of the Eternal Life purchaſed: Can any Terms of Life be impoſed on a dead Man, what Terms were impoſed upon Lazarus; if the roling away the Grave-Stone was the Term, it was not impoſed on him, it was on them that ſtood about the Grave, if they ſay God will give theſe Terms, as they muſt ſay to ſave themſelves from Pelagianiſm, then the Term lies upon God, and its Idle to ſay they are impoſed upon incapable Subjects, neither is that Impoſed upon me as a Term that cannot be expected from me, unleſs by the donation of another, by any rational Man. 4. The clauſe follows not according to Mr. H.'s Principles, who ſaith Chriſt ſatisfied the Law (tho I know what the Neonomians talk of, they intend no true ſatisfaction) did Chriſt ſatisfie the Law in what Sence they will? Was it for himſelf or for us? if for himſelf, then he offended it, this they will not ſay, then for us; if for us, our Offence was taken of before God, thereby God was in him by reaſon of his ſatisfaction not imputing our Treſpaſſes; how can it be otherwiſe but we muſt be accounted by God to have fulfilled the Law in Chriſt, if Gods judgment be according to Truth, and why may not this ſatisfaction be, and our fulfilling in Chriſt be before we had a being in the World? this was actually performed for the Saints before his coming, long after moſt of them were dead, why not for thoſe that are to come before they have life? and why may they not be called to a fellowſhip with Chriſt, and participation of the righteouſneſs of Chriſt in Satisfaction by Faith? when the day of their Regeneration comes. This is the dangerous Doctrine that theſe poor blind men are ſo afraid of.
§. 4. There is another Argument of Mr. H's. which he takes to be Herculean, and admires, and it looks as if it were out of his own Forge and he chargeth Mr. L. to hearken to it. Animadv. p. 67. There is nothing can be imputed to us, but either that which we have not, and then it is that we may have it, that is, to have it made ours, or reputed as ours.
Reſp. There is nothing can be imputed to a Sinner for righteouſneſs but that which he hath not firſt, but is given (ſo ſaith Mr. H.) and here's the difference, he ſaith, inherent Grace is given for righteouſneſs, we ſay, the obedience of Chriſt is given for our righteouſneſs, which the Scripture ſaith; now it is given that it may be imputed ours legally, and its imputed that we may be juſtified; it is not imputed that we may have it, but becauſe we have it it is imputed; Mr. H. herein goes againſt himſelf.
Or elſe if we have it, it muſt be imputed to ſome other end than to have it. Anſw. Yes, its imputed legally that we may be juſtified; we have it by gift, prius natura, by gift of Grace, for we muſt have the righteouſneſs before the Law can judge we have it, becauſe legal Judgment is according to Truth. Mr. H's Juſtification runs thus far, that we muſt have a righteouſneſs before it is imputed, nay, and he ſaith its by Gift too. Now if Chriſt did obey or ſuffer in our perſons, or as our legal perſon, ſo as in law ſence 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 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 thing, but ad juſtitiam, which is to the ſame end, and for the ſame thing, and can be no other.
Reſp. Mr. H. thinks this Argument irrefrigable, and that it will carry all before it, but poor men (as moſt oppoſers of truth) have the unhappineſs to ſmite with the backs of their Swords, and cut themſelves with the edge. Mr. H. argues, if we have Chriſt's righteouſneſs, we cannot have it by Imputation.
We do not ſay we have it by imputation any other than a legal allowance that we have it, having it is antecedent to the legal allowance, it is not ſo in their Principles? we have our own righteouſneſs before it is imputed to us. But if in a law-ſence we are accounted to have obeyed and ſuffered in Chriſt, then his righteouſneſs cannot be imputed unto us, cujus contrarium verum, yea, therefore its imputed unto us, for one man's payment is not reckoned and imputed to another, unleſs the payment be made in his perſon in a law-ſence; it is ours, and reckoned as ours in that it was performed in our perſons, he ſaith, therefore as ſuch it is reckoned and imputed to us, nor can it be imputed to us for any other end than for righteouſneſs, we ſay and you ſay.
§. 5. Mr. H's Arguments for Faith and Obedience being the Formal Cauſe of our Juſtification, we ſhall examine in the next place, they are, as Mr. Cl. hath gathered them up, By the conſent of all Divines, That righteouſneſs which denominates us righteous in the ſight of God, muſt be the form or formal part of our Juſtification; But neither Regeneration, nor Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, nor Pardon is that which juſtifies per modum cauſae formalis, and therefore it muſt be Faith. Reſp. 1. He ſhould have added imputed, to the things enumerated in the minor; for he ſaith to Mr. C. he means ſo. 2. If he doth mean ſo, he putteth the material and formal cauſe together, and therefore I ſhall deny his Minor under the term of eſſential cauſes, which takes in his formal: As to the major I except, that all the Divines do not hold that righteouſneſs that denominates us righteous before God is the formal cauſe, but inſiſt on the minors denial, that the righteouſneſs of Chriſt doth not denominate us righteous before God, for ſo ſhould the aſſumption be; the Syllogiſm as it ſtands is falſe, having one medium in Major, another in the Minor. Dare Mr. H. be ſo ſcandalous as to ſpeak out his Minor as he ought by his Medium, That Chriſt's Righteouſneſs doth not denominate us righteous in the ſight of God, its plain that he ſhifts it off by a wrong Aſſumption, and according to that fault makes his Proof. And I only ſay, that there's no righteouſneſs can denominate us righteous in the ſight of God, but what is fully ſatisfactory to the Law that condemns us; but there's no righteouſneſs fully ſatisfactory to the Law that condemns us, but Chriſt's. let Mr. H. ſhew any other if he can; and as for the righteouſneſs of the New Law which he pleads for, he acknowledgeth that its no righteouſneſs in its own nature, that it needs Pardon at the Bar of the Old Law, and therefore it cannot denominate us righteous in the ſight of God.
§. 6. He proceeds to prove his falſe Aſſumption by parts. 1. That Chriſt's righteouſneſs is not that righteouſneſs whereby we are denominated righteous in the ſight of God: why? becauſe ſaith he, it is the meritorious caſe: I anſwer, therefore it is, for no righteouſneſs makes any one righteous coram Judice, but a meritorious righteouſneſs, not regenerating grace; ſee how he ſhifts, he ſaid in his Minor, not regeneration, i. e. inherent renovation; which he all along aſſerts for our juſtifying righteouſneſs; and now he has brought it to the active infuſion of Grace, as he quibbles with the Papiſts, and why not Regenerating Grace? becauſe that muſt precede Juſtification, and muſt not the righteouſneſs precede the Juſtification by his own Doctrine? and doth not the formalis ratio precede the effect; but what doth regenerating Grace preceed? Is it not regeneration it ſelf, it being the working cauſe of it, but as for the Grace of regeneration wrought, that's the very righteouſneſs which he means, and yet ſaith in his Aſſumption not regeneration, this is but juggling, it is not plain dealing. He goes on, not pardon for that comes after it, Mr. H. ſaith ſo I know no better authority for it, and I will believe it ad Graecas calendas, I have ſhewed the abſurdity and folly of it, yea, and of his pardon preceeding Juſtification. And if none of theſe be the formal cauſe, i. e. the Eſſential cauſes denominating us Righteous in Gods ſight, it muſt be ſomething elſe: What's that? The righteouſneſs of God revealed in the Goſpel, i. e. Faith and Obedience. Mr. Cl. ſaith ſomething elſe. Imputation, its that which is the form, one eſſential cauſe, in this they differ, but as to the matter they agree; that Faith and imperfect Obedience, is the righteouſneſs whereby we are denominated righteous in the ſight of God, and is not the Grace of regeneration inherent; whether Faith be the righteouſneſs of God, ſhall be examined anon by its ſelf, becauſe Mr. H. puts ſo much ſtreſs upon it.
§. 7. Arg. 2. 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. Again, works were the formal righteouſneſs in regard to the Law, therefore Faith is the formal righteouſneſs of Juſtification by the Goſpel. And two things go to this formal Righteouſneſs, Faith and the imputation of it.
Reſp. It ſeems Mr. H. underſtands formal cauſe, matter formed, and that is an effect not a cauſe, the materia formata, is the formal cauſe; I muſt tell him his Notion is neither Divinity nor Logick. 2. What conſequence is there in this Argument, works were the formal cauſe of Juſtification as to the Law of Works, therefore works muſt be the formal cauſe in relation to the Goſpel, it follows not but vice verſa, and if the conſequence be true, then there's no formal difference between Law and Goſpel. 3. Hereby he yields that New Law conditions, are Old Law works, and conſequently his Goſpel is no Goſpel, but a Law of works which is contrary to Scripture, and accordingly Mr. Cl. ſaith, Goſpel works muſt merit the reward, as works ſhould have done in Adams Covenant; Mr. H's reply is ſo weak, that its not worth taking Notice of.
§. 3. Argum. 1. Juſtification hath a form, and that muſt be ſome righteouſneſs. Reſp. It may have a form, and yet Righteouſneſs be the matter. What righteouſneſs is it whereby we are juſtified? I anſwer againſt Mr. Cl. and him, that its no righteouſneſs inherent in the juſtification of a ſinner: He ſaith, its not regenerating grace infuſed, but imputed. Anſwer. What makes the difference then between Sanctification and Juſtification? its nothing but the divers reſpect in Mr. H's. Divinity, and wherein lies that reſpect, is it not in imputation? and this Logick he yields in his Notes,
Argument 4. Divines generally fix it upon ſome righteouſneſs.
Reſp. If ſome Divines ſpeak improperly, it doth not juſtifie Mr. H. to do ſo; but he ſaith, a diſtinction is made of a genus and differentia, and therefore righteouſneſs muſt be the form.
Reſp. Non ſequitur, for genus is the matter, and but part of the form at moſt ſometimes, but the differencing part of the Definition is the form diſtinct from the genus. Mr. Cl. ſaith, the moſt plauſible Argument of all (becauſe it is Scripture) you have omitted, we are juſtified by faith. This, ſaith Mr. H. is my id per quod that runs through all my Books, its true, and what would Mr. H. have done to ſupport his Notion, if the Cardinal had not helpt him to this id per quod, and id propter quod, he takes himſelf ſafe enough between the Cardinal and Biſhops. Well, Mr. Cl. is not ſo well pleaſed, I find, with his formalis cauſa, but rather than break with Mr. H. he will comport with him; eſpecially finding him very uncertain and unſettled, ſometimes our righteouſneſs is the formal cauſe, and ſometimes the material, and imputation the formal. Mr. Cl. hath another denomination for our own righteouſneſs, he calls it our ſubordinate righteouſneſs: Our Juſtification by Faith, or accounting it to us for righteouſneſs. will be conſidered anon.
§. Cl. alſo gathering and applauding Mr. H's. conſtitutive Juſtification, let it be a little inſpected, Mr. Cl. ſaith, That Mr. H. doth clearly diſtinguiſh his Opinion from the Papiſts in that he makes infuſed righteouſneſs only Sanctification, and imputation of the ſame to be Juſtification; its only to diſtinguiſh up our own righteouſneſs ſeveral ways: I would ask theſe Gentlemen whether they do not hold the infuſion of their righteouſneſs, and Juſtification upon it imputed; if they do, ſo do the Papiſt; for if the Papiſt did hold making a man's righteouſneſs inherent to be Juſtification, then muſt they hold ſome merit of condignity to precede in the natural man; for a meer free gift as ſuch, is an infuſion, cannot be Juſtification. I do not ſee but Mr. H's conſtitutive Juſtification and the Papiſts is all one; for if they ſay, God infuſeth righteouſneſs, and imputeth righteouſneſs, its the ſame thing, and God cannot conſtitute any juſt by infuſion but he muſt impute him ſo. I have ſaid this conſtitutive Juſtification, as they take it, can be no other than Imputation if they will make it differ from declarative Juſtification. 2. The conſtituting us as juſt doth in order of nature go before accounting or uſing us as juſt.
Reſp. God neither conſtitutes any man juſt in and by his own righteouſneſs, nor accounts them ſo; But we can ſay, God firſt gives us Chriſt's righteouſneſs by his Grace, then accounts us righteous therein, Conſtitutive Juſtification conſiſts in three things, in making us juſt, accounting us juſt, and uſing us as juſt, all theſe the Papiſts have, Therefore more fully, Juſtification is a judicial act, and that by the law of Grace, God by that Law, and the act of God's law, makes, pronounces, and by pronouncing makes a Believer a righteous perſon, and being ſo made, accounts him ſo. Reſp. The Scripture ſpeaks of Juſtification of a Sinner, and therefore ſaith, its an act of free Grace, Indeed Mr. H's. Juſtification can be no other than a judicial Act, its no way conſiſtent with Grace, becauſe he ſaith its by a Law and Act of it, whereby it makes and pronounceth a believer righteous, and it ſeems he is firſt declaratively juſtified, and after imputed righteous, when God hath pronounced him righteous, then accounts him ſo, foreign, the Cart before the Horſe. Our righteouſneſs wrought in us by Vocation, and is the ſame materially, but not formally, with this righteouſneſs of Juſtification.
Reſp. Now here's the reaſon why he ſticks ſo hard for our righteouſneſs, being the formal part of our Juſtification, ſo that the ſame righteouſneſs (as he ſaith materially the ſame) Sanctifies us materially, and Juſtifies us formally. So as that, as Sanctifying it hath no form, and as Juſtifying no matter. Now this is a Quatenus with a witneſs, ſo in Mr. Cl's ſence he doth well, making the matter real, and the form relative. Theſe things Mr. H. in his ſeveral middle-way Pages, and Letters repeats a hundred times, you cannot look into a Page hardly, but you have the ſum of his Doctrine; therefore it muſt not be expected that I ſhould follow him Page by Page, unleſs I ſhould Tautologize as he doth.