The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted and Vindicated, Lecture 5
LECTURE V.
ROM. 3.24, 25.
Being juſtified freely by his grace, &c.
WE come now to conſider how the Antinomian can make good that Paradox of his [God chaſtiſeth not believers becauſe of their ſins] and indeed the Author forementioned doth much ſweat and tug, in bringing in ſeverall abſurdities,Whether God chaſtiſeth believe…s becauſe of their ſins. The A…tinomian Paradox diſcuſſed. which he conceives will follow upon the truth aſſerted by us. But before we examine them, let us take notice of the Authours great contradiction to himſelf in this point, and that within very few Pages; Falſhood is not only diſſonant from truth, but alſo from it felf; for whereas in the forequoted place he makes his aſſertion univerſal, that Ged ſeeth not ſin in perſons converted, and therefore there are no afflictions befall them becauſe of ſin: Now ſee how flat contrary that ſame Authour ſpeaks in the ſame book, pag. 117. for there making an oppoſition between the condition of believers in the Old Teſtament, and thoſe in the new, he expreſly gives this difference: God (ſaith he) ſaw ſin in them, as they were children that had need of a rod, by reaſon of their non-age, but he ſeeth none in us, as being full-grown heirs; and again, God ſaw in them, and puniſhed them for it, as they were under the Schoolmaſter of the Law, but he ſeeth none in us: Hence pag. 99. he makes it peculiar to the time of the Law, that Moſes for an unadviſed word was ſtrucken with death, and Ʋzzah, and Jonah, and Ely, with others temporally corrected: Therefore it was (ſaith he) came thoſe terrible Famines, whereby mothers were driven to eat their own children, all was becauſe they were under the ſeverity of the Law, that if they did but a little ſtep awry, they were ſharply ſcourged for the ſame.
Now how great a contradiction is this to his other aſſertion? for were not the godly under the Old Testament actually converted? had they not Chriſts righteouſnes made theirs? were they not elected? how cometh it about then, that they were afflicted for ſin, and not believers under the New Teſtament? when a man can bring the Eaſt and Weſt together, then may he reconcile theſe aſſertions: but ſelf contradiction is no ſtrange thing in that book.
Antinomian Arguments anſwered.But I come to his Arguments; The firſt place he urgeth is Ro. 5.1, 2, 3. Being juſtified by faith we have peace with God, that is, all beating,1. Argum. blows, and anger are ceaſed, ſaith he, and hence it is that we glory in our afflictions: but now if they were for our ſins, we had no more cauſe to glory in them, then the childe hath in his whippings for his faults. For the opening of this place conſider theſe things, ſome ancient Commentators reade the word imperatively (foreign for foreign) let us have, inſtead of we have, and thus they have interpreted it,
[Being juſtified by Faith, let us take heed how we ſin again, but preſerve our peace with God] The words taken this way would much confirm,1. Anſwer. rather then debilitate our aſſertion: but I doe not judge this ſo ſuteable to the ſcope of the Apoſtle in this verſe; we will take them as they are indicatively or aſſertively: and firſt, we may mean by peace, either that reconciliation which is made with God, or the ſenſe and feeling of this, which is nothing but tranquillity, and ſecurity of conſcience, through the perſwaſion of Gods favour to us. Now theſe may be ſeparable one from the other, a believer may be reconciled with God, and in the ſtate of friendſhip with him, yet he not feel this, or know this, as many paſſages in Davids Pſalms do witneſſe; even as the childe in the womb knoweth not the great inheritance, and rich Revenues, it ſhall be poſſeſſed of, or as Agar did not ſee the well of water by her, but thought ſhe muſt periſh, till God opened her eyes. There is a ſeal of the pardon of ſin, when yet the proclamation of it is not made in the conſcience. If we take peace in the firſt reſpect, it is an abſolute univerſal propoſition, and true of every justified perſon; but in the latter ſenſe it is true only of ſome perſons, and at ſome times, for the ſenſe of Gods favour is a ſeparable priviledge from thoſe that are in it.
If by peace we ſhould underſtand the ſenſe of Gods favour, and the declaration of it in our conſciences (as by their arguments they muſt do) then it proveth againſt their opinion as well as any others: for they hold that a believer needeth to pray for pardon in the declaration or ſenſe and feeling of ſin, though not for the pardon it ſelf of ſin; now there cannot be at the ſame time a want of the feeling of pardon of ſin, and the tranquillity of conſcience together: ſo that this place muſt needs be a thorn in their ſide.
But 2ly, the true and direct anſwer to this place is, that there is a twofold peace, one which is oppoſite to the hatred of God, 2. Anſwer.as he is a terrible enemy to ſinners, unreconciled with them, in which ſenſe he is often deſcribed in Scripture. The other, as it is oppoſite to that fatherly anger and diſpleaſure, whereby though for the main reconciled, yet he may for ſome particular faults be diſpleaſed; now the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the former kinde of peace. Being juſtified that is God being once reconciled with us in Chriſt, he hath no more hostile enmity againſt us, and if we do ſin afterwards, he will not become an enemy to us, or ſatisfie his juſtice by puniſhing of us, but as a father he may in his diſpleaſure chaſtiſe us. The ſenſe of Gods diſpleaſure as a father, may well ſtand together with an aſſurance, that for all this he is no enemy. A childe that bitterly crieth out becauſe of his fathers chaſtiſements, yet even then hath that hope and comfort which he would not have if fallen into the hands or rage of an enemy that would kill him. Hence it is that we preſſe all believers, though ſorely puniſhed for their ſins, as their own hearts can tell them, yet they muſt never paſs ſuch a ſentence, Now God is become my enemy, he deals with me as with a Judas, as with a Cain; theſe (we ſay) are ſinful inferences, but they may conclude thus, God, though a loving father, is now very angry, and much diſpleaſed with me.
Diſtinguiſh then between a peace that doth oppoſe the hatred of God to a ſinner as an enemy, and a peace which doth oppoſe only the frowns of a father; and this objection is anſwered. I will acknowledge the people of God are apt under his ſore diſpleaſure not to diſcern between a father and an enemy. They have much adoe to keep up this in their hearts; God he ſmites, he frowns, he chides▪ yet he is a father ſtill: but this is their temptation and weakneſſe, and we are apt to endeavour ſome kinde of compenſation to God in our troubles for ſin: therefore it was a moſt bleſſed thing when God at the Reformation out of Popery, cauſed this truth to break out, That puniſhments for ſin were not ſatisfactory to God, but fatherly chaſtiſements. Thus you have this anſwered, and as for that which followeth, we glory in tribulations, the Apoſtle muſt be limited to thoſe which fall upon us for profeſſing of Chriſt and his truth. In theſe we may glory, as the ſouldier doth of his marks and wounds he hath received in the wars for a good cauſe, and to this purpoſe we told you in one Propoſition, That there was a great difference between thoſe troubles that fell upon us, becauſe of the good in us; and thoſe which come upon us, becauſe of the evil in us. What glory is it, ſaith Peter, 1 Pet. 2.20. if ye be buffeted for your faults? Now who can deny but that even a godly man may fall into ſome hainous crime, for which he may receive a ſentence of death? This man though he may rejoice in God, who doth pardon the ſin to him, yet he can no more glory of this tribulation, then a childe doth of whipping for his faults.
Another place of Scripture, is Iſa. 53.5. The chaſtiſement of our peace was upon him, 2. Argum.and with his ſtripes we are healed. This Text of Scripture is again and again preſſed by them, and certainly it is more ſweet then the Honey or Honey-Comb: but truly they do with it, as the thieves with the man of Jericho, leave it half dead,1. Anſwer. and much wounded. Firſt, Let us open the place, and then ſee how far they are from the meaning. The Prophet Iſaiah in this Chapter, may be called, as we ſaid before, the fifth Evangeliſt, for he ſeemeth rather to write an Hiſtory of Chriſt, then make a prophecie of him. Among other paſſages theſe two are to our purpoſe.
1. That the chaſtiſement of our peace was upon him: by Peace here, Calvin doth well underſtand, not that of quietnes in the conſcience, but a reconciliation made with God through his ſufferings. And it is obſerved by ſome, how emphatical the Scripture is in that Pronoun [He] He hath born, and He hath been wounded.
The ſecond follows, With his ſtripes we are healed: Some think that this is ſpoken to debaſe that condition Chriſt ſo voluntarily put himſelf in, that ſo his love might appear the more to us; it being an alluſion to the State of ſervants, who uſed to be chaſtiſed by their lords. The phraſe is the ſame with that, He hath born our griefs, or diſeaſes, which Matth. 8.17. is applied to Chriſts healing of diſeaſes, and 1 Pet. 2. to that ſuffering upon the Croſſe. And well may this be, becauſe the outward healing of diſeaſes, was a Symbole or Teſtimony of his inward healing. Although Grotius obſerveth, That Chriſt is therefore ſaid to bear our diſeaſes when he cured them, becauſe of the great pains and travell he took therein, for it was after Sun-ſet, and the multitude did much throng him; ſo then, by the words you ſee the whole price of our peace laid upon Chriſt, and by him all evils, both temporall and ſpirituall removed: but what is this to the purpoſe? Yes (ſay they) here our chaſtiſements are laid upon Chriſt, therefore we have none for ſin; but 1. if this proved any thing, it will be more then the Antinomians will yield, for it would infer, that there are no chaſtiſements at all, either for ſin, or no ſin; now the Antinomians cannot deny (and experience confuteth them) but that the godly have afflictions, though as (they ſay) not for ſin; and this will inevitably follow by their argument; for as they would prove from hence they have no ſin at all, not only ſin that will not condem (as the Orthodox ſay) but even no ſin; ſo it will by the ſame reaſon follow, that believers have no chaſtiſements at all, I do not ſay (not for ſin) but none at all.
But Secondly,2. Anſwer. The Antinomian in that place pag. 129. doth fully anſwer himſelf, All chaſtiſement (ſaith he) for ſin, needfull for the making perfect peace between God and his juſtified children, was laid upon him: very true, Therefore ſay we, though theſe chaſtiſements be for ſin, yet they are not upon the godly as upon Chriſt, they are not to ſatisfie Gods juſtice, to work a reconciliation, but only to humble them in themſelves, and make them the better feel how much they are beholding to Chriſt who bore ſo much wrath for them. To ſay therefore as the Papiſts, Chriſt by his death did only remove the ſpirituall evil, and we by our ſufferings muſt take away the temporall puniſhment, this would indeed be derogatory to Chriſt, and take off in a great meaſure from his glory.
A Third place brought in to maintain their errour,3. Argum. is James 1.2, 3, 4, 5. Count it matter of all joy when you ſhall fall into divers temptations, therefore (ſaith he) they are not for ſin, becauſe they are matters of joy; and mark how he baptizeth (goeth on the Author) croſſes and afflictions, as it were with a new name, taken from the nature of the change of them through the Goſpel, calling them temptations and trials. But mark the ignorance of the adverſary rather then the name of afflictions: for, Is it peculiar to beleevers under the Goſpel, that their afflictions are tryals? what then will he return to that place, Deut. 8.2. God ſaith, the afflictions upon the people of Iſrael for fourty years in the wilderneſſe (and they were not all beleevers, much leſſe beleevers under the Goſpel) were to humble them, and prove or try them? And Jer. 9.7. God ſpeaking of the Iſraelites ſaith, He will melt them and try them. See alſo Dan. 9.25. Zech. 13.9. Whereby you will preſently judge of the mans bold ignorance. But as for the place it ſelf, certainly the words are very emphaticall. Count it (implying a man in his choiceſt deliberation ought to do ſo) all joy, an Hebraiſm, full, perfect joy, when ye fall, the word is ſo fall that ye are compaſſed round about. And laſtly, divers temptations, By temptations Auſtin ſeemeth to have underſtood inticements or provocations to ſin, and whether ſuch temptations may be deſired, or to give ground of a juſt joy, is diſputed by the Schoolmen, but that is impertinent: we ſee the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of afflictions, as appeareth by the word following, and not all kinde of afflictions, but ſuch as are for Chriſts name: certainly the Apoſtle writing to the Corinthians, and ſpeaking of the chaſtiſements of God upon them for their ſins, he doth not bid them count that all joy, but rather exhorts them to judge themſelves that they be not condemned with the world. He doth not then ſpeak of all kinde of afflictions, but ſome only, and his meaning is not, that under even thoſe afflictions they ſhould have no grief (for he ſaith, no affliction is for the preſent joyous but grievous) but he giveth one reſpect why they ſhould rejoyce, becauſe of the good work of their faith manifeſted thereby, though in other conſiderations they may be humbled. And I ſee not but even in thoſe perſecutions which befall the godly for the Goſpels ſake, they may not, ſome of them at leaſt, and ſometimes, be humiliations for the Godlies former ſinnes, as well as explorations of their Graces, and more eminent glorifying of them here and hereafter. I deny not but even in afflictions for their ſins, the people of God may take comfort to their ſouls from ſeverall conſiderations, but I think not that the Apoſtle doth refer to them in this place: Let us now conſider what dangerous Abſurdities would flow from this doctrine of ours;Abſurdities o…jected by Antinomians. 1 Abſurdity objected. and firſt (ſaith he) this is to confound Law and Goſpel together. The Law ſhould be preached only to ſecure ſinners, the Goſpel to broken ſinners only; whereas if you tell the godly when they are afflicted, that it is from their ſinnes, you preach Law to them.
But firſt, Then the Apoſtle mingled Law and Goſpel,1. Anſwer. when he commands the Corinthians to judge themſelves under Gods hand upon them: and how legall was Peter, when he ſaid, judgement muſt begin at the Houſe of God?
2. The Goſpel and the Law are to be mingled in all ſpirituall adminiſtrations, but for different ends.2. Anſwer. As they muſt not in preaching be confounded, ſo neither divided.
3. The people of God have ſtill ſin, pride,3. Anſwer. and hardneſſe of heart remaining in them, and ſhall a Miniſter preach the Goſpel to his pride? ſhall we comfort them, becauſe their hearts are ſometimes dull and froward?
Laſtly, Though we ſay they are afflicted for their ſins, 4. Anſwer.yet this is not to make the croſſes Legal but Evangelical; for we do not ſay they are ſo for their ſins, as that thereby they muſt ſatisfie the juſtice of God in their own perſons, but for other conſiderations.
A ſecond Abſurdity will be, ſay they,2 Abſurdity objected. hereby to make the Goſpel unſufficient to aboliſh the old man, unleſſe it borrow help from the Law.
But firſt, Obſerve his contradiction,1. Anſwer. The Goſpel doth aboliſh ſin in the beleever; how can that be, when he holdeth there is no ſin to be aboliſhed? certainly that which is not, needs not to be aboliſhed, for it is not already.
Secondly, If the Goſpel be ſo powerfull to aboliſh ſin,2. Anſwer why will he have the Law preached to obſtinate ſinners? certainly by his rule the Goſpel would ſooner melt the tuffeſt and moſt Ironny ſinner that is.
Thirdly,3. Anſwer That which he would have ſuch an abſurdity is an eminent truth: the Law and the Goſpel are mutually ſubſervient to each other, and are to be preached as conjoyned, though not confounded one with another.
Another Abſurdity (for I cannot take them in order,3 Abſurdity objected. ſeeing he doth abſurdly make one thing ſeveral arguments, and ſo doth but tautologize) This would be to deny Christs perfect righteouſneſſe, and that we are not made without all ſpots or blemiſhes.
1. Anſwer.But firſt, It doth not derogate from Chriſt, that we are not freed from ſin, while here in this life, for he himſelf holdeth the believers in the Old Teſtament, had ſin in them, and God ſcourged them for it, yet Chriſt bore their ſins, and took away their iniquities.
2. Anſwer.Secondly, If this place prove any thing, it would the Popiſh Tenet, That we are inherently without ſin: and the Antinomian denieth that, for he ſaith, we are made perfectly holy; not actively, but paſſively, whereas thoſe places ſpeak of an active holineſs.
3. Anſwer.Thirdly, If ſo be the ſin remaining in us did not only bring temporal evils but eternal; did not bring only a diſeaſe but hell alſo; then this would evacuate the fulneſſe of Chriſts death, but now it doth not.
4 Abſurdity objected.A fourth Abſurdity he would fetch from an Argument of Biſh. Babingtons, Ejus quod non eſt, non eſt poena, but ſin when it is forgiven, is not; therefore to forgiven ſin there is no temporal puniſhment.
Anſwer.I anſwer firſt, If by that which is not, ſhould be meant that which hath a phyſical and natural exiſtence, then the Argument would prove that no ſin whether forgiven or not forgiven, could damn a man, becauſe no ſin (according to the received opinion) hath any poſitive natural being: therefore it muſt be underſtood of a moral being, that is, a deſert of puniſhment. Now when ſin is ſaid to be forgiven, the reaſon is not, at if remiſſion of ſin made ſin no ſin, drunkenneſſe no drunkenneſſe; or as if that ſin did not deſerve puniſhment, for that is inſeparable from the nature of it: but forgiveneſſe of ſins takes away the actual ordination of them to condemnation. So then a ſin, though forgiven, hath ſome kinde of being, though not that of actual ordination to everlaſting death; when therefore ſins are ſaid to be thrown into the bottom of the ſea and they ſhall be no more, that is to be underſtood quoad hoc▪ in reſpect of actual condemnation. So Davids ſin was forgiven, viz. as to damn David, yet though forgiven, it was ſtill, viz. to afflict David, and to make God angry with him.
5 Abſurdity objected.A fifth Abſurdity, If you ſay the people of God are afflicted for ſin, this would trouble the conſciences of Gods children exceedingly, and make them fearfully to expect horrible temporal plagues every hour, becauſe the leaſt ſin is ſo infinitely diſtaſtfull to God.
But firſt,1. Anſwer. It ſeemeth then a godly man though fallen into murder, adulteries, &c. his conſcience muſt not be troubled: Peter if he denieth Chriſt, muſt not weep bitterly.
Secondly, we give many cordials and antidotes againſt deſpair,2. Anſwer. while we ſay they are afflictions even for ſin, for we add further, That they are all bounded within a due meaſure; God conſiders our ſtrength, and will lay no more then he will inable to bear.
Thirdly, There is a two-fold trouble,3. Anſwer. one that is holy and effectual for good, ſuch a trouble as that was which the Angel made in the pool of Betheſda; and there is a trouble by way of torment, driving from, and raging at God; now we all forbid this later, neither will this Doctrine give any ground to ſuch a diſtemper.
Laſtly,4. Anſwer. If a doctrine ſhall be branded for ſuch an event as ſhall come through the corruptions of men, then we may ſay their opinion will encourage believers, or men that do preſume they are ſo, to act all manner of flagitious crimes, and yet to have no fear that God will plague them for thoſe things.