Justification Without Conditions, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Being a Surveigh of Mr. Woodbridges Title Page, wherein the Opinion he opposeth, is cleared from the Aspersion of Antinomianism.
IT is a common saying, Fronti nulla fides. We may no more judge of Books by their Titles, then of Strumpets by their Foreheads; or of Apothecaries Drugs by the Inscriptions of the Pots which do contain them, whose out-sides many times are Remedies, when the inside is stark poyson aTi…li remedia, …ides ve…ena.. The natures of things do not always answer the Names and Inscriptions which are put upon them. We read of Pompey, that he built a Theater Cum titulo Templi; and of Apolinarius the Heretick, That he had a School Cum titulo Orthodoxi. Nestorius also vailed himself foreign. Montanus, who would have our Saviour to be foreign, assumed unto himself the Title of Paracletus; nay, Apelles the Painter drew his filthy Strumpet, Cum titulo Veneris, with the Inscription of a Goddess, that so he might more easily bring men to the adoration of her. There is nothing more common, then for men to adorn their Errors with the Robe of Truth, and to deform the Truth with the Rags of Error. I hope therefore, that the Reader will be more wary, then to judge of this mans Doctrine by the specious Title, which he gives his own, or that black mark wherewith he hath branded the Opinion which he doth oppose.
He calls his own Opinion [Justification by Faith] and the Doctrine he opposeth, an [Antinomian Error] both which may be understood Per antiphrasin, for Justification by Works, and an Evangelical Truth. As for his own Opinion, he had more fitly stiled it [Justification by Works] taking Faith as he doth, in a proper sence, and attributing no more to Faith, then to other works of Sanctification, which in his sence do morally qualifie men for Justification, and Salvation. I cannot think him a hearty Advocate for Justification by Faith, who holds, That we are not justified till the day of judgement; which I am credibly informed this Author hath Publickly maintained, since he Preached this Sermon bAt Broughton before many Ministers, &c.: But how ill his Book doth deserve this Title, shall appear in discussing the parts of it.
§. 2. And as for the imputation he hath cast on our Doctrine, (which he calls an Antinomian Error) I doubt not, but it will redound more unto his shame, then unto ours. It hath been an old continued practise of Satan, to blast the truths and wayes of God with odious Nick-names, purposely to deter the simple from looking into them; as few men will come near to a house which is marked for the Plague. It were easie to fill a Volume with those opprobrious Terms and Titles, which in all ages have been cast upon the Truth, and the Professors of it. Sure I am, Satan hath gained no small advantage by these Hellish means. Tertullian observes, That the Christians were hated and persecuted for no other crime, but the crime of their Name cNominis crimen. Tert. Apol.. So there are many things in these days generally decryed, that are onelyonly guilty of an evil name. I doubt not but there will be found many a precious truth in those Bundles of Errors, which have been heaped together by some Godly-men in this last age. 'Tis but an easie Confutation to cry out Error and Heresie; and this I have often observed, That they who are most liberal with these loose invectives, are generally sparing of solid Arguments.
Whether the Opinion which Mr. W. opposeth, be an Error, sub judice lis est; How well he hath acquitted himself in the proof of his charge, we shall see anon. For my own part, I dislike not his or any other mans Zeal against Errors and Heresies, provided they will allow that liberty unto others, which they assume to themselves; to witness against that which they conceive Erroneous. I cannot be perswaded by all that Mr. W. hath yet said, That this Tenent of Justification in foro Dei, without Works or Conditions performed by us, is an Error, much less an Antinomian Error. If we may judge of it, by those general Diagnosticks, which Divines have given us to discern between Truth and Error, I am sure it hath the complexion of a saving truth: That Doctrine which gives most glory unto God in Christ, is certainly true, and the contrary is as certainly false. Let that (sayes Bradwardine) be acknowledged for the true Religion, which gives most glory unto God, and renders God most favorable and gracious unto man dQuae Deo ho…orabilior, paci amicabilior, homini favorabilior.. Now let such as are least in the Church judge, which Opinion gives most glory unto God; Either (1) that which ascribes the whole Work of our Salvation to the Grace of God, and the meritorious purchase of Jesus Christ; or (2) that which makes men Moral causes of their own salvation; which ascribes no more unto Christ, then the purchasing of a new way, whereby we may be saved, if we perform the terms, and conditions required of us. If the former in his Judgement be Antinomianism, I shall freely profess, That by it alone (though he call it Heresie) I have hope of Life and Salvation.Acts 24 14.
§. 3. I am sure he is greatly mistaken, if he derives the descent of this Doctrine from the Antinomians, who were a Sect of Libertines, or carnal Gospellers, which appeared in Germany soon after the Reformation began, scil. about the year 1538 eHoc anno prodi…t secta eorum qui dicuntur Antinomi. Sleid. Com. l. 12. fol. 159.. The Ring-leader whereof was Islibius Agricola, the Compiler of the Interim; they merited this name of Antinomians by their loose Opinions, and looser Practises, against whom Luther wrote several Books, and Calvin bitterly inveighed in his Instr. Adversus Libertin. who (as I shall shew anon) are no Enemies to the Doctrine which I do here maintain. That sort of Christians in former times were called Eunomians, from Eunomius their Leader, of whom Saint Augustine fDe Haeresib. c. 54.gives us this Character, Fertur usque adeo fuisse bonis moribus, inimicus ut asseveraret, quod nihil cuique obesset quorumlibet perpetratio ac perseverantia peccatorum, si hujus quae ab illo docebatun, fidei particeps esset. i. e. It is reported, That he was such an Enemy to all goodness; that he affirmed, though a man did commit or lie in any kinde of sin, it should never hurt him, if he had but that Faith which he taught. Of the same strain were the Gnosticks, who for their filthy lives, were called Coenosi, The dirty Sect. gFide & Operib. c. 14. lb. q. 76. in Octoginta tribus quest.Augustine observes, That there were many of this spirit in the Apostles days, as the Nicholaitans, the Disciples of Simon Magus, Basilides, Valentinus, who abused some passages in the writings of Paul, to be as it were Panders to the flesh; who because the Apostle had affirmed, That a man is justified by Faith without works, concluded, That if men did believe, Etiamsi malè operarentur, & facinorosè, flagitioseve viverent, Though they lived never so wickedly, they should be saved: Which filthy Dreamers (as Jude calls them) occasioned the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; the cheif scope of which is to shew the unsoundness of that Faith, which doth not work by love, and that they are not Believers who do not bring forth the Fruits of a holy life. Now me thinks Mr. W. should have more charity, then to rank his Antagonists with such filthy Swine.
§. 4. Mr. W. is not ignorant, I dare say, that many Godly Learned Men have asserted the Justification of Gods Elect, in foro Dei, before Faith, who were never accounted Antinomians. I am sure Mr. Pemble hath hitherto been known by another name; I mention him the … because he was Divinity Reader in that Society hMagdalen Ha…l in Oxon., where I my self, and this Author (for a while under me) had our education. In his Book of the Nature and Properties of Grace and Faith, he delivers his Judgement to this effect, iVind. Grat. p. 21. & 23.That the Elect, even whilest they are unconverted, they are then actually justified and freed from all sin by the death of Christ; and God so esteems of them as free; and having accepted of that satisfaction, is actually reconciled to them: And a little after; Our Justification in Gods sight, was purchased for us by Christ, long before we were born; for it is in vain to think with the Arminians, That Christs merits have made God onelyonly Placabilem, not Placatum, procured a freedom, That God may be reconciled if he will; and other things concur, but not an actual reconciliation: No it is otherwise, Full satisfaction to Divine Justice is given and taken; all the sins of the Elect are actually pardoned. This was concluded upon, and dispatcht between God and Christ, long before we had any being, either in Nature or Grace; yet this benefit was ours, and belonged to us, though we knew not so much, till after that by Faith we did apprehend it, as Lands may be purchased, the Estate conveyed, and setled on an Infant, though he know nothing of it, till he …ome of age. Mr. Rutherford, I dare say, was never suspected to be an Antinomian, yet in his Exercit. Apologet. (a Book which Mr. W. in my hearing heretofore, hath extolled to the skies) he hath said as much as any of us, against whom Mr. W. hath levelled this opprobrious name: kRhaetorf. Exercite Apologet. pro Grat. p. 45.Sanc prius quàm electus credit, cessit, &c. Verily (saith he) before any of the Elect do believe the wrath of God, and all the effects of his wrath are removed from their persons by vertue of Christs satisfaction: And near the same place he speaks to this purpose,Pag. 43. Though we are not justified passively, or terminatively (i. e. The gracious sentence of God is not terminated in our Consciences) till we do believe, yet our justification actively considered, as it is in God (who is the onelyonly justifier) was compleat and perfect, before we had a being; and in this sence Faith is not the Instrument of our Justification. Dr. Twisses Judgement in this point is sufficiently known. The Righteousness of Christ (saith he lVind. Grat. l. 1. p. 2. Sect. 25. …. 5. p. 197.) was ours, before we did believe; ours, I say, in respect of right, because in the intention both of the Father, and the Son, it was performed for us; though not in respect of possession and enjoyment, because we have not the sence and knowledge of it, whereunto we do attain by Faith— For Faith coming (which the Spirit of God works in our hearts) the love of God to us in Christ is then perceived and acknowledged. Whence it is, That the Righteousness of Christ is said to be imputed unto us by Faith, because we cannot know and discern that it is imputed to us but by Faith; and then we are said to be justified with that kinde of Justification and Absolution from sin, which breedeth peace in our Consciences. Where he also gives us two Arguments to prove, That Justification, in foro Dei, goes before Faith. Was this famous Doctor an Antinomian? Of all men Mr. W. (who is now entered upon his Labors, and reaps the Harvest of that Seed which the Doctor with much sweat and many Prayers hath sown at Newbery) hath least reason to account him so. I must needs tell him, He will not honor himself, by aspersing the name of this blessed man. If Mr. W. had consulted with the Writings of his own forefathers, I suppose he would have given the adhearers to this Doctrine more civil language. Mr. Parker his Grandfather (a man whom his Enemies mQuem nos juvenes admi…ari soli…i, &c: Crakanth. Log. Praedic. ubi.admired for his Learning and Piety) in his Book Descensu Christi ad inferos, hath this excellent passage *Lib. 3. sect. 30. p. 59., Justificatus Christus dicitur cum resurrexit, 1 Tim. 3.16. Nos que in eo resurgente justificati, Rom. 4. ult. quia ist… solutio, i. e. Suscitatio patris, actualis justificatio fuit, illius quidem à peccatis aliorum pro quibus satis dedecit; Nostrum vero à peccatis propriis pro quibus ille vadimonium praestitit. i. e. Christ is said to be justified when he rose from the dead, 1 Tim. 3.16. And we to be then justified in him, Rom. 4. ult. Because that discharge, to wit, His Fathers raising him from the dead, was an ACTUAL JUSTIFICATION of him from the sins of others, for which he had satisfied; and OF US from our own sins, for which he became a surety. It doth not a little justifie them, that drave away this Reverend man from his Native soyl, that a Grand-childe of his own, a Minister, and a Minister in these times, should brand him with Heresie.
§. 5. To these might be added many more, who have not hitherto been known by the name of Antinomians. Mr. Calvin saith, That our Justification, in respect of God, doth precede our Faith nFides porro ita… justificationem, praecedit, …t tamen Dei respectu sequatur, Calv. Antid. Conc. Triden…. Sess. 6. p. 282.. Zanchius in his Explication of the Epistle to the Ephesians, upon those words, Chap. 2.5. [He hath quickned us together with Christ,] says, That all the Elect, who are the Members of Christ, when he by his death, had expiated their sins, were freed from the guilt of eternal death, and obtained a right to eternal life. Chamier hath much to this purpose, Nobis potius est persuasissimum, &c. We are most certainly perswaded, that our sins are pardoned before we do believe; for we deny that Infants do believe, and yet Infants have their sins forgiven oCham. Panstrat. Tom. 3. l. 13. c. 10. sect. 18.. And a little before, viz. Chap. 6. of the same Book pCap. 6. sect. 4., I deny (saith he) that Faith is the cause of our Justification, for then our Justification would not be of Grace, but of our selves; but Faith is said to justifie, not because it effecteth Justification, but because it is effected in the justified person. And in another place to the same purpose qLib. 22. c. 12. sect 5. & …ect. 9▪. Faith doth neither merit, obtain, nor begin our Justification; for if it did, then Faith should go before Justification, both in nature and time; which may in no wise be granted, for Faith it self is a part of Sanctification; now there is no Sanctification, but after Justification; Quae re & natura prior, which is really, and in its own nature before it. Alstedius in his Supplement to Chamier saith rLib. 2. c. 11. sect. 6., That Faith concurs no otherwise to Justification, then in respect of the passive application, whereby a man applies the Righteousness of Christ unto himself; but not in respect of the active application, whereby God applieth unto man the Righteousness of Christ, which application is in the minde of God, and consequently from eternity. Dr. Macouvius, Professor of Divinity at Franeka, hath a whole Determination to this purpose sDisputat. An. 16…2. Disp. 17., to prove that Justificacation actively considered, or as it is the act of God, blotting out our sins, and imputing the Righteousness of Christ unto us, goes before Faith: Indeed he makes it to be, not an immanent, but a transient, declared act, which the Lord did, when he first promised to send his Son to be our Mediator, Gen. 3.15. Though one of our late Writers tMr. Baxter in Append. p. 147.mentions this Doctors Opinion, with much contempt and oscitancy, calling his Assertions, Strange, senceless, and abhorred (which is the less to be regarded, seeing he usually metes out the same measure unto all men else, whose notions do not square with his own mould, as to Dr. Twisse, Mr. Walker, and them that hold the imputation of Christs active Righteousness, whom he calls A sort of ignorant and unstudied Divines, &c.) Yet, as he hath merited fairer usage amongst Christians for his other Labors: So, I dare say, his Arguments in this particular, will not seem so weak and ridiculous, as Mr. Baxter ma… them, to an indifferent Reader that shall compare them, with the Exceptions which he hath shaped unto them; sharp Censures are but dull Answers. Dr. Ames his Col…eague uAmes Med. l. 1. c. 27. sect. 9., sayes no less, who in his Marrow of Divinity, having defined Justification to be the gracious Sentence of God, by which he doth acquit us from sin and death, and account us Righteous unto life, he sayes, That this sentence was long before in the minde of God, and was pronounced when Christ our Head arose from the dead, 2 Cor. 5.19. And in another place xOmnes illi pro quibus Christus ex intentione Dei sati…fecit, sunt Deo reconciliati. i e. In favorem salutiserum aliquo modo restitu…i, Antisinod. p. 164., All they for whom Christ, in the intention of God, hath made satisfaction, are reconciled unto God. I might produce many others that are of eminent note▪ who have asserted, That all the Elect are reconciled and justified before they believe. Now were all these Champions of Truth, a pack of Antinomians and Libertines? Hath Mr. Woodbridges humanity no better language to bestow upon them? If he shall say, he doth not mean them, yet his reproaches do fall upon them; for if Titius be an Antinomian, for saying, That the Elect are justified before they do believe; Sempronius is an Antinomian, who affirms the same.
§. 6. Mr. Burges (a man somewhat profuse in this kinde of Rhetorick) seems willing to excuse some of those fore-mentioned Divines, who have asserted the Remission of sins before Faith yTreat. of Just. p. 177., because they did it in a particular sence to oppose the Arminians, who maintain a reconciliability, and not a reconciliation by the death of Christ. But I believe he is not ignorant, that Divine Truths are not to be measured by mens intentions; let mens ends be never so good, they cannot make Error to be Truth; or if they are never so corrupt, they cannot make Truth to be Error. Nor do they, whom he calls Antinomians, assert Justification before Faith, in any other sence, then in respect of the absolute and immutable Will of God, not to deal with his people according to their sins; and in respect of the full satisfaction of Jesus Christ, who by that one offering of himself, hath perfected for ever, Heb. 10.14.them that are sanctified, i. e. them whose sins are purged by his blood. I could shew how frequently he and others have wounded some of our most eminent Divines, both for Learning and Piety, through the sides of Antinomians: Mr. Burges in his Book of Justif. p. 219. calls it An Antinomian Similitude, to say, That as a man looking on the Wall through Red Glass, conceives the Wall to be of the same colour; so God looking upon us in Christ, seeth nothing but the Righteousness of Christ in us, and no sin at all: Which Similitude is used by Dr. Reynolds in his Excellent Treatise on the 110 Psalm zPag. 450., where he doth plainly assert that Doctrine which Mr. Burges condemns for Antinomianism. Mr. Baxters Character of an Antinomian, will bring all our Protestant Writers under this censure: For with him they are Antinomians, who hold, (1) That our Evangelical Righteousness is without us in Christ, or performed by him, and not by our selves aAphor. p. 109▪ 111.. Or (2) That Justification is a free act of God, without any condition on our part, for the obtaining of it bIbid. p. 169▪ 170.: Or else (3) That Justification is an Immanent act cIbid. p. 173., and consequently from eternity dIbid. p. 93., which was the Judgement of Alsted, Pemble, Twisse, Rutherford, &c. Or (4) That we must not perform duty for Life and Salvation, but from Life and Salvation; or that we must not make the attaining of Justification or Salvation, the end of our endeavors, but obey in thankfulness, and because we are justified and saved eSaints Rest. p. 14. Append. p. 100., &c. Now let any man who is moderately versed in our Protestant Writers, but speak, on whom this Arrow falls. I might instance in many others, but I will not put the Reader unto so much trouble.
§. 7. My business at present, is to acquit this Doctrine of Justification in foro Dei, before Faith, from Mr. Woodbridges charge of Antinomianism. And truly I wonder, that he should give it this name: For 1. It hath not the least affinity with the Antinomian Tenents, which as they are related by Sleiden, were, That the Law is not to be Preached to bring men to Repentance, or unto the sight of their sins; That what ever a mans life be, though it be never so impure and wicked, yet he is justified for all, if he doth believe the Promises of the Gospel fIpsi verò statuunt, quaecunque tandem sit hominis vita, & quantumvis impura, justificari tamen cum, si modò promissionibus Evangelii credat, Sleid. loc. su…. citat.: So that they held the necessity of Faith, (such as it was) they made it (as our Adversaries do) the condition of Justification. 2. Antinomianism is such an Error, as doth oppose, or is contrary to the Law of God: But surely, this is not such, it offers no manner of injury unto the Law; seeing that whensoever the Elect are justified, they are not justified without Righteousness, and such a Righteousness, as doth fully answer the Law of God, in respect both of the satisfaction and obedience, which it doth require. We say, that God cannot justifie a person without Righteousness, for then he should do that himself, which he forbids to us, and professeth his detestation of, Exod. 23.7. Isa 5.23. Deut. 25.1. Prov. 17.15. If God could have dispensed with his Law in this behalf, Christ needed not to have died; the end of his coming was to bring in Everlasting Righteousness. Whomsoever God doth justifie, they have justice one way or other; for otherwise, the God of Truth should call darkness light, and evil good; they whom he accounteth just, are just and righteous: But yet we say, That Faith is not that R…ghteousness, that makes them so, either in whole or in part; but the perfect Righteousness of Christ, which is put upon them. Now to say, That God imputes this Righteousness unto men before they believe, is no ways contrary to the Law, seeing the Law prescribes not the rules of this imputation, it is altogether besides the cognizance of the Law: So that if it prove an Error, it must be an Anti-Evangelical, and not an Antinomian Error. But I doubt not, but I shall be able to acquit it from this, as well as from that other imputation.