following Propositions as what do most fully Provide against the Arminian Antinomian Socinian and Popish Errors and shall always be Content that any Sermons or Books of ours be Interpreted by the said Articles and Confessions Desiring all others if they meet with any Expressions that are to them of Doubtful Signification they would Iudge of them and Interpret them by the Holy Scriptures the said Articles and Confessions It is further Declared That they Subscribe to all the main Parts of Doctrine contain'd in the fore-mention'd Articles Confessions and Catechisms as Iudging them Agreeable to the Word of God The Import therefore of the Subscription to this Agreement can't be less than to the Doctrines contained in these Propositions as exactly true according to the Word of God and so Providing most fully against Antinomian Arminian Socinian and Popish Errors and that even as a Rule by which Our Sermons and Books are to be Iudged and Interpreted which is enough to Evince that whatever Doctrines may be found in any of our Writings or Sermons Contrary unto or Dissonant from the main Doctrines contain'd in these Propositions are really Disown'd Renounc'd and Exploded For this Reason altho' it cannot be Denied but that many in their Opposition to Antinomianism have faln in with the Arminian c. and that Divers in running from Arminianism c. have plung'd themselves into the Antinomian Gulph and that they who bend their Strength against the one Error are in danger of being accused for Inclining too much towards the other yet in the Case before us we are bound in Justice according to the Desire of our Brethren to Judge and Interpret their Writings by the Subscribed Propositions Tho' it may be Difficult to Conciliat some Expressions with these Articles yet we must not charge them for holding Doctrines Contradictory unto them The Allowance that is to be made for the Different Abilities Educations and Peculiar ways of Expression which some Men Use will sufficiently Vindicate our Charity from being too Extensive in this Matter It is undoubtedly our Duty to forbear severe Reflections and hard Charges to Lament our many weaknesses which make it very near an Impossibility for us to understand one another and at the same time Adore the Wisdom and Grace of God that our Worthy Brethren who have not been able to Agree about the sense of one anothers Writings can Joyn in Subscribing the same Doctrines as Deliver'd by others CHAP. III. Intelligent and sincere Subscribers to the above-mentioned Propositions cannot be Antinomians What Antinomians are Their Principles laid down out of Melchior Adamus Lucas Osiander and Luther Luther's Disputations against them Abridg'd The Perniciousness of Antinomianism Detected It s Agreement with Libertinism Hoonbeeck 's Account of English Antinomianism It s Mischievous Consequences It s Inconsistency with the Subscribed Propositions What is not Antinomianism yet branded with that Odious Name TO make this the more clear and Evince not only the Possibility but Certainty of an Agreement in all the Substantials of the Gospel I will with the greatest Plainess I can show what the Antinomian Socinian Arminian and Popish Errors are and how inconsistent with the Subscribed Propositions In the first place then to begin with Antinomianism which because commonly Joyn'd with the Libertine Notions I will consider as Agreeing and Differing from them and lest any who are really tainted with this Poisonous Error think me Partial and too much inclin'd to the Arminian Party c. I will deliver nothing but what is Reported by such as have been the most Opposers of the Arminian Socinian and Popish Notions such as Calvin Luther and their Admirers about the Doctrine of Justification In the Year 1538. See Sleidan Comm lib. 12. p. 312. Johannes Agricola Islebius an Intimate Friend of Luther was the first that after the beginning of the Reformation did in Germany broach the Antinomian Errors of which Melchior Adamus in the Lives of Luther and Agricola give this short Account The Antinomians saith he held that Repentance was not to be Preached from the Law oppugning those who were for awakening Mens Consciences by the Law before they would Publish the Gospel unto them and affirm'd that How wicked and Impure soever the Life of any Man was yet if he believ'd the Promises of the Gospel he was Justified He was also for the Restoring Unction saying That if it might be he doubted not but that the Gift of Healing would accompany it for since his Return from Augusta he had by it Recover'd Four from Death to Life Hornbeck in his Summa Controversiarum is more full Lib. 7. de Brownistis speaking distinctly of them as distributed into three Periods of time to wit the Primitive in the Fourth Century the Beginning of the Reformation in Germany and since amongst us in England That in Germany Agricola was against the Preaching of the Law in this Gospel Day That we were not now under the Law as a School-Master to be frightned by it's Threatnings But under Grace That the Gospel only is to be Preached We must believe that tho' a Man be a Fornicator an Adulterer or the like yet he is in the Way to Salvation if he doth but lay hold on Christ That we must indeed beware of Sin and work Righteousness Not in Obedience to the Law but as Exercising our Christian Liberty and notwithstanding our Living in Sin must Apply Christ and his Promises as belonging unto us Lucas Osiander in his Epitome saith Hist Eccles Cent. XVI lib. 11. c. 39. That Johannes Agricola Islebius who A. 1530. did with Melancthon and Brentius Defend the Augustane Confession and after the Smal Kaldican War with Julius Pflugg and Michael Sydonius Framed that Unhappy Book in which there was a Composition of the Popish and Protestant Religion as a mean for Accommodation until a General Council should be Indicted and therefore called the Interim This Agricola as Osiander expresses it was in the Year 1538. stirr'd up by the Devil to broach a New Heresie affirming That the Law of Moses to wit the Decalogue was not to be Taught in the Church That the Doctrine of the Law doth not work Repentance in the Hearts of Men but the Holy Ghost doth it by the Preaching of the Gospel which showeth us the Filthiness of Sin that the Gospel Properly is the Preaching of Repentance That by Schlasselburgius many other horrid Errors are charged upon the Antinomians viz. That the Law is not worthy to be called the Word of God If a Whore a Fornicator Adulterer or any other such wicked Person doth only Believe they are in the way to Eternal Life The Law teacheth not Good Works nor is it to be Preached that we may do them and many others of a like Nature Against these Errors the Famous Dr. Luther did at Wittiberge Publish Six Disputations which are Extant in the first Tome of his Works Islebius being by Luther's Endeavors convinc'd of his Error makes his
jubeat de gratia Dei vita Aeterna dubitarâ— atque hane blasphemam ut aiunt Doctrinam inter praecipuas Causas poâ—unt cur ab ea Discedendum sibi putent blaming us for insinuating as if they taught the People to doubt of the Grace of God and of their Salvation and then make it a Reason of the Separation In the Enchiridion of Christian Religion Published by the Provincial Council at Cologne A. D. 1536. it is saith Cassander expresly granted That to our Justification it 's Required not only to believe in general that Sins are forgiven all that Repent but that my sins in Particular through Christ by Faith are forgiven me That this very Explication of Faith is in the Emperor's Book drawn up at Ratisbone and Approv'd where 't is thus It is sound Doctrine to hold that a Sinner is Justified by a lively Efficacious Faith By a Lively Faith we mean a Motion of the Holy Ghost Firma sana Doctrina est per fidem vivam efficacem Justificari peccatorem Vocamus autem sidem vivam motum Spiritus Sancti quo vere poeâ—itentes veteris vitae eriguntur ad Deum verè apprehendunt miserecordiam in Christo promissam ut jam verè sentiant quod Remissiorem Peccatorum Reconcitiationem propter meritum Christi gratuita Dei bonitate acceperunt c. Cassand Consult Art 4. whereby they who Repent of their past Life are turn'd towards God and do truly apprehend the Grace Promised in Christ so as that they do Really perceive they have Obtain'd the Pardon of their Sins and Reconciliation through the Merit of Christ However Alfonsus de Castro will have it that not many of their Church were of this Opinion that the Enchiridion of Christian Religion was not much to be regarded because Hermannus the Archbishop of Cologne who called the Provincial Council by which 't was Published was an Heretick But Binius Consiliam Coloniense Provinciale Auctoritate Hermanni Archiepiscopi qui POSTEA in Haeresin lapsus est pro Reformatione c. in the Title prefixed to this Council saith 't was after this that the Archbishop fell into Heresie And yet nevertheless it must be yielded That 't was greatly Controverted between Papist and Protestant Whether Faith was a Fiducia and lay in a firm Perswasion of our being Pardoned Or only a General Assent And as the Reformed Defended this Notion about Faith in Opposition to the Papists so they did it also against the Arminian and Socinian Bodecherus Bodecher Socin Rem 6.11 p. 79 80. in his Sociniano-Remonstrantismus doth out of the Remonstrants Confession and Writings of Socinus show an Agreement between the Socinian and Arminian in their Denying this Fiducia or Perswasion to be Saving Faith Johannes Peltius in his Harmony out of Arminius Episcopius Arnoldus the Remonstrants Conference at the Hague their Confession and Apology c. as also out of Ostorodius and Socinus puts it out of all Doubt that the Arminians and Socinians concur in their oppugning Faiths being such a firm Perswasion And out of the Belgick Confession and Catechism and the National Synod at Dort He makes it manifest that the Reformed held Faith to be a Perswasion that our Sins are Pardoned Polyander Rivet Walaeus and Thysius in their Censure of the Remonstrants Confession having shown the Parallel between the Arminians and Socinians are Positive that the very Hinge of the Controversie between them Nobiscum Remonstrantes consentiunt quod fides salâ—ifica FIDUCIA dicatur sit quam etiam Sociniani ut vidianes VERAM FIDUCIAM esse dicunt Sed in quo talis Fiducia consistat quodnam sit ejus Objectum proprium in eo totius Controversiae quam nunc omnibus Ecclessâ—s Reformatis movent vertitur CARDO Cersa c. 11. p. 158. and the Reformed Churches Turn on this Point That Saving Faith is a Fiducia or full Perswasion the Socinians themselves as these Great men Express it do Confess But the Enquiry is What is the Proper Object of this Fiducia or Perswasion Whether it be the Special Mercy of God through the Merit of Christ which he who Believes doth by this Fiducia Apply unto himself or what To this these Authors of the Censure in Opposition unto the Papist Arminian and Socinian do give it as the sense of the Reformed that the Remission of Sin de praesenti is the Proper Object of this Fiducia or Perswasion and that Justifying Faith lyeth in such a Perswasion as that by which we Believe our Sins in praesenti are Forgiven us Against this Doctrine Bellarmine Socinus and the Remonstrants raise several Objections Exposing the Notion and all that Defended it to the utmost Reproach and Contempt as if hereby the Pardon of Sin was made a Necessary Antecedent unto Justifying Faith and none could have Faith but they who had a Comfortable Assurance and that whoever could but Confidently Perswade himself his Sins were Pardoned how wickedly soever he lived had Saving Faith and was Justified Besides amongst Protestants themselves there have been of late years too many who not searching diligently enough into the Writings of the First Reformers have too hastily condemn'd them and given too much Countenance to the Unrighteous Accusations of Papists Arminians and Socinians and Encouraged the Antimonians to go on the more boldly in their Error as if they had Luther Calvin and all their Followers to Abet it whereas on a fair and equal Tryal these Charges will appear to be Groundless and Unreasonable which with much clearness may be evinced if we consider How the First Reformers held That Iustification is not before Faith That many Fears and Doubtings are consistent with it And That none who continued to live under the Reigning Power of their Lusts had or whilst so could have Saving Faith These things for the Readers greater Satisfaction I will with all the Plainness I can particularly Prove To the First That Iustification is not before Faith 1. Thus much necessarily flows from their Asserting Faith to be the Instrumental Cause of Justification If Faith be a Cause tho' but a less Principal One of Justification Justification can't be before it 'T would be the Greatest Injustice Imaginable to Insinuate that the first Reformers affirmed That Justification was before Faith and yet Faith any Cause of Justification They could not be so grosly Ignorant as to think the Effect had an Existence before its Cause That they insisted on Faiths being the Instrumental Cause of Justification is so much the Burden of their Writings that whoever consults them can't find room for the Least Doubt concerning it De Reconcil Par. 1. lib. 2. c. 11. Our Learned Wotton instances in Calvin Vrsin Hannius Bastingius Chemnitius Bucanus Willet and Perkins as Asserters of it And he might have added Paraeus Beza Peter Martyr Zanchy and many others Quenstedius Theol. Didact Polem Par. 3. c. 8. § 2. q. 6. a Lutheran mentions Gerhardus Battus Dorscheus Kester the
love to true Holiness a hatred unto all sin and that in all things we walk worthy of the Gospel of Christ But the sense of the Reformed may be more fully seen in our Book of Homilies touching the Doctrine of Justification Serm 3d of Salvat highly approved of by the generality of the Reformed where it 's thus Now you shall hear the office and duty of a Christian-man unto God Our office is not to pass the time of this present Life unfruitfully and idly after that we are Baptized or Iustified not caring how few good works we do to the Glory of God and Profit of our Neighbours Much less is it our office after that we be once made Christ's Members to live contrary to the same making of our selves Members of the Devil walking after his Inticements and after the Suggestions of the World and the Flesh whereby we know that we do serve the World and the Devil and not God For that Faith which bringeth forth without Repentance either Evil Works or no Good Works is not a Right 〈◊〉 and Lively Faith but a Mean Devilish Counterfeit and Feigned Faith as St. Paul and St. James call it For the Right and True Christian Faith is not only to believe that Holy Scriptures are true but also to have a Sure Trust and Confidence in God's Merciful Promises to be saved from Everlasting Damnation by Christ whereof doth follow a loving heart to obey his Commandments And this true Christian Faith neither any Devil hath nor yet any Man which in the outward Profession of his Mouth and the outward Receiving of the Sacraments in coming to the Church and in all other outward Appearances seemeth to be a Christian-man and yet in his Living and Deeds showeth the contrary For how can a Man have this True Faith this Sure Trust and Confidence in God that by the Merits of Christ his sins be forgiven and be reconciled to the Favour of God and to be partaker of the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ when he iveth ungodly and denieth Christ in his Deeds Surely no such ungodly man can have this Faith and Trust in God For as they know Christ to be the only Saviour of the World so they know also that wicked men shall not enjoy the Kingdom of God They know that God Hateth Unrighteousness that he will destroy all those that speak untruly that those that have done good works which cannot be done without a Lively Faith in Christ shall come forth into the Resurrection of Life and those that have done Evil shall come unto the Resurrection of Judgment Very well they know also that to them that be contentious and to them that will not be obedient unto the Truth but will obey Unrighteousness shall come Indignation Wrath and Affliction c. These great and merciful Benefits of God if they be well considered do neither minister unto us Decasion to be Idle and to live without doing any good works neither yet stireth us by any means to do evil things But contrary-ways if we be not Desperate Persons and our hearts Harder than Stones they move us to render our selves unto God wholly with all our Will Heart Might and Power to serve him in all good Deeds obeying his Commandments during our Lives to seek in all things his Honour and Glory not our Sensual Pleasures Vain Glory evermore dreading willingly to offend such a Merciful God Loving Redeemer in Word Thought or Deed. Thus much and more to the same purpose in the Book of Homilies evincing how that the First Reformers were far from encouraging any to please themselves with hopes of Heaven whilst they remained lovers of their Pleasures more than lovers of God For as they oft declared that Justifying Faith was a lively working Faith that Faith without Repentance Love to God and a Holy Life was a Dead a Devilish Faith So altho they denied the meritoriousness of Good works yet asserted their necessity even such a necessity of their presence of their following Faith as made it certain that no Salvation could be had without them They who were offended with their being made necessary to Salvation fearing lest such an Assertion should introduce the merit of good works held good works necessary necessitate Pracepti as also necessitate Medii taking the means not for an Ethical but Physical or Mathematical middle between two extreams as the Aequator is between the two Tropicks and the Ecliptick Line in the Zodiak affirming them to use the words of Cromayer to be necessary Ante tho' not Ad salutem To give my Reader a clearer light into this matter I will acquaint him with a Controversie that disturb'd the Churches Peace soon after the Beginning of the Reformation George Major who as Melchior Adamus in his Life reports being an Intimate of Luther and Melancthon and chosen with Martin Bucer Brentius Sed cum nihit sit quod non made into pretando possit depravariâ— inâ—â—rrit Major in Grarislimam Inviâ—â—am Odium quod aliquando ut fuit Zelotis Sanctimoniae Commendator summus dixerat FIERI NON POSSE VT QVI NON STVDE ANY BONIS OP ERIBVS SALVTEM CONSEQVANTVR AETERNAM BONORVM OPERVM STVDIVM ESSE NECESSARIVM AD SALVTEM Adversarii enim ejus de quibus Antesignani suerunt Matthias Flacius Illvricus Nic. Gallus Nic. Amsdorffius pup sitionem hanc Bona Opera necessaria sunt ad salutem interpretari sunt ira quasi statutrat Major jurta Origenicam Pontiticiam Synecdochen BONA OPERA CVM FIDE MERERI REMISSIONEM PECCATORVM ESSE CAVSAM JVSTIFICATIONIS CORAM DEO Melch. Adam Viz. Geor. Major and Erhardus Snepsius to concert matters Religious at Ratisbone with Petrus Malvenda Eberbardus Billicus Johannes Hofmeisrerus and Johannes Cocklaus was a zealous Promoter of Holiness asterting that he who was not studious of good works could not obtain Eternal Life and that the study of good works was necessary to Salvation This Great Man tho' extraordinary useful in carrying on the Reformation having laid down these Assertions could not escape the Hatred the Malice and Rage of Good Men but soon feelingly knew what were the Fatal Effects of Evil Surmisings and Rash Censurings for no meaner persons than Flacius Illyricus Nicholaus Gallus and Nicholaus Amsdorffius affirmed that according to the Origenic and Popish Synecdoche Major meant nothing less than that Good Works with Faith do merit the pardon of sin and are the cause of our Justification in the sight of God In opposition unto Major Amsdorffius who with Hieronymus Schuffius a Lawyer and Justus Jonas a Divine accompanied Luther to Wormes held Good Works to be Noxious and Hurtful to our Salvation This Controversie in its first Appearances is great Milch Adam in Vit. Nich. Amsdorf and through a warm and peevish management in its Effects was very pernicious and yet if as in Charity we are bound we do but believe George Majors Solemn Protestations and Regard what the
Controversie being about the Great and Important Doctrines of the Gospel and managed as it hath been Not only many Weak but some Wise and Judicious Christians have been tempted to think our Differences to be Fundamental and that it 's not easie to arrive to a Certainty about the Truths most Necessary to Salvation I will therefore lay by all Prejudices and in my Search observe the Christian Rules but now mentioned if possible to Understand whether the Differences be so Momentous as by some Apprehended whether they be about the Substance of the Doctrines in Controversie or only about the Way and Manner of their Declaration It 's very clear to me as well as to Men of Great Learning and Judgment That tho' it hath Pleased God very Plainly to Reveal unto us those Doctrines that are necessary to Salvation yet such hath been the Industry and Craft of the Tempter and such the Darkness and Infirmity of our Minds that they who Consent unto their Truth have faln into Divers Mistakes about the most Proper and Exact way of Stating them Thus it hath been amongst Protestants touching Justification it self who therefore have been Represented by Bellarmine out of Osiander to hold no less than Fourteen or Twenty Distinct Opinions about it as if the many Different ways of Declaring the same Doctrine had been as many Different Doctrines Dr. O. Of Justis p. 77 78 79. But it hath been some time ago observ'd by a late Reverend and Leading Divine That as to the Way and Manner of the Declaration of this Doctrine viz. Of Justification among Protestants themselves there Ever was some Variety and Difference in Expressions Nor will it otherwise be whilst the Abilities and Capacities of Men whether in the Conceiving of things of this Nature or in the Expression of their Conceptions are so various as they are And it is acknowledged That these Differences of late have had as much Weight laid upon them as the very Substance of the Doctrine generally agreed in hath had P. 293 294. such is the humour of some In another Page the same Author very judiciously gives this Suffrage That tho' Protestants have Differ'd in the Way Manner and Methods of the Declaration of this Doctrine and too many Private Men were Addicted unto Definitions and Descriptions of their own under Pretence of Logical Accuracy in Teaching which gave an Appearance of some Contradiction among them yet they generally agreed in the Substance of the Doctrine So far this Good Dr. unto which I add That there hath not been so much Variety among us in the Terms and Expressions used in the Stating our Doctrine but there is much greater among the Papists themselves about the same Points and their Greatest Doctors mis-represented by one or another of themselves Vasquez is Positive that Merit in a strict sense is not held by the most Learned of the Roman Church but Arriaga in Express Opposition to him will have it Arriag Disp Thâ—ol in 1. Tho. Tract de Just Disp 1 31. Sect. 2 c. that the most Learned of their Communion are for the Meritoriousness of Good Works by the Rules of Commutative Justice Alfonsus à Castro who calls the Doctrine of the Reformed about Justifying Faith a Pestiferous and most Pestilential Haeresie affirms A Cast advers Haeris lib. 7. Verb. Gratia Haeres 3. lib. 12. Verb. Preadestinatio Haeres 2. Cassand Consult Artic IV. that 't was embraced only by Claudius Guilliandus and One or Two more in the Council of Trent On the other hand George Cassander Proves that the same Notion Protestants have of Faith was generally owned by Men of the Greatest Learning in their Church That 't was approv'd of by a Provincial Council at Colon as appears by their Publishing the Enchiridion of Christian Religion in which this Doctrine is asserted with the Decrees of that Council and highly applauded by their most Learned Divines throughout Italy and France Differences about Religious Matters have not been Confin'd to any one Party of Christians but have stretch'd themselves to the utmost Bounds of Christendom so that no one Party can Upbraid the other with their Divisions We are so much in the Dark that wherein we are Agreed de Re we can't always Perceive it so that many a time when a Controversie only de nomine arises we Pursue it as vehemently as if it had been Real Men of the same Particular Denomination are so Unreasonably suspitious of one another as to take it for granted That every Obscure or Unpleasing Phrase is Heterodox whereas were we more Exact in our Disquisitions more mindful of Humane Frailty and more Compassionate and Charitable we should with Greater Temper and more Justice Judge both of Persons and Things and find an Agreement much Greater than now we can Imagine it to be To come more close to the Controversie before us I am very sensible that our Contending Brethren and some others esteem the Differences among us being about the weightiest Matters indeed of the Gospel to be such that the Two Poles may as soon meet as their Doctrines be found in Substance the same The Noise I confess is That the most Important Doctrines of the Christian Faith have receiv'd a Wound almost if not altogether Incurable But I must humbly crave leave to whisper to the Reader that I think otherwise and do hold my self in Charity oblig'd to believe they mean the same thing for the Substance of it In my closest Converses with each Brother He who seems to be most for the Exaltation of Free Grace abhors nothing more than to give the Least Encouragement to an Elect Person 's Living in Sin or Expecting an Enjoyment of the Future Glory tho' he die under the Reigning Power of his Lusts Unregenerate and finally Impenitent And the other Brother who so much presses the Necessity of Faith Repentance and a Holy Life detests nothing so much as in any one Instance to Diminish the Glory of Free Grace or to add any thing of our own to Christ's Righteousness in our Justification Besides They have both Subscrib'd the same Propositions which do not only contain in them the Truths about which the Contest hath been but are so framed as to Provide fully against the Errors they have been supposed to Embrace The Errors about which many have been Apprehensive are the Antinomian Arminian Popish and Socinian Errors all which with the greatest Caution Imaginable are Really Renounced by the Subscribers Their Renunciation is so full that there is no Room left them for coming off with that Distinction of Subscribing them as Articles of Peace and not of Faith The words of the Agreement are these namely P. 2 3. That in order to the more effectual Composing of Matters in Controversie we all of us having Referr'd our selves to the Holy Scriptures and the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England the Westminster and Savoy Confessions the Larger and Shorter Catechisms do Subscribe These