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
Theologi Giessenses Hulsemannus Calovius and Dannhawerus as Men of Great Learning who made Faith to lye in a firm Perswasion of the Pardon of Sin and yet Affirm'd it to be the Instrumental Cause of Justification But 2. This will appear with more Conviction on an Equal Proposal of what the Reformers themselves have Deliver'd in Explicating the Notion they had of Justifying Faith whose Disquisitions for the Investigation of Truth were very Close and Profound They weighed the Difficulties on every hand and their Determinations were after much Consideration and with Great Judgment But this thing having been already done by the Learned Le Blank I must beseech my Reader to have Recourse unto him And yet for the help of such as have him not I will out of him and some other Judicious Writers on this Subject give the sense of the Reformed The Learned Robert Baronius in Le Blank Explicates the Notion about Fiducia thus First The Object of this Perswasion is not saith he only the Pardon of Sin to be Impetrated and had De objecto igitur sidei salvificae haec tenenda sunt Primo tenendum est Objectum fiduciae non solum esse Remissionem peccatorum impetrandam obtinendam sed etiam torum Remissionem jam Impetratam Secundo Fiduciam in haec duo tendere per duos distinctos actus quorum alter praecedit Justificationem ut ejus causa Instrumentalis alter eam sequitur ut ejus effectum Consequens Tertio actum fiducialem qui Justificationem praecedit ut ejus causa esse persuasionem de Christi satisfactione pro nobis in particulari deremissione peccatorum obtinendaper propter ejus satisfactionem Quarto Actum fiducialem qui Justificationem sequitur esse Persuasionem de remissiane Peccatorum jam Impetrata de nostrâ Perseverantiâ in eo statu usque ad finem vitae Baronius in Le Biank Thes de fid Justif Nat. § LXII but also as already obtain'd Secondly That this Perswasion respects these two Objects by two Distinct Acts The one of which goeth before Justification as its Instrumental Cause The other followeth it as its Effect and Consequent Thirdly The Fiducial Act which Precedes Justification as its Cause is a Perswasion of the Satisfaction of Christ for us in Particular and of the Remission of Sins to be obtain'd by and for his Satisfaction Fourthly This Fiducial Act which followeth Justification is a Perswasion of the Remission of Sins already Impetrated and of our Perseverance in that state to the end of our Lives Maresius saith That there is a Threefold Act of Faith distinctly to be Considered in our Justification The first Dispositive whereby I believe that Christ hath merited the Pardon of Sin for them that are his c. The Second is formally Justificatory whereby I who am now Sorrowing for my Sin and Purposing Amendment of Life do believe that all my Sins are at this present Forgiven The Third Consolatory whereby I Believe that all my Sins have been Pardoned and that I shall never more be in a State of Condemnation In the First sense Faith is before Justification In the Second Simultaneous with it In the Third it followeth it Paraeus expresseth himself to the same purpose Before the Act of Justification that is to say in order of Nature not of time Our Faith or Perswasion hath for its Object this Proposition de futuro My Sins shall be Forgiven me on my believing In the very Act of Justification it hath this Proposition de praesenti My Sins are Forgiven me After my Justification this de Praeterito My Sins have already been Pardoned The Authors of the Censure Omnes autem isti viz. Bellarmious Socinus Remonstrantes adversus Vmbram suam pugnant contra Chimaeram quam sibi confixerunt tela sua dirigunt supponentes nos statuere peccata nostra quoad efficaciam deleri priusquam credamus c. Censur Conf. Rem c. 11. p. 159. do on this occasion declare That the Remonstrants Fight against their own Shadow against a Chimaera of their own feigning when they insinuate as if we held that our Sins were efficaciously blotted out before we believe and that then we are Justified when we Believe that they are blotted out From which absurd Opinion 't would follow that the Remission of Sin was neither the whole nor a part of our Justification but that our Justification was somewhat after it Which cannot be allowed unless Justification be taken for the Sense of Justification in our selves or for a Manifestation or Declaration of it unto others We do not therefore say That that Perswasion by which we are Justified is of the Remission of Sins already had Or that the Object of this Perswasion is the Pardon of Sin before obtained But that Perswasion by which we all believe our Sins to be in praesenti forgiven us not properly in praeterito or in futuro altho' both belong to Justifying Faith yet not to the formal Act of Justification as we usually Express it Wherefore when the Mercy of God and the Pardon of Sin is offer'd to us in the Gospel through Christ we are not only in the General Perswaded that all who believe shall have their Sins forgiven them But he that savingly believes doth firmly perswade himself that the Promise of Pardon doth belong to him and is received by that very Act of Faith and accordingly then his Sin is forgiven him and that Blessedness spoken of in Rom. 6.7 made his Thus the Remission of Sin and a Perswasion of that Remission are in a Saving Believer at the same time But he who is Perswaded that if he believes he shall be Justified is not therefore as yet Justified Unless he doth Actually and in praesenti believe That that Righteousness is given him which he Receives with the same Act of Faith What he afterwards believes de praeterito doth not Justifie him but supposes him to be already Justified All these Acts are of one and the same Justifying Faith The First Disposes for Justification The Second Properly Justifieth The Third Quiets Conscience according to that in Rom. 5.1 2. From what hath been here said it 's apparent that there is no force at all in this Socinian and Arminian Objection against us for they oppose us as if we assign'd to Justifying Faith one only single Act whereas nothing can be more manifest than that we make them three Distinct Acts whence it 's easie enough to Conceive how Justifying Faith is a Perswasion of the special Mercy of God to be de futuro obtain'd and which in praesenti by the very Act of Believing is Perceiv'd This Fiducia or Perswasion as Described by the Remonstrants to be a firm Belief that it 's not possible for any to escape Eternal Death and attain to Everlasting Life any other way than by Jesus Christ and as he hath Prescribed is not a Justifying it is but an Historical or Dogmatick Faith It only respects
Recantation in a Publick Auditory at Wittiberge and Prints it However after Luther's Death he Returns to his Vomit reassumes his old Errors and drew some Learned Men to close with them Labouring to get Countenance to them by wresting some Passages in Luther's Writings so that whereas Luther had in his Commentary on the Galatians said That the Penitent Sinner ought not to hear Moses by the Law accusing him of Sin but should rather cast his Eye on Jesus Christ his Saviour who by the Gospel heals the Broken and Contrite heart Islebius and his Followers would from hence infer That the Law was not at all to be Taught and thus would they Palliate their Own Errors by fathering them on Luther So far Lucas Osiander Luther on Genesis doth in several Places show what the Antinomians are Cap. 19.21 affirming That they throw the Law out of the Church and will have it that Repentance is to be taught by the Gospel That they Darken Paul's Doctrine about the Remission of Sin and so magnifie Grace as utterly to Extinguish it and expose Men to the Wrath of God by Perswading them to such a Security concerning the Divine Displeasure and Judgement as if there had been no Sin no fear of Death and Hell These Antinomians seem to be the followers of Muntzer who teach that all Sin is wholly taken away nor are we to Endeavor the convincing any of Sin or terrifie them by the Law They like the Ishmaelites who because the Thigh of their Father Abraham was Holy believe Every thing to to be Holy Tho' they carefully endeavor to conceal thus much yet are they not afraid to entertain such Monstrous Opinions Sin being forgiven there is in them nothing Damnable Sin therefore is nothing or at least 't is taken from them This Error they would fasten on the Doctrines of the Apostles He that is born of God sinneth not I believe the Remission of Sin In Gen. c. 24. by which they understand the taking away of all Sin The Papists Preach nothing but Terror In Gen c. 19. and these false Prophets will have nothing taught but the Gospel and the Promises which Error of theirs is much more hurtful than that of the Papists In the First Tome of Luther's Works to which Osiander directed me I have not only met with Luther's Six Disputations but with a Paper containing the Particulars of the Antinomian Errors drawn up by One of themselves as was then Generally believed which for the Reader 's greater Satisfaction I will faithfully Transcribe and add unto it an Abridgment of Luther's Disputations against them Unto the Antinomian Positions Luther sets this Preface Martin Luther to the Pious Reader There came to my hands Certain Positions so is the the Title of an Unknown Author scattered among the Brethren which lest I be thought to approve of them I would so Publish as to give the fullest Testimony of my Abhorring them which God willing I will soon do by my Disputations A. D. 1538. The Positions of a Certain Antinomian REpentance is not to be Taught from the Decalogue or any Law of Moses but Ex Violatione filii per Evangelium which I presume thus to Render from the Sufferings of Christ by the Gospel 2. For Christ saith Thus it behoved him to suffer and Rise again from the Dead that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be Preached in his Name among all Nations 3. And Christ in the Gospel of John saith that the Spirit shall convince the World of Sin Not the Law 4. The same is Taught in the Last Sermon of Christ Go Preach the Gospel to Every Creature 5. Paul to the Philippians saith Let the same mind be in you which is in Christ Jesus that with Fear and Trembling ye may work out your Salvation which words do fully establish this Truth viz. That Repentance which he calls Fear and Trembling is to be taught from the Mind of Christ not from the Law 6. From the Discourses of Paul and Barnabas it sufficiently appears that there is no need of the Law for any One part of Justification 7. That without which the Holy Spirit is given and Men are justified is not necessary to be Taught either for the Beginning Middle or End of Justification 8. But the Holy Ghost of Old was given and still is that Men might be Justified without the Law by the Gospel of Christ alone 9. Therefore it 's not necessary to Teach the Law of Moses either for the Beginning Middle or End of Justification 10. The Major is evident from the Experience which Paul and Barnabas mention 11. And we must Judge the Minor to be true 11. Idem Judicabimus de Minore nam Spiritus Sanctus cecidio visibili specie super Gentes because the Holy Ghost in a visible shape fell on the Gentiles 12. What shall we then say of some who without the Word yea Contrary to it and the Example of the Apostles do make the Law the first Part yea a Necessary one to the Doctrine of Justification 13. For which reason that we may maintain the Purity of Doctrine we must oppose them who Teach That the Gospel must not be Preached but to those who are convinced by the Law 14. For they that put on the words of Christ an Improper sence and say that first the Law then the Gospel is to be taught and do Pervert the words of Christ nor is their Interpretation consistent with the Simplicity of Christ 15. As we are to adhere unto the simple sence of Christ's word when he saith This is my Body so must we abide by the Simplicity city of those words Go Preach the Gospel Baptizing c. 16. The Law doth only convince of Sin and that without the Holy Spirit and therefore convinceth to Damnation 17. But there is need of that Doctrine which is Efficacious not only to Condemn but also to Save Thus the Gospel doth conjunctly Teach Repentance and Pardon of Sin 18. For the Gospel of Christ doth make known the Wrath of God from Heaven together with the Righteousness of God Rom. 1. for it is the Preaching of Repentance in Conjunction with the Promise which our Reason doth not Naturally but by Divine Revelation Receive These are the Antinomian Positions unto which Luther in his Disputations has a respect The first Disputation of D. Martin Luther against the Antinomians about Repentance 1. Repentance by the Testimony of all and by what is undoubtedly True is a Grief for Sin with an adjoyned Purpose of a better Life 2. This Grief Properly is not nor can it be any thing else than a deep sence of the Law in the Heart or Conscience 3. For tho' many hear the Law yet because they have not that sense nor feel the force of the Law they Grieve not nor Repent 4. The first Part of Repentance to wit Grief is Only from the Law The other part namely a Good Purpose cannot be from the Law 5. For
after Luther's Death which was 1546. return'd to his old Antinomian Vomit and in 1548. ran to the other Extream joyning with some Papists in composing the Interim in which the Doctrine of Justification is fram'd according to the Popish Model which yet he would have Bucer subscribe unto and was a great Stickler for miraculous Cures by Anointing with Oyl Thus the Reader may see from what Manner of Men these Errors have had their Rise by what Methods propagated and how Pernicious their Tendency is to the Souls of Men. The Antinomians that got into New-England are so fully set forth in their proper Colours by Mr. Welde that I need do no more than Recommend that Account given of it And go on to consider what Errors have been held by them in this Kingdom And because the Learned Hoornbeeck in his Summa Controversiarum doth with much Respect unto them make his Enquiry after their Principles being a great Enemy to Arminianism I will lay down the State he gives of their Notions which he Reduceth to these Six Heads 1. That Christ in Suffering for our Sins did not only bear their Punishment and Guilt but moreover had our Sins themselves Imputed to Him 2. That Christ did Redeem all and every Man 3. That the Soul is United to Christ and in Covenant with Him before any good Quality be wrought in it and can equally apply the Promises of Grace unto it self whilst unregenerate as when a Believer 4. That a Man Believeth after he is justified his Faith following his Justification 5. That in order to our being Comforted by the Promises of Christ and our making them sure we ought not to Grieve and Repent of the Sins we have committed from sights of the transgressed Law and of the deserved Punishment and so to be humbled in Heart 6. That the Moral Law must not be Preached to Believers and Regenerate Persons This is the Account Hoornbeek gives of the English Antinomian who in the first Question is more Kind to them than Just to the Truth in saying they hold That Christ in Suffering for our Sins did not only bear the Punishment and Guilt but moreover had our Sins themselves Imputed to him whereas the Imputation of Sin and otherwise than in its Guilt is Impossible and the Author whom he chiefly consulted is Positive That tho' he had diligently searched the Holy Scriptures could not in any one Place find Trat Sin was laid on Christ by Imputation farther affirming That Guilt is not only inseparable from sin but is the sin it self the Fault the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply sin * In answer to an Objection laid down in these words For that Objection about Guilt that the Lord lays the Guilt and Punishment but not Simply the Sin it self It is replied For ought that I can see it is a Simple Objection I do not think as some do that Guilt differs from Sin In this Assertion there is a Complication of Errors of divers Kinds even Popish Socinian and Libertine Not that I dare charge every one that holds this Principle with the mischievous Consequences that too easily flow from it That is nor fair nor just for they may not see the Connection there is between the one and the other and may Renounce and Disclaim the more offensive Part. However in the Oppugning an Error and Defence of Truth for the sake of the Unwary It is necessary to show in the Point before us How Error of one kind is link'd to that of another which is thus By making Guilt to be not only Inseparable from the Sin it self but to be the same thing with it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Fault it self as it respects the Command 't will unavoidably follow 1. That the Pardon of Sin is the same with Mortification and that in Justification there is more than an External and Relative there is an Internal and Physical Change wrought on the Justified Person whereby it is as the Papist would have it confounded with Sanctification To clear this we must observe That Sin essentially Relates to a Law it being a Transgression of it The Law hath its Preceptive and Threatning Parts And Sin Properly and Formally consider'd is a Transgression of the Precept and whatever is a Transgression of the Precept or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is formally and Properly Sin To Understand yet more fully wherein lyeth the True Nature of Sin it being a Relation our Enquiry must be after its Subject Foundation and Term. The Inclinations Propensions Dispositions Acts Habits Thoughts Words and Works of a Rational Being are the Subject The Term is the Preceptive Part of the Law under whose Regulation the Inclinations c. do fall The Ratio fundandi or Foundation from whence the Relation Immediately Results is the Contrariety Disconformity Deviation or Dissonancy of our Inclinations Propensions Dispositions Acts Habits Thoughts Words Or Works to the Preceptive Part of the Law When either our Inclinations Propensions c. are contrary unto or Dissonant from the Precept which is Pure and Holy we Sin are Vnclean Filthy and Impure The Contrariety Dissonancy or Obliquity is the Uncleanness the Filth and Impurity It is Sin Properly and Formally To Distinguish therefore between the Filth of Sin and the Sin it self and at the same time make Guilt to be the Sin it self the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Dissonancy to the Command is too Intollerably Gross and Absurd to admit of a fair Construction It is to Confound the Precept with the Threatning to Change the Natures of things and Pervert the Plainest Truths it is to call Light Darkness and Darkness Light For the Filth of Sin is Contrary to the Precept Intrinsick to the Sin Inseparable from it it is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Guilt is Extrinsick to the Sin it 's only an External respect of it to the Threatning of the Law It 's not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 's not contrary to the Command but it is God's Will and Pleasing unto him that he who Commits the Sin be liable unto Wrath that is be Guilty But the Filth of Sin is in no sense Pleasing unto him Besides Guilt is separable from the Sin On this Distinction between the Sin and its Guilt the Reformed do found that other between Justification and Sanctification holding that Justification imports only an Outward and Relative Change whereby the Soul is freed from Guilt c. That Sanctification Denotes an Inward Physical Change by which the Filth of Sin is taken away and the Sin it-self mortified But by making Sin and Guilt the same Pardon of Sin also and its Mortification must be the same too and that in Justification an Inward and Physical Change is wrought on the Soul In a word in that Great Controversie the most Important One agitated between Us and the Papist even touching the Glorious Doctrine of Justification the Cause is in Fact given up by the Antinomian unto the Papist Thus
sub modo signifieth nothing until the Condition or Mode be perform'd Tho' it hath no Causality in Producing the Effect yet is the Effect as Really suspended thereby as if it had Thus it has Pleased the Testator to dispose and his Disposition none can disannul In this sense seeing Justification is Promised in the Last Will and Testament of our Lord Jesus to Him that Believeth Faith is the Modus Promissionis vel Donationis So that altho' Justification be not the Result of our Faith but of Christ's Righteousness alone yet Faith being made by the Testator a Modus of the Disposition or Donation there can be no Justification without it The Operation of Christ's Righteousness which in this Case is the Negotium or Principal Cause of our Justification is by the Non-Performance of Faith suspended and so long we remain Unjustified It hath pleased God to fix such an Order in the Dispensation of his Blessings that the one necessarily antecedes the other and what goeth before another hath an Influence upon that other as it is so setled and establish'd by the Ordinance of God Not that the former gives Right unto the latter but so it is appointed of God that such an Order be observed in the disposing of these Blessings that he who has not the first shall not have the second He that hath not Faith shall not be Justified But whether it be a Condition of the Covenant of Grace Or a Condition in this Covenant Or only a Condition of our Justification tho' our Divines have different Sentiments about it yet 't is generally held that Faith is a Condition of Justification They that scruple the use of the Word own the thing signified thereby The Learned Author of Anti-sozzo saith that Faith is a Condition in the Covenant of Grace tho' not of it and they who hold that the Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as a Second Adam do assert that it is also made with the Faithful the Members of Christ Discourse of the two Covenants lib. 3. c. 3. p. 162. for which the Judicious Mr Strong gives several Reasons namely That the Saints may see that they are as strictly bound to Obedience in their own Persons under the Second Covenant as they were under the First And that the Doctrine of the Gospel tho' it be a Doctrine of Liberty is not a Doctrine of Licentiousness and that they may stand in awe of the Threats of God This Doctrine saith he I do the rather pitch upon in Opposition to the Licentious Tenent of the Antinomians who say that all is Required of Christ and nothing of Us. This Notion of a Condition as it doth most fully Provide against Antinomianism by Inferring the Necessity of Faith's being in Order of Nature before Justification so it doth as effecctually secure us from the Popish Arminian and Socinian Rocks in that it is not a Legal but a Testamentary Condition that cannot Establish the Merit of Good Works nor Interfere with Christ's meriting or the Spirits working the First Grace nor Subvert the Doctrine of Satisfaction or Particular Election All Testamentary Dispositions whatever be the Modes of Donation are of Free Grace not of Metit and being Given to us as the Children of a Testator the Merit and Gift of the First Grace which is necessary to our being such Children cannot be Destroyed by such a Modus or Condition These things will Appear with much more Clearness if we consider that the Holy Scriptures Represent Christ as a Second-Adam the Father of a Spiritual Off-spring Two things Christ did as a Second-Adam He undertook to beget a Seed and Raise that Seed unto Glory This Seed Christ Purchased and on his Purchase they are given him by the Father according to the terms Agreed on between the Father and the Son in the Eternal Compact That Christ begets a Seed and by his Word and Spirit Governs and Raises them unto Glory is so far from being inconsistent with his Meriting and Giving the First Grace that it is in Pursuance of it Christ merited a Seed and that he may have what he merited a Seed is Given him which is by the Fathers drawing the Sons gathering and the Spirits working Grace in them Christ also as a Second-Adam made satisfaction for his Children who as soon as they do spiritually by Regeneration Descend from him have a Right to Impunity If the Satisfaction had been made by Christ as a Mediator for the Elect as such then indeed as soon as they had any Being they would have been Discharg'd from the Debt But Christ making Satisfaction for the Elect as his Seed they cannot partake of the Right resulting from it but as they become his Seed As they are his Seed Virtually they have a Virtual Discharge but an Actual Discharge they cannot have till they are Actually born again Moreover the Covenant of Grace being made with Christ as a Second-Adam the Promises are made unto Christ as the Reward of his Obedience but for his Seed so that in Christ you must be by Faith that you may be Pardoned and Saved and yet your Pardon and Salvation Results not from your Faith but from Christ's Righteousness whereby it 's manifest that Gospel-Promises are Powerful Motives to Engage us to do our utmost to Believe and Repent and must be Preached to this Very-End and Purpose Thus the Doctrine of our Merit is laid by Christ's meriting and working the First Grace and his making Satisfaction to God's Justice and the necessity of our Faith Repentance and Sanctification are abundantly cleared by this Gospel-Representation that is made of Christ as he is a Second Adam with whom the Covenant of Grace is made and with his Seed as such which is so far from destroying Particular Election that it establisheth it For the Elect were Promised unto Christ merited by him and given unto him as the Reward of his Sufferings whereby it is made sure that the Death of Christ shall not be altogether in vain He shall see the Elect as the Travel of his Soul and be satisfied Thus as in Opposition to Popery Arminianism and Socinianism Legal Conditions are Justly Rejected so in Contradiction to the Antinomian Error Testamentary Conditions are here explicated and asserted CHAP. V. The Notion the first Reformers had of Justifying Faith not Antinomian Their Dectrine in Opposition to the Papist Arminian and Socinian Described That they did not hold Justification to be before Faith Nor did they Exclude all Doubtings from Faith nor hold that we might live as we list and whilst so Believe and be Justified To Assert That Faith is a Certain and Full Perswasion wrought in the Heart of Man through the Holy Ghost whereby he is Assured of the Mercy of God Promised in Christ that his Sins are Forgiven him is not Antinomianism THE Antinomians I mean such as are really so have had too much Honour given them by such as Grant that their Notion about Faith is supported by
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
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
a man Terrified at the Sight of Sin cannot in his own Strength Purpose any good thing for he is neither at Peace nor Safe 6. But confounded and over-whelm'd by the Power of Sin falls into Desperation and Hatred of God or as the Holy Scriptures have it Descends into Hell 7. To the Law therefore the Promise or Gospel is to be added which do quiet and revive the terrified Conscience and broken Heart that it may Purpose what is Good 8. That Repentance which is Only from the Law is but the half or Beginning of Repentance or Repentance by a Synecdoche because there is wanting the good Purpose 9. If it be Persevered in it becomes the Repentance of a Cain a Saul a Judas and of all such as Distrust of the Mercy of God and Despair that is to say who Perish 10. These Sophists learn't their Definition of Repentance viz. That it is a Sorrow and Purpose c. out of the Fathers 11. But they understand not the Terms of this their Definition Sorrow Sin Purpose c. 19. Nor need we wonder at this their Ignorance for they neglecting and slighting the Scriptures can't be thought to know what is Law or what Gospel 20. Indeed quite bound up in Humane Commands and Injunctions they only Dream when they Judge of Sacred and Divine Things 21. But the Gospel teaches us in Opposition to these Masters of Despair that Repentance ought not to be a meer Horror and Despair 22. But that Penitents must hope and trust and hate Sin out of love to God which is the only Good Temper and Purpose of Mind 23. This some Unmindful of any Proofs or Reason and indeed Heedless of the Matter in Hand assert to be contrary to the Law of God 24. And very erroneously teach that the Law of God is totally and without any Distinctions or Limitations to be taken out of the Church which is Blasphemous and Sacrilegious 25. But the Scriptures throughout inform us that Repentance must be begun by the Law which likewise the Order and Nature of the thing it self requires and common Experience proves 26. They viz. the Scriptures say Let all them be turned into Hell who forget God and Set O Lord a Law-giver over them that Men may know c. 27. Fill their Faces with Shame that they may seek thy Name O Lord and the Sinner is caught in the Works of his Hands 28. And this is the Stated Order that Death and Sin are in us before Life and Holiness 29. Nor are we now Righteous and Alive to be delivered over to Sin and Death but actually and in our Present State Sinners and Dead in Adam to be Justified and made alive by Christ 30. Wherefore we must be first taught the first Adam i. e. Sin and Death who is the Figure of him who was to come i. e. Christ now in the second Place to be Preach'd unto us 31. Sin and Death must of Necessity be shown us out of the Law and not by the Word of Grace and Comfort 32. And experience clears it Adam first stood convicted a Transgressor of the Law was afterwards Restored to Hopes by the Promised Seed of the Woman 33. And David was first struck dead by the Law telling Him by Nathan Thou art he is afterwards Saved by the Grace of the Gospel saying Thou shalt not Die 34. Paul trembling under Law-Stroaks first heard Why Persecutest thou me then was Enlivened and Quickned by the Gospel Arise c. 35. And Christ Himself says Mark 1. Repent and Believe the Gospel for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand 36. Likewise it behoved that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be Preached in his Name 37. Thus the Holy Spirit convinces the World first of Sin that it may teach Faith in Christ i. e. Forgiveness of Sins 38. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans observes this Method he teaches first that all are Sinners to be Justified by Christ 39. Luke in the Acts informs us of the same thing that Paul taught both Fews and Gentiles that no man can be Justified but by Christ The Second Disputation of M. Luther against the Antinomians ' Of the Law ' 1. The Law is not only Not-necessary to Justification but also manifestly Unprofitable and altogether Impossible 2. And to them who keep the Law with a Respect to be Justified by it it becomes as Poison and most Pernicious 3. When we discourse of Justification we cannot say too much of the Weakness of the Law and against a most Dangerous Confidence in the Law 4. Neither is the Law given that it may Justifie or give Life or any way to Help unto a Righteousness 5. But to shew us Our sin work Wrath and convince the Conscience of our Guilt 8. In short Heaven is not more distant from the Earth than the Law must be separate from Justification 9. Nothing is to be taught said or thought on in the Matter of Justification but only the Word of Grace exhibited in Christ 10. And yet nevertheless it doth not follow that the Law is to be abolished and not to be Preached in the Church 11. But it is the more needful it should be taught by being Useless nay Impossible for Justification 12. That so Proud Man confident of his Abilities may be instructed that he cannot be Justified by the Law 13. For Sin and Death are therefore to be shown us not that they are Necessary for Life and Innocence 14. But that Man may be sensible of his Unrighteousness and lost State and so be humbled 15. If we see not our Sin we conceit our selves Innocent as is visible in the Heathen and Pelagians 16. If Death were unknown to us this Life would be the only Life to us nor should we look for a future one 17. But since both are taught us only by the Law it is evident that the Law is very Necessary and Profitable 18. Whatever shews us Sin Wrath or Death that belongs to the Law whether it be in the Old or New Testament 19. A Discovery of Sin cannot be but by the Law and is its proper Effect and Force 20. The Law Manifestation of Sin and Revelation of Wrath are Reciprocal Terms as much as Man and Risible or Rational 21. To take away the Law and Retain the Revelation of Wrath is as if one should Deny Peter to be a Man and yet affirm Him to be a Risible Rational Creature 22. After the same sort do they Reason who take away the Law and then hold that Sin remains to be forgiven 23. Whereas the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures teach that Sin is Dead without the Law and where there is no Law there is no Transgression 24. So that it is Impossible that Sin should either be or be known without the Law either Written or Vnwritten 25. Whence it follows that seeing on the taking away of the Law there Remains no Sin there can be no Christ to Redeem from Sin for Christ Himself saith they
in running from Popery they continue their flight so long till they return to that very Point from whence they did at first set out and Unwarily give Life to the Error they seem mostly to abhor Again if Guilt be Inseparable from the Sin there can be no taking away the Guilt by Pardon but the Sin it self the Fault ceaseth to be and consequently if the Sin of our Nature with those Inclinations and Lustings after Evil be Pardoned they cease to be sinful a Notion that will exceedingly Please the Roman Catholicks who deny Concupiscence to be Sin in those that Believe 2. The Imputation of Sin is made Impossible either from Adam unto Us or from us unto Christ. A Notion no way ungrateful unto the Arminian Party who hold That Adam's Sin was in no other sense Imputed unto his Posterity Fatentur vid. Remonstrantes Peccatum Adami Imputatum Dici Posse Posteris ejus quatenus Deus Posteros Adamo Eidem malo cui Adamus per Peccatum obnoxium se reddidit obnoxios nasci voluit sive quatenus Deus malum quod in Paenam Adamo Inflictum fuerat in Posteros Ejus dimanare transire permisit At nihil cogit Eos dicere Peccatum Adami Posteris ejus sic fuisse à Deo Imputatum quasi Deus Posteros Adami â—â—verâ censulsset Ejusdem cum Adamo peccati culpâ—e quam Adamus commiserat REOS Imo nec scriptura nec Veritas nec Sapientia nec Bonitas Divina nec Peccati Natura c. permittunt ut sic Imputatum peccatum Adami c Malum Culpae non est quia nasci plant Involuntarium est ergo nasci cum hâc vel Illâ labe c. Si malum Culpae non est nec malum Paenae quia Culpa Paena sunt Relata Rem Apol ad Censur c. 7. § 4. then as they are by Birth made subject to the same Calamities with Adam An Imputation of the Guilt of Sin they deny as contrary to the Holy Scriptures the Divine Truth Wisdom and Goodness the Nature of Sin as well as the Formal Reason of Righteousness Although we are born without an Original Righteousness yet there is not say they either the malum Culpae nor the malum paena the Evil of the Fault nor of the Punishment on any of Adam's Offspring by Birth Not the Evil of the Fault because not Voluntary and if not the Evil of the Fault it cannot be the Evil of Punishment the Fault and Punishment being Relata and Inseparable That those Acts which follow the Privation of Original Righteousness are not formally Sins or what is the same Nam Remonstr negant actus illos qui sequuntur Destitutionem sive Privationem illam divinam esse Formaliter Peccata i. e. illos valide Obligare ad Poenam Eos qui actus istos patrant Non negant quidem actus illos Materialiter Peccata dici posse quatenus actus sunt Dissormes voluntati Divinae at negant eos formaliter esse Peccata quae sc ad Paenam obligent eos à quibus fiunt Sitpol Vbi sup are not such acts as oblige to Punishment That they are materially Sins that is Disconform to the Divine Will they do not Deny but formally they are not Sins for they Oblige not to Punishment Whereby it is evident they make Guilt which is the Obligation to Punishment to be Formally the Sin and therefore Inseparable from it What Differences soever there may be between the Antinomian and Arminian in the Method taken to advance the Notion of Guilt 's being Inseparable from Sin yet they agree in the Assertion that Guilt and Sin are Inseparable But Dr. Owen gives a truer Account of this Matter Dr. O. Of Justificat p. 284 285. when he tells us That there is in Sin a Transgression of the Preceptive part of the Law and there is an Obnoxiousness unto the Punishment from the Sanction of it Sin under this Consideration as a Transgression of the Preceptive Part of the Law cannot be communicated from One unto another unless it be by the Propagation of a vitiated Principle or Habit. But yet neither so will the Personal Sin of one as Inherent in him ever come to be the Personal Sin of Another To which I add That as the Sin it self cannot Pass from one to Another in like manner if the Guilt cannot be separated from the Sin then the Guilt of Adam's Sin could not pass from Him to us It could in no sense be made Ours Not the Sin it self for that is Impossible nor the Sin in its Guilt because as they affirm it 's Inseparable from the Sin it self Socinus Smalcius and Ostorodius in Peltius his Harmony deliver themselves to the same Purpose giving us Light enough about the True Reason Commentum illud de Peccato Originis seu Parentum Culpae fabula est Judaica ab Anti-Câ—risto in Ecclesiam Introductum ad stabiliendum Perniciosa Dogmata nempe Dei Incarnationem Infantium Baptismum Socin Dial. Justif f. 11. Pelti Har. Remonst Socin Artic. 8. Parag. 4. f. 69. why they Deny Original Sin For say they the Doctrine of Original Sin is a Jewish Fable brought into the Church by Antichrist to establish as Socinus blasphemously expresses it these Pernicious Dogmata viz. The Incarnation of God Infant Baptism And in Peltius they Declare That if the Question be Whether seeing our Descent is from Adam we are by Birth obnoxious to any Punishment or Fault for Adam's Sin The Answer is That to the being Faulty it 's necessary there be some voluntary Act done by him who is Faulty And Punishment there cannot be where there is no such Anteceding Fault we are not therefore born either Faulty or Obnoxious to Punishment This Agreement between the Antinomian Arminian and Socinian about the Inseparableness of the Sin it self and Guilt is not only Inconsistent with the Doctrine of Original Sin but strikes at the very Root of Christ's Satisfaction A Physical Translation or Transfusion of Sin from One to another being Naturally and Spiritually Impossible there can be no Imputing the Guilt nor Inflicting the Punishment of our Sins on Christ The Links of the Chain lye thus If Christ did not endure the Punishment and suffer for our Sins he could not make Satisfaction for them If the Guilt of Sin was not Imputed the Punishment could not be Justly inflicted If the Guilt be Inseparable from the Sin it self and that Impossible to Pass from us to Christ as really it is the Guilt cannot be Imputed Thus if no Guilt be Imputed no Punishment can be by a Righteous God Inflicted if no Punishment Inflicted nor Suffering for our Sins no Satisfaction can be made And if Salvation may be without Satisfaction what need of the Incarnation of the Son of God This Assertion then that the Sin it self and Guilt are Inseparable doth not only give Advantage to the Papist by confounding Justification with Sanctification but to the Arminian in
making it Impossible for the Guilt of Adam's Sin to be Imputed unto his Posterity and to the Socinian by subverting Christ's Satisfaction necessarily driving Men either into the Horror of Despair or into Libertine Practices If Guilt be Inseparable from the Sin it self The Guilt of Sin is an External Respect of it with regard to the Sanction of the Law only This is SEPARABLE from Sin if IT WERE NOT SO no One Sinner could either be Pardoned or Saved Dr. O. of Justif ub sup so long as Sin Remains in us a Pardon which lyeth in the Removing Guilt cannot possibly be obtain'd which Fills many with Despair But if on the other hand we suppose the Pardon of Sin Possible notwithstanding Guilt is made Inseparable from the Sin it must then be Granted that when ever the Guilt is Removed and the Sin Pardoned the Sin it self is Destroyed It 's formal Nature is taken away and what Leudness soever they Commit there is no Sin in them All Sin Past Present and to Come being as they hold forgiven them there is no Sin in their Drunkenness Murder or Adultery They may do what they list they may Rob Plunder Oppress the Fatherless and Widow commit Sodomy and all the Outrages Imaginable but according to this Principle Sin they cannot than which what Greater Encouragement can there be given to Libertinism By this little we may see what Poison is within the Compass of this first Antinomian Error to wit Their making the Sin it self the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Obliquity or the Fault and Guilt to be Inseparable if not the same thing And affirming that not only the Punishment and Guilt of Sin but moreover the Sin it self was laid on Christ the worst of Popery Arminianism Socinianism and the Libertine Abominations flow from it And the other Parts of their Scheme are of the same kind as I will endeavor Particularly to Evince The Second is for Vniversal Redemption which they are Unawares led into by their holding Justification to be before Faith and their making the Preaching the Gospel necessary for the Relief of Distressed Consciences If Justification be before Faith then nor Unbelief nor any other obstinate Reigning Sin can be a Bar unto it The Absence of what follows Justification cannot hinder your being Justified for your being Justified before it necessarily infers your Justification in the Absence thereof which therefore can be no Impediment or Hindrance unto it And if on the Absence of Faith Justification is not suspended But notwithstanding the Reigning Power of Unbelief and other Lusts the Sinner is Justified what need of Preaching the Gospel Or of what Use can Gospel-Promises be to any Whether the Elect be troubled for Sin or not they are by these Men placed in a very safe State as free from Wrath as the Saint in Glory But if any such be troubled what is there in the Promise for their Comfort or what Right what Title what Interest hath any Man of a Troubled or Distressed Conscience in a Promise He knows not to whom the Promise doth belong and therefore can't say he hath any Title to it If it be said It belongs to the Elect as such this can't help him nor remove the Cause of his Sorrow He Believes it shall be well with the Elect but knows not that he is Elected He is rather afraid he is not what then must he do for Comfort Must he look into his own heart and try himself by marks and signs Must he Enquire whether he hath been convinced of Sin humbled in the sence of the Evils thereof sensible of his Lost Estate out of Christ and of a Necessity of closing with him on his own Terms No This is too much for it 's Legale and disposes Men to make a Christ of their own Righteousness Must they Repent and Believe that they may be Pardoned There are many Elect Persons who can't see they have Repented or Believed They have no Faith they are sure and how shall they be Comforted For the Comfort of these the Antinomian Declares The want of Faith can be no Bar to their Justification or Pardon that the Promise is made to Sinners as such as they are Sinners and that no one Sin or many Sins how Obstinate soever can hinder their Interest in the Promise Are they Sinners that can't be denied It 's then they say sufficient Let them come to Christ Let them Come tho' under the Reigning Power of Blasphemy and Unbelief Let them come to Christ and be Comforted Let them be but perswaded that their Sins are Pardoned and it is so for the Promise is to Sinners as Sinners and therefore to all and every Sinner This is the Duty they say of every Man to look on the Promise as made unto them that is All must believe that their Sins are Pardoned because the Promise is unto all which cannot be Unless All be Redeemed The Pardon of Sin is not given to any but such as are Redeemed If all must believe that their Sins are Pardoned because the Promise of Pardon is to all Sinners as such then all are Pardoned then all are Redeemed Thus you have the Reason why Hoornbeek charges the English Antinomian with holding Vniversal Redemption to which their Third Principle is Conform 3. That the Soul is Vnited to Christ and in Covenant with him before any Good Quality be wrought in the Heart and that it can Apply the Promise of Grace as well whilst Unregenerate as when a Believer The Promise being made to the Sinner as he is a Sinner and therefore to every Sinner he may whilst he is a Sinner apply the Promise as well as when a Believer or indeed rather better because the Promise belongs not to him as he is a Believer but as he is a Sinner and yet the Promise belonging to him as he is a Sinner he must be in Covenant for the Extent of the Promise is not nor can be any larger than that of the Covenant and being in Covenant partaking of Saving Benefits they must be United unto Christ whilst Sinners None so in Covenant with God as to be actually Interested in the special Blessings of it but such as are United unto Christ which according to this Antinomian Principle Men may be many Years before they aright believe or are Regenerated For as in their Fourth Assertion 4. Their Justification is before their Faith and their Faith followeth their Justification Thus much must be asserted or all that had been formerly said would have signified nothing as is obvious to a Common Capacity and that which is as necessary a Link in this Chain as the other is The Fifth viz. 5. That in order to our being Comforted by the Promises of Christ and making them sure and certain to us To Grieve and Repent of the Sins we have Committed from Sights of the transgressed Law and the Deserved Punishment is not necessary The Reason is manifest The Promise being made to Sinners
the Suffrage of the First-Reformers Whereas on a Diligent search 't will Appear that the Difference between them is very great the Antinomians holding Actual Justification in the Sight of God to be before Faith and the Others Deny it To Vindicate the First Reformers from this Unjust Charge I will impartially propose what they held of it and show how they have opposed the Papists Arminians and Socinians and wherein they differ from the Antinomians The Account they give of Faith is the same with what I have laid down they make it to be a Firm Perswasion wrought in the Heart of Man that his Sins are forgiven him Luther defines it thus Faith is a Firm and Certain Knowledge Fides est firma certa cogitatio seu fiducia de Deo quod per Christum sit Propitius quod per Christum Cogitet de nobis Cogitationes pacis non irae Luth. in Gen. c. 15. or Perswasion that God is propitious through Jesus Christ and that through him he hath thoughts of Peace and not of Wrath concerning us Melanchton in the First Part of his Works saith That Faith is not only a Knowledge of the Scripture History Fides significat non tantum Historiae notitiam sed FIDUCIAM miserecordiae Promissae propter filium Dei but a Perswasion of the Mercy of God Promised in and through his Son That the Knowledge of the History would terrifie and frighten us unless we fix it in our Souls That Christ is our Propitiator who will lead us to the Father To clear thus much he assures us he could Produce Authorities Innumerable And amongst many others insists on the Testimony of * Addam Bernardi Testimonium Necesse est privio omnium credere quod Remissionem Peccatorum habene possis nisi per Indulgentiam Dei sed adde ut Credas hoc quod per ipsum Peccata Te TIBI donantur Melanch Oper. Pat. 1. St. Bernard who affirms it to be necessary in the first Place to believe that the Remission of Sins is to be had only through the Mercy and Grace of God and then to Believe that the Pardon of Sin is Given to Thee Melanchton also adds That to Place Faith in a Fiducia a Perswasion or Confidence of the Mercy of God in Christ is according to the sense of the Reformed Churches That the first and chief Object of Faith is God Reconciled according to the Promise or the Promise of Reconciliation That Paul takes Faith to be that by which we so Embrace the Promise as to Believe Melanct. Oper. Pars 2. our Sins in Particular are forgiven and that we are Reconciled Calvin in his Institutions makes Faith to be a Certain and Firm Knowledge of the Mercy of God towards Vs Nunc Jacta Fidei Definitio nobis constabit si dicamus esse Divine erga nos Benenolentiae firmam certamque Cognitionem c. Instit lib. 3. c. 2. §. 7. Founded on the Truth of the Free Promise in Christ made known and sealod to our Hearts by the Holy Spirit And his Catechism Translated into English and Joyned to the Form of Prayers c. used in the English Congregation at Geneva in Queen Maries Reign hath it thus Faith is a sure Perswasion and a stedfast Knowledge of God's Tender Love towards Vs according as he hath plainly uttered in his Gospel that he will be both a Father and a Saviour unto Vs through the Means of Jesus Christ Beza thus Quaest Resp That we may Distinguish the Children of Light from the Children of Darkness we must not make Faith to lye only in that Knowledge which is Common to us and the Devils whereby we know all those Things to be True which are contained in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles But moreover in a Firm Assent of the Mind whereby we do in a very Peculiar manner so Apply the Promise of Eternal Life as if it had been Actually fulfilled More fully in his Annotations on Rom. 1.16 Faith is that certain and full Assurance by which he that believes is perswaded Fidem esse disinimus fermam illam constantem animi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est certiorationem quà certus est apud se unusquisque sidelium Promissiones Dei de Gratuitâ per Christum Reconciliatione sed etiam istas per praedicationem Sacramenta sibi oblatas CREDIT AD SE PROPRIE ac PECULIARITER pertinere Bez. in Rom. 1.16 not only that the Word of God in General and more especially the Promises of Reconciliation through Christ are firm and sure but that these Promises in the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments offer'd unto him do properly and in a peculiar manner belong unto him Faith is that by which the Promise of Eternal Life Purchased by the Blood of Christ for every one that Believeth is particularly embraced and applied to ones self Peter Martyr tho' he Defines not Faith thus Loc Com. Clas 3. c. 3. § 10. yet holds That every saving Believer is Perswaded he is by Adoption the Child of God and chosen to Eternal Life In like manner Zanchy affirms That he is not a sound Believer who is not with a strong Confidence perswaded that God is a propitious Tom. 8. Loc. 7. De fide p. 713. and merciful Father unto him Nor can he be esteemed to hope in God aright who doth not Confidently believe he is an Heir of the Heavenly Kingdom But Paraeus on the Romans saith That Faith is not only a General Assent to the Doctrine of the Gospel but a certain Knowledge Assent and Belief of the Gospel Promise concerning the Blessings procured by Christ for every Believer and therefore as belonging to me in Particular Or It is a Certain and Firm Assent unto the Doctrine of Christ with a full Perswasion of the free Pardon of our Sins Paraeâ—s in Rom. 3.21 and Eternal Life through Jesus Christ Hemingius is of the same Mind And who ever will Herping Opusc in his Enchir. Theol Clas 1 c. 12. may see in Le Blank many others making Faith to lye in a Firm Perswasion that our Sins are Forgiven Dr. Willet affirms it to have been held by Blessed Martyrs in Henry the Eighth Thes Theol. de Fid. Justif Nat. Symp. Papis Contr. 19. Part 2. Quest 2. and Queen Mary's Reigns and by the later Helvetian Saxony and Bohemian Confessions And sure I am that it is very Express in our Book of Homilies established by Act of Parliament This Notion of Justifying Faith the Lutheran and Calvinian Reformers insisted very much upon in their Opposition unto the Papists who held Faith to be but an Historical Assent And yet it must be acknowledged that Cassander offers some Considerations of great weight to Prove Consulâ— Art 4. that the Generality of the most Learned in the Church of Rome agreed with the Reformed herein Noâ— recte Protestantes Ecclesiâ—m prasâ—â—tem incusant quod doctat
more moderate judged of Amsdorffius we shall see enough to oblige us to think they meant the same thing and that the Controversie was more owing unto the mistakes and misrepresentations made of one another than to any Real Differences amongst them George Major to vindicate himself from the Charge brought against him Major in Confessione Publicè editâ Disputationibus testatus est nunquam se ita sensisse nunquam ita docuisse sed totum Justificationis nostrae negotium salutis Beneficium in solidum acceptum retulisse referre miserecordiae Divinae atque unici Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi merito idque solâ fide aâ—cipi quam bona opera ut fructus certissimi sequantur Quin imò disertè testatus est se positione illâ quâ videret aliquos offende deinceps non usurum Melch. Adam Vit. Major emits a Confession of his Faith and at Publick Disputations declares He never taught as Illyrious c. suggested nor ever held any such Doctrimes but always believ'd That the whole of our Justification and Salvation must be ascribed to the Mercy of God and Merit of Jesus Christ our only Saviour and that it is receiv'd only by Faith attended with Good Works as indubitable Fruits thereof further protesting that seeing this Proposition Good Works are necessary to Salvation was offensive he would never use it more On the other hand Kromayer mentions some excusing Amsdorffius they being of Opinion Sunt qui Amsdorffium excusant ac si bona opera perniciosa dixtrit ad salutem per accidens quatenus Fiducia in Operions collocetur Krom Theol. Pos Po. Art 12. de bon oper he held Good Works to be pernicious to Salvation only by Accident as men place their Trust and Confidence in them And adds that Amsdorffe in a Book written in the German Tongue against George Major complains of his being unrighteously reproached by Major George Major saith he so interprets me as if I had taught that Good Works are a hinderance to Salvation and a shame to a Christian God forgive him I never believed nor so much as thought that our Opinion should have been so falsly and untrully reprepresented Such ungodly words should not be mentioned or heard in a Christian Church Thus they both complain of Misrepresentation which gave little or no Relief for there being amongst 'em many Forming of Parties and Factions what he who best understands his own sense avers is not to be regarded The Accuser tho' under the Government of his Passions and knows least of his Adversary obtains the greatest Credit with the generality which occasioned Adamus to say Sed quae est hominum Credulitas ac calumniae efficacitas effugere suspicionem Doctrime diversae nunquam potnit Adeo verum est illud Calumniare Audacter semper aliquid haeret Melch Adam Vit. Maj. That such is the Credulity of most such the power of Calumny that Major could never wholly free himself from unjust suspicions So true is that saying Calumniare audacter semper aliquid haeret However tho' there were different Opinions amongst them managed with most violent Heats they were rather about words and lesser matters than about what was substantial Kromayer ubi supra as the Formula Concordiae in Kromayerus has it The first Schism amongst certain Divines was occasioned by some mens asserting Good Works to be necessary to Salvation that it 's impossible for any to be saved without them and no one ever was And others taught that Good Works were hurtful Another Schism arose amongst some about the words Necessary and Free one Party holding that the word Necessary is not to be affirm'd of our New Obedience for that is not to proceed from Necessity or Constraint but from a Free Spirit Others plead for the Retaining this word because New Obedience is not left to our pleasure to render it as we list for the Regenerate themselves are bound to New Obedience This being the true state of the several Controversies about Good Works which were held to be Necessary to Salvation by George Major to be Free by Andreas Musculus and to be Hurtful by Amsdorffius The Formula proceeds to a Decision thus We reject and condemn these following Phrases Good Works are necessary to Salvation No one was ever sav'd without them It is impossible to be saved without Good Works We do also reject and condem that most offensive Phrase as pernicious to Christian Discipline That Good Works hinder our Salvation We Believe Teachâ— and Confess Credimus docemus proficemur omnes quidem homines praecipuè vero eos qui per Spiritum Sanctum Regenerati sunt Renovati ad BONA OPERA facienda DEBITORES esse Et in hâc sententiâ vocabula illa NECESSARIVM DEBERE OPORIERE recte usuâ—pantur c. that all men more especially they who are Regenerated and Renewed by the Holy Spirit are bound to do Good Works And that in this case these words Necessary Ought Obliged are rightly used even with respect to them that are Renewed and are agreeable to the Form of sound words And yet nevertheless these words Necessity Necessary when spoken of the Regenerate must not be understood as if they imported the same with Coaction or Force but only of that Obedience which is Due to which we are Bound and Obliged which true Believers as Renewed do perform not by the Compulsion and Force of the Law but spontaneously with a Free Spirit in as much as they are no longer under the Law but Grace They condemn not the men as Embracers of Unsound Doctrine but reject and condemn the usage of some unsafe and hurtful Phrases all holding Good Works to be a Duty to which we are obliged by the holy Commandment not to be perform'd by Force and Constraint but freely not to be trusted in for our Justification or Salvation and yet springing out necessarily of a True and Lively Faith are acceptable unto God From what hath been collected out of the Writings of the first Reformers we may see that the Antinomians can find no place to shelter themselves under their shadow for tho' they asserted that Justifying Faith lay in the perswasion of the forgiveness of sin yet they did consistently enough with this Notion deny that Pardon was before Faith or that Fears and Doubts and Justifying Faith could not stand together or that a man whilst remaining under the Reigning Power of his sins could have Faith They were positive that the Justifying Act of Faith was in order of Nature as most antecedent or at least simultaneous as others with Justification that true Believers were continually conflicting with Fears and Doubts and that that Faith which was not fruitful in producing Good Works was not a Saving 't was a Devilish Faith Nor did they make it the duty of all men in the World immediately to believe their sins were pardoned But held convictions of sin arising from the Knowledge of the Law to be
Rule of the Promise is accepted Besides there is a double consideration of Faith and of Good Works There is a Faith perfected with Love and Obedience and a Faith Inchoate a bare Assent without Love and Obedience There are Works answering the Rule of Duty in every respect conform to the Commands and there are Works which tho' Imperfect may justly be denominated Good to which by the Rule of the Promise the Reward belongs Faith Perfected or which hath Love and Obedience for its Formal Reason by which alone saith St. Paul we are justified in opposition to Works is the same say these Socinians with what St. James means by Works so that the Works Paul excludes from having an Interest in our Justification are such as are conform to the Rule of Duty Vid. Crel in Rom. 8.32 Gal. 2.16 1 Cor. 1.30 and absolutely perfect The Faith St. James affirms to be insufficient for our Justification is an Imperfect Faith without Works and the Works by which St. James saith we are justified is Faith inform'd with such Works as are conform'd to the Rule of the Promise This in short is the Socinian Scheme viz. Faith is an Act of the Will having for its Essential Form Hope Love and Obedience which tho' imperfect as not fully conform to the Rule of Duty and therefore no way Meritorious yet as Answering the Law of the Reward or Rule of the Promise is perfect and is a Cause not Instrumental but sine quâ non of our Justification By this Notion they frame of Justifying Faith they make it one Moral Habit comprizing within its own nature every Good Work and when they assert Justification to be only by Faith they in doing so raise Good Works to the dignity of being a Causa sine quâ non of Justification By the word Faith they understand Trust Hope Love and Obedience and consequently to be Justified by Faith is to be Justified by our Trust Hope Love Obedience or Good Works The Arminians are of the same mind with the Socinians for in their Apology they freely declare Et sant si quis â—a quae à Socino dicuntur in bâc materiâ sine gratià sine odio expendát is velit nolit confiteri tandem cogetur eum in substantia Rei cum Reformatis consentire manente hoc solum Descrimine causam semper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exeipe Exam. Censur cap. 10. pag. 114. That whoever will impartially exaamine the Socinian Notion in this matter cannot but confess that Socinus as to the substance of this Doctrine excepting that one particular about the External Procuring Cause of our Justification holds the same with the Reformed But how boldly soever the Arminian assert an Agreement between Socinus and the Reformed their Assertion can import no more than a Free Acknowledgment that there is a Harmony between themselves and the Socinians For the Reformed who place Faith in the Will as well as in the Vnderstanding and make it to be a Work do by no means allow of its Justifying us as a Work but exclude all Works from being either an Instrumental Cause or a Causa sine quâ non or any other cause whatsoever of our Justification And they that confine Faith to the Understanding hold that Faith is not a Work and therefore cannot justifie as such whereby they effectually destroy Justification by Works and set themselves at the greatest distance from the Arminian and Socinian Errors Excellent Camero hath deliver'd the sense of them who make the Vnderstanding the only Subject of Faith with much clearness assuring us That we must abide by this that Faith is not a Work The Papists saith he think they press us with this Argument viz. seeing Faith is a Work the asserting that we are Justified by Faith can import nothing less than that we are Justified by some Work There are others who profess to abhor nothing more than this Popish Doctrine who confess That Faith is a Work but then add that it doth not Justifie as a Work But the Scriptures do always distinguish Faith from Works yea oppose Faith to Works in the matter of our Justification And the Papists themselves when they say we are Justified partly by Faith and partly by Works unless they will be guilty of a very gross absurdity must distinguish the one from the other Faith therefore is not a Work that it is called the Work of God Joh. 6.29 is only by way of Allusion as Paul Rom. 3.27 calls Faith a Law The Jews continually glorying in their Works in the Law in their Prerogatives as they were the Children of Abraham Christ in answer unto them having attributed Justification to Faith useth their own words who expecting to be Justified by Works Christ doth as it were thus speak unto them Will ye have Life by your Works then work this Work Believe in the Son of God However there is this difference between Faith and Works Faith gives nothing to God it only receives Works are an Eucharistical Sacrifice which we offer unto God Faith is the Instrument it is as the Hand of the Soul by which we receive saving Benefits from God Laying this Foundation we go on and affirm That Justification is by Faith not by Works 1. The Apostle when he doth professedly dispute of Justification he never opposes the Works of Holiness or Sanctification unto Works of the Law which undoubtedly he would have done if he had thought that any thing in our Justification must be attributed to Works His Adversaries making it their business to expose him as one who by by his Doctrine le ts loose the Reins to all manner of Licensciousness if he had thought that Justification had been by any Works whatsoever could easily have answered them by saying He denyed not Justification by Works but earnestly contended for its being by the Works of Sanctification But that he never did for healways opposed Faith to Good Works 2. All our Salvation consists in the Free-Pardon of Sin which God in the Gospel doth offer unto men not singly but so as thereby to invite them to Repentance If there had been no place for the Remission of Sin a Sinner could never entertain a thought about Repentance and in this respect would be in the same case with the Devils who Repent not because without the least hope of Pardon God therefore to take away all Dispair from men offers them the Forgiveness of Sin that is to say in his Son Jesus Christ For no Remission without a Sacrifice and no Expiatory Attoning Sacrifice besides that of Christ Now what Faculty of the Soul is that by which the Remission of Sin is Perceived None surely but Faith 'T is Faith which Believeth God who maketh the Promise Hope is that which expests the thing Promised But Charity beholding the Goodness of him who Promises in the Excellency of the Promise Loves him Whrefore seeing 't is Faith only which acquiesces in the Free Promise of God through Jesus
Christ and apprehends the Forgiveness of Sin Justification is by the Holy Ghost ascrib'd only anto Faith However by the way it must be observ'd That no one doth certainly and seriously believe the Promise made unto him but he immediately Repents of his Sin For on his believing all occasion of Dispair is taken out of the way and such is the Excellency Beauty and Glory of the Promise as to take off the Heart from the Love of the World whence it may be truly said that we are Justifyed by Faith alone and that we are Sanctifyed by Faith alone for 't is Faith that purifyeth the Heart Act. 13.9 3. The reason why God forgives the Sins of the Penitent is this namely Because satisfaction is made to Gods Justice by Jesus Christ who has purchased this Grace for us But the satisfaction of Christ cannot be apprehended by us any other way but by Faith Justification therefore must be ascribed only unto Faith So far Camero There are other Arguments which he urgeth to this very purpose But from what he hath here delivered It 's plain that Faith not being an Act of the Will is not a Work but is distinguished from it and opposed unto it and that therefore when it is said we are Justified by Faith it cannot be that we are Justified by a work That Christs satisfaction hath purchased Pardon which can be apprehended by us no otherwise than by Faith that Faith is the Instrument or as the hand of the Soul by which we receive forgiveness That tho from this Faith Hope Love and Obedience immediately slow and are inseparable yet they are no cause at all of our Justification which is enough to make it manifest that one who is far from Antinomianism may deny Faiths being an Act of the Will and confine it wholly to the Understanding For Faith Hope and Love may be distinct Graces though whilst in this Life inseparable and so long as Hope Love and Gospel Obodience are held to be inseparable from Faith there is there can be no danger in placing Faith only in the Understanding But many Advantages against the Papist Arminian and Socinian to the Exaltation of the Glory of Free Grace are hereby obtained CHAP. VII A Summary of the Principal Antinomian Errors compared with the opposite Truths The present Controversie not with the Described Antinomians The Agreement between the Contending Brethren in Substantials suggested The Conclusion THese Doctrines I have thought meet to vindicate from the unrighteous charge of Antinomianism because by a giving them up for Antinomian not only many who abhor it are accused for being Abettors of it but some important Truths which strike at the very Root of this Error are represented to be Antinomian It hath been the care of the Papist Arminian and Socinian to insinuate into the minds of Persons less studied in these Controversies as if the Orthodox Protestant had in opposition unto them run into the Antinomian Extreme and have inserted in the Catalogue of Antinomian Errors several Gospel-Truths particularly the ensuing Assertions 1. That Jesus Christ is a Second Adam a Root Person and Publick Representative with whom the Covenant of Grace is made 2. That the Guilt as well as Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ 3. That the Covenant of Grace is not Conditional in that sense the Papists hold it 4. That Faith is a certain and a full Perswasion wrought in the heart of a man through the Holy Ghost whereby he is Assured of the Mercy of God promised in Christ that his Sins are forgiven him 5. That Iustifying Faith is not an Act of the Will but of the Understanding only Tho' the Papists for some special Reasons oppose not this Notion yet the Arminians and Socinians do to the end they may bring in Works among the Causes of our Justification These Assertions are of such a Nature as do really cut the very sinews of Popery and Socinianism as I have already in part cleared and hope more fully to evince in my Second Part But by those who deviate from the Truth all but the last have been heretofore and now the last is by men more Orthodox made the Source of Antinomianism the Spring and Fountain from whence the following Conclusions do naturally and necessarily flow Thus they infer from the First That Christ must be our Delegate or Substitute who Believed Repented and Obeyed to exempt the Elect from doing either as necessary to their Pardon and Salvation Second That Christ so took our Person and Condition on him as to have the Filth and Pollution of our Sins laid on him Third That the Promise of Pardon and Salvation is made to Sinners as Sinners Fourth That the Pardon of Sin was before Faith even whilst we are in the Heighth of Iniquity and Enemies against God and Despisers of Jesus Christ Fifth That We may have Saving Faith tho' our Wills remain onchanged and obstinately set against God These are the Antinomian Errors said to flow from the above-mentioned Assertions which if once granted we shall be necessitated to acknowledge that there will be no Vse at all of the Law nor of Faith Repentante Confession of Sin c. but we may live as we list and yet be saved But we have made it plainly to appear that these Points are so far from being Antinomian that they do carry with them a Confutation of that Error That the Reader may the more clearly see the Difference there is between the one and the other I will be very particular in shewing the opposition Assertion I. That Jesus Christ is a Second Adam a Root-Person and Publick Representative with whom the Covenant of Grace is made From this Assertion it necessarily follows that Christ must have a Spiritual Seed and be the Representative of that Seed so far as Adam would have been of his if he had perfectly obeyed And it is certain that if Adam had rendred the Required Obedience his Posterity would have been not only made Righteous and derive a Holy Nature from him but be also obliged to Personal Holiness In like manner so is it with the Posterity of the Secoud Adam The utmost then that can be fairly inferred from Christ's being a Second Adam c. is That he hath a Spiritual Off-spring That they be Justified by his Righteousness derive a New Nature from him and be obliged to a Personal Obedience The Opposition Antinomian Truth 1. Christ is our Delegate or Substitute 1. Christ is a Second Adam but not our Delegate or Substitute As the First Adam was the Head and Publick Representative of his Posterity but not their Substitute or Delegate so Christ tho' a Publick Repeesentative yet not our Substitute as D. O. doth excellently well show when he saith That Christ and Believers are neither One Natural Person nor a Legal or Political Person nor any such Person as the Laws Customs or Vsages of men do know or allow of They are One Mystical Person whereof
although there may be some Imperfect Resemblances found in Natural or Political Vnions yet the Vnion from whence that Denomination is taken between Him and Vs is of that Nature and arises from such Reasons and Causes as no Personal Union among Men or the Vnion of many Persons hath any concernment in Dr. O. of Justific p. 250. 2. Christ being our Substitute or Delegate Believed and Repented for us so as to exempt us from the necessity of doing it 2. Christ did not Repent for us nor exempt us from the necessity of doing it our selves 'T is true that Christ our Surety who Satisfied and Merited to exempt us from the necessity of doing either our selves did undertake to enable the Elect to Believe Repent and Personally Obey the Holy Commandments but never undertook to exempt them from the necessity of Believing and Repenting Assertion II. That the Guilt as well as Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ We have made it clearly to appear that though the Guilt and Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ yet the Sin it self in its formal Nature the Macula or Filth of Sin was not Guilt as I have shown is a Relation which hath a Formal Sin for its Foundation The Foundation of Guilt is Sin formally considered the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Macula the Filth and Guilt the Reatus Culpae doth immediately Result from the Sin that is a transgression of the Praecept It is not then the Sin it self the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Macula the Filth that was laid on Christ but the the Guilt which resulted from it the Macula the Filth remained in us the Guilt that immediately resulted from it as it respected the Sanction of the Law was laid on Christ but this being somewhat distinct from the Moral Filth Christ remained Pure and Spotless notwithstanding 't was transferr'd over to him The Opposition Antinomian Truth 3. Sin and Guilt are the same 3. Sin and Guilt are Not the same 4. Not only the Punishment and Guilt but the Sin it self the Filth of Sin was laid on Christ 4. The Punishment and Guilt of Sin was laid on Christ but not the Sin it self its Macula or Filth In this particular the Difference is manifest And it 's plain that tho' the Antinomian blaspheme the Son of God by making him Inherently a Sinner yet they who are against the transferring the Filth of Sin on Christ are far from it for whilst They are opposing the Papist and Socinian they do most effectually Fence against Antinomianism Assertion III. That the Covenant of Grace is not Conditional in that sense the Papists hold it to be so The sense in which the Papists are for the Conditionality of Faith and Good Works hath been already stated and the Difference between the First Reformers and Modern Protestant Divines cleared All Popish Conditions that is to say All Such Conditions in us as give Right to the Reward are excluded from having any Interest in our Justification And yet Faith is made so necessary to our Justification that without it we cannot be Justified that our Justification is suspended during its absence and that Faith is an Instrumental Cause of Justification That the Promise of Pardon and Eternal Life is not made to Sinners as Sinners but it is made to them that have Faith and are in Covenant with God and only unto such The Opposition Antinomian Truth 5. That the Covenant of Grace is without All Conditions in every sense 5 The Covenant of Grace is not without Conditions in every sense for Faith is the Condition of Pardon 6. That the Promise of Pardon is to Sinners as Sinners 6. The Promise of Pardon is not to Sinners as Sinners it is only to them that have Faith and are in Covenant Thus whilst the Popish Doctrine of Merit is opposed there is wrested out of the hands of Arminians and Socinians that by which they endeavour to destroy Particular Election Christ's meriting and the Spirit 's giving the first Grace together with the glorious Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and a sufficient Provision is laid in against the Antinomian Doctrine of Vniversal Redemption Assertion IV. That Faith is a Certain and Full Perswasion wrought in the heart of Man through the Holy Ghost whereby he is Assured of the Mercy of God promised in Christ that his Sins are forgiven him By such as have not throughly enough search'd into this Controversie the First Reformers for holding this Assertion have been charg'd with Antinomianism But we have shown 't was unjustly For tho' of late years our Divines who have indeed rather describ'd than defin'd Faith and so for the help of Doubting Souls have put them on Enquiries after the constant Concomitants and inseparable Effects of Saving Faith to the end they might be help'd to well-grounded Evidences of their Interest in Christ yet the First Reformers in the ensuing Instances about Saving Faith differ'd very much from the Antinomians Opposition Antinomians First Reformers 7. Faith lieth in a confident Perswasion that my Sins were forgiven before I did believe 7. Faith tho' it lies in a Perswasion of the Forgiveness of Sins yet not that Sin was Pardoned before Faith but in the Instant of Believing 8. This Faith admits of no Doubtings 8. Faith admits of Fears and Doubtings 9. A Person may have this Faith and apply the Promise of Pardon as well whilst under the Power of Sin as after 9. No Man whilst under the Power of Sin can apply the Promise of Pardon as well as after Assertion V. That Justifying Faith is not an Act of the Will but of the Understanding only That Faith is only an Act of the Understanding hath not been embraced by Protestants universally the chief Defenders of it being Camero Amyrald and Dally However to do the New Methodists Justice that I might set forth this Controversie in its proper Light and shew how they hereby secure themselves from the Popish Arminian and Socinian Notions about Justification and how far they are from the Unjust Charge of Antinomianism I have added the foregoing Chapter The Opposition Antinomians The New Methodists 10. True Faith may be where no change of the Will is 10. Tho' Faith be not an Act of the Will yet is it not where the Will remains unchanged Here then we may see not only the Difference there is between the above-mentioned Assertions and Antinomianism but have set before us such a Scheme of the Antinomian Errors as makes the Law of no use at all But let us consider what manner of Persons would be brought within the Antinomian Verge if these Assertions were Antinomian Really the Reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster and all that drew up the Savoy Confession with the whole Body of Vnited Ministers must come in for Receiving the First Assertion the Lutherans and Calvinists for holding the Second the First Reformers generally and many Learned Protestant Divines at this time particularly Dr. Witsius Divinity Professor at Vtricht who with the greatest Respect is earnestly desired to communicate his Thoughts freely on this occasion for Defending the Third All the First Reformers for the Fourth and the New-Methodists for Propugning the Fifth and none but the Papist Arminian and Socinian would be able to escape the Slander And yet according to the best of my Judgment the chief reason why some worthy Brethren have been Reflected on as Antinomians hath been their Zeal for the first Four Assertions For they do not make Christ our Delegate or Substitute who Believed and Repented for us to the end he might exempt us from the necessity of doing either our selves Nor do they make the Filth and Guilt of Sin the same and lay them on Christ making him thereby Filthy Nor do they say that the Covenant of Grace is in every respect without Conditions or that the Promise of Pardon is to Sinners as Sinners or that Faith lieth in a Perswasion that Sin was Pardoned before we Believe or that Faith is Exclusive of the Least Fears or Doubtings or that an Elect Person can apply the Promise of Pardon to it self as well before Regeneration as after nor do they make the Law useless but do hold That in reference unto the work of Regeneration it self positively considered we may observe that ordinarily there are certain Praevious and Praeparatory works Sunt quaedam effecta interna ad Conversionem PRAEVIA quae virtute verbi spiritusque in nondum Regeneratorum cordibus excitantur qualia sunt NOTITIA VOLUNTATIS DIVINAE SENSUS PECCATI TIMOR POENAE COSITATIO de LIBERATIONE spes aliqua veniae Synod Dord Suffrag Theol. Brit. and Art 4. Thes 2. or workings in and upon the Souls of Men that are Antecedent and Dispositive unto it But yet Regeneration doth not consist in them nor can it be educed out of them This is for the Substance of it the Position of the Divines of the Church of England at the Synod of Dort I speak in this Position of them only that are Adult And the Dispositions I intend are only materially so not such as contain Grace of the same Nature as is Regeneration it self A Material Disposition is that which Disposeth and some way maketh a subject fit for the Reception of that which shall be communicated added or infused into it as its Form So Wood by dryness and a due composure is made fit and ready to admit of Firing A Formal Disposition is where one degree of the same kind disposeth the subject unto further degrees of it The former we allow not the latter So far Dr. Owen in his Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit Lib. 3. c. 3. p. 191 192. And for thus much are the Accused Brethren and on no more do the other Brethren who have been charged with favouring Arminianism insist so that in all these things so far as I understand them they mean the same thing and are in the Substance Agreed My next work is to enter on the consideration of the Arminian and Socinian Notions But this Part having swoln so big and to give a just account of these Errors and shew what is not Arminianism nor Socinianism will make the Discourse too large I am content that this Part go forth by it self which shall be followed with the other as soon as God gives opportunity to finish it FINIS