as Sinners their Comforts and Assurances must arise from the Consideration of their being Sinners and not from their Grief for Sin their Repentance or Humiliations To them as Penitent and Humbled the Promise is not but as Impenitent Unhumbled and Unbelievers and the Promise being unto them as such their Comforts and Assurances must arise from them But of what use then is the Law It is of none especially unto Believers or Regenerate Persons as is held by them in their Sixth Assertion 6. The Moral Law must not be Preached to Believers and Regenerate Persons It might have been added by them that the Preaching of the Law is of no use at all unto any For Sin and Guilt being made by them Inseparable from One another the Guilt being in Pardon Removed whil'st Unregenerate and under the Power of Unbelief there is no Sin left in them No formal Sins to Repent of which makes the Preaching of the Law to be altogether Useless unto Vnbelievers Thus Sin and Guilt being made Inseparable not only the Guilt but the Sin it self was laid on Christ and taken from the Elect and the Promise being to Sinners as Sinners all Sinners are Redeemed actually Redeemed from the Wrath to Come United unto Christ and in Covenant with him their Sins Pardoned and they Justified and may apply the Promises to themselves whil'st under the Reigning Power of Sin as well as when Believers and therefore Sorrow for Sin and Repentance arising from sights of the Law and of Deserved Punishment is not Necessary to their Comfort and that therefore the Preaching of the Moral Law is not to be allowed This is the English Antinomianism as full of Horrid Consequences naturally flowing from it as is the German and as near a kin to Libertinism as I have shown in my Remarks on their first Principle This Particular Account of the Antinomian Errors which is taken from the Reports made of them by the Greatest Adversaries to Arminianism Popery or Socinianism is as every body may see directly opposite to the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England the Westminster and Savoy Confessions the Larger and Shorter Catechisms and Undoubtedly nothing more Detested by our Reverend Brethren than these Abominations They are far from making Sin and Guilt the same the one Inseparable from the other Or of holding that the Promise of Justification or Pardon Adoption and Glory belong to Sinners as such or that all Sinners are actually in the sight of God Pardoned and Redeemed Or that the Elect quâ Elect have a secret Hidden Right to the Heavenly Inheritance for this would be to vacate the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ which is the only foundation of their Right And this they have not merely as Elect but as Christ's Seed in which sense the Covenant of Grace is made with them Besides the Right Resulting from Christ's Righteousness and made theirs as they are Christ's Seed is theirs and no otherwise than as they themselves are Christs which is after a Twofold manner Virtually or Actually All the Elect being given to Christ their Head are Christ's Virtually ever since Christ was set up to be a Head or second Adam and as such can only have a Virtual Right But when Born again Spirit of Spirit and are actual Descendents from Christ's Loins United to him by Faith then and not till then have they an actual Right to the Heavenly Inheritance This I am perswaded is the utmost our Brethren mean and is the same Truth asserted in the subscribed Propositions where it 's express 1. That the Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam and in him with all the Elect as his Seed 2. That in this Covenant of Grace Salvation by Jesus Christ is Freely offered to Sinners He requiring of them Faith as the Condition to Interest them in Himself 3. That tho' God did from all Eternity Decree to Justifie all the Elect and Christ did in the Fulness of time die for their Sins and Rise again for their Justification yet nevertheless they are not Iustified until the Holy Spirit doth in Due time actually apply Christ unto them and the Spirit Applieth to us the Redemption Purchased by Christ by working Faith in us and thereby Vniting us to Christ in our Effectual Calling 4. That we may Escape the Wrath and Curse of God Due to Vs by reason of the Transgression of the Law He Requireth of us Repentance towards God Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ That Repentance unto Life is an Evangelical Grace the Doctrine whereof is to be Preached by every Minister of the Gospel as well as that of Faith in Christ That it is of such Necessity to all Sinners that none can Expect Pardon without it 5. That the Moral Law doth for ever bind all as well Justified Persons as others to the Obedience thereof and that not only in Regard of the Matter contained in it But also in respect of the Authority of God the Creator who gave it neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way Dissolve but much Strengthen this Obligation That this Law is of great Use to Believers as well as others in that as a Rule of Life informing them of the Will of God and their Duty it Directs and Binds them to walk accordingly Discovering also the sinful Pollutions of their Nature Hearts and Lives so as Examining themselves thereby they may come to further Conviction of Humiliation for and Hatred against Sin together with a a clearer sight of the Need they have of Christ and the Perfection of his Obedience It is likewise of Use to the Regenerate to Restrain their Corruptions in that it Forbids Sin and the Threatnings of it serve to show what even their Sins Deserve and what Afflictions in this Life they may expect for them altho' Freed from the Curse thereof Threatned in the Law The Promises of it in like manner shew them God's Approbation of Obedience and what Blessings they may Expect upon the Performance thereof altho' not as Due to them by the Law as a Covenant of Works so as a Man's Doing Good and Refraining from Evil because the Law Encourageth to the one and Deterreth from the other is no Evidence of his being under the Law and not under Grace These Propositions are so directly opposite unto the Antinomian Doctrines that it 's Impossible for an Intelligent and sincere Subscriber to Approve of Autinomianism The vacating the Law and making the Preaching thereof Vseless the actual Justification of a Sinner in the sight of God before Faith and the like are in words expresly Exploded by the Assembly and ought to be witnessed against by Sound and Faithful Ministers Thus much may suffice for the clearing our Brethren from the Charge of Antinomianism whose Principles are to be Judged by their Subscriptions and not by an Inaccurate Obscure or Perplex'd Passage in a Sermon or Polemical Discourse What Antinomianism is and How Inconsistent with the Subscribed Articles and Confessions
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
love to true Holiness a hatred unto all sin and that in all things we walk worthy of the Gospel of Christ But the sense of the Reformed may be more fully seen in our Book of Homilies touching the Doctrine of Justification Serm 3d of Salvat highly approved of by the generality of the Reformed where it 's thus Now you shall hear the office and duty of a Christian-man unto God Our office is not to pass the time of this present Life unfruitfully and idly after that we are Baptized or Iustified not caring how few good works we do to the Glory of God and Profit of our Neighbours Much less is it our office after that we be once made Christ's Members to live contrary to the same making of our selves Members of the Devil walking after his Inticements and after the Suggestions of the World and the Flesh whereby we know that we do serve the World and the Devil and not God For that Faith which bringeth forth without Repentance either Evil Works or no Good Works is not a Right 〈◊〉 and Lively Faith but a Mean Devilish Counterfeit and Feigned Faith as St. Paul and St. James call it For the Right and True Christian Faith is not only to believe that Holy Scriptures are true but also to have a Sure Trust and Confidence in God's Merciful Promises to be saved from Everlasting Damnation by Christ whereof doth follow a loving heart to obey his Commandments And this true Christian Faith neither any Devil hath nor yet any Man which in the outward Profession of his Mouth and the outward Receiving of the Sacraments in coming to the Church and in all other outward Appearances seemeth to be a Christian-man and yet in his Living and Deeds showeth the contrary For how can a Man have this True Faith this Sure Trust and Confidence in God that by the Merits of Christ his sins be forgiven and be reconciled to the Favour of God and to be partaker of the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ when he iveth ungodly and denieth Christ in his Deeds Surely no such ungodly man can have this Faith and Trust in God For as they know Christ to be the only Saviour of the World so they know also that wicked men shall not enjoy the Kingdom of God They know that God Hateth Unrighteousness that he will destroy all those that speak untruly that those that have done good works which cannot be done without a Lively Faith in Christ shall come forth into the Resurrection of Life and those that have done Evil shall come unto the Resurrection of Judgment Very well they know also that to them that be contentious and to them that will not be obedient unto the Truth but will obey Unrighteousness shall come Indignation Wrath and Affliction c. These great and merciful Benefits of God if they be well considered do neither minister unto us Decasion to be Idle and to live without doing any good works neither yet stireth us by any means to do evil things But contrary-ways if we be not Desperate Persons and our hearts Harder than Stones they move us to render our selves unto God wholly with all our Will Heart Might and Power to serve him in all good Deeds obeying his Commandments during our Lives to seek in all things his Honour and Glory not our Sensual Pleasures Vain Glory evermore dreading willingly to offend such a Merciful God Loving Redeemer in Word Thought or Deed. Thus much and more to the same purpose in the Book of Homilies evincing how that the First Reformers were far from encouraging any to please themselves with hopes of Heaven whilst they remained lovers of their Pleasures more than lovers of God For as they oft declared that Justifying Faith was a lively working Faith that Faith without Repentance Love to God and a Holy Life was a Dead a Devilish Faith So altho they denied the meritoriousness of Good works yet asserted their necessity even such a necessity of their presence of their following Faith as made it certain that no Salvation could be had without them They who were offended with their being made necessary to Salvation fearing lest such an Assertion should introduce the merit of good works held good works necessary necessitate Pracepti as also necessitate Medii taking the means not for an Ethical but Physical or Mathematical middle between two extreams as the Aequator is between the two Tropicks and the Ecliptick Line in the Zodiak affirming them to use the words of Cromayer to be necessary Ante tho' not Ad salutem To give my Reader a clearer light into this matter I will acquaint him with a Controversie that disturb'd the Churches Peace soon after the Beginning of the Reformation George Major who as Melchior Adamus in his Life reports being an Intimate of Luther and Melancthon and chosen with Martin Bucer Brentius Sed cum nihit sit quod non made into pretando possit depravariâ— inâ—â—rrit Major in Grarislimam Inviâ—â—am Odium quod aliquando ut fuit Zelotis Sanctimoniae Commendator summus dixerat FIERI NON POSSE VT QVI NON STVDE ANY BONIS OP ERIBVS SALVTEM CONSEQVANTVR AETERNAM BONORVM OPERVM STVDIVM ESSE NECESSARIVM AD SALVTEM Adversarii enim ejus de quibus Antesignani suerunt Matthias Flacius Illvricus Nic. Gallus Nic. Amsdorffius pup sitionem hanc Bona Opera necessaria sunt ad salutem interpretari sunt ira quasi statutrat Major jurta Origenicam Pontiticiam Synecdochen BONA OPERA CVM FIDE MERERI REMISSIONEM PECCATORVM ESSE CAVSAM JVSTIFICATIONIS CORAM DEO Melch. Adam Viz. Geor. Major and Erhardus Snepsius to concert matters Religious at Ratisbone with Petrus Malvenda Eberbardus Billicus Johannes Hofmeisrerus and Johannes Cocklaus was a zealous Promoter of Holiness asterting that he who was not studious of good works could not obtain Eternal Life and that the study of good works was necessary to Salvation This Great Man tho' extraordinary useful in carrying on the Reformation having laid down these Assertions could not escape the Hatred the Malice and Rage of Good Men but soon feelingly knew what were the Fatal Effects of Evil Surmisings and Rash Censurings for no meaner persons than Flacius Illyricus Nicholaus Gallus and Nicholaus Amsdorffius affirmed that according to the Origenic and Popish Synecdoche Major meant nothing less than that Good Works with Faith do merit the pardon of sin and are the cause of our Justification in the sight of God In opposition unto Major Amsdorffius who with Hieronymus Schuffius a Lawyer and Justus Jonas a Divine accompanied Luther to Wormes held Good Works to be Noxious and Hurtful to our Salvation This Controversie in its first Appearances is great Milch Adam in Vit. Nich. Amsdorf and through a warm and peevish management in its Effects was very pernicious and yet if as in Charity we are bound we do but believe George Majors Solemn Protestations and Regard what the
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
that hath Truth for its Object and therefore must be in the Mind Our Lord Jesus Christ who promises Eternal Life to Faith alone defines Faith by Knowledge This is Life Eternal to know thee the Only True God c. By the Heart then in Scripture we must understand the Mind not that which Philosophers call simply Theoretick but rather the Practick Vnderstanding which the Will cannot but follow Cam. praelect de Eccles p. 214. The same Author on Matth. 18.7 hath it thus 'Faith cannot be separated from Love and yet Faith is in the Understanding the Vnderstanding therefore draws with it and necessarily leads the Will otherwise there would be no Inconsistency between a man's being a sound Believer and a most vicious person To this it may be objected That Faith at least as to some part of it is in the Will It 's not our business at this time to dispute concerning the Subject of Faith and yet without being guilty of any impertinence we may assert that Faith as to some part of it is necessarily in the Vnderstanding Now what is that part of Faith they 'll tell you 't is Knowledge But that part of Faith which doth necessarily work Love Whatever is in the Vnderstanding most certainly is Knowledge not every Knowledge but that Knowledge by which thou dost fix it in thy Soul that the thing is thine and cannot be separated from Love Nor can it be granted that any one simple Habit should be in divers Subjects They are Distinct Habits of the Understanding and Will so that the Will and Understanding are distinguished from each other In a word who can deny that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere to believe is an Act of the Mind Certainly Belief hath Truth for its Object so that he who believeth not is said to make God a Lyar c. Amyrald in the Theses Salmurienses speaking of the Subject in which the Habit of Faith inheres affirms it to be the Vnderstanding Faculty Subjectum cui Habitus Fidei innascitur atque inhaeret facultatem eam esse quae in hemine Intellectus appellatur debet esse extra controversiam apud omnes qui saltem rem istam considerant non omnino oscitanter c. Thes Salmur de Fide par pri § 15. c. This saith he should be embrac'd by all innascitur atque but controverted by none except by such as have not closely studied this Point To have Faith imports nothing else than to Believe to believe is to be perswaded of the Truth of a thing and therefore must belong to the Vnderstanding For Truth is the Object thereof and Perswasion is no otherwise than by admitting or receiving into the Mind those Reasons and Arguments by which a thing demonstrates it self to be True Nor can any other thing be gathered from the Holy Scriptures If we consult those expressions used to represent Faith unto us whether they be Proper or Metaphorical they all direct us to conclude Faith to belong to the Mind To begin with what words are proper The Object of Faith is said to be Truth the Faculty the Heart or Mind Heart in Scripture and amongst other good Authors denotes the Vnderstanding The Effect arising from Faith is Knowledge Wisdom c. The State of them who attain unto this is such that they who are in it are said to be Intelligent and Knowing and they who are in Vnbelief are Fools and Vnwise The Metaphors which import the same Notion of Faith are numberless This and much more hath Amyrald with whom many great Divines agree Spanhemius in his Exercitations about Vniversal Grace provoking his Adversary to the National Synod of Dort Synodus profitetur Sacras Scripturas testari Deum novas Qualitates Fidei Obedientiae acsensûs amo ris sui Cordibus noshis infundere Hocâ— erâ— consistere non potest si Fidei Subjectum sit tantum intellectus ut docet vir doctus in Thes suis de Fide Span. Exercit. Grat. Univers p 1675 1676. endeavours to press him with that Synods declaring ' That from the Holy Scriptures it 's clear God infuses into our Hearts the New Qualities of Faith Obedience and the Sense of his Love which cannot saith Spanhem consist with Amyrald's making the Understanding the only Seat of Faith To this the Learned Dalley in his Apology for the two National Synods namely Abenson and Chaventon in France returns this Answer 'T is true Quod ait Synodus Fidem Obedientiam sensum Amoris Dei Cordibus nostris infundi verum esse fatentur FRATRES Fides enim Menti quae Cor est sensus item Menti sentire enim Mentis est non voluntatis Obedienna partim Menti partim Voluntati quae ipsa Cor est convenit Cor vero an Intellectu distinctum sedem esse istorum omnium Spiritus donorum accusatâ—â—s dictatum est non est Synodi Decretum Dall Apol. p. 658. the Synod declares that Faith Obedience and the sense of God's Love are infused into our hearts For Faith belongs to the Vnderstanding and so doth a sense of Love to perceive a thing being the part of the Understanding not of the Will Obedience is partly in the Mind and partly in the Will which is also the Heart But that the Heart as distinct from the Mind is the Seat of the Gifts of the Spirit is the Dictate of the Accuser not a Decree of the Synod However tho' they made Faith to lie only in the Understanding yet held it to be such a Practical Assent unto Gospel Truths as effectually engaged the Will most intensely to Love Christ and this Love to be such as influenced them to receive the Lord Jesus on his own Terms and keep his Commands asserting also Faith and Love tho' distinct Graces to be Inseparable and Saving Faith to be Prolifick of Good Works so that where these were absent there the Faith was not saving so carefully did they Fence against Antinomianism Besides by this Notion of Saving Faith they kept themselves at a great distance from the Arminian and Socinian Dogmata about Justification as will appear plainly on a fairer and just proposal of their Sentiments in these Points Crellius considering Faith as conjunct with its Effects such as Hope Love and Obedience asserts it to be Justifying as thus conjoyn'd and so makes Good Works to have the same Interest in our Justification that Faith hath That Faith saith he by which we are Justified or which on our part is the nearest and only Cause of our Justification is a Firm Hope in the Divine Promises placed in God through Christ begetting Obedience to the Commands the Fiducia or Firm Hope taken properly may be the Genus of Justifying Faith but Obedience to Christ's Commands flowing from this Firm Hope may be the Form or as St. James hath it is the Life the Soul of Faith This Faith thus defin'd is that which is required as necessary to Salvation under the New
Testament Crel Ethic. Christ lib. 1. c. 5. As Crellius in his Christian Ethicks gives this account of Faith in like manner he doth the same Rom. 3.22 Gal. 2.16 Est vero Commentarius hic vivente adbuc Joanne Crellio Colleâ—a into desideratissimo à me consectus elâ—cubratus ita ut in eruendis Epistolae istius sinsibus omnis mibi cum Crellio sociata fucrit opera idque ita ut ei primas hic partes merito deferre debtam Praesat ad Lector Slichtin in Heb. c. 11. v. 1. on the Romans and Galatians and concurs with Slichtingius in his Commentary on the Hebrews in composing which he had a great hand as Slichtingius in his Preface doth ingeniously confess where it 's thus Faith if properly and strictly taken differs from Obedience and our coming unto God For Faith must be in him who seeks God before he doth it Faith more largely by a Synechdodochical Metonymy comprehends within it its Effects namely all Works of Piety and Righteousness Slichtingius John 5.24 Fides in Christum trahit secum observationem mandatorum ejus quae nisi sequatur vanam irritam esse sidem oportet on John thus Faith in Christ carries with it an observation of his Commands and without it all Faith is vain yea dead In this Faith therefore an observation of Christs Commandments is included Wolzogenius Fides duas habet partes Primarias una est Fiducia in Deum per Christum inque promissiones ejus collocata altera Obedientia ac observantia Preceptorum â—jus Wolzog Instruct ad util Lect. Lib. N. T. cap. 6. Faith hath two Principal parts the one is a Trust in God through Christ and in his Promises the other is Obedience to his Commandments Smalcius in his Refutation of Frantzius is more express Smalâ— Refut Thes de Caus peccat p. 450. Even as the Soul is the Essential Form of Man so are Works and Christian Piety the Essence and Form of Faith Trust in God through Christ may be Ratione distinguished from true Piety and Obedience but yet there is no Real difference between them Socinus himself thus * Fidei siquidem nomine ex qua Justificemur intelligit Paulus Fiduciam ejusmodi in Deo per Christum collocatam ex quâ necessariô Obedientia Praeceptorum Christi nasâ—atur quae etiam Obedientia sit tanquam forma substantia ist us Fidei Socin Lect. Sacr. in Bibl. Polon That Faith by which we are Justified according to the Apostle Paul is a Trust in God through Christ from whence Obedience to his Commandments doth necessarily flow for it is as the form and substance of this Faith Thus the Socinians distinguishing between Faith as taken properly or strictly and figuratively as largely make the first to be only a Fiducia the second which they affirm to be Justifying is comprehensive of Hope Love and Works which say they are the Essential form of a Living Justifying Faith whereby they introduce Justification by Works Not the Merit of our Works This they strenuously oppose So Wolzogenius who speaking of the Merit of our Good Works assures us That if we look closely into this matter nothing can appear to be more certain and true than that we cannot by our Good Works Merit any thing of God For he is our Creator and as such hath a right to all we can do without the proposal of any Compensation or Reward Besides it 's a Dictate of Right Reason that the Fruit belongs to him that soweth Welzog in Luc. c. 17. c. 7. and surely it is God that worketh in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure These and some other considerations he offers against the Merit of our Good Works Crel in Eph. c. 3 v. 1.11 Socin Frag. de Justific The same is done by Crellius Socinus is vehement in his opposition against all Merit which must necessarily be done by them who ascribe so much to Free Grace as to deny both the Satisfaction of Christ's Death and Merit of his Righteousness Et â—t nostram â—â—â—â—â—de â—e sâ—â—aâ— â—eâ—tâ—â—â—â—â— â—â—â—atz 〈◊〉 omnes 〈◊〉 nuiâ—â—â—â—mnino dari Meritum quemadmodum nec ipsa â—ox MERITI in tâ—to sacro Codice usquam reperitur mequicquameiaequipol ens quod ad Christum attinet non ob aliam causam dicitur Phil. 2. eum idio Exaltatum esse quòd usque ad moâ—tem obediens suerit quam quod sine isla obedientia exaltatus non fuerit Meritâ—m autem in to nullum fâ—isse hinc apparet quod Apostolus ibidem mox addit donavit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ei nomen quod est supra omne Nomen Nihil autem meâ—ito propriè accepto cum Donatione Commine est Smalc contra Franâ—z Disp 3. p. 88. That Frantzius and all others saith Smalcius may know our sense in this matter we declare against all Merit whatever for neither the word Merit or any thing signifying what is equivalent thereunto can be found in Scripture and what was said of Christ touching his Exaltation for his being obedient to the Death of the Cross imports no more than that if he had not been obedient he would not have been Exalted But that he did not Merit is manifest from the following words He gave him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name above every name for Merit and Free Gist are incompatible with each other Idâ—â— nec usquam in sacris Liteâ—is Meriti aut Mereudi â—oces mâ—â—is de Christo quam de nobis rispectu Dei usuâ—pantur ut longè praestat cum Scripturâ loqui Christi Obedientiae potius ac Morti salutem nostram tribuere quam Meritis per illud enim GRATIA Dei non tantum non obscuratur sed etiam logè magis illushatur sat per Meritum propriè dictum imminuitur tollitur Slicir in Phil. c. â— v. 9. Slichtingius on the Philippians saith That the word Merit as it is not in all the Sacred Writings attributed to Man's VVorks with respect to God so neither is it unto Chrit's Whence it 's much better with the Holy Scriptures to ascribe Salvation to Christ's Death and Obedience rather than unto his Merits for to do so doth not obscure but illustrate the Grace of God whereas Merit taken properly doth Eclipse yea Destroy Free Grace These passages may suffice to shew how much the Socinians are against the Merit of Good VVorks and yet hold our Works to be an Essential of that Faith which they say is a cause of our Justification Faith as it apprehends Christ's Righteousness for Justification they explode and by making it an Act of the Will they take within the compass of its Formal Nature Hope Love and Obedience and to bring in Good Works amongst the Causes of our Justification The Nature and Efficacy of True Faith saith Slichtingius lieth in this that it begets Love to God Who can believe he shall obtain Eternal Life if he loves his Neighbour
that will not love him But because of some difficulties it may so happen that a Man may be more discouraged with the present Labour than mov'd by future Advantages Love is therefore required with Faith as a Condition annex'd to the Divine Promise that by the fulfilling it we may attain Salvation but it 's no wonder that they who define Faith by our apprehending and applying Christ's Merit do exclude Love Slicht in 1 Cor. 13. v. 13. and in Heb. 11.6 and every other Good VVork from the Causes of our Salvation To speak accurately Faith is not the Instrumental Cause of our Justification and yet it is an Efficient not a Principal but the Causa sine quâ non of it whence it is that we are said to be Justified by Faith But this Faith under the New Testament is not as Frantzius dreams an Application of Christ's Merit but a Trust in God thro Christ whose nature is in hope of the Eternal Life promised by Jesus Christ to Obey him Disp 4. p. 103. Socin Synop. 2. Justisic So Smalcius against Erantzius As we must take heed lest we as many at this time do make Holiness of Life the Effect of our Justification in the fight of God So we must look to it that we believe not this Holiness to be our Justification Or that it is an Efficient or Impulsive Cause but only a Causa sine quâ non Our Good Works that is the Obedience we render unto Christ tho' they are not the Efficient Socin This de Justific or Meritorious Cause yet are they a Causa sine quâ non of our Justification before God and of our Eternal Salvation So far Socinus But tho' they make Justification by Faith to be the same with that by Good Works yet that they may reconcile this their Doctrine with what hath been delivered by the Apostle Paul who denieth Justification by Works they find it necessary to assert That we are in this Gospel-day under two Laws the one called the Law of Obedience or the Rule of Duty the other the Law of Reward or Punishment LEGES quae ad quodvis bene constitutum Regimen requiruntur sunt diplicis generis Primò sunt LEGES quibus praescribuntur subditis OFFICIA quomodo se quisque in suis actionibus gerere debeat seu quid cuique â—aciendum vel VVolzogenâ—us is full in delivering the Socinian sense on this Point In every well constituted Government saith he there are Laws of two sorts The first are such as shew the Subject's Duty what he must do and what he must not Omittendum sit Quae LEGES ad distinctionem caetirarum PRAECEPTA INTERDICTA vocantur Deind sunt LEGES quibus propo nuntur sidis ac morigeris sub ditis PRAEMIA pro ipsorun Obedientià ac malisivis merit paeâ—ae Haec duo LEGUN genera reperiuntur etiam iâ— Regno Christi Wolzog. In struct ad Lect. lib. N.T.c. â— These Laws to distinguish them from the other are called Praecepts and Prohibitions Then there are Laws by which Rewards are proposed to good Subjects for the Encouragement of their Obedience and Punishments threatned against the Disobedient Both these sorts of Laws or Rules are in the Kingdom of Christ Answerable to these two Laws or Rules of Duty and the Promise there is a twofold Obedience By the Rule of the Precept the highest most absolutely Perfect Obedience is injoyned By the Law of the Promise or Rule of the Reward Faith and Repentance with a certain purpose of Amendment is what entitles to the Reward Duplex dat Obedienti Prâ—eceptis Divinis prâ—standa ita duple Perfectionis consiratio Aâ—ra est utmo nunquâ— quicquam coâ—â—â—itta adversus Praecepta Dei altera est at in nullo ullius Peccati habitu haer Islam priorem c. Smalc contr Frantz Disp 12. p. 427. There is saith Salmâ—cius a two-fold Obedience and a double consideration of Perfection The first is that we never transgress or deviate from God's Commands The other is that no one Habit of Sin remain in us The first sort of Obedience we do not think necessary to Salvation it being sufficient if there be always a Tendency towards it The other is necessary to Salvation and its observance possible That God in distributing Rewards observes another Rule than that of the Praecept even that of the Promise which contains a Grant of the Reward to him who is upright in heart VVolzogenius doth in the plainest Terms affirm Christ saith he is our King but so that as all other Kings ought to be he is at the same time our Father and Faithful Pastor His Promises are limited by certain Conditions and yet these Conditions are not over Rigidly insisted on in those cases where somewhat of Ignorance or other Infirmity intervenes The Promise of Eternal Life Requires an Observation of his Commands but he knowing our Frailties will not impute to us our daily sins if so be there remains in us an Vpright Heart and True Repentance Walzog Instr ad util Lect. lib. N.T. c. 6. and a certain Purpose of Amendment By this Distinction they endeavour to Reconcile Paul and James Tho' Paul saith Socinus affirms That we are justified by Faith and not by the VVorks of the Law and James That we are not justified by Faith alone but by VVorks yet on an explication of the words Faith and Works the Agreement between them will be made manifest For Paul doth mean by Faith such a Trust in God through Christ as necessarily begets Obedience to his Commandments an Obedience that is as the Form and Substance of Faith and by Works he understands a Perfect Obserservance of the Divine Law and all its Praecepts By which because of the weakness of our Flesh none can be justified James by Faith means such an Assent as is imperfect and without Good Works and by Works not the most perfect but that Obedience only which is necessarily required of us that we may appear Just before him And accordingly Paul declares that we are not justified by those VVorks which are in all respects conform to the Law but by a Faith informed by Obedience James we are not justified by a Faith void of Good VVorks but by VVorks which tho' they are not most perfect yet are such as may be justly denominated Obedience or Good VVorks To this Effect Socinus doth oft express himself Lect. Sacr. Fragment de Justif. which compared with what I have taken out of VVolzogenius and Smalcius is as if it had been said That we must distinguish between the Law of Pracepts or the Rule of Duty and the Law of Rewards or Rule of the Promise That by the Law as it is the Rule of Duty Perfection in the strictest sense as exclusive of the least Dissonancy from the Command is required But by the Law of the Rewaerd or Rule of the Promise that Obedience which is with a sincere and upright heart answering the
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
Places throughout the Holy Scriptures asserted to admit of a Denial But Christ could not justly suffer for our Sins unless in a sound sence he bore the Guilt of them To Punish the Innocent as Innocent is Injustice Jesus Christ therefore tho' Innocent in himself voluntarily becoming our Surety took on him the Guilt of Sin and suffer'd Justly because as being Guilty To clear this is the Difficulty and many in the Attempt fall into dangerous Mistakes They who make Sin and Guilt the same thing by asserting the Guilt to be laid on Christ Quantum in se do make Christ Inherently a Sinner which is Antinomianism and they who say the Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ but not the Guilt give up the Cause to the Socicinian For if not the Guilt then nor the Punishment whence no Satisfaction The Guilt lyeth between the Sin and its Punishment It is an Obnoxiousness unto Punishment for Sin which as it Results from the Sin or Fault is called the Guilt of the Fault But as it respects the Punishment being an Obligation thereunto 't is Guilt of Punishment This Guilt is not Intrinsick to the Sin The Sin is Entire without it It is only an External respect of it to the Sanction of the Law and Separable from the Sin it self the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that tho' the Sin Remain in us the Guilt Passeth from us to Christ The Entire Nature of Sin lyeth in a Respect unto the Preceptive Part of the Law being as hath been already Observed a Transgression or a Want of Conformity unto it The Sin is in its Formal Nature Entire without any Regard to the Sanction From this Sin as it respects the Threatning Results Guilt which is an Obnoxiousness unto Punishment or the Dignitas Paenae propter Culpam and is Extrinsick to the Sin separable from it and may be laid on him who never transgress'd the Commandment Nor can it morally Defile or Pollute the Person on whom it is laid Christ therefore tho' in him there was no Sin might bear the Guilt of our Sins and nevertheless remain Pure Harmless Vndefiled and without Spot which is sufficient to Vindicate this Doctrine from Antinomianism and those other Absurdities that flow from the making Sin and Guilt the same thing and yet hold it to have been laid on Christ What I have here deliver'd amounts to no more than what is carried in that Common Distinction of our Sins being laid on Christ not Inherently but by Imputation If the Sin in its formal Nature had been on Christ there would have been Ground enough for that Charge of Blasphemous Consequences which Bellarmine and the Socinians load us with That would indeed be to make Christ Inherently a Sinner â—ay Filius Diaboli But to deny this and affirm that Christ was made Sin Duly by Imputation that is by the laying the Guilt of our Sins not only the Punishment but the Guilt on him is consistent with his Freedom from all Moral Filth or Defilement and is necessary to Defend the Gospel Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction against the Socinian for Kromayer Theol. Pol. Pos Art xi De Justif p. 631. as KROMAYERUS well expresses it Absque Peccatorum Imputatione Paenarum Perpessione Satisfactionem hic nullam cogitariposse CHAP. IV. What Antinomianism is not in some other Instances Cleared To Deny the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace not Antinomian The State of this Controversie as managed by the Papists and First Reformers The sence of the Arminians and Socinians about Condition Faith a Condition Asserted In what sence IT is not Antinomianism to Deny the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace There is not it may be any one Point in the Body of Divinity of greater Difficulty than this about the Covenant of Grace and its Conditionality They that search deeply into the many Controversies agitated between us the Papist Arminian Socinian and Antinomian will find that the most Important Parts of it Turn on this Hinge The Papist Arminian and Socinian cannot see how the Covenant of Grace could be made with Jesus Christ as a Second Adam and with the Elect as his Seed which is One Reason of their many Mistakes And the Antinomian fixeth his thoughts so very much on the Covenant of Grace's being made with Christ that there is no Room left him to Consider how it can be made also with his Seed which occasions their Asserting That Christ perform'd the whole requir'd of us in order to our being actually Interested in him and his Benefits as well as make Satisfaction by his Sufferings and Merit by his Righteousness for them that Believe That Christ Believed and Repented for us as if there had been no other Reason for our Doing either than to Obtain the Knowledge of our having what actually was ours whilst under the Power of Unbelief and Impenitency But it not being my Province to enter on a Large Debate of these things I will only show that there are such Senses in which the word Condition is used by the Papists Arminian and Socinian as do Confound Gospel Grace with the Law of Works and establish Merit Destroy the Doctrine of the Spirits working the First Grace and subvert Christ's satisfaction and so make it Evident That One who Detests Antinomianism may yet Deny the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace If the word Condition when spoken of the Two Covenants namely of Works and Grace be taken in the same sence in both the one will be Confounded with the other To Evince thus much I will show the Import of the Condition of the Covenant of Works and how it agrees with the Popish Doctrine of Merit and leave it to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader to consider the Truth of my Assertion The Condition of the Covenant of Works is ea res quae Praestita dat Jus ad Praemium It is that Obedience to which the Promise was made and from the Performance of which a Right to the Reward immediately Results and for which in Justice it is due This Condition being Perfect Obedience was to a Law enforc'd with Rewards and Punishments which Obedience the Reward becoming due to it ex Justitia is Meritorious And as on the Rendring the Required Obedience the Reward is Justly Due so seeing the Performance of the Condition is the same with the Render of Perfect Obedience the Blessing Promised is thereon Justly due unto it and the Performing the Condition is meritorious for Merit is nothing but that Actio quâ Justum est ut Agenti aliquid Detur There is much much variety I must confess amongst the Papists in stating their Doctrine of Merit but the Prevailing Opinion is Meritum Mercâ—s ad Idem referuntur Tho. 1 a 2. e. Q. 114. Art 1. That Merit and Reward Essentially Respect one another That Merit is a Good Work freely done Exhibitio at MERITI Redditio MERCEDIS actus ad alterum sunt secundum aqualitatem Rei
ad Rem scil Meriti ad Mercedem è converso Cajet in Loc. to which some Reward as a certain Price is Justly Due that between the Merit and the Reward there is some sort of Equality Meritum est opus bonum liberum cui ex-justitia Merces Debetur Medin in Loc. Thus Aquinas Cajetan Medina and Gregory de Valentia The Reward Gregory de Valentia hath it thus Per aliquem Justitiae modum aliquo munere Compensari à Deo deveat In Tho. Disp 8. Quaest 6. Punct 1. being made ex justitia Due Merit of Congruity is denied to be Merit in a Proper sence So Gregory de Valentia Merit of Congruity is but Improperly Merit Meritum improprie dictum vocatur Meritum de Congruo Val. ubi sup The Distinction of Merit into that of Congruity Aliqui Scholasticorum Meritum de Congruo prorsus Rejiciunt tanquam id quod Meritum dici nequaquam meretur Propterea quod idi neque ex dignitate sua neque ex Lège debetur Praemium sed ex sola congruitate gratis acceptatur ad Praemium Alfons à Castro de Haeresib Lib. XI in Verb. Opera Haeres 4. and Condignity is not saith Alfonsus à Castro held by all the Schoolmen for some Reject Merit of Congruity as what can by no means be truly called Merit because in this instance the Reward is not Due either from any worth in the Work it self nor made Due by the Law but only from a mere Congruity or Condecence Alterum Meritum de Congruo Proprie non habet rationem Meriti sid tantum cujusdem Congruentiae ac proinde non est necesse de to Disputare Nihil enim ceril de eo affirmare possumus Sic enim videri potest NOBIS congruum conveniens ut Deus hoc vel illud praeslet huic vel ini homini Ita è contrario non defunt DEO Rationes congruentes cur id nolit Praestare quod alioqui apparet Congruum ut Praestet Becan Opusc Theol. Opusc 7. cap. 3. P. inibi 203. a Reward is freely given Becanus affirms the same for as he words it The Reward doth not certainly belong to him who is said thus to Merit for tho' it appears to Vs very Congruous for God to Reward this or the other Person for this or the other thing yet on the contrary there are Reasons Congruous to God for his Not Rewarding them But that the Work may be Properly Meritorious and the Reward be Justly due to it It must be Eree not Forced Forced acts being more Brutal than Rational can 't Please God It must be a Work done in Obedience to God's Law by One that is in via and Reconcil'd unto God All others being full of Sin can Merit nothing but Punishment whence the Meritorious Work must flow from Grace which is freely bestowed and not merely from the Intrinsick virtue of the Work it self but from the Ordination and Promise of God The Schoolmen Generally Distinguish Merit ex Justitia into that which is De Rigore Justitiae and what is ex Condigno Sanctae Clara Scio enim viros Theologos Eckium Marsilium apud Vegam Q 4. Et Bellarminum alios negare Omne metitum de Condigno licet concedant de Digno respectu Beatitudinis Sancta Clar. Dues Nat. Grat. Prob. 18. de Merit p. 113. indeed saith That Eckius and Marsilius in Vega as also Bellarmine with some others Deny Merit de Condigno holding a Merit only ex Digno Not to trouble our selves with these Niceties I must observe that whatever Arriaga suggests to the contrary Merit ex rigore Justitiae is what ariseth from the Work it self Meritum de Rigore Justitiae est quod non innititur gratiae aut Miserecordiae sed habet valorem ex sese ex Persona offerente quale est Meritum Christi Medin in Prim. Sec. Q 114. Art 3. and Worth of the Person that doth it and not from God's Gracious and Merciful Acceptance This They Assign to Christ alone So Medina Sancta Clara who gives us the sense of the Scotists speaks much to the same purpose Meritum quidem Christi potest dici Meritum ex Justitia ratione Personae offerentis sic non innitebatur Gratiae acceptantis sed dignitati suae personae rei Oblatae secus autem valde est in nobis ubi ex parte personae rei Oblatae SVMMA PAVPERTAS si excludas Dei Promissionem acceptationis vel Pactionem Retributionis Santc Clar. Ubi sup The Merit of Christ says he may be called Merit Ex Justitia because of the Excellency of the Person offering it whereby it doth not Depend so much on the Grace of God accepting it as on the worth of his Person It 's much otherwise with us whose Persons and Works considered in themselves abstract from the Promise of a Gracious Acceptance and the Covenant of Retribution are Poverty it self Alfonsus de Castro and Gregory de Valentia delivering the Sense of the Church of Rome with much Clearness and Candor I will to find out their Genuine sense if possible Give what they write of it Si Lutherus accipit meritum pro tali opere quod ex sua natura ex se ipso aequale est Praemio certe illius sententia non est de errore notanda quoniam non est aliquod opus nostrum ex se tal◠quod aequari possit Gloriae aeternae Alfon. à Castro Avers Haeres Lib. X. p. 23. If Luther saith Alfonsus takes Merit for such a Work as in its own Nature and of it self is Equal with the Reward and in that sense Denies it He is not to be blamed For there is no Work of ours that can thus be Equal with the Eternal Glory For as the Apostle I Reckon Si nostra opera sint ex se indigna Gloria nos per illa nullum ius habere poteramus ad Gloriam Aeternam tamen quia Misericors Deus Promisit servanti mandata sua post talem Promissionem DEBET Deus dare gloriam Quod Débitum in Deo non Oritur ex nostris Operibus sed ex Benignâ ejus voluntate qui Promittens nobis seipsum obligare voluit non dicimus Deum Obligari aut esse Debitorem nostris Operibus sed cum Obligari EX PROMISSIONE SVA esse DEBITOREM PROMISSIONI SVAE Quod a. Promisit ipse simpliciter absolute Tribuendum est GRATIAE De Cast ub sup that the Sufferings of this Present Life are not to be compared with the Glory which shall be Revealed in us But Merit is not always taken to Import such an Equality and Natural Obligation In the case before us it Denotes only such an Equality as arises from an Agreement Compact or Covenant on which account that Work which before was not Equal with the Reward now is made so And what was not a Debt before is made a Debt which Debt in
God doth not arise from our Works from any Dignity in them But from the Benignity of God who making Gracious Promises Obligeth himself whereby he is indebted not to us but to his Promise This Promise is Simply and Absolutely to be Ascribed to his Grace Satis est ut Praemium Debitum sit EX LEGE Nam Lex potest facere paria quae ex naturâ suâ erant Imparia Lex naturae docet ut omne Promissum fit Debitum The Reward is not always made a Debt by the Nature of the Works it being sufficient if made Due by the Law And the Law can make those things Equal which in their own Nature were not so The Law of Nature teacheth us that Every Promise is a Debt whence it comes to pass that by the Promise those things which were in themselves Unequal are made Equal We are not so Ignorant nor so much Elated in our Conceit Data hâc Promissione sacta nobiscum Conventione Opera hona hominis cum Adjutorio Gratiae Dei siunt Digna vitae aeternae illi aequilia quae seclusa illa Dei promissione fuissent tanto Praemio Indigna Et haec fuit illa suprema Dei Misericordia à qua pendet totum meritum nostrum c. De Castro ubi sup in Verb. Opera Lib. XI as to Equalize the Intrinsick Value of our Works which are most Inconsiderable with the Transcending Excellency and Immense Worth of the Heavenly Glory It is from the Promise and the Covenant made with us that our Works which we are Enabled through the Grace of God to Perform that makes them worthy of Eternal Life which separated from the Promise would be altogether Unworthy We are therefore wholly owing to the Unspeakable Mercy of God for our Merit that he hath made so Glorious a Display of his Grace in this That when he Owed us nothing he did of his abundant Goodness to Enrich us make himself a Debter Nor let any calumniate us as if we Detracted from the Merit of our Blessed Redeemer Quod a homines bona illorum Opera sint Deo Grata ad vitam aeternam acceptata hoc habent ex MERITO CHRISTI qui pro illis Passionem mortem suam Deo Patri Obtulit pro illis omnibus quos scivit esse ad gloriam Praedestinatos oravit Vb. sup None but they who understand not our Doctrine can talk after this Rate We have oft Declared It is not of our selves that our Good Works Merit Eternal Life But we and our Works are Rais'd to this Dignity merely through the Divine Clemency by which he Promises to them who Obey him Eternal Life And that they are thus Rais'd is through the Merit of Christ who offered himself a Sacrifice and Prayed Earnestly for all them he knew were Predestinated to Eternal Life From this therefore as from the Chief and Principal Merit all Grace and Glory is Derived and from this it is that Just Men and their Works are freely Ordinated to Eternal Life De solo Merito ex Condigno lequimur Alfons de Cast Vb. sup This and much more hath Alfonsus de Castro about Merit de Condigno which is highly applauded by Gregory de Valentia whose Endeavours are to Raise it to a Merit by the Rule of Commutative Justice Not that he thinks our Good Works have any such Intrinsick worth in them as Equalizes them with Eternal Glory for he grounds that on the Gracious Ordination and Promise of God as the Papists generally do and illustrates it thus Ac possumus hoc totum Exemplo facili declarare Nam si Pecunia jussis Principis fiat ex vili aliquâ—â—â—ateria quae Vid. ex Naturâ sua considerata non tantum valeat quantum Res quae pro illa sunt Commutandae tunc quidem si Pecunia haec absolute sint Respectu ad Principis Constitutionem Consideretur certum est Eam secundum justitiae Commutativae Rationem non esse Equalèm iis Rebus quas potest aliquis pro Eâ Consâ—qui bene autem si Consideretur ut substat Constitutioni Legi Principis qua decretum est ut qui hujusmodi Pecuniam exhibuâ—rit Consequatur Res Necessarias secundum factam Pecuniae taxam Nam si hac Ratione Consideretur hujusmodi Pecunia tanti merito aestimabitur quanti Res ipsae quae pen Eam Comparari possunt Ita prorsus se habet Res in proposito Nam sibonum opus Justi consideres praecisè ex se non est aequale Gloriae Si autem ut substat divinae Pronissioni ob quam per illud certo potest Comparari Gloria tanti potest aestimari quanti illa atque eatenus est aequale Gloriae Greg. de Valen. p. 1275. Suppose a Prince by his Ordinance puts an Extraordinary Value on Money of a base Alloy by this means tho' the Money in it self and abstract from the Regal Constitution falls very short of the thing for which 't is Commuted yet by Virtue of the Royal Ordinance it 's made of Equal Price with it and so it must pass in Bargains by the Rules of Commutative Justice The same he saith of Good Works which considered in themselves separate from the Divine Ordination and Promise are not to be compared with the Glory yet having so great a Value put upon them by God's Ordination they are after a sort made Equal with Eternal Life and Merit according to Commutative Justice To Improve what is taken out of these Popish Writers about Merit of Condignity it must be observ'd 1. That altho' the Reward Infinitely excel the Work in its own Nature considered and that the Promise be simply and absolutely Free and it is Impossible for a Just Man to do the good Work without the Help of God's Grace yet the Work thus done may be Meritorious ex Condigno All these things they allow and yet make good Works Meritorious 2. That this Merit lying in a Duness of the Reward to the good Work ex Justitia it is founded in the Promise We are say they under a Law which has not only a Preceptive but a Promisory Part whence because of the Connexion there is between Obedience to the Precept and the Promise a Right to the Reward immediately Results from the Obedience or good Work The good Work gives Right to the Reward that is it Merits the Reward and the Reward is justly due for that Obedience But here they are at a Plunge how to state this Matter so as to make the Reward due ex Justitia the Promise as a single Promise being insufficient for their Purpose Dices si Actus Meritorius est talis solum Promissione Divine seu ejus acceptatione ergo non ex justitia sed ex fidelitate praemiabitur Quod est Contra Definitionem Meriti de Condigno Respondeo quod adimpletio Promissionis nudae est solum Actus Fidelitatis adimpletio vero Promissionis quae habet Naturam
Pacti id est ubi à Promissario exigitur Conditio ficut inter Dominum servum ubi Dominus promittit stipendium ex Conditione servitutis adimpleuio illius Promissi est ex justitia Sic in Casâ— Sancta Clar. Deus Nat. Grat. p. 111. The Objection that lyeth against them is this If the Meritorious Act be so only from the Divine Promise or God's Gracious Acceptation then the Reward cannot be ex Justitiâ the good Work may be done and God not oblig'd in Justice to give the Reward The utmost that can be said is this God in Faithfulness is bound by his Promise to Reward the Doer but not in Justice and yet unless God be in Justice bound the Work cannot be meritorious ex Condigno To this Objection their Answer as I find it in Sancta Clara is that the fulfilling a Naked Promise is only an Act of Fidelity and Faithfulness But the fulfilling a Covenant Promise which is made on Condition as between a Master and Servant where the Master Promises a Reward on Condition of such a Service here for the Master to fulfil the Promise to his Servant on his Performing the Condition is an Act of Justice which is say they our Case Thus to make good Works meritorious they assert a Law with a Promise making the Dignity of the Work to lean on the Promise And that the Reward may be Due ex justitia the Law is turn'd into a Covenant where Obedience to the Preceptive Part is made the Condition that giveth Right to the Reward So that it is that Conditionality of the Covenant on which the Merit of Condignity is Founded All which is undoubtedly true of the Covenant given Adam For if he had but rendred the Perfect Obedience required by the Preceptive Part of the Law or which is the same if he had Perform'd the Condition of that Covenant made with him it would have given him a Right to the Reward it would have been in Justice due to him that is he would have merited it Ex Condigno Tho' his Temporary Obedience fell infinitely short of the Reward of Eternal Life yet because of the Promise made on a Covenant-Condition giving Right the Reward on his performing the Condition would have been Due to him ex justitia i. e. he would have merited it Ex Condigno In like manner if the word Condition when assign'd to the Covenant of Grace be taken in this sense viz. for that thing which being Perform'd gives Right to the Reward the Covenant of Grace is Confounded with that of Works and Merit of Condignity effectually established 'T is Confounded with the Covenant of Works and made a Covenant of the same kind with it for in both as there is a Precept enjoyning Duty and a Promise of Reward even so notwithstanding the Work falls infinitely short of the Reward yet the Reward being Promised on a Condition giving Right A Right unto it Results from the Performance of the Condition and the Reward is due ex justitia and so Merit of Condignity is also established Nor can it signifie any thing to say we exclude all Merit from our Good Works by ascribing all to the Grace of God enabling us and nothing to our own Strength making their Rewardableness to Lean on the Ordination and Promise of God That Grace is necessary to Merit the Papists industriously endeavor to Prove Gertum ex side est saith Gregory de Valentia Meritum Condignum esse Proprium effectum Gratiae Probatur 1. ex Script ad Rom. 6. Gratia Dei vita aeterna Vbi non est sensus Vitam aeternam dari GRATIS sed dari eam pro meritis quae contulit GRATIA Sine me nihil potestis facere Possemus enim sine aliquid facere si vitam aeternam promereri valeremus non insiti per gratiam Christo tanquam viti Palmites ut ipse ibi Loquitur Valent. ubi sup Suuâ—ma igitur est quod actus meâ—is dicitur meritorius quia elicitus seu Imperatus à Gratia ex Pactione Divina acceptatus ad Praemium unde ipsa acceptatio est Intrinsâ—â—a actui Sanct. Clar. ubâ— sup For the Papists make all these Necessary to Merit ex Condigno affirming That unless the Work proceed from Grace it cannot be meritorious of Eternal Life and that they give not any Dignity to their Good Works but acknowledge that in themselves considered and Precise as separate from the Ordination of God they are of no worth that their Rewardableness is founded on the Promise In these things lye the very Nature of Merit for which reason to deny our Works to be meritorious because their Rewardableness is founded on the Promise it is as if you would deny Peter to be a Man because he is a Rational Creature This being the Doctrine held by the Papists about Merit one Great Point Controverted between them and first Reformers Si quis hominem Justificatum dixerit non teneri ad Observatiam mandatorum Dei Ecclesiae sed tantum ad Credendum quasi vero Evangethum sit nuda absoluta Promissio vitae aeternae sine Conditione Observationis Mandatorum Anathema sit Concil Trid. Sâ—ss 6. Can. 20. was about Our Works being a Condition of Eternal Life and accordingly in the Council of Trent it 's Decreed with an Anathema That if any hold we are not bound to Observe the Laws of God and the Church but only to Believe as if the Gospel was but a Naked and Absolute Promise of Eternal Life without a Condition of Observing the Commands Let him be Accursed In the Scholia of the Reformed on this Canon as Lucas Osiander Represents it Epit. Hist Eccles ub sup their sense is manifest for say they The Assertion of the Council that the Gospel is a Promise of Eternal Life on Condition of keeping the Commands is altogether False the Gospel Promise of Eternal Life leans not on a Condition of keeping the Commands But Requires Faith whereby we lay hold on the Mercy of God offered to us If that Promise lean on such a Condition no Christian can be certain of his Salvation Calvin on this very Canon is Positive That the Apostles Placing the Difference between the Law and the Gospel is this Antidotum in Conc. Trid. that the Gospel doth not Promise Eternal Life on the Condition of Works as the Law did but to Faith is a standing Truth that can never be shaken What can be more clear than this Antithesis The Righteousness of the Law is such That the man that doeth these things shall live in them Rom. 10.5 But the Righteousness of Faith is after this manner Rom. 4.14 He that Believeth c. To the same Purpose is that other place If the Inheritance be of the Law then is your Faith Vain and the Promise of no Effect therefore it is of Faith that of Grace the Promise may abide Firm to every one who believeth I might give many Authorities more
non which leaves us at as great an Uncertainty as to the Nature and Efficacy of this Condition as we were before Nor is the true sense of things at all Illustrated but rather darkned by such Notions Conditio in the best Latine Writers is variously used answering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek That is Status Fortuna Dignitas Causa Pactum initum In which of their Significations it is here to be understood is not easie to be determined In common use among us it sometimes denotes the State and Quality of Men that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes a valuable Consideration of what is to be done that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But herein it is applied unto things in great variety sometimes the Principal-Procuring-Purchasing-Cause is so expressed As the Condition whereon a Man lends another an Hundred Pound is that he be Paid it again with Interest The Condition whereon a Man conveyeth his Land unto another is that he Receive so much Money for it And sometimes it signifies such things as are added to the Principal Cause whereon its Operation is suspended As a man bequeaths an Hundred Pound unto another on Condition that he come or go to such a Place and Demand it This is no valuable Consideration yet is the Effect of the Principal Cause or the Will of the Testator suspended thereon And as unto degrees of Respect unto that whereof any thing is a Condition as to Purchase Procurement Valuable Consideration necessary Presence the Variety is Endless We therefore cannot obtain a determinate sense of this word Condition but from a particular Declaration of what is intended by it wherever it is used And although this be not sufficient to exclude the use of it from the Declaration of the way and manner how we are justified by Faith yet it is so to exclude the Imposition of any Precise signification of it any other than is given it by the Matter treated of Without this every thing is left Ambiguous and uncertain whereunto it is Applied For Instance It is commonly said That Faith and New Obedience are the Condition of the New Covenant But yet because of the Ambiguous signification and various use of that Tern Condition we cannot certainly understand what is intended in the Assertion If no more be intended but that God in and by the New Covenant doth Indispensably require these things of us that is the Restipulation of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead in order unto his own Glory and our full Enjoyment of all he Benefits of it it is Unquestionably true But if it be intended that they are such a Condition of the Covenant as to be by us perform'd antecedently unto the Participation of any Grace Mercy or Priviledge of it so as that they should be the Consideration and Procuring Causes of them that they should be all of them as some speak the Reward of our Faith and Obedience it is most false and not only contrary to express Testimonies of Scripture but Destructive of the Nature of the Covenant it self If it be intended that these things tho' promised in the Covenant and wrought in by the Grace of God are yet Duties Required of us in order unto the Participation and Enjoyment of the full End of the Covenant in Glory it is the Truth which is asserted But if it be said that Faith and New Obedience that is Works of Righteousness which we do are so the Condition of the Covenant as that whatever the one is ordained of God as the means of and in order to such or such an End as Justification that the other is likewise ordained unto the same End with the same kind of Efficiency Dr. O. Of. Justific or with the same Respect unto the Effect it is expresly contrary to the whole Scope and Express Design of the Apostle on that Subject But notwithstanding the various senses the word Condition is Capable of and how mischievous soever the Popish Arminian and Socinian Usages of it are there is a Sound Sense in which the Word may be used Relativa Quis Qui Quae Quod Juncta verbo futuri temporis faciunt suum Antecedens ' Conditionale Ot. Phil. Zepper Cynos Legal That Faith is a Condition if we may in our Interpreting of Scripture observe the Rules of the Juncts is as certain as if it had been expresly mention'd in the Holy Scriptures These words He that believes shall be saved Import a Condition For Relativum junctum Verbo futuri temporis conditionem facit which our Modern Divines who Reject the above-mentioned Errors do yet approve but in what Sense is our Business at this time to Explain Condition then may be Distributed into Legall and Gospel or Testamentary A Legall Condition is Obedience to the Preceptive Part of a Law giving Right to the Reward such was that of the Covenant of Works made with Adam and of this sort are the Popish Arminian and Socinian Conditions A Gospel Condition is of the same Kind with what Peculiarly belongs to Testamentary Disposition It is say the Civilians Lex Negotio apposita unde Ipsius Eventus pendet Or Lex addita negotio quae donec praestetur suspendit Eventum Which says Dr. Owen signifies such things as are added to the Principal Cause whereon its Operation is suspended As a man bequeaths an Hundred Pound unto another on Condition that he come or go to such a Place and Demand it This is no Valuable Consideration yet is the Effect of the Principal Cause or the Will of the Testator suspended thereupon To understand this Testamentary Condition we must consider that there is a Principal Cause whose Operation is suspended till a Rule added thereunto be observed There is the Promise or Donation of a Legacy which must be given according to the last Will of the Testator But to this Promise or Donation there is added a Rule that must be Regarded viz. That this Legacy be given either in such a time or Place or in such a way or manner This is the Lex addita Negotio that must be observed before the Legacy be actually given It is the Condition which till Perform'd suspends the Event namely the giving of the Legacy And as the Learned Mr. Baxter explains it 't is only the Modus Promissionis Donationis Cath. Thiol lib. 2. p. 248. vel Contractus where the fulfilling of the Promise is as Really suspended until this Modus be observed as if it had Resulted from the Observation of it Dispositio enim facta sub Conditione vel modo nibil valet nisi Conditio Nodus adimpleatur Nunquam â—nim actio in Essictu competit nisiprius oblat â praeslit â Cautione de made adimplendo quia alias locum habet Exceptio doli Mode deficiente extinguatur debitum perinde ac si deficeret Conditio Or. Phil. Zepper Cynos Legal A Disposition made on Condition or
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