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
that are whole need not a Physician 26. And seeing Christ came not to destroy but to fulfil the Law he came in vain if there be no Law to be fulfill'd in us 27. And it being the Law of God that Requires our Obedience towards Him those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those Fighters against the Law do thereby take away that Obedience which is due to God 28. From whence it is manifest that Satan by these his Instruments doth but Verbally teach that there is Sin Repentance or a Christ 29. But in good Earnest they deny Christ Repentance Sin all the Scriptures together with God their Author 30. And do more effectually than ever Epicurus Himself settle Men in a most Pestilential Security Contempt of God Confidence of Impunity and in Perpetual Impenitence 36. Take away therefore but the Law and we are free from Sin and need not a Mediator 39. To hold that it is not the Work of the Law to Convince of Sin to Condemnation is Notorious Madness 40. For this is the Strength of Sin as Paul affirms That Sin is the Sting of Death and the Law the Strength of Sin 41. Let us therefore Eat and Drink and according to the Doctrine of these Men say Let him Perish that careth for the things of to Morrow 42. For Take away the Law the Strength of Sin Death and Hell will cease to be 44. All therefore that they viz. the Antinomians say of Sin Repentance Christ and Pardon are Abominable Lies worthy of none so much as of the Devil himself The Third Disputation of D. M. Luther against the Antinomians ' Of Repentance 17. The Lord's Prayer Delivered to the Saints by Christ himself is full of the Doctrine of the Law 27. This very Prayer doth Teach us That the Law was before under c. the Gospel and that Repentance hath its beginning from the Law 28. For he that Prayeth for any thing doth first confess that he hath it not and expects that it be given him 30. The Enemies therefore of the Law must at the same time Vacate the Law and lay aside the Lord's Prayer too The Fourth Disputation of D. M. Luther against the Antinomians We must beware of the Popish Doctrine of Penance But be more afraid of the Antinomians who leave no Repentance in the Church 14. They are against the Preaching of the Law in the Church and really and in Truth cannot be for any Repentance 15. That Argument viz. Whatsoever is not necessary to Justification neither in the Beginning the Middle nor End is not to be Preached signifieth Nothing 16. If you ask what they mean by these words Beginning Middle and End you 'll find that they themselves do know nothing of it ' The Sixth Disputation of D. M. Luther against the Antinomians 1540. 1. That Consequence of St. Paul where there is no Law there no Transgression is not only Theologically but Politically and Naturally Good 2. In like manner so are these Consequences where no Sin there no Punishment no Pardon 3. Where no Punishment nor Pardon there no Wrath nor Grace 4. Where no Wrath nor Grace there no Divine nor Humane Government 5. Where nor Divine nor Humane Government there nor God nor Man 6. Where nor God nor Man there nothing unless perhaps the Devil 7. Whence it is That the Antinomians the Enemies of the Law are plainly either Devils or the Cosen-Germans unto Devils 8. Nor will it help them that they make their Boast of God of Christ of Grace of the Law and the like 9. It 's no New nor Infrequent thing for the Name of God to be taken in Vain even by the Devils themselves 10. The Confession of the Antinomians is like to that of the Devils who cried out Thou art the Son of the Living God Luk. 4. and 8. 19. Wherefore they are to be abandoned and forsaken as the most Pestilential Guides to Licentiousness and all manner of Wickedness 20. For they Serve not our Lord Jesus but their own Belly seeking Glory and Praise from Men Only Thus Luther the first Reformer that most Gospel Preacher and Admirer of Free-Grace who in his day excell'd in the Explicating the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's Righteousness receiv'd by Faith in Opposition unto that by Works This Luther observing how much some Endeavour'd to wrest his words that they might if possible give Reputation to Aminomianism doth with the greatest Zeal Express his Abhorrence of that Error discovering the Poison covered with the Glorious Titles of Free and Gospel Grace The Antinomian Cry was against the Law and Legal Preaching and for Free Grace and Pure Gospel but their Error according to Luther Subverts the Gospel of our Lord Jesus even all Religion Natural as well as what Depends on Positive Revelation setting up in its room and stead nothing but Diabolism The Vitals of Antinomianism lye in these Particulars 1o. The Vacating the Law 2o. The Suppressing all Preaching of Repentance from the Law 3o. The Confining the Doctrine of Repentance and Revelation of Wrath to the Gospel 4o. The Extending the Grace of the Gospel to all manner of Sinners who can but Confidently Perswade themselves that Christ is theirs The Mischievous Tendency and Poison of these Errors Luther doth thus Detect If there be no Law saith he seeing the very Nature of Sin lyeth in its being the Transgression of a Law there can be no Sin If there be no Sin there can be no Wrath due for Sin nor no Guilt for that lyeth in an Obligation to Wrath for Sin Nor Pardon for Pardon is the Dissolving the Obligation to Wrath and where no Obligation there can be no Dissolving it nor no Redemption from Wrath because no Wrath to be Redeemed from If there be no Redemption there can be no Redeemer If no Law no Sin then no Repentance for Sin if no Christ then no Faith in Christ Thus by laying aside the Law the Christian Religion is made void for there is hereby no Sin no Wrath no Guilt no Pardon no Redemption no Redeemer no Christ no Repentance no Faith Again If no Law as no Sin so no Duty no Obedience for that is to a Law no Government for that is by Law and If no Government no Governor If no Rewards nor Punishment nor Heaven nor Hell No Providence with the Epicure no God with the Athiest Thus by laying aside the Law not only Christianity but all Religion is made void for there is hereby no Sin no Duty no Reward no Punishment no Heaven no Hell no Providence no God no Religion Nothing therefore remains saith Luther but the Devil The Reins you see are let loose and Encouragement given to all manner of Licentiousness and Debauchery which hath not been only in the Notion but wofully in the Practice which is the True Reason why the Antinomian and Libertine have been by Godly Judicious Divines put together Antinomian Principles produce Libertine Practices If it had not been too Notorious to admit the
Grace and the Spirits working it and the Doctrine of Particular Election What Strength there is in their Arguments or how Naturally these Consequences flow from the Assertion That Eternal Life is Promised us on a Condition of our own Performance and that it is the Result of our Obedience is not my Business at this time to Enquire Only thus much is Clear That they who run not to the Antinomian Extreme may to Avoid these Arminian Rocks Deny the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace at least in the sence the Arminians use the word Condition Especially considering the Plausibleness of their Reasoning Undoubtedly Men Orthodox in the Faith may be Influenced to Conclude That the making Faith the Condition of an Interest in the Merits of Christ and yet a Part of the Merit are so Inconsistent that they cannot be both True and that therefore being Convinced that Faith is merited by Christ they cannot but Deny it's being a Condition Besides they may think that this sort of Condition must have so much of our own in it as interferes with the Spirits working the First Grace in us and they Believing the First Grace to be Absolutely Bestowed on us and effectually wrought in us by the Spirit must necessarily Deny its being such a Condition as this we are Discoursing of In fine Condition as Explained by them and as by some Jealous and Over-wary Persons suppos'd to be held by all that Use that word cannot stand with the Doctrine of Particular Election For their Condition doth necessarily Infer Salvation to be Undetermined and Uncertain it may be or it may not be Just as we our selves Determine The Socinians do not strive a little to subvert Christ's Satisfaction from this very Consideration That the Remission of Sin is offer'd on Condition A Zeal for the Advancement of Holiness and the Checking Debauchery Provokes them as they tell us to Insist on the Conditionality of our Faith and Repentance and Oppugn the Doctrine of Satisfaction This among others is one Cause why saith Smalcius we Reject the Dogma about Satisfaction Et heac una est inter alias Causa ob quam Dogma satisfactionis prorsus sit Repudiandum Quia scilicet hominibus Persuadere possit non esse opus ullâ Resipiscentiâ si quidem pro peccatis plane satisfactum est Smalc contra Smeglec c. xi p. 286. viz. Because Men are apt to Conclude That if a Full Satisfaction be made for their Sins there is no Need of their Repentance Besides they Pressing Repentance as a Condition of Pardon find themselves under a Necessity of Denying Satisfaction To evince thus much 't will be sufficient to consult once morce Smalcius who having affirm'd That to Require Repentance of them for whose Sins full Satisfaction had been made was Unnecessary Smiglecius replies That Satisfaction doth not exclude Conditions from him for whom Satisfaction was Offer'd For saith he who will Accept of Satisfaction for an Injury if he who did it Persists in his Enmity To this Smalcius Rejoinds Assuring us That Smiglecius doth not Prove nor is it Probable that Conditions may be Prescribed to him for whom a full Satisfaction is made In this case the Creditor is bound to Discharge his Debter without any Regard to his Future Demeanour Of this Smiglecius being aware changes the Terms saying Satisfaction doth not interfere with the Imposing a Condition on him for whom Satisfaction is Offer'd whereas in the present Case Satisfaction is not only offer'd but said to be Really made and Finish'd Whence it 's manifest That seeing Conditions and such a full Satisfaction are Incompatible and yet Conditions for the Obtaining the Remission of Sins are strictly Injoyned there can be no True Real Satisfaction There can be only a Free forgiveness of Sin without any Anteceding Satisfaction This Assertion excludes not but necessarily Infers Conditions God freely offering us the Forgiveness of Sins we must Repent and be Servants to our Lusts no longer for if we Repent not the Offer'd Pardon will not be Given us So far Smalcius whose Argument can be of no force unless the Condition Import somewhat that Gives Right to Pardon If the Pardon of Sin be not the Immediate Result of Christ's Satisfaction only but somewhat in us is moreover necessary to Give Right unto it the Satisfaction is not Full and if not full it 's none at all If it be Adequate and Full the Right Results only from it and not from any thing â—n us not from our Faith Repentance or any other Good Works The Right â—o Impunity must Result from Christ's Satisfaction only or not at all If there be somewhat else from which it must Result then hath not Christ made Full Satisfaction a Condition therefore giving Right Or Christ's Satisfaction must be laid aside They can never be together The setting up the One is a casting down the other This being the true State of the Case the Socinians Unable to see how the Necessity of our Holiness and Good Works can be maintain'd consistently with the laying aside Conditions chose rather to part with the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction than deny Faith Repentance c. to be the Conditions giving Right to Pardon If there be a full Satisfaction made by Christ for any Sinners a Discharge say the Socinians must be immediately given them They can't see any middle Way between themselves and the Antinomian Justification must flow either Immediately from Christ's Satisfaction to the Elect whil'st in the Heigth of Iniquity or from a Condition Perform'd by them Giving Right thereunto If the former that's Antinomianism If the latter then no Satisfaction which is Socinianism Thus you see in what sense the word Condition is taken by the Papist Arminian and Socinian and diversly Urged to Establish the Doctrine of our Merit and Destroying those other about Christ's Meriting the First Grace his Spirits working it Particular Election and Christ's Satisfaction which Considerations may frighten Men sound in the Faith from the Vse of the word and Provoke the Generation of the Just to Reject it unless when Used it be with an Explication What the Learned Dr. O. hath on this Occasion is worthy of our weightiest thoughts who speaking of the Term Condition is Express That the word is no where used in the Scripture in this matter which I argue no farther saith he but that we have no certain Rule or Standard to try and measure its Signification by Wherefore it cannot first be introduced in what sense Men please and then that sense turned into Argument for other Ends. For thus on a Supposed Concession that it is the Condition of our Justification some heighten it into a Subordinate Righteousness imputed unto us antecedently as I suppose unto the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ in any sense whereof it is the Condition And some who pretend to lessen its Efficiency or Dignity in the use of it in our Justification say it is only Causa sine quâ
sub modo signifieth nothing until the Condition or Mode be perform'd Tho' it hath no Causality in Producing the Effect yet is the Effect as Really suspended thereby as if it had Thus it has Pleased the Testator to dispose and his Disposition none can disannul In this sense seeing Justification is Promised in the Last Will and Testament of our Lord Jesus to Him that Believeth Faith is the Modus Promissionis vel Donationis So that altho' Justification be not the Result of our Faith but of Christ's Righteousness alone yet Faith being made by the Testator a Modus of the Disposition or Donation there can be no Justification without it The Operation of Christ's Righteousness which in this Case is the Negotium or Principal Cause of our Justification is by the Non-Performance of Faith suspended and so long we remain Unjustified It hath pleased God to fix such an Order in the Dispensation of his Blessings that the one necessarily antecedes the other and what goeth before another hath an Influence upon that other as it is so setled and establish'd by the Ordinance of God Not that the former gives Right unto the latter but so it is appointed of God that such an Order be observed in the disposing of these Blessings that he who has not the first shall not have the second He that hath not Faith shall not be Justified But whether it be a Condition of the Covenant of Grace Or a Condition in this Covenant Or only a Condition of our Justification tho' our Divines have different Sentiments about it yet 't is generally held that Faith is a Condition of Justification They that scruple the use of the Word own the thing signified thereby The Learned Author of Anti-sozzo saith that Faith is a Condition in the Covenant of Grace tho' not of it and they who hold that the Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as a Second Adam do assert that it is also made with the Faithful the Members of Christ Discourse of the two Covenants lib. 3. c. 3. p. 162. for which the Judicious Mr Strong gives several Reasons namely That the Saints may see that they are as strictly bound to Obedience in their own Persons under the Second Covenant as they were under the First And that the Doctrine of the Gospel tho' it be a Doctrine of Liberty is not a Doctrine of Licentiousness and that they may stand in awe of the Threats of God This Doctrine saith he I do the rather pitch upon in Opposition to the Licentious Tenent of the Antinomians who say that all is Required of Christ and nothing of Us. This Notion of a Condition as it doth most fully Provide against Antinomianism by Inferring the Necessity of Faith's being in Order of Nature before Justification so it doth as effecctually secure us from the Popish Arminian and Socinian Rocks in that it is not a Legal but a Testamentary Condition that cannot Establish the Merit of Good Works nor Interfere with Christ's meriting or the Spirits working the First Grace nor Subvert the Doctrine of Satisfaction or Particular Election All Testamentary Dispositions whatever be the Modes of Donation are of Free Grace not of Metit and being Given to us as the Children of a Testator the Merit and Gift of the First Grace which is necessary to our being such Children cannot be Destroyed by such a Modus or Condition These things will Appear with much more Clearness if we consider that the Holy Scriptures Represent Christ as a Second-Adam the Father of a Spiritual Off-spring Two things Christ did as a Second-Adam He undertook to beget a Seed and Raise that Seed unto Glory This Seed Christ Purchased and on his Purchase they are given him by the Father according to the terms Agreed on between the Father and the Son in the Eternal Compact That Christ begets a Seed and by his Word and Spirit Governs and Raises them unto Glory is so far from being inconsistent with his Meriting and Giving the First Grace that it is in Pursuance of it Christ merited a Seed and that he may have what he merited a Seed is Given him which is by the Fathers drawing the Sons gathering and the Spirits working Grace in them Christ also as a Second-Adam made satisfaction for his Children who as soon as they do spiritually by Regeneration Descend from him have a Right to Impunity If the Satisfaction had been made by Christ as a Mediator for the Elect as such then indeed as soon as they had any Being they would have been Discharg'd from the Debt But Christ making Satisfaction for the Elect as his Seed they cannot partake of the Right resulting from it but as they become his Seed As they are his Seed Virtually they have a Virtual Discharge but an Actual Discharge they cannot have till they are Actually born again Moreover the Covenant of Grace being made with Christ as a Second-Adam the Promises are made unto Christ as the Reward of his Obedience but for his Seed so that in Christ you must be by Faith that you may be Pardoned and Saved and yet your Pardon and Salvation Results not from your Faith but from Christ's Righteousness whereby it 's manifest that Gospel-Promises are Powerful Motives to Engage us to do our utmost to Believe and Repent and must be Preached to this Very-End and Purpose Thus the Doctrine of our Merit is laid by Christ's meriting and working the First Grace and his making Satisfaction to God's Justice and the necessity of our Faith Repentance and Sanctification are abundantly cleared by this Gospel-Representation that is made of Christ as he is a Second Adam with whom the Covenant of Grace is made and with his Seed as such which is so far from destroying Particular Election that it establisheth it For the Elect were Promised unto Christ merited by him and given unto him as the Reward of his Sufferings whereby it is made sure that the Death of Christ shall not be altogether in vain He shall see the Elect as the Travel of his Soul and be satisfied Thus as in Opposition to Popery Arminianism and Socinianism Legal Conditions are Justly Rejected so in Contradiction to the Antinomian Error Testamentary Conditions are here explicated and asserted CHAP. V. The Notion the first Reformers had of Justifying Faith not Antinomian Their Dectrine in Opposition to the Papist Arminian and Socinian Described That they did not hold Justification to be before Faith Nor did they Exclude all Doubtings from Faith nor hold that we might live as we list and whilst so Believe and be Justified To Assert That Faith is a Certain and Full Perswasion wrought in the Heart of Man through the Holy Ghost whereby he is Assured of the Mercy of God Promised in Christ that his Sins are Forgiven him is not Antinomianism THE Antinomians I mean such as are really so have had too much Honour given them by such as Grant that their Notion about Faith is supported by
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
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
following Propositions as what do most fully Provide against the Arminian Antinomian Socinian and Popish Errors and shall always be Content that any Sermons or Books of ours be Interpreted by the said Articles and Confessions Desiring all others if they meet with any Expressions that are to them of Doubtful Signification they would Iudge of them and Interpret them by the Holy Scriptures the said Articles and Confessions It is further Declared That they Subscribe to all the main Parts of Doctrine contain'd in the fore-mention'd Articles Confessions and Catechisms as Iudging them Agreeable to the Word of God The Import therefore of the Subscription to this Agreement can't be less than to the Doctrines contained in these Propositions as exactly true according to the Word of God and so Providing most fully against Antinomian Arminian Socinian and Popish Errors and that even as a Rule by which Our Sermons and Books are to be Iudged and Interpreted which is enough to Evince that whatever Doctrines may be found in any of our Writings or Sermons Contrary unto or Dissonant from the main Doctrines contain'd in these Propositions are really Disown'd Renounc'd and Exploded For this Reason altho' it cannot be Denied but that many in their Opposition to Antinomianism have faln in with the Arminian c. and that Divers in running from Arminianism c. have plung'd themselves into the Antinomian Gulph and that they who bend their Strength against the one Error are in danger of being accused for Inclining too much towards the other yet in the Case before us we are bound in Justice according to the Desire of our Brethren to Judge and Interpret their Writings by the Subscribed Propositions Tho' it may be Difficult to Conciliat some Expressions with these Articles yet we must not charge them for holding Doctrines Contradictory unto them The Allowance that is to be made for the Different Abilities Educations and Peculiar ways of Expression which some Men Use will sufficiently Vindicate our Charity from being too Extensive in this Matter It is undoubtedly our Duty to forbear severe Reflections and hard Charges to Lament our many weaknesses which make it very near an Impossibility for us to understand one another and at the same time Adore the Wisdom and Grace of God that our Worthy Brethren who have not been able to Agree about the sense of one anothers Writings can Joyn in Subscribing the same Doctrines as Deliver'd by others CHAP. III. Intelligent and sincere Subscribers to the above-mentioned Propositions cannot be Antinomians What Antinomians are Their Principles laid down out of Melchior Adamus Lucas Osiander and Luther Luther's Disputations against them Abridg'd The Perniciousness of Antinomianism Detected It s Agreement with Libertinism Hoonbeeck 's Account of English Antinomianism It s Mischievous Consequences It s Inconsistency with the Subscribed Propositions What is not Antinomianism yet branded with that Odious Name TO make this the more clear and Evince not only the Possibility but Certainty of an Agreement in all the Substantials of the Gospel I will with the greatest Plainess I can show what the Antinomian Socinian Arminian and Popish Errors are and how inconsistent with the Subscribed Propositions In the first place then to begin with Antinomianism which because commonly Joyn'd with the Libertine Notions I will consider as Agreeing and Differing from them and lest any who are really tainted with this Poisonous Error think me Partial and too much inclin'd to the Arminian Party c. I will deliver nothing but what is Reported by such as have been the most Opposers of the Arminian Socinian and Popish Notions such as Calvin Luther and their Admirers about the Doctrine of Justification In the Year 1538. See Sleidan Comm lib. 12. p. 312. Johannes Agricola Islebius an Intimate Friend of Luther was the first that after the beginning of the Reformation did in Germany broach the Antinomian Errors of which Melchior Adamus in the Lives of Luther and Agricola give this short Account The Antinomians saith he held that Repentance was not to be Preached from the Law oppugning those who were for awakening Mens Consciences by the Law before they would Publish the Gospel unto them and affirm'd that How wicked and Impure soever the Life of any Man was yet if he believ'd the Promises of the Gospel he was Justified He was also for the Restoring Unction saying That if it might be he doubted not but that the Gift of Healing would accompany it for since his Return from Augusta he had by it Recover'd Four from Death to Life Hornbeck in his Summa Controversiarum is more full Lib. 7. de Brownistis speaking distinctly of them as distributed into three Periods of time to wit the Primitive in the Fourth Century the Beginning of the Reformation in Germany and since amongst us in England That in Germany Agricola was against the Preaching of the Law in this Gospel Day That we were not now under the Law as a School-Master to be frightned by it's Threatnings But under Grace That the Gospel only is to be Preached We must believe that tho' a Man be a Fornicator an Adulterer or the like yet he is in the Way to Salvation if he doth but lay hold on Christ That we must indeed beware of Sin and work Righteousness Not in Obedience to the Law but as Exercising our Christian Liberty and notwithstanding our Living in Sin must Apply Christ and his Promises as belonging unto us Lucas Osiander in his Epitome saith Hist Eccles Cent. XVI lib. 11. c. 39. That Johannes Agricola Islebius who A. 1530. did with Melancthon and Brentius Defend the Augustane Confession and after the Smal Kaldican War with Julius Pflugg and Michael Sydonius Framed that Unhappy Book in which there was a Composition of the Popish and Protestant Religion as a mean for Accommodation until a General Council should be Indicted and therefore called the Interim This Agricola as Osiander expresses it was in the Year 1538. stirr'd up by the Devil to broach a New Heresie affirming That the Law of Moses to wit the Decalogue was not to be Taught in the Church That the Doctrine of the Law doth not work Repentance in the Hearts of Men but the Holy Ghost doth it by the Preaching of the Gospel which showeth us the Filthiness of Sin that the Gospel Properly is the Preaching of Repentance That by Schlasselburgius many other horrid Errors are charged upon the Antinomians viz. That the Law is not worthy to be called the Word of God If a Whore a Fornicator Adulterer or any other such wicked Person doth only Believe they are in the way to Eternal Life The Law teacheth not Good Works nor is it to be Preached that we may do them and many others of a like Nature Against these Errors the Famous Dr. Luther did at Wittiberge Publish Six Disputations which are Extant in the first Tome of his Works Islebius being by Luther's Endeavors convinc'd of his Error makes his
Recantation in a Publick Auditory at Wittiberge and Prints it However after Luther's Death he Returns to his Vomit reassumes his old Errors and drew some Learned Men to close with them Labouring to get Countenance to them by wresting some Passages in Luther's Writings so that whereas Luther had in his Commentary on the Galatians said That the Penitent Sinner ought not to hear Moses by the Law accusing him of Sin but should rather cast his Eye on Jesus Christ his Saviour who by the Gospel heals the Broken and Contrite heart Islebius and his Followers would from hence infer That the Law was not at all to be Taught and thus would they Palliate their Own Errors by fathering them on Luther So far Lucas Osiander Luther on Genesis doth in several Places show what the Antinomians are Cap. 19.21 affirming That they throw the Law out of the Church and will have it that Repentance is to be taught by the Gospel That they Darken Paul's Doctrine about the Remission of Sin and so magnifie Grace as utterly to Extinguish it and expose Men to the Wrath of God by Perswading them to such a Security concerning the Divine Displeasure and Judgement as if there had been no Sin no fear of Death and Hell These Antinomians seem to be the followers of Muntzer who teach that all Sin is wholly taken away nor are we to Endeavor the convincing any of Sin or terrifie them by the Law They like the Ishmaelites who because the Thigh of their Father Abraham was Holy believe Every thing to to be Holy Tho' they carefully endeavor to conceal thus much yet are they not afraid to entertain such Monstrous Opinions Sin being forgiven there is in them nothing Damnable Sin therefore is nothing or at least 't is taken from them This Error they would fasten on the Doctrines of the Apostles He that is born of God sinneth not I believe the Remission of Sin In Gen. c. 24. by which they understand the taking away of all Sin The Papists Preach nothing but Terror In Gen c. 19. and these false Prophets will have nothing taught but the Gospel and the Promises which Error of theirs is much more hurtful than that of the Papists In the First Tome of Luther's Works to which Osiander directed me I have not only met with Luther's Six Disputations but with a Paper containing the Particulars of the Antinomian Errors drawn up by One of themselves as was then Generally believed which for the Reader 's greater Satisfaction I will faithfully Transcribe and add unto it an Abridgment of Luther's Disputations against them Unto the Antinomian Positions Luther sets this Preface Martin Luther to the Pious Reader There came to my hands Certain Positions so is the the Title of an Unknown Author scattered among the Brethren which lest I be thought to approve of them I would so Publish as to give the fullest Testimony of my Abhorring them which God willing I will soon do by my Disputations A. D. 1538. The Positions of a Certain Antinomian REpentance is not to be Taught from the Decalogue or any Law of Moses but Ex Violatione filii per Evangelium which I presume thus to Render from the Sufferings of Christ by the Gospel 2. For Christ saith Thus it behoved him to suffer and Rise again from the Dead that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be Preached in his Name among all Nations 3. And Christ in the Gospel of John saith that the Spirit shall convince the World of Sin Not the Law 4. The same is Taught in the Last Sermon of Christ Go Preach the Gospel to Every Creature 5. Paul to the Philippians saith Let the same mind be in you which is in Christ Jesus that with Fear and Trembling ye may work out your Salvation which words do fully establish this Truth viz. That Repentance which he calls Fear and Trembling is to be taught from the Mind of Christ not from the Law 6. From the Discourses of Paul and Barnabas it sufficiently appears that there is no need of the Law for any One part of Justification 7. That without which the Holy Spirit is given and Men are justified is not necessary to be Taught either for the Beginning Middle or End of Justification 8. But the Holy Ghost of Old was given and still is that Men might be Justified without the Law by the Gospel of Christ alone 9. Therefore it 's not necessary to Teach the Law of Moses either for the Beginning Middle or End of Justification 10. The Major is evident from the Experience which Paul and Barnabas mention 11. And we must Judge the Minor to be true 11. Idem Judicabimus de Minore nam Spiritus Sanctus cecidio visibili specie super Gentes because the Holy Ghost in a visible shape fell on the Gentiles 12. What shall we then say of some who without the Word yea Contrary to it and the Example of the Apostles do make the Law the first Part yea a Necessary one to the Doctrine of Justification 13. For which reason that we may maintain the Purity of Doctrine we must oppose them who Teach That the Gospel must not be Preached but to those who are convinced by the Law 14. For they that put on the words of Christ an Improper sence and say that first the Law then the Gospel is to be taught and do Pervert the words of Christ nor is their Interpretation consistent with the Simplicity of Christ 15. As we are to adhere unto the simple sence of Christ's word when he saith This is my Body so must we abide by the Simplicity city of those words Go Preach the Gospel Baptizing c. 16. The Law doth only convince of Sin and that without the Holy Spirit and therefore convinceth to Damnation 17. But there is need of that Doctrine which is Efficacious not only to Condemn but also to Save Thus the Gospel doth conjunctly Teach Repentance and Pardon of Sin 18. For the Gospel of Christ doth make known the Wrath of God from Heaven together with the Righteousness of God Rom. 1. for it is the Preaching of Repentance in Conjunction with the Promise which our Reason doth not Naturally but by Divine Revelation Receive These are the Antinomian Positions unto which Luther in his Disputations has a respect The first Disputation of D. Martin Luther against the Antinomians about Repentance 1. Repentance by the Testimony of all and by what is undoubtedly True is a Grief for Sin with an adjoyned Purpose of a better Life 2. This Grief Properly is not nor can it be any thing else than a deep sence of the Law in the Heart or Conscience 3. For tho' many hear the Law yet because they have not that sense nor feel the force of the Law they Grieve not nor Repent 4. The first Part of Repentance to wit Grief is Only from the Law The other part namely a Good Purpose cannot be from the Law 5. For
but these are enough to make it Evident that the First Reformers denied the Gospel to be a Promise of Eternal Life on Condition of our keeping the Commandments which must be Understood to be in that sence in which the Papists held it that is they denied our Good Works to be such a Condition of Eternal Life as gave Right unto it as a Reward which may be done by them who are not Antinomians which is very clear from the Scholia of the Reformed on the Nineteenth Canon of the Council which is to this effect Let him be accursed who holds that nothing is Commanded in the Law but Faith That all other things are Indifferent and that the Ten Commandments belong not to Christians To which they Answer That there is no such Dogma held by the Divines who Subscrib'd the Augustane Confession that none but one Islebius was tainted with this False and Wicked Opinion that Luther oppugned and confuted this Error and brought its Author to a Recantation and that the other Divines rejected it 2. The word Condition is also taken in this very sense by the Arminians who argue so very Plausibly from the Grant of it against some Important Doctrines of the Christian Faith that many Orthodox and Judicious Divines are afraid to Use it They make it If I may use the word a Legal Condition that is Obedience to the Preceptive Part of a Law giving Right to the Reward It is that thing which being Performed gives Right to the Blessing Promised Or Conditio quatenus praestita est aliquomodo Medium sieri dici potest quo Consequimur Rem quae sub Conditione Promittitur Exam. Censur Cap. 10. P. 112. Conditio cujus Praestatio Medium sive causa salutis aliquomodo dici potest non modò est Gratiosa per se sed Gratia ad Eam praestandam perpetim necessaria est Praemium Praestanti promissum extra supra omnem Comparationem est Vb. sup Cap. 8. P. 95. it is that which being Perform'd is a means by which we attain to what was on Condition promised Again Condition whose Performance may be called a Mean or Cause of Salvation is not only in it self full of Grace but Grace is always necessary for the Enabling us to perform it and the Reward Promised thereunto Infinitely exceeds it However from the Grant that our Faith is such a Condition of Eternal Life they triumphantly oppugn some Important Truths Particularly Si enim Christus nobis meritus dicatur Fidem Regenerationem tum Fides Conditio esse non poterit quam à Peccatoribus Deus sub Comminatione Mortis exigeret imo tum Pater ex vi meriti istius obligatus fuisse dicatur necesse est ad Conferendum nobis Fidem Essiciendum in nobis omnia quae nobis sub Comminatione Mortis praescribit quo nihil absurdius Cogitari potest Exam. Cens Cap. 8. P. 59. they thus argue against Christ's Meriting Faith and Regeneration for the Elect. If Christ merited Faith and Regeneration for us say they then Faith cannot be a Condition which God exacts from Sinners under the Commination of Eternal Death They go Higher affirming That if Christ purchased the First Grace for Us then the Father by virtue thereof is obliged to give us Faith and work all these things in us which are prescribed under the Threatning of Death Than which nothing can be more absurd Such a Collation of Faith flowing from Christ's Merit doth effectually destroy the Divine Constitution by which Faith is enjoyned Sinners with a Promise of Life and Threatning of Death Thus much from the very Nature of the thing is most apparent If Christ be in this way our Saviour he can't be our Law-giver nor can our Faith or Obedience be Acts of Duty they can be but Effects of Christ's Merit Again they add That the Prescription of a Condition and an Efficacious working it in them to whom it is prescrib'd are Incompatible That Condition is not a Condition Conditio non est Conditio quae ab Eo qui Eam praescribit in Eo cui praescribitur efficitur Merus Effectus Praescribentis non potest esse Conditio Praescripta nedum Praestita Exam. ub sup P. 106. which is wrought in Him to whom it is prescribed even by the Prescriber The mere Effect of a Prescriber cannot be a prescribed much less a Performed Condition He that gives a Condition to another will that it be performed by that other If it be wrought in Him Haec Actio ludicra tota vix Scaena digna est it ceaseth to be a Condition and he that wrought it doth by that very Act null it 's being a Condition because he will not have it done by that other but will Himself work it in Him Right Reason dictates thus much unto us No Wise Man will act thus Legislator serius totam suam Legislationem ludibrio exponit cum Conditionem Praescribit iis quos irrevocabiliter Praemio afficere in quibus quam Praescribit Conditionem ipse efficere vult nor can any thing be more ludicrous these things are scarce fit for a Play That Law-giver who prescribes a Condition to them whom he has Irrevocably Designâ—d for a Reward will expose his Legislation to the utmost Contempt They carry it yet further asserting This Condition to be Inconsistent with the Particular Election of a Select Number of Persons A Condition Conditio omnis Stulte Ridicule Proponitur iis qui nominatim praecise jam ante destinati sunt saluti Exam. Cens c. 9. p 102. Destinatio Irrevocabilis ad vitam Promissio vitae sub Conditione non nisi Stulte Conjunguntur Exam. Voi sup p. 104. say they is Foolishly yea Ridiculously Proposed to them who are Particularly and by Name Ordain'd to Salvation An Irrevocable Decree of Salvation and the Promise of Life on Condition are most weakly Put together A Condition they say is that which when Performed gives Right unto a Reward That there is Grace glorified in that the Reward Excels Infinitely excels what is Requir'd of us as a Condition and that help is vouchsafed for the Enabling us to Perform it But then they add That what is a Condition of our Interest in Christ's Merits must be what was not merited for us by Christ To make that a Condition of our Interest in the Benefits merited by Christ that was merited by Christ is an Inconsistence Or to Affirm that to be a Condition Requir'd of us which is not Performed by us but wrought in us by him that Prescribes it is the Greatest Folly Or to make the Salvation of any to Depend upon a Condition that may or may not be Performed and yet assert the certainty of their Salvation flowing from the Unalterable Decree is Ridiculous This is the Improvement the Arminians make of the Gospels being a Promise of Eternal Life on Condition namely the denying Christ's meriting the first
necessary and that there were some Acts of Faith Dispositive and therefore Antecedent to Justification and to the Justifying Act of Faith of which I design if God will to treat more fully in my second Part. CHAP. VI. The sense of the Papists Arminians and Socinians about the Subject of Faith The different Apprehensions of the Orthodox about the same Camero Amyrald Dally held that the Understanding was the only Subject of Saving Faith yet not Antinomians How they hereby were enabled to oppose Justification by Works as held either by Papist Socinian or Arminian THE denying Saving Faith to be an Act of the Will is not Antinomianism Touching the Subject or Seat of Faith whether it be the Understanding only or the Will or both the Learned have different Apprehensions And some great Men sound in the Faith are positive that 't is only in the Vnderstanding The Papists who for the most part make an Historick Faith to be Saving confine it to the Vnderstanding And yet Estius conform to the sense of Aquinas yields that it hath its Rise from the Will by which the Understanding is inclin'd to believe Contarenus goeth further holding that it doth also terminate in the Will. Cajetane is for Faiths being an Act of both Faculties which according to the account Bonaventure gives of it hath been the Opinion of the Antient Schoolmen And as Le Blanc Nam si Sermo sit de fide vivâ per dilectionem operante quam formatam appellant dubitari non potest quin illa etiam ex eorum mente non intellectum tantùm sed voluntatem etiam occupet in eâ sedem habet Le Blanc Thes de Subj Fid. p. 239. out of whom I have taken these passages the Papists if they speak of their Living Faith their Fides formata must place it in the Will it being Love an Act of the Will that according unto them is the Form of Faith Limborch giving the sense of the Remonstrants Nos dicimus Fidem nec esse merum Intellectus nec merum voluntatis Actum sed mixtum partim Intellectus partim Voluntatis Limb. Theol. Christ lib. 5. cap. 9. § 23. saith That Faith is not meerly an Act of the Understanding nor meerly of the Will but mix'd partly of the one and partly of the other Crellius the Socinian in his Christian Ethicks Fides dusbus modis considerari potest vel sola vel cum suis effectis conjuncla adeoque auplex iterum oritur fidei significatio altera Propria altera Figurata in quâ Meconynda cum Synecdoche concurrit De Priori jam satis dictum iaque intelligitur 1 Cor. 13. ubi Fides à Spe Charitate distinguitur Posterior quae ad Voluntarem aeque aut magis quam ad Mentem pertinet est fiducia in Deum aut etiam Christum collocata quae est Asser sus firmus Dei Promissis adhibitus cum vehementi desiderio conjunctus Itaque haec fides spem quoque in se compleclitar Crel Christ Ethic. lib. 1. cap. 5. tells us That Faith may be considered after a twofold manner either as it is in it self alone or as in conjunction with its effects whence it hath a double signification the one proper the other figurative in which a Metonymy doth meet with a Synechdoche The first hath been oft spoken unto it being that Faith mentioned in 1 Cor. 13 where 't is distinguished from Hope and Charity The other is that which doth as much if not more belong to the Will as to the Understanding c. This Point hath been of late years much controverted amongst the Orthodox Le Blanc brings in Chamier Le Blanc ubi sup VVendelin Bucanus Rivet and Altingius as holding Faith to be seated both in the Vnderstanding Hoornb Vet. Nov. l. 3. c. 12. and VVill. Hoornbeeck adds to these as concurring with them the Dutch Catechism Vrsine Paraeus Trelcatius Tilenus and amongst our English Divines Preston and Ball. Davenant and Wotton tho' they are for Faiths being a Fiducia yet distinguish it from that which imports a firm Perswasion and make it to be a Relying on Christ for Pardon and an Act of the Will and to belong to both Faculties Dr. Ames in Le Blanc fixeth it only in the Will Cloppenburg saith Clip Compend Socin Consat c. 7. Le Blanc ubi sup Hurab ubi sup that 't is a Problem amongst the Orthodox whether the Understanding or Will be the Subject of Faith Le Blanc thinks that this Controversie is but Philosophical and may be passed by without Division Hoornbeeck tho' he placeth Faith in the Understanding and Will yet doth not esteem it necessary to contend about it Nanne omnis difficultas tolleretur c. Wits Oecon. Foed l. 3. c. 7. § 4. Would not saith he every Difficulty be removed and the whole Controversie so much agitated amongst Divines about the Subject of Faith the composed if as well we may deny any real Difference between the Understanding and Will or between these Faculties and the Soul However there are amongst the Reformed some Great Divines highly valued for their Learning who lay much stress on this Controversie and are Zealous for Faith being only an Act of the Understanding Baronius See L. Blanc ubi supra tho' he looks on Faith to belong to the Will in several respects as it hath its Origin and Rise from it assent it self being an Imperate Act of the Will and therefore may be denominated a Voluntary Free Act as also with respect to the Acts annex'd unto and concomitant with Faith for in that very instant Faith in the Understanding assents to Gospel-Promises and with a firm Judgment applies them to ones self the Will with an ardent Love embraces the Grace and Favour of God Lastly with respect to its Fruits Sanctification and softning of the Will follows the Illumination of Faith in the Mind yet Faith properly subjectively and with respect to its Essence is only in the Vnderstanding Camero discoursing of Effectual Calling refers to that Promise in Ezekiel 36. for the taking away the Heart of Stone and giving a Heart of Flesh saith That the Heart of Stone is by the Apostle Paul interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Carnal Mind In another place the Apostle is more express affirming the Gospel to be written in the Fleshly not Stony Tables of the Heart which cannot be understood of the Will the Law is not written in the Will but in the Mind whose part it is to understand it Besides to understand in Scripture is attributed to the Heart So it is Rom. 1.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Foolish Heart or a Heart without Vnderstanding So Deut. 29.4 the Lord hath not given you an Heart to Perceive and in Rom. 10. With the heart man believes to Righteousness where by the Heart the Mind undoubtedly is meant for to Believe is an Act of the Vnderstanding that is to say to Believe is an Act
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