Inquiry into the Nature of the Present Controversy About Justification Part 1

CHAP. I.

THE Churches Peace is a Blessing so very Great, and Valuable, that he, who sets but a Right Estimate on its Real Worth, cannot think much to hazard even his own Private Quiet, Particular Interests, and Good Name, (which it is like to cost him) to Obtain, or Defend it.

By Peace, I do not mean only a Freedom from Persecution, which is a Mercy, for which we should not cease Praising God; but the Peace of Christians between themselves, so oft mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, Commanded, and Encouraged. Be of one Mind, Live in Peace, and the God of Peace shall be with you. The Lord of Peace himself give you Peace, always by all means.

As Christians are United unto Christ their Head by Faith, so should they be by Love United to one another, Endeavoring to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace. Love, Concord, and Peace are the support of all Societies of what kind soever. The Heathen Philosophers were sensible of it. Pythagoras esteemed Amity, Love, Friendship to be the most effectual Bond, that Cemented his Followers. And many amongst the most Barbarous have zealously exposed themselves to great Calamity out of officiousness to their Particular Communion. Alexander ab Alexandro gives several Instances hereof. He begins with the Arvall Fraternity, who were Join'd by such a Bond of Friendship together, that neither Prosperity, nor Adversity nor any other thing but Death could Dissolve it; and tells us of some others, that were so linked in Love, that they would not only Mourn with such as were in Adversity, and Rejoice with those in Prosperity, but Die for One another, and frequently would Die with them that Died, for which reason they were called COMMORIENTES.

Peace among Christians, as it is the Support of Societies; so, it sets forth the Beauty and Glory of Christian Religion to all Observers, and by Uniting us in our Affections, Prayers, Counsels and Practices too (so far as Agreed) enables us the more successfully to serve our Lord Jesus; Whence it is, that the most Eminent for Learning and Piety, have in all Ages of the Church strenuously Contended for it: Among the Reformed Luther himself, though' a Man of a hot Temper, and much Imbroyl'd, not only by the Papists, but the Zuinglian and Calvinistical Reformers, at last with much Fervour in a Letter to the Helvetian Churches Pleads thus for Peace and Concord.

Thus far Luther, who gives me a fair Occasion to Consider the Mischievous Effects, of Discord, and Contentions among Christians, How the Ignorance, Rash Zeal and Peevishness of some; the Selfish Designs, Private Interests, Pride and Malice of others have given the Devil opportunity to turn the Churches into Disorder, and Confusion.

I will instance in the Quarrel between Peter of Alexandria, and Miletius; and touch the Rise and Progress of Arianism.

The Contest between these two, though' differently Reported by those, who lived nearest these Times, was in the esteem of all managed with that Indiscretion and Heat, as brought on them all that Mischief they endured.

That they were both sound in the Faith, and their chief difference about the time to be given for the Trial of the Repentance of such as under the Persecution Revolted from the Truth cannot be denied. And although Ashanasius, Socrates, and Nicephorus Callistus report, that Meletius apostatiz'd, and Epiphanius, with whom St. Austin seems to agree, represents the Matter quire otherwise, yet it's past doubt, that the Different Opinions of these Orthodox Guides of the Church, in the one Grounded on a Zeal for Truth, in the other on Compassion to the Souls of the Weak, occasioned a very wide Breach amongst those Christians when they were Groaning under the Violence of a Bloody Persecution. For whilst in Prison the Fire brake out to that Degree, as to issue in an angry Separation, no wonder if it continued after, Peter 's Martyrdom, and when Constantine gave Liberty, was much Encreased.

It's true, Alexander, who succeeded Achillas, Peter 's immediate Successor, did, during Meletius his life time, carry it kindly to the Meletians; but after Meletius his Death, he violently Persecuted them, who were thereby provoked to send some of their Bishops with a Petition to the Emperor for Liberty, which being Rejected, they apply themselves to Eusebius of Nicomedia, then great at Court, and a Favorer of Arius. Eusebius refuseth to help them on any terms, short of their admitting the Arians to their Communion; to which, that they might Escape the Cruel Persecution of their Orthodox Brethren, they yielded, and had the Grant of Liberty. By this means the Arians gained so great an Advantage, and grew so Strong, that in some Years after, they spread themselves so far as to Cover almost all the Christian Churches in the World.

It is amazing to consider from what a small spark the Arian Fire, that turned the whole Christian World into a flame, had its rise, 'twas only from the subtle and over curious Discourse of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, the undue Suspicion of Arius, and the Indiscreet Heat of Both; for, saith Socrates, Alexander enjoying much Peace at Alexandria, calls together his Priests, and with them did so very nicely and subtly Discourse of the Unity in the Trinity, that Arius, one of the Priests, a Man of great Learning Suspecting him to be a Favorer of Sabellius, who held, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were but Three Names of one and the same Person, did in opposition to him affirm, the Son to be so Distinct from the Father, as to have a Beginning. From whence it follows, that he had his Subsistence from Nothing; that he was a Creature, not Coeternal, nor Consubstantial with the Father. This Controversy was managed with so much Bitterness, that, to use Socrates his own words, from a very little Spark a great Fire broke out, disturbing the Peace of all Egypt, Libya, the Upper Thebais, and many other places.

The Flame having thus got head, Alexander with the utmost Vehemence Endeavors the suppressing it. He Excommunicates Arius, writes to the Bishop of Constantinople, complaining of his Pride and Covetousness, prayeth him not to suffer Arius, nor any of his Followers to Preace within his Jurisdiction. He calls in the Help of his Colleagues, who Approv'd of what he had done against the Arians. Arius provoked hereby, doth also write to several Bishops, giving them an account of his Faith in words so very like the Orthodox Confessions, that he is by some Grave and Judicious Bishops esteemed sound in the Faith. This nettles Alexander, who sends forth his Circular Letters throughout the whole Catholic Church, with a Catalogue of the Arian Errors, and the Names of those, who adhered unto them, by which means Arianism (saith the Historian) was strangely Propagated all the World over.

Constantine, observing how the Contentions spread from one Part to another of his Empire, and how much, Violent Methods contributed hereunto, makes use of more calm ones. He writes a Letter to Alexander, and Arius, which he sent by Hosius Bishop of Cordovia, Declaring it to be his Opinion,

So far Constantine, who, you see, apprehended the Controversy at first to have been about Matters of Less Importance. But it soon came to be about Greater Points, and the Heats too high to be composed by the Emperor's single Endeavors, or Authority. He therefore calls a Council, which sat at Nice in Bythinia. This Council drew up a Confession of Faith, to be Subscribed by all; and Excommunicated and Banished Arius, for not Subscribing it. They also deposed and drove those Bishops into Exile, who, though' they Subscribed the Confession, Refused to consent to Arius 's Condemnation; because, as they Protested, he was not in their Judgment, Guilty of the Errors charged on Him. However, in a little time Arius by some means was Recalled, Eusebius of Nicomedea, and Theognis of Nice, making Application to the Emperor, were Restored to their Bishoprics; the Controversy seemingly at an End, and all Agreed. But notwithstanding this appearance of Agreement, and the Protestations of Sincerity in their Subscriptions, the Quarrel was only for a while covered, not quenched, it soon brake out again. The Arians grew strong, Prevailed, and most barbarously Persecuted, Tormented, and Murthered Multitudes for abiding faithful to the Truth.

From these Intimations, it doth appear what a Mother this want of Candour is to Controversy. It is these Prejudices Undue Suspitions, and Evil Surmizings, ensnaring Good Men to fasten an ill sense upon the words, and Practices of one another, and Charging each others Notions with Unseen and Disclaimed Consequences; which does Drive men to Opinions, beyond what they before were inclined to, if not make such: Impressions on their Minds as to Provoke them to Embrace those they Detested. Besides, these Contentions being managed with so much Heat and Violence, did at that time fill the Jews with Joy, and exposed the Christians to the Contempt and Scorn of the Heathen. From whence it ariseth, that Peace among Christians is not so Great a Blessing, but Divisions, Strifes, Contentions and Broils are as Pernicious and Hurtful.

To Prevent the Breach, or Heal it, when made, to procure Peace, and preserve it when got, is a work attended with unaccountable Difficulties. There are such Remainders of Pride and other Lusts in the Hearts of the best, that Satan no sooner throws before them a Hurtful Temptation, but they catch at it. And it is so Natural for Learned and Pious Men to be Assuming and Dogmatical, that they can neither bear a Reproof, nor a Dissenter; and others so full of Suspition and Jealousy, that Healing Attempts cannot escape the Censure of being Trick and Ill Design. There is such a narrowness in the Minds of most, that they cannot see anything to be True or Good, but what falls within a very small compass. What is not agreeable to their own confined Thoughts and Expressions is Unsound and Heretical, and whoever endeavors to convince them of their Mistake is their Enemy, and shall be treated accordingly; whence in all Ages it hath been the Lot of Peace-makers to suffer Reproach: Tho' they are sincerely concerned for the Glory of God, and the Defense of Truth, as well as the Churches Peace; yet because they cannot be within the same Circle with them, but are more Charitable and speak favourably of their Adversaries, they must be of the number of such as betray the Truth. He that will deal uprightly with all, and flatter none, must count on the being neglected by all. None more in danger of being Scorched by the Flames, than they who most heartily labor to quench the Raging Fire. Nazianzen, long ago observed, That whoever, studious of Peace, do undertake to mediate between Contending Parties, are sure to be ill treated by both.

However Peace is so Excellent a Thing, that we must be content to give the utmost, (next Truth,) for its Purchase. Gain it we must, or the Church, the Souls of Men and Christ himself will be the Losers, but Gain it we never can, unless we be more Merciful and Compassionate in Judging One another. We shall never find the Right way to Peace, until we Cast off Inveterate Prejudices, Unjust Suspicions, Jealousies, Surmizings, and Put on that Charity which enweth not, but is kind, suffereth long, hopeth all things, endureth all things: We must Judge others with that Candor we would they should Judge us, and in all Doubtful Cases take the most Benign Interpretation, and Favor the Accused Party.

A Regard to these Rules in Conjunction with a Just Care to Secure and Defend Truth, will Reduce the many Controversies in Matters of Religion among Protestants to a smaller Number, without giving Countenance to the least Error.

CHAP. II.

THE Excellency of Peace, the Mischief of Divisions, and what hindereth the one, and cherisheth the other being well considered, we may see good Reason to Advance this Conclusion, viz. That a Temperate weighing the Points at this time Controverted, and the Manner of Handling them with an Impartial Enquiry after Truth, variously and in Different ways Delivered is absolutely Necessary.

As 'tis our Advantage to come into the World in a time, wherein we have an Opportunity of Understanding How Divisions have Arisen, how Carried on, and Maintain'd, Age after Age; so it's our Duty and Interest to do our Part, that we split not on the same Rocks our Fathers have done. Have too strict Adherences to a Peculiar way of Delivering a Doctrine, Undue Suspitions and Jealousies, and Inordinate Passions, been a great Occasion of the Rise and Progress of Contentions heretofore? Let us then take heed we fall not into the like Evils now. Have many Orthodox Divines, and Christians, such as the Meletians, Audaeani, and the like; fallen under the Unjust, as well as Rash Censure of being Heretics, merely through the Extravagant Heats of some Leading Men? Let us beware lest it be so again.

The Present Controversy being about the Great and Important Doctrines of the Gospel, and managed as it hath been; Not only many Weak, but some Wise and Judicious Christians have been tempted to think our Differences to be Fundamental; and, that it's not easy to arrive to a Certainty about the Truths most Necessary to Salvation. I will therefore lay by all Prejudices, and in my Search observe the Christian Rules but now mentioned, if possible to Understand, whether the Differences be so Momentous as by some Apprehended? whether they be about the Substance of the Doctrines in Controversy, or only about the Way and Manner of their Declaration?

It's very clear to me, as well as to Men of Great Learning and Judgment. That though' it hath Pleased God very Plainly to Reveal unto us, those Doctrines, that are necessary to Salvation; yet such hath been the Industry, and Craft of the Tempter, and such the Darkness and Infirmity of our Minds, that they who Consent unto their Truth, have fallen into Divers Mistakes about the most Proper, and Exact way of Stating them. Thus it hath been amongst Protestants, touching Justification itself, who therefore have been Represented by Bellarmine out of Osiander, to hold no less than Fourteen, or Twenty Distinct Opinions about it, as if the many Different ways of Declaring the same Doctrine had been as many Different Doctrines. But it hath been some time ago observed by a late Reverend and Leading Divine,

In another Page, the same Author very judiciously gives this Suffrage, So far this Good Dr. unto which I add, That there hath not been so much Variety among us in the Terms and Expressions used in the Stating our Doctrine, but there is much greater among the Papists themselves about the same Points, and their Greatest Doctors mis-represented by one or another of themselves.

Vasquez is Positive that Merit in a strict sense is not, held by the most Learned of the Roman Church, but Arriaga, in Express Opposition to him will have it, that the most Learned of their Communion, are for the Meritoriousness of Good Works by the Rules of Commutative Justice. Alfonsus à Castro, who calls the Doctrine of the Reformed about Justifying Faith, a Pestiferous, and most Pestilential Haeresie, affirms, that 'twas embraced only by Claudius Guilliandus, and One, or Two more in the Council of Trent: On the other hand George Cassander Proves, that the same Notion Protestants have of Faith, was generally owned by Men of the Greatest Learning in their Church. That 'twas approved of by a Provincial Council at Colon, as appears by their Publishing the Enchiridion of Christian Religion, in which this Doctrine is asserted, with the Decrees of that Council, and highly applauded by their most Learned Divines throughout Italy, and France.

Differences about Religious Matters have not been Confin'd to any one Party of Christians, but have stretched themselves to the utmost Bounds of Christendom, so that no one Party can Upbraid the other with their Divisions. We are so much in the Dark, that wherein we are Agreed de Re, we cannot always Perceive it, so that many a time, when a Controversy, only de nomine, arises, we Pursue it as vehemently as if it had been Real. Men of the same Particular Denomination, are so Unreasonably suspicious of one another, as to take it for granted, That every Obscure or Unpleasing Phrase is Heterodox; whereas were we more Exact in our Disquisitions, more mindful of Human Frailty, and more Compassionate and Charitable, we should with Greater Temper, and more Justice Judge both of Persons and Things, and find an Agreement much Greater than now we can Imagine it to be.

To come more close to the Controversy before us, I am very sensible, that our Contending Brethren, and some others, esteem the Differences among us, being about the weightiest Matters indeed of the Gospel, to be such that the Two Poles may as soon meet, as their Doctrines be found in Substance the same. The Noise, I confess, is, That the most Important Doctrines of the Christian Faith, have received a Wound almost, if not altogether Incurable; But I must humbly crave leave to whisper to the Reader, that I think otherwise, and do hold myself in Charity obliged to believe they mean the same thing for the Substance of it. In my closest Converses with each Brother, He who seems to be most for the Exaltation of Free Grace, abhors nothing more than to give the Least Encouragement to an Elect Person's Living in Sin, or Expecting an Enjoyment of the Future Glory, though' he die under the Reigning Power of his Lusts, Unregenerate and finally Impenitent: And the other Brother, who so much presses the Necessity of Faith, Repentance and a Holy Life, detests nothing so much as in any one Instance to Diminish the Glory of Free Grace, or to add anything of our own to Christ's Righteousness in our Justification.

Besides, They have both Subscrib'd the same Propositions, which do not only contain in them the Truths, about which the Contest hath been, but are so framed, as to Provide fully against the Errors, they have been supposed to Embrace. The Errors about which many have been Apprehensive are the Antinomian, Arminian, Popish, and Socinian Errors; all which, with the greatest Caution Imaginable, are Really Renounced by the Subscribers. Their Renunciation is so full, that there is no Room left them for coming off with that Distinction of Subscribing them as Articles of Peace, and not of Faith.

The words of the Agreement are these, namely,

It is further Declared, That they Subscribe to all the main Parts of Doctrine contained in the fore-mentioned Articles, Confessions and Catechisms, as Iudging them Agreeable to the Word of God.

The Import therefore of the Subscription to this Agreement cannot 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 contained 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 fallen in with the Arminian, &c. and that Divers in running from Arminianism, &c. have plunged themselves into the Antinomian Gulf, 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 another's Writings, can Join in Subscribing the same Doctrines, as Deliver'd by others.

CHAP. III.

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 Join'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 inclined to 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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. 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:

Hornbeck in his Summa Controversiarum is more full, speaking distinctly of them,

Lucas Osiander in his Epitome, saith,

Luther, on Genesis, doth in several Places show what the Antinomians are, affirming,

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.

These are the Antinomian Positions, unto which Luther in his Disputations has a respect.

Thus Luther, the first Reformer, that most Gospel Preacher and Admirer of Free-Grace; who in his day excel'd in the Explicating the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's Righteousness received by Faith in Opposition unto that by Works; This Luther, observing, how much some Endeavor'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 lie in these Particulars:

• 1 ^o . The Vacating the Law.
• 2 ^o . The Suppressing all Preaching of Repentance from the Law.
• 3 ^o . The Confining the Doctrine of Repentance, and Revelation of Wrath to the Gospel.
• 4 ^o . 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 lieth 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 lieth 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 Atheist.

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 woefully 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 least doubt, I would never have Pressed it. But the Reproach it brought on the Reformation, and the Ruin, Destruction, Havock, and Devastation it made on the Souls of Men, as it was enough to awaken Luther, Calvin, and the other first Reformers; so it may well Provoke any Man, fearing God, that hath known what are the Dismal Effects of Antinomianism, to caution the Unwary against it, especially considering, how apt well meaning People, are to be taken with the vilest Errors, when clothed with the Beautiful and Splendid Names of Free Grace, and Gospel Truths.

Hieronymus Kromayer, in his Theologia Positivo-Polemica, assures us, that the Libertines are very near a kin to the Antinomians; and are Exactly Described by the Learned Calvin, in a Particular Discourse against them.

The History Calvin gives of them is to this Effect; namely,

• 1.
  'That the whole Law is abolished, and no further to be Regarded by us.
• 2.
  'That everyone ought to follow his own Inclination, and do what is Right in his own Eyes; And yet they Confess,
• 3.
  That we cannot be the Children of God, except we be born again, And after a very Magnificent and Splendid manner, they extol Regeneration; affirming, That if we be the Sons of God, the Old man must be Crucified in us, our Flesh mortified, The World Destroyed and Sin Reign no more in us: However, when they explain themselves, the Poison appears; For, they hold,
  • 1.
    That Regeneration is the Restoring that Innocency, in which Adam was before the Fall.
  • 2.
    That the State of Innocency consisted in Knowing Nothing; in not being able to Discern between Black, and White, it being, Adam's Sin to Eat of the Tree of Knowledge, of Good, and Evil.
  • 3.
    That to mortify the Old Adam, is nothing but to be Unable to Discern, or know what is Evil; That we must be, as little Children, who cannot Discern between Good, and Evil; but follow their Senses, and Natural Inclination.

4.

In a word, the Libertines do really Defend the Absurd and Blasphemous Consequences, with which Luther chargeth the Antinomian Principles, Differing from them in this, That they are more Free Openly to Avow what the other wants Courage to Divulge, or Sense to Understand.

The Libertines seem to see through the whole of their Notions. How one Part is Link'd unto the other: What's their Connection, and Dependance, and How one Point necessarily floweth from the other, and so go on to Embrace the last, though' a very Absurd Consequence, and frame their Practices accordingly.

The Antinomians, though' some of them, yet all do not so, they neither see what naturally follows from their Principles, nor are their Practices so Gross as are their Doctrines. And yet the Agreement in many thing is so Exact and Full, that it's Probable enough, they are but the Effort of one and the same Contrivance.

The Methods, which Quintinus, Persivall, and Pocquius, took to Insinuate their Errors into the Minds of others, compared with what some Practical Antinomians have done, do make thus much very clear.

'Twas the way of both for a while to conceal the Licentious Part of their Opinions, and make a strict Profession of Gospel Purity. They would carry it so fairly as to get into the Conversation of the most Eminent Reformers, and other Professors of the Truth. Pocquius, who, at Geneva, was acquainted with Calvin, would fain have got a Testimonial from Him, of which, though' he failed, yet obtained one from the excellent Martin Bucer, by which means he gained great Reputation amongst many Honest and Well-meaning Protestants.

[A great Snare to Weak and Talkative Men, who from an Itch after Preaching are Tempted to do their utmost for the support of them, who will encourage their Hasty Entrance into the Ministry.]

By these Arts they seduced many Sober Protestants, leading them into a most dissolute way of Living, and to as Pernicious a Security.

Besides Agricolas Islebius, who in the Year 1537, Subscrib'd the Articles, drawn up by Luther at Smalcald, in which the necessity of the Law to true Repentance is expressly asserted, did A. D. 1538. start Antinomianism in Germany, but, on Luther 's Endeavor, publicly recanted, though' soon after Luther 's Death. which was 1546. returned to his old Antinomian Vomit, and in 1548. ran to the other Extream, joining with some Papists in composing the Interim, in which the Doctrine of Justification is framed according to the Popish Model; which yet he would have Bucer subscribe unto, and was a great Stickler for miraculous Cures by Anointing with Oil.

Thus the Reader may see from what Manner of Men these Errors have had their Rise, by what Methods propagated, and how Pernicious their Tendency is to the Souls of Men.

The Antinomians, that got into New-England, are so fully set forth in their proper Colours by Mr. Welde, that I need do no more than Recommend that Account given of it. And go on to consider what Errors have been held by them in this Kingdom.

And because the Learned Hoornbeeck, in his Summa Controversiarum, doth with much Respect unto them, make his Enquiry after their Principles, being a great Enemy to Arminianism. I will lay down the State, he gives of their Notions, which he Reduceth to these Six Heads.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

This is the Account Hoornbeek gives of the English Antinomian: who, in the first Question, is more Kind to them, than Just to the Truth, in saying, they hold, That Christ in Suffering for our Sins, did not only bear the Punishment, and Guilt; but moreover had our Sins themselves Imputed to him: whereas the Imputation of Sin, and otherwise than in its Guilt is Impossible; and the Author whom he chiefly consulted, is Positive, That though' he had diligently searched the Holy Scriptures, could not in any one Place find, Trat Sin was laid on Christ by Imputation, farther affirming. That Guilt is not only inseparable from sin; but is the sin itself, the Fault, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , simply sin .

In this Assertion, there is a Complication of Errors of divers Kinds, even Popish, Socinian and Libertine. Not that I dare charge everyone, that holds this Principle with the mischievous Consequences that too easily flow from it: That is nor fair, nor just, for they may not see the Connection, there is between the one and the other; and may Renounce and Disclaim the more offensive Part. However, in the Oppugning an Error, and Defense of Truth, for the sake of the Unwary, It is necessary, to show in the Point before us, How Error of one kind is linked to that of another; which is thus:

By making Guilt to be, not only Inseparable from the Sin itself; but to be the same thing with it, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Fault itself, as it respects the Command, 'twill unavoidably follow.

1. That the Pardon of Sin is the same with Mortification; and that in Justification there is more than an External, and Relative; there is an Internal, and Physical Change wrought on the Justified Person, whereby it is, as the Papist would have it, confounded with Sanctification.

To clear this, we must observe▪ That Sin essentially Relates to a Law, it being a Transgression of it. The Law hath its Preceptive and Threatning Parts. And Sin, Properly, and Formally considered, is a Transgression of the Precept, and whatever is a Transgression of the Precept, or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 'tis formally, and Properly Sin.

To Understand yet more fully wherein lieth the True Nature of Sin, it being a Relation, our Enquiry must be after its Subject, Foundation, and Term.

The Inclinations, Propensions, Dispositions, Acts, Habits, Thoughts, Words, and Works of a Rational Being are the Subject. The Term is the Preceptive Part of the Law, under whose Regulation the Inclinations, &c. do fall. The Ratio fundandi, or Foundation, from whence the Relation Immediately Results is the Contrariety, Disconformity, Deviation, or Dissonancy of our Inclinations, Propensions, Dispositions, Acts, Habits, Thoughts, Words, Or, Works to the Preceptive Part of the Law. When either our Inclinations, Propensions, &c. are contrary unto, or Dissonant from the Precept, which is Pure and Holy, we Sin, are Unclean, Filthy, and Impure. The Contrariety, Dissonancy, or Obliquity is the Uncleanness, the Filth and Impurity; It is Sin Properly, and Formally.

To Distinguish therefore between the Filth of Sin, and the Sin itself, and at the same time make Guilt to be the Sin itself the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Dissonancy to the Command, is too Intollerably Gross, and Absurd, to admit of a fair Construction; It is to Confound the Precept with the Threatning, to Change the Natures of things, and Pervert the Plainest Truths, it is to call Light Darkness and Darkness Light.

For the Filth of Sin is Contrary to the Precept, Intrinsic to the Sin, Inseparable from it, it is an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But Guilt is Extrinsick to the Sin, it's only an External respect of it to the Threatning of the Law; It's not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . it's not contrary to the Command, but it is God's Will, and Pleasing unto him that he who Commits the Sin, be liable unto Wrath, that is, be Guilty; But the Filth of Sin, is in no sense Pleasing unto him. Besides, Guilt is separable from the Sin.

On this Distinction, between the Sin, and its Guilt, the Reformed do found that other between Justification, and Sanctification, holding, that Justification imports only an Outward and Relative Change, whereby the Soul is freed from Guilt, &c. That Sanctification Denotes an Inward Physical Change by which the Filth of Sin is taken away, and the Sin it-self mortified. But by making Sin, and Guilt the same, Pardon of Sin, also, and its Mortification must be the same too; and that in Justification an Inward and Physical Change is wrought on the Soul. In a word, in that Great Controversy, the most Important One, agitated between Us and the Papist, even touching the Glorious Doctrine of Justification, the Cause is in Fact given up by the Antinomian unto the Papist. Thus in running from Popery, they continue their flight so long till they return to that very Point from whence they did at first set out, and Unwarily give Life to the Error they seem mostly to abhor.

Again, if Guilt be Inseparable from the Sin, there can be no taking away the Guilt by Pardon, but the Sin itself, the Fault ceaseth to be, and consequently, if the Sin of our Nature, with those Inclinations and Lustings after Evil be Pardoned, they cease to be sinful, a Notion that will exceedingly Please the Roman Catholics, who deny Concupiscence to be Sin, in those that Believe.

2. The Imputation of Sin is made Impossible, either from Adam unto Us; or from us unto Christ. A Notion no way ungrateful unto the Arminian Party, who hold,

Whereby it is evident, they make Guilt, which is the Obligation to Punishment, to be Formally the Sin, and therefore Inseparable from it. What Differences soever there may be between the Antinomian, and Arminian in the Method taken to advance the Notion, of Guilt's being Inseparable from Sin, yet they agree in the Assertion, that Guilt, and Sin are Inseparable.

But Dr. Owen gives a truer Account of this Matter, when he tells us,

To which I add, That as the Sin itself cannot Pass from one to Another; in like manner, if the Guilt cannot be separated from the Sin, then the Guilt of Adam 's Sin could not pass from Him to us. It could in no sense be made Ours; Not the Sin itself, for that is Impossible; nor the Sin in its Guilt, because, as they affirm, it's Inseparable from the Sin itself.

Socinus, Smalcius and Ostorodius, in Peltius his Harmony, deliver themselves to the same Purpose, giving us Light enough about the True Reason, why they Deny Original Sin; For, (say they)

This Agreement between the Antinomian, Arminian, and Socinian about the Inseparableness of the Sin itself, and Guilt, is not only Inconsistent with the Doctrine of Original Sin, but strikes at the very Root of Christ's Satisfaction. A Physical Translation or Transfusion of Sin from One to another, being Naturally and Spiritually Impossible, there can be no Imputing the Guilt, nor Inflicting the Punishment of our Sins on Christ. The Links of the Chain lie thus: If Christ did not endure the Punishment, and suffer for our Sins, he could not make Satisfaction for them; If the Guilt of Sin was not Imputed, the Punishment could not be Justly inflicted; If the Guilt be Inseparable from the Sin itself, and that Impossible to Pass from us to Christ (as really it is) the Guilt cannot be Imputed. Thus if no Guilt be Imputed, no Punishment can be by a Righteous God Inflicted; if no Punishment Inflicted, nor Suffering for our Sins, no Satisfaction can be made. And if Salvation may be without Satisfaction, what need of the Incarnation of the Son of God?

This Assertion then, that the Sin itself, and Guilt are Inseparable, doth not only give Advantage to the Papist by confounding Justification with Sanctification; but to the Arminian, in making it Impossible for the Guilt of Adam 's Sin to be Imputed unto his Posterity; and to the Socinian by subverting Christ's Satisfaction, necessarily driving Men, either into the Horror of Despair, or into Libertine Practices.

If Guilt be Inseparable from the Sin itself, so long as Sin Remains in us, a Pardon, which lieth in the Removing Guilt, cannot possibly be obtained, which Fills many with Despair.

But if on the other hand, we suppose, the Pardon of Sin Possible, notwithstanding Guilt is made Inseparable from the Sin, it must then be Granted, that when ever the Guilt is Removed, and the Sin Pardoned, the Sin itself is Destroyed, It's formal Nature is taken away and what Leudness soever they Commit, there is no Sin in them. All Sin, Past, Present, and to Come, being (as they hold) forgiven them, there is no Sin in their Drunkenness, Murder, or Adultery. They may do what they list, they may Rob, Plunder, Oppress the Fatherless and Widow, commit Sodomy and all the Outrages Imaginable; but according to this Principle, Sin they cannot, than which what Greater Encouragement can there be given to Libertinism?

By this little, we may see, what Poison is within the Compass of this first Antinomian Error, to wit, Their making the Sin itself, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Obliquity or the Fault; and Guilt to be Inseparable, if not the same thing. And affirming, that not only the Punishment and Guilt of Sin, but moreover the Sin itself, was laid on Christ; the worst of Popery, Arminianism, Socinianism, and the Libertine Abominations flow from it; And, the other Parts of their Scheme are of the same kind, as I will endeavor Particularly to Evince.

The Second is for Universal Redemption; which they are Unawares led into, by their holding Justification to be before Faith, and their making the Preaching the Gospel necessary for the Relief of Distressed Consciences. If Justification be before Faith; then, nor Unbelief, nor any other obstinate Reigning Sin, can be a Bar unto it. The Absence of what follows Justification cannot hinder your being Justified; for your being Justified before it, necessarily infers your Justification in the Absence thereof, which therefore can be no Impediment, or Hindrance unto it. And if, on the Absence of Faith, Justification is not suspended, But notwithstanding the Reigning Power of Unbelief and other Lusts the Sinner is Justified, what need of Preaching the Gospel; Or, of what Use can Gospel-Promises be to any? Whether the Elect be troubled for Sin, or not, they are by these Men placed in a very safe State, as free from Wrath, as the Saint in Glory; But if any such be troubled, what is there in the Promise for their Comfort? or, what Right, what Title, what Interest hath any Man of a Troubled or Distressed Conscience, in a Promise? He knows not to whom the Promise doth belong, and therefore cannot say, he hath any Title to it. If it be said, It belongs to the Elect, as such, this cannot help him, nor remove the Cause of his Sorrow. He Believes it shall be well with the Elect, but knows not that he is Elected. He is rather afraid he is not, what then must he do for Comfort? Must he look into his own heart, and try himself by marks, and signs? Must he Enquire, whether he hath been convinced of Sin, humbled in the sense of the Evils thereof, sensible of his Lost Estate out of Christ, and of a Necessity of closing with him on his own Terms? No, This is too much, for it's, Legale, and disposes Men to make a Christ of their own Righteousness. Must they Repent, and Believe, that they may be Pardoned? There are many Elect Persons who cannot see they have Repented, or Believed. They have no Faith they are sure, and how shall they be Comforted? For the Comfort of these, the Antinomian Declares, The want of Faith can be no Bar to their Justification, or Pardon, that the Promise is made to Sinners, as such, as they are Sinners, and that no one Sin, or many Sins, how Obstinate soever, can hinder their Interest in the Promise. Are they Sinners? that cannot be denied; It's then, (they say) sufficient. Let them come to Christ, Let them Come, though' under the Reigning Power of Blasphemy, and Unbelief; Let them come to Christ, and be Comforted; Let them be but persuaded that their Sins are Pardoned, and it is so; for the Promise is to Sinners as Sinners, and therefore to all and every Sinner.

This is the Duty (they say) of every Man to look on the Promise, as made unto them, that is, All must believe, that their Sins are Pardoned, because the Promise is unto all, which cannot be, Unless All be Redeemed. The Pardon of Sin is not given to any but such as are Redeemed. If all must believe, that their Sins are Pardoned, because the Promise of Pardon is to all Sinners, as such, then all are Pardoned, then all are Redeemed.

Thus you have the Reason, why Hoornbeek charges the English Antinomian, with holding Universal Redemption; to which their Third Principle is Conform.

3. That the Soul is United to Christ, and in Covenant with him before any Good Quality be wrought in the Heart, and that it can Apply the Promise of Grace, as well whilst Unregenerate, as when a Believer.

The Promise, being made to the Sinner, as he is a Sinner, and therefore to every Sinner, he may, whilst he is a Sinner, apply the Promise, as well as when a Believer, or indeed rather better, because the Promise belongs not to him, as he is a Believer; but, as he is a Sinner, and yet the Promise belonging to him as he is a Sinner, he must be in Covenant, for the Extent of the Promise is not, nor can be any larger than that of the Covenant, and being in Covenant, partaking of Saving Benefits, they must be United unto Christ whilst Sinners. None so in Covenant with God, as to be actually Interested in the special Blessings of it, but such as are United unto Christ, which according to this Antinomian Principle, Men may be many Years before they aright believe, or are Regenerated: For, (as in their Fourth Assertion )

4. Their Justification is before their Faith, and their Faith followeth their Justification.

Thus much must be asserted, or all that had been formerly said, would have signified nothing, as is obvious to a Common Capacity, and that which is as necessary a Link in this Chain, as the other is; The Fifth viz.

5. That in order to our being Comforted by the Promises of Christ, and making them sure, and certain to us; To Grieve and Repent of the Sins we have Committed, from Sights of the transgressed Law; and the Deserved Punishment, is not necessary.

The Reason is manifest. The Promise being made to Sinners, as Sinners, their Comforts, and Assurances must arise from the Consideration of their being Sinners; and not from their Grief for Sin, their Repentance, or Humiliations. To them as Penitent, and Humbled, the Promise is not, but as Impenitent, Unhumbled, and Unbelievers; and the Promise being unto them, as such, their Comforts, and Assurances must arise from them.

But of what use then is the Law? It is of none, especially unto Believers, or Regenerate Persons, as is held by them in their Sixth Assertion.

6. The Moral Law must not be Preached to Believers, and Regenerate Persons.

It might have been added by them, that the Preaching of the Law is of no use at all unto any; For Sin, and Guilt being made by them Inseparable from One another, the Guilt being, in Pardon, Removed, whilst Unregenerate, and under the Power of Unbelief. there is no Sin left in them; No formal Sins to Repent of, which makes the Preaching of the Law to be altogether Useless unto Unbelievers.

Thus,

This is the English Antinomianism as full of Horrid Consequences, naturally flowing from it, as is the German, and as near a kin to Libertinism, as I have shown in my Remarks on their first Principle.

This Particular Account of the Antinomian Errors, which is taken from the Reports made of them by the Greatest Adversaries to Arminianism, Popery, or Socinianism, is (as everybody may see) directly opposite to the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England, the Westminster, and Savoy Confessions, the Larger, and Shorter Catechisms, and Undoubtedly nothing more Detested by our Reverend Brethren, than these Abominations. They are far from making Sin and Guilt the same, the one Inseparable from the other; Or, of holding, that the Promise of Justification, or Pardon; Adoption and Glory belong to Sinners as such; or, that all Sinners are actually in the sight of God Pardoned, and Redeemed; Or, that the Elect, quâ Elect, have a secret Hidden Right to the Heavenly Inheritance, for this would be to vacate the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ, which is the only foundation of their Right. And this they have, not, merely as Elect; but as Christ's Seed, in which sense the Covenant of Grace is made with them. Besides, the Right, Resulting from Christ's Righteousness, and made theirs, as they are Christ's Seed, is theirs, and no otherwise, than as they themselves are Christ's, which is after a Twofold manner, Virtually, or Actually. All the Elect being given to Christ their Head, are Christ's Virtually, ever since Christ was set up to be a Head or second Adam; and as such can only have a Virtual Right. But, when Born again. Spirit of Spirit, and are actual Descendents from Christ's Loins: United to him by Faith, then, and not till then, have they an actual Right to the Heavenly Inheritance. This, I am persuaded, is the utmost our Brethren mean, and is the same Truth asserted in the subscribed Propositions, where it's express.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

These Propositions are so directly opposite unto the Antinomian Doctrines, that it's Impossible for an Intelligent, and sincere Subscriber to Approve of Autinomianism. The vacating the Law, and making the Preaching thereof Useless, the actual Justification of a Sinner in the sight of God before Faith, and the like, are in words expressly Exploded by the Assembly, and ought to be witnessed against by Sound and Faithful Ministers.

Thus much may suffice for the clearing our Brethren from the Charge of Antinomianism, whose Principles are to be Judged by their Subscriptions; and not by an Inaccurate, Obscure or Perplex'd Passage in a Sermon, or Polemical Discourse.

What Antinomianism is, and How Inconsistent with the Subscribed Articles, and Confessions, hath been Particularly Declared, and yet it's further necessary, before I Proceed to the Consideration of the Socinian, and those other Errors in Controversy, that I do my Part to clear some Important Truths from the Reproach of Antinomianism, and Vindicate the First Reformers from the Unjust Charge of Espousing so Gross an Heresy, which that I may the more Convincingly do, I will in several Instances show what is not Antinomianism.

First then, 'It is Not Antinomianism to Assert,

This is a Notion expressly affirmed by the Westminster Assembly, and not only so, but directly Opposite to several main Branches of that Antinomian Error, Supplying us with Invincible Arguments against it.

If Jesus Christ be a Second-Adam, it must be granted, that there is a Similitude, a Resemblance, and Agreement in some Third between him and the First-Adam. That this Agreement lieth in these Particulars, namely, As the One is a Father of an Off-spring; so the other: And, as the Off-spring of the One bears the Image of their Father; so is it with the Off-spring of the other; And as the Posterity of the First Adam derive anything from him, after the same manner do the Posterity of the Second from him.

Thus the First Adam is a Type, or Figure of the Second, who was to come. And, as we have born the Image of the Earthy Adam; so shall we bear the Image of the Heavenly: And, as by the Disobedience of one many are made Sinners; so by the Obedience of another, are many made Righteous. Whence it follows,

• 1. That as Guilt, the Immediate Result of Adam 's Sin (and not his Personal Sin) was made the Guilt of all his Posterity, descending from him by Ordinary Generation: So the Righteousness, the Immediate Result of Christ's Personal Holiness; and not the Personal Holiness itself, is made the Righteousness of Christ's Spiritual Off-spring.
• 2. As the Seed of the First Adam may be be considered either as Virtually, and Seminally in him; or as Actually Descended from him; and as Seminally in him, they are only Virtually Guilty; As Actually born of him are actually Guilty: In like manner the Seed of the second Adam must be looked on as Virtually, and Seminally in him; or as Actually born of him. In the first sense, they can be but Virtually Justified, and not Actually till actually born of him by a Spiritual Regeneration.
• 3. As the Imputation of Adam 's Guilt to all his Off-spring is founded on a Natural, and Faederal Union between Adam, and his Posterity; so the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to his Spiritual Off-spring, is grounded on a Spiritual, and Faederal, or Covenant-Union between him, and them. Whence it follows,

That no Elect Person, merely as Elect, can be, either Actually or Virtually, Justified, That Justification, which is by Christ's Righteousness Imputed and by Faith Received, doth Immediately flow from the Elect Persons being Christ's Seed.

The Covenant of Grace being made with Christ as Head; and with the Elect; not merely as Elect, but as Christ's Seed; Justification, the Great Covenant-Blessing belongs to none, but as they are in Covenant with Christ, that is, as they are Christ's Seed.

A Decretive Justification belongs to the Elect as such: But this gives no Right to the Heavenly Inheritance, The utmost Import of i • is, that God did from all Eternity •• urpose in himself, that such and such Particular Souls should be Christ's Seed, and as such be Justified. This Inward and Etern •• •• urpose, though', it be a Topic from whence the certainty of the Justification of the Elect in the Way, and manner Ordained of God, is clearly Inferr'd: Yet doth it not give any Being thereunto. So that notwithstanding the Decree, which nihil ponit in esse, an Elect Person may be so far from having any Right, secret and hidden; manifest, or known, that he may be the Child of the first Adam, and as such, Really Guilty, that is, obnoxious, and liable to the Curse, which is wholly incompatible with a Real Right to Impunity; or the Reward. Nothing more manifest than that a Right to an Estate results not from an Internal Purpose of giving it. It is not the Purpose, but the Promise, that gives Right, and the Promise is not to the Elect, as such, but to the Elect, as Christ's Seed.

That all the Elect are given unto Christ, is manifestly True, but their Right Results from their being Christ 's, who as such have the Promise made unto them. According to the Eternal Purpose, was the Promise given us in Christ before the World began.

The Decree not giving Being to what is Purposed, it doth not hinder the Execution of that Part of the Counsel of God, according unto which the Elect are the Off-spring, both of the First, and Second Adam, which cannot be at the same time, but successively it is. Tho' Virtually and Seminally, in different Respects, an Elect Person may be considered, as the Seed of the First, and Second Adam; and when actually a Descendant from the First Adam, he may be looked on as Virtually the Seed of the Second: yet Actually, he cannot be at the same time the Seed of both. On his being born of Christ he ceaseth to be a Child of the first Adam, and of Wrath, but not till then; He must be actually a Descendant from the second Adam, and be by Faith United unto Christ, before he can be actually Justified, which is a Truth, that strikes at the very Sinews of Antinomianism, and therefore whatever the Arminian or Socinian may affirm of it; Or how much soever the Antinomian may Abuse it; 'tis most Opposite unto Error, 'It is Orthodox, and Sound.

Secondly, To affirm,

The Papists will have it, that Christ bore the Punishment of our Sin, but not the Guilt. The Socinians, who see the Connection there is between Guilt and Punishment, how that where ever Punishment is Justly laid, there Guilt must be, are Positive, that nor the Guilt nor the Punishment of Sin was on Christ. The Guilt, and Punishment are Relatives, so that where no Guilt, there (saith Socinus ) no Punishment can be. And it must be yielded. That Punishment hath an Essential respect unto Sin, it must be for Sin, or it cannot be Punishment; and it cannot be for Sin on whom no Sin is, either Inhaerently; Or, by Imputation. Sin Inherently could not be in him, who knew no Sin. Nor can there be the Imputation of Sin, but by transferring its Guilt unto him.

That Christ suffered, was wounded, and bruised for our Sins is in too many Places, throughout the Holy Scriptures, asserted, to admit of a Denial. But Christ could not justly suffer for our Sins, unless in a sound sense, he bore the Guilt of them. To Punish the Innocent as Innocent, is Injustice. Jesus Christ therefore though' Innocent in himself, voluntarily becoming our Surety, took on him the Guilt of Sin, and suffered Justly; because as being Guilty.

To clear this, is the Difficulty, and many, in the Attempt, fall into dangerous Mistakes. They who make Sin and Guilt the same thing, by asserting the Guilt to be laid on Christ, Quantum in se, do make Christ Inherently a Sinner, which is Antinomianism; and they, who say the Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ, but not the Guilt, give up the Cause to the Socicinian; For if not the Guilt, then nor the Punishment; whence no Satisfaction.

The Guilt lieth between the Sin and its Punishment. It is an Obnoxiousness unto Punishment for Sin; which, as it Results from the Sin, or Fault, is called the Guilt of the Fault; But, as it respects the Punishment, being an Obligation thereunto 'tis Guilt of Punishment.

This Guilt is not Intrinsic to the Sin; The Sin is Entire without it; It is only an External respect of it to the Sanction of the Law, and Separable from the Sin itself, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so that though' the Sin Remain in us, the Guilt Passeth from us to Christ.

The Entire Nature of Sin lieth in a Respect unto the Preceptive Part of the Law, being (as hath been already Observed) a Transgression, or a Want of Conformity unto it. The Sin, is in its Formal Nature, Entire, without any Regard to the Sanction. From this Sin, as it respects the Threatning, Results Guilt; which is an Obnoxiousness unto Punishment; or, the Dignitas Paenae propter Culpam, and is Extrinsick to the Sin, separable from it, and may be laid on him, who never transgressed the Commandment. Nor can it morally Defile, or Pollute the Person on whom it is laid.

Christ therefore, though' in him there was no Sin, might bear the Guilt of our Sins, and nevertheless remain Pure, Harmless, Undefiled, and without Spot; which is sufficient to Vindicate this Doctrine from Antinomianism, and those other Absurdities that flow from the making Sin, and Guilt the same thing, and yet hold it to have been laid on Christ.

What I have here delivered amounts to no more than what is carried in that Common Distinction of our Sins being laid on Christ, not Inherently, but by Imputation. If the Sin, in its formal Nature, had been on Christ, there would have been Ground enough for that Charge of Blasphemous Consequences, which Bellarmine, and the Socinians load us with. That would, indeed, be to make Christ Inherently a Sinner, • ay, Filius Diaboli. But to deny this; and affirm, that Christ was made Sin, Duly by Imputation, that is, by the laying the Guilt of our Sins, not only the Punishment, but the Guilt on him, is consistent with his Freedom from all Moral Filth, or Defilement; and is necessary to Defend the Gospel Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction against the Socinian; for, as KROMAYERUS well expresses it, Abs{que} Peccatorum Imputatione, & Paenarum Perpessione, Satisfactionem hic nullam cogitariposse.

CHAP. IV.

IT is not Antinomianism to Deny the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace.

There is not, it may be, any one Point in the Body of Divinity of greater Difficulty than this about the Covenant of Grace, and its Conditionality. They that search deeply into the many Controversies agitated between us, the Papist. Arminian, Socinian, and Antinomian; will find that the most Important Parts of it Turn on this Hinge. The Papist, Arminian, and Socinian cannot see, how the Covenant of Grace could be made with Jesus Christ, as a Second Adam; and with the Elect, as his Seed, which is One Reason of their many Mistakes. And the Antinomian fixeth his thoughts so very much on the Covenant of Grace's being made with Christ, that there is no Room left him to Consider, how it can be made also with his Seed; which occasions their Asserting, That Christ performed the whole required of us in order to our being actually Interested in him, and his Benefits; as well as make Satisfaction by his Sufferings; and Merit by his Righteousness for them that Believe: That Christ Believed, and Repented for us, as if there had been no other Reason for our Doing either, than to Obtain the Knowledge of our having what actually was ours, whilst under the Power of Unbelief, and Impenitency.

But, it not being my Province to enter on a Large Debate of these things, I will only show, that there are such Senses, in which the word [Condition] is used by the Papists, Arminian, and Socinian, as do Confound Gospel Grace with the Law of Works, and establish Merit; Destroy the Doctrine of the Spirits working the First Grace; and subvert Christ's satisfaction, and so make it Evident, That One, who Detests Antinomianism, may yet Deny the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace.

If the word [Condition] when spoken of the Two Covenants, namely, of Works, and Grace, be taken in the same sense in both, the one will be Confounded with the other.

To Evince thus much, I will show the Import of the Condition of the Covenant of Works, and how it agrees with the Popish Doctrine of Merit, and leave it to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader to consider the Truth of my Assertion.

The Condition of the Covenant of Works is ea res, quae Praestita, dat Jus ad Praemium. It is that Obedience, to which the Promise was made; and from the Performance of which, a Right to the Reward immediately Results, and for which, in Justice, it is due.

This Condition, being Perfect Obedience, was to a Law, enforced with Rewards and Punishments, which Obedience, the Reward becoming due to it, ex Justitia, is Meritorious. And as, on the Rendring the Required Obedience, the Reward is Justly Due; so, seeing the Performance of the Condition, is the same with the Render of Perfect Obedience, the Blessing Promised is thereon Justly due unto it; and the Performing the Condition is meritorious, for Merit is nothing but that Actio quâ Justum est, ut Agenti aliquid Detur.

There is much, much variety (I must confess) amongst the Papists in stating their Doctrine of Merit, but the Prevailing Opinion is, That Merit, and Reward, Essentially Respect one another. That Merit is a Good Work freely done, to which some Reward as a certain Price is Justly Due, that between the Merit and the Reward there is some sort of Equality. Thus Aquinas, Cajetan, Medina, and Gregory de Valentia.

The Reward, being made ex justitia, Due, Merit of Congruity is denied to be Merit in a Proper sense. So Gregory de Valentia, Merit of Congruity is but Improperly Merit.

But that the Work may be Properly Meritorious, and the Reward be Justly due to it, It must be Eree, not Forced; Forced acts being more Brutal, than Rational cannot Please God: It must be a Work done in Obedience to God's Law; by One that is in via, and Reconcil'd unto God. All others being full of Sin can Merit nothing but Punishment, whence the Meritorious Work must flow from Grace, which is freely bestowed, and not merely from the Intrinsic virtue of the Work itself, but from the Ordination and Promise of God.

The Schoolmen Generally Distinguish Merit ex Justitia into that which is, De Rigore Justitiae, and what is ex Condigno. Sanctae Clara, indeed saith, That Eckius, and Marsilius, in Vega, as also Bellarmine, with some others, Deny Merit, de Condigno, holding a Merit only ex Digno. Not to trouble ourselves with these Niceties, I must observe, that (whatever Arriaga suggests to the contrary) Merit, ex rigor Justitiae, is what ariseth from the Work itself, and Worth of the Person, that doth it, and not from God's Gracious and Merciful Acceptance. This They Assign to Christ alone. So Medina.

Sancta Clara, who gives us the sense of the Scotists, speaks much to the same purpose,

Alfonsus de Castro, and Gregory de Valentia delivering the Sense of the Church of Rome with much Clearness, and Candor, I will, to find out their Genuine sense, if possible, Give what they write of it.

This and much more hath Alfonsus de Castro about Merit de Condigno, which is highly applauded by Gregory de Valentia, whose Endeavors are to Raise it to a Merit by the Rule of Commutative Justice. Not that he thinks our Good Works have any such Intrinsic worth in them, as Equalizes them with Eternal Glory, for he grounds that on the Gracious Ordination and Promise of God, (as the Papists generally do) and illustrates it thus. Suppose a Prince by his Ordinance puts an Extraordinary Value on Money of a base Alloy, by this means, though' the Money in itself, and abstract from the Regal Constitution, falls very short of the thing, for which 'tis Commuted; yet, by Virtue of the Royal Ordinance it's made of Equal Price with it; and so it must pass in Bargains by the Rules of Commutative Justice. The same he saith of Good Works, which, considered in themselves separate from the Divine Ordination, and Promise, are not to be compared with the Glory, yet having so great a Value put upon them by God's Ordination, they are after a sort made Equal with Eternal Life, and Merit according to Commutative Justice.

To Improve what is taken out of these Popish Writers, about Merit of Condignity, it must be observed;

• 1. That altho' the Reward Infinitely excel the Work in its own Nature considered; and that the Promise be simply and absolutely Free, and it is Impossible for a Just Man to do the good Work, without the Help of God's Grace; yet the Work thus done may be Meritorious ex Condigno. All these things they allow, and yet make good Works Meritorious.
• 2. That this Merit lying in a Duness of the Reward to the good Work ex Justitia, it is founded in the Promise. We are, say they, under a Law, which has, not only a Preceptive, but a Promisory Part, whence because of the Connection there is between Obedience to the Precept, and the Promise, a Right to the Reward immediately Results from the Obedience, or good Work. The good Work gives Right to the Reward, that is, it Merits the Reward, and the Reward is justly due for that Obedience.

But here they are at a Plunge, how to state this Matter so as to make the Reward due ex Justitia, the Promise as a single Promise being insufficient for their Purpose.

The Objection that lieth against them is this, If the Meritorious Act be so, only from the Divine Promise, or God's Gracious Acceptation, then the Reward cannot be ex Justitiâ, the good Work may be done, and God not obliged in Justice to give the Reward. The utmost that can be said is this, God in Faithfulness is bound by his Promise to Reward the Doer, but not in Justice; and yet unless God be in Justice bound, the Work cannot be meritorious ex Condigno. To this Objection their Answer (as I find it in Sancta Clara ) is, that the fulfilling a Naked Promise, is only an Act of Fidelity and Faithfulness: But, the fulfilling a Covenant Promise, which is made on Condition, as between a Master and Servant, where the Master Promises a Reward on Condition of such a Service, here, for the Master to fulfil the Promise to his Servant on his Performing the Condition, is an Act of Justice, which is (say they) our Case.

Thus to make good Works meritorious, they assert a Law, with a Promise; making the Dignity of the Work to lean on the Promise: And that the Reward may be Due ex justitia, the Law is turned into a Covenant, where Obedience to the Preceptive Part is made the Condition, that giveth Right to the Reward. So that it is that Conditionality of the Covenant, on which the Merit of Condignity is Founded. All which is undoubtedly true of the Covenant given Adam. For if he had but rendered the Perfect Obedience required by the Preceptive Part of the Law; or, which is the same, if he had Perform'd the Condition of that Covenant made with him; it would have given him a Right to the Reward, it would have been in Justice due to him, that is, he would have merited it Ex Condigno.

Tho' his Temporary Obedience fell infinitely short of the Reward of Eternal Life; yet because of the Promise made on a Covenant-Condition, giving Right; the Reward, on his performing the Condition, would have been Due to him ex justitia (i. e.) he would have merited it Ex Condigno.

In like manner, if the word [Condition] when assigned to the Covenant of Grace, be taken in this sense, viz. for that thing, which, being Perform'd, gives Right to the Reward, the Covenant of Grace is Confounded with that of Works, and Merit of Condignity effectually established.

'It is Confounded with the Covenant of Works, and made a Covenant of the same kind with it, for in both, as there is a Precept enjoining Duty, and a Promise of Reward; even so, notwithstanding the Work falls infinitely short of the Reward, yet the Reward being Promised on a Condition, giving Right; A Right unto it Results from the Performance of the Condition, and the Reward is due ex justitia, and so Merit of Condignity is also established.

Nor can it signify anything to say, we exclude all Merit from our Good Works, by ascribing all to the Grace of God, enabling us; and nothing to our own Strength, making their Rewardableness to Lean on the Ordination, and Promise of God, For the Papists make all these Necessary to Merit ex Condigno; affirming, That unless the Work proceed from Grace▪ it cannot be meritorious of Eternal Life, and that they give not any Dignity to their Good Works, but acknowledge that in themselves considered and Precise; as separate from the Ordination of God they are of no worth, that their Rewardableness is founded on the Promise.

In these things lie the very Nature of Merit; for which reason, to deny our Works to be meritorious because their Rewardableness is founded on the Promise, it is as if, you would deny Peter to be a Man, because he is a Rational Creature.

This being the Doctrine held by the Papists about Merit, one Great Point Controverted between them, and first Reformers, was about Our Works being a Condition of Eternal Life, and accordingly in the Council of Trent it's Decreed with an Anathema,

Let him be Accursed.

In the Scholia of the Reformed, on this Canon, as Lucas Osiander Represents it, their sense is manifest, for say they,

Calvin, on this very Canon is Positive,

I might give many Authorities more, 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 sense, 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,

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.

However, from the Grant, that our Faith is such a Condition of Eternal Life, they triumphantly oppugn some Important Truths. Particularly, they thus argue against Christ's Meriting Faith and Regeneration for the Elect.

They carry it yet further, asserting,

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 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 sense 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 Overwary Persons, supposed 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 ourselves Determine.

The Socinians do not strive a little to subvert Christ's Satisfaction, from this very Consideration, That the Remission of Sin is offered 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.

To evince thus much, 'twill be sufficient to consult once morce Smalcius, who having affirmed; 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,

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 anything • n us, not from our Faith, Repentance, or any other Good Works. The Right • 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 maintained 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 cannot see any middle Way between themselves and the Antinomian. Justification must flow either Immediately from Christ's Satisfaction to the Elect whilst 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 diversely 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 Use 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,

But, notwithstanding the various senses the word [Condition] is Capable of; and how mischievous soever the Popish, Arminian and Socinian Usages of it are; there is a Sound Sense in which the Word may be used.

That Faith is a Condition (if we may in our Interpreting of Scripture, observe the Rules of the Juncts ) is as certain, as if it had been expressly mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. These words [He that believes shall be saved] Import a Condition. For, Relativum junctum Verbo futuri temporis conditionem facit: which, our Modern Divines, who Reject the above-mentioned Errors, do yet approve; but in what Sense, is our Business at this time to Explain.

Condition then may be Distributed into Legal, and Gospel, or Testamentary. A Legal Condition is Obedience to the Preceptive Part of a Law, giving Right to the Reward; such was that of the Covenant of Works made with Adam; and of this sort are the Popish, Arminian, and Socinian Conditions. A Gospel Condition is of the same Kind with what Peculiarly belongs to Testamentary Disposition. It is, (say the Civilians ) Lex Negotio apposita, unde Ipsius Eventus pendet. Or, Lex addita negotio quae donec praestetur suspendit Eventum.

To understand this Testamentary Condition, we must consider that there is a Principal Cause, whose Operation is suspended, till a Rule, added thereunto, be observed. There is the Promise, or Donation of a Legacy, which must be given according to the last Will of the Testator. But to this Promise, or Donation, there is added a Rule, that must be Regarded, viz. That this Legacy be given either in such a time or Place, or in such a way, or manner. This is the Lex addita Negotio that must be observed before the Legacy be actually given. It is the Condition, which, till Perform'd, suspends the Event; namely, the giving of the Legacy. And (as the Learned Mr. Baxter explains it) 'tis only the Modus Promissionis Donationis, vel Contractus; where, the fulfilling of the Promise, is as Really suspended until this Modus be observed, as if it had Resulted from the Observation of it. A Disposition made on Condition, or sub modo, signifieth nothing until the Condition or Mode be performed. 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 settled, and established 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, though' our Divines have different Sentiments about it, yet 'tis 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, though' 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, for which the Judicious Mr, Strong gives several Reasons; namely,

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 Antinomians, (I mean such as are really so) have had too much Honor given them by such as Grant, that their Notion about Faith is supported by the Suffrage of the First-Reformers: Whereas, on a Diligent search, 'twill Appear, that the Difference between them is very great; the Antinomians holding Actual Justification in the Sight of God to be before Faith, and the Others Deny it.

To Vindicate the First Reformers from this Unjust Charge, I will impartially propose what they held of it, and show, how they have opposed the Papists, Arminians, and Socinians, and wherein they differ from the Antinomians.

The Account they give of Faith is the same with what I have laid down, they make it to be a Firm Perswasion, wrought in the Heart of Man, that his Sins are forgiven him.

Luther defines it thus.

Melanchthon, in the First Part of his Works, saith,

And, amongst many others insists on the Testimony of St. Bernard,

Calvin in his Institutions makes Faith to be a Certain, and Firm Knowledge of the Mercy of God towards Vs, Founded on the Truth of the Free Promise in Christ, made known, and sealod to our Hearts by the Holy Spirit. And his Catechism, Translated into English, and Joyned to the Form of Prayers, &c. used in the English Congregation at Geneva, in Queen Mary's Reign, hath it thus:

Beza thus.

More fully, in his Annotations on Rom. 1.16.

Peter Martyr, though' he Defines not Faith thus, yet holds,

In like manner, Zanchi, affirms,

But Pareus, on the Romans saith,

Hemingius is of the same Mind. And, whoever will, may see, in Le Blank, many others, making Faith to lie in a Firm Perswasion, that our Sins are Forgiven.

Dr. Willet affirms it to have been held by Blessed Martyrs in Henry the Eighth, and Queen Mary 's Reigns, and by the later Helvetian, Saxony, and Bohemian Confessions: And, sure I am, that it is very Express in our Book of Homilies, established by Act of Parliament.

This Notion of Justifying Faith, the Lutheran, and Calvinian Reformers insisted very much upon, in their Opposition unto the Papists, who held Faith to be but an Historical Assent: And yet, it must be acknowledged that Cassander offers some Considerations of great weight to Prove, that the Generality of the most Learned in the Church of Rome agreed with the Reformed herein, blaming us for insinuating, as if they taught the People to doubt of the Grace of God, and of their Salvation, and then make it a Reason of the Separation.

However, Alfonsus de Castro will have it, that not many of their Church were of this Opinion, that the Enchiridion of Christian Religion was not much to be regarded, because Hermannus, the Archbishop of Cologne, who called the Provincial Council, by which 'twas Published, was an Heretic; But, Binius, in the Title, prefixed to this Council, saith, 'twas after this that the Archbishop fell into Heresy: And yet nevertheless, it must be yielded, That 'twas greatly Controverted between Papist and Protestant, Whether Faith was a Fiducia, and lay in a firm Perswasion of our being Pardoned; Or, only a General Assent?

And as the Reformed Defended this Notion about Faith in Opposition to the Papists; so they did it also against the Arminian, and Socinian.

Bodecherus, in his Sociniano-Remonstrantismus, doth out of the Remonstrants Confession and Writings of Socinus show an Agreement between the Socinian, and Arminian, in their Denying this Fiducia, or Perswasion to be Saving Faith.

Johannes Peltius in his Harmony, out of Arminius; Episcopius; Arnoldus; the Remonstrants Conference, at the Hague; their Confession, and Apology, &c. as also out of Ostorodius, and Socinus puts it out of all Doubt, that the Arminians and Socinians concur in their oppugning Faiths being such a firm Perswasion: And out of the Belgic Confession, and Catechism, and the National Synod at Dort. He makes it manifest, that the Reformed held Faith to be a Perswasion that our Sins are Pardoned.

Polyander, Rivet, Walaeus, and Thysius in their Censure of the Remonstrants Confession, having shown the Parallel between the Arminians, and Socinians, are Positive,

To this, these Authors of the Censure, in Opposition unto the Papist, Arminian, and Socinian, do give it as the sense of the Reformed, that the Remission of Sin, de praesenti, is the Proper Object of this Fiducia, or Perswasion, and that Justifying Faith lieth in such a Perswasion, as that by which we Believe, our Sins in praesenti are Forgiven us.

Against this Doctrine Bellarmine, Socinus, and the Remonstrants raise several Objections, Exposing the Notion, and all that Defended it to the utmost Reproach, and Contempt, as if hereby the Pardon of Sin was made a Necessary Antecedent unto Justifying Faith, and none could have Faith but they, who had a Comfortable Assurance, and that whoever could but Confidently Perswade himself his Sins were Pardoned, how wickedly soever he lived, had Saving Faith, and was Justified. Besides, amongst Protestants themselves, there have been of late years too many, who not searching diligently enough into the Writings of the First Reformers, have too hastily condemned them, and given too much Countenance to the Unrighteous Accusations of Papists, Arminians, and Socinians, and Encouraged the Antimonians to go on the more boldly in their Error, as if they had Luther, Calvin, and all their Followers to Abet it; whereas, on a fair and equal Trial, these Charges will appear to be Groundless, and Unreasonable, which with much clearness may be evinced, if we consider, How the First Reformers held, That Justification is not before Faith. That many Fears, and Doubtings are consistent with it. And, That none, who continued to live under the Reigning Power of their Lusts had; or, whilst so, could have Saving Faith.

These things, for the Readers greater Satisfaction; I will, with all the Plainness I can, particularly Prove.

To the First, That Justification is not before Faith.

1. Thus much necessarily flows from their Asserting Faith to be the Instrumental Cause of Justification. If Faith be a Cause, though' but a less Principal One of Justification; Justification cannot be before it. 'Twould be the Greatest Injustice Imaginable, to Insinuate, that the first Reformers, affirmed, That Justification was before Faith, and yet Faith any Cause of Justification. They could not be so grossly Ignorant as to think the Effect had an Existence before its Cause.

That they insisted on Faiths being the Instrumental Cause of Justification is so much the Burden of their Writings, that whoever consults them, cannot find room for the Least Doubt concerning it. Our Learned Wotton instances in Calvin, Ursin, Hannius, Bastingius, Chemnitz, Bucanus, Willet, and Perkins, as Asserters of it, And he might have added Pareus, Beza, Peter Martyr, Zanchi, and many others.

Quenstedius, a Lutheran, mentions Gerhardus, Battus, Dorscheus, Kester, the Theologi Giessenses, Hulsemannus, Calovius, and Dannhawerus, as Men of Great Learning, who made Faith to lie in a firm Perswasion of the Pardon of Sin, and yet Affirm'd it to be the Instrumental Cause of Justification. But,

2. This will appear with more Conviction on an Equal Proposal of what the Reformers themselves have Deliver'd in Explicating the Notion, they had of Justifying Faith, whose Disquisitions, for the Investigation of Truth, were very Close and Profound: They weighed the Difficulties on every hand, and their Determinations were after much Consideration, and with Great Judgment.

But this thing having been already done by the Learned Le Blank, I must beseech my Reader to have Recourse unto him; And yet, for the help of such as have him not, I will out of him, and some other Judicious Writers on this Subject, give the sense of the Reformed.

The Learned Robert Baronius, in Le Blank, Explicates the Notion about Fiducia, thus:

Maresius, saith, That there is a Threefold Act of Faith, distinctly to be Considered in our Justification. The first Dispositive, whereby I believe, that Christ hath merited the Pardon of Sin for them, that are his, &c. The Second is formally Justificatory, whereby I, who am now Sorrowing for my Sin, and Purposing Amendment of Life do believe, that all my Sins are at this present Forgiven: The Third Consolatory whereby I Believe, that all my Sins have been Pardoned, and that I shall never more be in a State of Condemnation. In the First sense, Faith is before Justification. In the Second, Simultaneous with it; In the Third, it followeth it. Pareus expresseth himself to the same purpose. Before the Act of Justification, (that is to say, in order of Nature, not of time) Our Faith or Perswasion hath for its Object this Proposition, de futuro, [ My Sins shall be Forgiven me on my believing.] In the very Act of Justification, it hath this Proposition de praesenti, [My Sins are Forgiven me;] After my Justification, this de Praeterito. [My Sins have already been Pardoned.]

The Authors of the Censure, do on this occasion declare,

By what I have here gathered out of Le Blank, and some others, it's manifest, That though' the Reformed took into the Description they gave of Justifying Faith, the Perswasion of the Pardon of Sin, yet Generally they Agreed in Denying Justification to be before it. The Methods they took for the clearing thus much, you see, were divers.

Zanchi, following the Excellent Martin Bucer, held Faith, and Fiducia to be Inseparably conjoin'd, but yet the one different from the other. Beza and Garisiolius took this Fiducia or Firm Perswasion to be an Inseparable Effect of Faith. And, they, who made it the the Formal Reason and the Justifying Act, considered the Objects of this Perswasion distinctly, as the Pardon was either Future, de praesenti, or de praeterito: As it was a Pardon that either should be; Or, as then actually had; Or, as what had been before: and so made the Perswasion of a Pardon to be had, Antecedaneous to Justification; But as de praesenti obtained, Simultaneous with it; And the other after it, That though' they Defined it by Perswasion of a Pardon already had; yet made it not the Justifying Act. The utmost Point, to which they went, was, That this Fiducia, or Particular Perswasion of Forgiveness de praesenti, was Simultaneous, and in the same Instant of Nature with Justification, which is a Motion contrary unto, and destructive of the Antinomian Error, as hereby it's made impossible for an Elect Person to be actually justified in the sight of God one Instant of Nature before he be by Faith United unto Christ, that every such person, so long as he is in a state of Unbelief and Unregeneracy, is unjustified is in a state of Condemnation, and under the Curse of the Law.

This particular is very clearly expressed by the Learned Dr. Ames, who saith,

To give a more particular Account of the the Lesser Differences among the First Reformers, as well as among our Modern Divines, and show how they variously explicated the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, being more to gratify the Curiosity of some, than satisfy the Consciences of any, I will wave it, and go on to

The second; That many Fears and Doubts are consistent with Justifying Faith.

Tho' they made Justifying Faith to be a firm persuasion of the pardon of sin, yet they meant not such a persuasion as was so exclusive of all Doubts and Fears about our Salvation, that whoever in the least doubted, was destitute of Faith.

Thus much the Dr. adds immediately after he had told us, that many who were Orthodox described Faith by a persuasion of the Grace and Mercy of God in Christ, whereby he seems to insinuate a distinction to be between the Perswasion of Pardon, and the sense of that Perswasion; as if they who had not the sense of it might yet have the persuasion. And it must be granted, that there is somewhat of this nature obvious to the Experience of those Divines, who are most conversant with troubled Consciences. For, it is commonly observed by them, that godly persons, even when under the Horror of Despair, crying out, They shall be damned; if asked, whether they will part with what Interest they have in Christ, will answer, they'll not do it for a World; which intimates, as if they had a secret persuasion of pardon, though' they wanted a sense of it; which the first Reformers explained by distinguishing between the Habit, and Act of Saving Faith.

Besides, they are very particular and distinct in their Endeavors to make it manifest that Faith, and Fears are consistent. For they suppose Faith to be oft conflicting with Doubts and Fears, which they, to continue the use of Zanchi 's words, thus solve: It's true, the first Believers have not explicated Justifying Faith as distinct from Assurance so clearly as our more Modern Divines have done; amongst whom the Westminster Assembly in their Confession, as Le Blanc hath well observed, have excelled. However, they did carefully endeavor to express their Sentiments so, as to prevent the despair of such, who, though' sound Believers, were afflicted with many fears and doubts about the pardon of their sins, and their interest in the Mercy of God. They insisted on a persuasion, a firm belief of the forgiveness of sins; but on such a persuasion as admitting of different degrees was in many so weak and feeble, as not to be always perceptible. A Notion, as they explicated it, easy enough to be understood. For in other Instances, what more common than to distinguish between Acts and Habits? That the Acts are seen, when the Habits from whence they flow lies undiscover'd. Everyone knows whether he believes this or the other Report; loves this, or the other person; as well as whether he seeth this, or the other Object. The Acts of the Understanding, and Rational Appetite, when exerted, are as perceivable in their way, as our Sensitive Acts. But then it should be minded, that these Acts are oft looked upon in their Habits, and when actuated, are commonly blended with such other as are conversant about contrary Objects, and their prevalence over these other so inconsiderable, that it's not at all times discernible, to which if we add, the consideration of the World's Allurements, Satan's many subtle Temptations, &c. it cannot but be that true Believers fall into great perplexities about the forgiveness of their sins; which though' great, destroy not their Faith, nor are they inconsistent with this firm persuasion. Strong fears, and many doubts may consist with a moral certainty of the same Truths. How many have a moral certainty of the Immortality of their Souls, and yet grievously tormented with amazing frights about it?

This very Point the Learned Mr. Baxter in discourse with me did thus illustrate: It is (saith he) as with a Man so firmly chained to the top of a high Spire, as to have the Greatest Certainty of his Fastness, yet looking down, could not but fear a Fall.

We may then easily perceive, that from the making Faith to lie in a persuasion of the pardon of sin, it cannot be justly inferred, that whoever doubts of God's Mercy in Christ, is destitute of Justifying Faith: for this persuasion may be in the Habit, where not in the Act, and is consistent enough with strong fears, and many doubts, as the first Reformers expressly affirmed; which is enough to free them from the Reproach of driving by their Doctrine every sound Believer who hath any doubts about his being pardoned, into the Horrour of Despair.

Nor did they so describe Justifying Faith as to give unto any an occasion to expect Heaven, whilst they lived under the Reigning Power of their sins. On the contrary they held,

III. That none, who continue to live under the Reigning Power of their Lusts had, or whilst so, can have Saving Faith.

'Twas constantly asserted by them,

These are the words of the Learned Zanchi, who in answer to an Objection against the Perseverance of the Saints, carrying in it this very Calumny.

But the sense of the Reformed may be more fully seen in our Book of Homilies, touching the Doctrine of Justification, highly approved of by the generality of the Reformed, where it's thus;

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 extremes, as the Equator is between the two Tropics; and the Ecliptick Line in the Zodiak, affirming them (to use the words of Cromayer ) to be necessary Ante, though' not Ad salutem.

To give my Reader a clearer light into this matter, I will acquaint him with a Controversy, that disturbed 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, Brenz, 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, though' 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 Controversy in its first Appearances is great; and through a warm and peevish management, in its Effects, was very pernicious; and yet, if, as in Charity we are bound, we do but believe George Majors Solemn Protestations, and Regard what the more moderate judged of Amsdorffius, we shall see enough to oblige us to think they meant the same thing, and that the Controversy 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, emits a Confession of his Faith, and at Public Disputations declares, He never taught as Illyrious, &c. suggested, nor ever held any such Doctrimes; but always believed, That the whole of our Justification and Salvation must be ascribed to the Mercy of God, and Merit of Jesus Christ our only Savior; and that it is received 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, 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.

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, though' under the Government of his Passions, and knows least of his Adversary, obtains the greatest Credit with the generality, which occasioned Adamus to say, 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, though' there were different Opinions amongst them managed with most violent Heats, they were rather about words, and lesser matters, than about what was substantial, as the Formula Concordiae in Kromayerus has it.

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.

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 performed 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 though' they asserted that Justifying Faith lay in the persuasion 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, 'twas 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 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 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 'tis only in the Understanding.

The Papists, who for the most part make an Historick Faith to be Saving, confine it to the Understanding: And yet Estius, conform to the sense of Aquinas, yields, that it hath its Rise from the Will, by which the Understanding is inclined to believe. Contarenus goeth further, holding, that it doth also terminate in the Will. Cajetan 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, 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, saith,

Crellius, the Socinian, in his Christian Ethics, tells us,

whence it hath a double signification, the one proper, the other figurative, in which a Metonymy doth meet with a Synecdoche. The first hath been oft spoken unto; it being that Faith mentioned in 1 Cor. 13 where 'tis 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, Wendelin, Bucanus, Rivet, and Altingius as holding Faith to be seated both in the Understanding, and Will. Hoornbeeck adds to these as concurring with them the Dutch Catechism, Ursine, Pareus. Trelcatius, Tilenus, and amongst our English Divines Preston and Ball.

Davenant, and Wotton, though' 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, that 'tis a Problem amongst the Orthodox, whether the Understanding or Will be the Subject of Faith. Le Blanc thinks that this Controversy is but Philosophical, and may be passed by without Division. Hoornbeeck, though' he placeth Faith in the Understanding and Will, yet doth not esteem it necessary to contend about it.

However there are amongst the Reformed, some Great Divines, highly valued for their Learning, who lay much stress on this Controversy and are Zealous for Faith, being only an Act of the Understanding.

Baronius, though' he looks on Faith to belong to the Will in several respects, as it hath its Origin and Rise from it, assent itself being an Imperate Act of the Will, and therefore may be denominated a Voluntary, Free Act; as also with respect to the Acts annexed 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 Favor of God. Lastly, with respect to its Fruits, Sanctification, and softening 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 Understanding.

Cameron, 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,

Amyrald, in the Theses Salmurienses, speaking of the Subject, in which the Habit of Faith inheres, affirms it to be the Understanding Faculty.

This, and much more hath Amyrald, with whom many great Divines agree.

Spanhemius, in his Exercitations about Universal Grace, provoking his Adversary to the National Synod of Dort, endeavors 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;

However, though' 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 though' 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 conjoin'd, and so makes Good Works to have the same Interest in our Justification, that Faith hath.

As Crellius, in his Christian Ethics gives this account of Faith; in like manner he doth the same, 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:

Slichtingius, on John, thus;

Wolzogenius, Smalcius in his Refutation of Frantzius is more express.

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,

These and some other considerations he offers against the Merit of our Good Works. 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.

Slichtingius, on the Philippians saith,

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 show how much the Socinians are against the Merit of Good Works; 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.

But though' 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.

Wolzogen • us is full in delivering the Socinian sense on this Point.

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 enjoined. 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.

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, Wolzogenius doth, in the plainest Terms affirm.

By this Distinction they endeavor to Reconcile Paul, and James.

And accordingly Paul declares, that we are not justified by those Works, 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 Works, but by Works, which, though' they are not most perfect, yet are such as may be justly denominated Obedience, or Good Works.

To this Effect Socinus doth oft express himself, which compared with what I have taken out of Wolzogenius, and Smalcius, is, as if it had been said,

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, 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 informed with such Works as are conformed 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, though' 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,

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 Understanding, 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 justify, as such; whereby they effectually destroy Justification by Works, and set themselves at the greatest distance from the Arminian, and Socinian Errors.

Excellent Cameron hath delivered the sense of them, who make the Understanding, the only Subject of Faith, with much clearness, assuring us,

But that he never did for healways opposed Faith to Good Works.

2.

3.

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 Christ's 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 though 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.

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 Public 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 Justifying 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, though' 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 Use 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 showing the opposition.