1 TIM. 1. 8, 9.
IT is my intent, after the cleare proofe of Justification by the grace of God, and not of works, to shew how corrupt the Antinomian is in his inferences hence-from; and, this being done, I shall shew you the necessity of holy and good works notwithstanding.
But before I come to handle some of their dangerous errours in this point, let me premise something, As,
-
How cautelous and wary the Ministers of God ought to be in this1 matter, so to set forth grace, as not to give just exception to the popish caviller; and so to defend holy works, as not to give the Antinomian cause of insultation. While our Protestant authors were diligent in digging out that precious gold of justification by free-grace, out of the mine of the Scripture; see what Canons the Councell of Trent made against them, as Antinomian: Can. 19. If any man shall say, The ten Precepts belong nothing at all to Christians, let him be accursed, Decem praecepta nihil ad Christianos pertinere, anathema sit. Again, Can. 20. If any man shall hold, that a justified person is not bound to the observation of the Commandements, but only to believe, let him be accursed. Si quis dixerit hominem justificatum non teneri ad observantiam mandatorum, sed tantùm ad credendum, anathema sit. Again, Can. 21. If any shall hold Christ Jesus to be given unto men, as a Redeemer in whom they are to trust, but not as a Law-giver, whom they are to obey, let him be accursed. Si quis dixerit Christum Jesum datum fuisse hominibus ut redemptorem cui fidant, non autem ut legislatorem cui obediant, anathema sit. You may gather by these their Canons, that we hold such opinions as, indeed, the Antinomian-doth: but our Writers answer, Here they grossely mistake us; and, if this were all the controversie, we should quickly agree. It is no wonder then if it be so hard to preach free-grace, and not provoke the Papist; or, on the other side, to preach good works of the Law, and not offend the Antinomian.
-
There have been dangerous assertions about good works, even by those that were no Antinomians, out of a great zeale for the grace of God against Papists. These indeed, for ought I can learn, did no wayes joyn with the Antinomians: but in this point there is too much affinity. There were rigid Lutherans called Flacians, who as they did goe too far, at least in their expressions, about originall corruption (for there are those that doe excuse them;) so also they went too high against good works: Therefore in stead of that position, maintained by the Orthodox, Good works are necessary to salvation, Bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem; they held, Good works are pernicious to salvation, Bona opera sunt perniciosa ad salutem. The occasion of this division was the book called, The Interim, which Charles the Emperour would have brought into the Germane Churches. In that book was this passage, Good works are necessary to salvation: to which Melancthon and others assented (not understanding a necessity of merit, or efficiency, but of presence;) but Flacius Illyricus and his followers would not, taking many high expressions out of Luther (even as the Antinomians doe) for their ground. Hence also Zanchy, because in his writings he had such passages as these, No man grown up can be saved, unlesse he give himself to good works, and walk in them: One Hinckellman, a Lutheran, doth endeavour, by a troop of nine Arguments, to tread downe this assertion of Zanchy, which he calls Calviniana […], as a most manifest errour. Now, if all this were spoken to take men off from that generall secret sin of putting confidence in the good works we doe, it were more tolerable: in which sense we applaud that of Luther, Take heed not only of evil works, but of good, Cave non tantùm ab operibus malis, sed etiam à bonis; and that of another man, who said, he got more good by his sins, then his graces: But these speeches must be soundly understood. We also love that of Austin, All the Commands are accounted as if thou hadst done them, when what is not done, is forgiven, Omnia mandata tua facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit, ignoscitur.
-
That is the incommodious, yea and erroneous passages in Antinomian Authors, were used for some reasons hereafter to be mentioned, it were the more tolerable: but that seems not to be. There is more poison then can be concocted in them. But if this were their ground of many unsavory assertions among them, meerly their want of clear judgement to expresse themselves, so that they think more orthodoxly then they write; then they might be excused, as being in a logomachy: but with this proviso, as Austine said of them that used the word fatum in a good sense, Let them hold their opinion, but correct their expressions, Mentem teneant, sed linguam corrigant. Now, that there may be injudiciousnesse in them, as a cause in part of some of their erroneous passages, will appeare in that they frequently speake contradictions. This is a passage often, but very dangerous, that, Let a man be a wicked man, even as high as enmity it self can make a man, yet while he is thus wicked, and while he is no better, his sins are pardoned, and he justified. Yet now in other passages, Though a man be never so wicked, yet if he come to Christ, if he will take Christ, his sinnes are pardoned: now what a contradiction is here, To be wicked and, while he is wicked, and, while he is no better, and yet to take Christ, unlesse they hold that, to take Christ, or, to come to him, be no good thing at all? But happily more of their contradictions hereafter. Their injudiciousnesse and weaknesse doth also appear, that when they have laid down such a truth as every godly Author hath, they have so many words about it, and doe so commend it, as if they had found a Philosophers Stone, or a Phenix; as if the Reader should presently cry out and say, Behold a greater then Solomon is here: and yet it is but that which every Writer almost hath. Again, their injudiciousnesse doth appeare, in that they minde only the promissory part of the Scripture, and doe stand very little upon the mandatory part. There are five or six places, such as, Christ came to save that which was lost, and, He hath laid on him the iniquities of us all, &c. these are over and over again: But you shall seldome or never have these places urged, Make your calling and election sure. Work out your salvation with feare and trembling; whereas all Scripture is given for our use. Therefore, 1. If weaknesse were all the ground of this controversie, the danger were not so great. Or, 2ly, If the end and aime they had, were only to put men off from glorying in themselves, to deny the concurrence of works to the act of justification. If their desire were that men should not (as Michal) put an image in Davids roome, so neither that Christians should put their works in Christs stead, thus farre it might be excusable: but then their books, and their aimes cannot be reconciled. Or, If, 3ly, their maine drift was only to shew that good works follow a justified person, and that they doe not antecede; here would be no opposition: but they deny the presence of them in time. Or, 4ly, If the question were about preparatory works to justification and conversion; though (for my part) I think there are such, with those limitations that hereafter may be given to them: this also were not so hainous. Or fifthly, If the dispute were onely upon the space of time between a profane mans profanenesse, and his justification, or the quantity of his sorrow; these things were of another debate. I do acknowledge, that the Christian Religion was matter of offence to the Heathens, in that they taught, Though a man had never been so wicked, yet, if he did receive Christ, he should be pardoned; and how soon this may be done, it is as God pleaseth: but there is an alteration of the mans nature at that time also; and Chrysostome, indeed, hath such a passage upon that Scripture, The righteous shall live by faith, Rom. 1. by faith onely a man hath remission of sins; Now (saith he) this is a Paradox to humane reason, that he who was an adulterer, a murderer, should presently be accounted righteous, if he doe beleeve in Christ: but this differs from the Antinomian assertion, as much as heaven from hell. So it’s related in Ecclesiasticall history of Constantine the Great, that when he had killed many of his kindred, yea and was counselled also to murder his own son, repenting of these hainous crimes, askt Sopater the Philosopher, who succeeded Plotinus in teaching him, Whether there could be any expiation for those sins? The Philosopher said, No: afterwards he asked the Christian Bishops, and they said, I, if he would beleeve in Christ. This was feigned, to make our Religion odious. Or sixthly, If it were to shew, that there cannot be assurance before justification, or that to relye upon Christ for pardon, it is not necessary I should know whether I have truly repented, or no; This were also of another nature.