Inquiry into the Nature of the Present Controversy About Justification Part 1, Chapter 7

Inquiry into the Nature of the Present Controversy About Justification Part 1 · Chapter 7

p. 147CHAP. VII.

A Summary of the Principal Antinomian Errors, compared with the oppoſite Truths. The preſent Controverſie not with the Deſcribed Antinomians. The Agreement between the Contending Brethren in Subſtantials ſuggeſted. The Concluſion.

THeſe Doctrines I have thought meet to vindicate from the unrighteous charge of Antinomianiſm; becauſe, by a giving them up for Antinomian, not only many who abhor it are accuſed for being Abettors of it; but ſome important Truths, which ſtrike at the very Root of this Error are repreſented to be Antinomian.

It hath been the care of the Papiſt, Arminian, and Socinian, to inſinuate into the minds of Perſons, leſs ſtudied in theſe Controverſies, p. 148as if the Orthodox Proteſtant had, in oppoſition unto them run into the Antinomian Extreme; and have inſerted in the Catalogue of Antinomian Errors ſeveral Goſpel-Truths, particularly the enſuing Aſſertions.

1. That Jeſus Chriſt is a Second Adam, a Root Perſon, and Publick Repreſentative, with whom the Covenant of Grace is made.

2. That the Guilt, as well as Puniſhment of Sin was laid on Chriſt.

3. That the Covenant of Grace is not Conditional in that ſenſe the Papiſts hold it.

4. That Faith is a certain, and a full Perſwaſion, wrought in the heart of a man. through the Holy Ghoſt, whereby he is Aſſured of the Mercy of God promiſed in Chriſt, that his Sins are forgiven him.

5. That Iuſtifying Faith is not an Act of the Will, but of the Underſtanding only. Tho' the Papiſts for ſome ſpecial Reaſons oppoſe not this Notion; yet the Arminians and Socinians do, to the end they may bring in Works among the Cauſes of our Juſtification.

Theſe Aſſertions are of ſuch a Nature, as do really cut the very ſinews of Popery, and Socinianiſm; as I have already in part cleared, and hope more fully to evince in my Second Part: But by thoſe, who deviate from the Truth; all but the laſt have been heretofore, and now the laſt is, by men more Orthodox, made the Source of Antinomianiſm; the Spring, and Fountain, from p. 149whence the following Concluſions do naturally, and neceſſarily flow. Thus they infer from the

Firſt, That Chriſt muſt be our Delegate, or Subſtitute, who Believed, Repented, and Obeyed, to exempt the Elect from doing either, as neceſſary to their Pardon, and Salvation.

Second, That Chriſt ſo took our Perſon, and Condition on him, as to have the Filth, and Pollution of our Sins laid on him.

Third, That the Promiſe of Pardon, and Salvation is made to Sinners as Sinners.

Fourth, That the Pardon of Sin was before Faith, even whilſt we are in the Heighth of Iniquity, and Enemies againſt God, and Deſpiſers of Jeſus Chriſt.

Fifth, That We may have Saving Faith, tho' our Wills remain onchanged, and obſtinately ſet againſt God.

Theſe are the Antinomian Errors ſaid to flow from the above-mentioned Aſſertions, which, if once granted, we ſhall be neceſſitated to acknowledge, that there will be no Vſe at all of the Law, nor of Faith, Repentante, Confeſſion of Sin, &c. but we may live, as we liſt, and yet be ſaved.

But we have made it plainly to appear, that theſe Points are ſo far from being Antinomian, that they do carry with them a Confutation of that Error. That the Reader may the more p. 150clearly ſee the Difference there is between the one, and the other; I will be very particular in ſhewing the oppoſition.

Aſſertion I.

That Jeſus Chriſt is a Second Adam, a Root-Perſon, and Publick Repreſentative, with whom the Covenant of Grace is made.

From this Aſſertion it neceſſarily follows, that Chriſt muſt have a Spiritual Seed, and be the Repreſentative of that Seed, ſo far as Adam would have been of his, if he had perfectly obeyed. And it is certain, that if Adam had rendred the Required Obedience, his Poſterity would have been, not only made Righteous, and derive a Holy Nature from him, but be alſo obliged to Perſonal Holineſs. In like manner, ſo is it with the Posterity of the Secoud Adam.

The utmoſt then that can be fairly inferred from Chriſt's being a Second Adam, &c. is, That he hath a Spiritual Off-ſpring; That they be Justified by his Righteouſneſs; derive a New Nature from him, and be obliged to a Perſonal Obedience.

The Oppoſition.

p. 151As the Firſt Adam was the Head, and Publick Repreſentative of his Poſterity; but not their Subſtitute, or Delegate; ſo Chriſt, tho' a Publick Repeeſentative, yet not our Subſtitute, as D. O. doth excellently well ſhow, when he ſaith, That Chriſt and Believers are neither One Natural Perſon, nor a Legal, or Political Perſon, nor any ſuch Perſon, as the Laws, Cuſtoms, or Vſages of men do know, or allow of: They are One Myſtical Perſon, whereof, although there may be ſome Imperfect Reſemblances found in Natural, or Political Ʋnions, yet the Vnion from whence that Denomination is taken between Him, and Ʋs, is of that Nature, and ariſes from ſuch Reaſons, and Cauſes, as no Perſonal Union among Men (or the Ʋnion of many Perſons) hath any concernment in.Dr. O. of Juſtific. p. 250.

'Tis true, that Chriſt, our Surety, who Satisfied, and Merited, to exempt us from the neceſſity of doing either our ſelves, did undertake to enable the Elect to Believe, Repent, and Perſonally Obey the Holy Commandments; but never undertook to exempt them from the neceſſity of Believing, and Repenting.

p. 152Aſſertion II.

That the Guilt, as well as Puniſhment of Sin was laid on Chriſt.

We have made it clearly to appear, that though the Guilt, and Puniſhment of Sin was laid on Chriſt; yet the Sin it ſelf, in its formal Nature, the Macula, or Filth of Sin, was not. Guilt (as I have ſhown) is a Relation, which hath a Formal Sin for its Foundation. The Foundation of Guilt is Sin, formally conſidered, the foreign, the Macula, the Filth; and Guilt, the Reatus Culpae, doth immediately Reſult from the Sin, that is a tranſgreſſion of the Praecept. It is not then the Sin it ſelf, the foreign, the Macula, the Filth, that was laid on Chriſt, but the the Guilt which reſulted from it; the Macula, the Filth remained in us; the Guilt, that immediately reſulted from it as it reſpected the Sanction of the Law, was laid on Chriſt, but this being ſomewhat diſtinct from the Moral Filth, Chriſt remained Pure, and Spotleſs, notwithſtanding 'twas transferr'd over to him.

The Oppoſition.

p. 153In this particular the Difference is manifeſt. And it's plain, that tho' the Antinomian blaſpheme the Son of God by making him Inherently a Sinner; yet they who are againſt the transferring the Filth of Sin on Chriſt, are far from it; for, whilſt They are oppoſing the Papiſt, and Socinian, they do moſt effectually Fence againſt Antinomianiſm.

Aſſertion III.

That the Covenant of Grace is not Conditional, in that ſenſe the Papiſts hold it to be ſo.

The ſenſe in which the Papiſts are for the Conditionality of Faith and Good Works, hath been already ſtated; and the Difference between the Firſt Reformers, and Modern Proteſtant Divines, cleared. All Popiſh Conditions, that is to ſay, All Such Conditions in us, as give Right to the Reward, are excluded from having any Intereſt in our Juſtification: And yet Faith is made ſo neceſſary to our Juſtification, that without it we cannot be Juſtified; that our Juſtification is ſuſpended during its abſence, and that Faith is an Inſtrumental Cauſe of Juſtification. That the Promiſe of Pardon and Eternal Life is not made to Sinners, as Sinners; but it is made to them that have Faith, and are in Covenant with God; and only unto ſuch.

p. 154The Oppoſition.

Thus, whilſt the Popiſh Doctrine of Merit is oppoſed, there is wreſted out of the hands of Arminians, and Socinians, that, by which they endeavour to deſtroy Particular Election, Christ's meriting, and the Spirit's giving the firſt Grace, together with the glorious Doctrine of Chriſt's Satisfaction, and a ſufficient Proviſion is laid in againſt the Antinomian Doctrine of Ʋniverſal Redemption.

Aſſertion IV.

That Faith is a Certain, and Full Perſwaſion, wrought in the heart of Man through the Holy Ghoſt, whereby he is Aſſured of the Mercy of God▪ promiſed in Chriſt, that his Sins are forgiven him.

By ſuch as have not throughly enough ſearch'd into this Controverſie, the Firſt Reformers, p. 155for holding this Aſſertion, have been charg'd with Antinomianiſm: But, we have ſhown, 'twas unjuſtly. For, tho' of late years, our Divines, who have indeed rather deſcrib'd, than defin'd Faith, and ſo, for the help of Doubting Souls, have put them on Enquiries after the conſtant Concomitants, and inſeparable Effects of Saving Faith, to the end they might be help'd to well-grounded Evidences of their Intereſt in Chriſt; yet the Firſt Reformers in the enſuing Inſtances about Saving Faith differ'd very much from the Antinomians.

Oppoſition.

p. 156Aſſertion V.

That Juſtifying Faith is not an Act of the Will, but of the Underſtanding only.

That Faith is only an Act of the Underſtanding, hath not been embraced by Proteſtants univerſally; the chief Defenders of it being Camero, Amyrald, and Dally. However, to do the New Methodiſts Juſtice, & that I might ſet forth this Controverſie in its proper Light, and ſhew how they hereby ſecure themſelves from the Popiſh, Arminian, and Socinian Notions about Juſtification, and how far they are from the Unjuſt Charge of Antinomianiſm, I have added the foregoing Chapter.

The Oppoſition.

Here then we may ſee not only the Difference there is between the above-mentioned Aſſertions, and Antinomianiſm; but have ſet before us ſuch a Scheme of the Antinomian Errors, as makes the Law of no uſe at all.

But let us conſider what manner of Perſons would be brought within the Antinomian Verge, p. 157if theſe Aſſertions were Antinomian. Really the Reverend Aſſembly of Divines at Weſtminſter, and all that drew up the Savoy Confeſſion, with the whole Body of Ʋnited Miniſters, muſt come in for Receiving the Firſt Aſſertion; the Lutherans, and Calviniſts for holding the Second; the Firſt Reformers generally, and many Learned Proteſtant Divines at this time, particularly Dr. Witſius, Divinity Profeſſor at Ʋtricht, (who, with the greateſt Reſpect is earneſtly deſired to communicate his Thoughts freely on this occaſion) for Defending the Third; All the Firſt Reformers for the Fourth; and the New-Methodiſts for Propugning the Fifth; and none but the Papiſt, Arminian, and Socinian would be able to eſcape the Slander. And yet according to the beſt of my Judgment, the chief reaſon, why ſome worthy Brethren, have been Reflected on as Antinomians, hath been their Zeal for the firſt Four Aſſertions. For they do not make Chriſt our Delegate, or Subſtitute, who Believed and Repented for us, to the end he might exempt us from the neceſſity of doing either our ſelves. Nor do they make the Filth and Guilt of Sin the ſame, and lay them on Chriſt, making him thereby Filthy. Nor do they ſay, that the Covenant of Grace is in every reſpect without Conditions; or that the Promiſe of Pardon is to Sinners, as Sinners; or, that Faith lieth in a Perſwaſion, that Sin was Pardoned before we Believe; or, that Faith is Excluſive of the Leaſt Fears, or Doubtings; or, that an Elect Perſon can apply the Promiſe of Pardon to it ſelf as well before Regeneration, p. 158as after; nor do they make the Law uſeleſs, but do hold, That in reference unto the work of Regeneration it ſelf, poſitively conſidered, we may obſerve, that ordinarily there are certain Praevious, and Praeparatory works,Sunt quaedam effecta interna ad Converſionem PRAEVIA, quae virtute verbi, ſpirituſ que in nondum Regeneratorum cordibus excitantur, qualia ſunt NOTITIA VOLUNTATIS DIVINAE, SENSUS PECCATI, TIMOR POENAE; COSITATIO de LIBERATIONE ſpes aliqua veniae. Synod. Dord. Suffrag. Theol. Brit. and Art. 4. Theſ. 2. or workings in and upon the Souls of Men, that are Antecedent, and Diſpoſitive unto it: But, yet Regeneration doth not conſiſt in them, nor can it be educed out of them. This is for the Subſtance of it, the Poſition of the Divines of the Church of England, at the Synod of Dort—I ſpeak in this Poſition of them only that are Adult— And the Diſpoſitions I intend, are only materially ſo; not ſuch as contain Grace of the ſame Nature as is Regeneration it ſelf. A Material Diſpoſition is that, which Diſpoſeth, and ſome way maketh a ſubject fit for the Reception of that, which ſhall be communicated added, or infuſed into it as its Form. So Wood by dryneſs, and a due compoſure is made fit and ready to admit of Firing. A Formal Diſpoſition is where one degree of the ſame kind diſpoſeth the ſubject unto further degrees of it. The former we allow, not the latter. So far Dr. Owen in his Diſcourſe concerning the Holy Spirit.Lib. 3. c. 3. p. 191, 192. And for thus much are the Accuſed Brethren, and on no more do the other Brethren, who have been charged with favouring Arminianiſm inſiſt; ſo that in all theſe things, ſo far as I underſtand them, they mean the p. 159ſame thing, and are in the Subſtance Agreed.

My next work is to enter on the conſideration of the Arminian, and Socinian Notions: But this Part having ſwoln ſo big, and to give a juſt account of theſe Errors, and ſhew what is not Arminianiſm, nor Socinianiſm, will make the Diſcourſe too large. I am content, that this Part go forth by it ſelf, which ſhall be followed with the other, as ſoon as God gives opportunity to finiſh it.

FINIS.

End of the text · Stephen Lobb, Inquiry into the Nature of the Present Controversy About Justification Part 1 (1693)