Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

judaizing profeffors, were the first broachers of this notion; who taught the brethren, not only that circumcifion, but that obedience to the law of Mofes, the moral as well as ceremonial law, was neceffary to falvation: fee Aas xv. 1, 5. which gave the true apostles and primitive churches a great deal of trouble. To confute which, the apostle Paul especially greatly laboured in all his writings, and particularly in his Epiftles to the Romans and Galatians. The Papists, the followers of the man of fin, have always been the abetters and maintainers of this principle; and fo has Socinus, and his wretched adherents. The first among the reformed divines that vented it, was George Major, cotemporary and familiar with Luther and Melanthon: He has been reprefented by fome, from whom one should not have expected to have had such a character of him on this account, as fatelles Romani Pontificis, a perfon employed by the Pope of Rome; a tool of the Popish party, to create divifions and disturbances among the Reformed. The Papifts finding they could not maintain with fuccefs their notion, that good works were meritorious of falvation, instead of the phrase, meritorious of falvation, fubftituted the other phrafe, necessary to falvation, as being a fofter one, in order to gain upon incautious minds; when one and the same thing were defigned by both: And this man was thought to be the inftrument they made use of for this purpose. But however this be; certain it is, that the broaching of this doctrine by him gave great offence, and occafioned much disturbance. The writer of his Life intimates, that the confequences of it gave Major himself fome concern; and that he declared, in fo many words, that "whereas he saw that fome were offended, for the future he would no more "make use of that propofition." Among the chief of his oppofers was Nicolaus Amfdorfius, who in great heat and zeal afferted, in contradiction to Major's notion, that "good works were hurtful and dangerous to falvation;" a pofition not to be defended; unless when good works are put in the room of Christ, and are trusted to for falvation: But it is not doing of them, that is, or can be hurtful to falvation, but depending on them when done. This controversy raised great troubles in the churches, and gave Melanthon a good deal of uneasiness; who at first was enfnared into the use of the phrase, though he afterwards rejected it, as improper and dangerous. Amsdorfius did not deny that good works were to be done, but could not be prevailed upon to own that they were necessary. Melanthon at length allowed that "good works were not neceffary "to falvation;" nor did he dare to affert it: "For these reasons, fays he, we "teach that good works, or new obedience, are neceffary; yet this must not by any means be tacked to it, that good works are necessary to obtain falvation "and eternal life." In his anfwer to the pastors of Saxony, he has these words:

"Never

* Quinimo diferte teftatus eft, fe propofitione illa, qua videret aliquos offendi, deinceps nom afurum. Melchior. Adam. Vita Georg. Major. p. 470.

66

"Nevertheless, let us not use this phrase, good works are necessary to falvation." And, in another place, "Verily I fay, that I do not make use of this phrase, good works are necessary to falvation; but I affirm, that these propofitions are "true, and properly and without fophiftry thus to be declared; new obedience " is necessary, or good works are neceffary; because obedience is due to God, according to that saying, Debtors we are." Now thefe were the sentiments, and which are exactly ours, of the great MelanƐthon, that peaceable man, who never was charged with running into extremes in controverfy; his greatest fault, and which has been complained of by fome of his friends, who have had a great regard to him and his memory, was, that he was for compofing differences, almost at any rate, fometimes, as was thought, to the injury of truth, and with the hazard of lofing it.

I could easily produce a large number of learned and holy men, who have afferted the fame thing: I fhall content myfelf with tranfcribing twelve arguments, fhewing that good works are not neceffary to falvation, drawn up by that learned and judicious divine Abraham Calovius; who has deferved much of all men of learning and true chriftianity, for his learned animadverfions on Grotius's Annotations on feveral paffages in the Pfalms and Prophets, relating to the Meffiah; and for his laborious confutation of Socinus and his followers, and his excellent defence of the orthodox faith against them. They are as follow. The question put is, "Whether good works are necessary to falvation?" The Socinians, fays he, affirm this; but this opinion is defervedly rejected,

1. Because no fuch thing is ever to be found in the fcriptures, namely, that good works are neceffary to falvation. But if this was fo principal a part of evangelic truth, as the adverfaries plead, it fhould, upon the foot of the Socinian hypothefis, be contained in exprefs words in the fcriptures; fince they affert, that all things neceffary to be known for falvation, are contained expressly in the fcriptures.

2. The

Propter has caufas docemus, neceffaria effe bona opera, feu novam obedientiam, nequaquam tamen afsuendum eft, bona opera ad falutem & vitam æternam confequendam neceffaria effe. In refponfo ad Paftores Saxonicos: Tamen hac phrafi non utamur, bona opera funt neceffaria ad falutem. Alibi. Plane dico, me non uti hac phrafi, bona opera funt neceffaria ad falutem; fed has propofitiones affirmo veras effe. & proprie & fine fophiftica fic dici: nova obedientia eft neceffaria, vel bona opera funt neceffaria, quia Deo debetur obedientia, juxta dictum, debitores fumus. Melan&thon apud Hoornbeck. Summ. Controv. 1. 9. de Lutheranis, p. 523, 524.

• Utrum bona opera neceffaria funt ad falutem? Affirmant hoc Sociniani: at fententia illa me ito reprobatur,

1. Qua nufpiam tale quid in fcripturis habetur, bona fc. opera ad falutem neceffaria effe. Si autem hæc tam præcipua effet evangelicæ veritatis pars, ut contendunt adverfarii, expreffis verbis eam in fcripturis in contineri oporteret, vi hypothefews Socinianæ, qua omnia fcitu neceffaria ad falutem expreffe in fcripturis contineri afferint, &c. Calov. Socinifmus Profligatus, Sect. 7. Art. 8. de bonis Operibus, Controv. 1. p. 787, 788, &c.

2. The apostle treating of the causes of our falvation, removes good works, and entirely excludes them; and teaches, that he only has bleffednefs, to whom, God imputeth righteoufnefs without works, Rom. iv. 6. Compare Ephes. ii. 8. Titus iii. 5. If therefore good works are entirely excluded from the causes of falvation, how will the fame be neceffary to falvation?

3. That which is not neceffary to our justification, that is not neceffary to falvation; because there are no other caufes of falvation than of juftification: But good works are not neceffary to juftification. Ergo,

4. If we are faved by grace, then good works are not neceffary to falvation; for the antithefis remains firm, If of grace, then not of works, otherwife grace is not grace, Rom. xi. 6. But the former is true, Rom. vi. 23. Ephes. ii. 8, 9. therefore the latter alfo.

5. If by the obedience of one Chrift we all obtain juftification of life and falvation, then we are not faved by our own proper obedience: But the former is true, Rom. v. 17-19. therefore also the latter.

6. What is ascribed to faith alone, as it is contradiftinguished from works, that is not to be attributed to works: But eternal falvation is afcribed to faith alone, John iii. 16. Mark xvi. 16. Rom. i. 17. and iv. 6. Gal. iii. 11. Ephes. ii. 8. Titus iii. 5. Heb. x. 38. Ergo,

7. What is neceffary to falvation, that, as much as it is neceffary, is pre-, scribed and required in the evangelic doctrine, Rom. i. 16, and iii. 27. Buc good works, as neceffary to falvation, are not prescribed in the gospel, which is not converfant about works, but only about faith in Chrift, John iii. 16. and vi. 40. Rom. i. 17. and iv. 6. feeing the law is the doctrine of works, the gof-. pel the doctrine of faith, Rom. iii. 27. Gal. iii. 12.

8. Add to this, that this affertion concerning the neceffity of good works to falvation, has been already rejected as falfe, in the falfe apostles, Alts xv. 5, where an oppofition is formed to the sentiment of the apostles, that we are saved by the grace of Jefus Chrift, and that we are faved by the keeping of the law, or works, and that the keeping of the law is neceffary to salvation.

9.

*

If good works were neceffary to falvation, we should have whereof to glory; but the holy Spirit takes away all glorying from us, and for this very reafon excludes good works from hence, Ephes. ii. 8, 9. Rom. iii. 27. and iv.

I, 2.

10. If our election to falvation is of grace, and not of works, as the apoftle teaches, Ephes. i. 4—6. 2 Tim. i. 9. good works cannot be afferted to be neceffary to falvation; for as we are chofen from eternity, fo we are faved in time.

VOL. II.

Cc

11. By

11. By whatsoever doctrine the certainty of our falvation is weakened or destroyed, that ought to be rejected: But fuch is this doctrine of the Socinians. Ergo,

12. Wherever the fcripture produces reafons for which good works are neceffary, it mentions quite others, than that they are neceffary to falvation; namely, that we ought diligently to perform good works, because of God, because of Christ, because of the holy Spirit, because of the holy angels, because of our neighbour, because of ourselves, yea, even because of the devil."

Thus this excellent writer, confuting the Socinian error, that good works are necessary to falvation, strongly defends the contrary; which our Theologafter calls a filthy dream, horrible blafphemy, &c. This, it feems, is one of the paradoxes which lead to doctrinal Antinomianifm. But why a paradox? A paradox, in the antient ufe of the word, fignified a moft certain truth, at least, embraced as fuch by men of wisdom and learning, though contrary to the opinion of the vulgar; which being unufual, ftruck them with surprise; whence fuch verities were fometimes called ma, and sometimes admirabilia. This ufe of the word, I fuppofe, will not be allowed to be applicable to this tenet. A paradox, in the modern use of the word, or in common acceptation, defigns a propofition that carries in it either a real or feeming felf-contradiction. Now the propofition, good works are not necessary to falvation, is plain and eafy to be understood; and is either true or false, but no paradox. We need not go far for inftances of paradoxes, this writer can furnish us with enow: As when he says, "Salvation " is all of free grace, and good works, the fruits of holiness, a part of falva❝tion, are abfolutely neceffary to complete falvation." The word complete, in this propofition, is fo placed, as that it may be thought to be either a verb of the infinitive mood; and then the fenfe is, falvation is all of grace, and yet good works are abfolutely neceffary to complete it; or as an adjective to the word falvation; and then the fenfe is, falvation is all of grace, and good works are absolutely neceffary to falvation complete without them: Take it either way, the selfcontradiction is manifeft enough. As alfo, when giving the character of a deceased minister of the gospel, whofe afhes he might have spared; he says', "he

was

Ego autem illa ipfa, quæ vix in gymnafiis & in otio Stoici probant, ludens conjeci in communeis locos; quæ quia funt admirabilia, contraque opinionem ómnium, ab ipfis etiam agadoka. appellantur. Tentare volui poffentne proferri in lucem, id eft, in forum ; & ita dici, ut probaren. tur, an alia quædam effet erudita, alia popularis oratio; eoque fcripfi libentius, quod mihi ifta wagadoka, quæ appellantur, maxime videntur effe Socratica, longeque veriffima. Ciceron. Paradox. P. 2140. ↑ Addrefs, &c. p. 14.

• In an Advertisement at the end of Mr Wallin's Funeral Sermon.

"was a person of real piety, but discovered so much pride and wrath in his writ"ings and conduct, (By the way, how could a man fo wretchedly guilty of "these things, write this without shame and blushing?) that it is hard to ac"count for it; except we allow, that he had a tincture of enthusiasm." The first of these inftances is a real felf-contradiction, and the other, at least, a feeming one; and both paradoxes. Again; why should this propofition, good works are not neceffary to falvation, be reprefented as leading to doctrinal Antinomianifm? This man ought to have informed his ftudents what doctrinal Antihomianifm is. Since he has not, I will. Doctrinal Antinomianism, properly speaking, is a denying, or setting afide the law of God, as a rule of life, action, or converfation. Now what tendency has the above proposition to such a notion? Or how does it appear, that the very quinteffence of doctrinal Antinomianism is couched in it, as is fuggefted? Though we say, that good works are not neceffary to falvation; do we fay, that they are not neceffary to any thing else? Do we say, that they are not neceffary to be done? Do we say, that they are not neceffary to be done in obedience to the law of God? Do we say, that the commands of the law are not to be regarded by men? That they are things indifferent, that may be done, or not done? No; we fay none of thefe things, but all the reverse. Do we then make void the law, through this doctrine? God forbid: Yea, we establish the law", as it is in the hands of Christ our Lawgiver; to which we defire to yield a chearful obedience; to fhew our fubjection to him as King of faints, and to teftify our gratitude for the many bleffings of every kind we receive from him. It is not worth my while to take notice of the Airt1 at the everlasting love of the divine perfons being on all accounts the fame, yesterday, to day, and for ever; which he knows, in his own conscience, only regards that love as in the breast of the divine perfons, and not the manifeftations of it; which are more or less to different perfons, and fo, to the fame persons at different

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »