that are whole need not a Physician 26. And seeing Christ came not to destroy but to fulfil the Law he came in vain if there be no Law to be fulfill'd in us 27. And it being the Law of God that Requires our Obedience towards Him those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those Fighters against the Law do thereby take away that Obedience which is due to God 28. From whence it is manifest that Satan by these his Instruments doth but Verbally teach that there is Sin Repentance or a Christ 29. But in good Earnest they deny Christ Repentance Sin all the Scriptures together with God their Author 30. And do more effectually than ever Epicurus Himself settle Men in a most Pestilential Security Contempt of God Confidence of Impunity and in Perpetual Impenitence 36. Take away therefore but the Law and we are free from Sin and need not a Mediator 39. To hold that it is not the Work of the Law to Convince of Sin to Condemnation is Notorious Madness 40. For this is the Strength of Sin as Paul affirms That Sin is the Sting of Death and the Law the Strength of Sin 41. Let us therefore Eat and Drink and according to the Doctrine of these Men say Let him Perish that careth for the things of to Morrow 42. For Take away the Law the Strength of Sin Death and Hell will cease to be 44. All therefore that they viz. the Antinomians say of Sin Repentance Christ and Pardon are Abominable Lies worthy of none so much as of the Devil himself The Third Disputation of D. M. Luther against the Antinomians ' Of Repentance 17. The Lord's Prayer Delivered to the Saints by Christ himself is full of the Doctrine of the Law 27. This very Prayer doth Teach us That the Law was before under c. the Gospel and that Repentance hath its beginning from the Law 28. For he that Prayeth for any thing doth first confess that he hath it not and expects that it be given him 30. The Enemies therefore of the Law must at the same time Vacate the Law and lay aside the Lord's Prayer too The Fourth Disputation of D. M. Luther against the Antinomians We must beware of the Popish Doctrine of Penance But be more afraid of the Antinomians who leave no Repentance in the Church 14. They are against the Preaching of the Law in the Church and really and in Truth cannot be for any Repentance 15. That Argument viz. Whatsoever is not necessary to Justification neither in the Beginning the Middle nor End is not to be Preached signifieth Nothing 16. If you ask what they mean by these words Beginning Middle and End you 'll find that they themselves do know nothing of it ' The Sixth Disputation of D. M. Luther against the Antinomians 1540. 1. That Consequence of St. Paul where there is no Law there no Transgression is not only Theologically but Politically and Naturally Good 2. In like manner so are these Consequences where no Sin there no Punishment no Pardon 3. Where no Punishment nor Pardon there no Wrath nor Grace 4. Where no Wrath nor Grace there no Divine nor Humane Government 5. Where nor Divine nor Humane Government there nor God nor Man 6. Where nor God nor Man there nothing unless perhaps the Devil 7. Whence it is That the Antinomians the Enemies of the Law are plainly either Devils or the Cosen-Germans unto Devils 8. Nor will it help them that they make their Boast of God of Christ of Grace of the Law and the like 9. It 's no New nor Infrequent thing for the Name of God to be taken in Vain even by the Devils themselves 10. The Confession of the Antinomians is like to that of the Devils who cried out Thou art the Son of the Living God Luk. 4. and 8. 19. Wherefore they are to be abandoned and forsaken as the most Pestilential Guides to Licentiousness and all manner of Wickedness 20. For they Serve not our Lord Jesus but their own Belly seeking Glory and Praise from Men Only Thus Luther the first Reformer that most Gospel Preacher and Admirer of Free-Grace who in his day excell'd in the Explicating the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's Righteousness receiv'd by Faith in Opposition unto that by Works This Luther observing how much some Endeavour'd to wrest his words that they might if possible give Reputation to Aminomianism doth with the greatest Zeal Express his Abhorrence of that Error discovering the Poison covered with the Glorious Titles of Free and Gospel Grace The Antinomian Cry was against the Law and Legal Preaching and for Free Grace and Pure Gospel but their Error according to Luther Subverts the Gospel of our Lord Jesus even all Religion Natural as well as what Depends on Positive Revelation setting up in its room and stead nothing but Diabolism The Vitals of Antinomianism lye in these Particulars 1o. The Vacating the Law 2o. The Suppressing all Preaching of Repentance from the Law 3o. The Confining the Doctrine of Repentance and Revelation of Wrath to the Gospel 4o. The Extending the Grace of the Gospel to all manner of Sinners who can but Confidently Perswade themselves that Christ is theirs The Mischievous Tendency and Poison of these Errors Luther doth thus Detect If there be no Law saith he seeing the very Nature of Sin lyeth in its being the Transgression of a Law there can be no Sin If there be no Sin there can be no Wrath due for Sin nor no Guilt for that lyeth in an Obligation to Wrath for Sin Nor Pardon for Pardon is the Dissolving the Obligation to Wrath and where no Obligation there can be no Dissolving it nor no Redemption from Wrath because no Wrath to be Redeemed from If there be no Redemption there can be no Redeemer If no Law no Sin then no Repentance for Sin if no Christ then no Faith in Christ Thus by laying aside the Law the Christian Religion is made void for there is hereby no Sin no Wrath no Guilt no Pardon no Redemption no Redeemer no Christ no Repentance no Faith Again If no Law as no Sin so no Duty no Obedience for that is to a Law no Government for that is by Law and If no Government no Governor If no Rewards nor Punishment nor Heaven nor Hell No Providence with the Epicure no God with the Athiest Thus by laying aside the Law not only Christianity but all Religion is made void for there is hereby no Sin no Duty no Reward no Punishment no Heaven no Hell no Providence no God no Religion Nothing therefore remains saith Luther but the Devil The Reins you see are let loose and Encouragement given to all manner of Licentiousness and Debauchery which hath not been only in the Notion but wofully in the Practice which is the True Reason why the Antinomian and Libertine have been by Godly Judicious Divines put together Antinomian Principles produce Libertine Practices If it had not been too Notorious to admit the
after Luther's Death which was 1546. return'd to his old Antinomian Vomit and in 1548. ran to the other Extream joyning with some Papists in composing the Interim in which the Doctrine of Justification is fram'd according to the Popish Model which yet he would have Bucer subscribe unto and was a great Stickler for miraculous Cures by Anointing with Oyl 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. That Christ in Suffering for our Sins did not only bear their Punishment and Guilt but moreover had our Sins themselves Imputed to Him 2. That Christ did Redeem all and every Man 3. That the Soul is United to Christ and in Covenant with Him before any good Quality be wrought in it and can equally apply the Promises of Grace unto it self whilst unregenerate as when a Believer 4. That a Man Believeth after he is justified his Faith following his Justification 5. That in order to our being Comforted by the Promises of Christ and our making them sure we ought not to Grieve and Repent of the Sins we have committed from sights of the transgressed Law and of the deserved Punishment and so to be humbled in Heart 6. That the Moral Law must not be Preached to Believers and Regenerate Persons 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 tho' 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 it self the Fault the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply sin * In answer to an Objection laid down in these words For that Objection about Guilt that the Lord lays the Guilt and Punishment but not Simply the Sin it self It is replied For ought that I can see it is a Simple Objection I do not think as some do that Guilt differs from Sin In this Assertion there is a Complication of Errors of divers Kinds even Popish Socinian and Libertine Not that I dare charge every one 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 Defence of Truth for the sake of the Unwary It is necessary to show in the Point before us How Error of one kind is link'd to that of another which is thus By making Guilt to be not only Inseparable from the Sin it self but to be the same thing with it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Fault it self as it respects the Command 't will 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 consider'd is a Transgression of the Precept and whatever is a Transgression of the Precept or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is formally and Properly Sin To Understand yet more fully wherein lyeth 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 Vnclean 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 it self and at the same time make Guilt to be the Sin it self the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Intrinsick to the Sin Inseparable from it it is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Guilt is Extrinsick to the Sin it 's only an External respect of it to the Threatning of the Law It 's not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Controversie 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 it self 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 Catholicks 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 That Adam's Sin was in no other sense Imputed unto his Posterity Fatentur vid. Remonstrantes Peccatum Adami Imputatum Dici Posse Posteris ejus quatenus Deus Posteros Adamo Eidem malo cui Adamus per Peccatum obnoxium se reddidit obnoxios nasci voluit sive quatenus Deus malum quod in Paenam Adamo Inflictum fuerat in Posteros Ejus dimanare transire permisit At nihil cogit Eos dicere Peccatum Adami Posteris ejus sic fuisse à Deo Imputatum quasi Deus Posteros Adami â—â—verâ censulsset Ejusdem cum Adamo peccati culpâ—e quam Adamus commiserat REOS Imo nec scriptura nec Veritas nec Sapientia nec Bonitas Divina nec Peccati Natura c. permittunt ut sic Imputatum peccatum Adami c Malum Culpae non est quia nasci plant Involuntarium est ergo nasci cum hâc vel Illâ labe c. Si malum Culpae non est nec malum Paenae quia Culpa Paena sunt Relata Rem Apol ad Censur c. 7. § 4. then as they are by Birth made subject to the same Calamities with Adam An Imputation of the Guilt of Sin they deny as contrary to the Holy Scriptures the Divine Truth Wisdom and Goodness the Nature of Sin as well as the Formal Reason of Righteousness Although we are born without an Original Righteousness yet there is not say they either the malum Culpae nor the malum paena the Evil of the Fault nor of the Punishment on any of Adam's Offspring by Birth Not the Evil of the Fault because not Voluntary and if not the Evil of the Fault it cannot be the Evil of Punishment the Fault and Punishment being Relata and Inseparable That those Acts which follow the Privation of Original Righteousness are not formally Sins or what is the same Nam Remonstr negant actus illos qui sequuntur Destitutionem sive Privationem illam divinam esse Formaliter Peccata i. e. illos valide Obligare ad Poenam Eos qui actus istos patrant Non negant quidem actus illos Materialiter Peccata dici posse quatenus actus sunt Dissormes voluntati Divinae at negant eos formaliter esse Peccata quae sc ad Paenam obligent eos à quibus fiunt Sitpol Vbi sup are not such acts as oblige to Punishment That they are materially Sins that is Disconform to the Divine Will they do not Deny but formally they are not Sins for they Oblige not to Punishment 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 Dr. O. Of Justificat p. 284 285. when he tells us That there is in Sin a Transgression of the Preceptive part of the Law and there is an Obnoxiousness unto the Punishment from the Sanction of it Sin under this Consideration as a Transgression of the Preceptive Part of the Law cannot be communicated from One unto another unless it be by the Propagation of a vitiated Principle or Habit. But yet neither so will the Personal Sin of one as Inherent in him ever come to be the Personal Sin of Another To which I add That as the Sin it self 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 it self for that is Impossible nor the Sin in its Guilt because as they affirm it 's Inseparable from the Sin it self Socinus Smalcius and Ostorodius in Peltius his Harmony deliver themselves to the same Purpose giving us Light enough about the True Reason Commentum illud de Peccato Originis seu Parentum Culpae fabula est Judaica ab Anti-Câ—risto in Ecclesiam Introductum ad stabiliendum Perniciosa Dogmata nempe Dei Incarnationem Infantium Baptismum Socin Dial. Justif f. 11. Pelti Har. Remonst Socin Artic. 8. Parag. 4. f. 69. why they Deny Original Sin For say they the Doctrine of Original Sin is a Jewish Fable brought into the Church by Antichrist to establish as Socinus blasphemously expresses it these Pernicious Dogmata viz. The Incarnation of God Infant Baptism And in Peltius they Declare That if the Question be Whether seeing our Descent is from Adam we are by Birth obnoxious to any Punishment or Fault for Adam's Sin The Answer is That to the being Faulty it 's necessary there be some voluntary Act done by him who is Faulty And Punishment there cannot be where there is no such Anteceding Fault we are not therefore born either Faulty or Obnoxious to Punishment This Agreement between the Antinomian Arminian and Socinian about the Inseparableness of the Sin it self 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 lye 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 it self 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 it self and Guilt are Inseparable doth not only give Advantage to the Papist by confounding Justification with Sanctification but to the Arminian in
Places throughout the Holy Scriptures asserted to admit of a Denial But Christ could not justly suffer for our Sins unless in a sound sence he bore the Guilt of them To Punish the Innocent as Innocent is Injustice Jesus Christ therefore tho' Innocent in himself voluntarily becoming our Surety took on him the Guilt of Sin and suffer'd 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 lyeth 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 't is Guilt of Punishment This Guilt is not Intrinsick 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 it self the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that tho' the Sin Remain in us the Guilt Passeth from us to Christ The Entire Nature of Sin lyeth 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 transgress'd the Commandment Nor can it morally Defile or Pollute the Person on whom it is laid Christ therefore tho' in him there was no Sin might bear the Guilt of our Sins and nevertheless remain Pure Harmless Vndefiled 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 deliver'd 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 â—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 Kromayer Theol. Pol. Pos Art xi De Justif p. 631. as KROMAYERUS well expresses it Absque Peccatorum Imputatione Paenarum Perpessione Satisfactionem hic nullam cogitariposse CHAP. IV. What Antinomianism is not in some other Instances Cleared To Deny the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace not Antinomian The State of this Controversie as managed by the Papists and First Reformers The sence of the Arminians and Socinians about Condition Faith a Condition Asserted In what sence 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 perform'd the whole requir'd 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 sence 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 enforc'd 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 Meritum Mercâ—s ad Idem referuntur Tho. 1 a 2. e. Q. 114. Art 1. That Merit and Reward Essentially Respect one another That Merit is a Good Work freely done Exhibitio at MERITI Redditio MERCEDIS actus ad alterum sunt secundum aqualitatem Rei
a man Terrified at the Sight of Sin cannot in his own Strength Purpose any good thing for he is neither at Peace nor Safe 6. But confounded and over-whelm'd by the Power of Sin falls into Desperation and Hatred of God or as the Holy Scriptures have it Descends into Hell 7. To the Law therefore the Promise or Gospel is to be added which do quiet and revive the terrified Conscience and broken Heart that it may Purpose what is Good 8. That Repentance which is Only from the Law is but the half or Beginning of Repentance or Repentance by a Synecdoche because there is wanting the good Purpose 9. If it be Persevered in it becomes the Repentance of a Cain a Saul a Judas and of all such as Distrust of the Mercy of God and Despair that is to say who Perish 10. These Sophists learn't their Definition of Repentance viz. That it is a Sorrow and Purpose c. out of the Fathers 11. But they understand not the Terms of this their Definition Sorrow Sin Purpose c. 19. Nor need we wonder at this their Ignorance for they neglecting and slighting the Scriptures can't be thought to know what is Law or what Gospel 20. Indeed quite bound up in Humane Commands and Injunctions they only Dream when they Judge of Sacred and Divine Things 21. But the Gospel teaches us in Opposition to these Masters of Despair that Repentance ought not to be a meer Horror and Despair 22. But that Penitents must hope and trust and hate Sin out of love to God which is the only Good Temper and Purpose of Mind 23. This some Unmindful of any Proofs or Reason and indeed Heedless of the Matter in Hand assert to be contrary to the Law of God 24. And very erroneously teach that the Law of God is totally and without any Distinctions or Limitations to be taken out of the Church which is Blasphemous and Sacrilegious 25. But the Scriptures throughout inform us that Repentance must be begun by the Law which likewise the Order and Nature of the thing it self requires and common Experience proves 26. They viz. the Scriptures say Let all them be turned into Hell who forget God and Set O Lord a Law-giver over them that Men may know c. 27. Fill their Faces with Shame that they may seek thy Name O Lord and the Sinner is caught in the Works of his Hands 28. And this is the Stated Order that Death and Sin are in us before Life and Holiness 29. Nor are we now Righteous and Alive to be delivered over to Sin and Death but actually and in our Present State Sinners and Dead in Adam to be Justified and made alive by Christ 30. Wherefore we must be first taught the first Adam i. e. Sin and Death who is the Figure of him who was to come i. e. Christ now in the second Place to be Preach'd unto us 31. Sin and Death must of Necessity be shown us out of the Law and not by the Word of Grace and Comfort 32. And experience clears it Adam first stood convicted a Transgressor of the Law was afterwards Restored to Hopes by the Promised Seed of the Woman 33. And David was first struck dead by the Law telling Him by Nathan Thou art he is afterwards Saved by the Grace of the Gospel saying Thou shalt not Die 34. Paul trembling under Law-Stroaks first heard Why Persecutest thou me then was Enlivened and Quickned by the Gospel Arise c. 35. And Christ Himself says Mark 1. Repent and Believe the Gospel for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand 36. Likewise it behoved that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be Preached in his Name 37. Thus the Holy Spirit convinces the World first of Sin that it may teach Faith in Christ i. e. Forgiveness of Sins 38. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans observes this Method he teaches first that all are Sinners to be Justified by Christ 39. Luke in the Acts informs us of the same thing that Paul taught both Fews and Gentiles that no man can be Justified but by Christ The Second Disputation of M. Luther against the Antinomians ' Of the Law ' 1. The Law is not only Not-necessary to Justification but also manifestly Unprofitable and altogether Impossible 2. And to them who keep the Law with a Respect to be Justified by it it becomes as Poison and most Pernicious 3. When we discourse of Justification we cannot say too much of the Weakness of the Law and against a most Dangerous Confidence in the Law 4. Neither is the Law given that it may Justifie or give Life or any way to Help unto a Righteousness 5. But to shew us Our sin work Wrath and convince the Conscience of our Guilt 8. In short Heaven is not more distant from the Earth than the Law must be separate from Justification 9. Nothing is to be taught said or thought on in the Matter of Justification but only the Word of Grace exhibited in Christ 10. And yet nevertheless it doth not follow that the Law is to be abolished and not to be Preached in the Church 11. But it is the more needful it should be taught by being Useless nay Impossible for Justification 12. That so Proud Man confident of his Abilities may be instructed that he cannot be Justified by the Law 13. For Sin and Death are therefore to be shown us not that they are Necessary for Life and Innocence 14. But that Man may be sensible of his Unrighteousness and lost State and so be humbled 15. If we see not our Sin we conceit our selves Innocent as is visible in the Heathen and Pelagians 16. If Death were unknown to us this Life would be the only Life to us nor should we look for a future one 17. But since both are taught us only by the Law it is evident that the Law is very Necessary and Profitable 18. Whatever shews us Sin Wrath or Death that belongs to the Law whether it be in the Old or New Testament 19. A Discovery of Sin cannot be but by the Law and is its proper Effect and Force 20. The Law Manifestation of Sin and Revelation of Wrath are Reciprocal Terms as much as Man and Risible or Rational 21. To take away the Law and Retain the Revelation of Wrath is as if one should Deny Peter to be a Man and yet affirm Him to be a Risible Rational Creature 22. After the same sort do they Reason who take away the Law and then hold that Sin remains to be forgiven 23. Whereas the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures teach that Sin is Dead without the Law and where there is no Law there is no Transgression 24. So that it is Impossible that Sin should either be or be known without the Law either Written or Vnwritten 25. Whence it follows that seeing on the taking away of the Law there Remains no Sin there can be no Christ to Redeem from Sin for Christ Himself saith they
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 whil'st 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 Vnbelievers Thus Sin and Guilt being made Inseparable not only the Guilt but the Sin it self was laid on Christ and taken from the Elect and the Promise being to Sinners as Sinners all Sinners are Redeemed actually Redeemed from the Wrath to Come United unto Christ and in Covenant with him their Sins Pardoned and they Justified and may apply the Promises to themselves whil'st under the Reigning Power of Sin as well as when Believers and therefore Sorrow for Sin and Repentance arising from sights of the Law and of Deserved Punishment is not Necessary to their Comfort and that therefore the Preaching of the Moral Law is not to be allowed 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 every body 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 Christs 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 perswaded is the utmost our Brethren mean and is the same Truth asserted in the subscribed Propositions where it 's express 1. That the Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam and in him with all the Elect as his Seed 2. That in this Covenant of Grace Salvation by Jesus Christ is Freely offered to Sinners He requiring of them Faith as the Condition to Interest them in Himself 3. That tho' God did from all Eternity Decree to Justifie all the Elect and Christ did in the Fulness of time die for their Sins and Rise again for their Justification yet nevertheless they are not Iustified until the Holy Spirit doth in Due time actually apply Christ unto them and the Spirit Applieth to us the Redemption Purchased by Christ by working Faith in us and thereby Vniting us to Christ in our Effectual Calling 4. That we may Escape the Wrath and Curse of God Due to Vs by reason of the Transgression of the Law He Requireth of us Repentance towards God Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ That Repentance unto Life is an Evangelical Grace the Doctrine whereof is to be Preached by every Minister of the Gospel as well as that of Faith in Christ That it is of such Necessity to all Sinners that none can Expect Pardon without it 5. That the Moral Law doth for ever bind all as well Justified Persons as others to the Obedience thereof and that not only in Regard of the Matter contained in it But also in respect of the Authority of God the Creator who gave it neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way Dissolve but much Strengthen this Obligation That this Law is of great Use to Believers as well as others in that as a Rule of Life informing them of the Will of God and their Duty it Directs and Binds them to walk accordingly Discovering also the sinful Pollutions of their Nature Hearts and Lives so as Examining themselves thereby they may come to further Conviction of Humiliation for and Hatred against Sin together with a a clearer sight of the Need they have of Christ and the Perfection of his Obedience It is likewise of Use to the Regenerate to Restrain their Corruptions in that it Forbids Sin and the Threatnings of it serve to show what even their Sins Deserve and what Afflictions in this Life they may expect for them altho' Freed from the Curse thereof Threatned in the Law The Promises of it in like manner shew them God's Approbation of Obedience and what Blessings they may Expect upon the Performance thereof altho' not as Due to them by the Law as a Covenant of Works so as a Man's Doing Good and Refraining from Evil because the Law Encourageth to the one and Deterreth from the other is no Evidence of his being under the Law and not under Grace 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 Vseless the actual Justification of a Sinner in the sight of God before Faith and the like are in words expresly 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
that will not love him But because of some difficulties it may so happen that a Man may be more discouraged with the present Labour than mov'd by future Advantages Love is therefore required with Faith as a Condition annex'd to the Divine Promise that by the fulfilling it we may attain Salvation but it 's no wonder that they who define Faith by our apprehending and applying Christ's Merit do exclude Love Slicht in 1 Cor. 13. v. 13. and in Heb. 11.6 and every other Good VVork from the Causes of our Salvation To speak accurately Faith is not the Instrumental Cause of our Justification and yet it is an Efficient not a Principal but the Causa sine quâ non of it whence it is that we are said to be Justified by Faith But this Faith under the New Testament is not as Frantzius dreams an Application of Christ's Merit but a Trust in God thro Christ whose nature is in hope of the Eternal Life promised by Jesus Christ to Obey him Disp 4. p. 103. Socin Synop. 2. Justisic So Smalcius against Erantzius As we must take heed lest we as many at this time do make Holiness of Life the Effect of our Justification in the fight of God So we must look to it that we believe not this Holiness to be our Justification Or that it is an Efficient or Impulsive Cause but only a Causa sine quâ non Our Good Works that is the Obedience we render unto Christ tho' they are not the Efficient Socin This de Justific or Meritorious Cause yet are they a Causa sine quâ non of our Justification before God and of our Eternal Salvation So far Socinus But tho' they make Justification by Faith to be the same with that by Good Works yet that they may reconcile this their Doctrine with what hath been delivered by the Apostle Paul who denieth Justification by Works they find it necessary to assert That we are in this Gospel-day under two Laws the one called the Law of Obedience or the Rule of Duty the other the Law of Reward or Punishment LEGES quae ad quodvis bene constitutum Regimen requiruntur sunt diplicis generis Primò sunt LEGES quibus praescribuntur subditis OFFICIA quomodo se quisque in suis actionibus gerere debeat seu quid cuique â—aciendum vel VVolzogenâ—us is full in delivering the Socinian sense on this Point In every well constituted Government saith he there are Laws of two sorts The first are such as shew the Subject's Duty what he must do and what he must not Omittendum sit Quae LEGES ad distinctionem caetirarum PRAECEPTA INTERDICTA vocantur Deind sunt LEGES quibus propo nuntur sidis ac morigeris sub ditis PRAEMIA pro ipsorun Obedientià ac malisivis merit paeâ—ae Haec duo LEGUN genera reperiuntur etiam iâ— Regno Christi Wolzog. In struct ad Lect. lib. N.T.c. â— These Laws to distinguish them from the other are called Praecepts and Prohibitions Then there are Laws by which Rewards are proposed to good Subjects for the Encouragement of their Obedience and Punishments threatned against the Disobedient Both these sorts of Laws or Rules are in the Kingdom of Christ Answerable to these two Laws or Rules of Duty and the Promise there is a twofold Obedience By the Rule of the Precept the highest most absolutely Perfect Obedience is injoyned By the Law of the Promise or Rule of the Reward Faith and Repentance with a certain purpose of Amendment is what entitles to the Reward Duplex dat Obedienti Prâ—eceptis Divinis prâ—standa ita duple Perfectionis consiratio Aâ—ra est utmo nunquâ— quicquam coâ—â—â—itta adversus Praecepta Dei altera est at in nullo ullius Peccati habitu haer Islam priorem c. Smalc contr Frantz Disp 12. p. 427. There is saith Salmâ—cius a two-fold Obedience and a double consideration of Perfection The first is that we never transgress or deviate from God's Commands The other is that no one Habit of Sin remain in us The first sort of Obedience we do not think necessary to Salvation it being sufficient if there be always a Tendency towards it The other is necessary to Salvation and its observance possible That God in distributing Rewards observes another Rule than that of the Praecept even that of the Promise which contains a Grant of the Reward to him who is upright in heart VVolzogenius doth in the plainest Terms affirm Christ saith he is our King but so that as all other Kings ought to be he is at the same time our Father and Faithful Pastor His Promises are limited by certain Conditions and yet these Conditions are not over Rigidly insisted on in those cases where somewhat of Ignorance or other Infirmity intervenes The Promise of Eternal Life Requires an Observation of his Commands but he knowing our Frailties will not impute to us our daily sins if so be there remains in us an Vpright Heart and True Repentance Walzog Instr ad util Lect. lib. N.T. c. 6. and a certain Purpose of Amendment By this Distinction they endeavour to Reconcile Paul and James Tho' Paul saith Socinus affirms That we are justified by Faith and not by the VVorks of the Law and James That we are not justified by Faith alone but by VVorks yet on an explication of the words Faith and Works the Agreement between them will be made manifest For Paul doth mean by Faith such a Trust in God through Christ as necessarily begets Obedience to his Commandments an Obedience that is as the Form and Substance of Faith and by Works he understands a Perfect Obserservance of the Divine Law and all its Praecepts By which because of the weakness of our Flesh none can be justified James by Faith means such an Assent as is imperfect and without Good Works and by Works not the most perfect but that Obedience only which is necessarily required of us that we may appear Just before him And accordingly Paul declares that we are not justified by those VVorks which are in all respects conform to the Law but by a Faith informed by Obedience James we are not justified by a Faith void of Good VVorks but by VVorks which tho' they are not most perfect yet are such as may be justly denominated Obedience or Good VVorks To this Effect Socinus doth oft express himself Lect. Sacr. Fragment de Justif. which compared with what I have taken out of VVolzogenius and Smalcius is as if it had been said That we must distinguish between the Law of Pracepts or the Rule of Duty and the Law of Rewards or Rule of the Promise That by the Law as it is the Rule of Duty Perfection in the strictest sense as exclusive of the least Dissonancy from the Command is required But by the Law of the Rewaerd or Rule of the Promise that Obedience which is with a sincere and upright heart answering the