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
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
Christ and apprehends the Forgiveness of Sin Justification is by the Holy Ghost ascrib'd only anto Faith However by the way it must be observ'd That no one doth certainly and seriously believe the Promise made unto him but he immediately Repents of his Sin For on his believing all occasion of Dispair is taken out of the way and such is the Excellency Beauty and Glory of the Promise as to take off the Heart from the Love of the World whence it may be truly said that we are Justifyed by Faith alone and that we are Sanctifyed by Faith alone for 't is Faith that purifyeth the Heart Act. 13.9 3. The reason why God forgives the Sins of the Penitent is this namely Because satisfaction is made to Gods Justice by Jesus Christ who has purchased this Grace for us But the satisfaction of Christ cannot be apprehended by us any other way but by Faith Justification therefore must be ascribed only unto Faith So far Camero 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 Christs 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 tho 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 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 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 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 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 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 clearly 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 Antinomian Truth 1. Christ is our Delegate or Substitute 1. Christ is a Second Adam but not our Delegate or Substitute As 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