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
least doubt I would never have Pressed it But the Reproach it brought on the Reformation and the Ruine Destruction Havock and Devastation it made on the Souls of Men as it was enough to awaken Luther Calvin and the other first Reformers so it may well Provoke any Man fearing God that hath known what are the Dismal Effects of Antinomianism to caution the Unwary against it especially considering how apt well meaning People are to be taken with the vilest Errors when cloath'd with the Beautiful and Splendid Names of Free Grace and Gospel Truths Hieronymus Kromayer Artic. 13. De Lege in his Theologia Positivo-Polemica assures us that the Libertines are very near a kin to the Antinomians and are Exactly Described by the Learned Calvin in a Particular Discourse against them The History Calvin gives of them is to this Effect namely that Coppinus a Man born at Lisle in Flanders an Illiterate but bold Fellow did first Publish the Libertine Errors in his own City But Quintinus of Hainault soon after excelling him Gain'd the Reputation of being Head of the Sect in France to which Country he went when driven from his own for some Misdemeanors as Stephen a Fabrica told Calvin Claudianus Persival and Anthony Pocquius Joyning themselves unto Quintinus in a little time they spread their Errors throughout a great part of that Kingdom Their Error tho' covered with the Taking-Pretence of Spirituality and Gospel-Liberty yet was in its Nature and Tendency very Pernicious Some of their Principles were 1. ' That the whole Law is abolished Sublatâ omni Distinctione totam Legem abolere 〈◊〉 ulunt Calv. instruct advers Libertinos c. 19. and no further to be Regarded by us 2. ' That every one ought to follow his own Inclination Vnumquemq oportere naturalem Inclinationem sequi Cal. ubi sup c. 20. and do what is Right in his own Eyes And yet they Confess 3. That we cannot be the Children of God except we be born again Vid. Cap. 18. And after a very Magnificent and Splendid manner they extoll Regeneration affirming That if we be the Sons of God the Old man must be Crucified in us our Flesh mortified The World Destroyed and Sin Reign no more in us However when they explain themselves the Poison appears For they hold 1. That Regeneration is the Restoring that Innocency in which Adam was before the Fall 2. That the State of Innocency consisted in Knowing Nothing in not being able to Discern between Black and White it being Adam's Sin to Eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. 3. That to mortifie the Old Adam is nothing but to be Vnable to Discern or know what is Evil That we must be as little Children who cannot Discern between Good and Evil but follow their Senses and Natural Inclination If therefore any be troubled in Conscience for Sin they thus express themselves O Adam Do'st thou yet Discern between Good and Evil Is not the Old man yet Crucified If they find any One to Tremble for Fear of God's Judgments They say As yet the Taste of the Apple remains Beware lest it choak thee If Sin be Grievous to any They say That Sin as yet Reigns in them and they are held Captive by the Lusts of the Flesh 4. Sin the Flesh the Old man are nothing with them but an Opinion a Thought or Imagination Let 'em forbear to think it is and it is not Whence it is That in the Last Result Regeneration with them is a laying aside the Sense of all things and a living according to their own Inclination and Lust And they that have no Sense of Sin taking it to be Nothing are New Creatures In a word the Libertines do really Defend the Absurd and Blasphemous Consequences with which Luther chargeth the Antinomian Principles Differing from them in this That they are more Free Openly to Avow what the other wants Courage to Divulge or Sense to Understand The Libertines seem to see through the whole of their Notions How one Part is Link'd unto the other What 's their Connection and Dependance and How one Point necessarily floweth from the other and so go on to Embrace the last tho' a very Absurd Consequence and frame their Practices accordingly The Antinomians tho' some of them yet all do not so they neither see what naturally follows from their Principles nor are their Practices so Gross as are their Doctrines And yet the Agreement in many thing is so Exact and Full that it 's Probable enough they are but the Effort of one and the same Contrivance The Methods which Quintinus Persivall and Pocquius took to Insinuate their Errors into the Minds of others compared with what some Practical Antinomians have done do make thus much very clear 'T was the way of both for a while to conceal the Licentious Part of their Opinions and make a strict Profession of Gospel Purity They would carry it so fairly as to get into the Conversation of the most Eminent Reformers and other Professors of the Truth Pocquius who at Geneva was acquainted with Calvin would fain have got a Testimonial from Him of which tho' he failed yet obtained one from the excellent Martin Bucer by which means he gained great Reputation amongst many Honest and Well-meaning Protestants Quintinus ejusque Socius exsartoribus Doctores facti Calv. Vb. Sup. cap. 4. Their Teachers were such as had been Taylors and Shoemakers Quintinus Himself and his Companion were such A great Snare to Weak and Talkative Men who from an Itch after Preaching are Tempted to do their utmost for the support of them who will encourage their Hasty Entrance into the Ministry Totus Eorum Sermo de spiritis est Ideomate quodam adeo Peregrino Lequuntur ut qui ipsos audiant primâ facie stupesiant Their Sermons were about high and lofty Matters full of Peculiar and Uncommon Phrases delivered with so much eagerness and fervor that oft-times their Hearers would be transported into Amazing Extasies Obsirvandum est cum istos audire capâ—ris parum absuturum quin Ecstasi aliquanâ—o supra nubes raptos fuisse putes c. â— They were much for ' Allegorick Interpretations of Scripture and New Revelations They pretended to more than ordinary Measures of the Spirit In Allegorias Scripturam converterent c. 3. and to such Raptures as if their Converse had been with Angels By these Arts they seduced many Sober Protestants leading them into a most dissolute way of Living and to as Pernicious a Security Besides Agricolas Islebius who in the Year 1537 Subscrib'd the Articles drawn up by Luther at Smalcald in which the necessity of the Law to true Repentance is expresly asserted did A. D. 1538. start Antinomianism in Germany but on Luther's Endeavour publickly recanted Michael Sidonius was a Rigid Papist Pflugg neither severe for Popery nor much against Protestancy Osiand Epit. Hist Eccles Cent. XVI lib. 2. c. 68. tho' soon
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
making it Impossible for the Guilt of Adam's Sin to be Imputed unto his Posterity and to the Socinian by subverting Christ's Satisfaction necessarily driving Men either into the Horror of Despair or into Libertine Practices If Guilt be Inseparable from the Sin it self The Guilt of Sin is an External Respect of it with regard to the Sanction of the Law only This is SEPARABLE from Sin if IT WERE NOT SO no One Sinner could either be Pardoned or Saved Dr. O. of Justif ub sup so long as Sin Remains in us a Pardon which lyeth in the Removing Guilt cannot possibly be obtain'd which Fills many with Despair But if on the other hand we suppose the Pardon of Sin Possible notwithstanding Guilt is made Inseparable from the Sin it must then be Granted that when ever the Guilt is Removed and the Sin Pardoned the Sin it self is Destroyed It 's formal Nature is taken away and what Leudness soever they Commit there is no Sin in them All Sin Past Present and to Come being as they hold forgiven them there is no Sin in their Drunkenness Murder or Adultery They may do what they list they may Rob Plunder Oppress the Fatherless and Widow commit Sodomy and all the Outrages Imaginable but according to this Principle Sin they cannot than which what Greater Encouragement can there be given to Libertinism By this little we may see what Poison is within the Compass of this first Antinomian Error to wit Their making the Sin it self the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Obliquity or the Fault and Guilt to be Inseparable if not the same thing And affirming that not only the Punishment and Guilt of Sin but moreover the Sin it self was laid on Christ the worst of Popery Arminianism Socinianism and the Libertine Abominations flow from it And the other Parts of their Scheme are of the same kind as I will endeavor Particularly to Evince The Second is for Vniversal Redemption which they are Unawares led into by their holding Justification to be before Faith and their making the Preaching the Gospel necessary for the Relief of Distressed Consciences If Justification be before Faith then nor Unbelief nor any other obstinate Reigning Sin can be a Bar unto it The Absence of what follows Justification cannot hinder your being Justified for your being Justified before it necessarily infers your Justification in the Absence thereof which therefore can be no Impediment or Hindrance unto it And if on the Absence of Faith Justification is not suspended But notwithstanding the Reigning Power of Unbelief and other Lusts the Sinner is Justified what need of Preaching the Gospel Or of what Use can Gospel-Promises be to any Whether the Elect be troubled for Sin or not they are by these Men placed in a very safe State as free from Wrath as the Saint in Glory But if any such be troubled what is there in the Promise for their Comfort or what Right what Title what Interest hath any Man of a Troubled or Distressed Conscience in a Promise He knows not to whom the Promise doth belong and therefore can't say he hath any Title to it If it be said It belongs to the Elect as such this can't help him nor remove the Cause of his Sorrow He Believes it shall be well with the Elect but knows not that he is Elected He is rather afraid he is not what then must he do for Comfort Must he look into his own heart and try himself by marks and signs Must he Enquire whether he hath been convinced of Sin humbled in the sence of the Evils thereof sensible of his Lost Estate out of Christ and of a Necessity of closing with him on his own Terms No This is too much for it 's Legale and disposes Men to make a Christ of their own Righteousness Must they Repent and Believe that they may be Pardoned There are many Elect Persons who can't see they have Repented or Believed They have no Faith they are sure and how shall they be Comforted For the Comfort of these the Antinomian Declares The want of Faith can be no Bar to their Justification or Pardon that the Promise is made to Sinners as such as they are Sinners and that no one Sin or many Sins how Obstinate soever can hinder their Interest in the Promise Are they Sinners that can't be denied It 's then they say sufficient Let them come to Christ Let them Come tho' under the Reigning Power of Blasphemy and Unbelief Let them come to Christ and be Comforted Let them be but perswaded that their Sins are Pardoned and it is so for the Promise is to Sinners as Sinners and therefore to all and every Sinner This is the Duty they say of every Man to look on the Promise as made unto them that is All must believe that their Sins are Pardoned because the Promise is unto all which cannot be Unless All be Redeemed The Pardon of Sin is not given to any but such as are Redeemed If all must believe that their Sins are Pardoned because the Promise of Pardon is to all Sinners as such then all are Pardoned then all are Redeemed Thus you have the Reason why Hoornbeek charges the English Antinomian with holding Vniversal Redemption to which their Third Principle is Conform 3. That the Soul is Vnited to Christ and in Covenant with him before any Good Quality be wrought in the Heart and that it can Apply the Promise of Grace as well whilst Unregenerate as when a Believer The Promise being made to the Sinner as he is a Sinner and therefore to every Sinner he may whilst he is a Sinner apply the Promise as well as when a Believer or indeed rather better because the Promise belongs not to him as he is a Believer but as he is a Sinner and yet the Promise belonging to him as he is a Sinner he must be in Covenant for the Extent of the Promise is not nor can be any larger than that of the Covenant and being in Covenant partaking of Saving Benefits they must be United unto Christ whilst Sinners None so in Covenant with God as to be actually Interested in the special Blessings of it but such as are United unto Christ which according to this Antinomian Principle Men may be many Years before they aright believe or are Regenerated For as in their Fourth Assertion 4. Their Justification is before their Faith and their Faith followeth their Justification Thus much must be asserted or all that had been formerly said would have signified nothing as is obvious to a Common Capacity and that which is as necessary a Link in this Chain as the other is The Fifth viz. 5. That in order to our being Comforted by the Promises of Christ and making them sure and certain to us To Grieve and Repent of the Sins we have Committed from Sights of the transgressed Law and the Deserved Punishment is not necessary The Reason is manifest The Promise being made to Sinners
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
hath been Particularly Declared and yet it 's further necessary before I Proceed to the Consideration of the Socinian and those other Errors in Controversie that I do my Part to clear some Important Truths from the Reproach of Antinomianism and Vindicate the First Reformers from the Unjust Charge of Espousing so Gross an Heresie which that I may the more Convincingly do I will in several Instances shew what is not Antinomianism First then ' It is Not Antinomianism to Assert That Jesus Christ is a Second Adam a Publick Representative of a Spiritual Seed and that the Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as a Second Adam and with the Elect as his Seed This is a Notion expresly affirm'd by the Westminster Assembly and not only so but directly Opposite to several main Branches of that Antinomian Error Supplying us with Invincible Arguments against it If Jesus Christ be a Second-Adam it must be granted that there is a Similitude a Resemblance and Agreement in some Third between him and the First-Adam That this Agreement lyeth in these Particulars namely As the One is a Father of an Off-spring so the other And as the Off-spring of the One bears the Image of their Father so is it with the Off-spring of the other And as the Posterity of the First Adam derive any thing from him after the same manner do the Posterity of the Second from him Thus the First Adam is a Type or Figure of the Second Rom. 5.19 who was to come And as we have born the Image of the Earthy Adam so shall we bear the Image of the Heavenly 1 Cor. 15. And as by the Disobedience of one many are made Sinners so by the Obedience of another are many made Righteous Whence it follows 1. That as Guilt the Immediate Result of Adam's Sin and not his Personal Sin was made the Guilt of all his Posterity descending from him by Ordinary Generation So the Righteousness the Immediate Result of Christ's Personal Holiness and not the Personal Holiness it self is made the Righteousness of Christ's Spiritual Off-spring 2. As the Seed of the First Adam may be be considered either as Virtually and Seminally in him or as Actually Descended from him and as Seminally in him they are only Virtually Guilty As Actually born of him are actually Guilty In like manner the Seed of the second Adam must be look'd on as Virtually and Seminally in him or as Actually born of him In the first sence they can be but Virtually Justified and not Actually till actually born of him by a Spiritual Regeneration 3. As the Imputation of Adam's Guilt to all his Off-spring is founded on a Natural and Faederal Union between Adam and his Posterity so the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to his Spiritual Off-spring is grounded on a Spiritual and Faederal or Covenant-Union between him and them Whence it follows That no Elect Person merely as Elect can be either Actually or Virtually Justified That Justification which is by Christ's Righteousness Imputed and by Faith Receiv'd doth Immediately flow from the Elect Persons being Christ's Seed The Covenant of Grace being made with Christ as Head and with the Elect not meerly as Elect but as Christ's Seed Justification the Great Covenant-Blessing belongs to none but as they are in Covenant with Christ that is as they are Christ's Seed A Decretive Justification belongs to the Elect as such But this gives no Right to the Heavenly Inheritance The utmost Import of iâ— is that God did from all Eternity â—â—urpose in himself that such and such Particular Souls should be Christ's Seed and as such be Justified This Inward and Eternâ—â—â—â—urpose tho' it be a Topick from whence the certainty of the Justification of the Elect in the Way and manner Ordained of God is clearly Inferr'd Yet doth it not give any Being thereunto So that notwithstanding the Decree which nihil ponit in esse an Elect Person may be so far from having any Right secret and hidden manifest or known that he may be the Child of the first Adam and as such Really Guilty that is obnoxious and liable to the Curse which is wholly incompatible with a Real Right to Impunity or the Reward Nothing more manifest than that a Right to an Estate results not from an Internal Purpose of giving it It is not the Purpose but the Promise that gives Right and the Promise is not to the Elect as such but to the Elect as Christ's Seed That all the Elect are given unto Christ is manifestly True but their Right Results from their being Christ's who as such have the Promise made unto them 2 Tim. 1.9 According to the Eternal Purpose Tit. 1.2 was the Promise given us in Christ before the World began The Decree not giving Being to what is Purposed it doth not hinder the Execution of that Part of the Counsel of God according unto which the Elect are the Off-spring both of the First and Second Adam which cannot be at the same time but successively it is Tho' Virtually and Seminally in different Respects an Elect Person may be considered as the Seed of the First and Second Adam and when actually a Descendant from the First Adam he may be look'd on as Virtually the Seed of the Second yet Actually he cannot be at the same time the Seed of both On his being born of Christ he ceaseth to be a Child of the first Adam and of Wrath but not till then He must be actually a Descendant from the second Adam and be by Faith United unto Christ before he can be actually Justified which is a Truth that strikes at the very Sinews of Antinomianism and therefore whatever the Arminian or Socinian may affirm of it Or how much soever the Antinomian may Abuse it 't is most Opposite unto Error 'T is Orthodox and Sound Secondly To affirm That not only the Punishment but the Guilt of Sin was laid on Christ is not Antinomianism The Papists will have it that Christ bore the Punishment of our Sin but not the Guilt The Socinians who see the Connection there is between Guilt and Punishment how that where-ever Punishment is Justly laid there Guilt must be are Positive that nor the Guilt nor the Punishment of Sin was on Christ The Guilt and Punishment are Relatives Relative enim sunt Paena Delictum ita ut ubi delictum non est ibi poena esse nullomoda possit Socin de Servat Part 3. c. 10. so that where no Guilt there saith Socinus no Punishment can be And it must be yielded That Punishment hath an Essential respect unto Sin it must be for Sin or it cannot be Punishment and it cannot be for Sin on whom no Sin is either Inhaerently Or by Imputation Sin Inherently could not be in him who knew no Sin Nor can there be the Imputation of Sin but by transferring its Guilt unto him That Christ suffer'd was wounded and bruised for our Sins is in too many
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