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
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
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