Inquiry into the Nature of the Present Controversy About Justification Part 1, Chapter 3

Inquiry into the Nature of the Present Controversy About Justification Part 1 · Chapter 3

p. 19CHAP. III.

Intelligent, and ſincere Subſcribers, to the above-mentioned Propoſitions, cannot be Antinomians. What Antinomians are, Their Principles laid down out of Melchior Adamus, Lucas Oſiander, and Luther. Luther's Diſputations againſt them Abridg'd. The Perniciouſneſs of Antinomianiſm Detected. Its Agreement with Libertiniſm. Hoonbeeck 's Account of Engliſh Antinomianiſm Its Miſchievous Conſequences. Its Inconſiſtency with the Subſcribed Propoſitions. What is not Antinomianiſm, yet branded with that Odious Name.

TO make this the more clear, and Evince not only the Poſſibility, but Certainty of an Agreement in all the Subſtantials of the Goſpel, I will, with the greateſt Plaineſs I can, ſhow, what the Antinomian, Socinian, Arminian, and Popiſh Errors are, and how inconſiſtent with the Subſcribed Propoſitions.

In the firſt place then to begin with Antinomianiſm, which, becauſe commonly Joyn'd with the Libertine Notions▪ I will conſider as Agreeing, and Differing from them, and leſt any who are really tainted with this Poiſonous Error, think me Partial, and too much inclin'd to p. 18duplicate page p. 19duplicate page p. 20the Arminian Party, &c. I will deliver nothing but what is Reported by ſuch as have been the moſt Oppoſers of the Arminian, Socinian, and Popiſh Notions; ſuch as Calvin, Luther, and their Admirers, about the Doctrine of Juſtification.

In the Year 1538.See Sleidan, Comm lib. 12. p. 312. Johannes Agricola Iſlebius, an Intimate Friend of Luther, was the firſt, that after the beginning of the Reformation, did in Germany broach the Antinomian Errors, of which Melchior Adamus, in the Lives of Luther and Agricola, give this ſhort Account: The Antinomians, (ſaith he) held, that Repentance was not to be Preached from the Law, oppugning thoſe, who were for awakening Mens Conſciences by the Law, before they would Publiſh the Goſpel unto them, and affirm'd, that How wicked, and Impure ſoever the Life of any Man was; yet, if he believ'd the Promiſes of the Goſpel, he was Juſtified. He was alſo for the Reſtoring Unction, ſaying, That if it might be, he doubted not but that the Gift of Healing would accompany it, for ſince his Return from Augusta, he had by it Recover'd Four from Death to Life.

Hornbeck in his Summa Controverſiarum is more full,Lib. 7. de Browniſtis. ſpeaking diſtinctly of them, as diſtributed into three Periods of time, to wit, the Primitive in the Fourth Century; the Beginning of the Reformation in Germany; and ſince amongſt us in England. That in Germany Agricola was against the Preaching of the Law in this Goſpel Day; That we were not now under the Law, as a School-Maſter to be p. 21frightned by it's Threatnings; But under Grace; That the Goſpel only is to be Preached. We muſt believe, that tho' a Man be a Fornicator, an Adulterer, or the like, yet he is in the Way to Salvation, if he doth but lay hold on Chriſt. That we muſt indeed beware of Sin, and work Righteouſneſs; Not in Obedience to the Law, but as Exerciſing our Chriſtian Liberty, and notwithſtanding our Living in Sin, muſt Apply Chriſt, and his Promiſes, as belonging unto us.

Lucas Oſiander in his Epitome, ſaith,Hiſt. Eccleſ. Cent. XVI. lib. 11. c. 39. That Johannes Agricola Iſlebius, who A. 1530. did with Melancthon, and Brentius, Defend the Augustane Confeſſion; and after the Smal Kaldican War with Julius Pflugg, and Michael Sydonius Framed that Unhappy Book, in which there was a Compoſition of the Popiſh, and Proteſtant Religion, as a mean for Accommodation, until a General Council ſhould be Indicted, and therefore called the Interim; This Agricola, (as Oſiander expreſſes it) was in the Year 1538. ſtirr'd up by the Devil to broach a New Hereſie, affirming, That the Law of Moſes (to wit the Decalogue) was not to be Taught in the Church; That the Doctrine of the Law doth not work Repentance in the Hearts of Men, but the Holy Ghost doth it by the Preaching of the Goſpel, which ſhoweth us the Filthineſs of Sin, that the Goſpel Properly is the Preaching of Repentance. That by Schlaſſelburgius many other horrid Errors are charged upon the Antinomians, viz. That the Law is not worthy to be called the Word of God, If a Whore, a Fornicator, Adulterer, p. 22or any other ſuch wicked Perſon, doth only Believe, they are in the way to Eternal Life. The Law teacheth not Good Works, nor is it to be Preached, that we may do them and many others of a like Nature.

Againſt theſe Errors the Famous Dr. Luther did at Wittiberge Publiſh Six Diſputations, which are Extant in the firſt Tome of his Works. Iſlebius being by Luther's Endeavors convinc'd of his Error, makes his Recantation in a Publick Auditory at Wittiberge, and Prints it: However after Luther's Death, he Returns to his Vomit, reaſſumes his old Errors, and drew ſome Learned Men to cloſe with them. Labouring to get Countenance to them by wreſting ſome Paſſages in Luther's Writings; ſo that, whereas Luther had in his Commentary, on the Galatians, ſaid, That the Penitent Sinner ought not to hear Moſes, by the Law, accuſing him of Sin; but ſhould rather caſt his Eye on Jeſus Chriſt his Saviour, who by the Goſpel heals the Broken and Contrite heart; Iſlebius, and his Followers, would from hence infer, That the Law was not at all to be Taught; and thus would they Palliate their Own Errors by fathering them on Luther. So far Lucas Oſiander.

Luther, on Geneſis, doth in ſeveral Places ſhow what the Antinomians are,Cap. 19.21. affirming, That they throw the Law out of the Church, and will have it that Repentance is to be taught by the Goſpel; That they Darken Paul's Doctrine about the Remiſſion of Sin, and ſo magnifie Grace as utterly to Extinguiſh it, and expoſe Men to the Wrath of God p. 23by Perſwading them to ſuch a Security concerning the Divine Diſpleaſure and Judgement as if there had been no Sin, no fear of Death and Hell.

Theſe Antinomians ſeem to be the followers of Muntzer, who teach, that all Sin is wholly taken away, nor are we to Endeavor the convincing any of Sin, or terrifie them by the Law. They, like the Iſhmaelites, who becauſe the Thigh of their Father Abraham was Holy, believe Every thing to to be Holy. Tho' they carefully endeavor to conceal thus much, yet are they not afraid to entertain ſuch Monſtrous Opinions. Sin being forgiven, there is in them nothing Damnable, Sin therefore is nothing or at leaſt 'tis taken from them.

This Error they would faſten on the Doctrines of the Apoſtles. He that is born of God ſinneth not. I believe the Remiſſion of Sin, In Gen. c. 24.Gen 24by which they underſtand the taking away of all Sin.

The Papiſts Preach nothing but Terror,In Gen c. 19.Gen 19 and theſe falſe Prophets will have nothing taught but the Goſpel, and the Promiſes; which Error of theirs is much more hurtful than that of the Papiſts.

In the Firſt Tome of Luther's Works, to which Oſiander directed me, I have not only met with Luther's Six Diſputations, but with a Paper containing the Particulars of the Antinomian Errors, drawn up by One of themſelves, as was then Generally believed; which for the Reader's greater Satisfaction I will faithfully Tranſcribe, and add unto it, an Abridgment p. 24of Luther's Diſputations againſt them.

Unto the Antinomian Poſitions, Luther ſets this Preface.

Martin Luther to the Pious Reader. There came to my hands Certain Poſitions (ſo is the the Title) of an Unknown Author, ſcattered among the Brethren; which, leſt I be thought to approve of them, I would ſo Publiſh as to give the fulleſt Teſtimony of my Abhorring them, which God willing I will ſoon do by my Diſputations.

A. D. 1538. The Poſitions of a Certain Antinomian.

REpentance is not to be Taught from the Decalogue or any Law of Moſes, but [Ex Violatione filii per Evangelium, which I preſume thus to Render] from the Sufferings of Chriſt by the Goſpel.

2. For Chriſt ſaith, Thus it behoved him to ſuffer, and Riſe again from the Dead, that Repentance, and Remiſſion of Sins ſhould be Preached in his Name among all Nations.

3. And Chriſt in the Goſpel of John, ſaith, that the Spirit ſhall convince the World of Sin; Not the Law.

4. The ſame is Taught in the Laſt Sermon of Chriſt, Go Preach the Goſpel to Every Creature.

5. Paul to the Philippians ſaith, Let the ſame mind be in you, which is in Chriſt Jeſus, that with Fear and Trembling ye may work out your Salvation, which words do p. 25fully eſtabliſh this Truth, viz. That Repentance, (which he calls Fear, and Trembling) is to be taught from the Mind of Chriſt, not from the Law.

6. From the Diſcourſes of Paul, and Barnabas, it ſufficiently appears, that, there is no need of the Law, for any One part of Juſtification.

7. That without which, the Holy Spirit is given and Men are juſtified; is not neceſſary to be Taught, either for the Beginning, Middle, or End of Juſtification.

8. But the Holy Ghoſt of Old was given, and ſtill is, that Men might be Juſtified without the Law, by the Goſpel of Chriſt alone.

9. Therefore it's not neceſſary to Teach the Law of Moſes, either for the Beginning, Middle, or End of Juſtification.

10. The Major is evident from the Experience, which Paul and Barnabas mention.

11. And we muſt Judge the Minor to be true,11. Idem Judicabimus de Minore, nam Spiritus Sanctus cecidio viſibili ſpecie ſuper Gentes. becauſe the Holy Ghoſt in a viſible ſhape fell on the Gentiles.

12. What ſhall we then ſay of ſome who without the Word, yea, Contrary to it, and the Example of the Apoſtles, do make the Law the firſt Part, yea, a Neceſſary one to the Doctrine of Juſtification.

13. For which reaſon, that we may maintain the Purity of Doctrine, we muſt oppoſe them, who Teach, That the Goſpel muſt not be Preached, but to thoſe, who are convinced by the Law.

p. 2614. For they, that put on the words of Chriſt an Improper ſence, and ſay, that firſt the Law, then the Goſpel is to be taught, and do Pervert the words of Chriſt, nor is their Interpretation conſiſtent with the Simplicity of Chriſt.

15. As we are to adhere unto the ſimple ſence of Chriſt's word, when he ſaith, [This is my Body] ſo muſt we abide by the Simplicity city of thoſe words. [Go Preach the Goſpel, Baptizing] &c.

16. The Law doth only convince of Sin, and that without the Holy Spirit, and therefore convinceth to Damnation.

17. But there is need of that Doctrine, which is Efficacious, not only to Condemn, but alſo to Save. Thus the Goſpel doth conjunctly Teach Repentance, and Pardon of Sin.

18. For the Goſpel of Chriſt doth make known the Wrath of God, from Heaven, together with the Righteouſneſs of God, Rom. 1. for it is the Preaching of Repentance in Conjunction with the Promiſe, which our Reaſon doth not Naturally, but by Divine Revelation Receive.

Theſe are the Antinomian Poſitions, unto which Luther in his Diſputations has a reſpect.

The firſt Diſputation of D. Martin Luther, againſt the Antinomians about Repentance.

1. Repentance, by the Teſtimony of all, and by what is undoubtedly True, is a Grief for Sin, with an adjoyned Purpoſe of a better Life.

p. 272. This Grief, Properly, is not, nor can it be any thing elſe, than a deep ſence of the Law in the Heart or Conſcience.

3. For, tho' many hear the Law, yet becauſe they have not that ſenſe, nor feel the force of the Law, they Grieve not, nor Repent.

4. The firſt Part of Repentance, to wit, Grief is Only from the Law; The other part, namely, a Good Purpoſe, cannot be from the Law.

5. For 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.

p. 2819. 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.

p. 2927. 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.

p. 3036. 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.

p. 319. 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, p. 32as 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 Ʋnwritten.

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 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 foreign, 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.

p. 3330. 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.

p. 3428. 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.

p. 353. 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 p. 36ſome 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:

1^o. The Vacating the Law.

2^o. The Suppreſſing all Preaching of Repentance from the Law.

3^o. The Confining the Doctrine of Repentance, and Revelation of Wrath to the Goſpel.

4^o. 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 p. 37no 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 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 p. 38on 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.

p. 391. '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, Ʋnumquemq 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 Ʋnable 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.

p. 40If 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 p. 41the Minds of others, compared with what ſome Practical Antinomians have done, do make thus much very clear.

'Twas 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 ejuſ que Socius exſartoribus Doctores facti. Calv. Ʋb. 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 cap…ris parum abſuturum quin Ecſtaſi aliquan…o ſupra nubes raptos fuiſſe putes, c. ….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 p. 42ſuch 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, p. 43being 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 p. 44Poſitive, 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 foreign, 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 foreign, the Fault it ſelf, as it reſpects the Command, 'twill 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, p. 45and whatever is a Tranſgreſſion of the Precept, or the foreign, 'tis 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 Ʋnclean, 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 foreign, 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, p. 46it is an foreign. But Guilt is Extrinſick to the Sin, it's only an External reſpect of it to the Threatning of the Law; It's not foreign. 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, p. 47with 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 …verâ cenſulſſet Ejuſdem cum Adamo peccati & culp…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, p. 48what 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. Ʋbi 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 p. 49its 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-C…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 p. 50for 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 p. 51no 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 foreign, 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 Ʋniverſal 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, p. 52Juſtification 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, p. 53that 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 Ʋniverſal Redemption; to which their Third Principle is Conform.

3. That the Soul is Ʋnited 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, p. 54becauſe 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 p. 55being 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 Ʋnbelievers.

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, p. 56as 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 p. 57Faith, 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 Ʋniting us to Christ in our Effectual Calling.

4. That we may Eſcape the Wrath, and Curſe of God, Due to VsUs 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 p. 58Obedience 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 p. 59vacating the Law, and making the Preaching thereof Ʋſeleſs, 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.

p. 60If 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.Rom 5:19who 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. 15.1 Cor 15And, 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 p. 61Juſtified, 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 i… is, that God did from all Eternity …urpoſe in himſelf, that ſuch and ſuch Particular Souls ſhould be Chriſt's Seed, and as ſuch be Juſtified. This Inward and Etern… …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, p. 62or 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. 1.9.2 Tim 1:9 According to the Eternal Purpoſe,Tit. 1.2.Titus 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 p. 63whatever the Arminian or Socinian may affirm of it; Or how much ſoever the Antinomian may Abuſe it; 'tis moſt Oppoſite unto Error, 'Tis 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 whereever 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.

p. 64To 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 'tis 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 foreign, 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.

p. 65Chriſt therefore, tho' in him there was no Sin, might bear the Guilt of our Sins, and nevertheleſs remain Pure, Harmleſs, Ʋndefiled, 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, …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, Abſ que Peccatorum Imputatione, & Paenarum Perpeſſione, Satisfactionem hic nullam cogitaripoſſe.