Brethren as in the late History of the Union p. 28. But that you may see what provokes me I will without Exaggeration set down some of his Erroneous Opinions in his own words Show their Agreement with the Tenets advanced by the Enemies to Christ's Truths and how strenuously the Learned and Reverend Father Alsop has in his Answer to a Socinianizing Gentleman I mean in his Anti-Sozzo confuted Mr. Williams Sect. I. About the Eternity of the Death threatned against Sin The Notion Mr. Williams hath Espoused about the Eternity of the Threatned Punishment is such as the Disciples of Episcopius and Men of the Racovian Twang have in their Attempts to subvert the Doctrine of Christ's Satisâ—action Advanced For as these Gentlemen do make the Threatned Death in its first Consideration to be Eternal as such so doth He whence it follows That Christ could not suffer the Punishment we Deserved because that was Eternal Death and Christ's Sufferings were but for a Time So Socinus in Crellius Id quod nos pati merebamur erat mors aeterna quam Christus nec sustinuit nec sustinere Decreto Divino obstante Potuit Crel Respons ad Grot. Cap. 9. Partic 1. And Curcellaeus Christus non est Passus mortem aeternam quae erat Poena Peccato Debita Nam paucis tantum horis in Cruce pependit tertia die Resurrexit ex mortuis quod nullam cum aeternitate Proportionem habet Relig. Christo Instit. lib. 5. cap. 19. Sect. 16. And so Mr. Williams The Threatning of the Law was Eternal Death as Eternal Eternity was an Ingredient in the Misery of Every Sinner-Man made Right p. 14. Father Alsop Let none say if Christ bore the Punishment due to sin he must suffer Eternal Death seeing no less was due to our Transgressions For 1. The Eternity of Punishment is only due to Sin by Accident as it is found in a Finite Person who being not able to bear at Once or in the Longest time that Wrath which his Sins have Demerited Divine Justice Exacts of him an Eternity of Suffering 2. Whereas sin is only Infinite or of Infinite Demerit Objective as committed against an Infinite God The Sufferings of Christ are also Infinite Subjective being the Sufferings of that Person who is God tho not as God and therefore Christ in a Finite Time was Able to give Infinite Satisfaction Anti-Sozzo p. 596. Sect. II. The Next Point is about a Change of the Penal Sanction of the Law An Error of such a Nature as hath a Fatal Influence on our Ministry and the Lives and Conversations of Men. For if the Penal Sanction of the Law be changed for another an Evangelical and less Severe Threatning then it must unavoidably Follow that the New Threatning cannot be against any but such as are Transgressors of that Law to which it is Annexed and the Eternal Curse only against them who do not so far Obey it as to get a Right and Title unto Glory so that Original Sin which was committed Antecedently to the giving of this Law falls not under its Lash and the Old Sanction being Vacated we who are only under the New not a Man of us is lyable unto wrath upon it's Account Nor doth any other Sin but Final Impenitence Regnant Hypocrisie and Vnbelief expose the Soul to Gods Curse The Drunkenness the Adultery the Murder of a David the Hypocrisie the Lying the Perjury the Envy the Malice and what sin soever else is in Mr. Williams's Opinion consistent with the Truth of Grace tho in the Lowest Degree falls not under the Curse of the Gospel If these Abominations are Committed by some of his Saints they cannot make 'em liable to Gods Wrath nor to any Curse at all if what he saith be true For the Preaching of the Old Law for Conviction of sin is a Crime As if the Apostle Paul when he said Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. And when he Cryed out Rom. 7. 9. I was alive without the Law once but when the Commandment came Sin Reviv'd and I Dy'd had been at that time under the Old Jewish Dispensation For we have with Mr. Williams no other Law to Preach for Conviction of sin but the New Gospel Law Sir that I abuse not this Haughty Leader of our Brethren I will Prove that Crellius and He are one in this Opinion and that he differs from Father Alsop Crellius Mr. Williams I. Crellius That under the Gospel there are Abatements of Gods Anger against sin that most direful Sanction Cursed is every one that continueth not to do all things as in Gal. 3. 10. Deut. 27. 26. Is taken away and that softer one He that Believeth not shall be Damned set up in its Place Sub Evangelio sustulit severissimam illam Legis Mosaicae sanctionem Maledictus omnis c. Gal. 3. 10. c. Deut. 27. 26. Loco ejus hanc Reponens qui non credit c. Mar. 16. 16. John 3. 18 36. Crel de Deo Lib. 1. Cat. 23. But secondly Mr. Williams expresseth himself as cleverly in his Pref. to Gospel Truth Stated The Gospel hath another Sanction to the Preceptive Part of the Law than the Covenant of works had Tho nothing be Abated in the Rule of Sin and Duty yet Blessings are Promised to Lower Degrees of Duty He also tells us that the Threatning is not against Every Degree of Sin so in the Defence of Gospel Truth p. 30. The Gospel Law doth not Denounce Death for the same sins as Adams Law did That Law threatned Death for the least sin yea for one sin But the Gospel Threatens Death not for every sin Most of the threatnings in the Bible that refer to the State of Souls are Evangelical threatnings They are not by the Sanction of the Law of Innocence but of Gospel Grace Every Threatning used by God as an Argument to Conversion is a Gospel Threatning Gospel Truth p. 133 134. There is a Legal Preaching which is opposed to the Gospel and this indeed is a Crime And to that this Chapter Refers Then he sets it down as a Truth That the Legal Preaching which is a Crime is to Preach the Law as a Covenant of Innocency or Works The Real Difference between Doctor Cr. and himself is Whether it be Legal in the Culpable Sense to threaten such Penalties as are short of Damnation against such Offences as are Consistent with Sincerity and yet avoidable by Serious Care and Diligence This he denies It is not Legal Preaching saith he in a Culpable Sense to threaten such Penalties as are short of Damnation against such Offences as are Consistent with Sincerity But to Threaten these Sins with Damnation that is Legal Preaching which must not be endured And why must not the Sins which a Believer consistently with Sincerity commits be threatned with Damnation The Reason is Manifest The Sanction of the Law of
Innocence which did threaten the least Sin Every Sin with Damnation is vacated and made void And the Gospel threatens Damnation against none but them who Die in Final Vnbelief and Impenitence But what Sins are or rather what Sins doth he think are not consistent with Sincerity I presume he can't be of Opinion that Lying or False Accusing Reviling or Reproaching his Innocent Brethren or acting the Part of a Delator or Irish Evidence are inconsistent with Sincerity and therefore it must be a Sin to threaten Damnation against these Harmless Abominations if committed by himself Sir This is such a Peice of Antinomianism a Doctrine so Licentious and vile yea such a Consecration of the most Villanous Practices that it Amazes the most Solid and Grave Divines amongst us to understand that not a man of you hath the Courage to Witness against this Mans Abominations What! when the Foundations are struck at To look on be silent and revile them who are hardy enough to write against this Man What can the Orthodox Divines of the Church of England Scotland and beyond the Seas or what will Posterity think of these things What is it that shuts up the Mouths of our Grandee's of a Bates a Howe a Veal a Glascock And what is it that hath Infatuated an Alsop together with the whole Assembly in Bishopsgate-street that they must become Advocates for a Man who Publisheth such Licentious and Libertine Principles as these No wonder our Ministry is no more successful when we make the Preaching of the Law void I mean the Old Law under whose Curse all that Remain in unbelief still are and which makes the Sins of the best on Earth to be Obnoxious to Damnation Upon which Account we may yea we must threaten the sins of Believers themselves with Damnation assuring them that unless when they sin they Flee to Christ their sin will be their Ruine For there is no change of its Threatnings no Mitigation or Abatements The least sin is as much of a Damning Nature as ever which makes it necessary for him who commits the sin Exercise Repentance towards God and Faith in our Lord Jesus for Pardon The Do this and Live Sin and Dye is so much in Force that without a full satisfaction to the Threatning Part of the Law and a Righteousness fully Answering the Do this there can be no Life attain'd unto by any of us and it is our Duty to Preach the Law of Innocency and Denounce its Curse against all that abide in Unbelief and against the Sins of Believers themselves This is the Doctrine of Protestants of the Fathers and Blessed Apostles But I will go on to show the difference there is between Mr. Williams and Father Alsop Distinctly in these Points Mr. Williams The threatning of the Law was Eternal Death as Eternal Eternity was an Ingredient into the misery of every Sinner and can be removed by nothing but the Lawgivers Dispensing therewith upon Considerations equally Vindicating the Gâ—ory as this Eternity of Sinners Torments would do Man made Right p 14. Note the Dispensation is of the Penalty to be suffered and not only as to the Person suffering Father Alsop I would observe That he supposeth God to have Dispensed with the Moral Law which is News to me and I confess I do not believe it nor shall I till I have it confirm'd Some Errors though Speculative are Damnable and such may this Prove For if we like Foâ—ls Goggled in with the Rhetorical Divinity of this Age should Trust to Gods Abatements of bis Law and at last it should Prove That God Loved Righteousness and Hated Iniquity as such we were in a most Wretched Miserable and Undone Condition meerly by Trusting to Indulgence How much of this Law God will Dispense with what Part of it or what Degrees of the Violation of it is to me unknown and iâ— with any whether he may not Possibly Dispence with the whole by the same Reason is more than our Author's Principles can inform me He that may Dispense with One Part of it may with an other and so of the Rest. For where to stop or put Bounds to such a Dispensation as comes from the Grace of God is very Impossible to Determine unless we knew the true Bounds of God's Grace Anti Sozzo p. 687 688. Mr. Williams Though Nothing be Abated in the Rule of Sin and Duty yet Blessings are promised to Lower Degrees of Duty Pref. to Gosp. Tr. p. 6. Father Alsop I do not find that God has Abated any thing of his Law but is as Peremptory as ever For Do this and Live Nothing will pâ—ease God less than Exact and Perfect Obedience tho in the Covenant of Grace He is pleased to admit another a Mediator to do it for Believers I would rather he would hear the Reverend and Learned Bishop Reynolds upon Psal. 110. p. 492. In point of Validity or Invalidâ—ty there can be but and five things said of the Law 1 Either it must be Obeyed and that it is not Rom. 3. 23. Or 2. It must be Executed upon Men or the Curse and Penalty thereof be inflicted and that it is not neither Rom. 8 1. Or 3. It must be Abrogated or Extinguished and that it is not neither for Heaven and Earth shall sooner pass away Or 4 It must be Moderated and that it cannot be neither For it 's Inflexible and one Jot or Tittle mâ—st nâ—t be Abated Or Lastly The Law it self Remaining the Obâ—igation thâ—reof notwithstanding mâ—st towards such or such Pâ—rsons be so far forth Dispensed withal as that a Surety shâ—ll bâ— Admitted both to Do all the Duties and to Suffer all the Curses of the Law in behalf of that Pâ—â—son who in Rigor should have done or suffered â—ll so that â—he Law not One Jot or Tittle thereof is abrogated in regard of the Obligation therein contained but they are aâ—â— Reconciled in Christ. Thus far Father Alsop in his Anti Sozzo p. 216 217 who hath câ—eâ—red it tâ—at there are no Abatements in the Law no Dispensing either with the Commandment or with the Penalâ—y but only as to the Person And Grotius has Evinced That though iâ— be â—ssâ—ntial unto Punishment that it be for Sin yet is it not Essential unto it that it be on the Person that sinned and the Learned Bishop adds as I have it page 396 397. That in the First Covenant we were to do it in our own Persons in the Second Christ is appointed aâ—d allowed to do it for us He â—ullfilled All the Obligations of the Law the Duties thereof by Active Obediencâ— in his Life and the Curses thereof by Passive Obedience in his Death One more Father Alsop Though God hath not Abated of his Law yet he hath Admitted a Surety called therefore the Surety of the Covenant Anti-Soz p. 699. Mr. Williams The Gospel-Law doth not Denounce Death for the same Sins as Adam's Law did that Law threatned Death â—or the Least Sin yea
for One Sin but the Gospel threatens Death not for Every Sin Def of Gospel-Truth p. 30 Well then seeing the Gospel-Law doth not threaten Death against Every Sin and the threatning of Adam's Law is vâ—cated or at least Dispensed with Every Sin deserves not Death For though the Desâ—â—t of and Obligation to Punishment are Distinct and the Obligation may be 〈◊〉 there is no Desert yet wherever the Dâ—sert is there thâ— Punishment is due and the Peâ—son obliged to undergo it till by an Apâ—lication of Christ's Blood that Obligation be Dâ—ssâ—lv'd â—he Sins which are Committed and Deserve Punishment if they Oblige not thereunto there is no need if tâ—ere is no Râ—â—m for Pardon which lyeth in a Dissolving the Obligation For where there is no Obligation there can be no Dissolving it and where no â—hreatning there no Obligation for an Obligation to Punishment is by Vertue of the Threatning of the Law Thus he must hold That no Sins but Final Vnbâ—lief and Impenitence falling under the Threatnings of the Gospel-Law can need a Pardon and these he allows shall never be Pardoned or at least those Sins which are consistent with Sincerity or the Imperfections of our Faith Repentance and Obedience need not a Pardon because they fall under no Law Threatning against which Notion I may Justly set down what hath been Asserted by Father Alsop God is by Nature a Holy God as he is Governour of the World he is a Righteous Judge Sin is both contrary to his Holy Nature and his Holy Law And therefore as a Holy God he cannot but hate Sin as a Righteous Judge he cannot but Punish Sin And because this Sin is Inherent in and Committed by Man God hates the Sinner upon the account of his Sin his Person and his Best Services are an Abomination to the Lord. From Hence it follows That Sin being a Transgression of the Law in its Preceptive Part renders the Sinner Guilty that is Obnoxious and Liable to the Law in its Sanction to the Punishment Now this Righteous Judge will certainly Charge the Guilty Sinner with the Penalty due to his Sin But there is a way found out That he may not Impute to Sinners their Traspasses which is by Christ and as he adds by his being made Sin for us Anti-Sozzo p. 631. Mr. Williams That Legal Preaching which is a Crime is to Preach the Law as a Covenant of Innocency or Works Every Threatning used by God to Conversion is a Gospel Threatning Gospel Truth stated p. 222 and 133 134. So that it 's sinful to endeavour to Convince Men of their Sin and Misery by Preaching to them the Law of Works that is to say Adam's Law but we must confine our selves wholly unto the Gospel Law the very Error held by Agricola Islebius the Antinomian and Confuted by Luther Father Alsop The Law is God's Law and when it witnesses to a sinner it witnesses home convinces him of the Perfect Holiness of that God who gave the Law of the Peremptoriness of God in not Abating One Jot or Tittle of the Law of the sinners utter Inability to come up to the Demands of the Law and therefore the utter Impossibility of being Justified by the Law of the Severity of God's Justice in Punishing the Violaters of his Law and therefore unless he can find another Righteousness he must utterly perish 'T is true the Law speaks its Old Language still Do this aud live but then it speaks it only to those who are upon the Bottom of Innocency for to a Transgresser its Language is Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things Anti-Sozzo p. 544 In Rom. 7. 13. it 's said I had not known sin excâ—pt the Law had said thou shalt not covet From whence I Argue By that Law which says Thou shalt not covet comes the Knowledge of sin Therefore by the Moral Law comes the Knowledge of sin The Major is the Apostle's own in the place last Quoted The Minor needs no Proof but that a Man be able to Read the Ten Commandments which is the Summ of the Moral Law the Tenth whereof is Thou shalt not covet Anti-Sozzo p. 538. The Knowledge of Sin being by the Law which saith Thou shalt not covet and which saith The Man that continueth not in all things is Accursed That we may Convince Men of their Sin and Misery and of the Necessity of Believing in the Lord Jesus that they may by his Righteousness Receiv'd by Faith be Justify'd We must Preach to them this Law and Denounce the Threatned Curse thereof This is the Doctrine of Protestants this the Doctrine Taught us by the Holy Apostles On the other hand if with Mr. Williams we must confine our selves in our Attempts to convince sinners unto the Gospel Law how can we charge them with the Guilt of Original Sin or Threaten Death against them for any other sins than their Unbelief and Impenitence An Error so Gross so Absurd and Pernicious to the Souls of Men that it becomes Every Good Man to Express his Abhorrence of it But as if the Design was That Men of our Way may Deservedly fail under the Reproach and Scandal of Sheltering supporting Aiding and Abetting a Real Antinomian who that he may cover his mischievous Purposes makes a frightful Out-cry against Antinomianism not a Man of our Number but your self that I know Opposes them so far as to lie under the Rage of these snarling Scriblers Sect. III. Of Procuring and Purchasing the Covenant of Grace One Great Point in Controversie between the Reformed Churches and the Remonstrants was Whether Christ by his Death did Procure Purchase and Merit a New Covenant of Grace The Remonstrants Positively Affirm'd That Christ did by the Merit of his Death and Satisfaction Procure and Enact a Covenant of Grace with sinners The Reformed Churches in Opposition unto them were as Express That Christ did not Merit the New Covenant of Grace but that he was the chief Blessing of this Covenant Promised in Gen. 3. 15. from whom all other Covenant Blessings such as Reconciliation with God Remission of Sins and Eternal Life did as from their Fountain flow That God in Renewing this Covenant with Abraham Isaac Jacob David and the other Patriarchs and Prophets in the Old Testament did first make mention of Christ as the Seed in whom their Posterity together with all Nations are Blessed That in regard hereunto it is that Christ is called a Mediator of the New Covenant Heb. 8. 6. ch 9. 15. ch 12. 24. For the Mediator of the New Testament and the Promise of this Mediator must belong to the New Covenant of Grace Judic Theol. Exteror de quinque Artic. Synod Dordrech Exhib an 1619. pag. 117 118. Now it must be yeilded That a Great Deal turns on this Point for from this Notion of the Remonstrants it doth saith the Learned Voetius Select Disp. Theol. Par. 2. not pag. 133. as Mr. Lobb in his Defence p. 23. cites it but pag.