Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	adam_n	law_n	transgression_n	5,599	5	10.5016	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39674	Planelogia, a succinct and seasonable discourse of the occasions, causes, nature, rise, growth, and remedies of mental errors written some months since, and now made publick, both for the healing and prevention of the sins and calamities which have broken in this way upon the churches of Christ, to the great scandal of religion, hardening of the wicked, and obstruction of Reformation : whereunto are subjoined by way of appendix : I. Vindiciarum vindex, being a succinct, but full answer to Mr. Philip Cary's weak and impertinent exceptions to my Vindiciæ legis & fæderis, II. a synopsis of ancient and modern Antinomian errors, with scriptural arguments and reasons against them, III. a sermon composed for the preventing and healing of rents and divisions in the churches of Christ / by John Flavell ... ; with an epistle by several divines, relating to Dr. Crisp's works.	Flavel, John, 1630?-1691.	1691 (1691)	Wing F1175; ESTC R21865	194,574	498

They tell us That by God's laying our Iniquities upon Christ he became as compleatly sinful as we and we as compleatly righteous as Christ. That not only the guilt and punishment of sin was laid upon Christ but simply the very faults that men commit the transgression it self became the transgression of Christ Iniquity it self not in any figure but plainly sin it self was laid on Christ and that Christ himself was not more righteous than this Person is and this Person is not more sinful than Christ was Refutation These two Propositions will never go down with sound and Orthodox Christians The first sinks and debases Christ too low the other exalts the sinful Creature too high The one represents the pure and spotless Lord Jesus as sinful the other represents the sinful Creature as pure and perfect and both these Propositions seem evidently to be built upon these two Hypotheses 1. That the righteousness of Christ is subjectively and inherently in us in the same fulness and Perfection it is in Christ grant that and then it will follow indeed That Christ himself is not more righteous than the Believer is 2. That not only the guilt and punishment of sin was laid on Christ by way of imputation but sin it self the very transgression or sinfulness it self was transferr'd from the Elect to Christ and that by God's laying it on him the sinfulness or fault it self was essentially transfused into him and so sin it self did transire à subjecto in subjectum Grant but this and it can never be denied but Christ became as compleatly sinful as we But both these Hypotheses are not only notoriously false but utterly impossible as will be manifested by and by But before I come to the Refutation of them it will be necessary to lay down some Concessions to clear the Orthodox Doctrine in this Controversie and narrow the matter under debate as much as may be 1. And first we thankfully acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Surety of the New Testament Heb. 7. 22. and that as such all the Guilt and Punishment of our Sins was laid upon him Isa. 53. 5 6. That is God imputed and he bare it in our room and stead God the Father as Supreme Law-giver and Judge of all upon the Transgression of the Law admitted the Sponsion or Suretiship of Christ to answer for the sins of men Heb. 10. 5 6 7. And for this very end he was made under the Law Gal. 4. 4 5. And that Christ voluntarily took it upon him to answer as our Surety whatsoever the Law could lay to our charge whence it became just and righteous that he should suffer 2. We say That God by laying upon or imputing the Guilt of our Sins to Christ thereby our Sins became legally his as the Debt is legally the Sureties Debt tho he never borrowed one farthing of it Thus God laid and Christ took our Sins upon him tho in him was no sin 2 Cor. 5. 21. He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin i. e. who was clean and altogether void of sin 3. We thankfully acknowledg that Christ hath so fully satisfied the Law for the sins of all that are his that the Debts of Believers are fully discharg'd and the very last mite paid by Christ. His Payment is full and so therefore is our Discharge and Acquittance Rom. 8. 1 31. And that by virtue hereof the Guilt of Believers is so perfectly abolished that it shall never more bring them under Condemnation Iohn 5. 24. And so in Christ they are without fault before God 4. We likewise grant That as the Guilt of our Sins was by God's Imputation laid upon Christ so the Righteousness of Christ is by God imputed to Believers by virtue of their Union with Christ and becomes thereby as truly and fully theirs for the justification of their particular Persons before God as if they themselves had in their own Persons fulfilled all that the Law requires or suffered all that it threatned No inherent Righteousness in our own Persons is or can be more truly our own for this end and purpose than Christ's imputed Righteousness is our own He is the Lord our Righteousness Jer. 23. 6. We are made the righteousness of God in him 1 Cor. 5. 21. Yea the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in them that believe Rom. 8. 4. But notwithstanding all this we cannot say 1. That Christ became as compleatly sinful as we Or 2. That we are as compleatly righteous as Christ and that over and above the Guilt and Punishment of Sin which we grant was laid upon Christ Sin it self simply considered or the very Transgression it self became the Sin or Transgression of Christ and consequently that we are as compleatly Righteous as Christ and Christ as compleatly Sinful as we are 1. We dare not say That Sin simply consider'd as the very Transgression of the Law it self as well as the Guilt and Punishment became the very Sin and Transgression of Christ For two things are distinctly to be considered and differenced With respect to the Law and unto Sin As to the Law we are to consider in it 1. It s Preceptive part 2. It s Sanction 1. The preceptive part of the Law which gives Sin its formal Nature 1 Ioh. 3. 4. For sin is the transgression of the law All Transgression arises from the Preceptive part of the Law of God He that transgresseth the Precepts sinneth and under this consideration sin can never be communicated from one to another The Personal sin of one cannot be in this respect the Personal sin of another There is no Physical Transfusion of the Transgression of the Precept from one subject into another This is utterly impossible even Adam's personal sins consider'd in his single private capacity are not communicable to his Posterity 2. Besides the Transgression of the Preceptive part of the Law there is an obnoxiousness unto Punishment arising from the Sanction of the Law which we call the Guilt of Sin and this as Judicious Dr. Owen observes is separable from sin And if it were not separable from the former no sinner in the world could either be pardoned or sav'd Guilt may be made another's by Imputation and yet that other not rendred formally a sinner thereby Upon this ground we say the Guilt and Punishment of our Sin was that only which was imputed unto Christ but the very Transgression of the Law it self or Sin formally and essentially consider'd could never be communicated or transfused from us into him I know but two ways in the world by which one man's sins can be imagined to become another's viz. Either by Imputation which is Legal and what we affirm or by Essential Transfusion from subject to subject as our Adversaries fancy which is utterly impossible and we have as good ground to believe the absurd Doctrine of Transubstantiation as this wild notion of the Essential Transfusion of Sin Guilt arising from

of receiving Doctri●es so destructive to the great Truths of the Gospel as these are And I do solemnly profess I have not designedly strained them to cast reproach upon him that publish'd them But the matters are so plain that if Mr. Cary will maintain his Positions not only my self but every intelligent Reader will be easily able to fasten all those odious Consequents upon him after all his Apologies Sir in a word I dare not say but you are a good Man but since I read your two Books you have made me Think more than once of what one said of Ionah after he had read his History that he was a strange Man of a good Man yet as strange a good Man as you are I hope to meet you with a sounder Head and better Spirit in Heaven The Second APPENDIX Giving a brief Account of the Rise and Growth of ANTINOMIANISM the deduction of the principal Errors of that Sect With modest and seasonable Reflections upon them THE Design of the following Sheets cast in as a Mantissa to the foregoing Discourse of Errors is principally to discharge and free the Free-grace of God from those dangerour Errors which fight against it under its own Colours partly to prevent the seduction of some that stagger and lastly though least of all to vindicate my own Doctrine the scope and current whereof hath always been and shall ever be to exalt the Free-grace of God in Christ to draw the vilest of Sinners● to him and relieve the distressed Consciences of Sin-burthened Christians But notwithstanding my utmost care and caution some have been apt to censure it as if in some things it had a tang of Antinomianism But if my publick or private Discourses be the faithful Messengers of my Judgment and Heart as I hope they are nothing can be found in any of them casting a friendly aspect upon any of their Principles which I here justly censure as erroneous Three things I principally aim at in this short Appendix 1. To give the Reader the most probable Rise of Antinomianism 2. An Account of the principal Errors of that Sect. 3. To confirm and establish Christians against them by sound Reasons back'd with Scripture-authority And I. Of the Rise of Antinomianism The Scriptures foreseeing there would arise such a sort of Men in the Church as would wax wanton against Christ and turn his Grace into lasciviousness hath not only precautioned us in general to beware of such Opinions as corrupt the Doctrine of Free-grace Rom. 6. 1 2. Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound God forbid but hath particularly indigitated and marked those very Opinions by which it would be abused and made abundant provision against them as namely 1. All slighting and vilifying Opinions or Expressions of the Holy Law of God Rom. 7. 7 12. 2. All Opinions and Principles inclining men to a careless disregard and neglect of the Duties of Obedience under pretence of Free-grace and Liberty by Christ Iam. 2. Matth. 25. 3. All Opinions neglecting or slighting Sanctification as the evidence of our Justification and rendring it needless or sinful to try the state of our Souls by the Graces of the Spirit wrought in us which is the principal scope of the First Epistle of Iohn Notwithstanding such is the wickedness of some and weakness of others that in all Ages especially the last past and present men have audaciously broken in upon the Doctrine of Free-grace and notoriously violated and corrupted it to the great reproach of Christ scandal of the World and hardning of the Enemies of Reformation Behold saith Contzen the Iesuit on Matth. 24. the fruit of Protestantism and their Gospel-preaching Nothing is more opposite to looseness than the Free-grace of God which teacheth us That denying all ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present world Nor can it without manifest violence be made pliable to such wicked purposes And therefore the Apostle tells us Iude 4. That this is done by turning the Grace of our Lord into lasciviousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transferring it scil foedâ interpretatione by a corrupt abusive interpretation to such uses and purposes as it abhors No such wanton licentious Conclusions can be inferr'd from the Gospel-doctrines of Grace and Liberty but by wresting them against their true scope and intent by the wicked Arts and Practices of Deceivers upon them The Gospel makes Sin more odious than ever the Law did and discovers the punishment of it in a more severe and dreadful manner than ever it was discovered before Heb. 2. 2 3. For if the word spoken by Angels were stedfast and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation It shews our obligations to duty to be stronger than ever and our encouragements to holiness greater than ever 2 Cor. 7. 1. and yet corrupt Nature will be still tempting men to corrupt and abuse it The more luscious the Food is the more men are apt to surfeit upon it This perversion and abuse of Free-grace and Christian-liberty is justly chargeable though upon different accounts both upon wicked and good Men. Wicked Men corrupt it designedly that by entitling God to their Sins they might sin the more quietly and securely So the Devil instigated the Heathens to sin against the Light and Law of Nature by representing their gods to them as drunken and lascivious Deities So the Nicolaitans and School of Simon and after them the Gnosticks and other Hereticks in the very dawning of Gospel Light and Liberty began presently to loose the bond of restraint from their Lusts under pretence of Grace and Liberty The Aetiani blushed not to teach That Sin and perseverance in Sin could hurt the Salvation of none so that they would embrace their Principles How vile and abominable Inferences the Manichaeans Valentinians and Cerdonites drew from the Grace and Liberty of the Gospel in the following Ages I had rather mourn over than recite And if we come down to the 15 th Century we shall find the Libertines of those days as deeply drenched in this Sin as most that went before them Calvin mournfully observes That under pretence of Christian-liberty they trampled all Godliness under foot The vile Courses their loose Opinions soon carried them into plainly discovered for what intents and purposes they were projected and calculated and he that reads the Preface to that Grave and Learned Mr. Thomas Gataker's Book entituled God's Eye upon Israel will find That some Antinomians of our days are not much behind the worst and vilest of them One of them cries out Away with the Law away with the Law it cuts off a man's Legs and th●n bids him walk Another saith T is as possible for Christ himself to sin as for a Child of God to sin That if a man by the Spirit know himself to be in the state of grace though he be drunk

the Sanction of the Law may and did pass from us to Christ by Legal Imputation but sin it self the very Transgression it self arising from the very Preceptive part of the Law cannot so pass from us to Christ For if we should once imagine that the very acts and habits of sin with the odious deformity thereof should pass from our Persons to Christ and subjectively to inhere in him as they do in us then it would follow First That our Salvation would thereby be rendred utterly impossible For such an inhesion of Sin in the Person of Christ is absolutely inconsistent with the Hypostatical Vnion which Union is the very Foundation of his Satisfaction and our Salvation Tho the Divine Nature can and doth dwell in Union with the pure and Sinless human Nature of Christ yet it cannot dwell in Union with Sin Secondly This Supposition would render the Blood of the Cross altogether unable to satisfie for us He could not have been the Lamb of God to take away the Sins of the World if he had not been perfectly pure and spotless 1 Pet. 1. 19. Thirdly Had our Sins thus been essentially transfus'd into Christ the Law had had a just and valid Exception against him for it accepts of nothing but what is absolutely pure and perfect I admire therefore how any good Man dares to call our Doctrine which teaches the Imputation of our Guilt and Punishment to Christ a simple Doctrine and assert that the Transgression it self became Christ's and that thereby Christ became as compleatly sinful as we And Fourthly If the way of making our Sins Christ's by imputation be thus rejected and derided and Christ asserted by some other way to become as compleatly sinful as we then I cannot see which way to avoid it but that the very same Acts and Habits of Sin must inhere both in Christ and in Believers also For I suppose our Adversaries will not deny that notwithstanding God's laying the Sins of Believers upon Christ there remain in all Believers after their Justification sinful Inclinations and Aversations a Law of Sin in their Members a Body of Sin and Death Did these things pass from them to Christ and yet do they still inhere in them Why do they complain and groan of in-dwelling Sin as Rom. 7. If Sin it self be so transferr'd from them to Christ Sure unless Men will dare to say the same Acts and Habits of Sin which they feel in themselves are as truly in Christ as in themselves they have no ground to say that by God's laying their Iniquities upon Christ he became as compleatly sinful as they are and if they should so affirm that Affirmation would undermine the very Foundation of their own Salvation I therefore heartily subscribe to that sound and holy Sentence of a clear and learned Divine Nothing is more absolutely true nothing more sacredly and assuredly believ'd by us than that nothing which Christ did or suffer'd nothing that he undertook or underwent did or could constitute him subjectively inherently and thereupon personally a Sinner or guilty of any Sin of his own To bear the Guilt or Blame of other Mens Faults to be alienae culpae reus makes no Man a Sinner unless he did unwisely or irregularly undertake it So then this Proposition that by God's laying our Sins upon Christ in some other way than by Imputation of Guilt and Punishment he became as compleatly sinful as we will not ought not to be receiv'd as the sound Doctrine of the Gospel Nor yet this Second Proposition That we are as compleatly Righteous as Christ is or that Christ is not more Righteous than a Believer I cannot imagine what should induce any Man so to express himself unless it be a groundless conceit and fancy that there is an essential Transfusion of Christ's justifying Righteousness into Believers whereby it becomes theirs by way of subjective inhesion and is in them in the very same manner it is in him And so every individual Believer becomes as compleatly Righteous as Christ. And this conceit they would fain establish upon that Text 1 Ioh. 3. 7. He that doth righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous But neither this expression nor any other like it in the Scriptures gives the least countenance to such a general and unwary Position It is far from the mind of this Scripture That the righteousness of Christ is formally and inherently ours as it is his Indeed it is ours relatively not formally and inherently not the same with his for quantity though it be the same for verity His Righteousness is not ours in its Vniversal value though it be ours as to our particular use and necessity Nor is it made ours to make us so many causes of Salvation to others but it is imputed to us as to the Subjects that are to be saved by it our selves 'T is true we are justified and saved by the very Righteousness of Christ and no other but that Righteousness is formally inherent in him only and is only materially imputed to us It was actively his but passively ours He wrought it though we wear it It was wrought in the person of God-man for the whole Church and is imputed not transfused to every single Believer for his own concernment only For 1. It is most absurd to imagine that the Righteousness of Christ should formally inhere in the person of all or any Believer as it doth in the person of the Mediator The impossibility hereof appears plainly from the incapacity of the Subject The Righteousness of Christ is an Infinite Righteousness because it is the Righteousness of God-man and can therefore be subjected in no other person beside him It is capable of being imputed to a finite creature and therefore in the way of imputation we are said to be made the righteousness of God in him but though it may be imputed to a finite creature it inheres only in the person of the Son of God as in its proper subject And indeed 2. If it should be inherent in us it could not be imputed to us as it is Rom. 4. 6 23. Nor need we go out of our selves for justification as now we must Phil. 3. 9. but may justify our selves by our own inherent Righteousness And 3 dly What should hinder if this Infinite Righteousness of Christ were infused into us and should make us as compleatly righteous as Christ but that we might justify others also as Christ doth and so we might be the Saviours of the Elect as Christ is Which is most absurd to imagine And 4 thly According to Antinomian Principles What need was there that we should be justified at all Or what place is left for the justification of any sinner in the World For according to their Opinion the justification of the Elect is an immanent act of God before the World was and that Eternal act of Justification making the Elect as compleatly Righteous as Christ himself there could not possibly be

any the least guilt in the Elect to be pardoned and consequently no place or room could be left for any Justification in time And then it must follow that seeing Christ died in time for sin according to the Scriptures It must be for his own sins that he died and not for the sins of the Elect Diametrically opposite to Rom. 4. 25. and the whole current of Scripture and faith of Christians 'T is therefore very unbecoming and unworthy of a justified person after Christ hath taken all his guilt upon himself and suffer'd all the punishment due thereunto in his place and room Instead of an humble and thankful admiration of his unparallel'd grace therein to throw more than the guilt and punishment of his sins upon Christ even the transgression it self and comparing his own Righteousness with Christ's to say he is as compleatly Righteous as Christ himself This is as if a company of Bankrupt Debtors Arrested for their own Debts ready to be cast into Prison and not having one Farthing to satisfy after their Debts have been freely and fully discharg'd by another out of his immense treasure should now compare with him yea and think they honour'd him by telling him that now they are as compleatly Rich as himself I am well assur'd no good Man would embrace an Opinion so derogatory to Christ's Honour as this is did he but see the odious consequences of it doubtless he would abhor them as much as we And as for those now in Heaven who fell into such mistakes in the way thither were they now acquainted with what is transacted here below they would exceedingly rejoyce in the detection of those mistakes and Bless God for the refutation of them Error VIII They affirm That Believers need not fear their own sins nor the sins of others for as much as neither their own or others sins can do them any hurt nor must they do any duty for their own good or salvation or for eternal rewards That we need fear no hurt from sin or may not aim at our own good in Duty are two Propositions that sound harsh in the ears of Believers I shall consider them severally and refute them as briefly as I can Proposition I. Believers need not fear their own sins or the sins of others because neither our own or others sins can do us any hurt They seem to be induced into this Error by misunderstanding the Apostle in Rom. 8. 28. as if the scope of that Text were to assert the benefits of sin to justified persons whereas he speaks there of Adversities and Afflictions befalling the Saints in this Life Vniversalis restringenda est ad materiam subjectam loquitur enim de afflictionibus piorum The subject matter saith Pareus on the place restrains the Universal expression of the Apostle For when he there saith All things shall work together for good he principally intends the afflictions of the Godly of which he treats there in that context It may be extended also to all providential events Omnia quaecunque eis accedunt forinsecus tam adversa quàm prospera All adverse and prosperous events of things without us as Estius upon the place notes Nothing is spoken of sin in this Text. And the Apostle distributing this General into Particulars verse 38. plainly shews what are the things he intended by his Universal expression verse 28. as also in what respect no creature can do the Saints any hurt namely that they shall never be able to separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Iesus our Lord. And in this respect it is true that the Sins of the Elect shall not hurt them by frustrating the purpose of God concerning their Eternal Salvation or totally and finally to separate them from his Love This we grant and yet we think it a very unwary and unsound expression That Believers need not fear their own sins because they can do them no hurt 'T is too general and unguarded a Proposition to be received for truth What if their sins cannot do them that hurt to frustrate the purpose of God and Damn them to Eternity in the World to come Can it therefore do them no hurt at all in their present state of conflict with it in this World For my part I think the greatest fear of caution is due to sin the greatest evil and that Chrysostome spake more like a Christian when he said Nil nisi peccatum timeo I fear nothing but sin Though sin cannot finally ruine the Believer yet it can many ways hurt and injure the Believer and therefore ought not to be misrepresented as such an innocent and harmless thing to them In vain are so many terrible threatnings in the Scriptures against it if it can do us no hurt and it is certain nothing can do us good but that which makes us better and more Holy But Sin can never pretend to that of all things in the World But to come to an issue Sin may be consider'd three ways 1. Formally 2. Effectively 3. Reductively First Formally as a transgression of the Preceptive part of the Law of God and under that consideration it is the most formidable evil in the whole World The evil of evils at which every gracious heart trembles and ought rather to chuse Banishment Prison and Death it self in the most terrible form than Sin or that which is most tempting in Sin the pleasures of it as Moses did Heb. 11. 25. Secondly Sin may be consider'd Effectively with respect to the manifold mischiefs and calamities it produceth in the World and the Spiritual and Corporeal Evils it infers upon Believers themselves Though it cannot Damn their Souls yet it makes War against their Souls and brings them into miserable Bondage and Captivity Rom. 7. 23. It wounds their Souls under which wounds they are feeble and sore broken yea they roar by reason of the disquietness of their hearts Psal. 38. 5 8. Is War Captivity Festering painful Wounds causing them to roar no hurt to Believers It breaks their very Bones Ps. 51. 8. And is that no hurt It draws off their Minds from God interrupts their Prayers and Meditations Rom. 7. 18 19 20 21. And is there no hurt in that It causeth their Graces to decline wither and languish to that degree that the things which are in them are ready to die Rev. 3. 1. and Rev. 2. 4. And is the loss of Grace and Spiritual strength no hurt to a Believer It hides the Face of God from them Isa. 59. 2. And is there no hurt in spiritual withdrawments of God from their Souls Why then do deserted Saints so bitterly lament and bemoan it It provokes innumerable afflictions and miseries which fall upon our Bodies Relations Estates and if Sin be the cause of all these inward and outward miseries to the People of God sure then there is some hurt in Sin for which the Saints ought to be afraid of it Thirdly Sin may be consider'd Reductively

account to confute and destroy this Fancy and much more may be rationally urged against it Let the following Particulars be weighed in the Balance of Reason 1. Can we rationally suppose that Pardon and Acceptance can be affirmed or predicated of that which is not Reason tells us Non entis nulla sunt accidentia That which is not can neither be condemned nor justified But before the Creation or before a Man's particular Conception he was not and therefore could not in his own Person be the Subject of Justification Where there is no Law there is no Sin Where there is no Sin there is no Punishment Where there is neither Sin nor Punishment there can be no Guilt for Guilt is an Obligation to Punishment And where there 's neither Law nor Sin nor Obligation to Punishment there can be no Justification He that is not capable of a Charge is not capable of a Discharge What remains then but that either the Elect must exist from Eternity or be justified in time 'T is true future Beings may be considered as in the purpose and decree of God from Eternity or as in the Intention of Christ who died intentionally for the Sins of the Elect and rose again for their Justification But neither the Decree of God nor the Death of Christ takes place upon any Man for his actual Justification until he personally exist For the Object of Justification is a Sinner actually ungodly Rom. 4. 5. but so no Man is or can be from Eternity In Election men are considered without respect to Good or Evil done by them Rom. 9. 11. not so in actual Justification 2. In Justification there is a Change made upon the state of the Person Rom. 5. 8 9. 1 Cor. 6. 9 10 11. By Justification men pass from a state of Death to a state of Life Ioh. 5. 24. But the Decree or Purpose of God in it self makes no such actual change upon the state of any person It hath indeed the nature of an Universal Cause but an Universal Cause produceth nothing without particulars If our state be changed it is not by an immanent act of God Hence no such thing doth transire A mere velle non punire or intention to justify us in due time and order makes no change on our state till that time come and the particular Causes have wrought A Prince may have a purpose or intention to pardon a Law-condemned Traitor and free him from that Condemnation in due time but whilst the Law that condemned him stands in its full force and power against him he is not justified or acquitted notwithstanding that gracious intention but stands still condemned So is it with us till by Faith we are implanted into Christ. 'T is true Christ is a surety for all his and hath satisfied the debt He is a common Head to all his as Adam was to all his Children Rom. 5. 19. But as the Sin of Adam condemns none but those that are in him so the Righteousness of Christ actually justifies none but those that are in him and none are actually in him but Believers Therefore till we believe no actual change passeth or can pass upon our state So that this Hypothesis is contrary to Reason As this Opinion is Irrational so it is Unscriptural For 1. The Scripture frequently speaks of Remission or Justification as a future act and therefore not from Eternity Rom. 4. 23 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him but for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him c. And Gal. 3. 8. The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham The Gospel was preached many years before the Gentiles were justified but if they were justified from Eternity how was the Gospel preached before their Justification 2. The Scripture leaves all Unbelievers without distinction under condemnation and wrath The Curse of the Law lies upon them till they believe Iohn 3. 18. He that believeth on him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already And Eph. 2. 3 12 13. The very Elect themselves were by nature the Children of wrath even as others They were at that time or during that state of nature which takes in all that whole space betwixt their conception and conversion without Christ without hope without God in the World But if this Opinion be true that the Elect were justified from Eternity or from the time of Christ's death then it cannot be true that the Elect by nature are Children of Wrath without Christ without Hope without God in the World except these two may consist together which is absolutely impossible that Children of Wrath without God Christ or Hope are actually discharged from their Sins and Dangers by a free and gracious act of Justification But doth not the Scripture say Rom. 8. 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect If none can charge the Elect then God hath discharged them God hath not actually discharged them as they are Elect but as they are justified Elect for so runs that Text and clears it self in the very next words It is God that justifieth When God hath actually justified an Elect Person none can charge him 3. 'T is cross to the Scripture-order of Justification which places it not only after Christ's death in the place last cited Rom. 8. 33. but also after our actual vocation as is plain vers 30. Moreover whom he did predestinate them he also called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified Is it absurd to place Vocation before Predestination or Glorification before Justification sure then it must be absurd also to place Justification before Vocation the one as well as the other confounds and breaks the Scripture-order You may as well say men shall be glorified that were never justified as say they may be justified before they believed or existed So that you see the notion of Justification from Eternity or before our actual existence and effectual Vocation is a notion as repugnant to sacred Scripture as it is to sound Reason And as it is found repugnant to Reason and Scripture so it is highly injurious to Jesus Christ and the Souls of Men. 1. It greatly injures the Lord Jesus Christ and robs him of the glory of being our Saviour For if the Elect be justified from Eternity Christ cannot be the Saviour of the Elect as most assuredly he is for if Christ save them he must save them as persons subject to perishing either de facto or de jure But if the Elect were justified from Eternity they could in neither respect be subject to perishing for he that was eternally justified was never condemned nor capable of condemnation and he that never was or could be condemned could never be subject to perishing and he that never was nor could be subject

John verse 8. Look to your selves that we lose not the things which we have wrought With multitude of other Scriptures recommending holy jealousy serious self-trial and examination of our Faith as the unquestionable duties of the people of God But if we ought to question our Faith no more than we ought to question Christ away then with all self-examination and diligence to make our Calling and Election sure for where there is no doubt nor danger there 's no place nor room for examination or further endeavours to make it surer than it is How do you like this Doctrine Christians How many be there among you that find no more cause to question your own faith or interest in Christ than you do to question whether there be a Christ or whether he shed his Blood for the remission of any Man's sins Reason II. This is a very dangerous Error and it is the more dangerous because it leaves no way to recover a presumptuous Sinner out of his dangerous mistakes but confirms and fixes him in them to the great hazard of his eternal ruin It cuts off all means of conviction or better information and Nails them fast to the carnal state in which they are According to this Doctrine 't is impossible for a Man to think himself something when he is nothing or to be guilty of such a Paralogism and cheat put by himself upon his own Soul Iam. 1. 22. this in effect bids a Man keep on right or wrong he is sure enough of Heaven if he be but strongly persuaded that Christ died for him and he shall come thither at last Certainly this was not the Counsel Christ gave to the self-deceived Laodiceans Rev. 3. 17 18. but instead of dissuading them from self-jealously and suspition of their condition whether their Faith and State were safe or not he rather counsels them to buy Eye-salve that is to labour after better information of the true state and condition they were in and not cast away their Souls by false persuasions and vain confidences Reason III. This Doctrine cannot be true because it supposes every persuasion or strong conceit of a Man 's own heart to be as infallibly sure and certain as the very fundamental Doctrine of Christianity No truth in the World can be surer than this That Jesus Christ died for Sinners This is a faithful saying and worthy of all accep●ation 1 Tim. 1. 15. This is a Foundation stone a tried precious Corner-stone a sure foundation lay'd by God himself Isa. 28. 16. and shall the strong conceits and confidences of Men's hearts vye and compare in point of certainty with it As well may probable and meerly conjectural Propositions compare with Axioms that are self-evident or demonstrative Arguments that leave no doubts behind them Know we not that the heart is deceitful above all things the most notorious cheat and impostor in the World Ier. 17. 9 Does it not deceive all the formal hypocrites in the World in this very point And shall every strong conceit and presumptuous confidence begotten by Satan upon a deceitful heart and nursed up by self-love pass without any examination or suspition for as infallible and assured a truth as that Jesus Christ came into the World to save sinners The Lord sweep that Doctrine out of the World by Reformation which is like to sweep so many Thousand Souls into Hell by a remediless Self-deception Error IV. The fourth Antinomian Error before mentioned was this That Believers are not bound to confess their sins or pray for the pardon of them because their sins were pardoned before they were committed and pardoned sin is no sin Refutation If this be true Doctrine then it will justify and make good such Conclusions and Inferences as these which necessarily flow from it viz. 1. That there is no Sin in Believers 2. Or if there be the evil is very inconsiderable Or 3. Whatever evil is in it it is not the will of God that they should ●ither confess it mourn over it or pray for the remission of it Whatever he requires of others yet they need take no notice of it so as to afflict their hearts for it God hath exempted them from such concernments There 's nothing but joy to a Believer saith Mr. Eaton But neither of these conclusions are either true or tolerable therefore neither is the principle so which yields them 1. It is not true or tolerable to affirm that there is no Sin in a Believer 1 Ioh. 1. 8. If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us There 's not a just Man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not Eccles. 7. 20. In many things we offend all James 3. 2. The Scriptures plainly affirm it and the universal experience of all the Saints sadly confirms it 'T is true the Blood of Christ hath taken away the guilt of Sin so that it shall not condemn Believers and the spirit of Sanctification hath taken away the dominion of Sin so that it doth not reign over Believers but nothing except Glorification utterly destroys the existence of Sin in Believers The acts of sin are our acts and not Christ's and the stain and pollution of those sinful acts are the burthens and infelicities of Believers even in their justified State Dr. Crisp indeed p. 270 271. calls that objection I suppose he means distinction betwixt the guilt of Sin and Sin it self a simple objection and tells us the very Sin it self as well as the guilt of it passed off from us and was lay'd upon Christ So that speaking of the Sins of Blasphemy Murther Theft Adultery Lying c. From that time saith he that they were lay'd upon Christ thou ceasest to be a transgressor If thou hast part in the Lord Christ all these transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of Christ. So that now thou are not an Idolater or Persecutor a Thief a Murtherer and an Adulterer thou art not a sinful person Christ is made that very sinfulness before God c. Such expressions justly offend and grieve the hearts of Christians and expose Christianity to scorn and contempt Was it not enough that the guilt of our sin was lay'd on him but we must imagine also that the thing it self Sin with all the deformity and pollution should be essentially transferred from us to Christ No no. After we are justified sin dwelleth in us Rom. 7. 17. warreth in us and brings us into captivity ver 23. Burthens and oppresseth our very Souls v. 24. Methinks I need not stand to prove what I should think no sound experienced Christian dares to deny that there is much sin still remaining in the persons of the justified He that dares to deny it hath little acquaintance with the nature of Sin and of his own Heart 2. It is neither true nor tolerable to say there is no considerable evil in the sins of Believers deserving a mournful confession or petition for