of receiving Doctriâ—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 Sinnersâ— 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 thâ—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
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
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 quà m 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
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 accepâ—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 â—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
being in Christ and on that as well as on many accounts necessary The difference between him and other good men seems to lie not so much in the things which the one or other of them believe as about their order and reference to one another where 't is true there may be very material difference but we reckon That notwithstanding what is more controversible in these Writings there are much more material things wherein they cannot but agree and would have come much nearer each other even in these things if they did take some words or terms which come into use on the one or the other hand in the same sense but when one uses a word in one sense another uses the same word or understands it being used in quite another sense here seems a vast disagreement which proves at length to be verbal only and really none at all As let by Condition be meant a deserving Cause in which case 't is well known Civillians are not wont to take it and the one side would never use it concerning any good Act that can be done by us or good Habit that is wrought in us in order to our present acceptance with God or final Salvation Let be meant by it somewhat that by the constitution of the Gospel-Covenant and in the nature of the thing is requisite to our present and eternal well-being without the least notion of desert but utmost abhorrence of any such notion in this case and the other side would as little refuse it But what need is there for contending at all about a Law-term about the proper or present use whereof there is so little agreement between them it seems best to serve and them it offends Let it go and they will well enough understand one another Again Let Justification be taken for that which is compleat entire and full as it results at last from all its Causes and Concurrents and on the one hand it would never be denied Christ's righteousness justifies us at the Bar of God in the Day of Iudgment as the only deserving cause or affirmed that our Faith Repentance Sincerity do justifie us there as any cause at all Let Iustification be meant only of being justified in this or that particular respect As for instance against this particular Accusation of never having been a Believer and the honest mistaken Prefacer would never have said O horrid upon it s being said Christ's Righteousness doth not justify us in this case For he very well knows Christ's Righteousness will justifie no man that never was a Believer but that which must immediately justifie him against this particular Accusation must be proving that he did sincerely believe which shews his interest in Christ's Righteousness which then is the only deserving cause of his full entire Iustification There is an Expression in Vol. 1. p. 46. That Salvation is not the end of any good work we do which is like that of another we are to act from Life not for Life Neither of which are to be rigidly taken as 't is likely they were never meant in the strict sense For the former this Reverent Author gives us himself the handle for a gentle interpretation in what he presently subjoyns where he makes the end of our good works to be the manifestation of our Obedience and Subjection the setting forth the praise of the glory of the Grace of God which seems to imply that he meant the foregoing negation in a comparative not in an absolute sense understanding the glory of God to be more principal and so that by end he meant the very ultimate end so for the other 't is likely it was meant that we should not act or work for life only without aiming and endeavouring that we might come to work from life also For it is not with any tolerable charity supposable that one would deliberately say the one or the other of these in the rigid sense of the words or that he would not upon consideration presently unsay it being calmly reasoned with For it were in effect to abandon Humane Nature and to sin against a very Fundamental Law of our Creation not to intend our own felicity it were to make our first and most deeply Fundamental Duty in one great essential branch of it our sin viz. To take the Lord for our God For to take him for our God most essentially includes our taking him for our supream good which we all know is included in the notion of the last end it were to make it unlawful to strive against all sin and particularly against sinful oversion from God wherein lies the very death of the Soul or the sum of its misery or to strive after perfect conformity to God in holiness and the full fruition of him wherein its final blessedness doth principally conâ—ist It were to teach us to violate the great Precepts of the Gospel Repent that your sins may be blotted out Strive to enter in at the strait Gate Work out your salvation with fear and trembling To obliterate the Paterns and Precedents set before us in the Gospel We have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified I beat down my body lest I should be a castaway That thou mayest save thy self and them that hear thee It were to suppose one bound to do more for the salvation of others than our own salvation We are required to save others with fear plucking them out of the fire Nay we were not by this rule strictly understood so much as to pray for our own salvation which is a doing of somewhat when no doubt we are to pray for the success of the Gospel to this purpose on behalf of other meâ— T were to make all the threatnings of Eternal Death and promises of Eternal Life we find in the Gospel of our Blesâ—ed Lord useless as motives to shun the one and obtain the other For they can be motives no way but as the escaping of the former and the attainment of the other have with us the places and consideration of an end It makes what is mentioned in the Scripture as the Character and commendation of the most eminent Saints a fault as of Abraham Isaac and Jacob c. That they sought the better and Heavenly Countrey and declared plainly that they did so which necessarily implies their making it their end But let none be so harsh as to think of any good man that he intended any thing of all this if every passage that falls from us be stretch'd and tortured with utmost severity we shall find little to do besides accusing others and defending our selves as long as we live A Spirit of meekness and love will do more to our Common Peace than all the Disputations in the World Vpon the whole We are so well assured of the peaceful healing temper of the present Author of these Treatises That we are persuaded he designed such a course of managing the Controversies wherein he hath concerned himself as
faith consider'd and answer'd 206. Dr. Edw. Reynolds's Opinion about the Law 207 213. The Position about Abraham's Covenant being a Covenant of Grace defended 213. The first Argument for the proof of it 214. Mr. C's Reply answer'd 215. His distinction of A Covenant of Works and The Covenant of Works overthrown 217 218. The second Argument for the proof of it 220. Mr. C's Reply answer'd 221. Third Argument 222. Mr. C's Reply answer'd 223. The Covenants not made with Abraham in Gen. 17. 225 228. Circumcision did not oblige all men on whom it passed to keep the whole Law of Moses for Righteousness 230. Fourth Argument 231. Circumcision in its direct end taught them the corruption of Nature by sin and the mortification of sin by the Spirit 231. Mr. C's Reply answer'd 232. His Arguments to prove the Sinai Covenant a Covenant of Works likewise answered 233. Cutting off in Gen. 17. 14. not the same with the death threatned to Adam ibid. How faith reckon'd to Abraham for Righteousness while he was in Vncircumcision 234. How the Sinai Covenant is a Bondage Covenant 236. Dr. Crisp's Iudgment 237. Of the Conditionality of the New Covenant 242. The Question stated 243. What the word Condition signifies 245. Antecedent and consequent Conditions 246. No condition of the Covenant with respect to its first sanction with Christ 247. but hath an antecedent Condition with respect to the application of its benefits unto men 248. Which is Faith as organically consider'd 249. The Opinions of Orthodox Divines in this Question cited 250. That the Covenant is Conditional proved from M. C's own Concessions 256. Christ hath not perform'd the Condition for us 262. Tho he works Faith in us by his Spirit 263. A Condition does not imply merit 264. Arguments to prove the conditionality of the Covenant 266. First Argument 267. Second Argument 268. Third Argument ibid. Fourth Argument 270. Fifth Argument 272. Mr. Cary's Reply to it 273. The answer 274. The Reasons of my Faith and Practice in the Baptism of Infants 278. in several Theses Thes. 1. God hath dealt with his Church and People in the way of a Covenant and will do so to the end of the World 281. Thes. 2. After the Cessation of the first Covenant as a Covenant of Life God hath published a Second Covenant of Grace by Iesus Christ 283. When the Covenant of Grace took place 284. Thes. 3. Tho the primordial Light of this Covenant of Grace was comparatively weak and obscure yet God from the first publication of it hath been heightning its Privileges and amplifying its Glory in the after Editions and will more and more illustrate it to the end of the World 287. Thes. 4. It is past all doubt that the Infant-seed of Abraham under the second Edition of the Covenant of Grace were taken into God's gracious Covenant had the Seal of that Covenant applied to them and were thereby added to the visible Church 289. Thes. 5. That Rom. 11. 17. is a clear proof that believing Parents and their Seed are ingrafted into the room of the Jews who were broken off 290 291. Thes. 6. Suitably hereunto when a Christian Church was constituted the Children of such believing Parents were declared foederally holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. That the Promise which was seal'd to them by Circumcision is now seal'd by Baptism Act. 2. 39. 292. Thes. 7. The change of the Token and Seal of the Covenant from Circumcision to Baptism will by no means infer the change of the Covenants especially when the latter comes into the place of and serves to the same use and end with the former Col. 2. 11. p. 295. A Postscript to Mr. Cary 297. Some absurdities chargeable upon him 300. The Contents of the Second Appendix Or The Rise and Growth of Antinomianism THe rise of Antinomianism Ap. 2. 308. The Abuse of Free-grace chargable upon good as well as wicked Men 311. By what means some good Men may be drawn to such dangerous Opinions 313 314 315 316. A Catalogue of Ten Antinomian errors 318. which are all contrary to the current of the Scriptures 323. and to the experience of Saints 325. Error 1. That Iustification is an eternal Act of God and so perfectly abolishes Sin in our Persons that we are as clear from Sin as Christ himself 328. Sense of the Orthodox about it 328 329. This proved to be irrational 332. Vnscriptural 335. Injurious to Iesus Christ 338. and injurious to the Souls of Men 340. Error 2. That Iustification by Faith is only the manifestation to us of what was really and actually done before Reasons against it 341 ad 350. Error 3. That Men ought not to doubt of their Faith or question whether they believe or no. Reasons against it 351 ad 354. Error 4. That Believers are not bound to confess their Sins or pray for the Pardon of them From whence will follow either 1. That there is no Sin in Believers 355. Or 2. That Sin in them is inconsiderable 357. Or 3. That it is not the Will of God they should confess and mourn over them which is refuted 358 Error 5. That God sees no Sin in Believers 360. This proved to be injurious to God's Omniscience 361. To be inconsistent with his providential Dispensations 362. To have no foundation in Scripture 363. To clash with their other Principles 365. Error 6. That God is not angry with the Elect for their Sins 365. How the Antinomians led into this Error 366. Three Concessions about God's Corrections of his People 368. God lays his Corrections on his People 369. And for their Sins 371. These Corrections consistent with his satisfi'd Iustice 373 Error 7. That by God's laying our Iniquities upon Christ he became as sinful as we and we as compleatly righteous as he That not only the Punishment of Sin but the Sin it self was laid upon Christ 375 376. Four Concessions 377 378. Sin simply considered did not become the Sin of Christ 379. We are not as compleatly Righteous as Christ 384. Error 8. Neither Believers own Sins nor the Sins of others can do them hurt Nor must they do any Duty for their own Good Salvation or eternal Reward 389. That Believers sins do them no hurt refuted ibid. Sin consider'd formally 392. Effectively 392. Reductively 393. That Believers ought to do no Duty for their own good or with an Eye to their reward refuted 395. Self-ends either Corrupt or Spiritual 397. This Error injurious to the Souls of Men ibid. Error 9. The new Covenant is not made with us but Christ for us The Covenant is wholly a promise without any Condition on our parts That Faith Repentance Obedience are Conditions on Christ's part and that he performs them for us 398. Refuted 399. The Covenant of Redemption and of Grace distinguished ibid. Christ did not believe and repent for us 401. Error 10. They deny Sanctification to be the evidence of Iustification 404. Refuted ibid. The Contents of the Sermon about
Law to omit forbear or give over to curse that People any more But did or can the Law forbear or cease to curse those that are absolutely under it as a ministration of death and condemnation Pray consult Rom. 3. 19. and Gal. 3. 10. Are you aware what you say when you place Believers absolutely under the Curse of the Law and then talk of the New Covenant's victory over it and after all this leave them as you do absolutely under the cursing power of the one and still under the victorious grace of the other For shame my Friend give up your absurd notion and repent of this folly I would not willingly shame you before the World I did all that lay in me to prevent it But however Pudor est medicina pudoris the only way you have left me to prevent your glorying in your shame is this way to make you ashamed of your vain-glory As for that Scripture you alledge to countenance your fancy Rom. 5. 17 20. you might to as good purpose have opened your Bible and have taken the first Scripture that came to hand and it would have done your Position less harm For the Apostle's scope there is to demonstrate the perfection of the abounding Righteousness of Christ for the full discharge of Believers from the guilt of sin and curse of Adam's Covenant and cuts the throat of your Position which it is alledged to prove I have stood the longer upon the clearing of this first Point because this being fully cleared it runs through and clears the whole Controversy betwixt us For now it will be evident to all That neither Abraham's nor Moses his Covenant complexly taken as Mr. Cary takes it could possibly be for this reason an Adam's Covenant of Works and if not a Covenant of Works then how dark or legal soever the Dispensations of them were they must needs be the same Covenant of Grace for substance under which we are and so the main Controversy betwixt us is hereby at an end I know not how many Covenants of Works or how many of Grace Mr. C. fancies there are But Orthodox Divines constantly affirm That as there never were but two ways of Life to mankind the one before the Fall by perfect doing the other after the Fall by sincere believing So answerably there can be but two Covenants betwixt God and Mankind viz. the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace The last of which hath indeed been more obscurely Administred and in that respect is called the Old Covenant yet that and the New are essentially but one Covenant And the Church of God which for many Ages stood under that Old Covenant did not stand under it as an Adam's Covenant or the First Covenant of works for the undeniable Reasons above given And therefor Abraham's Covenant from whence we derive our Childrens Title to Baptism must of necessity be the very same Covenant for substance with this New Covenant which all Abraham's believing off-spring and their Infant-seed are now under And in proving this one point I have sufficiently confuted both Mr. C's Solemn Call and this his feeble vindication of it together But lest he should take this for the only Absurdity proved upon him tho' it be tiresome to me and must be ungrateful to him give me leave to touch one more among many and that the rather because I make great use of it in this Controversy and Mr. Cary both yields and denies it If his own words be the Messengers of his meaning either he or I must mistake their errand I had in my Prolegomena distinguished of the Law as strictly taken for the Ten Commandments and more largely and complexly taken as including the Ceremonial Law The former I considered according to God's intention and design in the promâ—lgation of it which was to add it as an Appendix to the Promise Gal. 3. 19. And the carnal Iews mistaking and perverting the end of the Law and making it to themselves a Covenant of Works by making it the very Rule and Reason of their justification before God Rom. 9. 32 33. Rom. 10. 3. I told him That the Controversy depended upon this double sense of the Law for that it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken End of it but from God's chief scope and design in the promulgation of it which was to add it as an Appendix to the Promise as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there imports and so must be published with Evangelical purposes Let us now hear Mr. C's sense of this matter In his Call p. 131. he yields the distinction in these words In his Reply p. 43. proving the Law to be a Covenant of Works from Rom. 10. 5. he saith The Jews were right enough in reference to the true nature of the Law That it was a Covenant of Works c. though they were out in respect of its proper use and intention which was not that any should attain unto Life and Righteousness thereby but to shew them the nature of Sin and the Holiness and Righteousness of God to convince them of their sin and misery without Christ and their necessity of a Saviour which they being ignorant of and still going about to establish theâ—r own Righteousness which was of the Law and refusing to submit themselves unto the righteousness of God c. they stumbled at that stumbling stone and were accordingly broken snared and taken Rom. 9. 31 32 33. Rom. 10. 3. And this saith he was the true ground of the dispute between the Apostle and them This was Orthodoxly spoken and would end the Controversy would he stand to it But This was the nature of it in the first sanction of it as the fruit of God's special designation and appointment and that it is the greatest violation and perverting of Scripture that can lightly be met with to affirm that this is uttered and declared by Paul c. only because the Jews had perverted it and reduced it as they thought to its primitive intention And again p. 44. he saith he hath proved that it was the same with Adam's Covenant in both respects that is intentionally as well as materially considered And once more p. 20. he expresly denies that the Law was added as an Appendix to the Promise calls that a crude assertion of mine and asks me Why it might not be added as an Appendix rather to the first Covenant of Works to re-inforce that And after all gushes out many slighting and opprobrious terms upon me which I will not throw back again but rather leave him to reconcile himself with himself I shall only ask Mr. Cary a sober Question or two instead of Recriminations and rendring reviling for reviling First How the Iews were right enough in reference to the true nature of the Law as it was a Covenant of Works and yet out in respect of its proper use and intention which was not that any should attain unto Life and Righteousness
among them do hold those Errors but speculatively whilst the Truth lies nearer their hearts and will not suffer them to reduce their own Opinions into practice Now as to their Errors about Justification the most that I have read do make Iustification to be an immanent and eternal act of God and do affirm the Elect were justified before themselves or the World had a being Others come lower and affirm the Elect were justified at the time of Christ's death With these Dr. Crisp harmonizes Error II. That Justification by Faith is no more but a manifestation to us of what was really done before we had a being Hence Mr. Saltmarsh thus defines Faith It is saith he a being perswaded more or less of Christ's love to us so that when we believe that which was hid before doth then appear God saith another cannot charge one sin upon that man who believes this truth That God laid his Iniquities upon Christ. Error III. That men ought not to doubt of their Faith or question Whether they believe or no. Nay That we ought no more to question our Faith than to question Christ. Saltm Of Free-grace p. 92 95. Error IV. That Believers are not bound to confess Sin mourn for it or pray for the forgiveness of it because it was pardoned before it was committed and pardoned Sin is no Sin See Eaton 's Honey-comb p. 446 447. Error V. They say that God sees no Sin in Believers whatsoever Sins they commit Some of them as Mr. Town and Mr. Eaton speak out and tell us That God can see no Adultery no Lying no Blasphemy no Cozening in Believers For though Believers do fall into such Enormities yet all their Sins being pardoned from Eternity they are no Sins in them Town 's Assertions 96 97 98. Eaton's Honey-comb chap. 7. p. 136 137. with others of a more pious Character than they Error VI. That God is not angry with the Elect nor doth he smite them for their Sins and to say that he doth so is an injurious Reflection upon the Justice of God This is avouched generally in all their Writings Error VII 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. Vide Dr. Crisp p. 270. Error VIII Upon the same ground it is that they affirm That Believers need not fear either their own Sins or the Sins of others for that neither their own nor any other mens Sins can do them any hurt nor must they do any duty for their own Salvation Error IX They will not allow the New Covenant to be made properly with us but with Christ for us and that this Covenant is all of it a Promise having no Condition on our part They do not absolutely deny that Faith Repentance and Obedience are Conditions in the New Covenant but say They are not Conditions on our part but Christ's and that he repented believed and obeyed for us Saltmarsh of Free-grace p. 126 127. Error X. They speak very slightingly of trying our selves by marks and signs of Grace Saltmarsh often calls it a weak low carnal way but the New-England Antinomians or Libertines call it a fundamental Error to make Sanctification an evidence of Justification that it is to light a Candle to the Sun that it darkens our Justification and that the darker our Sanctification is the brighter our Justification is See their Book entitled Rise Reign Error 72. In this Breviate or summary Account of Antinomian Doctrines I have only singled out and touched some of their principal Mistakes and Error into which some of them run much farther than others But I look upon such Doctrines to be in themselves of a very dangerous nature and the malignity and contagion would certainly spread much farther into the World than it doth had not God provided two powerful Antidotes to resist the malignity Viz. 1. The scope and current of Scripture 2. The experience and practice of the Saints 1. These Doctrines run cross to the scope and current of the Scriptures which constantly speak of all unregenerate Persons without exception of the very Elect themselves during that state as Children of wrath even as others without Christ and under condemnation They frequently discover God's Anger and tell us his castigatory Rods of affliction are laid upon them for their Sins They represent Sin as the greatest Evil most opposite to the Glory of God and good of the Saints and are therefore filled with Cautions and Threatnings to prevent their sinning They call the Saint frequently and earnestly not only to mourn for their Sins before the Lord but to pray for the pardon or remission of them in the blood of Christ. They give us a far different account of saving Faith and do not place it in a persuasion more or less of Christ's love to us or a manifestation in our Consciences of the actual remission of our Sins before we had a being but in our receiving Christ as the Gospel offers him for righteousness and life They frequently call the People of God to the examination and trial of their Interest in Christ by marks and signs and accordingly furnish them with variety of such marks from the divers parts or branches of Sanctification in themselves They earnestly and every-where press Believers to strictness and constancy in the duties of Religion as the way wherein God would have them to walk They infer Duties from Privileges and therefore the Antinomian Dialect is a wild note which the generality of serious Christians do easily distinguish from the Scripture-stile and Language 2. The Experience and Practice of the Saints recorded in Scripture as well as our Contemporaries or those whose Lives are recorded for our imitation do greatly secure us from the spreading malignity of Antinomianism Converse with the living or read the Histories of dead Saints and you shall find That in their Addresses to God they still bless and praise him for that great and wonderful change of state which was made upon them when they first believed in Christ and on their believing passed from death to life freely acknowledging before God they were before their conversion equal in sin and misery with the vilest Wretches in the World They heartily mourn for their daily Sins fear nothing more than Sin no Afflictions in the World go so near their heart as Sin doth They mourn for the hardness of their hearts that they can mourn no more for Sin They acknowledge the Rods of God that are upon them are not only the evidences of his displeasure against them for their Sins but the fruits of their uneven walking with him And that the greatest of their Afflictions is less than the least of their Iniquities deserve They fall at their Father's feet as oft as they fall into sin humbly and earnestly suing for pardon through the Blood of Christ. They are not only sensible that God sees Sin in them but that he seeth such
saving benefits and privileges of the Children of God Iohn 1. 12. But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his name So that unless the Antinomians can prove that receiving of Christ and personal persuasion of pardon be one and the same thing and consequently that all Believers in the World are persuaded or assured that their sins are pardoned and reject from the number of Believers all tempted deserted dark and doubting Christians this persuasion they speak of is not nor can it be the act of Faith which justifies the person of a Sinner before God That which I think led our Antinomians into this Error was an unfound and unwary definition of Faith which in their youth they had imbibed from their Catechisms and other Systems passing without contradiction or scruple in those days which though it were a mistake and hath abundantly been proved to be so in latter days yet our Antinomians will not part with a notion so serviceable to the support of their darling Opinion of Eternal Justification Reason IV. A Man may be strongly persuaded of the Love of God to his Soul and of the pardon of his Sin and yet have no interest in Christ nor be in a pardoned State This was the Case of the Pharisees and others Luke 18. 9. Rev. 3. 17. Therefore this persuasion cannot be justifying Faith If a persuasion be that that justifies the persuaded person then the Pharisees and the Laodiceans were justified Oh! How common and easie is it for the worst of Men to be strongly persuaded of their good condition whilst humble serious Christians doubt and stagger I know not what such Doctrine as this is useful for but to beget and strengthen that sin of presumption which sends down multitudes to Hell out of the professing World For what is more common amongst the most carnal and unsanctified part of the World not only such as are meerly moral but even the most flagitious and prophane than to support themselves by false persuasions of their good estate When they are asked in order to their conviction what hopes of Salvation they have and how they are founded Their common answer is Christ died for Sinners and that they are persuaded that whatever he hath done for any other he hath done it for them as well as others But such a persuasion cometh not of him that called them and is of dangerous consequence Reason V. This Doctrine is certainly unfound because it confounds the distinction betwixt Dogmatical and Saving Faith and makes it all one to believe an Axiom or Proposition and to believe savingly in Christ to Eternal Life What is it to believe that God lay'd our iniquities upon Christ more than the mere assent of the understanding to a Scripture Axiom or Proposition without any consent of the will to receive Jesus Christ as the Gospel offers him And this is no more than what any unregenerated person may do yea the very Devils themselves assent to the truth of Scripture Axioms and Propositions as well as Men Iam. 2. 19. Thou believest there is one God thou doest well the Devils also believe and tremble What is this more than a Scripture-Axiom or Proposition God lay'd the iniquity of us all upon Christ Isa. 53. 6 And yet saith Dr. Crisp p. 296. God cannot charge one Sin upon that Man that believes this Truth That God lay'd his iniquities upon Christ. The assent of the understanding may be and often is given to a Scripture Proposition whil'st the Heart and Will remain carnal and utterly averse to Jesus Christ. I may believe Dogmatically that the iniquities of Men were lay'd upon Christ and persuade my self presumptively that mine as well as other Mens were lay'd upon him and yet remain a perfect Stranger to all saving Union and Communion with him Reason VI. This Opinion cannot be true because it takes away the only support that bears up the Soul of a Believer in times of temptation and desertion For how will you comfort such a distressed Soul that saith and saith truly I have no persuasion that Christ is mine or that my sins are pardoned but I am heartily willing to cast my poor sin-burthened Soul upon him that he may be mine I do not certainly know that he died intentionally for me but I lye at his feet cleave to him wait at the door of hope I stay and trust upon him though I walk in darkness and have no light Now let such Doctrine as this be Preached to a Soul in this condition and we may be sure 't is the condition of many thousands belonging to Christ I say bring this Doctrine to them and tell them That unless they be persuaded of the Love of God and that God lay'd their iniquities on Christ except they have some manifestation that their persons were justified from eternity their accepting of Christ consent of their Wills waiting at his Feet c. signifies nothing if they believe not that their particular sins were lay'd upon Christ and are pardoned to them by him they are still unbelievers and have no part or portion in him Whatever pretences of spiritual comfort and relief the Antinomian Doctrine makes you see by this it really deprives a very great if not the greatest number of God's people of their best and sweetest relief in days of darkness and spiritual distress So that this Doctrine which makes manifestation and assurance the very essence of justifying faith appears hereby to be both a false and very dangerous Doctrine And yet there is as much or more danger to the Souls of Men in their III. Error That Men ought not to doubt of their Faith or question whether they believe or no. Nay That they ought no more to question their Faith than to question Christ. Refutation What an easie way to Heaven is the Antinomian way Were it but as true and safe to the Soul as it is easie and pleasing to the Flesh who would not embrace it What a charm of the Devil is prepared in these two Propositions Be but persuaded more or less of Christ's Love to thy Soul saith Mr. Saltmarsh and that 's justifying Faith Here 's a snare of the Devil lay'd for the Souls of Men. And then 2. to make it fast and sure upon the Soul and effectually to prevent the discovery of their Error tell them they need no more to doubt or question their Faith than to question Christ and the work is done to all intents Now that this is an Error and a very dangerous one will appear by the following Reasons Reason I. The questioning and examining of our Faith is a commanded Scripture-duty 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine your selves whether ye be in the faith prove your own selves c. And 2 Pet. 1. 10. Give diligence to make your calling and election sure Let him that â—nketh he standeth take heed lest he fall 1 Cor. 10. 12. The second Epistle of
pardon The desert of Sin is Hell 't is an artifice of Satan to draw men to Sin by persuading them there is no great evil in it but none except Fools will believe it Fools indeed make a mock of Sin but all that understand either the intrinsick evil of it or the sad and dismal effects produced by it are far from thinking it a light or inconsiderable evil The sins even of Believers greatly wrong and offend their God Psal. 51. 4. and is that a light thing with us They interrupt and clog our Communion with God Rom. 7. 21. They grieve the good Spirit of God Ephes. 4. 30. Certainly these are no inconsiderable mischiefs 3. Now if there be sin in Believers and so much evil in their sins neither of which any sober Christian will deny then undoubtedly it is their duty to confess it freely mourn for it bitterly and pray for the pardon of it earnestly unless God have any where discharged them from those Duties and told them these are none of their concernments and that he expects not these things from justified persons but that these are Duties properly and only belonging to other Men. But on the contrary you find the whole current of Scripture running strongly and constantly in direct opposition to such idle and sinful notions For first 1. He hath plainly declared it to be his will that his people should confess their sins before him and strongly connected their Confessions with their Pardons 1 Iohn 5. 9. and frequently suspends from them the comfortable sense of forgiveness till their Hearts be brought to this duty Psal. 32. 5. compared with vers 3. 4. the more to engage them to this duty by the sensible ease and comfort attending and following it 2. He also enjoyns it upon them That they mourn for their Sins Isa. 22. 12. expresses his great delight in contrition and brokenness of spirit for sin Isa. 66. 2. To this man will I look even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit Christ himself pronounces a blessing upon them that mourn Matt. 5. 4. Justified Paul mournfully confesses his former blasphemies persecutions and injuries done against Christ 1 Tim. 1. 13. So did Ezra Daniel and other eximious Saints Yes say some they did indeed confess their sins committed before their justification but not their after-sins According to Antinomian Principles I would demand If all the Elect were justified from Eternity what sins any of them could confess which they had committed before their Justification Or if they were justified from the time of Christ's death what were the Sins any of us have to confess who had not a being and therefore had not actually sinned long after the death of Christ But I hope none will deny that the mournful complaints the Apostle makes for Sin Rom. 7. 23 24. were after he was a sanctified and justified person 3. It is not the Will of Christ to exempt any justified person upon Earth from the Duty of Praying frequently and fervently for the remission of his sins This the most eminent Saints upon Earth have done The greatest favourites of Heaven have freely confessed and heartily prayed for the remission of sin Dan. 9. 4 19. And that the Gospel gives us no exemption from this Duty appears by Christ's injunction of it upon all his people Matt. 6. 12. Error V. To give countenance to the former Error they say That God sees no sin in Believers whatsoever sins they commit and seek a covert for this Error from Numb 23. 21. and Ier. 50. 20. In the former place it is said by Balaam He hath not beheld inquity in Iacob nor seen perverseness in Israel And in the other place it is said In those days and in that time saith the Lord the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for and there shall be none and the sins of Iudah and they shall not be found for I will pardon them whom I reserve Refutation Now that this Opinion of our Antinomians is Erroneous will appear four ways 1. By its repugnancy to God's Omniscience 2. By its inconsistency with his Dispensations 3. By its want of a Scripture-foundation 4. By its contradictoriness to their other Principles 'T is true and we thankfully acknowledge it that God sees no Sin in Believers as a Judge sees Guilt in a Malefactor to condemn him for it that 's a sure and comfortable truth for us but to say he sees no Sin in his Children as a displeased Father to correct and chasten them for it is an Assertion repugnant to Scripture and very injurious to God For 1. 'T is injurious to God's Omniscience Psal. 139. 2. Thou saith holy David knowest my down-sitting and my uprising and understandest my thoughts of afar off and art acquainted with all my ways Job 28. 24. He looketh to the ends of the Earth and seeth under the whole Heavens Prov. 15. 3. The Eyes of the Lord are in every place beholding the evil and the good Psal. 33. 14 15. From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the Inhabitants of the Earth he fashioneth their hearts alike he considereth all their works He that denies that God seeth his most secret Sins therein in consequentially denies him to be God 2. This Assertion is inconsistent with God's Providential Dispensations to his People When David a justified Believer had sinned against him in the matter of Vriah it is said 2 Sam. 11. 27. The thing that David had done displeased the Lord and as the effect of that displeasure it 's said Chap. 12. 15. The Lord struck the Child that Uriah's Wife bare unto David and it was very sick Among the Corinthians some that should not be condemned with the World were judged and chastened of the Lord for their undue approaches to his Table 1 Cor. 11. 32. Now I would ask the Antinomian these two Questions 1. Qu. Whether it can be denied that David under the Old Testament and these Corinthians under the New were justified Persons and yet the former stricken by God in his Child with its sickness and death and the latter in like manner smitten by God in their own persons and both for their respective sins committed against God and yet God saw no sin in them Did God smite them for sin and yet beheld no sin them Beware lest in ascribing such strokes to god you strike at once both at his Omnisciency and Justice 2. Qu. How God upon Confession and Repentance can be said to put away his People's sins as Nathan there assures David he had done when in the mean time he saw no sin in him either to chastise him for or to pardon in him Do you think that God's Aâ—flictions or Pardons are blind-fold Acts done at random how inconsistent is this with Divine Dispensations 3. This Opinion is altogether destitute of a Scripture-foundation 't is evident it hath none in the only places alledged for it It hath no footing at all in Numb 23. 21.
as it is over-ruled reduced and finally issued by the Covenant of Grace Under this consideration of sin which rather respects the future than present state the Antinomians only respect the hurt or evil of it over-looking both the former considerations of sin which concern the present state of Believers and so rashly pronounce sin can do Believers no hurt An Assertion tending to a great deal of looseness and licentiousness A Man drinks deadly Poison and is after many months recover'd by the skill of an excellent Physician shall we say there was no hurt in it because the man died not of it sure those fearful twinges he felt his loss of strength and stomach were hurtful to him tho he escaped with life and got this advantage by it to be more wary for ever after Tantum Religio potuit suadere malorum And then for other mens sins which they say we need not fear 't is an Assertion against all the Laws of Charity For the sins of wicked men eternally damn them Disturb the Peace and Order of the World Draw down National Judgments upon the whole Community Cause Wars Plagues Persecutions c. Which Considerations of the sins of others opened fountains of tears in David's Eyes Psal. 119 136. caused horror to take hold upon him vers 53. And yet if you will believe the Antinomian Doctrine Believers have no need to fear much less be in horror which is the extremity of fear for other mens sins How is Satan gratified and temptations to sin strengthned upon the Souls of men by such indistinct unwary and dangerous Expressions as these are A good Intention can be no sufficient salvo for such Assertions as these Secondly They tell us That as the Saints need fear no sin for any hurt it can do them so they must do no duty for their own good or with an eye to their own Salvation or Eternal Rewards in Heaven Refutation This as the former is too generally and indistinctly deliver'd He that distinguisheth well teacheth well The confounding of things which ought to be distinguish'd easily runs men into the bogs of Errors Two things ought to have been distinguish'd here in Duties 1. Ends 2. Self-ends First Ends in Duty There are two ends in Duties one supream and ultimate viz. the glorifying of God which must and ought to take the first place of all other ends Another secondary and subordinate viz. the good and benefit of our selves To invert these and place our own good in the room of God's Glory is sinful and unjustifiable and he that aims only at himself in Religion is justly censured as a mercenary Servant especially if it be any external good he aims at but spiritual good especially the enjoyment of God is so involv'd in the other viz. the glory of God that no man can rightly take the Lord for his God but he must take him for his Supream Good and consequently therein may and must have a due respect to his own happiness Secondly Self-ends must also be distinguished into 1. Corrupt or carnal Self-ends 2. Pure and spiritual Self-ends As to carnal and corrupt Self-ends inviting and moving men to the performance of Religious Duties when these are the only Ends men aim at they bewray the Hypocrisy of the Heart and accordingly God charges Hypocrisy upon such Persons Hosea 7. 14. They have not cried unto me with their heart when they howled upon their Beds they assemble themselves for Corn and Wine c. God reckons not the most solemn Duties animated by such Ends to be done unto him Zech. 7. 5. Did ye at all fast to me But beside these Man hath a best self a spiritual self to regard in duty viz. The conformity of his Soul to God in holiness and the perfect fruition of God in glory Such holy Self-ends as these are often commended but nowhere condemned in Scripture 'T was the Encomium of Moses That he had respect unto the recompence of reward Heb. 11. 26. These ordinate respects to our spiritual best self are so far from being our sin that God both appoints and allows them for great uses and advantages to his People in their way to glory They are 1. Singular Encouragements to the Saints under Persecution Streights and Distresses Heb. 10. 34. And to that end Christ proposes them Luke 12. 32. And so the best of Saints have made use of them 2 Cor. 4. 17 18. 2. They are Motives and Incentives to Praise and Thankfulness 1 Pet. 1. 3 4. 1 Coloss. 12. 3. They stir up the Saints to chearful and vigorous industry for God Col. 3. 23 24. 1 Cor. 15. 58. Now to cut off from Religion all these spiritual and excellent Self-respects and to make them our sins and marks of our Hypocrisy is an Error very injurious to the Gospel and to the Souls of Men. For 1. it crosses the strain of the Gospel which commands us to strive for our Salvation Luk. 13. 24 25. Phil. 2. 12. 1 Tim. 4. 16. 2. It blames that in the Saints as sinful which the Scripture notes as their excellency and records to their praise Heb. 11. 26. 3. It makes the Laws of Christianity to thwart and cross the very fundamental Law of our Creation which inclines and obliges all men to intend their own Felicity And on this account not only our Antinomians are blame-worthy but others also who are far enough from their Opinion who urge humiliation for sin beyond the Staple teaching men they are not humbled enough till they be content to be damned 4. It unreasonably supposes a Christian may not do that for his own Soul which he daily doth and is bound to do for other mens Souls viz. to pray preach exhort and reprove for their Salvation Error IX They will not allow the New Covenant to be properly made with us but with Christ for us And some of them affirm That this Covenant is all of it a Promise having no Condition upon our part They acknowledge indeed Faith Repentance and Obedience to be Conditions but say they are not Conditions on our part but on Christ's and consequently affirm That he repented believed and obeyed for us Refutation 1. The confounding of distinct Covenants leads them into this Error we acknowledge there was a Covenant properly made with Christ alone which we call the Covenant of Redemption This Covenant indeed though it were made for us yet it was not made with us It had its Condition and that Condition was laid only upon Christ viz. That he should assume our Nature and pour out his Soul unto death which Condition he was solely concerned to perform but beside this there is a Covenant of Grace made with him and with all Believers in him with him primarily as the Head with them as the Members who personally come into this Covenant when they come into union with him by Faith This Covenant of Grace is not made with Christ alone personally considered but with Christ and all