Chapter LII: We Are Not Freed from Outward Ordinances, Nor Is It Legalism to Submit to Them, Contrar

Chapter LII: We Are Not Freed from Outward Ordinances, Nor Is It Legalism to Submit to Them, Contrar

Chapter XXVIII

Strict and Precise Walking: A Necessary and Commanded Gospel Duty

Renouncing our own righteousness is only a small part of the broader duty of walking carefully and precisely in all aspects of godly living. The narrow path is far more than what Antinomians claim—merely believing and rejecting our own righteousness. The Spirit of God did not speak this way because He lacked understanding of love.

Some say we once walked uncomfortably, spending our time fasting, weeping, mourning, praying, reading, hearing sermons, and performing other duties—all in an effort to gain Christ. But suppose that such fervor is genuine—born of holy fire, from a right principle (Romans 12:15), directed toward the right object (Galatians 4:18), in the right manner and with the right end (Numbers 25:15). In that case, you cannot be too holy—unless you claim that God Himself is too holy (1 Peter 1:15–16). If the path leads to destruction, then greater zeal only increases the danger. But if these efforts aim to merit Christ, to purchase Him, then I would agree with the weak man who rejects such rigor—and with Town, who dismisses strict commands as if Gospel grace were a joyless burden, mocking it as if it were mere Puritan severity.

But consider:

Antinomians accuse us of being Pharisees for saying these things. They claim God always intended for man to have an easy and pleasant life—free from the demands of strict obedience. But what they call sour and joyless, God calls holy. One day, Antinomians will wish they had died as Puritans. What extraordinary thing are you doing? (Matthew 5:47).

Chapter XXIX

God Is Truly Angry with the Sins of the Elect and Believers

Antinomians claim that God cannot be angry at the sins of the justified, because those sins have been done away with and abolished in Christ. Saltmarsh says that anger in God exists only as a figure of speech or metaphor. Town and Eaton assert that God is not angry at the sins of the elect.

This is true only if we speak of anger arising from justice, which Christ has fully satisfied and removed. But it is not true of God’s real displeasure against the sins of the justified—His hatred, rebuke, and correction of their sins—though He does not hate their persons.

God’s hatred of and displeasure at the sins of His children can coexist with His love for their persons—unless we are to say that the adultery of the justified is not actually adultery.

Chapter XXX

The Justified Are Accountable to God for Sin

Antinomians claim that the justified are not accountable to God for their sins. It is true that they are not accountable in the sense that they must suffer eternal wrath or satisfy the demands of justice—that debt Christ has already paid. But they are accountable in another sense: if they are given five talents, they sin if they do not gain ten.

Chapter XXXI

God Punishes Sin in Believers

God does indeed inflict temporal and spiritual punishments on believers. Though David, for his adultery, did not suffer the wrath of divine justice, he still endured evangelical justice. The man who secretly took another’s wife and murdered her husband with the sword of strangers was rightly judged—another took his wives publicly, and the sword never departed from his house. One son killed another.

It was also just that Peter, who trusted in his own strength, should fall by his own pride and deny his Lord. Those who eat and drink unworthily bring judgment on themselves—many among the Corinthians were weak, some sick, and others died. Zacharias was struck mute for not believing the angel’s word (Luke 1).

Chapter XXXII

Believers Are to Mourn for Sin

We affirm that the Spirit of grace is also a Spirit of mourning: They shall look on Me whom they have pierced, and mourn. Those who escape will be like doves in the valleys, each mourning for his own iniquity.

Antinomians, even after adultery or violence, tell us to believe and rejoice, arguing that God dislikes heaviness, sorrowful thoughts, or mourning over sin. They say nothing belongs to the believer but joy, comfort, and rejoicing. Sorrow for sin, they claim, is mourning over a shadow—unbelief in disguise—for pardoned sin is no sin at all.

But we say: pardoned sin is still sin. Sorrow for having pierced Christ is the Gospel groaning of the dove. This is godly sorrow. The Libertines’ view of mortification—without any sorrow or awareness of sin—is hollow. To know and feel sin after committing it, says Da: Georgius, is merely an act of the flesh. The Libertines even compare it to tasting the apple that Eve ate—as if the memory of sin were itself sinful.

Chapter XXXIII

Antinomians Deny the Need for Believers to Confess or Sense Sin

Antinomians argue that for a justified believer like David to ask for pardon of sins committed after justification is an act of fleshly unbelief.

Yet Christ teaches us to pray daily, “Forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12), even when calling God our Father.

To Antinomians, any awareness of sin is unbelief. They claim that if believers regard pardoned sins as real sins—or as anything more than public moral failings rather than violations of God’s law—they are misjudging, not by the light of faith, but by carnal sense, reason, and the flesh. According to this view, to be numb to all sense of sin, to have a conscience seared, is what they call mortification.

Chapter XXXIV

Antinomians Claim We May Believe Without Humiliation or Repentance

Antinomians argue that since we are justified by Christ’s work on the cross—even before we believe—we can come to Christ without any inward change or prior humiliation for sin. Without any sense of our spiritual sickness or need for Christ, we are, according to them, to immediately believe—even while remaining adulterers, murderers, or other grievous sinners.

Furthermore, they deny that salvation is tied to faith, or that faith is necessary to be saved. A man, they say, may be the greatest sinner imaginable, and yet Christ may be his Savior. He may be truly united to Christ, and Christ may dwell in his heart by faith, even while he remains captive to the devil, walking according to the course of the world and the spirit of disobedience.

This teaching creates a communion between Christ and Belial, between God and the devil, within the same soul.

Chapter XXXV

True Spiritual Poverty and How Antinomians Misunderstand It

True poverty of spirit does not mean denying all evidence of grace within us, as Antinomians claim. They teach that even when we have grace, we must say we have none—and that this is grace. But true poverty of spirit means seeing ourselves as poor, wretched, blind, and miserable apart from Christ. The more we perceive our own nothingness and spiritual poverty, the more we experience grace—because humility is true wealth. The one closest to Christ is the one who knows he cannot earn Him.

But grace does not deny grace, nor slander the Spirit within.

Chapter XXXVI

Repentance Misunderstood by Antinomians

Repentance is not, as Den claims, merely a part of faith or a change of mind by which one ceases to seek righteousness from the Law and begins to seek it from Christ. Rather, repentance is a change in one’s efforts—from living to please self, to living to please God—and a turning away from dead works.

We also do not teach that repentance or tears establish peace with God. Rather, they lead to a sense of peace, awakening the soul to seek God's promises. The foundation of peace is God's own word, which assures that He will revive the contrite spirit, heal the broken-hearted, and comfort mourners in Zion.

We do not regard repentance or good works as proper or formal conditions of the covenant of grace, but rather as conditions of those who are already within the covenant—those who have been brought into union with Christ.

Chapter XXXVII

How Good Works Are Necessary

Rather, evangelical good works are those that:

Good works are necessary in this sense:

Christ said, “Every branch in Me that bears fruit, My Father prunes so that it may bear more fruit.” And, “To the one who has, more will be given.” “He who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.” These promises of harvest apply to our sowing, as a means of spiritual fruitfulness and eternal reward.

We are told: “You have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.” “Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life.” To clarify that this is not simply a command to believe, Scripture adds, “Outside are dogs, sorcerers, the immoral, and murderers.” Christ said, “He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me.” These all show that holy living is the path to heaven, just as sowing leads to harvest.

The only question is this: In what sense is the promise of life made to those who do God’s will? Is it to the one who obeys simply as a doer, or as a believer whose faith produces evangelical obedience?

We affirm that the formal promise of the covenant of grace is made to faith—just as the Law’s promise is made to legal doing, perfectly and without grace. But the Gospel, which is broader than the covenant of grace and includes the full doctrine of salvation taught by the prophets and apostles, gives the promise of eternal life to evangelical obedience—that is, sincere yet imperfect doing through grace.

Why?

The Law commands us to love God with all our heart. That law required Abraham to offer his son, and Judah to return from exile—not because those acts were written in specific commandments, but because love for God requires obedience to whatever He commands. In this way, we are bound to obey God the Redeemer as well as God the Lawgiver.

However, we do not say that good works merit salvation:

Therefore, what Dr. Crisp says is not of God, when he asserts: “Sanctified living is not at all part of the way to heaven for the justified.”

While it’s true that good works are not the meritorious, efficient, or formal covenant-condition, they are a way—as sowing leads to harvest, as running leads to the crown, and wresthng to the victory.

Chapter XXXVIII

The Gospel Is Conditional

Antinomians deny that the covenant of grace, justification, or salvation has any conditions. They assert that the Gospel includes no conditions at all, even claiming that, though one should not believe, God remains faithful and cannot deny Himself as Redeemer. Saltmarsh argues that the Gospel does not function covenantally but is simply a promise of grace and salvation.

It is true that, if we define a condition as a prerequisite qualification for redemption—something required before God will redeem us in Christ or offer the covenant of grace—then faith is not a condition. Antinomians wrongly assume that Protestants teach otherwise. As we affirm, faith is not a condition in the sense of earning or meriting Christ, since justification, pardon, and salvation are not rewards earned by faith, obedience, or repentance.

Antinomians cannot truthfully accuse us of teaching that we are redeemed, justified, or saved because of faith or works. But if a condition is understood in the evangelical sense—as a grace-wrought qualification in the believer, without which no one is justified or saved—then to deny that the Gospel is a conditional covenant is to misrepresent the Gospel.

For Scripture says: “He who believes has eternal life and is freely justified; he who does not believe is condemned, and the wrath of God remains on him.” Repentance, doing God’s will, and new obedience are likewise required. These are not legal or meritorious conditions, but evangelical ones.

It is not Roman Catholic error to say that we seek glory, honor, and immortality by doing good. Works are not conditions of justification in the same sense as faith, yet they are conditions required of all who will be saved.

That Christ works faith in us does not mean faith is no condition at all; rather, it shows that it is not a condition of our own making—but a true evangelical condition, graciously produced by Christ in us.

Chapter XXXIX:

On Mortification

We believe that repentance and mortification involve a real, personal turning from sin—a weakening of the lusts of the old nature, a dying to the pleasures of sin, and a growing desire for heavenly things. This flows from union with Christ in His death and resurrection, apprehended by faith.

But Antinomians teach that to repent or mortify sin is merely to believe that Christ repented and mortified sin on our behalf, and that He obeyed the whole law for us. They deny that mortification involves any personal struggle against sin or inward transformation. Instead, they claim it’s just the recognition that our sins have already been dealt with and are no longer seen by God—only by our own sense or the world’s view.

As Den puts it, “What is mortification but the apprehension of sin slain by the body of Christ?” What is new life but “living by faith”?

This, we must say, is a shortcut to heaven unknown to Christ or His apostles. For:

Answer:

Yes, if by faith we mean true, humble trust in Christ by a broken sinner, then it cannot coexist with a willful life of sin. But the Antinomian definition of faith is often just self-assurance in the heart of an unbroken Pharisee, who continues in lust and assumes his sins are already forgiven—even before they’re committed—and that they are no longer sins at all.

And the wrath of God, even upon those who never heard the gospel, confirms that sin is real and deadly—even for those without faith in Christ.

Chapter XL:

Antinomians Teach That Believers and Their Works Are Completely Perfect

Antinomians teach not only that believers are imputatively perfect—because Christ’s righteousness is credited to them—but also that they are inherently perfect in their persons and works. We reject this. While believers are indeed perfect in their justified state before God through Christ, their sanctification and duties are not perfect but progressive—growing like the moon, increasing but not yet full.

Justification removes the guilt of sin and its liability to eternal punishment. But while Christ’s righteousness removes our guilt, it does not erase the inherent sinfulness still clinging to our works. As sin remains in our persons after justification—though not imputed—so it still clings to our most holy actions, even if those sins are not counted against us. Christ does not make our works inherently perfect, for elements remain in them that are still contrary to God’s law.

Yet Antinomians claim otherwise. They argue that since sins are pardoned—even before they are committed—they cease to be sins at all. Therefore, any sin that clings to a good work is no longer sin, and the work must be perfect, just as the justified person is said to be perfect.

Their reasoning includes the following serious errors:

Objection:

Antinomians argue (like the Papists) that God cannot accept anything sinful, since all that is imperfect is cursed by the law (Gal. 3:10). Because God is truth, He cannot tolerate the least defect in righteousness.

Answer:

Chapter XLI:

Antinomians Claim We Are Already as Saved as the Glorified in Heaven

We reject the Antinomian and Libertine claim that believers are already fully and perfectly saved in this life, just as the glorified are in heaven. They argue that we are not saved merely in hope or in part, but actually and completely. Based on this, they say good works cannot be a “way” to heaven—no more than walking within a city can be walking toward it.

But Scripture teaches that we are still absent from the Lord while in the body. The full redemption of our bodies lies ahead, not behind. Our earthly tent must be taken down, and the resurrection must yet occur. To say that the resurrection and eternal life are fulfilled simply in our present union with Christ is to revive the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who claimed “the resurrection is past already” (2 Tim. 2:18).

Antinomians also teach that we are now as sinless as Christ, that we are “Christed and Goded,” as the Libertine Pocquius once said—a dangerous and blasphemous doctrine.

But Paul clearly says “we are saved by hope” (Rom. 8:24). If we were already perfectly saved, we would not need to hope for what we already possess. Our life is hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3), and though we truly possess eternal life:

Chapter XLII:

Our Blessedness Is Found in Sanctification as Well as Justification

Antinomians wrongly teach that our happiness is entirely passive, found only in being justified, and not at all in being sanctified or doing good works. It is true that justification is the foundation of our blessedness, because our sins are not imputed. But our happiness is also found in sanctification, as the fruit of that justification.

We are blessed not only because we are forgiven, but also because:

If Antinomians meant only that Christ is the source and fullness of our blessedness, or that sanctification is only blessed because it flows from Christ and His grace, we would not oppose them. But we know they go further and err grievously.

They:

But we affirm with Christ:

All these contradict Dr. Crisp’s claim that “Sanctification is not a jot of the way to heaven.” We believe sanctification is not the cause of our salvation, but it is certainly part of the path Christ has ordained for His people.

Chapter XLIII:

Antinomians Undermine Sanctification

Though Antinomians may claim otherwise, their writings show them to be opposed to true sanctification. They confuse sanctification—our inward, progressive holiness—with justification, which is complete and perfect because it rests on the righteousness of Christ.

But Antinomians also say that no sin remains in the justified—no spot or stain, no imperfection in person or work, no violation of God’s law. According to them, the believer is as sinless as Christ or the saints in glory. If that is true, then sanctification must be identical to justification, and equally perfect. And thus, when a justified believer commits adultery or lies, he is no more a sinner than Christ Himself—because, as Eaton claims, pardoned sin “is not,” and has “no being” before God.

When challenged, they answer: “Those sins were sins before pardon, but once forgiven, they are no longer sins in God’s sight.”

But we ask: How could sins be pardoned before they were even committed—supposedly at the cross, over sixteen hundred years ago? If all the elect were justified at that time, then for all these centuries, the justified could no more sin than Christ Himself or the angels in heaven. Yet they obviously do sin. Antinomian reasoning leads to absurdity, suggesting that sins have no real being when they are committed, and do have being when they are not.

This contradicts both Scripture and common sense.

If fornication and other sins are contrary to sanctification, as Peter and Paul clearly teach, then real sanctification must differ from justification, and it must be imperfect. To walk in holiness, repent, and obey is not simply to believe that Christ did all these things for us—it is to do them by the grace and strength of Christ.

On that basis, all sanctification is just as imaginary as those sins. If we believe our sins are not sins, then the difference between sin and holiness becomes a delusion. Thus, to judge murder or deceit in a justified person as sin is merely a false perception. And if so, then the very distinction between justification and sanctification—as Eaton and others try to preserve—is meaningless.

Some even go so far as to say that if we recognize sanctification or grace in ourselves, we are no longer “poor in spirit.” Others claim it is no sin to be unaware of one's own spiritual state. But this would mean that one may disobey God's command to examine oneself—“Examine yourselves, whether you be in the faith”—without sinning.

By this reasoning, to sin against the Spirit’s work of helping us know the grace freely given by God would be no sin at all.

In Calvin’s day, the Libertines said that to know good or evil was of the old man, and that to be senseless of sin was true mortification. A dead conscience, they claimed, was faith. Sadly, this error has found its way into the Libertines of New England, who likewise equate spiritual ignorance and lack of conviction with Christian maturity.

Chapter XLIV:

Antinomians Claim All Doubting Is Inconsistent with Faith

Antinomians teach that once a person is justified, they should never doubt. They argue that the liberty purchased by Christ gives a believer assurance equal to that of heaven itself, removing all fear and wavering. According to them, we should not fear our sins or anything else. This thinking aligns with the New England Libertines, who assert that any kind of doubting is incompatible with true assurance—especially after receiving what they call the "broad seal of the Spirit." They claim that to doubt, even after committing a serious sin, whether God is truly one’s Father, proves the person is still under a covenant of works.

Response:

Yet, we also affirm that doubting can exist in truly justified believers.

In Scripture, faith and weakness often appear side by side in the same prayer. David says in Psalm 31:22, “I said in my haste, I am cut off from before your eyes”—a moment of deep fainting—yet immediately adds, “Nevertheless, you heard the voice of my supplications.” This is faith trembling, but not extinguished.

We see the same in Jonah, Hezekiah, and Job. In the prophets, moments of despair and confusion flash up like sparks from beneath ashes, even after they had received the Spirit’s assurance. Asaph and Jeremiah both struggled:

These are not the cries of the unregenerate but of believers, burdened under affliction.

These are the “storms of love-jealousy”, the believer’s troubled questioning of the Lord’s presence—not unbelief in His existence, but grief over perceived absence.

When Satan casts in the “firebrands of doubting,” it may actually show that the strong man has been cast out, and the enemy is trying to regain lost ground.

Chapter XLV:

Antinomians, Not Protestants, Are the True Merit-Mongers

Antinomians accuse us of teaching merit like the Papists—saying that reward is given ex pact, by covenant, not because of strict justice, but as a debt God owes due to His promise. To this, we respond:

Yet Antinomians claim more than this:

Here we part company with all merit-mongers—whether Papist or Antinomian. We hold that:

In contrast:

We reject both views. There is no proportion between our best works and eternal glory. The reward is not given to our works for their own sake, but to us as persons united to Christ, and our works are only signs and fruits of grace—never causes of merit.

Chapter XLVI:

That There Is Inherent Grace in the Saints, Beyond God's Favor Toward Them

We do not agree with the Antinomians who say that grace exists only in Christ, and not in us. According to Mr. Town, what is in us are merely the effects of grace, not grace itself. He claims the new creature, the armor of God, and love are all nothing but Christ.

We reply:

Indeed, grace or free favor is in God and Christ as the cause and source. It is God's infinite goodness, showing mercy, calling and redeeming us without cost. That favor is in Him alone. But Scripture also speaks of a created grace—a real, inherent work in the believer, produced by God's free grace, that dwells within us and makes us new creatures.

Just as a flower’s fragrance is not the root itself, but proceeds from it, so grace in us is not Christ Himself, but a true effect of union with Him.

1. Scripture Testifies to Grace Inherent in the Believer

2. The Armor of God Is Not Christ Himself

3. God Works Inwardly in the Saints

Scripture clearly teaches that God:

These are not mere outward effects but real inward graces.

4. An Abiding Principle of Grace Remains in the Saints

These show that grace dwells within believers.

5. The Saints Are Named for Their Inward Grace

6. To Deny Inherent Grace Destroys the Distinction Between Believers and Hypocrites

If there is no grace in the believer, then there is no difference between the hypocrite and the true saint. Yet Scripture calls believers blessed, meek, poor in spirit, pure in heart, and promises that they shall see God, be satisfied, and inherit the kingdom.

This Antinomian error is closely aligned with:

All of these deny that God, by His Spirit, produces real holiness in the soul. But Scripture affirms again and again that grace is not only from Christ, but also in us.

Chapter XLVII:

That We Are Not Mere Passive Instruments in the Spirit’s Work of Sanctification

Antinomians claim that in sanctification, we are merely passive—that the Spirit acts in us as if we were blocks or stones. They argue that we are not obligated to pray or obey at appointed times, unless the Spirit moves us immediately. Saltmarsh calls such set times bondage, not true spiritual worship.

Some, like the Familist Randel, teach a mystical form of perfectionism. They elevate the believer above Scripture, ordinances, prayer, and all conscious acts of the soul, claiming that love, desire, and understanding are swallowed up in direct union with God, leaving the believer entirely passive. In this system, any act of knowing or willing is said to be from the “old man.”

This thinking leads others to say that God is the author of sin, arguing that:

Though not all Antinomians say this openly, these ideas are found in their principles and echoed in Libertine writings, which Calvin has warned against.

Saltmarsh attempts to soften this by saying sin was not decreed by God, but only foreknown, and that man brought about redemption by occasioning sin. This foolishly implies that sin gave birth to redemption—a blasphemous reversal of truth. Grace is eternal and arises from God’s heart, not from sin’s womb.

1. We Are Not Mere Passive Instruments in Sanctification

If the Spirit acts on us entirely without our cooperation, so that we are passive in believing, praying, and obeying—as if forced, like medicine pushed down a resistant patient’s throat—then we are no more responsible for sin than a stone that falls from a tower and crushes someone’s head.

On this ground, if we do not pray when the Spirit does not stir us, we are not guilty of sin. But that makes the Spirit responsible for all our omissions and commissions. Thus, either Antinomians become Pelagians, denying the necessity of grace, or they deny all human guilt entirely.

2. Scripture Commands Our Active Participation

We are commanded to pray without ceasing, watch with perseverance, keep ourselves in the love of God, and be prepared for the Lord’s return. These duties are binding, regardless of whether we feel the Spirit moving within us at that moment.

God’s revealed will—His Word—is our rule for obedience, not His hidden workings in our hearts. If we are only obligated to act when grace stirs us, then we are free from all Gospel commands and invitations. But the Spirit is not bound to move whenever we read or hear Scripture.

When Saltmarsh, Town, and others say the Gospel is not in letter, duty, or reason, but only in Spirit, life, and grace, they echo the New England Libertines, who claim that believers are not bound to live by the Word, but only by the Spirit's immediate leading.

This is the old Anabaptist heresy: that the anointing teaches us all things, so we need not be taught by Scripture or ordinances. It denies the need for preaching, reading, prayer, and sacraments. To be under them, they say, is to be under the Law and the dead letter.

But Scripture teaches the harmony of Word and Spirit. “To the law and to the testimony” (Isa. 8:20). The Spirit works by the Word: “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart from thee, or thy seed” (Isa. 59:21).

3. Antinomianism Subverts the Word and Ordinances

This teaching effectively rejects the written Word, which the prophets, Christ, and the apostles have given us as the only rule of faith and practice. It undermines ministry, ordinances, and the authority of Scripture. It turns the written Gospel into the Holy Spirit Himself, and dissolves all Gospel commands to holy living.

In truth, we are not lifeless blocks. The Spirit’s work in sanctification engages our minds, wills, and affections. We are not forced by grace, but renewed and enabled by it to walk in obedience. The Spirit’s life within us does not render the Word unnecessary—it fulfills it.

If we are to obey Gospel commands as mere stones, without any active participation from our wills—only when the Spirit stirs us—then all Gospel commands, promises, reasonings, preaching, and ordinances would be as ineffective as trying to move wood or stone. Based on this idea, Saltmarsh and the Antinomians would do away with all logic, treating it as legal or fleshly.

We are far more willing than they to reject carnal reasoning that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. Yet ironically, it is Antinomians themselves who elevate natural reason above Scripture when they support doctrines like universal atonement, free will, and even universal salvation—extending pity even to devils, based on a misguided view of God’s love.

Cornwell declares that a faith formed through logical reasoning is mere human faith. Saltmarsh adds that interpreting Scripture by the literal sense and drawing consequences from it has clouded the Gospel’s glory. He claims the Gospel’s exhortations, promises, and commands exist not because of free will in man, but simply to accommodate divine truths in a way that is naturally digestible.

These views expose a deeper error in both Antinomians and Familists:

Libertines even claim that resisting adultery on the basis of God’s law—as Joseph did—is simply “Old Adam” thinking. Saltmarsh says Gospel exhortations and promises are too natural and legal, implying that the Gospel is a mere human message.

This is a severe slander against the Gospel, which is the wisdom and power of God, not a fleshly mixture of Law and works. Reasoning from Scripture is a divine means, not a carnal method.

4. If We Are Only Passive, Then All Obligation Vanishes

If the Spirit must move us directly in order for us to act, then not only are we free from moral law, but also from natural law and even conscience. By that logic, duties like honoring parents, loving others, and doing what is just, would not bind us unless the Spirit actively enabled us in each moment.

This would imply that the Spirit is obligated to follow our hearts and inclinations—to blow when we wish Him to blow—which is absurd. Grace is not grace if the creature rules over it.

If our will could command when the Spirit should act, then we would determine when God hides His face or manifests His grace. This would mean our doubtings, jealousies, and spiritual desertions would be guiltless—blamed on the Spirit for not acting. But Scripture holds us accountable for sins of omission and commission, for all sin is a breach of law.

5. The Soul’s Faculties Are Not Destroyed in Conversion

It is evident that Antinomians, like the New England Libertines, must hold that in a sinner’s conversion, the faculties and operations of the soul in spiritual matters are entirely destroyed—and that the Holy Spirit replaces them, acting in their stead, much like the faculties of Christ’s human nature.

But this is false. Grace does not destroy the soul, nor does it eliminate the natural faculties of mind, will, and conscience. Instead, it purifies and sanctifies them. Grace removes the dross, but not the gold. The soul is not annihilated or substantially changed in essence; rather, it is made new in quality and disposition.

Christ does not destroy the heart but refashions it. He sanctifies and renews the spirit, cleanses the conscience, and causes us to remember all things that He has taught. The heart, though placed in the furnace of grace, loses no substance, but is formed anew by the hand of the Redeemer.

6. Libertine Presumption and the Misuse of Christ’s Faithfulness

This false teaching encourages the presumption of the Libertine who dares to say, “If Christ will allow me to sin, let Him be accountable for it—His honor is at stake.” Now, this could be understood rightly, if meant as an expression of faith’s confidence in Christ’s covenantal commitment to preserve His people. In that sense, it affirms the unchanging grace and faithfulness of Christ, who has been entrusted with His flock and will lose none, but raise them all up at the last day (John 6:39).

However, in the Libertine’s sense, the claim becomes perverse. They mean that the justified cannot sin at all, and if any sin is committed, it is Christ’s fault—since the Spirit did not act to prevent it. Thus, if the believer falls, the blame lies with the Spirit, who failed to stir him to obedience.

This is a gross distortion of Scripture. We are commanded to keep ourselves in the love of God (Jude 21), and, like David, we are to guard ourselves from our iniquities (Psalm 18:23). The Spirit enables, but does not eliminate, our duty to actively pursue holiness. Grace does not excuse sin; it trains us to renounce it (Titus 2:11–12).

Chapter XLVIII.

Antinomians Claim That Believers Cannot Sin Against God—Only Against Men

We affirm that the Law of Christ concerns not only our outward conduct among men, but also our salvation and standing before God. This directly contradicts the Antinomian view that, once justified, the believer is as completely saved and sinless as those already glorified in heaven. According to them, there remains in the justified neither original sin, nor even minor sins, such as what Roman Catholics call venial sins or Protestants describe as sins of infirmity.

One Antinomian reportedly said, “Sin is nothing—how then can Christ hate nothing?” Such a statement flows naturally from their belief that all sin was pardoned before it was ever committed. If so, sin must be nothing at all—just as Papists argue that justification expels all sin, leaving only “venials,” which they consider not true sins. Thus, both Antinomians and Papists agree: what is pardoned is no longer sin.

1. Sin Ceases to Be Sin?

According to this logic, no sin committed after justification—whether adultery, murder, or any other work of the flesh—can truly be sin. It transgresses no law and supposedly does no harm to one's salvation. It may offend men, but not God. To speak this way is to profane the grace of Christ.

2. Sins Are Deemed Offenses Against Men Only

Antinomians teach that the post-justification sins of believers, such as adultery, are not sins before God. Why? Because they say anything that is truly sin would hinder salvation. If God has already removed all hindrance from salvation in justification, then adultery cannot truly be sin in the justified. It may cause scandal, but not divine offense.

Ask them: “Is a justified man obliged to avoid adultery?” They will say, “Yes,” but not by any legal obligation. The Law no longer binds him, they say. Rather, he is only bound by a kind of inner spiritual compulsion—a “courtesy” of the Spirit, not a command. Thus, if he abstains, it is a voluntary act of love; if he commits the sin, they say it is not a violation of God’s Law.

They compare it to a man committing a crime in one country that is not illegal in another—his action is not judged unlawful outside the jurisdiction of that nation. So they say: the Law of God does not apply to the justified; he sins, not against God’s Law, but merely against love or social harmony. But this is to sever love from the Law, as though the Law did not command us to love with all our heart. It implies God’s will in the Law contradicts His will in the Gospel, which is impossible. Their doctrine reduces sin to an offense against man only—not against God.

3. Sanctification as a Path to Glory

All acts of holiness—those duties that flow from true sanctification—are necessary steps toward our final perfection. The believer’s path is like the light of dawn, growing brighter until full day (Prov. 4:18). Therefore, these works are not optional acts of courtesy or mere expressions of social virtue. They are commanded by God as the path we must walk if we would see His face.

Yet, Mr. Town objects: “If good works are necessary conditions for salvation, then salvation is no longer by free grace. For if God gives something freely, it must be without any conditions or regard to our works or worthiness.”

This objection misunderstands the nature of grace and its fruits.

Response to Town’s Objections on Good Works and Salvation

Answer. It is noteworthy that Town admits good works may be commanded in the Gospel while still affirming that salvation comes by grace alone. Yet he contradicts himself by later insisting that if works are commanded, grace can no longer be the only cause of salvation, and Law and Gospel are therefore confused. But we do not teach that good works are necessary as the means by which salvation is obtained (necessitate medii). A soul may be saved who believes at the final hour, unable to perform any good works. Still, in that true faith there exists a supernatural inclination toward obedience.

Even if this faith bears no outward fruit because of a lack of opportunity, that does not negate the fact that good works are necessary by precept—that is, by the command of God. Antinomians, however, reject any such necessity.

As Augustine said often: God crowns His own gifts, not our merits.

Objection 2: You make works the causes of salvation.

Answer: We deny that good works are causes of salvation in the sense of being co-equal with Christ’s work. They are conditions in the sense of being the path along which the saved walk—not the title or right to the inheritance. A man walks to the city to take possession of his inheritance, but his walking is not the legal cause of his claim. Likewise, good works follow justification; they are not its cause. They are fruits of the justified life, not the tree’s root.

Objection 3: If salvation depends on the condition of our works or worthiness, it becomes uncertain and doubtful.

Answer: Paul in Romans 4:16 speaks of justification, which depends only on faith. We do not say that salvation depends on our works or worthiness, but on God’s grace, which works every good thing in us. Our hope is not built on works or free will, but on the sure foundation of God’s grace in Christ.

Objection 4: You confound Law and Gospel by making the Gospel conditional.

Answer: It is a serious error to deny that the Gospel includes conditions. To say there are no conditions is to deny the Word of the Holy Spirit: He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe is condemned already. To reject conditionality is to affirm, as Dr. Crisp did, that people are saved whether they believe or not. Forgiveness does not depend on works, nor do we claim it does—but this does not mean works have no place. That they are not causes does not mean they are not commanded or expected.

Objection 5: You reinforce the natural belief that God justifies only the worthy and clean, which the Gospel denies.

Answer: Town again confuses justification with salvation and misrepresents our position. The natural conscience either exalts itself with imagined self-righteousness or presumes on God’s mercy without repentance. It knows neither the justice of the Law nor the grace of the Gospel. The Gospel teaches that we are justified through the righteousness of Another, and that those who are justified must also walk in newness of life. Without holiness, no one will see the Lord.

Objection 6: It follows, then, that imputed righteousness is not enough to make one fit for salvation—so that a godly life must fit us for heaven, and the holier the life, the fitter we are.

Answer: We affirm that sanctification does indeed prepare us for heaven in its own proper sense, though never as a meritorious cause. Holiness does not earn salvation or add any merit to Christ’s righteousness. Therefore, if sanctification does not grant any such merit, it cannot increase our fitness for heaven in any degree that competes with Christ’s merits. Just as a raven, being not white at all, cannot be said to be “whiter than snow,” so our holiness cannot be said to make us more fit for heaven in any meritorious sense.

Yet Scripture clearly speaks of a kind of fitness or preparation that comes with sanctification. Paul says in Colossians 1:12: Giving thanks to the Father, who has made us fit to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. Antinomians err grievously—no less than carnal professors—when they claim, like Town, that this fitness refers to justification alone. Paul’s thanksgiving and prayer in that passage refer not merely to justification, but also to their sanctified lives.

In verse 10, Paul commends their walking worthy of the Lord, being fruitful in every good work. In verse 11, he speaks of them being strengthened with all power for endurance and patience. These aspects of Christian obedience contribute to their readiness for heaven—not as grounds for merit, but as the necessary character of those who are being made ready for glory.

That this holy walking gives a kind of readiness for glory is confirmed elsewhere. Scripture tells us that nothing unclean shall enter the heavenly city (Rev. 21:27), and that without holiness, no one will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14). This cannot refer to imputed righteousness alone, for the same verse speaks of peace with all men—clearly referring to our lived conduct.

Moreover, the love believers now have, though imperfect, is the same in nature as the perfect love we will have in glory. Since the love of heaven will be a crown and part of our reward, the presence of that same love now is the beginning of that crown and thus a real, though non-meritorious, preparation.

Therefore, while our holiness does not make us more worthy of heaven, it does conform us to the image of Christ and prepare us for the inheritance of the saints—not by merit, but by divine appointment. To deny this, as Antinomians do, is to tear holiness away from salvation and to cut off the Christian life from its heavenly end.

And so, we arrive at what lies at the root of this error: the foundational heresy of Antinomianism itself.

CHAPTER XLIX:

Antinomians Deny Obligation to Gospel Commands and Exhortations, Teaching that Only Faith Is Commanded

Antinomians reject all Gospel commands related to holiness and Christian duty. They teach that believing is the only command under the Gospel, and unbelief the only sin. They deny any righteousness other than Christ’s imputed righteousness, rejecting any requirement for inherent sanctification. To them, calling the saints to walk in holiness as a duty is to place them again under the yoke of the Law—like removing them from the warmth of the summer sun and returning them to the cold, dark shadows of a prison cell.

Accordingly, their acts of holiness and sanctification are just as fictional—performed only before men, not as real conditions or requirements for heaven. They claim such acts are not truly commanded by God and that a justified person cannot sin, even if they disobey Gospel exhortations. Eaton, Den, Saltmarsh, and Town all argue that sin, for the justified, is no sin in God's account—only a deception of human sense and worldly perception.

In essence, Antinomians strip away the entire fabric of Christian obedience, rejecting not only the Law but even the commands of the Gospel that call believers to holiness of life. They make sin and sanctification both illusions—nothing but the shadows of unbelief and the imagination of men.

3. Mr. Town asserts that to believe is to do all duties, citing Rollock and Calvin to support his claim. This lies at the heart of Antinomianism: that the only sin condemned in the Gospel is unbelief, and the only Gospel command is faith. Therefore, according to Saltmarsh, all the Scriptures that speak of sanctification and mortification—such as “Christ is made to us sanctification,” “I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me,” “You are sanctified, you are justified,” and “We are his workmanship, created unto good works”—are understood to speak only of Christ, not of our personal holiness. Christ, they say, has done all.

They teach that Christ has perfectly believed, repented, sorrowed for sin, obeyed, and mortified sin on our behalf. Therefore, we are to believe our repentance is true in Christ, our mortification is real in Christ, our obedience complete in him who fulfilled the Law for us. Our inward renewal, righteousness, and holiness are also to be reckoned true in him. And since “without faith it is impossible to please God,” faith is considered the whole of our sanctification.

Den affirms this, saying that mortification and vivification are nothing more than living by faith—believing in the one who justifies the ungodly. Mr. Thomas Gataker reports that Heyden, a follower of Eaton, preached from 1 John 3:7 (“He that does righteousness is righteous”), interpreting it as doing righteousness in Christ, who has done it for us. Similarly, he interpreted texts like “doing the will of the Father,” “putting on the new man,” “abounding in the work of the Lord,” all as simply believing that Christ has done these things on our behalf.

Saltmarsh and his followers thus teach that every Gospel precept and exhortation to holiness—whether to walk in Christ, to abound in good works, to love one another, to honor parents, obey magistrates, avoid fleshly lusts, or speak the truth—is not a personal obligation, but simply a call to believe that Christ has fulfilled all these duties for us.

Therefore, according to this view, the grace of God and the Gospel impose no obligation on believers to deny themselves, or to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. To obey a command is labeled “Legal” and “Jewish.” They argue that Christ is our sanctification in the same way he is our righteousness—imputed entirely, and without any personal holiness added by obligation or duty.

But this turns Gospel exhortations into empty forms. It erases the believer’s real call to pursue holiness and makes sanctification no more than a mental assent that Christ has done everything already. This strips the Gospel of its power to transform, and grace of its beauty to renew.

Chapter L.

How We Are Freed from the Law in Sanctification as in Justification

We do not deny, as Antinomians accuse us, that believers are freed from the Law in regard to sanctification as well as justification—but only in a specific and biblical sense. The Apostle says, “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are not under the Law.” If you are led by the Spirit, then you are not under the Law. This means that our obedience is now voluntary, free, and joyful—not driven by fear of condemnation or the terrors of the Law, as in Romans 8:15, which speaks of deliverance from the spirit of bondage.

Yet we still obey under the binding authority of God as Lawgiver. This authority is not contrary to the loving guidance of the Gospel. Rather, in Christ, the Law’s authority and the Spirit’s loving leading are reconciled. The Antinomian error lies in thinking that any obligation to the Law must be driven by servile fear and that no reverent love can exist within a Law-command. But the Law commands fear—not the fear of damnation for the justified—but reverent awe, the fear of grieving a Father in covenant with us.

True, when man is fallen and under sin, he cannot produce this holy fear or obedience from his own corrupted nature. But through Christ’s Spirit, believers are empowered to render such obedience. The Law still demands the same righteousness—but now, believers fulfill it by grace, drawing from Christ’s fullness, not from their own strength.

The Law’s role as creditor remains—it still commands holiness. But the terms of the covenant have changed. The Law no longer says, “Do this and live,” as under the covenant of works, which assumed a sinless man with no need of a Mediator. Instead, the Law now commands under the covenant of grace, where the debt is paid with the gold of Christ’s righteousness and the Spirit’s sanctifying work. Though our obedience is imperfect, tainted with sin, it is accepted in Christ. It is offered in faith, drawn from the riches of our Surety.

Thus, our obedience, while still required, is no longer Law-debt. It is the fruit of Gospel-grace. The same God commands, the same Law stands, but now we fulfill it with hearts transformed, not to earn life, but because we already have it in Christ.

Chapter LI.

Antinomians Ignorant of the Jewish Law-Service and of Gospel Obedience

Antinomians often speak against things they do not rightly understand. Saltmarsh claims that all Gospel ordinances serve only as means for God to reveal His love and grace through the Spirit of adoption. According to him, they are not to be viewed as means by which we, in any sense, seek love from God—since Christ has already obtained that love fully on our behalf.

He argues that there is no longer Gospel "teaching and obeying" in the true sense, but that many now fall back into a "Legal strain"—as if attempting to bring God down again to His former way of revealing Himself under the Law. In this view, believers treat God in their prayers, fastings, and acts of obedience as if He were still only in the way of reconciliation, rather than already reconciled and fully pacified in Christ.

This is a serious misunderstanding both of the Old Testament and of New Testament obedience. The Law-service under Moses, though filled with types and shadows, was never intended to obscure God’s grace. It pointed forward to the Gospel and was part of God’s gracious covenantal dealings. Obedience then, as now, was never a means to earn love, but a response to it.

Likewise, Gospel obedience today is not an effort to earn God’s favor, but the fruit of grace already received. To obey God’s commands in prayer, worship, or holiness is not to return to bondage, but to walk in the freedom of sons who delight in their Father’s will. Antinomians, by rejecting all Gospel commands as "legal," fail to see the harmony between grace and obedience, and show that they neither understand the spirit of the Law under Moses, nor the freedom of the Gospel in Christ.

We cannot but bring our complaint before God against those who slander sound doctrine and persist in twisting the truth of His ways. If Saltmarsh means to suggest that we believe fasting, prayer, or any act of evangelical obedience purchases God’s love—as if such acts earned His free favor, whether His grace objectively in Himself or subjectively within us—then we solemnly declare before God and His angels, that this is a false gospel. And even if an angel or the Apostle Paul himself preached it, he must be accursed.

Let Saltmarsh show us which Protestant divine—if any—teaches that by fasting, prayer, or obedience, the Jews under the Law earned some love from God which Christ had not already obtained. Never, since God formed His Church on earth, was fasting or prayer treated as currency to purchase grace. Neither Jew nor Gentile, not even unfallen Adam or the holy angels, could ever buy God's love.

We affirm that God’s love alone is the fountain and cause of His choosing some to eternal life, of His sending Christ to die, and of the redemption of sinners. As Scripture says, “God so loved the world, that He gave His Son.” That love, under both the Old and New Testaments, has always been free and undeserved. If Saltmarsh or any Antinomian suggests that under the Old Testament grace was more expensive—bought by obedience and fasting—while now it is cheaper under the Gospel, they err grievously.

Antinomians confuse the error of the Jews with the state of the Jewish Church itself. Paul, in Romans 4, teaches that Abraham and David were justified in the same way we are—by faith, not by works. When the Jews sought righteousness through works rather than faith, they stumbled. Their failure was not due to the nature of Old Testament religion but to their own sinful pride and ignorance.

It was never lawful for Jews to seek God's favor through fasting or obedience, any more than it is for us today. That would be to reject the righteousness of God and to establish their own. Though they were under the pedagogy of the Law—with ceremonies, types, and a lesser measure of grace—that was a divine and holy arrangement, not a sanctioning of legalistic self-righteousness.

Furthermore, God condemned their trust in fasting and ritual. In Isaiah, He rebukes them for saying, “We have fasted, and You have not seen.” The problem was never the act of fasting, but their hypocritical motive. God has always hated mercenary religion—service rendered for reward rather than out of love. To serve Him for mere earthly blessings, or from slavish fear rather than reverent affection, was as wrong then as now.

It is true that God, in His providence, did attach temporal blessings to obedience under the Old Covenant. But that was never meant to encourage a transactional view of worship. It is still true that godliness holds promise for both this life and the life to come. Believers under both covenants are permitted to look to the eternal reward as a motive to press on in faithfulness. Yet we are never to serve God for the reward itself, but for God Himself—our portion, our inheritance, our delight.

Yes, we may be stirred by the promise of eternal life, just as the saints under the Old Testament were. Yet our ultimate aim is not the crown, but the King. God is to be loved and worshiped for who He is—not merely for His gifts. This has always been true, and it remains the same under the Gospel.

On Prayer as a Means of Revealing God’s Love

Saltmarsh suggests that prayer is only a means by which God reveals His love, not a means of receiving anything new. But how prayer reveals God’s love, he does not clearly explain. Christ teaches that the Father gives the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Luke 11:13), that He answers prayer offered in Christ’s name, and that He avenges the blood of His saints.

When we pray, “Lord, increase our faith,” is this merely asking for the revelation of something we already possess? Are we to believe that all our prayers—for victory over sin, growth in grace, daily bread, the progress of the Gospel, the fall of Satan’s kingdom, deliverance from war and pestilence, and deeper insight into the Gospel—are merely requests for things already fully given?

According to this reasoning, prayer doesn't obtain anything new, but only reveals what was previously hidden. This turns all petitions into illusions and undermines the biblical teaching that prayer is a means by which God bestows grace, not merely uncovers what was already ours. Such teaching is not Gospel doctrine.

On God’s Peace with Old Testament Believers

Saltmarsh also claims that under the Old Testament, God was only on the way to reconciliation with Israel—not fully pacified. But this denies the clear testimony of Scripture.

The Lord declares, “He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob” (Num. 23:21). He promises, “I have blotted out your transgressions like a thick cloud” (Isa. 43:25), and “You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea” (Mic. 7:19). David exclaims, “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven” (Ps. 32:1–2).

To say that God maintained a record of wrath, refusing to pardon His people under the Old Testament, is to reject the Holy Spirit’s witness in nearly every page of that covenant. God was indeed reconciled to His elect saints then, just as now—through Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

On Christ and the Love of God

Antinomians claim that Christ obtains the love of God for us. But this is a serious error. Christ does not procure God’s love—He is given to us because of God’s love.

Christ's death secures for us the fruits of divine love: redemption, pardon, righteousness, effectual calling, perseverance, and eternal glory. But we affirm, with the whole Reformed tradition against Rome, that Christ as Mediator is Himself the result—not the cause—of God’s eternal love for His people.

Theologians such as Twisse, and the body of Protestant divines, have long argued against the Papists and Jesuits on this point:

Therefore, we reject the notion that Christ’s death earns God’s love. Rather, it is the means by which that love is expressed and applied to His elect.

Chapter LII

We Are Not Freed from Outward Ordinances, Nor Is It Legalism to Submit to Them, Contrary to Antinomian Claims

Antinomians argue that we are freed from the Law because it cannot sanctify or give grace to obey. But if that reasoning holds, then the Gospel itself, apart from the Spirit, cannot sanctify either—yet no one denies the Gospel’s power when accompanied by the Spirit. Their real objection, however, is deeper: they believe the Spirit frees us from all outward ordinances and from any obligation that a written command—whether Law or Gospel—might place upon us.

Saltmarsh teaches that if we obey merely because something is commanded in Scripture, that obedience is legalistic and a form of subtle hypocrisy. But if he means obedience that comes only from the letter, without the Spirit's influence or the life of Christ, then we agree—that is a dead work. No one can truly obey God’s commands unless the Spirit gives life and grace.

Still, Saltmarsh goes further, implying that even the sweetest Gospel commands or promises—such as “He that believes in the Son has eternal life” or “Whoever comes to me, I will never cast out”—lay no real obligation on the believer unless the Spirit is already effectually moving him. In his view, the obligation to obey comes only from the Spirit’s internal, immediate action—not from the Word itself.

Similarly, Mr. Towne claims that believers are freed from the Law in all respects—its authority, guidance, and demands. He says it cannot even provide “a beam of light” to instruct or direct us. He argues that since the Law cannot sanctify or subdue sin, it no longer has any power over us.

But by that logic, no outward means—whether the preaching of the Gospel, prayer, hearing the Word, or sacraments—has any power to sanctify or bind the conscience. They say we are only under “grace,” meaning the direct, irresistible movement of the Holy Spirit. Even the grace that dwells habitually in us is not sufficient—only the Spirit’s present and active influence counts.

Libertines in New England have taken this to its logical end. They argue that we should not exhort anyone to believe the Gospel unless we know that person is elect and already has the Spirit. Why? Because outward exhortations, they say, bind no one—not even the elect—unless the Spirit moves them internally. But this contradicts Christ’s command: “Preach the Gospel to every creature.”

They also claim that we are not to pray against all sin, since the old man remains in us throughout this life. That’s no different than what the Pelagians once taught—that no one should be exhorted to duty unless they already have the power to do it. But that would mean Gospel preaching, or Saltmarsh’s own writing on free grace, is itself “legal” and unfit for the New Testament age, since grace doesn’t always accompany literal instruction.

Further Errors of the Antinomian View

↑ Back to top