The Second Appendix:

The Second Appendix:

The Second Appendix, &c.

mighty triumph upon? When Dureus accuſed our famous Whitaker for one or two trivial, verbal mistakes, Whitaker returned him the ſame anſwer I ſhall give you, Bene habet, hic in rebus non vertunturfortunæ ecclefiæ; It is well the cafe of the churchdepends not upon fuch trifles .

For a conclufion; I do feriously warn all men to beware of receiving doctrines ſo deſtructive to the great truths of the goſpel as theſe are. And I do folemnly profeſs I have not deſignedly ſtrainedthem, tocaſt reproach upon him that publiſhedthem; but the matters are ſo plain, that if Mr. Cary willmaintain his poſitions, not only myself, but every intelligentreader, will be easily able to faſten all thoſe odious con-

ſequents 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 faid of Jonah 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 afounderhead, andbetter ſpirit inheaven.

The Second APPENDIX : Giving a brief Account of the Rife and Growth of ANTINOMIANISM; the Deduction of the principal Errors of that Sect: With modeſt and ſeaſonable reflections upon them.

T HE deſign of the following ſheets, caſt in as aMantisfa to the foregoing diſcourſe of Errors, is principally to discharge, and free the free grace of God from thoſe dangerous errors, which fight againſt it under its own colours ; partly to prevent the ſeduction ofsome that ſtagger ; and, laſtly, (though least of all) to vindicate myown doctrine, the ſcope and current whereof, hath always been, and ſhall ever be, to exaltthe free grace ofGod in Chriſt, to draw the vileſt of ſinners to him, and relieve the diſtreſſed confciences of fin-burthened Chriftians.

But, notwithstanding my utmoſt care and caution, ſome havebeen apt to cenſure it, as ifin ſome things it had a tang ofAntinomianiſm : But if my public, or private diſcourſes, be the faithful meſſengers of my judgment andheart, (as I hope they are) nothing canbefound in anyofthem cafting a friendly aſpect upon any of their principles, which I herejuſtly cenſure, as erroneous.

The Second Appendin.

Three things I principallyaim at in this ſhort Appendix.

1. To give the reader the moſtprobable riſe of Antinomianiſm .

2. Anaccountofthe principal errors ofthat fect.

3. To confirm and eſtabliſh Chriſtians against them, by foundreaſons, back'd with ſcripture-authority. And,

I. Of the rife of Antinomianism.

The ſcriptures foreſeeing therewould ariſe ſuch afortof men in the church, as would wax wanton against Chriſt, and turn hisgrace into laſciviouſneſs; hath not only precautionedusin general, to beware of ſuch opinions as corrupt thedoctrine of freegrace. Rom. vi. 1, 2. " Shallwecontinue in fin, thatgrace

66 mayabound?God forbid:" But hath particularly indigitat ed, and marked thoſevery opinions, by which it wouldbe 2bufed, and made abundant proviſion against them; as namely,

1. All lightingand vilifying opinions or expreſſions of the holy law ofGod, Rom. vii. 7, 12 .

2. All opinions and principles, inclining men to a careleſs difregard andneglect of theduties ofobedience, under pretence offree grace, and liberty by Chriſt, James ii . Matth. xxv.

3. Allopinions neglecting or flighting ſanctification, as the evidenceof our juſtification, andrendering it needleſs, or finful 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 ofJohn.

Notwithstanding, ſuch is the wickedneſs ofſome, andweakneſs of others, that in all ages, (eſpecially the laſt paſt, and preſent), men have audaciouſly broken inupon the doctrine of free grace, and notoriouſly violated aud corrupted it, to the great reproach of Chriſt, ſcandal of the world, and hardening of the enemies of reformation.

' Behold, (faith Contzen the • Jefuit, on Matth. xxiv.) the fruit of Proteftantifm, and their

•goſpel-preaching.'

Nothing is more oppoſite to looſeneſs, than the freegrace of God, which teaches us, That denying allungodliness andworldty lufts, weshould livefoberly, righteously andgodly in thisprefent world.

Nor can it without manifeſt violence, be made pliable to ſuchwicked purposes ; and therefore the apoſtle tells us, Jude 4. that this is done by turning the grace of ourGod into lafciviouſneſs; μελαλισθεντες, transferring it, fcil foeda interpretatione, by a corrupt, abuſive interpretation, to fuch uſes and purpoſes as it abhors. No ſuchwanton, licentiousconcluſions canbe inferredfrom the goſpel-doctrines ofgrace and li

OfAntinomianism.

berty, butbywreſting them against their true ſcopeand intent, by the wicked arts and practices ofdeceivers upon them.

The goſpel makes ſin more odious than the law did, anddiſcovers the punishment of it in a more ſevere and dreadfulmanner, than ever it was diſcovered before. Heb. ii. 2, 3.

" For if the word ſpoken by angels was ſtedfaſt, and every " tranfgreffionanddiſobedience, receivedajuſt recompence of " reward; how shallwe eſcape, ifwe neglect ſo great falvati- " on?" It ſhews our obligations to duty to be ſtronger than ever, and our encouragements to holiness greater than ever,

2Cor. vii. 1. andyet corrupt nature will be ſtill temptingmen to corrupt and abuſe it. The more luſcious the food is, the moremen are apt to ſurfeit upon it.

This prevention and abuſe offree grace, and Chriſtian liberty, is juſtly chargeable (though upon different accounts) both upon wickedandgoodmen.

Wickedmencorrupt it deſignedly, thatby entitlingGod to their fins, they might fin themore quietly, and ſecurely. So the devil inſtigated the Heathens to fin against the light, and law of nature, byrepreſenting their

Gods to them as drunken, and laſcivious deities.

So the Nicolaitans, and ſchool of Simon, and after them theGnoſtics, and other Heretics in the very dawning of goſpel-light and liberty, began preſently to looſe the bond of restraint from their luſts, under pretence ofgrace and liberty. The * Etiani blushednot to teach, Thatfin, and perfeverance infin, could hurt the falvation 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 thegoſpel, in the following ages, I had rather mourn over, than recite; and ifwe comedown to thefifteenth century,we ſhall find the Libertines of thoſedays as deeply drenched in this fin, 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 foon carriedthem into, plainly discovered for what intents and purpoſes theywere projected and calculated : and he that reads the preface to thatgrave and learned Mr. Thomas Gataker's book, intituled, God's eye upon Ifrael, will find, That ſome

Antinomians, of our days, are not much behind the worſtand vileft of them.

One ofthem cries out, Away with thelaw, *August, de Hares.Tom. 6. Haref. 54.

+ Galv. adverfus Libert. c. 8.

The Second Appendix. away with the law, it cuts offaman's legs, and then bidshim walk.

Another faith, Itis as poſſiblefor Chrift himselftofin, as fora childofGod tofin.

That ifaman, by the Spirit, know himself to be in the state ofgrace, though he bedrunk, or commit murder, GodJees nofin inhim : With much more of the fame bran, which I will not tranſcribe.

But others there are, whoſejudgments are unhappily tainted, andleavenedwith thoſe looſe doctrines; yet being, inthe main, godly perſons, they dare not take liberty to fin, or live inthe neglect ofknownduties, though their principles too much incline that way; but though they dare not, others will, whoimbibe corrupt notions from them; and the renowned piety of the authors will be no antidote against the danger, but make the poiſon operate the more powerfully, by receiving it in ſuch avehicle. Now it is highly probable, ſuch men as theſe might be charmedinto ſuch dangerous opinions, upon ſuch accounts astheſe:

1. It is like ſome ofthem might havefelt in themselves the anguiſh of a perplexed confcience under fin, andnot beingable to live with theſe terrors ofthe law, and diſmal fears ofconfcience, might too hastily ſnatch at thoſe doctrines which promiſe them relief and eaſe, as I noted before in the fifth Cause ofmy

Treatise ofErrors. And that this is not agueſs at random, will appear from the very title page of Mr. Saltmarſh's book of free grace, where (as an inducement to the reader to ſwallow his Antinomiandoctrine)he ſhews him this curious bait.

It is(faithhe) an experiment ofJesus Christ upononewho hath beeninthe bondage ofa troubled conscience,at times,for thespace ofabout twelve years, till now upon a clearerdiscovery ofJesus

Chriftin thegospel, &c.

2. Others have been induced to eſpouſe theſe opinions from the exceſs of their zeal against the errors of the Papiſts, who have notorioufly corrupted the doctrine of juſtification by free grace; decried imputent, and exalted inherent righteouſneſs above it.

The Papiſts have deſignedly, and induſtriouſſy ſealedupthe ſcriptures from the people, leſt they ſhould theredifcover thoſe ſovereign, and effectual remedies, whichGod hath provided for their diſtreſſed conſciences, in the riches of his own grace, and the meritorious death of Chriſt ; and ſo all their maſſes, pilgrimages, auricular confeffions, with all their dear indulgences, ſhould lie upon theirhandsas ſtale andcheap commodities.

Oh, (ſaid Stephen Gardiner) letnot thisgap of freegrace be opened to the peaple.

But as soon as the light ofreformationhad diſcoveredthe

OfAntinomianism.

freegraceofGod to finners, (which is, indeed, the only effectual remedyofdiſtreſſed confciences) and by the ſame lightthe horrid cheats ofthe man of fin were discovered; all good men, whowere enlightened by the reformation, juttly and deeply abhorred Popery, as the enemy of the grace ofGod, and true peaceofconfcience, and fixed themſelves upon the found and comfortable doctrines of juſtification by faith thro' the alone righteouſneſs ofChriſt.

Meanwhile, thankfully acknowledging, that they which believe, ought alfo to maintaingood works.

But others there were, tranſported by an indiſcreet zeal, who have almoſtbended the graceofGod as far too much the other way, and have bothſpoken and written many thingsveryunbecomingthegraceofGod, andtendingtolooſeneſsandneglect of duty.

3. It is manifeſt, that others of them have beeningulphed, andfuckedintothoſedangerous quickfands ofAntinomianerrors, byſeparating the ſpirit from the written word; ifonce a man pretendthe ſpiritwithout the fcriptures to be his rule, whither willnothis owndeluding fancies carry him,under a vain and finfulpretenceofthe Spirit ?

Inthe year 1528, when Helſar, Traier, and Seekler, were confutedbyHallerus; and their errors about oaths, magiſtrates, andpaedo-baptifm,.weredetected by him, and by Colveus at Bern, thatwhich they had toſay for themſelves, was, That the Spirit taught them otherwise than the letters ofthe Scriptures

Speak. So dangerous it is tofeparatewhatGod hathconjoined, and father our own fanciesuponthe holy Spirit.

4. And it is notunlike, butacomparativeweakness, andinjudiciouſneſs ofmind, meeting with a fervent zeal for Chrift, andhis glory, may induce others toeſpouſe ſuch taking, and plausible, though pernicious doctrines; they are not aware of thedangerous confequents ofthe opinions they embrace, and what looſeneſs may beoccafionedbythem: I ſpeak not of occaſionstaken, butgiven, by ſuchopinions and expreſſions; a goodmanwilldrawexcellent inferences ofduty from the very famedoctrine.

Inſtance that of the ſhortness of time, from whencethe apoſtle infers abſtinence, ſtrictneſs, anddiligence,

1Cor. vii. 29. but theEpicure infers all manner ofdiffolute, and licentious practices. "Letus eat and drink, for to-morrowwe ſhalldie," 1 Cor. xv. 22. The beſtdoctrines are

" this wayliable to abuſe.

Butlet allgoodmenbeware ofſuch opinions and expreffions,asgiveanhandle to wickedmento abuſe thegrace ofGod,

VOL. IV.

The Second Appendix. which haplythe author himself dare not do, andmay strongly hopeothers may notdo: but if the principal willyield it it is in vain to think corrupt nature will not catch at it, andmake avileuſe, anddangerous improvement of it.

For example, If ſuch a principle as this be aſſerted for a truth before the world, That men need notfear that any, or allthefins they commit, foalldo them any hurt; let the author, or anyman in the world, warn, and caution readers (as the Antinomianauthor of that expreffionhath done) not to abuſe this doctrine, it is to no purpoſe: the doctrine itſelf is full of dangerous confequents, and wicked men have the beſt ſkillto infer anddraw them forth, to cheriſh and countenance their luſts ; that which the author might defign for the relief ofthe diſtreſſed, quickly turns itſelf into poiton, inthebowels of the wicked; nor can we excuſe it, by faying any goſpel truth may be thus abuſed; for this is one of that number, but a principle thatgives offeneeto the godly, and encouragementto the ungodly. And ſo much astothe rife andoccafion ofAntinomian errors.

2. Inthe nextplace, let us view some ofthe chiefdoctrines commonly called Antinomian, amongst which there will be found a Πρωτον ψευδος, the radical and most prolific error, from which most ofthe reſt are ſpawned, and procreated.

Error. 1. I shallbeginwith thedangerous mistake oftheAntinomians inthe doctrine ofjustification.

The article of juſti fication is defervedly ſtiled, by our divines, Articulus ftantis, vel cadentis religionis, the very pillar of the Chriſtian religion.

In two things, however, I must do theAntinomians right :

(1.) In acknowledging, that though their errors, aboutjuflification, be great and dangerous, yet they are not so much about the ſubſtance, as about the mode ofa finner's juſtification ; an error far inferior to that of the Papiſts, whodepreſs the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and exalt their own inherent righteouſneſs in the buſineſsofjuftification.

(2.) Iam bound, in charity, tobe. lieve, that fome, amongthem,dohold thoſe errors but ſpeculatively, whilst the truth lies nearer their hearts, and will not fuffer them to reduce theirown opinions into practice. Now as to their errors about juftification, the moſt that I Error 1. have readdomake Fuftification tobe animmanentand

eternal act ofGod; anddo affirm, the elect werejustified before themjelvesor the worldhada being. Others come lower, and affirm, The elect werejustified at the time of Chrift's death. With theſe Dr. Crifp harmonizes.

OfAntinomianism.

Error 2. Thatjuſtificationbyfaith isnomore buta manifeftation to us of what was really done beforewe had abeing.

Hence Mr. Saltmarſh thus defines faith, It is, faith he, a being perfuadedmore or less ofChrist's love to us; ſothat when we believe, that which washid before doth then appear. God (faith another,) cannot charge onefin upon that man who believes this truth, ThatGodlaidhis iniquities upon Chrift.

Error 3. That men ought not to doubtoftheir faith, orqueftion, Whether they believe, or no : Nay, That we ought no more to queſtion our faith, than to queſtion Chrift. Saltm . of FreeGrace, p. 92, 95 Error4. Thatbelievers arenot boundto confeſs ſin, mourn for it, or pray forthe forgivenessofit; becauſe itwas pardoned before it was committed; and pardoned fin, is no fin. See

Eaton's Honeycomb, p. 446, 447.

Error 5. They ſay, ThatGod ſees no ſin inbelievers, whatfoever fins they commit. Some ofthem, as Mr. Town, and Mr. Eaton, ſpeak out and tell us, ThatGodcan fee no adultery, no lying, no blasphemy, no cozening in believers ; for though believers do fall into ſuch enormities, yet all their fins beingpardonedfrometernity, theyare no fins in them. Town's

Affertions, p. 96, 97, 98. Eaton's Honeycomb, chap. 7. p. 136, 137. with others ofa more pernicious character than they.

Error 6. ThatGod is not angry with the elect, nor doth he finite them for their fins; and to ſay that hedoth ſo, is an injurious reflection upon thejuſtice ofGod.

This is avouched generally in all theirwritings.

Error 7. They tell us, That by God's laying our iniquities upon Chrift, hebecame as completely finful as we, and we as completely righteous as Chriſt.

Vide Dr. Crisp, p. 270.

Error 8. Upon the fame ground it is, that they affirm, That believers neednot fear either their own fins, or the fins of others; for that neither their own, nor any other mens fins can do them anyhurt, nor muſt theydo any duty for their own ſalvation, Error 9. Theywill not allow the new covenant to be made properly with us, but with Chrift 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 inthe new covenant; but ſay, They are not conditions on ourpart, but Chrift's ; and thathe repented, believed, and obeyed for us.

Saltmarsh ofFree-grace, p. 126, 127. t u2

The Second Appendix.

Error 10. They ſpeakvery flightingly oftrying ourſelves by marks and ſigns ofgrace.

Saltmarſh often calls ita weak, low, carnalway; but theNew-EnglandAntinomians, or Libertines, call it a fundamental error, to make ſanctification an evidence of juftification ; that it is to light a candle to the fun ; that it darkens our juſtification; and that the darker our fanctification is, the brighter our juftification is.

See their book entitled, Rife, Reign, Error. p. 72. in this breviate, or fummary account of Antinomian doctrines, I have only ſingled out, and touched ſome of their principal mistakes and errors, into which ſome of them run much farther than others.

But I look upon ſuch doctrines to be in themſelves of avery dangerous nature, and the malignity and contagionwould certainly spread much farther into the world than it doth, had not God provided two powerful antidotesto reſiſt the malignity, viz.

1. The ſcope and current of ſcripture.

2. The experience and practiceofthe faints.

(1.) Theſe doctrines runcroſs tothe ſcope and current of the ſcriptures, which conſtantly ſpeak of all unregenerate perfons

(without exception of the very elect themselves, during that ſtate) as children ofwrath, even as others, without Chriſt, and under condemnation.

They frequently diſcoverGod's anger, and tell us hiscaſtigatory rods of affliction are laidupon them for their ſins.

They repreſent ſin as the greatest evil; moſt oppoſite to the glory ofGod, and good of the faints; and are therefore filled with cautionsand threatenings topreventtheir finning.

They call the faints frequently and earnestly, not only to mourn for their fins before the Lord; but to pray for the par don and remiſſionofthem in the blood ofChriſt,

Theygive us a far different account of ſaving faith, anddo not place it in a perfuafion more or less of Chriſt's love to us, or amanifeſtation in our confciences of the actual remiffion of our fins before wehad abeing; but in our receiving Chriſt, as thegoſpel offers him, for righteouſneſs and life.

They frequently call the people of God to the examination and trial oftheir intereſt in Chriſt bymarks and ſigns : and accordingly furnish them with variety ofſuch marks from the divers parts or branches of ſanctification in themselves.

They earnestly, and every where, preſs believers to ſtrictneſs and conftancy in the duties of religion, as the waywherein

Godwouldhave them to walk.

They infer duties from privi leges; and therefore the Antinomian dialect is a wild note,

Of Antinomianism.

which the generality of ſerious Chriſtians do easily distinguiſh fromthe ſcripture-ſtile and language.

(2.) The experience and practice of the faints 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 liviog, or read the hiſtories of dead ſaints, and you ſhall find, that, in their addreſſes toGod, they ſtill bleſs and praiſe him, for that great and wonderful change of ſtate which was made uponthem when they firſt believed in Chriſt, and on their believing paſſed fromdeath to life; freely acknowledging before God, they were before their converfion, equal in fin andmifery with the vileſt wretches in the world : they heartily mourn fortheir daily fins, fear nothingmorethan fin, noafflictions in theworld go ſonear their hearts, as fin doth : they can mourn for the hardness of their hearts, that they canmourn no more for fin. They acknowledge the rods of God, that are upon them, are notonly the evidences of his diſpleaſure against them fortheir fins; 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 fin, humbly and earnestly ſuing for pardon thro theblood of Chriſt.

They are not only ſenſible thatGod fees ſin in them, but that he ſeeth ſuch and ſo great evils in them, asmakes them admire at his patience, that theyare not confumed in their iniquities. They find cauſe enough to ſuſpect their own fincerity, doubt the truth of their faith, and of their graces; and are therefore frequent andſerious inthe trial and examination of their own ſtates, by fcripture marks and ſigns.

They urge the commands and threatenings, as well as the promiles, upon their own hearts, to promote ſanctification ; excite themtelves to duty and watchfulness againſt ſin; they alſo encourage themselves by the rewards of obedience, knowing their labour is not in vain inthe Lord: and all this while they look not for that in themselves, which is only to be found in Chriſt; nor for that in the law, which is only to be found in the gofpel; nor for that on earth, which is only to be found inheaven : this is the way that they take. And he that ſhall tell them their fins can do them no hurt, or their duties do them nogood, ſpeaks tothem, not only as aBarbarian, ina language theyunderſtandnot, but in ſuch alanguage as their fouls deteſt and abhor.

Moreover, the zeal and love of Chriſt and his glory, being kindled in their ſouls, they have no patience to hear

The Second Appendix. ſuchdoctrines asſogreatlyderogate from his glory, under a pretence ofhonouring and exaltinghim: itwounds and grieves their veryhearts to fee theworld hardened intheir prejudices againſt reformation, andagap opened to alllicentiouſneſs.

But, notwithstanding thisdouble antidote and ſecurity, we find, bydaily experience, ſuch doctrines too much obtaining in the profeſſing world. For my own part, he that fearches my heart and reins, is witneſs, I would rather chuſe to have my right-hand wither, and my tongue rot within my mouth, than to ſpeakone word, or write oneline, tocloud or diminish the freegrace ofGod. Let it ariſe, and ſhine inits meridian glory. None owes more to it, orexpects more from it, than

Ido; andwhat I shallwrite inthis controversy, is to vindicate it from thoſe doctrines and opinions, which, under pretence of exalting it, do really militate against it. To begin therefore with the firſt and leading error.

Error I.

That thejuftification offinners isan immanent and eternal act of God, not only preceeding all acts offin, but the very existence of the finner himself, and so perfectly abolishing fin in ourperfons, that we are as clean fromfin as Chrift himself, αναμάρτητοι, as fome of them have ſpoken. To flop the progreſs of this error, I ſhall, 1. Laydownthe ſentence of the orthodox about it.

2. Offer ſome reasons for the refutation of it.

(1.) That which I take to be the truth agreedupon, and afferted by found and reformed divines, touching goſpeljuftification, isby them made clear to the world, in theſe following ſcriptural diſtinctions of it.

Juſtification maybe confidered under atwofold refpector habitude.

1. According toGod's eternal decree ; or, 2. According tothe executions thereof intime.

1.According toGod's eternal decree and purpoſe; andin this reſpect grace is faid tobe " givenus in Chriſt before the " world began," 2 Tim. i. 19. andwe are ſaid to be pre- " deſtinated to the adoption of children by Jeſus Chrift, "

Eph. i. 5.

2.According totheexecution thereof intime, ſo they again diftinguish it, by confidering it two ways :

1. In its impetration byChriſt.

2. In its application to us.

That very mercyor privilege of juſtification, which God, fromall eternity, purely out of hisbenevolent love, purpoſed anddecreed for his elect, was alſo in time purchased for them

OfAntinomianism.

bythe death ofChriſt, Rom. v. 9, 10. wherewe arefaid tobe " juftifiedby hisblood;" and he issaid tohave " madepeace

" through theblood ofhis croſs, to reconcileallthings tohim- " ſelf," Col. i. 20. to be " delivered for our offences, and raiſed

" again for our juftification," Rom. iv. 25. Once more, " That "Godwas in Chriſt reconciling the world untohimself, not " imputing their treſpaſſes," 2Cor. v. 19. God the Fatherhad, in thedeath of Chriſt, a foundation of reconciliation, whereby hebecame propitious to his elect, that he might abſolve and justify them. Again, 2. It must be conſidered in its application to us, which application is made in this life at the time ofour effectual calling.

When an elect finner is united to Chriſt by faith, and to patſeth from death to life, from a ſtate of condemnation into a ſtate of abſolution and favour; this is our actual justification,

Rom. v. 1. Acts xiii, 39. John v. 24. which actual juſtification isagainconfidered two ways :

1. Univerſally and in general, as tothe ſtate of the perfon.

2. Specially and particularly, as to the acts of fin.

As foon as we are received into communion with Chriſt, and hisrighteoufneſs is imputedbyGod, and received by faith, immediately we paſs from a ſtate ofdeath and condemnation toa ftate of life and juſtification, and all fins alreadycommitted, are remitted without exception or revocation; and not only fo, but a remedy is given us inthe righteouſneſs of Chriſt, againſt fins tocome and though theſe ſpecialand particular fins weafterward fall into,doneed particular pardons ; yet, by renewed acts offaith and repentance, the believer applies tohimſelf therighteousness of Chrift, andthey are pardoned.

Again, they carefully diftinguish betwixt, 1. Its application byGod to our perfons. And,

2. Its declaration, or manifeſtation in us, and to us.

Which manifeſtation, or declaration, is either, 1. Private, in the confcience of a believer ; or,

2. Public, at the bar of judgment.

And thus juftification is many ways diftinguiſhed. And, notwithstanding all this, it is ſtill actus indiviſus, an undivided act, not on our part, for it is iterated in many acts ; but on God'spart, who at once decreed it; and on Chriſt's part, who byone offering purchaſed it, and, at thetime of our vocation, univerſallyapplied it, as to the ſtate of the perfon justified ; andthat ſo effectually, as no future ſin ſhall bring that perfon anymore under condemnation.

Inthis ſentenceor judgment the generalityof reformed or-

The SecondAppendix. thodoxdivines are agreed; and thewantofdiſtinguiſhing, (as they, according to ſcripture, have distinguiſhed) hath led the Antinomians into this firſt error about juſtification, and that error hath led them into the moſt of the other errors. That this doctrine of theirs (which teaches that men are justified actuallyand completely, before they havea being) is an error, and bath no folid foundation to ſupport it, maybeevidenced by theſe three reaſons.

1. Becauſe it is irrational.

2. Becauſe it is unſcriptural.

3. Because it is injurious toChriſt andthe souls of men.

Reason 1. It is irrational to imagine, thatmen are actually justified before they haveabeing, by animmanent act or decree ofGod.

Manythingshavebeenurgeduponthis account, toconfute anddestroy this fancy, and much more may be rationally urged againſt it: let the following particularsbe weighed in thebalance of reaſon.

1. Canwe rationallyſuppoſe, thatpardonand acceptance can be affirmed or predicated ofthat which is not ? Reaſon tells us,

Non entis nullafunt accidentia; that which isnot, can neither becondemned norjuſtified: but beforethe creation, or before aman's particular conception, he was not, and therefore could not in his own perſon be the ſubject ofjuſtification.

Where there is no law, there isno fin; where there is nofin, there is no punishment ; where there is neither fin nor punishment, therecanbenoguilt ; (for guilt is anobligation topunishment); and where thereis neither law nor fin, nor obligation to puniſhment, there canbe no juſtification. He that is not capableof a charge, is not capable ofa diſcharge.

What remains then, but that either the elect muſt exiſt from eternity, or be juſtified intime ? It istrue, future beingsmaybe conſidered, as inthe purpoſe and decreeofGodfrom alleternity, oras in the intention of Chriſt, who died intentionally for the ſins of the elect, and roſe again for their juſtification ; but neither the decree of God, nor the death of Chriſt takes place upon any man for his actual juſtification, until he perſonally exiſt : for the object of juſtification, is a ſinner actuallyungodly, Rom. iv. 5. but ſonoman is, or canbe ſo from eternity. In election, men are confidered without reſpect to good or evil done by them, Rom. ix. 11. not ſo in actual juſtification.

2. In juſtificationthere isa change made uponthe ſtate of the perſon, Rom. v. 8, 9. 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, 11. Byjuſtificationmenpaſs from a fiate of death to a ſtate of life, John v. 24. but the decree orpurpoſe ofGod,initſelf,makes noſuchactual

Of Antinomianism.

change upon the ſtate of any perſon: ithath indeed the nature ofan univerſal cauſe ; butan univerſal cauſe produceth nothing, without particulars.

If our ſtatebe changed, it is not by an immanent act ofGod: hence no fuchthing doth tranfire. Amere velle non punire, or intention tojustify us indue

time and order, makes no change on our ſtate, till that come, and the particular cauſes have wrought. A prince may have apurpoſe or intention topardona law-condemned traitor, and free him from that condemnationindue time; but whilft the law that condemned him, ſtands in its full force and power against him, he is notjuſtified or acquitted, notwithstanding thatgracious intention, but ftands ſtill condemned.

So it is with us, tillby faith we are implanted into Chriſt.

It is true, Chriſt is a furety for allhis, and hath fatisfied thedebt, he is a commonhead to all his, asAdam was to all his children, Rom. v. 19. but as the fin of Adam condemns none but thoſe that are in him ; ſo the righteousness ofChriſt actuallyjuſtifies none but thoſe that are in him; and noneare actually in him but believers: therefore, till we believe, no actual change paſſeth, orcanpaſs upon our ſtates.

So that this hypotheſis is contrary to reaſon.

Reafon 2. As this opinion is irrational, ſo it is unfcriptural.

For, 1. The ſcripture frequently ſpeaks of remiſſionor justification as a future act, andthereforenot from eternity, Rom. iv.

23, 24. " Now itwas not written for his fake alone, that itwas " imputed to him ; but for us alſo, towhom it ſhall be impu- " ted, ifwe believe onhim," &c. And, Gal. iii. 8. " The ſcrip- " tures foreſeeing thatGodwouldjustify the Heathen through " faith, preachedbefore the goſpelunto Abraham."

The gofpelwas preached manyyears before the Gentiles werejuſtified ; but if they werejustified from eternity, how was the goſpel preached before theirjuſtification ?

2. The ſcripture leaves allunbelievers, without diſtincttion, undercondemnation andwrath.

The curse ofthe law lies upon them all tilltheybelieve, John iii. 18. " He that believeth in " him is notcondemned; buthe that believeth not, iscondem- " ned already."

And, Eph. ii. 3. 12, 13. Thevery elect themſelves were bynature the children ofwrath, evenas others. They were at that time, or during that ſtateofnature, (which takes inallthatwhole ſpacebetwixt their conception and converfion), without Chrift, without hope, withoutGodin the world.

But, if this opinion be true, that the elect werejustified from eter VOL. IV.

The Second Appendix. nity, or from the time ofChrift's death, then itcannot be true, that the elect by nature are children ofwrath,withoutChrift, without hope, withoutGod in the world; except theſe two mayconfift together, (which is abſolutely impoſſible), that the children of wrath, without God, Chrift, orhope, are actually diſcharged from theirfins anddangers, bya free and gracious act ofjuflification.

Objection. But doth not the ſcripture ſay, Rom. viii. 33.

"Who ſhall lay any thing tothe charge ofGod's elect ?" If none cancharge the elect, thenGodhathdischarged them.

Solution.God hath not actuallydischargedthem, as they are elect, but as they arejustified eleet; for ſo runsthe text, and clears itself in the very next words, It is God thatjustifieth.

When God hath actually justified anelect perſon, none can charge him.

(3.) 'Tis croſs to the Scriptureorder ofjuſtification,which placesitnotonlyafterChriſt'sdeath intheplace laſt cited,Rom. viii. 33. but alſo after our actual vocation; asis plain, ver. 30.

Moreover,whomhedidpredeftinate, themhe alſocalled; and "whom he called, themhe alſojuſtified; andwhom hejuſti- " fied, them he alſo glorified."

Is itabſurd to placevocation before predeſtination, orglorificationbeforejustification ? Sure, then, itmustbe abſurd, alſo, toplacejuſtification before vocation; the one, as well as the other, confounds andbreaks the fcripture order: You may as well ſay, men ſhall beglorified, thatwereneverjustified; asſaytheymaybejustifiedbeforethey believed, orexiſted. Sothat you feethenotion ofjuſtification from eternity, orbefore our actual existence,andeffectual vocation, is a notionas repugnantto ſacred ſcripture, as it istofound reafon.

Reafon 3. And as itisfound repugnant to reaſon, and ſcripture, ſo it is highly injurious toJeſus Chrift and thefouls of men.

(1.) It greatly injures the LordJesus Chriſt, and robs him ofthegloryofbeing our Saviour; for if the elect bejuſtified from eternity, Chriſt cannot be the Saviour of the elect, as moſt aſſuredlyhe is; for ifChriſt ſave them,he muft favethem asperſons ſubject to periſhing,either defacto, or dejure.

But ifthe elect werejustified from eternity, theycould, in neither reſpect, be ſubject to periſhing: Forhe thatwas eternallyjuftified, was never condemned, norcapable ofcondemnation ; and he that never was, nor could be condemned, could never be fubject to periſhing; andhe that never was, nor couldbe fubject toperiſhing, cannevertruly,andproperlybeſaidtobeſaved.

OfAntinomianism

If itbe faid the elect were not justified till the death of Chriſt; I demand, then, what became of all them that died beforethedeathof Chriſt ? Iftheywere not justified, they could not be glorified; for this is fure, from Rom. viii. 30. that the whole numberof the glorified in heaven is made up offuch as were justified on earth: Let men take heed, therefore, left, under pretence of exaltingChriſt, they bereave him oftheglory ofbeing the Saviour ofhis elect.

23-14 (2.) It bereaves him of another glorious royalty.

The ſcripture every where makes ourjuſtification the reſult and fruit of the meritorious death of Chriſt, Rom. iii. 24, 25. Rom. viii. 3, 4. 2 Cor. v. 19, 20.Gal. iii. 13, 14. Eph. i. 17. but if men were justified from eternity, how is their justification the fruit and freſult oftheblood ofthe croſs ? as it plainly appears, from theſe ſcriptures, tobe. Nay, P (3.) This opinion leaves no place for the fatisfaction ofjustice by theblood of Chriſt, for our fins. Hedid not die according to this opinion, to payourdebts. And here Antinomianiſm and Socinianiſm meet, and congratulate each other : For if therewere nodebts owing to the justice ofGod from eternity,

Chriſtcould notdie topaythem; and it is manifeſt there were no debts due toGod'sjuſtice from eternity, on the account of hiselect, if the elect were from eternity justified; unless you will ſay, a perſon maybe juſtified, andyet his debts not paid :

For all juftificationdiſſolves the obligation to punishment.

ل If there wereany debt for Chrift to pay, byhis blood, they muſt either be his own debts, or the elects. To ſay they were his own, is ablafphemous reproach tohim ; and, according to this opinion, we cannot say they were the elects; for if they were juſtified from eternity, their debts were diſcharged, and their bonds cancelled from eternity. So that this opinion leaves nothing to thebloodofChrift todiſcharge, or make fatisfaction for.

(4.) And as it hath been proved tobe highly injurious to the Lord Jeſus, ſo it is greatly injurious to the ſouls of men, as it naturally leads them into all thoſe wild and licentious opinions, which naturally flow from it, as from the radical, prolific error, whence most of the reſt derive themselves, as will immediately appear, in Error II. That justification by faith is no more but themanifestation to us of what was really, and actually donebefore. Or abeing perfuaded more or less of Christ's love to us. Andthat

Xx 2

The Second Appendix. when perſons do believe, that whichwas hid before, doth then only appear to them.

Refutation As the former error dangerously corrupts the doctrine of juftification, ſo this corrupts the doctrine of faith; and thereforedeſerves to be exploded by all Chriſtians .

That there is a manifeſtation, and discovery of the ſpecial love of God, and our own ſaving concernment, in the death of Chrift, toſome Chriſtians, at ſome times, cannotbe denied.

St. Paul could say, Gal. ii. 20, 21. Chriſt lovedhim, and gave himſelf for him ; but to say that this is the justifying act of faith, whereby a finner paſſes from condemnation and death, into the ſtate of righteousness and life; this I must lookupon as a great error; and that for the following reaſons :

Reason 1.

Becauſe there be multitudes of believing and juſtified perſons in the world, who have no fuch manifeſtation, evidence, or aſſurance, that God laid their iniquities upon Chriſt, and that he died to put awaytheir ſins; but daily conflict with ſtrong fears anddoubts, whether it be ſo, or no.

There are but few among believers, that attain ſuch aperfuafion, and manifeſtation, as Antinomians make to be all that is meant in ſcripture by juſtification through faith.

Manythouſand new-born Chriſtians live as the new-born babe, which neither knows its own eſtate, or inheritance, to which it is born.

Vivit, et eft vita neſcius ipfefua.

" Not conscious of its life, it lives."

Afoul maybe in Chriſt, and ajustified ſtate, without any ſuch perfuafion, or manifeſtation, as they here ſpeak of, Ifa. 1. 10. and if any ſhall aſſert the contrary, he will condemn the greateſt part of the generation ofGod's children. Now that cannot be the ſaving and juſtifying act of faith, which is not to be found in multitudes of believing andjustified perfons.

But manifeſtation, or a perſonal perfuafion of the love of God to a man's foul, or that Chritt died for him, and all his iniquities are thereby forgiven him, is not to be found in multitudes of believing and juſtified ſouls.

Therefore ſuch aperfuafion, or manifeſtation, is notthat ſaving justifying faith, which the ſcripture ſpeaks of.

That faithwhich only juſtifies the perſon of a finner before God, muft neceffarily be found in all juſtified believers, or elſe aman may be justified, without the leaſt degree of justifying faith, and conſequently it is not faithalone, bywhich aman is juſtified beforeGod.

Reason 2. That cannot be the juſtifying act of faith, which

Of Antinomianism.

isnot conftantand abiding, with the juſtified perſon, but comes and goes, is frequentlyloft and recovered, the ſtate of the per- - ſon ſtill remaining the fame. Andfuch contingent things are theſe perfuafions and manifeſtations: they come and go, are won and loft, the ſtate of the perſon ſtill remaining the ſame.

Job was as much a juſtified believer when he complained that Godwas his enemy, as when he could ſay, I know that " my Redeemer liveth."

The ſame maybe ſaid ofDavid, He- - man, Afaph, and the greatest number of justified believers re-

corded in the ſcripture.

There be two things belonging to a _juſtified ſtate, (1.) That which is effential and infeparable, to wit, faith uniting the foul to Chriſt.

(2.) That which is contingent and ſeparable, to wit, evidence, and perfuafion of our intereſt in him.

Thoſe believers that walk in darkness, and have no light, have yet a real, ſpecial intereſt inGod as their

God, Ifa. 1. 10. Here, then, you find believers without perfuafion, or manifeſtation ofGod's love tothem ; which could never be,

if juſtifying faith confitted ina perſonal perfuafion, manifeftation, or evidence of the love of God, and pardon of fin to a man's foul.

That cannot be the juſtifying faith ſpoken of in ſcripture, which a juſtified perſon may live in Chriſt without, and be as much in a ſtate of pardon, and acceptation with God, when he wants it, as when he hath it.

But ſuch is perfuafion, evidence, or manifeſtation of a man's particular intereſt in the love of God, or the pardonof his ſins.

Therefore this is not thejuſtifying faith the ſcripture ſpeaks of.

Reason 3. That only is justifying, ſaving faith, which gives the foul right and title to Chriſt, and theſaving benefitswhich come by Chriſt upon all the children of God. Now, it is not perfuafion that Chriſt is ours, but acceptation of him, that gives us intereſt in Chriſt, and the ſaving benefits and privileges of the children of God, John i. 12. "But as many as received " him, to them gave he power to become the fons ofGod;

" even to them that believe on his name."

So that unless the Antinomians can prove, that receiving of Chriſt, and perſonal perfuafion of pardon, be one and the ſame thing, andconfequently, that all believers in the world are perfuaded, or aſſuredthat their finsare pardoned ; and reject from the number of believers all tempted, deſerted, dark and doubting Chriſtians; thisperfuafionthey ſpeak of, is not, nor can it be the act of faith, which juſtifies the perſon ofa finner beforeGod.

That which I think led ourAntinomians into this error, was an unfound, and unwary definition of faith, which, intheir youth, theyhad imbibed from their catechisms, and other ſyſtems, paf-

The Second Appendix. fing without contradiction, or fcruple in thoſe days; which though itwereamistake, andhath abundantlybeen proved to be fo in latter days; yet ourAntinomians will not part with a notion ſo ſerviceable tothe ſupport of the darling opinion of eternal juſtification.

Reafon4. Amanmaybe ſtrongly persuaded of the love of God tohis foul, and ofthe pardon ofhis fins, andyet haveno intereſt in Chriſt, nor be in apardoned ſtate.

This was the cafe of the Pharifees, and others, Luke xviii. 9. Rev. iii. 17. therefore this perfuafion cannotbe justifying faith.

If aperfuafion be that which justifies the perfuaded perfon, then the Pharifees and Laodiceans were justified. Oh ! how common andeaſy is it for the worſt of mentobe ſtrongly perfuadedof their good condition, whilst humble, ſerious Chriſtians doubt and ſtagger ? I know not what ſuch doctrine as this is useful for, but tobegetand ſtrengthen that ſinofpreſumption,which fends down multitudes to hell, out of the profeffing world:

For what is more common amongst the moſt carnal and unſanctified part ofthe world, notonlyſuch asare merely moral, but eventhe moſt flagitious and prophane, than to ſupport themſelvesby falſe perfuafions of their good eſtate ? When they are aſked, in order to their conviction, whathopes offalvationthey have, and how they are founded? their common answer is,

Chriſt died for ſinners, andthat they are perfuaded, that whateverhe hath done for anyother, he hathdone it for them as well as others : but fuch a perfuafion cometh not of him that called them, and is ofdangerous conſequence.

Reafon 5. This doctrine is certainly unfound, becauſe itconfounds the distinction betwixtdogmatical and ſaving faith; and makes it all one, to believe an axiom or propofition, and tobelieve ſavingly in Chriſt toeternal life. What is it tobelieve thatGod laid our iniquities upon Chriſt, more than the mere aſſent ofthe underſtandingto a ſcripture axiom, or propofition, without any conſent of the will, to receive Jeſus Chriſt, as the gofpel offers him ? And this is no more thanwhat any unregenerate perſon may do; yea, thevery devils themselves affentto the truth of ſcripture axioms or propoſitions as well as men,

James ii. 19. " Thou believeſt there is one God, thou doſt well; the devils alſo believe and tremble."

What is more than a ſcripture axiom or propoſition ? " God laid the iniqui- " ties of us all upon Chriſt," Iſa, liii. 6. And yet (faith Dr.

Crifp, p. 296.) Godcannot charge one fin upon that man that believes this truth, That God laid his iniquities upon Christ.

The affent of the underſtanding may be often given to a

OfAntinomianism.

fcripture-propofition, whilft the heart and will remain carnal, and utterly averſe toJeſus Chriſt.

Imay believedogmatically, that the iniquities ofmenwere laid upon Chriſt, and perfuade myſelf preſumptively, that mine, as well as other mens, were laiduponhim; and yet remain a perfect ſtranger to all ſaving union and communion with him.

Reason 6. This opinion cannot be tsue, becauſe it takes away the only ſupport that bears up the foul of a believer in times of temptation anddefertion.

For how will you comfort fuch adiſtreſſed ſoul that faith, and faith truly, I have no perfuafion thatChriſt is mine, or that my fins are pardoned; but I am heartily willing tocaft my poог fin-burthened foul upon him, that he may be mine ; I do not certainly know that he died intentionally for me, but I lie at his feet, cleave to him, wait atthedoor of hope ; I ſtay and truſt uponhim, though I walk indarkness, andhaveno light.

Now let fuch doctrine as this be preached to afoul in this con dition (andwe maybe ſure 'tis the condition ofmany thousands belonging to Chriſt) I fay, bring this doctrine to them, and tell them, that unless they be perfuaded of the love of God, andthatGod laid their iniquities on Chriſt, except they have fomemanifeſtation that their perſons werejustified from eternity, their accepting ofChriſt, conſent of their wills, waiting at his feet, &c. fignifies nothing; if theybelieve not that their particular fins were laid upon Chriſt, and are pardoned to them byhim, they are ſtill unbelievers, and have no part or portion in him.

Whatever pretences of ſpiritual comfort and relief theAntinomian doctrine makes, you fee by this it reallydeprives a very great, if not the greateſt number of God's people oftheir beſt and ſweetest relief in days ofdarkneſs and ſpiritual diſtreſs.

So that this doctrine which makes manifeſtation and afſurance the very effence of juſtifying faith, appears hereby to beboth a falſe and very dangerous doctrine. And yet there is as much, or more, danger to the fouls ofmen, in their

Error. 3. That men ought not to doubt of their faith, or question whether they believe or no.

Nay, that they ought no more to question theirfaith, than to question Chriſt.

Refutation. What an easyway to heaven is theAntinomian way ? Were it but as true and ſafe to the foul, as it is eaſyand pleaſing to the flesh, who would not embrace it ? What a charm ofthedevil isprepared in thoſe two propofitions ? Be but perfuadedmore or leſs ofChriſt's love to thy foul (faith Mr. Saltmarſh) and that's juſtifying faith.

Here's a ſnare of the devillaid for thefouls ofmen. Andthen (2.) to make it faft

The Second Appendix. and fure upon the foul, and effectually toprevent the diſco. very of their error, tell them they need no more to doubt or queſtion their faith, than toqueſtion Chriſt, and the work is done to all intents.

Now that this is an error, and a verydangerous one, will appear by the following reafons.

Reason 1. The questioning and examining ofour faith, is a commanded ſcripture-duty, 2 Cor. xiii. 5. "Examine your

" ſelves, whether ye be in the faith ; prove your ownſelves," c. And 2 Pet. i. 10. " Give diligence to make your calling

" and election ſure.

Let him that thinketh he ſtandeth, take " heed left he fall." I Cor. X. 12. The second epistle of John, ver. 8. " Look to yourſelves, that we lofe not the things which 66 we have wrought :" With multitude of other ſcriptures, recommending holy jealousy, ſerious ſelf-trial and examination ofour faith, as the unquestionable duties ofthe people ofGod.

But ifwe ought to question our faith no morethan we ought to queſtion Chriſt, away then with all ſelf-examination, and diligence tomake our calling and election fure; for where there isnodoubt nordanger, there's no place or room for examinati. on, 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, thanyou do to queſtion, whether there be a Chriſt, or whether he ſhed his blood for the remiffion of any man's fins ?

Reason. 2. This is averydangerouserror, and itis the more dangerous, becauſe it leaves no way to recover a prefumptuous ſinner out ofhis dangerous mistakes ; but confirms and fixes him in them, to the great hazard of his eternal ruin.

It cuts off allmeans of conviction or better information, and nails them faſt to the carnal ſtate in which they are.

Accordingto this doctrine, 'tis impoſſible for a man to think himſelf ſomething, when he is nothing; or to be guilty ofſuch a parallogiſm and cheat, put by himselfupon his own soul, Jam. ii. 22. this, in effect, bids a man keep on right or wrong; he is fure enough ofheaven, ifhe be but ſtronglyperfuaded that Chrift died for him, and he ſhall come thither at last.

Certainly this was notthe counſel Chriſt gave to the ſelf-deceived Laodiceans, Rev. iii. 17, 18, but instead of diffuading them from ſelf-jealouſy and fufpicion of their condition, whether their faith and ftate were fafe or not, he rather counſels them tobuy eye-ſalve, that is, to labour after better information of the true ftate and

OfAntinomianism.

conditiontheywere in, and not caſt away their fouls by falſe perfuafions and vain confidences.

Reason 3. This doctrine cannot be true, becauſe it ſuppoſes every perfuafion, or ſtrong conceit of a man's own heart, to beas infallibly ſure and certain, as the very fundamental doctrines of Chriftianity. No truth in the world can be ſurerthan this, that Jesus Chriſt died for finners. "This is a faithful ſay- " ing, and worthy of all acceptation," I Tim. i. 15. This is a foundation-ſtone, a tried, precious corner-ſtone, a fure foundation laid byGod himself, Ifa. xxviii. 16. and ſhall the ſtrong conceitsand confidences of men's hearts vie and compare, in point of certainty, with it? As well may probable, and merely conjectural propoſitions, compare with axioms that are ſelfevident, or demonftrative arguments that leave no doubts behind them.

Knowwe not, that the heart is deceitful above all things, the moſt notorious cheat and impoſtor in the world, Jer. xvii. 9. ? Does it not deceive allthe formal hypocrites in the world, in this very point ? Andſhall every strong conceit and preſumptuous confidence, begotten of Satan by a deceitful heart, and nurſed up by ſelf-love, paſs without any examination or fufpicion for as infallible and aſſured a truth, as thatJeſus

Chriſtcame into the world to ſave ſinners ? The Lord ſweep thatdoctrine outof the world by reformation, which is like to ſweep ſo many thouſand fouls into hell by a remedileſs ſelfdeception.

Error. 4. The fourth Antinomian error before-mentioned, was this, That believers are not bound to confess theirfins, or prayfor thepardon of them ; because theirfins were pardoned before they were committed ; andpardonedfinisnofin.

Refutation. Ifthis be truedoctrine, then it willjustify and makegood fuch conclufions and inferences as theſe, which neceffarilyflowfrom it : viz.

1. That there is no ſin in believers.

2. Or ifthere be, the evil is very inconfiderable. Or, 3. Whatever evil is in it, it is not the will ofGod that they ſhould either confefs it, mourn over it, or pray for the remiffion ofit; whatever he requires ofothers, yet they needtakeno notice of it, ſo as to afflict their hearts for it'; God hath exempted them from fuch concernments :

There's nothing but joy to a believer, faith Mr. Eaton.

But neither of theſe conclufions are either true or tolerable; therefore neither is the principle ſowhich yieldeth them.

VOL . IV.

The Second Appendix.

(1.) It is not true or tolerable to affirm, that there isno fin in a Leliever, 1John i. 18. " If we say we have no fia, we deceive ourſelves, and the truth isnot in us. There is

" notajuſtman upon earth, thatdoeth good and fioneth not,"

Eccl. vii. 20.

In many things we offend all," James iii. 2.

The fcriptures plainly affirm it, and the univerſal experience ofall the faints fadly confirms it. 'Tis true, thebloodofChrift hath taken away the guilt of fin, fo that it ſhall notcondemn believers ; and the fpirit offanctification hath taken away the dominion of fin, ſo that itdoth not reign over believers ; but nothing, except glorification, utterly destroys the existence of fin inbelievers.

The acts offin are our acts, and not Chrift's; and the ſtain andpollution ofthoſe finful acts, are the burthens and infelicities of believers, even in their juſtified ſtate.

Dr.

Crifp indeed in, p. 270, 271. calls that objection(I fuppoſehe means diftinction betwixtthe guilt of fin and ſin itſelf) a fimple objection, and tells us, the very fin itſelf, as well as the guilt of it, paſſed off from us, and was laid upon Chrift : So that speakingofthe fins ofblafphemy, murder, theft, adultery,

Iying, &c. From thattime(laith he) that they were laidupon Chrift, thou ceaſeſt to be atranfgreffor.

Ifthou hast part in the Lord Chrift, all theſe tranfgreffions ofthine become actually thetranfgreffions ofChriſt.

So that now thou art notan idolater, or perfecutor, a thief, a murderer, and an adulterer, thou art not a finful perfon; Chriſtis made that veryfinfulness before God, &c. Such expreſſionsjuſtly offend and grieve the hearts of Chriſtians, and expoſe Chriftianity to ſcornand contempt.

Was itnot enough thatthe guilt ofour finwas laidonhim, but wemuſt imagine alſo, thatthe thing itſelf, fin, with all thedeformity and pollution ſhouldbe effentially transferred fromus to Chrift ? No, no. After we are justified, fin dwelleth in us,

Rom. vii. 17. warreth in us, and bringsus into captivity, ver.

23. burthens and oppreſſes our very fouls, ver. 24. Methinks I neednot stand to provewhat I ſhouldthink no found experienced

Chriſtiandares to deny, that there is much ſin ſtill remaining in the perſons of thejustified. He thatdares todeny it, hath little acquaintance with the nature of fin, and of his own heart.

(2.) It is neither truenor tolerable toſay, there is noconfiderable evil inthe fins of believers, deſerving a mournful confeffion or petition for pardon. The desert of fin is hell; 'tis an artifice ofSatan todraw mento fin,byperfuadingthem there is no great evil in it; butnone except fools will believe it.

Fools, indeed, make a mock of fin; but all that underſtand

OfAntinomianism.

either the intrinfice vil of it, or the ſad and diſmal effects producedby it, are far from thinking ita lightor inconfiderable evil.

The ſins, evenofbelievers, greatlywrong and offendtheir God, Pfal.li. 4. and is that a light thing with us? They interrupt and clog our communion with God, Rom. vii. 21 .

They grieve the good Spirit of God, Eph. iv. 30. Certainly theſe areno inconfiderable miſchiefs.

(3.) Now if there be ſin in believers, and ſo much evil in their fins (neither ofwhich anyfober Chriſtian willdeny) 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 themtheſe are none oftheir concernments, and that he expects not theſe things from juſtified perfons; but that theſe are duties properly and only belonging to other men. But on the contrary, you find the whole current of ſcripture running ſtronglyand conſtantly indirect oppoſition to ſuch idle and fin. fulnotions, For, (1.)Hehath plainlydeclared ittobe his will, that his people ſhould confefs their fins before him, and ſtrongly connected theirconfeffions with their pardons, 1.John v. 9. andfrequently ſuſpends from them thecomfortableſenſeofforgiveneſs, tilltheir hearts be brought to this duty, Pfal. xxxii. 5. compared with verſe 3, 4. themore to engage them to this duty, by the ſenſible eaſe and comfortattending and following it.

(2.) He alſo enjoins itupon them, That they mourn for their fins, Ifa. xxii. 12. expreſſes his greatdelight in contrition and brokenneſs of ſpirit for fin; Iſa. lxvi . 2. "To this man will I " look, eventohim thatis poor, andofa contrite fpirit." Chrift himſelfpronounces ableſſing uponthem that mourn, Mat. v. 4.

JuſtifiedPaul mournfully confefſeshis former blafphemies, perſecutions, and injuries done against Chriſt, 1Tim. i. 13. So did

Ezra, Daniel, and other eximious faints.

Object. Yes, fayſome, theydid indeed confeſs their finscommittedbefore their juſtification, but not their afterfins.

Reply.According to Antinomian principles, Iwould demand, Ifall the elect were juſtified from eternity, what fins any of - them could confefs which theyhad committed before theirjuftification ? Or, if they werejustified from the time of Chrift's death, what were the fins anyof us have to confefs who had notabeing, and therefore had not actually finned long after thedeath ofChrift ? But I hope nonewilldeny,thatthe mournYyz

The Second Appendix. ful complaints the apostle makes for fin, Rom. vii. 23, 24. were after he was a fanctified andjuſtified perſon.

(3.) It is not the will ofChriſt toexempt anyjuſtified perſon upon earth, from the duty of praying frequentlyand fervently for the remiffionofhis fins.

This the moſt eminent ſaints upon earth have done.

The greatest favouritesofheaven have freely confeffed, and heartily prayed for the remiffion of fin, Dan. ix. 4, 19.

And that the goſpel gives us no exemption from thisduty, appears byChriſt's injunction ofit uponallhis people,

Mat. vi. 12.

Error 5. To givecountenance totheformer error, they ſay, That Godfees nofin in believers, whatsoeverfins they commit ; and ſeek a covert for this error from Numb. xxiii. 21. and Jer.

1. 20. In the former place it is ſaid by Balaam, "He hath not " beheld iniquityinJacob, nor ſeenperverſeneſs inIfrael." And inthe other place it is faid, " In thosedays, and in that time,

" faith the Lord, theiniquityof Ifrael ſhallbe fought for, and " there ſhall be none; and the fins of Judah, and they ſhall

" not be found: for I will pardon them, whom I reſerve."

Refutation. Now that this opinion of the Antinomians is erroneous, will appear four ways.

1. By its repugnancy toGod's omniſcience.

2. By its inconſiſtency with his difpenfations.

3. By its want of a ſcripture-foundation.

4. By its contradictorineſs to their other principles.

It is true, and we thankfully acknowlege it, thatGod ſeen no ſin in believers, as ajudge ſees guiltinamalefactor, tocondemn him for it; that is a fure and comfortable truth for us : butto ſayhe ſees no ſininhis children, as adiſpleaſed father, to correct and chaſten them for it, is an aſſertion repugnant to ſcripture, andvery injurious toGod.

For, (1.) It is injurious to God's omniscience, Pfal. cxxxix. 2.

" Thou, (faith holy David,) knoweſt my down-fitting, and " my up-rifing, and underſtandeſt mythoughts afar off, and " art acquainted with all my ways."

Job xxviii. 24. "He " looketh to the ends ofthe earth, and ſeeth under the whole

" heavens."

Prov. xv. 3. " The eyes of the Lord are in every " place, beholding the evil and the good."

Pfal. xxxiii. 14, 15. " From the place of his habitation helooketh upon all the " inhabitants of the earth; he faſhioneth their hearts alike, he

" confidereth all their works."

He that denies thatGod feeth his moſt fecret fins, therein, conſequentially, denies him tobe

God.

(2.)This affertion is inconſiſtent withGod's providential dif-

Of Antinomianism.

penſations to his people. When David, ajuſified believer had finnedagainst him inthe matter ofUriah, it isſaid, 2 Sam. xi.27. " the thing that David haddone dipleaſed the Lord :" and, as the effect of that diſpleaſure, it is ſaid, chap. xii. 15.

" The Lord ftruck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto Da- " vid, and it was very fick." Among the Corinthians ſome that ſhould not be condemned with the world, were judged andchaſtenedofthe Lord for their undue approaches tohis table,

1 Cor. xi. 32. Now, I would ask theAntinomians theſe two queſtions.

Quest. 1. 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 byGod in his child, with its fickness anddeath; and the latter inlike manner ſmittenbyGod intheirown perſons ; andboth for their reſpective fins committed against God; and yet God ſaw no ſin in them? DidGod' fmitethem for fin, andyet beheld no ſin in them ? Beware left in aſcribing ſuch ſtrokes toGod, you ſtrike at once both at his omniſciency and justice.

Quest. 2. How God, uponconfeſſion and repentance, canbefaid to put away his peoples fins (asNathan there afſſures David he had done) wheninthe mean time he ſaw no ſin inhim, either to chaſtiſe him for, or to pardon in him ? Do you think that God's afflictions, or pardons, are blindfold acts, done at random ? How inconſiſtent is this with divine diſpenſations.

(3.) This opinion is altogether deſtitute of a ſcripture-foundation; it is evidentithathnone in theonly placesalledged for it. Ithath no footingat all inNumb. xxiii. 21. Graveand learnedGataker hath learnedly and induſtrioufly vindicated that ſcripture fromthis abuſe of it by Antinomians, in his treatiſe upon that text, entitled, God's eye upon his Ifrael; where, after a learned and critical fearch of the text, he telleth us, it foundethword for word thus from the originial ; "He hath

" not beheldwrong against Jacob, nor hath he ſeen grievance " against Ifrael."

So that the meaning is not, that God did not ſee ſin in Ifrael, butthat he beheld not with approbation thewrongsand injuries done by others against his Ifrael ; and ſhews at large, by divers ſolid reasons, why the Antinomian ſenſecannotbe the proper ſenſe ofthat place, it being croſs to the maintenor of the ſtory, and truth of God's word ; which ſhews, thatGodoften complainedoftheir fins,oftenthreatened toavenge them; yea, did actually avenge them, bydestroying them in the wilderness ; nay, Balaam himself, who uttered theſewords unto Balak, didnot ſo understandthem, as appears bythe advice he gave toBalak, to drawthem into fin, that

The Second Appendix. therebyGod might be provoked to withdraw his protection from them.

And for Jer. 1. 20. itmakes nothing totheir purpoſe. Many expound the fin there fought after, and not found tobe the fin of idolatry, which Ifrael ſhouldbe purged fromby their captivity, according to Ifa.xxvii. 9.

But the generality of found expoſitors are agreed, that by the not finding of Ifrael's and Judah's fin, is meantno more, buthis not finding those bonds or obligations against them to eternal punishment, which their fins had put them under.

(4.) In aword, thisopinion claſhes with their other principles.

For they ſay, that though there was pardon and remiſſionunder theold covenant(which they allowedto be acovenant ofgrace) yetit wasbutgradatim, and ſucceſſively,as theyoffered facrifices.

If aman had finned ignorantly, untilhebrought a facrifice, his fin lay uponhim, itmaybe aweek, a month's diſtance between, before they could have their pardon.

Vide Dr. Crifp ofthetwocovenants, p. 256, 257. Now Idemand, Ifthiswere the ſtate and cafe of allGod's Ifrael under the Old Testament, whydo theſemen affirm, thatGodcanfee no fin in a believer ? andwhy do they expound the words ofBalaamſo contradictory to this their other opinion ?

For they willnotdenybutGod fees unpardoned fins in all; and here isaweek, or month, or more time, allowed between the commiſſion and remiſſion of their fin.

And fo much of the fifth Antinomian error.

Error 6. ThatGod is not angry with the elect, nordoth he fmite them for their fins ; and to say that he dothfo, isan injurious refuction upon the justice of God, who hath receivedfull fatisfaction for all theirfins from the handof Chrift.

There are ſeveral miſtakes and errors in theſe affertions; and Ifuppoſe our Antinomianswere led into them, (1.) By their abhorrence of the Popiſh doctrine, which errs more dangerouſfly inthe other extreme; for they wickedly affert our fufferings to be fatisfactory for our fins, which is the ground of Popiſh penances, andvoluntary felf-caſtigations.

(2.) From a groundless apprehenfion, that God's corrections of us for our fins, are inconfiftentwith the fulness of Chriſt's fatisfaction for them . Chrift having paid all our debts, and diſſolved our obligations to all punishment, itcannot confiſt with the justice ofGod to lay any rodupon us for our fins, after Chrift hath borne allthat our fins deſerved.

This mistake of the end ofChriſt's death, occaſions them to ſtumble into the other mistakes; they imagine that Chrift's fatisfaction aboliſhed God's hatred of fin inbelievers. But this

OfAntinomianism.

cannot be; God's antipathy to fin can never be taken away bythe fatisfaction of Chriſt, though his hatred to the perfons of the redeemed be ; for the hatred of fin is found in the unchangeable nature ofGod: and he can as foon ceaſe tobe holy, as ceaſe to hate fin, Hab. i. 13. Nor was Chriſt's death ever deſigned to this end ; though Chriſt hath fatisfied for the i fins of believers, God ſtill hates ſin in believers.

His hatred to their fias, and love to their perfons, are not inconfiftent. As aman may love his leg or arm, as they are members of his own body, and notwithstanding that love, hate the gangrene which hath taken them; and lance or uſe painful corrofives for the cure of them.

Neither do our Antinomians diſtinguiſh as they ought, betwixt vindictive punishments fromGod, the pure iſſues and effects of his juſtice and wrath against the wicked; and his paternal caftigations, the pure iffues ofthe care and love of a difpleaſed Father. Great andmanifold are the differences betwixt his vindictive wrath upon his enemies, and the rebukes of the rod upon his children.

Thoſe are legal, theſe evangelical.

Thoſe out of wrath and hatred, theſe out of love.

Thoſe unfanctified, but theſe bleſſed and ſanctified to happy ends and purpoſes to his people.

Thoſe for deſtruction, theſe for falvation.

To narrow the matter in controverſy as much as we can, I shall laydown three conceffions aboutGod's corrections ofhis people.

Conceffion 1. We chearfully and thankfully acknowledge the perfection and fulness of the fatisfaction of Chrift for all the fins of believers; and, with thankfulneſs do own, that if God ſhouldcaft all, or any of them, intoan ocean oftemporal troubles and diſtreſſes; in all that fea of forrow there would not be foundone drop of vindictive wrath.

Chrift hath drunk the laftdrop of that cup, and left nothing for believers to fufferby way of fatisfaction.

Conceffion 2. We grant alſo, that all the fufferings of believers in this world are not for their fins; but some ofthem are for the prevention of fin, 2Cor. xii. 7. fome for the trial of their graces, Jam. i. 2, 3. fome for a confirming teſtimony to his truths, Acts v. 41. Such fufferings as theſe have much heavenly comfort concomitant with them.

Conceffion 3. We do not saythat God's diſpleaſure withhis people for fin, evidenced against them in the tharpeſt rebukes of the rod, is any argument thatGod's love is turned intohatred againft their perfons: No, no, his love to hispeople isun-

The SecondAppendix. changeable.

Having lovedhis own,he lovedthemtotheend, John xiii. 1.

Yet notwithstanding all this, three things areundeniably clear, and being thoroughly apprehended, will end this controverfy.

1. ThatGod lays his correcting rod, in this world, on the perſons of believers.

2. That this rod of God is ſometimes laid on them for their fins.

3. That theſe fatherly corrections of them for their fins, arereconcilable to,andfullyconſiſtentwithhisjuſtice,completely fatisfied by the blood of Chriſt for all their fins.

1. ThatGod lays his correcting rod, in thisworld, upon the perſons of believers.

This no man can have the face todeny, thatbelieves the ſcriptures tobe the word ofGod, or that the troubles of goodmen inthis life fall not out by caſuality, but bythe counſel and direction ofdivine Providence. He that denies the hand ofGod tobe upon the perſons of believers, in this life, in the way of painful chaſtiſements and ſufferings, must either ignorantly, or wilfully, overlook that ſcripture, Heb. xii.

8. " What fon is he whom the Father chaſteneth not ? but if

" ye be without chaſtiſement, whereof all are partakers, then " are ye baſtards, and not fons." Nor will any fober Chriſtian denytheſe troubles of believers tobe the effects of God's governingProvidencein theworld,or once imagine, or affirm them tobemere cafualties and contingencies; for " affliction cometh

" not forth of the dust, neitherdoth troubleſpring out of the " ground," Job v. 6. In what Eutopia doth that good man liveupon earth, that feels notthe painful rod ofGod upon himſelf, nor hears the ſad laments and moans of other Chriſtians under it! This ſure is undeniable,that the rodofGod is every whereupon the perſons and tabernacles of the righteous ; and ifanydoubt it, hisown ſenſe andfeeling mayin a little timegive him apainful demonſtration of it.

2. And for the ſecond, that this rodofGod is ſometimes laid uponbelievers for their ſins, methinks no ſober modeft Chriftian inthe world ſhould doubt ordeny it, whenhe confiders, that,

1. God himself hath ſodeclared it.

2. The faints in all ages have freelyconfeſſed ittobe fo.

1. God himself hath fully and plainlydeclared it tobeſo, 2 Sam. xii. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. " Whereforehaſt thou de- " fpiſed the commandmentofthe Lord, to do evil in his fight?

"Now therefore the ſword ſhall neverdepart from thy houſe,"

&c. Here is the ſword, a terrible and painful evil, upon David's houſe, aman afterGod's ownheart, and thatexprefly for his

OfAntinomianism.

fin inthe matterofUriah.

So Mofes, one ofthegreatest favouritesofheaven, for his finful ſhiftingofthe Lord's work, " The s anger of the Lord was kindled against Mofes," Exod. iv. 13,

14. " For the multitudes of thine iniquities, becauſe thy fins ४८were increaſed, I have done theſe things unto thee," ſaith

God to his own Iſrael, Jer. xxx. 15. To inſtance in all the declarations made by God himself in this cafe, were to tranſcribe partofboth teftaments.

2. And, as God hath declared the ſins ofhis people to be theprovoking cauſesofhis rods uponthem; ſo theyhave freely and ingenuously confeffed and acknowledged the ſame, Lam. iii. 39, 40. " Wherefore doth alivingman complain, a man for " the punishment of his fins ? Let us ſearch and try our ways,

" andturn again to the Lord." This was ſpoken byJeremy, in the name of the whole captive church ; ſo Pfal. xxxviii. 3. 5.

" There is no ſoundneſs in my fleſh, (faith David) becauſe of " thine anger ; neither is there any reſt in my bones, becauſe

" ofmy fin.

My wounds ſtink, and are corrupt, becauſe ofmy " foolishness."

And, were it not an hideous and unaccount. able thing to hear a child of God, under his rod, to ſtand up. on his ownjuſtification, and ſay, Lord, my ſins have not defer. ved this at thyhand, nor is itjuſtice in thee thus to chaſtiſe me after thou haſl received fatisfaction for all my fins fromthe hand ofChriſt ? Would it not look like an horrid blafphemy, to hearthebeſtman intheworlddiſputing anddenying thejuſtice ofGod in the troubles he lays him under ? For my own part, let the Lord lay on as smartly as he will upon me, I defire to followthe holypatterns andprecedents recorded in ſcripture for my imitation, and toſay with the people ofGod, Ezra ix. 13 .

" Thou hast puniſhed me leſs than mine iniquities deſerve."

And Micah vii. 9. " I will bear the indignationofthe Lord, be- " cauſe I have ſinned against him." Andhe thatrefuſes ſotodo, gives little evidence of the fpirit of adoption in him, but avery clear evidence ofthe pride and ignorance of his own heart.

Job indeed ſtifly stood upon his own vindication ; but that was when he had todowith men, who falſly charged him, laying thoſe fins as the cauſesofhistroubles, which hewas innocentof, Job. xxii. 5, 6. Butwhen hehad todowithGod,hedifputes nomore, but faith, Behold, Iam vile, whatshall Ianswer thee? Iwilllaymy handuponmy mouth, q.d. Ihavedone, Father,

I have done ; whether theſe chaſtiſements be for my fin or no, fure I am, my ſin not onlydeferves all this, buthell itſelf; thou art holy, but I am vile.

VOL . IV.

Zz :

The Second Appendix.

3. Norcan it at all be doubted,but that theſe fatherly corrections of the faints for their fins, are reconcileable to,and fully confiftent with his justice, ſatisfied by the blood of Chrift for all their fins.

For, (1 ) If itwere not ſo, thejuſtand righteousGod would never have inſerted ſuch a clause of reſervation in his gracious covenant with his people, to chaſtenthem as he faw need, after he had taken them into the covenant, Pfal.

Ixxxix. 30, 31, 32, 33. " If they tranfgrefs, he willvisit their " tranfgreffions with a rod, andtheir iniquitieswith ſtripes ; ne- " vertheless (faith he) my loving-kindness willI not take away."

That [nevertheless] clearly provesthe conſiſtency ofhis ſtripes for fin, with his loving-kindness to his people, and with Chrift's fatisfactionfor their fins. (2.) Ifthis werenot confiftentwith the justice ofGod, to be ſurehe would never ſingle them out to ſpend his rods upon, rather than others.

Itis moſt certain the holieſt menhave moſt laſhes inthis life : Afaph ſaid, Pfal. Jxxiii.

12, 14. "The ungodly profper in the world, but he was chaf " tenedeverymorning;" and ver. 5. " The wicked are not in " trouble as other men."

1 Pet. iv. 17. " Judgment must be- " gin atthe houſe ofGod;" and if piety would give men an exemption from all troubles, pains and chaſtiſements, thenmen might diſcern love or hatred by the things that are before them, contrary toEccl. ix. 1, 2. Neither couldthofethatare in Chriſt, fuffer the painful agonies ofdeath, becauſe of fin, exprefly contrary to Paul, Rom. viii. 10. "And if Chriſt beinyou, thebody

" isdeadbecauſe offin."

(3.) In aword, As Chriſt never ſhed hisblood to extinguith or abolish God's diſpleaſure against fin, in whomsoever itbe found, ſohe never ſhed it, todeprive his peopleof the manifold bleſſings and advantages that accrue to them by the rods ofGod upon them.

It was never his intent toput us intoacondition on earth, that would have been fo much toour lofs.

So then ifthe hand ofGodbe upon his people for fin, andconſiſtently enough with his justice, it must be an error, to ſay, God ſmites not believers for ther fins, and it wouldbe injusticeinhim ſo todo: which is their ſixth error.

Error 7. They tell us, That by God's laying our inquities upon Christ, he became as completelyfinful as we, andwe as completely righteous as Christ : That not only the guilt andpunishment offin was laid upon Christ, butfimply the veryfaults that men commit, the transgreffion itself became the tranfgreffion of Christ; iniquity itself, not in anyfigure, but plainlyfin itself, was laid on Chrift ; and that Christ himself was not more righteous than this person is, and this person is not morefinfu shun Christwas.

Of Antinomianifm.

Refutation.

These two propofitions will never go down with found and orthodox Chriſtians : the firſt ſinks and debaſes

Chrift too low, the other exalts the finful creature too high.

The one represents the pure and ſpotless Lord Jeſus as finful : theother repreſents the finful creature as pure and perfect : and both theſe propoſitions ſeem evidently to be built upon theſe two hypothefes. (1.) That the righteousness of Christ isfubjectively and inherently in us, in thesame fulness and perfection as it is in Chrift : grant that, and then it will follow indeed, That Chrift himself is not more righteous than the believer is.

(2.) That not only the guilt andpunishment offin was laidon Chrift by way ofimputation : bntfin itself, the very tranfgreffion, or finfulness itself, was transferredfrom the elect to Chrift : and that by God's laying it on him, thefinfulness or fault itselfwas effentially transfused intohim ; andfofin itselfdid tranfire a ſubjecto in ſubjectum.

Grant but this, and itcannever bedeniedbut that Chriſt became as completely finful aswe.

But both theſe hypotheſes are not only notoriouſly falſe, but utterly impoſſible, as will be manifeſted by and by; but before Icome to the refutationofthem, it willbe neceſſary to laydowa fome conceffions to clear the orthodox doctrine in this controverfy, and narrow the matter under debate, as much as may be.

(1.) And firſt, We thankfully acknowledge the Lord Jeſus Chriſt tobe theSurety of the New Testament, Heb. vii. 22. and that as ſuch, all the guilt and punishment ofour fins, was laid uponhim, Ifa. liii. 5, 6. That is,God imputed, and he bare it inourroom and ſtead. God the Father, as fupreme Lawgiver andjudge of all, upon the tranfgreffion of the law, admitted the ſponſion or furetiſhip of Chriſt, to answer for the fins of men, Heb. x. 5, 6, 7. And for this very endhe was made under the law, Gal. iv. 4, 5. And that Chriſt voluntarily took itupon him to answer as our Surety, whatsoever the law could lay to our charge; whence it became juſt and righteous that he ſhould fuffer.

(2.) We ſay, ThatGod, by laying upon, or imputing the guilt of our fins to Chriſt, thereby our fins became legally his ; asthedebt is legally the Surety'sdebt, thoughhe neverborrowedone farthingof it: ThusGod laid, and Chrift took our fins upon him, though in him was no fin, 2 Cor. v. 21. " He hath

" made him to be fin for us, who knew no fin," (i. e.) who was clean, and altogether void of fin .

(3.) We thankfullyacknowledge,that Chriſt hath ſo fully faZz2

The Second Appendix. tisfied the law for the fins of all that arehis, that the debts of believers are fully discharged, and the very last mite paid by Chriſt.

His payment is full, and ſotherefore is our difcharge and acquittance, Rom. viii. 1, 31.

And that, by virtue hereof, the guilt of believers is ſo perfectly abolished, that it ſhali never more bring them under condemnation, John v. 24. Andſo in Chrift they are without fault before God.

4. We likewise grant, That as the guilt ofour fins was by God's imputation laid upon Chriſt, ſo the righteouſneſs of Chritt is byGod imputed to believers, by virtue of their union with Chrift ; and becomes thereby as truly and fullytheirs, for thejuſtificationof their particular perſons beforeGod, as if they themſelveshad in their ownperſons fulfilled all that the law requires, or fuffered all that it threatened: No inherent righte- •ouſneſs in our own perſons. is, or canbe more truly our own, for this end and purpoſe, than Chriſt's imputed righteousness is our own . He is the Lord our righteousness. Jer. xxiii. 6.

We are made the righteousness of God in him, 1 Cor. V. 21. Yea, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in them that believe,

Rom. viii. 4, But notwithstanding all this, we cannot ſay, (1.) That Chriſt became as completely finful as we. Or, (2.) That we are as completely righteous as Chriſt ; and that over and above the guilt and punishment of fin, (which we grant was laid upon Chriſt) fin itſelf ſimply confidered, or the very tranfgreffion itſelf, became the finor tranfgreſſion of Chriſt; andconfequently thatwe are as completelyrighteous as Chriſt, and Chrift as completely finful as we are.

1. We dare not ſay, that ſin ſimply confidered, as the very tranfgreffionof the law itſelf, as well as the guilt and punishment, became the very fin and tranfgreffion of Chrift :

For two things are distinctly to be confidered and differenced, with reſpect to the law, and unto fin. As to the law, we are to confider in it, 1. Its preceptive part.

2. Its fanction.

(1.) The preceptive part of the law, whichgives fin its formal nature, 1 John iii. 4. Forfin is the tranfgreffion of the law.

Alltranfgreffion arifes from the preceptive part of the law of God: He that tranfgreffeth the precepts, ſinneth ; and under this confideration ſin cannever be communicated from one to another : The perſonal fin of one, cannotbe in this reſpect, the perſonal fin of another : There is no phyſical transfufion of the tranfgreffion of the precept from one ſubject to ano

OfAntinomianifm.

ther: This is utterly impoſſible; evenAdam's perſonal fins, conſidered inhis ſingle private capacity, are not communicable tohispoſterity.

(2.) Beſides the tranfgreffion of the preceptive part of the law, there is an obnoxiouſneſs untopunishment, arifing from the ſanctionof the law, which we call the guilt of fin; and this (as judicious * Dr. Owen obſerves) is ſeparable from ſin : andif it were not ſeparable from the former, no finner inthe world could either be pardoned or faved; guiltmay be made another's by imputation, and yet that other not rendered formally a finner thereby : Upon this ground, we say the guilt andpunishment of our fin, was that only which was imputed unto Chriſt, but the very tranſgreſſion of the law itſelf, or fin formally and eſſentially confidered, could never be communicated or transfuſed fromus unto him.

I know but two ways in the world by which one man's fins can be imagined to become another's, viz. Either by imputation, which is legal, and what we affirm ; or by eſſential transfuſionfrom ſubject to fubject (as our adverſaries fancy) which is utterly impoſſible; and wehave as good ground tobelieve the abſurd doctrine of tranſubſtantiation, as this wild notion of the eſſential transfuſion of fin. Guilt, arifing from the ſanction of the law, may, anddid paſs from us to Chriſt by legal imputation; but ſin itſelf, the very tranfgreffion itſelf, arifing 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 fin, with the odiousdeformity thereof, ſhould paſs from our perſons to Chrift, and fubjectively to inhere in him, as theydo in us ; then it would follow, First, That our falvation would therebybe rendered utterly impoſſible.

For fuch an inheſion of fininthe perfon ofChriſt, is abſolutely inconſiſtent with the hypoſtatical union, which union is the very foundation of his fatisfaction, and our falvation. Though the Divine nature can, and doth dwell in union with the pure and finleſs human nature of Chriſt, yet it cannot dwell in union with fin.

Secondly. This fſuppoſition would render the blood of the crofs altogether unable to fatisfy for us. He could not have been the Lamb of God to take awaythe ſins of the world, if hehadnot been perfectly pure and ſpotless, 1 Pet.i.19.

Thirdly, Had our fins thus been eſſentially transfuſed into Chrift, the lawhadhad ajuſt and valid exception against him ;

* Owen of Juftification, p. 183.

The Second Appendix. for it accepts of nothingbutwhat is abfolutelypure andper fect.

I admire, therefore, how any good men dare to call our doctrine, which teaches the imputation ofour guilt and punishment to Chrift , a ſimple doctrine; and affert, that the tranfgreffion itſelf became Chriſt's; and thatthereby Chriſt became as completely finfulas we. And, Fourthly, If the way of making our fins Chriſt's by imputation, be thus rejected and derided; and Chriſt afferted, by fomeother way, to become as completely ſinful as we ; then I cannot feewhich way to avoid it, but that the very fame acts and habits of fin muſt inhere, both in Chriſt, and in believers alfo.

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 juftification, ſinful inclinations and averſations; alawof fin in their members, a bodyoffin anddeath. Did theſe things paſsfrom them to Chriſt, and yet do they ſtill inhere in them ? Why do they complain andgroan of indwelling fin? as Rom. vii. If fin itſelf be fo transferrredfrom them to Chriſt ? Sure, unleſs men will dare to ſay, the fame acts and habits of ſin which they feel in themſelves, are as truly inChriſt as in themselves, theyhave no ground to ſay, that by God's laying their iniquities upon Chriſt, he became as completely finful as they are; and if they ſhouldfo affirm, that affirmationwould undermine the very foundation of their own falvation .

I therefore heartily ſubſcribe to that found andholy fentence, of aclear and learned divine, * Nothing is more abfolutly true, nothingmore facredly andaffuredly believedby us, than that nothingwhich Chrift did or fuffered, nothing that he undertook, or underwent, did, or could conflitute bim fubjectively, inherently, andthereupon perfonallyafinner, or guilty ofanyfin ofhis own.

To bear theguilt or blame of other mens faults, to be alienae culpae reus, makes noman afinner, unlejs hedid unwifely and irregularly undertake it.

So then this propoſition, that by God's laying our fins uponChriſt (in ſomeotherway, than by imputation of guilt and punishment) he became as completely fintul as we, will not, ought not tobe received as the found doctrine of the goſpel. Nor yet this Second propofition, That we are as completely righteous as Christ is ; or, that Chriſt is not more righteous than a believer.

I cannot imagine what ſhould induce anymanſo to exprefs himſelf, unless itbe agroundless conceitand fancy, that there

* Owen of Juftification, p. 183,

OfAntinomianifm.

isan eſſentialtransfusion of Chriſt's juſtifying righteouſneſs into believers, whereby itbecomes theirs by way of fubjective inheſion, and is in them in the very ſame manner it is in him: and toevery individual believer becomes as completely righteous as Chrift.

And this conceit they would fain eſtabliſh uponthat text, i John iii. 7. "He thatdoth righteouſneſs, isrighteous, evenas he is righteous."

But neither this expreſſion, nor any other like it inthe ſcriptures, gives the leaſt countenance to ſuch ageneral and unwary poſition.

It is far from the mind of this fcripture, 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 fame with his for quantity, though it be the fame for verity. His righteouſneſs is not ours in its univerfal value, though it be ours, as to our particular uſe and neceffity. Nor is it made ours to make us ſomany cauſes ofſalvation to others ; but itis imputed to us as to the ſubjects, that are tobe ſaved byitourſelves.

'Tis true, we are justified and ſaved by the very righteoufneſs of Chriſt, and no other ; but that righteouſneſs is formallyinherent inhim only, and is only materiallyimputed tous.

Itwas actively his, but paſſively ours. He wrought it, though wewear it.

It was wrought in the perſon ofGod-man for the whole church, and is imputed (nottransfuſed) to every ſingle believer for his own concernment only.

For, (1.) It is moſt abſurd to imagine, that the righteouſneſs of Chriſt ſhouldformally inhere in the perſon ofevery, or any believer, as itdoth in the perſon of the mediator. The impoſſibility hereof appears plainly from the incapacity of the ſubject.

The righteouſneſs ofChriſt is an infinite righteouſneſs, becauſe it is the righteouſneſs ofGod-man, and can therefore be ſubjected inno otherperſon beſidehim.

It is capable ofbeing im puted toa finite creature, and therefore, inthe way ofimputation, we are faid tobe made the righteousness ofGod in him ; buz tho' it maybe imputed toa finite creature, it inheres only in theperſon ofthe SonofGod, asin itsproper ſubject. And indeed,

(2.) If it ſhouldbe inherent inus, itcould notbe imputed to us, as it is, Rom. iv. 6, 23. Nor need we go out of ourſelves for juſtification, as nowwe must, Phil. iii. 9. but may justify ourſelves by our own inherent righteouſneſs. And,

(3.) What ſhould hinder, if this infinite righteouſneſs of Chrift were infuſed into us, and ſhould make us as completely righteous as Chriſt; butthatwe might juſtify others alfo, as

The Second Appendix.

Chriſtdoth, and ſo we might bethe ſaviours ofthe elect, as Chriſt is ?

Which is moſt abſurd to imagine. And, (4.) According to Antinomian principles, What need was there that we should bejustified at all ? or, What place is left for thejuſtification ofany finner in the world ? For, according to their opinion, the juſtification of the elect is an immanent act ofGod before the world was ; and that eternal act ofjuſtification, making the elect as completely righteous as Chriſt himſelf, there could not poſſiblybe any the leaft guilt in the elect to be pardoned; and conſequently no place or room could be left for anyjuſtification in time. And then it must follow, that ſeeing Chriſt died intime for fin, according to the ſcriptures; it must be for his own fins that he died, and not for the ſins of the elect; diametrically oppoſite to Rom. iv.

25. and the whole current of ſcripture, and faith ofChriftians.

It is therefore veryunbecoming and unworthy of ajuſtified perfon, after Chriſt hath taken all his guilt upon himself, and fufferedall the punishment due thereuntoin his place androom; instead of an humble and thankful admiration of his unparalleledgrace therein, tothrow morethan theguiltandpunishment ofhis fins upon Chriſt, eventhe tranfgreſſion itſelf : and comparinghis own righteouſneſs with Chrift's, to ſay he is as completely righteous as Chriſt himself.

This is, as ifa company ofbankrupt debtors, arreſted for their own debts, ready tobe caſt into priſon, and not having one farthing to fatisfy, after their debts have been freely and fullydiſcharged by another, outof his immenſe treaſure, ſhould now compare with him, yea, and think they honour him, by telling him, that nowthey are as completely rich as himself.

I am well aſſured, nogood man would embrace an opinion ſoderogatory to Chriſt's honour as this is: did he but ſee the odious conſequences of it, doubtless he would abhor them as much aswe. And as for thoſe now in heaven, who fell into ſuch mistakes in the way thither, were they now acquainted withwhat is tranſacted here below, they would exceedingly rejoice in thedetection ofthoſe mistakes, and bleſs God for the refutation ofthem, Error 8. They affirm, That believers neednot fear their own fins, northe fins of others ; forafmuch as neither their own, or othersfins candothemany hurt, nor must theydoany dutyfor their own goodorfalvation, orfor eternalrewards.

That we need fear no hurt from fin, or may not aim at our owngood in duty, are two propoſitionsthatfoundharſh in the

OfAntinomianifm.

ears ofbelievers.

I ſhall conſider them ſeverally, and refute them as briefly as I can.

Propoſition 1. Believers neednot fear theirown fins, orthe fins ofothers ; because neither our own, or others fins candous anyhurt.

They ſeem tobe induced into this error, bymiſunderſtanding the apostle, in Rom. viii. 28. as ifthe ſcope ofthat text were to affert the benefits of fin to justified perſons ; whereas he ſpeaks there of adverſities and afflictions befalling the faints in this life.

Univerſalis reftringenda eft admateriamfubjectam, loquitur enim de afflictionibus piorum.

The ſubject-matter (faith Paraeus on the place) reſtrains theuniverſal expreſſion ofthe apoſtle : for when he there faith, "All things ſhall work to- " gether for good;" he principally intends the afflictions of the godly, ofwhich he treats there in that context.

It may be extended alſo to all providential events ; Omnia quæcunque eis accedunt forinfecus, tam adverfa, quam profpera : All adverſe and profperous events of things without us, as Eſtius uponthe place notes.

Nothing is ſpoken of ſin in this text.

And the apoſtlediſtributing this general intoparticulars, ver. 38. plainly ſhews, what are the things he intendedby his univerſal expreffion, ver. 28. as alſo inwhat reſpect no creaturecan do the faints anyhurt, namely, that they ſhall never be able " to ſe86 parate them from the love ofGod, which is in Chriſt Jeſus

" our Lord." And in this reſpect it is true, that the ſins ofthe elect ſhall nothurtthem, by frustrating the purpoſeofGod concerning their eternal ſalvation; or totally, and finallyto ſeparate themfrom his love.

This wegrant, andyet we think itavery unwary and unfound expreſſion, That believers need notfear theirownfins, because they can dothemno hurt : Itistoogeneral andunguarded a propoſition tobe received for truth.

What if their fins cannot do them hurt, to fruſtrate the purpoſe ofGod, anddamnthemtoeternity in the worldtocome ? Can itthereforedothemnohurtat allin theirpreſent ſtate ofconflict with it in this world ? For my part, I think the greateſt fearof caution isdue to fin, the greatest evil; and that Chryfoftome ſpake more like a Chriſtian, when he ſaid, Nil nifipeccatum timeo, I fear nothing but fin. Though ſincannot finally ruin the believer, yet it canmanyways hurt and injure the believer, andtherefore ought not tobe miſrepreſentedasſuchan innocent andharmlessthingtothem. Invainare ſomany terriblethreatenings inthe fcriptures againſt it, ifitcan dousno hurt; andit is certainnothing cando isgood, but thatwhichmakes us

VOL . IV.

Aaa

The Second Appendix. better and more holy: But ſin canneverpretendtothat of all things in the world. But to come to an iſſue, finmay be confidered three ways.

1. Formally.

2. Effectively.

3. Reductively.

First, Formally, as a tranfgreffion ofthe preceptive part of the law ofGod, and under that confideration itis 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 ittelf in the moſt terrible form, than fin, or that which is moſttempting in fin, the pleaſures of it; as Moſes did, Heb. xi. 25.

Secondly, Sin may be confidered effectively, with reſpect to themanifold miſchiefsand calamities itproduceth inthe world, and the ſpiritual and corporeal evils it infers upon believers themselves: Though it cannotdamn their ſouls, yet it makes war against theirfouls,andbrings them into miferable bondage and captivity, Rom. vii. 23. It woundstheir fouls, under which wounds they are feeble and fore broken; yea, they roar by reaſon of the diſquietneſs of their hearts, Pfal. xxxviii. 5, 8.

Is war, captivity, feſtering, painful wounds, caufing them to roar, no hurt to believers ? It breaks their very bones , Pial. li . 8. And is that no hurt ? It draws of their minds from God, interrupts their prayers and meditations, Rom. vii. 18, 19, 20,

21. And is there nohurtinthat? Itcauſeth their graces todecline, wither, and languiſh to that degree, that thethings which are in them are ready to die, Rev. iii. 1. and Rev. ii. 4. And is the loss of grace and ſpiritual ſtrength, nohurt to abeliever!

Ithides the face ofGodfromthem, Ifa. lix. 2. And is there no hurt inſpiritual withdrawments ofGod from their fouls ? Why then do deferted faints ſo bitterly lament and bemoan it ? It provokes innumerable afflictions and miſeries, which fall upon our bodies , relations, eſtates ; and if fin be the cause of all thele inward and outward miferies to the people ofGod, ſure then there is ſome hurt in fin, for which the faints ought tobe afraid ofit.

Thirdly, Sin maybe confideredreductively, asitisover-ruled, reduced, and finally iſſuedbythe covenant of grace.

Under this confideration of fin, which rather refpects the future, than preſent ſtate, the Antinomians only reſpect the hurtor evil ofit; overlooking both the former confiderations of fin, which concernthe preſent ſtate ofbelievers, and fo raſhly pronounce, Sin can do believers no hurt; an affertion tending to a great deal of looſeneſs and licentiouſneſs. Aman drinks deadly poifon, and is, after many months, recoveredby the ſkillofan excellent

OfAntinomianism.

phyſician; ſhall we ſay, There was no hurt in it, becauſe the man died not ofit ? Sure,thoſe fearfultwinges he felt, his lofs of ſtrength and ſtomach were hurtful to him, tho' he eſcaped with life, and got this advantage by it tobe morewary for ever after.

Tantum religio potuitfuadere malorum.

Andthen, for other mens ſins, (which, they ſay, we neednot fear), it is an affertion against all the laws of charity; for the finsof wicked men eternally damn them, diſturb the peace, and orderof the world, draw down national judgments upon the whole community, cauſewars, plagues, perfecutions, &c. which confiderations of the fins of others openedfountains oftears in David's eyes, Pfal. cxix. 136. cauſed horror to takehold upon him, ver. 53. and yet, if you will believe the Antinomian doctrine, believers have no need tofear, much leſs to be in horror

(which is the extremity of fear) for other mens ſins. How is Satan gratified, and temptations to ſin ſtrengthened, upon the fouls ofmen, byſuch indiſtinct, unwary, anddangerous exprefſions as theſe are ? A good intention can be no fufficient ſalve for fuch affertions as theſe .

Secondly, They tell us, ' That as the faintsneed fear no fin ' forany hurt it can dothem, so they must do no duty for their

' owngood; or with an eye to their own ſalvation, or eternal ' rewards in heaven.'

Refutation. This, as the former, is too generally and indiſtinctlydelivered. He that diſtinguiſheth well, teacheth well.

The confounding of things which ought to be diftinguiſhed, eaſilyruns men into the bogs oferrors. Two things ought to have beendistinguiſhedhere :

1. Ends in duties.

2. Self-ends in duties.

Firſt, Ends in duties ; There are two ends induties, onefupreme and ultimate, viz . the glorifying of God, which must, and ought to take the firſt place of all other ends : Another fecondary andfubordinate, viz. thegoodandbenefit of ourſelves.

To invert theſe, and place our own good in the room ofGod's glory, is ſinful and unjustifiable ; and hethat aims onlyat himself in religion, isjuſtly cenſuredas a mercenary ſervant, eſpecially, if it be any external goodhe aims at; but ſpiritual good, efpecially the enjoyment ofGod, is ſo involved in the other, viz. the glory ofGod, that no man can rightly take the Lord for hisGod, buthe must take him for his fupreme good, and, conſequently, thereinmay,andmust have a due reſpect to his own happineſs.

Aaa2

The SecondAppendix.

Secondly, Self-ends muit always bediſtinguiſhed into.

1. Corrupt, or carnal ſelf-ends.

2 Pure, and ſpiritual ſelt-ends.

Asto carnal and corrupt ſelf-ends, inviting andmovingmen tothe performance of religious duties; when thesearetheonly ends men aim at, they bewray the hypocrify oftheheart,and, accordingly, Godchargeshypocrify upon ſuch perfons. Hof. vii . 14.

They have not cried untome with their heart, when they howled upon their beds; They aſſemble themselves for corn, and wine," &c. God reckons not the moſt ſolemn duties animatedby ſuch ends, tobedone unto him.

Zech. vii. 5.

" Didye at all faſt unto me ?"

But, beſide theſe, man hath a best self, aspiritual self, to regard in duty, viz. The conformity of his foul to God in holinets, and the perfect fruition ofGod in glory. Such holy ſelfends as theſe, are often commended, but no where condemned in ſcripture.

'Twas the encomium ofMoſes, that " he had re- " ſpect unto the recompense ofreward," Heb. xi. 26.

Theſe ordinate reſpects to our ſpiritual, beſt ſelf, are ſofar frombeing our fin, that God both appoints, and allows them for great uſes, and advantages tohis people, in their way toglory. They are, (1. ) Singular encouragements tothe faints under perfecutions, ſtraits, and diſtreſſes, Heb. x. 34. and to that end Chriſt propoſes,them, Luke xii. 32.and tothebeſtoffaintshave madeuſe of them, 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18.

(2.) They are motives, and incentives topraiſe, and thankfulness, I Pet. i. 3, 4. Col. i. 12.

(3.) They ſtir up the faints to chearful, and vigorous induſtry for God, Col. iii. 23, 24. 1 Cor. xv. 58.

Now to cut offfrom religion all theſe ſpiritual, and excellent ſelf-reſpects, and tomake them our fins, and marks of our hypocrify, is an error very injurious to the goſpel, and to the fouls of men.

For, (1.) It croffes the ſtrain of the goſpel, which commands us to ſtrive for our ſalvation, Luke xiii. 24, 25.

Phil. ii. 12. 1 Tim. iv. 16.

(2.) It blames that in the faints as finful, which the ſcripture notes as their excellency, and records to their praiſe, Heb. xi. 26.

(3.) It makes the laws of Chriſti anity to thwart, and croſs the veryfundamental law of our creation, which inclines, and'obliges allmen tointend 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 fin beyond the ſtaple; teaching men, they are not humbled enough, till they be content to be damned.

(4.) It unreasonably ſuppoſes aChriſtian maynot dothat forhisown foul, which he daily doth, and is

Of Antinomianism.

bound to do, for other men's fouls, viz. to pray, preach, ex-

hort, andreprove for theirfalvation.

Error IX.

They will not allow the new covenant to be properly made with us, but with Christ for us.

*And fome of them affirm, That this covenant is allof it a promise, having * no condition upon our part.

They acknowledge, indeed, faith, repentance, and obedience, to be conditions, butsay they are

'not conditions on our part, but on Chriſt's ; and confequently • affirm, that he repented, believed, and obeyedfor us.

Refutation 1. The confounding of distinct covenants leads them intothis 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 i ſhould aſſume our nature, and pour out his foul untodeath, which condition he was folely concerned to perform; but be-

fides 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 perfonally come into this covenant, when they comeinto the unionwithhimby faith.

This covenantof grace is not made with Chriſt alone, perſonally confidered, but with Chriſt, and all that are his, myſtically confidered, and is properly made with all believers inChriſt; and therefore it is called their covenant, Zech. ix. 11. "Asfor

" thee, alſo, by theblood of thy covenant, Ihave ſent forththy " prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water."

So whenGod entered into the covenant of grace withAbraham, Gen. xvii.

7. " I will eſtabliſh my covenant (faith he) between meand " thee, and thy feed after thee."

So when he took the people of Ifrael into this covenant, Ezek. xvi . 8. " I ſware unto thee

" (faith he) and entered into a covenant with thee, and thou " becameſt mine."

This covenant ofgrace made with believers inChriſt, isnot the fame, normuſt it be confounded with the covenant of redemptionmade with Chriſt before the worldbegan; they are two distinct covenants : For in the covenant of grace, into which believers are taken, there is a Mediator, and this Mediator is Chriſt himself.

But in the other covenant ofredemption, there neither was, nor couldbe any Mediator, which manifeftly diftinguiſhes them.

Besides, inthe covenant of grace, Chriſt bequeaths manifold, and rich legacies, as he is the Teftator ;

* Vide Saltmarſh ofFreeGrace, pag. 126, 127.

The Second Appendix. butnomangives alegacy to himself.

Thiscovenant is really, and properly made with every believer, 'as he is amember of Jeſus Chriſt, thehead; and they are truly, andproperly foederates withGod : The covenantbinds them to their duties, and encourages them thereinbypromites of ſtrength, tobederived from Chrift, to enable them thereunto.

2. We thankfully acknowledge, that the glory of the new covenant is chieflydiscovered in the promises thereof; upon the beſt promiſes it is eſtabliſhed. And all the promiſes are re ducible to the covenant.

They meet, and center in it, as the rivers inthe ſea, or beams in the fun; butyetwe cannot ſay, that nothingbut promiſes is contained inthiscovenant : For there are duties requiredby it, as well as mercies promiſed in it.

Nor may we ſay, that thoſe duties requiredbyitare required only to be performed by Chriſt, and not by us; but they are required to be performed by us inhis ſtrength : Nor is it

Chrift that repents and believes for us, but we ourselves are to believe, and repent inthe ſtrength of his grace: And till we doſoactually, in in our own perfons, we have no part, or portion in the bleſſings, and mercies of this covenant.

If Chrift by believing for us, give us an actual right and title to the promiſes andbleſſings of the new covenant, then it will unavoidablyfollow :

(1.) That men, who never repented for one ſin in all their lives, may be, nay, certainly are pardoned as much as the greatest penitents in the world; becauſe though they never repented themselves, yet Chriſt repented for them ; exprefly contrary to his own words, Luke xiii. 3. " Except ye repent, ye

" thall all likewiſe perish;" and contrary to his own eſtabliſhed order, Luke xxix 47 Acts iii. 19.

(2.) It will also tollow, that unbelievers, who never had union with Chriſt by one vital act of faith, in all their lives, maybe, nay, certainly ſhallbe ſaved, as well as thoſe that are actual believers : becauſe, though they be unbelievers in themſelves, yet Chriſt believed for them; exprefly contrary toMark xvi. 16. " He that believeth not, ſhall be damned."

John iii.

36. "He that believes not the Son, ſhall not see life; but the " wrath of God abideth on him."

And Luke xii. 46. " Не "willcuthim inſunder, andwill appoint him his portionwith

" unbelievers."

(3.) It will alſo follow from hence, that men maycontinue ina ſtate of diſobedience all their days, andyet may be ſaved, aswell as the moſt obedient ſouls in the world ; expreflycon-

OfAntinomianism.

trarytoEph. v. 6. " Let no man deceiveyouwithvain words ; " for becauſe of theſe things, cometh the wrath of God upon " the children of diſobedience."

And Rom. ii. 8. " But unto " them are contentious, anddo not obey the truth,but obey

66 unrighteouſneſs, indignation, and wrath." And 1 Pet. iv.

17. "What ſhall the end of them bethat obey not the goſpel " ofGod ? "

This language ſounds ſtrange andharſh to the ears of Chriftians, a repenting Chriſt ſaving the impenitent finner ; a believing Chriſt ſaving unbelievers ; an obeying Chriſt ſaving obſtinate, and disobedient wretches :

Whither doth fuch doctrine tend, but to encourage and fix men in their impenitence, unbelief, anddisobedience ? But the Lord grant no poor finner in the world may trust to this, or build his hopes of eternal life upon fuch aloofe, fandy foundation, as this is.

Rea- - der, all that Chrift hath done without thee, will not, cannot -be effectual to thy ſalvation, unleſs repentance, faith, ando- -bedience, be wrought by the Spirit inthy foul.

It is "Chrift " in thee, thatis the hope ofglory," Col. i. 27. beware, therefore, on what ground thou buildeſt for eternity.

Error 10.

They denyfanctification tobe the evidence ofjuftification, and deridingly tellus, this is to lighta candle to the 'fun ; and the darkerourfanctification is, the brighter ourjuftification is.'

Refutation. I am not at all ſurpriſed at this ſtrange andabfonous language; it is a falſe, anddangerous conclufion, yet fuch as naturally reſults from, and, by akind of neceffity, fol- ✓lows out of their other errors: For if the elect be alljuftified

from eternity, and that neither repentance, faith, or obedience, be required of us in the covenant of grace ; but were all required of, and performed by Chrift, who repented, believed, and obeyed for us; then, indeed, I cannot underſtand what relation our ſanctification hath to our juſtification, or how it ſhould be an evidence, mark, or ſign thereof, or what regard is due from Chriftians to any grace, or work of the Spirit wrought in them, to clear up their intereſt inChriſt to them.

For we being inChriſt, and in a ſtate of juftification, before we were naturally born, we must neceſſarily be fo before we beregenerated, or new-born : and, conſequently, no work of grace wrought in us, or holy duties performed by us, can be evidential of that which from eternitywas done before them, and without them.

1. I-grant, indeed,Thatmanyvain profeſſors do cheat, and

The Second Appendix. deceivethemſelves, by falſe, unſcriptural ſigns, andevidences, aswell as by true ones miſapplied.

2. I grant alſo, That byreaſonof thedeceitfulness of the heart, inſtability of the thoughts, ſimilar works of common grace inhypocrites, diſtractions of theworld, wiles of Satan, weakneſs of grace, and prevalency of corruptions : The clearingup of our juſtification by our ſanctification, is a work that meets withgreat, and manifolddifficulties, which are the things that moſt Chriſtians complain of.

3. I alſo grant, That the evidence of our fanctification in this, or any other method, is not eſſential, and abſolutely neceſſary to the being of aChriſtian. Aman may live in Chrift, and yet not know his intereſt in him, or relation to him, Ifa.

1. 10.

Some Chriſtians, like children in the cradle, live, but underſtand not that they live; are born to a great inheritance, but have no knowledge of it, or preſentcomfort in it.

4. I will further grant, That the eye of a Chriſtian maybe too intently fixed upon his own gracious qualifications;and beingwholly taken up in the reflex acts of faith, may too much neglect the direct acts of faith upon Chriſt, to the great detriment of his foul.

But all this notwithstanding, The examination of our juſtificationbyour ſanctification, is not onlyalawful, and poſſible, but a very excellent and neceſſary work andduty.

It is the courſethat Chriſtianshave taken inallages, andthat whichGod hath abundantly bleſſed to the joy and encouragement of their fouls.

Hehath furnished our fouls tothis endwith noble, ſelf-reflectingpowers and abilities. He hath anſwerably furnishedhisword withvariety ofmarks and ſigns for the ſame end anduſe. Some oftheſe marks are exclusive, to detect andbarbold prefumptuous pretenders, 1 Cor. vi. 9. Rev. xxi. 8, 27.

Some are inclufivemarks, to measure the ſtrength andgrowthofgrace by,Rom. iv. 20. And others are positive ſigns, flowing outof the very effenceofgrace, or thenew creature, 1John iv. 13." Herebywe

" know that we dwell in him, andhe inus, becauſe he hath " given us of his Spirit."

Hehath alſo expreſly commanded ustoexamineandproveourſelves; upbraided the neglecters ofthatduty, andenforced their dutyuponthembya thundering argument, 2Cor. xiii. 5. " Exa- " mine yourſelves whether ye be inthe faith, prove your own

" ſelves ; know you notyour own ſelves, how thatJeſus Chrift " is inyou, except ye be reprobates."

Inaword, for this end and purpoſe, amongst others were the ſcriptures written, IJohn

↑ Back to top