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 case of the church depends not upon such trifles .
For a conclusion; I do seriously warn all men to beware of receiving doctrines so destructive to the great truths of the gospel as these are. And I do solemnly profess I have not designedly strained them, to cast reproach upon him that published them; but the matters are so plain, that if Mr. Cary will maintain his positions, not only myself, but every intelligent reader, 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 said 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, and better spirit in heaven.
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 of some that stagger ; and, lastly, (though least of all) to vindicate my own doctrine, the scope and current whereof, hath always been, and shall ever be, to exaltthe free grace of God in Christ, to draw the vilest of sinners to him, and relieve the distressed consciences of fin-burthened Christians.
But, notwithstanding my utmost care and caution, some have been apt to censure it, as if in some things it had a tang ofAntinomianism : But if my public, or private discourses, be the faithful messengers of my judgment and heart, (as I hope they are) nothing canbefound in anyofthem casting a friendly aspect upon any of their principles, which I here justly censure, as erroneous.
The Second Appendin.
Three things I principally aim at in this short Appendix.
1. To give the reader the most probable rise of Antinomianism .
2. Anaccountofthe principal errors of that sect.
3. To confirm and establish Christians against them, by found reasons, back'd with scripture-authority. And,
I. Of the rife of Antinomianism.
The scriptures foreseeing there would arise such a fort of men in the church, as would wax wanton against Christ, and turn his grace into lasciviousness; hath not only precautionedusin general, to beware of such opinions as corrupt the doctrine of free grace. Rom. vi. 1, 2. " Shall we continue in fin, that grace
66 may abound?God forbid:" But hath particularly indigitat ed, and marked those very opinions, by which it would be 2bufed, and made abundant provision against them; as namely,
1. All lighting and vilifying opinions or expressions of the holy law of God, Rom. vii. 7, 12 .
2. All opinions and principles, inclining men to a careless disregard and neglect of the duties of obedience, under pretence of free grace, and liberty by Christ, James ii . Matth. xxv.
3. All opinions neglecting or flighting sanctification, as the evidence of our justification, and rendering it needless, or sinful to try the state of our souls, by the graces of the Spirit wrought in us, which is the principal scope of the first epistle of John.
Notwithstanding, such is the wickedness of some, and weakness of others, that in all ages, (especially the last past, and present), men have audaciously broken in upon the doctrine of free grace, and notoriously violated 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 free grace of God, which teaches us, That denying allungodliness andworldty lusts, we should livefoberly, righteously andgodly in thisprefent world.
Nor can it without manifest violence, be made pliable to such wicked purposes ; and therefore the apostle tells us, Jude 4. that this is done by turning the grace of our God into lafciviousness; μελαλισθεντες, transferring it, fcil foeda interpretatione, by a corrupt, abusive interpretation, to such uses and purposes as it abhors. No such wanton, licentiousconclusions can be inferred from the gospel-doctrines of grace and li
OfAntinomianism.
berty, butbywresting them against their true scope and intent, by the wicked arts and practices ofdeceivers upon them.
The gospel makes sin more odious than the law did, and discovers the punishment of it in a more severe and dreadful manner, 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 shall we escape, if we 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. and yet 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 of free grace, and Christian liberty, is justly chargeable (though upon different accounts) both upon wickedandgoodmen.
Wickedmencorrupt it designedly, that by entithngGod to their fins, they might fin the more quietly, and securely. So the devil instigated the Heathens to fin against the light, and law of nature, by representing their
Gods to them as drunken, and lascivious deities.
So the Nicolaitans, and school of Simon, and after them 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 of grace and liberty. The * Etiani blushed not to teach, Thatfin, and perseverance in fin, could hurt the salvation of none, so that they would embrace their principles.
How vile and abominable inferences the Manichaeans, Valentinians, and Cerdonites drew from the grace and liberty of the gospel, in the following ages, I had rather mourn over, than recite; and if we comedown to the fifteenth century,we shall find the Libertines of those days 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 soon carried them into, plainly discovered for what intents and purposes they were projected and calculated : and he that reads the preface to that grave and learned Mr. Thomas Gataker's book, intituled, God's eye upon Israel, will find, That some
Antinomians, of our days, are not much behind the worst and vilest of them.
One of them cries out, Away with the law, *August, de Hares.Tom. 6. Hares. 54.
+ Galv. adverfus Libert. c. 8.
The Second Appendix. away with the law, it cuts off am an's legs, and then bidshim walk.
Another faith, It is as possible for Christ himselftofin, as fora childofGod to fin.
That if am an, by the Spirit, know himself to be in the state of grace, though he be drunk, or commit murder, GodJees nofin in him : With much more of the fame bran, which I will not transcribe.
But others there are, whose judgments are unhappily tainted, andleavenedwith those loose doctrines; yet being, in the main, godly persons, they dare not take liberty to fin, or live in the 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 a vehicle. Now it is highly probable, such men as these might be charmed into such dangerous opinions, upon such accounts as these:
1. It is like some of them might have felt in themselves the anguish of a perplexed conscience under fin, and not being able to live with these terrors of the law, and dismal fears of conscience, might too hastily snatch at those doctrines which promise them relief and ease, as I noted before in the fifth Cause of my
Treatise of Errors. And that this is not a guess 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(faith he) an experiment of Jesus Christ upononewho hath been in the bondage ofa troubled conscience,at times,for the space of about twelve years, till now upon a clearer discovery of Jesus
Chriftin the gospel, &c.
2. Others have been induced to espouse these opinions from the excess of their zeal against the errors of the Papists, who have notoriously corrupted the doctrine of justification by free grace; decried imputent, and exalted inherent righteousness above it.
The Papists have designedly, and industrioussy sealed up the scriptures from the people, lest they should theredifcover those sovereign, and effectual remedies, which God 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 confessions, with all their dear indulgences, should lie upon their hands as stale and cheap commodities.
Oh, (said Stephen Gardiner) let not this gap of free grace be opened to the peaple.
But as soon as the light of reformation had discovered the
OfAntinomianism.
freegraceofGod to sinners, (which is, indeed, the only effectual remedyofdistressed consciences) and by the same light the horrid cheats of the man of fin were discovered; all good men, who were enlightened by the reformation, juttly and deeply abhorred Popery, as the enemy of the grace of God, and true peaceofconfcience, and fixed themselves upon the found and comfortable doctrines of justification by faith thro' the alone righteousness of Christ.
Meanwhile, thankfully acknowledging, that they which believe, ought also to maintain good works.
But others there were, transported by an indiscreet zeal, who have almost bended the graceofGod as far too much the other way, and have both spoken and written many thingsveryunbecomingthegraceofGod, andtendingtoloosenessandneglect of duty.
3. It is manifest, that others of them have beeningulphed, andfuckedintothosedangerous quickfands ofAntinomianerrors, by separating the spirit from the written word; if once a man pretend the spirit without the scriptures to be his rule, whither will no this own deluding fancies carry him,under a vain and finfulpretenceofthe Spirit ?
In the year 1528, when Helsar, Traier, and Seekler, were confutedbyHallerus; and their errors about oaths, magistrates, andpaedo-baptism,.were detected by him, and by Colveus at Bern, that which they had to say for themselves, was, That the Spirit taught them otherwise than the letters of the Scriptures
Speak. So dangerous it is tofeparatewhatGod hath conjoined, and father our own fanciesuponthe holy Spirit.
4. And it is not unlike, butacomparativeweakness, andinjudiciousness of mind, meeting with a fervent zeal for Christ, and his glory, may induce others toe spouse such taking, and plausible, though pernicious doctrines; they are not aware of the dangerous confequents of the opinions they embrace, and what looseness may beoccafionedbythem: I speak not of occasions taken, but given, by such opinions and expressions; a goodmanwilldrawexcellent inferences of duty from the very fame doctrine.
Instance that of the shortness of time, from whence the apostle infers abstinence, strictness, and diligence,
1Cor. vii. 29. but theEpicure infers all manner ofdiffolute, and licentious practices. "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die," 1 Cor. xv. 22. The bestdoctrines are
" this way liable to abuse.
But let allgoodmenbeware of such opinions and expressions,asgiveanhandle to wickedmento abuse the grace of God,
VOL. IV.
The Second Appendix. which haplythe author himself dare not do, and may strongly hope others may not do: but if the principal will yield it it is in vain to think corrupt nature will not catch at it, and make avileuse, and dangerous improvement of it.
For example, If such a principle as this be asserted for a truth before the world, That men need not fear 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 skill to infer and draw them forth, to cherish and countenance their lusts ; that which the author might design for the relief of the distressed, quickly turns itself into poiton, in the bowels of the wicked; nor can we excuse it, by saying any gospel truth may be thus abused; for this is one of that number, but a principle that gives offeneeto the godly, and encouragement to the ungodly. And so much as to the rife and occasion ofAntinomian errors.
2. In the next place, let us view some of the chiefdoctrines commonly called Antinomian, amongst which there will be found a Πρωτον ψευδος, the radical and most prolific error, from which most of the rest are spawned, and procreated.
Error. 1. I shall begin with the dangerous mistake oftheAntinomians in the doctrine of justification.
The article of just i fication is deservedly stiled, by our divines, Articulus ftantis, vel cadentis religion is, 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 sinner's justification ; an error far inferior to that of the Papists, who depress the righteousness of Christ, and exalt their own inherent righteousness in the businessofjuftification.
(2.) I am bound, in charity, to be. lieve, that some, among them,do hold those errors but speculatively, whilst the truth lies nearer their hearts, and will not suffer them to reduce their own opinions into practice. Now as to their errors about justification, the most that I Error 1. have readdomake Fuftification to be animmanentand
eternal act of God; and do affirm, the elect were justified before themjelvesor the world had a being. Others come lower, and affirm, The elect were justified at the time of Christ's death. With these Dr. Crisp harmonizes.
OfAntinomianism.
Error 2. Thatjustificationbyfaith is no more but a manifestation to us of what was really done before we had a being.
Hence Mr. Saltmarsh thus defines faith, It is, faith he, a being perfuadedmore or less of Christ's love to us; so that when we believe, that which was hid before doth then appear. God (faith another,) cannot charge onefin upon that man who believes this truth, ThatGodlaidhis iniquities upon Christ.
Error 3. That men ought not to doubt of their faith, or question, Whether they believe, or no : Nay, That we ought no more to question our faith, than to question Christ. Saltm . of Free Grace, p. 92, 95 Error4. That believers are not bound to confess sin, mourn for it, or pray for the forgiveness of it; because it was pardoned before it was committed; and pardoned fin, is no fin. See
Eaton's Honeycomb, p. 446, 447.
Error 5. They say, That God sees no sin in believers, whatsoever fins they commit. Some of them, 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, they are 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. That God is not angry with the elect, nor doth he finite them for their fins; and to say that he doth so, is an injurious reflection upon the justice of God.
This is avouched generally in all their writings.
Error 7. They tell us, That by God's laying our iniquities upon Christ, he became as completely sinful 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 need not fear either their own fins, or the fins of others; for that neither their own, nor any other mens fins can do them any hurt, nor must they do any duty for their own salvation, Error 9. They will not allow the new covenant to be made properly with us, but with Christ for us; and that this covenant is all of it a promise, having no condition on our part.
They do not absolutely deny that faith, repentance and obedience are conditions in the new covenant; but say, They are not conditions on our part, but Christ's ; and that he repented, believed, and obeyed for us.
Saltmarsh of Free-grace, p. 126, 127. t u2
The Second Appendix.
Error 10. They speak very flightingly of trying ourselves by marks and signs of grace.
Saltmarsh often calls ita weak, low, carnal way; but the New-EnglandAntinomians, or Libertines, call it a fundamental error, to make sanctification an evidence of justification ; 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 justification is.
See their book entitled, Rife, Reign, Error. p. 72. in this breviate, or summary 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 contagion would 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 practice of the faints.
(1.) These doctrines run cross to the scope and current of the scriptures, which constantly speak of all unregenerate persons
(without exception of the very elect themselves, during that state) as children of wrath, even as others, without Christ, and under condemnation.
They frequently discover God's anger, and tell us hiscastigatory rods of affliction are laid upon them for their sins.
They represent sin as the greatest evil; most opposite to the glory of God, and good of the saints; and are therefore filled with caution sand threatenings to prevent their sinning.
They call the saints 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 of Christ,
They give us a far different account of saving faith, and do not place it in a persuasion more or less of Christ's love to us, or a manifestation in our consciences of the actual remission of our fins before we had a being; but in our receiving Christ, as the gospel offers him, for righteousness and life.
They frequently call the people of God to the examination and trial of their interest in Christ by marks and signs : and accordingly furnish them with variety of such marks from the divers parts or branches of sanctification in themselves.
They earnestly, and every where, press believers to strictness and constancy in the duties of religion, as the way wherein
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 from the scripture-stile and language.
(2.) The experience and practice of the saints recorded in scripture, as well as our contemporaries, or those whose lives are recorded for our imitation, do greatly secure us from the spreading malignity of Antinomianism.
Converse with the liviog, or read the histories of dead saints, and you shall find, that, in their addresses to God, they still bless and praise him, for that great and wonderful change of state which was made upon them when they first believed in Christ, and on their believing passed from death to life; freely acknowledging before God, they were before their conversion, equal in fin and misery with the vilest wretches in the world : they heartily mourn for their daily fins, fear nothingmorethan fin, noafflictions in the world go so near their hearts, as fin doth : they can mourn for the hardness of their hearts, that they can mourn no more for fin. They acknowledge the rods of God, that are upon them, are not only the evidences of his displeasure against them for their 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 the blood of Christ.
They are not only sensible that God fees sin in them, but that he seeth such and so great evils in them, as makes them admire at his patience, that they are not consumed in their iniquities. They find cause enough to suspect their own sincerity, doubt the truth of their faith, and of their graces; and are therefore frequent and serious in the trial and examination of their own states, by scripture marks and signs.
They urge the commands and threatenings, as well as the pro miles, 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 in the 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 gospel; nor for that on earth, which is only to be found in heaven : 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 no good, speaks to them, not only as a Barbarian, ina language theyunderstandnot, but in such a language as their souls 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: it wounds and grieves their very hearts to fee the world hardened in their prejudices against reformation, and a gap opened to alllicentiousness.
But, notwithstanding this double antidote and security, we find, by daily experience, such doctrines too much obtaining in the professing world. For my own part, he that searches 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 one line, to cloud or diminish the free grace of God. Let it arise, and shine in its meridian glory. None owes more to it, or expects more from it, than
Ido; and what I shall write in this 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 is an immanent and eternal act of God, not only preceeding all acts off in, but the very existence of the sinner himself, and so perfectly abolishing fin in ourperfons, that we are as clean fromfin as Christ himself, αναμάρτητοι, as some 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 agreed upon, and asserted by found and reformed divines, touching gospeljuftification, is by them made clear to the world, in these following scriptural distinctions of it.
Justification maybe considered under atwofold refpector habitude.
1. According to God's eternal decree ; or, 2. According to the executions thereof in time.
1.According to God's eternal decree and purpose; and in this respect grace is said to be " given us in Christ before the " world began," 2 Tim. i. 19. and we are said to be pre- " destinated to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, "
Eph. i. 5.
2.According to the execution thereof in time, so they again distinguish it, by considering it two ways :
1. In its impetration by Christ.
2. In its application to us.
That very mercy or privilege of justification, which God, from all eternity, purely out of his benevolent love, purposed and decreed for his elect, was also in time purchased for them
OfAntinomianism.
by the death of Christ, Rom. v. 9, 10. where we arefaid to be " juftifiedby his blood;" and he is said to have " made peace
" through the blood of his cross, to reconcileallthings to him- " self," Col. i. 20. to be " delivered for our offences, and raised
" again for our justification," Rom. iv. 25. Once more, " That "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not " imputing their trespasses," 2Cor. v. 19. God the Father had, in the death of Christ, a foundation of reconciliation, whereby he became 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 of our effectual calling.
When an elect sinner 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 to the state of the person.
2. Specially and particularly, as to the acts of fin.
As soon as we are received into communion with Christ, and hisrighteoufness is imputedbyGod, and received by faith, immediately we pass from a state of death and condemnation toa state of life and justification, and all fins already committed, are remitted without exception or revocation; and not only fo, but a remedy is given us in the righteousness of Christ, against fins to come and though these special and particular fins weafterward fall into,do need particular pardons ; yet, by renewed acts of faith and repentance, the believer applies to himself the righteousness of Christ, and they are pardoned.
Again, they carefully distinguish betwixt, 1. Its application by God to our persons. And,
2. Its declaration, or manifestation in us, and to us.
Which manifestation, or declaration, is either, 1. Private, in the conscience of a believer ; or,
2. Public, at the bar of judgment.
And thus justification is many ways distinguished. And, notwithstanding all this, it is still act us 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 by one offering purchased it, and, at the time of our vocation, universally applied it, as to the state of the person justified ; and that so effectually, as no future sin shall bring that person anymore under condemnation.
In this sentence or judgment the generalityof reformed or-
The Second Appendix. 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 actually and completely, before they have a being) is an error, and bath no solid foundation to support it, maybe evidenced by these three reasons.
1. Because it is irrational.
2. Because it is unscriptural.
3. Because it is injurious to Christ and the souls of men.
Reason 1. It is irrational to imagine, thatmen are actually justified before they have a being, by animmanent act or decree of God.
Manythingshavebeenurgeduponthis account, toconfute and destroy this fancy, and much more may be rationally urged against it: let the following particulars be weighed in the balance of reason.
1. Can we rationally suppose, that pardon and acceptance can be affirmed or predicated of that which is not ? Reason tells us,
Non entis nullafunt accident i a; that which is not, can neither be condemned nor justified: but before the creation, or before am an's particular conception, he was not, and therefore could not in his own person be the subject of justification.
Where there is no law, there is no fin; where there is nofin, there is no punishment ; where there is neither fin nor punishment, therecanbenoguilt ; (for guilt is an obligation to punishment); and where there is neither law nor fin, nor obligation to punishment, there can be no justification. He that is not capable of a charge, is not capable ofa discharge.
What remains then, but that either the elect must exist from eternity, or be justified in time ? It is true, future beings maybe considered, as in the purpose and decreeofGodfrom all eternity, or as in the intention of Christ, who died intentionally for the sins of the elect, and rose again for their justification ; but neither the decree of God, nor the death of Christ takes place upon any man for his actual justification, until he personally exist : for the object of justification, is a sinner actually ungodly, Rom. iv. 5. but sonoman is, or can be so from eternity. In election, men are considered without respect to good or evil done by them, Rom. ix. 11. not so in actual justification.
2. In justification there isa change made upon the 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 or purpose of God,in itself,makes nosuchactual
Of Antinomianism.
change upon the state of any person: it hath indeed the nature of an universal cause ; but an universal cause produceth nothing, without particulars.
If our state be changed, it is not by an immanent act of God: hence no fuchthing doth tranfire. A mere velle non punire, or intention to justify us indue
time and order, makes no change on our state, till that come, and the particular causes have wrought. A prince may have a purpose or intention to pardon a law-condemned traitor, and free him from that condemnationindue time; but whilst the law that condemned him, stands in its full force and power against him, he is not justified or acquitted, notwithstanding that gracious intention, but stands still condemned.
So it is with us, till by faith we are implanted into Christ.
It is true, Christ is a surety for all his, and hath satisfied the debt, he is a common head to all his, as Adam was to all his children, Rom. v. 19. but as the fin of Adam condemns none but those that are in him ; so the righteousness of Christ actually justifies none but those that are in him; and none are actually in him but believers: therefore, till we believe, no actual change passeth, orcanpass upon our states.
So that this hypothesis is contrary to reason.
Reason 2. As this opinion is irrational, so it is unfcriptural.
For, 1. The scripture frequently speaks of remission or justification as a future act, and therefore not from eternity, Rom. iv.
23, 24. " Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was " imputed to him ; but for us also, to whom it shall be impu- " ted, if we believe on him," &c. And, Gal. iii. 8. " The scrip- " tures foreseeing thatGodwouldjustify the Heathen through " faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham."
The gofpelwas preached many years before the Gentiles were justified ; but if they were justified from eternity, how was the gospel preached before their justification ?
2. The scripture leaves allunbelievers, without distincttion, under condemnation and wrath.
The curse of the law lies upon them all tilltheybelieve, John iii. 18. " He that believeth in " him is not condemned; but he that believeth not, iscondem- " ned already."
And, Eph. ii. 3. 12, 13. The very elect themselves were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. They were at that time, or during that stateofnature, (which takes inallthatwhole space betwixt their conception and conversion), without Christ, without hope, withoutGodin the world.
But, if this opinion be true, that the elect were justified from eter VOL. IV.
The Second Appendix. nity, or from the time of Christ's death, then it cannot be true, that the elect by nature are children of wrath,withoutChrift, without hope, without God in the world; except these two mayconfift together, (which is absolutely impossible), that the children of wrath, without God, Christ, or hope, are actually discharged from theirfins and dangers, bya free and gracious act ofjuflification.
Objection. But doth not the scripture say, Rom. viii. 33.
"Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect ?" If none can charge the elect, thenGodhathdischarged them.
Solution.God hath not actuallydischargedthem, as they are elect, but as they are justified eleet; for so runs the 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 Scripture order of justification,which placesitnotonlyafterChrist'sdeath in the place last cited,Rom. viii. 33. but also after our actual vocation; as is plain, ver. 30.
Moreover,whomhedidpredeftinate, them he also called; and "whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he just i- " fied, them he also glorified."
Is it absurd to place vocation before predestination, orglorificationbeforejustification ? Sure, then, it must be absurd, also, toplacejustification before vocation; the one, as well as the other, confounds and breaks the scripture order: You may as well say, men shall be glorified, thatwereneverjustified; assaytheymaybejustifiedbeforethey believed, or existed. So that you feethenotion of justification from eternity, or before our actual existence,andeffectual vocation, is a notion as repugnant to sacred scripture, as it is to found reason.
Reason 3. And as it is found repugnant to reason, and scripture, so it is highly injurious to Jesus Christ and thefouls of men.
(1.) It greatly injures the Lord Jesus Christ, and robs him ofthegloryofbeing our Saviour; for if the elect be justified from eternity, Christ cannot be the Saviour of the elect, as most assuredly he is; for if Christ save them,he must favethem as persons subject to perishing,either defacto, or dejure.
But if the elect were justified from eternity, they could, in neither respect, be subject to perishing: For he that was eternallyjuftified, was never condemned, nor capable of condemnation ; and he that never was, nor could be condemned, could never be subject to perishing; and he that never was, nor could be subject toperishing, cannevertruly,andproperlybesaidtobesaved.
OfAntinomianism
If it be said 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 sure, from Rom. viii. 30. that the whole number of 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 of the glory of being the Saviour of his elect.
23-14 (2.) It bereaves him of another glorious royalty.
The scripture every where makes our justification 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 of the blood of the cross ? as it plainly appears, from these scriptures, to be. Nay, P (3.) This opinion leaves no place for the satisfaction of justice by the blood of Christ, for our fins. He did not die according to this opinion, to payourdebts. And here Antinomianism and Socinianism meet, and congratulate each other : For if there were no debts owing to the justice of God from eternity,
Christ could not die topaythem; and it is manifest there were no debts due to God'sjustice from eternity, on the account of hiselect, if the elect were from eternity justified; unless you will say, a person maybe justified, and yet his debts not paid :
For all juftificationdissolves the obligation to punishment.
ل If there were any debt for Christ to pay, by his blood, they must either be his own debts, or the elects. To say they were his own, is ablafphemous reproach to him ; 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 to discharge, or make satisfaction for.
(4.) And as it hath been proved to be 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 the manifestation to us of what was really, and actually done before. Or a being persuaded more or less of Christ's love to us. And that
Xx 2
The Second Appendix. when persons do believe, that which was hid before, doth then only appear to them.
Refutation As the former error dangerously corrupts the doctrine of justification, so this corrupts the doctrine of faith; and therefore deserves 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 Christ, to some Christians, at some times, cannot be denied.
St. Paul could say, Gal. ii. 20, 21. Christ loved him, and gave himself for him ; but to say that this is the justifying act of faith, whereby a sinner passes from condemnation and death, into the state of righteousness and life; this I must look upon 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 such manifestation, evidence, or assurance, that God laid their iniquities upon Christ, and that he died to put away their sins; but daily conflict with strong fears and doubts, 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.
Many thousand 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 a justified state, without any such persuasion, 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 of God's children. Now that cannot be the saving and justifying act of faith, which is not to be found in multitudes of believing and justified persons.
But manifestation, or a personal persuasion 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 not that saving justifying faith, which the scripture speaks of.
That faith which only justifies the person of a sinner before God, must necessarily be found in all justified believers, or else am an may be justified, without the least degree of justifying faith, and consequently it is not faith alone, by which am an is justified before God.
Reason 2. That cannot be the justifying act of faith, which
Of Antinomianism.
is not conftantand abiding, with the justified person, but comes and goes, is frequentlyloft and recovered, the state of the per- - son still remaining the fame. And such 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 God was his enemy, as when he could say, I know that " my Redeemer liveth."
The same maybe said of David, 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 essential and inseparable, to wit, faith uniting the soul to Christ.
(2.) That which is contingent and separable, to wit, evidence, and persuasion of our interest in him.
Those believers that walk in darkness, and have no light, have yet a real, special interest in God as their
God, Ifa. 1. 10. Here, then, you find believers without persuasion, or manifestation of God's love to them ; which could never be,
if justifying faith con fitted ina personal persuasion, manifestation, 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 persuasion, evidence, or manifestation of a man's particular interest in the love of God, or the pardon of his sins.
Therefore this is not the justifying faith the scripture speaks of.
Reason 3. That only is justifying, saving faith, which gives the soul right and title to Christ, and the saving benefits which come by Christ upon all the children of God. Now, it is not persuasion 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 sons of God;
" even to them that believe on his name."
So that unless the Antinomians can prove, that receiving of Christ, and personal persuasion of pardon, be one and the same thing, andconfequently, that all believers in the world are persuaded, or assured that 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 sinner before God.
That which I think led ourAntinomians into this error, was an unsound, and unwary definition of faith, which, in their youth, they had imbibed from their catechisms, and other systems, pas-
The Second Appendix. sing without contradiction, or fcruple in those days; which though itwereamistake, and hath abundantly been proved to be fo in latter days; yet ourAntinomians will not part with a notion so serviceable to the support of the darling opinion of eternal justification.
Reason4. Am an maybe strongly persuaded of the love of God to his soul, and of the pardon of his fins, and yet have no interest in Christ, nor be in a pardoned state.
This was the case of the Pharifees, and others, Luke xviii. 9. Rev. iii. 17. therefore this persuasion cannot be justifying faith.
If aperfuafion be that which justifies the persuaded person, then the Pharifees and Laodiceans were justified. Oh ! how common and easy is it for the worst of men to be 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 professing world:
For what is more common amongst the most carnal and unsanctified part of the world, notonlysuch as are merely moral, but even the most flagitious and prophane, than to support themselves by false perfuafions of their good estate ? When they are asked, in order to their conviction, what hopes offalvationthey have, and how they are founded? their common answer is,
Christ died for sinners, and that they are persuaded, that whatever he hath done for any other, he hath done it for them as well as others : but such a persuasion cometh not of him that called them, and is of dangerous consequence.
Reason 5. This doctrine is certainly unsound, because it confounds the distinction betwixtdogmatical and saving faith; and makes it all one, to believe an axiom or proposition, and to believe savingly in Christ to eternal life. What is it to believe that God laid our iniquities upon Christ, more than the mere assent of the understanding to a scripture axiom, or proposition, without any consent of the will, to receive Jesus Christ, as the gospel offers him ? And this is no more than what any unregenerate person may do; yea, the very 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.
Crisp, p. 296.) God cannot 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.
scripture-proposition, whilst the heart and will remain carnal, and utterly averse to Jesus Christ.
I may believedogmatically, that the iniquities ofmenwere laid upon Christ, and persuade 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 soul of a believer in times of temptation anddefertion.
For how will you comfort such a distressed soul that faith, and faith truly, I have no persuasion that Christ is mine, or that my fins are pardoned; but I am heartily willing to cast 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 at the door of hope ; I stay and trust upon him, though I walk in darkness, and have no light.
Now let such doctrine as this be preached to afoul in this con dition (and we maybe sure 'tis the condition of many thousands belonging to Christ) I fay, bring this doctrine to them, and tell them, that unless they be persuaded of the love of God, and that God laid their iniquities on Christ, except they have fomemanifestation that their persons were justified from eternity, their accepting of Christ, consent of their wills, waiting at his feet, &c. signifies nothing; if they believe not that their particular fins were laid upon Christ, and are pardoned to them by him, they are still unbelievers, and have no part or portion in him.
Whatever pretences of spiritual comfort and relief theAntinomian doctrine makes, you fee by this it reallydeprives a very great, if not the greatest number of God's people of their best and sweetest relief in days of darkness and spiritual distress.
So that this doctrine which makes manifestation and assurance the very essence of justifying faith, appears hereby to be both a false and very dangerous doctrine. And yet there is as much, or more, danger to the souls of men, in their
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 their faith, than to question Christ.
Refutation. What an easy way to heaven is theAntinomian way ? Were it but as true and safe to the soul, as it is easy and pleasing to the flesh, who would not embrace it ? What a charm of the devil is prepared in those two propositions ? Be but perfuadedmore or less of Christ's love to thy soul (faith Mr. Saltmarsh) and that's justifying faith.
Here's a snare of the devil laid for thefouls of men. And then (2.) to make it fast
The Second Appendix. and sure upon the soul, and effectually to prevent the disco. very of their error, tell them they need no more to doubt or question their faith, than to question Christ, and the work is done to all intents.
Now that this is an error, and a very dangerous one, will appear by the following reasons.
Reason 1. The questioning and examining of our 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 lose not the things which 66 we have wrought :" With multitude of other scriptures, recommending holy jealousy, serious self-trial and examination of our faith, as the unquestionable duties of the people of God.
But if we ought to question our faith no more than we ought to question Christ, away then with all self-examination, and diligence to make our calling and election sure; for where there is no doubt nor danger, there's no place 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, than you do to question, whether there be a Christ, or whether he shed his blood for the remission of any man's fins ?
Reason. 2. This is averydangerouserror, and it is the more dangerous, because it leaves no way to recover a presumptuous sinner out of his dangerous mistakes ; but confirms and fixes him in them, to the great hazard of his eternal ruin.
It cuts off all means of conviction or better information, and nails them fast to the carnal state in which they are.
According to this doctrine, 'tis impossible for a man to think himself something, when he is nothing; or to be guilty of such a parallogism and cheat, put by himself upon his own soul, Jam. ii. 22. this, in effect, bids a man keep on right or wrong; he is sure enough of heaven, if he be but stronglyperfuaded that Christ died for him, and he shall come thither at last.
Certainly this was not the counsel Christ gave to the self-deceived Laodiceans, Rev. iii. 17, 18, but instead of diffuading them from self-jealousy and suspicion of their condition, whether their faith and state were safe or not, he rather counsels them to buy eye-salve, that is, to labour after better information of the true state and
OfAntinomianism.
conditiontheywere in, and not cast away their souls by false perfuafions and vain confidences.
Reason 3. This doctrine cannot be true, because it supposes every persuasion, or strong conceit of a man's own heart, to be as infallibly sure and certain, as the very fundamental doctrines of Christianity. No truth in the world can be surerthan this, that Jesus Christ died for sinners. "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 sure foundation laid by God himself, Ifa. xxviii. 16. and shall the strong conceit sand 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 self evident, or demonftrative arguments that leave no doubts behind them.
Know we not, that the heart is deceitful above all things, the most notorious cheat and impostor in the world, Jer. xvii. 9. ? Does it not deceive all the formal hypocrites in the world, in this very point ? And shall every strong conceit and presumptuous confidence, begotten of Satan by a deceitful heart, and nursed up by self-love, pass without any examination or suspicion for as infallible and assured a truth, as that Jesus
Christ came into the world to save sinners ? The Lord sweep that doctrine out of the world by reformation, which is like to sweep so many thousand fouls into hell by a remediless self deception.
Error. 4. The fourth Antinomian error before-mentioned, was this, That believers are not bound to confess theirfins, or pray for the pardon of them ; because theirfins were pardoned before they were committed ; andpardonedfinisnofin.
Refutation. If this be true doctrine, then it will justify and make good such conclusions and inferences as these, which neceffarilyflowfrom it : viz.
1. That there is no sin in believers.
2. Or if there be, the evil is very in considerable. Or, 3. Whatever evil is in it, it is not the will of God that they should either confess it, mourn over it, or pray for the remission of it; whatever he requires of others, yet they needtakeno notice of it, so as to afflict their hearts for it'; God hath exempted them from such concernments :
There's nothing but joy to a believer, faith Mr. Eaton.
But neither of these conclusions are either true or tolerable; therefore neither is the principle so which yieldeth them.
VOL . IV.
The Second Appendix.
(1.) It is not true or tolerable to affirm, that there is no fin in a Leliever, 1John i. 18. " If we say we have no fia, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not 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 scriptures plainly affirm it, and the universal experience of all the saints sadly confirms it. 'Tis true, thebloodofChrift hath taken away the guilt of fin, fo that it shall not condemn believers ; and the spirit offanctification hath taken away the dominion of fin, so that it doth not reign over believers ; but nothing, except glorification, utterly destroys the existence of fin in believers.
The acts off in are our acts, and not Christ's; and the stain and pollution of those sinful acts, are the burthens and infelicities of believers, even in their justified state.
Dr.
Crisp indeed in, p. 270, 271. calls that objection(I fupposehe means distinction betwixt the guilt of fin and sin itself) a simple objection, and tells us, the very fin itself, as well as the guilt of it, passed off from us, and was laid upon Christ : So that speaking of the fins ofblafphemy, murder, theft, adultery,
Iying, &c. From that time(laith he) that they were laid upon Christ, thou ceasest to be atranfgreffor.
If thou hast part in the Lord Christ, all these transgressions of thine become actually thetranfgreffions of Christ.
So that now thou art not an idolater, or perfecutor, a thief, a murderer, and an adulterer, thou art not a sinful person; Christ is made that veryfinfulness before God, &c. Such expressions justly offend and grieve the hearts of Christians, and expose Christianity to scornand contempt.
Was it not enough that the guilt of our finwas laidonhim, but we must imagine also, that the thing itself, fin, with all the deformity and pollution should be essentially transferred from us to Christ ? No, no. After we are justified, fin dwelleth in us,
Rom. vii. 17. warreth in us, and brings us into captivity, ver.
23. burthens and oppresses our very fouls, ver. 24. Methinks I need not stand to prove what I should think no found experienced
Christian dares to deny, that there is much sin still remaining in the persons of the justified. He that dares to deny it, hath little acquaintance with the nature of fin, and of his own heart.
(2.) It is neither true nor tolerable to say, there is noconfiderable evil in the fins of believers, deserving a mournful confession or petition for pardon. The desert of fin is hell; 'tis an artifice of Sat an to draw men to fin,byperfuadingthem there is no great evil in it; but none 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 produced by it, are far from thinking ita light or in considerable evil.
The sins, evenofbelievers, greatly wrong and offend their God, Psal.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 are no in considerable mischiefs.
(3.) Now if there be sin in believers, and so much evil in their fins (neither of which anyfober Christian will deny) then undoubtedly it is their duty to confess it freely, mourn for it bitterly, and pray for the pardon of it earnestly ; unless God have any where discharged them from those duties, and told them these are none of their concernments, and that he expects not these things from justified persons; but that these are duties properly and only belonging to other men. But on the contrary, you find the whole current of scripture running strongly and constantly indirect opposition to such idle and fin. fulnotions, For, (1.)He hath plainly declared it to be his will, that his people should confess their fins before him, and strongly connected theirconfeffions with their pardons, 1.John v. 9. and frequently suspends from them thecomfortablesenseofforgiveness, till their hearts be brought to this duty, Psal. xxxii. 5. compared with verse 3, 4. the more to engage them to this duty, by the sensible ease and comfort attending and following it.
(2.) He also enjoins it upon them, That they mourn for their fins, Ifa. xxii. 12. expresses his great delight in contrition and brokenness of spirit for fin; Isa. lxvi . 2. "To this man will I " look, eventohim that is poor, and of a contrite spirit." Christ himself pronounces a blessing upon them 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, they did indeed confess their finscommittedbefore their justification, but not their afterfins.
Reply.According to Antinomian principles, I would demand, I fall the elect were justified from eternity, what fins any of - them could confess which they had committed before theirjuftification ? Or, if they were justified from the time of Christ's death, what were the fins any of us have to confess who had not a being, and therefore had not actually finned long after the death of Christ ? But I hope nonewilldeny,that the mournYyz
The Second Appendix. ful complaints the apostle makes for fin, Rom. vii. 23, 24. were after he was a sanctified and justified person.
(3.) It is not the will of Christ to exempt any justified person upon earth, from the duty of praying frequently and fervently for the remiffionofhis fins.
This the most eminent saints upon earth have done.
The greatest favouritesofheaven have freely confessed, and heartily prayed for the remission of fin, Dan. ix. 4, 19.
And that the gospel gives us no exemption from this duty, appears by Christ's injunction of it upon all his people,
Mat. vi. 12.
Error 5. To give countenance to the former error, they say, That God fees 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 in the other place it is said, " In those days, and in that time,
" faith the Lord, the iniquity of Israel shall be 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 to God'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, that God seen no sin in believers, as a judge sees guiltinamalefactor, to condemn him for it; that is a sure and comfortable truth for us : but to say he sees no sin in his children, as a displeased father, to correct and chasten them for it, is an assertion repugnant to scripture, and very injurious to God.
For, (1.) It is injurious to God's omniscience, Psal. cxxxix. 2.
" Thou, (faith holy David,) knowest my down-fitting, and " my up-rising, and understandest my thoughts afar off, and " art acquainted with all my ways."
Job xxviii. 24. "He " looketh to the ends of the 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."
Psal. 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 that God feeth his most secret fins, therein, consequentially, denies him to be
God.
(2.)This assertion is inconsistent with God's providential dis-
Of Antinomianism.
pensations to his people. When David, ajusified believer had finnedagainst him in the matter ofUriah, it is said, 2 Sam. xi.27. " the thing that David had done dip leased the Lord :" and, as the effect of that displeasure, it is said, chap. xii. 15.
" The Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto Da- " vid, and it was very sick." Among the Corinthians some that should not be condemned with the world, were judged andchastenedofthe Lord for their undue approaches to his 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 by God in his child, with its sickness and death; and the latter in like manner smittenbyGod in their own persons ; and both for their respective fins committed against God; and yet God saw no sin in them? Did God' fmitethem for fin, and yet beheld no sin in them ? Beware left in ascribing such strokes to God, you strike at once both at his omnisciency and justice.
Quest. 2. How God, upon confession and repentance, canbefaid to put away his peoples fins (as Nathan there afssures David he had done) when in the mean time he saw no sin in him, either to chastise him for, or to pardon in him ? Do you think that God's 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 the only placesalledged for it. It hath no footing at all in Numb. xxiii. 21. Grave and learnedGataker hath learnedly and industrioufly vindicated that scripture from this abuse of it by Antinomians, in his treatise upon that text, entitled, God's eye upon his Israel; where, after a learned and critical search of the text, he telleth us, it foundethword for word thus from the originial ; "He hath
" not beheld wrong against Jacob, nor hath he seen grievance " against Israel."
So that the meaning is not, that God did not see sin in Israel, but that he beheld not with approbation the wrongs and injuries done by others against his Israel ; and shews at large, by divers solid reasons, why the Antinomian sensecannotbe the proper sense of that place, it being cross to the maintenor of the story, and truth of God's word ; which shews, thatGodoften complained of their fins,often threatened to avenge them; yea, did actually avenge them, by destroying them in the wilderness ; nay, Balaam himself, who uttered these words unto Balak, did not so understand them, as appears by the advice he gave toBalak, to draw them into fin, that
The Second Appendix. thereby God might be provoked to withdraw his protection from them.
And for Jer. 1. 20. it makes nothing to their purpose. Many expound the fin there fought after, and not found to be the fin of idolatry, which Israel should be purged from by their captivity, according to Ifa.xxvii. 9.
But the generality of found expositors are agreed, that by the not finding of Israel's and Judah's fin, is meant no more, but his not finding those bonds or obligations against them to eternal punishment, which their fins had put them under.
(4.) In a word, this opinion clashes with their other principles.
For they say, that though there was pardon and remission under the old covenant(which they allowed to be a covenant of grace) yet it wasbutgradatim, and successively,as they offered sacrifices.
If am an had finned ignorantly, untilhebrought a sacrifice, his fin lay upon him, it maybe a week, a month's distance between, before they could have their pardon.
Vide Dr. Crisp ofthetwocovenants, p. 256, 257. Now I demand, If this were the state and case of all God's Israel under the Old Testament, why do the semen affirm, thatGodcanfee no fin in a believer ? and why do they expound the words ofBalaamso contradictory to this their other opinion ?
For they willnotdenybutGod fees unpardoned fins in all; and here is a week, or month, or more time, allowed between the commission and remission of their fin.
And fo much of the fifth Antinomian error.
Error 6. That God is not angry with the elect, nor doth he smite them for their fins ; and to say that he dothfo, is an injurious refuction upon the justice of God, who hath received full satisfaction for all theirfins from the hand of Christ.
There are several mistakes and errors in these affertions; and If up pose our Antinomianswere led into them, (1.) By their abhorrence of the Popish doctrine, which errs more dangerous fly in the other extreme; for they wickedly assert our sufferings to be satisfactory for our fins, which is the ground of Popish penances, and voluntary self-castigations.
(2.) From a groundless apprehension, that God's corrections of us for our fins, are inconfiftentwith the fulness of Christ's satisfaction for them . Christ having paid all our debts, and dissolved our obligations to all punishment, it cannot consist with the justice of God to lay any rod upon us for our fins, after Christ hath borne all that our fins deserved.
This mistake of the end of Christ's death, occasions them to stumble into the other mistakes; they imagine that Christ's satisfaction abolished God's hatred of fin in believers. But this
OfAntinomianism.
cannot be; God's antipathy to fin can never be taken away by the satisfaction of Christ, though his hatred to the persons of the redeemed be ; for the hatred of fin is found in the unchangeable nature of God: and he can as soon cease to be holy, as cease to hate fin, Hab. i. 13. Nor was Christ's death ever designed to this end ; though Christ hath satisfied for the i fins of believers, God still hates sin in believers.
His hatred to their fias, and love to their persons, are not inconsistent. As am an 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 from God, the pure issues and effects of his justice and wrath against the wicked; and his paternal caftigations, the pure issues of the care and love of a displeased Father. Great and manifold 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 salvation.
To narrow the matter in controversy as much as we can, I shall lay down three concessions about God's corrections of his people.
Concession 1. We chearfully and thankfully acknowledge the perfection and fulness of the satisfaction of Christ for all the fins of believers; and, with thankfulness do own, that if God shouldcaft all, or any of them, into an ocean of temporal troubles and distresses; in all that sea of sorrow there would not be foundone drop of vindictive wrath.
Christ hath drunk the laftdrop of that cup, and left nothing for believers to fufferby way of satisfaction.
Concession 2. We grant also, that all the sufferings of believers in this world are not for their fins; but some of them are for the prevention of fin, 2Cor. xii. 7. some for the trial of their graces, Jam. i. 2, 3. some for a confirming testimony to his truths, Acts v. 41. Such sufferings as these have much heavenly comfort concomitant with them.
Concession 3. We do not say that God's displeasure with his people for fin, evidenced against them in the tharpest rebukes of the rod, is any argument that God's love is turned into hatred against their persons: No, no, his love to his people i sun-
The Second Appendix. changeable.
Having loved his own,he lovedthemtotheend, John xiii. 1.
Yet notwithstanding all this, three things are undeniably clear, and being thoroughly apprehended, will end this controversy.
1. That God 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 satisfied by the blood of Christ for all their fins.
1. That God lays his correcting rod, in this world, upon the persons of believers.
This no man can have the face to deny, that believes the scriptures to be the word of God, or that the troubles of goodmen in this life fall not out by casuality, but by the counsel and direction of divine Providence. He that denies the hand of God to be 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 son is he whom the Father chasteneth not ? but if
" ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then " are ye bastards, and not sons." Nor will any sober Christian deny these troubles of believers to be the effects of God's governingProvidencein the world,or once imagine, or affirm them to be mere casualties and contingencies; for " affliction cometh
" not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble spring out of the " ground," Job v. 6. In what Eutopia doth that good man live upon earth, that feels not the painful rod of God 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, his own sense and feeling may in a little time give him a painful demonstration of it.
2. And for the second, that this rodofGod is sometimes laid upon believers for their sins, methinks no sober modest Christian in the world should doubt or deny it, when he confiders, that,
1. God himself hath so declared it.
2. The saints in all ages have freely confessed it to be fo.
1. God himself hath fully and plainly declared it to be so, 2 Sam. xii. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. " Wherefore hast thou de- " fpised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his fight?
"Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thy house,"
&c. Here is the sword, a terrible and painful evil, upon David's house, am an after God's own heart, and thatexprefly for his
OfAntinomianism.
fin in the matterofUriah.
So Moses, one of the greatest favouritesofheaven, for his sinful shifting of the Lord's work, " The s anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses," 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 case, were to transcribe partofboth teftaments.
2. And, as God hath declared the sins of his people to be the provoking causes of his rods upon them; so they have freely and ingenuously confessed 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,
" and turn again to the Lord." This was spoken by Jeremy, in the name of the whole captive church ; so Psal. 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
" of my fin.
My wounds stink, and are corrupt, because of my " 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 own justification, and say, Lord, my sins have not defer. ved this at thy hand, nor is it justice in thee thus to chastise me after thou hasl received satisfaction for all my fins from the hand of Christ ? Would it not look like an horrid blasphemy, to hearthebestman intheworlddisputing and denying the justice of God in the troubles he lays him under ? For my own part, let the Lord lay on as smartly as he will upon me, I desire to follow the holy patterns and precedents recorded in scripture for my imitation, and to say with the people of God, Ezra ix. 13 .
" Thou hast punished me less than mine iniquities deserve."
And Micah vii. 9. " I will bear the indignation of the Lord, be- " cause I have sinned against him." And he that refuses so to do, gives little evidence of the spirit of adoption in him, but avery clear evidence of the pride and ignorance of his own heart.
Job indeed stifly stood upon his own vindication ; but that was when he had to do with men, who falsly charged him, laying those fins as the causesofhistroubles, which he was innocent of, Job. xxii. 5, 6. But when he had todowithGod,hedifputes no more, but faith, Behold, I am vile, what shall I answer thee? Iwilllaymy handuponmy mouth, q.d. I have done, Father,
I have done ; whether these chastisements be for my fin or no, sure I am, my sin not onlydeferves all this, but hell itself; thou art holy, but I am vile.
VOL . IV.
Zz :
The Second Appendix.
3. Nor can it at all be doubted,but that these fatherly corrections of the saints for their fins, are reconcile able to,and fully consistent with his justice, satisfied by the blood of Christ for all their fins.
For, (1 ) If it were not so, the just and righteous God would never have inserted such a clause of reservation in his gracious covenant with his people, to chastenthem as he saw need, after he had taken them into the covenant, Psal.
Ixxxix. 30, 31, 32, 33. " If they tranfgrefs, he will visit their " transgressions with a rod, and their iniquitieswith stripes ; ne- " vertheless (faith he) my loving-kindness will I not take away."
That [nevertheless] clearly proves the consistency of his stripes for fin, with his loving-kindness to his people, and with Christ's fatisfactionfor their fins. (2.) If this were not confiftentwith the justice of God, to be sure he would never single them out to spend his rods upon, rather than others.
It is most certain the holiest men have most lashes in this life : Afaph said, Psal. Jxxiii.
12, 14. "The ungodly prosper 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 at the house of God;" 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, suffer the painful agonies of death, because of fin, exprefly contrary to Paul, Rom. viii. 10. "And if Christ be in you, the body
" isdeadbecause off in."
(3.) In a word, As Christ never shed his blood to extinguith or abolish God's displeasure against fin, in whomsoever it be found, so he never shed it, to deprive his people of the manifold blessings and advantages that accrue to them by the rods of God upon them.
It was never his intent to put us intoacondition on earth, that would have been fo much to our loss.
So then if the hand of God be upon his people for fin, and consistently enough with his justice, it must be an error, to say, God smites not believers for ther fins, and it would be injusticeinhim so to do: 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, and we as completely righteous as Christ : That not only the guilt and punishment off in was laid upon Christ, butfimply the very faults that men commit, the transgression itself became the transgression of Christ; iniquity itself, not in any figure, but plainlyfin itself, was laid on Christ ; and that Christ himself was not more righteous than this person is, and this person is not morefinfu shun Christ was.
Of Antinomianifm.
Refutation.
These two propositions will never go down with found and orthodox Christians : the first sinks and debases
Christ too low, the other exalts the sinful creature too high.
The one represents the pure and spotless Lord Jesus as sinful : the other represents the sinful creature as pure and perfect : and both these propositions seem evidently to be built upon these two hypotheses. (1.) That the righteousness of Christ isfubjectively and inherently in us, in the same fulness and perfection as it is in Christ : grant that, and then it will follow indeed, That Christ himself is not more righteous than the believer is.
(2.) That not only the guilt and punishment off in was laid on Christ by way ofimputation : bntfin itself, the very transgression, or finfulness itself, was transferred from the elect to Christ : and that by God's laying it on him, thefinfulness or fault itself was essentially transfused into him ; andfofin itself did tranfire a subjecto in subjectum.
Grant but this, and itcannever be denied but that Christ became as completely sinful as we.
But both these hypotheses are not only notoriously false, but utterly impossible, as will be manifested by and by; but before I come to the refutationofthem, it will be necessary to laydowa some concessions to clear the orthodox doctrine in this controversy, and narrow the matter under debate, as much as may be.
(1.) And first, We thankfully acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Surety of the New Testament, Heb. vii. 22. and that as such, all the guilt and punishment of our fins, was laid upon him, Ifa. liii. 5, 6. That is,God imputed, and he bare it in our room and stead. God the Father, as supreme Lawgiver and judge of all, upon the transgression 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 end he was made under the law, Gal. iv. 4, 5. And that Christ voluntarily took it upon him to answer as our Surety, whatsoever the law could lay to our charge; whence it became just and righteous that he should suffer.
(2.) We say, That God, by laying upon, or imputing the guilt of our fins to Christ, thereby our fins became legally his ; as the debt is legally the Surety'sdebt, though he neverborrowedone farthing of it: Thus God laid, and Christ 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 thankfully acknowledge,that Christ hath so fully faZz2
The Second Appendix. tisfied the law for the fins of all that are his, that the debts of believers are fully discharged, and the very last mite paid by Christ.
His payment is full, and so therefore is our discharge 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. And so in Christ they are without fault before God.
4. We likewise grant, That as the guilt of our fins was by God's imputation laid upon Christ, so the righteousness of Chritt is by God imputed to believers, by virtue of their union with Christ ; and becomes thereby as truly and fully theirs, for the justification of their particular persons before God, as if they themselves had in their own persons fulfilled all that the law requires, or suffered all that it threatened: No inherent righte- •ousness in our own persons. is, or can be more truly our own, for this end and purpose, than Christ's imputed righteousness is our own . He is the Lord our righteousness. Jer. 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 sinful 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 considered, or the very transgression itself, became the finor transgression of Christ; andconfequently that we are as completely righteous as Christ, and Christ as completely sinful as we are.
1. We dare not say, that sin simply considered, as the very tranfgreffionof the law itself, as well as the guilt and punishment, became the very fin and transgression of Christ :
For two things are distinctly to be considered 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 sanction.
(1.) The preceptive part of the law, which gives fin its formal nature, 1 John iii. 4. For fin is the transgression of the law.
Alltranfgreffion arises from the preceptive part of the law of God: He that tranfgreffeth the precepts, sinneth ; and under this consideration sin can never be communicated from one to another : The personal fin of one, cannot be in this respect, the personal fin of another : There is no physical transfusion of the transgression of the precept from one subject to ano
OfAntinomianifm.
ther: This is utterly impossible; evenAdam's personal fins, considered in his single private capacity, are not communicable to his posterity.
(2.) Besides the transgression of the preceptive part of the law, there is an obnoxiousness unto punishment, arising from the sanction of the law, which we call the guilt of fin; and this (as judicious * Dr. Owen observes) is separable from sin : and if it were not separable from the former, no sinner in the world could either be pardoned or saved; guilt may be made another's by imputation, and yet that other not rendered formally a sinner thereby : Upon this ground, we say the guilt and punishment of our fin, was that only which was imputed unto Christ, but the very transgression of the law itself, or fin formally and essentially considered, could never be communicated or transfused from us 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 transfusion from subject to subject (as our adversaries fancy) which is utterly impossible; and we have as good ground to believe the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation, as this wild notion of the essential transfusion of fin. Guilt, arising from the sanction of the law, may, and did pass from us to Christ by legal imputation; but sin itself, the very transgression itself, arising from the very preceptive part of the law, cannot so pass from us to Christ:
For if we should once imagine, that the very acts and habits of fin, with the odious deformity thereof, should pass from our persons to Christ, and fubjectively to inhere in him, as they do in us ; then it would follow, First, That our salvation would thereby be rendered utterly impossible.
For such an inhesion of fininthe person of Christ, is absolutely inconsistent with the hypostatical union, which union is the very foundation of his satisfaction, and our salvation. 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 cross altogether unable to satisfy for us. He could not have been the Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world, if he had not been perfectly pure and spotless, 1 Pet.i.19.
Thirdly, Had our fins thus been essentially transfused into Christ, the law had had a just and valid exception against him ;
* Owen of Justification, p. 183.
The Second Appendix. for it accepts of nothingbutwhat is abfolutelypure and per sect.
I admire, therefore, how any good men dare to call our doctrine, which teaches the imputation of our guilt and punishment to Christ , a simple doctrine; and assert, that the transgression itself became Christ's; and that thereby 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 asserted, by fomeother way, to become as completely sinful as we ; then I cannot fee which way to avoid it, but that the very fame acts and habits of fin must inhere, both in Christ, and in believers also.
For, I suppose our adversaries will not deny, that, notwithstanding God's laying the sins of believers upon Christ, there remain in all believers after their justification, sinful inclinations and aversations; a law of fin in their members, a bodyoffin and death. Did these things pass from 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 in Christ as in themselves, they have no ground to say, that by God's laying their iniquities upon Christ, he became as completely sinful as they are; and if they shouldfo affirm, that affirmation would undermine the very foundation of their own salvation .
I therefore heartily subscribe to that found and holy sentence, of a clear and learned divine, * Nothing is more abfolutly true, nothing more facredly andaffuredly believed by us, than that nothing which Christ did or suffered, nothing that he undertook, or underwent, did, or could conflitute bim fubjectively, inherently, andthereupon perfonallyafinner, or guilty ofanyfin of his own.
To bear the guilt or blame of other mens faults, to be alienae culpae reus, makes noman afinner, unlejs he did unwifely and irregularly undertake it.
So then this proposition, that by God's laying our fins upon Christ (in someotherway, than by imputation of guilt and punishment) he became as completely fintul as we, will not, ought not to be received as the found doctrine of the gospel. Nor yet this Second proposition, 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 express himself, unless it be a groundless conceit and fancy, that there
* Owen of Justification, p. 183,
OfAntinomianifm.
is an essential transfusion of Christ's justifying righteousness into believers, whereby it becomes theirs by way of subjective inhesion, and is in them in the very same manner it is in him: and to every individual believer becomes as completely righteous as Christ.
And this conceit they would fain establish upon that text, i John iii. 7. "He that doth righteousness, is righteous, even as he is righteous."
But neither this expression, nor any other like it in the scriptures, gives the least countenance to such a general and unwary position.
It is far from the mind of this scripture, That the righteousness of Christ is formally and inherently ours, as it is his.
Indeed it is ours relatively, not formally and inherently ; not the fame with his for quantity, though it be the fame for verity. His righteousness is not ours in its universal value, though it be ours, as to our particular use and necessity. Nor is it made ours to make us so many causes of salvation to others ; but it is imputed to us as to the subjects, that are to be saved by it ourselves.
'Tis true, we are justified and saved by the very righteousness of Christ, and no other ; but that righteousness is formally inherent in him only, and is only materiallyimputed to us.
It was actively his, but passively ours. He wrought it, though we wear it.
It was wrought in the person of God-man for the whole church, and is imputed (nottransfused) to every single believer for his own concernment only.
For, (1.) It is most absurd to imagine, that the righteousness of Christ should formally inhere in the person of every, or any believer, as it doth in the person of the mediator. The impossibility hereof appears plainly from the incapacity of the subject.
The righteousness of Christ is an infinite righteousness, because it is the righteousness of God-man, and can therefore be subjected in no other person beside him.
It is capable of being im puted toa finite creature, and therefore, in the way ofimputation, we are said to be made the righteousness of God in him ; buz tho' it maybe imputed toa finite creature, it inheres only in the person of the SonofGod, as in its proper subject. And indeed,
(2.) If it should be inherent in us, it could not be imputed to us, as it is, Rom. iv. 6, 23. Nor need we go out of ourselves for justification, as now we must, Phil. iii. 9. but may justify ourselves by our own inherent righteousness. And,
(3.) What should hinder, if this infinite righteousness of Christ were infused into us, and should make us as completely righteous as Christ; but that we might justify others also, as
The Second Appendix.
Christ doth, and so we might bethe saviours of the elect, as Christ is ?
Which is most absurd to imagine. And, (4.) According to Antinomian principles, What need was there that we should be justified at all ? or, What place is left for the justification of any sinner in the world ? For, according to their opinion, the justification of the elect is an immanent act of God before the world was ; and that eternal act of justification, making the elect as completely righteous as Christ himself, there could not possibly be any the least guilt in the elect to be pardoned; and consequently no place or room could be left for any justification in time. And then it must follow, that seeing Christ died in time for 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 of Christians.
It is therefore very unbecoming and unworthy of a justified person, after Christ hath taken all his guilt upon himself, and fufferedall the punishment due thereuntoin his place and room; instead of an humble and thankful admiration of his unparalleled grace therein, to throw more than theguiltandpunishment of his fins upon Christ, even the transgression itself : and comparing his own righteousness with Christ's, to say he is as completely righteous as Christ himself.
This is, as ifa company of bankrupt debtors, arrested for their own debts, ready to be cast into prison, and not having one farthing to satisfy, after their debts have been freely and fully discharged by another, out of his immense treasure, should now compare with him, yea, and think they honour him, by telling him, that now they are as completely rich as himself.
I am well assured, no good man would embrace an opinion so derogatory to Christ's honour as this is: did he but see the odious consequences of it, doubtless he would abhor them as much as we. And as for those now in heaven, who fell into such mistakes in the way thither, were they now acquainted with what is transacted here below, they would exceedingly rejoice in the detection of those mistakes, and bless God for the refutation of them, Error 8. They affirm, That believers need not fear their own fins, nor the fins of others ; forafmuch as neither their own, or othersfins candothemany hurt, nor must theydoany duty for their own goodorfalvation, or for eternal rewards.
That we need fear no hurt from fin, or may not aim at our own good in duty, are two propositionsthatfoundharsh in the
OfAntinomianifm.
ears of believers.
I shall consider them severally, and refute them as briefly as I can.
Proposition 1. Believers need not fear their own fins, or the fins of others ; because neither our own, or others fins can do us any hurt.
They seem to be induced into this error, by misunderstanding the apostle, in Rom. viii. 28. as if the scope of that text were to assert the benefits of fin to justified persons ; whereas he speaks there of adversities and afflictions befalling the saints in this life.
Universal is reftringenda eft admateriamfubjectam, loquitur enim de afflictionibus piorum.
The subject-matter (faith Paraeus on the place) restrains the universal expression of the apostle : for when he there faith, "All things shall work to- " get her for good;" he principally intends the afflictions of the godly, of which he treats there in that context.
It may be extended also to all providential events ; Omnia quæcunque eis accedunt forinfecus, tam adverfa, quam profpera : All adverse and prosperous events of things without us, as Estius upon the place notes.
Nothing is spoken of sin in this text.
And the apostle distributing this general into particulars, ver. 38. plainly shews, what are the things he intended by his universal expression, ver. 28. as also in what respect no creature can do the saints any hurt, namely, that they shall never be able " to se86 parate them from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus
" our Lord." And in this respect it is true, that the sins of the elect shall nothurtthem, by frustrating the purposeofGod concerning their eternal salvation; or totally, and finally to separate them from his love.
This we grant, and yet we think it a very unwary and unsound expression, That believers need not fear theirownfins, because they can do them no hurt : Itistoogeneral and unguarded a proposition to be received for truth.
What if their fins cannot do them hurt, to frustrate the purpose of God, anddamnthemtoeternity in the worldtocome ? Can itthereforedothemnohurtat all in their present state of conflict with it in this world ? For my part, I think the greatest fear of caution is due to fin, the greatest evil; and that Chryfoftome spake more like a Christian, when he said, Nil nifipeccatum timeo, I fear nothing but fin. Though sin cannot finally ruin the believer, yet it canmanyways hurt and injure the believer, and therefore ought not to be misrepresentedassuchan innocent andharmlessthingtothem. In vain are so many terriblethreatenings in the scriptures against it, if it can do us no hurt; and it is certain nothing can do is good, but that which makes 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 considered three ways.
1. Formally.
2. Effectively.
3. Reductively.
First, Formally, as a transgression of the preceptive part of the law of God, and under that consideration it is the most formidable evil in the whole world.
The evil of evils, at which every gracious heart trembles, and ought rather to chuse banishment, prison and death ittelf in the most terrible form, than fin, or that which is most tempting in fin, the pleasures of it; as Moses did, Heb. xi. 25.
Secondly, Sin may be considered effectively, with respect to the manifold mischief sand calamities itproduceth in the world, and the spiritual and corporeal evils it infers upon believers themselves: Though it cannot damn their souls, yet it makes war against theirfouls,and brings them into miserable bondage and captivity, Rom. vii. 23. It wounds their fouls, under which wounds they are feeble and fore broken; yea, they roar by reason of the disquietness of their hearts, Psal. xxxviii. 5, 8.
Is war, captivity, festering, painful wounds, causing 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 to decline, wither, and languish to that degree, that the things which are in them are ready to die, Rev. iii. 1. and Rev. ii. 4. And is the loss of grace and spiritual strength, no hurt to a believer!
It hides the face ofGodfromthem, Ifa. lix. 2. And is there no hurt in spiritual withdrawments of God from their souls ? Why then do deserted 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 miseries to the people of God, sure then there is some hurt in fin, for which the saints ought to be afraid of it.
Thirdly, Sin maybe confideredreductively, asitisover-ruled, reduced, and finally issued by the covenant of grace.
Under this consideration of fin, which rather respects the future, than present state, the Antinomians only respect the hurt or evil of it; overlooking both the former considerations of fin, which concern the present state of believers, and fo rashly pronounce, Sin can do believers no hurt; an assertion tending to a great deal of looseness and licentiousness. Am an drinks deadly poison, and is, after many months, recovered by the skill of an excellent
OfAntinomianism.
physician; shall we say, There was no hurt in it, because the man died not of it ? Sure,those fearfultwinges he felt, his loss of strength and stomach were hurtful to him, tho' he escaped with life, and got this advantage by it to be morewary for ever after.
Tantum religio potuitfuadere malorum.
And then, for other mens sins, (which, they say, we need not fear), it is an assertion against all the laws of charity; for the finsof wicked men eternally damn them, disturb the peace, and order of the world, draw down national judgments upon the whole community, cause wars, plagues, perfecutions, &c. which considerations of the fins of others opened fountains of tears in David's eyes, Psal. cxix. 136. caused horror to take hold upon him, ver. 53. and yet, if you will believe the Antinomian doctrine, believers have no need to fear, 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 souls of men, by such indistinct, unwary, and dangerous expressions as these are ? A good intention can be no sufficient salve for such affertions as these .
Secondly, They tell us, ' That as the faints need fear no fin ' for any hurt it can do them, so they must do no duty for their
' own good; or with an eye to their own salvation, or eternal ' rewards in heaven.'
Refutation. This, as the former, is too generally and indistinctly delivered. He that distinguisheth well, teacheth well.
The confounding of things which ought to be distinguished, easily runs men into the bogs of errors. Two things ought to have beendistinguishedhere :
1. Ends in duties.
2. Self-ends in duties.
First, Ends in duties ; There are two ends in duties, onefupreme and ultimate, viz . the glorifying of God, which must, and ought to take the first place of all other ends : Another secondary andfubordinate, viz. thegoodandbenefit of ourselves.
To invert these, and place our own good in the room of God's glory, is sinful and unjustifiable ; and he that aims only at himself in religion, is justly censuredas a mercenary servant, especially, if it be any external good he aims at; but spiritual good, especially the enjoyment of God, is so involved in the other, viz. the glory of God, that no man can rightly take the Lord for his God, but he must take him for his supreme good, and, consequently, therein may,and must have a due respect to his own happiness.
Aaa2
The Second Appendix.
Secondly, Self-ends muit always be distinguished into.
1. Corrupt, or carnal self-ends.
2 Pure, and spiritual selt-ends.
As to carnal and corrupt self-ends, inviting andmovingmen to the performance of religious duties; when thesearetheonly ends men aim at, they bewray the hypocrisy of the heart,and, accordingly, Godchargeshypocrify upon such persons. Hos. vii . 14.
They have not cried unto me with their heart, when they howled upon their beds; They assemble themselves for corn, and wine," &c. God reckons not the most solemn duties animated by such ends, to be done unto him.
Zech. vii. 5.
" Didye at all fast unto me ?"
But, beside these, man hath a best self, a spiritual self, to regard in duty, viz. The conformity of his soul to God in holinets, and the perfect fruition of God in glory. Such holy self ends as these, are often commended, but no where condemned in scripture.
'Twas the encomium of Moses, that " he had re- " spect unto the recompense of reward," Heb. xi. 26.
These ordinate respects to our spiritual, best self, are sofar from being our fin, that God both appoints, and allows them for great uses, and advantages to his people, in their way to glory. They are, (1. ) Singular encouragements to the saints under perfecutions, straits, and distresses, Heb. x. 34. and to that end Christ proposes,them, Luke xii. 32.and tothebestoffaintshave made use of them, 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18.
(2.) They are motives, and incentives to praise, and thankfulness, I Pet. i. 3, 4. Col. i. 12.
(3.) They stir up the saints to chearful, and vigorous industry for God, Col. iii. 23, 24. 1 Cor. xv. 58.
Now to cut off from religion all these spiritual, and excellent self-respects, and to make them our fins, and marks of our hypocrisy, is an error very injurious to the gospel, and to the souls of men.
For, (1.) It crosses the strain of the gospel, which commands us to strive for our salvation, Luke xiii. 24, 25.
Phil. ii. 12. 1 Tim. iv. 16.
(2.) It blames that in the saints as sinful, 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 very fundamental law of our creation, which inclines, and'obliges allmen to intend their own felicity : And on this account, not only our Antinomians are blame-worthy, but others also, who are far enough from their opinion, who urge humiliation for fin beyond the staple; teaching men, they are not humbled enough, till they be content to be damned.
(4.) It unreasonably supposes a Christian may not do that for his own 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 some of them affirm, That this covenant is all of it a promise, having * no condition upon our part.
They acknowledge, indeed, faith, repentance, and obedience, to be conditions, but say they are
'not conditions on our part, but on Christ's ; and consequently • affirm, that he repented, believed, and obeyed for us.
Refutation 1. The confounding of distinct covenants leads them into this error ; we acknowledge there was a covenant properly made with Christ alone, which we call the covenant of redemption.
This covenant, indeed, though it were made for us, yet it was not made with us: It had its condition, and that condition was laid only upon Christ, viz. That he i should assume our nature, and pour out his soul unto death, which condition he was solely 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 personally come into this covenant, when they come into the unionwithhimby faith.
This covenant of grace is not made with Christ alone, personally considered, but with Christ, and all that are his, mystically considered, and is properly made with all believers in Christ; and therefore it is called their covenant, Zech. ix. 11. "As for
" thee, also, by the blood of thy covenant, I have sent forth thy " prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water."
So when God entered into the covenant of grace with Abraham, Gen. xvii.
7. " I will establish my covenant (faith he) between me and " thee, and thy feed after thee."
So when he took the people of Israel 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 of grace made with believers in Christ, is not the fame, nor must it be confounded with the covenant of redemption made with Christ before the world began; 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 of redemption, there neither was, nor could be any Mediator, which manifeftly distinguishes them.
Besides, in the covenant of grace, Christ bequeaths manifold, and rich legacies, as he is the Teftator ;
* Vide Saltmarsh ofFreeGrace, pag. 126, 127.
The Second Appendix. butnomangives a legacy to himself.
This covenant is really, and properly made with every believer, 'as he is a member of Jesus Christ, the head; and they are truly, and properly foederates with God : The covenantbinds them to their duties, and encourages them thereinbypromites of strength, to be derived from Christ, to enable them thereunto.
2. We thankfully acknowledge, that the glory of the new covenant is chiefly discovered 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 in the sea, or beams in the fun; but yet we cannot say, that nothing but promises is contained in this covenant : For there are duties required by 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 in his strength : Nor is it
Christ that repents and believes for us, but we ourselves are to believe, and repent in the strength of his grace: And till we do so actually, in in our own persons, we have no part, or portion in the blessings, and mercies of this covenant.
If Christ by believing for us, give us an actual right and title to the promises and blessings of the new covenant, then it will unavoidably follow :
(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 shall be saved, as well as those that are actual believers : because, though they be unbelievers in themselves, yet Christ believed for them; exprefly contrary to Mark 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, and will appoint him his portion with
" unbelievers."
(3.) It will also follow from hence, that men may continue ina state of disobedience all their days, and yet may be saved, as well 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, and do not obey the truth,but obey
66 unrighteousness, indignation, and wrath." And 1 Pet. iv.
17. "What shall the end of them be that obey not the gospel " of God ? "
This language sounds strange and harsh to the ears of Christians, a repenting Christ saving the impenitent sinner ; a believing Christ saving unbelievers ; an obeying Christ saving obstinate, and disobedient wretches :
Whither doth such doctrine tend, but to encourage and fix men in their impenitence, unbelief, and disobedience ? But the Lord grant no poor sinner in the world may trust to this, or build his hopes of eternal life upon such aloofe, sandy foundation, as this is.
Rea- - der, all that Christ hath done without thee, will not, cannot -be effectual to thy salvation, unless repentance, faith, an do- -bedience, be wrought by the Spirit in thy soul.
It is "Christ " in thee, that is the hope of glory," Col. i. 27. beware, therefore, on what ground thou buildest for eternity.
Error 10.
They denyfanctification to be the evidence ofjuftification, and deridingly tellus, this is to light a 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, and dangerous conclusion, yet such as naturally results from, and, by a kind of necessity, sol- ✓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 Christ, 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 Christians to any grace, or work of the Spirit wrought in them, to clear up their interest in Christ to them.
For we being in Christ, and in a state of justification, before we were naturally born, we must necessarily be fo before we be regenerated, 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 eternity was done before them, and without them.
1. I-grant, indeed,Thatmanyvain professors do cheat, and
The Second Appendix. deceive themselves, by false, unscriptural signs, and evidences, as well as by true ones misapplied.
2. I grant also, That by reason of thedeceitfulness of the heart, instability of the thoughts, similar works of common grace in hypocrites, distractions of the world, wiles of Satan, weakness of grace, and prevalency of corruptions : The clearing up of our justification by our sanctification, is a work that meets with great, and manifold difficulties, 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 a Christian. Am an may live in Christ, 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 present comfort in it.
4. I will further grant, That the eye of a Christian maybe too intently fixed upon his own gracious qualifications;and being wholly 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 soul.
But all this notwithstanding, The examination of our justification by our sanctification, is not onlyalawful, and possible, but a very excellent and necessary work and duty.
It is the course that Christians have taken in all ages, and that which God hath abundantly blessed to the joy and encouragement of their souls.
He hath furnished our souls to this end with noble, self-reflecting powers and abilities. He hath answerably furnishedhisword with variety of marks and signs for the same end and use. Some of these marks are exclusive, to detect andbarbold presumptuous 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 out of the very effenceofgrace, or the new creature, 1John iv. 13." Hereby we
" know that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath " given us of his Spirit."
He hath also expresly commanded ustoexamineandproveourselves; upbraided the neglecters of that duty, and enforced their dutyuponthembya thundering argument, 2Cor. xiii. 5. " Exa- " mine yourselves whether ye be in the faith, prove your own
" selves ; know you not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ " is in you, except ye be reprobates."
In a word, for this end and purpose, amongst others were the scriptures written, I John