Confutation of Errors of Daniel Williams, Section 1 – Section 2
Sect. I. About the Eternity of the Death threatned against Sin.
The Notion Mr. Williams hath Espoused about the Eternity of the Threatned Punishment, is such as the Disciples of Episcopius, and Men of the Racovian Twang, have, in their Attempts to subvert the Doctrine of Christ's Satis…action, Advanced. For, as these Gentlemen do make the Threatned Death, in its first Consideration to be Eternal, as such; so doth He; whence it follows, That Christ could not suffer the Punishment, we Deserved, because that was Eternal Death; and Christ's Sufferings were but for a Time. So Socinus, in Crellius, Id quod nos pati merebamur erat mors aeterna, quam Christus nec sustinuit, nec sustinere, Decreto Divino obstante Potuit. Crel. Respons. ad Grot. Cap. 9. Partic. 1. And Curcellaeus, Christus non est Passus mortem aeternam, quae erat Poena Peccato Debita. Nam paucis tantum horis in Cruce pependit, & tertia die Resurrexit ex mortuis, quod nullam cum aeternitate Proportionem habet. Relig. Christo Instit. lib. 5. cap. 19. Sect. 16. And so,
Mr. Williams.
The Threatning of the Law was Eternal Death, as Eternal, Eternity was an Ingredient in the Misery of Every Sinner-Man made Right. p. 14.
Father Alsop.
Let none say, if Christ bore the Punishment due to sin, he must suffer Eternal Death, seeing no less was due to our Transgressions: For, (1.) The Eternity of Punishment, is only due to Sin by Accident, as it is found in a Finite Person, who being not able to bear at Once, or in the Longest time, that Wrath, which his Sins have Demerited, Divine Justice Exacts of him an Eternity of Suffering. (2.) Whereas sin is only Infinite, or of Infinite Demerit, Objective, as committed against an Infinite God: The Sufferings of Christ are also Infinite Subjective, being the Sufferings of that Person, who is God, tho not as God; and therefore Christ in a Finite Time, was Able to give Infinite Satisfaction. Anti-Sozzo, p. 596.
Sect. II. The Next Point is about a Change of the Penal Sanction of the Law.
An Error of such a Nature, as hath a Fatal Influence on our Ministry, and the Lives and Conversations of Men. For, if the Penal Sanction of the Law be changed for another, an Evangelical, and less Severe Threatning, then it must unavoidably Follow, that the New Threatning cannot be against any but such as are Transgressors of that Law, to which it is Annexed, and the Eternal Curse only against them, who do not so far Obey it, as to get a Right and Title unto Glory; so that Original Sin, which was committed Antecedently to the giving of this Law, falls not under its Lash, and the Old Sanction being Vacated, we who are only under the New, not a Man of us is lyable unto wrath upon it's Account; Nor doth any other Sin but Final Impenitence, Regnant Hypocrisie and Vnbelief expose the Soul to Gods Curse. The Drunkenness, the Adultery, the Murder of a David, the Hypocrisie, the Lying, the Perjury, the Envy, the Malice, and what sin soever else is, in Mr. Williams's Opinion, consistent with the Truth of Grace, tho in the Lowest Degree, falls not under the Curse of the Gospel. If these Abominations are Committed by some of his Saints, they cannot make 'em liable to Gods Wrath, nor to any Curse at all, if what he saith be true. For the Preaching of the Old Law, for Conviction of sin, is a Crime; As if the Apostle Paul, when he said, Cursed is every one, that continueth not in all things, which are Written in the Book of the Law, to do them, Gal. 3. 10. And when he Cryed out, Rom. 7. 9. I was alive without the Law once, but when the Commandment came Sin Reviv'd and I Dy'd; had been at that time, under the Old Jewish Dispensation; For we have, with Mr. Williams, no other Law to Preach for Conviction of sin, but the New Gospel Law.
Sir, that I abuse not this Haughty Leader of our Brethren, I will Prove, that Crellius, and He are one in this Opinion; and that he differs from Father Alsop.
Crellius, Mr. Williams.
I. Crellius, That under the Gospel there are Abatements of Gods Anger against sin, that most direful Sanction, Cursed is every one that continueth not to do all things, as in Gal. 3. 10. Deut. 27. 26. Is taken away, and that softer one, He that Believeth not, shall be Damned, set up in its Place Sub Evangelio sustulit severissimam illam Legis, Mosaicae sanctionem, Maledictus omnis, &c. Gal. 3. 10. &c. Deut. 27. 26. Loco ejus hanc Reponens, qui non credit, &c. Mar. 16. 16. John 3. 18, 36. Crel. de Deo Lib. 1. Cat. 23. But secondly, Mr. Williams expresseth himself as cleverly in his Pref. to Gospel Truth Stated. The Gospel hath another Sanction to the Preceptive Part of the Law, than the Covenant of works had. Tho nothing be Abated in the Rule of Sin, and Duty, yet Blessings are Promised to Lower Degrees of Duty. He also tells us, that the Threatning is not against Every Degree of Sin; so in the Defence of Gospel Truth, p. 30. The Gospel Law doth not Denounce Death for the same sins, as Adams Law did; That Law threatned Death for the least sin, yea, for one sin. But the Gospel Threatens Death not for every sin—Most of the threatnings in the Bible, that refer to the State of Souls are Evangelical threatnings. They are not by the Sanction of the Law of Innocence, but of Gospel Grace—Every Threatning used by God as an Argument to Conversion, is a Gospel Threatning. Gospel Truth, p. 133, 134. There is a Legal Preaching, which is opposed to the Gospel; and this indeed is a Crime; And to that this Chapter Refers—Then he sets it down as a Truth, That the Legal Preaching, which is a Crime, is to Preach the Law as a Covenant of Innocency, or Works—The Real Difference between Doctor Cr. and himself, is, Whether it be Legal (in the Culpable Sense) to threaten such Penalties, as are short of Damnation, against such Offences as are Consistent with Sincerity, and yet avoidable by Serious Care and Diligence. This he denies. It is not Legal Preaching (saith he) in a Culpable Sense, to threaten such Penalties, as are short of Damnation, against such Offences as are Consistent with Sincerity. But to Threaten these Sins with Damnation, that is Legal Preaching, which must not be endured; And why must not the Sins which a Believer, consistently with Sincerity, commits, be threatned with Damnation? The Reason is Manifest. The Sanction of the Law of Innocence, which did threaten the least Sin, Every Sin with Damnation, is vacated, and made void: And the Gospel threatens Damnation against none but them who Die in Final Vnbelief, and Impenitence. But what Sins are, or rather, what Sins (doth he think) are not consistent with Sincerity? I presume he can't be of Opinion, that Lying, or False Accusing, Reviling, or Reproaching his Innocent Brethren, or acting the Part of a Delator, or Irish Evidence, are inconsistent with Sincerity; and therefore it must be a Sin to threaten Damnation against these Harmless Abominations, if committed by himself.
Sir, This is such a Peice of Antinomianism, a Doctrine so Licentious and vile, yea, such a Consecration of the most Villanous Practices, that it Amazes the most Solid and Grave Divines amongst us, to understand, that not a man of you hath the Courage to Witness against this Mans Abominations. What! when the Foundations are struck at? To look on, be silent and revile them, who are hardy enough to write against this Man! What can the Orthodox Divines of the Church of England, Scotland, and beyond the Seas, or what will Posterity think of these things? What is it that shuts up the Mouths of our Grandee's, of a Bates, a Howe, a Veal, a Glascock? And what is it that hath Infatuated an Alsop, together with the whole Assembly in Bishopsgate-street, that they must become Advocates for a Man who Publisheth such Licentious and Libertine Principles as these? No wonder our Ministry is no more successful, when we make the Preaching of the Law void; I mean, the Old Law, under whose Curse all that Remain in unbelief, still are; and which makes the Sins of the best on Earth to be Obnoxious to Damnation. Upon which Account we may, yea, we must threaten the sins of Believers themselves with Damnation, assuring them, that unless, when they sin they Flee to Christ, their sin will be their Ruine. For there is no change of its Threatnings, no Mitigation, or Abatements. The least sin is as much of a Damning Nature as ever, which makes it necessary for him, who commits the sin, Exercise Repentance towards God and Faith in our Lord Jesus for Pardon. The [Do this and Live; Sin and Dye] is so much in Force, that without a full satisfaction to the Threatning Part of the Law, and a Righteousness fully Answering the [Do this] there can be no Life attain'd unto by any of us, and it is our Duty to Preach the Law of Innocency, and Denounce its Curse against all that abide in Unbelief, and against the Sins of Believers themselves. This is the Doctrine of Protestants, of the Fathers and Blessed Apostles. But I will go on to show the difference there is between Mr. Williams, and Father Alsop Distinctly, in these Points.
Mr. Williams.
The threatning of the Law was Eternal Death, as Eternal. Eternity was an Ingredient into the misery of every Sinner, and can be removed by nothing but the Lawgivers Dispensing therewith; upon Considerations equally Vindicating the G…ory, as this Eternity of Sinners Torments would do. Man made Right. p 14.
Note, the Dispensation is of the Penalty to be suffered, and not only as to the Person suffering.
Father Alsop.
I would observe, That he supposeth God to have Dispensed with the Moral Law: which is News to me, and I confess I do not believe it, nor shall I, till I have it confirm'd. Some Errors, though Speculative, are Damnable, and such may this Prove: For, if we, like Fo…ls, Goggled in with the Rhetorical Divinity of this Age, should Trust to Gods Abatements of bis Law; and at last it should Prove, That God Loved Righteousness, and Hated Iniquity, as such, we were in a most Wretched, Miserable and Undone Condition▪ meerly by Trusting to Indulgence—How much of this Law God will Dispense with, what Part of it, or what Degrees of the Violation of it, is to me unknown; and i… with any, whether he may not Possibly Dispence with the whole by the same Reason, is more than our Author's Principles can inform me. He that may Dispense with One Part of it, may with an other, and so of the Rest. For, where to stop, or put Bounds to such a Dispensation as comes from the Grace of God, is very Impossible to Determine, unless we knew the true Bounds of God's Grace. Anti Sozzo, p. 687, 688.
Mr. Williams.
Though Nothing be Abated, in the Rule of Sin, and Duty, yet Blessings are promised to Lower Degrees of Duty. Pref. to Gosp. Tr. p. 6.
Father Alsop.
I do not find that God has Abated any thing of his Law, but is as Peremptory as ever; For, [Do this and Live.] Nothing will p…ease God, less than Exact and Perfect Obedience; tho in the Covenant of Grace, He is pleased to admit another, a Mediator to do it for Believers: I would rather he would hear the Reverend and Learned Bishop Reynolds, upon Psal. 110. p. 492. In point of Validity, or Invalid…ty, there can be but and five things said of the Law. 1 Either it must be Obeyed, and that it is not Rom. 3. 23. Or, 2. It must be Executed upon Men, or the Curse, and Penalty thereof be inflicted; and that it is not neither, Rom. 8 1. Or, 3. It must be Abrogated, or Extinguished; and that it is not neither, for Heaven and Earth shall sooner pass away.—Or, 4 It must be Moderated, and that it cannot be neither; For, it's Inflexible, and one Jot, or Tittle m…st n…t be Abated Or, Lastly, The Law it self Remaining; the Ob…igation th…reof notwithstanding, m…st towards such, or such P…rsons, be so far forth Dispensed withal as that a Surety sh…ll b… Admitted — both to Do all the Duties, and to Suffer all the Curses of the Law, in behalf of that P…son, who in Rigor should have done, or suffered …ll; so that …he Law, not One Jot, or Tittle thereof is abrogated in regard of the Obligation, therein contained but they are a… Reconciled in Christ. Thus far Father Alsop in his Anti Sozzo, p. 216, 217 who hath c…e… red it, t…at there are no Abatements in the Law, no Dispensing, either with the Commandment, or with the Penal…y, but only as to the Person. And Grotius has Evinced, That though i… be …ss…ntial unto Punishment, that it be for Sin, yet is it not Essential unto it, that it be on the Person, that sinned; and the Learned Bishop adds (as I have it, page 396, 397.) That in the First Covenant we were to do it in our own Persons; in the Second Christ is appointed, a…d allowed to do it for us. He …ullfilled All the Obligations of the Law; the Duties thereof by Active Obedienc…, in his Life, and the Curses thereof by Passive Obedience in his Death. One more, Father Alsop. Though God hath not Abated of his Law, yet he hath Admitted a Surety, called, therefore the Surety of the Covenant. Anti-Soz. p. 699.
Mr. Williams.
The Gospel-Law doth not Denounce Death for the same Sins as Adam's Law did, that Law threatned Death …or the Least Sin, yea, for One Sin; but the Gospel threatens Death, not for Every Sin. Def of Gospel-Truth, p. 30
Well then, seeing the Gospel-Law doth not threaten Death against Every Sin, and the threatning of Adam's Law is v…cated, or at least Dispensed with, Every Sin deserves not Death. For though the Des…t of, and Obligation to Punishment, are Distinct; and the Obligation may be … there is no Desert, yet wherever the D…sert is there th… Punishment is due, and the Pe…son obliged to undergo it till by an Ap…lication of Christ's Blood, that Obligation be D…ss…lv'd. …he Sins which are Committed, and Deserve Punishment, if they Oblige not thereunto, there is no need, if t…ere is no R…m for Pardon, which lyeth in a Dissolving the Obligation, For, where there is no Obligation, there can be no Dissolving it; and where no …hreatning, there no Obligation; for an Obligation to Punishment, is by Vertue of the Threatning of the Law. Thus, he must hold That no Sins but Final Vnb…lief, and Impenitence, falling under the Threatnings of the Gospel-Law, can need a Pardon; and these he allows shall never be Pardoned, or at least those Sins, which are consistent with Sincerity, or the Imperfections of our Faith, Repentance and Obedience, need not a Pardon, because they fall under no Law. Threatning, against which Notion I may Justly set down what hath been Asserted by,
Father Alsop.
God is by Nature a Holy God; as he is Governour of the World, he is a Righteous Judge. Sin is both contrary to his Holy Nature, and his Holy Law; And therefore as a Holy God he cannot but hate Sin; as a Righteous Judge he cannot but Punish Sin: And because this Sin is Inherent in, and Committed by Man, God hates the Sinner upon the account of his Sin; his Person, and his Best Services are an Abomination to the Lord. From Hence it follows, That Sin being a Transgression of the Law, in its Preceptive Part, renders the Sinner Guilty, that is, Obnoxious, and Liable to the Law in its Sanction, to the Punishment. Now this Righteous Judge will certainly Charge the Guilty Sinner with the Penalty due to his Sin: But there is a way found out, That he may not Impute to Sinners their Traspasses,—which is by Christ; and, as he adds, by his being made Sin for us. Anti-Sozzo, p. 631.
Mr. Williams.
That Legal Preaching, which is a Crime, is to Preach the Law as a Covenant of Innocency, or Works—Every Threatning used by God to Conversion is a Gospel Threatning. Gospel Truth stated, p. 222, and 133, 134. So that it's sinful to endeavour to Convince Men of their Sin and Misery, by Preaching to them the Law of Works, that is to say, Adam's Law; but we must confine our selves wholly unto the Gospel Law, the very Error held by Agricola Islebius, the Antinomian, and Confuted by Luther.
Father Alsop.
The Law is God's Law, and when it witnesses to a sinner, it witnesses home, convinces him of the Perfect Holiness of that God, who gave the Law; of the Peremptoriness of God, in not Abating One Jot, or Tittle of the Law; of the sinners utter Inability to come up to the Demands of the Law, and therefore the utter Impossibility of being Justified by the Law; of the Severity of God's Justice in Punishing the Violaters of his Law; and therefore unless he can find another Righteousness, he must utterly perish. 'Tis true, the Law speaks its Old Language still, Do this, aud live? but then it speaks it only to those who are upon the Bottom of Innocency; for to a Transgresser, its Language is, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, Anti-Sozzo, p. 544 In Rom. 7. 13. it's said, I had not known sin, exc…pt the Law had said, thou shalt not covet. From whence I Argue: By that Law, which says, Thou shalt not covet, comes the Knowledge of sin; Therefore by the Moral Law comes the Knowledge of sin. The Major is the Apostle's own, in the place last Quoted; The Minor needs no Proof, but that a Man be able to Read the Ten Commandments, which is the Summ of the Moral Law, the Tenth whereof is, Thou shalt not covet. Anti-Sozzo, p. 538.
The Knowledge of Sin being by the Law, which saith, Thou shalt not covet, and which saith, The Man that continueth not in all things is Accursed: That we may Convince Men of their Sin, and Misery, and of the Necessity of Believing in the Lord Jesus, that they may, by his Righteousness, Receiv'd by Faith, be Justify'd; We must Preach to them this Law, and Denounce the Threatned Curse thereof. This is the Doctrine of Protestants, this the Doctrine Taught us by the Holy Apostles. On the other hand, if with Mr. Williams, we must confine our selves in our Attempts to convince sinners unto the Gospel Law, how can we charge them with the Guilt of Original Sin, or Threaten Death against them, for any other sins, than their Unbelief and Impenitence? An Error so Gross, so Absurd and Pernicious to the Souls of Men, that it becomes Every Good Man to Express his Abhorrence of it.
But, as if the Design was, That Men of our Way may Deservedly fail under the Reproach and Scandal of Sheltering, supporting, Aiding and Abetting a Real Antinomian, who, that he may cover his mischievous Purposes, makes a frightful Out-cry against Antinomianism, not a Man of our Number but your self, that I know, Opposes them, so far as to lie under the Rage of these snarling Scriblers.