Neonomianism Unmasked, Text – Title page 2

Neonomianism Unmasked · Text – Title page 2

p. 1THE Ancient Goſpel DEFENDED: AND THE New Goſpel UNMASK'D.

TWO Gentlemen, who had for their Recreation walk'd forth into the Fields in Ʋtopia, happened to fall into Company together, and after mutual Salutation, and general Diſcourſes of News, (having not as yet a particular Acquaintance, or Knowledge one of another) one of them among many things mentioned by him that were great ground of Sadneſs to a conſidering and gracious Mind, ſaid, He was moſt affected with and grieved at the great Eclipſe fallen of late upon the Doctrine of the Goſpel, inſomuch that for the Doctrine of Juſtification eſpecially we are in a manner returned again into Egypt, that of Juſtification by Works being brought into the room of Juſtification by Faith, and only varniſh'd over with the Profeſſion of the Proteſtant Religion, and the change of a few Terms which are uſed to the ſame purpoſe that the former were.

The other Gentleman look'd hard upon him while he thus ſpake, and ſaid, Have you ſeen a Book lately come forth, called, Goſpel-Truth Stated and Vindicated? It's a Book much talked of, and commended. Yes, Sir, ſaid the other, I have ſeen the Book and read moſt of it, but I will aſſure you I was much grieved at the reading of it. I pray your Reaſons. He replyed, Pray Sir, excuſe me there. p. 2The other return'd, I begin to have ſome Apprehenſions what your Principles are; I find you are an Antinomian: I pray what is your Name? I crave your Excuſe, Sir, you have given me a Name, you may call me by that, or what you pleaſe; for by this I do as well ken you: For I know of what Principles thoſe Men are of, that are ſo ready to aſperſe the Aſſerters of the Doctrine of Free-Grace with the Reproachful Name of Antinomians, the true Account of which Sect, and moſt ancient, is from the Apoſtle Paul's time, that they took occaſion from the Doctrine of Free-Grace, to plead for and practiſe all manner of Licentiouſneſs. Hoc anno prodiit Secta eorum qui dicuntur Antinomi. Sleid. com. l. 12. fol. 199.And in Sleiden we have an Account of a Sect of Libertines, or Carnal Goſpellers, which brake out in Germany after the Reformation, circ. An. 1538. the Ring-leader whereof was Iſlebius Agricola, the Compiler of the Interim. They merited this Name of Antinomians by the looſe Opinions, and looſer Practices, againſt whom Luther wrote ſeveral Books, and Calvin alſo, with great Invectives in his Inſtr. adverſ. Libertin. Which were Learned and eminent Witneſſes to the Doctrine of Free Grace, as it ought to be held forth in all its Goſpel-Splendor and Luſtre. The other Gentleman replied: As for Luther, he was an Antinomian himſelf, and Calvin but a little better, according to the Opinion of our Modern Divines. We ſay they are Antinomians that deny Juſtification to be by Faith as a conditional receiving Act, and by Repentance as a qualifying Act; and that the continuation of our Juſtification is by Works: Theſe Men which you name, and their Followers indeed pretend to Holineſs, but they aſcribe not that to it which they ought, for the Honour of God's Rectoral Rule of Government.

Antinomian.

If theſe be the Men you call Antinomians, they are falſely ſo called. I think they that come neareſt to the Doctrine of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles are the moſt Orthodox; and I know no ſuch Doctrine that they have taught, but contrary to what you call Orthodox; you ſeem to be of the Sect-truly call'd Neonomians, becauſe they aſſert, That the Goſpel is a new Law, the Condition whereof is imperfect, ſincere, perſevering Obedience, which I take to be no other than a Covenant of Works.

Neonom.

I am indeed of that Opinion, and my Scheme is according thereunto. I ſay, the Covenant of Grace is a conditional Covenant, and the Condition of it is ſincere Obedience in Faith, and other Graces and Duties perſevered in: But I ſay not that we are Juſtifyed by the Covenant p. 3of Works, the Law of Innocency that is Abrogated, tranſiit in Sentontiam, but that Chriſt hath in ſatisfying that Law merited another with milder Terms and Conditions, viz. of Imperfect Obedience.

Antinom.

I perceive then that you are the Antinomian indeed, for you ſet aſide the Old Law as Obſolete and Abrogated, and of no uſe to us at all: For the Apoſtle Paul ſaith, The Promiſe is not againſt the Law, but it doth eſtabliſh it.

Neonom.

i. e. It doth eſtabliſh the New Law, not the Old; we are for a Law, and Juſtification by it, tho' not for the Old: For Paul ſtill oppoſeth the Law, of Faith and the Works of that Law to the Old Law, i. e. The Law of Perfect Obedience. You muſt not confound one with another: That was a Law of Perfection, this of Imperfection. I have ſtated the difference between Truth and Error in theſe matters.

Antinom.

Now you ſay you have ſtated the Difference, I begin to ſuſpect you to be the Author of that Book lately come forth, called, Goſpel-Truth Stated and Vindicated. For that Gentleman pretends to a ſingular Dexterity in ſtating Queſtions, and Superlative Nicety, even to the ſplitting a Hair between Truth and Error; and I perceive divers Divines do eſteem him a Cuminopriſtes that way, by the Commendation they have given him, and the Recommendation of his Treatiſe.

Neonom.

Truly it is no more than what it deſerves, not to ſay any thing of the Author, who I know, how unworthy ſoever he thinks himſelf to be, yet hath no greater Ambition than to remove Miſtakes from Men's Minds about Goſpel-Truths, of which there are many, even among honeſt well-meaning Divines, (as well as others) who are too much unſtudied in theſe matters, and therefore frequently utter their crude and undigeſted Conceptions in the Pulpit and Preſs too, and as he would reach forth light to them, ſo he would be Malleus Hereticorum.

Antinom.

My thinks I am the more confirmed by this that you your ſelf were the Author. Are you Mr. D. W?

Neonom.

I was either the Author, or will perſonate him ſo far as to defend the Book, if any one hath any thing to ſay againſt it. I muſt confeſs, D. W. Pref. p. 1.a diſlike of Contention hath long reſtrained my engaging in this Work.

Antinom.

I doubt too much of the contrary appears in that Book, or elſe the Author would never have raked up the Aſhes of an Holy Man, that hath been ſo long at reſt, to contend with and ſpurn them about with his Foot in ſo much Scorn and Contempt.

Neonom.

I have been oft ſolicited to this Work by many able Miniſters.

p. 4Antinom.

Becauſe they look'd upon you as the ableſt, (as you ſeem willing to be thought) I perceive now I be not miſtaken.

Neonom.

But finding what Principles you are of, I know you are miſtaken in many things, which I ſhall rectifie you in, if you have Patience and Will to hearken to me. Do but read my Book, and conſider it well; Peace is the Bleſſing which I chearfully purſue, and it with the Truth what I propoſe in this very Endeavour.

Antinom.

It's well if it be ſo, but (as they ſay) the Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating. It's no new thing for Men to pretend well, let their Undertaking be what it will: But Non videtur id manticae quod in tergo eſt. Apollinarius the Heretick had a School cum Titulo Orthodoxi. And Neſtorius the Heretick ſhrouded himſelf under foreign, Error ſibi ex principiis fidem perſtruit ut cum magna mercede fallet: It's obſerved that Error will always ſhelter it ſelf under a plauſible Pretext of Truth, that it may do it with the greateſt Advantage.

Neonom.

I am convinced after many Prayers, and ſerious Thoughts, that the Revival of thoſe Errors muſt not only exclude that Miniſtry as Legal, which is moſt apt in its Nature, and by Chriſt's Ordination to convert Souls, and ſecure the Practical Power of Religion; but alſo renders Ʋnity among Chriſtians a thing impoſſible.

Antinom.

You know alſo another old Proverb, In Nomine Domini, &c. Livy reports of Scipio Africanus, before he ſet upon any Buſineſs, he entred the Capitol alone, pretending thereby a Conſultation with the Gods, whereupon apud multitudinem plerumque velut mente divinitus monitâ agebat; thereby he had a great Vogue among the People, of the Juſtneſs of his Cauſe. I can't perſwade my ſelf that the Compoſure of that piece of Work that hath ſo much Moral Evil in it, and bitter Oppoſition to Goſpel-Truth, is an Anſwer of Prayers; neither can I pray as thoſe Gentlemen, whoſe Names ſtand over your Porch, but think it my Duty to pray quite contrary; and as for what you ſpeak of Revival of Errors, I judge that your Dictates are no Rule to judge of Faith and Error by, how magiſterially ſoever you impoſe them: And I think we are come to a ſad paſs, if a Man of your declared Principles muſt be ſet up as a Reformer of Error, and Former of Articles of Faith, and ſuch as are in Fundamental Points directly contrary to the Doctrinal Part of the 39 Articles; yea, ſuch as our firſt Proteſtant Reformers decryed by Scripture and the beſt Arguments, as highly Antichriſtian, and deſtructive to the Souls of Men; which Witneſs of theirs many of them ſealed with their Blood. You ſay, the Danger of ſuch things as you call Error, will be in excluding the p. 5Teaching of your Doctrine and Miniſtry as Legal. Would to God ſuch Miniſtry as the Spirit of God call's Legal Preaching, were excluded by the brighter Shining of the Grace of God into the Hearts both of Miniſters and People; from which Light ſome, and too many this Day have ſwerved, having turned aſide unto vain Jangling, deſiring to be Teachers of the Law; underſtanding neither what they ſay, nor whereof they affivm, 1 Tim. 1.6. But you call that Evangelical, which we call Legal: We can't help your calling Light Darkneſs, and Darkneſs Light; Law, Goſpel; and Goſpel, Law; and you ſay it's moſt apt in its own Nature to ſecure the Power of Religion: Whereas Experience hath ſhewed to the contrary, how well the Doctrine of Juſtification by Works hath ſecured it among the Romaniſts: And the Apoſtle Paul teſtifies by the Spirit, That whoſoever is juſtified by a Law [it's not the Law] is fallen from Grace, Gal. 5.4. And therefore its falſe that ſuch Doctrine is Chriſt's Ordination. It hath not Fitneſs in it to convert Souls, for the Law brings none to God: No Man is juſtifyed in or by a Law in the Sight of God, Gal. 3.11. Thoſe Places, and divers others, ſhould be read a Law, and not the Law, becauſe the Spirit by them excludes all Laws, even your Law: Its foreign; the emphatical Particle is not put in, and therefore there's no ground to ſay this or that Law only is excluded from Juſtification, but every Law; and where there's no true Juſtification taught, there can be no true Practical Obedience. But the laſt Prejudice is, That ſuch Doctrines as are oppoſite to yours, renders Ʋnity among Chriſtians a thing impoſſible. Good Reaſon there is for it, becauſe they can't unite in their Head Chriſt Jeſus, and therefore can't unite as Members. There lies the Impoſſible: For what Communion between Chriſt and Belial? By this it appears you ſtrike at the Union.

Neonom.

Every Sermon will be matter of Debate, and mutual Cenſures of the ſevereſt kind will be unavodable, while one ſide juſtly preſs the Terms of the Goſpel under its Promiſes and Threats, for which they are accuſed as Enemies to Chriſt and his Grace, &c.

Antinom.

Reaſon Good, that every Sermon that makes the Goſpel a Law, i. e. That preſs Duty under a Law-Sanction, ſhould not only be matter of Debate, but earneſtly contended againſt; for the Performance of Duty as Terms enforced by a Law-Sanction, is a Covenant of Works. So that ſuch Men are Preachers of a Law, its no matter what Law. Works performed under a Law-Sanction are Legal Works, and do make the Covenant enjoyning them a Covenant of Works. Cenſures are here juſtly made of ſuch a Miniſtry; and they that preach ſuch Doctrine, are certainly Enemies to p. 6the Grace of God, under whatſoever Vizards of pretended Holineſs they vail themſelves.

Neonom.

And the other ſide ignorantly ſet up the Name of Chriſt and Free Grace againſt the Government of Chriſt and the Rule of Judgement.

Antinom.

I think the Stomach of every Good Man may juſtly riſe not only againſt your Inſolent, but prophane Expreſſion. All Men beſides Neonomians are Ignorant Men. What ſaith the Poet,

—foreign

foreign.

—O miſerimos mortalium

Qui ſpiritus tumidos gerunt.

Arrogancy is called foreign, a tough Itch not eaſily cured. How far doth this Spirit come ſhort of the Imitation of Chriſt in Meekneſs and Lowlineſs? Yea, how far from his Rule, [which you would ſeem to be ſo zealous for] To do nothing out of Strife and Vain-Glory, [foreign] but in lowlineſs of Mind let each eſteem other better than themſelves, Phil. 2.3. But with you all that adore Free Grace, and ſet up Juſtification by Faith without the Works of a Law, do ignorantly ſet up the Name of Chriſt. Is this a piece of Ignorance to ſet up the Name of Chriſt as a Saviour of Sinners, and as that Name whereby we are Juſtifyed from all things from which we could not be juſtifyed by the Law of Moſes, or any other Law. Beware leſt that come upon you which is ſpoken of in the Prophets, Behold ye Deſpiſers, &c. Acts 13.39, 40. And what do theſe Men ſo ignorantly do? They ſet Chriſt againſt himſelf: Set up his Name and Free Grace againſt his Government. And why? Becauſe they ſay we are ſaved not by our Works of Righteouſneſs which we have done, but according to his Mercy; and that it was the meer Kindneſs and Love of God our Saviour that appeared to us in the Goſpel-Salvation, Tit. 3.4, 5. Therefore they ſet up the Name of Chriſt againſt his Government. Is his Name Jehovah our Righteouſneſs, againſt his Government? See whether Paul is one of thoſe Ignorant Advancers of Chriſt, Gal. 2.8, 9.

Neonom.

I believe many Abettors of theſe Miſtakes are honeſtly zealous for the Honour of Free Grace, but have not ſufficient Light to ſee how God hath provided for this in his Rectoral Diſtribution of Benefits by a Goſpel Rule.

Antinom.

We are beholding to you, Sir, for a Drop of Charity p. 7mingled with your ſupercilious Contempt of Holy Proteſtant Reformers, who in my poor Judgment were knowing and learned Men, (that aſſerted both the Grace and Government of Chriſt againſt your new Law) you eſteem them but ignorant honeſt Men that meant well, but ignorantly zealous for the Grace of God, carried on only by a blind Devotion, and did not underſtand the Myſtery of God's Rectoral Diſtribution. The Apoſtle tells us who are ignorant, Rom. 10.3. They that are ignorant of God's Righteouſneſs, and go about to eſtabliſh their own. What do you think of the Mythologiſts of the Late Athenian Society? I hope you eſteem them Learned and Knowing as well as Honeſt.

Neonom.

Indeed I am bound to give them a high Character, becauſe they have given ſo ample a Teſtimony to my Scheme. After their Learned Defence (that ſomebody took Care of, that it ſhould be well done) they give me and my Book this Character:

The Book is worth Peruſal of all ſorts of Perſons for the Antidote which is annexed to each Argument, and we muſt deliver our Opinions, that Mr. Williams hath without Paſſion, plainly, learnedly and ſolidly eſtabliſhed the Truth with incomparable Brevity and Criticiſm, upon many Texts.

Antinom.

But I ſuppoſe they have wronged you in one thing, viz. Branding you for a Critick upon Texts of Scripture. I would do you right, I believe you were never guilty of that. As to what they ſay beſides of you and your Book, I leave others to judge when the matters are impartially tryed.

Neonom.

You may ſay what you pleaſe; you ſee it paſſed the Judgement of thoſe Wiſe, Learned, and Judicious Men, Divines and others, that were Eyes to the Nation in all Points of Difficulty, both in Policy, Law, Divinity, Matrimony, and ſomething elſe.

Antinom.

As to the Politicks, or the Oeconomicks, or what elſe you will call it, their Skill failed, tho to their Fatal Ruine. But I meddle not with thoſe Points, I am moſt concerned at the Inſcription upon their Altar. foreign, to the unknown God, which they ignorantly worſhip.

Neonom.

What do you mean by that?

Antinom.

I mean they are ignorant of God according to the Articles of the Church of England.

Neonom.

It's Impoſſible, I am ſure they give no ſuch ground of ſuſpition by the Credit they have given my Scheme.

Antinom.

That may be, Bona Ingenia jumpunt, I doubt not but they are of your Opinion in Doctrinals.

Neonom.

But you ſay they know not God according to the Church of p. 8England: Prove that Charge, we will both fall together; ſure if you make not that good, I can't but take you for a wicked Slanderer and Backbiter of a worthy, ſolid, learned Society of men.

Antinom.

If I do not prove my Charge let me be accounted ſo: Sc. As to the Doctrine of Election, in anſwer to this Q. Does the Scripture any where affirm an Election of a determinate Number of men to Eternal Life and Happineſs? Vol. 7. Athen. Merc. Num. 26. July 26. 1692.Num 26They make this Anſwer, (I muſt confeſs as Men to be pitied for their Ignorance:) It's an eaſie thing to be miſtaken in matters of this nature; howſoever if we are ſo, we'll profeſs our ſelves ready to change our Opinion (this is modeſt and Ingenuous,) on the producing better Reaſon, and in the mean time not to have angry and uncharitable thoughts of thoſe who are of a different Judgment.

Now thus far they ſet you a Pattern, for you (forſooth) muſt Dogmatize and Anathematize all men that are not of your Opinion. But to the Queſtion: We cannot be ſatisfied by any of thoſe Scriptures which are brought for that purpoſe, that there is any ſuch an Election of a determinate number as either puts a Force to their Natures, and Irreſiſtibly ſaves them, or abſolutely excludes all the reſt of Mankind from Salvation.

Not to ſtand upon the fotching in ſome words improperly brought (as forcing Mens Natures, which is ſo much like your way of Canons and Articles, that I have a great ſuſpicion that they drew up this Anſwer by your Direction) I ſhall for all your ſhifting and ſhuffling, that I ſee you are prepared for, and I am as ready to anſwer, for brevity ſake ſay thus much, That theſe Gentlemen do in this Opinion of theirs deny Abſolute Election, which you will alſo be found to do at the long run, and that this aſſertion in denyal of Abſolute Election, is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England, Art. 17.

Predeſtination to Life is the Everlaſting Purpoſe of God, whereby (before the Foundations of the World were laid) he hath conſtantly decreed by his Counſel, ſecret to us, to deliver from Curſe and Damnation, thoſe whom he hath choſen in Chriſt out of Mankind, and to bring them to Everlaſting Salvation, as Veſſels made to Honour. Now your Servant Sir, I think I have proved what I promiſed: I am ſure this Article intends an abſolute and unconditional Election of ſome, and ſuch an Election as excludes all others Eventually, which I am ready to make good: But this is not all yet, there is another p. 9Queſtion, concerning the Salvation of the Heathens, you advance in order to that Text,There is a Qu. Vol. 7. N^o. 29. There's no other Name under Heaven given: That if we believe in God, we believe vertually in Chriſt; I deſire to know what's meant by a Vertual Belief? A. The Jews were under the Diſpenſation of believing Our Father, having Faith in the Meſſiah, and whereas the Heathens were under the Diſpenſation of the Law of Nature, the Divine Light written in Man, which is the ordinary Voice of the Spirit in every man to reſtrain him from Murder, Idolatry, &c. if they kept to that Law, they ſhould receive the Vertue of the Lamb of God ſlain before the Foundation of the World by the Fathers Decree for the ſins of all men; contrary to the Article 18. of the C. of E.

They alſo are to be had accurſed, that preſume to ſay, that every man ſhall be ſaved by the Law or Sect which he profeſſeth, ſo that he be diligent to frame his Life according to that Law and the Light of Nature: For Holy Scripture hath ſet out to us only the Name of Jeſus Chriſt whereby men may be ſaved.

Neonom.

You are under many miſtakes, you neither underſtand thoſe learned Mythologiſts, nor the Articles; for the Articles ſpeak Old Engliſh, and the Mythologiſt the New Divinity, but they both mean the ſame thing; for I have ſubſcribed the Doctrinal Articles, as very tolerable Divinity for thoſe former well-meaning times; but you know the Opinion of our modern Divines about Subſcriptions, how far a man may go in thoſe caſes with a ſafe Conſcience. But to proceed to what I was ſaying, That by the pretence to the Honour of Free Grace, Antinomianiſm ſo corrupted Germany, and in N. E. &c.

Antinom.

It was the Pretence of thoſe that abuſed Free Grace to Licentiouſneſs, in St. Paul's time: Therefore you might have gone further back than the Antinomians in Germany or New England. And do we not know that a Pretence to Holineſs, and the Exaltation of that in Oppoſition to the Doctrine of Free Grace, is that which hath brooded all the Doctrine of Popery, Arminianiſm, Quakeriſm, &c. And is it not this that you ſhelter all your Errours and falſe Accuſations under, whereby you endeavour to murther the Name of one who was an holy Man and a Goſpel Divine, and hereby would deceive the Reader into the Belief of a groſs and notorious Falſehood in the Entrance into your Book, which is this: You ſay, I have in nothing miſrepreſented Dr. Criſp's Opinion, nor miſtaken his Sence.

This Aſſertion I ſhall prove to be as I ſaid.

p. 10Neonom.

It bid fair to Overthrow Church and State in New England; and by its Stroke at the Vitals of Religion, it alarum'd moſt Pulpits in England. Pr. p. 1.

Antinom.

It was by reaſon of ſome ſuch as you are, that beat the Cuſhion and Kettle-Drums, as they do ſometimes againſt the Truth, it may be oftner than for it. The Pulpit and Preſs are like the reſt of London Roads, you'll meet both Truth and Error upon the Tantivy there, and the feweſt in number muſt break the way: So he that can make the greateſt Cry of Error, and Magiſterially cry down Truth for Error, he is the Man.

Neonom.

Many of our ableſt Pens were engaged againſt thoſe Errors, as Mr. Gataker, Rutherford, Burgeſs, Provincial Synod, &c.

Antinom.

Sir, Theſe Perſons were worthy Divines, but dead and gone. I will not rake in their Aſhes, as you have done in this good Man's; and whatever Errors you pretend they were againſt, it may be we ſhall find their Opinions were no more, as you repreſent them in your Book, than Dr. Criſp's was, as you repreſent him.

Neonom.

To the Grief of ſuch as perceive the Tendency of thoſe Principles, we are engaged in a new Oppoſition.

Antinom.

After a certain zealous Neonomian had taken his leave of us, there was a great deal of Probability this Controverſie would have fell to the ground: But ſince that you have been the only Bellweather that hath ſet it on foot, thinking to make your ſelf the Head of a Party; but do not believe that ſo many do admire you as you think, nor perſwade your ſelf you can wind all the Divines in London about your Finger, as you think you have done ſome here, and all at Dublin.

Neonom.

I believe many Abettors of thoſe Notions have Grace to preſerve their Minds and Practices from their Influence: But they ought to conſider the Generality of Mankind have no ſuch Antidote; and themſelves need not to fortifie their own Temptations, nor loſe the Defence which the Wiſdom of God hath provided againſt Remiſneſs in Duty, and ſinful Back ſliding.

Antinom.

The great Advantage the World is eaſily perſwaded of, that the Oppoſers of the Doctrine of Free Grace in the Salvation of Sinners, …ve had againſt the Aſſertors thereof in all Ages, is a Suggeſtion, that the ſaid Doctrine tends to the Countenance and Encouragement of Sin. And this Accuſation the Apoſtle Paul doth induſtriouſly ſet himſelf to the wiping off, Tit. 1.10, 11, 12. and divers other places: And to affirm that the Grace of God is the o… Root and Foundation of true Holineſs in the freeſt and fulleſt Deſpenſation; the Truth of which doth not only abundantly p. 11appear in the Word, but by manifeſt Experience, that your Self-Juſticiaries, Free-willers, Neonomians, that ſeek Juſtification by a Law, they are leaſt obſervant o… any Rules of ſtrict Obedience or conſcientious Regards to the Commands of God. I will go no further now for an Inſtance than your ſelf, who now come forth into the World in a Vizard of Holineſs, to the deluding of ſuch as can diſcern but Skin-deep, when your Treatiſe it ſelf is ſufficient Evidence to contradict what you pretend to, being ſtuffed with ſo many Immoralities. Immoralities I ſay; for ſuch are falſe Accuſations, Malice, Envy, Evil Speaking, and all ſhot from the Quiver as it were of a Perſecutor, at the good Name of one that was upright in heart, Pſal. 11.1, 2, 3, 4. if not at the Name of Chriſt, and other his Faithful Servants.

And as for the Danger of thoſe Truths to the generality of Mankind which you call Error, it is an high Impeachment of the Grace and Wiſdom of God; becauſe a wicked, carnal, corrupt World, for ſuch is the generality of Mankind, do abuſe the Grace of God as well as refuſe, count it Folly, yea, and ſtumble at it; therefore it is to be blamed and ſhunned as an Error, and ſuch a Doctrine of Life and Salvation is to be ſet up as may be of better Influence upon the generality of Mankind, and more ſuitable to their Nature, i. e. Their Carnal Reaſon and Corrupt Affections. And therefore you would have Antidotes to take off the Poyſon that Mankind is apt to ſuck in from the Doctrine of Free Pardoning Grace, and this muſt be the Doctrine of Neonomianiſm, and likewiſe a Cure of that which Believers have ſuck'd in already, and are apt to periſh under, by reaſon of Temptation: Therefore as it may be ſuppoſed you have given it the Name of a Remedial Law, to cure the Diſtempers that ariſe from the Doctrine of Free-Grace.

Neonom.

Who can wonder at the Security of Sinners, the miſtaking the Motions of ſenſible Paſſion for Converſion, and the general Abatement of exact and humble walking, when ſo many affirm Sins are not to be feared as doing any hurt, even when the moſt flagirious are committed; Graces and Holineſs can't do us the leaſt Good: God hath no more to lay to the Charge of the wickedeſt Man if he be elected, than he hath to lay to the Charge of a Saint in Glory. The Elect are not governed by Hope or Fear; for the Laws of Chriſt have no Promiſes nor Threats to rule them by, nor are they under the Impreſſions of Rewards or Puniſhments as Motives to Duty, or Preſervatives againſt Sin.

Antinom.

As for this great Flouriſh, it's but like Don Quixot's brandiſhing his Sword againſt a Windmill. It's not only a Rule that Calumniators go by, and known to be their Practice, Fortiter calumniari p. 12aliquid adhaerebit: But Calumnies go no further than the Ears with wiſe Men; according to a Proverbial Saying apud Aeſchium, foreign. At the firſt light of a black Tongue, it's eaſie to judge of the Foulneſs of the Stomach, and that the whole Maſs of Blood is infected with ill Humours, or the Morbid Conſtitution of ſome Parts. Out of the abundance of the Heart the Mouth ſpeaketh, ſaith our Saviour our great Phyſician. Is it not ſad when there is a poyſonſom Juyce under the Lips, and a Mouth full of Bitterneſs? Rom. 3.

You firſt charge the Miniſtry of ſome (and moſt hereabout know what ſort of Men you mean) with being the Cauſe of Men's Security in Sin: And why? Becauſe they preach the Doctrine of the Goſpel, in a free Juſtification of a Sinner by Faith without the Works of a Law, according to the Apoſtle Paul, and preach down your Doctrine of Juſtification by Works. But you expreſs the Effects of this dangerous Doctrine to lie in theſe things: 1. Security in Sin: A Doctrine that quickens Men that are dead in Treſpaſſes and Sins, (one part of which Death is Security in Sin,) doth not cauſe Security in Sin: But the Doctrine of Free Grace in Juſtification of a Sinner, without Works of any Law, doth ſo, Eph. 2. I ſhall not now enlarge upon you. 2. Another ill Effect is, you ſay, That it cauſes the miſtaking the Motions of ſenſible Paſſions for Converſion. This is rather the Effect of your own Doctrine, wherein you lay the whole Streſs of Juſtifying and Saving Grace upon Senſible Paſſions, and ſet Men wholly to judge of their State thereby. It's marvellouſly to be wondred at, that any Man ſhould have the Impudency to charge thoſe Effects upon an oppoſite Doctrine to his, which are the natural and palpable Effects of his own, and he ſees ſo to be. 3. You charge upon it the general Abatement of an exact and humble walking. This Charge is likewiſe of the ſame Nature: Whereas the Spirit of God hath diſclaimed any true Cauſe of exact walking, beſide the Grace of God that brings Salvation, and then teacheth it, as hath been proved. As for Humble walking, what is a greater Inducement thereto than the Doctrine of Faith, which aſcribes all to the Gift of Grace, empties us of every high Imagination and Thought? It exalts Chriſt, and makes him all and in all. Whereas yours is the contrary: no Doctrine tends more to the lifting up of the Creature than that of Neonomianiſm, next to that of the Papiſts.

And no wonder, ſay you, when ſo many affirm ſuch and ſuch things. Where are the many or the any that you can charge with ſaying theſe things in the ſame Sence you put upon them? Many Expreſſions, p. 13that taken together with their Connexion in the explained Sence of him that ſpeaks, are not only true, but ſafe and ſound; but abſtracted and wreſted, may be made to look as black as Hell. You may ſay David ſaith, That there is not an honeſt Man upon the Face of the Earth, Pſal. 12. That he ſaith, There is no God, Pſal. 14. That Moſes affirms God to be a Man, Exod. 15.3. And in a Thouſand Places in your way and manner it's eaſie to charge Blaſphemy upon the very Scriptures. And how often Lying, if Hyperbole's be not allowed to be uſed without Wrong to the Truth? As to the particular Charges, I ſhall ſpeak to each in it's proper place, and lay open your Prevarications, Errors, and falſe Imputations to the World.

Neonom.

In this preſent Teſtimony to the Truth of the Goſpel, I have ſtudyed Plainneſs; Pref. D. W. p. 3.and to that end oft repeated the ſame things in my Conceſſions, to prevent the Miſtakes of the leſs Intelligent, tho' I could not think it fit to inſiſt anew upon all.

Antinom.

Your Teſtimony is againſt the Truth, as ſhall be made appear, and is not to be accounted a Teſtimony. For a Teſtimony is a credible Witneſs or Evidence: As the Apoſtle Paul ſaith, Our Teſtimony among you was believed, 2 Theſ. 1.10. And this Teſtimony is with a good Conſcience, 2 Cor. 1.12. And Paul teſtified the Goſpel of the Grace of God, Acts 2.24. 1. Your Teſtimony is not to the Goſpel of the Grace of God, but againſt it, and therefore not materially true. 2. Your Teſtimony is formally naught, it being not accompanied with a good Conſcience, but with a purpoſe and deſign to deceive. You pretend to do Good, but you manifeſtly deſign Evil; to blaſt the Honour of God's Free Grace, as if it were a Sin-teaching Doctrine, and blacken a Holy Servant of Chriſt (who is now in Glory) for Preaching the Goſpel: your Teſtimony can't be believ'd, becauſe of your manifold Prevarications, Equivocations, and Falſe Teachings in this Treatiſe of yours. And whereas you ſay you have ſtudied Plainneſs; if you mean that, in ſome places is no better than plain Falſhood, in others plain Error, it's true enough: Or if you mean Plainneſs in reſpect of Style, it's homely enough, and hardly plain Sence: But if you mean Plainneſs of Simplicity, without double-tonguedneſs, I utterly deny it: For when you ſpeak of things, that one would think at firſt Glance you intend Truth by, it's nothing ſo: No Jeſuite in the World can out-do you at Equivocation, and there lies your Natural Excellency: You have impertinent Repetition enough, your Conceſſions every where fall about your own Ears in your glozing Oppoſitions to the Truth p. 14you deny: You deſign the rectifying the Miſtakes of the Non-intelligent. This is falſe, it's manifeſt you deſign the blinding of them more; elſe why do you quote Dr. Owen and the Aſſembly for countenancing thoſe Errors which you know they directly oppoſe? Let but the Miſtakes of the leſs Intelligent be removed, their Stomachs will riſe ſufficiently againſt you and your Book too.

Neonom.

I have in nothing miſrepreſented Dr. Criſp's Opinion, nor miſtaken his Sence.

Antinom.

This muſt be true or falſe, and here is the turning Point of the whole Book; Either Dr. Criſp was, or you muſt be.— If you have not miſrepreſented him, then according to your Repreſentation he was ſo: If you have miſrepreſented him, and unjuſtly blackened him, what are you? But that which we have in hand is Falſhood and Lying. As to this Aſſertion of yours, we ſhall prove you guilty of Falſhood throughout the Book, that though you have repeated ſome of Dr. Criſp's Words from time to time, yet you have only repeated ſuch part of his Words as might render him odious, not thoſe that give a true and can did Sence of what he intended; and herein you miſrepreſented him, and that on purpoſe. Now the Spirit of God lays the Formal Nature of a Lie upon an Intention to deceive, or to deal injuriouſly with others, as in the Caſe of Doeg. Though I do not deſign now to come to Particulars, I will give one Inſtance wherein you in your Book, and your Party, do frequently expoſe Dr. Criſp and his Abettors, ſuch as you call Divers, as alſo Criſpians and Antinomians, that he and they do aſſert, Sin can do no hurt; and you would have Men underſtand that he means, That no Perſon in Chriſt need fear to commit Sin, and that Sin in it's Abſtract Nature is good: That Dr. Criſp renders Sin innocent, that is your Expreſſion, pag. 198. Now you charge him for ſaying, That the groſſeſt Sin that a Believer can commit can't do him the leaſt harm, neither ought they to fear the leaſt hurt by their own Sins, pag. 181. By this you would give us to underſtand, that he means Sin is in its ſelf Innocent, and that Sin bears no Evil Fruits of its ſelf; that it may be boldly committed without Fear. Whereas Dr. Criſp declares plainly, and with much endeavour to prevent Miſtakes, that the Hurt he means is only the Penal Effects of Sin; and declares again and again he ſpeaks this not to encourage Sin: He ſpeaks of the Sins of a Believer in Chriſt, they that are under the Dominion of Grace: He ſpeaks not of Sins to be committed, but that theſe ought to be looked upon as the moſt odious and hateful things in the World, and that which here he doth ſpeak is only upon the Account of ſome poor p. 15diſtreſſed Conſciences, whoſe Sins lay ſo much upon them, as thereby their Souls were driven from the Grace of God in Chriſt. For to prove this, take only a few of his Words, (you ſhall hear many more heareafter,) Dr. C. p. 513. Thus I ſpeak of Sin, not as it ſmiles upon a Man with a promiſing Countenance before it be committed: For it is moſt dreadful and odious to the Faithful, as that which crucifyed the ſweeteſt Lord, but as already committed and lying upon the Conſcience of a Believer, endeavouring to drive him to deny the Free-Grace and Love of God, and the All-ſufficiency of Chriſt: In this regard it is crucifyed by Chriſt, and ſo a Believer need not be afraid of Sin, the Hand-writing of Ordinances is taken away. His whole Diſcourſe is to evince, that the condemning Nature of Sin is taken away; the Fear he ſpeaks of is only in reſpect of Sins that a Believer hath fallen into, and to prevent their falling into unbelieving Deſpair. Now let any Intelligent Perſon judge whether you have not miſrepreſented Dr. Criſp, and baſely traduced him. You your ſelf ſay, pag. 11. The Obliquity of the Fact againſt the Precept ſhall not hurt, where the Sanction of the Law is anſwered. I think this being duly weighed, is worſe than any thing Dr. Criſp ſayeth.

I'll inſtance in one Miſrepreſentation more: For you charge him for holding the Uſeleſneſs and Unprofitableneſs of Holineſs, in ſaying, Graces and Holineſs do us not the leaſt Good.

Dr. Criſp, p. 41. Preaching upon Chriſt the way, ſheweth Chriſt to be the way to Juſtification, and ſaith, You that are Believers are in a near way to Salvation. Believe in the Lord Jeſus, and thou ſhalt be ſaved. Such a near way Chriſt is, yet ſtill People will be cavilling. Where are good Works all this while? what juſtified by Faith alone? Saved by Chriſt alone? I tell you, if Chriſt be the way to Eternal Life, then Works are not the way, except they be Chriſt. But muſt we not work? Yea, but for other purpoſes: [i. e. than for Juſtification and obtaining eternal Life by them] the Lord hath propounded other Ends for which you are to work. Ye are bought with a price: That's done, therefore glorify God in your Bodies, being delivered out of the Hands of your Enemies, weare to ſerve him in Holineſs and Righteouſneſs. He ſaith much to this purpoſe, often ſpeaks in the High Commendation of Holineſs, but ſpeaks againſt putting it in the place of Chriſt. By theſe things we may ſee what Credit is to be given to you, when you make it ſo much of your buſineſs in Pulpit and publick places, to charge Men and Books with ſaying thoſe things which they never ſpake, and meaning ſuch things p. 16as they never intended. And let all Men judge whether you have not miſrepreſented this good Man, (whom in the end of this Preface you own to have been a holy Man: And could that be true, if you have not miſrepreſented him as to what he ſaid of Sin and Good Works?) and ſpoken here a very great Falſhood. Theſe two Proofs may ſerve to evince for the preſent, which alſo ſhall be made good that it is ſo in moſt, if not all the Chapters of your Book more or leſs. The great Quarrel you have with him is, that he makes it ſo much his buſineſs to vindicate the Honour of Free Grace, and of the Lord Jeſus, in our whole Salvation, and in Juſtification to exclude Works altogether. You talk of Works neceſſary to Salvation, but how? You mean as a working Condition, whereby you put Works in the place of Chriſt, and mean as your Oracle plainly ſpeaks: For you are not ſo honeſt as he, but play the Jugler more. He ſaith, Quoniam & Chriſtus Mediator & Fides in Chriſtum, Method. Theolog. p. 394. § 36. Par. 2.ſunt tantum media ad hominem Deo per ſanctitatem & amorem reſtituendum: Ideo ſine Heſitatione dicendum eſt, ex natura rei, Fidem Sanctitatem & amorem Dei ad ſalutem magis eſſe neceſſaria, quàm aut fides in Chriſtum, aut Chriſti ipſius Sacrificium. I will not conſtrue it, for the Reputation of him that wrote it; but theirs a Bone for you to pick: And I think to all Learned Men it gives your whole meaning in making ſuch a noiſe as you do, (which you think in very allowable Terms that none dare oppoſe you in) that works are neceſſary to Salvation.

Neonom.

His Scheme is this, That by God's meer electing Decree, all ſaving Bleſſings are by Divine Obligation made ours.

Antinom.

He never erected his Scheme, and caſt Theological Figures as you have done, to find out a new Goſpel. He took his Meaſures of Truth from the Word of God; but Bernardus non videt omnia, ſome things he might be miſtaken in as well as others. But you ſay that he ſaid, By God's Electing Decree all ſaving Bleſſings are by Divine Obligation made ours. But where's the Expreſſion? I remember it not. He might ſay, That from God's Electing Grace it proceeds, that all Divine Bleſſings are made ours by Obligation; in the Terms that you have put it, its improper, becauſe it ſeems to confound Election and the Covenant of Grace. I can ſay nothing further to that, till I ſee his Words, being not willing to believe your reporting of them: For it's manifeſt you make to Conſcience to miſrepreſent any Man, to put your Meanings, and draw your Conſequences upon him.

p. 17Neonom.

But he ſaith, There's nothing more needful to our Title to theſe Bleſſings.

Antinom.

Is not this Spirare foreign, one of the Firſt Rate? Doth not Dr. C. aſſert Chriſt to be needful to Salvation, and as our Title? Doth he not aſſert the Covenant of Grace to be needful, the Free Gift of Grace? Sure Chriſt and the Covenant of Grace are both diſtinguiſh'd from Election; and theſe he affirms needful to our Title to Bleſſings. But Bleſſings in your Sence are odd things. Sanctification is no Bleſſing with you, but only a Condition of getting Bleſſings.

Neonom.

He ſaith, that on the Croſs all the Sins of the Elect were transferred to Chriſt, and ceaſed ever to be theirs.

Antinom.

Then there was ſomething more needful to our Title to Bleſſings than the Electing Decree, viz. The transferring our Sins to Chriſt on the Croſs. It is a Truth, that our Sins were laid upon Chriſt, and that but once, and after the manner of Imputation in foro Juſtitiae Divinae, they ſhall never be laid upon us. This I will prove againſt you when you pleaſe, and indeed its this Doctrine, viz. of Imputation, that you are ſtill bantering; it's that you have the greateſt Pique at.

Neonom.

That at the firſt moment of Conception, a Title to all thoſe Decreed Bleſſings is perſonally applyed to the Elect, and they inveſted actually therein.

Antinom.

If that be his particular Judgment in that Point, he ſaith ſomething for it, and I know not that you can diſprove him. If God doth ſecretly and inviſibly apply his diſtinguiſhing Fruits of Electing and Redeeming Love upon the Elect, as is manifeſt in Jeremiah, John the Baptiſt, yea, Paul; and without Diſpute in the Inſtance of Jacob that he gives; Is any Man the worſe for it? Muſt he therefore come under your Anathema for an Heretick? Yea, is not the Bleſſing thus applyed to all the Elect dying in Infancy?

Neonom.

Hence he ſaith, the Elect have nothing to do in order to an Intereſt in any of thoſe Bleſſings, nor ought they to intend the least Good to themſelves by what they do. Sin can do them no harm, becauſe it is none of theirs, nor can God afflict them for any Sin.

Antinom.

You may erect ſuch a Scheme upon Paul's Epiſtles, after this manner, and take the Apoſtle James to prove it in your way. He ſaith, The Elect can do nothing in order to an Interest in Eternal Bleſſings; nor when they have Eternal Life bestowed upon them, and the Grace of Sanctification as an undoubted part of it, ought they to put their Graces and Duties in the place of Chriſt, or deſign the procuring or deſerving ſo much p. 18as de congruo, in what they do, and that ſin can't harm them as to it's Penal and Vindicative Effects: He ſaith therefore, it can do them no real harm, and ſo he explains himſelf. And therefore Gods afflicting them proceeds not from Vindicative Justice; he doth not afflict them ſo as to execute Justice upon them for Sin, but to reform them. His Term is, from Sin, i. e. to purge Sin out of them, and make them Partakers of his Holineſs: As the Apoſtle ſaith, Heb. 12.

Neonom.

And all the rest of his Opinions follow in a Chain, to the dethroning of Christ, enervating his Laws and Pleadings, obstructing the great Deſigns of Redemption, oppoſing the very Scope of the Goſpel, and the Ministry of Christ, and his Prophets, and Apostles.

Antinom.

It's ſtrange, a Holy Man, (as you own he was) ſhould do Chriſt ſo much miſchief. Here's a ſwinging Bill of Coſts; but that's not fair before we have a Hearing and Tryal: Your Word is a Law. Ego ipſe dixi is enough; if you paſs the Sentence, there's nothing but Death and the Cobler. But you ſay all his Doctrine is link'd together as in a Chain: That's like the Analogy of Faith, not like a Scheme that muſt be erected a new every Minute, or elſe it will not agree with the Heavens. Nowmenians or Neonomians muſt be often erecting new Schemes. Your Opinions are ſo far from Conſiſtency and linking together, that they hang together like a Rope of Sand, and like Particles of various Shapes, that are always juſtling one another till they break each others Shins. Doth this Doctrine incur all this Damage? By what Law? Nay, all this Damage is excluded by the Law of Faith: And your boaſting too of Works. Doth the Apoſtle Paul's Doctrine preached Eph. 1. & 2. Ch. and Rom. 4. and Gal. 5. (where he teſtifies, That Chriſt is become of none effect to whomſoever is juſtified by a Law,) dethrone Chriſt, and enervate his Laws and Interceſſion? Doth he plead your Works? Doth it obſtruct the great Deſigns of Redemption in advancing him in all his Offices, and the Glory of God's Free Grace? Your Bill of Coſts will never be allowed you, till you have confuted Paul's Epiſtles, or by your Canons made them no Canonical Scriptures.

Neonom.

The Dr. had not entertained theſe Opinions, if he had conſidered; that God's Electing Decree is no Legal Grant, nor a formal Promiſe to us. The Decree includes the Means and the End in order to the laſt: And as it puts nothing in preſent being, ſo it bars not God as a Governour, to fix a Connexion between Benefits and Duties by his Revealed Will.

Antinom.

Here I ſee I muſt have a Care of my Crown. The Dr. Seraphicus holds up his Fiſt. Well Dr. Cr. you ſhould go to School to learn new Principles in Divinity, if you lived in our p. 19Times. You did not conſider that God did not legally Elect you. But Sir, is not this a very inſolent thing of you to ſay, that the Purpoſe of God in Election was not a Legal Grant. Was it a Grant or no? Or was it an Election without a Grant? Is not God's Deſignation of Good a Grant ſo far as deſigned? Is not a chooſing in Chriſt before the Foundation of the World, that we ſhould be holy and without Blame before him in Love; A granting that we ſhould be holy and without Blame before him in Love, and predeſtinating us to the Adoption of Children by Jeſus Chriſt to himſelf, according to the good pleaſure of his Will: A Granting that we ſhould have the Adoption of Children. But you ſay, this was not Legal. What! Was it not lawful for God to do this according to the good Pleaſure of his Will? That we uſually mean, when we ſay a thing is not Legal. Or do you mean, God did not elect by a Law? If he had been bound by a Law to Elect, he had not Elected freely: For a free choice implies a Perſon under no Obligation external or previous to his own intention and purpoſe. 2. You ſay, nor a formal Promiſe, i. e. Explicit, you mean. It's enough that it's an unchangeable purpoſe to make a formal Promiſe; and as there was an Eternal Election, ſo there was an Eternal Promiſe, the Covenant of Grace between the Father and the Son being eternal: And it's expreſly ſaid, that God's Purpoſe and Grace was given us in Chriſt before the World began, 2 Tim. 1.9. Tit. 1.3. We were no ſooner efected, but the purpoſe and Grace of it was given us in Promiſe. Election eternal, the Promiſe eternal, both equally eternal in puncto Eternitatis; though in Nature Election is before the Promiſe, and the Cauſe of it. 3. You ſay, the Decree includes the Means and the End. Do you think Dr. Criſp did not know that? Yes, how to expreſs it better than you do. He would have ſaid, The Decree was of the Means and the End; and he would not have ſaid Willing the firſt, i. e. The Means in order to a Will of the End, but willing the End to be brought about by the Means. Quod primum eſt in Intentione uttimum in Executione, as to our Conception. 4. You ſay, it puts nothing in preſent being. I ſay, it puts the Promiſe in an Eternal Being. And if you mean as to Created Beings, and the manner of them, it puts them into a determinate Futurition. 5. You ſay, it barrs not God of his Government. No, it's not fit nor poſſible his own Pleaſure ſhould barr him of it, neither is it poſſible it ſhould barr him of what he would have; neither is he the more barred, becauſe you are pleaſed to find Fault; and it was his Pleaſure to govern as he willed to govern, and all the Connexion of Events, ſo as they come to paſs in a way of Neceſſity p. 20and Contingency. But he determined abſolutely, and nothing that falls out is contingent to him; for he judgeth not of Events as probable by Opinion, but as certain to his Knowledge; and therefore knows them, becauſe he willeth them to come to paſs, according to his Counſel and Purpoſe in himſelf.

Neonom.

So if the Dr. had animadverted, that Chriſt's Sufferings were the Foundation of our Pardon, but not formally our Pardon: For them our Sins are forgiven whenever they be forgiven: Without them Sin can't be forgiven; and they were endured, that the Sins of all the Elect, when Believers, ſhould be forgiven.

Antinom.

There's no doubt but the Dr. was ſo Learned and Wiſe, that he animadverted as much as you can tell him, and undoubtedly what was the main of his Judgment that he inſiſted upon, was not from Inanimad verſion, Ignorance or Miſtake. But you have found out, it ſeems, ſome ſubtile Diſtinction that he thought not of. You ſay he ſhould have ſaid, That Chriſt's Sufferings were the Foundation of Pardon. All that he ſaith and means, is, that our Sins were fundamentally pardoned in Chriſt. But your fundamentally is only a remote Cauſality, as Election is to Creation and Redemption; for that's the Foundation of both. If you had not intended ſo, why had you not ſaid the Material Cauſe, ſeeing you deny them to be the Formal; but you'l have them to be neither; and you ſay, For them our Sins are forgiven. Take heed how you touch there. Be careful you come not too near Chriſt. It's a tender Point; For them our Sins are forgiven. How! For them? For them as an End? Or how for them? As a ſatisfying Reaſon to the Law and offended Juſtice of God? Or only as a Benefit procured? For them remotely, or for them immediately? For them alone, or for them in conjunction with other things? All that we have at preſent of your Meaning of for them, is, that without them Sin cannot be forgiven. A poor Cauſa ſine qua non. As a Judge gives Sentence upon a Malefactor, or acquits him: Why doth he ſentence or acquit him? For his coming to the Judgment-Hall? For, ſay I, unleſs the Judge had come to Court, the Priſoner could not have been condemned or acquitted. Chriſt is beholding to you for what you give to his Sufferings. But we ſhall ſee more of this hereafter.

Neonom.

But yet they are not forgiven immediately upon, nor meerly by his enduring thoſe Sufferings.

Antinom.

But you mean by ſomething elſe beſides them; not by an immediate Application of them, but mediate and remote a cauſa fine qua non, but not cauſa ſolibitaria ſuo genere.

p. 21Neonom.

But there was by Divine Appointment to interpoſe a Goſpel-Promiſe of Pardon.

Antinom.

Now we come to the Nicety of the Point. We ſhall ſplit a Hair here with a Beetle and Wedges: There's the Curioſity of it. What! The Promiſe come after Chriſt's Sufferings, to interpoſe between us and Chriſt's Sufferings? Was not the Promiſe the Cauſe of Chriſt's Suffering, in the hidden State and Myſtery of it, before the World was? Tit. 1. Was not the Promiſe declared and promulgated before Chriſt's Sufferings, to Adam, Abraham, &c.? And was not Chriſt in all his Sufferings and Triumphs the great Gift of the Promiſe, as well as the Condition of the Covenant? But you'll have Chriſt to be provided as an Indefinite good Medicine, to ſtand in the Apothecaries Shop for ſome body or other when the Phyſician preſcribes it. Nay, it's not an abſolute ſick Patient neither, that muſt have this Medicine; it's one that the Apothecary hath in a manner cured before: But there's ſome ugly Chronical Symptom or other remains, which the Phyſician muſt be ſent to, for. Before the Perſon be pardoned, he muſt be in a very ſound and ſafe Condition, I ſuppoſe you mean.

Neonom.

There muſt be a work of the Spirit for Conformity to the Rule of the Promiſe in the Perſon to be pardoned, and a Judicial Act of Pardon by that Promiſe on the Perſon thus conformed to the Promiſe.

Antinom.

The plain Engliſh of this Poſition is, that there muſt be an Inherent Righteouſneſs in the Perſon to be pardoned, upon the condition whereof he is to be pardoned; and that the Uſe of Chriſt's Sufferings are, to compound with God, for Sinners upon the Account of the Old Law, and put a Bar upon his Proceedings according to that, and procure another Law, by the Righteouſneſs whereof we are juſtified, which Righteouſneſs is our own inherent Righteouſneſs, and not Chriſt's. This I affirm, hath two things in it. Firſt, the Abrogation of the Old Law. That we have nothing to do with it at all, it's altogether out a-doors: This is Antinomianiſm, higher than ever Dr. Criſp affirm'd, or any of his Abettors, as you call them. Secondly, Here is Erection of a new Law of Works for our Juſtification, which is Neonomianiſm.

Neonom.

To clear this Point, conſider, 1. The Law is ſometimes taken for the Perceptive part of God's Will, with the Sanction of the Covenant of Works.

Antinom.

The preceptive Will of God with the Sanction of Rewards promiſed upon Performance of the things required, and Threats of Puniſhment upon the Non-performance, is always a Law or Covenant of Works.

p. 22Neonom.

In this Covenant Life was promiſed to ſinleſs Obedience; and Death was threatned againſt every Sin, without admitting Repenance to Forgiveneſs.

Antinom.

To talk of any other Obedience to a Law beſides ſinleſs, in reſpect of that Law in it's preceptive part, is Nonſence: For ſinful Obedience, which you are going to plead for, is Diſobedience; and whereas you ſay, Life was promiſed in that Law to Adam's ſinleſs Obedience: That's a Suppoſition; but there was no explicit Promiſe in the Sanction, neither was there any need there ſhould: For a Sovereign may command a Duty, or make a thing a Duty to a Subject upon a Penalty, without promiſing a Reward. And whereas you ſay, Death was threatned without admitting Repentance to Forgiveneſs: It was not expreſſed, no more was the Admittance of a Surety. But if God had intended the Salvation of Man by a Law of Works, this might have been admitted. When once a Tranſgreſſor is ſentenced by the Law, he falls into the Hands of Prerogative, and the Prince may do with him what he pleaſeth. God alſo might have put Repentance into the Conditions of the Law of Works at firſt, and ſaid, If thou doſt not eat, or repent of thy eating, thou ſhalt have thy Reward. But God never intended to accept Repentance as a Foederal Condition of any Covenant whatever, nor no other Imperfect Obedience. There was never but one Law of Works, and to fulfilling it, he always ſtood upon perfect ſinleſs Obedience.

Neonom.

Ʋpon the Fall Life is impoſſible by the Law with this Sanction.

Antinom.

Yea, or by any Law whatſoever with this Sanction.

Neonom.

And hence to preach it to Sinners as a way to Bleſſedneſs, is ſinful and vain, and no ſaving Benefit, is diſpenſed to any of us by this Rule.

Antinom.

To preach any Law to Sinners, as a way to Bleſſedneſs in this forementioned Sence of a Law, is ſinful and vain, and no ſaving Benefit is diſpenſed to any of us by ſuch a Rule: Therefore the preaching a new Law is as ſinful and vain.

Neonom.

The Goſpel includes the Moral Preceptive part of the firſt Law, with ſome additional Precepts, which ſuppoſe our Apoſtate State: As Faith in an attoning Saviour, and Repentance for Sin; theſe could not be injoyned as Duties upon innocent Man by a Rule of Happineſs and Miſery: Nor could they be neceſſary to his Right to Life, becauſe they would ſuppoſe him a Sinner.

Antinom.

1. I deny that the Goſpel takes in or includes any Moral Preceptive part of the Law, as a Rule of Happineſs and Miſery, p. 23with Sanction as a Foederal Condition, nor any Additional Precepts, which ſuppoſe our Apoſtate ſtate, as Faith and Repentance. For it were vain to ſet up ſuch a Law, ſeeing a Law of Works proved fruitleſs to Man in his perfect State, it's much more likely to be of none effect, we being now a Thouſand times more unable to perform the old Law, or a new one with Additional Precepts: And it becomes not the Wiſdom of God to make a Law to enjoyn new Obedience to dead Men, unleſs he makes them alive firſt. Moreover, all the Preceptive Will of God then or afterward to be revealed, was enjoyned to Man as his Duty to obſerve, in the Law of Nature imprinted on his Heart. As for Faith, it was an eminent part of his Perfection, and that which the Serpent firſt wounded him in by Temptation. Repentance alſo is an included Duty, required in every Command of God upon a Suppoſal of a Tranſgreſſion; but that Repentance, or any Duties, are enjoyned as a Rule of Happineſs and Miſery, (if I underſtand your Rule aright, viz. A Foederal Condition giving Right as ſuch) ſince the Fall, I utterly deny; and the rather, becauſe any ſuch Duties ſuppoſe him a Sinner, as will be very eaſily made appear when need requires.

Neonom.

The Goſpel is taken in a large Sence, when I ſay, it includes all the Moral Precepts: But yet the Goſpel doth ſo, and they are the Commands of Chriſt as Redeemer (to whom all Judgment is committed) as well as the Law of the Creator.

Antinom.

In your Sence it's taken in ſo large a Sence, as to make it Goſpel, is Nonſence. If it takes in all Moral Precepts as Foederal Conditions, (that's your Sence) then it ſets up the Old Law again, only new vamps it with ſome Additional Precepts: You have the Old Law you ſay, and a great deal more, the Precepts of Faith and Repentance, which are a Thouſand Times more hard to perform by Man in his Apoſtate State, than ever a hundred Laws would have been to Adam in his Innocency. Now here is in your new Law brought in not only all the Precepts of the Old Law for Condition, but the difficult Task of a Blackamore's changing his Skin, and a Leopard his Spots, before the Sinner hath the Benefit of the Promiſe, ſo much as in any taſte of pardoning Mercy, which you make (when he hath it) the Foederal Reward (for ſo it muſt be) of his Conformity to the Rule. 2. Chriſt our Redeemer gives Commands, and exerts a Kingly Power in Government of his Church, and hath Judgment committed to him; but theſe are not of the Goſpel Conditions of Life unto Sinners propounded in the Goſpel. God doth not require Obedience to the Laws of Chriſt in his Church as Foediral Conditions p. 24of Eternal Life. Such Obedience is part of the Life promiſed. There is the Eſſence of the Goſpel, and the Effects of the Goſpel. The Eſſence of the Goſpel is altogether Promiſe and Free Gift, the Effects of the Goſpel is every Priviledge and Bleſſing, and the Production of all Good Fruits in Service and Obedience to our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. 3. It's true, all Judgment is committed to Chriſt as his Reward, but all that Judgment is not the Goſpel. viz. Whenever Chriſt is found in a way of Judgment, to deſtroy, not to ſave: So the Word Preached, where it proves a Savour unto Death, it's not Goſpel to ſuch in the Event. 4. You ſay, they are the Laws of a Redeemer, as well as the Laws of a Creator. It's true, Chriſt is Creator: But is the Goſpel a Revival of his Law as Creator, in a way of Redemption? If you mean ſo, then the Miniſtry of the New Teſtament is the ſame to us with the Miniſtry of Death and Condemnation, contrary to 2 Cor. 3.7, 9.

Neonom.

3. The Goſpel hath another Sanction to the preceptive part of the Law, than the Covenant of Works had.

Antinom.

This is a ſtrange Aſſertion: For there was never any Law of God with Sanction, but it was always the ſame. Suppoſe that your new Law were a Reality, (and not a Fiction of Mens Brains as it is) can there be any other Sanction than what was annex'd to the old? is it not a Promiſe of Life upon the Condition of performing Obedience, and a Denunciation of Death to the Non-performers? What other Sanction have you, or can you pretend to beſides this?

Neonom.

Though nothing be abated in the Rule of Sin and Duty, yet Bleſſings are promiſed to lower Degrees of Duty.

Antinom.

The Change you pretend to therefore is not in the Sanction, but in the Condition; the preceptive part, or the Obedience to it required, your Sanction ſtill remains of Life or Death, as in the firſt Covenant of Works. But ſee how well your Scheme hangs together. You ſay there's nothing abated in the Rule of Sin and Duty. 1. I never thought God gave a Rule of Sin; therefore that's mighty improper; but let it be a Rule to judge of Sin by. 2. You ſay, There's nothing abated of the Rule of Sin and Duty, therefore nothing abated in the conditionary preceptive part of the Law: And there can be nothing abated in the Sanction, it muſt be Life or Death, Ergo, There's the ſame Law ſtill, and we muſt be ſaved by the Covenant of Works, or not at all. But, 3. The Reaſon you give of changing the Sanction, is, becauſe the Bleſſings p. 25are promiſed to lower Degrees of Duty. This, as I ſaid, is no Change in the Promiſe, but in the Condition; and then ſee how you contradict your ſelf in the ſame Breath. You ſay, there's nothing abated in the Rule, and yet lower Degrees of Duty admitted. How can theſe Lower Degrees be admitted, but by the Rule of the preceptive part? For the Degrees of Duty required are according to God's Commands; and he requires in a Law Duty anſwering the Perfection of the Precept.

Neonom.

And a Continuance in a State of Death, with a Barr to the Bleſſing, are not threatned againſt every Degree of Sin, as the Covenant of Works did.

Antinom.

This is not Sence as expreſs'd: But I take your Meaning: 1. Death was threatned in the Covenant of Works, but it ſpake not of a continuance in that State, with any ſuch Barr to a Bleſſing, as ſhould hinder God from the ſaving of Sinners: But you own that Barr might be removed, and was; but your Covenant puts as great a Barr as that, That if Men perform not the Condition, they muſt continue in the ſtate of Death notwithſtanding all that Chriſt hath done to remove the Barr from the Old Covenant. For their Concernment (in your Sence) is not now for a Righteouſneſs to anſwer that, but to anſwer the New Law, which lays them under Life or Death. 2. Is the Condition the ſame, and more? And the Sanction the ſame? How is it poſſible it ſhould not threaten Death to every Degree of Sin? 3. It ſeems our Salvation is according to the Degree of Sin. We muſt know what Sins are of ſuch a Degree, as that they are pardonable; what Venial, and what Mortal; and if Law and Goſpel are diſtinguiſhed by the Degrees of Sin, Goſpel lies in Sin, not Grace it ſeems; for if it be from the Degree of Sin that we are ſaved, then not from the Blood of Chriſt which taketh away all Sin. 4. Doth God's Law admit of Sin in any Degree, then I ſay as the Apoſtle ſaith, Is the Law Sin? To admit of Sin into Law is Sin. No; the Law is Holy, Juſt and Good, and the Promiſe doth not make void the Law, by abating one Jot or Tittle of it, but eſtabliſheth the Law: Therefore the Law cannot admit of Sin.

Neonom.

Can any doubt this to be the Grace of the Goſpel-Promiſe?

Antinom.

Yea, I do, not only doubt it, but know and do teſtifie to the World, according to the Grace of God given to me, That it is not the Grace of the Goſpel-Promiſe.

Neonom.

Doth it promiſe Life to all Men, however vile and impenitent they be?

p. 26Antinom.

It promiſeth and giveth Life to the vileſt and moſt impenitent Sinners. Where Grace gives Life, it ſuppoſeth Men dead, and not alive. For, Repentance is part of the Life given; and to talk of giving Life to penitent Sinners, is to ſuppoſe them alive before Life is given; but it doth not ſuppoſe that where Chriſt gives Life, the vileſt Sinners ſhall remain ſo, or impenitent.

Neonom.

Or doth it threaten Damnation, or a continuance of it unto any true, penitent, believing, Godly Man, becauſe he is Imperfect.

Antinom.

Let a Man pretend himſelf, or be look'd upon to be never ſo penitent, believing and Godly, and ſeek to be juſtified and ſaved by his Works; I mean ſuch as you mention, Moral Obedience, Acts of Faith, Penitency, &c. I affirm thereby he is fallen from Grace, Gal. 5.4. Being fallen ſhort of the Righteouſneſs of God, Rom. 10. And as he puts himſelf under a Law for Juſtification, ſo a Law condemns for imperfect Obedience. For I roundly aſſert, That no Law of God, with a Sanction of Life and Death upon Performance, or Non-performance of Obedience, doth admit of the leaſt Imperfection in the ſaid Obedience: Therefore ſuch are under the Curſe for their Imperfections. Curſed is every one that continueth not in all things. And I ſay, if your Goſpel be a Law, it doth denounce Damnation to the Holieſt and moſt Godly Man upon Earth.

Neonom.

This Change of the Sanction ſuppoſeth the Death of Chriſt, and his honouring his Law by his perfect Obedience; wherein God hath provided for his own Glory, while he promiſeth Forgiveneſs to imperfect Man.

Antinom.

I have proved the Sanction is not changed: But in your Law it ſeems the Condition is changed. It was in the Old Law Perfect Obedience, in the New it's Imperfect. Verily it is changed for the worſe; for Imperfect is worſe than Perfect. But how comes this to paſs? God hath provided for his own Glory in Chriſt, that ſaving of Men is upon the Conditions of Imperfect Obedience, i. e. by a worſe Law, an unholy and unjuſt Law might not turn to his Diſhonour. God hath provided for himſelf, you mean, ſeeing he raſhly made ſuch a Law as he finds will not anſwer his Ends, Juſtice ſhall have it's due in his Son, and then he ſhall be at liberty to make a Law with ſuch eaſie, imperfect and ſinful Conditions, that Sinners may be ſaved. Is not this admirable Stuff for Goſpel?

Neonom.

And yet he inſiſts upon ſome Degrees of Obedience, unto which of his meer Grace he enables us.

Antinom.

He could by his Grace as well enable us to Perfect Obedience, p. 27if it were for his Honour that Obedience ſhould be the Condition: But doth it make it make it ever the leſs a Covenant of Works? Doth what you ſay, make it of Grace. For, 1. Forgiveneſs, that's but the Reward of Life. But you'll ſay, it's for the ſake of Chriſt; well, that's but in reſpect of the Old Law, that it may not condemn you, whereby you are come into a capacity to ſtand again for Life upon new Conditions. 2. You ſay, it's to imperfect Man. But is it not the ſame thing to ſave by Perfect or Imperfect Works, ſo Works be the Condition? 3. What if Grace enables them? This alters not the Caſe. Did not God give Adam his Holineſs before the Fall, and enable him to do what he did?

Neonom.

This the Covenant of Redemption ſecures to the Elect, tho' the Grant therein is pleadable only by Chriſt as the Stipulating Party for us.

Antinom.

As for your Notion, that your Covenant of Redemption is Diſtinct from the Covenant of Grace, I deny it, and ſhall hereafter make it appear, that the Covenant of Grace and Redemption is one and the ſame Covenant. And for the preſent, I tax you for ſaying, That the Covenant of Redemption is pleadable by none but Chriſt. Do we never plead Redemption, nor the Promiſe made in Chriſt, nor Chriſt himſelf? What, is all in the Covenant of Redemption? Do we not plead it daily? And what Chriſt ſtipulated in this Covenant for us; may we not plead it? Is not the Promiſe of Life in Chriſt pleadable? 2 Tim. 1.1, 9.

Neonom.

And our Perſonal Claim depends on the Goſpel-Covenant, whereof Chriſt is the Mediator.

Antinom.

So the Covenant of Redemption is not the Goſpel-Covenant; but neither is there any Claim to be made by it, but another that interpoſeth between the Second Covenant and us. We are not entitled at all to this new Covenant-Bleſſing by Chriſt, but by our own Obediance (you mean) in performance of the Conditions of this Covenant, you ſay. How? To defend from the Old Law Proſecution, that there may be no Interruption: but our New Law may have quiet in allowance of our Imperfect Obedience. Chriſt Mediator with you is but as the Angel that defended Paradice; ſo Chriſt ſtands and defends the New Law, that no exception may be taken at its proceeding in Juſtification by Imperfect Obedience. This is to make the Lord Jeſus Chriſt the Miniſter of Sin, to offer up himſelf a Sacrifice to procure an imperfect Righteouſneſs for a Covenant Condition: For in all Imperfections of Obedience there's a mixture of Sin. And is not this to make Sin good in its own Nature? And implicitly to aſſert, it can do us no hurt in the lower p. 28Degree, it coming in as an Allay to the ſtrictneſs of the Covenant of Works: There's a neceſſity of it as to the very formal Nature of it in the Condition: For otherwiſe it would be a perfect Condition, and then exclude us from all Bleſſedneſs, as you ſay.

Neonom.

4. This Goſpel Sanction determines as certain a Rule of Happineſs and Miſery as the Law of Works did, though it be not the ſame.

Antinom.

To determine Rules of Sin and Miſery, as your frequent Expreſſion is, is to make the Goſpel to approve of Sin and Miſery, and it's great Deſign and Buſineſs to ſend Men to Hell. Take your way of Expreſſion in what Sence you pleaſe, it's ſo Unſcholar-like, that a School-boy ſhould be whipt for it. 2. I tell you, the Goſpel hath no Law Sanction at all of its own, but it only eſtabliſheth the Sanction of the Law, by way of Promiſe to all ſaved ones; Chriſt is the End of the Law to them; and as to thoſe that are not ſaved, the Law takes it's Courſe upon them; they come not under the Efficacy of the Goſpel at all. 3. In the whole you have ſaid, you have affirmed the Goſpel to be a Covenant of Works, as it's your uſual manner.

Neonom.

While it promiſeth Pardon to all believing repenting Sinners, and declares a Barr to pardon to the impenitent Rejecters of Chriſt and Goſpel Grace; it fixeth true Repentance and Faith unfeigned to be the Terms of Pardon: So when it promiſeth Heaven to the ſincerely holy perſevering Believer; it fixeth ſincere Holineſs and Perſeverance in Faith at the Terms of poſſeſſing Heaven.

Antinom.

1. I would fain know whether the Goſpel offers not Pardon unto unbelieving and impenitent Sinners? Not that they ſhould continue unbelieving and impenitent, but that they ſhould believe and repent. For the Promiſe of the Goſpel is an Offer and Tender of Forgiveneſs unto Sinners; and it's preached to them as ſuch, to perſwade and encourage them to believe; and whether this Promiſe be not before Faith, to work it? if not, the Sinner hath no ground to believe: For where there's no Promiſe, there's no ground to believe. 2. If it declare a Barr to all preſent impenitent ones and Rejecters of Chriſt, it is preached in vain; for all are ſo till they receive Chriſt by Faith. 3. Whether Faith and Repentance be not included in the Promiſe of the Goſpel? I ſay, They are: All Gifts of Grace belong to the Promiſe of Grace; but Faith and Repentance are Gifts of Grace: T…e Scripture is expreſs in it. Now then I argue, Firſt, That Faith and Repentance belong to the Promiſe, to the ſame Promiſe that gives forth Pardon, and therefore are no Conditions; they are Benefits, they are Life in Chriſt, and there's none can have them but ſuch as are in Chriſt: And therefore Pardon p. 29is not promiſed to Faith and Repentance, as things diſtinct from the Promiſe; but Pardon is promiſed together with Faith and Repentance to the Sinner. The Spirit of God only gives us to underſtand that they are to go together. Pardon is rather the Conndition of Faith and Repentance, and much more, having a cauſal Influence thereunto, then Faith and Repentance of Pardon. 2. The Goſpel doth not fix Faith and Repentantance as Conditions of Pardon in your Sence, i. e. Working Conditions to entitle us to Chriſt; for we are pardoned and juſtified freely; and though there be Faith and Repentance upon giving forth of Pardon, yet Faith, Repentance and Remiſſion of Sins are given in the ſame Promiſe to the Ungodly, to Perſons that were even till now Impenitent Rejecters of Chriſt. 3. But you go on with your Myſtery. Firſt, The Sinner muſt be qualified with Faith and Repentance, before he is reconciled to God in a way of Pardon; and when he hath that, he is to come on upon another Covenant for poſſeſſing of Heaven. Now there muſt be ſincere Holineſs and Perſeverance to qualifie him for Heaven: The Promiſe of Heaven, its upon other Conditions. What a Sad Caſe is a poor Sinner in, if he make a ſhift to ſcramble by his imperfect Conditions into Covenant! He is like every Day to be turned out again: And when he hath done the beſt he can; yet he muſt never believe that he ſhall go to Heaven till he lies a dying. It were happy for him to be knock'd on the Head when he is in a good Frame, leſt he ſhould loſe all again, and put to begin to go through all his imperfect, ſincere, perſevering, moral Righteouſneſs, believing he knows not what. For if he falls into Sin, he muſt conclude his Perſeverance is at an end; you muſt enform us what Degrees of Sin in our imperfect Obedience may be admitted before we conclude that our Perſeverance is at an end; and then, though you ſay Happineſs will come upon Perſeverance, in imperfect Holineſs, I ſuppoſe, then perfect Holineſs is that which qualifies us for perfect Happineſs, and is the Condition of it: Therefore we muſt arrive at it in this Life, that ſo we may have the Condition before the Promiſe. Are not theſe miſerable Chimera's for Proteſtants?

Neonom.

Hence the Ʋſe of Faith and Holineſs to thoſe Benefits, is not from their Conformity to the Precept, but their Conformity to the Rule of the Promiſe.

Antinom.

Now we come to the Whirligig, that is the Myſtery of the Scheme. 1. We would know whether there be any difference between Conformity to a Rule and Precept in a Law? And, 2. What is the Rule of the Promiſe? Is it not with you the Precept? If it be not, how is Conformity to it Obedience? 3. The Promiſe is not properly a Precept as ſuch, tho' p. 30the Goſpel-Promiſe is the Ground and Reaſon of all Goſpel-Precepts; but not Precepts of Promiſes: And how can any Man conform to the Precept in your Sence, and not expect and have from thence the Uſe of the Benefits? Yea, and not look upon it as Federally following therefrom. 4. I would fain know what gave the Uſe of the Benefit in the Covenant of Works? For you ſay, this determines the Rules of Happineſs and Miſery in the ſame manner. Was not the Uſe of Adam's Faederal Holineſs as to Happineſs from Conformity to the Precept? Where was the Rule of the Promiſe there? Either it muſt be in the Precept, or the Promiſe it ſelf, or in the Connexion of Promiſe and Precept. Have I hit it now? It's ſure, the Connexion is the Rule of the Promiſe. Now how is that a Rule of the Promiſe, but in Conformity to the Precept? and then it's Conformity to the Rule of Precept and not of Promiſe: Or is it poſſible to come with a Conformity to the Connexion between the Precept and Promiſe? Now all the Intricate Harangue is only to tell us in the Clouds, that Faith applying the Lord Jeſus Chriſt will not juſtifie us, but as it is a working Condition to which the Promiſe is annexed.

Neonom.

Yes, it follows, our applying Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, and relying on it, would no more juſtifie us, than our ſincere Holineſs would ſave us, were it not for this Goſpel-Promiſe, That God will juſtifie for Chriſt's ſake all thoſe that believe.

Antinom.

The Buſineſs here that is the Kernel of this Nut, is, that Faith doth not Juſtifie us by applying Chriſt's Righteouſneſs in the Promiſe, by vertue of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs it ſelf imputed, but by its own Vertue, as being a Righteouſneſs it ſelf, whereby it anſwers the Promiſe as a Condition upon which it is made. As for Faith's receiving Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs, it ſerves thereby to barr the Old Law: But Chriſt's Righteouſneſs hath nothing to do here; it's our own Faith and Repentance is the Righteouſneſs in their Conformity to the Rule of the Promiſe; and that's Latin for the New Law. Here are great Myſteries more than Paul underſtood, and all the Apoſtles, any other than to reckon them another Goſpel, and vain talking. And truly, as for your comparing Chriſt and Holineſs in the matter of Juſtification under the Umbrage of your Invented Rule of Promiſe, is perfect Stuff: It amounts but to this at beſt, That if God had not promiſed Juſtification, there had been none at all, neither by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, nor by ours. But how came this Promiſe? Do you not ſay, Chriſt purchaſed it as an conditional Grant?

Neonom.

Hence by Goſpel Grace there's a great difference between imperfect Faith and utter Ʋnbelief; between ſincere Holineſs, and formal p. 31Profaneneſs or Wickedneſs; true Love to God and prevailing Enmity, &c. By the Law of Works nothing was Holy but what was perfectly ſo, &c. But read the Bible, if thou doubteſt whether there is not a true Faith, Holineſs, Love, &c. which be ſhort of Perfection.

Antinom.

I thought we ſhould have had a greater Inſtance of the Grace of God, than in giving us a worſe Condition of the Covenant than Adam had. You ſhould have told us what Perfection here you mean; I ſuppoſe it muſt be only of Parts, that it may be a Goſpel Foederal Condition, which muſt be imperfect; and it muſt be mingled with Sin, or elſe it will not anſwer the Rule of the Promiſe. Now you will not allow it muſt anſwer the Rule of the Precept, for there's nothing abated of it; but it muſt chop in between the Precept and Promiſe as the Goſpel Condition in a way of Imperfection: So that without Sin our Holineſs is nothing Foederally: We muſt take heed it become not perfect Holineſs; for if once it comes to that, we fall under the Law of Works: This were to begin in the Spirit of Imperfection, and end in the Fleſh of Perfect Holineſs. And this is the ſad Condition of the Saints in Heaven, that they are fallen under the Covenant of Works. Again, you do here not a little inſinuate what I know lies in your Breaſt, that there is no ſpecifick difference between Grace and meer moral Endowments; and it appears ſo upon all your Hypotheſes. For you declare, there ought to be ſuch and ſuch Qualifications to entitle a Man to the Promiſe of Grace, or Grace in the Promiſe, before he hath the Promiſe. And as to your Exhortation to the reading of the Bible, &c. I muſt tell you, I have read the Bible ſeveral times, and hope to read it, and meditate on the Word of Grace contained therein, as long as I live. But if that be the true Doctrine of the Goſpel which you have delivered in this Book, I am utterly at a loſs for my Salvation, which I would be loth to be now at laſt, after ſo many Years Satisfaction: And let the World take notice, that I do believe your Goſpel to be another Goſpel, ſuch as Paul ſpeaks of, and accurſeth, Gal. 1.8, 9.

Neonom.

God in diſpenſing of Goſpel-promiſed Bleſſings, doth judicially determine a Conformity to this Rule of the Promiſe. When he forgives, he judicially declares a Man hath true Faith. When he admits into Heaven, he judicially declares a Man ſincerely holy and perſevering.

Antinom.

This is plainly as much as to ſay, God diſpenſeth the Goſpel-Promiſe Judicially in the ſame way as a Law of Works. He looks whether or no we have fully performed the Conditions; and upon finding of them, he judicially gives the Promiſe, i. e. In a p. 32way of Reward to the Works performed: Whether they be Perfect or Imperfect, it's no matter, the Reward is of Debt, and not of Grace: And in this way Pardon is given upon Imperfect Faith and Repentance: And thus Heaven is given Judicially for perſevering Holineſs. Here's not a bit of Enquiry whether they have Chriſt or no, he is a Cypher in the matter of our Salvation. No Papiſt can utter more groſs Divinity. But this is a ſtrange way of Diſpenſation of Goſpel-Benefits: Firſt to determine a Conformity to the Rule of the Benefit. As for Example, In diſpenſing Faith, for that's a Promiſe; God determins judicially, a Man hath a Conformity to the Rule before Faith. Again, Is Forgiveneſs a judicial declaring a Man hath true Faith? Or doth this judicial Declaration go before Pardon and Juſtification? If ſo, a Man hath always true Faith before he is juſtified and pardoned, what abſurd Conſequences will follow thereupon? And what can this be but a declared Judgment that he is de Congruo, deſerving Pardon? And I think, ex Condigno too before he is pardoned; and upon the ſame Terms are the perſevering Saints at laſt admitted to Glory.

Neonom.

As upon a View of his Gueſts he caſt out him that had not the Wedding-Garment, viz. True uniting Faith; ſo by keeping out the Fooliſh Virgins, &c. Can any think that Forgiving, Adopting, Glorifying, or the Conveyance of every other promiſed Benefit given upon God's Terms, are not Judicial Acts of God as Rector.

Antinom.

If you underſtand Judicial in reſpect of the Juſtice of God, anſwered by the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, purchaſing all good Gifts and Bleſſings for Sinners that deſerve nothing but Wrath, it may be ſaid of Juſtification. But if you underſtand Judicial in reſpect of any Duty, Grace or Qualification that is found in us, tho' wrought by the Spirit, I abhor it as an abominable Poſition: And your Saying, the Wedding Garment was Faith, and not the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt apprehended by Faith, is a wretched wreſting and Abuſe of Scripture, turning the ſweet and precious Doctrine of our Lord and Saviour againſt himſelf. I ſhall meet with you again upon theſe Points more largely, therefore I paſs them over briefly now: But in the mean time take notice, that all our Proteſtants, and particularly the Aſſemblies Catechiſm, define Juſtification and Adoption always Acts of Free Grace.

Neonom.

If ſo, doth he deſpenſe theſe blindly and promiſcuouſly, without any regard to our being Believers, &c. or no? Whether our Faith be true or no, any one would bluſh to affirm.

Antinom.

I would know whether, if God diſtribute his Free Grace to poor, wretched, and worthleſs Creatures, according to p. 33his Election and diſtinguiſhing Mercy, doth he do it blindly, becauſe he finds no Reaſon in them? And I pray, doth God diſpenſe the Grace of Faith blindly, if he doth it without reſpect to Men's being Believers firſt? So if they believe before, they ſhall have the Gift of Faith; and their Faith muſt be true too, before they have Faith given. I can' but think you are Fricatae Frontis, or you would bluſh at the delivery of theſe things.

Neonom.

With reſpect to what is above declared, the Goſpel is a Law of Faith, a Law of Liberty, &c. And it eſpecially inſiſts on that Sincerity of Grace and Holineſs which the Rule of the Promiſe makes neceſſary in it's Deſcription of the Perſon whom it makes Partaker of it's included Benefits.

Antinom.

You do here begin to make Concluſions on your Premiſes; but your Premiſes not holding Water, your Concluſions will no way follow; you conclude the Goſpel is a Law of Faith. We have briefly ſhewed, as you have given occaſion, that the Goſpel as ſuch, is no Law, and hath not a Sanctio, it's wholly a Promiſe of Life, and the Performance of the Promiſe doth not depend upon any thing a Sinner can do as a Foederal Condition. I ſhall ſhew fully hereafter, that there is no ground from that place, Rom. 3. nor that of James 1. to conclude the Goſpel to be a Law, i. e. A Command of Duty for a Condition with a Sanction of Threats upon the Non-performance, or Promiſes as Rewards upon the Performance, whether the Condition be Perfect of Imperfect Obedience. You make the Sincerity of Grace and Holineſs to be this Condition, and you call it the Rule of the Promiſe, (which you ſay is not the Precept neither) neither is it the Promiſe, but a Rule that is neither Precept or Promiſe. So what your Rule is, he is wiſe that knows. And you ſay this Rule makes Sincerity neceſſary in the Diſcription of the Perſon: So the Rule of the Promiſe deſcribes a Perſon only, and therefore makes him not, but tells us he muſt be ſincere before he hath any thing to do with the Promiſe. From whence hath he this Sincerity deſcribed? From Law or Goſpel? From God or himſelf? If from God, then by way of Grace and Gift, and ſo through the Promiſe. If of our ſelves, it's Droſs: They that are in the Fleſh cannot pleaſe God, and therefore much leſs perform ſuch a Duty, for which God will give the promiſed Benefits.

Neonom.

And the main of our Miniſtry conſiſteth in preſſing Men to anſwer the Rule of Goſpel Promiſes.

Antinom.

What this means is very ſtrange, when you ſay the uſe of Faith, and Holineſs, as to Benefits, is not from their Conformity to the Precept. Therefore what do you preſs them unto, p. 34when you preſs them to anſwer the Rule of the Goſpel? When the Conformity to the Precept doth no good, I ſuppoſe in the ſame Sence as you ſay Obliquity in regard of the Precept will do no hurt. But the main of our Miniſtry conſiſts in Preaching Chriſt, and bringing Sinners unto him, and building them up in him.

Neonom.

And diſſwading Men from thoſe things which the Goſpel threatens ſhall hinder their Intereſt in all, or any of their Benefits, with an Aggravation of their Miſery if they be final Rejecters of Grace.

Antinom.

Whatever befalls Sinners retaining their ſinful ſtate, and rejecting Grace, is from the Law, and not from the Goſpel. To talk of a Goſpel-Threat, is a Catechreſis at beſt, and nothing elſe can ſave it from being a Bull. But what are thoſe that will hinder a Sinner from the Benefit of being turned from Darkneſs to Light? This I can ſuppoſe is the Non-improvement of the Grace (which you take every one to have) which either hinders or makes that they are not converted.

Neonom.

We call Men to be reconciled to God, upon which we know God will be at Peace with them.

Antinom.

But you tell them not, according to 2 Cor. 5.18. That all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himſelf by Jeſus Chriſt. And this is the ground of the Miniſtry of Reconciliation, and the ground of Perſwaſion to Sinners to be reconciled unto God. But this Portion of Scripture to the End of the Chapter you take to be hardly Canonical.

Neonom.

Theſe things will help thy Conceptions, ſtill remembring that the Merits of Chriſt are the Cauſe of this Ordination.

Antinom.

The Councel of God is the Cauſe of the Ordination of Salvation, Means and Order. But you mean, they will help to blunder and confound poor Men's Conceptions. Per Nebulam, per Caliginem, per Somnium.

Non lectore tuis opus eſt ſed Apolline libris.

But you would have us not to forget the Cauſa ſine qua non of this rare Goſpel Scheme. You ſhould have told us that your own corrupt Imagination was the Procatarctick Cauſe of this new Law Ordination.

Neonom.

His Righteouſneſs imputed is the Cauſe for which we are Juſtified and Saved when we anſwer the Goſpel Rule.

Antinom.

It's ad Graecas Calendas, when a poor wretched Sinner muſt be ſaved, then Chriſt is the cauſe of ſetting up this new Law, and that we ſhould be juſtified thereby, when we perform the imperfect Conditions thereof; and that's your anſwering the Goſpel Rule. Since Chriſt hath put a Barr upon the Old Law, now we p. 35muſt ſet up for a Righteouſneſs of our own to anſwer the Goſpel-Rule by, and that's not Conformity to the Precept neither; but anſwering the Goſpel-Rule by Imperfection. Is not this ſad Divinity?

Neonom.

And I exclude not this Righteouſneſs, when I affirm, That the Righteouſneſs of God, Phil. 3.9. principally intended the Goſpel-Holineſs of a Perſon Juſtified by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs: Both which by Faith in Chriſt all his Members ſhall be perfect in.

Antinom.

It ſeems the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt there ſpoken of, is a mixture of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and Evangelical Obedience; but the principal par tis Evangelical Obedience; Chriſt's is but a Complement of ours. The Reverend Dr. Beverly hath abundantly evinced, that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs alone is there underſtood according to the heſt Interpreters. We ſhall have further occaſions to deal with you upon this Point, and your crude and falſe Interpretation of that excellent Portion of Scripture ſhall be laid open in our Progreſs. You ſhould have told us, whether you mean we are perfect in Chriſt's Righteouſneſs for Juſtification, without our own Righteouſneſs, or Evangelical Obedience joyned with it; and whether our Perfection in Holineſs be in the ſame manner as in Righteouſneſs? And whether it be in this Life, that we are made perfect in Holineſs by Faith in Chriſt.

Neonom.

The Grace of God is hereby ſtated as free as is conſiſtent with his Government, and Judicial rectoral Diſtribution of Rewards and Puniſhments.

Antinom.

That is, you have ſet Bounds to the Grace of God, and told God and us how far he may lawfully exerciſe his Grace: He muſt take heed that no unqualified Sinners have any thing to do with it; and that he be ſure, notwithſtanding the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, that he diſpence Grace in the way of a Law, that it may be conſiſtent with his Government; and all Grace muſt be diſtributed Judicially, by Rewards and Puniſhments. Let all the World ſee now whether you have not ſtated the Grace of God very fairly out of Doors, and gone about to eſtabliſh a Law of Works, as ſhall more manifeſtly appear afterwards.

Neonom.

And there's none have need of the Grace of God more than I?

Antinom.

The trueſt Word you have ſpoken at all. But according your own Principles its a Queſtion whether you have not put a Bar upon the Grace of God, by making ſo audacious and daring an Oppoſition to it, as you have done in this Book: I am ſure, if this be part of your Goſpel. Obedience that you intend for your Juſtification, it will not do, if you perſevere in it. But the p. 34duplicate page p. 35duplicate page p. 36Lord in his meer Free Grace look in Mercy upon you, pardon you, and turn you from Darkneſs to Light!

Neonom.

Note, that in this Book I ſtill ſpeak of the Adult, and not Infants.

Antinom.

I find you ſee you are like to run your Head againſt a Poſt; but for all your Foreſight, you are certain of a Knock in the Pate; for hereby I find you ſee God juſtifies ſome without Works. God hath not one Righteouſneſs of one kind to juſtify Infants by, and another of another kind to juſtify the Adult by Adult Perſons are no more juſtified by Works than Infants.

Neonom.

Forget not, tho' the Doctor in his Book ſpeaks to Men as Believers; yet in every thing true of the Elect.

Antinom.

Every thing that is true of the Elect, is ſo of them when Believers; but every thing that is true of an Elect Believer, is not ſo of him before he's a Believer: And to prove you charge the Doctor falſly, I'll bring but your acknowledged Sence of the Doctor in your next Words. It's true of a Believer, that he knows the Saving Bleſſings he is entitled to; but it's not true of a Perſon in Unbelief, that he knows the ſaving Benefits he is to be partaker of.

Neonom.

They have as much a Title to all Saving Bleſſings, only they know it not, this was his Judgment.

Antinom.

His Judgment was, that nothing entitleth us to the Bleſſings of the Covenant, but the Promiſe. Deed of Gift is that which entitleth us, whereby we claim when we take Poſſeſſion of it when we believe, whereby we know our Title more or leſs by believing.

Neonom.

I have carefully avoided to make any Reflexion on Reverend Dr. Criſp, whom I believe a Holy Man, and abſtained the expoſing things according to the Advantage offer'd.

Antinom.

Theſe things are but ad Populum Phalerae. Whether here you be not as falſe as in other things, a little time will diſcover. We call ſuch an one Phaleratum, who is as Horace deſcribes, Introrſum turpis ſpecioſus pelle decorus.

Neonom.

Look who is that that is coming towards us? it's ſure Mr. A. B.

Antinom:

It's ſo indeed: Meditatus venit. He's a perfect Calviniſt. I'll warrant you you will find him of my Opinion concerning your Book.

Neonom.

Your Servant, Mr. Calviniſt. I have a Queſtion to ask you in the firſt place, before we talk of News or any thing. I pray, what do you ſay of my Book?

p. 37Calvin.

I cannot like it by any means; I was ſorry to ſee it, knowing ſomething of your Principles before; but when I read it, it raiſed Variety of Paſſions in me.

Neonom.

I muſt confeſs I am willing to hear what moſt Men think of this Piece of mine; tho' I think I need not regard what many Men ſay, ſeeing it hath ſo large and ample an Encomium by ſeveral very grave Divines and others, eſpecially the Learned Mythologiſts of the late Athenian Clubb, the Deſſolution whereof is greatly bewailed by me: They might have proved of Great Ʋſe to me in theſe matters. But I pray, Mr. Calviniſt, tell me the Reaſon of your Diſlike of my Book,; I thought it might have pleaſed Calviniſts, tho Antinomians (whoſe Opinions are not much to be valued) are ſo angry at it; and I have ſhewed that what I have aſſerted is the Sence of the Aſſembly's Confeſſion, the Savoy's, Dr. Owen, Mr. Norton, and many Learned Calviniſts.

Calvin.

I ſhall deal ingenuouſly and plainly with you, and tell you why I cannot approve of your Book. My Reaſons are theſe:

1. I except againſt your Magiſterial way of Writing, by Canons, as it were Anathema's, in the manner of a Council, National or Provincial Aſſembly, whereby you would have all Men to believe that our Faith in all matters of Salvation is to be meaſured by your Scheme, and pinned upon your Sleeve: So arrogant a way of impoſing upon others in Doctrines, hath not been as I know practiſed by the Conformiſts, whereby you endeavour to make Humane Authority the Standard of our Faith, preſcribe New Articles contrary to thoſe of the 39. and all our Engliſh Confeſſions, and give an Example unto others ſo to do: For if 20 Men of one Perſwaſion may recommend their Opinion in Doctrinals by a concurrent Subſcription, by the ſame Reaſon others may do the like; ſo that hereby is laid a Foundation of incurable Factions and Diviſion about the main Points of our Salvation; whereas, whatever of Differences hath been in leſſer matters, and Men's private Opinions in greater, yet hitherto there's no Sett of Men as I know, hath publickly in the like manner invaded our Confeſſions, wherein thoſe of the Conformiſts and Nonconformiſts hath harmoniouſly agreed in matters of Faith in the Sence of the Scriptures and firſt Reformers.

2. That you have plainly drawn in, or rather trickt ſome Divines (under a Pretence of bearing Witneſs againſt Error) into theſe Practices of Subſcribing to your Book, meerly to put a Countenance upon the groſs Errors that you would vend among the People, and that you might the better ſlurr and brand ſome Faithful Miniſters of Chriſt in this City with the odious Name of Antinomians, and the Preaching the Doctrine of Free Gra…s our Lord Jeſus p. 36duplicate page p. 37duplicate page p. 38Chriſt and his Apoſtles have done, with Antinomianiſm; and have in your Pulpit at Publick Lectures, and at Publick Houſes, made it your buſineſs to blow up a Flame of Contention in this Town, as if no Man was to be eſteemed Sound and Orthodox in Goſpel-Truths but your ſelf, and ſuch as will dance after your Pipe, and think all others ignorant Setters up of the Name of Chriſt, &c.

3. That in your Writing, in decrying of what you would charge upon ſuch that you call Antinomians, you take Dr. Criſp and ſet him up as a pretended Butt (a Man dead many Years ſince, an holy Man, as you own,) falſly repreſenting unto the World as to his Sence and Meaning, almoſt in every thing, that thro' his ſides you might wound the Doctrine of Free Grace. I aſſert, your way is very unreaſonable to ground a Polemical Oppoſition, and faſten a Charge of Error upon, to Excerpt Expreſſions here and there from Popular Sermons not printed by himſelf, but from the Notes of Sermon Writers. How liable the true Words and Expreſſions of the exacteſt Men are to miſtake and abuſe,Dr. Criſp Printed nothing, all the Sermons reprinted were Printed from Sermon-Notes taken after him in Preaching. I need not to inſiſt on to evince, common Experience is evidence enough. Moreover, conſidering that this is the way the worſt of Men have always taken to expoſe Religion, to encourage and ſeed Atheiſm and Profaneneſs in the World; Not to name Edward's Gangrena, our preſent time gives an ample Example in that late Pamphlet, call'd the Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence, or the Fooliſhneſs of their Teaching. You may ſee how the Sentences taken out of the Sermons of the Reverend Mr. Rule, and of divers other Presbyterians, doth look, when ſeparated from the main Sence intended by them: I ſay, I do highly diſapprove of this Sermon-hunting Trade, as a moſt diſingenuous way, unleſs a Sermon be Preached and Printed by the Author to eſtabliſh a manifeſt Error, and the whole Sermon or Sence of the ſaid Author be impartially repreſented and argued.

4. That the more to inſinuate your ſelf and Doctrines for Truth into the Minds of Chriſtians ſound in their Principles, that they might think you mean nothing by your Uncouth and Equivocating Expreſſions; and to deceive the leſs Intelligent (as you call moſt Divines that are not of your Perſwaſion) you groſly abuſe the two Reverend Aſſemblies, with Dr. Owen and Mr. Norton, quoting them for Aſſerters of your Errors, in places where they ſpeak or diſpute directly againſt the Principles that you aſſert. Now what is this but to Ape a Deceiver at leaſt?

5. That you that have ſubſcribed ſolemnly the Doctrinal part of p. 39the 39 Articles, ſhould ſo palpably and openly go about to overthrow ſome Foundation-Principles therein contained, as Imputed Righteouſneſs, and Juſtification only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt by Faith, and not for our own Works and Deſervings, and that we are juſtified by Faith only. Article 11. And that Principle aſſerted in the 13th, That Works done before the Grace of Chriſt, and the Inſpiration of his Spirit, are not pleaſing to God, foraſmuch as they ſpring not from Faith in Jeſus Chriſt, neither do they make Men meet to receive Grace, &c. The Contrary Doctrine to both theſe Articles (under whatever Evaſions and Prevarications you ſeem to abſcond your ſelf) you make the great Buſineſs of your Book not only to inſinuate, but manifeſtly enough to aſſert and endeavour to prove, viz. 1. In that it appears to be your Deſign to blaſt the whole Doctrine of Imputation, (whatever you pretend,) both of Imputation of our Sins to Chriſt, and of the Imputation of his Righteouſneſs unto us. 2. That you make it your great Buſineſs to ſet up and eſtabliſh a Covenant of Works, boldly aſſerting the Goſpel to be a Law with Sanction of Rewards and Puniſhments, and that the conditional part thereof are Imperfect Works, and that we are juſtified by thoſe Works as a Subordinate Righteouſneſs to the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and that Faith it ſelf is concerned therein but as an Act, in the ſame manner as Repentance and other parts of imperfect ſincere Obedience, tho in a little kind of Precedency. Your Book alſo is full of many other Errors, that have dependence on theſe Capital Ones, which for Brevity ſake I will not now rehearſe; beſides your many Inconſiſtencies, Contradictions, Equivocations, Falſe Inſinuations, illiterate, abſurd and unſound Expreſſions, that render your Book very Offenſive to ſound and ſolid Minds.

Antinom.

Theſe things which you ſpeak of I have already found, and have made a little Inſpection into, and Diſcovery of unto him in Diſcourſe even now, wherein I took the boldneſs to open the lower Venter of his Morbid Body of Divinity, in order (if we can agree upon it) to a thorough Diſſection.

Neonom.

You both of you go upon great Miſtakes, and are led to cenſure my Book from Prejudice, eſpecially Mr. Antinomian, becauſe the principal Scope of it is to lay open his Errors: And as for thoſe things which you call Inconſistencies, Contradictions, abſurd Expreſſions, &c. they are Terms of Art which the Learned underſtand, ſuch as, The Rule of Promiſe, The Rule of Sin, and, The Rule of Happineſs and Miſery, &c. If you once come to ſee how fully and rightly I have ſtated the Truths and Errors mentioned, you will be of another mind.

p. 40Calvin.

Nay, it's very juſt and meet to give your Book an impartial Examination, that we may have a full and clear Underſtanding of your Scheme, how you ſtate and defend the Points therein contained; and if you will conſent thereto, we will appoint ſome place where we may meet from Day to Day at a certain Hour, where we will dictinctly debate the Material Points that you aſſert, as either Truths or Errors.

Neonom.

I highly approve of it. But where ſhall, this be with moſt Conveniency upon all Accounts?

Antinom.

Why, may it not be, Mr. Calvenist, at your Calvinian Society? I ſuppoſe you debate Theological Queſtions there moſt of all, and there are many worthy and learned Gentlemen attend there frequently to very much purpoſe.

Calvin.

I like your Motion, Mr. Antinomian, and will undertake that both of you will have a very candid and welcom Reception there.

Neonom.

I have but one Objection, and that is, ſeeing Mr. Antinomian moves for this place, I fear it ſmells too much of Antinomianiſm. Is there liberty to take a Pipe of Tobacco now and then to clear an ill Scent out of the Throat.

Antinom.

Yes, yes; elſe how do you think we could be able to endure the Scent of ſo many Morbid Theological Bodies, which we make our great buſineſs to diſſect; though this hot Weather we are fain to clear them off-hand as faſt as we can.

Calvin.

Never trouble your ſelf with ſuch weak Objections as theſe: You know ſtrong Smells are good to repell Fumes ariſing from the Spleen, by I know not what kind of occult Quality, of Antipathy, Antiperistaſis, or Militation of Abſtruſe Particles one with another.

Neonom.

Well, I agree: I pray how ſhall I find the place?

Calvin.

I will give you ſuch Directions that you cannot miſs: The Calvinian Society is in Gracious Street, at the Sign of the Geneva Arms, just oppoſite to the Sign of Cardinal Bellarmine's Head, at the Foot of the Bridge that croſſeth Reformation-River, that divides between the Proteſtant and Popiſh Cantons.

Gentlemen,

Now fare you well till to morrow five a Clock, where I expect to meet you according to our Agreement, and I pray have a care you miſtake not the Sign.

FINIS.

Neonomianiſm Unmask'd: OR, THE Ancient Goſpel PLEADED, Againſt the OTHER, CALLED, The New LAW.

The SECOND PART of the Theological Debate, occaſioned by Mr. Dan. William's BOOK, wherein the following Points are Diſcuſſed.

I. What the State of the Elect is before Effectual Calling?

II. Whether God laid our Sins on Chriſt?

III. Whether the Elect were Diſcharged from Sin upon Chriſt's bearing them?

IV. Whether the Elect ceaſe to be Sinners from the time their Sins were laid on Chriſt?

V. What was the time when our Sins were laid on Chriſt?

VI. Whether God was ſeparated from Chriſt while our Sins lay upon him?

By ISAAC CHAƲNCY, M. A.

LONDON, Printed for H. Barnard at the Bible in the Poultry, 1693.