Neonomianism Unmasked, Part 2 · Debate 4
DEBATE IV. Of the Elects ceaſing to be Sinners from the time their Sins were laid on Chriſt.
Neonom.
GEntlemen, now we are come together again as we are wont, to make Diſcovery of Truth and Error: I am willing we ſhould be very clear in this Point of Imputation: For I will aſſure you, as it's uſually underſtood, I cannot digeſt it: It's the Foundation of this Antinomian Error; therefore I would propound this following Queſtion to be diſcuſſed at this time. Q. Whether the Elect ceaſe to be Sinners from the time their Sins were laid upon Chriſt?
Calvin.
This Queſtion is the ſame with the laſt, and it's reſolved in the Reſolution of that, viz. So far as the Elect are diſcharged by the Satisfaction of Chriſt, ſo far they ceaſe to be Sinners.
Neonom.
You are miſtaken, it is not the ſame Queſtion; there is difference between being diſcharged of Sin in a way of Juſtification, and ceaſing to be Sinners in reſpect of Sanctification.
Calvin.
Ay, if that be your Meaning: Do you charge Mr. Antinomian with that Errour, That the Elect never ſinned ſince Sin was laid on Chriſt?
Neonom.
Ay, that I do, and will make good my Charge too.
Calvin.
Say you ſo; then I have no more to ſay. Mr. Antinomian, anſwer for your ſelf.
Antinom.
He ſaith what he pleaſeth of me; for he hath a… inveterate Spirit againſt me: However, I am willing to hear …at he ſaith. I pray, Sir, declare your Charge in expreſs Terms, that you will not ſtart from, and then prove it.
Neonom.
I muſt premiſe ſome things firſt, and then tell you, what's Truth, that you may the better know the Errour, and judge of it.
Antinom.
I had rather you would fall down-right upon the Errour; for your way is to make long Speeches and Explications of things, that others know as well as you. —
Calvin.
Pray let him take his own way; ſometimes the furtheſt way about is the neareſt way home, they uſually ſay.
Neonom.
I premiſe two things. The Firſt, That Men are Sinners, or not Sinners in divers reſpects. 2. As to the Filth or Obliquity of Sin, with reſpect to this they are more or leſs Sinners, according to the Degree of their Innocence and Holineſs D. W. p. 22.
Antinom.
There is nothing in Sin but is Filth and Obliquity; God looks upon it all as ſo, as it ſtands in oppoſition both to Juſtification and Sanctification, and it conſiſts in it's Contrariety to the Moral Rectitude of the Law, and the Duty required by it; where there's no Law there's no Sin: Thoſe Actions that are groſs Sins in Men, are no Sins in Bruits, becauſe they are not under a Moral Law. And for Degrees of Innocency I know none, though there be of Holineſs.
Neonom.
2. With ſome as to the Guilt of Sin, which refers to the Sanction of the Law againſt Offenders; with reſpect to this, the Offenders are more or leſs Sinners, as they are forgiven or not forgiven.
Antinom.
With ſome! What mean you by that ſome? I judge they are Neonomians by the Glimpſe you give of them. You ſay the Guilt of Sin is no more than this, that a Man is bound over to be puniſh'd whether right or wrong; and a poor Creature that is tryed for Murder is guilty, becauſe he is to be hanged. I thought always that he was obliged to be hanged becauſe he was guilty; and if the Law finds not the Fault upon him, he is never guilty. Is it Sence to ſay, a Man is guilty? being Whipt, Burnt in the Hand, or being Hanged, never: unleſs he hang himſelf. Obligation to Puniſhment, or the Puniſhment it ſelf, is no Sin, it's but an Effect of it founded in the Law. I do not underſtand more or leſs Sinners in reſpect of Guilt, as forgiven or not forgiven; for in the ſence of Guilt, whether the Fault be more or leſs, Forgiveneſs takes all off, and all Sinners ſtand equally upon that account before God. A Believer here on Earth is as fully forgiven as a Saint in Heaven. Juſtification admits not of Degrees. But it may be you diſtinguiſh Sinners in reſpect of Guilt, into Forgiven and not Forgiven, as Men are more eminently Sinners before Juſtification than after.
Neonom.
As to the Charge of the Fact, which was ſinful, neither after-Sanctification nor Pardon will deliver a Tranſgreſſor from having been a Sinner; the Fact was his.
Antinom.
I told you already the Charge of any one with ſinful Fact, which the Party had done, makes him guilty, it is a Fault; and tho it be true, that the Phyſical Act cloathed with it's moral Pravity was done by him, yet God forbid that Pardon and imputed Righteouſneſs ſhould not deliver him from being a Tranſgreſſor. I pray, Is David now a Murderer, and Noah a Drunkard? You would ſeem to ſpeak ſome great Thing, but you thought ſafeſt to change the Tenſe, and ſay, from having been.
Neonom.
The firſt and laſt denominate a Man a Sinner moſt properly.
Antinom.
i.e. The Filth of Sin, and the charge of a ſinful Fact; and they are near a Kin; for a ſinful Fact is Filth, and the Filth of Sin is a ſinful Fact; and that's a Fault, and a Fault charged and proved, or confeſs'd, is Guilt; ſo that it's Fault or Guilt (for they are reciprocal) denominates a Sinner.
Neonom.
The Second denominates a Man puniſhable, but not a Sinner Formally.
Antinom.
This 2d is Guilt of Sin, which, ſay ſome, is a Relation to the Sanction of the Law: We ſay Guilt refers to the preceptive alſo, and is Fault. You ſay, to the Sanction only; and therefore I ſay, no Sin. You ſay, the guilty Perſon is no Sinner formally. What then, a puniſhable Creature? Do you mean a Creature capable of Suffering; ſo is a Dog, or a Cat, or a Horſe: Or do you mean a Man under a Law? If under a Law, he is not puniſhable but as a Sinner. Sin is Subjectivè formalis ratio poenae, Sin is ſubjectively the formal Reaſon of Puniſhment: So that a Man muſt be denominated a Sinner formally, or elſe he is not puniſhable in any way of Juſtice.
Neonom.
In the whole Scheme of your Principles, it's Elect as Elect who ceaſe to be Sinners. When you ſpeak of Believers, you do not mean that he was a Sinner before he believed; for you ſtate the time when Chriſt had his Sins laid upon him. D. W. p. 23.
Antinom.
Believers of great Antiquity, older than Methuſelah. But methinks a Man that would be taken for a great Divine, and one that in tender…eſs to Holineſs will rather with-hold the Truths of the Goſpel, and abſcond them, leſt Men ſhould take too much liberty thereby to ſin: I ſay, one would think ſuch a Man ſhould for his Reputation ſ…ke make Conſcience of ſpeaking Truth, and much more tremble at the Temptation to Bantering, and expoſing the great Truths of the Goſpel to Scorn and Reproach. How can you dare to toſs, tumble, reproach and load this great Truth of the Goſpel in the very Words of the Holy Ghoſt, with all the odious Conſequences imaginable? You may value your ſelf as you pleaſe, or other Men may judge of you and your Words as they pleaſe; I ſhall only deſire you to read Job 19.27, 28, 29.
Neonom.
Now I will tell you what is the Truth.
Antinom.
No, no; I hope we know the Truth. Tell us the Eror you charge me with, and if there be time, we will hear the Truth afterward.
Neonom.
If you are in ſuch haſte for it, you ſhall have it then.
Errour.
The Elect upon the Death of Chriſt ceaſed to be Sinners; and ever ſince their Sins are none of their Sins, but are the Sins of Chriſt; and this I prove to be your Error from your own Words.
You put this Objection, Muſt he not be reckoned a Sinner while he doth ſin? A. I anſwer, No: Tho he doth Sin, yet he is not to be reckoned a Sinner; but his Sins are reckoned to be taken away from him, &c. A Man doth ſin againſt God; God reckons not his Sin to be his, he reckons it Chriſt's, therefore he cannot reckon it his. Dr. Cr. p. 8.
Antinom.
Gentlemen, I would have you obſerve the things that are Aſſerted by Mr. Neonom. (for I beſeech you do me Juſtice) that it appears that I ſpeak always of the Elect as Elect, and not Believers; and when I mention Believers, that I do not mean he was a Sinner before he believed. I will read my Diſcourſe to you taken from me as I delivered it.
Preaching from John 14.6. I was ſhewing Chriſt was the Way from a State of Sinfulneſs—There is a two-fold conſideration of Sinfulneſs, from which Chriſt is our Way in a ſpecial manner. 1. That which is called the Guilt of Sin, which is indeed the Fault, or a Perſons being Faulty as he is a Tranſgreſſor. Is, 2ly. The Power and over-maſterfulneſs of Sin in Perſons: Chriſt is the way from both theſe. 1. From the Guilt of Sin. Chriſt is the way from the Guilt of Sin: It is briefly no more but this, to be …d of the Guilt of Sin, viz. Upon Tryal to be quitted and diſcharged from the Charge of Sin that is laid, or may be laid to him, and to be freed from it: This is for a Perſon in Judgement to be pronounced actually innocent, and a juſt Perſon, as having no Sin to be charged on him: This is to be free from the Guilt of Sin. A Man is not free from a Fault, as long as the Fault is laid to his Charge; and he is then free, when he is not charged with it— He is only the way by which a poor Sinner may be pronounced innocent; and having proved, that Chriſt is the way to take away the Guilt of Sin, which, I ſay, is the Charge of Fault, by many plain places of Scripture, and by the Type of the Scape Goat: I came to anſwer this Objection, But do not thoſe that receive Chriſt actually, commit Sin? I anſwer, Yea, they do commit Sin; and the Truth is, themſelves can do nothing but commit Sin. If a Perſon that is a Believer hath any thing in the World, he hath received that; if he doth any thing that is good, it is the Spirit of God that doth it, not he: Therefore he himſelf doth nothing but Sin, his Soul is a Mint of Sin. Dr. Cr. p. 3. & 8.
Now therefore judge, Gentlemen, whether here I ſay, the Elect ceaſed to be Sinners ever ſince the Death of Chriſt: If Sinners after believing, much more before, in reſpect of the Indwelling of Sin and Corruption; and do not in this Sence ceaſe to be Sinners after believing. I went on,
Then you will ſay, If he doth ſin, muſt not God charge it where it is? [all this while ſpeaking of a Believer] Muſt he not be reckoned to be a Sinner while he doth ſin? A. I anſwer, No; though he doth ſin, yet he is not to be reckoned a Sinner, [i. e. Being a pardoned Believer, God doth not reckon him ſo, and he ought by Faith to behold all his Sins taken away in Chriſt] but his Sins are to be reckoned to be taken away from him. A Man borrows 100 l. ſome Man will pay it for him: Doth he not owe this 100 l. ſeeing he borrowed it? I ſay no, in caſe another hath paid it for him. A Man doth ſin againſt God, God reckons not his Sin to be his, he reckons it Chriſt's, therefore he cannot reckon it his, God hath laid it upon Chriſt. —'Thou haſt ſinned, Chriſt takes it off; ſuppoſing, I ſay, thou haſt received Chriſt. Is this any other Doctrine than what John teaches? 1 John 1.7, 8. Chap. 2.1, 2. I ſay, in one reſpect they are not Sinners, in another they are Sinners. And is this any other Doctrine than what the Scripture and all our beſt Divines teach: Therefore judge ye how juſtly now I am charged with this Error.
Neonom.
But you ſaid, If thou haſt part in the Lord Chriſt [which he thinks all unbelieving Elect have.] All thoſe Tranſgreſſions of thine become actually the Tranſgreſſions of Chriſt, and ſo ceaſe to be thine. Dr. C. p. 270.
Antinom.
Is it not very unfair dealing for you to impoſe a wrong meaning upon my Words, when I expreſs my ſelf ſo plainly. If thou haſt received Christ, if thou haſt a part in the Lord Christ, who will underſtand theſe Expreſſions, but of our active receiving and partaking of Chriſt? though I do ſpeak elſewhere of our having Benefit by Chriſt, and a hidden Right in him; and it hath an Influence on us, and we are paſſive therein before we believe, yet it's not that I ſpeak of here. I was ſhewing from Iſa. 53.6. that Chriſt is our great Pay-maſter, and how ſad a thing it is to have Sin lying upon our Spirits: Separate Sin from the Soul, and the Spirit hath Reſt in the worſt conditions— You will never have quietneſs of Spirit in reſpect of Sin, till you have received this Principle, [viz. By Faith] that it is Iniquity it ſelf that the Lord hath laid on Chriſt. Now when I ſay thus, I mean with the Prophet, that it is the Fault of the Tranſgreſſion, &c. — Reckon up what Sins thou canſt againſt thy ſelf; if thou haſt part in the Lord [i. e. by Faith] all theſe Tranſgreſſions of thine became Chriſt's, [i. e. Thou ſeeſt them laid on Chriſt: Not that they were juſt then laid on Chriſt when thou believeſt: I would think your Divinity is not ſo groſs, as to aſſert that, but that a Believer by Faith ſees that he is one of thoſe Elect ones, whoſe Sins were laid on Chriſt.] What the Lord beheld Chriſt to be, that he beholds his Members to be. — So that if you would ſpeak of a Sinner, ſuppoſing that Perſon of whom you ſpeak to be a Member of Chriſt, [is this ſpeaking of the Elect meerly as the Elect, and no more?] you muſt not ſpeak of what he manifeſts, but what Chriſt was, pag. 271. What Unſoundneſs, I beſeech you, is in this Doctrine? I pray ſpeak, Gentlemen.
The Company generally ſmiled; but being afraid to diſpleaſe Mr. Neonomian, and affrighted at the Name of Antinomian, which Mr. Neonomian called every one that contradicted him, were ſilent: But at laſt a brisk Gentleman, Learned and Solid, ſtood up and ſaid, I think you have greatly abuſed Mr. Antinomian, and charged him unrighteouſly, both in your miſrepreſenting him, and in your charging him with Error and Falſe Doctrine in the things alledged againſt him. For, ſaith he, I am not aſhamed of the Goſpel of Chriſt, though I ſee ſome of my Brethren here ſeem to be ſo, that will not ſpeak for the Truth when they hear a Man of Confidence run it down. I ſay and affirm, that he that hath a part in Chriſt, is confidently to believe that Chriſt bore his Sin in his Body o… the Tree, Tit. 2.14.
Calvin.
I pray Mr. Neonomian, give us your Thoughts clearly what you hold, and what you deny in this Point.
Neonom.
I ſhall tell firſt what is not in Diſpute between us.
Calvin.
There's 100 things are not now in Queſtion before us, I pray you to cut ſhort, that we may not loſe ſo much time; come to the very Point in Difference firſt.
Neonom.
You are not capable of underſtanding it, till I have told you what is not in Diſpute: I'm ſure you'll miſtake the Queſtion, if I tell you not what the Queſtion is firſt.
The Difference is not, 1. Whether the pardoned Sinner ſhall be delivered from Condemnation. D. W. p. 24.
Antinom.
But it is, whether the pardoned Sinner is not delivered from Condemnation, and that Delivery the Ground and Reaſon of his Pardon.
Neonom.
2. Nor whether God, for Chriſt's ſake, will deal with a pardoned Sinner as if he had not been a Sinner.
Antinom.
The Queſtion is, Whether God can deal with any one Salvâ Juſtitiâ, as if he were not a Sinner, and yet be eſteemed by him formaliter, and in the juſt Sentence of the Law, a Sinner; and whether a pardoned Sinner be in the righteous Judgment of God a Sinner; and can be a Sinner and not a Sinner at the ſame time, and in the ſame reſpect.
Neonom.
3. Nor whether Forgiveneſs doth take away Sin as to it's Obligation to Puniſhment.
Antinom.
If Fault in the Judgment of the Law be made the Obligation to Puniſhment, and the Demerit of Sin lies in the Fault, it is a great Queſtion how the Obligation to Puniſhment can be taken away, without taking away the meritorious Cauſe; and whether if the Obligation to Puniſhment could be taken away, without taking away the Sin in the Eye of the Law, whether it were Forgiveneſs; for Forgiveneſs lies formally in taking off the Fault, and but conſequentially in remitting the Puniſhment.
Neonom.
Nor whether the Atonement of Chriſt, when it's applyed in it's full effects, will perfectly remove all Puniſhment, and purge away all Filth and Defilement from the Elect: Each of theſe I affirm.
Antinom.
But it is a Queſtion, whether upon the Atonement of Chriſt made and accepted, any of the Elect were puniſhable for Sin in a way of Vindicative Juſtice, even before Faith, much more after? So that the things which are without Diſpute to you, are queſtionable to us, eſpecially according to your ambiguous way of expreſſing them.
Neonom.
I ſhall now acquaint you with the Queſtions that are in debate betwixt us.
1. Whether becauſe Chriſt obliged himſelf to bear the Satisfactory Puuniſhment of our Sins, they did therefore become the Sins of Chriſt?
Antinom.
You ſtate this Queſtion fallaciouſly. The Queſtion all this while between us is this, Whether if God laid our Sins upon Chriſt, (in the way that he laid them) they did in that way become the Sins of Chriſt? If you will have it in the Notion of Chriſt's bearing Puniſhment only, it muſt run thus, If Chriſt was obliged to bear, or did bear Satisfactory Puniſhment, whether or no our Puniſhment, or the Puniſhment due to us did thereby become his? Both theſe we affirm.
Neonom.
Whether our Sins were pardoned when Chriſt ſuffered on the Croſs. This you affirm, and I deny.
Antinom.
I affirm it in my own Sence, but deny it in your falſe and impoſed Sences.
Neonom.
Whether even they that are Members of Chriſt, yet if they do ſin, are they Tranſgreſſors and Sinners, and are the Sins they commit their Sins? This you deny, and I affirm.
Antinom.
This Queſtion, as you you ſtate it, I both affirm and deny; becauſe in one Sence a Man muſt be a Tranſgreſſor, in another none. But the Queſtion, Whether the Members of Chriſt while Sin remains, are Sinners, and in the ſight of God do ſtand fully juſtified from all Sin? This I affirm.
Neonom.
One would think this needed no Proof, whether he that doth a ſinful Fact be a Doer of it.
Antinom.
It needs no Proof, I always own it to be ſo. I tell you, the Saints commit Sin, and are therefore the Doers of it; and I have told you, 'tis all that they can do of themſelves, and that it is my Sin, my ſinful Fact; and yet my Debt that I contracted may become another Man's, if he engageth for it.
Neonom.
Chriſt teacheth Believers to pray for the Pardon of Sins, Luke 11.4.
Antinom.
So they had need, for Sins are pardoned when they have it not, and it's to them as if they were not pardoned at all, if they have not the Comfort.
Neonom.
It would be vain to object, they pray for manifeſtation of Pardon.
Antinom.
Why in vain? Is it any more that a true Believer can pray for? For he ſees and knows all his Sins are pardoned, but yet continues to pray for a further manifeſtation of Pardon. Did not David tell us what it is, Pſal. 1.10. Reſtore to me the Joy of thy Salvation.
Neonom.
For were it ſo, yet it is for our Sins; it would ſound ſtrange to pray, Forgive us the Sins of Chriſt.
Antinom.
Yes, we pray for the Pardon of our Sins that were laid on Chriſt; and though we do not pray to forgive us the Sins of Chriſt, yet we pray to God to forgive us for the ſake of Chriſt, whoſe bearing of Sin and Satisfaction wrought, we always plead believing. But you will banter Chriſt's bearing Sins.
Neonom.
The Saints in Scripture eſteemed them their Sins, and themſelves Sinners, when they committed Sin, and found it's Motions, Jer. 14.7. Iſa. 59.12. Job 7.21. Pſal. 25.11. D. W. p. 25.
Antinom.
So do we, though they and we ought to acknowledge Sin always in Faith of the pardoning mercy of God in Chriſt; we ſhould ask Pardon in Faith, nothing doubting; but ſometimes there may be but weak Faith, next to none, in God's Children, and great Doubtings, and therefore great Guilt lying upon their Conſciences, and from thence great Darkneſs in times of Temptation. Thence did flow thoſe Pathetical Expreſſions of many of the Faithful from God's hiding of his Face, and the Weakneſs of their Faith, as if they were reprobated ones, and caſt away; and ſo it is even now ſometimes: And though we believe Chriſt hath born our Sins, yet this is the greateſt Ground of true Goſpel-brokenneſs of Heart, that they were our Sins, and are now the Product of corrupt Fleſh, the Old Man remaining in us, which we labour under, endeavouring to get more and more into Chriſt by a ſtrong Faith, that the Body of Sin, the Source of Corruption in us, may be deſtroyed: Therefore Repentance and Godly Sorrow is exerciſed even for our Sins laid on Chriſt
Neonom.
3. God reckons Sins to be their own; he reproves them, he forgave them, 1 John 2.12. Jer. 33.8. Rev. 2.20. Rev. 3.19. 2 Tim. 4.16. D. W. p. 26.
Antinom.
Sins are Sins, and our Sins, (we have ſaid it again and again) and therefore reprovable in us, and to be forgiven in us by the Application of Pardon: All this hinders not, but that we be without Fault before God, and our Sins caſt behind his Back, we have a Perfection and Fulneſs of Pardon and all Grace in Chriſt Jeſus, though Sin it ſelf was never reconciled to God; and therefore God ſets us to the killing of it; Chriſt deſtroyed Sin on the Croſs, as to the obſtructing God's compleat Love to the Perſons of the Elect; ſo that it cannot condemn before God; but it is Sin Yet in the Elect, and will accuſe and condemn wherever it is, or at leaſt the Law will by Reaſon of it, and therefore it hath it's Influence this way ſometimes on the Holieſt Men. It's in the Nature of Sin to condemn, but God doth not condemn for Sin; though he condemns Sin daily in the holieſt Men, and through Unbelief they are apt to think their Perſons condemned of God himſelf. When God denounceth Judgment againſt a ſinful Church or Nation, they are ordinarily, hypocritical, prophane and Apoſtate, and therefore a mixt People, many or moſt under a Covenant of Works, and a People in their Sins, which God awakens by Threatnings or Judgments themſelves; and therefore the places quoted by you affect us not. The Force of your arguing lies here. Thoſe Sins that God calls our Sins, and we ought to call our Sins, are not laid on Chriſt and taken away; but God calls Sins our Sins, and we ought to call them ſo, Ergo.
The Major is utterly falſe: For all places that we bring to prove, that Sin was laid on Chriſt, do call them our Sins; and we ſpeak of them as ſuch, and it's cauſe of Abaſement in our ſelves, and thankful Admiration of the Free Grace of God in Chriſt, and ſo the Church acknowledge their Sins, Jer. 14.7, 8. Iſa. 59.12, 16, 17.
Neonom.
Mark what will follow hence: No Elect Members of a Church are juſtly cenſured for Offences, and no Chriſtian Criminal could be puniſhed; for they are not the Sinners, the Sin is not theirs.
Antinom.
It is a ſhame to hear a Mininiſter argue in this manner: Your Argument runs thus; If the Sins of the Elect were laid on Chriſt by Imputation, then no Church or Court of Judicature can proceed to condemn an Offender, Ergo. Baculus ſtat in Angulo, ergo pluit. Doth Man ſee and judge as God doth? Is there no difference between Forum Divinum and Humanum, Eccleſiaſtick and Civil; the Law before Man, and his Adminiſtration of it, knows no difference of Perſons, it proceeds ſecundum allegata & probata: Churches cenſures is in order to a Juſtification before the Church, that by Faith and Repentance it may appear, that God hath forgiven ſuch an one, that he belongs to Electing and Redeeming Grace, and the Sinners Sin laid on Chriſt; and when they find that, they are ſoon reconciled to an offending Member. And you ſay, If Sins were laid on Chriſt, no Chriſtian Criminal can be puniſhed. A very ſad Caſe indeed; for then any Criminal condemned juſtly by Man's Law, can never be ſaved: For if Chriſt bore not his Sins, he can't be pardoned; nay, may not a Godly Man, through Temptation, fall into a Crime whereby he may juſtly ſuffer in Foro humano; and doth this hinder his Salvation by Chriſt? And is it an Argument his Sins were never laid on Chriſt? Are not theſe conſiſtent, a Sinner and condemned by Man's Law, and an abſolved Sinner by the ſatisfy'd Law of God? Was not the converted Thief a Sinner juſtly condemned by Man, though abſolved by God, becauſe Chriſt bore his ſins on the Croſs; and if he had repented before he had been hanged on the Croſs, would it have freed him from Man's Sentence. Satisfaction to God's Law is not to Man's, nor Satisfaction to Man's is not to God's. Men ſtay not Execution of a Malefactor becauſe he repents to Salvation; but Man's Law muſt take it's courſe upon him. I doubt not but the Ordinary of Newgate can teach you better Divinity than this. A Man may be in one reſpect guilty, and in another not: And ſo likewiſe God deals with his Children two ways, in caſe of their eminent Falls, in a way of his common Providential Government of the World, in foro mundi, as he dealt with David, that thoſe Evils of Affliction (Judgments in the Apprehenſion of the Men of the World) ſhould befall them; and ſo in the Participation of external, common Calamities, there ſhould not be any manifeſt difference between them and other Men. Therefore the Wiſe Man ſaith, That Love and Hatred is not known by theſe things. But notwithſtanding all this, the other and certain way of God's dealing with them, is according to the Covenant of Grace, which is the Secret of the Lord: he fully pardons their Sins, is reconciled to them in Chriſt, will never leave or forſake them, his Loving Kindneſs ſhall not depart from them, and all things ſhall work together for their good.
Neonom.
An Hundred ſuch Conſequences naturally proceed from this Error, which fully tends to render Sin and Sinners Innocent: Not to ſay what Popery is in it, as if Juſtification did remove the Filth of Sin.
Antinom.
By ſuch conſequent Drawers as you are, who will charge the greateſt Truths of the Goſpel with any Abſurdities that are forged by carnal Reaſon.
As for danger of Popery, where is moſt, in Juſtification by Free Grace, or Works? And when you make it appear that Juſtification doth not take away the Guilt of Sin, then you ſhall convince me, it taketh not away Filth in that reſpect: For I take no greater Filth to be in Sin than Guilt, and that which is the Fountain of all other Filth that is in it, or produced by it, cauſeth the inherent Macula.
And whereas you ſay, the Doctrine of laying Sins on Chriſt, tends to make Sin and Sinners innocent. To make Sin innocent is a contradiction; Sin is never made no Sin, tho' the Sinner may be made no Sinner in a Goſpel Sence, and your Poſition is dangerous.
Neonom.
I will ſhew the Grounds of your Miſtake: You think, becauſe God removes our Sins by Pardon, ſo as to acquit us from Puniſhment, therefore our Sins ceaſe to be ours. D. W. p. 27.
Antinom.
That is no Pardon to acquit only from Puniſhment, if the Fault remain, ſo that the Perſon is under the Charge of it. 2. Remitting of Puniſhment only doth not diſcharge us from Sin. 3. Sin imputed to Chriſt, is not imputed to us: It's a Contradiction to ſay, that it is in the ſame reſpect; and yet we ſay, it was our Sins imputed to Chriſt, and ſo it's ſtill. We ſay not, they are not ours imputed to Chriſt, but they are ours by Commiſſion, and his by Imputation.
Neonom.
Becauſe a pardoned Sinner is diſcharged from Condemnation, therefore you think that Perſon is not to be denominated a Sinner from the Violation of the Precept.
Antinom.
Pardon diſchargeth from the Fault it ſelf, and forgives it, or elſe it's no Pardon. A Man may many ways eſcape Puniſhment, and not have the Fault pardoned. He that is pardoned is no Sinner in the Eye of the Law, but we call him a pardoned Sinner; and ſuch an one ought by Faith to look upon himſelf as perfectly righteous before God.
Neonom.
Becauſe Chriſt took upon him to make Satisfaction for Sin, therefore he thinks no Filth can cleave to the Offender, nor he be a Tranſgreſſor by the Offence.
Antinom.
You know I do not think ſo; for you know I ſaid, a Believer of himſelf can do nothing but ſin. And do not you contend with me for ſaying, Our very Righteouſneſs is Sin, polluted and unclean: And you know my Meaning is, that we are pe…fect and compleat in Chriſt; in our ſelves all things are polluted and unclean: And I take this to be very ſound Divinity. I will tell yau what Luther ſaith.
There is no more Sin, Death or Malediction, ſince Chriſt now reigneth; we daily confeſs alſo in the Creed of the Apoſtles, which we ſay: We believe there is an Holy Church, which is indeed nothing elſe but as if we ſhould ſay, I b…lieve there is no Sin, no Malediction, no Death in the Church of God. F…r they … do believe in Chriſt are no Sinners, are not guilty of Death, but are holy and righteous, Lords over Sin and Death, and living for ever. But Faith only ſeeth this; for we ſay, I believe there is an Holy Church. Luth. on Gal. 3.14.
Obj. If thou wilt believe Reaſon and thine own Eyes, thou wilt judge clean contrary; for thou ſeeſt many things in the Godly which offend thee, they fall into Sin, are weak in Faith, ſubject to Wrath, Envy, and ſuch other Evil Affections; therefore the Church is not holy.
Anſw. I deny the Conſequence. If I look upon my own Perſon, or the Perſon of my Brother, it ſhall never be holy: But if I behold Chriſt, who hath ſanctified and cleanſed his Church, then it is altogether holy: For he hath taken the Sins of the whole World: Therefore where Sins are ſeen and felt, there are they indeed no Sins. For according to Paul's Divinity, there is no Sin, no Death, no Malediction any more in the World, but in Chriſt that is the Lamb of God, that hath taken away the Sins of the World; who is made a Curſe, that he might deliver us from the Curſe. Contrariwiſe, according to Philoſophy and Reaſon, Sin, Death, and the Curſe are no where elſe but in the World, in the Fleſh, or in Sinners; for as a Sophiſtical Divine can ſpeak no otherwiſe of Sin, than doth a Heathen Philoſopher: Like as the Colour (ſaith he) cleaveth to the Wall, even ſo doth Sin in the World, in the Fleſh, and in the Conſcience: Therefore it is to be purged by contrary Operations. But True Divinity teacheth, there is no Sin in the World any more; for Chriſt, upon whom the Father hath caſt the Sins of the World, hath vanquiſhed and killed the ſame in his own Body. He once dying for Sin, and raiſed up again, dyeth no more. Therefore where-ever there's a true Faith in Chriſt, there is Sin aboliſhed, dead and buried; but where no Faith in Chriſt is, there Sin doth ſtill remain: And albeit the Remnants of Sin be ſtill in the Saints, becauſe they believe not perfectly, yet are they dead, in that they are not imputed unto them, becauſe of Faith in Chriſt