(S.) He also enjoins it upon them, That they mourn for their sins, Isa. xxii. 12. expresses his great delight in contrition and brokenness of spirit for sin, Isa. Ixvi. 2. " To this man will I look, " even to him that is poor, and of a contrite spirit." ('hrist himself pronounces a blessing upon them that mourn, Mat. v. 4. Justified Paul mounifully confesses his former blasphemies, persecutions^ and injuries done against Christ, 1 Tim. i. 13. So did Ezra, Daniel, and other eximious saints.
Object Yes, say some, they did indeed confess their sins com- mitted before their justification, but not their after-sins.
Reply. According to Antinomian principles, I would demand. If all the elect were justified from eternity, what sins any of them could confess which they had committed before their justification ? Or, if they were justified from the time of Christ's death, what were the sins any of us have to confess who had not a being, and therefore had not actually sinned long after the death of Christ ? But I hope none will deny, that the mournful con^iplaints the apostle makes for sin, Rom. vii. 23, 24. were after he was a sanctified and justified person.
(3.) It is not the will of Christ to exempt any justified person upon
572 THE SECOXD APPENDIX.
earth from the duty of praying frequently and fervently for the remission of his sins. This the most eminent saints upon earth have done. The greatest favourites of heaven have freely confessed, and heartily prayed for the remission of sin, Dan. ix. 4, 19. And that the gospel gives us no exemption from this duty, appears by Christ's injunction of it upon all his people, Mat. iv. 12.
Error 5. To give countenance to the former error, they say. That God sees no sin in helievers, whatsoever sins they commit ; and seek a covert for this error from Numb, xxiii. 21. and Jer. 1. 20. In the former place it is said by Balaam, '' He hath not beheld ini- ** quity in Jacob, nor seen perverseness in Israel."" And in the other place it is said, " In those times, and in that time, saith the " Lord, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall •* be none ; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found : *^ for I will pardon them whom I reserve."
Refutation. Now that this opinion of the Antinomians is errone- ous, will appear four ways.
1. By its repugnancy to God's omniscience.
2. By its inconsistency with his dispensations.
3. By its want of a scripture-foundation.
4. By its contradictoriness to their own principles.
It is true, and we thankfully acknowledge it, that God sees no siji in believers as a judge sees guilt in a malefactor, to condemn him for it ; that is a sure and comfortable truth for us : but to say he sees no sin in his children, as a displeased father, to correct and chasten them for it, is an assertion repugnant to scripture, and very injurious to God. For,
(1.) It is injurious to God's omniscience^ Psal. cxxxix. 2. " Thou " (saith holy David), knowest my down-sitting, and my up-rising, " and understandest my thoughts afar off, and art acquainted with " all my ways."" Job xxviii. 24. " He looketh to the ends of " the earth, and seeth under the whole heavens." Prov. xv. 3. " The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and " the good.'' Psal. xxxiii. 14, 15. " From the place of his habi- " tation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth ; he fa- " shioneth their hearts alike, he considereth all their works." He that denies that God seeth his most secret sins, therein, consequenti- ally denies him to be God.
(2.) This assertion is inconsistent with God's providential dis- pensations to his people. When David, a justified believer, had sinned against him in the matter of Uriah, it is said, 2 Sam. xi. 27. *• the thing that David had done displeased the Lord :" and, as the effect of that displeasure, it is said, chap. xii. 15. " The Lord " struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was " very sick."^ Among the Corinthians some that should not be
OF ANTINOMIANISM. 573
condemned with the world, were judged and chastened of the Lord for their undue approaches to his table, 1 Cor. xi. 32. Now, I would ask the Antinomians these two questions. Quest. 1. Whe- ther it can be denied, that David, under the Old Testament, and these Corinthians under the New, were justified persons; and yet the former stricken by God in his child, with its sickness and death ; and the latter in like manner smitten by God in their own persons ; and both for their respective sins committed against God ; and yet God saw no sin in them ? Did God smite them for sin, and yet behold no sin in them ? Beware lest in ascribing such strokes to God, you strike at once both at his omniscience and jus- tice. Quest. 2. How God, upon confession and repentance, can be said to put away his people's sins (as Nathan there assures Da- vid he had done) when in the mean time he saw no sin in hinj, either to chastise him for, or to pardon in him ? Do you think that God's afflictions, or pardons, are blindfold acts, done at random ? How inconsistent is this with Divine dispensations.
(3.) This opinion is altogether destitute of a scripture-founda- tion ; it is evident it hath none in the only places alleged for it. It hath no footing at all in Numb, xxiii. 21. Grave and learned Gatakcr hath learnedly and industriously vindicated that scripture from this abuse of it by Antinomians, in his treatise upon that text, entitled, GocVs eye upon his Israel ; where, after a learned and critical search of the text, he telleth us, it soundeth word for word thus from the original ; " He hath not beheld wrong " against Jacob, nor hath he seen grievance against Israel." So that the meaning is not, that God did not see sin in Israel, but that he beheld not with approbation the wrongs and injuries done by others against his Israel ; and shews at large, by divers solid rea- sons, why the Antinomian sense cannot be the proper sense of that place, it being cross to the main tenor of the story, and truth of God's word ; which shews, that God often complained of their sins, often threatened to avenge them ; yea, did actually avenge them by destroying them in the wilderness ; nay, Balaam himself, who uttered these words unto Balak, did not so understand them, as appears by the advice he gave to Balak, to draw them into sin, that thereby God might be provoked to withdraw his protection i'rom them.
And for Jer. 1. 20. it makes nothing to their purpose. ]\Iany expound the sin there sought after, and not found, to be the sin of idolatry, which Israel should be purged from by their captivity, ac- cording to Isa. xxvii. 9- But the generality of sound expositors are agreed, that by the not finding of Israel's and Judah's sin, is meant no more, but his not finding those bonds or obligations
574? THI^ SECOND APPENDIX.
against them to eternal punishment which their sins had put them under.