therefore so under the law i. the feare and terrour of the law as they were the summe of all this is that although we are not so under the law 1. so accompanied and 2. so dispensed as they were under the Old Testament yet this hinders not but that we are under the directive power of the Law as well as they Thesis 109. The Apostle speakes of a law written and engraven on stones and therefore of the morall Law which is now abolished by Christ in the Gospel 2 Cor. 3.6 7 11 13. Is the morall law therefore abolished as a rule of life now no verily but the meaning of this place is as the former Gal. 3.25 for the Apostle speaking of the morall Law by a Synecdoche comprehends the ceremoniall law also both which the false Teachers in those times urged as necessary to salvation and justification at least together with Christ against whom the Apostle here disputes the morall Law therefore is abolished first as thus accompanied with a yoke of Ceremonies secondly as it was formerly dispensed the glorious and greater light of the Gospel now obscuring that lesser light under the Law and therefore the Apostle vers 10. doth not say that there was no glory shining in the Law but it had no comparative glory in this respect by reason of the glory which excelleth and lastly the Apostle may speak of the morall Law considered as a Covenant of life which the false teachers urged in which respect he cals it the Ministry of death and the letter which killeth and the ministers of it who were called Nazarei and Minei as Bullinger thinks the Ministers of the letter which although it was virtually abolished to the beleeving Jews before Gospell times the vertue of Christs death extending to all times yet it was not then abolished actually untill Christ came in the flesh and actually undertooke to fullfill this Covenant for us to the utmost farthing of doing and suffering which is exacted and now it is abolished both virtually and actually that now we may with open face behold the glory of the Lord as the end of the law for righteousnesse to every one that doth beleeve Thesis 110. The Gospell under which Beleevers now are requires no doing say some for doing is proper to the Law the Law promiseth life and requires conditions but the Gospell say they promiseth to work the condition but requires none and therefore a beleever is now wholly free from all Law but the Gospell and Law are taken two waies 1. Largely the Law for the whole doctrine contained in the Old Testament and the Gospell for the whole doctrine of Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament 2. Strictly the Law pro lege operum as Chamier distinguisheth and the Gospell pro lege fidei i. for the Law of faith the Law of works strictly taken is that Law which reveals the favour of God and eternall life upon condition of doing or of perfect obedience the Law of faith strictly taken is that doctrine which reveals remission of sins reconciliation with God by Christs righteousnesse onely apprehended by faith now the Gospell in this latter sence excludes all works and requires no doing in point of justification and remission of sins before God but only beleeving but take the Gospel largely for the whole doctrine of Gods love and free grace and so the Gospel requires doing for as 't is an act oâ— Gods free grace to justifie a man without calling for any works thereunto so 't is an act of the same free grace to require works of a person justified and that such poor sinners should stand before the Son of God on his throne to minister unto him and serve him in righteousnesse and holinesse all the daies of our lives Tit. 2.14 and for any to think that the Gospell requires no conditions is a sudden dream against hundreds of Scriptures which contain conditionall yet evangelicall promises and against the judgement of the most judicious of our Divines who in dispute against Popish writers cannot but acknowledge them only thus viz. conditions and promises annexed to obedience are one thing saith learned Perable and conditions annexed to perfect obedience are another the first are in the Gospel the other not works are necessary to salvation saith Chamier necessitate praesentiae not efficientiae and hence he makes two sorts of conditions some antecedentes which work or merit salvation and these are abandoned in the Gospel otherâ— he saith are consequentes which follow the state of a man justified and these are required of one already justified in the Gospell there are indeed no conditions required of us in the Gospel but those onely which the Lord himselfe shall or hath wrought in us and which by requiring of us he doth worke will it therefore follow that no condition is required in us but because every condition is promised no verily for requiring the condition is the meanes to worke it as might be plentifully demonstrated and meanes and end should not be separated Faith it selfe is no antecedent condition to our justification or salvation take antecedent in the usuall sence of some Divines for affecting or meriting condition which Iunius cals essentialis conditio but take antecedent for a means or instrument of justification and receiving Christs righteousnesse in this sence it is the only antecedent condition which the Gospel requires therein because it doâ—h only antecedere or go before our justification at least in order of nature not to merit it but to receive it not to make it but to make it our own not as the matter of our righâ—eousness or any part of it but as the only means of apprehending Christs righteousnesse which is the only cause why God the Father justifieth and therefore as Christs righteousnesse must go before as the matter and moving cause of our justification or that for which we are justified so faith must go before this righteousnesse as an instrument or applying cause of it by which we are justified that is by meanes of which we apply that righteousnesse which makes us just 'T is true God justifies the ungodly but how not immediately without faith but mediately by faith as is most evident from that abused text Rom. 4.5 When works and faith are opposed by the Apostle in point of justification affirming that we are justified by faith not by works he doth hereby plainly affirm and give that to faith which he denies to works look therefore as he denies works to be antecedent conditions of our justification he affirms the contrary of faith which goes before our justification as hath been explained and therefore as doe and live hath been accounted good Law or the Covenant of works so beleeve and live hath been in former times accounted good Gospel or the Covenant of grace untill now of late this wilde age hath found out new Gospels that Paul and the Apostles did never dream of Thesis 111. A servant and a son may
Gospel makes an offer of Christ and salvation and remission of sins to all sinners where it comes yea to all sinners as sinners and as miserable yea though they have sinned long by unbeleef as is evident Hos. 14.1 Rev. 3.17 Ier. 3 2â— Isa. 55.1 all are invited to come unto these waters freely without money or price these things no man doubts of that knows the Gospel but the question is not whether Remission of sins and reconciliation in the Gospel belong to sinners but whether they belong to sinners immediately as sinners not whether they are merited by Christs death and offered out of his rich grace immediately to sinners but whether they are actually and immediately their own so as they may challenge them thus as their own from this as from a full and sufficient evidence viz. because they are sinners and because they see themselves sinners for we grant that Jesus Christ came into the world actually to save sinners yet mediatly by faith and then they may see salvation that he justifieth also the ungodly but how immediatly no but mediatly by faith Rom. 3.5 and that where sin abounds grace abounds to whom â—o all sinners no but mediatly to all those only who by â—aith receive this grace Rom. 5.17 so that the Gospel reveals no actuall love and reconciliation immediatly to a sinner as a sinner but mediatly to a sinner as a beleeving and broken-hearted sinner and the Scripture is so cleare in this point that whoever doubts of it must caecutire cum sole and we may say to them as Paul to the Galathians O foolish men who hath bewitched you that you should not see this truth For though Christ came to â—ave sinners yet he pâ—ofesseth that he came not to call the righteous but the sick sinners Mat. 9.13 though God justifieth the ungodly yet 't is such an ungodly man as beleeveth in him whose faith is imputed unto righteousnesse Rom 3.5 though grace abounds where sin abounds yet 't is not to all sinners for then all should be saved but to such as receive abundance of grace by faith Rom. 5.17 although God holds forth Christ to be a propitiation for sinners yet it 's expresly said to be mediatly through faith in his bloud Rom. 3.24.25 although the Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise might be given yet it is not said to be immediatly given to sinners as sinners but mediatly to all that beleeve and in one word though it be true that Christ died for sinners and enemies that they might have remission of sins then procured and merited for them yet we never actually have nor receive â—his remission and consequently cannot see it as our own untill we doe beleeve for unto this truth saith Peter do all the Prophets witnesse that whosoever beleeveth in him shall receive remission of sins Act. 10.43 and hence it is that as all the Prophets preached the actual favour of God only to sinners as beleevers so the Apostles never preached it in New Testament times otherwise and hence Peter Act. 2.38 doth not tell the sorrowfull Jews that they were sinners and that God loved them and that Christ had died for them and that their sins were pardoned because they were sinners but he first exhorts them to repent that so they might receive remission of sins nor doth Paul tell any man that salvation belonged to him because he is a sinner but if thou beleeve with all thy heart thou shalt be saved Rom. 10.5 6 7. if the love of God be revealed to a sinner as a sinner this must be either 1. by the witnesse of the Law but this is impossible for if the curse of God be herein revealed only to a sinner as a sinner then the love of God cannot but the Law curseth every sinner Gal 3.10 Or 2. by the Light and witnesse of the Gospel but this cannot be for it reveals life and salvation only to a beleever and confirms the sentence of the Law against such a sinner as beleeves not Ioh. 3.17 36. he that beleeves not is condemned already not only for unbeleef as some say for this doth but aggravate condemnation but also for sin by which man is first condemned before he beleeves if the Apostle may be beleeved Rom. 3.19 and if a man be not condemned for sin before he beleeve then he is not a sinner before he beleeve for look as Christ hath taken away any mans condemnation in his death just so hath he taken away his sin 3. Or else by the witnesse and testimony of Gods spirit but this is flat contrary to what the Apostle speaks Gal. 3.26 with 4 6. ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Iesus and because ye are sons not sinners he hath sent the spirit of his son crying Abba Father Gal. 4.4 5 6 and verily if the love of God belong to sinners as sinners then all sinners shall certainly be saved for a quatenus ad omne valâ—â— consequentia so that by this principle as sinne hath abounded actually to condemn all so grace hath abounded actually to save all which is most pernicious nor do I know what should make men embrace this principle unlesse that they either secretly think that the strait gate and narrow way to life is now so wide and broad that all men shall in Gospel times enter in thereat which is prodigious or else they must imagine some Arminian universall Redemption and reconciliation and so put all men in a salvable and reconciled estate such as it is before faith and then the evidence and ground of their assurance must be built on this false and crazy foundation viz. Iesus Christ had died to reconcile and so hath reconciled all sinners But I am a sinner And therefore I am reconciled If this be the bottome of this Gospel-Ministry and preaching free grace as doubtlesse 't is in some then I would say these things only 1. That this doctrine under a colour of free-grace doth as much vilifie and take off the price of free grace in Christs death as any I know for what can vilifie this grace of Christ more then for Christ so to shed his bloud as that Peter and Abraham in heaven shall have no more cause to thank Iesus Christ for his love therein then Iudas and Cain in hell it being equally shed for one as much as for the other 2. That this is a false bottom for faith to rest upon and gather evidence from for 1. if Christ hath died for aâ—l he will then certainly save all for so Paul reasons Rom. 8.32 and 6.10 he hath given his Sonne to death for us how shall â—e not but with him give us all other things and therefore he will give faith and give repentance and give perseverance and give eternall life also which is most false 2. If he did not pray for all then he hath not died for all Ioh. 17.9 which Scripture never yet received scarce
with the holy Ghost when they heard this Gospel thus preached upon condition of beleeving Act. 10.43 Doth not the Apostle say that the Gospell is the power of God to salvation because therein is Christs righteousnesse revealed not to sinners as sinners but from faith to faith The condition of works is impossible to be wrought in us by the Spirit but the condition of faith though it be impossible for us to work it in our hearts yet it is possible easie and unusuall for God to work it by requiring of it Ier. 3.22 which is no prejudice to Gods free-grace because faith is purposely required and wrought because it chiefly honours and advanceth free-grace Rom. 4 16. The promise is of faith that it might be by grace If Mr W.C. will not preach Christ upon beleeving how will he or any man else preach it Will they tell all men that God loves them and that Christ hath died for them that he that gives grace and salvation will work faith in them Truly thus W.C. seems to affirm but if they shall preach so to all sinners as sinners and tell â—hem absolutely God will work faith in them also I suppose that the Church wals and plentifull and abundant experience would testifie against this falsehood and the Scripture testifies sufficiently that every man shall not have faith to whom the Gospel is preached Now I do beseech the God and father of lights to pitty his straying servants who are led into these deep and dangerous delusions thorow feeble mistake of the true difference between old and new Testament Ministries and that he would pity his people for whose sins God hath let loose these blinding anct hardning doctrines by means of which they are tempted to receive that as the Gospel of truth which is but a meer lye and to take that as an evidence of salvation that is in truth the evidence of perdition and condemnation as hath been shewn Thesis 118. The second thing remains to be cleared whether sanctification may not be a first evidence and therefore more then a carnall inferiour and last evidence as Mr Saltmarsh cals it For if it be not a doubtfull but a clear and certain evidence in it self as hath been proved why may it not be a first evidence why may not the Spirit of God who works it in a person justified first reveal it as an evidence that he is justified What mortall man can limit the Spirit of God to what evidence he shall first bring in to the conscience of a justified estate For let sanctification be taken in the largest sense for any work of saving grace wrought in the Elect whether in vocation to faith or in sanctification which strictly taken followes our justification by faith and take evidence not for evidence of the object for Christ Jesus in his free-grace must be seen first as the ground on which faith rests but for evidence of testimony to the subject and then I thus argue that this first evidence of speciall actuall love in beholding Gods free-grace to a sinner it is either 1. Without the being of faith and other graces Or 2. Without the seeing of them only the eye looking up only to Christ and free-grace But this first evidence is not without the being of faith and holinesse for then it should be to a man actually under the power of sin and his filthy lusts and the devil which hath been already proved in the former Thesis to be a meer delusion there being no such word of the Gospel which reveals Gods free love and actual reconciliation to a sinner as a sinner and as under the power of his sins but the Gospel rather reveals the quite contrary and to affirm the witnesse of the Spirit clears this up is to pretend a testimony of the Spirit contrary to the testimony of the world and yet I strongly fear and do fully beleeve that this is the first evidence which some men plead for viz. to see Gods love toward them while they neither see grace or any change of heart in them or have grace but are still under the dominion of their sin And on the other side if any affirm that this evidence is not without the being of grace but onely without the seeing of it so that a Christians first evidence is the seeing of Gods free grace out of himself without seeing any faith or grace in himself and seeing nothing else but sin in himself this I confesse is nearer the truth but it is an errour which leads a man to a precipice and near unto the pit for if this be so then these things will unavoidably follow 1. That a Christian must see the love of God toward him in Christ and yet must not see himself to be the person to whom this love onely belongs for according to this very opinion it self it belongs only to a beleever and one that hath the being of grace and not to a sinner as a sinner 2. Then a Christian must not see the love of Christ and free grace of God by that proposition or testimony of the Spirit which reveals it and that is this Tu fidelis thou Beleever called and sanctified art freely beloved and thus a man must not see his estate good by the light of the spirit nay thus a Christian must receive the testimony of the Spirit which assures him that he is loved without understanding the meaning of the Spirit which is not thou sinner as such but thou Beleever art beloved not thou that hast no grace but thou that hast the being of it art beloved 3. Then the first evidence is built upon a meer weaknesse nay upon an untruth and falsehood for it is a meer weaknesse not to see that which we should see viz. the being of faith and grace in the heart in which respect the promise is sealed and if any man by not seeing it shall think and say there is no grace no faith no sanctification and now he sees Gods love to such a one and he thinks himself to be such a one when he sees Gods free grace and hath this first evidence it is a falsehood and an untruth for it is supposed to be there in the being of it all this while suppose therefore that some Christians at their first return and conversion to God or afterward have grace and faith but see it not in their assurance of Gods love the eminency of the object and good of it swallowing up their thoughts and hearts from attending themselves yet the question is quo jure they do not see nay should not see and take notice of the being of them in themselves Is not this a meer weaknesse and falsehood which is now made the mystery of this first evidence and indeed somewhat like Cusanus his summa sapientia which he makes to be this viz. Attingere illud quod est inattingibile inattingibiliter That a Christian must see and touch Gods deep love and yet neither
see not touch nor feel any change in himselfe or any being of grace when in truth it is there in which respect also Gods free-grace and love is revealed 4. If this be the first evidence then no Minister no nor any Apostle of Christ Jesus can give any first evidence of Gods love by the ordinary dispensation of the Gospel for although a Minister may say Thou art a sinner therefore the Lord Jesus may save thee yet he cannot say upon that ground that therefore the Lord Jesus will save him for then every sinner should be saved No Minister can say to any unbeleever Christ hath redeemed thee therefore beleeve or say absolutely Thy sins are pardoned for then he should preach contrary to the word which expressely tels us That he that beleeves not is already condemned No minister can say God will work faith in all you that are sinners as hath been shewn but they can say Thou Beleever are pardoned thou that art sanctified art reconciled c. It is therefore an evill speech of one lately in print who cals That a bastard assurance arising from a lying spirit which first proceeds from the sight of any grace and thence concludes they are justified and shall be saved For I would thus argue that this worke of grace suppose love to the Saints hunger and thirst after righteousnesse universall respect to all Gods Commandments c. it is either common to hypocrites and unsound or else it is peculiar to the elect and sincere If the first then it cannot be either first or second evidence it can be no evidence at all either without or with seeing first Gods free love to sinners as sinners if the second then either Gods promise made to such as are hungry and humble and have a work peculiar to Gods elect in them must be fals which is blasphemous to imagine or else whensoever it is seen whether first or last it must needs be a most blessed and sweet and sure evidence for when we say that such a work of grace may be a first evidence we do not mean as if the work simply considered in it self could give in any evidence but only as the free promise of grace is made to such as have such a work of grace this promise we say to such persons whensoever they see this work gives in full and clear evidence of their blessed estate And if the word of grace to a sinner as a sinner may give in a first evidence as some imagine then much more may it give in evidenceâ— where there is not only the word of grace but also the spirit of grace yea the work of grace to assure the conscience and for any to affirm that faith and sanctification are good evidences if justification be first evident is but a quirk of frothy wit for it may be as safely affirmed on the contrary that justification is a good evidence if faith and sanctification he first evident for 't is not these simply but the promise which is our evidence which is never to a sinner as such I shall therefore conclude these things with shewing the true grounds of effectuall evidence of the love of Christ. Thesis 119. The free-grace of God in Christ not works is the only sure foundation of justifying faith or upon which faith is built Rom. 3.24 25. 1 Pet. 2.4 5 6. Mat. 16.18 This free-grace therefore must first be revealed by the Spirit of God in the Ministry of the Gospel in order unto faith Rom. 10.14 15. Eph. 1.13 which generall revelation of free-grace some make to be the first evidence on which faith rests and thus far it is true but now this free-grace is revealed two waies 1. In the free offer of it to be our own by receiving it Act. 10.43 Gal. 2.16 2. In the free promise of it revealing it as our own already having actually and effectually received it Ioh. 1.12 Rom. 5.1 2. 1 Ioh. 5.12 The free offer of grace containing Gods call commandment and beseechings to beleeve and be reconciled gives us right to this possession of Christ or to come and take and so possesse Christ Jesus by faith Ierem. 3.22 1 Cor. 1.9 Rom. 1.5 6. The free promise of grace containing revealed immutable purposes and actual assurances of present and future grace gives us right to the fruition of Christ or to enjoy Christ as a free gift when 't is offered the command and desire of the donor to receive it to be our own gives us right and powet to possesse it and when it is received his promise to us assuring us that it is and shall continue our own gives us right and priviledge to enjoy it and make use of it For by two immutable things the promise confirmed by oath we have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to the hope before us Heb. 6.17 18 19. The free offer is the first ground of our faith why we receive Christ to be our own but the free promise is the first ground of the assurance of faith why we are assured and perswaded that he is our own already for the Gospel containing three things 1. The revelation of Christ 2. The offer of Christ. 3. The promise of Christ to all those that receive this offer Hence faith which runs parallell with the Gospel the proper object of it first sees Christ secondly receives Christ thirdly is assured of the love of Christ having received him The free offer of grace being made to the soul because it is poor and sinfull cursed and miserable and that therefore it would receive Christ hence it is that in this respect the soul is not bound first to see some good in it self and so to receive him but rather is bound at first breathings of God upon it rather to see no good i. nothing but sin and perdition death and darknesse enmity and weaknesse and therefore to receive him Luk. 14.21 Revel 3.17 18. Gal. 3.22 Rom. 11.32 Hos. 13.3 But the promise of free-grace being actually given to the soul and not declared only as it is in the free offer because it hath received Christ already by which he is actually its own hence it is that in this respect the soul is bound to see some good or saving work of grace in it self first and so embrace and receive the promise and Christ Jesus in it So that although in receiving Christ to be our own we are to see no good in our selves wherefore we should receive him or beleeve in him yet in receiving him as our own already we must first see some good the work of free grace in us or else we have no just ground thus to receive him No man can challeng any promise belonging to him without having a part in Christ the foundation of them no man can have Christ but by receiving of him or beleeving in him Ioh. 1.12 Hence therefore they that say that the first evidence of Gods love and free grace or actuall favour iâ— to
and shadowes and figures when once the substance is come to wit when they come in this life to the highest attainment which is the bosome of the Father which bosome is the true Sabbath of a Christian man Now I confesse that the bosome of God in Christ is our rest and our All in All in heaven and our sweet consolation and rest on earth and that we are not to rest in any meanes Ordinances Graces Duties but to look beyond them all and to be carried by them above them all to him that is better than all to God in Christ Jesus but to make this bosome of God a kinde of canker-worme to fret and eat out the heart and being not only of all Sabbaths and Ordinances of worship but also of all duties and graces of Gods Spirit nay of Christ Jesus himself as he is manifested in the flesh and is an externall Mediator whom some lately have also cast into same box with the rest Being sent onely as they think to reveale but not to procure the Fathers love of delight and therefore is little else than a meere forme and so to cease when the Father comes in the room of all formes and so is All in All This I dare say is such a high affront to the precious bloud of Christ and his glorious Name and blessed Spirit of grace that he who hath his Furnace in Zion and his fire in Ierusalem will not beare it long without making their judgements and plagues at least spirituall exemplary and wonderfull and leading them forth in such crooked wayes with the workers of iniquity when peace shall be upon Israel Are these abstracted notions of a Deity into the vision and contemplation of whose amazing glory without seeing him as he is in Christ a Christian they say must be plunged lost and swallowed up and up to which hee must ascend even to the unaproachable light the true and onely Sabbath Are these I say the new and glorious light breaking out in these dayes which this age must wait for which are nothing else upon narrow search than Monkish imaginations the goodly cob-webs of the brain-imagery of those idolatrous and superstitious hypocrites the Anchorites Monks and Fryers who to make the blinde and simple world admire and gaze upon them gave it out hereby like Simon Magus that they were some great ones even the very power and familiars of God Surely in these times of distraction warre and bloud if ever the Lord called for sackcloth humiliation repentance faith graces holinesse precious esteem of Gods Ordinances and of that Gospel which hath been the power of God to the salvation of thousands now is the time and must Gods people reject these things as their A. B. C and must the new light of these times be the dreames and visions and slaverings of doting and deluded old Monks Shall the simplicity of Gospel-ministery bee rejected as a common thing and shall Harphius his Theologia Mystica Augustinus Elutherius Iacob Behmen Cusanus Raimundus Sebund Theologia Germanica and such like Monk-admirers be set up as the new lights and beacons on the mountaine of these elevated times Surely if so God hath his time and wayes of putting a better relish to his precious Gospel and the crosse of Christ which was wont in Pauls time to be plainly preached without such popish paintings and wherein Gods people knew how to reconcile their sweâ—â— rest in the bosome of the Father and their Sabbath day Thesis 81. If sinne which is the transgression of the law bee the greatest evill then holines which is our conformity to the law is our greatest good If sin be mans greatest misery then holinesse is mans greatest happinesse It is therefore no bondage for a Christian to be bound to the observance of the law as his rule because it onely binds him fast to his greatest happinesse and thereby directs and keeps him safe from falling into the greatest misery and woe and if the great designe of Christ in comming into the world was not so much as to save man from affliction and sorrow which are lesser evils but chiefely from sinne which is the greatest evill then the chiefe end of his comming was not as some imagine to lift his people up into the love and abstracted speculation of the Father above the law of God but into his owne bosome onely where only wee have fellowship with the Father above the Law of sinne Thesis 82. The bloud of Christ was never shed to destroy all sense of sin and sight of sinne in Beleevers and consequently all attendance to any rule of the law by which means chiefely sinne comes to be seen but he dyed rather to make them sensible of sinne for if he dyed to save men from sin as is evident 1 Iohn 3.5 Tit. 3.14 then hee dyed to make his people sensible of sinne because hereby his peoples hearts are chiefely weaned and sever'd from it and saved out of it as by hardnesse and unsensiblenesse of heart under it they chiefely cleave to it and it to them and therefore we know that godly sorrow workes repentance never to be repented of 2 Cor. 7.10 And that Pharaoh's hardnesse of heart strengthened him in his sin against God unto the last gasp and hence it is also that the deepest and greatest spirit of mourning for sin is poured out upon Beleevers after God hath poured out upon them the spirit of grace as is evident Zach. 12.10 11. because the bloud of Christ which was shed for the killing of their sinne now makes them sensible of their sinne because it 's now sprinkled and applyed to them which it was not before for they now see all their sins aggravated being now not onely sinnes against the law of God but against the bloud and love of the Son of God It is therefore a most accursed doctrine of some Libertines who imagining that through the bloudshed and righteousnes of Christ in their free justification God sees no sinne in his justified people that therefore themselves are to see no sinne because now they are justified and washed with Christs bloud and therefore lest they should be found out to bee grosse liars they mince the matteâ— they confesse that they may see sinne by the eye of sense and reason but faith being crosse to reason they are therefore to see the quite contrary and so to see no sinne in themselves by the eye of faith from whence it followes that Christ shed his bloud to destroy all sight and sense of sin to the eye of faith though not to the eye of reason and thus as by the eye of faith they should see no sin so it will follow that by the same bloud they are bound to see no law no not so much as their rule which as a rule is index sui obliqui and in revealing mans duty declares his sinne I know that in beholding our free justification by the bloud of Christ we are to exclude all law
They that see how justly they deserve to bee forsaken of God and given over to their owne hearts lusts and to be for ever sinning and blaspheming God in hell where God will never command them to think of him speak of him doe for him pray to him more cannot but account it a high and speciall favour of Jesus Christ to command them any thing or bid them doe any thing for him a poore humbled prodigall will account it great love to bee made a hired servant Iohn Baptist will count it a high favour if he may but untie Christs shoe-latchet and bee commanded by him to doe the meanest worke for him David wondred at Gods grace toward him that God should command him and in some measure enable him to offer willingly Lord saith he what are wee I doe therefore marvaile how any can pretend that they are acted by the love of Christ and not by the law of commands considering that there is so much love in this for Christ to command and how they can professe their relish of preaching Gods free grace and love and yet cannot away with sweet and gracious exhortations pressing to holinesse and holy duties in the revealing and urging of which there is so much free-grace and heart-love of Christ Jesus surely if the love of Christ is to lead us then the commands of Christ wherein hee discovers one chiefe part of his love are to guide us and be a rule of life unto us The man who in his cool and deliberate thoughts imagines that a Christian under the rule of the law is a Christian under bondage may be justly feared that himself is still under the bondage of sin and Satan and never yet knew what the true love of Christ Iesus is to this day Thesis 93. The fundamentall errour of Antinomians ariseth from this in imagining the great difference between the law and Gospell to be this viz. That the law requires doing but the Gospel no doing and that all beleevers being under the Gospell are therefore under no law of doing but wee must know that as the Gospell exacts no doing that thereby we may be just so it requires doing also when by Christ Iesus we are made just For if the Gospell command us to be holy as God is holy 1 Pet. 1.15 and perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect Matth. 5.48 then the Gospel doth not onely require doing but also as much perfection of doing as the Law doth the Law and the Gospell require the same perfection of holinesse onely here is the difference which many have not observed the Gospel doth not urge this perfection nor require it of us as the Law doth for the law calling and urging of it that so hereby we may be made just it therefore accepts of nothing but perfection but the Gospell requiring it because wee are perfectly just already in Christ hence though it commands as much as the Law yet it accepts of lesse even the least measure of sincerity and perfection mixed with the greatest measure of imperfection Thesis 94. The Law say some of the Antinomians is to bee kept as an eternall rule of righteousnesse but their meaning then is That beleevers are thus to keep it in Christ who hath kept it for them and if they meant no more but that Christ hath kept it for righteousnesse to their justification they speak truely but their meaning herein is not only in respect of their justification but also in respect of their sanctification for they make Christs righteousnesse to bee materially and formally their sanctification hence they say A beleever hath repented in Christ and mortified sinne in Christ and that mortification and vivification is nothing but a beleeving that Christ hath mortified sinne for them and beene quickned for them and that That sanctification which is inherent in Christ and not that which is inherent in us is an evidence of our justification But this principle which confounds a Christians justification and sanctification as it casts the seed of denying all inherent graces in a Beleever so it layes the basis of refusing to doe any duty or conforme to any law in our owne persons for if this principle bee true which no Orthodox writer doubts of viz. That we are to seek for no righteousnesse in our selves to our justification because wee are perfectly just and made righteous for that end in Christ then it will undenyably follow that wee are not to seek for any holinesse and sanctification in our selves because we are perfectly sanctified also in Christ Iesus who hath repented and beleeved and mortified sinne perfectly for us in his owne person Look therefore as the perfection of Christs righteousnesse to our justification should make a Christian abhorre any personall righteousnesse of his owne to his justification so if wee bee perfectly sanctified in Christ then perfection of Christs holinesse to our sanctification should make a beleever not onely renounce the Law but to abhor all personall holines through the Spirit to our sanctification and then a Beleever must abhor to seek any love or feare of God in his heart which is not painted but professed prophanesse and the inlet not per accidens but per se to all manner of loosenesse and wickednesse in the world Thesis 95. Wee deny not but that Christ is our sanctification as well as our righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 but how not materially and formally but virtually and meritoriously and with meet explications exemplarily our righteousnesse to our justification is inherent in him but our sanctification is inherent in our selves yet it is derived from him and therefore it is virtually and meritoriously onely in him and hence it is that wee are never commanded to justifie our selves unlesse it be instrumentally and sacramentally when as we are commanded by faith to wash our selves Isa. 1.16 and as Paul at his baptisme was commanded to wash away his sinnes Acts 22.16 but wee are frequently and abundantly exhorted to repent beleeve mortifie our affectiions upon earth to walke in newnesse of life to be holy in all manner of conversation c. because these things are wrought by Christ in us to our sanctification and not wrought in Christ for us as our righteousnesse to our justification Thesis 96. They that are in Christ are said to be compleat in Christ Col. 2.10 and that they receive all grace from his fulnesse Iob. 1.16 so that is seemes that there is no grace in themselves but it is first in him and consequently that their sanctification is perfected in him but wee must know that though the perfection and fulnesse of all grace is first in Christ yet that beleevers have not all in him after one and the same manner nor for the same end for our righteousnesse to our justification is so in him as never to be inherent in us in this or in the world to come but our righteousnesse to our sanctification is so farre in him as that it is to be derived
but of being under the Law by peculiar dispensation which was the state not only of the Jewish Church but of the children of God heires of the promise and consequently such as were beleevers in this Church in those old Testament times wee are not therefore now in these new Testament times under the law as they were the great difficulty therefore remaines to know how we are not under the law as they were Those who say we are not under the Ceremonial law as they were doe speak truely but they doe not resolve the difficulty in this place for certainly the Apostle speaks not onely of the Ceremoniall law but also of that law which was given because of transgressions Gal. 3.19 and which shut up not onely the Jewes but all men under sinne verse 22. which being the power of the morall law chiefely the Apostle must therefore intend the morall law under which the old Testament Beleevers were shut up and we now are not The doubt therefore still remaines viz. How are we not now under the morall law Will any say that we are not now under the malediction and curse and condemnation of it but the Jewes under the old Testament were thus under it even under the curse of it This cannot be the meaning for although the carnall Jewes were thus under it yet the faithfull whom the Apostle cals the heire and Lord of all Gal. 4.1 were not thus under it for Beleevers then were as much blessed then with faithfull Abraham as Beleevers now cap. 3.9 How then are we not now under it as they were Is it in this that they were under it as a rule of life to walk by and so are not we Thus indeed some straine the place but this cannot bee it for the Apostle in this very Epistle presseth them to Love one another upon this ground because All the Law is fulfilled in love cap. 5.13 14. and this walking in love according to the law is walking in the Spirit verse 16. and they that thus walke in the spirit according to the law are not saith the Apostle under the law which cannot without flat contradiction be meant of not being under the rule or directive power of it and it would bee a miserable weake motive to presse them to love because all the law is fulfilled in love if the law was not to bee regarded as any rule of life or of love for they might upon such a ground easily and justly object and say What have we to doe with the law If we therfore as well as they are thus under the law as a rule of life how are wee not under it as they were Is it because they were under it as a preparative means for Christ and not wee They were under the humbling and terrifying preparing worke of it but not we There are some indeed who think that this use of the law under the Gospel is but a back-doore or an Indian path or a crookt-way about to lead to Jesus Christ but certainly these men know not what they say for the text expressely tels us that the Scripture hath concluded not onely the Jewes but All under sinne that so the promise by faith might be given to them that beleeve Gal. 3.22 So that the law is subservient to faith and to the promise that so hereby not onely the Jewes but all that God saves might hereby feele their need and fly by faith to the promise made in Iesus Christ and verily if Christ be the end of the law to every one that beleeves Rom. 10.4 then the law is the meanes not of it selfe so much as by the rich grace of God not onely to the Iewes but to all others to the end of the world to lead them to this end Christ Iesus If therefore the faithfull under the new Testament are thus under the preparing worke of the law as well as those under the old How were they therefore so under the law as we are not and wee not under it as they were I confesse the place is more full of difficulties than is usually observed by writers upon it onely for the clearing up of this doubt omitting many things I answer briefely That the children of the old Testament were under the law and the pedagogy of it two wayes after which the children of the new Testament are not under it now but are redeemed from it 1. As the morall law was accompanied with a number of burdensome Ceremonies thus wee are not under it thus they were under it For we know this law was put into the Ark and there they were to look upon it in that type if any man then committed any sinne against it whether through infirmity ignorance or presumption they were to have recourse to the Sacrifices and High Priests yearely and to their bloud and oblations They were to pray which was a morall duty but it must bee with incense and in such a place They were to be thankfull another morall duty but it must bee testified by the offering up of many Sacrifices upon the Altar c. They were to confesse their sinnes a morall duty also but it must be over the head of the Scape-goat c. Thus they were under the law but we are not And as 't is usuall for the Apostle thus to speak of the law in other places of the Scripture so surely hee speakes of it here for hence it is that in the beginning of this dispute cap. 3.19 hee speaks of the morall law which was given because of transgressions and yet in the close of it Gal. 4.3 he seemes to speak only of the ceremoniall law which he cals the elements of the world under which the children were then in bondage as under Tutors and Governours which implies thus much that the children of the old Testament were indeed under the morall law but yet withall as thus accompanied with ceremoniall rudiments and elements fit to teach children in their minority But now in this elder age of the Church although we are under the morall law in other respects yet wee are not under it as thus accompanied 2. In respect of the manner and measure of dispensation of the morall law which although it had the revelation of the Gospel conjoyned with it for Moses writ of Christ Iohn 5.46 and Abraham had the Gospell preached to him Gal. 3.8 and the unbeleeving Jewes had the Gospel preached Heb. 4.2 yet the law was revealed and pressed more clearely and strongly with more rigour and terrour and the Gospel was revealed more obscurely and darkly in respect of the manner of externall dispensation of them in those times there were three things in that manner of dispensation from which at least ex parte Dei revelantis we are now freed 1. There was then much law urged externally clearly and little Gospel so clearely revealed indeed Gospel and Christ Iesus was the end of the morall law and the substance of all the shadowes of the ceremoniall
and weaknesse it made him die unto it and expect no life from it and so live unto God in his sanctification for so the words are I through the Law am dead to the Law that I may live unto God Gal. 2.19 the issue therefore is this that if the doctrine be taken strictly pro lege fidei as Chamier cals it or that doctrine which shews the way of mans righteousnesse and justification only there indeed all the works of the law all terrours and threatnings are to be excluded and nothing else but peace pardon grace favour eternall reconciliation to be beleeved and received and therefore it 's no new Testament Ministry to urge the Law or to thunder out any terrour here for in this sence it 's true which is commonly received that in the Law there are terrours but in the Gospel none but if the Gospel be taken largely for all that doctrine which brings glad tidings of Christ already come and shews the love of God in the largest extent of it and the illustrations and confirmations of it from the law then such servants of Jesus Christ who hold forth the law to make way for grace and to illustrate Châ—ists love must either be accounted New Testament Ministers or else as hath been shewne Christ Jesus and his Apostles were none Thesis 115. The second is a professed neglect and casting off the work of repentance and mourning for sin nay of asking pardon of sin for if the Law be no rule to shew man his duty why should any man then trouble himself with sorrow for any sin for if it be no rule to him how should any thing be sin to him and if so why then should any ask pardon of it or mourn under it why should not a man rather harden his heart like an Adamant and make his forehead brasse and iron even unto the death against the feeling of any sin but what doctrine is more crossâ— to the Spirit of grace in Gospel times then this which is a Spirit of mourning Zâ—c 12.10 11. what doctrin more crosse to the expresse comand of Christ from heaven then this who writes from heaven to the Church of Ephesus to remember from whence she is fallen and repent Rev. 2.5 what doctrine more crosse to the example of holy men then this who after they were converted then repented and lamented most of all Ier. 31.18.19 2 Cor. 7.9.10 11. what doctrine more crosse to the salvation of souls the mercy of God and forgivenesse of sin for so the promise runs if we confesse our sinnes he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins 1 Joh. 1.9 what doctrine so crosse to the Spirit of the love of Christ shed abroad in the heart that when a mans sins are greatest which is after conversion because now against more love and more nearnesse to Jesus Christ that now a beleevers sorrow should be least monkish and macerating sorrow indeed is loathsome but godly sorrow is sweet and glorious doubtlesse those mens blindenesse is exceeding great who know not how to reconcile joy and sorrow in the same subject who cannot with one eye behold their free justification and therein daily rejoyce and the weaknesse and imperfection of their sanctification with another eye and for that mourn Thesis 116. The third thing is a denying sanctification the honour of a faithfull and true witnesse or cleare evidence of our justification for if a beleever be not bound to look unto the Law as his rule why should he then have any eye to his sanctâ—fication which is nothing else but our habituall conformity to the Law as inherent corruption is nothing else but habituall disagreement with it although sanctification be no part of our righteousnesse before God and in this sence is no evidence of our justification yet there is scarce any clearer truth in all the Scripâ—uâ—e then this viz. that it is an evidence that a man is in a justified estate and yet this leven which denies the Law to be a Christians rule of life hath sowred some mens spiritâ— against this way of evidencing It is a doubtfull evidence saith Dâ— Crisp an argument not an evidence it is a carnall and an inferiour evidence the last and the least not the first evidence it is an evidence if justification be first evident say Den and Saltmarsh some men may be led to these opinions from other principles then a plain denyall of the directive use of the Law but this I feare lies undermost however let these two things be examined 1. Whether sanctification be a doubtfull evidence 2. Whether it be a carnall inferiour and may not be a first evidence Thesis 117. If to be under the power and dominion of sin and Originall corruption be a sure and certain evidence of actuall condemnation so that he that saith he knows Christ and hath fellowshâ—p with him and yet walks in darknesse and keeps not his Commandments is a lyar 1 Ioh. 1.6 2.4 why may not sanctification then whereby we are set free from the power of sin be a sure and certain evidence of our actuall justification for hereby we know that we know him if we keep his Commandements 1 Joh. 2 3. whereby it is manifest that the Apostle is not of their mindes who think the negative to be true viz. that they that keep not Christs commandments are in a state of perdition but they will not make the affirmative true viz. that they that keep his Commandments may thereby know that they are in a state of salvation If Jesus Christ be sent to blesse his people in turning them from their iniquities Act. 3. ult then they that know they are turned from their iniquities by him may know certainly that they are blessed in him and if they be not thus turned they may know certainly that they are yet accursed If godlinesse hath the promises of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 and if the free grace and actuall love of God be revealed clearly to us only by some promise how then is sanctification so near akin to godlinesse excluded from being any evidence is there no inherent grace in a beleever that no inherent sanctification can be a true evidence verily thus some do think but what is this but an open gracelesse profession thrr every beleever is under the power of inherent sin if he hath not the being of any inherent grace or if there be any inherent grace yet it is say some so mixt with corruption and is such a spotted and blurd evidence that no man can discern it I confesse such an answer would well become a blinde Papist who never knew where grace grew for so they dispute against certitudo salutis certitudine fidei when the conclusion of faith ariseth from such a proposition as is the word of God and the assumption the testimony of Gods Spirit to a mans own experience of the work of God in his heart but it ill beseems a
a sinner as a sinner had need consider what they say for is it to a sinner as possest with Christ and receiving of him or as dispossest of Christ not having of him but rather refusing and rejecting of him If they say the first they then speak the truth but then they raze down their own pernicious principle that Christ and Gods love belongs to them As sinners If they affirm the latter then they do injuriously destroy Gods free grace and the glory of Christ who think to possesse promises without possessing Christ or to have promises of grace without having Christ the foundation of them all For though the common love of God as the bare offer of grace is may be manifested without having Christ yet speciall actuall love cannot be actually our own without having and first receiving of him And if the Spirit of God convince the world of sin and consequently of condemnation while they do not beleeve Ioh. 16.9 I wonder how it can then convince them of pardon of sin and reconciliation before they do beleeve unlesse we will imagine it to be a lying spirit which is blasphemous These things not considered of have and do occasion much errour at this day in the point of evidencing and hath been an inlet of deep delusion and open gaps have been made hereby to the loose waies and depths of Familism and grosse Arminianism and therefore being well considered of are sufficient to clear up the waies of those faithfull servants of the Lord who dare not sow pillows nor cry peace to the wicked much lesse to sinners as sinners both from the slanderous imputation of legall ministrations after an old Testament manner as also of making works the ground of faith or the causes of assurance of faith the free offer being the ground of the one and the free promise the cause and ground of the other Briefly therefore 1. The free offer of grace is the first evidence to a poor lost sinner that he may be beloved 2. The receiving of this offer by faith relatively considered in respect of Christs spotlesse righteousnesse is the first evidence shewing why he is beloved or what hath moved God actually to love him 3. The worke of sanctification which is the fruit of our receiving this offer is the first evidence shewing that he is beloved If therefore a condemned sinner be asked whether God may love him and why he thinks so he may answer Because Jesus Christ is held forth and offered to such a one If he be further asked why or what he thinks should move God to love him he may answer Because I have received Christs righteousnesse offered for which righteousnesse sake only I know I am beloved now I have received it If he be asked lastly how he knows certainly that he is beloved he may answer safely and confidently Because I am sanctified I am poor in spirit therefore mine is the kingdom of heaven I do mourn and therefore I shall be comforted I do hunger and thirst and therefore I shall be satisfied c. We need in time of distresse and temptation all these evidences and therefore it is greatest wisdom to pray for that spirit which may clear them all up unto us rather then to contend which should be the first And thus we see that the whole morall law is our rule of life and consequently the law of the Sabbath which is a branch of this rule We now proceed to shew the third branch of things generally and primarily morall Thesis 120. Thirdly Not only a day nor only a rest day but the rest day or Sabbath day which is expressed and expressely interpreted in the Commandment to be the seventh day or a seventh day of Gods determining and therefore called The Sabbath of the Lord our God is here also enjoined and commanded as generally morall For if a day be morall what day must it be If it be said that any day which humane wisdom shall determine whether one day in a hundred or a thousand or one day in many years if this only be generally morall then the rule of morality may be broken because the rule of equality may be thus broken by humane determination For it may be very unequall and unjust to give God one day in a hundred or a thousand for his worship and to assume so many beside to our selves for our own use There is therefore something else more particularly yet primarily morall in this Command and that is The Sabbath day or such a day wherein there appears an equal division and a fit proportion between time for rest and time for work a time for God and a time for man and that is a â—â—venth day which God determines A fit proportion of time for God is morall because equal man cannot determine nor set out this proportion God therefore only can and must A day therefore that he shall determine is morall and if he declares his determination to a seventh A seventh day is therefore morall Gomarus confesseth that by the Analogy of this Commandment not one day in a thousand or when man pleaseth but that one day in seven is morall at least equal fit and congruous to observe the same and if the Analogy he speaks of ariseth virtute mandati divini or by vertue of Gods Commandment the cause is in effect yielded but if this Analogy be made virtute libertatis humanae so that humane liberty may do well to give God one in seven because the Jews did so and why should Christians be more scant then I see not but humane liberty may assume power to it self to impose monthly and annuall holy daies as well because the Jews had their new moons and yearly festivals and by Analogy thereof why may not Christians who have more grace poured out upon them and more love shewn unto them under the Gospel hold some meet proportion with them therein also as well as in Sabbaths But it can never be proved that God hath left any humane wisdom at liberty to make holy daies by the rule of Jewish proportions Beside if humane wisdom see it meet and congruous to give God at least one day in seven this wisdom and reason is either regulated by some law and then 't is by vertue of the law of God that he should have one day in seven or 't is not regulated by a law and then we are left to a loose end again for man to appoint what day he sees meet in a shorter or a longer time his own reason being his only law and this neither Gomaras nor the words of the Commandment will allow which sets and fixeth the day which we see is one day in seven which not man but God shall determine and therefore called The Sabbath of the Lord our God Thesis 121. The hardest knot herein to unloose lies in this to know whether a seventh day in generall which God shall determine or that particular Seventh day from the creation be
holy Ghost Rev. 22. yet it 's a grosse mistake and most absurd to make every metaphor or similitude and allusion to be a type for the husbandman sowing of the seed is a similitede of preaching of the word Mat. 13. and yet it 's no type of it an effectionate lover and husband is in sundry Scriptures a similitude and resemblance of Christs affection and love to his Church and spouse the head and members of mans body are similitudes of Christ the head and the Church his members but will any affirm that these are also types of Christ and just thus was Paradise and the Tree of life in it they were similitudes to which the holy Ghost alludes in making mention of Christ and his Church but they were no types of them there was typus fictus in them or arbitrarius which is all one with a similitude but there was no Typus destinatus therein being never purposely ordained to shadow out Christ for the Covenant of works by which Adam was to live is directly contrary to the Covenant of grace by faith in Christ Rom. 11.6 by which we are to live Christ is revealed only in the Covenant of grace and therefore could not be so revealed in the Covenant of works directly contrary thereunto Adam therfore was not capable of any types then to reveal Christ to him of whom the first Covenant cannot speak and of whom Adam stood in no need no not so much as to confirm him in that estate for with leave I think that look as Adam breaking the first Covenant by sinne he is become immutably evill and miserable in himself according to the rule of justice in that Covenant so suppose him to have kept that Covenant all his posterity had been immutably happy and holy not meerly by grace but by the same equity and justice of that first Covenant and hence it follows that he stood in no need of Christ or any Revelation of him by types no not to confirm him in that Covenant I know in some sence whatever God communicates to his creature in way of justice may be saîd to be conveyed in a way of grace if grace be taken largly for that which is conveyed out of Gods free will and good pleasure as all things in the world are even to the acceptance of that wherein there is most merit and that is Christs death and satisfaction for sinne but this is but to play with words for it 's clear enough by the Apostles verdict that grace strictly taken is opposite to works Rom. 11.6 the law of works which only reveals doing and life to the law of faith which only reveals Christ and life under which Covenant of grace Adam was not and therefore had no types then to shadow out Christ to say that Paradise and the Tree of life were types by way of anticipation as some lately affirm is as much as to say that they were not types then and therefore neither these nor the Sabbath were Ceremoniall then and that is sufficient for what we aim at only 't is observable that this unsound expression leads into more palpable errours for as they make the Tree of life Typicall by Anticipation so they make the marriage of Adam and Eve and consequently the marriage of all mankinde typicall and then why should not all marriages cease when Christ the Antitype is come nay they make the rivers and precious stones and gold in Paradise thus Typicall of Christ and his Church Rev. 21. and then why may they not make the Angels in heaven Typicall because men on earth who pour out the Vials are resembled to them and why may not men riding upon white Horses be typicall because Christ is so resembled Rev. 19.11 Pererius who collects out of Hugo de vict a type of the whole new Creation in all the works of six daies first Creation may please himself as other Popish Proctors do with such like shady speculations and Phantasmes and so bring in the Seventh day for company to be Typicall also but a good and healthfull stomack should be exceeding fearfull of a little feeding on such windy meat nor do I think that Hugo's new creation is any more Antitypicall to the first six daies Creation then Damascenes types in the fourth Commandment who makes Thou thy son thy daughter thy servant the stranger to be types of our sinfull affections of spirit and the oxe and the asse figures of the flesh and sensuall partâ— both which he saith must rest upon the Sabbath day Thesis 179. If therefore the Sabbath was given to Adam in innocency before all types nay before the least promise of Christ whom such types must shadow forth then it cannot be in its first and native institution typicall and ceremoniall but morall and therefore in it's first and originall institution of which we speak it did not typifie either our rest in Christ from sinne in this life or our rest with God in heaven in another life or any other imagined rest which mans wit can easily invent and invest the Sabbath with but look as our Saviour in reforming the abuses in marriage câ—ls us to the first institution so to know what is perpetuall in the Sabbath it 's most safe to have recourse hither which when it was first observed we see was no way typicall but morall and if man no way clogg'd with sin and earth had then need of a Sabbath have not we much more Thesis 180. As before the Fall the Sabbath was originally and essentially morall so after the fall it became accidentally typicall i. it had a type affixed to it though of it's own nature it neither was nor is any type at all God affixed a farther end unto it after the Fall to be of farther use to type out somewhat to Gods people while in the substance of it it remaineth morall and hence it is that a Seventh day remains morall and to be observed but not that Seventh day which was formerly kept nor have we that end of resting which was under the Law but this end only that we might more immediatly and specially converse with God which was the main end of the Sabbaths rest before mans fall for if the Sabbath had been essentially typicall then it should be abolished wholly and no more remembrance of it then of new moones and Jubilees but because it was for substance morall being extant before the fall and yet had a type affixed to it after the fall hence a Seventh day is still preserved but that Seventh day is now abolished and hence new moons and other Jewish Festivals as they are wholly Ceremoniall in their birth so they are wholly abolished without any change of them into other daies as this of the Sabbath is in their very being Thesis 181. There are sundry Scriptures alledged to prove the Sabbath to be typicall and ceremoniall out of the old and new Testament as Isa. 66.23 Gal 4.10 Rom. 14.4 5. Col. 2.16 but if
Sabbath did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 draw on shine forth Luke 23.54 now this shining or breaking forth of the Sabbath cannot be meant of the day light morning shining forth for its a meare dream to think that Ioseph should be so long a time in doing so little work from Saturday in the afternoon untill the next morning light onely in taking of Christ from the Crosse wrapping him in Linnen and laying him in his own Sepulchre which was not far off but neer at hand also Iohn 19.42 The shining forth of the Sabbath also stopâ— the women from proceeding to annoint Christs Body after they had brought their Spices and therefore if the shining forth of the Sabbath had been the morning after they might certainly have had sufficient time to do that work in the shining forth therefore of this Sabbath was in the latter evening in which the Sabbath began and it s said to shine forth by a metaphor because it did then first appear or draw on or as Piscator and sundry others think because about that time the stars in Heaven and the Lamps and Candles in houses began to shine forth which is just then when darknesse is predominant which is the beginning of the Sabbath at evening time 2. If that evening had not begun the Sabbath why did not the women who wanted neither conscience nor affection nor opportunity annoint his body that evening but defer it untill the night after what could stop them herein but onely the conscience of the Commandment which began the Sabbath that evening 3. Either the Sabbath must begin this evening or they did not rest the Sabbath according to the Commandment for if they began to keep the Sabbath at morning light then if they rested according to the Commandement they must keepe it untill the next morning light after but its manifest that they were stirring and in preparing their Oyntments long before that even in the dark night before the light did appeare as hath been formerly shewn Thesis 99. Why the women did not goe about to embalme Christs body the beginning of the dark evening after the Sabbath was past but staid so long a time after till the dark morning cannot be certainly determined perhaps they thought it not suitable to a rule of God and prudence to take some rest and sleep first before they went about that sad work and might think â—he morning more fit for it then the dark evening before when their sorrowfull hearts and spent spirits might need mercy to be shewn them by taking their rest awhile first They might also possibly think it offensive to others presently to run to the embalming of the dead as soon as ever the Sabbath was ended and therefore stayed till the dark morning when usually every one was preparing and stirring toward their weekly work Thesis 100. The Lord Christ could not lie three daies in the grave if the Sabbath did not begin at evening and for any to affirm that the dark morning wherein he arose was part of this first day and did belong thereunto is not onely to overthrow their own principles who begin the Sabbath at the beginning of day light morning but they also make the beginning of the Sabbath to be wholly uncertain for who can tell at what time of this dark morning our Saviour arose Thesis 101. T is true there are some parts of the habitable world in Russia and those Northern Countries wherein for about a moneths time the Sun is never out of sight now although they have no dark evening at this time yet doubtlesse they know how to measure their naturall daies by the motion of the Sun if therefore they observe that time which is equivalent to our dark evenings and sanctifie to God the space of a day as t is measured by the circling Sun round about them they may then be said to sanctifie the Sabbath from even to even if they do that which is equivalent thereunto they that know the East West South North points do certainly know when that which is equivalent to evening begins which if they could not do yet doubtlesse God would accept their will for the deed in such a case Thesis 102. If therefore the Sabbath began at evening from Adams time in innocency till Nehemiahs time and from Nehemiahs time till Christs time why should any think but that where the Jewish Sabbath the last day of the week doth end there the Christian Sabbath the first day of the week begins unlesse any can imagine some Type in the beginning of the Sabbath at evening which must change the begining of the day as the Type affixed did change the day or can give demonstrative reasons that the time of Christs Resurrection must of necessity begin the Christian Sabbath which for ought I see cannot be done And therfore it is a groundlesse assertion that the reasons of the change of the day are the same for the change of the beginning of it and that the chiefe of the reasons for the evening may be as well applyed against the change of the day it selfe as of the time of it But sufficient hath been said of this I shall onely adde this that there is no truth of Christs but upon narrow search into it hath some secret knots and difficulties and so hath this about the beginning of the Sabbath t is therefore humility and self-deniall to follow our clearest light in the simplicity of our hearts and to wait upon the Throne of grace with many tears for more cleare discoveries untill all knots be unloosed FINIS THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE SABBATH WHEREIN The true Rest of the Day together with the right manner of Sanctifying of the Day are briefly opened BY THOMAS SHEPARD Pastor of the Church of Christ at Cambridge in New-England The fourth Part. LONDON Printed for Iohn Rothwell 1650. The generall Contents upon the Sanctification of the Sabbath 1. THe word Sabbath what it signifies Thesis 1. 2. All weekly labour for the Rest of the Sabbath Thesis 2. 3. The Rest of the Sabbath the meanes for a higher end Thesis 3. 4. As strict a Rest now required as was formerly among the Iewes and those places cleared which seeme contrary Thesis 4 5. 5. What worke forbidden on the Sabbath Day Thesis 10. 6. Servile worke forbidden and what is a servile worke Thesis 11 12. 7. The holinesse required upon the Sabbath in five things Thesis 14. 8. A lamentation for prophanation of the Sabbath The Sanctification of the Sabbath Thesis 1. THe word Sabbath properly signifies not common but sacred or holy Rest. The Lord therefore enjoyns this Rest from labour upon this day not so much for the Rest sake but because it is a Medium or means of that holinesse which the Lord requires upon this day otherwise the Sabbath is a day of idlenesse not of holinesse our cattell can rest but a common rest from labour as well as we and therefore its mans sin and shame if he