express himself what he meant by For and From sin if Mr. G. had not been willing to mistake that I may say no more Yea but saith Mr. G. for sin is nothing else but from sin Herein your Medicine for the Plague deceived you otherwise you might have observed that for sin notes sin to be the impulsive cause of the Affliction whereas from sin notes sin to be avoided to be the final cause of the Affliction And these are not all one The Learned Grotius De satisfactione Christi cap. 1. hath observed That as often as this phrase for sins is joyned to words of suffering it alwayes signifieth the impulsive cause Which is most true if only the difference of the Type and the Anti-type be observed and the impulsive cause accordingly distinguished For if you grant Socinus but that which Mr. G. here affirmeth That for sin is all one with from sin he will easily frustrate the satisfaction and expiation of Christ For if his dying for sin note nothing else but the final cause viz. That he might thereby teach us to avoid sin then Christ in regard of any Expiation of Sin hath utterly dyed in Vain Now concerning punishments and chastisements for sin whether they be incident to Believers or not Although Mr. G. by his slight and perfunctory passing it over hath not given occasion of any full and large discourse but have taken up the most trivial Arguments whereunto he cannot be ignorant That satisfactory Answers have been given unto which he hath said nothing at all for the satisfaction of the Reader I shall say a few things briefly 1. These words of Punishing and Chastizing for Sin can denote nothing else but the Meritorious and Impulsive cause namely That sin is the meriting cause and chastisements and punishments are the merited effects This Grotius whom I cited before hath fully evinced against Socinus whose words are these It cannot be shewn that these words ob peccata or propter peccata that is for sin especially where they are joyned to sufferings are ever taken otherwise in the Holy Scripture than in this signification of merit Where also he gives satisfaction to those Scriptures which were by Socinus cited to the contrary Now if any part of the just merit or desert of the sins of believers be notwithstanding the satisfactory sufferings of Christ laid upon believers to bear them in their own persons then it is most evidently apparent that Christ did not or did not sufficiently bear the full merit and desert of sin And that these sufferings being inflicted in a way and course of justice Christ hath not by his death fully satisfied the demands of Justice then which nothing can be said more dangerous and destructive to the very foundation of Christian faith Yet 2. I believe that sin as the impulsive cause and punishment or chastisement as the effect of sin may be considered two Wayes 1. In a Typical consideration 2. In a Moral I do not say that he did bear the whole Typical charge of sin pardon the expression I cannot meet with one more fit at this present for that were to make him the Type of himself That charge of sin was born wholly by the people of the old and typical Covenant both in their persons and administrations even until the very death of Christ wherein was exhibited the full Anti-type who only bore the sins of his people in the full merit and desert of them Morally or Really as Real is opposed to the Type For in the Death of Christ the Old Covenant with all its Types had an end and the New Testament or Covenant became in force Heb. 9.16 17. A Testament is of force after men are dead otherwise it is of no force at all whilst the Testator liveth But the Old Covenant did thereby decay wax old and vanish away Heb. 8.13 Yet as I said before several times and say it again that if it be possible the truth of what we hold might appear unto all men breaking through those many clouds of slander wherewith we have been and are encompassed I say that by the promise of the Messias or by the promised Messias they were all freely and perfectly before God justified they as we and we as they Act. 15.11 Christ bore the full Moral or Real charge of their sins in the same measure as he did ours Only I say with all approved Protestants that the Typical and Subservient Administration or Covenant did exceedingly darken this upon their spirits not to hinder the benefits of Christ that they should not so spiritually come upon them But only that the enjoyment should not be with that Lustre and Glory as they are set forth to be enjoyed in the New Testament whereunto therefore in some measure the Gospel is restrained and it is by way of glorious eminence styled the Kingdom of Heaven Even that administration of the Gospel of the grace of God here on earth Mat. 3.2 and 26.29 So then we say that as all Types ceased at the death of Christ so likewise did all Typical charging of sin therewith all cease 3. Albeit we acknowledg the same or rather more hard things to flesh and blood do usually befall the children of the New Testament then did those of the Old in regard of the sharpness whereof and the event also that they have in their conversation they are somtimes called chastisements or corrections or Rebukes Yet their great consolation is that it is not the good pleasure of God their well pleased and fully reconciled Father that they should in any way bear the desert and merit of there own sin charged upon them either typically as though the true Lamb of God which was to bear the sins of the world and take them away were not yet come or Really as though there were no Lamb of God at all for them that either had or ever would suffer for their sins So that their present sufferings be they never so smart yet are but trials and exercises of faith and therein pure testimonies of love not of Anger or of Punitive Justice to the spiritual eye which discerneth all things even as they are the dispensations not only of a Father but also of a well-pleased Father in and through his beloved Son Matt. 3.17 For although here below and to the eyes of flesh all things seem to be black cloudy and tempestuous yet the eye of faith mounts up above the clouds and there discerns the full serenity of Heaven notwithstanding the contrary appearances here below And if in the wayes of God herein towards us there seems to be some reference unto sin yet is it not to sin in its own nature as it is the transgression of Gods Law calling for justice from God in some way or other for so it was utterly purged and done away by the Death of Christ Heb 1.3 1 Joh. 3.5 But as they are grievances unto Gods people as they are a continual trouble and vexation unto
Son which takes away all sin so clearly that it leaves no spot or wrinkle no blame or accusation so that it being applyed by Faith God himself hath nothing to lay to our Charge but we have full peace with him and joy and glory in him But poor man saith Mr. Geree he took it upon trust for his Mr. Eaton takes it just so in his Honey-comb of whom he hath borrowed most of his New Divinity O Mr. Geree where was the gravity of your silver hair or rather of a Minister of Christ when such light taunting jeering stuff fell from your pen against a man so free from all gall and bitterness towards any Friends or Foes as thus against the Laws of Common Humanity to rend up the sepulchre of the dead and to trample upon his bones Know therefore that although it is not neither did he account it any disparagement to learn from the meanest much less from Mr. Eaton whose Name shall be had in Everlasting Remembrance among the truly Faithful though you mention him frequently with so much scorn Yet he had both learned and preached abundantly this faithful Doctrine of God's Free Grace which you after your scoffing manner call New Divinity not onely before any thing of Mr. Eatons was extant but even before he had so much as heard of his Name Sect. 7. Whereas the blind World usually is wont to gather false Inferences from true and sound premises they according to the principle that is within them understand that carnally which is spoken spiritually Therefore the Dr. here by Answering an Objection prevents a scandalous Inference that some made through the misunderstanding of his former doctrine of our compleatness before God in Justification whereupon they were ready to infer that he denyed that Believers do sin And that because he asserted a perfection in the Spirit and in Christ he must needs also grant a perfection in the flesh and in works as the Papists and Familists would have it For although they both of them call their perfection which they dream of a perfection in Christ yet in deed and in truth if it be diligently sifted it will to truly spiritual eyes appear to be onely a perfection made up of works and inherent qualities But this is not the business in hand onely I desire to give the faithful an intimation least by any means their minds should be drawn away from the simplicity that is in Christ Now to the Objection the Dr. Answers that even the Faithful if considered in the doctrine of works do commit sin and the truth is in themselves they do nothing else but commit sin If they have any thing they have received it if they do any thing that is good it is to be ascribed to the Spirit of God not to them who of themselves do nothing but sin their souls being even mints of sin This is the substance of his Answer This Mr. G. Serm. 6. Sect. 19. saith it seemed very strange to him till he found the same in Mr. Eaton But why did it seem so strange You might have considered that the Prophet Esay calls all our Righteousness as a menstruous cloath Isa 64.6 whereby not onely sin but the extream filthiness of sin is expressed And that the Apostle counted all things but dung and loss that he might gain Christ among which things he reckons all his own righteousness to wit of works Phil. 3.8,9 And that of Christ who teacheth us to confess our best performances even when we have done that which is commanded us to be but unprofitable service Oh what are they then when nothing is done as it was commanded to be done May we not truly say with Bernard Hom. 5. If all our very righteousnesses being looked upon by the light of Truth be found to be as menstruous rags what then shall our unrighteousness be accounted to be If the light that is in us be darkness how great then is our darkness I doubt not but that if Mr. G. had considered these Expressions of the Holy Ghost that of the Doctor 's would not have seemed altogether so strange unto him But it is true which Learned Chamier saith upon the same occasion For when Calvin had said That no work comes from the Saints which doth not deserve the just reward of shame and confusion Inst l. 3. c. 14. Sect. 9. And Luther That the just man sins in every good work and that therefore all good works are so many venial sins and venial not in their own nature according to the Popish Definition but onely by the Mercy of God Cham. Tom. 3. lib. And these places of Luther and Calvin with such like of other Protestant Writers when as some Papist as Mr. G. doth here did exceedingly resent and think strange Chamier answereth That it is no wonder if such expressions seem strange and horrid unto them who used and delighted to hear nothing but the high-prizing and advancing of their own Works If this be not the same disease that Mr. G. and some others are sick of I am deceived But let us go on and hear this learned mans Resolution of this Question which I shall the rather recite because he proves his Conclusion by an Unanswerable Demonstration from the Word it self in the fore-cited place Sect. 5. Good Works saith he may be two wayes considered either abstractly in that nature and according to those dimensions of Goodness which they ought to have or concretely that is not in that simple nature and consideration of Goodness but as they are cloathed with circumstances and as they are done by that nature whereby they are done Having premised this distinction he proceeds in the 6th Section to his conclusion or assertion with the proof of it We affirm saith he that such is the frailty of Humane nature corrupted with sin that no such works can be given that were ever done by any meer man which do not decline more or less from the exact rule of Gods Law And because sin is defined to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exorbitatio a lege a transgression of the Law it must necessarily follow that these works which do thus deflect from their rule are sins And in like manner Augustine of old concluded That it is sin either when there is no Charity or when it is less than it ought to be Now in our best Works I hope it will be granted by all that are truly Protestant that there is less Charity less Love of GOD and Man than there ought to be So then I hope here are some before Mr. Eaton who have affirmed The best that we do to be sin But what hath Mr. Geree to the contrary He conceiveth that of Paul Rom. 7.12 to be against us so then with my mind I my self serve the Law of God but with my flesh the Law of sin But how did he serve the Law of God By performing all or any one Action without declining from it even in that Action No
such matter He himself in the same place confesseth the clean contrary How saith he to perform that which is good I find not And the good that I would I do not but the evil which I would not that do I. How then did he serve the Law of God will you say Read and observe the whole current of that Chapter that he never arrogates unto himself that service of the Law which consists in performing of it or that which is good according to it but onely by an acknowledgment that the Law was holy just and good and spiritual ver 12,14,16 This is all I can find the Apostle challenging to himself all along that Chapter Now whereas it might be objected against Mr. G. the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 15,10 as the Dr. doth here Not I but the Grace of God which was with me He answereth that the meaning is Not he chiefly or of himself Which exposition although it be true in some sence yet is it not suitable to the matter in hand It is true I say that Paul was in some sort active in this labouring not onely in the work it self but also in the goodness of it so far as the goodness of it is kept here below and commends us for good among men But if we ascend higher and bring it before the Tribunal of God so it had no goodness but what is passive and imputed it needed forgiveness of Sins So that although Paul was opperative in the work yet not properly in the goodness of it When I would do good evil is present with me Rom. 7. It is God that worketh both the will and the deed Phil. 2. In reference to which Calvin Inst lib. 2. Cap. 3. Sect. 9. Argues vehemently We steal from the Lord what we arrogate to our selves either in will or deed And again Ibid. lib. 3. Cap. 15. Sect. 3. saith he we do not as the Sophisters do part the glory of good works between God and man but reserve it whole and untouched unto the Lord. This only we assigne unto man that those things which were good he by his impurity doth pollute and defile But saith Mr. G. This is contrary to John 1 Joh. 3.9 He that is born of God sinneth not which saith he Mr. Eaton expounds thus He cannot chuse but wrestle and strive against all Sin and Zealously follow Holiness I answer that supposing this exposition he cannot evince that any thing we do is not Sin or Sinfull Paul strove and wrestled as it appears in that 7. to the Romans yet he concludes that when he would do good evil is present with him and that how to perform that which is good he finds not It is one thing to strive another to attain the one is the task of Works the other the Crown of Faith But saith Mr. G. If a Believer can do nothing but Sin then he must needs be subject to the Law For Sin is the Transgression of the Law 1 Joh. 3.4 I answer that Mr. G. is good at digressing and running from his Subject For Dr. Crisp hath no where medled with this Question Against whom then doth he make this inference Surely it must be against him that was the first Author of that assertion That Believers are not subject to or under the Law Who was that Even the Holy Ghost by Steven and Paul seven times as Whitaker observeth in defence of Luther against whom the Papists exclaimed for the same thing affirmeth that Believers are not under the Law but under grace And to say truth it is no new thing for them to be accounted Antinomians or Enemies to the Law for these and such like sayings The Pharisees that were of Old charged this same imputation upon them For Steven he is charged to have spoken blasphemous words against the Law Act. 6.13 And it was not without cause that Paul was forced to Apologize Do we then make void the Law through Faith God forbid nay we establish the Law Rom. 3.31 In like manner Mr. G. thinks he hath somewhat against us in the same matter although he hath found nothing in the book concerning that matter In the preface indeed somthing is briefly spoken concerning our judgment herein whereunto although he pretends a virtual confutation as he calls it yet the Christian Reader may observe that he hath not spoken one syllable concerning this subject of the Law which being the main matter in the world and in the front of Mr. G's book he ought not to have baulked it but either to have shewed that which is there spoken of the Law to have been unsound or else to have approved it Notwithstanding because we desire not to walk in darkness I shall more explain my Judgment herein First We say that the Law I mean the moral Law according to the Mosaical and typical administration of it as it is as Paraeus before-cited Saith one of those Elementa Mundi under which the Church of God in the nonage of the Old Testament was the Law I say in that Administration is now ceased To evince this is the main drift of the Apostle in the 3 4 and 5. Chapters of the Epistle to the Galathians and in a great part of the Epistle to the Hebrews where Chap. 10. ver 1. the whole Law is called a shadow of good things to come and in the 9. Chap. v. 19. and 20. even the Moral Law is included within their Covenant to wit as it stands in this Typical consideration not as a pure Covenant of works unvailed for so they were not able to bare it Secondly We say That the true Believer is not under the Law in that higher sense as it is a pure unvailed covenant of Works So it is a yoke indeed that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear Acts 15. so we are delivered from it by him that was made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the adoptions of sons Gal. 4.4 Yet not by abolishing or making void the law even in this sense For it remains an everlasting covenant of works in full force unto all that are under it Rom. 3.19 but only by a peculiar exemption of a little flock from under it Which exemption yet is not without a full and compleat satisfaction exhibited to the Law so that it loseth not one jot or tittle no not by those exempted persons but rather is by the exemption more fully established For a particular exemption as the Lawyers speak establisheth a Law for where no Law is in force there needs no peculiar exemption And Secondly because that exemption is grounded upon a full and present Satisfaction to the Law Whereas in regard of the persons not exempted it must be a receiving satisfaction world without end and yet never have one in actual being a present satisfaction Even as a man going out of the Kingdom and so from under the Laws of the Kingdom the Laws of the Kingdom are not
abolished or destroyed by his departure but remains in the same force as they were before Especially even in regard of himself the Laws are no losers if he went not out without making a sufficient satisfaction to the Laws of the Kingdom for all duties and services which he should owe thereunto which is the very case of the children of God in reference to the Law as a covenant of Works They are translated out of the Kingdom of the Law and Works into the Kingdom of Christ and of Grace there to be directed and ordered and judged by the perfect Law of Liberty Jam. 2. These two Exemptions being premised I see not but we may admit of any other use of the Law in the Church which doth not make Void either of these Exemptions And particularly those which are contained in Mr. G's preface collected out of Mr. Reinolds Mr. Penible and Luther according to the Authors own genuine meaning And further that we may not contend about words I shall also grant the Law to be a Rule of conversation even to believers understanding it materially and in his Doctrine and Duties and passively as a Rule barely lying before a man To constitute a Rule in this sence I suppose no more is meant but that if the actions and conversation of a Child of God be examined before an Humane Tribunal they are and are to be approved as consonant to the Law The Law is that Rule whereby they are to be examined and approved and rejected accordingly For before the Tribunal of the Lord they are only approved and accepted as they are washed in the Bloud of Christ and have his Cleanness put upon them That is not in their active consonancy to the Law but passively in the Grace of the Gospel which is that incense which makes the prayers of the Saints to be accepted Rev. 8.3 But the Law may also be considered formally and actively to wit not only in the matter but in the bond of it What is that some may say I answer it is that which formally binds to the performance of it Even that Covenant or Condition which lies in the Law constrains to the performance of it Do this and live Do not this and be Accursed Here what is that which formally ties to the doing or not doing of this but life upon doing and the curse upon not doing It is true the Authority of the Law-giver is the efficient cause of the Law and of the obligement of it but the intrinsecal formal and legal obligement consists in that relation which the thing commanded or forbidden hath either to reward or punishment without which there is no Law In this consideration I say it cannot be a rule unto the faithful for the 2. Exemption which I mentioned before is an acknowledged freedom from under the Law in this consideration Thus much for a breif Explanation of my judgment in this Matter Now to that which Mr. G. Objected That if the Believer sin then is he under the Law Hereunto I Answer that a Believer may be considered Two wayes I. Properly Or II. Improperly 1. Properly as a Believer i. e. As having a perfect satisfaction agreeable to the Law as a justified person as one freed from sin For he that is justified is free from sin Rom. 6.7 and stands without fault before the Throne and Tribunal of GOD and so as without Law But 2. If you consider this Believer Improperly here below among men in his conversation as a Worker so there is Law for him as the material and passive rule of his conversation as I said before and so there is transgression by him yea as is said and proved before in every action he sins But saith Mr. G. How can this stand with that which they hold That they which are Justified are so Sanctified and purged that they are now for the present without spot or wrinkle I Answer very well by the former Distinction And further Sanctification may be taken in a two-fold sense 1. For that Holiness which is Inherent Active and of Works which as it is in it self Imperfect so it is not able to present us Perfect and Clean in the sight of GOD because it self hath need of a perfecter and cleanser Or 2. For that Holiness which is imputed passive and of Faith in which sense I shewed it to be taken by certain Scriptures cited by Amesius which Holiness in as much as it is perfect in it we also are presented perfect and without spot or wrinkle before God Col. 1.20 2.22 Eph. 5.26,27 Sect. 8. In this and the subsequent Sections to the end of this Sermon Mr. Geree finds fault with the Doctor because he denyes our peace to depend upon works of Sanctification which we perform This Mr. G. calls flinging against Sanctification and Holiness but Wisdom is justified of all her Children When Esay called it menstruous raggs Esay 64.6 Christ unprofitable service And Paul esteemed it dung Will you call these flings at Holiness No they are only the attributing to them their true worth and weight by the ballance of the Sanctuary For seeing all our works have an admixtion of sinfulness whereby they are truly sinful works and every sinful work as the proper wages of it deserves eternal death we may thereby take a true estimate of their proper worth and efficiency Mistake me not This I mean not as they are Good and as they are Holy but as they are not so Good and so Holy as they ought to be and in regard they are thus Imperfect they are not able to speak Peace unto us Peace is fruit and effect of Righteousness Esay 32. Therefore Christ is our Melchisedec our King of Righteousness and afterwards or thereupon our King of Salom that is King of Peace Heb. 7.2 Therefore all our peace is attributed to Christ alone He alone is our Peace-maker and in him alone is the full message and manifestation of our peace contained and therefore God is said to have come and preached peace by Jesus Eph. 2.17 And as our peace is ascribed unto Christ and the message concerning it so it is denyed unto our works Which that it may the better appear we are to consider our peace in a double Notion Either 1. As it is made with God Or 2. As it is manifested and sealed unto our Consciences If we attribute it to our works in the first sense we do manifestly put them in the place of Christ and thereby rob him of the dignity of his Priestly Office whereby he is our Peace Eph. 6.14 Our propitiation with the Father Rom. 3.25 Joh. 2.1,2 Our reconciler unto God Rom. 5.10 For all these are so peculiar unto Christ as the only Mediator between God and man that whosoever attributes them unto any other person or thing must of necessity attribute thereunto the Mediatorship either in whole or in part Peace in this sense is ordinarily acknowledged by Protestant Writers not to depend on Works
the Typical charge of sin upon many of Gods people as David and others did not signifie that he did really bear any dram of that Spiritual curse and punishment due to his sin but only that he in the flesh bare it as a Type of him that was to come 1. It did signifie that he that was to take away and bare sin in his own body was not yet come 2. It did shaddow out that when he did come he should utterly take it away so that none afterwards that belonged unto Christ should bare it either Typically as the Sacrifices and Children of the Old Testament or Really as Christ only hath done for all his And this is the reason why there were sacrifices of Propitiation in the Old Testament viz. Typically to shaddow out the real attonement of Christ which was to dome Exod. 30.10,15 c. Lev. 16. and very frequently elsewhere Whereas in the New Testament there are none none at all either Typical or Real since the death of Christ And therefore the Mass is justly abhorred of all true Christians as blasphemous against the death of Christ if it be counted an attonement or propitiation for sin either Typical or Real If the former then it is a denial of Christ to be already come For the Types did all prefigure and confess that Christ was not come If the latter then they must of necessity deny in whole or in part the sufficiency of that sacrifice of propitiation that Christ offered once for all And therefore I do utterly dislike the Expressions of some Ministers who call our Fasting Dayes Dayes of Attonement whereby if they mean that any thing that is done in them can make an attonement or propitiation either Typical or Real then they bring an Idol of Jealousie indeed into the very Holy of Holies and jump with the Papists in setting up an abomination to make desolate rather than to heal the Land and bring a blessing of peace upon it However men may excuse their meanings I am sure some mens expressions are broad beyond all sobriety I am sure the Holy Ghost is very wary of giving any words of that kind as Priests Altars propitiations to any ordinances or actions of the New Testament besides those which are peculiar to the person of Christ alone But if any understand by a day of Attonement no more but a day of Humble Address unto the Throne of Grace in confidence of that one attonement offered once for all for the effects of that one attonement and propitiation to be manifested upon himself and upon the Land Then as Augustine once said in another case so I think I may as justly say in this Teneat mentem sed compescat linguam Let him retain this Meaning but refrain that Expression being every way as dangerous as that of Merit and Priests and Altars or any such like exploded phrases But I have digressed sufficiently I must now return to Mr. G. who goes on in this manner Moreover when the Lord had condemned their Hypocritical Holiness and Services Hay 1.11,12 c. Being much offended with them see what course he prescribes them to make their peace with him ver 16 17 18 19. Wash ye make ye clean take away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes cease to do evil learn to do well Then what follows Come now let us Reason together saith the Lord though your sins be as Scarlet they shall be as White as Snow If ye be willing and Obedient ye shall Eat the good of the Land Here Mr. G. tells us he doth but cite the very words Yes he tells us also to what end he cites them namely as a course prescribed of God to make our peace with him So that here it is evident Mr. G. makes works not only evidences of our peace but even peace-makers which office we dare not to attribute to any but to the Lord Jesus who hath made peace only by the blood of his Cross Col. 1.20 For as we acknowledge but one Mediator between God and man so but one peace-maker For that was his office to mediate and effect a peace Reconciliation and peace-making is his own his sole Act. It is always in Scripture spoken of in reference to a sacrifice Dan. 9.24 2 Cor. 5.18 Heb. 2.18 And that a sacrifice of propitiation of appeasement which Christ only was able to offer But the best of our works are aspersed with manifold defilements they have need of an atonement to make peace for themselves so far are they from making peace for others But Mr. G. seems to infer out of the place that we our selves and that by our own doings must make our selves clean must take away the evil of our doings from before the eyes of God must cease to do evill and learn to do well and all this while we are the enemies of God before our sins be forgiven So the Papist and others before him have desired to infer from the place And this the Lord requires How then shall we answer to it Sure our abilities are not the measure of Gods commands Such passages as these may well shew what is due unto God from man not what man is able to pay unto God Mr. G. himself if he would have taken notice of it hath collected for us out of Mr. Penible a satisfactory answer hereunto in his preface Pag. 4. The Law saith he was added because of transgressions that is to convince man of sin that he might be put in remembrance what was his duty of old and what was his present infirmity in doing of it and what was Gods wrath against him for not doing it That seeing how impossible it was to attain unto life by this old way of the Law first appointed in Paradice he might be humbled and driven to look after the New way which God had since that time laid forth more heedfully attending the promise and seeking unto Christ who is the end of the Law unto every one that believes on him And thus our peace is made we are washed the evil of our doings is done away out of the sight of God And thus we cease to be evil doers and become truly well doers not in our own actions but in him who did all things well And so for his sake being joynt heirs with him we Eat and injoy the good of the Land of the living we have a sure and unshaken interest not only in Heaven but in earth also so far as our fathers infinite wisdom sees them good for us Here lest we should plead some difference between the Testaments Mr. G. prevents us saying That the New Testament differs not from the Old in this particular But mark the Text he alledgeth Christ was exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance unto Israel and remission of sins Act. 5.31 And is there no difference in this Here Christ is plainly expressed as a giver of Repentance and Forgiveness In that of Esay it is
the Lord Jesus made it a trophy of victory So that we dare boldly say with Calvin Instit lib. 3. cap. 2. sect 28. That whatsoever miseries and calamities befal those who are beloved of the Lord they cannot hinder that his loving kindness should not be coâ—…leat felicity And a little after If all things abound unto us according unto our desire and we be uncertain of the love or hatred of God our felicity will be accursed and therefore miserable But if the fatherly face of God shine upon us our very miseries will be blessed But saith Mr. G. that which keeps us from breaking our bounds is rather bitterness than sweetness as the Scripture saith he testifieth but alledgeth none only he brings two Scriptures 1 John 3.9 1 Pet. 1.23 to prove that which none denies that the remaining of the seed of God within us which is immortal keeps us within bounds Yea we deny not but that Afflictions are very useful as I said to Gods Children Yet so that they also do some way sweeten rather than imbitter the pastures where the Saints do feed though not to the flesh and outward man yet to the spirit and inward man For it is grace revealed that teacheth effectually to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts Tit. 2.11.12 Psal 26.3 Thy loving kindness is ever before mine eyes and therefore I have walked in thy truth Christ is able to rule his own Wife by the scepter of his Grace Sect. 12. In the three last Sections the Dr. attributes unto â—hrist 1. The giving of Spiritual Sight to see in a gracious manner both our own filthiness and vileness where a closing with Christ begins This saith he we have not from the Law which though it be a perfect looking-glass yet it gives no eyes 2. Repentance 3. Faith 1. Here Mr. G. after his manner hath found a contradiction Why Because hereafter he affirms Justification to be before all qualification But here he saith there is first the opening of the eyes and from the opening of the eyes proceeds a closing with Christ Whereupon saith Mr. G. follows Justification So that this Justification after closing is Mr. G's Inference not the Dr's Assertion But I Answer and Grant that our Justification is considered two wayes 1. In the Court of Heaven so it is antecedent to any qualification So saith Dr. Twiss The Righteousness of Christ as it is Christs in that it is performed by Him so it is ours in that it was performed for us and that before Faith as meriting for us effectual Faith For the Righteousness of Christ is said to be imputed to us and his Merits to be applyed to us by Faith not before God but in our own Consciences But of this as Mr. G. saith more hereafter Onely this we must alwayes carry along with us that without Christ that is without being implanted into Him as the Branches into the Vine and so without being united to Him and justified by Him We can do nothing Joh. 15.5 2. Here at length Mr. G. hath found somthing that he can as he thinks with some confidence call Antinomianisme that the title of his book may not seem to be a meer slander Here saith he the Dr. bewraies his malice against the Law of God And this he repeats again What is the ground of this heavy charge Surely only this that he saith that a gracious sight of our own vileness is the work of Christ alone and that the Law gives no eyes to see Surely if this be such deep Antinomianism there are more Antinomians than many are aware of For First He grants the Law to be a perfect Looking-Glass to represent the filthiness of a person Secondly He doth not deny but by the Law a man may have a deep sight of his own vileness as Cain and Judas had Thirdly He only affirmeth that although the Law compared with the heart and conversation of men afford the object to wit the filthiness that is to be seen yet it gives neither eyes to see nor a gracious manner of seeing These two are only from Christ from his Grace not from the Law Both in nature and grace there is the same fountain of Life and of the effects of Life as eyes and sight That only which gives life gives sight Now the Apostle utterly denies the former that the Law can give life and thereby he denies it able to give sight But contrarywise as Christ only gives life so He only gives sight Ephes 1.17,18 And that not by the Law but by meer Grace But how doth Christ give a gracious spiritual sight or eyes I Answer by the Unction of his Spirit 1 Joh. 2.20 who is therefore called the spirit of Wisdom and Illumination Ephes 1.17 And the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2.11 But doth Christ give these spiritual eyes without any outward means I Answer that I conceive that spiritual eyes with other gifts of grace may be considered two wayes In their Root and in their Fruit In their Being and in their Actuating In the former sense they are the immediate effects of the spirit per modum causae Physicae But in the actuating or putting forth of Faith or Sight there is the intervening of the word per modum causae moralis sive objecti as the object to be seen which is therefore said to enlighten the eyes Psal 19.8 And so Faith is said to come by Hearing Here the Word and the Spirit are alwayes conjoyned Esay 59.21 Well then seeing without Christ and his Spirit there is no enlightning either by the word of the Law or the Gospel Why may he not enlighten as well by the Law as by the Gospel This is Mr. G's Objection I Answer with the Apostle The Gospel only is the ministration of the Spirit and not the Law Gal. 3.2 2 Cor. 3.8 But the Law contrariwise is the Law of Sin and Death Rom. 8.2 It is the Killing Letter 2 Cor. 3.6 It is the Ministration of Death ver 7. It is the Ministration of Condemnation ver 9. We must observe saith Paraeus That the Law is not the Ministry of the Spirit that is by the Preaching of the Law the Holy Ghost is not given and therefore neither Faith nor Confidence nor any hope of Adoption or Salvation Par. in Gal. 3.2 I may add nor any other thing which is a proper effect of the Spirit such as is a gracious sight of our own vileness The Law Commands only but it Helps not But if it did give Eyes or Sight it should Help as well as Command Neither is this any reproach unto the Law of God which is Holy Just and Good It is Our fault not the Laws that it is not able to give us Life nor the effects of it It is weak not through any impotency in its self but through our flesh Rom. 8.3 But Mr. G. cites against us out of Psal 19.7,8 That the law converts the soul makes wise