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
translated upon their surety For there is no Anger in the Effects but in reference to Sin as the cause Wheresoever there is a rupture in the House there the storm drives in So whilst the Elect stand as Sinners they stand liable to Judgment I do not say there was ever an actual or positive Execution of the VENGEANCE of GOD due for sin upon the Elect For in that regard they have obtained not only a Reprieve but a Discharge But as their sin was by imputation derived upon Christ so punishing Justice Anger or Wrath pursued him and from him received a full Satisfaction for whatsoever the Elect had committed and so in him ceased in reference unto them But seeing Imputation of sin may be considered two wayes so also may the Anger Wrath or Execution of Justice likewise be considered either in the Type or Antitype First in the Type thus all the people of God in the Old Testament did more or less in a typical way bare iniquity not only in their sacrifices but also in their own persons yet so as nothing of what the Antitype did be darkned or impaired Their Sacrifices usually and their Works sometimes are said to expiate or appease Wrath or Anger 2 Chron. 12.12 which is all one What did they herein any of Christs work of Satisfaction No they did only pre-figure it and according to the nature of their Covenant as Types bare and as Types take away the imputation of Sin according to that carnal administratation then in being For otherwise if a real taking away of sin by these should be asserted then the Apostles reason would not stand strong in force that it is impossible that the Blood of Bulls or Goats should take away sin Heb. 10.4 yet the same Apostle affirmeth that they Sanctified to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9.13 so also we may by the same reason say that it is impossible that the imperfect and sinful works of man should take away sin Yet might they in themselves by vertue of their subservient covenant sanctifie to an outward purifying of the flesh and in their Typical relation shaddow out that perfect and everlasting Expiation which was to come by the Death of CHRIST Now whereas it might be Objected That Moses by Prayer is said to stand in the breach to turn away his wrath Psal 106.23 That Phineas by executing judgment staid the plague That Noah Daniel and Job should deliver their own Lives by their Righteousness Ezek. 14.14 with infinite other such Examples in the Old Testament which have these with such like effects attributed unto them without any express mention of their Typical nature or reference unto their Antitype Christ I Answer that herein consisteth a great part of the Veil of the Old Testament that it did but very darkly point out to the Messias So that Expiations and Attonements are to a carnal eye attributed to the very Ceremony there being seldom or never with the Type any express mention of the Antitype whereby the more carnal Jews terminated their thoughts in the ceremony or action done But the New Testament hath clearly revealed that the whole Paedagogy was but a shaddow under which the people of God of Old were shut up unto the Faith that should afterward be revealed Gal. 3.23 And that fundamental argument of the Alsufficiency of the death and satisfaction of Christ so fully prosecuted by the Apostle in the 7 8 9 10. Chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews puts the matter beyond all Controversie That the Anger or Wrath of GOD could only be born Typically by the Children of the Old Testament seeing it could onely be born really by the Son of God But now Secondly As imputation of sin and thereby anger and wrath or execution of justice are considered in the Antitype so it is apparent that Christ did both really bare and take away all Anger due to the Elect for their sins as well of those that were before his time as of those that came after 1. He Bare all Anger First Because he bare all sin the cause or ground of this Anger Isa 53.5 1 Pet. 2.24 Secondly Because he bare all Punishments due to sin He was bruised for our Transgressions He suffered the Just for the Vnjust Thirdly It appears by the real effects in his sweating great drops of blood when no bodily Torment was upon him which is more than ever befel any man upon earth by the most extream torture but most eminently in that terrible hideous Out-cry wrung from him by the unconceivable weight of that wrath that lay upon him My God my God Why hast thou forsaken me 2. He took away all Anger And therefore it is said to be the Chastisement of our Peace which was upon him Isa 53.5 He is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placamentum the appeasement of our sin 1 Joh. 2.1,2 By him we have received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the attonement or reconciliation So that now to those that are in him there is no Anger but everlasting well-pleasedness and perfect favour established by a Covenant of Salt like that of Noah's without condition As I have sworn that the Waters of Noah shall no more go over the earth so have I sworn that I will not be angry with thee Isa 54.9 And that our sins and iniquities he will remember no more Heb. 8.12 Now to what Mr. G. hath Objected First For his Criticism that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth consuming wrath and the anger of an Enemy to destroy I Answer That his Observation will not hold for it is also used concerning the Anger of a Father or otherwise a Friend among men And David mâ—kes it Synonimous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is most usually rendered Anger as Psal 6.1 Rebuke me not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in thine anger whereunto is added after the usual exegetical manner of the Psalmists and Prophets Neither chasten me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in thy hot displeasure where the latter Phrase is of the same signification with the former And David deprecates both alike so Psal 90.7 where if there be any difference the greater matter viz. Consumption is attributed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the latter viz. Trouble to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both are promiscuosly spoken of the Anger of a Friend and that of an Enemy It may be you will say that in this place is meant of the Anger of an Enemy I Answer That in God excepting that Typical Expression of Anger whereof I spake before there is no Anger at all in God towards a reconciled People such a one as he speaks of in the immediately foregoing words God hath no little Anger If his Anger be kindled but a little it is well with them that are out of the reach of it Blessed are all they that put their trust in him For who may stand in thy sight when once thou art angry Psal 76.7 Christ hath satisfied for the whole Anger little and great
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
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
tampering with comfort from their own Works and not be content with what may be had by that sole sure Rock of Eternal Comfort I shall leave them to meditate upon the terrible sentence of the Lord which shall surely be performed in its season Isa 50.11 Behold all ye that kindle a fire that compass your selves about with sparks walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks that ye have kindled this shall ye have of my hand ye shall lye down in sorrow But saith Mr. G. see how good Hezekiah pleads with the Lord Isa 38.3 Remember me O Lord I beseech thee how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart and have done that which is good in thy sight Hereupon he was not rejected but received a most gracious Answer ver 5. Go say to Hezekiah thus saith the Lord I have heard thy Prayer I have seen thy Tears Behold I will add unto thy days fifteen years Hereunto I shall not Answer with Luther that in this Prayer Hezekiah manifesteth some spice of that temper he was in when he shewed unto the Ambassadors of the King of Babel all his glorious Treasure although the Event and Answer will not shew the contrary The lying of the Midwives of the Israelites in Aegypt had a prosperous Event and a gracious Answer from the Lord who built them houses yet the Act must not therefore be concluded to be approved of the Lord And indeed this Expression is very singular and hardly to be found in the whole Scripture in the mouth of any of the Servants of God Yet I conceive that it ought rather to be taken notice of as agreeable to the Tenure of that Typical and Subservient Covenant under which he was with the rest of the Fathers of the Old Testament until the Death of Christ In which Covenant they had outward Blessings among which length of days was one Deut. 6.2 according to their upright walking with God in the performance of that Covenant The Covenant is at large expressed in the 27 28 29 Chapters of Deuteronomy wherein all outward Blessings even to the prolonging of their days in that good Land of Canaan flowing unto them with all store and abundance of milk and honey and wherein also all outward Curses were threatned against the Transgressors to the rooting of them out quite out of that good Land and also out of the Land of the Living that they should not prolong their days Hezekiah having therefore walked uprightly before the Lord in that Covenant and restored the Right Worship of the Lord he prayed that the Lord would do unto him according to his Promise in that Covenant which manner of Plea seeing grounded upon that peculiar Administration and Covenant proper to that People it ought not to be urged in the Times of the New Testament where that shadowish Administration even of the Moral Law is done away 2 Cor. 3.11 and abolished ver 13. I have a little explained my self in this before yet that if possible things may not be mistaken I shall add a few words more First Although I say that this Covenant did properly relate unto temporal Blessings and Curses onely yet far be it from me to think that the Faithful then had nothing else but temporal Blessings I confess that by the Ancient Promise from the beginning Gen. 3. renewed Gen. 17. They had all spiritual Blessings in Christ for so I before cited it out of the Apostle that they were Heirs and Lords of all so that accordingly they were by Christ freely and fully blessed and justified and saved Yet Secondly I say that according to this subservient Covenant and Administration as the same Apostle saith they differed nothing at all from Servants They were upon doing their Work and have their Wages they were upon neglect of their Task to be punished or thrust out of doors They had great Rewards of Glorious Prosperity upon performance They had sore Afflictions and Calamities upon the neglect thereof Now Thirdly The Question may be How this subservient Covenant could consist with the promise of all blessing in Christ I Answer very well as the Apostle saith observing the right time namely that the child at the same time whilst he is a child may be Lord of all yet in all administrations towards him he may differ nothing at all from a Servant If indeed you take the Heir when he is come to Age and then make him differ nothing from a Servant then it is apparent you destroy his Heirship and alienate the Inheritance from him But whilst he is a Child saith the Apostle he differeth nothing at all from a Servant though at the same time he be Lord of all Even so was the difference between our Fathers before Christ and Us as the Apostle himself applyeth the Comparison But how can this be conceived may some say Could they be Blessed and Accursed at the same time Could they be perfectly Justified and yet Sin charged upon them at the same time This is the main difficulty at which so many stumble I shall therefore desire the Christian Reader to take notice of what is said and I doubt not but the Lord will afford Light for a solution hereof according to the Analogy of Faith contained in the Holy Scriptures I Answer First That the Blessings and the Curses of the Old Testament were of such a nature as they had reference to this subservient Covenant that the greatest Blessings might have a real Curse under it and the greatest Curse might have a real Blessing under it And so their outward Justification might have a real charge of Sin upon them and their outward charging of Sin might veil a Spiritual real and invisible discharge and justification from sin This will be more easily conceived if we remember Two things 1. That this subservient Covenant was carnal It consisted saith the Apostle in carnal Ordinances Heb. 9.10 serving to the purifying of the Flesh ver 13. It consisted in the rudiments of the World as the Apostle saith elsewhere 2. This subservient Covenant was Typical Things hapned unto them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Types 1 Cor. 10. They were shaddows of good things to come but the substance was Christ Heb. 10.1 And shaddows of Heavenly things Heb. 8.5 So then that which in the judgement of the flesh is a Blessing as all the prosperity of the Wicked is may indeed and in truth be a Curse I will Curse their Blessings Mal. 2.2 And also that which is a Curse in the judgment of the flesh being grievous unto it may indeed and in the judgment of Faith be a Blessing and so are all the Afflictions of the Faithful And Secondly A Typical charging of sin will not prove a real charge of sin upon the same subject as upon the scape-goat it did only signifie the real charge of the sin of the Israel of God was to be upon him who was typified by that Scape-goat So
barely required of them I confess it was Christ that gave Repentance and Remission of Sins in all ages of the Church of God yet this was not so clearly manifested unto the people of the Old Testament as it is to those of the New The Old Testament is more frequent in Requiring of Righteousness save only in those places where it speaks Prophetically of the New than in manifesting the free gift of Righteousness In the Old Testament it was but my Salvation is near to come and my Righteousness to be Revealed Isa 56.1 But in the New Testament the Righteousness of God is already Revealed in the Gospel Rom. 1.17 The difference so far as it concerns the present particular is most remarkable in the Apostles citing and inverting that place of Isay 59.20 The Redeemer shall come to Sion and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob which the Apostle citing doth wonderfully invert after this manner The deliverer shall come out of Sion and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. In that of the Prophet turning from iniquity seems to be pre-required to the comming of the Messias But by the Apostle it is plainly revealed to be the effect of his comming He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Moreover from the fore-cited place and that in Luke 24.47 wherein Christ chargeth his Apostles to Preach Repentance and Remission of sins among all nations Mr. G. infers mark first Repentance and then Remission of Sins This saith he is Christs Order What that Repentance should go before Remission of Sins Surely such a Repentance can be no better than the Repentance of Cain and Judas in it self for I speak not of the Event For what can the Act of an enemy unto God be accounted to be but fruits of enmity The Protestants use to say with Christ that first the tree must be made good by justification Wherein is contained forgiveness of Sins before the fruit can be good before we can do any thing acceptable unto God But repentance you will say is mentioned first To this I Answer with Calvin that whilest men stick in the order of letters and syllables they do not mark the coherence of the Sense Inst lib. 3. Cap. 3. Sect. 2. For as he saith there it is impossible that a man should seriously repent unless he know himself to be Gods But none is truly perswaded that he is Gods but he who first hath apprehended his grace see Calvin ibid. further there where he solidly proves that faith or the assurance of the forgiveness of sins doth precede and bring forth all true repentance which is the general judgment of all Orthdoox Protestants For my own part I conceive that it is so frequently set before faith and remission of sins not because it self doth either in order of time or nature precede them but because it relates properly unto that estate of unregeneracy which both in order of time and nature goes before conversion and regeneration whereunto faith doth properly refer But still this must be firmly holden That we love him because he loved us first 1 Joh. 4.19 That because many sins are forgiven us therefore we love much Luk. 7.47 That with the Lord is propitiation and therefore shall he be feared Psal 130.4 And now I desire the Christian Reader to set himself as Calvin saith not in umbraculo at ease full of the works of his own hand and of the applause of men but seriously sensible of the dreadfull terrors of the Lord that not he that commendeth himself is approved but he whom the Lord commendeth And then let him say whether he will lean unto such a peace as his works will be able to make or that only which the great Peace-maker hath made by the Blood of his Cross Col. 1.20 THE DEFENCE OF THE Second Sermon Sect. 1 2. THE Substance of the First Section Mr. G. would gladly seem to grant namely That God doth no longer stand offended with a Believer though after he be a Believer he doth sin often Yet in the end he will not let it pass for current without some Qualification which he explains more fully in the second Section in his Answer to that of Esa 27.4 Anger is not in me Here saith he the word Chama he or his Printer should have said Chemah in the Original is rendered Excandescentia Burning or fiery Wrath which the last Translation calls Fury very fitly which teacheth what kind of Anger is not in God to wit consuming wrath or anger of an Enemy to destroy yet may God be said to have a Fatherly Anger which may stand with Love For the Scripture speaks of God after the manner of men Hence Rev. 3.19 As many as I love I rebuke and chasten Rebukes and Chastisements are effects of Anger as well as of Love I shall first of all Explain what we hold in this particular and then proceed to Answer what Mr. G. hath here Objected Anger may be attributed unto God Two Wayes Either I. In the Affection of it Or II. In the Effects of it First in the Affection of it altho' in propriety of speech there be no affection congruent to our humane conceiving and answerable to the affections and passions of men For as God is not like man in Repenting Numb 23.19 So in no other passion so in no other thing conceiveable by an human understanding Thus He dwells in the Light that no Man can approach unto 1 Tim. 6.16 Yet hereunto may be referr'd the dreadful punitive Justice of God whereby he pays unto sin and to the sinner his just Wages For because it is expressed in the Scripture by that which is an affection in man and because the effects of it are in some way proportionable to those of Anger in Man therefore may we with the Learned call it Anger in the Affection Yet not conceiving of it in the notion of an humane passion but of punishing Justice So Rom. 13.4 The higher powers are said to be the Ministers of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Revenger in Wath or to Execute Wrath. What! To execute his own or other mens passion upon the Offender No such matter but a Revenger by punishing Justice or to execute Justice upon him that doth Evil. This word Anger or Wrath I confess may be drawn up higher to that dreadfull Sentence passed within God himself from all eternity upon the vessels of Wrath but this signification is less pertinent to our present matter Secondly There is Anger in the Effects of it which as it is originally and radically upon all the sons of Adam both Elect and Reprobate seeing all are originally under the Law and by breaking of it their mouths are for ever stopped to wit from pleading innocency by that Covenant and all the world is become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3.19 subject to the Judgment of God and Children of Wrath even as others Eph. 2.12 So it is by derivation from the Elect as their sin is
them in dishonouring the Lord before their own hearts or the eyes of others and so making the way of the Lord to be evil spoken of then which nothing goes more to the quick even to the heart of the truly faithfull in most serious compunction In this accidental consideration I say affliction may have some relation unto sin 1. Taking out of the way Earthly and Visible things and thereby 2. Making way for faith to look upon the invisible things of the Gospel By the activity and power whereof we are at least in some measure freed from that thorn in the flesh which before did more infest us So the Lord makes all things work for the best to them that are the called according to his purpose Rom. 8.28 4. We say that in regard that Kingdomes Congregations and Churches are mixt assemblies at least before God consisting of persons that are in several states and conditions Spiritually though things may generally be spoken in reference to such collective bodies yet ought they to be particularly applyed and understood properly only to relate unto such a party and such persons in that collective body in regard of whom such things are attributed unto such a general body so Rom. 11.15,18 where the Jews are said to be cast away and broken off Calvin observeth and it is clear enough in the Text that it ought to be understood of such as had not a real but only a seeming union unto the true Olive according to that of our Saviour from him shall be taken away even that which he seemeth to have Luke 8.18 And Paraeus but Gal. 5.4 Ye are fallen from Grace Answereth That the Apostle after the manner of the Scripture attributes that to all which belonged but to a part to the whole body of the Church which belonged but to a few members So that although punishments or chastisements for sin may be applyed to the Churches of God in general as to that of Corinth or Sardis c. it may not thence be inferred that those sufferings for sin had a particular relation to the truly Faithful in those Churches but rather the manner of the Scripture phrase as Paraeus saith is to be considered which is to attribute to the whole that which may not be attributed to every Member And therefore the suffering of collective Bodies and Churches is impertinent unto the present Question But the true state of the Question is Whether true Believers in particular under the time and state of the New Testament may be said any way either typically or really to bear the merit or just desert of their sin either in whole or in part This we utterly deny because the Affirmative is 1. Against the Promise of God Luk. 1.72,74 2. Against the Oath of God Esay 54.9 3. Against the New and Everlasting Covenant of God Your sins and iniquities will I remember no more Heb. 8.12 4. Against the full satisfaction of Christ Heb. 10.14 5. Against that perfect Reconciliation we have with God our Father 2 Cor. 5.19 6. Against our compleat Justification Rom. 5.8 7. Against that necessary Distinction of the Two Testaments in their Administrations Gal. 4.1,2,3,4,5 Now let us weigh Mr. G's Arguments to the contrary First He grants us They are not properly Punishments Howbeit we have it preached here by some of no small Note That God punisheth his own Children soonest sorest and longest through a wilful shall I say Neglect of the searching into the difference of the Testaments which Calvin well observed when he makes it the Priviledge of the New Testament that in it there is no more remembrance of sin upon Heb. 10.18 whereas in the Old Testament there was often a fresh remembrance of sin not in their sacrifices onely but also in their sufferings as appears largely in the Examples of Moses David Jehosaphat and others But if still saith Calvin Instit lib. 3. cap. 4. Sect. 30. we are punished for our sins what I pray you had Christ performed for us Where also he following the foot-steps of the Holy Ghost makes Punishments and Chastisements and Corrections if they be for sin all one neither is there any ground in Scripture to distinguish them This same viz. that we are not punished for sin saith Calvin Esay declareth when he saith That the Chastisements or Correction of our Peace was upon him What is the Correction of our Peace but the Punishment due to our sins which was to have been suffered by us before we could be reconciled to God unless he had taken our Turns Behold thou seest plainly that Christ suffered the punishment of sins that he might free his from them But Mr. G. to prove that the Chastisements of Gods Children are for sin urgeth Rev. 3.19 As many as I love I rebuke and chasten But because he finds not for sin here he fetcheth it out of Psal 39.11 When thou with rebukes dost chasten man for sin thou makest his beauty to consume away I Answer These places do not well suit together 1. The one speaks of Gods beloved Ones as many as I love the other mentions onely man when thou with rebukes dost chasten man Which Expression doth not necessarily include the Faithful Secondly The one belongs to the Old Administration the other to the New Thirdly The one speaks of Rebukes of Love the other of consuming Rebukes which Mr. G. in Sect. 2. of this Sermon grants not to be fatherly these Texts therefore ought not to be so jumbled together as if they had both one Matter in hand His second Scripture is that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.30,32 Where he saith For this cause many are weak and sickly among you c. Even among them that are judged of the Lord that they might not be condemned with the World This place I confess is the onely one in appearance in the whole Scripture Yet is not the evidence of it such that it can be able to shake the Faith of that which hath been before established upon such firm and fundamental Grounds of the full satisfaction and propitiation by the blood of Christ expressed in such legible and clear Characters in the free and new Covenant of Grace Your sins and iniquities will I remember no more For the right understanding therefore of this Text I refer the Reader to that which I have said before in the fourth Conclusion concerning mixt assemblies wherein although things be spoken in general of all both good and bad as they stand in relation to such an Assemble yet as they are considered absolutely in their own particular Persons without the consideration of such a Relation so such an Attribution hath no reference unto them If an English-man should be put to death in a National Quarrel it is therein the suffering of the whole Nation as injury and disgrace of the whole Nation yea and every particular person in the Nation as they are considered in that link and Union National with all and every particular
as a Christian wherefore he exhorts them not to be ashamed of it but to glorify God in this respect and then subjoyns the words which Mr. G. hath alledged And thus if the Christian Reader will wisely observe the drift of the Holy Ghost he will not easily be carried away with such impertinent and perfunctory allegations of Scripture Also he may easily see that this is an effectual and truly Christian humbling Doctrine not a snarling against Humiliation as Mr. G. would perswade To see the overflowing bowels of the Lords tenderness towards us that he will not any more call our sins to remembrance or suffer the least evil for them to come nigh our dwellings The discovery of this unmeasurable and undeserved love opens the heart effectually to a true serious and humble acknowledgment with Jacob that we are less than the least of all his mercies and loving kindnesses that have been ever of Old Gen. 30.10 Sect. 7 8 9. Here the Dr. affirmeth that altho' a faithful man should be overtaken with some gross fault yet ought he not to add thereunto unbelief by serving a writ of Damnation upon himself neither ought any other to do it For saith he thou that art ready to charge damnation upon thy self thou doest the greatest injury to the Lord Jesus Christ that can be For in it thou directly overthrowest the fulness of the grace of Christ Here Mr. G. although he grant the matter that none ought to charge Damnation upon another Yet lest he should altogether want matter of a Quarrel he lays to him 1. The unnecessary use of Logick because he proves what he saith though for any Terms of Logick he here useth none 2. Of Law-Terms because he useth the Phrase of serving a Writ of Damnation 3. Of Exceeding Heat because he saith it is a desperate thing in any man to serve such a Writ I entreat the Christian Reader to pardon me if I pass by such trivial Cavils which to recite is to refute which serve to nothing but to blot Paper to engender strife to hinder men from more weighty and serious Matter Sect. 8. But is the charging Damnation upon a mans self the greatest injury that can be done to Christ I Answer that to stretch such expressions as these upon the tentors is a very uncourteous thing When a man dehorts another from any vice what is more usual then to tell him that such a vice such a course is the most dangerous way he can go in that such company is the most dangerous company he can consort with Were it not a frivolous thing to draw such manner of speeches to the exact laws of comparison What sin saith Luther can be more execrable or horrible than to reject the grace and refuse that righteousness that commeth by Christ Which every one doth for the time he doth not believe it And a little after This Blasphemy is more horrible than can be expressed There is no sin which Paul and the other Apostles did so much detest as the contempt of grace and the denial of Christ and yet there is no sin more common And a little after he tells us further that all the world do so And upon the next ver 21. He adds that as the whole world do this so especially such as will be counted more Holy and Religious than others Were it not a frivolous thing to alledg that the false Teachers amongst the Galathians might have been more execrable in their Blasphemy if they had utterly excluded Christ For now they went about to joyn the Law together with him for justification But this saith Mr. G. is the next way to make men believe they have sinned against the Holy Ghost Is it so to tell them that they ought not to charge Damnation upon themselves To charge the sin against the Holy Ghost upon themselves is inevitably to charge Damnation upon them which he so earnestly dehorts Yea but the greatest injury to the Lord Jesus is to sin against the Holy Ghost So that if they that have charged Damnation upon themselves have done the greatest injury to Christ then have they sinned against the Holy Ghost I Answer that where Christ hath distinguished we ought not to confound Christ hath said there is Sin and Blasphemy against him and there is Sin and Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost He saith that all Sin and Blasphemy against him shall be forgiven unto men but the Sin against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven Now here Mr. G. goes about to overthrow this distinction of Christ telling us that the greatest injury to Christ is the sin against the Holy Ghost but he must pardon us if we take Christs word before his at least till he have proved it better for here he offereth no proof at all but his own word directly against Christs Matt. 12.31 But surely saith he those that curse and swear by the name of the Lord Jesus by his blood and wounds c. And such as deny Christ at Peter did and persecute him as the Scribes and Pharisees did do greater injury to Christ than they that charge Damnation upon themselves for their past sins Oh Mr. G. You look with the Pharisees to much upon the outside These sins are more outward and obvious and are more sensible than the secret unbelief of the heart Is unbelief therefore less wicked Is it not the fountain from whence all these wickednesses flow Was it not want or weakness of faith that brought out all these you mention You should rather have gathered from such horrible effects the greater horribleness of the cause You know the ordinary Axiome Quod facit tale est magis tale 1. As unbelief bringeth forth all wickedness so it is the greatest of all wickedness 2. Which is more pertinent to the present purpose Unbelief as I have often heard Mr. Reinolds whom you cite in your Preface say is that which binds all the load of a mans other sins upon his back and thereby it is the main condemning sin If a man have received many deadly wounds yet if there be one medicine that would certainly heal them all and but one the rejection of this one medicine must needs be worse and more dangerous and destructive than all the wounds And the Dr. saith that such unbelief directly overthrows the fulness of the grace and satisfaction of Christ See here the Courtesy of Mr. G's Language He will not say this is a direct lye But it is utterly false Why For saith he when they thus charge damnation upon themselves they do not question Christs Satisfaction or Fulness of grace but their own Faith and Condition fearing they are none of Christs Here is a good boulster and Apology for unbelief It doth not question Gods Grace but the Apostle John is of another mind He that believeth not hath made him a Lyar because he hath not believed the Testimony that God gave of his Son This is the Testimony that God hath given