therefore so under the law i. the feare and terrour of the law as they were the summe of all this is that although we are not so under the law 1. so accompanied and 2. so dispensed as they were under the Old Testament yet this hinders not but that we are under the directive power of the Law as well as they Thesis 109. The Apostle speakes of a law written and engraven on stones and therefore of the morall Law which is now abolished by Christ in the Gospel 2 Cor. 3.6 7 11 13. Is the morall law therefore abolished as a rule of life now no verily but the meaning of this place is as the former Gal. 3.25 for the Apostle speaking of the morall Law by a Synecdoche comprehends the ceremoniall law also both which the false Teachers in those times urged as necessary to salvation and justification at least together with Christ against whom the Apostle here disputes the morall Law therefore is abolished first as thus accompanied with a yoke of Ceremonies secondly as it was formerly dispensed the glorious and greater light of the Gospel now obscuring that lesser light under the Law and therefore the Apostle vers 10. doth not say that there was no glory shining in the Law but it had no comparative glory in this respect by reason of the glory which excelleth and lastly the Apostle may speak of the morall Law considered as a Covenant of life which the false teachers urged in which respect he cals it the Ministry of death and the letter which killeth and the ministers of it who were called Nazarei and Minei as Bullinger thinks the Ministers of the letter which although it was virtually abolished to the beleeving Jews before Gospell times the vertue of Christs death extending to all times yet it was not then abolished actually untill Christ came in the flesh and actually undertooke to fullfill this Covenant for us to the utmost farthing of doing and suffering which is exacted and now it is abolished both virtually and actually that now we may with open face behold the glory of the Lord as the end of the law for righteousnesse to every one that doth beleeve Thesis 110. The Gospell under which Beleevers now are requires no doing say some for doing is proper to the Law the Law promiseth life and requires conditions but the Gospell say they promiseth to work the condition but requires none and therefore a beleever is now wholly free from all Law but the Gospell and Law are taken two waies 1. Largely the Law for the whole doctrine contained in the Old Testament and the Gospell for the whole doctrine of Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament 2. Strictly the Law pro lege operum as Chamier distinguisheth and the Gospell pro lege fidei i. for the Law of faith the Law of works strictly taken is that Law which reveals the favour of God and eternall life upon condition of doing or of perfect obedience the Law of faith strictly taken is that doctrine which reveals remission of sins reconciliation with God by Christs righteousnesse onely apprehended by faith now the Gospell in this latter sence excludes all works and requires no doing in point of justification and remission of sins before God but only beleeving but take the Gospel largely for the whole doctrine of Gods love and free grace and so the Gospel requires doing for as 't is an act oâ— Gods free grace to justifie a man without calling for any works thereunto so 't is an act of the same free grace to require works of a person justified and that such poor sinners should stand before the Son of God on his throne to minister unto him and serve him in righteousnesse and holinesse all the daies of our lives Tit. 2.14 and for any to think that the Gospell requires no conditions is a sudden dream against hundreds of Scriptures which contain conditionall yet evangelicall promises and against the judgement of the most judicious of our Divines who in dispute against Popish writers cannot but acknowledge them only thus viz. conditions and promises annexed to obedience are one thing saith learned Perable and conditions annexed to perfect obedience are another the first are in the Gospel the other not works are necessary to salvation saith Chamier necessitate praesentiae not efficientiae and hence he makes two sorts of conditions some antecedentes which work or merit salvation and these are abandoned in the Gospel otherâ— he saith are consequentes which follow the state of a man justified and these are required of one already justified in the Gospell there are indeed no conditions required of us in the Gospel but those onely which the Lord himselfe shall or hath wrought in us and which by requiring of us he doth worke will it therefore follow that no condition is required in us but because every condition is promised no verily for requiring the condition is the meanes to worke it as might be plentifully demonstrated and meanes and end should not be separated Faith it selfe is no antecedent condition to our justification or salvation take antecedent in the usuall sence of some Divines for affecting or meriting condition which Iunius cals essentialis conditio but take antecedent for a means or instrument of justification and receiving Christs righteousnesse in this sence it is the only antecedent condition which the Gospel requires therein because it doâ—h only antecedere or go before our justification at least in order of nature not to merit it but to receive it not to make it but to make it our own not as the matter of our righâ—eousness or any part of it but as the only means of apprehending Christs righteousnesse which is the only cause why God the Father justifieth and therefore as Christs righteousnesse must go before as the matter and moving cause of our justification or that for which we are justified so faith must go before this righteousnesse as an instrument or applying cause of it by which we are justified that is by meanes of which we apply that righteousnesse which makes us just 'T is true God justifies the ungodly but how not immediately without faith but mediately by faith as is most evident from that abused text Rom. 4.5 When works and faith are opposed by the Apostle in point of justification affirming that we are justified by faith not by works he doth hereby plainly affirm and give that to faith which he denies to works look therefore as he denies works to be antecedent conditions of our justification he affirms the contrary of faith which goes before our justification as hath been explained and therefore as doe and live hath been accounted good Law or the Covenant of works so beleeve and live hath been in former times accounted good Gospel or the Covenant of grace untill now of late this wilde age hath found out new Gospels that Paul and the Apostles did never dream of Thesis 111. A servant and a son may
with the holy Ghost when they heard this Gospel thus preached upon condition of beleeving Act. 10.43 Doth not the Apostle say that the Gospell is the power of God to salvation because therein is Christs righteousnesse revealed not to sinners as sinners but from faith to faith The condition of works is impossible to be wrought in us by the Spirit but the condition of faith though it be impossible for us to work it in our hearts yet it is possible easie and unusuall for God to work it by requiring of it Ier. 3.22 which is no prejudice to Gods free-grace because faith is purposely required and wrought because it chiefly honours and advanceth free-grace Rom. 4 16. The promise is of faith that it might be by grace If Mr W.C. will not preach Christ upon beleeving how will he or any man else preach it Will they tell all men that God loves them and that Christ hath died for them that he that gives grace and salvation will work faith in them Truly thus W.C. seems to affirm but if they shall preach so to all sinners as sinners and tell â—hem absolutely God will work faith in them also I suppose that the Church wals and plentifull and abundant experience would testifie against this falsehood and the Scripture testifies sufficiently that every man shall not have faith to whom the Gospel is preached Now I do beseech the God and father of lights to pitty his straying servants who are led into these deep and dangerous delusions thorow feeble mistake of the true difference between old and new Testament Ministries and that he would pity his people for whose sins God hath let loose these blinding anct hardning doctrines by means of which they are tempted to receive that as the Gospel of truth which is but a meer lye and to take that as an evidence of salvation that is in truth the evidence of perdition and condemnation as hath been shewn Thesis 118. The second thing remains to be cleared whether sanctification may not be a first evidence and therefore more then a carnall inferiour and last evidence as Mr Saltmarsh cals it For if it be not a doubtfull but a clear and certain evidence in it self as hath been proved why may it not be a first evidence why may not the Spirit of God who works it in a person justified first reveal it as an evidence that he is justified What mortall man can limit the Spirit of God to what evidence he shall first bring in to the conscience of a justified estate For let sanctification be taken in the largest sense for any work of saving grace wrought in the Elect whether in vocation to faith or in sanctification which strictly taken followes our justification by faith and take evidence not for evidence of the object for Christ Jesus in his free-grace must be seen first as the ground on which faith rests but for evidence of testimony to the subject and then I thus argue that this first evidence of speciall actuall love in beholding Gods free-grace to a sinner it is either 1. Without the being of faith and other graces Or 2. Without the seeing of them only the eye looking up only to Christ and free-grace But this first evidence is not without the being of faith and holinesse for then it should be to a man actually under the power of sin and his filthy lusts and the devil which hath been already proved in the former Thesis to be a meer delusion there being no such word of the Gospel which reveals Gods free love and actual reconciliation to a sinner as a sinner and as under the power of his sins but the Gospel rather reveals the quite contrary and to affirm the witnesse of the Spirit clears this up is to pretend a testimony of the Spirit contrary to the testimony of the world and yet I strongly fear and do fully beleeve that this is the first evidence which some men plead for viz. to see Gods love toward them while they neither see grace or any change of heart in them or have grace but are still under the dominion of their sin And on the other side if any affirm that this evidence is not without the being of grace but onely without the seeing of it so that a Christians first evidence is the seeing of Gods free grace out of himself without seeing any faith or grace in himself and seeing nothing else but sin in himself this I confesse is nearer the truth but it is an errour which leads a man to a precipice and near unto the pit for if this be so then these things will unavoidably follow 1. That a Christian must see the love of God toward him in Christ and yet must not see himself to be the person to whom this love onely belongs for according to this very opinion it self it belongs only to a beleever and one that hath the being of grace and not to a sinner as a sinner 2. Then a Christian must not see the love of Christ and free grace of God by that proposition or testimony of the Spirit which reveals it and that is this Tu fidelis thou Beleever called and sanctified art freely beloved and thus a man must not see his estate good by the light of the spirit nay thus a Christian must receive the testimony of the Spirit which assures him that he is loved without understanding the meaning of the Spirit which is not thou sinner as such but thou Beleever art beloved not thou that hast no grace but thou that hast the being of it art beloved 3. Then the first evidence is built upon a meer weaknesse nay upon an untruth and falsehood for it is a meer weaknesse not to see that which we should see viz. the being of faith and grace in the heart in which respect the promise is sealed and if any man by not seeing it shall think and say there is no grace no faith no sanctification and now he sees Gods love to such a one and he thinks himself to be such a one when he sees Gods free grace and hath this first evidence it is a falsehood and an untruth for it is supposed to be there in the being of it all this while suppose therefore that some Christians at their first return and conversion to God or afterward have grace and faith but see it not in their assurance of Gods love the eminency of the object and good of it swallowing up their thoughts and hearts from attending themselves yet the question is quo jure they do not see nay should not see and take notice of the being of them in themselves Is not this a meer weaknesse and falsehood which is now made the mystery of this first evidence and indeed somewhat like Cusanus his summa sapientia which he makes to be this viz. Attingere illud quod est inattingibile inattingibiliter That a Christian must see and touch Gods deep love and yet neither
see not touch nor feel any change in himselfe or any being of grace when in truth it is there in which respect also Gods free-grace and love is revealed 4. If this be the first evidence then no Minister no nor any Apostle of Christ Jesus can give any first evidence of Gods love by the ordinary dispensation of the Gospel for although a Minister may say Thou art a sinner therefore the Lord Jesus may save thee yet he cannot say upon that ground that therefore the Lord Jesus will save him for then every sinner should be saved No Minister can say to any unbeleever Christ hath redeemed thee therefore beleeve or say absolutely Thy sins are pardoned for then he should preach contrary to the word which expressely tels us That he that beleeves not is already condemned No minister can say God will work faith in all you that are sinners as hath been shewn but they can say Thou Beleever are pardoned thou that art sanctified art reconciled c. It is therefore an evill speech of one lately in print who cals That a bastard assurance arising from a lying spirit which first proceeds from the sight of any grace and thence concludes they are justified and shall be saved For I would thus argue that this worke of grace suppose love to the Saints hunger and thirst after righteousnesse universall respect to all Gods Commandments c. it is either common to hypocrites and unsound or else it is peculiar to the elect and sincere If the first then it cannot be either first or second evidence it can be no evidence at all either without or with seeing first Gods free love to sinners as sinners if the second then either Gods promise made to such as are hungry and humble and have a work peculiar to Gods elect in them must be fals which is blasphemous to imagine or else whensoever it is seen whether first or last it must needs be a most blessed and sweet and sure evidence for when we say that such a work of grace may be a first evidence we do not mean as if the work simply considered in it self could give in any evidence but only as the free promise of grace is made to such as have such a work of grace this promise we say to such persons whensoever they see this work gives in full and clear evidence of their blessed estate And if the word of grace to a sinner as a sinner may give in a first evidence as some imagine then much more may it give in evidenceâ— where there is not only the word of grace but also the spirit of grace yea the work of grace to assure the conscience and for any to affirm that faith and sanctification are good evidences if justification be first evident is but a quirk of frothy wit for it may be as safely affirmed on the contrary that justification is a good evidence if faith and sanctification he first evident for 't is not these simply but the promise which is our evidence which is never to a sinner as such I shall therefore conclude these things with shewing the true grounds of effectuall evidence of the love of Christ. Thesis 119. The free-grace of God in Christ not works is the only sure foundation of justifying faith or upon which faith is built Rom. 3.24 25. 1 Pet. 2.4 5 6. Mat. 16.18 This free-grace therefore must first be revealed by the Spirit of God in the Ministry of the Gospel in order unto faith Rom. 10.14 15. Eph. 1.13 which generall revelation of free-grace some make to be the first evidence on which faith rests and thus far it is true but now this free-grace is revealed two waies 1. In the free offer of it to be our own by receiving it Act. 10.43 Gal. 2.16 2. In the free promise of it revealing it as our own already having actually and effectually received it Ioh. 1.12 Rom. 5.1 2. 1 Ioh. 5.12 The free offer of grace containing Gods call commandment and beseechings to beleeve and be reconciled gives us right to this possession of Christ or to come and take and so possesse Christ Jesus by faith Ierem. 3.22 1 Cor. 1.9 Rom. 1.5 6. The free promise of grace containing revealed immutable purposes and actual assurances of present and future grace gives us right to the fruition of Christ or to enjoy Christ as a free gift when 't is offered the command and desire of the donor to receive it to be our own gives us right and powet to possesse it and when it is received his promise to us assuring us that it is and shall continue our own gives us right and priviledge to enjoy it and make use of it For by two immutable things the promise confirmed by oath we have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to the hope before us Heb. 6.17 18 19. The free offer is the first ground of our faith why we receive Christ to be our own but the free promise is the first ground of the assurance of faith why we are assured and perswaded that he is our own already for the Gospel containing three things 1. The revelation of Christ 2. The offer of Christ. 3. The promise of Christ to all those that receive this offer Hence faith which runs parallell with the Gospel the proper object of it first sees Christ secondly receives Christ thirdly is assured of the love of Christ having received him The free offer of grace being made to the soul because it is poor and sinfull cursed and miserable and that therefore it would receive Christ hence it is that in this respect the soul is not bound first to see some good in it self and so to receive him but rather is bound at first breathings of God upon it rather to see no good i. nothing but sin and perdition death and darknesse enmity and weaknesse and therefore to receive him Luk. 14.21 Revel 3.17 18. Gal. 3.22 Rom. 11.32 Hos. 13.3 But the promise of free-grace being actually given to the soul and not declared only as it is in the free offer because it hath received Christ already by which he is actually its own hence it is that in this respect the soul is bound to see some good or saving work of grace in it self first and so embrace and receive the promise and Christ Jesus in it So that although in receiving Christ to be our own we are to see no good in our selves wherefore we should receive him or beleeve in him yet in receiving him as our own already we must first see some good the work of free grace in us or else we have no just ground thus to receive him No man can challeng any promise belonging to him without having a part in Christ the foundation of them no man can have Christ but by receiving of him or beleeving in him Ioh. 1.12 Hence therefore they that say that the first evidence of Gods love and free grace or actuall favour iâ— to
and weaknesse it made him die unto it and expect no life from it and so live unto God in his sanctification for so the words are I through the Law am dead to the Law that I may live unto God Gal. 2.19 the issue therefore is this that if the doctrine be taken strictly pro lege fidei as Chamier cals it or that doctrine which shews the way of mans righteousnesse and justification only there indeed all the works of the law all terrours and threatnings are to be excluded and nothing else but peace pardon grace favour eternall reconciliation to be beleeved and received and therefore it 's no new Testament Ministry to urge the Law or to thunder out any terrour here for in this sence it 's true which is commonly received that in the Law there are terrours but in the Gospel none but if the Gospel be taken largely for all that doctrine which brings glad tidings of Christ already come and shews the love of God in the largest extent of it and the illustrations and confirmations of it from the law then such servants of Jesus Christ who hold forth the law to make way for grace and to illustrate Châ—ists love must either be accounted New Testament Ministers or else as hath been shewne Christ Jesus and his Apostles were none Thesis 115. The second is a professed neglect and casting off the work of repentance and mourning for sin nay of asking pardon of sin for if the Law be no rule to shew man his duty why should any man then trouble himself with sorrow for any sin for if it be no rule to him how should any thing be sin to him and if so why then should any ask pardon of it or mourn under it why should not a man rather harden his heart like an Adamant and make his forehead brasse and iron even unto the death against the feeling of any sin but what doctrine is more crossâ— to the Spirit of grace in Gospel times then this which is a Spirit of mourning Zâ—c 12.10 11. what doctrin more crosse to the expresse comand of Christ from heaven then this who writes from heaven to the Church of Ephesus to remember from whence she is fallen and repent Rev. 2.5 what doctrine more crosse to the example of holy men then this who after they were converted then repented and lamented most of all Ier. 31.18.19 2 Cor. 7.9.10 11. what doctrine more crosse to the salvation of souls the mercy of God and forgivenesse of sin for so the promise runs if we confesse our sinnes he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins 1 Joh. 1.9 what doctrine so crosse to the Spirit of the love of Christ shed abroad in the heart that when a mans sins are greatest which is after conversion because now against more love and more nearnesse to Jesus Christ that now a beleevers sorrow should be least monkish and macerating sorrow indeed is loathsome but godly sorrow is sweet and glorious doubtlesse those mens blindenesse is exceeding great who know not how to reconcile joy and sorrow in the same subject who cannot with one eye behold their free justification and therein daily rejoyce and the weaknesse and imperfection of their sanctification with another eye and for that mourn Thesis 116. The third thing is a denying sanctification the honour of a faithfull and true witnesse or cleare evidence of our justification for if a beleever be not bound to look unto the Law as his rule why should he then have any eye to his sanctâ—fication which is nothing else but our habituall conformity to the Law as inherent corruption is nothing else but habituall disagreement with it although sanctification be no part of our righteousnesse before God and in this sence is no evidence of our justification yet there is scarce any clearer truth in all the Scripâ—uâ—e then this viz. that it is an evidence that a man is in a justified estate and yet this leven which denies the Law to be a Christians rule of life hath sowred some mens spiritâ— against this way of evidencing It is a doubtfull evidence saith Dâ— Crisp an argument not an evidence it is a carnall and an inferiour evidence the last and the least not the first evidence it is an evidence if justification be first evident say Den and Saltmarsh some men may be led to these opinions from other principles then a plain denyall of the directive use of the Law but this I feare lies undermost however let these two things be examined 1. Whether sanctification be a doubtfull evidence 2. Whether it be a carnall inferiour and may not be a first evidence Thesis 117. If to be under the power and dominion of sin and Originall corruption be a sure and certain evidence of actuall condemnation so that he that saith he knows Christ and hath fellowshâ—p with him and yet walks in darknesse and keeps not his Commandments is a lyar 1 Ioh. 1.6 2.4 why may not sanctification then whereby we are set free from the power of sin be a sure and certain evidence of our actuall justification for hereby we know that we know him if we keep his Commandements 1 Joh. 2 3. whereby it is manifest that the Apostle is not of their mindes who think the negative to be true viz. that they that keep not Christs commandments are in a state of perdition but they will not make the affirmative true viz. that they that keep his Commandments may thereby know that they are in a state of salvation If Jesus Christ be sent to blesse his people in turning them from their iniquities Act. 3. ult then they that know they are turned from their iniquities by him may know certainly that they are blessed in him and if they be not thus turned they may know certainly that they are yet accursed If godlinesse hath the promises of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 and if the free grace and actuall love of God be revealed clearly to us only by some promise how then is sanctification so near akin to godlinesse excluded from being any evidence is there no inherent grace in a beleever that no inherent sanctification can be a true evidence verily thus some do think but what is this but an open gracelesse profession thrr every beleever is under the power of inherent sin if he hath not the being of any inherent grace or if there be any inherent grace yet it is say some so mixt with corruption and is such a spotted and blurd evidence that no man can discern it I confesse such an answer would well become a blinde Papist who never knew where grace grew for so they dispute against certitudo salutis certitudine fidei when the conclusion of faith ariseth from such a proposition as is the word of God and the assumption the testimony of Gods Spirit to a mans own experience of the work of God in his heart but it ill beseems a
a sinner as a sinner had need consider what they say for is it to a sinner as possest with Christ and receiving of him or as dispossest of Christ not having of him but rather refusing and rejecting of him If they say the first they then speak the truth but then they raze down their own pernicious principle that Christ and Gods love belongs to them As sinners If they affirm the latter then they do injuriously destroy Gods free grace and the glory of Christ who think to possesse promises without possessing Christ or to have promises of grace without having Christ the foundation of them all For though the common love of God as the bare offer of grace is may be manifested without having Christ yet speciall actuall love cannot be actually our own without having and first receiving of him And if the Spirit of God convince the world of sin and consequently of condemnation while they do not beleeve Ioh. 16.9 I wonder how it can then convince them of pardon of sin and reconciliation before they do beleeve unlesse we will imagine it to be a lying spirit which is blasphemous These things not considered of have and do occasion much errour at this day in the point of evidencing and hath been an inlet of deep delusion and open gaps have been made hereby to the loose waies and depths of Familism and grosse Arminianism and therefore being well considered of are sufficient to clear up the waies of those faithfull servants of the Lord who dare not sow pillows nor cry peace to the wicked much lesse to sinners as sinners both from the slanderous imputation of legall ministrations after an old Testament manner as also of making works the ground of faith or the causes of assurance of faith the free offer being the ground of the one and the free promise the cause and ground of the other Briefly therefore 1. The free offer of grace is the first evidence to a poor lost sinner that he may be beloved 2. The receiving of this offer by faith relatively considered in respect of Christs spotlesse righteousnesse is the first evidence shewing why he is beloved or what hath moved God actually to love him 3. The worke of sanctification which is the fruit of our receiving this offer is the first evidence shewing that he is beloved If therefore a condemned sinner be asked whether God may love him and why he thinks so he may answer Because Jesus Christ is held forth and offered to such a one If he be further asked why or what he thinks should move God to love him he may answer Because I have received Christs righteousnesse offered for which righteousnesse sake only I know I am beloved now I have received it If he be asked lastly how he knows certainly that he is beloved he may answer safely and confidently Because I am sanctified I am poor in spirit therefore mine is the kingdom of heaven I do mourn and therefore I shall be comforted I do hunger and thirst and therefore I shall be satisfied c. We need in time of distresse and temptation all these evidences and therefore it is greatest wisdom to pray for that spirit which may clear them all up unto us rather then to contend which should be the first And thus we see that the whole morall law is our rule of life and consequently the law of the Sabbath which is a branch of this rule We now proceed to shew the third branch of things generally and primarily morall Thesis 120. Thirdly Not only a day nor only a rest day but the rest day or Sabbath day which is expressed and expressely interpreted in the Commandment to be the seventh day or a seventh day of Gods determining and therefore called The Sabbath of the Lord our God is here also enjoined and commanded as generally morall For if a day be morall what day must it be If it be said that any day which humane wisdom shall determine whether one day in a hundred or a thousand or one day in many years if this only be generally morall then the rule of morality may be broken because the rule of equality may be thus broken by humane determination For it may be very unequall and unjust to give God one day in a hundred or a thousand for his worship and to assume so many beside to our selves for our own use There is therefore something else more particularly yet primarily morall in this Command and that is The Sabbath day or such a day wherein there appears an equal division and a fit proportion between time for rest and time for work a time for God and a time for man and that is a â—â—venth day which God determines A fit proportion of time for God is morall because equal man cannot determine nor set out this proportion God therefore only can and must A day therefore that he shall determine is morall and if he declares his determination to a seventh A seventh day is therefore morall Gomarus confesseth that by the Analogy of this Commandment not one day in a thousand or when man pleaseth but that one day in seven is morall at least equal fit and congruous to observe the same and if the Analogy he speaks of ariseth virtute mandati divini or by vertue of Gods Commandment the cause is in effect yielded but if this Analogy be made virtute libertatis humanae so that humane liberty may do well to give God one in seven because the Jews did so and why should Christians be more scant then I see not but humane liberty may assume power to it self to impose monthly and annuall holy daies as well because the Jews had their new moons and yearly festivals and by Analogy thereof why may not Christians who have more grace poured out upon them and more love shewn unto them under the Gospel hold some meet proportion with them therein also as well as in Sabbaths But it can never be proved that God hath left any humane wisdom at liberty to make holy daies by the rule of Jewish proportions Beside if humane wisdom see it meet and congruous to give God at least one day in seven this wisdom and reason is either regulated by some law and then 't is by vertue of the law of God that he should have one day in seven or 't is not regulated by a law and then we are left to a loose end again for man to appoint what day he sees meet in a shorter or a longer time his own reason being his only law and this neither Gomaras nor the words of the Commandment will allow which sets and fixeth the day which we see is one day in seven which not man but God shall determine and therefore called The Sabbath of the Lord our God Thesis 121. The hardest knot herein to unloose lies in this to know whether a seventh day in generall which God shall determine or that particular Seventh day from the creation be
holy Ghost Rev. 22. yet it 's a grosse mistake and most absurd to make every metaphor or similitude and allusion to be a type for the husbandman sowing of the seed is a similitede of preaching of the word Mat. 13. and yet it 's no type of it an effectionate lover and husband is in sundry Scriptures a similitude and resemblance of Christs affection and love to his Church and spouse the head and members of mans body are similitudes of Christ the head and the Church his members but will any affirm that these are also types of Christ and just thus was Paradise and the Tree of life in it they were similitudes to which the holy Ghost alludes in making mention of Christ and his Church but they were no types of them there was typus fictus in them or arbitrarius which is all one with a similitude but there was no Typus destinatus therein being never purposely ordained to shadow out Christ for the Covenant of works by which Adam was to live is directly contrary to the Covenant of grace by faith in Christ Rom. 11.6 by which we are to live Christ is revealed only in the Covenant of grace and therefore could not be so revealed in the Covenant of works directly contrary thereunto Adam therfore was not capable of any types then to reveal Christ to him of whom the first Covenant cannot speak and of whom Adam stood in no need no not so much as to confirm him in that estate for with leave I think that look as Adam breaking the first Covenant by sinne he is become immutably evill and miserable in himself according to the rule of justice in that Covenant so suppose him to have kept that Covenant all his posterity had been immutably happy and holy not meerly by grace but by the same equity and justice of that first Covenant and hence it follows that he stood in no need of Christ or any Revelation of him by types no not to confirm him in that Covenant I know in some sence whatever God communicates to his creature in way of justice may be saîd to be conveyed in a way of grace if grace be taken largly for that which is conveyed out of Gods free will and good pleasure as all things in the world are even to the acceptance of that wherein there is most merit and that is Christs death and satisfaction for sinne but this is but to play with words for it 's clear enough by the Apostles verdict that grace strictly taken is opposite to works Rom. 11.6 the law of works which only reveals doing and life to the law of faith which only reveals Christ and life under which Covenant of grace Adam was not and therefore had no types then to shadow out Christ to say that Paradise and the Tree of life were types by way of anticipation as some lately affirm is as much as to say that they were not types then and therefore neither these nor the Sabbath were Ceremoniall then and that is sufficient for what we aim at only 't is observable that this unsound expression leads into more palpable errours for as they make the Tree of life Typicall by Anticipation so they make the marriage of Adam and Eve and consequently the marriage of all mankinde typicall and then why should not all marriages cease when Christ the Antitype is come nay they make the rivers and precious stones and gold in Paradise thus Typicall of Christ and his Church Rev. 21. and then why may they not make the Angels in heaven Typicall because men on earth who pour out the Vials are resembled to them and why may not men riding upon white Horses be typicall because Christ is so resembled Rev. 19.11 Pererius who collects out of Hugo de vict a type of the whole new Creation in all the works of six daies first Creation may please himself as other Popish Proctors do with such like shady speculations and Phantasmes and so bring in the Seventh day for company to be Typicall also but a good and healthfull stomack should be exceeding fearfull of a little feeding on such windy meat nor do I think that Hugo's new creation is any more Antitypicall to the first six daies Creation then Damascenes types in the fourth Commandment who makes Thou thy son thy daughter thy servant the stranger to be types of our sinfull affections of spirit and the oxe and the asse figures of the flesh and sensuall partâ— both which he saith must rest upon the Sabbath day Thesis 179. If therefore the Sabbath was given to Adam in innocency before all types nay before the least promise of Christ whom such types must shadow forth then it cannot be in its first and native institution typicall and ceremoniall but morall and therefore in it's first and originall institution of which we speak it did not typifie either our rest in Christ from sinne in this life or our rest with God in heaven in another life or any other imagined rest which mans wit can easily invent and invest the Sabbath with but look as our Saviour in reforming the abuses in marriage câ—ls us to the first institution so to know what is perpetuall in the Sabbath it 's most safe to have recourse hither which when it was first observed we see was no way typicall but morall and if man no way clogg'd with sin and earth had then need of a Sabbath have not we much more Thesis 180. As before the Fall the Sabbath was originally and essentially morall so after the fall it became accidentally typicall i. it had a type affixed to it though of it's own nature it neither was nor is any type at all God affixed a farther end unto it after the Fall to be of farther use to type out somewhat to Gods people while in the substance of it it remaineth morall and hence it is that a Seventh day remains morall and to be observed but not that Seventh day which was formerly kept nor have we that end of resting which was under the Law but this end only that we might more immediatly and specially converse with God which was the main end of the Sabbaths rest before mans fall for if the Sabbath had been essentially typicall then it should be abolished wholly and no more remembrance of it then of new moones and Jubilees but because it was for substance morall being extant before the fall and yet had a type affixed to it after the fall hence a Seventh day is still preserved but that Seventh day is now abolished and hence new moons and other Jewish Festivals as they are wholly Ceremoniall in their birth so they are wholly abolished without any change of them into other daies as this of the Sabbath is in their very being Thesis 181. There are sundry Scriptures alledged to prove the Sabbath to be typicall and ceremoniall out of the old and new Testament as Isa. 66.23 Gal 4.10 Rom. 14.4 5. Col. 2.16 but if
Christ to be beholding to any of the light upon Moses face It seemes then that the law written is not to be a Christians rule but onely so farre as it is written in the heart a most accursed assertion for how and why did Christ Jesus himselfe resist temptation to sinne was it not by cleaving to the written word Matth. 44.10 and was not this done for our imitation why did David and Christ Iesus delight to doe Gods will was it not this because it was written of them that so they should doe Psa. 40.7 8. Did not the law in their hearts make them thus cleave to the written law without Why did Paul perswade Children to honour their parents was it not because this was the first Commandment with promise Ephes. 6.2 had it not been more Evangelically spoken to perswade them rather to look to the law of Moses written on their hearts within to direct them hereunto rather than to be beholding for any light upon Moses face to direct them herein how comes it to passe that Paul preacheth no other thing but what was in the old Testament of Moses and the Prophets who were onely the Interpreters of Moses Acts 22.20 How is it that Christ himselfe borrowes light from Moses Psalmes and all the Prophets to cleare up his resurrection and suffering Luke 24.27 32 if no light must bee borrowed from the face of Moses if indeed wee were perfect in this life as wee shall bee in heaven there would then bee no need of the writings of the Apostles Prophets or Moses of Law or Gospell but we being but imperfectly enlightned it 's no lesse than extreame ingratitude and unthankfulnesse to preferre our owne imperfect and impure light before that perfect spotlesse and heavenly Law and counsels of God without us which when the most perfect beleever doth see he may cry out with Paul The Law is holy but I am carnall what is this but painted Popery to make the spirit within to be the supreame Iudge and superiour to the Spirit of God in the written word without onely they shrine it up in the Popes private Conclave and Kitchin or somewhat worse but these in a company of poore imperfect deluded and perhaps corrupted men it 's true the Covenant of grace strictly taken in the Gospel needs not to borrow any light from the Covenant of works in the Law but yet for all this the grace of God appearing in the Gospel will have us to walk worthy of God unto all well pleasing according to the Law Tit. 2.12 13. and to mourne bitterly that we are so unlike the will and image of God revealed in the Law Rom. 7.23 24. Thesis 105. The Apostle Paul as he sometimes condemnes works and sometime commends them so he sometimes rejects the Law and sometimes commends the Law sometime hee would have Beleevers dye to the law and sometime hee exhorts them to live in all holy obedience to it the Apostle therefore must speak of the Law under various considerations or else must speake Daggers and flat contradictions and therefore of necessity wee are to consider the Law not alway under one respect but variously for consider the law as a Covenant of workes or as the way unto or matter of our justification and so works are condemned and the Law is rejected and abrogated and so we are to die to the Law but consider the Law as a rule of life to a person justified already and so the Law is to be received and works are to bee commended and we are to live thereunto Thesis 106. When the Gospel nakedly urgeth Beleevers to good workes and obedience to the Law it is then considered onely as a rule of life but when wee meet with such Scriptures as set the Law and Christ the Law and grace the Law and promise the Law and faith c. at opposition one against another then the Law in such places is ever considered as a Covenant of life from which we are wholly freed and unto which we should be wholly dead that weâ— may be married unto Christ Rom. 7.4 hence therefore their arguings are feeble and weak who would prove a Christian to be wholly free from the directive power of the Law because a Christian is said not to be under the law but under grace Rom. 6.14 and because the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ Iohn 1.17 and because the inheritance is not by the law but by promise and by faith Gal. 3.12.18 for these and such like Scriptures speake of the law as standing in opposition to Christ and therefore speake of it as of a Covenant of life by which men seek to be justified from which we grant a Beleever is wholly freed and unto which hee is not bound nay hee is bound to renounce it and cast out this bond-woman but all this doth not prove that he is free from it as his rule of life Thesis 107. The Law and mans sinfull heart are quite opposite one to another Rom. 7.9 10 11 13. but when through the grace of Christ the heart is changed so as there is a new nature or new man in a beleever then there is a sweet agreement between this new nature and the Law for saith Paul I delight in the Law of God in my inner man it is therefore a most false assertion to say that the old man of a Beleever is to be kept under the law but the new man or new nature is above all Law for though the new nature bee above it as a legall covenant yet it never comes to be willingly under it as a rule untill now an imperfect new nature is infinitely glad of the guidance of a holy and most perfect law Psalme 119.140 Thesis 108. It is very evident that the children and sonnes of God under the new Testament are not so under the Law as the children and sonnes of God were under the old Testament for the Apostle expressely tels Gal. 3.23 that before the faith came we i. the children of the Old Testament were shut up and kept under the Law and were under it as under a Schoolmaster verse 24. and these of whom the Apostle thus speaks are not onely wicked and carnall Jewes but the deare children of God and heires of eternall life in those times as is evident from Gal. 4 1 2 3. but the Apostle speaking of the sonnes of God in Gospel-times since faith is come and revealed speakes as expresly that we are now no longer under the law as under a Schoolmaster Gal. 3 25. and that now when the fulnesse of time is come God sent his sonne to redeem them that were under the law that we might receive the Adoption of Sonnes Gal. 4.3 4 5. which though it bee true of all men by nature viz. that they are under the law yet an impartiall cleare eye will easâ—ly discerne that the Apostles dispute is not of our being under the Law by nature meerely
be set to do the same work and have the same rule given them to act by but the motives to this their work and the stripes and punishments for neglect of their work may be various and divers a son may be bound to it because he is a son and beloved a servant may be bound to do the same work because he is hired and shall have wages if the son neglect his work his punishment is only the chastisement of a father for his good if a servant be faulty he is turned quite out of doors So although Beleevers in Christ and those that are out of Christ haue divers and various motives to the obedience of the law of God yet these do not vary the rule the law of God is the rule to them both although they that be out of Christ have nothing but fear and hope of wages to urge them and those that are in Christ should have nothing but the love of a Father and the heart-bloud mercy of a tender Saviour and Redeemer to compell them the one may be bound to do that so they may live the other may be bound to do because they do live the one may be bound to do or else they shall be justly plagued the other may be bound to do the same or else they shall be mercifully corrected It is therefore a meer feeblenesse to think as some do that the law or rule is changed because the motives to the obedience of it and punishment for the breach of it are now unto a beleever changed and aâ—tâ—ed for the Commandment urged from Châ—ists love may binde strongly yea most strongly to doe the same thing which the same Commandment propounded and received in way of hiâ—e may binde also unto Thesis 112. Some think that there is no sin but unbelief which is a sin against the Gospel only and therefore there being no sin against any law Christ having by his death abolished all them the law cannot be a rule to them An adulterous and an evill generation made drunk with the cup of the wine of the wrath of God and strong delusion do thus argue Are drunkenesse whoredom lying cheating witchcraft oppression theft buggery no sins and consequently not to be repented of nor watcht against but only unbelief Is there no day of judgement wherein the Lord will judge men not only for unbelief but the secrets of all hearts and whatever hath been done in the body whether good or evil according to Pauls Gospel Rom. 2.16 2 Cor. 5.10 How comes the wrath of God to be revealed from heaven not only against unbelief but against all unrighteousnesse and ungodlinesse of man Rom. 1.18 If there was no sin but unbelief how can all flesh Jews and Gentiles become guilty before God that so they may beleeve in the Gospel as 't is Rom. 3 21 12 â—3 24 if they are all guiltlesse untill unbelief comes in There is no sin indeed which shall condemn a man in case he shall beleeve but will it follow from hence that there is no sin in a man but only unbelief A sick man shall not die in case he receive the Physick which will recover him but doth it follow from hence that there is no sicknesse in him or no such sicknesse which is able to kill him but only his wilfull refusing of the Physick surely his refusing of the Physick is not the cause of his sicknesse which was before not the naturall for that his sicknesse is but only the morall cause of his death Sin is before unbelief comes a sick sinner before a healing Saviour can be rejected sin kils the soul as it were naturally unbelief morally no sin shall kill or condemn us if we beleeve but doth it follow from hence that there is no sin before or after faith because there is no condemning sin unlesse we fall by unbelief No such matter and yet such is the madnesse of some prophets in these times who to abandon not only the directive use of the law but also all preparing and humbling work of the law and to make mens sinning the first foundation and ground of their beleeving do therefore either abolish all the being of any sin beside unbelief or the condemned estate of a man for sin yea for any sin untill he refuse Christ by unbelief for publishing which pernicious doctrines it had been well for them if they had never been born Thesis 113. One would wonder how any Christians should fall into this pit of perdition to deny the directive use of the law to one in Christ if either they read Ps. 119. with any savour or the Epistles of Iohn Iames with any faith in which the law is highly commended and obedience thereto urged as the happinesse and chief evidence of the happinesse of man but that certainly the root of this accursed doctrine is either a loose heart which is grown blind and bold and secretly glad of a liberty not so much from the law of sin as from the law God or if the heart be sincere in the main yet it slights the holy Scriptures at present and makes little conscience of judging in the matters of God according unto them for if it did it could hardly fall into â—his dirty ditch out of which the good Lord deliver and out of which I am perswaded he will deliver in time all those that are his own for I much question the salvation of that man who lives and dies with this opinion and as every errour is fruitfull so this is in speciall for from this darkning the directive use of the morall law arise amidst many others these ensuing evils which are almost if not altogether deadly to the souls men they are principally these three Thesis 114. The first is a shamefull neglect in some affecting foolishly the name of new Testament Ministers of a wise and powerfull preaching of the law to make way by the humbling work of it for the glorious Gospel and the affectionate entertainment thereof for through the righteous judgement of God when men once begin to abandon this use of the law as a rule they abolish much more readily this use of the law to prepare men thereby for the receiving of Christ I know there are some who acknowledge this use of the law to be our rule but not to prepare but how long they may be orthodox in the one who are heterodox in the other the Lord only knows for I finde that the chief arguments against the one do strike strongly against the other also It 's an easie thing to cast blocks before the blinde and to cast mists before the face of the clearest truth and to make many specious shews of new Testament Ministry free-grace and Covenant against this supposed legall way and preparing work but assuredly they that have found and felt the fruit and comfort of this humbling way for which I doubt not but that thousands and thousands are blessing God in heaven that ever they