the only justification which such a person is capable of being from another charge viz. from the guilt of punishment i. e. from his being actually bound over to suffer and from the suffering it self of that punishment which for his delinquency he deserved With the former kind of justification no flesh living all being sinful flesh can possibly be justified God himself with Reverence to the divine Majesty be it spoken hath no kind of power to justifie any wicked person no moral power for it is a sinful thing so to justifie the wicked Exod. 23.5 Prov. 17.15 nor physical power for the thing is simply impossible and doth imply a contradiction But with the other kind of justification any flesh living though never so sinful may and shall through Gospel-faith and obedience or an obediential faith be justified 3. As justification and forgiveness of sin are obviously and vulgarly taken Propos 3. or according to common usage of speech so they are contrary the one to the other as is light and darkness For to justifie a person in common use of the word is to free or absolve him from guilt of fault to acquit him as innocent from the fact or fault of which he is wrongfully accused And this kind of justification is by a two-fold plea either the denial of the fact hereby David justified himself from the imputations of Saul 1 Sam. 24.9 10. or by denying the fault pleading the fact to be no fault or breach of any Law whether of God by which plea Daniel justified himself against the accusation of his professed enemies Dan. 6.22 or man or both by which plea St. Paul justified himself against the accusations of his Countrey-men the Jews Act. 24.14 maintaining his innocency not only in respect of the Law of God but also of Caesar Act. 25.8 there being no Acts at that time made by any of the Caesars against Christian Religion nor till the fifth year of the reign of Claudius as History doth report So that if a person be justified in this vulgar sence of the word he is not so much as in a natural capacity of being pardoned nor if pardoned of being so justified as aforesaid I never heard of the substitution of one person in the room of another to have been allowed in criminal cases whatever allowance there hath been in pecuniary mulcts or matters pardon of sin and justification in the said vulgar sence being of so contrary a nature that if the one be affirmed of any person the other must needs be denied And in this sence of the word justifie this Author speaks truth in saying p. 416. That as to justifie and to pardon are not only wholly distinct in their Natures and Idea's but always separated in the cases of such as are arraigned at humane tribunals unless it be where the substitution of one person in the room of another is allowed and even then though they accompany one another yet they are both distinct acts and we have distinct notions of them For neither can an accused innocent by being acquitted be said to be pardoned nor a condemned criminal by having the execution of his sentence remitted be said to be justified 4. However in common usage justification and remission of sin are not only divers but also adverse things nevertheless if we speak of that peculiar kind of justification frequently mentioned in the Scripture whereof a sinner is the subject and of that kind of pardon that is peculiar to sinners so oft there mentioned a pardon conveyed by Law and purchased by the satisfaction of Christ not that kind of pardon which is ex nudâ voluntate if I say we do speak of this kind of justification and pardon then I do affirm it as an undoubted truth That justification and pardon of sin are words equivalent importing one and the self same thing without any real or substantial difference for proof whereof two or three Texts of Scriptures may suffice among several others to be produced Act. 13.38 39. Be it known to you that through this man is preach'd unto you the forgiveness of sins and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses i. e. for which the Law of Moses admitted no expiatory sacrifice in order to pardon Rom. 3.24 25. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God to declare I say at this time his righteousness that he might be just and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus i. e. of the Christian faith See also Rom. 4. where that which he calls blessedness v. 9. and Gods justifying the ungodly v. 5. he styleth Gods forgiving their iniquities and covering their sins Thence that of Grotius de satisfactione p. 38. Justificatio passim in sacris literis maxime in Epistolis Paulinis absolutionem significat quae praesupposito peccato consistit in peccatorum remissione ipso Paulo semet clare explicante praesertim Rom. 4. I might hereto add the testimony of other Authors famous in their generation were it needful By the way take notice That I have said nothing concerning his affirming that the introduction of the Law of faith hath not abrogated the Law of perfect obedience but this as well as that doth remain in force nor do I think it necessary so to have done For although some choose to say that that Law of our Creation or of God our Creator is abrogated or repealed there being no Law since the new modelling of the government of mankind but the Law of Redemption or of God our Redeemer the moral part of the original Law being taken into it as the matter thereof and others choose to assert only a dispensation or relaxation of that Law nevertheless I do humbly conceive that all things considered yet not so needful here to be mentioned that are said on both sides there is no real difference between them as to substance of truth but only in modes and manner of speaking and for that cause I can give liberty to any one to speak the truth with due caution in what words he pleaseth Only I must say That I dare not take liberty to my self to say That the Law of works doth now remain in force as well as the Law of faith without a just explication how far it doth and doth not remain now in force I well remember that two late worthy Authors do very differently express themselves touching the immediate effect of the introduction of the Law of faith The most learned Mr. George Lawson chooseth to say That the original Law of works is by the Law of faith or indempnity abrogated and repealed whereas Mr. Joseph Truman will not allow that saying instead thereof asserting it to be
Covenant or Decree of God and at the time appointed most fully make whence it is that the Apostle says He gave himself A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a counter-price a satisfaction instead of a satisfaction 1 Tim. 2.6 2. The second Law or Covenant is that wherein we sinners are the Restipulators and which in Scripture is styled The Promise The Law of Faith The Gospel The new Covenant wherein God through Christ doth promise remission of sin upon certain conditions upon performance whereof he doth accordingly bestow it upon us 3. Remission of sin may be styled Justification in respect of the profit or benefit thereof and this both special and general 1. Special In that it doth prevent remove or take away the obligation to condemnation which is due to sinners which condemnation is the direct opposite to Justification as is apparent by many Scriptures 2. In general In that it is equivalent unto or will prove to be of like universal benefit priviledge or emolument to a sinner with that kind of Justification which is the justification of a person who in himself is altogether just and never was obnoxious Thus have I replyed to the whole of what Mr. Ferguson hath said in his second Chapter concerning a sinners Justification and the imputation of Christs Righteousness unto him But before I proceed to reply to any other passage in his Book which concerns the matter in hand I will answer a Question that will come in fitly to be proposed by occasion of what hath been said upon this last namely That the justification of a sinner is By a Law CHAP. XIV Q. How is the justification of a sinner to be denominated whether Evangelical or Legal Answ Rather Evangelical and the reason assigned The Arguments of those on the contrary side both answered and retorted who acknowledge that the justification of a sinner is Evangelical ex parte principii but would not have it absolutely to be so styled but rather a Legal justification The reason why this Question is debated and answered Q. HOW is the Justification of a sinner to be denominated whether Evangelical or rather Legal Answ I propose this Question not for the satisfaction of Mr. Ferguson but for the sake of some other Brethren who may need a due information therein And my answer is That forasmuch as that Law by which a sinner is justified is The Law of Faith of Grace or of the Gospel it is therefore to be denominated not a Legal but an Evangelical Justification Herein by not Legal I must not in reason be understood to mean Not in any sence so or by no Law at all but not by the Law of works or as the word Legal is opposed to or contradistinguished from the word Evangelical And there cannot be as I think a more convincing Argument to prove That Evangelical in the case or question in hand is the fittest name than by alledging that The Law of works is not the Law By which but a Law From which i. e. by an appeal from which to the Law of grace a sinner is and is to be justified which will be granted by all viz. That the Law by which a sinner is justified is an Evangelical Law the Law of the Gospel For forasmuch as the Law by which a man was and is to be justified is two-fold 1. The Law of God Creator commonly styled Lex originalis or Law of works 2. The Law of God Redeemer called Lex remedians or the Law of grace or faith and forasmuch as the former Law was enacted as the Rule of justifying an innocent person and the latter of a sinner how can we better express the difference betwixt the justification of an innocent and a sinner than by styling the former a Legal and the latter an Evangelical Justification The peculiar species of the Law by which a person is justified is that which doth specificate the justification it self and is therefore most apt and fit to give it its peculiar denomination I desire That the answer here given may the rather be duely weighed and observ'd because it may serve to rectifie the mistake of a certain learned Author perhaps also of some other Brethren who albeit he doth allow a sinners justification to be Evangelical ex parte principii Evangelical Grace in Christ being the fountain of it and so to be called with a respect thereunto nevertheless he will not allow it roundly and absolutely to be denominated Evangelical but rather Legal for these two reasons Because it is Legal ex parte termini medii 1. Ex parte termini because it is minated in the satisfaction which is to be made or performed to the Law He hath freed me from the Law of sin and death To this I answer What he means here by the satisfaction to be made to the Law upon which the justification of a sinner is by him said to be terminated I do not know nor will I take upon me so much as to guess lest I should mistake his meaning only I will say as followeth 1. That by the Law of the Spirit of life Rom. 8.2 is meant the Evangelical Law the Gospel of Christ or Law of Faith 2. That Justification is one part at least of that saving benefit which the Apostle comprizeth under the expression of his being by that Law made free from the Law of sin and death it being as well the guilt of sin as the power of sin which by that Law he was made free from 3. Consequently I say That that Scripture proves not the Author's purpose but the direct contrary viz. That because it is by the Law of the Gospel that we are made free or justified from the guilt of our sins therefore our Justification is to be called Evangelical and not Legal 2. Respeciu medii in respec̄i of the means says he which is the Legal Righteousness of Chrifr by or through faith imputed to us To this I answer 1. As in some respect the Righteousness of Christ may be styled Justitia Legalis the Law of his Mediatorship requiring it and it being the rule thereof so in another respect it may be fitly said to be Justitia pro-Legalis it being to us instead or standing us instead of a perfect legal Righteousness so also in another respect it may very fitly be styled and so I find it styled by some Authors our evangelical righteousness and an evangelical righteousness it may I say be very fitly styled 1. Because the Gospel is it and it alone not the light of nature by which it is revealed and made known to the world 2. Because it was of Gods grace to appoint it 3. To accept it also and this for gracious or Gospel-ends viz. the pardon or justification of sinners And for this reason I may well conclude That the justification of sinners is to be denominated not a legal as the Author contends for but an evangelical Justification 2. As for his saying That this
Imputation of his obedience we are made Righteous No as to the words Imputed and Imputation there is Altum silentium not a word or syllable 2. The Doctor adjoyns thereunto Phil. 3.9 saying That this is that which the Apostle desires to be found in in opposition to his own righteousness To which I answer That the righteousness wherein St. Paul did there desire to be found was not the obedience or righteousness of Christ in opposition to his own evangelical obedience as the Doctor here says and too too many with him but his own evangelical obedience or the sincere practice of Christian Religion together with the blessed consequents and benefits thereof or promised through Christ thereunto in opposition to a Judaical righteousness styled his own he being a perfect Jew by descent an Hebrew of the Hebrews with all its carnal priviledges of which that Nation did so much boast which notwithstanding being put in competition with those of Christianity were in his esteem no better than dung than that we call Garbage or Dogs-meat as is the importance of the word there used by him whereby to express his contempt in the highest degree That this is the true meaning of the Apostle I may have occasion farther to demonstrate In the mean while I shall take into consideration what the Doctor affirms concerning our own obedience or righteousness and Christs he saying in these words This distinction the Apostle doth evidently deliver and confirm so as nothing can be more clearly revealed Ephes 2. 8 9 10. To this be it answered Of a truth I perceive how like to the black or yellow Jaundise that distemper of the intellect is which we call Prejudice or Prepossession in that it makes us as confident as confidence it self that we do see and see evidently and as clearly as can be such entities and adjuncts of entities as have no visible existence to the eye or understanding of any impartial man For 1. there is neâ— vola nec vestigium no sign or footstep of the distinction betwixt Christs obedience and ours in that Scripture for ought appears to me 2. All I see in these words is A distinction betwixt the Grace of God together with the obedience or works of faith or faith wrought in us by free grace and certain other works in opposition unto and contradistinction from the said Grace and Faith i. e. works wrought by their own natural strength without the infusion of special graces antecedent to the Ephesians their embracing the faith of Christ and consequently such works as do make for boasting 2. Hereupon I cannot but wonder in what term or terms of the said Scripture the most sharp-sighted or Eagle-ey'd Divine can perceive the obedience of Christ to be so evidently there delivered as that nothing can be more clearly revealed Surely the Doctor will not say That by Grace or by Faith visibly there mentioned is meant the obedience of Christ for Grace and Faith and Christs obedience are without all controversie several things whether physically metaphysically or theologically considered so that one member of the Doctor 's distinction is evidently wanting in that Scripture although I readily grant that forasmuch as every act doth presuppose an object faith must be understood there not as excluding but as including the person and obedience of Christ I will not say though some peradventure will as its adequate but as its partial however prime object 3. Were the obedience of Christ there expresly mentioned nevertheless it is to be denied That this obedience of Christ is there opposed to our obedience i. e. to our evangelical obedience or to the faithful works thereof as the Doctoâ— would have it but to another kind of works which do make for boasting as was afore-said And this I may perhaps endeavour to make apparent in another Treatise and there manifest how the Doctor doth mistake the true sence of the word saved in that Scripture which although he interprets for justified and so indeed in some Scriptures it is to be interpreted and it is an important truth that Gospel-Justification is the self-same thing with salvation from the guilt of sin nevertheless by saved in that place is meant sanctified quickned regenerated saved from the power of sin This right interpretation of the word saved doth utterly make void what the Doctor says in the following lines whereby to confirm the distinction betwixt Christs obedience and our evangelical obedience to be there as evidently delivered so as that nothing can be more clearly revealed I shall now return to the fore-cited words of Mr. Ferguson to which I answer 1. I do deny That to assert that the precise nature of Gospel-Justification doth consist in Remission of sin doth bid defiance to the Scripture in an hundred places or that that Principle doth imply That we are not at all justified And if I should say in compliance with the language here of this Author I do defie Mr. Ferguson to prove what he hath charged as the effect of the said Principle I think I should be blameless But I shall choose to forbear that word it being my desire and design to reply with words of alike meekness as wisdom whatever provocation there be to the contrary 2. I deny That to state the whole of our assoilment from the accusation of the Law in Remission is indeed to say That we are not justified 3. I deny That to say That a sinner is in an improper sence said to be justified is indeed to say That we are not justified Deus bone To say That God is said in an improper proper sence to render to a man his work work being put for wages or the reward of his work is this indeed to say That God will not render to a man his work or that his work shall not be rewarded of God 4. Because it is such an abhorring to this Author to conceive or speak of a sinner his being in an improper sence said to be justified I will therefore the matter being now ripe for such a purpose put it to the Question as followeth in the next Chapter CHAP. XII Q. Is a sinner said in a proper or improper sence to be justified In answer hereunto it is declared 1. That the Question in it self is immaterial 2. Nevertheless for the satisfaction of Mr. F. the Question is answered and therein it 's proved That the Justification of a sinner is of or in its kind a proper Justification and in what respects so said to be specified An Objection answered Q. IS a sinner said in a proper or an improper sence to be justified Answ 1. I think this Question to be too too near of affinity with those which St. Paul in one place calls unprofitable and vain Tit. 3.9 and the native product whereof as he says in another 1 Tim. 6.4 are envy strife railings evil surmisings and for that cause I am convinc'd that it ought not much to be disputed it being no whit material
for us and this also antecedently to our believing it is not Believers who made him to be sin for themselves or for any others Yea as the Apostle said in another case 2 Tim. 2.13 If we believe not yet he abideth faithful he cannot deny himself in like sort may it here be truly said Although sinners believe not yet God ever was and still abideth faithful to fulfil or verifie the whole of that of the Apostle saying God made him to be sin for us That we might be made together with that in Joh. 3.16 and other the like sayings in Scripture God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life Our unbelief as the Apostle says elsewhere Rom. 3.3 cannot make the faith of God without effect i. e. cannot hinder the fulfilling of his Word The Doctor having pronounced the said Commutation to be a blessed Bartering and Exchange proceeds to tell us how much Jesus Christ is therewith honoured saying in the same Page Many indeed cry Lord Lord and make mention of him but honour him not at all How so They take his work out of his band and ascribe it unto other things their repentance their duties shall bear their iniquities They do not say so they do so The Commutation they make if they make any it is with themselves All their Bartering about sin is in and with their own souls The work that Christ came to do in the world was to bear our iniquities and lay down his life a ransom for our sins 1. Although it be very true and a sad truth it is that many do cry Lord Lord and do not honour him at all yea do dishonour him in so saying yet it is no less false to say as the Doctor hath here said in his answer to the Question How so For the reason is not as he says Because they take Christs work out of his hand and ascribe it to other things their repentance and duties but the true reason or reasons thereof are such as these 1. Because perhaps they did never rightly understand the work which Christ did put into their hand i. e. which he did impose upon them in order to their enjoyment of salvation through his sufferings and blood-shed It is thus with too many who do deceive themselves in thinking that a form of godliness will sufficiently serve for that end although they deny the power thereof 2. Because if they do know the work put into their hands or imposed upon them for that end yet they will not do it i. e. they will not so believe as to repent and convert that they may be saved 3. Consequently because they do ascribe that to a form of godliness or to the bare profession of Christianity which through the mercy of God in Christ is promised only to the power and practice of Christian Religion The truth of what I have herein answered to the said Question How so and the falshood of the Doctor 's answer thereunto is apparent by that very Scripture in Mat. 7.21 1. It is evidently false that those vain and empty Professors did commute only with themselves and would have no bartering with Christ for that they would fain have commuted with Christ is apparent by their closing and scraping acquaintance with him saying Lord Lord or to speak in the Doctor 's phrase by laying down their sins at his cross upon his shoulders who had born their iniquities These words uttered by their own mouthes Lord Lord do audibly speak their presuming upon Christ to save them or their making account that Christ would barter with them 2. The truth of the reason or reasons as before specified by me is most apparent also For they did not repent according as were their duty to have done but they did continue to be workers of iniquity as our Saviour tells them to their faces v. 23. and upon that account he bad them depart from him not upon any such account as the Doctor would have it As if they would take Christs work out of his hands and ascribe it to their repentance which was impossible for them to do who did not repent except through self-deceit in thinking they were penitent whereas indeed they were not and would have no bartering with him but with their own duties So that if we will believe our Saviour Christ we cannot believe what the Doctor hath said in answer to the said Question How so 2. If those carnal Professors had indeed repented and converted from their iniquities They might well and warrantably have pleaded their repentance and conversion as a title through the mercy of God in Christ for their admittance into the Kingdom of Heaven saying Lord Lord open unto us instead of saying Hast not thou taught in our street have not we eaten and drunk in thy presence in thy name cast out devils they had been able to say with David I have kept thy Word I have been upright before thee and have kept my self from mine iniquity or as Hezekiah or Nehemiah or St. Paul said of themselves 2 King 20.3 Neh. 14.22 2 Tim. 4.7 Christ would not doubtless have turn'd them going with that cutting word Depart from me but have said for their comfort as to the good servant Well done good and faithful servants For thus to have pleaded was not to take any work proper to Christ out of Christs hand or to ascribe ought that was peculiar to Christ to any other thing which to have done was far from those Old Testament and New Testament Saints before-named Did David in that saying Lord save me for I am holy Ps 86.2 renounce all bartering with Christ or take the work of his salvation out of Christs hands or ascribe that to his own personal holiness that was peculiar to the person of Christ I trow not Yea for professed Christians in such sort to plead as aforesaid is in very deed to put the work of their salvation into the hands of Christ who as he did by bearing their iniquities purchase their being saved conditionally upon their return to God through him by faith and repentance so he gives repentance to sinners that thereupon both he and they may be in a proximate or moral capacity he of pardoning and saving them and they of being pardoned or saved by him Briefly then the sin and folly of those carnal Professors was not that they would not at all or upon any terms Barter with Christ only with themselves but that they would have bartered with Christ with coyn not currant or with counterfeit ware i. e. not with true repentance for sin in the name of Christ and conversion from it but with an outside profession of Christianity owning Christ professedly as their Lord and Master themselves in the mean time being servants to or workers of iniquity For had they indeed parted from their sins they had never parted from Christ nor would Christ have
either because they were Gibeonites or because they did the meaner sort of services belonging to the Tabernacle one of the meanest whereof holy David did value at a high rate 2. It is against reason to say that there are or ever were any such Gibeonites in that full character whereby they are here described by the Doctor For if sinners apprehend no other rule of their actings than the Law in its dread and rigor exacting of them to the uttermost without mercy and mitigation it is more rational to conceive that they should lye down in utter despair than to drudge or trudge to no purpose Otherwise I cannot perceive the sence of the Psalmist's reasoning he saying There is mercy with thee therefore shalt thou be feared Psal 130.4 3. They are not Gibeonites necessarily in the Doctor 's disgraceful sence but they may be true Israelites who do Gods service that they may escape wrath to come and enjoy peace of conscience here nor is any Christian the less an Israelite or in truth the less a Nathaneel because he serves God upon account of the reward promised thereunto it having the promises both of the life that now is and of that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 4. The Doctor doth ill to jumble things together as synonimous and homogeneous which are exceeding disparate I mean the doing Gods service as the drudgery of our lives and the doing thereof for this end to fly from the wrath to come nor indeed are these two things consistent For those who do regard Gods service as the assured way or means of escaping wrath to come and do accordingly serve God for that end cannot in reason possibly be conceived to look upon or account Gods service as the drudgery but rather as the felicity of their lives and in such sort as St. Paul did account of all his both active and passive service of God in Christ viz. no way comparable to the reward of escaping hell and obtaining heaven Rom. 8.18 5. It is the Doctors error to insinuate that they who serve God for this end to fly wrath to come do serve him upon the principle of that spirit of bondage intended by the Apostle in Rom. 8.15 Yea by his insinuating the said Principle to be slavish base or unlawful he doth as much as in him lies bring the souls of men under a spirit of bondage causing them to doubt of their being servants of God yea to accuse themselves as none of his servants because they serve him for this end to fly from wrath to come and also provoking them to such a manner of doing things as being not required by God in his word is not part of true Religion but meer superstition yea such things as are impossible in nature as if we should perswade men to put off humanity or not to be men So that I may well say to those Readers or Hearers of the Doctor who can swallow applaud or approve such sayings as these in his Book as St. Paul said of the seduced Corinths perverted by their false Teachers 2 Cor. 11.20 ye suffer if a man bring you into bondage if a man devour you I may truly say That the yoke which the Doctor would here put upon the neck of Christs Disciples is heavier than the yoke of Ceremonies and such as neither we nor our Fathers nor successors were are or ever shall be able to bear 6. The obedience of the Saints may be a free obedience although they do not go forth thereunto altogether without fear and terror and it 's very ill done of this Author to insinuate the contrary Noah went forth with fear to the obedience of God in building the Ark which he did at Gods command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the Text to or for the saving of himself and family Heb. 11.7 And it is not to be doubted but that fear among other considerations did make David to run the way of Gods Commandments Psal 119.32 for what construction otherwise can be made of his saying in the same Psalm v. 120. My flesh trembleth for fear of thee and I am afraid of thy judgments And so it did holy Job as appears Job 31.23 7. Judge Reader whether it be not a great fault in the Doctor so to misapply that Scripture Rom. 9.32 and to pervert the sense thereof as to make a Christians serving of God to fly from wrath to come to be a seeking for righteousness as it were by works of the Law for to seek righteousness by works of the Law is to seek justification or salvation by the external observances of the Judaical Law and consequently in a wrong way opposite to the true Gospel-way of serving God and not by faith in Christ as the Apostle doth plainly interpret the matter in the self same verse How unreasonably therefore doth the Doctor here insinuate That those Christians who seek righteousness by faith in Christ the right Gospel-way that is do serve God and live Christian lives that they may be justified for the righteousness sake of Christ or be saved from wrath to come through his merits that those I say who do serve God like Christians to that end do take such a fatal course as those Jews did of whom the Apostle there speaks saying That Jesus Christ was a stumbling block to them That they fell short of attaining the end they aimed at righteousness justification salvation because they sought this saving happiness in a wrong way and not by due means i.e. not by faith in Christ or works of the Gospel but by external legal works as inconsistent with the faith of Christ incarnate as is Judaism and Christianity 8. Forasmuch as the Doctor doth in express words assert p. 213. That God hath appointed that holiness shall be the means the way to that eternal life which as in it self and originally is his gift by Jesus Christ so with regard to his constitution of our obedience as the means of attaining it The Doctor says well and truly that well-doing is the way to heaven but that other Preacher says no it is not is a reward And again Ib. That it is the way appointed of God for us to walk in for the obtaining of salvation These assertions of the Doctor I say being considered I must needs say these two things First I am not able to reconcile the Doctor with that foresaid Preacher who in his Sermon upon Psal 98.1 did reprove people for thinking That well-doing was the way to heaven Secondly Nor am I able to reconcile the Doctor with himself in his acknowledging holiness to be Gods appointed way and means for the obtaining of eternal happiness and yet making it the part and property of a Gibeonite i.e. a thing reprovable a slavish or disgraceful thing in a Christian to serve God to fly from wrath to come for what is it to fly or escape from wrath to come but to obtain salvation And what therefore is it to serve or