Vindiciae Evangelii: OR, A VINDICATION OF THE GOSPEL, WITH THE Establishment of the Law. BEING A Reply to Mr. Steven Geree's Treatise, ENTITULED, [The Doctrine of the Antinomians Confuted:] WHEREIN He pretends to Charge divers Dangerous Doctrines on Dr. Crisp's SERMONS, as Anti-Evangelical and Antinomical.

The Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, Rom. 3.21.
Do we make void the Law through Faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the Law, v. 31.
Who shall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect? It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that dyed, &c. Rom. 8.33,34.
The Stone which is set at nought by the Builders, is become the Head of the Corner, Act. 4.11. Psal. 118.22.

By ROBERT LANCASTER, Late Minister of the Gospel, sometime at Quarly, and Amport in Hampshire.

LONDON, Printed for a Friend of the Authors, and Sold by Will. Marshall at the Bible in Newgate-street, 1694.

To the Reader.

READER;

IT may be expected by thee, to have some short account of the late Reverend and Learned Author of this Trea­tise, concerning whom, they that knew him well, can say, That his Worth was little known in the World; his whole LIFE being spent in a Retiredness from it, for the most part.

It is the same Robert Lancaster who Wrote the Preface prefixt to Dr. Crisp's first Sermons; where may be seen, what design he prosecuted in his after-Writings, in the Defence of the Doctrines delivered by the said Dr. Crisp, and where may be had a taste of his sweet and gracious Spirit, wherein he was a Teaching Example to all that were acquainted with his ordinary Conversa­tion; He walked in a chearful, serious practice of Holiness, and though his pilgrimage here was attended with a succession of great outward Afflictions, yet he seemed to bear them with­out Murmurring, and to live by Faith much above them.

Not long before he finished his Course here, it was, that he, together with others, were Removed from the Publick Ex­ercise of his Ministry, which was attended with many diffi­cult Circumstances, as to his outward concerns. But yet the Bitter Opposition that had been, and continued to be made a­gainst some great truths of the Gospel, by persons of no small Figure, caused him to set himself to the Vindication of them, and to shew the great Mistakes of Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Gataker, Mr. Burgess, and Mr. Geree, and their Misrepre­senting great Truths, and in their Injurious charging of persons, [Page] which he performed in a spirit of Meekness, wherein he excell'd, and manifested it in publick, as well as private Disputes upon the same account, when called thereto; and with no less dexterity, being thereto furnished, not only by a distinct Understanding of Divine Mysteries, but a great. Accurateness in the knowledge of the Originals, and of all the Oriental Versions, being (it may be) one of the exactest Gramarians in all those Languages (as well as in the other) of his time.

He Published little in his Life, being a man of a most peaceable and humble Disposition, of great backwardness to shew himself; whether this his Inclination, or some other Reason, hin­dred him from Publication of his Writings, it is not easie to de­termine now, neither is it of concern to us; but whatever was the Reason, delayed it was, and God called him home to him­self, to rest from his Labours; some of which the Intelligent Reader may see, do here follow him; for so God would have it to be, his Friends entrusted with his Manuscripts (of which more may follow this as a First Part) being fully perswaded, that they had a loud Call of Providence, to bring out this Light that had so long been kept under a bushel, and hold it forth now as in a sea­sonable time to the Church of Christ.

And lest any should be hindred from the benefit of it by a preju­dicate opinion, That the said Author was an Antinomian and Li­bertine, an unbyast mind may be satisfied from his Preface to Dr. Crisp, that he was neither, if he retain a right Understanding of what those Sects hold, and will but duly weigh what this Holy Man saith there in the just Vindication of himself, and others, from that Charge: Part of which only for brevity sake, and for the information of such as have not read the said Preface, or, have it not by them, we may rehearse here.

[Page]

As for us, we make not void the Law, but esta­blish it: We Affirm, That it remaineth in its full force and power, not only of commanding, but also of Exacting and Terrifying, of Cursing and Punish­ing every Son of Adam that is under it, without abate­ment of the least jot or tittle, and whether this be Antinomianism or no, let the Church of Christ con­sider, and Judge by the Word of Christ.

And as for the Imputation of Libertinism, if they mean that which Calvin Chargeth the Libertines with, in his Book against them, We utterly disclaim it, &c.

Here it is most manifest, That he is not for the vacating of the Law, neither as to Precept or Sanction, but holds ex­actly with the Assembly in this Point, whereto Others that are so ready to make this Charge, have sufficiently declared their Contrariety.

But yet it is not to be avoided, but notwithstanding this, or what else can be spoken, some Men regarding not so much as common Ingenuity, may charge the Doctrines here defended for Antinomianism, as the Antagonists to them in his time did, and many at this day do; and no wonder, if we are not without such now, who brand the Preaching of the Gospel to distressed Consciences. The pardoning of Sinners as Sinners. And divers other Vital Doctrines of the Gospel, for such Heresie; yea, ridicule and scoff at the inviting of wretched miserable Sinners unto Jesus Christ. Must we therefore loath and abhor these Glorious Fundamental Truths, because some men (pretending their Fi­gure in the Churches) do thus reproach them? No, God for­bid, though this may be a stumbling-block laid before the eyes of the Blind, yet Wisdom shall be justified of her Chil­dren, [Page] and none shall always beguile them with enticing Words, or affrighten them, by cloathing Truth in a Bear-skin. For such as have once truly tasted the Lord is gracious, will not be soon moved from him who hath called them to Glory and Vertue, according as his Divine Power hath given unto them all things that pertain to Life and Godliness through the Know­ledge of him: But as they have received Christ, so they will walk rooted and built up in him, established in the Faith, as they have been taught, abounding therein with Thanksgiving.

As for the ensuing short Treatise, and what may follow, if God please, they will undoubtedly recommend themselves to the candid acceptance of the Intelligent and Unprejudiced Reader, by their own Weight and Evidence taken from the Word of God, and there­fore need not a Prefatory Recommendation, neither is it any way meet to impose upon the Reader, or anticipate his Judgment by any Human Authority in Divine Mysteries. The Benefit, Ad­vantage and Service of the Church, and the promoting the Truths of Christ, were designed in this Holy Mans Undertaking at first, and it is now in the Publishing of it, which great and desirable Fruit, may it but be reached and attained, Let the GOD of all Peace and Truth have the Glory of it, and the Lord JESUS CHRIST, the Way, the Truth and the Life, be for ever Magnifyed. Amen.

BOOKS Sold by Will. Marshal at the Bible in Newgate-street.

  • THE Labours of John Bunyan, Author of the Pilgrims Progress, late Minister of the Gospel, and Pastor of the Congregation at Bedford, Collected, and Printed in Folio, by procurement of his Church and Friends, and by his own Approbation before his Death, that these his Christian Mi­nisterial Labours might be Preserved in the World. This Folio contains ten of his Excellent Manuscripts, prepared for the Press, before his Death; and ten of his Choice Books already Printed, but long ago grown scarce, and not now to be had. Their Titles are as followeth, viz.
    • MANUSCRIPTS. 1. An Exposition of the Ten first Chapters of Genesis. 2. Justification by imputed Righteousness. 3. Paul's Departure and Crown. 4. Israel's Hope Incouraged. 5. Desires of the Righteous granted. 6. The Saints Priviledge and Profit. 7. Christ a Compleat Saviour. 8. Saints Knowledge of Christ's Love. 9. The House of the Forest of Lebanon. 10. A Description of Antichrist.
    • BOOKS formerly Printed. 11. Saved by Grace. 12. Christian Behaviour▪ 13. A Discourse of Prayer. 14. The Stait Gate. 15. Gospel Truths opened. 16. Light for them in Darkness. 17. Instructions for the Ignorant. 18. A Map of Salvation, &c. 19. The New Jerusalem. 20. The Resurrection. Price Bound 14s.
  • Mellificium Chirurgicae: Or, The Marrow of Chyrurgery. An Anatomical Treatise. Institutions of Physick, with Hypocrates's Aphorisms largely Com­mented upon. The Marrow of Physick, shewing the Causes, Signs and Cures of most Diseases incident to Human Bodies. Choice Experienced Receipts for the Cure of several Distempers. The Fourth Edition, enlarged with many Additions, and purged from many Faults that escaped in the former Impressions. Illustrated in its several Parts with Twelve Brass Cuts. By James Cooke of Warwick, Practitioner in Physick and Chyrurgery. Price Bound 6s.
  • Otto Tachenius his Hippocrates Chymicus, discovering the Ancient Foun­dation of the late Viperine Salt, with his Clavis thereunto annexed; Tran­slated by J. W. Price Bound 3 3s.
  • Select Observations on English Bodies of Eminent Persons in desperate Diseases. First Written in Latin by Mr. John Hall, Physitian: After Englished by James Cooke, Author of the Marrow of Chyrurgery. To which is now added, an hundred like Counsels and Advices, for several Honourable Persons; with all the several Medicines and Methods by which the several Cures, by the Blessing of God, were effected; and they be of great use to several Practitioners in Physick and others; by the same Author. In the Close is added, directions for drinking of the Bath-Water, and Ars Cosme­tica, or Beautifying Art: By H. Stubs, Physitian at Warwick. Price Bound 2s. 6.d.

BOOKS lately Printed in Vindication of Dr. Crisp's Works.

  • A Conciliatory Judgment concerning Dr. Crisp's SERMONS, and Mr. Baxters dissatisfaction in them; by Mr. Beverley, Price 2d.
  • A Conciliatory Discourse upon Dr. Crisp's Sermons on the Observation of Mr. William's dissatisfaction in them, in which the unsearchable Riches of Christ in the Covenant of Grace: Passing Knowledge is that which is aspired to be made known; by Mr. Beverly, price 6d:
  • The True State of Gospel-Truth, established upon the Free Election of God in Christ, the agreement and yet difference between Law and Gospel. So that the Gospel cannot be stiled Law, the inconditionate­ness of the Gospel Salvation. the precedure of the Day of Judgment, in the way of a Consiliatory Discourse upon Mr. Williams his Conces­sions: By Mr. Beverly. price 6d.
  • Christ made Sin, from 2 Cor. 5.21. Evinct from Scripture, upon occasion of an Exception taken at Pinners-Hall, at Reprinting of Dr. Crisp's Sermons: By Samuel Crisp Esq a Son of the said Dr Crisp. price bound 2s.
  • Christ alone Exalted in Dr. Crisp's Sermons; in Answer to Mr. Daniel Williams: By S. Crisp Esq price 6d.
  • A Plain and Impartial Inquiry into Gospel-Truth; Especially in reference to the Doctrine of Justification; In answer to Mr Williams: By Thomas Edwards Esq price 1s.
  • A Short Review of some Reflections, made by a Nameless Author upon Dr. Crisp's Sermons: With some Remarks upon the Union and the Late Agreement in Doctrine among the Dissenting Ministers in Lon­don: By Thomas Edwards Esq price 6d.
  • Dr. Crisp's Works, Entituled, Christ alone Exalted: Containing 42 Sermons on several Select Texts of Scripture, which were formerly Printed in three small Volumes: To which is now added ten Sermons, eight whereof were never before Printed: Faithfully Translated from his own Notes. Price Bound 8s.

Where you may likewise be supplyed with what Dr. Chauncy has writ in Vindication of Dr. Crisp's Works.

Reader, Correct these ERRATA's with thy Pen, or any other that may occur.

PAg. 4. l. 24. before a Moral read was. p. 5. l. 28. for sins charged r. sin charged. p. 8. l. 24. r. Mic. 5.5. p. 13. l. 22. r. Pemble. l. 25. for believers r. a believer. l. 30. for as Consonant r. as far as Consonant. l. 31. for and rejected r. or rejected. p. 15. l. 28. r. Eph. 2. p. 17. l. 14. r. Is it because it is said. l. 30. for follow r. folly. p. 24. l. 3. for desires r. defines. l. 23. after so r. they. p. 25. l. 8. for that r. the. l. 13. r. abstractly. p. 28. l. 40. for one r. thing. p. 29. l. 16. r. for refuge. p. 31. l. 1. r. and the like hardly. l. 19. r. seeing it was grounded. l. 35. for and r. to. p. 34. l. 35. r. Pemble. p. 38. l. 21. r. Eph. 2.1,2. p. 43. l. 35. r. proofs. p. 48. l. 21. for but r. on. p. 50. l. 6. r. Assembly. p. 51. l. 41. for it toucheth r. touch. p. 56. l. 12. before in the presence dele and. l. 22 r. for whose sake God. p. 59. l. 38. for yea r. yet. p. 61. l. ult. r. primary. p. 63. l. 33. r. not of Faith.

A DEFENCE OF THE First Sermon.

THE first Crime that is laid to Doctor Crisps Charge, is that he calls the matter about which he is speaking, to wit, The bene­fits of Christ:

  • I. Hidden Manna,
  • II. Marrow and Fatness.
  • III. Admirable Musick to the Heart. And,
  • IV. To have An Inebriating Vertue.

These Expressions Mr. Geree calls strains of Rhetorick, and Enticeing Words of Mans Wisdom, &c. with many other bitter words; whereas indeed they are the very Expressions of the Holy Ghost.

For the First; Christ, saith he, will give to his people of the hidden Man­na, Rev. 2.17. which cannot be meant of any thing but of the enjoy­ment of Himself and his Benefits.

So Secondly, David, in the 63 Psalm, after he had said, That the Loving kindness of the Lord is better than Life, in the 3d. Verse: He adds in the 5th. Verse, That his Soul is filled as it were with Marrow and Fat­ness; namely, in the enjoyment of that loving kindness which is only manifested in his Son. So when the Prophet Esay foretells the times of Christ, chap. 25. ver. 6,7. When the Lord will destroy the face of the cover­ing cast upon all people, then he will make unto all people a Feast of Fat things, a feast of Wines on the Lees, of fat things full of Marrow. Which, with out all doubt, is the glorious Feast of the Gospel, and the Benefits therein published unto the World.

Thirdly, That he calls the same Doctrine Musick, is not an unusual metaphor to the Holy Ghost. We have Piped unto you, saith Christ, and [Page 2] ye have not Danced, Mat. 11.17. And what did all those Instruments of Musick in the Old Testament represent, but the delight that came by the preaching of the Gospel, which caused great Joy wheresoever it came? The Eunuch, after he had learnt it, went on his way Rejoycing, Acts 8.39. And upon the preaching of it by Philip, there was great Joy in the City of Samaria, Act. 8.8. But the last expression, that it hath an inebriating vertue, is most urged and excepted against; which yet the Holy Ghost will own, Cant. 5. ver. 1. [...] drink and be inebriated O my Beloved ones; so the best Translations extant have rendred it, viz. the Greek Septuagint, Junius and Tremellius in Latine, and our last English in the Margin. And they are the very same words (though spoken in a spiri­tual sense) with those said of Noah, that he drank of the Wine, and was drunken, Gen. 9.21. neither is it unusual for the Holy Ghost to draw comparisons from things which are Vitious in themselves, which in the spiritual sense of the scripture are nothing so. Behold I come, saith Christ, as a Theif in the Night. Whereby, I hope, Christ doth neither draw any stain of that Vice upon himself, nor encourage, nor maintain it in others. So although the beloved ones of Christ are said to be inebriated with the sense of the overflowing of the Lords grace and mercy upon them, yet thereby is not signified any vicious distemper in them, or any patroni­zing of that loathsom sin of carnal drunkenness in others.

But more of this it may be at the 16 Sect. of the 4th. Sermon; all which he spends in exagitating this phrase: Only for the present I desire the Godly Reader to take notice what an indignity is offered to the Holy Ghost, that his words should be called the Enticing words of Mans wisdom. Neither can he evade by saying, that he had reference to the Drs. mean­ing contained under those words; for it must be words not meaning, that he calls enticing words. And I believe himself will not deny that it was the very word inebriate, which he excepted so against.

In the 2, 3, & 4 Sections, there is not any matter of moment, but false accusations without proof, and reviling words, whereof his whole Book is full, to which any indifferent Reader will bear me witness: Whereunto our Answer shall be only to beseech the Lord, that they may not be layd to his charge. That the Dr. any where speaks against humble, obedient, and sanctified spirits, as Mr. Geree charges him in Sect. 2. I doubt not but the contrary will be made evidently to appear by his own words, when they come to be scanned.

Sect. 5. For the perfect discharge of Gods people from the fault and guilt of sin, the Dr. urged Psal. 51. Wash thou me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Here. Mr. Geree, although he confesseth the truth of the Doctrine, Sect. 3. yet he supposeth that he hath gotten a double advantage.

1. That the Dr. alledgeth Texts out of the Old Testament, which (as he saith) we will not admit of in matter of justification.

[Page 3]2. That David in this Text prays for forgiveness of sins; which (saith he) is contrary to the Antinomian Tenet: To these Two briefly.

To the First, concerning the state and condition of the Old Testa­ment, I confess there is some difficulty, and almost in all Ages since Christ, there hath been some dispute about it. I shall not enter into any large discourse, as not being suitable to our present occasion. Onely because we have been exceedingly slandered, and that by some in pulpits, (when men stand to speak in the Name of the God of Truth, and therefore should have been so wary as not to speak a word, but what the God of Truth would own for his) that we denyed the whole Law; by others, that we denyed all the Old Testament; and by others, that we deny the whole Scriptures: I shall briefly express what we hold in this matter, and leave it to the judgment of the godly-wise to be examined by, and judged of according to the Word of God.

First, We do, and have always acknowledged the whole Scriptures, as the Apostle saith, to be by Divine Inspiration: And the Old and New Testament both of them to be of equal and indisputable Authority.

Secondly, We acknowledge, That all the People of God in the time of the Old Testament, were equally justified before God, and saved with those in the New; And that by that one and onely means of justification before God and Salvation, even Jesus Christ the Righteous, who in that respect, is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever, Heb. 13. Hitherto I con­ceive there is an Agreement. All the rest, and that wherein the difference lyeth, I shall summ up in this third Conclusion.

Thirdly, We say, That the whole Administration and Dispensation of the Old Testament, so far as it. was typical, ought not to be urged upon the Children of the New Testament. And even in this Conclusion, as it lyes in Thesi, and in the general there will be little or no difference; only in Hypothesi, and in particular, and in explaining how far this old Ad­ministration was typical, there may be some [...]ariety of Judgments, which is a great cause, as I conceive, of the being and continuation of the pre­sent differences.

Fourthly, Therefore to discern how far the Administrations of the Old Testament were typical, I conceive there is not a more sure and infal­lible Rule than this, namely, That where any thing peculiar and proper un­to Christ alone is attributed unto any action, person, or thing, whether Cere­monial or Moral, that Attribution is to be accounted Typical, and to relate unto that action, person or thing, only as they were types and shadows of Christ to come: And therefore Christ being already come, now in the times of the New Testament, no such Attribution ought to be given unto them, although they be of such a nature, as that they remain in use also since Christ's time, because that typical administration is wholly ceased. I desire to be fully understood, and therefore shall explain my self a little further. Observe therefore;

[Page 4] First, That the Administrations of the Old Testament, were of things which were of themselves of several natures; some were Ceremonial, as the Sacrifices, their Temples, their Tabernacles, their Altars, and such like; some were Moral, as their Prayers, Repentance, Reformations, and all the Duties of the Moral Law.

For the Ceremonies, that they were Types of Christ, and so ceased by the coming of the substance Christ himself, is generally acknowledged; onely some attribute unto them no efficacy at all, but only a shaddow­ing out of Christ and his benefits, who was to come; others say they had a typical, carnal, and t [...]mporal efficiency, in the Mosaical Church and Common-wealth, proper to that Administration, and answerable in some way to the benefits in the New: That they by the Ordinance of God brought down upon that People temporal and outward blessings answer­able to the spiritual and eternal blessings by Christ. Which Question is largely discussed by Vossius, wherein I shall not interpose, because they that attribute most unto those Ceremonial performances, yet bound the effect of them within the compass of the Old Testament, so that they resigned up their keyes and power unto their Lord and King (whose har­bingers they were) at his appearing.

But for the Actions and Administrations of the Moral Law, that they also were in some sort typical, is not so usually observed as the for­mer; yet it is no less true. Who can deny but that Phineas his pray­ing or executing of justice, whether soever it was (for the Hebrew will probably bear either) a Moral Action, and yet typically shadowing out unto us Christ our Great High-Priest, by whose interceding for us with the Father, he is pacified towards us? So not a few Protestant Writers have interpreted it. But what speak I of one Action, when as Dr. Taylor hath published a Book wherein he discovers all along a Typical shadowing forth of Christ▪ not only in the Ceremonial, but also Moral Actions of most of the Antient Patriarcks, Priests, Judges, Kings and Prophets. But here I do not desire to dispute the Question, but only as briefly as I can to explain my Judgment. Therefore in such Moral Acti­ons as these, I observe Three Things.

First, Their Moral Nature whereby they are of perpetual use both in the time of the Old Testament and of the New; as Prayer, Repen­tance, and other Actions of Duty towards God and man are as necessary as ever they were in the time of the Old Testament, and shall be by the true Children of Faith as much practised, and in a more spiritual manner contrary to that false slander that passeth abroad concerning us, That we let men loose from all duties of piety towards God, or charity towards man; against which false reproaches the Lord will in time arise to the Vindication of his People. In the mean time, they may be bold to commend their names and reputations unto Him into whose hands they have already committed their souls.

[Page 5] Secondly, In these actions there is their typical effect, whereby, if they were good Actions in that Administration, they wrought propor­tionable effects, as Phineas his praying stayed the plague: If they were evil actions, they brought evil effects, as David's numbring the People brought the plague; his Adultery the death of the Child, &c. These effects I call typical, because they are attributed to these actions, as they do typically relate unto Christ, and setting aside that relation, such an effect should not have been attributed unto them. As for Example, the prayer of Phineas had not stayd the plague, if he had not therein stood as a Type of Christ, who is the onely one that turns away all evil from those that are his, who because he was not so reveal'd in those times, therefore it was requisite that it should be shaddowed out unto them in this and such like Types; so that the effect is only ascri­bed to the Type in umbra in the shadow, but to the thing typified in veritate in the truth. So I think I may say that all actions, even of the Moral Law, do in this manner point unto Christ. In like sort, David's Adultery brought the death of the Child, as the typical effect of that sin: So that David in that consideration bare his own sin; But how? Onely as a Type of Christ, as manifesting that the Saviour of the World that was to bear their sins, was yet to come. Yet did he not really bear his own sin, no not in any degree: For so it was wholly reserved for the Lord Christ, upon whom it was charged to the uttermost, who made a full satisfaction, not only for the eternal, but also the temporal punishment of all that belong unto him, not only for those since Christ, but even for all from the beginning of the world: so that neither David, nor any other of the Children of God in the Old Testament, had ever had any sins charged on them, had they not stood as Types of him that was to come to bear the sins of many; neither ever had they sins charged upon them in the real positive nature of it, (if I may so speak) for so it was only and wholly born by Christ for them; but onely as I said in this typical consideration: For Christ onely hath with one sacrifice perfected for ever those that are consecrated, Heb. 10.14. He onely is the propitiation for our sins, 1 Joh. 2.1,2. And this he did not onely for those since Christ, but also for the sins that were past, Rom. 3.25. to wit, under the former Covenant, Heb. 9.15. So then in the time of the New Cove­nant, since the death of Christ, there is no remembrance of sin, neither upon Christ who is risen again from the dead without sin, nor upon the faithful, seeing they cannot now be shadows of Christ to come, who is already come, and by the lustre of his presence, hath made all shad­dows flee away.

So that the whole amounteth to that which I layd down in the begin­ning, namely, That where any thing is attributed to persons or actions, which is Christs own peculiar, that is to be understood of those persons or actions, onely as they do typically relate unto Christ, and ought not to be ascribed [Page 6] to any other person or action (though otherwise of the same kind) which have not this typical relation unto Christ. The Reason is taken from that main foundation of Christian Religion, to wit, The satisfaction of Christ is compleat, and all the Scriptures hold it forth as All-sufficient and compleat.

Thus have I, Christian Reader, given thee a short abridgment of my thoughts concerning the difference of the Testaments, so far as it concerns the present matter in debate, and as the present occasion would permit, being willing rather to trespass upon thee by this digression, than to suffer this matter altogether to pass untouched, being of such moment, both for the Vindication of the Truth and Us from so many slanders: Hereafter, if God permit, I may have an opportunity to ex­plain my self more largely in this matter, and to shew the consonancy thereof, both to the current of the Scriptures, and also to the best and most Orthodox Protestant Writers. Now to Mr. Geree's Advan­tages.

1. To the First, that the Dr. alledgeth places out of the Old Testa­ment: I Answer so he may, so as that he alledge none proper to the Old Administration, as many do to bring the Children of the New Testament into the same servile condition with those of the Old, who albeit they were Sons, and thereby truly Heirs of Life and Glory, and as the Apostle saith, Lords of all: Yet in regard of that subservient Covenant and Administration, they differed nothing at all from ser­vants. But onely such Scriptures as do prophesy and foretell the suf­ferring of Christ, and the glory that should follow, such as the Scrip­tures mentioned are. Although a man may not alledge the Old Testa­ment, (as I doubt not but Mr. Geree will confess) for circumcision and observation of the Jewish Sabbath, or sacrificing beasts: Yet may he alledge it, to prove, that Christ is the substance, exhibiting unto the Children of the New Testament all that was shadowed out by these Ceremonies. Now there is the same reason of the whole Mosaical Ad­ministration. So saith Pareus upon Gal. 4.3. By the Elements of the world, saith he, the Apostle understandeth not onely the Ceremonies, but the whole polity of Moses, the Levitical Priesthood, and the very Moral Law it self affrighting them, and compelling them to Obedience with threatnings of punish­ment, and the fear of the Curse. How proves he this? For, saith he, Christ is said a little after to have delivered his Church from all these. And therefore all these must be understood by the Elements of the world and bondage. In a word, although the Old Testament may not be urged upon the faithful, as establishing the Old Covenant, yet it may as fore­telling the New.

His other Advantage he thinks he hath got by the Example urged, is, That David though justified prayed for forgiveness, which he saith we deny. Where or when? O Mr. Geree, you pretend you have matter [Page 7] enough in the Book to confute, and do you leave that and run after slanders of your own devising? This may well be put up on the file of those false and injurious reproaches which we dayly lye under: For the contrary hath been publickly delivered by us both in print and pulpit, namely, That the faithful and justified are to pray for forgiveness of sins, according as Christ hath taught. Onely this we say with the best Protestant Writers, that forgiveness is to be understood, not of that in foro Coeli, in the Court of Heaven, which prevents and goes before all our prayers; but in foro Conscientiae, in the Court of our own Consciences. That we may more and more have the fruition and enjoyment in our Consciences, of that forgiveness established in Heaven before. And so is that Petition of the Lords Prayer to be understood, according to Mr. Walker in his Socinianism discovered, pag. But the truth is, men de­stitute of true Christian Love, which thinketh no evil, have made their own Uncharitable Collections from our Tenets, and then fathered those Collections upon us.

Sect. 6. To evince the perfection of our justification the Dr. cited, (as is usual in extemporary expressions) according to the matter, though not exactly according to the words, Eph. 5.25. and so forward, that Christ presents his Church to himself not having spot or wrinkle; wherein he takes notice that the Participle, [not having spot] is of the present tense, and therefore it is not onely to be understood of their future estate in the Life to come. This Testimony, saith Mr. Geree, is clear against him. How can that be I pray you? His Point he desires to prove by this Text, is the perfection of our justification, which Point, saith Mr. Geree in the last words of the former Section, is granted. How then can this Scripture be clear against it, or against him if not against it? Is one truth of Scripture clear against another? Yea, but he cites it, saith Mr. G. for justification, when as it is special for sanctification. See what a Reason is given here. Is it therefore clearly contrary to justifica­tion, because it is specially for sanctification? He dares not deny but it toucheth also upon justification. And if it did but so, I hope it doth not in that touch shew justification to be imperfect, but rather perfect and without spot; if so, how is it then against the Dr. who alledgeth it to that purpose? Doth the Dr. deny that they have reference to sancti­fication also? No, but he urgeth them onely for justification, because that was the matter onely in hand. But the words are not in the pre­sent tense. What Words? [...], that he might present. Did he say it was? No, but [...], not having spot: I hope that is the present tense. Yea, saith Mr. G. but when was this to be in the pre­sent tense? Even, saith he, when it was presented glorious, that is in Heaven, as Interpreters expound it; See Piscat. in locum. But is it only to be expounded of the estate of God's Children in Heaven? I think he [Page 8] dares not affirm it: And if not, why may it not also signifie our com­pleatness here on earth, whereby we are said to be compleat in him even in this life? Col. 2.10. Mr. G. might have noted, that [...], the Aorist noting the time past, having cleansed us, will rather evince, that the spotlessness which immediately follows upon the cleansing, is past, than barely future in Heaven.

In the Conference at the Hague, the Arminians say, that this is their Judgment, That to be Holy and without blame before God, is the same with, to be glorified in Heaven, in this place, Eph. 5.26,27. To which purpose they urge Piscater, as Mr. Geree doth here. Whereunto Amesius answereth in his Coronis, Artic. 1 Ca [...] 12. That the sanctification spoken of, (by which word Mr. G. thinks he hath gotten something) compre­hends not onely Renovation but also Justification, as Joh. 17.17. Heb. 9.14. & 20. & 13. Because, saith he, the whole fruit of the love and death of Christ is placed in that sanctification, which cannot be contained within the bounds of Heaven, but presenteth the Church marryed unto him without spot, even whilst she sojourneth and warreth here on earth. And for Piscator, he answereth, That he doth not onely limit it to the state in Heaven, but speaks upon verse 26. (in Analys.) of that cleansing which consists in remission of sins. And to this same purpose have many other approved Writers cited this Text, and those parallel to it. As the Holy Martyr Frith (pag. 69.70.) against Rastal, where he saith, That they to whom God im­puteth not their sins, are blessed, righteous, without spot, wrinkle or blame. And Mr. Ellis before the Parliament, upon Micah 55. pag. 17. where he hath these faithful words, That God is reconciled by the blood of his 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.

[Page 9] 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 [Page 10] 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 [Page 11] 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 [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] the Law; so that it loseth not one jot or tittle, no not by those ex­empted persons; but rather is by the exemption more fully established. For a particular exemption, as the Lawyers speak, establisheth a Law; for where no Law is in force, there needs no peculiar exemption. And Secondly, because that exemption is grounded upon a full and present Satisfaction to the Law: Whereas in regard of the persons not exemp­ted, it must be a receiving satisfaction world without end, and yet never have one in actual being, a present satisfaction. Even as a man going out of the Kingdom, and so from under the Laws of the King­dom; the Laws of the Kingdom are not abolished or destroyed by his de­parture, but remains in the same force as they were before: Especially even in regard of himself the Laws are no losers, if he went not out without making a sufficient satisfaction to the Laws of the Kingdom for all duties and services which he should owe thereunto; which is the very case of the children of God in reference to the Law, as a covenant of Works. They are translated out of the Kingdom of the Law and Works, into the Kingdom of Christ and of Grace, there to be direc­ted, and ordered and judged by the perfect Law of Liberty, Jam. 2.

These two Exemptions being premised, I see not but we may admit of any other use of the Law in the Church which doth not make Void either of these Exemptions; And particularly those which are contained in Mr. G's. preface collected out of Mr. Reinolds Mr. Penible, and Luther, according to the Authors own genuine meaning.

And further that we may not contend about words, I shall also grant the Law to be a Rule of conversation even to believers understanding it materially, and in his Doctrine and Duties, and passively as a Rule barely lying before a man. To constitute a Rule in this sence, I suppose no more is meant, but that if the actions and conversation of a Child of God be examined before an Humane Tribunal, they are, and are to be approved as consonant to the Law. The Law is that Rule whereby they are to be examined and approved, and rejected accordingly. For before the Tribunal of the Lord, they are only approved and accepted as they are washed in the Bloud of Christ, and have his Cleanness put upon them: That is, not in their active consonancy to the Law, but passively in the Grace of the Gospel, which is that incense which makes the prayers of the Saints to be accepted, Rev. 8.3.

But the Law may also be considered formally and actively, to wit, not only in the matter, but in the bond of it. What is that some may say? I answer, it is that which formally binds to the performance of it. Even that Covenant or Condition which lies in the Law, & constrains to the per­formance [Page 14] of it. Do this and live: Do not this and be Accursed. Here what is that which formally ties to the doing or not doing of this? but life upon doing, and the curse upon not doing? It is true, the Authority of the Law-giver is the efficient cause of the Law, and of the obligement of it; but the intrinsecal, formal and legal obligement consists in that relation which the thing commanded or forbidden hath either to reward or punishment, without which there is no Law. In this consideration, I say it cannot be a rule unto the faithful: for the 2. Exemption, which I mentioned before, is an acknowledged freedom from under the Law in this consideration. Thus much for a breif Explanation of my judgment in this Matter.

Now to that which Mr. G. Objected; That if the Believer sin, then is he under the Law. Hereunto I Answer, that a Believer may be consider­ed Two wayes:

  • I. Properly. Or,
  • II. Improperly.

1. Properly, as a Believer; i. e. As having a perfect satisfaction a­greeable to the Law, as a justified person, as one freed from sin: For he that is justified, is free from sin, Rom. 6.7. and stands without fault be­fore the Throne and Tribunal of GOD, and so as without Law. But,

2. If you consider this Believer Improperly here below among men in his conversation, as a Worker, so there is Law for him as the ma­terial and passive rule of his conversation, as I said before, and so there is transgression by him; yea, as is said, and proved before, in every action he sins.

But saith Mr. G. How can this stand with that which they hold, That they which are Justified, are so Sanctified and purged, that they are now for the present without spot or wrinkle. I Answer, very well by the former Distinction: And further Sanctification may be taken in a two-fold sense.

1. For that Holiness, which is Inherent, Active, and of Works; which as it is in it self Imperfect, so it is not able to present us Per­fect and Clean in the sight of GOD, because it self hath need of a perfecter and cleanser. Or,

2. For that Holiness, which is imputed passive, and of Faith; in which sense I shewed it to be taken, by certain Scriptures cited by Amesius; which Holiness, in as much as it is perfect, in it we also are presented perfect, and without spot or wrinkle before God, Col. 1.20. & 2.22. Eph. 5.26,27.

Sect. 8. In this, and the subsequent Sections to the end of this Ser­mon, [Page 15] Mr. Geree finds fault with the Doctor, because he denyes our peace to depend upon works of Sanctification which we perform. This Mr. G. calls flinging against Sanctification and Holiness, but Wisdom is justified of all her Children. When Esay called it menstruous raggs, Esay 64.6. Christ, unprofitable service; And Paul esteemed it dung. Will you call these flings at Holiness? No, they are only the attributing to them their true worth and weight by the ballance of the Sanctuary. For seeing all our works have an admixtion of sinfulness, whereby they are truly sinful works; and every sinful work, as the proper wages of it deserves, eternal death, we may thereby take a true estimate of their proper worth and efficiency. Mistake me not; This I mean, not as they are Good, and as they are Holy; but as they are not so Good, and so Holy as they ought to be; and in regard they are thus Imperfect, they are not able to speak Peace unto us. Peace is fruit and effect of Righ­teousness, Esay 32. Therefore Christ is our Melchisedec, our King of Righteousness; and afterwards, or thereupon, our King of Salom; that is, King of Peace, Heb. 7.2. Therefore all our peace is attributed to Christ alone: He alone is our Peace-maker, and in him alone is the full message and manifestation of our peace contained; and therefore God is said to have come and preached peace by Jesus, Eph. 2.17. And as our peace is ascribed unto Christ, and the message concerning it, so it is denyed un­to our works: Which that it may the better appear, we are to consider our peace in a double Notion; Either

  • 1. As it is made with God: Or,
  • 2. As it is manifested and sealed unto our Consciences.

If we attribute it to our works in the first sense, we do manifestly put them in the place of Christ, and thereby rob him of the dignity of his Priestly Office, whereby he is our Peace, Eph. 6.14. Our propitiation with the Father, Rom. 3.25. Joh. 2.1,2. Our reconciler unto God, Rom. 5.10. For all these are so peculiar unto Christ, as the only Mediator between God and man; that whosoever attributes them unto any other person or thing, must of necessity attribute thereunto the Mediatorship either in whole or in part. Peace in this sense is ordinarily acknowledged by Protestant. Writers not to depend on Works. Notwithstanding in some late ones there are some very dangerous expressions tending ex­ceedingly to the dishonour of Christ, attributing even the abolishing of the hottest wrath that can be in God unto our performances: which, it were meet, they should rather humbly, for the honour of Christ, retract, than for the maintaining of their own reputation, go about to salve and maintain; and that they who will not admit of any expression, which they conceive may derogate from their own Works and Holiness, should [Page 16] not dare to be so bold with the peculiar honour and dignity of the Lord Christ, which he will not give unto another, as to arrogate it to themselves, and their own doings. Is this that Humiliation and Re­pentance so much spoken of? I thought it had been the utter denial of our selves, even the reserving unto our selves nothing but shame and confusion and of faces; that we might with regard of any thing in us lie naked and destitute, and hopeless and helpless before the Mercy Seat of the Lord. Not a proud Luciferian advancing of our Humilia­tion, with such terms and titles, that greater cannot possibly be given to the Lord Jesus Christ himself, the King of Saints.

2. This peace is considered, as manifested unto us, and sealed to our Consciences, and in that regard also it doth not depend upon works of Sanctification that we have or can do. Now this peace is nothing but the stamp and impression of the other upon our hearts: And as it is per­formed without works, so it is manifested without works, only by Faith, which is a gift of God, whereby we look out of our selves for Peace and help, that so (saith the Apostle) it might be by Grace, that the pro­mise might be sure to all the Seed. Here the Apostle plainly affirmeth, That the Promise, wherein is comprehended our peace with God, is made sure unto us only by Faith; which, as I said, looks out of our selves for its ground and object, and not by Works: For then the Apostle plainly implies, that the Promise should not have been sure to all the Seed. And therefore in Chap. 5. Ver. 1. upon our being justified by Faith, he immediately infers, without the intervening of the sight of any Works, that we have peace with God. And that this may not be un­derstood only of the former peace, he shews it plainly in the following words, by the effects of a manifested peace in the Conscience, and rejoyce in the hope of the glory of God. Neither is this a weak unsetled peace, which must be strengthned and under-propped by Works; But it is a firm, and setled peace, even such a one as bears up the Heart, even to Rejoyce in Tribulation, ver. 3. So that only by this believing in Christ, We rejoyce with joy unspeakable, 1 Pet. 1.8. Yea, by Believing, we are filled with all joy and peace, Rom. 15.13. Hereunto Calvin giveth testimony, In Christ we have boldness and access with confidence, by the Faith of Him. This surely doth not befall unto us by the gift of Regeneration, which as it is alwayes imperfect in this flesh, so it containeth in it self manifold matter of doubting, Calv. Instit. lib. 3. cap. 13. Sect. 5. Here he not only challengeth our assurance, and thereby our peace, wholly unto Faith; but also, he plainly denies it unto the gift of Regeneration, which he affirms by the weakness and imperfection of it to be rather the cause of doubting, than believing. And therefore the truly Faithful have alwayes found it ne­cessary in the search for peace to go out of themselves, to lay aside their [Page 17] own Righteousness as an hinderance rather than a furtherance, as Calvin saith, and to make mention of the Lords Righteousness onely, mentioned in the free Promises of his Grace without works. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief, 1 Tim. 1.15. And this was a pro­mise not onely for weak ones, not yet well confirmed in works of Holi­ness, but even for an Apostle to lay claim unto, and that upon no others terms or plea than that expressed, that he was the chief of sinners.

Contrariwise, that inherent works or holiness have to do in the bu­siness of peace and salvation of the soul, Mr. G. endeavours to prove by two Scriptures.

The First is Psal. 8 [...]8. God will speak peace to his Saints, but let them not turn again to folly▪ He might have done well to have shewed us how he would draw his Inference from hence: It is, because it said that God will speak peace to his Saints, therefore their sanctity or ho­liness is the ground, means or evidence of their peace and salvation? Then I Answer,

1. That he might as well infer from the fore-mentioned place, Christ came to save sinners; therefore sin is the ground, means, and evidence of salvation, whereas it is onely a bare expression of the Object. And even so it is in this place.

2. It is Observable, that which Junius and some other of the Learned have observed, That [...] (coming of [...], benignity, kindness, or gra­tiousness) ought rather to be translated in propriety his Elect Ones, his Beloved Ones, those to whom he is bountiful, and so he translates it in this place, erga eos quos benignitate prosequitur; so that it signifies how God is affected towards them, not how they are qualified towards Him. And then your Collection of the dependance of peace upon in­herent holiness cannot be deduced from hence. As for the latter words, but let them not turn again unto follow: They are not a commination or threatning, but a gracious dehortation grounded upon the goodness be­fore revealed. And therefore Vau here is rather illative than discretive, as it is most frequently; and then the Text should run thus, That seeing the Lord followeth them with loving kindness, therefore let them not turn again unto folly.

The other Text is that of Paul, Tit. 3.5. That not by works of Righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration and Renewing of the Holy Ghost: Whence he infers, that as Mercy is the moving Cause, so Regeneration and Re­newing of the Holy Ghost, is a means of saving our souls.

[Page 18]The ambiguity here lies in the words Regeneration and Renewing of the Holy Ghost. I confess some Learned Men do understand by the washing of Regeneration, (as Calvin and others) an inherent Alteration in us, but I take it rather for our Justification (as Melanct. on Joh. 3.) or forgiveness of sin. For as our Natural Generation makes us the Natural Sons of our Natural Parents, so our New Birth or Regeneration, is that which con­stitutes us the Sons of God. Now we are not made Sons by any in­herent Qualifications, but by our Adoption, which is the immediate ef­fect of our Justification, neither of which are inherent in us, but are onely Relations from God upon us. And in this place to me it is very evident: For otherwise the Apostles words would include a Con­tradiction, as if he should say, Not of works of [...]ighteousness that we have done, but by the washing of Regeneration, that is by inherent Qua­lifications, Viz By works of Righteousness. For although in these Qualifications, in the first infusion we be conceived meerly passive, and therefore in that respect they may not be called our works of Righ­teousness; yet as they can be said to save, so they must come forth into Acts and Workings, wherein we have some hand, and so we should be said to be saved by works of Righteousness that we have done, if we be said to be saved by them.

Secondly, For the word Renewing, it is no new thing to take it for that passive newness, whereby we are made new in the Righteousness of Christ, and in the perfection of that Reconciliation which is brought upon us by him, whereby onely we are new in the sight of GOD which may well be said to be of the Holy Ghost, because it is reveal­ed unto us onely by him, who takes of Christs, and shews it unto us, Joh. 16.

Sect. 9. Against those that attribute salvation, or the giving of peace to any thing besides Christ, the Dr. applys that of Jerem. 2.13. That therein, and so far they forsake the fountain of Living Waters, and dig unto themselves broken Cisterns that will hold no water.

‘"This, saith Mr. G. is not to the matter. Why? Becaus [...] the Prophet speaks of turning from God unto Baal and such Idols. But h [...] (the Dr.) hath applyed it against those things which God hath commanded and com­mended as necessary; yea, and wrought in us by Christ himself, viz. Holi­ness, Sanctification and Sincerity."’

I Answer, First, That the distinction I formerly alledged out of Chamier is to be observed, namely, That although those things, as they are in them­selves [Page 19] commanded of God, or wrought by Christ or his Spirit, be good; yet as they are ours, so they are imperfect, weak and sinful; so they are not commanded, to wit, to be done imperfectly and sinfully. And therefore I hope in that regard they may be called Cisterns, and broken Cisterns, and Cisterns of our own digging.

Secondly, Things may be considered, either in their own nature, as they are the Ordinances of God, so they are good and commendable, or else in their corrupt uses, so they are by us made Cisterns, and bro­ken Cisterns. The Ordinances of Heaven, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, they are in their nature very good, Gen. 1. But now if a man go about to worship them, to expect help and deliverance from them, as the Old Israelites and the Heathens did, therein I hope, and in that use they may (notwithstanding they be the Ordinances of God in other regard,) be justly called broken Cisterns that will hold no Water. E­ven so our works and duties, as they are misapplyed unto corrupt uses, so they are broken Cisterns. All our Righteousness are as menstruous rags, Isa. 64.6. Rags are but broken Cloaths, they will not cover us: If we go about to cover our selves with them, we cover our selves with our own Confusion, as with a Cloak. For even shame and confusion of face belongs unto us, and that even in regard of our most Holy Performances, not because they are done, (this is the great mistake of Mr. G. and others, who thereby conceive he speaks against the doing of goods works.) but onely because they are not done as they ought to be, that so we might in true Christian Humiliation and self-denyal, take our right estimate of our works, and of our selves, as considered in reference unto them, and know that we are nothing. Accounting our very Righteousness as all the Faithful have done in their Generations, to be but as menstru­ous rags: Not onely Rags, as I said, but menstruous, filthy, unclean, that when we go to cover our selves therewith, they are so far from making us clean, that they defile. If, saith Job, I make my hands never so clean, my own Cloaths shall make me polluted, or abhorred. O how far are they then from saving, from turning away wrath, from making propitiation, things ordinarily attributed unto them by some; to which uses, without all question they are but broken Cisterns, and will in a time of drought prove like the brooks in Summer, which Job men­tioneth. ‘"But, O Lord, keep thy servant and thy people by that Foun­tain of Living Water which is opened for sin and for uncleanness, wherein onely are the waters of comfort, by which thou as a faith­ful Sheepherd leadest thy flocks, that they may draw water out of those Wells of Salvation, that bubble out unto Eternal Life, that so we may never thirst again, nor hanker after those broken, empty, muddy Cisterns, that will hold no water."’

[Page 20] But, saith Mr. G. how can he say we forsake Christ, that by these duties seek salvation? These are not Cisterns of our own digging, but of his appointing, and we use them and humiliation, &c. onely in conscience to his command, and not as meritorious causes, but subordinate means of our salvation in the Name of Christ.

Indeed, do you seek for salvation by your duties? Is this to acknow­ledge no, other Name, i. e. no other thing that can be named under Heaven, by which we must be saved? Is this to confess that his own Arm hath brought salvation, and that of the People there was none with him? Have you so soon forgotten the Text you so lately cited, that not by works of Righteousness that we have done, but according to his own Mercy hath he saved us? You say these are not Cisterns of your own digging, but of his appointing, and you use them as subordinate means of salvation. You should have done well to have shewed where he appointed them to be subordinate means as causes of salvation; Christ will not so be shuffled out of the Throne of his Glory: Salvation belongeth unto the Lord; it is his peculiar. Besides me there is no Saviour: He hath not ordained any subordinate Saviours for the effecting of salvation. If any thing be­sides him, be said to save, it is but as an effect, and by way of manifestation and declaration of his salvation; not by way of effecting or producing it, either principally or subordinately; either inchoatively, by giving any be­ginning of salvation, or by way of compleating or perfecting salvation by way of efficiency. There he is said to save to the uttermost, [...], those that come unto God by him; that is, those that are brought unto him, those whom the Father draweth. Neither (saith Calvin, Inst. lib. 3. cap. 14. Sect. 11.) doth Paul to the Ephesians say, that we have the beginning only of salvation by Free Favour or Grace; but that by Grace we are saved, not by Works, lest any man should boast.

Salvation in Scripture is taken two ways:

First; For the First Constituting of us in the state of salvation. And in this Act, without question, we are meerly passive, we are dead in trespasses and sins, and we are meerly passive in receiving Life. A dead man can be no way active, not instrumentally and subordinately in giving Life unto himself.

Secondly; It is taken for the full Complement and Revelation of sal­vation in Heaven, in the state of Glory; and that also we have freely from God for Christs sake onely. How shall he not with him also freely give us all things, saith the Apostle, Rom. 8.32. Our works and con­versation here on earth, goes before the Revelation of that Glory in Heaven, but they have no influx into it, as a motive or moving Cause, [Page 21] why God doth bestow it upon us, either in whole or in part: For Eternal Life is the Free Gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord; Neither as an efficient producing Cause.

1. Because the proper and native efficiency of the best of our works, by reason of their imperfection, is the Curse: Cursed is he that conti­nueth not in all things.

2. Because they can have no other efficiency with God, but that of a moving cause, which must needs be according to some Covenant or Engagement; for otherwise, God cannot be Debtor to any man. Then the Covenant must be that of works, which promiseth nothing but to perfection; and therefore, by that we can claim nothing; Or else by the Covenant of grace, and there all the promises of God are Yea, and Amen, in Christ onely. It is most absurd, that works perfect or im­perfect, should be the conditions of a Covenant of Pure Grace: And therefore, neither by nor for our works, can we be said to have either the beginning or complement of our salvation, but it is wholly to be attributed unto the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Author and Finisher, as of our faith, so of our Salvation.

Mr. G. thinks the Dr. is in a contradiction, because heretofore he ascribed all goodness wholly unto God, whereas here he calls our duties a righteousness of our own. In this contradiction a caviller may find the Holy Scripture. When the Lord challengeth to himself to Work all, both the will and the deed of his own good pleasure, yet the Prophet Esay calls it our righte­ousness, when he saith all our righteousness is as menstruous raggs. It is called ours because we are agents in the action of it, though it be Gods onely, in reference to the goodness of it, as is fully proved and ex­plained before.

‘"But what is this then (saith Mr. G.) but to disgrace Righteousness and Holiness?"’

Why, because they are acknowledged to be what they are as they come from us? why should we not own the dung of our Solemnities, and the uncleaness of our Holy things? That we may not think of any man or work above that which is written, namely that there is none that doth good, no not one; no not the great Apostle, who found no means to perform that which is good, Rom. 7. That so God may have the full glory of his grace, and man might be taught true Christian Re­pentance, consisting in a real and faithful renouncing of themselves and their best doings, as unavailable to commend them before God; not in a glorious magnifying, and setting of great rates upon their Repentance, and other performances, which are direct wayes to puff up; and how [Page 22] they should thus be wayes of humiliation I know not: The Lord preserve the Kingdom from the fruits of such Humiliation.

Sect. 10. The Dr. had denyed that there is any ground of Peace by Works; This Mr. G. acknowledgeth in regard of our peace with God; But, saith he, peace of Conscience hath much dependance upon Sanctification and Sincerity.

Let us first take that which is granted, namely, that our peace with God doth not depend upon our Works: And then let it be a dangerous course, and an high intrenchment upon our Peace-maker, to think or go about to make our peace with God by our Sanctification, or Sincerity or any of the effects thereof. The Lord teach all his ministers and people to acknowledge this, not in word onely, but in deed and in practise.

‘"But, Secondly, Whereas he saith that peace of conscience hath much dependance upon Sanctification and Sincerity, out of that (2 Cor. 1.12.) Our Rejoycing is this, the Testimony of our conscience, that in Simplicity and Godly Sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world."’

Here we are to distinguish of a double Peace of conscience and there­by a double Rejoycing.

First, A peace of conscience with God; whereby we are assured that God is pacified towards us in the blood of his son. And this is meant by that place cited by Mr. G. Rom. 5.1. That being justified by faith we have peace with God, whereby it is not onely meant a bare attonement with God, whereof we are not conscious, but a manifested peace, which is therefore said to bring forth joy and rejoycing, which an unknown peace could not do. And this peace of conscience, de jure, of right, ought to have no dependance upon Works: That is, though we are weak, and as much as lyes in us, Covenant breakers; yet we ought to know, that the Lord is faithful: He hath promised to do for his own sake, and not according to our Works, but according to his Grace. This Peace of Conscience therefore, ought, notwithstanding all our fallings, to be acknowledged and believed; although, I confess, that, de facto, and in practise, the Children of God are not always able to consider, and remember, and keep their hearts up unto this Rock of peace and safety; especially when the Heaven above them seems to be black, and the Sea under them tempestuous, with wave upon wave; so that, although by reason of their little Faith, with Peter they begin as it were to sink; yet still at the length, they find a gracious issue, and the hand of Christ stretched out to save them, and the voice of Christ calling unto them, My Grace is sufficient for thee; yet notwithstanding [Page 23] they ought with David to confess, that it is their own infirmity that they did not cleave unto the faithfulness of the Promise, and remember the years of the right hand of the Most High. This Peace of Conscience therefore with God, although de facto, as they say it be sometimes darkened by Works, yet de jure, it ought to have no dependance upon them. And this is that Peace which the Dr. speaks of, which causeth rejoycing and glorifying in the Conscience before God: But,

Secondly; There is, another Testimony of the Conscience, or Peace thereof, and thereby rejoycing as the effect of it, which hath relation unto men: And here, when we have done our duty towards men in simplicity and godly sincerity of heart, then have we peace of Consci­ence towards men. And this is the peaceful Testimony which the Apo­stle speaks of here: For the former, that dependeth upon the All-sufficiency of the satisfaction of Christ, whereby God is perfectly re­conciled and fully at peace with us. But this dependeth upon our sin­cere and upright walking towards all men. The Apostle comprehend­eth both, when he saith, that he endeavoured always to have a good Con­science towards God and towards men: Towards God, in the Righteous­ness of his Son; towards men, in the Righteousness of a Christian Con­versation, which is matter of rejoycing amongst men. But Mr. G. goes on: ‘"And hence, saith he, is St. John's Phrase: By this we know that we know him, if we keep his Commandements, 1 Joh. 2.3. & v. 29. Ye know that every one that doth Righteousness is born, of God."’

1. Concerning our estate towards God, and consequently our peace with God, We believe the fundamental Evidence to be the Testimony of the spirit of God: The things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2.11. You have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 1 Joh. 2.20. And hereby we know, that he abideth in us by the spirit which he hath given us. The Evidence whereof we con­ceive not to a Doctrinal Evidence or Revelation besides the Word, but the manifestation of that unto us, which is contained in the Word. It is, as I may say, Revelatio revelans, distinct from the Word, but not properly Revelatio revelata, as some I think have misconceived; of which revealed Evidence we are not now a speaking, but onely of that re­vealing Evidence, whereby our hearts are effectually inclined to close with the Word, in which kind we believe the spirit of God, not one­ly to be the principal, but irresistible and only effectual in his own Power. And what light soever the other Evidences besides this, have, they have it together with their being from this spirit, as by the forecited Scri­ptures is apparent.

[Page 24]2. The next Evidence: We believe to be Faith laying hold upon the free Promise of God's Grace towards us in Christ: This the Apostle desires to be the Evidence or Conviction of things not seen; i. e. that, whereby we are convinced of our interest in the invisible Treasures of the Gospel, which otherwise eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have they entred into the heart of man to conceive: And as the spirit of Christ, is by Analogy, the soul of a Christian; namely, That whereby all the Members are knit together into one Body, (for he that is joyned to the Lord is one spirit) so Faith is as it were the eye of this soul, where­by it is able to discern things not seen: And as the eye onely is that which sees bodily and earthly things; so faith onely is that which is held forth in the Word, as the means to see spiritual things. This is held forth not onely in Heb. 11.1. but also in all those Examples which are there mentioned by way of Induction to prove the same. And it is also a great part of the meaning of those places in Romans, and else­where, in which we are said to be justified by faith onely, or by Faith without Works: So the Reverend Prolocutor of the present Assem­bly, affirmeth, when he saith, That the Righteousness of Christ is said to be imputed to us by Faith, because it is not discerned to be imputed to us of God, put by Faith, contra Armin. lib. 1. part 2. sect. 25.

3. Works of sanctification may be conceived to evidence. 1. To others. 2. To our selves.

First to others: So are ordinarily to be conceived of, when they are spoken of in the nature of Evidences. Shew me thy Faith by thy Works, Jam. 2.18. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye love one another, Joh. 13.35. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good Works, and glorifie your Father, which is in Heaven, Mat. 5.16. In this way they are onely Evidences unto the judgment of Charity, which judgment is sufficient for one man to have towards ano­ther, reserving the judgment of certainty to an higher or more concern­ed Tribunal.

Secondly to our selves: So they may be considered two ways.

1. Barely as they are Works squared out according to such a rule, and to be judged of accordingly. So the Law of God being the Rule, and thereby the Evidence of the goodness of Works, no Work in the Moral Nature of a Work, can be judged good, which is not every way consonant thereunto; for it curseth, and thereby, utterly disallow­eth the Action, and thereby the Actor, wherein there is the least dis­sonancy or aberration therefrom. No Action therefore of Man having any other goodness, but its consonancy to this Rule, and no other Evi­dence thereof, but the approbation of this Rule, can be judged to be [Page 25] truly good, so as to give evidence to the Conscience, that things are well with it. For the curse which hangs over the imperfection of the do­ing, is of far more efficacy to scare the heart out of all its peace, than any pretended goodness can be to pacifie it. For, as Calvin saith, A man must not deceive himself, gathering, that therefore his work is not altogether evil, because it is imperfect, and that therefore that good which is in it is nevertheless accepted of God, Instit. lib. 3. c. 2. sect. 4. Whosoever therefore judgeth of himself by that inherent goodness of his work, either he hath no peace, or deceives himself, as Calvin here saith; and that which he hath, is false and groundless. For the law, or the testimony there­of unto our works barely considered, it is impossible it should speak peace, unless it can first speak or evidence Righteousness. For peace is the fruit of Righteousness, not simply and abstracted considered, but as it is evidenced. Now the Apostle saith, That the Righteousness of God, wherein we are accepted, is manifested without the Law, Rom. 3.21. And therefore, as the Papists and others destroy all peace with God, and assurance of his favour, Doctrinally and in downright terms, so they which have all their peace this way, destroy all peace and assu­rance of Gods favour by consequence and in effect.

2. As they are the effects of Faith, and in which it is evidenced, so we confess, that not only in the pure and prime act of Faith, there is an evidence, but also in all the acts of Christian Love, even to our selves. But how? Not by discovering an inherent legal good­ness in them, (for that we rejected in the last) but only as true Chri­stian faith is active and evidenced in them. For otherwise my Prayers, though they be never so zealous; my Love, if it be never so vehement, if Faith be not evidenced in them, can appear to be no more than the prayers and love of an Unbeliever. But if Faith, to wit, the assurance of Gods favour be manifested in them, then there is not only in them an evidence of Goodness unto them, but also of Peace unto them, by this Faith which is manifested in them. As for Example; I Love my Neigh­bour? Why? What is it that sets me about this work, which kindles this Love in me? It is, because I know God in Christ hath loved me freely, and hath given his Son to me and for me. And this known pri­marily only in the free promise of his Grace laid hold upon by Faith. Notwithstanding it is also exercised, and hath an influx into this act of Love to my neighbour. For We Love him, because he Loved us first; That is, because we know he loved us first. For unknown Love hath no efficacy to produce a reflection of Love in him, upon whom it is ter­minated. And as we love Him, so we love others for his sake who hath so loved us. So then, so far as our Love is truly Christian; so far is the Love of God to us manifested by Faith in it. And so in all the acts [Page 26] of true Christian Love, there an is evidence of peace, as in it Faith is acted, and the Grace of God to us therein taken notice of, and mani­fested. Now although some of those places in John may well be inter­preted of the evidence of Works in reference to others: As the latter of these here cited by Mr. G. if not the former; yet I believe there are others that speak of that evidence to our selves, which I last ex­plained. In all or most of which places, I believe it is not altogether unobservable, that it is [...] herein, (not [...] hereby) which, as I conceive, is more proper to the sense expressed. Now to the for­mer place, 1 John 2.3. [...], herein or hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his Commandements: To let pass that which some have observed, that [...] is and may sometimes be translated Agnovimus, we have acknowledged him so, that the words should then be translated thus: Herein we know, that we have acknowledged him, if we keep his Commandements: To let pass this, I say, or to leave it to the con­sideration of the judicious Reader; I Answer, that John in chap. 3. v. 23. hath explained himself what he means by his Commandements. This (saith he) is his Commandement, That we should believe in the Name of his Son JESƲS CHRIST, and love one another as he gave us Comman­dement. These are his Commandements, not in a legal way, but as writ­ten in the hearts of the Faithful, by the finger of his Spirit, and as we are called forth to the exercise of them, in the strength of the same Spirit, by the glorious manifestation of his grace in Jesus Christ, unto us expressed, by those, and infinite such Exhortations contained in the Word. By the exercise of these two, Faith and Love, there is then we acknowledge an evidence of our good estate, and thereby peace.

First, In Faith, primarily by its own proper act going out of a mans self, and laying hold on JESUS CHRIST, for our sufficient Attone­ment, and Peace-maker. And

Secondly, In Love, as I said, not by consideration of the inherent goodness of it, but in its ground, and as the influence of Faith is in it, and upon it; for so only it is evidenced unto us, and conceived by us to be a truly Christian Act.

Mr. G. addeth, We do not, saith he, look for peace of Conscience from the subduing of our lusts, as the primary cause, but as a sure signe and con­comitant of the same.

To this I Answer as before, that subduing of Lusts of it self, without the light of Faith shining, and giving evidence, that they are expiated before God in the death of Christ, is no evidence at all; and therefore no sure sign or concomitant, no more than that subduing of Lusts which we read of in Heathens, in Jews, in Turks, and Papists in their Mona­steries at this day; theirs is without true Faith, and so is this. But if you grant the assurance and evidence of faith in your subduing of lusts, [Page 27] then I grant there is an evidence of peace in it, as that Faith shines forth in it, which giveth the light of the knowledge of the appeased countenance of God towards us in the face of Jesus Christ, and no otherwise.

Sect. 11. In this Section Mr. G. as he hath done divers times be­fore, instead of dis [...]roving what he had before him, makes an inference of his own or some others slandrous coin, and that he layes to our charge, but he must either own it himself, or else he must name the Author of it. It is, that we slight Godly Sorrow which the Apostle so much commends, 2 Cor. 7.9,10,11. I profess that I am a stranger to any person or Author, I mean, of those that profess the Gospel, that slight Godly Sor­row. It is an ungodly and unbelieving Sorrow which we speak against; That Sorrow which is stirred up upon the apprehension of Gods faith­full and constant love towards us, and our weak and unanswerable walking towards him; this Sorrow, so far as it doth not intrench upon true faith, nor any way darken or question the ground of it, we have always approved; and we say, where true faith is, it will always be as occasion is offered. But when this is degenerated into a Sorrow of unbelief, or into a Popish and dead contrition (as Luther calls it) then we cannot allow of it: of which degeneration this is a sure sign, when by it the appeased face of God our Father is covered and kept out of sight by it. All this sorrow and sadness, saith Luther, is of the Devil, and it is a sacrifice very acceptable unto him.

Whereas the Dr. had asked, whether we could chuse but fall foul up­on our own Spirits, when we see the filthiness and infirmity of our wrestling with sins; I Answer, (saith Mr. Goree) we cannot chuse in­deed but fall foul upon our selves, and say with the Apostle, O wretched men that we are, who shall deliver us from this body of death, Rom. 7.24. And also with the publican, Lord be merciful unto us Sinners, Luke 18.13. But now, saith he, let us ask them, whether upon the sight of their defects they fall thus foul upon themselves or no? I am afraid (saith he) they follow the Pharisee rather than the Publican, boasting ra­ther than praying for pardon of Sin.

Surely if we should do as Mr. Geree doth here in effect, say we are humbler than you, we should indeed play the Pharisees and boasters. But yet we may very well say that Mr. G. had no ground for this sentence upon us. We acknowledged the evil of all our actions, and that (as he ought to have judged in christian charity) in true hu­miliation and self-denial, to be so great, that they deserve the dis­pleasure of God even unto eternal death, acknowledging nothing in our [Page 28] selves as of our selves, but matter of shame and everlasting confusion; which you were so far from consenting unto, that you call it a dis­gracing of righteousness and holiness, Sect. 9. whereas in the same Sect. you affirmed of your duties that you seek Salvation by them. Whe­ther this be nearer the Publican or the Pharisee, let the godly reader judge.

Yet if we add to the acknowledgement of what we are, in, and of our selves, even in the best of our works, that is, wretched men: I say, if we add that which follows in the Apostle, viz. that we thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord; namely, that there is an alsufficiency in him for us, though of our selves, even in our best works, we be worse than nothing: yet you ought not to call it following the pharisee, or boasting; or if you do, yet we shall alwayes desire thus to make our boast of the Lord, and to glory in his strength.

Sect. 12. The Dr. had said, that Christ subdues sin in the faithful, as well as satisfies for sin; But yet, saith he, we are not to seek or receive our peace from this subduing of Sin, but from Christ alone. These two Mr. G. thinks cross one another, but yet he doth not shew wherein, and therefore I shall not go to seek a knot in a bulrush. Only I shall examine his reasons against the latter of these; the first is this.

‘"Let me tell them (saith he) that if Christs power be seen as well in Sanctification, as in Justification, what wrong can this be to Christ, to seek and settle peace in our consciences, as well by Sanctification as Justifi­cation?"’

To the matter of this, and what we hold in this Point, I have an­swered before. To the inference, I say there is no strength in it, that because they are both effected by the same power, therefore the same effects are to be attributed unto both. Mr. G. himself, I doubt not, will grant my inference unsound, if I should reason thus, Sancti­fication is effected by the same power of Christ with Justification, there­fore Sanctification presents just before God, as well as Justification. If he allows not this argument, then he may see the face of his own in this glass. As for our peace, it is necessary that we have a firm rock to seek it from, that is able to speak peace at all times, even in the deepest plunges; which our Sanctification is not able to do: being feeble, and dark, and weak at all times, especially when it self is que­stioned. And therefore David said, I will make mention of thy righteous­ness only. And our Saviour saith, in me ye shall have peace. And there­fore we dare expect no peace from any one below him.

Besides, he demands, where we read in all God's Word, that he was [Page 29] ever angry with his People, for seeking comfort in sincere sanctification and holiness. I Answer, That when the Apostle would shew the true po­sitive Grounds, where Consolation is to be sought, he fixeth them onely upon two things. First, the free promise of God without any re­spect had unto, or condition of works, Heb. 6.13,14,15,16,17,18. Surely, saith he, in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thee. And the Apostle saith, Gal. 3. That that same blessing of Abraham comes on the faithful through faith freely not through works. And the other thing that the Apostle mentions, is the Oath of God to perform his promise, which Oath, as the Psalmist saith, admits of no repentance, or recalling back that which is sworn unto. The Lord swears (saith he) and will not repent. And these two the Apostle ac­knowledgeth to be sufficient ground of consolation, and that is the end of God's proposing them, to wit, That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible that God should lye, we might have strong consolation, who have fled to the refuge, to lay hold upon the hope set before us. Now be­cause Christ with all that he hath done, suffered, and purchased for us, is the substance of this Promise, therefore it is called, Consolation in Christ, Phil. 2.1. who is the consolation of Israel, Therefore, till there be an insufficiency of consolation in Christ, and in what he is unto us, we need not seek for consolation elsewhere in any other thing whatsoever. And in particular, if we seek for it, in or by our own doings, we shall sure­ly be disappointed. The consolations of a Christian are in the ground of them, and therefore ought to be in the exercise of them, everlasting consolation. But the truly experienced Christian finds dayly, that when he sets himself before the glorious Tribunal of the Lord, all his good­ness becomes as the Morning Dew, and vanisheth in a moment. And if it be not able to stand by me there, what comfort can it be unto me, that thus leaves me in my greatest straits and terrors? What's all my comfort, but to be found there without spot, and blameless? That onely, that can stand me instead there, is able to comfort: All other are miserable Comforters, and Physitians of no value. Consider I pray thee, good Reader, that of Calvin, worthy to be written in Gold; and I beseech the Lord, thou mayst be so affected, as I was in the con­sideration of it. ‘"Consider thy Judge before whom thou standest, as he is in himself, not according to thine own imagination, but such an one as he is painted out to us in Scripture, with whose brightness the stars are dark­ned, with whose strength the mountains are melted, by whose anger the earth is shaken, by whose wisdom the prudent are caught in their own cun­ning, and by whose purity all things are found to be defiled, whose righ­teousness the very Angels are not able to endure, who will not account the guilty inncocent, whose vengeance, when it is once kindled, peirceth un­to the neither most Hell: Let him I say, sit in his Throne to examine [Page 30] the Actions of Men, [that according to his sentence of them, they may receive comfort] and then who can stand secure before his Throne? Who can dwell with devouring Fire? Who can abide with everlasting Burning? He that walketh in Righteousness, and speaketh the Truth, &c. let such a man come forth whosoever he be: Nay verily, that Answer makes that we dare not appear: For on the contrary, that terrible voice soundeth out, If thou Lord shalt observe iniquities, Oh Lord, who shall abide?"’ Instit. lib. 3. c. 12. Sect. 1. It may be, some will Object, That Calvin speaks this of Justification, which I confess he doth; yet not­withstanding he speaks fully to the Point in hand: For whereas there are but two Tribunals, at which the Conscience of a man needs secu­ring, and accordingly gathers Peace and Comfort, viz. The Tribunal of Man, and the Tribunal of GOD: At Man's Tribunal, the Consci­ence is at peace, and comforted when it hath a Righteousness as is accep­table among Men; and here we grant Works of Sincerity and Love, their place: But at the Tribunal of GOD, we say with Calvin, That before this terrible and consuming Fire, this stubble vanisheth into nothing, it is able to yield no peace, to give no comfort. Here there is no com­fort, but by being in the hole of that sure Rock Jesus Christ the Righ­teous, whilst that dreadful and unapproachable Presence passeth by: This is the onely refuge of safety, wherein exercised Consciences per­ceive that they may safely breath. But if Men yet will needs be 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 [Page 31] 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 [Page 32] 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, [Page 33] who was typified by that Scape-goat. So the Typical charge of sin upon many of Gods people, as David, and others, did not signifie that he did really bear any dram of that Spiritual curse and punishment due to his sin, but only that he in the flesh bare it as a Type of him that was to come.

1. It did signifie, that he that was to take away, and bare sin in his own body, was not yet come.

2. It did shaddow out that when he did come, he should utterly take it away; so that none afterwards that belonged unto Christ, should bare it, either Typically, as the Sacrifices and Children of the Old Testament, or Really, as Christ only hath done for all his.

And this is the reason why there were sacrifices of Propitiation in the Old Testament, viz. Typically to shaddow out the real attonement of Christ, which was to dome, Exod. 30.10,15, &c. Lev. 16. and very frequently elsewhere: Whereas in the New Testament there are none, none at all either Typical or Real, since the death of Christ. And therefore the Mass is justly abhorred of all true Christians, as blasphemous against the death of Christ, if it be counted an attone­ment or propitiation for sin, either Typical or Real. If the former, then it is a denial of Christ to be already come; For the Types did all prefigure and confess that Christ was not come; If the latter, then they must of necessity deny in whole, or in part, the sufficiency of that sacrifice of propitiation that Christ offered once for all. And therefore I do utterly dislike the Expressions of some Ministers, who call our Fasting Dayes, Dayes of Attonement; whereby, if they mean, that any thing that is done in them, can make an attonement or propitiation either Typical or Real, then they bring an Idol of Jealousie indeed into the very Holy of Holies, and jump with the Papists in setting up an abomination, to make desolate, rather than to heal the Land, and bring a blessing of peace upon it. However men may excuse their meanings, I am sure some mens expressions are broad beyond all sobriety. I am sure the Holy Ghost is very wary of giving any words of that kind, as Priests, Altars, propitiations to any ordinances or actions of the New Testament, besides those which are peculiar to the person of Christ alone.

But if any understand by a day of Attonement, no more but a day of Humble Address unto the Throne of Grace (in confidence of that one attonement offered once for all) for the effects of that one attonement and propitiation to be manifested upon himself, and upon the Land: Then, as Augustine once said in another case, so I think I may as justly say in this, Teneat mentem, sed compescat linguam: Let him retain this Meaning, but refrain that Expression, being every way as dangerous as that of Merit, and Priests, and Altars, or any such like exploded phra­ses [Page 34] But I have digressed sufficiently; I must now return to Mr. G. who goes on in this manner.

Moreover, when the Lord had condemned their Hypocritical Holiness and Services, Hay 1.11,12, &c. Being much offended with them, see what course he prescribes them to make their peace with him, ver. 16, 17, 18, 19. Wash ye, make ye clean, take away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do well: Then what follows? Come now, let us Rea­son together, saith the Lord, though your sins be as Scarlet, they shall be as White as Snow. If ye be willing and Obedient, ye shall Eat the good of the Land.

Here Mr. G. tells us, he doth but cite the very words. Yes, he tells us also to what end he cites them, namely, as a course prescribed of God to make our peace with him. So that here it is evident Mr. G. makes works not only evidences of our peace, but even peace-makers; which office we dare not to attribute to any, but to the Lord Jesus, who hath made peace only by the blood of his Cross, Col. 1.20. For as we acknowledge but one Mediator between God and man, so but one peace-maker; For that was his office to mediate and effect a peace. Reconciliation and peace-making is his own, his sole Act. It is always in Scripture spoken of in reference to a sacrifice, Dan. 9.24. 2 Cor. 5.18. Heb. 2.18. And that a sacrifice of propitiation of appease­ment, which Christ only was able to offer. But the best of our works are aspersed with manifold defilements, they have need of an atone­ment to make peace for themselves, so far are they from making peace for others. But Mr. G. seems to infer out of the place, that we our selves, and that by our own doings must make our selves clean, must take away the evil of our doings, from before the eyes of God; must cease to do evill, and learn to do well; and all this while we are the enemies of God before our sins be forgiven. So the Papist, and others before him, have desired to infer from the place. And this the Lord requires. How then shall we answer to it? Sure our abilities are not the measure of Gods commands. Such passages as these may well shew what is due unto God from man, not what man is able to pay unto God. Mr. G. himself, if he would have taken notice of it, hath collected for us out of Mr. Penible, a satisfactory answer hereunto in his preface, Pag. 4. The Law (saith he) was added because of trans­gressions; that is, to convince man of sin, that he might be put in remem­brance what was his duty of old, and what was his present infirmity in doing of it, and what was Gods wrath against him for not doing it. That seeing how impossible it was to attain unto life by this old way of the Law, first appointed in Paradice, he might be humbled and driven to look after the New way, which God had since that time laid forth more heedfully, attending the promise, and seeking unto Christ, who is the end of the Law, [Page 35] unto every one that believes on him. And thus our peace is made, we are washed, the evil of our doings is done away, out of the sight of God. And thus we cease to be evil doers, and become truly well. doers, not in our own actions, but in him who did all things well And so for his sake, being joynt heirs with him, we Eat and injoy the good of the Land of the living, we have a sure and unshaken in­terest, not only in Heaven, but in earth also; so far as our fathers infinite wisdom sees them good for us.

Here, lest we should plead some difference between the Testa­ments, Mr. G. prevents us, saying, That the New Testament differs not from the Old, in this particular. But mark the Text he alledgeth, Christ was exalted to be a Prince, and a Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel and remission of sins, Act. 5.31. And is there no difference in this? Here Christ is plainly expressed, as a giver of Repentance and For­giveness: In that of Esay it is 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 [Page 36] 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 [Page 38] 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 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 [Page 39] 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 [Page 40] for our Transgressions: He suffered the Just, for the Ʋnjust.

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 m [...]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, which was due to our sins. Yea, say they, but the undergoing of this, is not to make satis­faction: But Christ did not his Work by Words. Neither is it enough to acknowledge his satisfaction in Words onely. Was his satisfaction a full Appeasement? Did it fully answer the whole demand of God's Justice, for all the sins of those that are his, to the uttermost farthing? [Page 41] If not, then the acknowledgment of satisfaction is but verbal, it is the full payment that makes satisfaction nothing less: If a man owe an 100l. and pay but 99, he hath not made satisfaction. He cannot say as Christ did, consummatum est, it is finished. But say they, it it but a fatherly anger and displeasure. I Answer, That is in some respect the greatest and heaviest Anger that can be. An ingenuous Child had ra­ther have all the World angry with him than his Father. I am sure the True believing Child of God had. But if a Father have received a full satisfaction for the fault of his Son, will he yet be displeased and retain his Anger? Surely none can justifie that in an Enemy, much less in a Father: How then can it be in such a gracious Father as we have, who is an infinite everlasting Ocean of Love, Compassion, and Well-pleasedness unto his Children. Yea, but say they further, This expression of Anger and Correction for sin is from his Fatherly Love. I An­swer, That who so is compelled to undergo Anger, (though it be but a mans) for that fault, for which a full satisfaction hath been exhibi­ted, even to the uttermost, will not easily be perswaded, that that An­ger is out of, or agreeable to love, but rather out of extreamity of rigor. It is true indeed, that all the afflictions of Gods Children (or Chastisements and Corrections, for so they are called in regard of the distastefulness to the flesh, and in regard of some effects per accidens, which they have, bearing some Analogy to the effects of Parents cha­stising their Children): I say, all the Afflictions of Gods Children are from his Fatherly tenderest Love. The Lord never manifests himself more sensibly unto their hearts, than in the heaviest of their Afflictions. He takes away earthly comforts out of their sight, that he may satis­fie them with Heavenly. Insomuch, that hereupon the Martyrs have in the midst of the flames, been as it were in Beds of Roses, and triumphed as more than Conquerors, through him that loved them, which they could not have done in the sence, though but of a Fathers Anger, and in the just desert of their sins, if they had suffered from the hand of God as evil-doers. And therefore, that Rebukes and Chastisements are always effects of Anger as well as Love, and namely, that they are such towards Gods Reconciled Ones, needed Mr. G's Proof, not his bare Affirmation.

The Godly Martyrs, and First Restorers of Religion in this and other Nations, have born witness to this Truth. Patrick Hamilton, that No­ble Witness of Gods Truth in Scotland, makes the Voice of the Law indeed, to be, The Father of Heaven is angry with thee: Where­unto he makes the Voice of the Gospel to give a satisfying Answer, Christ hath pacified him toward me. In his places Translated by Frith. So Luther, in Gal. 5.15. ‘"Let us learn, saith he, even in great and hor­rible Terrors, when our Conscience feeleth nothing but sin, and judgeth that [Page 42] God is angry with us, and that Christ hath turned his face from us, not to follow the sense and feeling of our own hearts, but to stick to the Word of God, which saith, That God is not angry."’

So Calvin, (Instit. lib. 3. cap. 19. Sect. 6.) ‘"Although the Faithful do not feel sin to be extinguished, nor Righteousness altogether to live in them, yet there is no reason, why they should fear, or be cast down, as if still they had God offended with them, for the remainders of sin:"’ And else­where, ‘"Judicio castigationis non ita saevit Deus ut irascatur,"’ Instit. lib. 3. cap. 4. Sect. 31. God is never so much as angry in chastising his People; and in Sect. 32. He answereth the Objections to the contrary.

So Peter Martyr, in Rom. 5.9. ‘"We ought to determine with our selves, that seeing the Anger of God is ended and taken away, that nothing is sent upon us by Him, but with a Fatherly and friendly mind; otherwise Afflictions and Adversities might in their own nature make us afraid, and perswade us that God is angry with us, which can no way possibly be, seeing reconciliation is made by the death of Christ."’

Sect. 3. To prove the full deliverance of the Faithful from Wrath, the Dr. cites that of Isa. 53.11. He shall see of the travel of his soul, and shall be satisfied. Here, although Mr. G. I conceive, grants the mat­ter, yet, This Proof (he saith) is meerly mistaken: For (saith he) it is all spoken of Christ himself, who shall see of the travail of his own soul and be satisfied; that is, saith he, the fruit of the travail of his soul.

Hereunto I Answer, That in all safe ways of expounding Scripture, Two Things ought principally to be taken notice of, 1. The Analogy of Faith. 2. The Circumstances of the Text. Let us lay these Two to the present Text.

1. The Analogy of Scripture holds forth every where, that Christ came not to make satisfaction to himself as Mediator, but to his Father, who as the Learned speak [...] stands for the whole Trinity. Take his own Testimony; I came not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me, Joh. 5.30. When he offered himself a Sacrifice of propitiation, or satisfaction (as Mr. Tindal translates it) to whom was his Sacrifice presented, that it might propitiate and satisfy? The Apostle tells us, He offered himself without spot to God, Heb. 9.14. not to himself: For although he be indeed God, yet in this office he is considered as Mediator, and as the person offering and Mediating; and God is considered as to whom the Mediation is made, and the sacri­fice offered. There is one God, (there is the person Mediated) and one Mediator between God, and man, the Man Christ Jesus. There is the person Mediating; together with the person, in whose behalf the Me­diation is made. Christ therefore came not to satisfy himself; and therefore it is not probable, nor consonant to the Analogy of faith, that here it should be meant of the satisfaction of himself.

[Page 43]2. Consider, will not the circumstances of the Text it self yield as much? In the words immediately before, he saith, That the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. How shall the pleasure of the Lord prosper in his hand? Mark here first, that he is here speaking of the pleasure of the Lord, not of the pleasure of Christ. But how pros­pereth the pleasure of the Lord in his hands? How, but (as the next words express) by being satisfied with the Travail of the Soul of his Son? That which Mr. G. objecteth, That the words are, he shall see of the Travail of his Soul, as pointing to the effect of Christs sufferings, not to the sufferings themselves, doth nothing infring what I have said: For supposing that [...] here doth signifie [of] or proceed­ing from, whereunto for the present I do not remember a parallel; yet supposing it doth denote the effect, what is the proper, and im­mediate effect of the Travail of the Soul of Christ, but satisfaction active, as it is in the satisfier Christ, which immediatly produceth satis­faction passive, as it is in God the party satisfied. That other effects are afterwards mentioned, they ought not to exclude that which is Primarily, and expresly set down, to wit, satisfaction; which is a point of faith, which ought not to be darkened, upon such slight or weak ground as Mr. G. hath here brought.

In Sect. 4. Mr. G. would gladly bring in the Dr. as finding fault with the cloudiness of Protestant Divines, whereas he mentioneth none, either in general or particular. And as he was a modest man, far from the bitterness and invectives of many, that have spoken against him both in press and pulpit; so did he never in his Sermons, main­tain any professed opposition to any one, much less to all Protestant Learned men. And for my own part, I dare undertake by the assi­stance of Christ, to maintain that there is no matter of moment in all his Sermons, which the best, and most Orthodox Protestant Divines that are extant, have not asserted before, for which the odious impu­tation of Antinomianism was never cast upon them. And this I hope, I shall partly manifest to the indifferent Reader in this present answer.

Sect. 5. To prove, that Christ alone underwent the wrath of God for us, the Dr. cites that of Isaiah 63.3. He hath trodden the wine-press alone. And in this, and his other proves Mr. G. acknowledgeth, he hath trod in the steps of the Protestant Writers. So then he is not altogether so opposite to them, as Mr. G. would bear us in hand. But, saith he, in this place both he and they were mistaken, which (saith he) is not meant of Christs sufferings for Sin. His Reasons are two:

1. Because Christ is said to be an agent in treading the wine-press, both here, and Rev. 19.13. Whereas in his sufferings he was passive.

[Page 44]2. Because in his sufferings, and satisfaction, he looked for none to help; but here it is said, he looked for some to help.

To the 2. I answer, that metaphorical speeches, are not to be stretched beyond the intention of the Holy Ghost. In propriety of speech, Christ could not look for help from man in any kind, and miss of his expectation, for he knew what was in man, Joh. 2.25. And there­fore neither could he wonder, which is the effect of Ignorance. What then may be the Scope of the Holy Ghost? Surely to beat down the pride of man, who is alwayes arrogating somthing to himself, espe­cially in the matter of Salvation. But saith the Prophet, when the work was a doing, when the wine-press was a treading, then none would, none durst appear. The Son of God might have looked long, but he should have found no help in them in any kind, Psal. 146.3. And he might wonder as it were at the confidence of man, in his great promises what he will do, and at his challenging what he can and doth do; but the issue will be, that it will surely fall in the Suds, if the Lord Jesus bring not Salvation by his own Arm. This expo­sition, I am sure is consonant to the Analogy of faith, whereas Mr. G's. attributing in a proper sence unto Christ, a frustrate expectation is not.

2. In that he saith, that Christ here is active, whereas in his Suf­fering, and Satisfaction, he was passive. I Answer, that herein he hath little observed the manner of the expression of the Holy Ghost, which speaks of Christ even in his sufferings, under the notion of a Conque­ror, and that even upon the Cross, when he was a paying the satis­faction, he was in the Conquest of his enemies. He spoiled Principalities and Powers, and made a shew of them, openly triumphing over them in it, Col. 2.15. The Sufferings of Christ, do not hinder him from being actively Victorious; nay, they are his actual and active Victory. And so he makes his members likewise, even in their sufferings, more than Conquerors, through him that loved them, Rom. 8.36,37. Even when they are killed all the day long. Suffering and Conquest, Spiritual Conquest are not so inconsistent, as Mr. G. would perswade us.

As for his scoff of Doctor infallibilis in the Margent, he might have kept it at home till he had met with a man which arrogated any such thing to himself, or a people that ascribed any such thing unto any. We say of him as Paraeus doth of Calvin (Par. in 2d. cap. ad Gol. Lect. 22.) We pretend not his Name, we were not Baptized into it, although his Doctrine we do deservedly hold and defend as being agreeable to the Holy Scriptures; yet not because it is his, but because it may be evidently shewn to agree with the Truth of the Gospel.

"Sect. 6. The Dr. saith, A Believers Afflictions are not For, but From [Page 45] Sin. This Distinction (saith Mr. Geree) is silly, contradicts it self, is pure non-sense.

Mr. G. speaks such Language as he hath Learned, but not in the School of Christ. Mr. Calamy, in a Sermon before the House of Com­mons, December 22. 1641. hath these Expressions: It is not enough to be broken For sin; we must also be broken From sin. And a little after, Let me most earnestly Exhort you to Repent From sin, as well as For sin. Now, if I should take Mr. Geree's Expressions and Reasons, to con­fute this distinction, I should call it silly, and contradictory to it self, and non-sense; because a Medicine is said to be For, not From the Plague, and it is to preserve From it, in that it is For it, might not any man justly, for saying it is Non-sense, &c. account me a Ridiculous Reviler? Surely there are no Reasons against Afflictions for and from sin; but they may with equal Weight (that is none at all) be applyed against repentance for and from sin. That the same distincti­on will not well suit with his similitude of a Medicine for the Plague, is because such medicine hath but a single relation, i. e. only to the Disease it is to Cure: But Afflictions may have a double One, to sin, considered as past, and unavoidable; in reference unto which, it may be said to be Affliction For sin; another, to sin, considered as future, or rather not committed; in reference unto which, it may, in some re­spect, be said to be affliction From sin; that is, to preserve from sin: not as the effect per se, of the afflictions, but as afflictions, do some way occasionally stir up Faith, which stirs up in the true Believer, a real wrestling against all sin. And herein did the Dr. sufficiently 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 [Page 46] 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 [Page 47] 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 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 [Page 48] 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. [Page 49] 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 [Page 50] 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 English-man: So in the natural bo­dy, the suffering of a Toe, is by Natural Union the suffering of a Head, although no part of the Head be touched. So might it be said of the Church of Corinth, that She, to wit, in some of her Members, was judged of the Lord for sin that She might not be condemned with the World; al­though neither the whole Church was so iudged in all its particular Mem­bers absolutely considered, no nor in any one of those who were truely Members, by being united to the rest by one spirit: And also She, that is the Body of the Church of Corinth might be said to be chasten'd of the Lord, in the removal of Corrupt Members from her, that she might not be condemned with the World, although those Corrupt Members in their absolute consideration in themselves, were indeed condemned with the World. The not observing the difference of Predications in this kind, hath occasioned a wonderful Confusion in all points of Divi­nity; whereas the diligent observing of them would very much clear and explicate great difficulties: So then, both according to the scope of the Text, and the Analogy of Faith, it may be expounded thus: For this cause (that is, for the Prophanation of the Lords Supper, by drunken­ness and such like, ver. 21.) many among you are weak and sickly, and many sleep; (that is, many of those Offenders, of which he spake of before, which ye retained among you) [...]; for if we did judge, so the last Translation, but it ought rather to be, if we did discern; not [...], but [...], if we did discern or sift our selves, (that is, separate the Pretious from the Vile, put away from our Communion such Notorious Offenders) we (that is, the Church of Corinth being a Colle­ctive Body) [...], should not be judged, (viz. in such Corrupt Members, and in the whole, as relating to such Members) but being judged, [...], (that is, being punished in such Members, and so in the whole Body, as having relation to them) [...], we (that is, the Church of Corinth in our whole Body collectively ta­ked) are chastised (nurtured or instructed) of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the World, (that we might not be accounted a pro­fane [Page 51] Society, such as the World affords, and that we might not in pro­cess of time become onely a Field, consisting onely of Bryars and Thorns, by the admittance and continuance of evil doers, and the departure of the faithful, we become a reprobate Society, which shall be condemned with the World;) From hence, without question, it cannot be proved, that any particular. Elect Person [...]bsolutely considered, suffers in any measure the just desert of his sins, which Christ onely hath effectually, and perfectly, and all-sufficiently undergone.

Thirdly, Mr. G urgeth, that Zachary was struck dumb because of his unbelief, Luk. 1.20. I Answer, that this is within the verge of the Old Testament, which ends not till the death of Christ, where the New be­gins, Heb. 7. which appears by our Saviours submitting to all the Or­dinances thereof, even to the day of his death; for he ate the Pass-over immediately before: And by that Administration, Zachary with the rest of the Children of God belonging to that Testament, was yet under the School-master, and so under the Whip; which the Children of ripe Age are freed from, Gal. 4.1,2,6,7. chap. 3.25. When the A­postle saith, Now (in the time of the New Testament) ye are all the sons of God, Gal. 3.26. He understandeth (saith Paraeus on the place) such sons of God as are not little ones, under the school-masters ferula, and the custody of Guardians, as the Fathers were, but such as are of ripe age, made free, and capable of their Fathers Inheritance. He saith therefore, that the condition of the Fathers and ours, differs as much as an Heir that is an Infant, differs from a Son that is of ripe Age. So Calvin, vid. ipsum & Mailor.

Fourthly, His last place is that of Peter, 1 Pet. 4.17,18. The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God, (as they are opposed to the wicked and ungodly) saith Mr. Geree; for it follows, and if it be­gin at us, what shall be the end of those that obey not the Gospel of God? And if the Righteous are scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sin­ner appear?

I Answer, 1. That the House of God, although it be by Vocation and Profession, a Company of Saints and Godly People, yet notwith­standing there may be in it Wheat and Tares, good and bad; not se­cret onely, but sometimes open Offenders, through the fault or con­nivance of those whom it concerns; in reference unto which Offenders, the Church may be said to have Judgments come upon it: That God may first cleanse his own House, by casting out of it that which of­fendeth and is unclean; so that there are some that are onely in, some that are in and of the House of God: Now Judgment may begin at the House of God, and yet, as a Judgment, it toucheth only the former. And whereas it is said, the Righteous are scarcely saved, it is not be­cause their salvation is in doubt or hazard; for this same Apostle saith, [Page 52] they are kept by the mighty power of God through faith unto salvation, 1 Pet. 1.5. But he speaks in regard of the rending of their Members, and the sore trials which in their own persons they should undergo, so that they should in outward appearance have thir faith sifted to nothing, if it were not that the foundation of the Lord standeth sure, 2 Tim. 2.19. That the Lord changeth not, and therefore the sons of Jacob, the faithful are not consumed, Mal. 3.6.

2. That which Mr. G. takes for granted, that this judgment is for Sin, whereof he ought principally to have made proof, is so far from being asserted in this Text, that the clear contrary is evidently held forth. 1. In ver. 11. he calls this affliction, a fiery tryal to try them: a metaphor taken from Gold, which is not cast into the fire to be punished but purified; Yet this is the darkest expression. In the next, ver. 13. he calls it, a partaking of Christs Sufferings, and bids them therein rejoyce. Surely it were very unseemly, and incongruous to see an offender rejoyce, in suffering the just desert of his offences. I am confident if we should make such an exhortation, Mr. G. would say (as he doth very falsly, and without ground in the end of this Section,) that we went about to keep people from godly Sorrow. In the next words, ver. 14. he goeth higher, calling it Reproach not for Sin, but for the name of Christ, and saith, that therein the Spirit of God, and of Glory did rest upon them. And in the last place both negatively, in ver. 15. and affirmatively, in ver. 16. he calls it suffering not as a murtherer, not as a thief, not, as an evil doer, &c. but 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 [Page 53] 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 [Page 54] 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 unto us Eternal life, and this Life is in his Son, 1 Joh. 5.10,11. Here by unbelief it is apparent, that not only the truth of God, [Page 55] but also the sufficiency of that life laid up for us in his Son, is questioned by him that chargeth Damnation upon himself.

Nay, saith Mr. G. they do only question their own faith. Surely he that questions his faith, so as to charge Damnation upon himself, questions the Author and Finisher of his Faith. For how is he the Fi­nisher of it, if it fail even to Damnation? He Questions the Vir­tue of the Death and Satisfaction of Christ, whereby a faith that shall not fail is purchased, Phil 1.29. He Questions the Power of God, which is engaged to maintain our Faith even unto Salvation, 1 Pet. 1.5.

But that is unsufferable, which Mr. G. hath vented in the forego­ing words; That they do more wrong to those poor souls, in saying so, than these do unto Christ. Is there any comparison between man and God? Is the greatest injury that can be done unto man (precisely in that con­sideration, which is the case in hand, seeing it is opposed unto the in­jury done to Christ) comparable in heinousness to the least injury a­gainst Christ? Surely as the least work of Christ, by the dignity of the person, is of more Worth and Merit, than any, than all the Works of the rest of the sons of Adam; yea, of Adam himself in his Innocency, yea, of the Angels in Heaven: So questionless the injury done against Christ, is by the same dignity of his person of a deeper stain and demerit (as the School speak) than the greatest in­jury that can be done to the best of the sons of men, which are but worms, Job 25.6. Yea, all Nations in comparison of him, are but as the neglected drop of a bucket, but as a small dust in a ballance, that hath no weight to turn the scale hither or thither; yea, less than nothing, Esay 40.15,17. The Lord preserve his People from such undervaluing words or thoughts of the Lord our Righteousness.

Sect. 9. The Doctor Objecteth, from the mouths of some; That if there be no fear of Damnation, then men may do what they list. No, (saith the Dr.) Christ is the guide of his people, he takes as strict order to restrain and keep in the Spirit of a man as to Save him. Here observe, that that Slander which is frequent in Mr. G. and others, namely, That a man Believing in Christ, may continue still in his Wickedness, was alwayes far from his mouth and thoughts.

But (saith Mr. G.) may not a man suspect himself to be no True Be­liever, when he cannot see that Christ hath taken such strict order, as to restrain and keep his spirit from such sins? I Answer no, he may not adde Unbelief unto his other sins. He ought to walk by Faith, though he cannot by Sight, 2 Cor. 5.7. He ought to remember, That this is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, (and therefore of his present acceptation) that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sin­ners, 1 Tim. 1.15. He ought to imitate David, Wherefore should I fear [Page 56] in the day of evil, when the iniquity of his heels compasseth him about, Psal. 49.5. He ought rather to give unto the Lord the glory of his Grace, the glory of the Righteousness, and Expiation of his SON. Thou needest not fear (saith Dr. Preston, of Gods alsufficiency, pag. 91.) that thy disobedience, if thou beest once within the covenant, will cause the Lord to depart from thee (that so thou shouldst charge Damnation upon thy self) for he will not be unfaithful to thee, though thou be weak in thy carriage to him: For he keepeth covenant for ever. He doth not suspend his promise of help upon our Disobedience. That weighty saying of Lu­ther, is very considerable upon Gal. 5.2. When that great Dragon, that old serpent the Devil, who deceived the whole world, and accuseth our bre­thren, and in the presence of God day and night, cometh and layeth to thy charge, that thou hast not only done no good, but hast also transgressed the Law of God; say unto him, Thou troublest me with the remembrance of my sins past, thou puttest me also in mind that I have done no good; But this is nothing to me: For if either I trusted in mine own good deeds, or di­strusted, because I have done none, Christ should both wayes profit me nothing at all. See also what the Holy Martyr, Mr. Bradford, answereth to this inference of Mr. G. (in a Letter to Mrs. H.) If we want this obedience and worthiness which he requireth, should we doubt whether he be our Father? Nay (saith he) that were to make our obedience and worthi­ness the cause, and so to put Christ out of place, for whose God is our Father.

But (saith Mr. G.) I do not say, that any sin can cut off a true Be­liever from Christ, or hinder his Salvation. If this be true, then may he not suspect the contrary, which Mr. G. affirmed in the immediately foregoing words: "But (saith he) it must needs shake his hope and con­fidence, and hinder his consolation. What a thing doth de facto, and what it ought to do de jure, and of right are not all one: And there­fore this is not to the purpose. We confess that all sins, both ori­ginal and actual, great and small, have this as their natural and con­tinual effect, that they wound the Conscience, that they enfeeble the confidence, that they damp the consolation of a Christian, and so do as it were becloud the Heavens between us and the appeased face of God our Father; which cloud is no otherwise dispelled, but by the appearance of the Sun of Righteousness, Faith ascending up even through the blackest cloud that is all darkness, and no light, and lay­ing hold on the Propitiation.

But he tells us, We are not of Davids spirit, that are so little trou­bled for gross sins, but can presently close with Christ upon such foul Falls.

Answer 1. Here Mr. G. goes beyond his knowledge: No man know­eth the things of man, but the spirit of man which is in him, 1 Cor. 2.11. [Page 57] But the heart knoweth its own bitterness, and a stranger doth not intermeddle with his jo [...] Prov. 14.10. But

2. Suppose the Children of God having less light of the Redeemer, were thereby more under the spirit of bondage unto fear, than the Children of the New Testament are, who have received the spirit of Adoption, to cry, Abba Father (Rom. 8.15.) we have the more cause to praise the Lord, that hath reserved better things for us (Heb. 11.40.) than he did for many Prophets and Kings who have desired to see the things which we see, and have not seen them; and to hear the things which we hear, and have not heard them, Luke 10.24. to wit, the full Revela­tion of the Mystery of the Gospel of Peace, which in other Ages was not known, as it is now in the time of the New Testament reavealed, Eph. 3.5. I say, if God hath been pleased to establish our hearts, with his free Spirit which David Prayed for, Psal. 51.12. and restore us somewhat sooner than he did David, to the joy of his Salvation, are we therefore not of Davids spirit? And so as the Apostle saith, we having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written (to wit of David) I believed and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, that the Lord for his own SONS Sake alone, hath done away our iniquities as a cloud, and our transgressions as a mist, and that he will remem­ber our sins no more, and therefore speak, 2 Cor. 4.13. But what is to be thought of Godly sorrow for sin, and how we approve of it and practise it, if there be not instead thereof, obtruded upon us an inforced howling for wine and oil, and self-love inconsistent with true faith, and the genuine effects thereof, I have spoken of it before.

Sect. 10. Hence the Dr. inferreth by way of answer to an objection; That it is the power of Christ, and the Beauty of Holiness that draws out the spirits of Gods people to a willing service unto him, and not the fear of Damnation, Psal. 110.3.

Here Mr. G. Answereth, that therein the Dr. contradicts what he said before, Pag. 37. That God hampers Ephraim, meaning by chas­tisements. Why so? Hath God no way of chastising, but by threat­ning Damnation? Hath a father no other way to nurture his son, but by threatning to hang him up strait, or to run him through? I Answer, that here he speaks of a people as converted and be­lieving: But what he spake of Ephraim, he spake of him in refe­rence to his unconverted estate, and so not speaking of the same, M. G. may easily perceive there can be no contradiction. That which he adds, that Christ threatned the damnation of Hell to some Pharisees, Matt. 23.33. And diverse other times, to several Churches in the Revel. Chap. 2. & 3. is altogether as impertinent as the former; because none of these places speak of particular believing Christians, but either of notorious hypocrites and unbelievers, or else of mixt congregations [Page 58] consisting of chaff and wheat, which when he saith he will burn up with unquenchable fire, he is to be understood of the chaff only: for he hath promised to gather the wheat into his garner, Matt. 3.12. Neither doth the Scripture any where determine by way of Sen­tence, or denounce by way of threatning, that the truly faithful if they sin so or so they shall be damned; but the clean contrary, namely, that, he that believeth in the Son of God hath Eternal life, and shall not enter into condemnation, but is passed from death to life, Joh. 5.24.

Sect. 11. The Dr. here affirms, that the grass and pasture that Christ hath put a believer into, is so sweet, that though their be no bounds to keep in such a Soul, yet it will never go out of this fat pasture to feed in a barren common. "This he hath said, saith Mr. G. but not proved that the Pasture is so sweet.

Surely he might well have thought, that none professing himself a Christian would have denyed it: For the common pasture of all the faithfull, is that which David speaks of Psal. 23.2. He maketh me to lye down in green pastures, he leadeth me beside the still waters, or the waters of comfort. This is the table which the Lord prepareth for his people, at which he maketh their cup to run over, ver. 5. How can they then but conclude with David in ver. 6. surely goodness and mercy shall fol­low me all the dayes of my life: And therefore I will dwell in the House of the Lord for ever. I shall have no desire or delight, to follow after lying vanities, for they are vain. He cannot but rejoyce that his lot is fallen in so good a ground, that he hath so goodly an heritage; for the Lord is the portion of his inheritance, therefore doth he con­clude with Peter, here are the words of Eternal Life, and whether shall we go, Joh. 6.68. The grace and favor of God through Christ enjoy­ed by faith, is that fountain of living water which is in the bellies of the faithful, continually bubling forth unto Eternal life, whereby they never thirst again, to wit, after those loathsome and stoln waters, which although they may seem sweet to them that have tasted no bet­ter, who therefore long after them, yet to the faithful that have tasted that the Lord is gracious, who have found that the loving kindness of the Lord is better than Corn, than Wine and Oyl, than any of the pleasures of Sin, or promises of the World, yea, than life it self: They cannot forsake those fountains of living water, to hunt after broken cisterns, which they know will hold no water.

But saith Mr. G. His Christ differs from the true Christ. Oh! Mr. G. take heed what you do. Our Christ is no other but the only begot­ten Son of God, The King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords: The Christ of the Patriarchs, of the Prophets, of the Apostles, of all the Saints of God in all Ages. We have no peculiar Christ, but him that came into the world to save sinners. Take heed of stumbling at that stumbling [Page 59] stone, which on whomsoever it falls, it grinds them to powder. And I beseech every one who hath the least dram of reverence unto the Lord Jesus C [...]rist, to consider seriously, whether here was any the least occasion given to speak thus reproachfully of the Lords Christ, or of imagining any other Christ.

But the true Christ, saith Mr. G. told his Disciples that dreamed of such dainties, that they must drink of a bitter cup of Affliction. What then? Shall Christ therefore not be sweet unto them? Doth not he himself say, that in him they should have peace, though in the world they should have tribulation? Is not he an hundred fold recompence unto them even in this life for all their losses, Mat. 19.29. whereby the bitter cup of affliction is so sweetned unto the truly faithful, that they even rejoyce in tribu­lation, Rom. 5.2.

Some of the Disciples indeed dreamed of carnal dainties, and a temporal Kingdom, to sit upon Thrones. And let them be told of such dreams of dainties that look for Quiet, and Wealth, and freedom from the Cross, that hope, by the assistance of the Sword of the Magistrate, to crush all, not only that oppose them, but that do so much as dissent from them even in the smallest matter; let those, if there be any such be told of their carnal dreams: As for us, we have no such thought of freedom from the Cross, so long as Ishmael is alive, and abides in the house, that is, until the Lord of the house shall come, who shall utterly cast out the bond-wo­man and her son, who shall gather out of his Kingdom every thing that offendeth. And notwithstanding, we know, that although the Cross be not joyous, but grievous to the flesh; yet is the spiritual bitterness of it taken away ever since 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 co [...]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 [Page 60] 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 [...]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 [Page 61] 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 the simple, enlightens the eyes."’ But here he hath deceived himself with the ambiguity of the word Law, which any smatterer in Divinity knows sometimes to be taken; 1. Generally for the whole word of God, as Psal. 1.2. And most frequently all the Psalms through. 2. Particularly and properly, for the Decalogue or covenant of works, given from the beginning, but renewed upon Mount-Sinai, Rom. 10.3,4,5. 3. For the Gospel, Isa. 2.3. where it is said, the Law shall go out of Sion. So then, as the Law in its primacy, and proper signification, doth signifie a doctrine; and secon­darily, [Page 62] but most usually, the doctrine of God; so in Psal. 19. it signi­fies the whole word of God, which is in reference to that part of it only which holds forth Christ, and Salvation, gives life and light, and wisdom; that is, the Gospel, which is the power of God unto Salva­tion to the believer, Rom. 1.17. So saith Calvin upon the place. David here commends the whole doctrine of the Law, as comprehending the Gospel, and therefore including Christ in it. So saith Mr. G. the ministers are said to open mens eyes by Preaching the word, Act. 26.18. True, but it is the word of the Gospel which is the ministration of the spirit, Gal. 3.2. Which is the joyful news of the grace of God, Act. 20.24. Whereby alone we are partakers of the promise, Eph. 3.6. In which spiritual eyes are contained, Isa. 42.6. Faith com­eth by hearing, Rom. 10.14. By hearing of what, or of whom? The next ver. will shew you. As it is written, how beautiful upon the mountains, are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of peace. For the Law is not of faith, Gal. 3.12.

Sect. 13. The Dr. saith, that the giving of Repentance, is meerly the work of Christ; here Mr. G. begins: what shall I call it, but to boast himself? If I miscall it, let the Reader judg. "We teach Re­pentance more and better than they. Hereunto I shall say nothing, but desire the Lord to open the mouths of all the Ministers of Christ, that they may more abundantly preach true christian Repentance, to a full and serious self-denial in all things: That man may be taught to own the shame of his own doings, that God may have the full glory of his free grace in Christ.

‘"But Mr. G. suspects this word (meerly) when it is said, that it is meerly the work of Christ to give Repentance."’

Here I confess, he hath picht upon the very point of all our dif­ferences. All our controversies, in a manner, ly in this word (meerly) or (onely) That Christ onely and meerly Saves; that he onely and meerly gives Repentance and Faith. If we could but dispence to leave out this word, the world would be at peace with us. That it might be lawfull for them to say, Christ and we Save: Christ and we give Repentance and Faith: Christ and we pacifie Gods Anger. But utterly to thrust out man, that he may have no finger in these matters, makes him storm and fume, and devise all manner of re­proaches against us. This word, onely Faith, i. e. onely Christ, was the Apple of contention, among the first reforming publishers of the Gospel. ‘"What (said one of the Worthies of former times) [Fulk de Christo gratis justificante] do we seek after in Preaching, in Writing, in Labouring; what do we else, but that Christ (only and meerly) may be received [Page 63] by all, as the Saviour and Redeemer of all? Contrariwise your Popish opinions, what do they breath, what do they beat upon, whither do they tend, but to this one thing, that Christ onely may not Reign alone in his Church? That he onely may not Save and Redeem us by his self alone; That he only and meerly may not be our high Priest, who both made Sa­tisfaction for our sins, with one onely Sacrifice once made, &c."’ Though God hath established a ministry to preach Repentance, yet hath he established none to give Repentance: That is the peculiar prerogative of Christ. After the Minister hath done his office by instructing in meekness, those that are contrary-minded, it remains still to be ex­pected, if God will give them Repentance to the acknowledgment of the Truth, 2 Tim. 2.25.

Sect. 14. Of Faith I have spoken before, in Sect. 12. how it comes by hearing. Mr. G. demands further, How he will make this good, that Faith is the root of all gifts of grace, seeing he saith Knowledg is wrought first. Why did he put Repentance before Faith, unless it went before it? Or else, doth he make Repentance and Faith the same?

To the first Question I Answer, that the knowledg the Dr. speaks of, is nothing else but the beginnings of Faith: Neither doth the Scripture make such an accurate distinction between them, Joh. 3.15. It is said, that he that believeth on Christ, hath Eternal Life, Joh. 17.3. It is said, that to know him is Life Eternal; where Believing and Knowing are words of the same signification. By his knowledg, shall my Righteous Servant justifie many, Isa. 53.11. That is by Faith, in him. Also, where Faith is called the evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11.1. This Evi­dence must needs include a knowledg. So then, knowledg, as the beginning of Faith, may be said to be wrought first, and yet no gift precede Faith.

To the second, why Repentance is mentioned before Faith? I Answer as before; that although Repentance go not before Faith, yet hath it reference to that state which goes before Faith. But that in nature nor time, it doth not go before Faith, I have partly manifested before. And surely whatsoever is not Faith, is Sin.

To his third Question, whether we make Faith and Repentance all one? I Answer, no, not adaequately. Yet we say there is no Repen­tance truely acceptable unto God, in whose difinition Faith is not. And if Mr. G's. observation be true, we may call Repentance Faith, and Faith Repentance, and that by the Authority of the Scriptures (Pag. 73. in marg.). Surely this is putting a less difference between them.

[Page 64]4. He finds much fault with the Dr. (although for ought I see, he is guilty of the same himself) that he hath not defined Faith and Repen­tance. And this he tells us (Cato-like) he must needs note as a gross oversight, if not a wilful neglect.

To this I Answer, 1. That the same definition of these that he shall find in the Scripture, I will find in these Sermons. And therefore Mr. G. should not have passed his Censure, till he had made a better search. 2. If he had made an exact and logical definition, it may be Mr. G. would not have been satisfied.

FINIS.

Books Sold by Will. Marshall at the Bible in Newgate-street. Books Lately Printed of Dr. Owen's.

  • 1. THE True Nature of a Gospel Church, and its Government, where­in in these following particulars are Distinctly handled:
    • I. The Subject Matter of the Church.
    • II. Formal Cause of a particular Church.
    • III. Of the Polity, Rule, or Discipline of the Church in General.
    • IV. The Officers of the Church.
    • V. The Duty of Pastors of Churches.
    • VI. The Office of Teachers in the Church.
    • VII. Of the Rule of the Church, or of Ruling Elders.
    • VIII. The Nature of the Polity or Rule, with the Duty of Elders.
    • IX. Of Deacons.
    • X. Excommunication.
    • XI. Of the Communion of Churches. In large Quarto, Price Bound 3s.
  • 2. A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and Grace. Price Bound 1s.
  • 3. A Brief and Impartial Account of the Nature of the Protestant Religion, its State and Fate in the World, its Strength and Weak­ness; with the Wayes and Indications of the Ruin or Continuance of its Publick National Profession. Price 6d.
  • 4. A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, and Discipline of the Churches of the New Testament; by way of Questions and Answers, with an Explication and Confirmation of those Answers. Price Bound 1s.

Where you may be Likewise supplied with the Rest of Dr. Owen's Books that are in Print.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.