The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted and Vindicated, Lecture 11
LECTURE XI.
HEB. 4.13.
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his ſight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
ALthough this Text in the general ſenſe of it, will not fully prove Gods eye of anger againſt ſin in juſtified perſons; yet becauſe a more ſpecial ſcrutiny and ſearch into the words, will make much againſt the Antinomian Error, and alſo becauſe the Anſwers which are given to this Text, and the like, do contain groſſe falſhoods, ſo that in the refuting of them, all things in this controverſie will be clearly diſcovered, as alſo becauſe that principal and noble Queſtion, How far Gods taking notice of ſin, to chaſtiſe and puniſh it, is ſubject to the meer liberty of his will, will in ſome meaſure be diſcuſſed, I ſhall therefore inſiſt upon this Text. Not that the Orthodox make it their ſhield of Achilles, as the Antinomian ſlandereth, Honey-comb, p. 73. But becauſe the vanity of that diſtinction, which they make between Gods ſeeing and his knowing, may be brought out from behinde the ſtuff, where like Saul it had hid it ſelf.
And firſt, for the Text abſolutely in it ſelf,The coherence. The words are part of that excellent commendation, which is given to Gods word. The purity and power of Religion is kept up by acknowledging the fulneſs and perfection of the Scripture. Both Papiſts and Illuminatiſts agree in this dangerous Error, that they look for, and expect a Doctrinal teaching immediately by Gods Spirit, above, and beſides that of the Word: Hence as the Papiſts make the Scripture but a ſheath to receive any ſword, either of gold or iron (words that will bear any ſenſe you put upon them) ſo do the Illuminatiſts, that a godly man is above all books, teachers, writings, and feels nothing but God working and acting in him. We have therefore the greater cauſe to ſet up the Scriptures in their Divine authority and fulnes, by how much the more others indeavor to diminiſh it. This noble encomium of Gods word begineth, v. 12. where you have the ſubject of the commendation, & the commendation it ſelf. The ſubject is called foreign, the word of God. Bellarmine and other Papiſts, that they might depreſs the Authority of the Scriptures, underſtand this of Chriſt, who is often called the Word. Their reaſons are partly becauſe Chriſt is in other places called ſo, as Joh. 1.1. & alibi, and partly becauſe this Word is ſpoken of as a perſon, and therefore all things are ſaid to be open and naked to his ſight. But theſe are not Cogent; for although in other places Chriſt is called the word, yet the context doth there clearly evince it, whereas here the contrary will appear: for having before exhorted them to receive the Goſpel, and to hearken to the voice, while it cals to day, among other Arguments he brings this from the nature of Gods word, which is to be underſtood both of the Law and the Goſpel; and its further obſerved as a peculiar thing to John only in his Goſpel, and the Epiſtles, to call Chriſt the word of God; and although the Text ſpeaks of the word of God as preached, and not as written, yet becauſe the word written and preached, differ not eſſentially but accidentally in reſpect of the manner, therefore this Argument holds true of the Scriptures. As for the ſecond reaſon it is ordinary by a metonymy to attribute that to the Scripture which belongs to God ſpeaking by the Scripture, as Gal. 3.22. The Scripture hath concluded all under ſin, &c. ſo the Scripture is ſaid to ſpeak Ja. 4.5. So that it is no wonder if here the word of God be ſpoken of, as knowing all things, becauſe God by this doth diſcover and manifeſt every thing. In the next place conſider the commendation, and that is, 1. from the adjunct qualities, 2. from the powerfull effects. The adjunct qualities are (quick and powerfull) that is, it is not dead or fruſtrated, but puts forth its power and efficacy, which our words cannot do. It is thought to be an alluſive expreſſion to the fire wch was on the altar of ſacrifices, that was not to go out.
Secondly, Its commended from the effect, its ſharper then a two-edged ſword; its an Hebraiſm to give a mouth to the ſword, becauſe it doth ſo devour; but becauſe a two-edged or two-mouthed ſword doth divide more forcibly, therefore is Gods word compared to that. Such a ſword they ſay, the Levites in the Old Teſtament did uſe in dividing and opening the ſacrifices, in which Metaphor the Apoſtle continueth afterwards. Now by this compariſon two things are inſinuated,
1. That God knoweth all ſin, even the moſt hidden.
2. This knowledge is not a meer bare knowledge, but ſuch as is of a Judge examining and puniſhing. For as the ſword doth pierce and hurt, ſo Gods word doth ſee and puniſh, therefore it is ſaid to be foreign, that is, moſt exactly diſcerning and ſeparating gold from droſſe, and judging accordingly: ſo that the Text ſpeaking not barely of an omniſcient eye of God, but an eye diſcerning▪ judging and puniſhing, doth in this conſideration pertinently belong to the controverſie. We need not be curious in diſtinguiſhing between the ſpirit and the ſoul (only the Scripture doth not confound theſe together) nor between the things underſtood by the marrow and joints, The Text opened.which are tranſlated from the body to the ſoul. This is intended in the general, by the joints, he means the minima, the leaſt things; and by the marrow, the intima, the moſt ſecret and inward things. Having thus deſcribed the efficacy of Gods word, he layeth down two Propoſitions in my Text; one negative, the other affirmative. Negative, There is no creature, foreign inapparent, but he ſeeth thorow it. Affirmative, All things are naked and opened, opened is more then naked: Naked, is that which is not clothed or covered; Opened, is that, whoſe inwards are diſcovered and made conſpicuous. Much is ſaid by Criticks concerning the word foreign ▪ Cameron thinks it tranſlated from wraſtlers, who are ſaid foreign their adverſary, when they ſo take him by the neck, and turn him upſide down, ſo as to object him in every part to the eyes of the beholders: ſome ſay, the Metaphor may be taken from thoſe, who being before the Judge, hold down their neck and face to the ground, as not daring to behold his face: but that which is moſt received, and which is moſt conſonant to the context, is of thoſe who take the word from thoſe who begin at the neck, and divide the ſacrifice in the middle, ſo that all the inwards do appear. Thus you ſee how emphatical and full the Scripture is in deſcribing of Gods omniſcient eye of any ſin whereſover it is, and that not by a meer bare cognition, Obſerv.but of judging; ſo that the Obſervation is,
That ſeeing there is ſin in juſtified perſons, Gods eye muſt needs ſee it, and judge it.
Antinomians an…wer by diſtinguiſhing,To this it is anſwered very confidently by a diſtinction never heard of before, That God indeed knoweth the ſins of believers, but he doth not ſee them, Hon. Comb p. 67, 68, 69, 70. and this diſtinction they plead ſo boldly for, that (they ſay) although all men, Devils and Angels, would gain-ſay it, yet it muſt ſtand; for the opening of this ſilly diſtinction, they expreſſe themſelves thus; That although to ſee and know be all one in the pure uncompounded nature of God, yet they are not ſo to us; even as juſtice and mercy are all one in God,And reaſons thereof. but not to us, yea contrary; and the Author giveth two ſtrong reaſons (as he cals them) to prove this, firſt, The Scripture (ſaith he) diſtinguiſheth them, now he argueth, that as it is a ſin to diſtinguiſh where the Scripture doth not (and thereupon he inſtanceth in the diſtinction of the guilt of ſin, and the nature of ſin, making it a new diſtinction, and ſuſpecting it for a corrupter of the Goſpel, as if Chriſt had taken away the guilt of our ſins, and not the ſins themſelves) ſo where the Scripture doth diſtinguiſh, there it is a ſin for us not to diſtinguiſh. Now concerning the former, that there is in the Scripture a diſtinction betweeen the guilt of ſin, and ſin it ſelf, is in its due time to be proved.
Let us conſider how he proveth this diſtinction of Gods ſeeing and knowing. The place he brings is Pſal. 94▪9, 10. He that formed the eye, ſhall not he ſee? he that teacheth man knowledge, ſhall not he know? Here (ſaith he) they are diſtinctly ſet down, and the Scripture uſeth this continual practice, ſaying no where, That God doth not know the ſins of juſtified perſons, but in many places, That he ſeeth no ſin in them. His ſecond reaſon is, becauſe among men and Angels, yea in God himſelf there is a reaſon (to our capacities) of this difference; for to know a thing, is, to underſtand the nature of it, though the thing it ſelf be abol…ſh…d and hath no exiſtence; but to ſee a thing, is to have a real exiſtence of it before our eye. As for inſtance, God (ſaith he) knoweth the floud that drowned the whole world, but he doth not ſee it having an exiſtence now; ſo God knoweth the leproſie of Naaman, more perfectly then Naaman did himſelf, yet he doth not ſee it upon Naaman; and thus God knoweth the ſins of the wicked, and of his juſtified children more perfectly then they themſelves do, and herein is no difference between them; but here is the difference, that God ſeeth ſin in the one, and not in the other, becauſe aboliſhed by Chriſt.
Thus you have a heap of falſhoods and non-ſenſe together, as if the Author had no knowing or ſeeing, while he ſpeaks of theſe things.
To let you underſtand the truth in theſe particulars; howſoever it would be very profitable in this place, to give you the Scripture Doctrine, about the eye or ſeeing of God; as alſo the different uſe of it in Scripture; namely, that ſometimes its taken for a meer naked apprehenſion of a thing; ſometimes for the actions or effects that do flow from Gods ſeeing, and then it is uſed either in a good ſenſe for the eye of his care, protection and approbation, or in a bad ſenſe, and that two waies, either for an eye of condemnation, in which ſenſe God doth not ſee the ſins of Beleevers, or of diſpleaſure and anger, in which ſenſe its expreſly ſaid, the ſinfull actions of godly men are evil in Gods eyes: The truth of the Antinomian diſtinction▪ examined by ſeveral Propoſitions.Howſoever (I ſay) it would be very profitable to ſpeak of this here, yet I ſhall put it off. I ſhall therefore examine what truth is in this diſtinction, which they ſo applaud, and that ſhall be by ſeveral Propoſitions.
Firſt, That ſeeing is attributed to God only metaphorically, 1. Seeing attributed to God only metaphorically.God hath no bodily eies. It is well obſerved by a Father, that the meaner and more debaſed the things are to which God is compared, there is the leaſt danger, becauſe every common apprehenſion will judge it not to be truly and formally ſo in God. And thus it is of eyes, and when to ſee is attributed to God, it is the ſame thing with to know, ſo that to make a difference between theſe two is groſſe ignorance.
Secondly, Knowledge is attributed likewiſe to God, 2. Gods knowledge and ours differs.but in a far different ſenſe from what it is in us, and therefore differs from our knowledge many waies: 1. His knowledge is his ſubstance: Hence Syneſius ſaid, God to be foreign, by his underſtanding. 2. Its not cauſed from objects; Gregory expreſſed it well, Ipſe mundus nobis non notus eſſe poſſet niſi eſſet, deo autem niſi notus eſſet, eſſe non poſſet. 3. It's ſimple and one. There is properly no memory of things paſt, no preſcience of things to come, but all things are preſ…nt to him: As if there were a body that were all eies, that needed not to turn it ſelf backward and forward, to ſee things; or as a man ſtanding upon an high Tower doth with one caſt of his eye behold Paſſengers at the bottom of the Tower, which go ſucceſſively one after another; Thus Deus eſt totus lux, & totus oculus, God is altogether light, and wholly an eye. 4. Knowledge in us, is properly taken for to know a thing by its cauſes, but it is not ſo in God. This rightly underſtood will overthrow that diſtinction of knowing and ſeeing.
3. The alledged text, Pſal 94 no ground fo… their diſtinction.Thirdly, That text, Pſal. 94. doth no waies ſuppoſe ſuch a diſtinction; for the Pſalmiſt doth there intend, whatſoever perfection is either in bodily ſeeing, or mentall knowing, it is eminently and more tranſcendently in God; neither doth he limit ſeeing to the ſins of wicked men, and knowing only to the ſins of the godly; yea, the text maketh thus againſt the Antinomian, if a believer himſelf and others ſee ſin in him, ſhall not God much more? Indeed in the creatures, there is a diſtinction between ſeeing and knowing in ſome reſpects, for knowing may be of a thing in the abſtract, but ſeeing doth denote the intuitive preſent apprehenſion, ſo that knowing hath a perfection which ſeeing hath not, and ſeeing which knowing hath not; but in God all his knowledge is intuitive, and all things are preſent to him, becauſe of his eternity and omnipreſence, ſo the Schools determine, and rightly, upon that Text, 2 Pet. 3. afterwards to be explained, and the reaſon is, becauſe intuitive knowledge, or the apprehenſion of a thing preſent, is the moſt noble knowledge, not that the things themſelves do coexiſt, or are preſent to one another, but unto God in Eternity; for as Gods immenſity is in reſpect of his eſſence, ſo his eternity is in regard of time: ſo that although the things themſelves vary, yet Gods knowledge doth not; As an Artificer, who hath the Idea, or form of an houſe in his minde, before he makes it, when it is made, and after it is deſtroyed: he hath ſtill the ſame form in his minde, though the houſe be altered.
4. The Scripture uſeth no ſuch diff…rence.Fourthly, Neither doth the Scripture cuſtomarily uſe ſuch a difference; yea, to know, when attributed to God, is uſed many times for a knowledge of approbation, and then we cannot ſay, God knoweth the ſins of Believers; but we may as well ſay, God knoweth no ſin in them (that is) to condemn them for it, as well as he ſeeth none in them, ſo Hab. 1. God is ſaid to be of purer eye… then to behold iniquity ▪ that is, with approbation, and ſo in this ſenſe, we may ſay, God ſeeth no ſin, no not in wicked men: Beſides it is very falſe, that the Scripture doth no where ſay, that he ſeeth ſin in Believers; for it is expreſly ſaid of Davids numbring the people, and of his murder, that it was evil in Gods eyes, and he confeſſes that he had done that evil in Gods ſight. But of this more hereafter.
So then whereſoever the Scripture ſaith, God ſeeth no ſin, there we may alſo as truly ſay, God knoweth none; and where it is ſaid, he doth ſee, there we may ſay he doth know alſo.
Fifthly,5. There is no diſtinction to our capacities between Gods knowing and ſ…eing. There is in reaſon no diſtinction to be made to our capacities between Gods knowing and ſeeing, for in thoſe inſtances the Author giveth, we may ſay God knoweth in that reſpect as he ſeeth, and he doth not ſee in that reſpect he doth not know; As for example, God doth not ſee the floud now to be, no more can we ſay, he knoweth it now to be, for that is falſe; God doth not ſee the Leproſie upon Naaman, no more doth he know it to be on him: So God knoweth his people in Chriſt, as well as ſeeth them in Chriſt, and therefore if by Chriſt he ſeeth no ſin in them, he muſt likewiſe know none in them. Now this error is grounded upon a dangerous conceit, as if Gods ſeeing were limited to things exiſtent, and his knowledge to things paſt or future, ſo that it's inexcuſable ignorance, to ſay with this Author, that God knew the Sun and Moon before he made them, but he did not ſee them. He did not indeed ſee them to be before they were, no more did he know them to be before they were, but when they were made, his ſeeing and knowing of them were all one.
Sixtly,6 Gods ſeeing …nd k…wing, not oppoſite. If Gods ſeeing were to be explained oppoſitely to his knowing, then nothing that had a preſent being were known by God. But doth not the Scripture give to God the knowledge of all things? and though the things be diverſified by time paſt, preſent, and to come, yet to God they are not ſo; Conſider that eminent place, 2 Pet. 3.8. A thouſand years with God, are but as one day. The Apoſtle alledgeth this place out of Pſal. 90. ver. 4. with a little variation. The Pſalmiſt ſaith, as yeſterday when it is paſt: The Apoſtle as one day. The Pſalmiſt ſaith, in thy eyes O Lord: The Apoſtle with the Lord. The Pſalmiſts expreſſion in the eyes of the Lord, are very pregnant to our purpoſe. Here is a deſcription of eternity, proving that God ſeeth all things with one intuitive caſt of his eye, and that although to us things are preſent, paſt and to come, yet to God all things are preſent, and although we are not able to reach this with our underſtanding, no more then a pigmie the Pyramides, yet we muſt reſt more upon this Scripture aſſertion, then our own underſtanding, Quicquid de Deo dici (we may add cogitari) poteſt, eo ipſo eſt indignum quia dici (cogitari) poteſt: and again dignè Deum aeſtimamus, dum inaeſtimabil…m dicimus. The Schoolmen diſpute, whether thoſe things which God did once know, he ſtill knoweth, as for example, God once knew that Chriſt was to die, but now it is not true, that he is to die; and their reſolution is, that we cannot properly ſay, God begins to know what he did, or ceaſeth to know what he did, but rather that the thing it ſelf beginneth to be known, or ceaſeth to be known, ſo that the change is not in reſpect of Gods knowing, but the thing known, as when I ſee the Sun, and afterwards it is hid in the cloud, the change is not in my eye, but in the Sun; Hence they alſo reſolve, that God knoweth all things ſimul together, that his knowledge is invariable, that it admitteth not of increaſe or decreaſe, that all things are preſent to him, and that as the Sun is alwaies in actu lucendi, ſo God in actu intelligendi: So that this very Text doth briefly overthrow all that which the Antinomian in ſo many pages ſweateth to prove; and that the conſideration of Gods eternal knowledge in this manner is of profitable uſe, appeareth by that, when the Apoſtle ſaith, Be not ignorant of this one thing.
7. Gods ſeeing not limited to things preſent.Seventhly, If Gods ſeeing of things were limited in our capacity, only to things preſent, then all the by-paſt ſins of ungodly men, though unrepented of, yet God doth not ſee them, becauſe they have no preſent being, and ſo God ſhall not only, not ſee ſins in the godly, but likewiſe not in the ungodly: All the paſt ſins of Judas and Cain, God did not ſee at the day of their death, for they were p…ſt away. Here will be much comfort to unbelievers, as well as Believers.
Eightly, If therefore God doth not ſee a thing becauſe it is paſt, 8 Gods not …ing ſins paſt exclud…s Chriſts merits.what need the Antinomian run to Chriſts merits taking away ſin out of Gods ſight, for this would follow by natural conſequence, becauſe the object is taken away? Take their own inſtances, God doth not now ſee the Floud that drowned the world; The Leproſie upon Naaman; The Iſraelites wound that is healed; why ſo? doth there need the bloud of Chriſt to remove theſe? No, it followeth naturally, becauſe the objects are removed and taken away; and ſo it would be here.
Ninthly, All theſe inſtances for Gods not ſeeing, yet knowing, 9 Antinomian … cont…a…y to their doctrine.are contrary to the doctrine they hold▪ God doth not ſee the Floud that drowned the world, he ſeeth not Naamans Leproſie, why ſo? becauſe theſe things have no being; but here is their grand abſurdity, that they hold ſin hath ſtill an objective existency in us to Gods underſtanding, and yet he doth not ſee it. They ſhould have inſtanced in ſome thing that hath a being, and yet for all that, God not ſee it. If Naamans Leproſie had continued on him ſtill, and yet God not ſee it, then it had been to the purpoſe; for they grant that we have truly ſin in us, and we are to judge ſo; yet though it hath ſuch a being in us, God doth not ſee it.
Tenthly, What an empty Cobweb is this diſtinction,10. The vainneſſe of this diſtinction. even for that very purpoſe they bring it? Oh ſay they, if God ſee ſin, he is of ſo pure a nature, that he cannot be but horribly and infinitely diſpleaſed with us: Thoſe (ſay they) that hold God ſeeth ſin in Believers, conſider not how loathſom, even the leaſt ſin is in his eyes. But will this comfort my conſcience, if they ſay at the ſame time, though God doth not ſee it, yet he knoweth it? Alas, God is of that pure nature, that if he knoweth but the leaſt ſin by me, he cannot but be infinitely diſpleaſed at it. So that you ſee this diſtinction will no waies eaſe a Believer in point of the trouble of his conſcience. And thus have I laboured to break the heart of this falſe and ignorant diſtinction.