The Doctrine of the Sabbath, Thesis 118
Thesis 118.
The second thing remains to be cleared, whether sanctification may not be a first evidence and therefore more then a carnall inferiour and last evidence, as Mr Saltmarsh cals it: For if it be (not a doubtfull) but a clear and certain evidence in it self (as hath been proved) why may it not be a first evidence? why may not the Spirit of God who works it in a person justified, first reveal it as an evidence that he is justified? What mortall man can limit the Spirit of God, to what evidence he shall first bring in to the conscience of a justified estate? For let sanctification be taken in the largest sense, for any work of saving grace wrought in the Elect (whether in vocation to faith, or in sanctification which (strictly taken) followes our justification by faith) and take evidence not for evidence of the object (for Christ Jesus in his free-grace must be seen first as the ground on which faith rests) but for evidence of testimony to the subject, and then I thus argue, that this first evidence of speciall actuall love in beholding Gods free-grace to a sinner, it is either
1. Without the being of faith and other graces.
Or 2. Without the seeing of them only, the eye looking up only to Christ and free-grace.
But this first evidence is not without the being of faith and holinesse; for then it should be to a man actually under the power of sin and his filthy lusts and the devil; which hath been already proved in the former Thesis to be a meer delusion: there being no such word of the Gospel which reveals Gods free love and actual reconciliation to a sinner as a sinner, and as under the power of his sins, but the Gospel rather reveals the quite contrary; and to affirm the witnesse of the Spirit clears this up, is to pretend a testimony of the Spirit contrary to the testimony of the world; and yet I strongly fear and do fully beleeve that this is the first evidence which some men plead for, viz. to see Gods love toward them, while they neither see grace or any change of heart in them: or have grace, but are still under the dominion of their sin.
And on the other side, if any affirm that this evidence is not without the being of grace but onelyonly without the seeing of it: so that a Christians first evidence is the seeing of Gods free grace out of himself, without seeing any faith or grace in himself, and seeing nothing else but sin in himself, this I confesse is nearer the truth, but it is an errour which leads a man to a precipice and near unto the pit: for if this be so, then these things will unavoidably follow.
1. That a Christian must see the love of God toward him in Christ, and yet must not see himself to be the person to whom this love onelyonly belongs: for (according to this very opinion it self) it belongs only to a beleever, and one that hath the being of grace, and not to a sinner as a sinner.
2. Then a Christian must not see the love of Christ and free grace of God by that proposition or testimony of the Spirit which reveals it, and that is this, Tu fidelis, thou Beleever called and sanctified, art freely beloved: and thus a man must not see his estate good by the light of the spirit, nay thus a Christian must receive the testimony of the Spirit which assures him that he is loved without understanding the meaning of the Spirit, which is (not thou sinner as such) but thou Beleever art beloved: not thou that hast no grace, but thou that hast the being of it, art beloved.
3. Then the first evidence is built upon a meer weaknesse, nay upon an untruth and falsehood; for it is a meer weaknesse not to see that which we should see, viz. the being of faith and grace in the heart, in which respect the promise is sealed, and if any man by not seeing it shall think and say there is no grace, no faith, no sanctification, and now he sees Gods love to such a one, and he thinks himself to be such a one when he sees Gods free grace, and hath this first evidence, it is a falsehood and an untruth, for it is supposed to be there in the being of it all this while; suppose therefore that some Christians at their first return and conversion to God or afterward, have grace and faith, but see it not in their assurance of Gods love (the eminency of the object and good of it swallowing up their thoughts and hearts from attending themselves) yet the question is quo jure, they do not see, nay should not see and take notice of the being of them in themselves? Is not this a meer weaknesse and falsehood which is now made the mystery of this first evidence? and indeed somewhat like Cusanus his summa sapientia, which he makes to be this▪ viz. Attingere illud quod est inattingibile inattingibiliter, That a Christian must see and touch Gods deep love, and yet neither see not touch nor feel any change in himselfe, or any being of grace, when in truth it is there; in which respect also Gods free-grace and love is revealed.
4. If this be the first evidence, then no Minister, no nor any Apostle of Christ Jesus, can give any first evidence of Gods love by the ordinary dispensation of the Gospel; for although a Minister may say. Thou art a sinner, therefore the Lord Jesus may save thee, yet he cannot say upon that ground that therefore the Lord Jesus will save him, for then every sinner should be saved: No Minister can say to any unbeleever, Christ hath redeemed thee, therefore beleeve, or say absolutely Thy sins are pardoned, for then he should preach contrary to the word which expressely tels us, That he that beleeves not is already condemned. No minister can say God will work faith in all you that are sinners, as hath been shewn; but they can say, Thou Beleever are pardoned, thou that art sanctified art reconciled, &c. It is therefore an evill speech of one lately in print, who cals That a bastard assurance, arising from a lying spirit, which first proceeds from the sight of any grace, and thence concludes they are justified and shall be saved. For I would thus argue, that this worke of grace (suppose love to the Saints, hunger and thirst after righteousnesse, universall respect to all Gods Commandments, &c.) it is either common to hypocrites and unsound, or else it is peculiar to the elect and sincere? If the first, then it cannot be either first or second evidence: it can be no evidence at all either without or with seeing, first, Gods free love to sinners as sinners; if the second, then either Gods promise (made to such as are hungry and humble, and have a work peculiar to Gods elect in them) must be fals (which is blasphemous to imagine) or else whensoever it is seen, whether first or last, it must needs be a most blessed and sweet, and sure evidence: for when we say that such a work of grace may be a first evidence, we do not mean, as if the work simply considered in it self could give in any evidence, but only as the free promise of grace is made to such as have such a work of grace; this promise we say to such persons, whensoever they see this work, gives in full and clear evidence of their blessed estate: And if the word of grace to a sinner as a sinner, may give in a first evidence (as some imagine) then much more may it give in evidence…, where there is not only the word of grace, but also the spirit of grace, yea the work of grace to assure the conscience: and for any to affirm that faith and sanctification are good evidences, if justification be first evident, is but a quirk of frothy wit; for it may be as safely affirmed on the contrary, that justification is a good evidence, if faith and sanctification he first evident; for 'tis not these simply, but the promise which is our evidence, which is never to a sinner as such: I shall therefore conclude these things with shewing the true grounds of effectuall evidence of the love of Christ.