The true doctrine of justification asserted and vindicated, from the errours of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially Antinomians in XXX lectures preached at Lawrence-Iury, London / by Anthony Burgess ...

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 be∣cause 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,* 1.1 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 Illumi∣natists agree in this dangerous Error, that they look for, and ex∣pect 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, teach∣ers, 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 begin∣eth, v. 12. where you have the subject of the commendation, & the commendation it self. The subject is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word of God. Bellarmine and other Papists, that they might depress the Authority of the Scriptures, understand this of Christ, who is oft∣en 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 al∣though in other places Christ is called the word, yet the context doth there clearly evince it, whereas here the contrary will ap∣pear: for having before exhorted them to receive the Gospel, and to hearken to the voice, while it cals to day, among other Argu∣ments he brings this from the nature of Gods word, which is to be understood both of the Law and the Gospel; and its further ob∣served as a peculiar thing to John only in his Gospel, and the E∣pistles, to call Christ the word of God; and although the Text speaks of the word of God as preached, and not as written, yet be∣cause 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 ordi∣nary by a metonymy to attribute that to the Scripture which be∣longs 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 mani∣fest every thing. In the next place consider the commendation, and that is, 1. from the adjunct qualities, 2. from the powerfull ef∣fects. 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 w^ch 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-mouth∣ed sword doth divide more forcibly, therefore is Gods word com∣pared to that. Such a sword they say, the Levites in the Old Te∣stament did use in dividing and opening the sacrifices, in which Metaphor the Apostle continueth afterwards. Now by this com∣parison 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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▪ judg∣ing 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 con∣found these together) nor between the things understood by the marrow and joints,* 1.2 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Cameron thinks it translated from wrastlers, who are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 da∣ring 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,* 1.3 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.

* 1.4To 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 di∣stinction 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 un∣compounded nature of God, yet they are not so to us; even as ju∣stice and mercy are all one in God,* 1.5 but not to us, yea contrary; and the Author giveth two strong reasons (as he cals them) to [ 1] 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 di∣stinguish. Now concerning the former, that there is in the Scri∣pture 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 Scri∣pture 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 capaci∣ties) 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 exi∣stence; 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 exi∣stence 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 abo∣lished 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; howso∣ever 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 ta∣ken 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 expres∣ly said, the sinfull actions of godly men are evil in Gods eyes:* 1.6 How∣soever (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 se∣veral Propositions.

First, That seeing is attributed to God only metaphorically,* 1.7 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 com∣pared, there is the least danger, because every common appre∣hension 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,* 1.8 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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.

* 1.9Thirdly, That text, Psal. 94. doth no waies suppose such a di∣stinction; 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? In∣deed 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 apprehen∣sion, so that knowing hath a perfection which seeing hath not, and seeing which knowing hath not; but in God all his know∣ledge 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 apprehen∣sion 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 de∣stroyed: he hath still the same form in his minde, though the house be altered.

* 1.10Fourthly, 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 num∣bring 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,* 1.11 There is in reason no distinction to be made to our capa∣cities 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,* 1.12 If Gods seeing were to be explained oppositely to his know∣ing, 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 indig∣num quia dici (cogitari) potest: and again dignè Deum aestima∣mus, dum inaestimabil••m dicimus. The Schoolmen dispute, whe∣ther 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 in∣telligendi: 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.

* 1.13Seventhly, 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,* 1.14 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 Le∣prosie 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,* 1.15 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 absur∣dity, 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,* 1.16 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 dis∣pleased with us: Those (say they) that hold God seeth sin in Be∣lievers, 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 con∣science. And thus have I laboured to break the heart of this false and ignorant distinction.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The cohe∣rence.
• * 1.2

  The Text opened.
• * 1.3

  Observ.
• * 1.4

  Antinomians an••wer by di∣stinguishing,
• * 1.5

  And reasons thereof.
• * 1.6

  The truth of the Antinomi∣an distinction▪ examined by several Propo∣sitions.
• * 1.7

  1. Seeing attri∣buted to God only metapho∣rically.
• * 1.8

  2. Gods know∣ledge and ours differs.
• * 1.9

  3. The alledged text, Psal 94 no ground fo•• their distincti∣on.
• * 1.10

  4. The Scri∣pture useth no such diff••rence.
• * 1.11

  5. There is no distinction to our capacities between Gods knowing and s••eing.
• * 1.12

  6 Gods seeing ••nd k••••wing, not opposite.
• * 1.13

  7. Gods seeing not limited to things present.
• * 1.14

  8 Gods not ••••••ing sins past exclud••s Christs merits.
• * 1.15

  9 Antinomian 〈◊〉〈◊〉 con∣t••a••y to their doctrine.
• * 1.16

  10. The vain∣nesse of this distinction.