AN EXERCITATION Concerning the NATURE OF FORGIVENESSE of SIN.

Very necessary (as the Author hum­bly conceiveth) to a right information, and well grounded decision of sundry Contro­versal Points in Divinity now depending.

Directly intended as an Antidote for preventing the danger of Antinomian Doctrine.

And consequently subservient for promoting the true faith of Christ and fear of God, in a godly, righteous, and sober life.

By THOMAS HOTCHKIS, Master of Arts of C.C.C.C. And Minister of Gods Word at Stanton by Highworth in the County of Wilts.

To which is prefixed Mr. Richard Baxters Preface.

London, Printed by T.M. for Tho. Underhill at the Anchor, and Math. Keinton at the Fountain in Pauls Church Yard. 1655.

VENERABILI VIRO, NEC NON PATRONO SUO IN CHRISTO, [...] ROBERTO HIPPISLEIO Armig.

Ob Amorem, qui sedecem ab hinc (plus minus) annis inter nos coaluit, & ci­tra ullam reconciliationem hacte­nus obtinuit, conjunctiorem.

Chartaceum hoc, qualecunque, munus­culum non ingrati erga ipsummet animi, propensique [...].

(Quod foelix faustumque sit)

EXERCITATIONEM de Nobilis­simo, juxta & (immane quan­tum!) amabili subjecto, Ut Putà DE REMISSIONIS PECCATORUM QUIDDITATE, seu NATURA, D.D.D. THOMAS HOTCHKIS.

HOTCHKIS on Forgiveness of Sin.

Gracious is the Lord and righteous, yea our God is merciful.

Psal. 116.5.

Brethren, if any of you erre from the truth, and one con­vert him, let him know, that he which converteth a sinner from the errour of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

James 5.19, 20.

Amicus Lutherus, Ami­cus Calvinus, sed ma­gis Amicus Christus veritas, & veritas Chri­sti, Gloria Dei, & sa­lus populi.

CHRISTIAN READER,

THe Reverend Author of this ensuing Trea­tise, hath it seemes, such humble thoughts of himselfe, and these his Labours, that unlesse some o­ther doe lead them forth into the publick light, they must be con­demned to unprofitable obscurity. I apprehend my selfe the most unfit of any for such an office, were it but because I found, it had pleased him to make such mention of my name, as I may not approve of; and well knowing that wee might hear a Mulus Mulum sca­bit; from the partie that will un­doubtedly be offended at his Dis­course. But when it pleased him­self [Page]to remit his Exercitation into my hands, with a ful and final Reso­lution, that by me it should live or die (on what reason I little know,) I durst not stand on such personal punctillio's, nor be guilty of such cruelty as to stifle such a birth, for the avoiding of the toothed cen­sures of those men, who are impla­cable to them that bow not to their Judgments; and whose good words can never be won with Innocen­cy, but onely with a compliance with the Interest of their Party, and a listing our selves and march­ing under the Colours of their Di­vision, and Conduct of their ad­mired Leaders, against the Veri­ty of Christ, and the unity and Purity of his Church. I know it is none of the Authors expectati­on, that I should justifie every word in his writings: I dare not doe so by my own: nor will hee do it himself. Nor is it an applau­ding Commendation that he de­sires, but an Impartiall censure, and what intimations may be most profitable to the Reader. I under­stand [Page]hee hath not been rash in fixing on the Conclusions in this booke; but hath tendered it to several Learned, Judicious Divines, esteemed Orthodox, for their per­usall and Censure: and where some of them have advised to the alteration of some phrases, hee hath condescended very much to their desires.

Though he be my Countrey man, I have no further acquain­tance with the Authour, then an houre or two's conference, and the perusall of his papers, and the good report of others doe afford me: by which I judge him a grave, pious, sober Divine, not so quick and sharp, as deliberately Judici­ous and solid, not made so much for words as Matter, nor to please mens eares with smoothnesse and eloquence, as to informe their Judgements by a plaine discovery of practicall Truths. I perceive he liveth not far from the place where Dr. Crispe did exercise his Ministry; and so having more to doe with the Antinomians, either [Page]for their recovery, or the Defence of the Truth against them, then in most other parts our Ministers have; and more need to fortifie the people against the infection of their errors; it turned much of the streame of his studies and la­bours this way. God hath made the severall errours that have risen in most ages, an occasion of the clearing and advantaging his truth; and one errour a meanes of the destruction of another. The Pa­pists errors in the point of Justi­fication by the Merit of works, and other such like selfe ascribing conceits, did occasion from Luther, Melancthon, and other leading Re­formers of those times, a more ample discovery of the freenesse of Gods grace, and a fuller vin­dication of the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, then else the Church had been like to have so soone enjoyed. When the contra­ry errour was sowne by Islebius and his Antinomians, and too much watered by Illiricus and his Lu­therans, and growne to maturity [Page]in the former Libertines and late Antinomians here with our selves; God made this an occasion to a­waken his Ministers to maintaine more vigorously the use of the Law, the necessity of Faith, Re­pentance and Obedience, and more clearely to open the nature of the Covenants, & the Reason of Duty, then formerly had been done; yet were the writings but few & brief that have been published against this kinde of men, (except onely those between the Majorists and the Flaccians, who were some­what learned men) because the opinions of these Libertines were so carnall and grosse, and their lives ordinarily so scandalous, and the ends of many of them so fear­ful, that through Gods mercy, it was but very few that were seduced by them; and both they and their reasonings did seeme so contemp­tible, that learned men thought it needlesse to trouble themselves with them: especially having a learned, and subtile kinde of ad­versary on the other side, (the Pa­pist [Page]and Arminian) that found them worke. The turbulency and scandalousnesse of some of them in London, first drew forth Dr. Taylors Regula Vitae: But lately they were headed by many pub­lick preachers; Eaton, Town, Randall, Simpson, Saltmarsh, but the man that most credited and strengthned their party was Dr. Crispe: These have occasioned those profitable labours of Mr. Gataker, Master Burges, Mr. Rutherford against them, seconded by Mr. Bedford, Mr. Geree, and o­thers: And Mr. Eyre hath happi­ly now drawn forth against them that Judicious man Mr. Benjamin Woodbridge. And this Exercitation doth next take its place in this Army that is engaged against the Libertines: which though it be yet the last, and one of the least in my Judgment, is not the least usefull. Divers weighty Truths are here asserted and cleared, which too many have overlook't: the objections of the Adversary are solidly answered. The onely [Page]or chiefe thing that is like to be offensive to some of the Orthodox, is the Authors too free declaring his dissent about certaine Propositions from many of his brethren, and that by name. Had he beene as well acquainted with mens impatiencie of contradiction, as I am; I be­lieve he would have declined this way. That none of the brethren excepted against, have reason to suppose me to be interessed against them, or to subscribe to such ex­ceptions may appeare in that it hath pleased the Author to put me also in the number.

In Chap. 2 [...]. Cons. 16. where hee labours to shew the in­sufficiencie (though not the falsehood) of my discovery, how Pardon is a transcient act (but indeede it was another kind of pardon that I spake of, and of which I was to resolve that que­stion) I have oft declared, that there is little reason we should take it so ill, to be questioned of imperfection, or charged with a m [...]stake in lower controvertable [Page]points, especially when its more about words and method, then the matter it selfe. But most detesta­ble is the practice of those men that under pretence of being Or­thodoxe, and enemies to errour, are carried so violently in the stream of their party, that they are not able with any patience to hear or read a line that accuseth that party of mistake, or that differeth from them, though but in method or terms: and though it be with the greatest humility, submissive­nesse and hatred of dissensions; yea though it be directly for peace, by reconciling the differences of several parties, that by their divi­sions have long troubled the Church. These men look not far beyond the borders of their owne party, but live among them, as if they were all the Church, or the world; (Like the fellow, that ha­ving never gone out of the City he was born in, imagined that the wo [...]ld was all inclosed in those walls) they think, he that doth but keepe the unity and peace of [Page]their party, doth keepe the unity and peace of the Church. Be it but one schismatical congregation of Separatists, Anabaptists, or An­tinomians, who themselves have divided from almost all the Chur­ches of Christ on earth, yet they seeme to affect a unity in their own separated body, and wil condemne a man for disturbing the peace of their Church. So is it with ma­ny of the greater parties, called Lutherans, Calvinists, &c. But none so horridly guilty of this, as the Papists, who wil needs have it to be all one to be of the Roman Church and of the Catholick; and to differ from the Roman, as to differ from the Catholick. Shall we imitate them in this, and make a Popery of our owne, whilst we contend against theirs? Yet alas, how common is it with us? Who can deny it? The Lutherans are more perversely guilty of it, then wee. Yet I must speak to those that are within hearing of mee, If a true Catholick Christian that understandeth the unity of the [Page]Church, and abhorreth the name of parties, and desireth their recon­ciliation for a recovery of unity, do but take on him to shew any party that they have run into some extreme, in some lesser points; and how that mistake hath occasi­oned division, and still alienates the other party, and that the re­versing of that errour would tend to a reconcilement; How furi­ously do a sort of factious (though godly and Learned) men rise up against him, and charge him with innovation, with bringing new light, and breaking the peace of the Church, as if he were the schis­matick, and had a mind to head a Party, whose mind is to endeavour that there might be no parties, but a unity? as if all the kernell of the Church were within our nutshell: as if all were new, that is new to the eares of that society: And as if he did charge the whole Church with errour, or thought himselfe wiser then the whole Church, or did disturbe the peace of the whole Church, who doth but suppose [Page]one party to have some mistakes, and seeke to cure them. As if in a separated congregation of Ana­baptists or Antinomians, they should charge me with innovation, and thinking my self wiser then all the Church, because I say that infants must be baptized, or that elect infidels are not in Christ, nor pardoned, nor absolved from the guilt of sin: were not this ridici­lous vanity? yet can these same men that seem so zealous for unity and peace, and the credit of di­vines, not only be well contented, that we be zealous against all o­thers but their party, but also doe applaud that man as Orthodox, that will clamour and raile against them, and cry them downe as he­reticall, or most furiously censure them to be none of the Church, or so desperately corrupted, that there must be no talke of reconlia­tion; and he that flies furthest from their opinions, (as if there were no extreme on the other hand) doth best escape the cen­sures of this sort of men, when re­concilers [Page]are stil suspected as guilty complyers. And thus godly and zealous men, while they are too confident of the judgment of them­selves, and their party, are made the great enemies of truth, and the unity of the Church; and lay those grounds which would make the wounds of the Church uncurable. And though they are disabled from laying violent hands on dis­senters, yet by their keene and fu­rious censures of all that step out of the road of their party, they have brought things to that passe, that students lie under a strong temp­tation, to study no further, then to know what is the opinion which is most in credit, and which their leaders hold, and to take heed of knowing any more then others in the least point; and to shun all things that tend to a reconciling of the Churches; yea, and to make some raving onset on others, if they mean to be glorious among their own.

They say, If this should keepe out some truthes, yet withall it [Page]will keep out heresies, whilst all innovations are kept in such dis­grace. But I doubt, it rather oc­casioneth heresies, seeing it is the property of hereticks to affect sin­gularity, and to make it their glo­ry among their own party, to be vilified by others. For my part, I believe one Catholick Church, and the Communion of Saints: and when I preach to one congre­gation, I remember how smal a part of the Church they are. And when I write of the opinions of any one party, I remember how many there be of another mind. But these men object, that the number of the erroneous is not to be re­garded; seeing it is our party only that is in the right, and hath the Scripture on their side, their do­ctrine and unity is to be defended, and the rest, if they wil have unity, must come over unto them. To which I answer, that I doe confi­dently believe, that no one party on earth is so sound in Doctrine, and way of worship, as those cal­led Calvinists. But to think that [Page]any one party is infallible, or hath so ingrost the truth, that others may not in some points be righter then they, or that they may not be guilty of running too farre in a­ny one point, either by the pow­er of prejudice, or heat of opposi­tion, or some other disadvantage, temptation, or imperfection; this is such arrogancy as modest Chri­stians should not be guilty of; Much lesse should they be unwilling to heare and try whether it be so or not. Undoubtedly there are ma­ny differences that seeme real and momentous through mis-informa­tions and prejudice, which indeed are but in words or methods, or of inferiour nature. And abundance of good might be done by drawing differences into a narrower com­passe, and discovering the true point of disagreement, and cutting off all the superfluous contentions; were it not that by zealous, censo­rious faction, and by men that know not what Spirit they are of, the world is swayed by reproaches and prejudice, and the matter [Page]brought to that passe, that none can set their hand to so blessed a work, til they first resolve to sub­ject themselves to the scorne and slanders even of Divines, and to cast overboard their interest and reputation even with zealous, god­ly men. And how few are they even among those that can con­temn the censures of the openly profane, that are able to deny themselves so far, as to conquer in this assault? We look on the ignorant vulgar as fooles, and therfore pride it selfe can spare their applauses. But when wee take such pious persons, and Lear­ned Divines to be men of valuable judgments, that are able indeede to honour or dishonour us: How hardly will a proud heart lie down to be trod upon? Think not that I injuriously dishonour the pious, or the Church guides, in suppo­sing any or many of them to be such, and become such instruments to hinder the work of Christ, and to further the cause and kingdom of the divel; were they perfect [Page]Saints, it would not be so: But he that observeth not the sad imper­fections of the best of Saints, and how farre they make them service­able to the enemie, and that all men, even the best are vanity and lyars, and that the Churches grea­test danger is from it selfe, more then from all enemies without; yea, and that every one is the greatest enemy to himselfe; he knoweth not himself, he hath sure beene a sleepe, at least these 12 years, and not seen the discoveries that our late tryals have made; and he hath more of the Popish opinion of per­fection then is safe. To be igno­rant after our convincing experi­ences, is to be mad. Well may the best of Divines say to them that call them Rabbie, and see wholly with their eyes, and bow down to their understandings, as the Angel said to John, Rev 22.9. see thou doe it not, for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy bre­thren, and of them which keepe the sayings of this book. Which I speak not to diminish the just esti­mation [Page]and authority of the Mini­stry, which I am blamed by some for maintaining, to be so great; and which God of late hath vindi­cated, by delivering their most raging enemies (Quakers and such like) to be plainly possest or ruled by the divel; nor yet do I lay these accusations upon all; seeing by the great mercy of God, we have ma­ny of eminent moderation and so­briety; and I observe among the best, that within this year or two their zeale for the Churches unity is very much increased, for which I heartily blesse the Lord. But the number of such is too smal, and of the selfe conceited and conten­tions so considerable, as cannot be hid.

For my owne part, when I re­member, that it is but about the sixth part of the world, that are Christians, (all the rest being Pa­gans, Infidels, and Mahometans) and of that sixth part, how few the Protestants are, in comparison of the Papists, the Greeks, the A­bassines and the rest, and of the [Page]Protestants, how many countries are Lutherans, besides all others; I confesse; I have no great zeale to confine the Church to the party that I best like, nor to shut Christ out of all other Societies, and coope him up to the congregations of those few that say to all the rest of the Church, Stand by, wee are more holy then you. In a word, and a plaine word, I am loth to make Christ only the head of the Calvinists, in stead of being the head of Christians and Catholicks, and loth he should cease to be the head of the body, and become on­ly the head of any party or faction; and therefore I would contribute the utmost of my endeavours to reconcile the differing members of that body. If I have digressed unprofitably, I crave pardon, and returne to the subject of this Exer­citation.

And because the Reverend Authour seems to mee in some few passages to have exprest his mind somewhat obscurely, or in terms lyable to mis-constru­ction; [Page]I shall adventure upon a presumption of his consent, to give the Reader a key for the under­standing of them, and to tell him my thoughts of some of them in particular (leaving the rest to his judgment.) As to the nature of par­don of sin) from which all the consectaries of this Treatise are drawn,) I conceive there are three distinct species of it, arising from the three parts of Gods regiment of mankind. 1. As God is Legis­lator, he doth conferre on all be­lievers a right to impunity, or dis­solve the obligation to punishment; in regard of the Law of works, he doth this as he is about that law, by relaxing it. In regard of the Law of grace, he doth it as the free Legislator thereof. And it is this law it self or promise that is his in­strument of doing it, and the act of that Law, which is his pardoning act; it is conditional to all, before faith. It is actual pardon to those only that believe. I conceive this pardon is the main observable Act, that Scriptures and Divines [Page]do commonly treat of: And that it is the same in substance with ju­stification constitutive, though some respective difference is im­ported in the terms.

2. As God is judge of the world according to his lawes, so he hath a sentential remission of sinne, or justification. But there is this difference between these two terms: Remission of sin doth more proper­ly signifie the legal or donative remission, and lesse properly the judicial sentence, it being in strict­est sense the Prerogative of a Ruler as he is above all law, to pardon the faults against the Law; and not of a Judge, who as such, must be re­gulated by law: yet the word Par­don may be applied to the sentence too. But contrarily justification signifieth very fitly both acts, legal and judiciall; but more fully and strictly, the sentence, then the grant; And therefore justificatio juris, & justificatio judicis, is a most neces­sary, currant distinction: but justi­ficatio judicis is the more proper phrase. But remissio juris et judicis [Page]is tolerable, but the later mem­ber somewhat less proper.

3. As God is the executioner of his laws, either in this life, before the final sentence (for some mens sins goe before to judgment, and some follow after) or in the life to come, so it belongeth to him actu­ally to punish or to remit punish­ment; and thus his pardon is, not to punish: yet not simply not to punish, but not to punish one that deserved it. This I call, for distin­ction sake, executive pardon Now I conceive, that the word Justifica­tion, hath principall respect to the obligation and sentence, and lesse to the punishment. But the word Remission more empha­tically connoteth the punish­ment, then the Obligation dissol­ved; and yet the Obligation more then the sentence. It seems to me that this Reverend Author doth sometime looke only at the exe­cutive Remission in his Conse­ctaries; sometime at the Legall Remission; and sometime hee joyneth them together as one. And [Page]it must be confest, that this last is the full end and perfection of both the former, and the former are both but meanes to this. There­fore doth God give us pardon, and judge us pardoned, that we may escape the Penalty and live. The Reverend Author calls this the ultimate Terme, and the dissol­ving of the Obligation the neerest: which may admit of a double sense: Either as this species of executive pardon is the end of the foresaid species of pardon: or as Impunity enters the Definition of the Donative or Legall sort of Pardon: and so it is not consider­ed in esse existenti, as in executive pardon it is; but as future and in esse volito. And so as Guilt (or Obligation to punishment, which is all one) is the neerest terme, spe­cifying this sort of pardon; so Im­punity is the remote terme, seeing the Obligation dissolved is an Ob­ligation to Punishment. Reader, here's nothing but whats obvious, and beyond question for the truth; and if thou have but the skill to [Page]use the Key of this distinction of Remission, and apply it to some dubious passages in the Exercita­tion, it will prevent thy misun­derstanding, and I suppose, thy wronging of the Author, and thy causelesse offence. Chap. 4. p. 10. where he saith that Guilt is taken sometime for the punishment it selfe, I confesse I have not ob­served so much; nor yet doe. So Chap. 5. p. 12. Nor do I suppose that the Reatus redundans in personam containes punishment it selfe, but onely connotes it as the Terme of the Obligation. Therefore when Chap. 4. p. 10. he saith, pardon is not a freeing us from the simple Guilt and Defect, I should, to avoid mis-understanding, have left out the word guilt, and said only it is the freeing us from the desert, be­cause I have not observed it usuall to make guilt to be the same with desert. Though I confesse he may be called,

  • 1. Guilty of deserving pu­nishment, that hath deserved it. As he is
  • 2. Guilty of punishment, that is obliged to it; and he is
  • [Page]3. guilty of the fault simply considered, who did indeed commit it.

Di­stinguish of these three wel, and you will also be the better able to understand some dubious appli­cation of the Reatus simplicis, et re­atus culpae, which you after here meete with. As to c. 18. n. 4. p. 33. I conceive that it is not the tenour of the Gospel, but the law of nature that obligeth believers to punishment for a grosse sinne; and so it doth for the smallest; that this obligation is a making him guilty of death in general, but not of the losse of former Pardon in specie: And that as Pardon is a Benefit of the new Convenant, which the old knew not: so the loss of pardon, is a penalty threat­ned by the new Covenant pro­perly. Though I suppose God suffers none to fall under that pe­nalty that were actually pardoned, as to the eternal Punishment.

When Ch. 23. Cons. 17. he de­denyeth Justification to be a change meerely Relative, his Reason is, be­cause it is the same with Re­mission [Page]and Remission is a real change, viz. not punishing. Ergo, &c. But note,

  • 1 That he explains himselfe to speake only of Execu­tive Remission, which is nothing to the other two sorts.
  • 2. I thinke executive Remission is not usually called Justification. And therefore I shall still say, that Justification is but a Relative change.

So Ch. 25. Cons. 19. where there is mention of Guilt in heaven, I con­ceive the word can meane no more then that the Saints did deserve Gods wrath: and whether that be a proper sense of the word Guilt, or usuall, I must leave to wiser Lawyers then my selfe.

I doe not take these or any the like obscurityes or inprefections to be a sufficient reason to quarrel with the labors of this Reverend man, much lesse to deprive the Church of the benefit of them. Nay I hope it is no small gaine that many will receive by it: (so far am I from damning, exploding, or contemning every thing that hath somewhat disagreeable to my o­pinion [Page]Doubtlesse it must needs be very useful to ordinary Chri­stians to see the nature of pardon more plainly, and to see such cleare Reasons for a Necessity of our dayly praying for pardon, yea for pardon of the same sins that were before pardoned; and to see Providential, Castigatory Punish­ments so wel reconciled with the fulnesse of Christs satisfaction for the same sins; and to see such full Evidence for a necessity of holy fear & working out our savaltion, yet without ascribing any merit unto man; to see the Reason of the necessity that the promise of our continued and final Justifi­cation should be on the condition of our perseverance, and so that continued and final Justification be but conditionall; and this not onely consistent with the certaine perseverance of the Saints, but also the ordinate ra­tional meanes of their perseve­rance; to see the imperfection of that Remission and Justification which we have in this life, beyond [Page]all reasonable exception manife­sted; with many the like points, I conceive will have much influ­ence on mens affections and pra­ctices, and free them from some mistakes that doe no whit befriend their Graces, nor a Godly life. But I must from experience advise the Reverend Author to expect the offence of some, the bitter censures of others, and perhaps to be scorn­ed and snarled at, if not be worried by some of the fautours of the Li­bertine sect, or some that make a trade of voluminous Disputation; if they finde him not in their rode, they may seeke him by a Digressi­on: and such men are never out of their way. If I may advise him, un­less they convince him of some mi­stake to be revoked, he should hear them as if he heard them not, and never thinke of wording it with them, but suffer them to ease themselves without Contradiction, and leave the successe of his La­bours to God. The Lord pitty his poore, divided, imperfect Church, and acquaint the Guides with the [Page]Necessity of its Unity, and those Principles which have a tendency to the healing of our breaches, and powre out more adundance of the Spirit of Illumination, Con­cord and purity, that with one (and that a Pure and Charitable) Mind and Mouth, we may Glorifie God. Amen. Thus daily Prayeth

A weake and sinful Labou­rer in Christs harvest. RICH. BAXTER.
May 27. 1654.

Of forgivenesse of Sin.

1 JOHN 1.9.

If we confesse our sinnes, He is faithfull and just to forgive us our sinnes, and to cleanse us from all un­righteousnesse.

CHAP. I. An Introduction to the whole.

IN these words we have the Great Mystery of Godlinesse [Mer­cy and truth met to­gether, Righteousnesse and Peace kissing each other.] We have in it the pith and marrow, the summe and substance of the blessed Gospel of Jesus Christ Gods manifested in the flesh; the severall parts whereof having [Page 2]gone through Sermon-wise in the ordinary course of my Ministry, I shall onely transferre from thence into these sheets of paper what I have delivered in that way [with the addition of sundry particulars, which since that time have come into my thoughts] concerning the Nature of forgivenesse of sinne; and this I intend to doe [ [...]] in a direct, but copious answer to the following Question, or Questions.

What is Forgivenesse of sin? Or,Quest. what is it for God to forgive us our sins?

In order to the resolution of this very materiall Question, and from the right resolution where­of much light (as I thinke) will be let into sundry controversall points now depending in Divini­ty, if I should [by way of proeme, or premisall] tell the Reader, that in sin there are severall things con­siderable (e. g. Matter, Forme, Guilt, Blot, or Staine) as some among the Shoolemen and our moderne Divines have done, I [Page 3]should thereby in likelihood ra­ther amuse the Reader, then ex­pedite the matter. Waving there­fore that course, I shall goe a more plaine way to work, and such as is more suitable both to the capacity of the undertaker, as also of every ordinary Reader, as followeth.

That we may not labour (i. e.) deceive, or bee deceived in that kinde of fallacy, which Logici­ans style Fallaciam [...], supposing that to be single, which indeed is complicate; I meane, sup­posing that to be one Question, which indeed is two, take this Prae­cognitum, viz. That it is one thing to enquire, that is evermore meant by Forgivenesse of sinne in the language of Scripture, and another thing to enquire, what is thereby meant in this text of the Evangelist and the Apostle St. John: these being indeed two such Que­stons, as will not admit of one and the selfe same answere, as will be made (I thinke) most evident­ly apparent in the procedure of [Page 4]this present Exercitation, or un­dertaking.

Now in order to the joynt re­solution of both the said Questi­ons proposed, I shall in the first place set downe much of that va­riety of phrase whereby forgive­nesse of sin is notified; set forth, or expressed in the writings both of the Old and New Testament: which said expressions I will sort into Negative and Affirmative; and would have set them downe in their severall columes one over a­gainst another, that we might [...] take view of them both together: but the narrow­nesse of the severall pages will not permit Take them therefore as they follow, beginning with the Affirmative in the first place.

CHAP. II. The various phrases whereby Gods forgiving sinne, and his not forgiving sinne are intima­ted and expressed in Scripture, which said phrases of both kindes are sorted into Negative and Af­firmative.

The Affirmative phrases, where­by forgivenesse of sin is held forth in Scripture, are such as these, viz.

GOds covering of sinne, Psal 85.2. Thou hast forgiven the ini­quity of thy people, thou hast cover­ed all their sinne. His blotting them out and hiding his face from them, Psal. 51.9. Hide thy face from my sinnes and blot out all mine [Page 6]offences. His purging them away, Psal. 79.9. Purge away our sinnes for thy Names sake. And Psal. 65.3. As for our transgressions, thou wilt purge them away. So Ps. 51.7. Purge me with hysop (i. e.) Wash me from the guilt of sinne with the blood of the Messias, which blood of his was tipifyed by the blood of the Paschal Lamb; which, according to the command of God in the Leviticall Law, was to be sprinkled upon the people with a bunch of hysope; whence it is, that the blood of Christ is styled the blood of sprinkling, Heb. 12.24. His casting them behinde his back, Esa. 38.17. Thou shalt cast all my sinnes behinde thy backe, sayes He­zekiah. His putting away our sins, 2 Sam. 12, 13. The Lord hath put away thy sin, sayes Nathan to David. His taking away our sins, 2 Sam. 24.10. Take away the in­iquity of thy servant, sayes David; in which forme of words the Church is taught to pray to God for pardon, Hos. 14.2. Take with you words, and turne to the Lord: say [Page 7]unto him, Take away all iniquity. His subduing sinne and casting it into the depths of the Sea, Mic. 7.19. He will subdue our iniquities, and thou wilt cast all their sinnes in­to the depths of the Sea. His heal­ing our sinne, Hos. 14.4. I will heale their backslidings, I will love them freely; which words are a direct answer, and as in Terminis terminantibus, unto the Churches petition formed in ver. 2. Take away all iniquity and receive us gra­ciously. So Jer. 3.22. Returne you backsliding children, and I will heale your backsliding. His healing (as the sin, so) the sinner Isa. 53.5. by his stripes we were healed. And Joh. 12.40. Lest they should be converted and I should heale them, (i. e.) forgive and save them. His washing and cleansing us from sin, Psal. 51.2. Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sinne. Thus doth the Prophet Jeremy both use and interpret the said phrase of cleansing from sin, ch. 33.8. And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they [Page 8]have sinned against mee, and I will pardon all their iniquities, where­by they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against mee. So also in the N. T. 1 Joh. 1.7. The blood of Jesus Christ his son cleans­eth us from all sin; and in this sense I should understand the phrase in the text [and to cleanse us from all unrighteousnesse] viz. as im­porting one and the selfe same thing with Forgivenesse: for al­beit Sanctification doth frequent­ly goe under the name of cleans­ing (as in Psal. 119.9 and Jam. 4▪ 8.) and albeit remission of sin and sanctification do alwayes goe together in the same subject, in which regards we may warrant­tably interpret the phrase to bee meant of Sanctification in this text; neverthelesse I should choose to interpret it rather to be all one with forgivenesse, not onely be­cause forgivenesse of sin doth oft goe under that name, and because it is ordinary in Scripture to ex­presse one thing by two words, or phrases; but more especially [Page 9]because our cleansing from unrigh­teousness is in the text promised as a merit, not commanded as a du­ty. Now I take it for a Rule, which will generally hold true, That where cleansing from sin is enjoyned as a duty,Exceptio non tollit, sed firmat regulam. we are there­by to understand Sanctification, or holinesse of life; but where it is promised as a mercy, there wee are to understand it by Justificati­on, or forgivenesse of sin. But as for this, let every one abound in his owne sense.

I proceed. Gods forgiving us our sinnes is styled his pas­sing by our sinnes, Mich. 7.18. [Who is a God like unto thee, who pardonest iniquity and passest by the transgression?] His removing our sinnes from us, Psal. 103.12. As farre as the East is from the West, so farre hath he removed our transgressions from us. His being mercifull to our sins, Heb. 8.12. I will be mercifull to your unrigh­teousnesse. And (as to the sin, so) to the sinner, Luke 18.13. Lord be mercifull to me a sinner. Psal. 51.1.

Have mercy upon me, O Lord, have mercy upon me.

The Negative phrases whereby Forgiveness of sin is held forth in Scripture, are such as these; viz.

Gods not imputing sin, Psal. 32.2. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no iniquity. In this form or phrase doth Shimei, having plaid the part of a notori­ous Delinquent against David his Liege Lord, pray for the pardon of his offence, 2 Sam. 19.19. Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me. His not remembring our sins. Psal. 25.7. Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions, saith the Psalmist. The like phrase did Shimei use in the case, and to the purpose aforesaid, saying, Neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversly, the day that my Lord the King went out of Jerusalem. His not remembring our sins against us: Psal. 79.8. O remember not against us former ini­quities. This phrase doth some­what explicate the former, Gods [Page 11]not remembring of our sins, not being his simple forgetting them, or simply his not remembring them; but his not remembring them; Quoad hoc, or, against us. His not mentioning our sins unto us: Ezek. 18.22. His not laying our sins to our charge: 2 Tim. 4.16. Where Saint Paul praying God to pardon the sin of those that did desert him under his tryal of per­secution, saith, I pray God it may not be laid to their charge. So Saint Stephen prayeth for his persecu­ters, saying, Lord lay not this sin to their charge, Act. 7.60. That prayer being in full sense all one with that of our Saviour for those that did murder him by a Law, saying, Father, forgive them. Only let it be noted concerning the two last places, viz. 2 Tim. 4.16. and Acts 7.60. that albeit the phrase in the Translation be all one (both being rendred, A not laying sin to the charge of the sinner;) never­theless the phrases in the Original are divers, the former being [ [...],] which doth pro­perly [Page 12]signifie to be reckoned, or imputed, and is so rendred, Rom. 4.22. Where Abrahams faith is said, [...], To be imputed to him for righteousnesse; and in the latter place the phrase being [ [...],] which word doth properly signi­fie, to stablish or to fasten; q. d. Fasten not this sin upon their backs, or, upon their score. God not en­tering into judgment with us: Psal. 143.2. Enter not into judg­ment with thy servant, O Lord.

I shall in the next place set down such phrases as doe hold forth the non-forgiveness of sin, or Gods not forgiving us our sinns (be­cause contraries doe help to illu­strate each other;) which said Phrases I shall sort likewise into Negative and Affirmative, and wil set them down in the same order as I have done the former.

Affirmative phrases, which doe hold forth Gods not forgiveing us [Page 13]our sins are such as these, viz.

Gods remembring our sins, Hos. 9.9. He will remember their iniquity Jer. 44.21. The iniquities of your fa­thers, did not the Lord remember them, and came they not into his mind? His setting of our sins continually before him. Ps. 109 14.15. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembred with the Lord, Let them be before the Lord continually. Gods visiting sin, or for sin. Hos. 9.9. He wil re­member their iniquity. He will visit their sins Jer. 9.9. Shall I not visit for these things? His covering with anger and persecuting the sinner, That co­vering whereby pardon of sin is ex­pressed be­ing a cove­ring with love. Lam. 3.42, 43. we have rebelled, thou hast not pardoned, thou hast covered with anger, and persecuted us. Gods retaining sin: John [...]0 33. Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whosoevers sins ye re­tain, they are retained. The sin­ners bearing his iniquity, which is a phrase frequently used in Scrip­ture, especially by the Prophet Ezekiel, and by him also explain­ed to be the sinners bearing the punishment of his iniquity, Ezek. [Page 14]14.10. And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity.

With many other the like passa­ges, or expressions of both sorts (as well negative as affirmative) which I suppose may be found in Scripture; concerning both Gods forgiving and his not forgiving sin.

Negative phrases, which doe hold forth God not forgiving us our sins, are such as these, viz.

Gods not covering, his not blot­ting out, his not purging away sin. Neh. 4.5. Cover not their in­iquity, and let not their sin bee blot­ted out from before thee. 1 Sam. 3.14. The iniquity of Elies house shall not bee purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever. Gods not holding guiltlesse, in the the third Com­mandement, Exod. 20.7. and 1 King. 2.9. where David admo­nishing Solomon not to pardon Shimei, bids him not to hold him guiltlesse. Gods not cleering, or Acquitting the sinner, Exo. 34.7. Hee will by no meanes cleare the [Page 15]guilty. Nah. 1.3. He will not at all acquit the wicked. His not forget­ting sin. Amos 8.7. The Lord hath sworn by the excellency of Jacob, Surely, I will never forget any of their works. His not accepting the sinner: Jer. 14.10. The Lord doth not accept them, he will now re­member their iniquity, and visit their sins. Sutable to the phrase of Gods not accepting the sinner is that phrase in the New Testament of Gods not knowing the sinner, Mat. 25 12. the direct contrary be­ing Gods receiving the sinner gra­ciously, Hos. 14.2. Take away all iniquity and receive us graciously. Gods not turning away the punish­ment of the sinner; a phrase fre­quently used in the first Chapter of Amos, where God threatens such and such persons and Places that because their transgressions were iterated and multiplied, He would not turne away their punish­ment.

CHAP. III Reasons and Grounds for the said variety of phrase, or various expressions, together with rules for a right understand­ing and due interpretation of them.

COncerning the said various expressions of the pardon of sin, let two things be observed or considered.

1. The ground or reason of them, which said ground or reason seems to be taken from that va­riety of phrase, whereby sin, and the fruits or issues of sin are set forth and signified in Scripture: for according to the various names or titles given to sin, and the effects thereof, such are the various names or expressions of Gods pardon or not pardon of sin. For example, As sin is stiled [Page 17] filthiness or uncleanness 2 Cor. 7.1. Rom. 6.19. So the pardon of sin is stiled, washing, cleansing, covering, purging away. As sin is the souls sickness or disease (in which sense some Expositors do understand that in Psal. 103.3. Who forgiveth all thy sins, and healeth all thy di­seases.) Or as sin doth wound the sinner, so pardon is stiled Healing. As sin maketh us guil­ty, so the pardon of sin is stiled, Gods not imputing it, his not lay­ing it to our charge; and his not pardoning us, is said to be his not cleering us, or holding us guiltless. As sin makes us wretched and mi­serable; so pardon of sin is stiled Gods being merciful to the sin or sinner. As sin is stiled a Debt, ma­king us lyable to God in such sort as Debtors to their Creditors, so Gods pardoning mercy is said to be his blotting out our sins, & casting them into the depths of the sea. And in this sort (allusivè) the Apostles phrase in the Text, which is now before us, seemes to be (the express word being [...], a word most fre­quently [Page 18]used by other of the E­vangelists and Apostles) which word doth signify to dismiss, leave, let alone, absolve, send away, re­lease, or set at liberty (Mat. 4.20 and 18.27.) being twice used in one verse, Luke 4.18. though it be rendred in different English words; viz. Deliverance, and setting at liberty. It seems to be a Metaphor taken from those who are loosened from their bonds, or delivered out of prison, into which they were cast for their Debts, or misdemeanors. To proceed, As the sinner by committing sin doth (as it were) arm his sin against himself; or as sin hath a power accrewing to it, (as I may so say) to do us mis­chief by vertue of the Law's commi­nation (for which cause the Law is said to be the strength of sin, 1 Cor. 15.56.) so Gods pardoning sin is said to be his subduing our sin, or giving victory to the sinner over his sin, 1 Cor. 15 57. Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ. As sin makes us obnoxious to Gods [Page 19]hatred and abhorring; so Gods pardoning the sinner is said to be Gods gracious receiving the sin­ner, Hos. 14.2. Take away all ini­quity, and receive us graciously. And contrarily, Gods not pardo­ning us, is said to be his not ac­cepting us.

2. Let it be observed and consi­dered, that the most of the said various expressions are allusive Translations, or metaphorical; being spoken of God after the manner of men, in them Deus hu­manum dicit, God doth condescend to our capacity, he doth [...] (to use the Apostles phrase, 1 Cor. 4.6.) he doth in a figure transfer the said things and expressions from us to himself, whereby to assist us in our weakness; e. g. it being u­sual with men when they do for­give to forget; God therefore forgiving sin is said not to remem­ber it; and it being usual with men, when they threaten to be revenged to say to their adver­sary, Well, I'll be sure to remem­ber [Page 20]you, I'll never forget this in­jury and affront so long as I live: Gods not pardoning therefore is said to be Gods not forgetting sin, or his remembring sin

Again, Men when they do forgive being moved with inward pity and compassion, as was the father of the Prodigal upon the sight of his re­lenting Son: Gods forgiving us therefore, is said to be his having compassion on us, Mic. 7 19. Gods compassion Quoad terminum, or terminativè, is the self same with forgivenesse of sin, but being con­sidered connotativè, it doth far­ther intimate the rise of pardon, or the inward moving cause, toge­ther with the external occasion therof, viz. Mans misery and Gods free love and mercy, Gods compassion being verbum con-sig­nificans.

This latter particular being du­ly observed and considered, it will appear, how wary and cautious we should be in the Interpretati­ons of the said Metaphorical phra­ses, and how needful it is therein [Page 21]to observe the Apostles rule in a­nother case; viz. [...], Rom. 12.3. We must be­ware how we do in our concepti­ons about the said phrases, supra sentire, that we do not understand more in them then is fit, or in rea­son possible to be understood; we must be careful not to sense them above their scope and intendment, but ever to interpret them in a modest, moderate, and sober sense: that the words may be the words of truth (as indeed they are) the sense must be the sense of sober­nesse. For want of observing of due caution in the sober constru­ction of the said phrases, it may (in a sort) be said unto many a one, as to him in the Poet,

Quem recitas mens est, O Fiden­tine, libellus,
Sed malè dum recitas, incipit esse tuns.

Thus may the Lord say unto ma­ny amongst us, who do miscon­strue [Page 22]such metaphorical phrases (as Gods casting sin behind his back, his blotting it out, his not remembring it) stretching them beyond their due scope and in­tendment, and (as it were) ga­thering that in and from them, which God never strawed; viz. The words as uttered by me are my words, and true Scripture, but as over-sensed and misunderstood by you, they are your own, and no part of any Scripture of mine.

Quest. What Rules are to be ob­served, for the safer, better and right understanding of the foresaid Meta­phorical phrases?

Answ. These three.

1. The like rule, which is given us for the sensing of Parables and similitudes, is here to be observed; & that is, to observe their true scope and intendment; and not [...] (as is the Apostles word 2 Cor 10.14.) not to wretch and tenter them beyond that scantling, or to stretch them beyond the measure of their said scope and intendment. [Page 23]Its a common saying, Similitudo non currit quatuor; and as the lear­ned Stegman doth learnedly ex­presse it, Parabolae nihil probant ra­tione circumferentiae, sed tantum ra­tione centri; the like may be said concerning the foresaid expressi­ons, If we respect them in their circumference, & in such a latitude of sense as they sound to our ears, they prove nothing, the sense of them being to be confined to their center, (i.e.) their bare scope and drift; that look how really a man forgives an offence when he hath forgotten it, so really doth God forgive.

2. We are here to interpret, as Saint Paul elsewhere directs us to prophesie; viz. [...], Rom. 12.6. according to the Analogy of faith, and so as that the said phrases may hold proportion and correspondency with other Scriptures. This in­deed is a general rule to be obser­ved in the expounding of any place of Scripture; and it is in the present businesse especially to be made [Page 24]use of, viz. to compare Scripture with Scripture, and to make the sense of one Scripture coherent with another, and to preserve the harmony of the whole; that so, all Scripture being [...], brea­thed by God (as the word signifies 2 Tim. 3.16.) we may not make God to utter hot and cold with the same breath; I mean, to speak contradictions, or to be contradi­ctious to himself.

3 We are to calculate (as I may so say) our sense and constructions of the said phrases according to the meridian of the Divine Nature: I mean, we are to construe them in no other sense, then the Essence Nature, and Properties of the Godhead or Deity will permit. It is an old and good rule given by one of the Greek Fathers (Theodo­ret, as I remember) that those things which are spoken of God, [...], are to be understood [...]; Those things which are spoken of God after the man­ner of men, are to be understood in a sense becoming God, conde­cent [Page 25]of, or to his divine properties and excellencies.

These rules are the rather to be observed, because of their conse­quence. I mean the momentous consequence of observing or not observing them: For as the careful heeding of them, is a special preser­vative that our Table become not a snare to us; I mean, That our conceptions of God and the things of God be not occasionally perver­ted by those very expressions which were intended of God as means to help and assist our under­standings touching him and them; so the not-observing of them is one main cause, as I am perswaded, of much errour in those of the An­tinomian party, who do hold, in a sense most intolerable and blasphe­mous, that God sees no sin in Be­lievers whose sins are pardoned; and that he doth not in any sort remember them: of which I shall have occasion to speak more par­ticularly and largely afterwards.

CHAP. IV. What forgiveness of sin is not, laid down in four negative Propositions.

HAving intimated (as Chap. 1. in the way of Proeme, or Preface) that sacred phraseology or varity of phrase, whereby for­givenesse of sin (together with its contrary, viz. non-forgiveness) is expressed in the sacred Scriptures both of the Old and N. Testament.

I will in the next place set down what is (as to me seemeth) the true resolution of the matter in question, and this I will endeavor to do, [...], decla­ring,

  • 1. Negatively, What the pardon of sin is not.
  • 2. Affirmatively: What it is, according to the true scope, pur­port, [Page 27]or intent of the aforesaid va­rious expressions.

For the former then, bee it known.

1. Gods pardoning a sin, or sin­ner, is not his freeing the sinner from the very fact of sin. Not so: for this is impossible ex natura rei; it is (I say) a thing simply impossi­ble, implying a palpable contra­diction. What is once done, can never be undone, or rendred not done. That which is once past, can­not by the power of God be made or rendred not past; in so saying, I would be understood in sensu com­positiva: for although whatsoe­ver is done or past, might by the power of God have been preven­ted; and in such a divided sense might never have been done, or come to passe; yet being once done and past, it cannot be un­done, recalled, or rendred not come to passe it being a flat con­tradiction, that a thing should be done, and not done, past and not past, come to passe, and not come to passe.

2. It is not Gods freeing a sinner from the fault of sin; i.e. the faul­tinesse and sinfulnesse of sin: It is not Peccata non peccata facere, or Peccata pro non peccatis habere (ta­king the phrase according to its simple and absolute import, and not with a quasi or tanquam, which doth much qualifie and alter the sense of the expression). I say, Pardon of sin is not so to be taken, for this also is impossible, ex natu­ra rei, and doth implicare, involve a contradiction; viz. That a fact should be faulty and not faul­ty, a sin and not a sin: for take away sinfulnesse from a fact, and it doth no longer remain sinful. It is therefore to be observed, That a sin pardoned is as well a sin, yea, as much a sin; i.e. every whit as sinful as ever it was before the pardon of it. When a Prince or State doth pardon a Delinquent, or Malefactor, they do not, yea they cannot thereby make them of Delinquents no Delinquents, or of Malefactors no Malefactors. To clear one (e. g. an accused [Page 29]person) from the fact or faultiness of the fact wherewith he is char­ged, is one thing; and to pardon a person so accused, is another. God by doing the latter, doth not do, and therefore cannot be said to do the former. When a sinner therefore is pardoned, we must not conceive that he is thereby made innocent again.

3. Gods pardoning a sin or sin­ner, is not his freeing them from the simple guilt and desert; I mean, their guiltiness and deser­ving of punishment. I use these latter words to explain the former; For though the word, Reatus, or Guilt, be a word much in use both in Authours and in our Sermons, yet is it [...], ambiguous and of doubtful construction, being sometimes taken for the deserving of punishment, and sometimes for the punishment it self deserved, and sometimes for both. Yea, in such various senses I take the word to be used in the Text, at least in the Translation of sundry Scriptures. For example, Num. [Page 30]35.27. Where it being laid down as a Law, That if the Revenger of blood finding the man-slayer without the borders of the city of Refuge, shall there kill the slayer, he shall not be guilty of blood; that is, as I conceive, he doth not deserve or incur the desert of punishment, neither shall he suffer for it. Deut. 21.9. Where God commanding that the City-Inhabitants next to any place where an unknowne murder was committed, being commanded to offer a certain pe­culiar Sacrifice,Prov. 30.10. Lest he curse thee, and thou be found guil­ty: i.e. Lest thou sin, & suffer de­servedly; otherwise the curse causelesse shall not come, and is not there­fore to be feared. God doth there promise, that they shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from among them; that is, (as I con­ceive) the punishment which the shedding of that innocent blood did deserve. Levit. 5.5. where it being declared in what special cases a soul should be guilty, I conceive, that by guilt there is meant, as sin it self, so the deser­ving of punishment.

However I may be mistaken in the exact sense of the forena­med Scriptures, (about which I [Page 31]list not to contend with any men of a contrary mind) yet sure I am that the word Guilt as commonly used, is sometimes taken for the bare de­serving of punishment, and some­times for the punishment it self de­served, which two the Schoolmen do usually distinguish, the for­mer being by them stiled Reatus Simplex, simple guilt, and the latterYet not as exclu­ding, but as includ­ing the sin­ners obli­gation to punish­m [...] of which more distinctly I shall speak by and by. Concerning Guilt taken in these two senses; (viz. for the deserving of punishment and for punishment it self deserved) let the Reader observe, That when we commonly say, That the guilt of our sins was imputed unto Christ, that saying must be understood, as guilt is taken in the latter sense, but not in the for­mer; viz. for the punishment, which we for our sins (and not he upon any such account) did deserve. Reatus redundans in perso­nam, guilt running over from the sin upon the sinner. Now I say That Gods pardoning a sin or sin­ner is not his freeing it, or the sinner from the simple gu [...]lt, bare desert, or deserving of punish­ment.

For, 1. As was said concern­ing the foregoing particulars, so [Page 32]it may be said concerning this; viz. That it doth implicare, im­port a contradiction; namely, That a sin should be an offence against Gods Law, threatning punish­ment, and yet should not deserve the punishment threatned by that Law. As sinfulnesse, so guilti­nesse of punishment is impossible, ex natura rei, to be separated from any sin or sinner; I mean, the say­ing in a compound sense; e. g. Though it was possible to the power of God to have prevented a sinner from becoming a sinner, and so from becoming guilty of, or deserving punishment; yet it is impossible, that he should be made in such a sense not sinful, as not to have incurred the desert of punish­ment; and as in it self considered, not still to deserve punishment. I say, in it self considered: for (as I shall have occasion to speak by and by) we are to distinguish be­twixt punishment as deserved by sin, or by the sinner in himself, or by it self considered; and betwixt duenesse of punishment to the [Page 33]sin or sinner, as considered with reference unto satisfaction made for it.

2. In the pardoning of a sin or sinner, it is no way necessary for the benefit or behoof of a sinner, that God should free the said sin­ner (were such a freedom in its own nature not impossible) from the simple guilt or deserving of punishment: for such a sinner may be altogether freed from suffering his deserved punishment, though he be never freed from deserving the suffering of that punishment. Yea, a sinner may in such sort, and as much be freed from suffering the punishment, which he hath by his fins deserved, as if he had ne­ver committed any sin whereby to have deserved such punishment; as is, and will be manifested in the experience of the glorified Saints, who notwithstanding their sin and desert of sin, are or shall be [...], Equal to the Angels, who by sin did never incur the guilt or de­sert of suffering. And therefore touching such a freedom or free­ing [Page 34]the sinner from the deserving of suffering, (he or his sin being in themselves considered) I say, Cui bono?

Caution. We are carefully to di­stinguish (as was before intima­ted) betwixt the simple demerit of sin, or a sinner deserving of pu­nishment by his sin, as considered barely in himself, or in his sin; and betwixt duenesse of punish­ment to the person of the sinner, as considered with respect to his inte­rest in the satisfaction which Christ hath made for the pardon of sin: for notwithstanding the demerit of sin, or a sinners deserving of punishment be never taken away, yet upon some extrinsecal account or consideration (such as is the satisfaction made by the Redeem­er) duenesse of punishment or ob­ligation to suffer punishment, may be taken away from the sinner, as shall by and by be declared, when I come to shew Affirmatively wherein the pardon of sin doth consist.

4 For God to pardon a sin or [Page 35]sinner, is not for God (to speak simply and absolutely) not to see or behold the sin, or not to see and behold the person as a sinner, or for God to take no notice or knowledg at all of a sin, or of a person as a sinner: for this like­wise is impossible. For albeit the pardon of sin be expressed by his covering it, blotting it out, hiding his face from it, casting it behind his back, (the meaning of which phrases shall in due place be inter­preted) nevertheless we may not construe such expressions concer­ning a bare, simple, and infinitive knowledge or sight in God. For whatsoever hath been, or is, in such sort as it is or hath been, the eye of the All seeing God doth, and cannot but behold or take know­leng of it, Prov. 15 3. And what I say concerning Gods not seeing the same; I say, and in a like sense, concerning Gods not re­membring sin; viz. That the par­don of sin doth not consist simply in Gods not remembring it, as if (to speak simply and absolutely) [Page 36]God had utterly forgotten it, this also being a thing impossible, as to the nature of Almighty God, who as he hath had from all eternity the knowledg of whatsoever will be, so he will have unto all eternity the knowledg of whatsoever hath bin, there being with God, or as to his eternity, neither prius nor po­sterius, and consequently there be­ing no difference betwixt Gods knowledge, fore-knowledge and remembrance, saving in order to the object only, but not to any act of Gods: so that as his know­ledg and fore-knowledg is not op­posed to post-science, so his re­membrance of things is not oppo­sed to his former knowledg; but as his fore-knowledge doth signi­fie only a futurity of the object, so his remembrance signifies the ob­ject to be past or as past; so that as Gods fore-knowledg is, a know­ing that such a thing will be, which is not (not a knowing that such a thing is which is not) so Gods re­membrance is a knowing, that such a thing was, which albe­it [Page 37]being past, it now is not: ne­verthelesse it is no more possible for God not to remember, or not for ever to know that once it was, then it was possible for God not to know that it would be before it was, or that once it was when actu­ally it was. Gods knowledge, fore­knowledg and remembrance, are al of them knowledge in praesenti, though not de praesenti; his fore-knowledg being a knowledg de fu­turo, and his remembrance de prae­terito. So that to take away the remembrance of any thing from God is to deal with him ( [...], to use the Apostles phrase, Rom. 12.18. if possible as much as lies in us) even as the Phi­listims dealt with Samson, viz. to put out the eyes of God; i. e. the eye of his knowledg, and to be­reave him of his Omniscience.

CHAP. V. What forgivenesse of sinne is, laid downe in two Affirmative propositions, together with the ex­plication of them.

2. AS for the second part of my intended answer, I an­swer Affirmatively, viz. That Gods pardoning a sinner is, his taking off the finners obligation to punishment, and consequently in due time the punishment it self; I have thus defined forgivenesse of sin as taking my ayme from that which is contrary to it, viz. Guilt as guilt is taken not in such a sense as in which I afore said,In these two con­sists that Reatus which Schoole­men call Reatus re­dundans in personam, viz. In a sinners obligation to punishment; and in his actual suffering of that punishment to which he was obliged: having therefore afore said, that Reatus re­dundans in personam, is with the Schoolemen a Sinners suffering his deserved punishment, I would be understood not as excluding, but as including a sinners personall obligation to the suffering of such punishment. And here let me offer this to the observation of the Reader, viz. That as in some respect the sinner is said to make himself guilty, (viz. in respect of simple guilt or the bare deserving of punishment;) so in respect of guilt redun­dant, or the actuall suffering of the punishment it selfe deserved, God is said to make him guilty, for which see Psal. 5.10. where Gods making the wicked guilty, is interpreted to be his destroying the sinner. that it is impossible to be taken away; but as it may bee taken, and as it is usually taken in a second sense, 1. for Obligation, to punishment, in which sense many doe define Guilt, saying, Reatus est obligatio ad poenam.

2. For the punishment it selfe inflicted, to which wee were ob­liged, in both which senses it is ta­ken in Scripture, and particular­ly in that Speech of Abimelech to Isaac, Gen. 26.10. What is this that thou hast done unto us? One of the people might lightly have lain. With thy wife, and thou shouldst have brought Guiltinesse upon us (i.e.) We might thereby have made our selvs liable or obnoxious to suffering, and accordingly might actually have suffered. Thence it is, that I define pardon of sinne as con­sisting in these two things oppo­site thereunto, and wherin our full liberation, or remission doth (as I [Page 40]thinke, consist, viz.

  • 1. The taking away, or dissolving the obligati­on of the sinner to punishment, which I take to be the terminus preximus, or immediatus of par­don.
  • 2. The denying or taking away, or the not inflicting of pu­nishment it self, which I take to be the terminus remotus thereof;

I doubt not but we may find in seve­ral Authours, as well ancient as moderne, several definitions or de­scriptions of Forgivenesse, and some of them more at large ex­pressing not only the quiddity or nature of the thing it self; but al­so the Authour, grounds, causes, effects, ends, consequents, antece­dents of it (all or most of which this text in 1 John 1.9. doth mi­nister just occasion to touch and dilate upon:) but it is beyond my present purpose to meddle with them, my bare intent by these presents, being to discover and to demonstrate only, ipsam rei quid­ditatem, the bare form or na­ked essence of the thing; what be the Partes constitutivae, what [Page 41]those things are, which do make up forgiveness of sin; or wherein the thing it selfe or nature of it doth consist.

I remember the definition which Dr. Twisse gives of it, lib. 1. p. 272. Vind. Grat. saying, Remissio pec­catorum, si quidditatem inspicias, nihil aliud est quam aut punitionis negatio, aut volitionis puniendi ne­gatio: Pardon of sin in its pre­cise nature is nothing else but ei­ther Gods not punishing, or not willing to punish. Had the lear­ned Doctor by Gods not willing to punish, meant God disabling the Lawes obliging us to punishment, or his taking away our obligation to punishment, I had gone into his opinion, Manibus, pedibus (as the saying is;) I had fully, even to a tittle consented with him: but he meaning therby another thing, I cannot (but with due respect o­therwise to the Learning and Piety of an Author so renowned) pro­fessedly dissent from him: For, by Gods not willing to punish a sinner (for example, the faithful; [Page 42]for of those he speaks in the place forecited) he meanes, Gods ele­cting them to salvation, in oppo­sition to unbelievers, whom he did from all eternity designe to pu­nishment.

To the refuting of this opinion I shall take occasion to speake more at large hereafter. In the meane time, had the Doctor said only this, That Remissio est ni­hil aliud quam puniendi nega­tio,

1. He had said the self-same thing, and given the self-same de­scription of forgiveness of sin as Austin and Anselme (those two famous men in their generations, the one in the list of Fathers, the other of School-men) did of old, as Zanchy upon this Text doth in­forme me; they saying, Remitte­re, nihil aliud est quam non punire: To forgive is nothing else then to not punish.

2. I had yeilded my full consent unto that saying as a truth, or a true description.

3. The saying being understood [Page 43]or interpreted, as it ought to be, viz. not as excluding, but as in­cluding, and presupposing the ta­king away the obligation to pu­nishment, I should have yeilded my assent unto it as a full truth, or as a full description of pardon; the taking off a sinners obligation to punishment being the terminus proximus, and Gods not punish­ing being the terminus remotus of pardon; of pardon (I mean) as a­ctively taken; for in these two termes, or things, doth consist the very nature or quiddity of pardon, as it is taken in a passive sense, which said pardon as passively ta­ken is the [...], the state of the Question, or the very thing upon which Gardo praesentis contro­versiae vertitur: and in this sense I would be understood, whensoever I shall in the progresse of this Di­scourse assert pardon of sin to be nothing else but Gods not punish­ing; viz. As pardon is taken in a passive sense; and as Gods not punishing doth presuppose or im­ply [Page 44]Gods taking off the obligation to punishment.

And let the aforesaid descripti­on serve as a direct and full an­swer to the first Question pro­pounded; viz. What is meant by forgivenesse of sin evermore in the language of Scripture? And for proof of the truth of the said description; as a direct and full answer to the foresaid Question, I need not, as I presume, to say much more then hath been alrea­dy said concerning that, which in Scripture is made the direct oppo­site to pardon; viz guilt (Gods not pardoning a sinner, being said to be Gods holding the sinner guilty, or not guiltlesse.) Nei­ther need I to instance in any par­ticular Scriptures for the proving of it: it being sufficient to say, That look in what place of Scrip­ture soever God doth promise pardon to the sinner, or the sin­ner doth beg pardon of God, stil there is meant in the sense both of God and man, Gods not punish­ing the sin or sinner, either Gods [Page 45]forbearing, or his surceasing to pu­nish, in the sense as was aforesaid. The like also I say concerning all such places of Scripture, wherein God doth declare himselfe to have pardoned any sin, or sin­ner.

I shall only adde two or three particulars as in the way of Cau­tion, and for the right un­derstanding of the said descrip­tion.

1. When I say that pardon of sin doth consist in dissolutione ob­ligationis ad poenam, in dissolving the obligation to punishment, I must not necessarily be understood of all manner of punishment, and de praesenti, for the instant, present time; but either de praesenti, or de future, either for the present or for the future: for albeit God pardoning the sinner doth dissolve the obligation to punishment, and doth thereby confer upon the sin­ner Jus ad liberationem, a right to impunity; neverthelesse this right to freedome from punish­ment may be for present only from [Page 46]a part of punishment, and so not a plenary freedome; but not from all punishment save only de futu­re, for the future, as I shall have oc­casion afterwards to demonstrate.

2. When I say, That pardon of sin doth consist in a dissolution of the obligation to punishment, I must not be understood necessa­rily, and alwayes concerning an absolute, but either an abso­lute or conditional dissolution. For I take remission of sin in this life to consist only in a conditio­nal dissolution of the obligation; I mean, full remission, or remis­sion as to all manner of punish­ment; the condition hereof being our perseverance in the faith and fear of God: for as a sinner is not actually remitted and discharged or disobliged from punishment but upon the condition of his faith, repentance, &c so neither is this discharge or disobligation conti­nued, but upon the condition of perseverance. Though a Belie­ver be actually disobliged from punishment immediately upon his [Page 47]believing, and though the full and final pardon of such a one, be ne­ver so certain in respect of the e­ternal purpose of God, and in re­spect of the purchase of Christ, (God having purposed and Christ having purchased for them grace, to persevere) yet is it but conditi­onal in the Covenant of Grace, or promise of the word. This seems to mee apparent by the descrip­tion of that person to whom God doth promise fully and finally to pardon: for which see Rev. 2.17. To him that overcometh will I give a white stone: in which Scripture, observe two things:

  • 1. What is meant by the thing there promised under the name of a white stone? viz. Absolution or pardon, the signe being put for the thing sig­nified: the Apostle alluding in that expression to the custome of the Romanes, with whom a white stone was a signe of absolution, as a black stone of condemnation.
  • 2. To whom this absolution is promised; viz. To him who doth overcome, or persevere.

It is a [Page 48]vain thing to except, that perseve­rance is only a qualification in a per­son, or the qualification of a person to whom pardon shall be continu­ed, or who shall fully and finally be pardoned: for, whatsoever is such a qualification, hath the na­ture of a condition, without which the mercy shall not be continued, and perfectly enjoyed. It appears likewise by the expresse promises and threatnings of the Word; for which see, Heb. 3.14. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold fast, &c. 2 Tim. 2.12. If we suffer for him, we shall reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us. Ezek 18.24. But when the righteous tur­neth away from his righteousnesse, and committeth iniquity, and doth according to all the abominations that a wicked man doth, shall he live? All his Righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned, in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he dye. Although the common saying of our Divines be (as I believe) a true saying, [Pec­cata [Page 49]non redeunt,] yet I do not believe it to be true otherwise then upon supposition; viz. of a Be­lievers perseverance in Faith and Obedience: otherwise to what purpose is that admonition, 2 Joh 8. Look to your selves, that we lose not the things which we have wrought? And that admonition to the like purpose, Rev. 3.11. Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown? And other­wise, why should God threaten to deal with Apostates, as with that wicked servant, whose doom we find recorded, Matth. 18.32. O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desinedst me, shouldst not thou also have had pity on thy fellow servant as I had pity on thee? And his Lord was wroth, &c. I know what some do here except, saying. That the scope onely of a Parable is Argumentative; and the scope of that Parable is not to shew, That a sinner may forfeit the benefit of his former pardon by relapsing into, and persisting in new sins; but only to manifest, [Page 50]That forgiveness of others, is a necessary qualification to be for­given of God, or a necessary con­dition without which God will not forgive us. Unto which I answer, That look as forgiveness of others is a condition without which God doth not at the first vouchsafe actual forgiveness to a­ny person, so the continuance of that forgiveness on mans part, is a condition of the continuance of forgiveness on Gods part, or a condition without which God will not forgive him at the last. I do willingly believe, That God useth these and the like condition­al comminations, as aAnd er­go, I think those do de­serve to be blamed, who are so zealous for the doctrin of the Saints per­severance, as they wil not patient­ly suffer even those who do hold the said Do­ctrine of Perseve­rance, to use all such means as God hath appointed to be used, and which God doth sanctifie for that end, a­mong which I doubt not, but this is one; viz. To in­form the Saints, that their sins are not absolutely par­doned in this life, but conditionally, or upon the con­dition of their perseverance; and that therefore they are to fear hell and damnation no lesse then others, unlesse they hold that fast which they have: (of which said fear I shall speak more at large in Chap. 26.) whereupon I cannot but professe my opinion, how (I think) that the foresaid persons are so affected in their zeal, that they do much disservice both to God and his Saints, as taking a direct way to confute the Doctrine of the Saints perseve­rance, and to overthrow that in practice which they do labour to uphold in Doctrine; I mean, they do take the ready way to cause the Saints to Apostatize. sanctified meanes for the perseverance of the Saints in the faith and fear of God: and therefore it is in no sort agreeable unto my intent to urge those and the like Scriptures to prove the Apostacy of the Saints; but only thereby to prove, That the continuance of our par­don in this life is but upon the condition of our perseverance, in which respect it is not absolutely, but [Page 51]conditionally in this life enjoy­ed.

3. There being several sorts and degrees of punishment; viz Punishments in this world, and punishments in the world to come; look how far forth, or in what sense God doth forbear to punish, so far forth, or in that sense, or with respect to that kind or de­gree of punishment, but no fur­ther to be understood, God in [Page 52]Scripture is said to pardon. Let this be observed the rather, be­cause it will (as I verily think) serve as a clue or key to unlock and lead us through divers intri­cacyes and ambiguities of phrase, where the pardon of sin is mentio­ned in Scripture, which said ambi­guities I shall in the following Chapters, as in their due place specifie.

CHAP. VI. The various senses or significa­tions wherein forgivenesse of sin is taken in Scripture, it being taken in four several senses, but most commonly and signally in one sense; and what sense that is, decla­red.

1. GODS forbearing, or ceasing to punish sin­ners with temporal punishments, is stiled his pardoning them, Num. 14.19. Pardon I beseech thee (saith Moses) the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of thy mercy, as thou hast forgiven this people from Egypt even till now. What was Gods forgivenesse of the people from Egypt until then, but Gods sparing of them in re­gard of temporal judgments, either [Page 54]not at all inflicting them, or af­ter a short time removing them? So Psal. 85.1, 2, 3. where Gods forgiving the iniquity of his people is interpreted to be Gods taking away all his wrath, and turning himselfe from the fierceness of his anger. And con­trarily Gods punishing sinners with temporal punishments, is stiled, his not pardoning them, Lam. 3.42, 43. We have transgres­sed and rebelled, thou hast not par­doned: Thou hast covered with anger and persecuted us, thou hast slaine, thou hast not pitied, There Gods not pardoning them is inter­preted to be his plaguing them with temporal judgments.

2 Though God doth not wholly forbear to punish, or wholly take off the temporal punishment of sinners, yet if he doth punish with lenity or moderation, or make some commutation of the punish­ment (to use the term of the Civil Law) this said moderating or commuting is said to be Gods par­doning: And no wonder; for it [Page 55]is truly and really pardon; viz. in its kind, Quomodo libet, taliter qualiter, in a diminutive sense, or with respect to punishment in part and in some degree. Thus Psal. 78.38. Gods being full of compas­on, and forgiving their iniquities, is expounded by that which fol­lowes; He destroyed them not, and did not stir up all his wrath. See al­so for proof of this, Numb. 14.20, 21, 22, 23. compared with ver. 12. by the due consideration of which place of Scripture it will appear, That Gods not instant or sudden dis-inheriting, or destroying the whole body of the people as one man, and their whole race (accor­ding to the tenour of the threat­ning, ver. 12) is stiled his pardo­ning them, ver. 20, notwithstan­ding that God did otherwise, and in part punish very many of them for their sin of murmuring; viz. so far forth as to debar all those from ever enjoying the Land of Promise who had seen his miracles in the house of bondage, Caleb and Joshuah excepted. Thus Gods spa­ring [Page 56] Davids life, and not taking him away by sudden death (ma­king as it were a commutation of the childs life in stead of the life of the parent) is stiled by Nathan, Gods putting away or pardoning his sin, albeit God did in the mean time sundry wayes, even to his dy­ing day, punish him for those sins; which albeit they might well bee said to have been put away, in respect of sudden death not in­flicted; yet were they not so put away in respect of certain other punishments which he suffered. Yet in this saying I would not be so understood, as if I did confine the meaning of the Prophets absolu­tion in those words, [Thou shalt not dye] to a temporal death, for that instant time: for as a sudden tem­poral death was not the only, or the greatest evil doubtlesse, which David then feared, (rebus sic stan­tibus) so I am perswaded, that free­dom from such an evil was not the only, or chiefest good, which God therein and thereby did pro­mise.

3. Gods suspending his judge­ments, and reprieving sinners (as I may so say) or his delaying to pu­nish them for the present time, whether with sudden death, or with some other notorious, dreadful, exemplary judgment, is stiled his pardoning them: and no wonder, for it is truly so; viz. pro tempore, in a diminutive sense: and so long as it is to last according to the pur­pose of God. This I take in part to be the meaning of Numb. 14.20 where God saith, he had pardoned them; viz. pardoned them for that time, as appears in that he doth in the next words threaten, that he would take a time to punish them; and that in such sort as whereby to make his power and his justice the more glorious through­out the world. In this sense else­where God is said to pardon those sinners (the self same Nation as afore was instanced in) at one time, on whom he took vengeance at a­nother (as appears by comparing Psal. 99.8 with Exod. 32.34) yea whom he doth threaten with cer­tain [Page 58]vengeance at that very time, when it is said, That he repented of the evil which he thought to do unto them, (that phrase, Gods repenting of the evil, importing the self-same thing with remission of sin, as I shal demonstrate in due place) Exod. 32.34. with v. 14.

These three kinds of pardon, or Gods pardoning a sinner any of those three said wayes, I may stile (docendi gratiâ, and for distincti­ons sake, from pardons in the sense immediately following) pardon [...], & [...], im­proper, or improperly so called, they being but pardon of the half blood ( [...]) in that they are not produced of the self same seed; i.e. of the self same electing and redeeming love of God in Christ, as doth the true heir; I mean that kind of pardon which I am in the next and last place now to set down.

4. Gods taking away from a sinner the obligation unto, and his forbearing to punish sinners with eternal damnation, is stiled [Page 59]his pardoning sinners, or forgi­ving them their sins. This kind of punishment is variously stiled in Scripture; e. g. That wrath to come, 1 Thess. 1.10. Damnation simply, John 5.29. Eternal dam­nation, Mark 3.29. The damna­tion of hell, Matth. 23.33. The damnation of the divel, 1 Tim. 3.6. The time when it shall be suffered is said to be the world to come; and as for the place where, it is said to be Hell, or the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. Rev 21 8.Marc 5.29. Now because this last kind of punishment is the worst of all and chief of punishments that are threatned to sin and sinners (it be­ing the punishment not only of the body, but also of the soul, and that bothe easelesse, endlesse, and remedilesse) therefore is the par­don of sin with respect to freedom from this kind of punishment, more especially and principal­ly stiled pardon, or pardon [...], or [...], for as this last punishment is the king of punishments (to allude unto that expression of Job, chap. [Page 60]18.14. so this kind of pardon may be stiled the king of pardons. And in this sense (chiefly I mean, but not exclusively) the word is taken in the tenour of the New Cove­nant, recited, Jer. 31.34. Heb. 8.12. where God promiseth to forgive our inquities, and remember our sins no more. And so likewise most commonly in the wrirings both of the Old and New Testa­ment, passim. And in this sense (chiefly, I mean, but not exclu­sively) it is to be taken in the pre­sent Text.

And that may serve for a direct and positive answer to the second Question; viz. What is meant by forgivenesse of sin, in the present Text, or texture of the Apostle Saint John? Only let it be re­membred, that I have inserted this parenthesis as emphatically to be observed, [chiefly I mean, but not exclusively] for I do not think that that promise of forgivenesse is altogether exclusive of, or doth altogetherAnd therefore (to speak my sense more fully) I may say of pardon in this last sense, That it is Gods taking away from a sinner the obligation to all kinds of punishments, proceeding from his pure Justice, his de­livering sinners from all such punishments, more espe­cially from the damnation of hell, it being the chiefest of punishments, which God in Justice doth threaten to sinners. exclude all manner of mercy unto, or all kind of free­dome [Page 61]of the sinner from temporal punishment in this life: and that upon the following Grounds or Reasons.

1. Because, albeit the pardon of sin is not necessarily to be under­stood as consisting in the disobli­gation of a sinner from suffering of all manner of punishment, de praesenti, but either de praesenti, or de futuro (as was aforesaid;) ne­verthelesse, God may be, and sometimes is pleased of his supera­bundant grace to vouchsafe unto a penitent sinner at once, as a dis­charge or disobligation from eter­nal punishment; so likewise actu­al freedome from such temporal sufferings as his sin had brought upon him, according to the te­nour of that promise, James 5.15 Wherein the Apostle promiseth, [Page 62]That the prayer of Faith, should at once prove an effectual mean, whereby the sins of the sick party should be forgiven, and his body also cured of, or restored from his sicknesse. How many of Gods ser­vants have reason to call upon their souls to blesse God, who at once, or at the self same time hath forgiven their sins, and healed their diseases, as in Psal. 103.3. and for that reason to call not on­ly upon their souls, but also up­on their bodies and bones to praise God; as in Ps. 35.10.

2. Though God doth not al­wayes do so, but taking off the ob­ligation of the sinner from suffe­ring the torments of hell hereaf­ter, doth chastize or punish him with a kind of hell here, (as Da­vid and others even to their dying day have been punished) neverthe­lesse such temporal punishments, or chastisements, are ever­more,

1. Moderated from that de­gree, which otherwise would have been, as appears by 2 Sam. 12.13. [Page 63] Isai. 27.8. Jer. 10.24. and 47.28. Which said moderation of punish­ment may in a sense be called par­don, as was aforesaid; viz. Ali­quousque, and in some degree.

2. Sweetned with the influences of comfort from God, his holy Word and Spirit; God informing them in his Word, that his end in punishing them is upon the maine their non-condemnation, accor­ding to that in 1 Cor. 11.32. and that no suffering whatsoever in this life shall separate them from the love of God in Christ, justify­ing them from their sins; accor­ding to that triumphant challenge of the Apostle, Rom. 8.35. Who shall separate u [...] from the love in Christ? Shall, &c.

3 Sanctified by Gods grace, and turned to good, according as is witnessed abundantly in the Scriptures, Isai. 27.9. Rom. 8.28. Heb. 12.11. And as in these and the like respects, the temporal punishments of all penitent and believing sinners do differ from the temporal punishment of Repro­bates, [Page 64]who shall be damned for their sins; even so for the same re­spects or reasons, or Eatenus such penitent sinners may be said to be pardoned as to, or in regard of temporal punishments.

Thus have I set down, wherein (according to my present thoughts and according to truth, as I hope,) the nature of forgivenesse of sin doth not,Though all pardon be of God, in which respect Re­missio Juris is Remissio Judicis, neverthe­lesse that doth not hinder, but that pardon may be distingui­shed into Juris & Judicis, be­cause this latter is pardon in sensu famo­fiori, in a more nota­ble and sig­nal sense; Even as in Logick though Omnis ma­teria be im­manens, yet may mate­ria be di­stinguish­ed into im­manens and transciens. Now par­don of sin, as it con­sists in ta­king off the obligation to punish­ment being by the power of Gods word or Law; and as it consists in taking off the punishment it self, it being by the Word of his power, I think therefore that this latter may be stiled Remissio judicis, it being effected by the hand of God, as the other by the Word or Law of God. and wherein it doth consist, it consisting (as was a­foresaid) in these two things,

  • 1. In a sinners discharge from the obli­gation of the Law to punishment.
  • 2. In his actual impunity or im­munity from punishment: in Gods not binding him by his Law to pu­nishment, and in Gods not actu­ally inflicting punishment upon him.

The former of these I may call Remissio Juris, pardon in Law Title, or in the sense or title of Law; the latter I may stile Re­missio Judicis, the pardon of the Judge: for albeit that Remission of sin which we shall receive at the day of Judgment and not afore, be commonly stiled by Divines (as I [Page 65]think) Remissio judicis, in way of contradistinction from the Remis­sion which we have in this life, and which they stile Remissio legis or Juris; neverthelesse, seeing those two do alike differ, as do Right or Title to a thing, and the actual possession of the thing it self, and seeing it is the hand or power of God that must put us into the a­ctual possession, or that must give us the actual enjoyment of that which according to his will revealed in his Law, Word, or Promise we have Title or Right unto; these things (I say) considered, I think I may not unfitly distinguish the said part of pardon by the name of Remissio juris & judicis.

The premises considered (as well what hath been spoken in the Ne­gative, as in the Affirmative part [Page 66]of my Answer to the said Questi­ons) I shall from thence make these following Deductions or Conclusions, as necessarily re­sulting from them, whether as jointly or as severally conside­red.

CHAP. VII. That a Reprobate may be said in some sense, even in a Scrip­ture sense to be pardoned, and how?
CONSECTARY I.

1. THere is a sense of Scrip­ture with respect where­unto those who shall be damned may be said, yea in Scripture are said to be pardoned; viz. with re­spect to some kind or degree of temporal punishment, either whol­ly forborn and taken off, or else suspended and delayed for a time.

CHAP. VIII. That a sinner, notwithstanding his pardon (upon the main) may and oft times doth suffer temporal punishments for his sins, together with an An­swer to several Objections, wherein the distinction be­twixt chastisements and pu­nishments is examined, and how far forth allowable, decla­red; wherein also the true dif­ferences betwixt the sufferings of the Godly and the wicked are asserted and proved, and the false ones, (commonly as­signed) are rejected and re­futed. That the Saints may and oft-times do in this life suffer for their sins, Christs sa­tisfaction notwithstanding, proved and cleered. In what [Page 68]sense God doth, and in what sense he doth not remember the sins of Believers, laid downe in sundry Propositions, Affir­mative and Negative; where­in likewise is declared, what difference there is betwixt Gods remembring the sins of the Godly and of the wicked, as also betwixt his remem­bring the sins of Believers un­der the Old Testament, and the sins of Believers under the New Testament.
CONSECT. II.

2. A Sinner may be said to be pardoned; viz. up­on the main, and with respect to e­verlasting punishment in hell, from the suffering whereof he may be for the present altogether disobli­ged, though he be not discharged from suffering of all or all man­ner of punishments temporal and de praesenti, which notwithstanding [Page 69]his pardon upon the maine, he may suffer in some measure, yea, in a very great measure, and that to his dying day, yea, and in a sort after his death, so farre as a man being dead is said to suffer in his posterity (he being a parent) or in his subjects (he being a Prince) as the sad experience of many of the Saints recorded in Scripture, doth witnesse beyond exception, specially of David, Solomon, and Manasseh. 2 Sam, 12, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14. 1 King. 3.13, 14. & ch. 11.11. 2 King. 24.3. And in that re­spect the sins of the Saints, though pardoned upon the maine, may be said not to be pardoned, viz. as to those temporal punishments which they did suffer; and in this respect it is expresly said concer­ning the sins of Manasseh, (howe­ver pardoned upon the maine, and as to eternal punishment, as is ge­nerally and upon good ground conceived) that he would not pardon them, 2 King. 24.3, 4. Sure­ly at the command of the Lord, came this upon Judah, to remove [Page 70]them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did. And also for the in­nocent blood that he shed, which the Lord would not pardon.

Object. The sufferings of the Saints are not punishmens, but chastisements? and chastisements are not punishments, properly so called?

Ans. 1. What difference soe­ver there is between punishments properly and improperly so called, It seems clear to me, that Scrip­ture doth not distinguish the suf­ferings of the Saints, and of the wicked, by the name of chastise­ments and punishments, their names being of promiscuous use in Scripture. For,

1. The sufferings of the Saints are frequently called punishments, and the righteous God in his Word is said as well to punish the godly as the wicked with some kind of punishments, for which see Amos 3.2. You have I knowne above all the nations of the earth, therefore will I punish you for all you [...] [Page 71] iniquities. Ezra 9.13. Thou hast punished us lesse then our iniquities do deserve, Lam. 3.39.

Object. Those Scriptures are spoken of the whole Church, in which were wicked as well as god­ly?

Answ. God is said not to leave the remnant of the godly in the Church altogether unpunished, Jer. 46. last. and 30.11. and what is that but in part, or in some measure to punish them, as appears by com­paring the forecited Scriptures with Isaiah 27.8. and Jerem. 10.24.

2. How often are the punish­ments of the wicked stiled chastise­ments? See Psal. 94.10. Hee that chastiseth the Heathens, shall not hee correct? The punishments which were inflicted upon Pha­raoh, and the plagues of Egypt are called chastisements. Deut. 11.2, 3. I speak not with your chil­dren that have not knowne and seene the chastisement of the Lord your God, his greatnesse, his mighty hand, and his stretched [Page 72]out arme, and his miracles, and his acts which he did in the midst of E­gypt. See also Hos. 7.12. and 10.10. Jer. 30.14. Specially see Lev. 26.28. where the last punishment of all which God threatens for their final obstinacy, as seven times greater then all the former, is sti­led by the name of chastisement. And the sufferings of Christ which were punishments in a very pro­per sense, are called chastisements, Isa 53.5. The chastisement of our peace, i.e. the punishment of our sins in order to our reconciliation was upon him. So that it doth not appeare that there are any such distinct words in the Scriptures of the old Testament (the one signi­fying or being rendred chastise­ments, the other punishments) whereby to expresse the diffe­rent sufferings of the godly and the wicked, nor can it be made appeare (for ought I know) that there are any such words in the New Testament, as doth in this sort difference them. For albeit Aristotle doth distinguish [Page 73]betwixt such sufferings as are in­flicted for the sake of the sufferer, and such as are inflicted for the sake of the punisher, calling these by the names [...] the former by the name [...]: neverthelesse I am most assured, that the sufferings of the godly and the wicked, are not by these names distinguished in the New Testa­ment; for I finde therein, that the everlasting punishment of the wicked in hell, are expressed be the word [...] for proof where­of, see Matth▪ 25 last, and 2 Pet. 2.9. where teh words translated punishment, and to be punished, are [...].

If any one shall ask me whether I do blame our Divines for their usuall distinguishing the sufferings of the godly and the wicked by the names of chastisements and punish­ments.

I Answer, albeit I think it our duty as neere as we can, to speake Scripture sense in Scripture words; neverthelesse, lest I might seeme captious, I would not condemne [Page 74]those who have differenced them by the aforesaid words; yet with these Salvoes and Provisoes: 1. Pro­vided that they impose not upon me or others, a necessity of distin­guishing them by those names, as names distinct, or of distinct use and signification in Scripture.

2. Provided that as I leave them to their libertie, so they leave me to my libertie, and not blame me, who shall chuse rather to keep close to the language, as wel as the sense of Scripture in this matter, and to distinguish rather betwixt punishments and punishments, then betwixt chastisements and punish­ments.

3. Provided, that under the foresaid names, they vary not from the sense of Scripture, making such differences betweene the suf­ferings of the godly, and the wick­ed, as Scripture doth not make, or will not warrant; which last pro­viso is the rather considerable; because there are some, I meane, not only Antinomians, but others also, who in their explication of [Page 75]the differences betwixt cha­stisements and punishments, doe difference them in such sort, as the Word of God wil not (for ought I know) allow. E.g. Undertaking to define, or state the differences betwixt punishments properly and improperly so called (which latter they stile chastisements) they tell us, that chastisements are inflicted à Deo Patre, not Judice, by God not as a Judge, but as a Father. Whereas I think, that the suffe­rings of the godly, are inflicted by God both as a Father and as a Judge also, for why otherwise are such sufferings stiled judgments? or why else should the Saints in so suffering, be said (as indeed they are) to be judged of the Lord. 1 Cor. 11. ult. Isa. 26.8. In stead therefore of saying that the sufferings of the Saints are infli­cted by God, Tanquam patre, non judice, I should choose to say ra­ther, Tanquam judice patrizante, they being paternall judgments, or fatherly punishments.

2. Whereas some say that the [Page 76]punishments of the wicked are for sin, but the chastisements of the godly are from sin; I find no such difference warranted in the word, the contrary thereunto being plainly therein asserted, viz. that God doth punish the godly, for, or because of their sins. 2 King. 24.3. Surely at the command of the Lord, came this upon Judah, for the sins of Manasseh, and also for the innocent blood which he shed, 2 Sam. 12.14. Howbeit, be­cause by this thy deede, thou hast gi­ven occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is borne unto thee shall surely die. 1 Cor. 11.30. For this cause many are sickly among you, and many sleep. Rev. 2.4. I have somewhat to say unto thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Yea I adde, that the temporal punishments of the wic­ked are not only for, but also in some sense from sin, in that the use which they ought to make of them is their repentance and amend­ment, unto which God doth as by lively voice cal them; for otherwise [Page 77]we cannot well conceive how the obstinacy and impenitency of men should be aggravated by Gods judgments. Thence that expres­sion Mic, 7.9. Hear the red: yea, one special intent or end of Gods inflicting judgment on some wick­ed men is, that all the wicked may take warning, or that they may heare and feare, and do no more so wickedly. Deut 17 23. thence did the heathen resemble Gods judgments to thunder and light­ning, the end thereof being thus, viz. Ʋt poena ad paucos, terror ad amnes perveniat.

3. Whereas some distinguish betwixt chastisements and punish­ments, saying, that these do pro­ceed from the wrath and justice of God, but thosê only from his love: I see no warrant for such a diffe­rence, seeing Scripture doth plainly tell us, that the sufferings of the Saints are inflicted by an angry God, and by vertue of the justword and threatning of God. For what reason else were there for the Saints under sufferings to acknowledge [Page 78]the displeasure and justice of God, as frequently we find they did, and according as it was (no doubt) their duty to doe. See Ezra 9.13, 14. Dan. 9.12, 13. Neh. 9.33. And why else is the wrath of God said to be kindled against his owne people, and in special against Aa­ron the Saint of the Lord? Deut. 9.26. in stead therfore of saying that the sufferings of the wicked are inflicted by Gods wrath and ju­stice, but of the godly by his love; I should choose to say, that the sufferings of the wicked (compara­tively with the suffrings of the god­ly) do proceed from pure wrath & justice; but the sufferings of the godly from wrath and justice mix­ed with fatherly love and mercy: I say (comparatively with the suffe­rings of the godly) the sufferings of the wicked doe proceede from pure wrath and justice; for if wee compare the sufferings of the wicked here, with their sufferings in hel, I suppose, that we cannot say, that their sufferings here doe so purely proceed from Gods ju­stice, or from his pure justice [Page 79]in such sort, as doe their sufferings in hell; and that for the reason a­foresaid, viz. because their repen­tance and amendment is one gra­cious and direct end of their suffe­rings, of many of their sufferings, at least in this life. And because what I have here delivered, is ob­jected against by the Antinomi­ans: I shall endeavour to cleere and vindicate the same from their exceptions and objections, as fol­loweth.

Ob. Christ hath fully satisfied Gods justice, and how then can the sufferings of the Saints proceed from his justice, or for sin?

Ans. The sufferings of the Saints and Christs perfect satisfaction for sin, are not incompossible, but may very wel stand together; the coexistance whereof, that it may the better appeare, the following answers are (to me) considerable, and as I hope, wil prove as to my self, so to others, satisfactory.

1. Notwithstanding the suffe­rings of the Saints are from Gods justice, yet are they not for the [Page 80]satisfaction of his justice in any such sense as Christs sufferings were. Had the sufferings of the Saints been inflicted by God, and endu­red by them, for the satisfaction of divine justice in such a sense, the objection had been of considera­ble force, not otherwise. Now I say, the sufferings of the Saints are not either inflicted by God, or endured by the Saints, to satis­fie Gods justice in any such sense, as wherein Scripture affirmes Christs sufferings to be alone sa­tisfactory, i. e. the sufferings of the Saints are no part of that [...], or price, whereby a pro­pitiation and attonement is made for sin and sinners. And let it be noted, that herein we differ from the Papists, who do make the sufferings of the Saints in such a sense satisfactory to Gods ju­stice, as whereby they derogate from the all-sufficient satisfaction of Jesus Christ.

2. The procurement of this pri­viledge, viz. that the Saints should not at all suffer for their sins [Page 81]in this world, was not a thing in­tended in or by the satisfaction of Christ; so that in calling into que­stion how farre forth, or unto what intents and present effects, the satisfaction of Christ was in­tended by God and actually to a­vaile. I say, in calling this into question, we cannot reasonably be thought to impeach the perfe­ction of Christs satisfaction. And let it be observed, that I speake concerning the effects and fruits of Christs satisfaction according to the intention of himself and of his Father. For albeit there be never so much intrinsecal worth or va­lue imaginable in the sufferings of Christ, (I exclude not his active obedience from all ingrediency in­to his merits) I conceive, not­withstanding, that his sufferings did not satisfie by a natural ne­cessity, but by reason of the vo­luntary compact, and agreement betwixt God and him, and conse­quently that he satisfied for no o­ther intents and purposes, then were agreed upon betwixt them.

Q. What did Christ by his satis­faction (according to compact betwixt him and his father) pro­cure and purchase for, or in behalf of the Saints?

Answ. 1. Negatively, not an actual present immunity from all manner of suffering for their sins, or that they should be so farre priviledged as not at all, or in no sort to be punished for their sins in this life; neither did Christ make or undertake to make satis­faction, neither did God the Fa­ther accept of his making or un­dertaking to make satisfaction for any such intent and pur­pose.

2. Affirmatively, The Lord Christ by his satisfaction did pro­cure for the Saints a discharge and deliverance, (viz. at, in, or upon their believing, or when they be­come believers) from wrath to come, at the great day of judge­ment. 1 Thes. 1.10. This he did procure as the direct end and fruit of his satisfaction, and consequent­ly, or as a second end he did pro­cure [Page 83]for them a right unto, and in due time an actuall enjoyment of an inheritance eternall in the kingdome of heaven; God the Father being so over and above (as I may so say) wel pleased with his Sons satisfaction, as by reason thereof, not only to deliver the Saints from that wrath to come; the desert whereof by sin they had incurred; but moreover to grant unto them an immortall crowne and inheritance within the king­dome of glory, which for degree, is commonly thought to be a grea­ter felicity then Adam, if he had stood, should have attained un­to.

2. Christ by his satisfaction did procure for them the sweetning, moderating and sanctifying of all their sufferings in this life, and the delivering of them from all those cursed effects, which the said suf­ferings are of themselves apt to worke and occasion, and which act­ually they doe work or occasion in the wicked; these evil and cursed effects of sufferings being that [Page 84]from which Christ in the dayes of his flesh, did pray to the Father to keepe the disciples; but not alto­gether from suffering it selfe, no more then he prayed to God to take them out of the world, Iohn 17.15. Briefly as Christ was a vo­luntary surety, and his Fathers free gift, so was his satisfaction (however most perfect, yet) aIn say­ing that Christs sa­tisfaction, being con­sidered ab­stractly, was a re­fusable sa­tisfaction, I meane, only this, viz. that it was free­ly and vo­luntarily accepted by God the Father refuseable satisfation, if it be in it selfe, or in its abstracted nature simply considered; and therfore as it was in Christs owne choice, whether or no to have made satis­faction, and in the Fathers choice whether or no to have accepted it (for God the Father might have chosen whether or no to have sent his Son, and the Son might have chosen whether or no to have come into the world, and to have taken our flesh) so may they chuse how farre forth, or unto what intents and purposes this satisfa­ction shall be paid and accepted; which said intents, effects and pur­poses are, and are not, as is afore­said, in the Negative and Affirma­tive part of my answer to the fore­going Question.

3. I answer to the objection in the third place, that Gods being satisfied with Christs sufferings, may be understood two waies,

  • 1. In respect of the surety and the value of his payment as being the full value of what his justice required, and more then which he required not at his hands.
  • 2. In respect of the Debtour, the sinner, and the effecting of his compleat and universal freedome: and in this latter respect, God was not upon, by, or with Christs satisfaction or payment, so well pleased or satisfied, as immediate­ly thereupon to grant unto the sinner a compleat, actual, and u­niversal freedom from all manner of suffering for sin; the denying or not granting of which said pre­sent, immediate and universall freedome, doth arise not from any imperfection in Christs satisfaction, which imperfection is to be made up by the sufferings of the Saints, but from the mutuall compact betwixt the Father, and the Son, to have it otherwise to be, as is aforesaid.

4. Or in answer to the Objecti­on, I may distinguish betwixt the satisfactory price, which Christ did pay for our redemption from all suffering for our sinnes, and betwixt our enjoyment of the fruits and benefits of that satisfa­ctory price, or saisfaction. The for­mer, viz the price paid by Christ, was most perfect; but our enjoy­ment of the benefits fruits, or effects thereof, is not perfect presently, and at once, we enjoying the be­nefits thereof pedetentim, piece­meale, some at one time, some at another; some in this world, and some of them in the world to come. And I shall therefore add that the inflicting of temporall punishments upon the Saints for their sins, or Gods not vouchsafe­ing such a priviledge to the Saints as in no sort to suffer for their sins in this world; this I say, is no more against the perfection of Christs satisfaction, or Christs perfect satisfaction against it, then is Gods not perfect sanctifying his people in this world; he suf­fering [Page 87]the remainders of corrupti­on to abide and worke in their na­tures so long as they live in this mortal body.

Whensoever the Antinomians shall prove, that God is obliged by the perfection of Christs satis­faction in no sort to punish the Saints for their sins in this world; they will prove that God is alike obliged, perfectly to sanctifie, and immediately to glorifie the Saints at the first moment of their belie­ving and converting; seeing the sanctification and glorification of the Saints is as well a fruit, effect, and benefit of Christs perfect sa­tisfaction as is their justification, or their freedome from any tem­porall punishment.

Ob. When God doth pardon a sinner, he is said to remember his sins no more, Heb. 10.17. And how then is it true, that God may, or doth punish the Saints, or in­flict any suffering upon the Saints for their sins?

Answ. I have already declared in what sense this expression (Gods [Page 88]not remembring the sins of his people) cannot be understood; but because this is so usuall an o­bjection with the Antinomians, and in their conceit a kind of in­vincible Goliah; or as they mean, unanswerable Argument;I call the forgetful­nesse of injuries an imper­fection in men. For albeit as generally considered it be a ver­tue, and so no imper­fection, yet as con­sidered physically, it may be stiled an imperfe­ction; for such is all manner of forget­fulnesse in a physicall considera­tion. I will therefore make a more large an­swer thereunto, as followeth.

We are to know, that the phrase is translatitious or Metaphorical, wherin God is represented under a humane imperfection; which said phrase doth import, or hold forth some such act or acts of grace in God towards those that have of­fended him, as do carry a resem­blance, proportion, or similitude with those acts of favour in men, expressed towards those who have offended them, and whose offen­ces they are said not to remember. Now that the similitude and re­semblance may not be stretched beyond the bounds of reason, re­ligion, and Scripture, I will set down,

  • 1. Affirmatively, how far forth God may be said to remem­ber the sins of the Godly.
  • 2. Ne­gatively, [Page 89]how far forth, or in wha sense he doth not remember them.

For the former. 1. God doth so farre remember the sins of his people, as to be displeased with them, and to be incensed against them. 2 Sam 11.27. Davids sin in the matter of Ʋriah, is there said to displease God. Dent. 9 20. God is there said to have been very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him.

2. So farre as to checke and reprove them for their sins, where­by he would have them take spe­cial notice that he doth remember them; and these reproofes God doth convey sometimes in a most cutting and convincing way: for proof hereof, see Rev. 2.4. where the Church of Ephesus is reproved for her declining. And 2 Sam, 12.1. Where David is sharply tax­ed about the matter of Ʋriah.

3. So farre as to threaten them with suffering for their sins, and that, 1. Conditionally, except they repent, Rev. 2.5. Remember from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do thy first works, or else [Page 90]I will come unto thee quickly, and remove thy Candlestick.

2. Absolutely, notwithstan­ding they have, or shall repent. 2 Sam. 12, 13, 14. where David is threatned with the death of his child (if any one shal say it is a pre­diction (to speak properly) rather then a commination, it will make nothing against the intent and pur­pose for which I alledge it) not­withstanding his professed repen­tance, and the Prophets absoluti­on of him (as to the maine of par­don) in the name of God, related in the foregoing verse.

4. God doth so farre remem­ber the sinns of his people, as actu­ally to inflict punishment upon them for the same, and that both while they live, and when they are dead.

1. While they live, and that variously, viz. not only by with­holding and withdrawing those mercies and favours from them, which otherwise would have been bestowed and continued, but also by inflicting such evils upon them [Page 91]which otherwise he would not have inflicted, as doth evidently appear, and as David himselfe did know to his smart and cost. 2 Sam. 12.8, 9, 10.

2. When they are dead, viz. in their posterity, successors and Subjects, they being Parents Prin­ces, or Soveraignes, as appeares undeniably, in the instances of Eli, Solomon, and Manasses, for which see 1 Sam. 3.13, 14. 1 King. 11.33 and 2, 24, 3, 4. Thus doth God so farre remember the sins of his people, as to smite them for the same not only with the rod of re­proofe, but also with the reproof of his rod; it being the duty of Gods people under extraordinary sufferings to take notice that God doth thereby remember; or take knowledge of their sins, as did the widow of Zareptah▪ by occasion of the unexpected death of her Sonne, saying to the Prophet, O thou man of God, art thou come to call my sin into remembrance, and tr slay my Sonne, 1 King. 17.18. And if their sins do not presently [Page 92]appear, its their duty to search for them, and to pray to God to disco­ver them unto us according to the example of Job, chap. 10.3. & 13.23. Where he prayes to God to shew him wherefore he contended with him: and according to the patterne of the Church, Lam. 3.40. Exciting one another to search and try their waies.

5. If, as there be degrees of grace on earth, so there be de­grees of glory in heaven (as is commonly and very probably conceived.) I see not, but that it may be affirmed, that God doth so farre remember the sinnes of his people, particularly their back­slidings and declinings in grace, af­ter their conversion, as to deny unto them such an eminent degree of glory in heaven, which other­wise had they been more circum­spect and zealous, they might have obtained, or had attained unto, they in meane time lo­sing of the fulnesse of the reward; to which purpose, that of the A­postle may not unfitly be under­stood [Page 93]2 Joh. 8. Look to your selves that we lose not the things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. But I will not say, that this is proper­ly to be called punishment.

2. In the next place I am to shew Negatively, or in what sense God doth not remember the sins of his people: and for that end be it knowne,

1. God doth not in such fort re­member the sins of his people, as he doth remember the sins of the wic­ked, whom he doth not pardon, E.g

1. God doth not so remember the sins of his people, as to punish them, with, or in such pure ju­stice, as hee doth punish the sins of the wicked; but with, or in justice, tempered with fatherly love.

2. He doth not punish them with revenge meerly judicial, or purely vindictive. I say, revenge meer­ly judicial, or purely vindictive; and let it be observed,

  • 1. What I doe acknowledge.
  • 2. What I doe deny.

1. I grant and acknowledge, that the punishments which God doth inflict upon his people, are in a sort vindictive, they proced­ing from Gods justice, and being inflicted for sin, (as was aforesaid) and one end of the inflicting ther­of, being to make the Saints to smart; and for that cause I deny not, but that such punishment which God doth inflict upon the Saints for their sins, may be called and are called sometimes in Scrip­ture vengeance, and for which cause I doe fully assent unto Mr. Ainsworth's Exposition of that in Psalm. 99.8. Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengance on their inventions. Where that pious and Learned Textman doth interpret by vengeance, not only the punishment that in pro­ces of time, was inflicted upon the body of the rebellious people; but also what was inflicted upon Moses and Aaron for their miscarriages, he comparing that of the Psalmist, not onely with Num. 14.20, 21, 23. Exod. 32.14, 34, 35. but more­over [Page 95]with Num. 20.12. Deut. 3▪23, 24, 25. in which latter places the punishment which God did inflict upon Moses and Aaron for their sins is recorded. And here let it be observed, that whereas some do distinguish betwixt▪ chastisements and punishments (meaning ther­by the sufferings of the godly and the wicked) saying, that chastise­ments are not vindictive. I can­not assent thereunto for the rea­sons aforesaid, and which I for­got to insert in its proper place, where I spake concerning the dif­ference betwixt chastisements and punishments.

2. I deny, that the punishments of the Saints are revenge meerly judicially or purely vindictive as are the punishments of the wicked: and the reason is evident, because they proceed not from pure justice; and againe, albeit Gods end in inflicting them be to make them smart for their sins; neverthelesse this end of Gods justice is but in subordination unto other effectual ends of his mercy or in subordina­tion [Page 96]to other gracious ends, which God will actually effect thereby; mercy therein rejoycing (as I may so say) against judge­ment. Herein the revenge, which God taketh upon a penitent sin­ner, is like to that revenge which a penitent sinner doth sometimes take upon himselfe, which is not purely vindictive, but in part; it being upon the maine medi­cinal and preventive, 2 Cor. 7.11.

Briefly, whatsoever differences have beene, or can be truly assign­ed betwixt the temporal punish­ments of the godly, and the wick­ed, so farre or in such a sense I doe assert, that God doth not remember the sins of his people.

2. God doth not so farre re­member the sins of his people as to damne them, or to punish them in hell for the same, as hee will the wicked for their sins.

2. God doth not in such sort remember the sins of his people now in times of the New Testa­ment, [Page 97]as he did remember the sins of his people in times of the Old Testament.

Quest. How so? and not so?

Answ. Wheras in times of the Old Testament God did daily remember the sins of his people, as being minded thereof by their fre­quent and daily sacrifices, (even as he was minded of his covenant with Noah, in the behalfe of all flesh, by the sight of the rainbow, Gen. 9.12, 13, 14, 15.) and whereas God was put in mind of their sins by the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ upon the crosse, hee dothviz. Heb. 10.17 there signifie unto them, that he would not remember their sins a­ny more; i.e. By the Levitical sacri­fices, (for Christs death, the anti­type or substance of those sacrifi­ces being come and accomplished, the types or shadowes must now vanish or give place) not yet by the death of Christ; for it was not necessary, that Christ should die often; or more then once, he having by himself once offered, for ever perfected those that are san­ctified; [Page 98]and this being one special di­fference betwixt Jesus Christ a Priest after the order of Melchisedec, and those Priests which were after A­arons order, these being to offer daily sacrifices as memorials of sin, but he being to offer but one, and that one but once. And this I take to be the true meaning of the Apostle in that of Hebrewes, ch. 10.17, 18. as wil (I presume) ap­peare unto any intelligent reader, who will impartially and without prejudice peruse the text and con­text, in which respect I might have spared my large answer, in shewing how farre forth God doth and doth not remember the sins of his people; albeit as to other pur­poses and respects, the reader, I think, hath no cause to judge my paines and labour therein to be a­misse and needlesse.

And I shall adde as a third con­sectary and in the next place, how and with what caution it behoveth us to interpret this phrase (God not remembring our sinnes) to­gether with other phrases of the [Page 99]like straine or kind recorded in Scripture.

CHAP. IX. Caution given as touching the interpretation of such Meta­phoricall phrases, whereby forgivenesse of sinne is ex­pressed, that we construe them warily, and in a sober sense.
CONSECT. III.

3. IT follows, that in all such me­taphorical phrases whereby the pardon of sin is expressed in Scripture, (E. g. Gods not see­ing sin, his not remembring it, his covering it, blotting it out, hi­ding his face from it, casting it behind his back, and the like) we must be wary and circumspect in their construction, understan­ding [Page 100]them in a modest, moderate, and sober sense, and not stretch­ing them (hower they sound) be­yond the due limits of their inten­ded meaning, so as to think sober­ly of God, of our selves and sins. I have already given certain rules or directives as touching the right interpretation of such phrases, and shall need therefore in this place to say the lesse. Onely I shall adde what followes, as a reason or motive to double our caution and circumspection in the inter­pretation of the said phrases, by saying, That should we regard the bare sounds of such phrases, or the phrases themselves barely as they sound, without a due search into their true scope and sense (which is apparently the fault of the Antinomians,) we may (besides other monstrous and intolerable inferences) as well conclude from other Scriptures, where some of the like phrases are used, that God doth pardon all the sins of every wicked man, without any excepti­on of sins, or sinners, as of any [Page 101]of the godly, seeing it is expresly said, that God is a God of purer eyes then to behold evil, or to looke upon iniquity, what­soever, or in whomsoever the i­niquity and evil is, Hab. 1.13. The meaning then of the forecited me­taporicall phrases, which do hold forth the pardon of sin, is this (not to stand upon the school-distin­ction concerning Gods seeing, as it is taken in sensu simplici, or modo merè intuitivo, & in sensu connota­tivo, or connotantè, which to this purpose is both considerable and satisfactory) viz. That such sinners, whose sins God is said not to see, or remember, but to blot out, cover and cast behind his back, shall be no more damned for their sins, then if so be God did not behold them, or had forgot them. Or that such sinners shal as undoubt­edly be saved from ther sinnes, as from the greatest wrath to come at the day of judgment, as if God had forgot them, or as if their sins were covered and blotted utterly out of his sight.

CHAP. X. In what sense, or how farre forth as true and false, those common sayings of our Di­vines [Sublatâ culpâ tol­litur poena, & justificatio tollit omnia poenalia] may or are to be construed and in­terpreted, and in what sense to be rejected.
CONSECT. IV.

4. IT followes in what sense, or how far forth as true, and not true; to understand those com­mon sayings of our Protestant Di­vines; as well Calvinists as Luthe­rans; [Sublatâ culpâ tollitur poe­na. And Justificatio tollit omnia poenalia.]

1. It is most true, that seeing pardon of sinne, is the taking off of the obligation to punishment, and consequently punishment it self, so farre forth, as tollitur culpa, tollitur etiam poena; i.e. so far forth as sinne is pardoned, so far forth the punishment of sin is taken a­way.

2. As Poena is taken in a like sense with pardon, viz. for punish­ment, [...], or in a signal sense, viz. for everlasting punish­ment, as opposite to life eternal, or for punishment meerly and purely such as are the punishments of the wicked; so it is most true, Sublatâ culpâ tollitur poena. And in the other sense, that other [...] is true also, Justificatio tol­lit omnia poenalia; the word poena­lia being taken in the sense imme­diately aforesaid.

3. In such a sense as the Apo­stle asserts, whom God hath ju­stified, them also hath he glorified, Rom. 8.30. i.e. He hath alreadie glorified them in part, and he will at last and in due time, glorifie [Page 104]them fully; and in such a sense we commonly say, Positâ justificatione, ponitur etiam glorificatio. I say, in such a sense the foresaid sayings [Sublatâ culpâ tollitur poena, & justificatio tollit omnia poenalia) are most unquestionably true; i.e. A person justified or pardoned shall in due time (citius, serius, sooner or latter, at one time or o­ther) be delivered from all things penal, or from all punishment due to his sins.

2. If in the foresaid sayings we take justificatio for our justificati­on immediately upon, or at our first believing and conversion; and if we take Sublatâ culpâ in the like sort or sense, then the said sayings will not consist with the truth of Scripture (as hath beene made at large to appeare) but with the aforesaid restricti­ons.

Object. Those sayings of our Divines are alledged by them in the controversie betwixt us and the Papists, about humane satis­faction for sinne by suffering, and [Page 105]are asserted by our said Divines commonly in the sense aforesaid, which I doe oppose.

Answ. 1. If in this, or in a­ny other particular I do recede from what is commonly taught by our Divines, I do it with much unwillingnesse, and not without cleare evidence of Scripture (as I think) enforcing me thereunto, and must therefore in such cases crave leave (salvâ modestiâ, et vericundâ fronte) to appeale from their sense and writings to the sense and writings of the inspired Pro­phets and Apostles, submitting the premises to the censure of the unprejudicate, and impartial judg­ment of the Churches, according to the Scriptures.

2. Though I doe not acknow­ledge the common sayings (Sub­latâ culpâ tollitur poena, & Justi­ficatio tollit omnia poenalia) to be true in such a sense, as many of our Divines have asserted in oppositi­to the Papists; neverthelesse, I am far, very farre from concurring with the Papists in their doctrine [Page 106]about mans satisfaction to Gods justice, by his owne personal suffe­rings, whether voluntary or invo­luntary, & I think, that the said Po­pish doctrin about humane satisfa­ctions might very sufficiently be impugned and expugned by other mediums and Arguments, then by those common sayings, Justifica­tio tollit omnia paenalia, & sublatâ culpâ tollitur poena.

3. It is a thing not to be won­dred at, that in controversal di­vinity, a greater errour be im­pugned with a lesse, and one extreme with another some­times.

CHAP. XI. That there is no such thing as Remissio culpae, [remission of the fault] in way of di­stinction from Remissio poe­nae [remission of the punish­ment] these two being one, and the selfe same thing. The four following Chapters do declare, that forgivenesse of sin is a dividual, and not an individual action, as is commonly supposed.
CONSECT. V.

5 IT followes from hence, that there is no such thing as Remissio culpa, in way of di­stinction from Remissio poenae. I say [...] [Page 108]cherish no such thing as remissi­on of the fault as distinct from he remission of the punishment.

I adde this consectary, not only in opposition to the Papists, who do assert, and use this distinction, whereby to support their Apocri­phal doctrine of humane satisfacti­on for sin [for the remission not of the fault, say they, but of the punishment] and consequently to overturne that foundation upon which they build their said doctrine of humane satisfactions; but also in the way of humble dissent from di­vers of our Protestant Divines, who do in their writings generally (both Latine and English Authors, such as I have read) I say, they do gene­rally upon occasion assert, that Christ by his death hath abolished or taken away sin, both in the guilt, and in the fault, that both the guilt and faultinesse of sin is pardoned by God unto the regenerate. I need not say any thing for the detecting the unwarrantableness of this asser­tion, more then what already hath beene said in those severall both [Page 109]Negative and Affirmative particu­lars, where we have heard it set down, wherin the forgiveness of sin doth, and wherein it doth not con­sist; and in special, that it doth not consist in taking away the fault of sin, or sin in the faultiness therof. It is true, the fault is remitted: but how or in what sense? viz. in respect of the punishment it self, and obli­gation to punishment, not other­wise. And as for that guilt, which is called Reatus culpae, guilt of fault, this we have heard is not taken away by remission; but only that guilt which is called Reatus poenae, guilt of punishment. The School­men of old, have much perplexed themselves about these questions, what manner of act it is in God, whereby he doth remit sin. And seeing the act of sin is transient, what is it that is forgiven? Here they Answer, that sin though praeteriit physicè, yet manet moraliter; though sinne be past and gone in a physi­call, yet it remaines in a morall sense; and though it be past in respect of the sinful action, yet it [Page 110]remaines in respect of its sad ef­fects, which sad effects are done away, or taken away by pardon. But what these effects are, which by pardon are taken away, they have as touching that, been much divided in their opinion, making a great stirre about Macula, the spot or staine of sinne, in the explica­ting whereof (as the Learned Wot­ton relates) they have occupied themselves for the space of five hundred years, without any agree­ment or satisfaction, as not able to declare what it is. But the truth is (as I think) and as hath been before laid down) that the sad effects of sinne, which remaining after the sinful actions are taken a­way by a pardon, are the obliga­tion of the sinner to punishment, and punishment it selfe; the for­mer being stiled by some of the Schoolmen, Relatio rationis, scili­cit, ordinatio ad poenam. The pre­mises considered, It appears, that there is no such thing as the remis­sion of the fault in contradistincti­on to the remission of the punish­ment, [Page 111]& that the said distinction is a distinction without a difference.

As an introduction to the Consectaries next following, I think meet to give the Reader to understand, that it is a question much debated among what kind of actions remission of sin is to be placed or accounted, whether a­mong those actions which are cals called immanent, or else among such as are stiled transient. And againe, since actions transient are subdivided into actions stiled divi­dual, and individual; it is que­stioned, whether forgivenesse of sinne (if a transient action) be to be reckoned a dividual, or an individual action. Now as in chap. 22 Consect. 16. I shall un­dertake to manifest it to be a tran­sient action, so by the four chap­ters and consectaries next follow­ing, it will be manifested to be a dividual action, i. e. such an action as hath its progresse [per partes] by degrees, and is not compleated at the selfe same instant; contrary to what is commonly received, it [Page 112]being generally asserted as a diffe­rence betwixt Sanctification and remission of sin, that that is a dividual, but this an individual action. Now a transient acti­on being the same with the effect produced; and that which is pro­duced by remission of sinne, viz. the taking off of the obligation to punishment, and punishment it self, being produced or taken off as it is laid on. viz. per partes, by degrees viz. as new sins are committed; it seems to me evidently apparent, that remission of sin is not an indi­vidual, but a dividual action, and as wil appeare by the Consectaries next following.

CHAP. XII. That the distinction of the par­don of sinne, into totall, or partiall; perfect or imper­fect, is a justifiable distincti­on.
CONSECT. VI.

6. IT followes, that we may safely distinguish the par­don of sinne, (how harsh and un­savorie soever the distinction may seeme in the sound thereof) into totall and partial, perfect and im­perfect, into Remissionem magis, or minus plenariam; for pardon of sinne being the taking off of the obligation to punishment, and consequently punishment it selfe, a man is no farther pardoned exe­cutivè [Page 114]and plenarily, then his pu­nishment is taken off, which being sometimes more, and sometimes lesse taken off; we must needes say, that pardon is somtimes more and sometimes lesse perfect.

CHAP. XIII. That one and the same sinne may be more or lesse pardoned.
CONSECT. VII.

1. IT followes that one and the same sinne may be more or lesse pardoned, because it may be more or lesse punished. And the contrary assertion there­of though it be the assertion of our Divines,See his book of justif. p. 21. & 19. & 143 & 261. as I think generally, and in particular of that very lear­ned and pious Divine, Mr. An­thony Burges [a man for sound [Page 115]judgment and School learning much renowned) I say the contra­ry assertion, viz. that one and the same sinne cannot be more or lesse pardoned, I cannot assent unto; but must needs by vertue of the premises professe (yet humbly) my dissent from.

CHAP. XIIII. That no sinner is fully pardoned in this life, nor yet afore the day of judgment.
CONSECT. VIII.

8▪ IT followes, that howe­ver a believer is pardoned in this lsfe, yet he is not fully pardoned til the day of judgment; because he is not till that day of refreshing, freed from all the sad effects and punishments of sin, viz. [Page 116]death and the grave of corruption.The pre­mises con­sidered, do also give us to see a reason of that saying of Christ, Mat. 12 32 And more­over plain­ly and ea­sily to in­terpret the sense of it, he saying, that the sin against the H. Ghost shall not be forgi­ven nei­ther in this world, nor in the world to come. And for that cause the day of judg­ment may as wel be stiled the day of Remission or Absolution, as the day of Redemption, as it is stiled Ephes. 4.30. And for the same cause doth Saint Peter assert, our sins to be blotted out (in a signal sense, viz fully and compleatly) at, and not before that Great and good day of the Lord, Act. 3.19. there being certain remainders of grace to be brought unto the Saints at, and not before the revelation of Jesus Christ, for which till that time they are to wait and hope, according to the counsel of the same Apostle, 1 Pet. 1.13. And in this sense, Saint Paul prayes to God, that good Onesiphorus, with his compassionate houshold may find mercy with the Lord, at that day, 2 Tim. 1.16, 17, 18.

CHAP. XV. The difference betwixt remis­sion of sinne and Sanctifica­tion, commonly assigned (that being said to be perfect in this life, this imperfect) re­jected and refuted.
CONSECT. IX.

9. IT followes, that the dif­ference commonly said to be betwixt the remission of our sins, and our sanctification (that the one is perfect in this life, the other is imperfect) is a plain mi­stake, and in very deed not a ju­stifiable, but a pardonable saying, I mean an errour that stands in need of pardon, and not of pardon only, but also of amendment. And (besides [Page 118]the premises) for a farther dete­cting and rectifying this mistake, let it be considered, that the selfe same reason, which proves the imperfection of our sanctificati­on in this life, wil also prove the imperfection of our remission: for the reason demonstrating the [...], that our sanctification is here imperfect, is (besides the testimony of Scripture) the experimental sense of that Fomes peccati, that Peccatum peccans, or relicks of sin, which doe still remaine in our natures; which said sinne in being both sinne and punishment (for which cause it may well be stiled, in a peculiar sense, peccatum pu­niens, as well as peccans;) it being I say, both a sin and the punish­ment of sin, it must of necessity and infallibly follow from thence (as I humbly conceive) that a sinners remission, or release from sinne, is imperfect also. And if any one shall except, saying, that a sinner even in this life hath right to perfect remission; I an­swer, looke what right a sinner [Page 119]hath in this life, to perfect re­mission, the same right he hath to glorification, and to sancti­fication with the Saints made perfect; so that in this respect there is no difference. Briefly then, If wee must believe either Scripture, or our owne experi­ence, wee must acknowledge, that our remission is in this life as well imperfect, as is our sanctifica­tion.

CHAP. XVI. That remission of sinne doth imply somewhat positive, as well as privative, and for that reason, that it differs not from Justification, as hath beene by some supposed.
CONSECT. X.

10. IT followes, that seeing Gods pardoning sinne is his not punishing it; unto which I adde (and that which all do ac­knowledge, nemine contradicente) that seeing punishments are ei­ther privative or positive (if I may be allowed the latter expressi­on, notwithstanding the common saying, Omne malum est formaliter quid privativum) but my meaning is, seeing punishments are either [Page 121] damni, or sensus, of losse, or sense; it wil, I say, follow from thence, that the pardon of sinne is not only Ablativa mali, but also Collativa boni, (as the Schoole­men expresse it;) or, that the par­don of sinne is not only a priva­tive, but also a positive blessing, and benefit, i. e. it doth in the precise nature thereof, import not only a freedome from the punish­ment of sense, or from the bare suffering of paine and torment, but it importeth also a restoring of the sinner to the positive enjoyment of such comforts, or to the en­joyment of such positive comforts, and to such a state of love, friend­ship, and favour with God, as by his sins were lost and forfeited. I speake this in humble dissent from those who do for this cause make justification to be more then for­givenesse of sinne, in that as they say, justification doth connote, or connotate a state of favour, that the subject, or sinner is put into; whereas I see not, how we can acknowledge any state of favour, [Page 122]which justification puts a sinner in­to, which remission of sin doth not likewise invest him with, or put him into, as I shall have occasion to say againe, and shall prove more at large in my progresse up­on this subject in hand. Only note, that which is here said concerning pardon of sin, is to be understood not concerning any of those three sorts of pardon, (which for distin­ction sake, I stiled of the halfe blood, those also being [...], nothing to the text in hand) but of that kind of pardon, which is by the Apostle promised in my present text, [...] so called.

CHAP. XVII. That one and the same sinne may be said, and that in a Scripture sense, to be par­doned, and not pardoned; to be imputed, and not imputed to a sinner.
CONSECT. XI:

11. IT will follow, that one and the same sinne may be said, and that in a Scripture sense, to be pardoned, and not pardoned; to be imputed, and not imputed to a sinner; for as much as God in some kind or degree may punish the sinner for a sin, and yet not in another; or for as much as God may impute the sinne to the sinner for some intents and purposes, E. g. for some kind [Page 124]and degree of punishment, at least for sometime, and yet not for others, or alwaies. Thus, or in this sense God, though hee did pardon the sins of Manasses, yet is said not to have pardoned them. 2 King. 24.4. At the com­mandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sinnes of Manas­seh, according to all that he did, and for the innocent blood that hee shed, which the Lord would not par­don.

CHAP. XVIII. The necessity for believers them­selves to pray daily for par­don (according to the tenour of the fifth Petition in the Lords Prayer) asserted and evinced, as well by Argu­ment as Answer to an Objecti­on; it being withall more at large, and distinctly decla­red, what are the particular things which a believer (ac­cording to the tenour of that Petition) is to pray for.
CONSECT. XII.

12. A Ready answer fol­lowes from hence, to be made unto those who shall de­mand [Page 126]a reason of believers, why they do pray to God, and dare not otherwise choose then daily pray to the Lord God, according to the tenour of the fifth Peti­tion in the Lords prayer, saying, Forgive us our trespasses. For see­ing that the pardon of sin doth not consist in indivisibile, or in puncto mathematico, or sicut pun­ctum in mathesi; yea, seeing there is a great latitude in it, and that we are every day capable of re­ceiving more and more of the par­don of our sinnes; i.e. deliverance from the sad issues, effects, and punishments of our sins; yea, seeing that we shal not receive the plenary forgiveness of our sins til our dying day, yea, til our resurrection day; we may therfore, yea we must and ought therefore daily to pray unto the Lord for the pardon of our sins. Now because the Antinomians do so dangerously erre in slighting, yea, decrying this Petition as vaine and needlesse, to be inces­santly made by believers, I shall offer the following particulars un­to [Page 127]consideration, in order to the converting of all such from the errour of their way in that behalf. Be it then considered.

1. That in that Petition we pray, that in the great day of judgment we may find mercy with God (which I stiled pardon of sinne in a signal sense) according to the tenour of the Apostles prayer for Onesiphorus, 2 Tim. 1.18. Saint Paul doubtlesse did looke upon Onesiphorus as a Saint, as a true believer, yet did not he think that Onesiphorus stood in no neede of such a prayer, otherwise he would have abstained from making such a request to God in his behalfe, as a taking of Gods holy Name in vaine. And I doubt not, but that Onesiphorus was very glad and thankful to the Apostle for this his prayer; though it seemes that the Antinomians of our times would have conned the Apostle, or any other, little, or rather no thankes at all for making such a prayer in their behalfe.

Object. Believers have already [Page 128]the pardon of their sinnes, and God in Christ is said to have al­ready forgiven them their trespas­ses. Col. 1.14. and 2.13. Ephes. 4. last.

Answ. 1. That is said in Scrip­ture to be already done, and spo­ken of therefore in the preterper­fect tense, which shall certainly and infallibly be done in due time; E. g. Rom. 8.30. Whom hee justified, them also he glorified, i. e. he will glorifie. Thus God is said to have given that grace to the elect, before the world began, which at that time hee did onely purpose infallibly to give in due time. 2 Tim. 1.9.

2. I have already proved that the Saints in this life are forgiven but in part, and not fully. In such a sense therefore as believers are said to be already saved (Eph. 2.5.8. By grace ye are saved. 1 Cor. 15.2. by which also ye are saved. 2 Tim. 1.9. Who hath saved us) In such a sense are the Saints said to be already pardoned, and for the same reasons, or upon the like grounds.

1. Because in part they are al­ready saved and pardoned; par­don and salvation is already begun in and upon them.

2. Because of that right which they have unto perfect and ful re­mission and salvation in the king­dome of heaven, or at the day of judgment; notwithstanding the certainty of which their present right, they are not only to pray, but also by all due means, to labor for the future actual and full pos­session of remission and salvation. So soone as God hath made a pro­mise of any blessing, whether tem­poral or spiritual to a believer, a believer (I conceive) hath right unto it; (in which sense we com­monly expound that of the Apo­stle, all things are yours, 1 Cor. 3. last) but what of that? is not a believer therefore to pray for the actuall enjoyment of what God hath promised? Yea, is he not the rather to pray for it for that very reason, even as David did in a like case? 2 Sam. 7.27. God ha­ving made a promise to David, [Page 130]what he would doe for him and his house, observe Davids words ver. 27. For thou O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house; Therefore (mark there­fore) hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this prayer unto thee. And the rather is this considerable, because wee cannot regularly ex­pect that Gods promises shall be accomplished; and consequently, that wee shall ever actually enjoy what we have a present right unto by vertue of Gods promises, unless wee doe continue instant in pray­er for the accomplishment of the same, prayer being one of Gods appointed waies or means for the accomplishment of his said promi­ses, as appears by the Scriptures passim; particularly by that in E­zek. 36.37. having made a pro­mise concerning the Churches re­stauration in the foregoing verses, the Prophet addes to prevent se­curity. ver. 37. Thus saith the Lord God, I will yet for this be enquired of by the house of Israel to doe it for [Page 131]them. See also Jer. 29.11, 12, 13. Though God did tell them what he had a most assured purpose to doe for them, ver. 10.11. (After seventy years be accomplished at Ba­bylon, I will visit you, and per­forme my good word towards you, in causing you to returne to this place: for I know the thoughts that I think towards you saith the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you an unexpected end.) Yet he doth intimate unto them, that the actu­all performance of this promise should depend upon their prayers, as the condition on their parts; (yet through his grace freely gi­ven) to be performed. For read ver. 12.13. Then shall ye call upon mee, and yee shall goe and pray unto mee, and I will hearken unto you; and yee shall seeke mee and find mee, when ye shall search for mee with all your heart. This the Prophet Daniel understood very well (though the Antinomians of these times, through the just judg­ment of God doe seeme so blin­ded, as not to understand things [Page 132]of this nature) as appears by his practice,I have heard it as a tradition that petty Malefa­ctors a­mongst us condemn­ed to bee burnt in the hand, were to suffer the hot iron til they pray­ed with a loud voice, God save the King. And do not the Antino­mians de­serve to ly under the afflicting hand of God till such time as they pray with the Psal­mist say­ing, Look up on my af­fliction and my pain, & forgive all my sinnes? Psal. 25.18. together with the ground, rise, and reason of it, recorded, Dan. 9. beg. Because hee did know gods assured purpose by his promise, therefore he set his face to the Lord God to seek by prayer and supplication; yea with fasting, sackcloth and ashes. To seek God by prayer and fasting for the averting of what God hath threatned, seems strange to none; but to seek God by fasting and prayer, for that which God hath promised infallibly to believers, doth seeme so strange to Antino­nians, as that they account it a thing needlesse and ridiculous. May God be pleased of his great­mercy to enlighten and reduce them.

2. Be it considered, that in the said fifth Petition of the Lords prayer, we pray for forgivenesse of sinne, not only as to be enjoy­ed after death, but also in this life, i.e. that present judgments which our sinnes might deservedly bring upon us may be prevented, [Page 133]suspended, moderated, or if in­flicted, may be shortned, sweet­ned, removed, sanctified, and tur­ned to our benefit: for in these things (as hath been already de­monstrated) doth consist partly the forgivenesse of sinne. Now what intelligent Christian is there, who will not acknowledge, that they have need of such things as these, viz. the preventing, mo­derating, removing, sanctifying of temporall judgements and affli­ctions?

3. Be it considered, That as the Saints doe sinne daily more or lesse; so their new sinns do bring a new obligation to punishment (or else they could not be accoun­ted sinners, neither could they be pardoned, as needing no pardon) which said obligation they have need should be taken off by a particular pardon, besides their first general pardon (for that any sinne is pardoned afore it be com­mitted, I shal at large disprove in another Consectary;) for which said particular pardon a believer [Page 134]is according to his neede to pray to God, hee having no assurance from God to obtaine either it, or ought else without prayer; such cause have wee to give the like counsel to the best among the god­ly, as Simon Peter did to Simon Magus, saying, Repent, and pray to God, that thy daily sinnes may be forgiven thee.

4. Be it considered (which I think will generally be acknow­ledged) that the sinnes of belie­vers after conversion, specially their more grosse, false, and e­minent backslidings, doe subject them meritoriously, to the con­demnation of the law, and to theElse why doth God threaten them upon their back sliding with the forfeiture of their former pardon? Ezek. 18.24. Matth. 6, 15. & 18. lat. See Mr. Burges of justificati­on. p. 242, 243. forfeiture of that right which they had to the pardon of former sins by vertue of the Covenant; and that these new sinnes do not de facto condemne a believer, is to be ascribed to the Lord Christ, by whose blood wee have an entrance into the Covenant of grace, and a standing, or continuance in it by his intercession. Rom. 5.2. with Heb. 12.24. & 7.24. by which [Page 135]intercession the Covenant of for­givenesse, or the promise of par­don is continued to be the belie­vers discharge against all new sins, and the remembrance of old.

Now have not believers need to pray to God that he would not take that advantage of their for­feiture of former pardon, as justly hee might doe? Yea, is it not necessary that they should so doe, as ever they doe expect that hee should not take the advantage of the said forfeiture? For consider, that as Jesus Christ doth intercede in heaven for the continuance of remission of sinne in the behalfe of the Saints, so hee doth intercede, and actually procure for them all such grace or graces, as without which their pardon shall not be continued; thence is he said to be exalted by God, not only to give to Israel remission, but also repen­tance, not the former without the latter; yea, first repentance for sin, and then remission of it. Act. 5.31 Now what ground hath any belie­ver to hope for the continuance of [Page 136]his pardon, except he shal pray for it; as Christ doth continue in hea­ven, so he shall continue so long as he is on earth to make inter­cession for it. I have been the lar­ger in this particular, not only for the reducing of the Antinomians in this point, and for the infor­mation of certaine others, who do think that assurance of par­don is the maine thing prayed for by believers in that Petition; but moreover, that every man under­standing what he is to pray for, and hath need to pray for in that be­half, may be induced not only the more frequently, but also the more feelingly and fervently to pray to the Lord for the same.

CHAP. XIX. An answer to the three following questions. 1. Doth God al­waies pardon a sinner instant­ly upon the confession of his sinnes? 2. In what sense, or how farre forth doth a sin­ner receive a present pardon, immediately upon the confes­sion of his sinnes? 3. Whe­ther a truly penitent and be­lieving sinner having once confessed a sinne, is at any time thereafter to confesse it in order to forgivenesse? The affirmative to which last question, is asserted and pro­ved. Certaine particulars added as Cautions for the preventing of mistakes, and [Page 138]for the better understanding of the Authours true sense and meaning.
CONSECT. XIII.

13. THE premises being duly considered, will assist and guide us in a right reso­lution of the following questi­ons.

1. Doth God alwaies pardon a sinner instantly upon the confessi­on of his sinnes? Or, when shall the present promises of the text be made good to the sinner that confesseth his sins?

Answ. Not fully for the present time, or as soone as confession is made, nor fully so long as he lives in this world, but [...], (as is the Apostles phrase, Rom. 5.6.) in due season, and in Gods good tme. Besides the reasons foreci­tied in evidence thereof, I shall subjoine these two considerati­ons.

  • 1. Remission of sinne being a grace or benefit purchased by the blood of Christ, as our adop­tion and regeneration are, why should it be thought more strange that we are not fully made parta­kers of remission afore the day of judgment, then of adoption and regeneration? And yet the truth is here, and so it must bee there also acknowledged, that al­beit we are adopted and regenera­ted so soone as we are believers, neverthelesse the time of our A­doption and regeneration is not in some sense afore the day of judgment, because afore that time they shall not be compleated in soul and body, nor the benefits of them as to the whole man fully enjoyed, as appeares Rom. 8.23. Matth. 19.26.
  • 2. The reinvestment, or restaura­tion of a sinner into the love and favour of God, being (as was a­foresaid) the positive part of par­don, who will say to the contrary, but that a sinner may grow in the love and favour of God, and that [Page 140]the Saints now triumphant in hea­ven, are more in Gods favour, or do enjoy more of his love and fa­vour then they were, or did be­ing sinners militant here on earth? Yea Christ himself, though no sin­ner, is said to grow in the favour of God. Luke 2.52.

Quest. 2. How farre forth, or in what sense may it be said, that a sinner doth receive a present par­don immediately upon the con­fession of his sinnes?

Answ. Though this question be a different question from the for­mer, and hath more difficulty in it; neverthelesse a due considera­tion of the premises touching the quiddity, or true nature of forgive­ness of sinne, will enable us to make an unerring answer (as I sup­pose) thereunto, and unto the said question: Therefore I reply, That a sinner in, or upon the con­fession of his sinnes, doth instantly enjoy the pardon of his sins three wayes, or in a threefold sense, or for as much as doth amount to these three things.

1. The sinner is immediately discharged, delivered, or disobli­ged from that Wrath to come (as is the Apostles phrase, 1 Thes. 1.10.) or from being actually bound over to eternal damnation; or, the condemning power of sin is taken away, or (in the phrase of the Prophet Micah, chap. 7.19.) sub­dued. As sin hath a commanding power over the sinner, enslaving him to its service, so likewise it hath a condemning power upon the sin­ner, which power is immediately taken away, so soon as sin is (in a Scripture sense, way, or man­ner) confessed.

Having mentioned these two powers of sin, let me crave leave to interpose this one thing ( [...], and by the by;) viz, That when we read in the writings of Saint Paul, or in any other Scrip­ture concerning the reign and do­minion of sin, we must have a spe­cial regard to the Context, if we will rightly interpret the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, con­cerning which of these two pow­ers [Page 142]of sin he speaketh: for I am half minded, that some Texts of Scrip­ture are commonly interpreted one way, when upon a more through consideration wee shall find reason rather to inter­pret them another, especially that in Rom. 6.14. [Sin shall not have dominion over you,] which is com­monly interpreted concerning the cōmanding power of sin, & I think is intended by the Apostle concer­ning the damning power thereof, that power or strength which hee elsewhere saith, sin hath by the Law, i. e. the commination of the Law, by vertue whereof sin doth damn or condemn the sinner, 1 Cor. 15.56. and for victory over which sa [...]d damning power or strength of sin, the Apostle doth blesse God in the following verse, saying, But thanks be to God which giveth us the victory th [...]ough our Lord Jesus Christ. Sure I am of these three things,

  • 1. That when God doth par­don sin, hee is said to subdue it Mic. 7.19.
  • [Page 143]2. That sin hath never got a full conquest, or its full victory over the sinner, or that sin doth never reign in its full power and strength over the sinner till it hath brought the sinner into the pit of Hell, or hath actually damned him, or (in the Apostles phrase Rom. 5.28.) doth reigne unto death.
  • 3. That Gods not suffering sin in respect of its damning power to reign over the Saints, is a very fit proper and prevalent Argument, to perswade them not to suffer sin in respect of its commanding pow­er to reign over them. Freedom from both these powers of sin, or from sin with respect to both these powers (it being stiled with respect to its commanding power over us, the Law of sin; and with respect to its damning power over us, the Law of Death) the Apostle doth mention in one place, Rom. 8.2. The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus; (i.e. the living or quickning Spirit of Jesus Christ) hath made me free from the law of sin and [Page 144]
    Those who by the Law of Death do here un­derstand the Law of Works, do not vary, as I sup­pose, from the inter­pretation which I have here given, see­ing that sin hath its condemn­ing power from, or by vertue of the Law of Works.
    deah; i. e. from sin, which doth as a Law command & condemn This last particular being considered, doth make me boldly, yet humbly, to offer this as a rule; viz. That when God doth exhort us, not to suffer sin to have dominion over us, then and there we are to un­derstand the commanding power of sin; but when he promiseth on his part, that sin shall not have dominion over us, then and there we are to understand the condem­ning power of sin, the former being mans duty, is fit matter for a command; the latter being Gods mercy is fit matter for a Promise. Yet let me add these two things in the way of Caution.
    • 1. I do acknowledge, that the usual interpretation of Rom. 6.14. which I do for the Reasons afore­said dissent from, is a mis-inter­pretation (if indeed such) of no dangerous consequence, because these two powers of sin, like Hy­pocrates his twins, do decay and flourish, do live and dye and re­vive together; I mean, if, or when­soever [Page 145]the one doth revive, the o­ther doth revive also. Now in such cases I think it my duty, how­ever to offer what strength of rea­son or Scripture I have for my owne sense and apprehension; ne­verthelesse not much or stifly to contend with any man of a con­trary mind, but rather in the spi­rit of meeknesse to suffer every man to abound in his owne sense, according to the analogy or pro­portion of faith; from which those do not vary, who do understand grace to performe duty, and the successeful exercise of it to be pro­mised also.
    • 2. Albeit in my Exposition of Rom. 6.14. I seeme to have taken off the edge of one weapon, or rather to have endeavoured the wresting of one weapon out of the hands of our Divines in their con­test with the Arminians about the Apostacy of the Saints, neverthe­lesse I have done no prejudice (as I think) to the Doctrine of Per­severance, as commonly taught and received by our Divines: for I [Page 146]deny not, but that there is as much promised in other Scriptures, as doth amount unto, or accord with that usual Interpretation of Rom. 6.14. which I do professedly dis­sent from.

But to returne:See Mr. Burges of Justificati­on p. 137. As soon as sin is committed, there doth accrue unto God a moral right or power as a Judge to inflict eternal pu­nishment upon the sinner, and so there is a legal obligation of the sinner to such a punishment (with respect to which said bond, or ob­ligation a sinner not pardoned is said (as I conceive) by Solomon, to be held in the cords of his sins, Prov. 5.22.) and when this bond or obligation is dissolved or ta­ken off, God is said to forgive sin, or to unty, loose, or remit the sin­ner. Now such an obligation (I say) is immediately dissolved, or taken off upon a sinners confession of his sins, God thereupon blot­ting out his sins, or not remem­bring his sins any more; i. e. not willing the obligation of the sin­ner (for sin so confessed) to eternal [Page 147]wrath. This is, as I may so say, the pith and marrow, the heart and spirit of forgiveness presently enjoyed; viz. Gods present ta­king away the actual ordination of the sin, or obligation of the sinner to everlasting condemnati­on, so that the sinner may lift up his head thereupon, and say with the Apostle, Rom. 8.1. Now there­fore there is no condemnation for me.

2. A sinner is immediately up­on his confession restored into grace and favour with the Lord, the loss orHere note, That look what favour of God a sin­ner by his sin hath forfeited, such is the favour in­to which, upon his penitent confession hee is re­stored; e. g. we all having forfeited in Adam the favour of children, wee are restored into the favour of children, or adopted. And having by new sins incurred Gods fatherly dis­pleasure, we are upon our confession restored into his fatherly favour, as opposite to the said dis­pleasure. forfeiture whereof being one part of the punishment of sin. This branch of pardon is called, Gods graciously receiving of the sinner, Hos. 14.2. The truth hereof I shall hereafter demon­strate, when I come to set downe such things, as I do judg in Scrip­ture [Page 148]phrase to bee equivalent to forgivenesse; in the mean time only let it be observed, That whensoever God pardons the sin, he is reconciled to the sinner, and Christs expiating, or being a pro­pitiation for sin, is all one, as for Christ to make reconciliation for sin, Heb. 2.17. with 1 Joh. 2. beg. It is therefore to be noted, that Da­vid in Psal. 51. much insisting up­on, and being instant for the par­don of his sins, both original and actual, especially his sin of murder and adultery, as he doth expresse his mind and meaning in various phrases, so in this phrase among others; viz. That God would not cast him away from his face. i.e. his love and favour, ver. 11. I say, his favour; for as by theIn this sense the face of G. is some­time stiled the back of God, Jer. 18.17. face of God, is sometimes meant the wrath and displeasure of God, Psa. 34.16. (and this face of God Da­vid prayes against, saying, Hide thy face from my sins, ver. 9.) so by Gods face is sometimes meant his favour (Psal. 80.3, last. Cause thy face to shine, &c.) so it is to be [Page 149]taken in the forecited Text; ver. 11, it being the self same word in the Original as is used ver. 9. al­though it bee differently rendred by our Translators; E. G. in ver. 9. Face, in ver. 11. Presence. Though Gods dislike then of the sin be never taken away (in which respect that of Hab. 1.13. will be everlasting true, That God is a God of purer eyes then to behold evil) yet hisGods fa­vour or disfavour, not signi­fying Gods Essence, but his Dispensa­tions, may be said to be altered without a­ny change in God. disfavour of, or towards the sinner, is immediately upon confession altered or taken off, so far forth, as that of an enemy he becomes to God, as, or in the re­lation of a friend; or as of a friend under a cloud of Gods displeasure, he becomes a friend restored into former favor.

3. The [...], (as I may so say) the sting or strength of sin is presently taken away; i. e. the curse of the curse, or the evil of all evils, that do remain as infli­cted, or to be inflicted upon the sinner, are so altered from their native import, vergency or ten­dency, as that they are, or shall [Page 150]be through Gods blessing and fa­vour towards the sinner turned to good, so that the sinner may im­mediately triumph upon them all (even as Christ upon the Crosse is said to triumph over all enemies, Col. 2.14, 15.) and defie them for the worst that they can do unto him, saying in good sort, as in 1 Cor. 15.55, 56. O l [...]sse, crosse, pain, torment, Where is thy sting and victory? This spoiling (as I may so say) and disabling of sin, thus far forth is one other part of the pardon, which (as I think) is pre­sently enjoyed by the sinner, unto whom God doth promise forgive­ness in the Text.

Quest. 3. Whether is a truly pe­nitent and believing sinner, ha­ving once confessed a sin, at any time thereafter to confesse it in order to forgivenesse?

This is a Question of so much the more moment above the for­mer, by how much

1. It is not a meere notional or speculative, but a practical case, and that of very frequent use.

2. Of Universal concern­ment.

3. In respect of these woful, sin­ful, and most unhappy times (wherein the Gospel of Christ is so notoriously turned into lascivi­ousnesse, even by many of those who are high pretenders to Go­spel light, and have with two ma­ny the chief, if not only name of Gospel Preachers) most necessary and seasonable: In these times (I say) wherein many do hold that a sin once acknowledged is never afterwards to be confessed in or­der to forgivenesse. The Author of the Book stiled, Religio Medici, (written as is commonly supposed by Dr. Browne; a Traveller, and a man of great Learning and Rea­ding, as appears by his Pseudodo­xia Edidemica) doth so far ac­quaint us with his Devotion and Orisons, as to tell us, that having once confessed a sin, he doth not from thenceforward make any particular confession thereof in his Prayers to God. And I doubt that Religio Medici is at this day in this point [Page 152]too much Religio Wallici, and may become in time Religio Populi, my meaning is (I doubt) that this Do­ctrine, [That sin once confessed, is no more to be confessed.] is one of those sweet and Gospel-Truthes (as it is named) which is now in dispersing in South and North Wales, by some of those I­tineraries in those parts. The reason of my jealousie herein is, not only because I know an anci­ent and an eminent professor of Religion lately entangled in their Errors, to have come from thence to disperse that as a precious truth in England; but also because se­veral of the Licentiate Preachers themselves are fam'd to be infect­ed with Antinomian Principles, which do directly lead unto such irreligious courses and neglect of Duty, as I have (I suppose) made more at large to appear in my Ex­amen of Dr. Crisp his book, stiled, His Third Volume of Sermons, and which I wrote about▪ six years ago, but have not yet publi­shed.

To the Question therefore I answer, That a penitent and truly believing sinner, having confessed his sins once, is notwithstanding, in order to forgivenesse, to con­fesse them upon occasion againe and again, according to the ex­ample of David and other of the Saints and Servants of God in Scripture, Psal. 25.7, 18. and 51.9. And me thinks (besides other Reasons, e.g.

  • 1. Then should no Christian ever mention Original sin in his confession to God, ha­ving once in his life acknowledg­ed it.
  • 2. If we may infer from the Text in hand, that sin is but once to be confessed, because the Apostle saith, If we confesse our sins, God is faithful and just to for­give us; why may we not by a like reason conclude, That wee are but once in our lives to pray to God, because the Apostle saith, Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall bee saved? Rom. 10.13.)

Besides, I say, these and other reasons (me thinks) the true know, [Page 154]ledge of the nature of forgiveness of sin (as was afore declared; it be­ing a thing not here perfect, but in perfecting more and more till out dying; yea, till our rising day) is a very sufficient and satis­factory ground and reason for the same. Seeing wee are more and more capable of receiving, or capable of receiv [...]ng more and more of the forgiveness of our sins, why should we not in order there­unto, viz. the degrees of par­don, make confession of them a­gain and again?

Besides, Although it be grant­ed (as was afore acknowledged and asserted) That as soon as e­ver a penitent sinner hath confes­sed his sins, he is immediately par­doned, so far forth as that his ob­ligation to damnation is taken a­way; yet who can, or dare say, that this dis-obligation shall be continued to such a sinner as shall never afterwards, so much as once in his life (God prolonging his life) confesse those sins againe? Sure I am, that the promise of [Page 155]Salvation is made only to those who do patiently continue in well doing; i. e. in all the wayes of doing well, among which I take this to be one, viz. frequent Pray­er and frequent confession. And so the continuance of our par­don and Justification, is yet but conditional in the Covenant, though certaine in Decree.

As well for the confirmation, as explanation of what hath beene said in the Consectaries immedi­ately foregoing, wherein was as­serted, that new sinnes doe bring a new obligation to punishment, which obligation must be taken off by a new pardon; Be it fur­ther considered,

1. The sinnes of a godly man, as well as the sinnes of a wicked man; or sinnes committed after conversion, as well as sins commit­ted before conversion, are mor­tal in their owne nature, and doe deserve punishment, even the pu­nishment of hell and damnation. What law it is, by vertue wher­of, the sinnes of believers do de­serve [Page 156]damnation, is not so unani­mously by Divines agreed upon; it being a question agitated a­mongst them, whether the old law, or covenant of works, be only relaxed, or whether it be not abrogated to all mankind. For my owne part, I can scarce dis­cerne any real difference in this controversie, one choosing to stile that an Abrogation, which a­nother thinks fittest (with a precise respect to the rule of the civil law) to call a Relaxation; and it being my opinion, that the controversie is rather verball, then real, I hope therefore, that I may without the offence, and with the good leave of either partie expresse my sense in the same to be this, viz. I humbly conceive, that whereas in the old law or covenant of works, all manner of sinne was threatned with death, as unavoid­able ex parte legis, that law as threatning death in such sort, and upon such terms, and as command­ing perfect, universal obedience, as the only condition of life, is taken [Page 157]away; so that mankind is not un­der that law or covenant, as in the sense aforesaid; in stead whereof, wee all are Sub lege remediante, under a new law, or covenant of the Lord Redeemer: in which law there are threatnings of two sorts, viz. Conditional and perempto­ry; in the former, all manner of sinne being threatned with damna­tion; in the latter only final im­penitencie and unbeliefe. But it is not material to my present pur­pose, to determine ought in that question, it being sufficient for mee only to say, that all Protestant Divines do unanimously accord in this, viz. 1. That all sin is in its owne nature mortal, and de­serves damnation, by vertue of the threatning of one law or another, either the new, or else the old (threatning in that respect, or so farre forth) being in force, or con­tinuing.

2. All sinne deserving damna­tion by vertue of divine commina­tion, it will follow thereupon [...], that the sinner upon the commis­sion [Page 158]of sinne, is actually obliged to suffer accordingly: for why, or whence is sinne said to be mortal, but from that strength which it hath from, or by the vertue of the lawes commination to oblige the sinner to damnation?

3. As a consequent hereof it followes, that a sinner hath neede of pardon for every sinne, that so the penalty of the law may not be executed according to the obli­gation.

4. In order to the procuring of the said pardon or dis-obligation, and to the diverting of damnation threatned; it is necessary, that the godly should use such meanes from time to time as God hath in his word commanded them to use; i. e. that they should confess their sinnes, pray for the pardon of them, flie for refuge by faith to the blood of Christ dai­ly.

5. Immediately upon a sinners taking such a course, or using such meanes as God hath appoin­ted him to take and use for pardon, [Page 159]the law is disabled, and the sinner is disobliged from damnation, be­cause its threatning is only condi­tional, viz. in case of non-repen­ting and faith, which conditions being performed, the new law, or covenant can no longer hold the sinner guilty.

6. This disobligation of the sinner is that particular and new pardon, of which, as was asserted, a godly man hath need, in respect of his new and particular sinnes. I am not ignorant that some Di­vines doe not use in this case, the expression (new and particular pardon) but (a renewed applicati­on of pardon.) But because this ex­pression is to my seeming very ob­scure, (they not explicating what they doe intend by the said renew­ed application of pardon, whether they meane some renewed act of the sinner, or else some renewed act of God; and because I know no fitnesse in the phrase in what sense soever it be taken) for if any one alledge the former sense I answer, That pardon of sin (a­ctively [Page 160]taken, is not our act, but Gods. Besides, A sinners renew­ed application of pardon to him­selfe, is his renewed act or a­cting of faith (which act of faith I should chuse to expresse, by a sinners renewed application of himself to Christ, or the Promises of Christ for pardon, and not by the sinners renewed application of pardon to himselfe.) If any shall alledge the latter sense; I answer, That Gods application of pardon is pardon; or, Gods renewed application of pardon is neither more nor lesse but plainly this, viz. Gods bestowing a new pardon, or (in the phrase of the Prophet I­saiah, chap. 55.7.) his multiplying to pardon, or his pardoning again and again.) These things (I say) considered, I have thought meet to forbear the use of that expres­sion [A renewed application of pardon.] and in stead thereof to say, [New pardons.]

I am not ignorant likewise, that some Divines in stead of say­ing, [There is an actual obligati­on [Page 161]of the sinner by, or immediate­ly upon the commission of sin, to damnation;] they sometimes say [There is an aptitude in all sin to damn the sinner;] which phrase as being more mollifying, it was once in my thoughts to have used, and accordingly to have expressed Gods particular and new pardons, by his hindring or obstructing the foresaid aptitude of such particu­lar and new sins, from taking ef­fect in the actual obligation of a sinner to damnation. But upon a due consideration of this expres­sion, I found (as I thought, and still do think) just cause to wave and decline the use of it; that expression being as much as to say, I should have fallen out, if I had not been reconciled; or, I should have been wounded, if I had not been healed; or, I had been bound and tyed, if I had not been loosed and untyed; or, a sinner should have been o­bliged to suffer, if he had not been pardoned. These two last phra­ses (I confesse) in a sense are true, and for that purpose may be used; [Page 162] viz. I had been still bound, and tyed, if I had not been losed and untyed; or, A sinner should have been still obliged to suffer, if he had not been pardoned; im­porting, that time was, when the sinner or person now loosed, unti­ed and pardoned, was actually tied, bound, and obliged to suffer: Neverthelesse, without the suppo­sal of a sinners precedaneous actu­al obligation to suffer, the foresaid expressions are intolerable; be­cause pardon doth not prevent the sinners obligation to suffer, no more then healing doth prevent wounding or loosing doth prevent binding, but alwayes followes af­ter it in order of Nature at least, if not in time, as the remedy there­of. The premises being duly weighed, I can perceive no just cause why any person, under what pretence soever, should bee offended for my asserting, as is before asserted; viz. That new sins do bring a new ob­ligation to punishment, which obligation must bee dissolved, [Page 163]or taken off by a new par­don.

CHAP. XX. That all sins, past, present, or to come, are not at once actu­ally pardoned. That no sin is from eternity actually pardo­ned. An Objection answer­ed That no sin is actually par­doned, till the sinner be in a capacity of receiving or enjoy­ing it. What those things are which do put a sinner into a capacity of actual pardon, declared in their particulars; together with Reasons for the remarkablenesse of the same. An Objection answered; with a vindicating of that asserti­on in Rom. 4.17. wherein God is said, to call the things that are not, as though [Page 164]they were, from Antinomi­an purposes.
CONSECT. XIII.

13. IT followes, That all sins past, present, and to come, are not forgiven at once. Had the Authours and Abettors of the contrary Opinion; (viz. That all sins, past, present and to come, are at once actually remit­ted, and that from eternity) ei­ther rightly knowne or duly con­sidered the nature of forgiveness of sin, what it is, and wherein it doth consist, then doubtless they would not have owned an opini­on so absurd and irrational: for they who do understand that for­givenesse of sin doth consist in Gods taking off the obligation to punishment, and punishment it self, and yet will affirm, That all sins past, present and to come are at once remitted; must consequent­ly affirm, That a man may be dis­obliged afore he is obliged, loosed, [Page 165]afore bound; set at liberty, afore captivated or imprisoned; and that punishment is taken off afore it be inflicted and laid on. then which to affirme or imply, what is more inconsistent with sense and reason? Neverthelesse, because there hath beene some very Lear­ned and Pious men, who have ad­hered to this opinion, that all sins past, present, and to come are forgiven at once, and that from e­ternity. I shal for the more satisfa­ction subjoin certain propositions, partly in the way of concession, and pa [...]tly in the way of exception.

As to the former, I grant that at what time God did will or purpose to pardon any one sinne, yea any one elect sinner he did at that instant time will, or purpose to pardon all and every sin all and every sinner, and this hee did will and purpose from all eternity: for Gods will or purpose being his es­sence, it cannot therefore be said, that hee did ever begin to will or purpose any thing.

2. When Christ Jesus did pur­chase [Page 166]the pardon of any one sin, or sinner, he did purchase the par­don of all and every sin and sinner; and this was actually done when he died upon the crosse, Heb. 10. 12, 14. Albeit in such a sense as A­braham is said to have offered up Isaac, Heb. 11.17. viz. in re­gard of his purpose, readinesse, and resolution to offer him; in such a sense it may be said that Christ did long before offer himselfe, hee being willing thereunto and resol­ved thereupon, which said willing­nesse and resolution in him was to such intents and effects accepted with God, as if he had actually accomplished his said will and re­solution. Whence that common saying, Christs sufferings were effectuall afore they were effect­ed.

3. When God did promise par­don to any one sinne or sinner, he did promise the pardon of all sinsI mean, of all sins that shall be pardo­ned, for there are some sins that ne­ver shal be pardoned, as final impenitency, or the final non­performance of the conditions of the Gospel, and the sin against the Holy Ghost; and unto these sins God doth not promise any pardon upon any terms. and sinners, and that upon the [Page 167]selfe same terms, viz. of repen­ting, believing, converting from sin. That Gospel promise [I will be your God, or whosoever be­lieveth in Christ shall receive re­mission of sinnes] doth at once hold forth the pardon of all sinne; which said promise it selfe may in a sense be stiled a sinners pardon, even as the instrument or writing under the Kings hand and Seale is called the Kings pardon: which said promise also may be stiled a complete and full pardon, for as much as it wants nothing to make it in its kind a perfect and legall discharge from all sins; the pardon of all sins as well as of any one sin being therein promised to sinners, so that what person soever hath a right by faith unto the said Gos­pel grant, or promise of pardon, hath right to the pardon of all his sins in these three respects. viz. In respect of Gods purpose, of Christs purchase, and of the Gospel-promise: We may be said to have the pardon of all our sins at once, i e. wee have all at once [Page 168]in Gods purpose, in Christs pur­chase, and in the Gospel pro­mise; or they are all at once, I meane, the pardon of them purposed by God, purchased by Christ, and promised in the Gos­pel.

2. In the way of exception, I shall lay downe this in the first place, and as in general, viz. It will not follow from any, or all the said propositions, whether se­verally or jointly taken, that all sins and sinners are actually pardo­ned at once; no more then it will follow, that because a Father did purpose an inheritance for his child afore it was borne; or pur­chase for his child an inheritance as soone as it was borne, or pro­mise the said inheritance as soone as it could speak and understand, that the child did therefore at, or from the time of the said purpose, purchase, or promise actually en­joy, or was made actual posses­sour of the said inheritance. And because it is a very common and foule errour; yea, a mother-er­rour [Page 169](as I may so say) in the An­tinomians, not to distinguish be­twixt the decree, or will of God, and the execution thereof, or be­twixt Gods purposes & his perfor­mances. Be it therfore considered,

1. That albeit this proposition [God did not will or decree any thing in time] be a true proposition, referring [in time] to his wil or de­cree; nevertheless the contrary pro­position [God did wil or decree e­very thing in time] is true, [refer­ring in time] to the being, or actual existence of the thing.

2. As God did from eternity will or purpose the beginning of the thing; e. g. the creation of the world (though he never did begin to will it, having will'd it from ternity) so he also from eternity did will or purpose the ceasing of things, e. g. the disso­lution of the world; both these God did will at once. Will it therefore follow, that the world was created and dissolved from e­ternity, and both created and dis­solved at once?

3. God did purpose from e­ternity to sanctify and glorifie his Elect, yea at what time he did will their birth, he did will their new birth; at what time he did pur­pose to give them life on earth, he did purpose to give them life in Heaven: Wil it therefore follow, That the Elect are sanctified and glorified actually from eternity, or borne againe so soone as borne, or glorified so soone as sanctified?

Obj. Things are otherwise to God then they are to us, and therefore what is not from eternity in respect of us, may be from eternity in respect of God.

Answ In respect of actual exi­stence, things are to God no o­therwise then they are to us; i. e. God doth not see or know any thing actually to be or exist, afore it actually is, or doth exist: how­ever it be true, that he doth fore­know in these things what we do not, and cannot; viz. That a thing shall be, or shall exist be­fore it actually is, or doth ex­ist.

2. As it is the power of God which makes a thing possible, and the pleasure or will of God, that makes a thing future; so it is the application of his power by his will and pleasure to the production of this or that, which doth make it actually to be, or doth make it of possible and future, to become actually existent.

3. Till there be an application of Gods power by his pleasure to the producing of a thing, that thing hath no actual co-existence with the eternity of God, neither is it in God otherwise then Obje­ctivè, or per modum Objecti (as the Schools use to speak) that is, it is in the power and purpose of God to do it. See Barlowes ele­gant and judicious Exercitation concerning Gods eternity, as also other metaphysical Authors con­cerning this Question, An res in­sint aeternitati per proprias exi­stentias; per quas cum sunt, tem­pori coexistunt, an Objectivè so­lum?

I desire the Reader, that the [Page 172]several answers to the foresaid Ob­jection may the rather bee well weighed and remembred, because they serve to make void and null one special Argument of the An­tinomians, whereby they would prove actual Justification before faith: (this being the scope of a late Book written by Mr. Willi­am Eyre of Salisbury, against Mr. Benjamin Woodbridg of Newbery; it being, as it now appears, Mr. Eyre his lot to have among many o­thers, the son and successour of his learned School-master Mr. John Woodbridg (my worthy Predeces­sour) his declared Adversaries in that and in some other points, as depending on it, or it on them:) to make void (I say) an Argu­ment for the said purpose taken out of Rom. 4.17. it being there asserted, That God doth call the things which be not, as though they were, therefore (say they) though we are not, yet we are said to be justified in the sight of God, as if we were. But be it knowne, that the import or reason of that Scrip­ture-saying [Page 173]is not because things are in actu entitative, that things do exist or have an existence as to God, or before God, though they have no existence in themselves, or as to us; but because God doth foresee that things will be, or will exist, before they are or do exist, which no humane eye can foresee; (for which cause he is said to Foresee the Justification of the Heathen through faith, Gal. 3.8. The Scripture foreseeing; i. e. the Holy Ghost the Authour of the Scripture foreseeing (as Piscator interprets the place) that God would justifie the heathen through faith) as also, because God can do those things by his power, which we cannot do, yea, which (I do not say, in nature, but) as to nature are impossible to be done; and that he can do these things at any time, whensoever he shall by his will and pleasure apply his Om­nipotent power for the effecting thereof, as was manifested in the case of Sarah there specified. Ha­ving said, That God doth foresee [Page 174]those things which we do not, and that he is said for that cause, to call the things that are not, as though they were. I shall exempli­fie that saying in one instance; e. g. The only wise God did foresee the dissolution of the late Parlia­ment, even afore the convention of it, albeit as it seems Mr Wil­liam Eyre did not foresee it a few dayes before it was dissolved; for if he had foreseen, that that Parlia­ment would have been so soone dissolved upon account of its be­ing no longer profitable for the Commonwealth, doubtlesse hee would not have told them (as to their faces) in his Epistle Dedica­tory unto them, That they were in his judgment, the fittest of any company of men on earth, to um­pire and judg in the points contro­verted betwixt him and Mr. Wood­bridg. Had Mr. Eyre in very deed delivered the truth of his judgment and the judgment of truth in that suffrage super-superlative, I must have said, That it had been a thou­sand pities that the said company [Page 175]of men, though dissolved as to a Parliament of the Commonwealth (both name and thing;) yet had not been continued under some new name; e. g. Apollinis tripos; Concessus Apostolicus, Aarons Brest­plate, Ʋrim and Thummim, Eng­lands Oracle, The Church Vertual, or the like Notio secunda; as un­to whom all dissenting persons and parties, both in our own, and in all the Nations throughout the world might have had recourse for resolution in the great things and truthes of God. But seeing that it was concluded by themselves, that their company so constituted, was no longer profitable to the Commonwealth, I believe that Mr. Eyre is now convicted, that their longer sitting was not like to be profitable for the Church; whereupon I shall conclude, that it was for want of foresight, that Mr. Eyre did so far luxuriate in their high praises, as to say, That of any company of men on earth, they were the fittest to umpire in such Theological Disputes as [Page 176]are betwixt him and his old School fellow Mr. Benjamin Wood­bridg.

Let the second Negative Propo­sition be this; viz. No sin is a­ctually pardoned, till a person bee made capable of it, or put into a ca­pacity of receiving or enjoying it. This Proposition carries its owne evidence in the body or bowels of it: for nothing is before it can be. I shall therefore immediately ap­ply my self to the resolution of the following Question.

Quest. When is a person capable of receiving the actual pardon of his sins? Or, When are the Elect ca­pable of receiving, or actually en­joying that pardon which was so long since purposed, purchased, promised to and for them?

Answ. 1. When they need it.

Quest. When do they need it?

Answ. When they are, or do become sinners, have committed sin, or are guilty of sin. Till sin be past, pardon is to come. To pardon sin before it is commit­ted [Page 177]is to pardon sin that is no sin, it is to pardon that which is not, which is a contradiction, and a meere impossibility: for where there is no guilt, there can be no pardon. As a man is not capable of an Almes, till he be miserable and indigent; so nor of pardon, till he be peccant: Or as a man is not capable of a cure by Physick and Chyrurgery till he be sick and wounded; so nor of pardon, till he be sick of sin, and wounded by it. These similitudes are the rather apt, because Gods pardoning sin is said to be his taking compas­sion on us, (Mic. 7.19. Luke 18. 13. God compassionate me a sinner, saith the Publican:) and his healing us, Isai. 53.5. Hos. 14.4. This is a remote capacity. The next par­ticular doth declare and set forth the sinners proximous, or immedi­ate capacity of pardon.

2. Then are the Elect capable of actual pardon, when they are in Gods way fit or fitted for it.

Quest. When is that?

Answ. When they see their sins (I speak of persons adult, or of ripe age) confesse them, repent for them, believe in Christ. See Act. 10.43. To him give all the Prophets witnesse, that whosoever beleeveth in him shall receive remis­sion of sins. Luke 24.47. And that repentance and remission of sin should be preached in his name among all Nations. Acts 5.31. Him hath God exalted, to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and re­mission of sin, (observe, Repen­tance is given first, and then re­mission.) As the ground is not capable of receiving the seed of the Husbandman till it be plowed, so nor are the Elect capable of re­ceiving the precious seed of par­don, till the fallow ground of their hearts be plowed up by Re­pentance (to speak in the meta­phor of the Prophet Jeremy chap. 4.4.) In this sense that saying of the Evangelist is most true, accor­ding as by some it is interpreted; John 1.16. Of his fulnesse we re­ceive, and grace for grace; i. e. by [Page 179]reason of one grace we receive ano­ther (even as the God of all grace doth give one grace in order to a­nother) e g. for, or by reason of the grace of faith, repentance and conversion (all which were merited by Christ) God gives us the grace of Remission, according to that Proverbial saying among the Jewes, and in this case applia­ble, Habenti dabitur. As God doth by Grace adapt, or make us fit and meet for glory, (Col. 1.12 Giving thanks to the Father, who hath made us meet for the inheri­tance among the Saints in light,) So by one grace God doth make us meet for receiving of another. And as the Wedding Garment did fit and make meet the Guests for the Wedding Sup­per; so doth Faith, Repen­tance and new obedience (be­ing as the Wedding Garment) fit, or make meet the sinner for partaking in the pardon of his sins, which is as the Wedding Supper.

This particular is the rather to be observed, because it is useful, as otherwise, so specially for these two purposes.

  • 1. To prevent and redresse the presumption of impenitent and ungodly sinners, who are apt to expect to reap where they have not sowed, and to gather where they have not strawed. I mean, who do usually expect an harvest of comfort in the pardon of their sins, and to reape in mercy, when they have not sowen to themselves one seed (the least mustard seed) of grace, or one graine of righ­teousnesse (to speak in the phrase of the prophet, Hos. ch. 10.12)
  • 2. It is useful, whereby to ob­viate or answer the common obje­ction of the Antinomians, wherby they would involve us as guilty of impeaching the freedom of Gods grace in the pardon of our sins, because we affirme with the Scrip­tures, that pardon of sinne can­not actually be enjoyed without the performance of such and such [Page 181]conditions, the performance of which said conditions is notwith­standing of, and cannot be without Gods free grace given to us, and enabling us for that end and pur­pose. I shall close this particular with the words of that very Lear­ned and godly man, Mr. Anthony Burges, in his book of justification, p. 18. There goe more causes to the pardon of sin besides the me­ritorious cause; faith the instru­mental cause, which is as necessa­ry in its kind for this great benefit as the meritorious cause is in its kind; that though Christ hath born such a mans sins, yet they are not pardoned till he doe believe; for as the grace of God (which is the efficient cause of pardon) doth not make a sinne compleatly forgiven without the meritorious cause, so neither doth the meritorious with­out the instrumental, but there is a necessity of the presence and the cooperation of all these.

Caution. Though I have not expresly made mention of the merits of Christ through his bloud [Page 182]shed in order to a sinners being made capable of pardon. Never­thelesse,

1. I doe acknowledg, and let it be knowne, that the interventi­on of his merits are necessary to the said sinners capability of par­don. Whether his merits be so absolutely necessary hereunto, as that God could not have pardoned a sinner without it, although that be a question, in the resolution whereof, Learned and Godly men doe differ, (Mr. Owen the Learned Deane of Christs Church hath in an elaborate tractate lately put forth, endeavoured to prove the said absolute necessity of Christs satisfaction) neverthelesse it is without all question, that (rebus sic stantibus, &c.) according as things are now set and fixed by God, and according to his will revealed in his Word; no sinner can be pardoned without the interventi­on of Christs merits and satisfacti­on.

2. In mentioning faith as that which puts the sinner into a capa­city [Page 183]of pardon, I have included the merits of Christs bloodshed, his blood being the object of faith, or that which faith doth lay hold and rest upon; according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 3.24, 25. Be­ing justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righ­teousnesse for the remission of sinnes that are past through the forbearance of God. Where let the Antino­mian observe two things.

  • 1. Remission is of sins past, [mark past.]
  • 2. Though justification and remission of sin be not otherwise then through Christs bloud; yea, through faith in his bloud; never­thelesse it is a grace, a free-grace.

Object. If all sins, past, present, and to come, are not at once par­doned, then Christ is not a perfect satisfier, or hath not perfectly sa­tisfied for our sins?

Answ. This objection is a very [Page 184]weak one, and for the weaknesse thereof, I may well stile it a wo­mans objection: and I shall the ra­ther so stile it, because it was in very deed, the objection which a certaine woman in these parts (much perverted, as it seems, by Antinomian principles, and fre­quenting as I have heard, the tea­chings of such teachers as are sent abroad by the Church of Abbing­don) objected in my hearing against the truth here asserted by mee, viz that all sins, past, present and to come, are not pardoned at once; and albeit the said Sister did expresse as much confidence in her opinion to the contrary, as if so be shee had beene inspired with a spirit infallible, and did receive so little satisfaction by my answers, as that she did plainly tell me to my face, that my answers did make it apparent unto her, that I was a person not as yet justified; I shall neverthelesse set downe in this place the self same answers, and no other answer then what [Page 185]I made unto her objection as now followes.

1. I told her that shee might by a like reason infer, that Christ Jesus is not a perfect Red emer, seeing the Saints are not in this life perfectly redeemed from their sins, but must waite for the ac­complishment thereof till the day of judgement, which for that cause is stiled the day of Redemp­tion.

2. I asked her whether shee would assert her selfe to be a Saint already in heaven, actually sing­ing Halelujah; Shee answered no. Whereupon I told her, that the glorification of believers, is the fruit or benefit of Christs satisfa­ction; and I had therefore as good reason upon this account to make the same objection against her, viz that then Christ was not a perfect satisfier.

3 Finally I told her, that shee is carefully to distinguish betwixt the price which Christ paid for sa­tisfaction, or for our remission, [Page 186]ransom or redemption, and betwixt the fruits, effects and benefits which the Saints do enjoy therby; The former I told her was a price most perfect, but the latter are not all at once in perfection be­stowed upon us, but by degrees, and in Gods due time and way, some now, some then, some in this life, some at death, and some not afore the day of judgement.

These answers I then thought, and stil do think satisfactory, but I doe find, that the confidence of a woman possessed with Antinomian principles, is insuperable The Lord in his great mercy pity those who are under strong delusions, belie­ving in lies, and put some restraint upon such teachers as are purposely sent forth under pretence of pro­pagating the Gospel, to adulterate and corrupt it, and to make mer­chandize of the souls of the simple, whom with good words and fair speeches, they do most pitifully and impiously beguile.

CHAP. XXI. Caution given as touching a right understanding of the two following Propositions; laid down by that very lear­ned and pious Divine, Mr. Anthony Burges, in his Sermons concerning Justifi­cation; viz. 1. No wic­ked man ever hath any sin forgiven him. p. 22. 2. It is one thing for God to for­give, and another thing for God not to demand and exact punishments. p. 143.
CONSECT. XIV.

14. IT followes, which might have been more fitly [Page 188]inserted as the second Consectary) how far forth, or in what sense to understand those two Propositi­ons of My. Burges, in his Book of Justification.

  • 1. No wicked man ever hath any sin forgiven him. p 22.
  • 2. It is one thing for God to for­give, and another thing not to ex­act and demand punishment. p. 143.

I have already proved, That God is said sometimes to forgive the sins of wicked men; as also, That Gods punishing is said to be his not forgiving, and his for­giving his not punishing; so that the said Propositions, being ta­ken in their latitude as they sound, cannot ageee with the truth of Scripture: which that they may do, it is necessary that we under­stand and restrain them unto that kind of forgivenesse, which doth respect the disobliging or dis­charge of a sinner from eternal damnation; for which respect, and indeed for the prevention of much mistake in this Subject, I [Page 189]should think it expedient for any one who undertaketh to write more at large concerning the na­ture of forgivenesse of sin, to set downe almost in the first place, this distinction; viz. There is a twofold forgivenesse of sin plain­ly expressed in Scripture; the one peculiar to the Saints, which for that cause may well be stiled The remission of Gods Elect, as for a like cause faith is stiled by the Apostle, the faith of Gods E­lect, as Tit. 1.1. The other com­mon to the Reprobate with the E­lect. Now I say, the said Propo­sitions are to be restrained to the former, and are not to be exten­ded to the latter kind of forgive­nesse. For my owne part, I must needs say, That Mr. Anth [...]ny Bur­ges is a Gamaliel so h [...]h in my e­steem, as that I do judg my selfe unworthy to sit at his feet, or to bear his Books, and for that cause I am so unwilling in ought to ex­presse my dissent from him, as ra­ther then contradict so worthy an Author, I should study to the ut­termost [Page 190]of reason, how to inter­pret all his sayings and assertions in a true sense; and for that cause it was once in my mind to have in­terpreted the meaning of that Proposition of his (p. 21. When a sin is forgiven, it is totally and perfectly forgiven.) rather then to have de­clared my dissent from it. I say, it was in my mind to have interpre­ted that Proposition, as barely in­tending a sinners discharge, or dis­obligation from eternal damnati­on, which I doubt not, was the meaning of that worthy Author, even as he seems to explicate him­self, saying, p. 49. God pardeneth sin and removeth the guilt of it to­tally and perfectly, so that a sin can­not be more pardoned then it is, it is as absolutely forgiven as can be de­sired, it can be no better pardoned, then if we were in heaven. But upon consideration I found a ne­cessity to declare my dissent from him in that Proposition, together with its explanations: for the sins of the Elect are not in this life par­doned at all* absolutely (as to dis­charge [Page 191]from eternal damnation) and therefore I see no just reason, why any one should say with Mr. Burges, That they are pardoned as absolutely as can be desired: and if absolute and conditional do vary the degrees of perfection (as for ought I know they do) I see no warrant to say, That when God pardons a sin, he doth it perfectly: Its true, God doth it perfectly, so far as upon grounds of reason and Religion the Saints can expect or desire to have it done in this life; viz. conditionally upon their perseverance in Grace: yet not so perfectly, because not so abso­lutely, as when they come to hea­ven. And I have thought it my part the rather to professe my dis­sent in this particular, because such a Position as this, [The Saints here are as perfectly and absolutely par­doned as can be desired,] doth give ground and countenance to those unwarrantable comforts which the Antinomians, having spun out of their own fancies, do frequently tender to their Disciples, saying [Page 192]unto them in these words, or to this effect, Make not the least doubt of your Salvation, you shal as absolutely go to Heaven as if you were already in heaven, your sins are as absolutely pardoned as the sins of the Saints, that do now reign with Christ in glory: of which said Apocryphal and un­warrantable way of comforting the Saints, I shall have occasion to speak somewhat more here­after in a peculiar Consecta­ry.

CHAP. XXII. That forgiveness of sin is a Transient, and not an Imma­nent Act in God, proved and cleared. Several Descripti­ons of Actions Immanent and Transient set downe. Mr. Bax­ter vindicated in a passage about this distinction, where­in [Page 193] Mr. Kendal, hath (as the Author thinks) causelesly ex­cepted against him. Transi­ent Actions are of two sorts, and unto what sort of transi­ent Actions forgivenesse of sinne is to bee reser­red.
CONSECT. XV.

15. IT followes, That forgive­nesse of sin is not an im­manent action in God, but a tran­sient action. I shal the rather en­deavour to prove and to clear this inference, for the following Rea­sons,

  • 1. Because some of our eminent Divines, not minding to distin­guish here (as they use to do in o­ther things) betwixt Gods pur­pose to pardon, and his actual par­don of a sinner, have erroneous­ly asserted, That forgivenesse of sin is an immanent action in God.
  • [Page 194]2. Because the aforesaid erro­neous Assertion is of very ill influ­ence and consequence, it being (as Mr. Baxter hath well obser­ved, and warnes us therefore of it) one of the maine props and pillars of Antinomian­isme.
  • 3. Because Mr. Baxter sayes in his Aphorismes of Justification, p. 174. That albeit he is of opinion with others, That forgivenesse of sin is a transient action; neverthelesse, (as he saith) he had never the hap­pinesse to see that point cleared by any.
  • 4. Albeit Mr. Baxter himselfe hath endeavoured to clear it, and it is not my purpose to contradict him in ought that he hath said in that behalf; neverthelesse I think it expedient, that there should more be added for clearing the point: for Mr. Baxter defining remission of sin to be a dissolving or taking a­way the obligation to punishment (not at all mentioning the effectu­al taking away of punishment it self, but leaving that, as I sup­pose [Page 195]his intent, to be understood) hath endeavoured to demonstrate the transiency of the act of for­givenesse, barely with respect to the taking away of the said obliga­tion to punishment. Because hee speaks of Justification or Remis­sion in Law sense, and not in ex­ecution, as being another distinct sort or part of pardon. As his en­deavour therefore hath been in that particular, so I shall endea­vour to cleer the transiency of the act of forgivenesse of sin as it re­spects the taking away the punish­ment it self, which I shall desire to do with such modesty and sobrie­ty, as finding great cause to ap­prove what Mr. Burges about this very Point doth speak in his en­trance thereupon, saying, We are in meer darknesse, and not able to comprehend how God is said to act or work.

Now for the better cleering of the point in hand, I shall set down in the first place, what an imma­nent and transient action is, and what is the difference betwixt [Page 196]them; and to that end it will bee expedient to have recourse unto what Phylosophical Authors in their metaphysical Divinity have said in the same; and in special I shall set downe the Descriptions which the acute and learned Schei­bler gives of them, Met. lib. 2. p. 233, 234, 235. Actio immanens dicitur ab immanendo, quod scilicet in agente maneat, quod tamen intel­ligendum est non positive, sed nega­tive; nempe, Actio immanens qua talis est, est in agente hoc sensu, quia non transit ad patiens; in ipso autem agente non est per modum adjuncti, seu per positivam inhaerentiam in ip­so, sed simpliciter ad ipsum compa­ratur ut ad causam.

This Explication is the rather to be minded, because in this sense only can wee attribute an imma­nent action to God; viz. Nega­tivè, non Positivè, because God, or the Divine Essence is not capa­ble, as of other compositions, so of this, viz. of Subject and Acci­dent; such compositions being a, against the absolute simplicity of [Page 197]the divine nature; for which cause I think Mr. Baxter And the rather be­cause [to speak pre­cisely] A­ctiones non habent mo­dum essen­di In, sed modum es­sendi Ab. did very wel, (having said, that those who speake of immanent acts in God by [immanent in God] must needs meane Negatively, not Posi­tively) to adde this as the reason thereof, saying, for acts have not the respect of an adjunct to its subject, but of an effect to its cause. Where (by the way) let me crave leave to give notice to the Reader, that I cannot but wonder at Mr. Kendals haste and oversight, so much to mistake Mr. Baxter, as to charge him for rendring that as a reason of one thing, which hee plainly renders as a reason of ano­ther. For Mr. Baxter having gi­ven it in as a reason why immanent acts cannot be ascribed unto God positively, but negatively: [for acts have not the respect of an ad­junct to its subject, but of an ef­fect to its cause.) Mr. Kendal doth argue against him, as if hee had rendred that as a reason of his following conjecture, that hee thinks it beyond our understanding [Page 198]to know certainly, that all Gods immanent acts are eternal.E.g. Whereas Mr. Kendal excepts a­gainst Mr. Baxter, saying that acts have the respect not of an effect to its cause, but of a cause to its effects. Mr. Kendal might have done well to have more ful­ly remem­bred (for hee being an excel­lent Philo­sopher as well as a Divine, doth know it very wel) be difference betwixt cause causalitas, & causatum, actions being [to speake precisely] causalitates; which causalities, as they do re­spect the effect wrought, have the name and respect of causes, but as they do respect the Agent, they have the respect and name of effect; herein the common saying in Logick being verified, unaeademque respotest ad di­versa referri argumenta. More I think might justly be spoken to vindicate Mr. Baxter, against what Mr. Kendal hath with such acrimony of stile written a gainst him: but as they said concerning the blind man, so may I well say in this place concerning one eagle­eyed, Mr. Baxter is of age, let him speake for himselfe. For my owne part, though I look upon Mr. Kendal as worthy of much ho­nour, not only as a very Godly and Learned Divine, but as one also who hath deserved very well of the Churches of God for his great and worthy pains against Mr. John Goodwin; neverthelesse I cannot but say of him as he said of Mr. Baxter, viz. Mr. Kendal having told him that hee did ill consult his owne honour in oppo­sing [Page 199]in some points, those two famous Divines Dr. Twisse, and Mr. Pemble) that Mr. Kendal hath ill consulted his owne honor by writing in such a sort against Mr. Baxter in that sheet of paper as he hath done; so much cause have the best among us to pray to God to take away the iniquity of our holy things, and to praydaily, Forgive us our trespasses, known and unknown.

I shall adde no more but this, That having read Mr. Kendals booke, as I cannot but say, that in dealing with Mr. John, Good­win, Miscuit, utile, dulci; so I cannot say, that in dealing with Mr. Baxter, Omne tulit punctum.

Craving excuse for this digres­sion, I shall now returne. As for a transient action, it is commonly said to be such as doth transire in subjectum externum, seu extraneam materiem, or is terminated in some subject from without. But withal wee must know, that this is a description of a transient acti­on not in general, or in its ge­neral nature, but of transient a­ctions [Page 200]of one sort or kind, there being another kind of transient a­ctions, and so stiled, because they do referre ad terminum, seu eum producere, qui sit extra causam a­gentem; in which respect creation is justly accounted a transient acti­on: for although it doth not transire in praejacentem materiem (quia actio creantis antevertit omne subjectum, quia illa est ex nihilo) yet is it such an action of God, by which God produceth something, not in, but without himself. Thus have I set downe what an imma­nent, and what a transient action is, and the difference betwixt them out of the aforesaid Author [the one being terminated within the subject, and working no reall change out of it, as doth the o­ther:] unto which, though nothing more seemes needful to be added, [the said Author being among metaphysical Writers in my slender judgment verè [...]] ne­verthelesse be cause there is a con­tent and pleasure afforded by va­riety, I shall therefore set downe [Page 201]another description out of Ludovi­cus Castaneus in his distinctions, as followeth, Actio immanens dicitur, quae manet in eodem supposito, et in eadem potentiâ à qua elicitur, ut eligere, velle: Transiens est, quae non recipitur in potentiâ, à quâ pro­ducitur, sive transeat in diversum suppositum [ut illuminatio dima­nans à sole in aerem] sive in distin­ctam potentiam, aut partem ejusdem suppositi [ut calefactio, qua manus manum calefacit.] These two acti­ons in God may very fitly be re­sembled unto those two kind of a­ctions in men, which the Philoso­phers use to stile Elicite, and Im­perate; the former being Actus voluntatis, qui producitur imme­diatè ab ipsa voluntate et manet in ea; ut velle diligere Deum, velle re­dere debitum, et ejusmodi. Impe­ratus est ille, qui producitur ab a­lia potentia tanquam à principio pro­ximo, et immediato, sed voluntate illam potentiam movente ad exerci­tium; ut quando voluntas movet intellectum ad intelligendum, vel cum movet appetitum ad actum [Page 202]temperantiae, aut fortitudinis, et sic de aliis. By the premises I sup­pose, it will in some good sort ap­peare what actions of God are immanent, and what are transient; in special it will appeare, that a­mong Gods immanent or elicite a­ctio [...]s are his knowledge, voliti­on, bare will, decrees purposes; and of this sort is Gods decree, will, or purpose to pardon the finnes of his elect; but of the lat­ter sort, viz. ransient, impe­rate, transitive, or effective acti­ons (called by Philosophers Actio­nes actae) are. Gods [...]eal perfor­mances and executions of what he hath from all eternity for known, will'd, decreed, or purposed; the former kind of actions depending upon, or having reference unto the sole pleasure of God; but the latter referring unto, or depending upon the executive power of God: transient actions being not effe­cted but by the application of Gods power, made by his wil and pleasure; whereby to worke, or effect the thing which God did [Page 203]will or purpose: And that for­givenesse of sin is of this latter sort of actions ( [...]) doth seem to me sufficiently appa­rent by several reasons; e.g.

  • 1. Because datur externum sub­jectum in quod transit, which said subject is the penitent, believing, and converting sinner.
  • 2 Because in the said Sub­ject God doth producere aliquid extra esse; viz. God doth actu­ally remove those evils, or pu­nishments, which were inflicted upon the sinner, working in, or upon the sinner a real change from what he was before. And when I say a real change, it comes into my mind to annex hereunto as a sixteenth Inference or Con­sectary, viz.

CHAP. XXIII. That remission of sin, (quoad terminum remotum, or as in execution) is a real, yea, Physicall change,What is said in this Consecta­ry, I mean concern­ing remis­sion of sin in executi­on, & not of remis­sion, as barely dis­obliging to punish­ment, wch in the close of this consectary I do ac­knowledge to be but a change of our relati­on. and not a change purely Relative, as is commonly supposed.
CONSECT. XVI.

16. THat the difference be­twixt Sanctification and Justification is not (as hath been commonly said,) That that doth work a real change in a sin­ner, but this a change barely and purely Relative: for both of them, viz. Gods sanctifying, and Gods justifying or pardoning a sinner; (I say, or Gods pardoning a sin­ner; for Justification and Remis­sion of sin are all one, as I shal de­monstrate [Page 205]in the sequel of this Ex­ercitation;) do work in or upon the sinner a real change: and as to the reality therefore of a change there seems to me to bee no diffe­rence at all; and yet there being sundry kinds of real changes, or all real changes being not of the same kind, this to my seeming is the difference betwixt them; viz. That Gods sanctifying a sinner, doth work a real change in the sin­ner, from Corruption to Grace, from the evil of sin, to the good of holinesse; which for that cause may not unfitly be stiled a real, moral, or holy change; and Gods justifying or pardoning a sinner, doth work in him, or upon him, a real change from the evil of mi­sery or punishment, to the good of happinesse; and which for that reason, & docendi gratiâ, I may stile a real, physical, or political, or happy change: but why this change should be stiled purely re­lative, and be denied to be real, in way of contradiction to that of Sanctification, I for my part am [Page 206]not as yet convinced, this change being such in reality and in very deed, as is wrought in or upon a poor naked and wounded man, when of poor he is made rich, and of wounded is made whole. Thus really, as to mee seemeth, doth Gods justifying or pardoning a sinner, alter or change the sinner from what he was afore, as well in person as in relation; the sub­jects of this change as really diffe­ring from those who are not justifi­ed and pardoned, as doth a child of wrath and mercy, or as doth a Saint in glory from a Reprobate in hell. Solid and judicious Mr. Blake, in his Vindiciae Foeàeris, in his undertaking to prove Justifi­cation to be not an Immanent, but a transient act in God, doth seem to vary from what hath been commonly taught by our Divines, in acknowledging that the Effect which Justification doth work, as terminated in a sinner, is aThe like also doth Mr. Burges acknow­ledg in his Book of Justif. p. 169. real Ef­fect: for otherwise I see no cause why he should parallel Gods grace in justifying a sinner, to the grace [Page 207]or favour which Pharaoh did ex­presse towards Joseph in bringing him out of Prison, saying, That act of Pharaoh had as real an effect upon Joseph, and was terminated in him in his advancement out of Prison, for rule in Egypt, as though a Physician in case of sicknesse had wrought a cure upon him. For my own part, I cannot but think, that look what real change is wrought in a poor prisoner by his delive­rance out of prison, or in a wound­ed man by his cure, such a real change is wrought in or upon a sinner by Gods justifying and par­doning him; Gods remitting sin­ners being resembled to, or being set forth by healing the broken hearted, delivering Captives, and setting at liberty them that are brui­sed. And yet notwithstanding the said comparison to illustrate that change which Justification doth work in a sinner, Mr. Blake (and in that particular I am not satisfied) doth expresly deny, That Justification doth work any phy­sical change in man; and in that [Page 208]saying I cannot but professe my dissent from him. The reason why our Divines have commonly denyed, that Justification or re­mission of sin doth work any real change, or any change upon the sinner more then relative, I hum­bly conceive to be this; viz. Be­cause they do generally look upon remission of sin to be onely a dis­obligation of the sinner from pu­nishment; i. e. from being bound to suffer that punishment, which otherwise would have been sooner or later inflicted: but seeing re­mission of sin is as wel Gods taking away of punishment already infli­cted upon the sinner, as Gods dis­charge of the sinner from being obliged to suffer that punishment, which otherwise according to de­sert, hee would have inflicted at one time or other; as in this re­spect the change is relative, so in that respect it is unquestionably real.

CHAP. XXIV. The Description of forgivenesse of sin, given by that very lear­ned and godly Divine, Dr. Twisse (which is by some high­ly commended as most accu­rate) examined and refuted; and the evil consequences of the same detected; together with the Authors Apology for his taking upon him in ought to expresse his dissent from men of such prime worth, (Stars of the first Magni­tud) as confessedly that Doctor was.
CONSECT. XVII.

17. IT followes, That that Description of D. Twisse [Page 210]undertaking to acquaint us with the nature or quiddity of Remissi­on of sin, is not Ʋsquequaque quadrant, & consistent with truth, he saying, That remission of sin is nothing else but either Gods de­nying to punish, or else his will not to punish: His words are, Remissio peccatorum, si quidditatem inspicias, nihil aliud est, quam aut punitionis negatio, aut volitionis pu­niendi negatio. Lib. 2. pag. 273. It is the latter part of the Doctors description which I do dissent from, and shall endeavour to ex­pugne.

In my entrance hereupon, I shal suspect that some will censure my attemps herein (as also what I shall in an intended supplement to this Discourse attempt in one point a­gainst Mr. Pemble) as an act of insolency and unsufferable pre­sumption; objecting against mee with such reproach, as Mr. Kendal doth against Mr. Baxter for a like attempt against the selfe same renowned Authour, say­ing, [Page 211]

— Sic dama Leonem
Insequitur, audetque viro con­curere virgo.

Surely Mr. Kendal hath said, Satis pro imperio, & satis pro oppre­brio, whereby to deter any such as I am from contradicting ought in the said worthy Authours, he ha­ving concluded his Digression a­gainst Mr. Baxter with this Sar­casme,

— Ne tu divinam Iliada tentes,
Sed longè sequere, & vestigia semper adora.

But my Apology is, 1. As I do much magnifie the said Authours, (Dr. Twisse and Mr. Pemble, wor­thily accounted among the most pious and learned Divines that our English Nation hath brought forth) so I should abhor my selfe as in dust and ashes, should my conscience in the least accuse me of any willingnesse to detract from them, or of seeking to magnifie [Page 212]my self in opposing them; unto whose inferiours by very many de­grees I must ever confesse my selfe inferior not a little.

2 An endeavour (as in the fear of God with modesty and humili­ty) to discover errour in whomso­ever, and to vindicate the truth (specially such Truthes and Errors which are of momentous conse­quence) will be (I doubt not) acceptable to God, however it should prove ungrateful to some men.

3. By how much any man is more eminently pious and lear­ned who hath vented and la­boured in the support of an Er­rour, by so much the more taking and spreading is the Error like to prove.

4. I am verily perswaded, that were the foresaid Authors ( [...]) now living upon earth, they would upon all due occa [...]ion, declare themselves to be men after Davids heart in this particular (e­ven as David was a man after Gods owne heart in the general;) [Page 213] viz. accounting it their happi­nesse to see that as an errour, which they look'd upon as a truth, and a kindnesse from any one, who un­der God should prove the instru­ment of such a discovery.

5. If I my self, when first a Stu­dent in controversal divinity, be­ing lesse able to distinguish be­twixt things that differ, have been ready to swallow all things as true which I have read in the foresaid Authours; is it not my duty being now converted, to strengthen my brethren?

Now for the purpose in hand, viz. for discovery, that Gods Negatio volitionis puniendi, is no part of the pardon of sin, be it con­sidered.

1. That the pardon of sin, both the whole and every part thereof, is [in toto and in solido, as wee use to say] to be ascribed to the me­rits, blood-shed, or satisfaction of the Lord Jesus Christ, as the meritorious and pr [...]curing cause thereof, as is abundantly test [...]fied in Scripture, Ephes. 1 7. Col 1.14. [Page 214]But Gods Negatio volitionis puni­endi is not to be ascribed to Christs blood shed or satisfaction as the procuring or meritorious cause thereof. For Gods Negatio volitionis puniendi is all one with his velle non punire, as the Doctor doth immedi­ately expresse himselfe afterwards; and Gods velle non punire is all one with his velle misereri, which said velle non punire, or velle misereri, are precedent, and not consequent to the consideratation of Christs blood-shed and Satisfaction: For Christ by his satisfaction or blood shed, did procure and purchase for sinners (as our Divines in an­swer to those Arguments which the Socinians doe object against Christs satisfaction usually ac­knowledge) not Gods misereri velle, but his misereri posse. In say­ing so I do not ex­clude but include the particular fruits of Gods mer­cy, as pur­chased by the blood of Christ. Briefly, Gods velle non punire, is all one ex­actly in sense and substance with his election, or electing love; which albeit it is in Christ, yet it is not for Christ, i. e. not for Christ as the procurer or purchaser therof, as the Doctor himselfe in a large dispute [Page 215]doth prove, lib. 1. p. 151. there being scarce any one of our refor­med Divines, except Rolloc, who sayes the contrary.

2. Gods will not to punish, is all one as his purpose not to punish. Now, albeit this will or purpose (being all one with election) is the rise or fountain of pardon, yet is it not pardon it self, or any part or parcel of it, but differs as much from it, as a gift doth from the free love and good will of him, who did bestow it, or did designe the bestowing of it. Briefly, Gods willing not to punish, is nothing else but Gods purpose to par­don. Now Gods purpose to par­don is one thing, and pardon it selfe is another, as hath beene a­fore proved.

3. Gods not willing to punish is (as the Doctor himselfe doth rightly acknowledge in the follow­ing columne) an immanent act in God, and from eternitity, and no consequent of faith (hee might have added likewise, no conse­quent of Christs merits and satis­faction [Page 216]as was aforesaid.) But re­mission of sin is not an immanent act in God, nor from eternity (as was before proved) [for albeit God doth from eternity will the remission of our sins, yet he doth not will the remission of our sins from eternity;] and it is moreover (as shal hereafter in due place be proved) a consequent of our faith: Ergo, Gods not willing to punish sin, is no part of (however a thing necessarily presupposed unto) the pardon of sin, [...]. I have thought it my duty to give notice of, and to animadvert upon this [...], or oversight in the Do­ctor, because (as to me seemeth) it was the cause of certaine other errours in him tending to the weakning of his owne authority, and to the strengthening of the hands of the Antinomian party; (that I may not adde also) to the hardning of his Arminian adver­saries. E. g.

1. Hee makes the sense only of pardon, and not pardon it self to be the effect, or consequent of [Page 217]faith, or that which doth termi­nate our believing, lib. 2. p. 273. making faith to be necessary only in this respect, viz. Ʋt gratia, ac misericordia divinà in peccatis prop­ter Christum remittendis nobis in­notescat, that divine grace and mercy in forgiving our sinnes for Christs sake, may be manifested or made knowne unto us, lib. 2. p. 276, 277.

2. Yea, though the Doctor doth frequently acknowledge, that Christ hath impetrated, purchased, or procured for the elect remission of sinne; Neverthelesse how the merits of Christ should be necessa­ry for more then the effecting the sight, sense, or knowledge of the said pardon according to the Do­ctors owne principles, I for my part, do not conceive; and let the Reader judge by the following e­vidence. E. g. 1. The Doctor doth deny that Christ did purchase for believers Gods velle remittere, or his will to pardon them, lib. 2. p. 273. And so far I believe him to be in the right.

2. Hee doth deny that Christ did purchase for believers, Gods misereri posse, or a power in God to pardon them [justitiâ non ob­stante] his justice notwithstan­ding, and this he doth endeavour industriously to prove, not only against Arminius, but also against Piscator and Lubbertus, who did strenuously assert the contrary, lib. 1. p. 278. But in that particu­lar, I cannot but dissent from him; Amyraldus being so farre offended both with him and Ru­therford (as I remember) in that behalfe, as to think himself ex­cusable in a lesser regard of their authority in that important point of Ʋniversal redemption; I mean, as understood in the middle sense with Davenant, Camero, and o­thers.

Now if Christ did purchase nei­ther wil nor power in God to par­don (as saith the Doctor) how can wee rationally conclude that Christ did purchase any more then the sense and manifestation of par­don?I desire that what I have here written in the way of refutation of Doctor Twisse his De­scription of forgive­nesse of sin and in my demon­strating the evil conse­quences thereof, may the rather be wel weigh­ed and du­ly conside­red, be­cause Mr. Will. Eyre in his late Book a­gainst Mr. Woodbridg doth high­ly applaud the said de­scription given by the Doctor as a de­scription most accu­rate; it be­ing (as I think I have made apparent) no other­wise accu­rate then in this sense; viz as accu­rately ser­viceable for Mr. Eyre his purpose whereby to uphold his unju­stifiable o­pinion of a mans being a­ctually ju­stified with out or be­fore faith. This indeed is a conclusion; [Page 219]which as it doth follow (for ought I know) from the Doctors pre­mises, so also from the Antino­mians Principles, which some of them being sensible of, have cho­sen rather then to leave their o­pinion, to swallow down the ini­quity and absurdity thereof, and to assert, That Christ did not purchase or procure any love from God for man: but onely published and declared, That he was from eternity beloved and pardoned. A Doctrine fitter for a Tho. Collier and a Paul Hobson, then for any well grounded Di­vine to own; and by how much we do detest such a Doctrine, by so much it concernes us to beware how we take in those Principles, or lay and owne those grounds, that will necessarily (but unawares) lead us to it.

3 The Doctor holds, That re­mission of sin, and the acceptati­on of our persons with God, do only note certain internal and im­manent Actions in God, which never had any beginning with [Page 220]God. Lib. 3. pag. 434.

4. He asserts, That the Righ­teousnesse of Christ was ours a­fore faith, that faith doth not in­teresse us in it, or give us any new right unto Christs Righteousnesse, which we had not before, but on­ly the sight, sense, and agnition of the same. Yea, whereas the learned Lubbert against Vorstius, had said most Orthodoxly, Quod satisfactio Christi non est mea, aut tua, priusquam ego aut tu eam ve­râ side receperimus; The Doctor doth go about to spoil that saying of his, by affixing to it his owne heterodox sense. Lib, 2. p 277. It is a very strange thing, that such a learned Philosopher and School­man as Doctor Twisse, (famous for that throughout all Protestant Churches) should not distinguish betwixt Gods designing his Sons Righteousnesse for us, or to bee ours, and that by Faith, or by means of faith, or upon the con­ditions of faith; and betwixt Gods actually making it ours, or actu­ally bestowing it upon us, or inve­sting [Page 221]us into it upon our belie­ving.

And whereas hee sayes, That Christs Righteousnesse is ours, Quatenus ex intentione Dei Patris, & Christi pro nobis praestita, as it was performed on our behalf by vertue of the intention of God and Christ.

I answer,

  • 1. That hints no more but this; viz. That God and Christ did design or purpose it for us.
  • 2 From thence the Doctor himselfe might have concluded a­gainst himselfe; viz. That Christs Righteousnesse is not actually made ours afore we believe; for what is intended for mee is not mine, before it be actually confer­red upon mee; and this actual conferring of Christs Righte­ousnesse upon us, is not (as saith the Scripture) before we be­lieve.

5 He sayes, (ibidem, and to the same purpose as before) that the merits of Christ are not applied to us by faith before [Page 222]God, but only [apud conscientias nostras,] in our own consciences, and that Christs Righteousnesse is said to be imputed unto us by faith, only, because by faith [imputari dignoscitur,] it is known to us to be imputed.

6. As he doth oppose Armini­us in his sense of the distinction betwixt Redemption and Remis­sion of sin, as impetrated, and as applyed, so the Doctor errs on the other hand in his owne sense, or sensing of that distinction, ma­king the application thereof by faith unto us, [Non ut sint, sed ut sentiantur, percipiantur, agnoscan­tur;] not that they may be ours indeed, and actually; but that they may appear, be felt, known, and acknowledged as ours; Lib. 2. pag. 277. and Lib. 3. pag. 434.

Here againe it seemes very strange, That so accute and pro­found a man as the Doctor was, should forget to distinguish be­twixt Remission and Redemption, as purchased or procured for us, [Page 223]and as actually conferred or be­stowed upon us.

The foresaid particulars, as I conceive them to bee mistakes in the Doctor, and of an ill aspect and influence, so I am perswaded, they were all, or the most of them occasioned from his Errour about the nature of forgivenesse of sin, making it (at least in part) to be Gods nolle punire, or velle non punire, Gods not willing to pu­nish.

CHAP. XXV. That a Believer, his pardon not­withstanding, is in his con­fession of sin to put himself under the curse of the Law; Why and how declared. That a sinner after pardon, is a sin­ner, and that God doth look upon him as a sinner, albeit he [Page 224]doth not deal with him, or pu­nish him as such.
CONSECT. XVIII.

18. IT followes, That a Be­liever, notwithstanding his pardon, is still to put himselfe in his confession of sin, undre the curse of the Law, as guilty there­of; i. e. to acknowledge himselfe guilty of hell it selfe, and eternal damnation, to present himselfe before God with such a degree and depth of humble devotion, as did Ezra in the name of the whole Church, saying to this purpose, O Lord the righteous God, I am here before thee in my trespasses, I can­not stand before thee because of my sins. In such sort, and with such acknowledgments of their guilti­nesse the best amongst Gods ser­vants and Prophets were wont to make their humble addresses to, and before God. See Psal. 130.3. If thou Lord shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? [Page 225]and Psal. 143. beg. Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Job 9.2, 3. How shall man be just with God? If hee will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand. Dan. 9.7, 8 Daniel himself doth there acknow­ledg, That confusion of face doth belong unto him; i. e. was deserved by him, or did belong unto him, in his own pure and proper deser­ving. So that every sinner, whe­ther pardoned, or not pardoned, so long as he lives on earth, is to confesse to God his desert or guil­tinesse to punishment; yea, could it be proved, that the Saints in heaven do confesse their former sins to God, I would not doubt to affirm, That even they in hea­ven, together with their sins, do also confesse theAs that guilt Wch is taken off from the sinner by a pardon is commonly stiled Rea­tus poenae; so that guilt which is never taken off, and of which alone I speak, and would be understood to speak in this Consectary, is commonly stiled, Reatus culpae, of which see Mr. Burges in his S [...]rmons of Ju­stification, p. 134. And I think it not amisse to give the Reader to unde [...]stand, how several Writers do in several expressions declare the difference betwixt Rea­tus culpae and Reatus poenae; e. g. The former is stiled by some, Meritum poenae; and the latter, Obligatio ad luendam poenam; by others the former is stiled, Duenesse of punishment to our sins; the latter, Due­nesse of punishment to our persons; which latter is it alone which remission of sin doth free us from, because what is due to our sins is inflicted upon the person of another; viz. Jesus Christ. By others, the former is stiled Guilt potential, and the latter, Guilt actual. guilt or merit of them, the inward, innate dignity, or desert of them, or their guilti­nesse of Gods wrath by reason of them; this kind of guilt being as inseparable from sin as heat is from fire.

I think this inference the rather to be observed, not only because it is practical, and of frequent use, but also because of that new mode or model of praying taken up by too too many in these times, infe­cted with Antinomian leaven, who do so neglect the confession of their sins, and the guilt thereof, together with supplication to the Lord for the pardon of them, as if these were no parts of prayer for a believer, or as if they were anti­quated, and like an old Almanack, [Page 227]uselesse and out of date. Or if they do make the said confessions and supplications, they do but juggle and dissemble, saying, (if they be reasoned with) That pray­ing with others, or as the voice of others, it is the sin and guilt of the wicked and unbelievers which they confesse, and of which they pray for pardon; but not of their own and of the godly, of the par­don whereof they are already as­sured; faith it self being in their sense, and according to their A­pocryphal Gospel, nothing else but a firm beliefe or perswasion, that all their sins past, present, and to come, were remitted at once, and that from eternity. The not understanding the true nature of forgivenesse of sin, as well where­in it doth not consist, as wherein it doth consist (as hath been o­pened and asserted in the Premises) is a main reason (as I humbly con­ceive) of the pride and profane­nesse of that sort of people, both in this particular and sundry other wayes.

What I have said as the ground of this Inference, I would have the Reader to know, That it doth fully agree with what Mr. Burges saith in his book of Justification, p. 29. Now when sin is forgiven, the sense is (saith he) not that hee is made innocent again, for that can never be helped; but that it must be affirmed, such a one hath sinned; this cannot be repaired again. And therefore if any Reader is not able to reconcile what Mr. Burges hath there said, with what hee saith, p. 142. When God doth pardon sin, he takes it away so, as that the par­ty acquitted is no more looked upon as a sinner; All the expressions a­bout pardon amount to thus much, Even as when one accused of theft and murder in the Commonwealth, and is legally acquitted by the Judg, he is no more reputed a Thief or Murderer: Therefore it is a calumny of the Papists, as if we held, That a man is a sinner after God hath pardoned him. If any one, I say, cannot reconcile these sayings with the former, I [Page 229]would advise him (if I might be so bold with my betters, to observe well what he saith in the former place, and to let that passe what he saith in the latter passage. For my owne part, as I must professe my insufficiency to reconcile Mr. Burges to himselfe in the said pas­sages, and withal my ignorance, that I know no such calumny of the Papists against us; so (had I known it) I would not have sought by an answer to have wiped it off; for I am perswaded with Mr. Bur­ges in p. 19. That a man after God hath pardoned him, is not made inno­cent again; and if he be not inno­cent again, he is (to my thinking) a sinner still, and as we are, so doth God look upon us, for his uner­ring eye sees all things as they are, and not otherwise; and as for all the expressions of Scripture about the pardon of sin, they do (being rightly understood and interpre­ted) amount to this; viz. That albeit a sinner being pardoned, is not thereby made innocent, but is still guilty, and a sinner; and al­beit [Page 230]God doth look upon such a one as a sinner, and as guilty; viz in the sense aforesaid, nevertheless God of his superabounding grace and mercy, in and for Christs sake, doth not deal with such a one ac­cording to his sin and guilt, or me­rit. To this sense, and no more, do I take that of the Prophet Jeremy to amount, which is one of the highest expressions touching the pardon of sin that we read of in the Scripture, chap. 50.20. In those dayes and at that time, saith the Lord, The iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found; for I will pardon them. This expression, I say, is Tanta­mount (as I think) but this, That God will in his great mercy so deal with his Church▪ as if she had been innocent, or as if she had not transgressed.

The whole of this inference is grounded on what was aforesaid concerning the nature of for­givenesse of sin, wherein it doth not consist; viz. Not in ma­king [Page 231]a sinner to be no sinner, or a a guilty person not guilty, as in the sense aforesaid.

The next Inference will bee grounded upon what was said con­cerning the obligation of a sinner to hell and damnation, being ta­ken off not absolutely in this life, but conditionally; viz. upon con­dition of their perseverance in the faith.

But in the close of this Conse­ctary, let me informe the Reader, how that since I wrote this Exer­citation, I have read Mr. Wottons learned Book, De Reconciliatione, as also Mr. Pembles book of Justifi­cation, in both which I find the truth of that which Mr. Burges doth say, and of which I was ig­norant before; viz That the Papists do charge us for asserting, That a sinner after pardon doth remain a sinner. And I find, that Mr. Pemble doth endeavour to wipe off that imputation, by saying That sin is pardoned both in the guilt and in the fault: In which answer of his I am very much dissatisfied, [Page 232]having afore proved, That the re­mission of the fault, is the remis­sion of the very punishment; or that the remission of the pun [...]sh­ment is wholly and solely that wherein the remission of the fault doth consist; the remission of the fault and punishment not being two things distinct, but exactly one and the same: so that where­soever wee read in Gods Word concerning the remission of our faults, or sins, we are to understand thereby, the remission of the pu­nishment due to our said faults or sins.

The phrase, [To be looked upon as a sinner,] is indeed an ambi­guous phrase, implying (accor­ding to the usual distinction of Gods sight, or sight in God it be­ing taken either in sensu simplici, or in sensu connotativo) either Gods bare or meer intuitive sight, and beholding us as sinners; or else his dealing with us as sinners: in which latter sense it is most true, That God doth not look upon a sinner pardoned as a sinner (for [Page 233]then he should look upon him as not pardoned; since Gods pardon is his not dealing with a sinner as a sinner; i. e. according to his desert by sin;) and for this reason I do allow, and not quarrel with the foresaid expression, it being also an expression very neer to Scrip­ture: but in the former respect God doth look upon him as a sin­ner, for otherwise he should not look upon him as pardoned, it be­ing impossible, ex naturâ rei ei­ther for God or man in this sense to look upon any person as pardo­ned, and not as a sinner; for still where there is pardon there must beSin is the res substra­cta to par­don. sin, else a person were not in a capacity of pardon.

Now as I am not satisfied with Mr. Pembles, so neither with Mr. Burges his answer to the foresaid imputation of the Papists, the one saying, That both the fault or guilt is taken away by pardon; and the other granting, that wee hold, That a sinner is not a sinner after God hath pardoned him; which I for my part cannot see reason to [Page 234]grant, because (as hath been be­fore proved) the effect of pardon is not to make a sinner no sinner, but not to deal with him as a sin­ner, or in the phrase of the Psalmist, Psal. 103.10. Not to deal with him after his sins, or to reward him ac­cording to his iniquities. I doubt that some will sharply censure, and almost be imbittered against me for thus scanning the words of such most learned and godly men, (with whom, 'tis true, I am not worthy to be named the same day) and will prophecy concerning me, That I shall be sure to have the same measure from others, in having all my words and senten­ces scann'd to purpose; but my own heart witnessing to me, That I do blesse and magnifie the name of God for those men and their excellent Labours, from whom in some things I do expresse my dis­sent, and that I do endeavour, expiscari veritatem, to find out the truth with all due respect, and in another sense, without any re­spect to persons; I am hopeful, [Page 235]that the most of my reverend and learned brethren in the Ministry will not hold me guilty, especially when I shall professe before the world (even as I now do by these presents;) viz. That if there bee any man who shall evidence that to be currant and justifiable, wher­in I do declare my dissent or dis­satisfaction, I shall not in any measure (by the grace of God) be offended at the discovery of Truth, though thereby, and therewithal my owne weaknesse of judgement bee discovered al­so.

CHAP. XXVI. That a Believer during his war­fare on earth, is to fear Hell and damnation; why, and how proved and manifested; as also cleered in the way of an­swer to several Objections, [Page 236]notwithstanding the Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints be acknowledged; in answer to which objections, the con­sistency and co-operation of the love of God, and the fear of God is proved. What man­ner of fear it is that love doth expel, and what manner of fear it is that love doth retain declared: Notwithstanding, that Believers are restrained by the love of God, yet that God doth use several other means whereby to constraine; i. e. effectually to induce them, proved: and what those several means are, specified more at large. The consi­stency and co-operation of faith and fear, maintained and proved. That filial and slavish fear do not d [...]ffer in their object matter, or in the thing feared, but in the man­ner [Page 237]of fearing, asserted, and how, proved and cleered by a due interpretation of that Scripture in Luke 1.74. The difference betwixt fear as it is the fruit of the spirit of bon­dage, and as a fruit of the Spirit of Adoption, opened and asserted.
CONSECT. XIX.

19. IT follows, That a person justified and pardoned,As a wick­ed man is to hope for heaven supposi­tively; i.e. if he turne from sin, and return to God; so a godly man is to fear hell supposi­tively; i.e if he turne from God, and return to fin. be­lieversthemselvs, so long as they are militant here on earth, are to fear Hell and damnation; namely up­on supposition of their Apostacy and backsliding, or unlesse they do continue in the doctrine and practice of the faith.

Albeit this inference bee very cleer from the Premises, and of un­avoidable necessity, neverthelesse I shall be very punctual and co­pious, as well in the proving of it by other Scriptures, as in an­swering [Page 238]such Objections as may, or are usually made against it by the Antinomians; and this I shall the rather do for the following Reasons.

1. Because it is a Truth under much prejudice, and against which many mis-informed people, espe­cially the Antinomians, do con­ceive such indignation of heart, as that upon the hearing thereof from the mouth of any Minister, they are ready almost to rend their cloathes, as the Jewes were wont to do upon the hearing of blas­phemy, crying out against us, and saying, Away with such legal Preachers from the Church, it is not fit that they should live upon the maintenance, or bear the name of Gospel-Mini­sters.

2. It is a truth of concernment, the greater, by how much the contrary Doctrine is of conse­quenc. (as I think) exceeding dan­gerous: for I cannot easily think any opinion more dangerous for a Christian to entertain then [Page 239]this; viz. That he is to live alto­gether without the fear of hell, as being in no possible danger there­of. I read of some in these times (particularly of one Coppin, who preaching frequently in these parts, as in several other Countyes in the Land, hath gathered of the profane sort of people sundry Di­sciples after him) who do hold, that there isThis appears by several Pamphlets in print under the name of Rich. Cop­pin. no Resurrection, no day of Judgment, no Salvation, no Damnation, no Heaven, nor Hel, but what is in this life. Next to the belief of this, [That there is no hell after death,] I hold this opinion or belief to be most dan­gerous; viz. That a Christian, af­ter he is once a true Believer, is in no danger at all of hell, and is not therefore in any sort to entertaine the fear of it.

3. As the danger is very great, so it is very common; for we see in experience, how ordinary it is with the Antinomians to cast off all fear, and that which should cause fear; viz. the threatnings of God in Scripture, as not at all, [Page 240]or in any sense concerning them. As it is the profession of some in these times to live above all Ordi­nances and all Scripture, even e­very part of Gods Word, so it is the profession of the Antinomians, though not to live above all Ordi­nances and all Scriptures, yet to live above all the thereatnings of Scripture, and above all the curses and comminations of the Word of God, in so much that as God laid it to the charge of his Israel of old, that he had written unto them the great things of his Law, but they accounted them as a strange thing, Hos. 8.12. So may it bee said of the Antinomians, with re­spect to the comminations of the Word, God hath written unto them the grand threatnings of his Law, and they look upon them as strange things; as things strange to them, because in no sort (as they think) concerning them, or writ­ten as intended for them, but only for the wicked, who are actually under the curse. This their pra­ctice is so much the more dange­rous, [Page 241]because as to live above one part [the threatnings] of the Word is, a ready way to live above another part [the Precepts] of the Word; so many of those Argu­ments whereby they plead to de­fend their practice in casting off the threatnings of Scripture as uselesse to them, will by their di­rect consequence lead them to cast off both Precepts and Promises as useless also.

Now for the proof the Point, let th [...] following particulars be consi­dered.

1. That God doth no lesse threaten the godly themselves with hell and damnation, if they fall away from their goodnesse, then hee doth the wicked if they continue in their wickednesse. See for thisMy in­tent in quoting those Scrip­tures is not as that of the Re­monstrants to prove the Apostacy of the Saints; but to prove that God doth threaren them, that if they do as others do, they shall so suffer as others suffer; which they are to be­lieve, or to make account of, and acordingly to fear. Ezek. 18.24. 1 Chron. 28.9. Rom. 8.13. Heb. 10.38, 39. Matth. 6.15. Not to transcribe [Page 242]the fore cited places at length, we do perceive plainly therein, that in case the godly do fall from their righteousnesse, do forsake God, do live after the flesh, do draw back, do not forgive one another their trespasses, God will not par­don them, will have no pleasure in them, wil cast them off for ever. Yea, I am perswaded, that upon search of Scripture it will be found that the most terrible threatnings of all other are directed to the Saints, and the most fearful things that are threatned to any are threatned to them, in case of their not persevering in the faith. For which see Heb. 6.4, 5, 6. and 10.26 27. 2 Pet. 2.20, 21.

2 Consider to what end God doth so threaten them, or direct the said threatnings to them. And to a Question of that nature pro­pounded, I answer,

  • 1. To be­get the faith.
  • 2. The fear of them.

1. To beget in the Saints a be­lief of the said Threatnings, or that they might believe them: for [Page 243]God is to bee believed in all his sayings, of what nature soever they be, or whatever the contents there of are, the truth of God being a­like in all his sayings. It is no less the duty of the godly to believe God in what he threatens to them, then of the wicked to believe God in what he threatens to them; ac­cording to the pattern of the men of Nineveh, of whom it is said, That in what was threatned by Jo­nah they believed God. Jonah 3.5. And according to the pattern of Noah, who believed Gods threat­ning the world with a universal deluge, Heb. 11.7.

Briefly, As the Israelites were to hear the curses of the Law de­nounced upon Mount Ebal, as wel as the blessings thereof pronoun­ced upon Mount Gerizim, and were to say Amen to the former as well as to the latter, so the godly are to affix their Amen, or to put their Seal of Faith unto the Threat­nings as well as to the Promises of the Word, whensoever they read or hear them; yea, they are as [Page 244]well to read and hear the Threat­nings as the Promises of Scripture with an applicative faith; i.e look in what sort, or sense, in what cases, or upon what suppo­sitions God doth denounce his threatnings against them, in such cases, or upon such suppositions they are to apply the curses and threatnings of God to their owne souls, no lesse then in other respects or upon other suppositions they are to apply the Promises of the Word; all Scripture (Threatnings as well as Promises) being written for the learning of the godly. And accordingly we find that the Saints have applyed the curses and com­minations of the Word to them­selves. Heb. 2 3. How shall we e­scape (saith Saint Paul) if we neg­lect so great Salvation? 1 Cor. 9.16. Wo is me (saith the same A­postle) if I preach not the Gospel. 2 John 8. Look to your selves, that we lose not the things which we have wrought.

2 To beget fear in them. As the immediate end of Gods Pro­mises [Page 245]is to beget hope, so the im­mediate end of his Threatnings is to beget fear; the subject of the one (good things) being the pro­per object of Hope; and the sub­ject of the other (evil things) be­ing he proper object of Feare. This fear is commanded the Saints in sundry Scriptures, Heb: 12.28, 29. Let us have grace to serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear Andlest any man should think, that it is not the property of a god­ly man (who is designed for heaven, or to receive a Kingdom that can­not beshaken) to fear Hel, as if such afear could not be a godly fear; ob­serve therefore the Apostles rea­son, For our God is a consuming fire. It is a Threatning taken out of the Old Testament, which the Apostle, a Gospel Minister, did not scruple to apply to New Testa­ment Believers Deut. 4.24. See also Heb. 4 1. Let us therefore fear lest a Promise being left us of enter­ing into his rest, any of you should seem to come sho [...]t of it: q.d. As in every Threatning there is vertual­ly [Page 246]a Promise (for he that expres­seth, Whosoever believeth not shall be damned; doth imply in the way of Promise, He that believeth shall be saved;) so in every Promise there is vertually a Threatning (he that promiseth, Whosoever endures to the end shall be saved, doth im­plicitely threaten, That those who do not endure to the end shall be dam­ned.) Let us therefore feare, left such a said Promise (vertually con­taining a Threatning) being left unto us, any of us should fall short of it. See also Luke 12.4, 5. where Christ doth command his Disciples to fear God because of Hell; I say, because of Hell: for that description [Who, or which, Which after he hath killed] is ra­tiocinative, or causal; i.e. it im­ports the reason or motive of that counsel which Christ gives his Di­sciples of searing God, to bee his power of casting into hell, toge­ther with his pleasure so to do in case they should fear man and not him. The Relative Particle which, is not in the Orginal, the Apostle [Page 247]expressing himself in a Particle of the Present Tense [Fear him, ha­ving power.] Now I think it a good Observation of him that tels us, saying, It is a known proprie­ty of the Greek tongue to import the Reasons or Grounds of things by their Particles, as in 1 Tim. 5.17.

I shall in the next place apply my self to make answer to such Ob­jections as may be, or usually are made against this Truth; e.g.

Obj. 1. What good Believers do, or what evils they do avoid, they do them, and avoid them out of a prin­ciple of life and love, and not out of fear?

Answ. Let it be first rightly un­derstood what the meaning of the word [Life] is, and what it is to do a thing out of a principle of life; for which purpose bee it known, That all of us being by nature dead in trespasses and sins, we are not able to do any good of our selves, no more then a dead man is able to perform the actions of a living man. God must quick­en [Page 248]us by his Holy Spirit, and re­generate us by his grace, before we can do any thing that is good in a spiritual and acceptable man­ner as to Salvation; so that to do a thing out of a principle of life, is to do it as one being quickned, re­newed, and regenerated by the sanctifying Spirit of God.

Now this being the meaning of that phrase, I answer, That by the same reason that a beliver is said to do the good hee doth out of a principle of life and love, he may be said to do it out of a prin­ciple of life and fear: for

1. The love of God, and the fear of God, are not things op­posite, but consistent with the same subject.

2. It is as well the command of God to a Believer, and conse­quently the duty of a believer to fear God, as to love him; yea, to fear the threatnings of God, as Josiah d [...]d 2 Chron. 34.19▪ 21. I doubt not, but this fear was one part of, or one ingredient into that tenderness of heart for which that [Page 249]gracious King is commended, 2 Chron. 34 27.

3. The fear of God is as well a fruit of Christs holy Spirit as is the love of God; for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodnesse, Eph. 5.11. which Spirit is therefore sti­led, the Spirit of the fear of the Lord, Isat. 11.2.

4. The fear of God is as well a qualification of that service which we owe and do to God, as is the love of God. Psal. 2.11. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoyce with trembling. Hebr. 12.28 Let us have grace to serve God accepta­bly with reverence and godly fear.

Obj. 2. Believers are to fear God and his goodness, Hos. 3.5. (The chil­dren of Israel shal fear the Lord and his goodness.) They are to fear God and his Commandments, Ezra 10.3. (Let us make a Covenant ac­cording to the counsel of my Lord, and of those that tremble at the Commandments of our God) and therefore they are not to fear God and his threatnings, wreth, ourse.

Answ. The things which are consistent are therefore not to be opposed, but composed; and what God hath joyned in his Word, we are to keep together, and by no means to put asunder. Be it known therefore, that as God is [...]; as God (I say) is Maximus, as well as Optimus, The great, righteous, and terrible Lord God, Dan. 9.4. Nehem 9.32 as well as a good and gracious Fa­ther; so is he to be dreaded in re­gard of his power, wrath, judge­ments, as well as to be feared or loved in regard of his goodness, pity, kindnesse: Yea, one special reason why a Saint doth tremble, and is to tremble at the command­ments of God, is because of the wrath, power, and justice of God, (they being the Commandments of that Law-giver, who alone is able to save and to destroy, James 4.12. and they being Command­ments not without a Sanction; i.e. comminations of terror annexed to them, which God in Justice is obli­ged to execute.)

And that it is the duty of belie­vers not only to fear God, because of his goodness, but moreover because of his wrath, and the curse, may be undoubtedly pro­ved.

1. Because they are upon this ground commanded, or for this reason instigated, and urged to feare him, as was before said out of Luke 12.4, 5. Hebr. 12.28, 29.

2. Because God doth no lesse threaten them then he doth any others with wrath and judgment, in case of their Apostacy, as was before proved; the end of the said threatnings being to beget fear in the Saints, God thereby intima­ting not onely what is in his power to do, but moreover what is his pleasure actually to do in the said cases, or upon the said suppositions of their A­postasie.

3. Because the Saints, who have in this sort stood in awe of God, are commended in Scripture, and their examples recorded for our i­mitation. [Page 252]See the example of Da­vid and Job, Psal. 119.120. My flesh trembleth for fear of thee, and I am afraid of thy Judgments. Job 31▪ 23 For destruction from the Lord was a terror to me. Job was a man most eminently pious (as appears by the testimony of God himself, both in that book and else­where, Ezek 14 14.) yet one thing which restrained him from evil, was the terror of destruction from the Lord. See also 2 Cor 5.11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, wee perswade men.

Obj. 3 Perfect love casteth out fear, because feare hath tor­ment

Answ. 1. There is no Christians love here so perfect as utterly and altogether to cast out fear, for so long as we are in the flesh we shall not be free from fear: though at the day of Judgement love being perfected, will cast out all fear, as saith the Apostle there.

2. By fear the e is meant only a tormenting fear, or fear so far forth as it hath torment in it, as is evi­dent [Page 253]by the Apostles explication of himself. Now though the fear of hell, as that which a man is a­ctually obliged to suffer, [rebus sic stantibus,] be indeed aOf this fear see Heb. 2.15. There bee those who do under­stand, that torment­ing feare which per­fect love is said to cast out, to bee that carnal fear of men, and dangers, by means of which, we do as Peter did, chuse rather to deny Chrst, and sin against God, rather then expresse our love by suffering for him. And this Intepr [...]tation is not improbable, as will appear by comparing that in 1 John 4.18. with 2 Tim. 1.7. tormenting thing, yet what torment is there to a Believer, being actually dis­charged or disobliged from the curse, neverthelesse to fear it in case of his Apostasie? Was Saint Paul tormented with fear when he said, How shall we escape if wee neglect so great salvation? or when he said, I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by a­ny means when I have preached to o­thers, I my self should be a cast away or a Reprobate? Or was Saint Pe­ter tormented with fear, or was it his intent to torture the Saints with fear, by telling them, That God will without respect of persons judge righteously? and that the latter end of Apostates will bee worse then the beginning? They on­ly [Page 254]will account this torment, who do judg it a torment to be curbed from their sins, or restrained from following of their lusts: of which torment, see Rev. 11.10.

3. True love will, till the flesh be cast out, preserve this fear for its assistant and fellow helper, two being better then one, according to that Proverb of Solomon. Eccl. 4.9. Sure I am, that the love of God is never otherwise then in conjunction with true love to our selves: and as sure I am, that if a­ny one should under pretence of perfecting his love to God, endea­vour to cast off all fear of his judg­ments in case of Apostasie, hee should therein cast off the true love of himself, as taking therein a ready way to prove the destroy­er of himself, neglecting one way or means which God hath appoin­ted him for the preserving of him­self. I think it well said by him, whosoever he be that said it, The flesh would soon make Love a wanton and intice her unto Folly, did not Fear help to dissolve the inchant­ments, [Page 255]and protect her Chastity. A Christian that would be safe in­deed, must put on the whole Ar­mour of God (not some pieces on­ly) among which I doubt not to say,Jer. 32.40. Heb. 12.28, 29 is the fear of damnation, as well as the hope of Salvati­on.

Object. 4. The love of God, and not the fear or curse of God, doth constrain a Believer to do his duty. 2 Cor. 5.14. The love of God con­straineth us.

Answ. Here again I answer, as before; viz. That we are not to oppose things compatible and consistent, such as are the love of God, and the feare of divine wrath, in opposing whereof the Antinomians do usually erre, as those who do endeavour to set discord betwixt brethren.

Know then, That as a Believer is constrained by the love of God, so moreover by the wrath of God is he constrained; i.e. strongly, powerfully, and effectually indu­ced to do his duty; and for proof hereof we need go no further save [Page 256]to look back upon what the Apo­stle saith in the verse next save two precedent, Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we perswade men. It being the very scope of the A­postle both in that verse and in the foregoing verse to declare with what Arguments, among others, he was moved, or impelled unto faithfulnesse in discharge of his Ministry and Apostleship (which the false Apostles in the Church of Corinth did traduce;) viz. the consideration of the reward of life and death, heaven and hel, at the great day of Judgment.

2. By the same reason that the Antinomians say, that threatnings are need-nots, and uselesse to be­lievers, [Because (say they) the love of Christ constraineth them to du­ty;] Why may they not infer, That Precepts, Promises, Exhor­tations, their owne vowes and Covenants, are need nots and use­lesse also? So dangerous a thing it seems to me for any one to pro­fesse to live above any piece or part of Gods Word: for as un­faithfulness [Page 257]in a lsttle is the direct way unto faithfulness in much; so the casting off of one Ordinance, or one part of the Scripture, is the ready way to cast off all Scripture and all Ordinances.

3 The very truth is this; The only wise God (who knowes our frame, both our natural and our spiritual frame; i.e. how that we consist of bodies and soul, of flesh and spirit) did see it needful in his manifold wisdome to use manifold and multiforme meanes and Argu­ments (for which the Saints, who know the strength of their cor­ruptions from within, and the va­riety of strong temptations from without, cannot but be thankful,) whereby to keep believers in the state of grace and in acourse of life becoming the Gospel, that so they may not miss the end of their faith; viz. the salvation of their souls.

And here I shall think it not in­expedient, but behooful rather, to enumerate and specifie several of those means; e.g.

1 Exhortations and commands [Page 258]to stand fast, to continue and per­severe. 1 Cor. 16.13. Watch ye, stand fast in the faith. 1 Cor. 15.58. Be yee stedfast, unmoveable. Acts 13.43. and 14.22. 2 Thess. 2.13, 14, 15.

2. Admonitions of severall sorts.

  • 1 Admonitions with respect to the end; viz. Apostasie, 2 Pet. 3.17. Yee therefore Beloved, seeing yee know these things before, beware, lest ye also being led away with the errour of the wicked fall from your own stedfastnesse. 1 Cor. 10.12. Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
  • 2 Admonitions with respect to the means leading to Apostasie, or to the avoiding of all such things as will endanger their perseve­rance; e.g.

1 The avoiding all occasions of sin, and more especially the com­pany of the wicked, and of all Se­ducers; for which read the fol­lowing Scriptures, with the like; Prov. 23.31. and 1.15 and 4.14. Deut. 7.3, 4, 25. Rev. 18.4. Rom. [Page 259]16.17. 1 Tim. 6.3, 4, 5. 1 John 4. beg. and 1.2, 26. Yea, God hath told us before hand, that unlesse we are careful to shun the meanes of Apostasie, we shall not perse­vere but backslide, Deut. 7.3, 4. Neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daugh­ter shalt thou take unto thy son; for they will turne away thy son from following me. To this purpose is that proverbial saying among the Jewes considerable, A little leven leveneth the whole lump, 1 Cor. 5.6 Gal. 5.9.

2. As the direct way to Apo­stasie, the Saints are admonished of pride, Rom. 11.20. Be not high minded, but fear.

3 A third means which God useth towards the perseverance of the Saints is the promise of reward unto all those who are faithful to the end▪ See for this purpose, Revel. 2.10. 1 Cor. 15.58. Rom. 2.7, 8. where, to those who are faithful to death, who are stedfast unmoveable, abounding in well-doing, [Page 260]who by patient continu­ance in well doing, seek for glory, honour and immortality, there is promised a crown of life, and that life eternal.

4 Threatnings of hell and damnation, in case they fall off, Prov. 14.14. The backslider in heart shall be filled with his owne wayes, 2 Pet. 2.20, 21. If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, they are again entangled therein, and over­come; the latter end is worse with them then the beginning: For it had been better for them not to have knowne the way of Righteousnesse, then.—

5 God commands them to oblige themselves by Oathes, Vowes, and frequent renewing of their Covenant with him. Psal. 76.11. Vow unto the Lord, and pay: The making and keeping of our Vowes, is confessedly a moral du­ty, and perpetually obliging by vertue of the third Command­ment. To this purpose God re­quires [Page 261]us frequently to receive the Lords Supper, as that Ordinance, whereby the Covenant betwixt God and us is sealed.

6. In order to preserve the Saints from Apostasie God doth propound and set before them Ex­amples, and that of both sorts, as well such as they are to fly, as such as they are to fol­low.

  • 1. Examples for their imita­tion, as of Christ himselfe; and o­ther of the Saints that have gone before us, and held out to the end both in doing and suffering of Gods will, which we are expresly call'd on to imitate. Heb. 6.12. Be ye followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the Pro­mises. Heb. 12.1, 2. Being compas­sed about with such a cloud of wit­nesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin that doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Je­sus the Authour and Finisher of our faith, who for, &c. Hebr. 13.7. Remember them who have the rule o­ver [Page 262]you, who have spoken unto you the Word of God, whose faith fol­low, considering the end of their con­versations.
  • 2. Examples for their admo­nition, among which we have the examples both of particular per­sons, as also of whole Townes, Ci­ties, and Nations. Thus doth Saint Paul admonish Timothy of Apostasie by the example of Hy­meneus and Alexander, 1 Tim. 1.18, 19. Holding faith and a good conscience, which some having put away concerning faith, have made shipwrack, of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander. Thus likewise doth he warne every one that pro­fesseth Christ, by the example of the Apostasie of Hymeneus and Philetus, saying, Let him that na­meth the name of Christ depart from iniquity, 2 Tim. 2.18, 19. Thus are the Corinthians admonished, by the Apostasie and infidelity of the Israelites in the wilderness, whose example, (as he tells them) were written for their admonition, 1 Cor. 10.11, 12. By the like ex­ample [Page 263]he doth also admonish the believing Hebrewes, ch. 4. beg. And by the fall of the whole nati­on of the Jews, Saint Paul doth ad­monish the believing Romans, con­cluding the relation with this ad­monition, Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou stan­dest by Faith: Be not high minded, but fear, Rom 11.20. Yea, the example of the Apostate Angels is set before the faithful as a war­ning and admonition, whereby to avoid their sinne, and to e­scape their punishment, Jude begin.

7 In order to the perseverance of the Saints, God doth inflict sometimes very grievous judge­ments.

  • 1. Upon the wicked, comman­ding the Saints to take warning thereby, that they may hear, and fear, and learne not to sin presump­tuously; Deut. 17.13. 1 Cor. 10.11, 12. This use did Nehemiah perswade the Jewes to make of Gods judgments upon their prede­cessors, chap. 13.18. Did not our [Page 264]fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and up­on this City? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaneing the Sabbath. The contrary sin is laid to the charge of Judah, who would not take warning by the sore hand of God upon her Sister Israel, Jer. 3.8. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed Adultery, I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and plaid the harlot also.
  • 2 Upon themselves. This means, viz. the rod of correction God doth use sometimes, whereby to keep the Saints from running the same excesse of ryot with the wic­ked; by this means, as it were by thornes hedging up the way of sin (as is the Prophets phrase, Hos. 2 6) but more especially to reduce them from their wandrings when they have gone astray, 1 Cor 11.32. I have some where read or heard of a similitude very apt for this purpose, of one resembling [Page 265]us to Tops, that by meanes of whipping are got up when they are down, and being up are kept going.

8. One maine end of Church Discipline, of Ecclesiastical cen­sure, as of publick Authoritative ad­monition and excommunication, is, that Believers may stand in aw, and persevere in holinesse, 1 Tim. 5.20. Them that sin rebuke openly, that others also may fear.

The Premises considered, it ap­pears evidently, that Believers are and are to be constrained, not on­ly by love, but also by fear, and by the rod of God, if by any means ( [...], as is the Apostles word, Phil. 3.11.) they may attain the Re­surrection of the dead, and the sal­vation of their souls. And surely did not some men in these times go a­bout to make themselves wiser then God Almighty, they would rather blesse and magnifie, yea, admire and adore both the wis­dome and goodnesse of God (be­coming all things to all men, and to every part of man, both the [Page 266]old man and the new) in that va­riety of meanes which he useth for the preservation of believers in the state of grace: I say, they would rather so do then cry out upon Gods Ministers as legal Teachers for mixing Threatnings with Pro­mises, and thereby endeavouring to preserve the Saints as wel in the fear of the wrath of God, and the curse, as in the love of God and his goodness.

Obj. 5. Believers are preserved through their faith unto salvation, 1 Pet. 1.5.

Answ. Though Saint Paul saies, That they are preserved through faith unto salvation, yet he saith not through faith only, and to in­terpret him exclusively there is no ground: and here I say once a­gain as before; viz: Those gra­ces and vertues which God hath joyned together, wee must not make opposite one to another, or sever one from another. Though faith and fear are diverse, yet are they not adverse and repug­nant.

More distinctly then I answer,

  • 1 That as the Saints are preser­ved to salvation through their faith, so likewise through their feare, Jerem. 32.40. I will put my Feare into their hearts, that they shall never depart from me.
  • 2. He that rightly understands himself in saying, That Believers are preserved through faith, wil un­derstand how that he doth by ne­cessary consequence in so saying, imply, That they are preserved through their fear: for what is the object of faith? is not the whole Word of God? Though I should grant, That in some peculiar sense the Promise is the object of Faith, (in which respect Saint Paul calls the Promise, the Word of faith, Rom. 10.8.) yet who can deny, that the whole Word of God is Fides objectiva, or the object of Faith? and consequently, who can deny that Believers are to ex­ercise faith, as well in the threat­nings as in the promises of the Word? and the scope of God in his threatnings being to beget [Page 268]faith and fear, as well as in his Promises to beget faith and hope in his people; who can deny, That Believers are kept to Salvation, as well through faith and fear of the Threatnings of God in his holy Word, as through faith and hope in his promises.
  • 3. Consider, that as the wick­ed have been reclaimed to their duty by faith and fear of Gods threatnings (for which see the ex­ample of the Ninevites, of whom it is said, That they believed God, and proclaimed a Fast, Jonah 3.5. So the godly have been by the like meanes contained, or retained in their duty, as was made appear by several instances before reci­ted, unto which I shall add the example of Noah, of whom it is said, That he by faith, moved with fear, prepared an Ark for the pre­serving of himselfe and his houshold, Heb. 11.7. Observe thence as to the purpose in hand, these two things:
    • 1. The conjunction,
    • 2. The co­operation of faith and fear.

1. Observe, That faith in God [Page 269]as touching his Promises, and the fear of God as touching his threa­nings, may very well stand to­gether.

2. As Saint James said concer­ning faith and works, (Chap. 2.22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works,) so I may here say, concerning faith and fear, Seest thou how faith and fear did co­operate to Noahs obedience and preservation?

4. Be it considered, that as every Threatning doth imply a Promise, so every Promise doth imply a Threatning, as is manifest by that remarkable Scripture Heb. 4. beg. where the Apostle in the forgoing Chapter having spoken of an expresse threatning [of not entering into Gods Rest.] he admo­nisheth them by way of Inference, saying, Let us therefore fear, lest a Promise being left us of enter­ing into his Rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. And as the consequence hereof, be it cosi­dered in the next place

5 That it is the duty of Gods [Page 270]Church and people to exercise not only faith and hope,2 Cor. 7.1. compared with 2 Cor. 6.17, 18. but moreo­ver to exercise faith and fear even in, or by occasion of the Promises of God, considering that as every Threatning doth imply a Promise, so every Promise doth imply a Threatning; so that the word, which is formally a Promise, is also implyedly, and vertually a Threatning, and Vice versâ, the Word which is formally a Threat­ning, is implyedly or vertually a Promise. The ground hereof is this, because Gods Promises and Gods threatnings have alwayes conditions, if not expressed, at least implyed. This Noah did ve­ry well understand, and therefore God having made him a Promise to preserve him from the Deluge by means of an Ark, which hee commanded him for that end to prepare, Noah is therefore said by faith, as moved through fear, to have prepared it.

The main cause which hinders the Antinomians from the sight and acknowledgment of the consi­stency [Page 271]and co-operation of faith and fear is (as I conceive) because they do imagine justifying faith to be nothing else but a perswasion or a firm belief that Christ wil unque­stionably save them, and they are therefore apt to interpret all Scrip­tures, wherein any thing is ascribed unto faith, or said to be done through faith, or by meanes of saith, unto faith in their said sense, which is a very grosse error in it self, and a cause of much more.

Object. 6. Believers know that they cannot fall away from grace, be­cause God hath promised as will their perseverance in grace, as their crown­ing with glory? Joh. 13 1. Luke 22 32.

Answ. God who promiseth the end, doth not promise it to be at­tained absolutely, or Quocunque modo; but with expresse, or at least with an implicite reference to the use of the means; e. g God who promised to add fifteen yeers to the life of Hezekiah, did pro­mise the same with reference unto [Page 272] Hezekiahs making use of all the due means of conserving life, whe­ther by food, physick, or other waies, 2 King. 20.6, 7.

2 As God who promiseth sal­vation (the ultimate end) to the Elect, doth promise to give them perseverance in the faith to that end; even so God, who hath promised perseverance (the sub­ordinate and subservient end) unto the Saints, hath promised to give them grace to be diligent in the use of all such meanes which he hath appointed as helping and conducing to their perseverance: e. g. God who hath decreed and pro­mised that Believers shal never to­tally and finally depart from him, hath withal decreed and promised, that he will put as well his fear as his faith unto them,Note. together with all other graces needful for that purpose, Jer. 32.40.

3. Among other means which God in his Word hath appointed for the perseverance of Believers, this is one (as hath been already plentifully proved;) viz. The [Page 273]setting before them the curse of the Law, even hell it self as the desert and certain reward of Apo­stasie and all Apostates, which said danger, whosoever shall be fearless and regardlesse of, as such a per­son doth take a ready course to ruine himself by incurring the dan­ger, so by his said fearlessenesse and regardlesness he doth give just occasion for himself and for all o­thers to doubt or question, whether he be for present in the number of Gods Elect, to whom the said Promises of perseverance are made and of whom therefore they shall be verified.

4. Notwithstanding God doth promise to preserve Believers in the state of Grace, he doth never­thelesse set before them the dan­ger of Apostasie, whereby to cause them to work out their own salva­tion with fear and trembling. For proof whereof I shall quote several very remarkable Scriptures. See Phil. 1.6 with ch. 2.12, 13. notwith­standing the Apostle had expressed his confidence both concerning [Page 274]their present, and also their future and final estate, that the same God, who had begun a good work, would finish it untill the day of Christ; he doth neverthelesse ex­hort them, to work out their owne salvation with fear and trembling. See Rev. 3.10. where albeit God doth promise to the Church of Philiadelphia, that he will infalli­bly preserve her in the hour of temptation, he doth notwithstan­ding admonish her of the danger of Apostasie, and exhort her to perseverance, lest her crowne be taken from her. See the Epistle of St Jude, where he doth expressy tell us to what manner of persons he writes; viz. To them that are sanctified and preserved in Christ Jesus, ver. 1. yet the said preserva­tion notwithstanding, he tels them, that it was needful both for him and them to use the means of their preservation; ver. 3. [Belo­ved (saith he) when I gave all dili­gence to write unto you of the com­mon salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [Page 275]you,] and observe what means he useth for that end; e. g. He ex­horts them earnestly to contend for the faith; he sets before them in sundry examples, especially that of the Reprobate Angels, the danger of Apostasie, that so in them, as in a Looking-glasse, they may behold the fearful end of all Apostates; and notwithstanding their preservation in, or by Christ, (as some render the word,) yet doth he exhort them, to preserve themselves, ver. 20, 21. namely, as by a careful heeding, and dili­gent using of all the means, which in that Epistle of his he had pre­scribed to them, so in especial, by constant prayer to God, and edifying one another, The word rendred. Pre­served, in ver. 1. is [...], which as Criticks do observe, doth properly signifie to be most solici­tously kept as under lock and key, as by watch and Ward, as prison­ers use to be kept (see the same word used Acts 4.3. and 5.18. and 24.23. and 25.4.) and yet he u­seth the self same word in his ex­hortations [Page 276]unto them, ver. 21. [...], keep your selves as with Watch and Ward; it being the same word which Saint John also useth, 1 John 5 18. where he tels us, that every one who is born of God doth in such sort preserve himself. See also 1 Cor. 1.8. with 1 Cor. 16.13. and 1.6, 9, 10, 11. notwithstanding the Apostle had told them in the former place, That the Lord Jesus would confirme them to the end, that they might bee blamelesse in the day of our Lord. He doth (I say) notwithstanding exhort them to stand fast, and threaten them with the losse of their inheritance in heaven in their pursuits of any unrighteous way. See also 2 John 2.8. In the second Verse Saint John tells the Elect Lady and her children, that the Truth which did dwell in them, should abide with them for ever, & yet doth he admonish them, saying, v. 8. Look to your selves, that we lose not the things which we have wrought

5 If because God hath promi­sed to Believers, that they shall [Page 277]persevere in his grace and love, they therefore are to live above all fear of the curse, and the threatnings of the Word, why are they not by a like reason to live a­bove all Scriptures, and all Ordi­nances, above all exhortations to persevere, and above all such ad­monitions against Apostasie which S. Peter himself doth give unto such who were truly sanctified, and had received a like precious faith with himself, saying, (2 Pet. 3.17, 18.) Ye therefore, Beloved, seeing ye know these things (and what those things were, among others, see 2 Pet. 2. beg. and latt. viz. the fearful end and doom of all Apo­states) beware lest ye also being led away with the errour of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastnesse: But grow in Grace. — There be many things which Saint Peter writes to the Saints in that Epistle, for which the Antinomians would charge us (should we say the same things to the Saints) as legal Prea­chers; but I doubt not, but that Saint Peter himself having been a [Page 278]backslider, having received that Item from Christ, [Thou being converted strengthen thy brethren,] was mindful of that very counsel of Christ given to him, by writing in such sort as he doth in his Epi­stles, in order to the strengthen­ing and perseverance of his bre­thren the believing Jewes, and to their effectual preservation from Apostasie by what temptations soever.

The great Error of the Antino­mians in things of this nature is, That they separate the meanes from the end; Christ from duty, and duty from Christ, the Spirit from the Word, and the Word from the Spirit.

Obj. 7. One end of the Redempti­on of Believers from the curse of the Law, and from all enemies, is, that they should serve God without fear, as is plainly and [...] asserted. Luke 1.74.

In untying the knot of this Ob­jection, I shall decline two An­swers,

  • 1 I will not dispute or argue, [Page 279]whether the Greek Adverb, [ [...]] being the first word in the verse, ought to be referred to the word [Serve,] or to the word, [Delivered.] Theophylact joyning it with the Particle [ [...], De­liverd,] and interpreting it [...]; i.e. Sine ullo nostro pe­riculo; Christus enim (saith he) quiescentibus nobis crucifixus est. I will speak nothing to argue the probability of the said reference, and interpretation (Christ ha­ving delivered or redeemed us without any fear or danger on our parts sustained) but I shall take the words according as they stand in our owne Translation, and as they are commonly interpreted by our moderne Di­vines.
  • 2. I will decline the usual di­stinction of fear into filial and ser­vile. Yet this I will do,
    • 1. Not because I do disaprove the said di­stinction;
    • 2. Nor because I think it not applicable or useful in the present case, and for my present purpose; but because I am well as­sured, [Page 280]that the difference betwixt these two sorts of fears, is much mistaken by very many: for, whereas it is commonly thought and taught, that filial and servile fear do differ in their material ob­ject, or have different objects; the object of filial fear being God in the notion of a loving Father, or God and his goodnesse and no otherwise: and the object of ser­vile fear being (as they say) God as a Judge, or God and his ven­geance.

I must crave leave in this place, to give in my opinion to the con­trary, and to assert, That these two fears do differ, not in the ob­ject matter, or thing feared, but in the manner of fearing; for the material object even of godly and filial fear, is God [a consuming fire,] or the eternal vengeance of God, as well as of servile fear; as is to me past all doubt or contra­diction most evident by those two Scriptures before cited, Heb. 12.28, 29. and Luke 12.4, 5. A god­ly man, or a child of God, as wel as [Page 281]a wicked man, or an enemy of God, is to fear hel and damnation, as was before plainly and plentifully pro­ved; and therefore hell and dam­nation must needs be the object, as well of filial as of servile fear. One main difference betwixt these two fears, I do therefore conceive to be in the manner how those dreadful objects are feared, they being in a different manner feared by a son and by a slave, by a godly, and by a wicked man.

The Answer then which I will give to that place of Scripture, shall be by distinguishing concer­ning a twofold fear, I mean two­fold in respect of the manner of fearing, as followeth. A man may fear hell and damnation two wayes:

  • 1. As that which he is actually for present obliged to suffer, or as that which he knowes will be­tide him [rebus sic stantibus,] in his present state and condition, or in those wayes wherein hitherunto he hath walked, and still doth walk in.
  • [Page 282]2 A man may fear hell and damnation, as that from the suffer­ing whereof, albeit for the present he be discharged, as being in the state of grace, which neverthelesse he may and shall suffer, if he abide not in his present state of Grace, or continue not in that way of holi­nesse wherein he is going. The former kind of fear I may not un­fitly stile a positive fear, and the latter suppositive; the one be­ing absolutely exercised, or exer­ted, the other conditionally. The former indeed is that kind of fear which we commonly call ser­vile, and it is the fruit or effect of the spirit of bondage spoken of by Saint Paul, as that which the sons of God are delivered from, Rom. 8.15. and Heb. 2 14, 15. None but the slaves of Satan and the Divels bondmen are in such sort to fear hell and damnation. The mean­ing then of that in Luke 1.79. is, That Christ hath delivered us from this positive fear of evil, or the fearing of evil in this positive man­ner, it being the scope of Zachary [Page 283]in that his Song, to intimate, that Christ is indeed an Horn of salva­tion, ver. 69. i. e. a strong and mighty Saviour, (horn being fre­quently put for strength and effe­ctual defence, Psal. 18.2.) and consequently, that the redeemed ones of Christ, whom he hath re­deemed from the service of sin to the service of himselfe, need not in his service, or so long as they do continue in ways of his service, to fear any enemy whatsoever. What Beza notes upon the place is note-worthy,
    Batach, or Betach, sig­nifying, Spem & securitatem & cum La­med adver­biascit, sig­nificans tu­tò, securè, confidenter. Psal. 4.9. Gen, 34.25. See S [...]bindler.
    [...] (saith he) is the same with the Hebrew, [Ta­betach] used Lev 25.18. and 26 5 which is there rendred, in safety; or with the Greek [...], used Ephes. 3.12 and there ren­dred, With confidence; so that to serve God without fear, is no more then with faith, boldness, or confidence to build upon the Pow­er, Promise, Goodnesse, Truth, Faithfulnesse, and the like Attri­butes of God for safety and de­fence from all enemies whatsoe­ver, so long as we keep to, or con­tinue [Page 284]in the wayes of his service, God having said, Who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? 1 Pet. 3.13. This I say, is that fear, our deliverance from which is the scope, or one part of our redemption by Jesus Christ; but Christ did not intend to deliver his Saints in this life from the latter kind of fear, they being so long as they live on earth to fear hell and damnation upon supposition of their not continu­ing in his service, as was afore said and proved. As Saint Paul sayes to the believing Romans, with re­spect to the power, wrath, and vengeance of Gods Vicegerent, [the Magistrate,] so may I say, unto the best among the Saints on earth with respect to the power, wrath, and vengeance of God him­selfe, Wilt thou not be afraid? do that which is good, [for in so doing thou hast cause to serve God, [...], boldly and without fear;] but, If thou dost evil, bee afraid, Rom. 13.3, 4.

Briefly, Albeit Believers serving [Page 285]God, or in their service of God, they are to serve him without fear, yet they are to fear, if they do not serve him, or not persist in his service.

Object 8. Ye have not received the Spirit of bondage to fear again; but ye have received the Spirit of A­doption, whereby we cry, Abba, Fa­ther, Rom. 8.15.

Answ. I have already said, that the fear of hell as that which a man is actually obliged to suffer, upon the consideration of his pre­sent estate and condition, is the effect of the spirit of bondage, and that indeed which subjects a man unto bondage. But as for that fear of hell, which is only up­on supposition of a Saints Apo­stasie;

1. It is in no sort contrary unto, but it is altogether consistent with the spirit of Adoption. For

  • 1. The adopted children of God are commanded in such sort to fear hell, as was before pro­ved.
  • 2. This kind of fear poth not in [Page 286]any sort hinder the Saints from crying, Abba, Father. The whole family of the Saints on earth, not­withstanding this their fear, can cal God their Father no lesse then the family of the Saints in heaven.

2This is more espe­cially to be observed for the sa­tisfaction and right informati­on of those who be­cause they are exerci­sed with doubts and fears, and do want assurance of their sal­vation, are apt to con­clude from thence (but un­warranta­bly) that they have not the Spi­rit of A­doption. 2. This fear is not only consi­stent with the Spirit of Adoption. but it is moreover from the Spirit of Adoption; for the Spirit of God (which is in them the Spirit of Adoption) doth dictate to them, and doth dictate in them this very fear. And when I say, that this fear is not only with the Spirit, but also from the Spirit of Adoption; I would have it the rather to be observed for this rea­son; viz. Because there may be, and sometimes actually there is a fear [with] the Spirit of Adopti­on, that is not [from] the said Spirit of Adoption. E.G. Gods Adopted ones for want of Assu­rance, and through a mis-appre­hension of their state and conditi­on to God ward, may possibly, and oft-times do actually fear hell and damnation even with that [Page 287]kind of fear which we commonly stile legal or slavish; i.e. they fear hell as that which they think they are actually obliged to suffer, but this fear in them is not from the Spirit of Adoption, by vertue of which they should cast off, or cast away that fear, it being for the slaves of Satan, and not for the sons and daughters of the living God to fear hell in such sort.

Having been so large in pro­ving and cleering this Confecta­ry, I shall be briefer in the next.

I shall conclude this Confectary with the saying of Bernard, as I have seen him quoted, who wri­ting to one, whom he thought not to be sufficiently solicitous about the Judgments of God, in steed of wishing him (according to the u­sual form of salutation) Salutem plurimam, much health; said, Ti­morem plurimum, much fear; So shall I wish to all the Saints and servants of God, not only much joy, but also (as in the sense be­fore explicated,) much fear.

And if any one shall object a­gainst [Page 288]me, That I do not (as be­comes a Gospel Minister) endea­vour to help forward the joy of the Saints, I have these two things to answer,

  • 1. I do conceive, That the great work of a Minister, and the grand bent of his preaching, and that which he should chiefly and directly have an eye upon in all his preaching, ought to be the fu­ture and eternal safety of people, rather then their present ravish­ments and comforts in the way.
  • 2. Whatsoever I have written in this, or in any other part of this Exercitation, doth most directly tend unto, and make for the safe­ty of the Saints; and if for their safety, then consequently and ne­cessarily for their comfort, both in this world and in the world to come. Yea, I am perswaded that no Doctrine is indeed, and in a Scripture sense comfortable Do­ctrine, but that which doth of its own nature minister to the safety of the Saints, and to their preser­vation in the state of grace. And [Page 289]if I be not herein mistaken, I would to God that people would make use of that saying, whereby to judg what manner of Preachers are the most comfortable Preach­ers, and what Doctrines are the most comfortable Doctrines.

CHAP. XXVII. That a Minister of the Gospel hath no warrant so to absolve a Believer, as in the name of God to tell him, That his sins are as absolutely pardoned, and that he is as absolutely sure of heaven, as if he were alrea­dy in heaven.
CONSECT. XX.

20. IT followes. That a Mi­nister hath no warrant to tell a Believer, how that he may [Page 290]assure himself for his comfort, that his sins are as absolutely pardoned, and that he shall as absolutely be saved, as if he were already in the bosom of Abraham, and actually translated with Enoch and Elias, The obligation of a sinner, as to eternal condemnation being taken off, not absolutely but conditio­nally, for what is to come, or as to the actual enjoyment of what mercy is to come: for what dismission soever God doth vouch­safe to a sinner in this life, we must suppose the sinner to be dismissed of God no otherwise then with such an Item, or admonition which Christ giveth to the restored Crip­ple, Sin no more, lest (the same thing, or) a worse thing come unto thee, John 5.14.

My meaning in this Confectary is plainly this, (as I have before ex­pressed it, and which I desire to be remembred) viz. That though the obligation of a sinner to eter­nal condemnation be actually ta­ken off so soon as he is converted, neverthelesse the continuance of [Page 291]that mercy is not absolute, but con­ditional, God not having inten­ded, and Christ not having inten­ded, and Christ not having pur­chased full and final pardon for a­ny sinner, (I mean) that any sin­ner should enjoy the full and fi­nal pardon of his sins, otherwise then upon the condition of his per­severance, (as was afore said.) This Confectary is of necessity. (I sup­pose) unavoidable.

In Isai. 30.1. The Prophet de­nounceth a woe to those, [Who take counsel but not of him, and that cover with a covering, but not of his Spirit.] I may truly say of the Antinomian Preachers, that they do minister consolation but not of God, and they do comfort their Disciples with comforts, but not of Gods Spirit the Comfor­ter. Such is this comfort where­by they do seek to comfort their heare [...]s in telling them, That their sins are as absolutely forgiven as if they were in heaven. I do lesse wonder, that the Antinomian Preachers are accounted by the ig­norant and profane multitude the [Page 292]only comfortable Preachers: for well I wot their error here is two­fold:

  • 1. They comfort those to whom comfort doth not belong; our commission being limited (in the application of comfort) only to the broken hearted, which they not observing, do speak peace to the wicked oft times.
  • 2 That they tender to Belie­vers their own dreames, and the fulsom, luscious conceptions of their own fancies, in steed of the savoury, wholsome consolations of Scripture. But as Elijah said to the Messengers of Ahaziah, 2 Kin. 1.3. Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to enquire of Baal-zebub the God of Ekron? So may I say unto this sort of Com­forters, Is it not because ye think that the comforts of Scripture are not sufficient, that ye frame and feigne comforts of your own devi­sing? Or is it not because your mouthes and the mouthes of your Disciples being out of taste, the comforts of Scripture do not relish [Page 293]but are so unsavoury, that they will not down with you? For my own part, I know no more war­rant for a Minister to create Com­forts, then he hath to create Com­mands, it being as much against the sufficiency and perfection of Scrip­ture to attempt the one as the o­ther; and as our blessed Saviour did therefore admonish his Disci­ples to beware of the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, [they teach­ing for Doctrines the Commandments of men;] so have I reason to ad­monish Christians to take heed of the leaven (in special of this lea­ven) of Antinomian Preachers, (they preaching for Gospel, conso­lations of their own framing.)

This admonition is the rather needful,

1. Because, albeit it be very toothsom, yet it is not therefore the more wholsome. There bee sweet poysons, as well as bitter.

2 By how much it is more sweet by so much it is like with the more eagernesse to be swallowed. The [Page 294]mouthes of people do water after such delicacies & their ears do itch to hear such Gospel, they loving to hear rather what is smooth, then what is right, what will please rather then what will profit, what is sweet rather then what is sound; according the humour of the peo­ple of old, as is recorded by the Prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, I­sal. 30.9.10. This is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the Law of the Lord; which say to the Seers, See not, and to the Prophets, Prophesie not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophecy deceits. So wee preach comforts to people, though they be deceitful comforts, they regard not; though we cozen people, yet so we comfort them, they care not. Jer. 5. lat. The Prophets prophecy falsely, and the Priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so; and what will ye do in the end thereof? This Question, [What will ye do in the end thereof?] is in this case not to be omitted; for consider in [Page 295]the next place the danger of com­forting Believers by telling them, That their sins are as absolutely pardoned as if they were in hea­ven. The danger hereof will ap­pear, by what I shall next offer unto consideration, as a rea­son of the foresaid Admoniti­on.

3 Consider the tendency of this comfort. For my own part, as I look upon the whole body of An­tinomianisme as a Doctrine of se­curity so I look upon this particu­lar branch as that which tends di­rectly to make a Christian to ne­glect his watch, to lay downe his weapons, and to cast off his Ar­mour. It is such Musick as tends to lull a Christian asleep in the Di­vels lap, and it is Gods great mercy if he awake out of that his dream of being in heaven, before he sees himself absolutely to bee in Hell.

I would have said more to this particular, but that Mr. Baxter in his Book stiled, [Directions for getting and keeping Spiritual Peace [Page 296]and Comfort] hath spoken direct­ly and amply thereunto in his eighteenth and twentieth Dire­ction, which I shall here tran­scribe;

Know, that God hath not com­manded you to believe that you do believe; nor that you are justified, or shall be saved (but only conditi­onally) and therefore your Assurance is not a certainty properly of Di­vine faith. Pag. 189. Direction 18.

Never expect so much Assurance on earth as shall set you above all If there be no pos­sible dan­ger, what need of such ad­monitions caveats, & cautions, as in Eph. 6.11. 2 Joh. 8. 2 Pet. 3.17. Ca­veats need not, but where dan­ger is in some re­spects at least possi­ble. possibility of the losse of heaven, and above all apprehensions of real danger. Pag. 211. Directi­on 20.

I shall conclude this Conse­ctary with that Item which Ahab gave to Benhadad, when swelling in his confidence, 1 King. 20.11. Let not him that girdeth on his harnesse, boast himself, as he that putteth it off. Let not any Saint militant here on earth, that girdeth on his harnesse for the spiritual warfare, boast himself as if he were as abso­lutely [Page 297]sure of heaven as the Saints now triumphant, who have put it off.

CHAP. XXVIII. That the repentance, which the Gospel requires, is not only re­pentance [from] the pardon of our sins, as the Antinomians affirm, but [for] the pardon of them, proved and evinced by several Arguments. Seve­ral Objections of the Antino­mians answered; wherein it is punctually declared, In what sense Evangelical Re­pentance may be said to be [from] pardon of sin, and in what sense [for] the pardon of it. It is disputable whether Gods glory and our own salva­tion are to be looked at as two [Page 298]ends, or only as one, the former being a necessary result of the latter. An Objection answered, That it is a singular favour of God, and a favour in some sense peculiar to the times of the New Testament, that God hath so cleerly revealed unto us our eternal salvation, as the great end, not excluding, but in­cluding his glory) of mans working, or of all Christian duty. That good works may be stiled the way to salvation. That the difference betwixt the Covenant of Work and of Grace lyes not in this, that Adam was to work for life, and we not for, but only from life. Our own good works, duties graces or holinesse, how far forth, or in what sense to be disclaimed, and not trusted unto for salvation, as also in what sense, or how farre [Page 299]forth they may be trusted un­to, or rested in for salvation, declared more at large. A Caution annexed to prevent mistake. That there are two kinds of presumption, both which are distinctly to be made knowne unto people by the Mi­nisters of the Gospel, and care­fully to be avoided by all, as dangerous rocks in the steering of our course towards the ha­ven of eternal happinesse.
CONSECT. XXII

22. IT followes, That the re­pentance which the Go­spel requireth is not only repen­tance [from] the pardon of our sins, but [for] the pardon of them. Pardon of sin being the taking away from the sinner ob­ligation to punishment, and pu­nishment it self, and these being not taken away till a sinner hath [Page 300]repented of his sins (as is evident by the Scriptures, otherwise an impenitent person had as much right to heaven, and were as much in the state of salvation as the pe­nitent;) it doth unavoidably from thence follow, That that repen­pentance which the Gospel requi­reth as saving repentance, or re­pentance necessary to salvation, (I mean, our first repentance, or re­pentance at our first conversion) is for, and not from the pardon of our sins.

I am willing to take occasion to speak somewhat more at large for the confirmation and cleering of this inference, and for the con­futation of the contrary, because it is one branch of the Antino­mian Doctrine in these times, That all repentance which is not from the pardon of sin; i. e. the sense and belief of pardon, is but Legal and not Evangelical repen­tance; and that to teach people to repent for the pardon of their sins, is to dishonour and to de­throne Christ, to make a Christ of [Page 301]our repentance. Now for the confutation of this new Anti-Go­spel Doctrine, and for a Christi­ans confirmation in the good and old Doctrine of Christ, the Pro­phets and Apostles, I will endea­vour to demonstrate, touching the said Doctrine of the Antinomi­ans, these two things,

  • 1. That it is directly and a­bundantly against the truth of the Gospel.
  • 2. Against the comfort of the Gospel.

For the demonstration of the former, let the following particu­lars be considered.

1. We do very seldome, I think, never at all read in the Word of God, that any of Gods Prophets, Christ Jesus or his Apostles, did presse any person or people to repent from the pardon of their sins. Its true indeed, that sinners are frequently exhorted to repent, from the consideration of Gods mercy and goodnesse, in his readi­nesse to pardon them; i.e. to par­don them in such wayes, or upon [Page 302]such termes, as in and upon which God is purposed to dispense par­don; i.e. to pardon them if they do repent, Joel 2.12, 13, 14. but where shall we read in all the Book of God, that sinners are urged and exhorted to repent from the belief, sense, or consideration of Gods grace and goodnesse in this, That he hath already pardoned those sins, for which they are called upon to repent?

2 Suppose that some instance could be produced out of Scrip­ture of some sinner or sinners, that have been informed from God, and told before hand, that their sins were pardoned, and were thereupon exhorted to repent: I would answer, That such an in­stance or instances will not prove, that it is a Christians duty to re­pent from and not for the pardon of his sins: for it is the manner of of the Holy Ghost in Scripture sometimes to pronounce or make promise of the end, and then to direct and exhort unto the use of meanes for the accomplishing of [Page 303]that end, and without the use whereof it shall not be accom­plished; e. g. God doth first tell Hezekiah, that he shal recover of his disease, and that he would add to his life fifteen years, and there­upon God directs him what means to use for his recovery; viz. A bunch of figs applyed to his byle. Because God had told Hezekiah before hand that he would adde fifteen years to his life, shall wee therefore conclude, That Hezeki­ah did apply the bunch of figs, and did ever after that time eat and drink from life, and not for life?

3. To say, That a sinner must repent from the pardon of his sins, and not for the pardon of them, if he will repent Evangelically, is to make a sinners pardon to go be­fore his repentance; whereas the Scripture informes us, that par­don of sin doth follow repentance, and not go before it, as reward fol­lowes the Service, or as the be­stowing of a promised reward doth follow the performance of the [Page 304]condition of the Promise, Acts 2 38. Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins. Acts 5.31. Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give Repentance to Israel and remission of sin. Isai. 55 7, 8. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts and let him returne unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and unto our God, for he will, (not hee hath) abundantly pardon. 2 Chron. 7.13, 14. If my people that are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turne from their evil wayes, then will I hear from heaven my dwelling place, and will forgive their sins. Where do we read, that Christ his Prophets and Apo­stles did ever preach to any sinner or sinners that their sins were actu­ally pardoned, till they had actu­ally repented? Yea, what war­rant hath a Minister of the Go­spel so much as to propound or promise unto any person or peo­ple the Pardon of their sins, but upon precedent repentance for [Page 305]sin? See Luke 4.18. and 24.47. Well I wot, That the Ministers of the Gospel are to publish to all the world, That the Messias is come in the flesh, hath satisfied Gods Justice, made an attone­ment or propitiation for the sins of the whole world; i. e. that Christ Jesus hath done whatsoever did belong for him to do on earth (as a Surety) to the satisfying of Gods Justice, the pardon and re­conciliation of sinners: But I wot withal, That albeit the satisfa­ction of Gods Justice and the pur­chase of pardon doth wholely and solely depend upon the doings and sufferings of Christs as the merito­rious cause thereof; so our enjoy­ment of a part or benefit in the said purchase and satisfaction doth depend upon the doing or perfor­ming of all such Gospel Duties which Christ hath appointed or commanded, as the condition without which we are to have no saving comfort and benefit by him; the performance of which said du­ties, is neverthelesse through the [Page 306]help of Gods free grace purcha­sed by Christ, and a fruit of his Redemption.

4 As wee have no precept in Gods Word, bidding us to repent from the pardon of sin, so we have frequent precepts commanding us to repent for pardon, or that we may be pardoned, or lest wee should misse of pardon. See Acts 2.38. Repent, [...], into the remission of your sins. Acts 3.19. Repent [...], into the bloting out of your sins. Amos 5.14. Seek good and not evil, that ye may live. So that to preach, that That repentance which is for, and not purely from the pardon of our sins, is not evangelical repen­tance, is directly and clearly to pervert the Gospel of Christ in its Doctrine of repentance.

5. It is far more agreeable un­to Scripture and to right reason to say, That we are to rejoyce from the pardon of our sins, then to say We are to repent from the pardon of them.

1. That it is more agreeable to [Page 307]Scripture to say the former then the latter, may appear (besides by what hath been already said) by that in Match 9.2. Son, be of good cheer, t [...]y sins are forgiven thee. And by that in Isai. 40. beg. Com­fort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God, speak ye comfortably to Je­rusalem, and cry unto her, That he iniquity is pardoned.

2 It is more agreeable to reason: for the pardon of sin is the object of Joy, not of sorrow. As sin it self is the proper object matter, or material object of sorrow, so the pardon of it is the material ob­ject of joy; thence that of the Angel to the Shepherds, Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people: for un­to you is born this day a Saviour, Luke 2.10, 11.

3. Yea thirdly, agreeable here­unto is the experience of the Saints: for as some do weep for sorrow, that their sins may be par­doned; so others do weep for joy that to their owne sense they are pardoned; neither ought this [Page 308]to seeme strange, thereSuch it seemes were the tears of her in Luke 7.38. Christ saying of her, not she grieved much, (though that doubt-lesse was true) but she loved much. being tears of love and rejoycing, as well as of mourning.

These things considered, let a­ny one judge whether those who tell people, That to repent e­vangelically is to repent from, not for the pardon of sin, do not tell them in effect, That to weep for sin in a Gospel way, is to weep for joy, but not for grief? and consequently whether they do not overturn Gospel Repentance, sur­sum vorsum, topsie-turvy (as we use to say?) For whereas the Gospel of Christ tells us, that evangelical re­pentance is [...], to sorrow after a godly manner, or a sorrow after God, 2 Cor. 7.9, 10. Consider and judg whether these new Gospel Preachers do not ra­ther make it a joy after God, or a rejoycing after a godly manner, or godly joy, rather then godly sorrow

5 Were Evangelical repentance only from, and not for the pardon of sin, then should our Saviour Christ in rendring the reason of the blessednesse of such mourners;Mat. 5.4. [Page 309]have said, not as he did, For they shall Be comforted, but For they Are comforted; there being no great­er comfort then the sense or assu­rance of pardon.

6. Let it (for a further con­futation of the said Doctrine) be considered, what are those grounds Ends, Reasons, or Motives, for, or upon which sinners are invited, or exhorted in Scripture to re­pent. E.g.

1 Because we have offended and dishonoured God by trans­gressing his command. Psal. 51.4. Against thee, thee only have I finned, saith David.

2. Because as by our sins wee have dishonoured God, so by our repentance we do glorifie God, or give glory to him: especially if our repentance be made publick as our sin. Josh. 7.19. Jerem. 13.16. Give glory to the Lord your God, before he cause dark­nesse, &c.

3 Because God is very gracious and merciful, ready to pardon all those who do repent, Joel 2.12, 13, [Page 310]14. Isai. 57.7, 8. 2 Chro. 30.9. E­zek. 18. lat.

4. Because as God promiseth pardon to the penitent, so hee threatneth utter and inevitable ruine to the impenitent, Luk. 13. 3, 5. Rev. 2.5.

5. Because Christ is a Saviour given of God, All sufficient, and most able to save to the uttermost all sinners whatsoever, yea, and is exalted of God to give repentance and remission of sin to the most hainous sinners, Acts 5.31.

6. Because of that injury and irreparable mischiefe which wee have done, and shall do against our selves and our owne souls by continuing in our sins, Hos. 14. beg. and 13.9. Ezek. 18. last.

These and the like Arguments, or Grounds of Repentance, wee do frequently read of in the Word of God; which I do alledg, not to prove, that the sense of the free mercy of God in pardoning a Believers former sins should not induce him the more to repent of [Page 311]his present sins (for in that sense I do acknowledg, that a Believer is to repent, and doth repent from the pardon of sin; yet so from the pardon of former sins, or sins long since pardoned, as still for the pardon of his other sins:) but the aforesaid Reasons are alledg­ed by me to prove, That a sinner is to repent for the pardon of his sins, and that repentance for pardon is true, genuine, Scripture-Gospel-Repentance; i. e. such as Christ, his Prophets and Apo­stles do enjoyne both for sub­stance and circumstance, as a sa­ving grace.

2 As the said Doctrine is a­gainst the Truth, so is it also a­gainst the Comfort of the Gospel; and let it bee considered what a most uncomfortable Doctrine it is to tell sinners, that Gospel-Re­pentance is from and not for par­don; for, will it not follow from thence, That no sinner did ever truly, savingly, and Evangelically repent, but such only who have the sense or assurance of pardon [Page 312]in their owne souls? then which Doctrine we cannot lightly preach any more dismal, dark, and dis­comfortable. Is the preaching of this Doctrine the way to com­fort those who mourne in Sion, and the preaching of glad tydings to the meek? Is this to pour oyl and wine, or is it not rather to pour gall and vinegar into woun­ded consciences? And is it not strange then, that those who do preach such anti-Gospel Doctrine, so opposite both to the Truth and comfort of the Gospel, should pretend to such zeal for Christ and his Gospel, and to such art in com­forting a Christian? May not we truly say concerning these mens zeal of the Gospel, as Saint Paul said of his Country men their zeal of the Law; viz. That it is not according to knowledg?

The main ground of the Anti­nomians Errour in saying, That Gospel repentance is from, and not for pardon, is (as I conceive) be­cause they hold, That sin is actu­ally pardoned before it be repen­ted [Page 313]of; and observing therefore how one error (like the links of a chain) doth draw on another, we should be the more watchful a­gainst every errour, and pray to the Father of lights to give us un­derstanding in all things.

I shall in the next place endea­vour to answer the usual Objecti­ons which are made by the Anti­nomians against their adversaries, who hold, That a Believer is to work not for pardon, for life, for redemption, and for salvation, but from them. Mr. Baxter hath in­deed in several of his writings said so much already about this Point, as that I shall not much need to say any thing more. For my own part, I am singularly glad that Mr. Baxter hath admonished Christi­ans to beware of the Book stiled, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, that doth harp so much upon that string, not for, but from. The said Book was about six or seven yeers ago commended unto me by a very honest and well meaning Christian, which having sought [Page 314]after, and throughly read, I could not but wonder (and not without some little but just, indignation) that three such most excellent and famous Divines, as Mr. C. Mr B. and Mr. S. should by their seve­ral Epistles commend such an In­terimystical and Cassandrian piece as that Book may in its kind (I think) deservedly be called; and I did thereupon make some Ani­madversions upon it long since, and in special concerning this par­ticular Point [From and not For;] For well I wot, that albeit we are to endeavour, as much as may be, the peace of Gods Churches (and I doubt not but goodnesse and sweetnesse of nature and zeal for peace did so far prevail with those three forementioned Worthies as to procure such Testimonials from them) neverthelesse we are not to assert grosse Errours (however we may, and its fit we should some­times, conceal some Truths) for peace sake.

I shall here therefore insert what I have long since written, and up­on [Page 315]occasion also preached about this Point, as followeth.

There is much ignorance and errour in opposing these two, [From and For salvation] as things incompatible and inconsi­stent; whereas, like brethren they may very well dwel together in u­nity. Know then, That Believers may and ought to do good duties, both from and for salvation; e.g.

1. From Salvation as purposed and appointed by God for them.

2. From salvation as purchased and procured by Christ in their behalf.

3. From salvation as promised to them in the Word, and in the wayes of well doing. Thence is it frequent with the Holy Ghost in Scripture, to urge Believers unto constancy in obedience, with Ar­guments taken from the conside­ration of the said Purpose, Pur­chase, and Promises; for which see Heb. 12 28.2 Cor. 7.1. and 1.6, 20. 1 Thes. 5 8, 9.

2. As a Believer is to work from salvation purposed, procured promised (I add also, As a wick­ed man is to repent from salvation by God in Christ, appointed for him, and promised to him upon termes of believing, repenting, converting, and upon those terms made over to him in the Gospel grant) so are we all, one with a­nother to work, to begin, and to hold on in the wayes of Righte­ousnesse for salvation, actually and fully in Gods due time to be en­joyed.

And that every man may and ought in this sort or sense work for his salvation, may bee proved by the following Argu­ments.

  • 1. We are expresly comman­ded, To work out our salvation, Phil. 2.12. So to run that we may obtain, 1 Cor. 9.24. To do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord, that it may be well with us, Deut. 6.18. To wash our hearts from wickedness, that we may be sa­ved, Jer. 4 14.
  • [Page 317]2. God promiseth to give e­ternal life to those, and those on­ly who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for it, Rom. 2.7. So that unlesse we work for our sal­vation, we can never be saved, as having no promise of salvation made of God unto us; so truly hath Mr. Baxter said, That should the Asserters of the said Doctrine, so commended in the Marrow of Mo­dern Divinity, put in practise their own Doctrine, they could not be sa­ved.
  • 3. What reason had Saint Paul to assert, that a Christians patient suffering of the Crosse doth work glory for him, if a Christian may not therein, and in all his wayes of well doing, work for it? 2 Cor. 4.17, 18.
  • 4. Consider the examples of the Saints, who did the will of God for the obtaining of this end. We run, strive, are temperate in all things, (saith Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 9.25.) to obtain an incorruptible Crown. Heb. 11.35. Not accep­ting deliverance, that they might [Page 318]obtain a better Resurrection. Phil. 3.14. I presse towards the mark, (saith Saint Paul, [...],) for the price of the high Calling of God in Christ Jesus; and what himself did in this, he calls upon all, the most perfect not excepted, to imitate, saying, ver. 15. Let as many as be perfect be thus minded; and v. 17. Brethren be followers to­gether of me.
  • 5. Salvation is one great end, as of our believing, 1 Pet. 1.9. so also of our working; i. e. of all the acts of new obedience, Rom. 6. 22. Being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holinesse, and the end e­verlasting life. Thence is salva­tion stiled, the Fruit of our doings, Isai. 3.10. and the reward or recom­pence of our labors, 2 John 8. Luke 14.14. Yea, as glory is stiled, Grace 1. Pet. 1.13. so is salvation, (the reward of our works) stiled by the name of Works, Rev. 14.13. Their works shall follow them; i. e. Merces operum, the reward of their works shall follow them.

How absurd and irrational then is it for any one to say, That a Christian is not to repent for par­don, or to work for salvation? it is as if a man should say, We must not use means for the end.

Yea, why may I not say, That sal­vation (I mean our own, and the salvation of others) is the maine and utmost end of a Christians working, for as much as the glory of God doth therein consist to the height or uttermost? and there­fore it seems vain for any one to except, saying, Gods glory is the utmost end: for the utmost of Gods glory [quoad hoc,] is in our salvation. Yea, so insepara­ble is Gods glory from our glory, as that God is not glorified to the uttermost by our glorifying him on earth, but by his glorifying us in heaven. 2 Thess. 1.10. When he shall come to be glorified in his Saints, and to be admired in all them that believe. When our blessed Saviour did pray to his Fa­ther, saying, Father, glorifie thy Son, that thy Son also [may] glorifie [Page 320]thee; making his Fathers glory the end of his owne; what is the meaning of Christ in that prayer, but that God would strengthen and enable him to go through his approaching sufferings for the e­fectual accomplishing of that great end for which they were de­signed? viz. the bringing of ma­ny sons unto glory, according to the expression of the Apostle, Heb. 2.11. and according to the supplication of our Saviour, say­ing, viz, Father, I will that those whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory: and according to his assertion, ver. 19. For their sakes I sanctifie my self. I add, it seems to me to be a thing impossible, for any one (truly, and in a Scripture sense) to aim at his own salvation, and not to aim at Gods glory. I say, truly and in a Scripture sense, for in a true moral or Scripture sense, he only can be said to aim, (yea, to desire) his own salvati­on, that takes the way, or doth the things which lead and tend to [Page 321]his salvation. Now since salvati­on is that wherein Gods glory doth most eminently consist, how is it possible to aim at the one, and not the other? We are indeed commanded to make Gods glory the end of all our actions, 1 Cor. 10.31. but if any one shall say,Besides, Albeit Gods glo­ry and our salvation be not one thing, yet may they perhaps be one end: Res quoad entitates suas diver­sae possunt esse in ra­tione cau­sandi una causa, five possunt ex­ercere fina­lem causa­litatem ex­citando sui desiderium per modum unius. See Scheibl. Top. p. 191. We are commanded to make Gods glory the end of our salvation, I shall reply to such a one, Profer tabulas, shew mee any Scripture where that command is written. For my owne part, till a Scrip­ture record be produced for that purpose, I shall think such a com­mand to be superfluous: for if it be not said, that Gods glory and our salvation are one and the selfe same thing, neverthelesse it must (I think) be said, That Gods glo­ry doth issue and flow from our Salvation (will we, nill we) per modum resultantiae, by result una­voidable.

The end of my dilating thus upon this particular, is not peremp­torily to conclude, That Gods glory and our salvation are to bee [Page 322]looked at as one end (for whether they ought to be looked at as one end, or as two ends in subordi­nation, this to that, it is not to my purpose, neither shall I con­tend with any one who shall affirm either way) but to shew the ex­ceeding weakness and unreasona­blenesse of the Antinomians, who under the pretence of exalting God and Christ in their glory, do forbid us to make our own salva­tion the end of our working. I have heard of some professors of Religion, who are accounted knowing and gifted Christians, at least who are such in their own ac­count, who though they will ac­knowledge, that a Christian may eye his owne salvation, or have an eye to it or upon it, yet will stifly deny, that he may aim at it, or labor for it. But I would that such wise ones would seriously per­use that place of Saint Paul, 2 Cor. 4.18. [While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen.] and that withal they would peruse the Original, or [Page 323]at least suffer themselvs to be infor­med touching the word in the O­riginal, which is translated, While we look at, the Greek word being [ [...]] which doth signifie, to look on a thing with such an eye, as an Archer doth upon the white at which he aimes and shoots; so that the Apostle doub­ted not to say, that he did make the things not seen, viz. the e­ternal weight of glory, spoken of in the verse foregoing, (this be­ing such indeed as eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, 1 Cor. 2.9. 1 Joh. 3.2.) I say, The Apostle did not doubt to aver, that he with other faithful Christians did make these things his scope and aime. And they who say, that we may eye Heaven, but not aim at it, or la­bour for it, do speak as wisely, as if they had said, An Archer may eye the white, or have an eye upon it, but he is not to aim at it, or la­bour to hit it.

Obj. Christ Jesus hath purchased salvation and remission for us, and why then should we repent and work for them?

Answ. 1. This Objection hath in effect been answered already; viz. Whatsoever Christ hath purchased we are not to enjoy, but in Christs way and upon his termes, which is and are, that we give all dili­gence in the path of piety, to ob­tain the same, Heb. 5.9. Christ is not the Authour of Salvation unto any but such as do obey him.

2. There is no outward blessing and comfort (be it meat, drink, and cloathing) but is purchased for the Elect by Christ, as well as is their salvation. If Christs pur­chase therefore is a sufficient Ar­gument, why we should not work for salvation, and repent for par­don, by a like reason we are nei­ther to work, yea, nor so much as to pray for daily bread. The truth is, the Antinomians have as good reason to forbid us to pray for daily bread, for health and strength, for food and rayment, and to command us to pray from daily bread, from health & strength, from [Page 325]food and rayment, as they have to forbid us to repent and work for the remission of our sins, and for the salvation of our souls, and to command us to work from them.

3 By the same reason, that the Antinomians forbid a Christian to repent for pardon, and to work for salvation, they may forbid him likewise to pray for remissi­on, and to pray for salvation; for is not prayer a work, yea, a prime part of a Christians constant work so long as hee is on earth? And if there be any colour of ac­cusing those as Merit-mongers who assert, That wee must work for salvation; there is a like co­lour for the same accusation a­gainst those, who shall assert, That we must pray for salvation, which I doubt not is the duty of all those who shall come to salva­tion.

Some Antinomians say, We are not to propound any end at all in doing duty, meaning not base and carnal ends, but the highest and [Page 326]noblest ends; which Doctrine, though intended by them to make us perfect Saints, or to raise us to the highest pitch of Saints, doth lay us almost level with Beasts, as denuding us of reason: for take a­way the end, which every reason­able creature, as reasonable, pro­pounds in his actions, and we do eatenus, or therein level him with a beast; for bruit beasts do act or move ad finem, though not in finem, as is the Philosophical expression; i. e. they move and work to some end, albeit not un­der the notion or specification of an end, Ad finem eventum, licèt non ad finem intentum.

The Premises considered, I hope it will appear past all doubt, that a Christian may, and ought to work for his salvation. Yea, I think it to be a special favour for which we who live in times of the New Testament are to be very thankful to the Lord, that he hath therein so cleerly revealed our own salva­tion to be that high and great end (not excluding, but therein inclu­ding [Page 327]the glory of his great Name, as therein most eminently consist­ing, as was afore said) for which we ought to act and work. And that the mercy and favour of God therein towards us may the better appear, let it bee considered at what an uncertainty, not only the Heathen, but many of the Disci­ple of Moses were, and in what by­wayes they have erred for want of more full and cleere revelation in that Point, which through the great mercy of God we Christians do now enjoy.

The Heathen knowing thus much by the light of Nature, that some end was to be proposed unto man in all vertuous actions, they did therefore much beat their brains, and busie themselvs to find out what that end must be; in the determination whereof it fell out with them, as in most of their o­ther great inquests, some thought one thing, and some another, scarce any among them being con­stant to themselves, or so fixing in ought, as not to fluctuate Some [Page 328]of them did conceive, that the maine end of their acting should be the hope of another life after this. This indeed was asserted by many of their Poets and Philoso­phers; yet not without some hesi­tancy even in the chiefest, viz. with a Fortasse, and a Non nimium affir­maverim. I have seen Tully, Epist. 64. Et fortasse quem puta­mus perisse praemissus est. Seneca, and Socrates quoted as hesitating herein, Plato himselfe bringing in his Master Socrates; saying thus before his death, Hoc scio, spem mihi esse venturum me ad viros bonos, quod tamen non nimi­um affirmaverim. And when the heathen sought Arguments for the confirmation of their hopes herein they found little to fix them in a certitude and assurance of such a life to come; much of what they alledged holding no better for men then for beasts. Whence it was that some of them devised a transmigration of souls, from men into beasts, and from beasts into men. And this opinion of theirs being built upon no certain evi­dences, others were inclined to as­sert, [Page 329]That vertue is reward to it self, and that we must labour to be vertuous, and to do vertuously, only for Vertues sake; a wise man being sufficiently happy (as they said) when he is tormented in the Bull of Phalaris. But others were much unsatisfied in this Opinion, as irrational and absurd, they ta­king it for granted, That where dangers, torments and death are, there felicity, especially in the highest, cannot consist, unlesse men should content themselves with a sound of empty words with­out any reality. Some of them did therefore place their supreme good and utmost end in the en­joyment of sensual pleasures after this life, which divers of their Po­ets meant by their fansie of the E­lisian fields; and this is the opini­on of the Mahometans at this day. But this opinion was rejected by many of the wisest and most vertu­ous among the Heathens, they thinking that this opinion did de­grade men into the rank of bruit Creatures, and concluding, ra­ther [Page 330]that man was born and fit­ted of the Gods for higher things. Thuswe may perceive at what an uncertainty the Heathen were in this point.

Now for the Writings of Moses, there were some among the Jewes, professors of the Moisaick Law, viz. the Sadduces, who held, That there was no such thing as eternal life, or everlasting salvation pro­mised, or held forth by Moses in his Writings (which alone the Sadduces do receive for Scripture) nor in any of the Writings of the Old Testament, as the Socinians at this day do assert, though I think, that if there were no other Scripture to confute them in this, that one place in Joh. 5.39. were sufficient, where Christ bids the Jewes, search the Scriptures, say­ing, For in them ye think to have life eternal. However I say, the Sadduces did not expect any such thing as eternal life in the Wri­tings of Moses, (being therein veiled under Types and Shadowes rather then cleerly revealed) re­nouncing [Page 331]therefore all hope of good things to come as the end of doing good, they did [cum gen­tibus, [...],] jump with some of the Heathen in their fore­said Opinion; viz. That Vertue it self is the end of Vertue, and that we must do vertuously for no other end then for Vertues sake. To this purpose I am assured, that I have somewhere read in the Wri­tings of Josephus, concerning the Sect of the Sadduces, though I cannot presently direct to the par­ticular place.

These things being consider­ed, should (me thinks) move us Christians unto thankfulnesse, that God hath not left us in the dark about this matter, as he did the Jewes, especially the Heathen, but hath given us as with open face to behold our eternal salvati­on, as the great end of faith and a good life; so that wee may say thereupon with the blessed Apostle, 1 Cor. 9.26. We therefore run, not as uncertainly (as did the Sadduces, and as did the Heathen;) So fight [Page 332]we, not as one that beateth the air; but we run, to obtain a Crown in­corruptible. And the considerati­on hereof should also cause us to stop our ears against the insinua­tion of those amongst us who have suggested to us, That to love Jesus Christ for the benefits (e. g. free­dome from hell, and eternal life,) which we expect by, from, and through him, is but a whorish love, like that of a dishonest wo­man, who loves her harlot for the Rings, Bracelets and Jewels that he bestows upon her; which is in ef­fect to suggest, That to love Jesus Christ as our Saviour and Redeem­er is not conjugal, but adulterous love. How far such suggestions are from Scripture warrant, whi­ther they tend, and where they are like to end, I leave to the conside­ration of the wise.

Object. Are good works the way of, or to salvation?

Answ. Whatsoever the Mar­row of Moderne Divinity sayes to the contrary, Scripture will war­rant us to say, That albeit good [Page 333]works are not the way to salvation, in such a sense as Christ is the way, yet they are the way thither, they being stiled the way of peace, and the path of life, Isai. 5.9, 8. Prov. 3.17. and 5.6. and we being commanded to walk in them, E­phes. 2.10 A man cannot walk, but where there is a way either of his making or finding. And if good works bee not the way to salvation, then are they the way to damnation, seeing all wayes do lead either to God or the Divel, to heaven or hel [...] Because Christ Jesus is in some sense our only Sa­viour, did Saint Paul therefore blaspheme or wrong Christ by say­ing to Timothy, that in looking to himself and his Doctrine, he should both save himselfe and those that heard him? And why then be­cause Christ is in some sense the only way to salvation, should we be accused as blaspheming or wronging Christ in saying, (yet with the Scriptures) That good Works or good Duties are the way to salvation.

Obj. Is not this the difference be­twixt the Covenant of Works and of Grace, that Adam under the for­mer was to work for life, and Belie­vers under the latter are to work from life.

Answ. As the Covenant of Works and of Grace do differ in many things, so they do accord in some, and particularly in this thing, viz. That as Adam was to act for life, so are we also, as hath been al­ready proved.

Quest. Where then is the difference betwixt the Covenant of Works and of Grace?

Ans. The differences betwixt them is a point (as I think) of ve­ry great concernment, well wor­thy much to be studied, and fre­quantly to be preached by us Mi­nisters; neverthelesse I shall not go about at this time to enume­rate all the differences betwixt them, but shall content my self to name only this one, as being suf­ficient for my present purpose; viz The conditions which God re­quires of man in both these Cove­nants [Page 335]are very different; the con­dition of the Covenant of Works being perfection of obedience, or the perfect fulfilling of the whole Law; but the condition of the Covenant of Grace, is Faith in Christ, Repentance and Sincerity of Obedience. Now as Adam was to do or perform the former con­dition, or the condition of the former Covenant for life, so are we to perform the latter condition, or the condition of the latter Cove­nant for life also. Should we go a­bout to set up the perfect fulfilling of the whole Law, as the conditi­on of salvation, and in such sort work for salvation, this indeed were legal working, and to work as Legalists: or should we expect salvation as merited wages for our work, this were to work legally; but to labour by his strength to perform the conditions of the Co­venant of Grace (to believe, re­pent, to return unto, and to keep with God in the duties of New Obedience) that so we may live, and to expect from Gods free [Page 336]grace and mercy, that in so doing we shall live, this is to work as a Christian, and as becomes the Gospel of Christ.

Object. But is it not the ready way to make people trust unto, or to rest in their own good works or duties to tell them, that they may do them for salvation?

Answ. 1. I shall in the next place answer this Question with two or three other Questi­ons.

  • 1 Is it not the ready way to make people to cast off the doing of all good duties and good works, to tell them, that they may not, ought not, need not to do them for salvation?
  • 2 Is not the danger as common and great this way as that? Or, is it not as dangerous to think to go to heaven without the doing of good, as by resting on the good we do? Is it not as ordinary for people to perish for barren­ness, as for bringing forth fruit to themselves?
  • 3 Whether is it not fitter for a [Page 337]Minister to instruct people, how far forth they may, and how far forth they may not trust in, and rest upon their own Duties, Gra­ces, works, or holinesse for sal­vation, then to tell them, that they ought not to do any good duty for salvation? As this lat­ter is a thing unlawful, so the for­mer is a thing, I am well assured, not only lawful, but also expedi­ent and necessary: in order therefore thereunto, bee it knowne.

1. In general, That we are not to trust unto, or rest upon our own good Works, Duties or Gra­ces for salvation in any such sort as Christ alone and his Righte­ousnesse is to be trusted unto, or rested upon.

2. More particularly bee it known;

  • 1. That we may not trust unto, or rest in them as our legal Righ­teousnesse, i. e. such as for which the Law of Works will pronounce us righteous, or as any part of our legal Righteousnesse in [Page 338]conjunction with Christs.
  • 2. Consequently hereupon we may not rest in them as things that are absolutely perfect and exactly commensurate or answerable to the rigour of the Law.
  • 3. Not as things by which Gods Justice is satisfied, his wrath paci­fied, or by which we make him an amends for breach of the first Co­venant.
  • 4. Consequently hereupon, not as things whereby in any strict or proper sense we do merit salvation we having indeed no works for­mally ours, which do make the reward to be of debt, and not of Grace. In these respects we are to disclaim all our own Works Du­ties, Graces, Holiness, and to trust unto, or rest upon Christ and his Righteousnesse wholely and solely.

2 But in the second place be it knowne,

  • 1 In general, That because Christ alone is to be rested upon for sal­vation in the foresaid respects, we have no more reason to conclude [Page 339]from thence, that we may, can, or ought in no sense to rest in our own good works or duties for sal­vation, then we can conclude, that because Christ alone doth save us, therefore it may not, can not, ought not to be said in any sense, that we do save our selves; which notwithstanding is the fre­quent language of Scripture.
  • 2 More particularly be it known,
    • 1. That we may rest in, or trust unto our own good Works, Du­ties and Holinesse for salvation, in subordination to the free grace and mercy of God in Christ Jesus accepting them, and pardoning the sinfulness of them.
    • 2 We may rest on them, as things which do assure us of our title unto, or actual interest in the satisfaction and Righteousness of Jesus Christ, there being a personal or evangelical righteousnesse ne­cessary to salvation, as well as a legal righteousness; i. e. it being not sufficient for our actual enjoy­ment of salvation, that Christ was [Page 340]righteous, or did fulfil all righte­ousnesse of the Law, unless we in our own persons do labour to bee righteous as he was righteous, 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. Know ye not, that the un­righteous shall not inherit the king­dom [...]f God? be not deceived, neither Fornicators, nor—
  • 3 We may rest in them as the wayes wherein, or (which is to the same purpose as was said in the par­ticular foregoing) as the conditi­ons without which Christ Jesus will not save us: for without ho­linesse no man shall see the Lord, Heb. 12 14. neither is Christ the Authour of salvation (actually en­joyed,) unto any other then such as do obey him, Heb. 5.9. 1 Tim. 4.16. Neither is the resting upon our own holinesse in these senses any whit against the glory of Christ, this being in effect and in deed neither more nor lesse but this, viz. To rest upon Christ, and Christ alone for salvation in Christs own way; i e. the way of holinesse and righteousness. I do [Page 341]not mean, perfect holinesse and righteousnesse according to the Covenant of Works, but such as is expected and required from us as necessary to salvation, accor­ding to the tenour of the Cove­nant of Grace. I doubt not but the most self denying servants of Christ did in this sort rest upon their own holinesse for salvation, in special Hezekiah praying to the Lord, That he would remember how he had walked before him with a perfect heart, 2 King. 20. beg. and Nehemiah praying to the like purpose with subordination to the mercy of God pardoning his defects, chap. 13.22. and David praying and saying, Lord save me, for I am holy, Psal 86.2. and Saint Paul saying, I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith, hence forward is laid up for me a Crawn of Righteous­ness, 2 Tim. 4.7 8. To rest upon our own holinesse for salvation in the sense immediately aforesaid, is no more then for a man who doth use the creatures moderately, [Page 342](as meat, drink, sleep, recreation,) in or upon the use of them, to de­pend on God (the only Authour and Preserver of life) for health and strength. May not we depend on bread as bread, and upon the Physician as the Physician, for health and strength; i. e. as the means appointed of God for the restoring and continuing of health & strength, so as with a dependance subordinate to God? Or, do we make an Idol of Gods Creatures, as of bread and the Physician, by making them such as God hath made them; viz. Means under him to accomplish their end, and in such sort making use of them, and depending upon them? What colour of reason then is there to say, That by depending upon our own works and holiness for salva­tion in such a sense as aforesaid, we do idolize and make a Christ of them?

Caution. Only let not the for­mer similitudes be wrested beyond their scope and my intent, which is not to assert or evince that our [Page 343]good works are physical causes of eternal life as meat, & drink are of our natural life: but only to in­timate, that they are meanes of their kind, in the use whereof, or that they are wayes of Gods or­daining, wherein we walking, God will save us, and not otherwise, or in other wayes. I say, no o­therwise, for we have no more warrant to trust unto Christ as our Mediator and Advocate for the life of our soules, without the use of all spiritual means of his ap­pointment in order thereunto, then we have to trust unto God as Creator and Preserver for the life of our bodies, without using the means appointed for that end. Be it therefore knowne and well con­sidered, That there is no trusting to Christ for salvation, but in Christs own way, which is not the way of profanenesse, (Ephes. 5.3, 4.5, 6. Gal. 5.19, 20.) but the way of holinesse; i.e. of a godly, righ­teous and sober life, Tit. 2.11, 12, 13. To rest upon Christ for salvation, otherwise then in Christs [Page 344]owne way, is to presume, not to believe: it is, I say, to presume, and that in such sort, as if a man should resolve never to eat and drink, or as if a man should resolve to take poison, a knife or halter, to st [...]b or strangle himself, and yet should trust unto God, and rest upon the power, providence and mercy of God for the preserving and pro­longing of his life.

There is a double kind of pre­sumption, which as rocks upon which we shall undoubtedly split our selvs, we are carefully to avoid in the steering of our course to­wards the haven of eternal happi­nesse.

1. Presuming upon, trusting unto, and resting in our own good works, duties, graces and holiness without Christ. This was that rock upon which the Pharisaical Jewes did dash themselves and perish, Rom. 10.3 [They being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse, and going a­bout to establish their own righ­teousnesse have not submitted themselves to the Righteous­nesse [Page 345]of God.] Such kinde of zeal for good works is not ac­cording to the knowledge of the Gospel.

2. Presuming upon, trusting un­to, and resting on Christ and his Righteousnesse for salvation with­out any personal righteousnesse and holiness in our selves, which latter is the common and most damning presumption of the igno­rant and profane multitude, who though they allow themselves in known wickednesses, yet will rest upon Christ for salvation, as is e­vident to be seen in sad experience; this being no new thing, but a common thing of old for wicked men in their wickedness to leane and to stay themselves upon the Lord, as appears by Isai. 48.2. They did call themselves of the holy City, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel, albeit they did persist in their obstinacy, their neck being as an iron sinew, and their brow as brasse. ver. 4. See also Micah 3.11 The Heads thereof judg for reward, and the Priests thereof teach for hire, [Page 346]and the Prophets thereof divine for money, yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil shall come unto us. And that it shall be thus with very ma­ny in the Church to the worlds end, doth seem to be a thing as it were foretold by our Saviour, saying, Matth. 7.22, 23. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out divels? Have not we eat and drunk in thy presence? And then I will professe unto you, I never knew you, depart from me all ye that work iniquity. The sin of those Professors was not (as some suppose, alledging that Scripture as a warning whereby to drive people from resting in their du­ties) that they did make a Christ of their duties, and did rest upon them for salvation; but their sin, (as is evident by the answer which Christ gives to them) was this, viz. That they trusted to Christ, and expected that Christ should save them (they making an exter­nal profession of his name,) in [Page 347]their profane course of life: for could those formal Professors have said to Christ as Saint Paul did, I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; or could they say with that faithful servant, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds; or with Hezekiah, I have walked before thee with a perfect heart. Christ would not have said to them, De­part from me, ye Scribes and Pha­risees, ye Merit-mongers, that ex­pect salvation from your own righteousness, and not from mine; but he would have said to them, Euge, hone serve, Well done good and faithful servants, enter ye into the joy of your Lord. But as David did trust God for his bodily safety, in such sort should we trust in God for our souls safety and salvation, Psalm 44.6. I will not trust to my bow, neither shall my own sword save me, sayes he. And yet for all that David did not trust in God that God would save him without his bow, or without his sword; for if so, he would never have blessed [Page 348]God for teaching his hands to war and his fingers to fight, and for girding him with strength, in so much a [...] that a bow of steel was bro­ken by his armes. Even so let a Christian say, I will not trust to my own Duties, Works, Graces, Holinesse, neither shall my owne inherent righteousnesse save me, and yet I will not trust to be saved without them.

If what I have so largely spoken in this place be thought by any to be insufficient, whereby to prevent or wipe off from me the said impu­tation of making good works to be physical causes of salvation, I shal wish such a one to consider, That as the Prophet Isaiah doth stile a Saints eternal reward, the fruit of his do­ings, and his enjoyment of that reward, his eating the fruit of those his doings, chap. 3.10. So the blessed Apostle Saint Paul (that great Preacher of free grace, and Exal­ter of Christs righteousness) doth resemble good works to seed sown, and salvation to the crop or har­vest. Gal 6.8. He that soweth to [Page 349]the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting; by sowing to the Spirit, meaning, as he interprets himself, ver. 9. well doing, or do­ing that which is good; this seed, and that crop being in the phrase of the Prophet Hosea, Righteous­nesse and Mercy, chap. 10.12. Sow to your selvs in righteousness (which Solomon stileth, Sowing righteous­nesse, Prov. 11.18.) reap in mercy. So that if I shal be thought blame­worthy for the foresaid compari­sons as if I made good works to be physical causes of salvation, the foresaid Prophets and Apostles will be alike lyable to the same censures, the thought of which ought to be far from us. I have been the larger in this Consectary, because I judg it to be of weight and consequence more then ordi­nary.

CHAP. XXIX. The Conclusion.

THE next Work which I de­signe to my self as a second part of this Tractate concerning the Nature of Forgiveness of Sin, is to find out and set down those several phrases both in the Old and New Testament which I take to be [...], synonimous, commensurate, or equivalent with forgivenesse of sin, and to deduce from thence sundry Consectaries according to the method observed in this part.

But because I am willing to make trial what acceptance this first part of my labour will find, before I publish a second; and because it may perhaps be long ere my lei­sure [Page 351]from my weekly paines in preaching will permit me fully to accomplish what I intend as a supplement hereof; I will there­fore suffix unto this first Part that which otherwise I had reserved for the close of my whole labour of this kind; viz. The following Con­solatory Apology. or Apologetical consolation, saying:

If in this present undertaking, to discover the true and full nature of forgivenesse of sin, I have in ought [Humanum passus,] For Homo sum, & hu­mani nihil à me alie­num puto. com­mitted any sin of Error, and need­ing forgivenesse, my comfort is, that (as my heart tels me, and I hope, that how deceitful soever, yet therein it doth not much de­ceive me) I am, and by the grace of God I ever shall be ready at a­ny time upon the discovery there­of, plainly to confesse it; and I am wel assured from the Text in hand, That in so doing God is not only very gracious and merciful, but just and faithful likewise to forgive it. And as for the pardon of man, [Page 352]especially of my fellow servants and brethren in the Ministryl what shall I say? Shall I say, that I de­spise it, and care not much for it? God forbid, let such a spirit of pride and disdain be far and far from me, and not from me only, but from all those who professe themselves to be disciples unto that Lord, who hath given both a Precept and a Pattern of Humility unto all his servants, instructing them hereunto both Voce & Vi­tâ, saying, Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart. I am therefore resolved by the helping grace of God, not to stick to crave pardon of man as well as of God, according as my need of it, and ne­cessity of asking it shall be made appear unto me; and in so doing I do not at all doubt, but that I shall obtain it, according to that Hemi­stick, —Veniam petimusque da­musque vicissim. Even so, O thou Preserver of men, for Christ Jesus his sake; Forgive us our trespasses, as wee forgive them [Page 353]that trespass against us. Amen, A­men.

Luke 2.14.

Glory to God in the Highest, on earth peace, good will towards men.

FINIS.

The CONTENTS of the se­veral CHAPTERS.

  • Chap. 1. AN Introdu­ction to the whole p. 1
  • Chap. 2. The various phrases whereby Gods forgiving sin, and his not forgiving sin are intimated and expressed in Scripture; which said phra­ses of both kinds are sorted into Negative and Affirmative. p. 5
  • Chap. 3. Reasons and Grounds for the said variety of phrase, or various expressions, toge­ther with rules for a right un­derstanding and due interpre­tation of them. p. 16
  • [Page]Chap. 4. What forgivenesse of sin is not, laid down in four Negative Propositions p 26
  • Chap. 5 What forgiveness of is, laid down in two Affirma­tive Propositions, together with the Explication of them. p. 38
  • Chap. 6 The various senses or significations, wherein for­giveness of sin is taken in Scripture, it being taken in four several senses, but most commonly and signally in one sense, and what sense that is, declared. p. 53
  • Chap. 7. That a Reprobate is said in some sense, even in a Scripture sense to be pardoned, and how. p. 66
  • Chap. 8 That a sinner, notwith­standing his pardon (upon the main) may, and oft-times doth suffer temporal punishments for his sins, together with an [Page]Answer to several Objections, wherein the distinction be­twixt chastisements and pu­nishments is examined, & how far forth allowable, declared; wherin also the true differences betwixt the sufferings of the godly and the wicked are asser­ted and proved; and the false ones, (commonly assigned) are rejected and refuted. That the Saints may, and oft-times do in this life suffer for their sins, Christs satisfaction not­withstanding, proved and cleered. In what sense God doth, and in what sense hee doth not remember the sins of Believers, laid down in sun­dry Propositions, Affirmative & Negative; wherein likewise is declared what difference there is betwixt Gods remem­bring the sins of the godly, and [Page]of the wicked, as also betwixt his remembring the sins if Be­lievers under the Old Testa­ment, and the sins of Believers under the New Testament. p. 67
  • Chap. 9 Caution given as touch­ing the interpretation of such metaphorical phrases whereby forgivenesse of sin is expressed, that we construe them warily and in a sober sense. p. 99
  • Chap. 10 In what sense, or how far forth, as true and false, those common sayings of our Divines, [Sublatâ culpâ tollitur poena; & justifica­tio tollit omnia poenalia;] may, or are to be construed, and interpreted, and in what sense to be rejected. p. 102
  • Chap. 11. That there is no such thing as Remissio culpae [re­mission of the fault,] in way of distinction from Remissio [Page]poenae [remission of the pu­nishment;] these two being one and the self same thing. The four following Chapters do declare, That forgivenesse of sin is a dividual, and not an individual action, as is com­monly supposed. p. 107
  • Chap. 12. That the distinction of the pardon of sin into total or partial, perfect or imperfect is a justifiable distinction. p. 113
  • Chap. 13. That one and the same sin may be more or lesse pardo­ned p. 114
  • Chap. 14. That no sinner is fully pardoned in this life, nor yet a­fore the day of Judgement. p. 115
  • Chap. 15. The difference be­twixt remission of sin and san­ctification, commonly assigned, (that being said to be perfect in this life, this imperfect) reje­cted and refuted. p. 117
  • [Page]Chap. 16. That remission of sin doth imply somewhat positive as well as privative, and for that reason that it differs not from Justification, as hath been by some supposed. p. 120
  • Chap. 17. That one and the same sin may be said, and that in a Scripture sense, to be pardoned and not pardoned, to be im­puted, and not imputed to a sinner 123
  • Chap. 18. The necessity for be­lievers themselves to pray daily for pardon (according to the tenour of the fifth Petition in the Lords Prayer) asserted and evinced, as well by Argu­ment as answer to an Obje­ction; it being withal more at large and distinctly declared, what are the particular things which a Believer (according [Page]to the tenor of that Petition) is to pray for 125
  • Chap. 19. An answer to the three following Questions,
    • 1. Doth God alwayes pardon a sinner instantly upon the confession of his sins?
    • 2. In what sense, or how far forth doth a sinner receive a present pardon immediately upon the confession of his sins?
    • 3. Whe­ther a truly penitent and be­lieving sinner, having once confessed a sinne, is at any time thereafter to confesse it in or­der to forgiveness? The Af­firmative to which last Que­stion is asserted and proved. Certain particulars added as Cautions for the preventing of mistakes, and for the bet­ter understanding of the Au­thors true sense and meaning.
    p. 137
  • [Page]Chap. 20. That all sins, past, present, and to come, are not at once actually pardoned. That no sin is from eternity actually pardoned. An Objection an­swered. That no sin is actual­ly pardoned, till the sinner be in a capacity of receiving or enjoying it. What those things are which do put a sinner into a capacity of actual pardon, de­clared in their particulars, to­gether with Reasons for the re­markablenesse of the same. An Obiection answered. With a vindicating of that Assertion in Rom. 4.17. [wherein God is said to call the things that are not, as though they were] from Antinomian purposes. p. 163
  • Chap. 21. Caution given as touching a right understand­ing of the two following Pro­positions, laid down by that [Page]very learned & pious Divine, Mr. Anthony Burges, in his Sermons concerning Justifica­tion, viz.
    • 1. No wicked man ever hath any sin forgiven him.
    • 2. It is onething for God to forgive, and ano­ther thing for God not to demand and exact punish­ments.
    p. 187
  • Chap. 22. That forgivenesse of sin is a Transient, not Imma­nent act in God, proved▪ and cleared. Several descriptions of actions Immanent and Transient set down. Mr. Baxter vindicated in a passage about this distinction, wherein Mr. Kendal hath (as the Author thinks) causelesly excepted a­gainst him. Transient Acti­ons are of two sorts, and unto what sort of transient Actions forgiveness of sin is to be re­ferred. p. 192
  • [Page]Chap. 23. That remission of sin, [Quoad terminum remotum or as in execution;] is a real, yea, physical change, and not a change purely relative, as is commonly supposed. p 204
  • Chap. 24. The description of forgivenesse of sin, given by that very learned and godly Divine Dr. Twisse, (which is by some highly commended as most accurate) examined and refuted, and the evil con­sequences of the same detected, together with the Authors A­pology for his taking upon him in ought to expresse his dissent from men of such prime worth (Stars of the first Magnitude) as confessedly that Doctor was. p. 209
  • Chap. 25. That a Believer, his pardon notwithstanding, is in [Page]his confession of sin to put himself under the curse of the Law; why, and how declared. That a sinner after pardon, is a sinner, and that God doth look upon him as a sinner, al­beit he doth not deal with him or punish him as such. p. 223
  • Chap. 26. That a Believer du­ring his warfare on earth is to fear hell and damnation why, and how, proved and manifest­ed, as also cleared in the way of answer to several Objections, notwithstanding the Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints be acknowledged; in answer to which Objections, the con­sistency and co-operation of the love of God, and the fear of God is proved. What man­ner of fear it is that love doth expel, and what manner of fear it is that love doth retain, [Page]declared: Notwithstanding, that Believers are restrained by the love of God, yet that God doth use several other means whereby to constraine; i. e. effectually to induce them, proved: and what those several means are, specified more at large. The consi­stency and co-operation of faith and fear, maintained and proved. That filial and slavish fear do not differ in their object matter, or in the thing feared, but in the man­ner of fearing, asserted, and how, proved and cleered by a due interpretation of that Scripture in Luke 1.74. The difference betwixt fear as it is the fruit of the spirit of bon­dage, and as a fruit of the Spirit of Adoption, opened and asserted. p. 235
  • [Page]Chap. 27 That a Minister of the Gospel hath no warrant so to absolve a Believer, as in the name of God to tell him, That his sins are as absolutely pardo­ned, and that he is as absolute­ly sure of heaven, as if he were already in heaven. p. 289
  • Chap. 28. That the repen­tance, which the Gospel requires, is not only repen­tance [from] the pardon of our sins, as the Antinomians affirm, but [for] the pardon of them, proved and evinced by several Arguments. Seve­ral Objections of the Antino­mians answered; wherein it is punctually declared, In what sense Evangelical Re­pentance may be said to be [from] pardon of sin, and in [Page]what sense [for] the pardon of it. It is disputable whether Gods glory and our own salva­tion are to be looked at as two ends, or only as one; the former being a necessary result of the latter. An Objection answered, That it is a singular favour of God, and a favour in some sense peculiar to the times of the New Testament, that God hath so cleerly revealed unto us our eternal salvation, (as the great end, not excluding, but in­cluding his glory) of mans working, or of all, Christian duty. That good works may be stiled the way to salvation. That the difference betwixt the Covenant of Works and of Grace lyes not in this, that Adam was to work for life, and we not for, but only from life. Our own good works, duties, graces or holinesse, how [Page]far forth, or in what sense to be disclaimed, and not trusted unto for salvation; as also in what sense, or how farre forth they may be trusted un­to, or rested in for salvation, declared more at large. A Caution annexed to prevent mistake. That there are two kinds of presumption, both which are distinctly to be made knowne unto people by the Mi­nisters of the Gospel, and care­fully to be avoided by all, as dangerous rocks in the steering of our course towards the ha­ven of eternal happinesse. p. 297
  • Chap. 29 The Conclusion. p. 350
FINIS.

In the Epistle. [...] above, p. 23 l. 19. r. direct

Book. Pag, 1. line 18. r. God. p. 9. l. 3 r. mercy. l 29. r. [...]. p 11 r Gods. p 17 r Gods. p 17 r sort allusive. p 19 l 12 r. translatitious. p 35 l 16 r in­tuitive. l 24 for same, r sin. p 38 l 21 for second, r. double. p 58 l 18 r [...]. p 73 l 13 for are r is. and for be r by. l 16 r the. p 77 l 14 r this. p 79 l 17 r or be for sin. p 88 marg l 9 r morally. p 95 l 20 r judici­al. p 101 l 24 for as r or. l 25 r great. p 103 l 19 for the other r this. p 108 l 1 for cherish r there is, l 3 for he r the. p 117 l 15 blot out [in] p i 42 l 11 for and r but. p 144 l 4 r bold. p 151 l 22 r Epidemica. p 157 l 23 blot out [threatning] p 203 l 3 r [...] l 12 for esse r se. p 205 l 28 r contradistinction. p 216 l 4 r [...]. p 229 l 4 blot out [that] p 233 l 24 for or r and, and marg l 2 r substrata. p 248 l 19 for with r in. p 250 r will execute. p 257 l 2 r unfaithfulness. p 272 l 22 r into. p 278 l 24 r [...]. p 279 l 6 r [...]. p 285 l 29 r doth. p 294 l 8 r according to. p 336 l 10 for next r first.

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.