him to Heaven and Glory upon the Righteousness of Christ And a Sentence of Condemnation adjudging him to Death and Hell for his own Sins But so should a Believer be could any Legal Guilt Redound upon his Person from his Sins The Reason of the Major in the 8th Argument having its full force here also An Elect Persons Sins to come are in a better posture and state of Pardon to him in his own Person upon his Believing than they were in the Person of Christ only before his Believing They before his Believing were Fundamentally pardoned Ergo upon his believing pardon'd Actually Actually-Virtually though not Formally Otherwise something might be Legally laid to the Charge of God's Elect contrary to that of the Apostle Rom. 8. 33. Where the Word Elect is to be understood consequenter as they call it of Elect Believing Ones The main strength of all that any otherwise minded may have where-against mainly to oppose themselves lyeth here All Obligation to Punishment is from the Threatning as all to Obedience from the Precept a Threatning whose own power of Penal Legal Obligation is Dissolved can no more give power of Penal Legal Obligation to Sins to come then it can to Sins past So that in Conclusion These cannot be Formally pardoned where those are not pardoned Virtually The Opposite Opinion Unavoidably exposeth Justification to Infinite Intercision For if any the Greatest Sin of a Justified Person bring him under Actual Obligation to Legal Punishment every even the least Sin must do so too And the Answer by Distinguishing the Act and State of Justification that the Act of Justification is Subject to much but the State to no Intercision will be found altogether incompetent if we consider 1. That the Act of Justification if we 'l speak properly being God's and the State ours The Act cannot be rescinded where the State of Justification remains intire Because God alway exactly judgeth of things accordingly as they are in themselves 2. That the State of Justification cannot remain intire where the Act is rescinded Because things are alwayes exactly in themselves accordingly as God judgeth of them Insomuch that whereas the Truth of things is the Measure and Rule of our Judgment Gods Judgment is the Rule and Measure of the Truth of things 3. That God's Act of Justification as well Conserveth as Createth our State of Justification And therefore so strict and necessary is the Dependance of our Justified State upon his Justifying Act that the One cannot be more or less either Intire or Rescinded then the Other 4. That this Answer provides not any Salvo against the Mischief of such Intercision as well if not as much by our less as greater Sins Less Sins indeed do not waste the Conscience destroy its Peace and Dead the Sense of Justification wherein the main of that Peace lyeth as Greater Sins do But if the Greatest Sins of a Believer Rescind his Justification as they cannot but do if they bring him under Legal Guilt or Obligation to Legal Punishment his Least Sins must do it no less than they Which either as to State or but Act of Justification one would think no man should be forward to assert Plainly destroyeth much of the Essential Difference not only between Chastisement and Punishment properly so called But even between the two Estates in and out of Christ and the two very Covenants themselves of Works and of Grace Preserve but these two States under these two Covenants both in their due Distinctions and the following Notion must in its full Strength and Evidence irresistibly prevail to the Final Decision of this Controversie Such as is the Law a Person is under such is his Transgression of the Precept of that Law such the Guilt according to the Threatning of that Law redounding upon the Person from that Transgression Such the Punishment that Guilt bindeth over to And such the Pardon of that both Guilt and Punishment If the Law or Covenant of Works the Transgression Guilt Punishment Pardon all Legal If the Law of Faith or Covenant of Grace The Law made up into Gospel in the Hand of a Mediator for the Law of Nature or Moral Law is one and the same under both these distinct Covenants The Transgression Guilt Punishment Pardon all accordingly Evangelical Two only considerable Objections I apprehend may be made against this Doctrine This Doctrine throws open a wide gap to all Loosness and Licentiousness of Life as throwing down the greatest Mound and Bar against Sin Fear of contracting Legal Guilt or Obligation to Legal Punishment Ans. 1 This seems to be an Objection of meer Carnal Men who according to the meer carnal corrupt complexion and agreeable Inclination of their own Hearts thinking with themselves what perverse use they should make of such Pardoning Grace were they the Subjects of it make an Estimate of others who are indeed so by themselves judging they also cannot but do the like But Ans. 2 To whose Persons the Legal Guilt of Sin is thus Pardon'd in their Natures the Reigning Power of Sin is so Dethron'd and broken down as thenceforward they can only be Guilty of Sins of Child-like Infirmity as to which God stands in Christ engaged upon their Gospel-Repentance to walk with them in a Covenant of Fatherly Pardoning Grace and Mercy Insomuch that whereas Rom. 6. 12. the Percept makes it their Duty that Sin should not reign in their mortal bodies the Promise ver 14. makes it their Priviledge that sin should not have Dominion over them because not under the Law but under Grace And in ver 15. the Apostle urging this very Objection puts it off as he doth else-where also with the greatest abhorrence of a God forbid Ans. 3 Those who pass under this Relative change of the State and Condition of their Persons from a State of Sin to a State Grace perfectly Justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus i. e. by the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ imputed to them pass also at the same time under an Absolute Change of the meerly carnal sinful Complexion and Disposition of their Natures to some Degree of a Spritual Frame and Temper Sanctified by the Spirit of their God 1 Cor. 6. 11. put into them in Habitual Sanctification and as to Actual Sanctification by his Actual Influences Rom. 8. 14. Acting and Leading them as Children of God in all the good wayes of God their Father So that from the Later of those Changes they have their Principle and Power and from the Former their Argument and Engagement not to walk after the Flesh but after the Spirit Rom. 8. 1. Their Dis-obligation to Legal Punishment their Obligation to Gospel-Obedience and that a powerful Constraining Obligation also 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. Ans. 4 Among and above other Habits and Principles of Grace gospel-Gospel-Faith Child-like Love and Fear have an especial Influence upon and Sway in the Souls of such changed ones to this Purpose 1. Faith that instates in such
Pardoning Grace is the root of all their Obedience as Infidelity is the Root of all others Disobedience Faith purifying their Hearts Acts 15. 9. Faith whereby they believe not only the Promises of God the Grace and Mercy bound up in them but the Precepts of God also Psal. 119. 66. the Obedience and Duty bound up in them that these Precepts are Holy Just and Good and that Duty and Service they require reasonable Duty and Service Reasonable for God to enjoyn and Reasonable for them to perform 2. Love of Christ upon consideration of what he hath done and suffer'd to procure this Pardon for them which will make his whole Law a Law of Love to them and their Observance of it sweet and easie for them And if the Woman in the Gospel Luke 7. 47 loved Christ the more the more Sins he forgave her the Virtual Pardon of Believers Sins to come being more than the Formal Pardon only of Sins past will make them Love more and consequently Sin less and obey more 3. Child-like Fear of Fatherly Chastisements will impress and preserve more effectual Dread of Sin upon the Hearts of Believers than Slavish Fear of Judiciary Punishments will do upon the Minds of Unbelievers Whereof much might be said here if enough had not been said before Ans. 5 As Formal Pardon of Sins past doth not less but more affect with Godly Sorrow for such Sins past So doth Virtual Pardon of Sins to come not engage to less but more of Godly Watchfulness against Sins for the time to come This Doctrine will Destroy Prayer for Pardon of Sin leaving neither Need of nor Room for it in Believers But this Second Objection hath been sufficiently answered in the Third Head of this Discourse where 't is made clearly to appear that this Doctrine is so far from being Destructive of that 't is Instructive in and about Prayer for Pardon FINIS THE Righteousness of God through Faith upon all without Difference who do beleive In 2 Sermons on Rom. 3. 22. By Nathaniel Mather Preacher of the Gospel 1694. The Conquests and Triumphs of Grace being a brief Narrative of the Success which the Gospel hath had among the Indians in New-England By Matthew Mayhew 1695. Batteries upon the Kingdom of the Devil By Mr. Cotton Mather Authour of the late Memorable Providences relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions and of early Piety Exemplified All Printed for Nath. Hiller at the Princes-Arms in Leaden-Hall-street overgainst St. Mary-Axe 1695. Drawn from 1. Imputation of Believers Sins to Christ before eommitted by them 2. Imputation of Christs Satisfaction to Believers before wrought by Him Arg. 3. Imputation of Christs Satisfaction as wrought for Believers Arg. 4. Proportion twixt Sin foregoing and following Justification as to any need of many particular Legal Pardons Arg. 5. Impossibility of Christ's Legal Satisfaction being often applyed Arg. 5. Proportion between the Guilt and Power of Sin Arg. 7. Believers Exemption from the Curse of the Law Arg. 8. Believers Freedom from the Sentence of the Law according to the Curse Arg. 9. Law Relation betwixt Principal Surety Arg. 10. Proportion betwixt the Commination and Command of the Law incumbent upon Believers Arg. 11. Proportion betwixt Satisfaction and Merit of Christ imputed to Believers Arg. 12. Proportionable Power of Christ's Satisfaction imputed against future and past Sins Arg. 13. Proportion 'twixt Habits Acts of Sin in Deriving Guilt Arg. 14. Proportion betwixt Guilt and Punishment of Sin Arg. 15. Impossibility of being under two contrary Sentences of God together Arg. 16. Different State of Pardon of Elect persons Sins to come before and after Faith Obj. 1. Obj. 2. Answ.
So their Sins however in the Acts of them severally and successively committed by them are yet through that Satisfaction of those Sufferings so Imputed all together in their Legal Guilt at once Remitted to Believers If a Believers Sins past before his Justification needed not many particular Legal Pardons but were in his Justification all compriz'd in one General Act of Formal Pardon neither do his Sins to come after his Justification need many particular Legal Pardons but are in his Justification as to their Legal Guilt all as well compriz'd in one General Act of Virtual Pardon But c. Ergo c. Nay to speak more accurately Formal and Virtual Pardon are not indeed two different Legal Pardons but only two Different Respects of one and the same General Legal Pardon which as it respects Sins foregoing is Formal As Sins following Justification Virtual Pardon Where can be no new Application of Christ's Legal Satisfaction there can be no new Pardon of Legal Guilt To the Persons of Believers can be no new Application though there may to their Consciences of Christs Legal Satisfaction Ergo though there may to their Consciences there can be to their Persons no new Pardon of Legal Guilt Proof of the Minor Where by the first Act of Faith the whole Satisfaction of Christ was wholly Apply'd and never after either in whole or in part again disapply'd there can be no new Application of it But c. Ergo c. In whose Natures Sin can never any more recover its Reigning Power upon their Persons it can never any more derive its Legal Guilt In the Natures of Believers Sin can never any more Recover its Reigning Power Ergo c. The Minor is clear from the Apostles Assertion Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have dominion over you The Major also clear from the Reason of that his Assertion there rendred For you are not under the Law i. e. the Rigorous unallay'd Threatening of the Law Ergo not under Legal Guilt But under Grace i. e. Gospel-Grace allaying the Legal into a Gospel-Threatning Ergo under only Gospel-Guilt of Sin And this if needful may be thus further clear'd The Unsubdu'd Power of Sin in Unbelievers is a Legal Punishment Ergo the Guilt binding over to it Legal Guilt The Subdued Power of Sin in Believers only a Gospel-Chastisement Ergo the Guilt binding over to it only Gospel-Guilt Both these Enthymems proceed upon the Reason of the 14th Argument And yet further thus As the Subdued Power of Sin in Believers considered under the Notion of Malum Paenae is only a Gospel-Chastisement to which therefore only Gospel-Guilt obligeth So consider'd under the Notion of Malum Culpae it is only Gospel-Sin Deriving therefore only Gospel-Guilt binding over only to Gospel-Punishment So far as Believers are freed from Law-Curse for their Sins so far are they freed from Law-Guilt of their Sins They are wholly freed from all Law-Curse for all their Sins even Sins to come as well as present and past Sins Gal. 3. 13. Ergo c. Reason of the Major Because the Commination forming Obligation to Punishment as the Command to Obedience a Soul cannot be farther under the Obligation of its Commination than under the Commination it self Those who cannot be Condemned with a Sentence of Law-Condemnation for their Sins to come cannot be guilty with Law-Guilt of their Sins to come Believers Joh. 5. 24. cannot be Condemned c. Compare Psal. 32. 2. with Rom. 4. 8. both Translations and Originals with Rom. 8. 1. and Joh. 5. 24. Ergo c. Reason of the Major Because Law-Threatning according to which Sin derives Law-Guilt or Obligatito Law-Punishment upon any Persons is the Rule of Gods Judgment or Sentence which accordingly he always exactly passeth and pronounceth touching such Persons He will by no means clear the Guilty Exod. 34. 7. Numb 14. 18. Nah. 1. 3. compared with the immediately before cited Texts The Principal can no longer be under any thing of that Law-Obligation which was fully satisfied by the Surety and that Satisfaction fully apply'd to the Principal And so 't is between Christ and Believer in this Point Ergo c. Reason of the Major Because Principal and Surety however Physically or Metaphysically Distinct are Legally or in Law-Construction but one and the same Person The Curse of the Law can have no more to do with Believers in Point of Condemnation than the Command of the Law in Point of Justification The Command of the Law can have nothing at all any more to do with Believers in point of Justification Ergo c. Or thus The Threatnings in the hand of Christ is temper'd and allay'd with as much of Gospel-Indulgence to Believers as the Precept The Precept in the hand of Christ bindeth not to Obedience for Justification in any their Duties to come Ergo Neither the Threatning to Condemnation or any Legal Punishment for Disobedience in any their Sins to come The perfect Satisfaction of Christ Imputed to Believers is no more consistent with any their future Obligation to Death and Hell for their Sins to come than the perfect Merit of Christ imputed to Believers is consistent with any their future forfeiture of Heaven and Glory by their Sins to come But c Ergo c. The Satisfaction of Christ imputed to Believers is of as much force to prevent the Legal Guilt of their Sins to come as to Remove the Legal Guilt of their Sins past But c. Ergo c. And if it do not keep off such Guilt of their Sins to come from Redounding how doth it keep off such Guilt of their Sins past from Recurring upon their Persons Law-Guilt can no more Redound upon the Persons of Believers from any the Acts of Sin proceeding from them than from all the Habits of Sin Residing in them and even Original Sin it self more deeply rooted in corrupt Nature then the Habits But c. Ergo c. Nay the Transient Acts of Sin proceeding from Believers have much less Fundamental Habitual Guilt or Demerit in them than the Indwelling Habits or Original Sin they proceed from And therefore are much less able to Derive any Actual Legal Guilt upon their Believing Persons And this was one main ground of Comfort the Apostle bore up his believing Soul upon under the trouble of all the Habits of Sin in his Nature Rom. 7. 24. that they derived no Legal Guilt upon his Person Rom. 8. 1. Such as is the Punishment of a Believers Sin before Formally Pardoned such is the Guilt of his Sin when committed That is not Ergo this cannot be Legal but only Evangelical Reason Because Guilt being a Penal Obligation and Penal Obligation a Relation of the Person to the Punishment This Relation must be such as its Term the Punishment related to A Person cannot be under two cross and contrary Sentences of God together A Sentence of Justification adjudging