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 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 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 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 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 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 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 is tolerable but the later member somewhat less proper 3. As God is the executioner
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 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 receivâ—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 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 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 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 thereuponâ— that the sinner upon the commission 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 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 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
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 * Though the sins of the Elect are actually pardoned in this life yet not absolutely as to the continuance of their pardon the continuancewherof is not absolutely promised but upon condition of their Perseverance absolutely as to discharge 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 It s 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
for Justification and Remission of sin are all one as I shal demonstrate 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 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 Foeà eris 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 a * The 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 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 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 undertaking to acquaint us with the nature or quiddity of Remission of sin is not Vsquequaque 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 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 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 occaâ—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 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 prâ—curing cause thereof as is abundantly testâ—fied in Scripture Ephes 1 7. Col 1.14 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 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 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 faith or that which doth terminate our believing lib. 2. p. 273. making faith to be necessary only in this respect viz. Vt 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 Vniversal 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 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
intice her unto Folly did not Fear help to dissolve the inchantments 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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