sin in the beleever is in the sight of God 69 17 How Gods anger manifesteth it self upon his children when they sinne pag. 75 18 What kinde of sins God is displeased with 79 19 How God manifesteth his displeasure against his people in spirituall and eternall things 82 20 How the Antinomian would prove that God doth not see sinne in a justified person 88 21 How the Antinomian distinguisheth between Gods knowing and seeing of sin ibid. 22 How seeing is attributed to God 89 23 How Gods knowledge and ours do differ ibid. 24 How the Antinomians are contrary to themselves 93 25 How farre Gods taking notice of sinne so as to punish it is subject to the meer liberty of his will 95 26 How freedome may be extended to God 96 27 How the attributes of God and the actions of them differ in respect of freedome 97 28 How Gods justice essentially and the effects of it differ 100 29 How Christ satisfied God 101 30 How afflictions on Beleevers can agree with Gods justice ibid. 31 Why sins are called debts 105 32 What in sin is a debt ibid. 33 What is meant by that petition Forgive us 113 34 Whether we pray for the pardon it self or for the sense thereof only 4 Reasons proving the affirmative 116 35 What is implied in the petition Forgive us our debts 121 1 In the subject who doth pray ibid. 2 In the matter praied for 126 3 In the person to whom we pray 128 36 How sin a considered 130 37 How all sin is voluntary 132 38 Whether sin be an infinite evil 138 39 What remission of sin is 139 40 Why repentance and faith is pressed as necessary 146 41 How our repentance consists with Gods free grace in pardoning of sin 147 42 How many doe mistake concerning repentance p. 150 43 Why God requires repentance seeing it is no cause of pardon 157 44 Why repentance wrought by the spirit of God is not enough to remove sin in the guilt of it 161 45 Why repentance should not be as great a good and as much honour God as sin is an evil 163 46 What harm comes to God by sin ibid. 47 What kinde of act Forgivenesse of sin is and whether it be antecedent to our faith and repentance 166 48 Whether justification precede faith and repentance 176 49 Whether infants have actuall faith and are Beleevers 181 50 How we are sinners in Adam 185 51 How an elect person unconverted and a reprobate differ and what kinde of love election is 188 52 Whether in that petition Forgive us our debts we pray for pardon or for assurance only 196 53 Why God doth sometimes pardon sinne not acquainting the person with it 200 54 What directions should be given to a soul under temptation about pardon of sin 203 55 Whether a Beleever repenting is to make difference between a great sin and a lesser 205 56 What is meant by covering of sin 216 57 How God by pardoning sin is sâ—id to cover it 217 58 Whether the phrase of Gods covering sin imply that he doth not see it 219 59 How sins being in justified persons can stand with the omnisciency truth and holinesse of God 220 60 How God doth see sin in beleevers when they have the righteousnesse of Christ to cover it 221 61 How a face is attributed to God 226 62 What sins Gods children may fall into 230 63 How the sinnes of Gods people and of the reprobate differ 234 64 How farre grosse sinnes make a breach upon justification 236 65 Why the guilt of new grosse sinnes doth not take away justification p. 245 66 Whether God in pardoning doth not forgive all sins together 246 67 Wherein the compleatnesse of the pardon of sin at the day of judgement consists 262 68 Whether the sins of Gods people shall be manifested at the last day 264 69 Whether we are justified in Christ before we beleeve as we are accounted sinners in Adam before we actually sinned 186 70 Whether reconciliation purchased by Christs death doth necessarily inferre justification before faith 190 OF JUSTIFICATION LECTURE I. ROM 3.24 25. Being justified freely by his Grace c. THE Apostle in the words precedent laid down two Propositions to debase man and all his works that so he might make way for the exaltation of that grace of justification here spoken of The first Proposition is that By the deeds of the Law no flesh shall be justified in his sight where two things are observable 1. That he cals every man by the word Flesh which is emphaticall to beat down that pride and tumor which was in the Jews 2. He addeth in his sight which supposeth that though our righteousnesse among men may be very glorious yet before God it is unworthy The other Proposition is that All come short of the glory of God Some do make it a Metaphor from those in a race who fall short of the prize Whether by the glory of God be meant the image of God and that righteousnesse first put into us or eternall life or which is most probable matter of glorying and boasting before God which the Apostle speaks of afterwards is not much materiall Now the Apostle having described our condition to be thus miserable he commends the Grace of God in justifying of us which is decyphered most exactly in a few words so that you have in the Text a most compendious delineation of justification First There is the benefit set down being justified Secondly The efficient cause Gods Grace and here we have a two-fold impulsive cause one inward denoted in the word Freely the other outward in the meritorious cause Christs death which is further illustrated by the appointment of God for this end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some understand this of Gods manifestation as if it were spoken to oppose the propitiatory in the Ark which was left hidden some to the whole polity in the Old Testament which in the Legal shadows and the Prophets predictions did declare Christ Others upon better ground refer it to the Decree of God This death of Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which denoteth both the action it self as also the effect and benefit which cometh by it Chrysostome observeth that it is called redemption and not a simple emption because we were the Lords once but by our sins became slaves to Satan and now God doth make us his again In the third place you have the instrumentall cause Faith in his bloud this is that Hysop that doth sprinkle the bloud though it be contemptible in it self yet it is instrumentall for a great good and hereby is denoted That Faith hath a peculiar nature in this work of Justification which no other grace hath for none saith Love in his bloud or Patience in his bloud Lastly here is the final cause To declare the righteousnesse of God for the remission of sins past Some observe those words sins past as implying no sinne is
may easily see which of these two Justification or Remission of sinne is The first and proper difference is this An immanent action is that which abides in God so that it works no reall effect without As when God doth meerly know or understand a thing but a transient action is when a positive change is made thereby in a creature as in Creation c. So that we may conclude of all Gods actions which do relate to believers only predestination is an immanent act of God and all the rest Justification Regeneration Glorification are transient acts for Predestination though it be an act of God choosing such an one to happinesse yet it doth not work any reall change or positive effect in a man unlesse we understand it virtually for it is the cause of all those transient actions that are wrought in time Howsoever therefore Justification be called by some an immanent action and so made to go before Faith and Repentance as if Faith were onely a declaration and signe of pardon of sinne from all eternity yet that cannot be made good as is to be shewed A second difference floweth from the other An immanent action is from eternity and the same with Gods essence but a transient action is the same with the effect produced Hence the Orthodox maintain That Gods decrees are the same with his nature Hence when we speak of Gods willing such a thing it is no more then his divine Essence with an habitude and respect to such objects Gods Decrees are no more then God decreeing Gods will no more then God willing otherwise the simpliciy of Gods nature will be overthrown and those volitions of God will be created entities and so must be created by other new volitions and so in infinitum as Spanheimius well argueth only the later part seemeth not to be strong or sufficient because when man willeth he doth not will that by a new volition and so in infinitum and why then would such a thing follow in God Besides its no such absurdity in the actings of the soul to hold a progresse in infinitum thus far that it doth not determinately pitch or end at such an act It is one thing to have things distinguished in God and another thing for us to conceive distinctly of them The former is false The later is true and necessary But with transient actions it is otherwise they being the same with the effects produced are in time And this is a perpetual mistake in the Antinomian to confound Gods Decree and Purpose to justifie with Justification Gods immanent action from all eternity with that transient which is done in time Whereas if they should do thus in matters of Sanctification and Glorification it would be absurd to every mans experience whereas indeed a man may as truly say That his body is glorified from all eternity as that his sins are forgiven from all eternity And certainly Scripture speaks for one as well as the other when it saith Whom he hath justified them he hath glorified By these two differences you may see That pardon of sin is a transient action and so Justification also partly because it leaveth a positive real effect upon a man justified he that was in the state of hatred is hereby in a state of love and friendship he hath peace with God now that once was at variance with him Now when we say There is a change made in a man by Justification it is not meant of an inward absolute and physical one such as is in Sanctification when of unholy we are made holy but morall and relative as when one is made a Magistrate or husband and wife partly because this is done to us in time whereas immanent actions were from all eternity and therefore it would be absurd to pray for them as it is ridiculous for a man to pray he may be predestinated or elected Some indeed have spoken of Predestination as actus continuus a continued act and so with them it is good Divinity Si non sis praedestinatus ora ut praedestineris If thou beest not predestinated pray that thou maiest be but this is corrupt doctrine and much opposeth the Scripture which doth frequently commend election from the eternity of it that it was before the foundations of the world were laid whereas now for pardon of sinne it is our duty to pray that God would do it for us This being thus cleared we come to answer the next Question depending upon this viz. Whether God doth justifie or forgive our sins before we believe or repent and our answer is negative That God doth not Although there are many who are pertinacious that he doth and so they make Faith not an instrumental cause to apply pardon but only a perswasion that sin is pardoned and thus repentance shall not be a condition to qualifie the subject to obtain forgiveness but a sign to manifest that sin is forgiven This Question is of great practical concernment and therefore to establish you in the truth consider these Arguments 1. The Scripture speaks of a state of wrath and condemnation that all are in before they be justified or pardoned Therefore the believers sins were not from all eternity forgiven for if there were a time viz. before his Regeneration and Conversion that he was a childe of wrath under the guilt and punishment of sin then he could not be at the same time in the favour of God and peace with him Now the Scripture doth plentifully shew That even believers before their Regeneration are detained in such bonds and chains of guilt and Gods displeasure Ephes 2.1 2 3. There the Apostle speaking to the converted Ephesians telleth them of the wretched and cursed condition they were once in and he reckons himself amongst them saying They were children of wrath and that even as others were So that there is no difference between a godly man unconverted and a wicked man for that present state for both are under the power of Satan both walk in disobedience both are workers of iniquity and so both are children of wrath It is true the godly man is predestinated and so shall be brought out of this state and the other left in it But predestination as is more largely to be shewed being an immanent act in God doth denote no positive effect for the present of love upon the person and therefore he being not justified hath his sins imputed to him lying upon him and therefore by the Psalmists argument not a blessed man This also 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. The Apostle saith of some Corinthians That they were such as abiding in that state could not inherit the kingdom of God and such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are justified Therefore there was a time when these Corinthians were not justified but had their sins abiding on them Likewise all the places of Scripture which speak of Gods wrath upon wicked men and that
pardon can never be called an inherent righteousnesse or a qualitative Justice but rather it opposeth it but it may be called a Legal or Judicial righteousnesse because God for the obedience and satisfaction of Christ doth account of us as righteous having pardoned our sin and withall imputing Christs righteousnesse to us both which make up our Justification For the understanding therefore of the first particular viz. Remission of sins take these Propositions which will be the foundation upon which many material questions will be built 1. That forgivenes of sin is possible there may be and is such a thing Hence in that ancient Creed we are said to believe a remission of sins where faith is described not in the meer historical acts of it but fiducial the remission of my sins Now this is some stay to a troubled sinner that his sins may be forgiven whereas the devils cannot God no where saying to them Repent and believe And although Salmeron holdeth that God gave the lapsed Angels space to repent before they were peremptorily adjudged unto their everlasting torments yet he hath scarce a guide or companion in that opinion were not therefore this true that there is such a thing in the Church of God as forgivenes of sin How much better had it been for us if we had never been born 2. Consider That a sin may be said to be forgiven divers wayes First in the decree and purpose of God as Christ is called the Lamb slain from the beginning Though I do not know where the Scripture useth such an expression yet the Antinomians build much upon it Secondly A sin may be said to be forgiven in Christ meritoriously when God laid the sins of his people upon him which the Prophet Isaiah doth describe as plainly Isa 53. as any Evangelist hence some have called Isaiah the fifth Evangelist Now you must not conclude such a mans sins are pardoned because they are laid upon Christ a long while ago which is the Antinomians perpetual panalogizing for to this effect of remission of sin there go more causes besides the meritorious faith the instrumental cause which is as necessary in its kinde 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 do believe for as the grace of God which is the efficient cause of pardon doth not make a sin compleatly forgiven without the meritorious cause so neither doth the meritorious without the instrumental but there is a necessity of the presence and the co-operation of all these Thirdly A sin is said to be pardoned when the guilt is taken away and this is properly Remission of iniquities Fourthly Sin is pardoned in our sense and feeling when God takes away all our fears and doubts giving us an assurance of his love And lastly Sin is forgiven when the temporal affliction is removed and in this sense the Scripture doth much use the word forgivenesse of sins and his not pardoning is when he will punish 3. There are several things considerable in sin when we say it is forgiven First In sin there is a privation of that innocency which he had before as when a man is proud by that act of pride he is deprived of that innocency and freedom from that guilt which he had before This is properly true of Adam who lost his innocency by sinning It cannot be affirmed of us but in a limited sense thus far that when a man commits a sin that guilt may be charged upon him whereof he was innocent before Now when sin is forgiven the sense is not that he is made innocent again for that can never be helped but that it must be affirm'd such an one hath sin'd this cannot be repaired again It is true the Scripture useth such expressions That iniquity shall be sought for and there shall be found none Jer. 51.20 But that is in respect of the consequence of it We shal have as much joy and peace as if we had not sinned at all A 2d thing in sin is the dignity desert it hath of the wrath of God and this is inseparable from any sin if it be a sin there is a desert of damnation thus all the sins of the godly howsoever they shall not actually condemn them yet they have a desert of condemnation Thirdly There is the actual ordination and obligation of the person sinning to everlasting condemnation and forgivenes of sin doth properly lie in this not in taking away the desert of the guilt of sin but the actual ordination of it to condemnation Therefore its false that is affirmed by some that reatus est forma peccati guilt is the form of a sin for a sin may be truly a sin and yet this actual ordination of it to death taken away Fourthly There is in sin an offence done unto God or an enmity to him so that now he is displeased and this is taken away in some measure by forgivenesse yet so as his anger is not fully removed If we speak exactly God doth not punish his children yet as a Father he is angry with them and that makes him to chastise them though the sin be forgiven Fifthly In sinne is likewise a bloâ— or pollution whereby the soul loseth its former beauty and excellency and this is not removed by remission but by sanctification and renovation Hence it is ordinarily said that Justification hath a relative being only but Renovation an absolute inherent change And lastly In all sin there is an aversion from God either Habitual in Habitual sins or Actual in Actual and in this aversion from God the soul abideth till it be turned to him again as a man that turneth his back on the Sun continueth so till he turn himself again now Conversion and not Justification doth rectifie this so that by this you may see what it is to have a sin forgiven not the foulnes or the disformity of it to Gods Law removed nor yet the dignity and desert of Gods wrath no nor all kinde of anger from God but the actual ordination of it to condemnation 4. There is a great difference between original sin and actuals for that of original is much more perplexed in the matter of remission then those of actuals when an actual sin is committed the act is transient that is quickly passed away there remaineth only the guilt which sticketh till God by pardon doth remove it and then when he hath forgiven it there is all of that sin past But now in original sin it is otherwise for that corruption adhering to us cleaving to our nature like Ivie to the tree as the Father expresseth it though it be forgiven yet it still continueth and that not only as an exercise of our faith and prayers or by way of a penal languâ—r upon us but truly and
it is not reported that she found such grief for her sins So that as in corporal things a man would choose the tooth-ach rather then a pestilent feaver yet a man is more afflicted and pained at the tooth-ach or burning of his finger then at a feaver So it may be here a godly man would rather choose the losse of his children or dearest relations then lose the favour of God by his sinne yet it may be have more painfull grief in the one then the other Again it is to be observed That the Scripture requiring sorrow or repentance for sin doth not limit such a degree or such a length of time which if necessary would certainly have been prescribed 6. It cannot be denied but that the ancient Fathers have spoken hyperbolically of tears and repentance which phrases were the occasion of that corrupt doctrine in Popery Chrysostom compareth repentance to the fire which taketh away all rust of sin in us Basil cals it The medicine of the soul yea those things which God properly doth are attributed to tears and sorrow as if the water of the eyes were as satisfactory as the bloud of Christ his bloud is clean enough to purge us but our very tears need washing It is true indeed we reade of a promise made to those who turn from their evil wayes Ezek. 18.27 he shall save his soul alive but this is not the fruit of his repentance but the gift of God by promise It qualifieth the subject it hath no influence upon the priviledge Even as a man doth by the power of nature dispose and prepare the body to receive the soul but it is the work of God immediately to infuse it 7. Though therefore repentance be necessary to qualifie the subject yet we run into falshood when we make it a cause of pardon of sinne And thus ignorant and erroneous people do Ask why they hope to be saved or justified why they hope to have their sins pardoned they return this answer Because they have repented and because they lead a godly life Thus they put their trust and confidence in what they have done But the Scripture though it doth indispensably command repentance in every one yet the efficient cause of pardon is Gods grace and the meritorious is Christs bloud And if repentance come under the name of a cause it can be only of the material which doth qualifie the subject but hath no influence into the mercy it self We reade Luk. 7. that Mary Magdalen had many sins pardoned her because she loved much But the Parable of a Creditor which forgave debts that is brought by our Saviour to aggravate her kindnesse doth plainly shew That he speaks not of a love that was the cause of pardon of her sin but which was the effect of it Gods love melting her heart even as the Sun doth snow The highest expressions that we meet with in Scripture where pardon of sinne seemeth to be ascribed to godlinesse as a cause is Dan. 4.27 Break off thy iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor Here we would think that if a man would on purpose hold that doing of a good work would be a proper cause to remove sin he would use no other expression But first it appeareth by the context that Daniel giveth not this counsel in reference to Justification and the pardon of his sin so as to be accepted with God but to prolong and keep off that temporall judgement which was revealed in the vision as appeareth by those words If there may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity And we have the like instance in Ahab who prorogued his calamity by an external humiliation Again although the Vulgar translate it Redeem thy sins yet the Hebrew word doth properly signifie To break a thing as we translate it and although by a metaphor it be applied to redeem and deliver yet that is alwayes of men and persons not things especially it would be ridiculous to say Redeem thy sins so that the meaning is That whereas before Nebuchadnezzar had by injustice and oppression done much rapine and violence now Daniel counselleth him to break off such wicked wayes by the contrary expressions of love and chastity So that this place giveth not any spiritual mercy to repentance as the proper cause thereof 8. As repentance is thus necessary but not as a cause of pardon so neither is it required as that whereby we appease and satisfie God and this all Popery goeth upon yea and all Pharisaical spirits in their humiliation that by those afflictions and debasements of their souls they shall satisfie God and make him amends But this is so grosse that the more learned of the Papists are fain to mitigate the matter and say That satisfaction cannot be properly made to God by any thing we do because all we have and do is from God and therefore there must be an acceptation or covenant by way of gift interposed whereby we may be able to satisfie And then further they say There cannot be satisfaction made to gain the friendship of God which sin hath violated but to take away some thing of temporall punishment that belongs to sinne So that by all this which hath been delivered we may give repentance those just and true bounds which Gods Word doth assign to it and yet not give more then Gods Word doth Neither may we think it a nicety or subtilty to make a difference between a qualification and a cause for if we do not we take off the due glory that belongs to Christ and his merits and give it to the works we do and we do make Christ and his sufferings imperfect and insufficient and by this we may see in what sense grace inherent or sanctification doth expel sin for if we speak of the filth and pollution of sin so sanctifying grace expels it as light doth darknesse heat doth cold by a reall mutation and change So that God in sanctifying doth no more to expel the sin in the filth of it afterwards even as the Physitian needs to do no more to the removing of the leprosie then by producing a sound health in the body But when we speak of the guilt of sin it is not grace sanctifying within us that doth remove the guilt but grace justifying without us Insomuch that although a man after sin committed were perfectly sanctified yet that would not take off the guilt his sin had brought upon him So that although that man needed in such a case no further grace of sanctification to make him holy yet he needed the grace of remission to take away this guilt So that the guilt of sin doth not cease by a natural necessity upon the removing of the nature of the sin but upon a distinct and new act of Gods favour in forgiving for if this were so then Gods mercy in giving a repenting heart and his mercy in pardoning should not be two distinct mercies which yet are evidently distinguished by
the godly are by way of tryal and temptation upon them and because of the good that is in them of these the Apostle James speaks when he bids them count it all joy when they fall into divers temptations of these Paul speaks when he saith he will rejoyce in his infirmities so that the persecutions and miseries which come upon them are an Argument of the good in them more then of the evils as the tree that is ful of fruit hath its boughs more broken then that which is barren and the Pyrates watch for the ship that is fraughted with gold And thus a martyr comforted himself That though he had many sins for which he deserved death yet he thanked God that his enemies did not attend to them but to the good that was in him and for that he suffered so then all the grievances upon the godly are not of the same nature Sixtly The afflictions for sins upon the godly do differ much from those that are upon the wicked This we also grant that when God doth punish the godly and the wicked for their sins though the punishment for the matter of it may be alike yet they differ in other respects very much as in the cause from which one cometh from a God hating their persons the other from anger indeed but the anger of a father Hence secondly they differ in the fittedness of these afflictions to do good God doth moderate these afflictions to his people that thereby grace may be increased but to the reprobate they are no more to their good then the flames of hell-fire are to the damned The Butcher he cuts the flesh far otherwise then the Chirurgion saith August Again in the end they differ All afflictions to the godly are like the beating of cloathes in the Sun with a rod to get out the dust and moths but it is not so with the wicked many other differences practical Divines prove out of the Scripture Seventhly Yet God doth in reference to the sins of his people though forgiven sometimes chastise them This is proved 1. From the Scripture that makes their sin the cause of their trouble Thus of David Because thou saith Nathan 2 Sam. 12.14 hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme the childe also that is born of thee shall die Thus God speaks to all the godly in Solomon 2 Sam. 7.14 15. I will be his father and he shall be my son if he commit iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men but my mercy will I not take away In these places sin is expresly made the cause of those afflictions and it is a poor evasion to say this was in the Old Testament for was not the chastisement of the godly mens peace in the Old Testament laid upon Christ as well as in the New but their folly herein and their contradiction to themselves will be abundantly shewed in answering their objections 2. In the places that do assert Gods judging of his people and rebuking of them and they are divers 1 Cor. 11. For this cause many are sick and weak where again you have not only the affliction but the cause why viz. irreverent prophaning of that Sacrament Thus James 5.14 Is any man sick Let him call for the Elders and let them pray for him and if he have committed sins saith the Text they shall be forgiven him There is none but hath committed sins yet the Apostle makes such an if because he speaks of such sins that may provoke God to lay that sicknesse upon him Thus in the Old Testament Psal 99.8 Thou forgavest them though thou tookâ—st vengeance on their inventions Here the Psalmist cals the chastisements upon those whose sins were forgiven vengeance as in other places his anger is said to smoak against the sheep of his pasture but we must not understand it of vengeance strictly so called as if God would satisfie his justice out of their sufferings 3. From the incouragement to duties by temporal Arguments and threats of temporal afflictions If the godly have these goads then certainly as they may conclude their temporal mercies to be the fruit of their godlinesse which hath the promise of this life and the life to come so they may conclude that their afflictions are the effects of their evil waies which have the threatning of this life and the life to come only here is this difference that the outward good mercies are not from their godlinesse by way of merit or causality but their afflictions are so because of their sins Hence the Apostle urgeth the godly Heb. 12.19 with this that even our God is a consuming fire Thus 1 Pet. 3.10 11. He that will love life and see good daies let him eschue evil and do good So that the Scripture pressing to holinesse because of outward good mercies and to keep from sin because of external evils and pressing these to the godly doth evidently declare this truth and certainly the Apostle speaking of the godly Rom. 8.10 saith the body is dead because of sin for by body Beza doth well understand our mortal body and not the mass of sin as some interpret it 4. From the comparison God useth concerning his afflictions upon his people and that is to be a father in that act correcting of them Thus Heb. 12.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. compare this with Rev. 3.19 As many as I love I rebuke now rebuke is alwaies for some fault and this is further cleared because he makes this conclusion be zealous therefore and repent therefore sin was precedent Now in these places God compareth himself to a Father and beleevers to children and we all know that fathers never correct but for sin it would be ridiculous to say the father whips the childe from sin not for sin It is true he doth it from sin by way of prevention to the future yet for sin also The Antinomian saith this is spoken of many beleevers together where some were not converted but this is weak because the persons whom he reproveth God is said to love them and they are children not bastards Again he saith There is no sin mentioned therefore it was not for sin But I answer the very comparison of God with a Father correcting his childe doth evidently argue it was for sin though it be not expressed 5. From the command not to despise or to make little account of Gods afflictions but to humble our selves and search out our waies Why should this be spoken but because they are for our sins Heb. 12.5 Despise not the chastening of God neither faint when thou art rebuked of him Where two things may seem to be forbidden though some make them all one one not to faint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a metaphore from those who faint in the race through languor and dissolution of minde The other is in the other extream not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to despise or to
The sense of Gods displeasure as a father may well stand together with an assurance that for all this he is no enemy A childe that bitterly crieth out because of his fathers chastisements yet even then hath that hope and comfort which he would not have if fallen into the hands or rage of an enemy that would kill him Hence it is that we presse all believers though sorely punished for their sins as their own hearts can tell them yet they must never pass such a sentence Now God is become my enemy he deals with me as with a Judas as with a Cain these we say are sinful inferences but they may conclude thus God though a loving father is now very angry and much displeased with me Distinguish then between a peace that doth oppose the hatred of God to a sinner as an enemy and a peace which doth oppose only the frowns of a father and this objection is answered I will acknowledge the people of God are apt under his sore displeasure not to discern between a father and an enemy They have much adoe to keep up this in their hearts God he smites he frowns he chides yet he is a father still but this is their temptation and weaknesse and we are apt to endeavour some kinde of compensation to God in our troubles for sin therefore it was a most blessed thing when God at the Reformation out of Popery caused this truth to break out That punishments for sin were not satisfactory to God but fatherly chastisements Thus you have this answered and as for that which followeth we glory in tribulations the Apostle must be limited to those which fall upon us for professing of Christ and his truth In these we may glory as the souldier doth of his marks and wounds he hath received in the wars for a good cause and to this purpose we told you in one Proposition That there was a great difference between those troubles that fell upon us because of the good in us and those which come upon us because of the evil in us What glory is it saith Peter 1 Pet. 2.20 if ye be buffeted for your faults Now who can deny but that even a godly man may fall into some hainous crime for which he may receive a sentence of death This man though he may rejoice in God who doth pardon the sin to him yet he can no more glory of this tribulation then a childe doth of whipping for his faults Another place of Scripture is Isa 53.5 The chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed This Text of Scripture is again and again pressed by them and certainly it is more sweet then the Honey or Honey-Comb but truly they do with it as the thieves with the man of Jericho leave it half dead and much wounded First Let us open the place and then see how far they are from the meaning The Prophet Isaiah in this Chapter may be called as we said before the fifth Evangelist for he seemeth rather to write an History of Christ then make a prophecie of him Among other passages these two are to our purpose 1. That the chastisement of our peace was upon him by Peace here Calvin doth well understand not that of quietnes in the conscience but a reconciliation made with God through his sufferings And it is observed by some how emphatical the Scripture is in that Pronoun He He hath born and He hath been wounded The second follows With his stripes we are healed Some think that this is spoken to debase that condition Christ so voluntarily put himself in that so his love might appear the more to us it being an allusion to the State of servants who used to be chastised by their lords The phrase is the same with that He hath born our griefs or diseases which Matth. 8.17 is applied to Christs healing of diseases and 1 Pet. 2. to that suffering upon the Crosse And well may this be because the outward healing of diseases was a Symbole or Testimony of his inward healing Although Grotius observeth That Christ is therefore said to bear our diseases when he cured them because of the great pains and travell he took therein for it was after Sun-set and the multitude did much throng him so then by the words you see the whole price of our peace laid upon Christ and by him all evils both temporall and spirituall removed but what is this to the purpose Yes say they here our chastisements are laid upon Christ therefore we have none for sin but 1. if this proved any thing it will be more then the Antinomians will yield for it would infer that there are no chastisements at all either for sin or no sin now the Antinomians cannot deny and experience confuteth them but that the godly have afflictions though as they say not for sin and this will inevitably follow by their argument for as they would prove from hence they have no sin at all not only sin that will not condem as the Orthodox say but even no sin so it will by the same reason follow that believers have no chastisements at all I do not say not for sin but none at all But Secondly The Antinomian in that place pag. 129. doth fully answer himself All chastisement saith he for sin needfull for the making perfect peace between God and his justified children was laid upon him very true Therefore say we though these chastisements be for sin yet they are not upon the godly as upon Christ they are not to satisfie Gods justice to work a reconciliation but only to humble them in themselves and make them the better feel how much they are beholding to Christ who bore so much wrath for them To say therefore as the Papists Christ by his death did only remove the spirituall evil and we by our sufferings must take away the temporall punishment this would indeed be derogatory to Christ and take off in a great measure from his glory A Third place brought in to maintain their errour is James 1.2 3 4 5. Count it matter of all joy when you shall fall into divers temptations therefore saith he they are not for sin because they are matters of joy and mark how he baptizeth goeth on the Author crosses and afflictions as it were with a new name taken from the nature of the change of them through the Gospel calling them temptations and trials But mark the ignorance of the adversary rather then the name of afflictions for Is it peculiar to beleevers under the Gospel that their afflictions are tryals what then will he return to that place Deut. 8.2 God saith the afflictions upon the people of Israel for fourty years in the wildernesse and they were not all beleevers much lesse beleevers under the Gospel were to humble them and prove or try them And Jer. 9.7 God speaking of the Israelites saith He will melt them and try them See
Therefore in different respects we may say That pardon of sin is an utter abolition of it and it is not an utter abolition of it It is an utter abolition of it as it doth reflect upon the person making him guilty and obliging him actually to condemnation in this respect a man is as free as if he had never sinned but if you speak of the inherency of sin and the effects of original corruption that do abide in all which are also truly and properly sins so pardon of sin is not an utter abolition and although Christ wrought no semiplenam curationem as is observed no half-cures upon any diseased persons but whom he healed he healed perfectly yet he works by degrees in the grace of Sanctification as he did perfect the world by severall degrees successively and not as Austin thought all at once So that this particular viz. That forgiveness is a perfect abolition of sin in the former consideration is of transcendent comfort to the believers and indeed it is impossible that sin should be forgiven divisibly and by parts so a man should be at the same time under the favour of God and under his hatred which is impossible Thou therefore who art a believer hast cause to rejoyce for this perfect work of remission of thy sins past wherein nothing more is or can be done for thy good and consolation Do not think it is with God as with men who say indeed They forgive with all their heart yet retain their secret inward hatred as much as before Indeed the pain of sin may roul and tumble in thy conscience a long while after though it be forgiven we see so in David as the sea which hath been enraged by tempests and windes though they be quiet yet the sea will roar and make a noise a long time after The heart of a man awakened and pierced with the guilt of sin doth not quickly and easily compose it self again Prop. 2. It is one thing for God to forgive and another thing not to exact and demand punishments As we see among men a Judge many times through fear or otherwise when Justice is obstructed doth not call such a malefactour to an account but deferreth it yet for all that the man is not acquitted so it is often to be seen in Gods providence There are multitudes of sinners who after their transgressions committed are not onely without punishment but enjoy great prosperity and much outward successe yet these men are not pardoned they have no acquittance from God This hath been such a temptation to David Jeremiah and others of Gods people that they have many times staggered through unbelief But men may have their punishments deferred their damnation may sleep or linger but it is not taken off Let not men therefore delude themselves with vain hopes as if their sins were forgiven because not yet punished No there must be some positive gracious act of God to acquit thee else thy sins are alive to condemn thee Examine thy self therefore whether thy peace comfort plenty be a fruit of Gods forbearance meerly or of his acquittance This later is alwayes an act of his gracious mercy but the other may be a terrible fruit of his hatred against thee insomuch that thou hadst better wander up and down like Cain fearing every thing will kill thee or damn thee then be in such security Prop. 3. A godly man may account not only himself bound to thank God for the pardon of those sins he hath committed but he is to acknowledge so many pardons as by the grace of God he hath been preserved from sin And if a believer enter into this consideration how will it overwhelm him So often as God hath preserved thee from such and such sins which thy own heart or temptations would have inclined thee to God hath virtually given thee so many pardons That God preserved David from killing Nabal and his Family here was interpretatively as great mercy as in the expresse forgiving of the murder of Vriah It is a rule of Divines Plures sunt gratiae privativae quà m positivae There are more preventing graces then positive The keeping of evils from us is more then the good he bestoweth on us Therefore Austin observed well that as Paul said By the grace of God I am what I am So he might also have said By the grace of God I am not what I am not Though therefore we are not so sensible of preventing mercies as of positive yet a due and right consideration of Gods love in this matter might much inflame our hearts Say therefore O Lord I blesse thee not onely for the pardon of those sins I have committed but also for thy goodnesse in preserving me from those many thousands I was prone to fall into which is in effect the pardon of so many Prop. 4. Remission of sin is not to be considered meerly as removing of evil but also as bestowing of good It is not only ablativa mali but collativa boni it is not a meer negation of punishment due to us but a plentifull vouchsafing of many gracious favours to us such as a Sonship and a right to eternal life as also Peace with God and Communion with him God also never pardons any sin but where he sanctifieth the nature of such an one Indeed it will be worth the enquiry Whether this connexion of pardon of sin with inherent holiness arise from a natural neâ—essity so that one cannot be without the other or whether it be by the meer positive will and appointment of God for the present this is enough God hath revealed he will never dis join these Prop. 5. Iâ— every sin there are as to the purpose of Justification these two things considerable the offence that is done to God whereby he is displeased and the obligation of the man so offending him to eternal condemnation Now remission of sin doth wholly lie in removing of these two so that when God doth will neither to punish or to be offended with the person then he is said to forgive We must not therefore speak of two kinds of remissions one remission of the punishment another of the offence and fault for this is one remission and God never doth the one without the other It is true there remain paternal and medicinal chastisements after sin is forgiven but no offence or punishment strictly so taken What kinde of act this remission is whether immanent or transient is to be shewed in the next Question Prop. 6. From the former Proposition this followeth That sin in the guilt of it is not remitted by any act that we do but it is a meer act of God So that neither the grace of repentance or love of God is that which removeth guilt out of the soul but it is something in God onely It is the opinion of many Papists That God in pardoning doth onely inable to repent for sin and then the guilt of
do not make to the internal Happinesse of God yet he is pleased with this and commands it of men and threatens to punish where it is denied him and certainly we may not think the Scripture doth aggravate sinâ—e under this title as an injury to him as that which offends him and is disobedience unto him if so be there were not some Reality Besides the Necessity of Christs death by way of satisfaction doth necessarily argue That sinne is a reall offence and dishonour to him And lastly a sinner as much as lieth in him depriveth God of all his inward happinesse and glory insomuch that if it were possible God would be made lesse happy by our sins It is no thanks to a sinner that he is not but it ariseth from his infinite Perfection that he cannot Let the first Use be To commend Repentance in the necessity of it if ever we would have pardon God hath appointed no other way for thy healing Never perswade thy self of the pardon of sinne where sinne it self hath not been bitter to thee Besides where godly sorrow is there will be earnest prayer and heavenly ascensions of the soul unto God for his pardon Hence Zech. 12. The spirit of Prayer and Mourning is put together and Rom. 8. Prayer and groans unutterable As the fowls of the Heaven were at first created out of the water so do thy heavenly breathings after God arise from thy humbled and broken soul It is presumption to expect pardon for that sinne which hath not either actually or habitually been humbled for by thee If a man should expect health and life yet never eat or drink would you not say he tempted God and was a murderer of himself So if a man hope for pardon and yet never debase or loath himself repenting of his sins will you not â—â—y he is a murderer of his soul And be encouraged to it because God hath annexed such a gracious Promise to it He might have filled thee with sorrow here and hereafter It might be with thee as the damned Angels who have neither the grace of repentance nor the mercy of pardon 2. Not to trust in repentance but after all thy humiliations still to depend only upon Christ Though Christ died and was crucified yet he did not lose his strength and efficacy This was represented in that passage of Gods providence That a bone of his was a broken Relie therefore upon Christ wounded for sinne not upon thy own heart that is wounded use this but trust only in Christ Dependance upon Evangelical graces doth evacuate Christ as well as confidence in the Law A man may not only preach the Law and the duties thereof to the prejudice of Christs glory but also the duties and graces of the Gospel If a man relieth upon his repentance and believing he maketh Justification and Salvation to be of works though it be of faith for he makes his faith a work and gives that glory which belongs to Christ to his own repentance LECTURE XX. MAT. 6.12 And forgive us our Debts IT hath already been demonstrated at large How God doth remit or forgive sins We come now to shew What kinde of act forgivenesse of sin is and whether it be antecedent to our faith and repentance Both these Questions have a dependency one upon another and therefore must be handled together The first Doubt is What kinde of act in God forgivenesse of sin is Whether it be an immanent act in-dwelling and abiding in God or transient working some reall effect and change upon the creature Now in handling of this I shall not trouble you with that perplex Question so much vexed by the Schoolmen Whether a transient action be in the Agent or in the Patient but lay down some differences between an immanent action and a transient action only you must take notice that we are in meer darknesse and not able to comprehend how God is said to act or work For on the one side we must not hold that there are any accidents in God or that he can be a subject recipient of such because of his most pure and simple Essence so that whatsoever is in God is God And yet on the other side the Scripture doth represent God doing and working such mercies and judgements as seemeth good to him Only this some conclude of wherein others with some probability dissent that Gods knowledge and will is the cause of all things that are done so that there is not an executive power besides them whereby he doth this or that As we see there is in man though an Artificer wils such a thing to be done yet that is not existent till he hath wrought it but now God worketh all things by a meer command of his will as appeareth Gen. 1. God said Let there be light and there was light Here was Gods will to have it so no executing power distinct from that will Therefore it is a sure truth De Deo etiam vera dicere periculosum est It is dangerous to assert things though true of God and Tunc dignè Deum aestimamus cum inaestimabilem dicimus then do we rightly esteem of him when we judge him above our thoughts or esteem We must not therefore apprehend of God as having a new will to do a thing in time which he had not from eternity as Vorstius and others blaspheme but his will was from all eternity that such a thing be in time accomplished by his wisdome As for example in Creation God did not then begin to have a will to create but he had a will from all eternity that the world should exist in time and thus it is in Justification and Sanctification not that these effects are from eternity but Gods will is And if you ask Why seeing Gods will to create or justifie is from eternity Creation and Justification are not also from eternity The answer is because God is a free Agent and so his will is not a necessary cause of the thing for then it would be immediately as the Sun beams are necessarily as soon as the Sun is but it is a voluntary principle and so maketh the effect to be at the time he prescribeth As if there were an Artificer or Carpenter that could by his meer wiâ— cause an house to be reared up he might will this to be done in such and such a year long after his will of it to be So God when the world is made when a sinner is justified willed these things from all eternity and when they come to have a being these effects cause an extrinsecal denomination to be attributed to God which was not before as now he is a Creator and was not before now he justifieth and did not before There is no change made in God but the alteration is in the creature But of this more in its time Let us come to give the differences between an immanent action and a transient and then we
they have no peace with God must needs be true of all godly men while unconverted He that believeth not hath not life and the wrath of God abideth on him and without faith it is impossible to please God Now who can deny but that this is true of Paul while no believer but an opposer of godlinesse The Psalmist also saith God is angry with the wicked every day Was not this true of Manasses before his conversion It must therefore be a very poisonous Doctrine to say That God is as well pleased with a man before his conversion as after 2. If the Scriptures limit this priviledge of Justification and pardon only to those subjects that are so and so qualified then till they be thus furnished they cannot enjoy those priviledges The places are many which testifie this Act. 3.19 Repent that your sins may be blotted out Therefore their sins stood uncancelled as so many Debts in Gods register Book till they did repent Act. 26.18 To turn them from darknesse to light from the power of Satan to God that they may receive forgivenesse of sins Therefore they had it not while under the power of darknesse 1 Joh. 1.9 If we confesse our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins which supposeth That God doth forgive our sins only when we confesse and forsake them Matth. 6.15 If ye forgive not neither will my heavenly Father forgive you It is in vain to number up more places for these do necessarily prove sinne is not forgiven till Faith and Repentance They do not indeed argue a causality or merit yet they infer a necessary presence in those that obtain pardon and do hold by the same proportion as those places which require Sanctification before Glorification 3. Where the Scripture requireth many things to the obtaining of any speciall benefit there that benefit cannot be said to be enjoyed till all those things be brought about Now the Word of God speaks of several things required to pardon of sin There is the Grace and mercy of God as the efficient cause Psal 51.1 Isa 43.25 Rom. 3.25 2. There is requisite the bloud of Christ as the meritorious cause for there can be no remission of sins without effusion of bloud Rom. 3.25 1 Cor. 15.3 Heb. 1.3 1 Joh. 4.10 3. There is Faith required as an instrumental cause Act. 26.18 Rom. 3.25 Now although an instrumentall cause have not that worth or excellency as the efficient and meritorious have yet it is as necessary in the way of an instrument as the others are in their respective causalities so that as a man may not from those places which speak of Gods grace inferre therefore remission of sins is before Christs death So neither may a man argue because Christ died to take away our sins therefore these are taken away before we believe So that this Argument may fully establish us We see the Scripture speaking of three causes cooperant to pardon of sin therefore I may not conclude the effect is wrought till all those causes be And as the Scripture speaks of these causes so as you heard of many qualifications in the subject Insomuch that it is so far from being a duty to believe our sins were pardoned from all eternity antecedently to faith and repentance that we are undoubtedly to believe they were not If the King proclaim a pardon to every one that shall humble himself and seek it out If the Physician prepare a potion for the patient to receive it shall any man say because of those causal preparations that either the one is pardoned or the other healed before their particular application of those things 4. If our sins be pardoned antecedently to our Faith and Repentance then all those effects which are inseparable in the least moment of time from Justification are also antecedent to our Faith and Repentance But it is evident by experience that is not so It is a clear truth That Sanctification of our natures is individually conjoyned one with the other So that although there be a priority of nature yet they are together in time God pardons no mans sins whom he doth not heal Rom. 8.1 1 Joh. 1.9 Psal 32.2 A man may be justified and not glorified but not justified and unregenerated Then if so a man shall be at the same time unconverted and converted at the same time a member of Christ and a member of the devil and so as they say we are justified only declaratively in our own consciences so we shall be regenerated and converted only declaratively Again where sins are pardoned there is blessednesse as the Psalmist speaks then I may call Paul a blessed Persecutor Manasses a blessed murderer for they had no sin imputed to them at that time Besides those whose sins are pardoned may boldly go to the throne of grace and call God Father all which are contrary to the whole tenour of Scripture which expostulateth with men for taking his name or words into their mouth and hate to be reformed yet a Doctor of this Antinomian sour leaven affirmeth boldly That God doth love us as well before conversion as after That God did love Paul with as great a love when he persecuted the Church as when he preached the Gospel How must this devour up all godlinesse when I may have the same faith and confidence in God for pardon in the acting of flagitious crimes as well as out of them in prayer and humiliation and if he may have the same faith why not then the same consolations and joy in conscience 5. If Justification do antecede our Faith so that Faith doth only declare our pardon of sin then any other grace may be said to justifie as well as Faith For take any other grace repentance humility joy these are all the fruits of Gods Spirit and so demonstrate his election of us his justification of us But how unanswerably do the Orthodox prove a peculiar instrumental vertue in faith for pardon which others have not The Apostle expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through faith in his bloud not love of his bloud and indeed the Apostle maintaineth that Gospel-position against false teachers viz. That we are justified by Faith not by works The Question was not Whether the works of the Law did justifie us declaratively only but causally So then by this Doctrine Faith must no more be called the hand or the eating and drinking of Christs body and bloud but only made a sign of such mercies 6. If pardon of sin be from all eternity going before our Faith and Repentance because of Gods election then it must also be antecedent to the death and obedience of Christ So that not only our tears but Christs bloud shall be excluded from this great favor The reason is plain Because Gods predestination and election is antecedent to Christ yea Christ is a fruit of our election so that the Orthodox maintain against Arminians though we be chosen
Scripture less loving is called hating sometimes as the Learned observe Neither doth this make any change in God it only denoteth a change in the creature as hereafter is to be shewed So that the gross mistake as if Eleâ—tion were all love actually and expresly and the confounding of the love of God as an immanent act in him with the effects of this love hath made several persons split upon rocks of errors But how love and anger are in God is more exactly to be examined when we speak of the meritorious cause of Justification which is Christs merits for indeed this Argument from Election will as well put in for a Justification before any consideration of Christ as well as of Faith if every thing be duely weighed as in that part God willing is to he shewed where also the distinctions about Gods love are to be considered of Some making a general love and a special love others a first love and a second or one flowing from the first others a love of benevolence or beneficence and of complacency But of these in their proper place We proceed and in the next place we will put his fourth and sixth Argument together being both grounded upon this That Christ by his death gave a full satisfaction to God and God accepted of it whereby Christ is said so often to take away our sins and we to be cleansed by his bloud This Argument made the learned Pemble pag. 25. to hold out Justification in Gods sight long before we were born as being then purchased by Christs death otherwise he thinks we must with the Arminians say Christ by his death made God placabilem reconcilable not placatum reconciled No saith he it is otherwise the ransome demanded 〈◊〉 paid and accepted full satisfaction to the divine Justice is given and taken all the sins of the Elect all actually pardoned This is a great oversight For first Though Christ did lay down a price and the Father accept of it yet both agreed in a way and order when this benefit should become theirs who are partakers of it and that is when they believe and repent Now Bonum est ex integris causis if God the Fathers Covenant be to give pardon for Christs sake to those that do believe which faith also is the fruit of Christs death then may we not separate Christ from faith no more then faith from Christ or God the Fathers love from both If Christ had died for such a man to have his sins pardoned whether he had faith in him or no then this Argment would have stood firm God then did accept of Christs death and becomes reconciled but in that order and way which he hath appointed 2. This Argument doth interfâ—re with that of Election for there pardon of sin doth take its rise from Election but here from the time God laid our sins upon Christ And indeed the Antinomians are at a variance amongst themselves some fetching the original of pardon from one way and some from another 3. We do not say That faith is the condition of Christs acquiring pardon but of the application of pardon Faith doth not make Christs merits to be merits or his satisfaction to be satisfaction This ariseth from the dignity and worth of Christ It would be an absurd thing to say That faith is the cause why God doth accept of Christs merits and receiveth a satisfaction by him This were to make the instrumental cause a meritorious cause The Arminians they make Christ to have purchased pardon upon condition of believing which believing they do not make a benefit by Christs death yea they say Nihil ineptius nibil vanius nothing is more foolish and vain then to do so Now this indeed is an execrable errour to hold Christ died only to make a way for reconciliation which reconciliation is wholly suspended upon a mans faith and that faith comes partly from a mans will and partly from grace not being the fruit of Christs death as wel as remission of sins it self But we say a far different thing Christ satisfied Gods wrath so that God becomes reconciled and gives pardon but in the method and way he hath appointed which is faith and this faith God will certainly work in his due time that so there may be an instrument to receive this pardon For the opening of this when it is said Christ satisfied Gods wrath this may have a different meaning either that Christ absolutely purchased reconciliation with the Father whether they believe or no without any condition at all as Joab obtained Absoloms reconciliation with David or Esther the Jews deliverance of Ahashuâ—rosh Or with a condition In the former sense it cannot be said because the fruits of Christs death are limited only to believers If with a condition then either Antecedent which is to be wrought by us that so we may be partakers of his death and that cannot be because it is said He died for us while sinners and enemies And this is Arminianism for by this means only a gate is set open for salvation but it may happen that no man may enter in or else this condition is Concomitant or consequent viz. A qualification wrought by the Spirit of Christ whereby we are enabled to receive of those benefits which come by his death And in this sense it is a truth and by this the foundation of the Opponent is totally razed For Christ took away the sins of those for whom he died and reconciled them to God and this absolutely if by it we understand any condition anteceding to be done by us but not absolutely if it exclude a condition that is consequently wrought by the Spirit of God to apply the fruits of Christs death so that the actual taking away of sins is not accomplished till the person for whom he died be united to him by Faith Hence the Scripture speaks differently about Christs death sometimes it saith He died for us sinners and enemies and in other places John 15.13 He layeth down his life for his friends and his sheep Joh. 17.19 He saith he prayeth and sanctifieth himself for those that shall believe in him viz. in a consequent sense for those who by faith shall lay hold on his death So that faith hath a two-fold condition the first of the time when sins are taken away by Christs death and that is when they believe 2. Of whom these priviledges are true and that is of such who do believe Now all this may be the further cleared if we consider what kinde of cause Christs death is to take away our sins It is a meritorious cause which is in the rank of moral causes of which the rule is not true Positâ causâ sequitur effectus The cause being the effect presently followeth This holdeth in natural causes which necessarily produce their effects but moral causes work according to the agreement and liberty of the Persons that are moved thereby As for
Example God the Father is moved through the death of Christ to pardon the sins of such persons for whom he dieth This agreement is to be made good in that time they shall pitch upon in their transaction Now it pleased the Father that the benefits and fruits of Christs death should be applied unto the believer and not till he did believe though this faith be at the same time also a gift of God through Christ It is good therefore when we either call Election absolute or say Christ died absolutely to consider that Absolute may be taken as opposite to a Pre-requisite Condition which is to be fulfilled by us so that upon this Election and the fruits of Christs death shall depend or else Absolute may be taken as it opposeth any Means or Order which God hath appointed as the way to obtain the end and in this later sense it would be a grand absurdity to say Election is absolute or Christ died absolutely for if this were so the prophane Argument about Election would have truth in it If I be elected let me live never so wickedly I shall be saved And the Arminian Argument That every one were bound to believe that Christ died for him though wicked and abiding so would not well be avoided His last Argument is from the unchangeableness of Gods love If we are not justified in his sight before we believe then God did once hate us and afterwards love us And if this be so why should Arminians be blamed for saying We may be the children of God to day and the children of the devil to morrow Hence he concludes it as undoubted That God loved us first before we believe even when we were in our bloud In answering of this Argument several things are considerable First It must be readily granted That God is unchangeable Jam. 1.17 God is there compared to the Sunne and is therefore called the Father of Lights but yet is preferred before it because that hath Clouds sometimes cast over it and sometimes is in eclipse but there is change or shadow of change with him The Heathens have confessed this and so argued If God should change it would be either for better or worse for worse how could it be imagined for better then God were not absolutely perfect Most accursed therefore must Vorstius his blasphemy be who purposely pleads for mutability in God But secondly As this is easily to be confessed so the difficulty of those Arguments brought from the things which God doth in time and not from all Eternity have been very weighty upon some mens shoulders insomuch that they thought this the only way to salve all by saying That all things were from Eternity And certainly by the Antinomian Arguments we may as well plead for the Creation of all things from all Eternity as that we are justified from all Eternity for all are equally built upon this sandy foundation That because the things are done in time therefore there must be some new act of will or love in God which would imply God is mutable not loving to day and loving to morrow Therefore to avoid this they say All is from Eternity Origen who was called by an ancient Writer Centaur because of his monstrous opinions argued thus lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 2. As there cannot be a father without a sonne or a Master and Lord without a possession so neither an omnipotent unless there be those things about which this power may be exercised Now although it be true That De Deo etiam vera dicere periculosum est because of the weakness of our Understandings to perceive his infinite lustre Yet thirdly It is well cleared by the Schoolmen That those relations which are attributed to God in time as a Creatour Father or Lord are not because of any new thing in God but in respect of the creatures so that when the world is created when a man is justified we say God who was not a Creator before is a Creator who was not a Father by grace is now by grace not because any new accident is in him but because there is a new effect in the creatures Thus if a man once the childe of wrath be now a son of Gods love the change is not in God but in the creature For the better clearing of this we are to take notice in the fourth place That it is one thing as Aquinas observeth Mutare voluntatem to change the Will and another thing Velle mutationem to Will a change By the same unchangeable Will we may Will several changes in an Object As the Physician without any change of his Will may will his Patient to take one kinde of Physick one day and another the third here he wils a change but doth not change his Will Thus God with the same Will decreed to permit in time such an elect man to be in a state of sin under the power of Satan and afterwards to call him out of this condition to justifie his person here indeed is a great change made in the man but none at all in God There is no new act in God which was not from all Eternity though every effect of this love of God was not from Eternity but in time Hence when our Divines argue against Arminians That if the Saints should apostatize Gods love would be changeable it is meant of Gods love of Election which is an absolute purpose and efficacious will to bring such a man to glory now although such a decree was free and so might not have been yet ex hypothesi supposing God hath made this decree it doth very truly follow That if that Saint should not be brought to glory God would be changeable And besides this immutability which may be called an immutability of his nature there is another of his Word and Promise whereby he hath graciously covenanted to put his fear in their heart that they shall never depart from him Now if any of the Saints should totally or finally apostatize Gods mutability would be seen in both those respects of his nature or will and of his truth and fidelity But the case is not the like when a man at his first conversion is made of a childe of wrath a childe of grace partly because there was no such absolute decree of God from Eternity that he should be for no space a childe of wrath but the clean contrary and partly because there is no such word or promise unto any unconverted person that he shall be in the favour of God but the Scripture declareth the clean contrary This duly considered will give a clear reason why it is no good Argument to say Such a man in his sins to day is a childe of wrath and converted to morrow is a son of grace Therefore God is changeable But on the other side if a man should argue An Elect man received into the state of grace may fall totally and finally Therefore God is