Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	die_v	sin_n	wage_n	7,907	5	11.1189	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62378	An exposition vvith notes on the whole fourth chapter to the the Romanes wherein the grand question of justification by faith alone, without works, is controverted, stated, cleared, and fully resolved ... / by William Sclater, Doctor in Divinity, sometimes minister of Gods word at Pitminster, in Summerset ; now published by his son, William Sclater, Batchelar in Divinity, minister at Collompton in Devon.	Sclater, William, 1575-1626.; Sclater, William, 1609-1661.	1650 (1650)	Wing S918; ESTC R37207	141,740	211

may the better see the my stery of their iniquity in this point let us a little enquire how many things are to be considered in actuall sins For as touching concupiscence we will touch it only by the way In every actuall sin we must consider 1. The act it self with the anomie thereof wherein the nature of sin consists 1 Ioh. 3.4.2 The effects and consequents flowing therefrom as 1. the offence and displeasure of God 2. as Cajetan cals it the turpitude thereof Thom. 1a 2ae quaest 109. Art 7. which according to Thomas and others we will imagine to contain three things First Maculam the blemishing of the soul or person of a sinner and the deprivall of that beauty and comeliness of it wherewith by grace it is adorned Secondly The corruption or destroying of that naturall good that stands in the subjection of man to God Thirdly The encrease of prones to the same sin A Third consequent is the guilt that lyeth upon the person of the sinner and his liableness to punishment Fourthly The fourth let be the punishment it self Let us now apply their conclusion to some controversies betwixt us and them Sins they say when they are remitted are utterly abolished and extinct yea so done away that there remains nothing of them that can be reputed sin then I hope we may assume of every sin pardoned that it is wholly abolished What think we then of originall sin in infants after Baptisme Is it pardoned or no Yes for Baptisme so takes away sin that it leaves nothing that hath the true and proper nature of sin Well then how comes it to pass that many of them dye before ever they had ability to commit actuall sins Have they nothing left that hath the nature of sin and yet tast they of death the wages of sin Rom. 6.23 Far be it that the Judg of all the world should not do right in punishing an innocent that hath nothing left in him that hath the true and proper nature of sin Again had David true remission of his adultery and murther yea or no Yes no doubt for Nathan telleth him the Lord hath put away his sin 2 Sam. 12.13 Well yet David must be punished though his sin be put away as a Clowd and there remains no foot-print of it nothing that could be reputed sin Help us to reconcile these or else blush at your contractions Lastly Methinks the sin being wholly abolished the whole reatus accrewing to the person thereby should be withall extinct for what is it that binds us over to punishment of any sort temperall or eternal sin only I trow yet according to their judgment in remission of many sins there remains reatus poenae Temporalis as they give instance in Davids case Well one thing I perceive remission of sins is any thing but what it is that is a release and discharge of the sinner from punishment Let us now come to set down what our judgment is concerning remission of sins We thus conceive it out of Cyprian to be in property of speech Cyprian de Orat. Dom. nothing but Venia delicti the pardon of sins and that in common apprehension is the discharge of the offendor from the punishment of his sin and that which pardon or remission hath in property of speech respect unto is the punishment of sin The first phrase in Davids speech hath this meaning Their sins are forgiven or pardoned that is not taken notice of to be punished What is the covering of sin the same that pardon is in effect saith Ambrose save only that the phrase is metaphoricall unfold it it is this as things that are covered are not seen so sins when God will pardon them are not seen of him that is not seen with regard or which such notice as that he should punish them Are they then and not seen of him to whose eyes all things are naked and * Heb. 4.13 uncovered or is there any covering so thick or impenitrable as that the eyes of God cannot pierce through it to discern what lyeth under Answ None that so hides as that he cannot see or know that they are done Isai 29.15 But yet they are so covered with the righteousness of Christ to believers that God willingly overseeth them and takes no notice of them to punish the times of this ignorance God winked at saith the Apostle Act. 17.30 Num. 23.21 He hath not beheld iniquity in Iacob neither hath he seen trangression in Israel See Psal 130.3 Bernard Bern. de septem misericorde Serm. 2.3 Ego peccabam tu dissimulabas expectans expectavit me dominus non intendit mihi sed oculos suos avertit a peccatis meis quasi nolens advertere quantum delinquerem c. Si texit peccata Deus noluit advertere si noluit advertere noluit animadvertere si noluit animadvertere noluit punire noluit agnoscere maluit ignoscere Tecta peccata quare dixit vid August ad Psal 31. ut non viderentur quid enim erat dei videre peccata nisi punire peccata ut noveris quià hoc est dei videre peccata quod punire peccata quid ei dicitur averte faciem tuam a peccatis meis Psal 51. c. See we now What it is not to have sins imputed The same I think that Stephen prayes for Act. 7.60 that they be not laid to our charge nor come into reckoning against us before God to be punished 2 Sam. 19.19 Saith Shimei to David Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversly c. that the King should take it to his heart What begs Shimei here but that his offence be not punished But are they still where they are not imputed Answ Actuall sins as acts after committing have no being save only in Gods and our own remembrance Actus transit saith Thomas the sinfull action is transient and vanishing that only which results from the action remains As 1. The offence of God 2. The guilt of the person 3. The recording thereof in Gods book of remembrance and setting it on his reckoning against the day of accounts 4. The punishment 5. Add if you will the maculam Now when they are not imputed the offence guilt remembrance and punishment are taken away remains there any thing of them Nothing at all no not the macula Where then is the odds betwixt us Answ 1. Herein that they will have remission of sins to be that act of God whereby our vicious inclinations are abolished we not so but take it rather to be that other act of Gods Spirit in our hearts which the Scripture call sanctification 1 Cor. 6.11 2. That they affirm all sins remitted even by remitting to be utterly abolished We say for corruption naturall and our inclinations to evil they still remain in part in us after they be forgiven and have the true and proper reason of sin so that

particular assent and affiance also in him as the Messiah promised as by view of some of the principall obligations will appear For think we the acknowledgment of this proposition in generall That Jesus Christ is the Son of God is that See Joh. 20. and 1 Ioh. 5. that justifieth and saveth Then how fail Divells of justification yea and of eternall life that sensibly acknowledg him to be Jesus the Son of the living God Mark 2. Besides what means our Saviour so often to invite us unto him and propounding the condition of eternall life to utter it in a phrase importing affiance as Ioh. 6.40 yea particular acknowledgment of him to be a Saviour unto us Lastly Thus I reason A Pari other parts and conclusions of Scripture propounded generally are to be believed not only as they concern the generall but particularly as having their truth in us Why not then these that propound remission of sins righteousness and salvation to be obtained by Christ For instance when the Scripture teacheth that every one is accursed that keeps not the Law that the wages of sin is death c. Binds it not me also to believe that I also for my sins am by nature subject to the curse that the proper wages for my sins is death When it propounds promises of temporall blessings as it doth to them that seeks Gods Kingdome and his righteousness ought not I to acknowledg this promise to belong to me and to place confidence in God for the performance Why then when the promise of remission of sins is made to believers binds it no me and every believer to assume that my sins are pardoned when it teacheth Christ to be the Saviour of the world and Author of Righteousness to those that obey him should I not say that Christ requiring generall faith intends also a particular applying of this generall to my self for my comfort and salvation More I add not in this kinde Two paradoxes only of Bellarmine Bellarm. l. 1. de justific cap. 8. I will briefly propound and so leave them The first is that faith is justifying though it have no respect to Gods speciall mercy The Second That it is not justifying if perhaps it have respect thereto The proofes have in them the quintessence of Iesuitical acumen The Leprous mans faith Mark 1. was a justifying faith and yet had no respect to speciall mercy Ergò Faith not respecting speciall mercy is justifying Answ The proposition needs proof inasmuch as many had faith for obtaining Miracles that had none at all touching the person of the Messiah Luk. 17. 2. How proves he that he had no speciall faith concerning remission of sins by Christ What because he doubts of his will for his cure As who say there may not be speciall faith touching pardon of sins even where there is doubt of obtaining some remporall blessing the one having a promise for Gods children to rest on the other not so but with limitation to expediency But will you see how he proves that faith is not justifying if it have respect to speciall mercy The Pharisee having it even because he had it was not justified Ergò Answ And was the Pharisees affiance in Gods speciall mercy the Reason why he was not justified Nay rather the vain boasting of his own righteousness as appears by the drift of the parable expressed Luk. 18.9 Vacuus proindè rediit Bernard de Annuc Ser. 3. ad calcem quia plenitudinem simulavit as S. Bernard and therefore failed he of justification not because he trusted on Gods speciall mercy to obtain it but for that he trusted in himself that he had it Some Ancients let us hear in this point Bernard de Annuc Serm. 1. saith Bernard Si credis pecoata tua non posse deleri nisi ab eo cui soli peccâsti in quem peccatum non cadit benè facis Sed adde adhuc ut hoc credas quia per ipsum Tibi peccata donantur hoc est Testimonium quod perhibit in corde nostro spiritus sanctus dicens dimissa sunt tibi Poccata Tua The Second opinion touching the nature of saith justifying as it is justifying is this that justifying faith is an assent not so much to the truth of the whole word of God as to the promises of the Gospell and that as having their truth in us The difference betwixt this and the Popish opinion stands in two things First in the object which they make the whole word of God these only the Doctrine of the Gospel Secondly In the manner of assenting which they make generall without any particular applying to our selves these particulars They consent in this that it is an act of the understanding rather then of the will perswasion rather then considence assent rather then affiance And for this they have these Reasons First For that the faith that justifieth is so often expressed in a phrase importing assent or giving credit as in this Scripture Abraham believed God that is gave credit to God promising to be his reward c. Similia vide Mark 1.15 Their Second Reason is because the object thereof is usually made the propositions of the Gospel and that which they call Terminum complexum or as Thomas speaks something propounded per modum enuntiabilis or to speak more plainly and agreeably to the phrase of Scripture a testimony which God gives in the word and in the heart See Rom. 8.16 Gal. 2.20 A Third Reason Because it seems strange that faith justifying should have divers seats or subjects The understanding as an assent the will as an affiance From hence and the like reasons it is concluded that faith justifying is an assent rather then affiance Now that it hath not for the proper object the whole word of God but rather only the doctrine of the gospel as it is justifying these Reasons evince First For that our Saviour prescribing the act limits out also the object and makes it the Gospel rather then any other part of the Scripture Mark 1.15 Secondly Kemn it in Exam. part 1. de Fide justisic For that in other parts of the word of God faith findes not what it may lay hold on for reconciliation remission of sins and justification but only in the Gospel that is the word of reconciliation there is Christ the Mediatour propounded there remission of sins promised For the Third branch that its a particular assent particular I mean not only in respect of the Subject but of the Object Examples prove Gal. 2.20 Christ loved me gave himself for me The generalls of the Gospel thus particularized are that which faith justifying as it is justifying respects by this faith Paul lived Secondly In point of believing there can else be no difference betwixt faith of Reprobates and that of the Elect betwixt faith of Divells and of justified men For it s an idle tenant of theirs that they make charity the form of faith a

sufficeth And it teacheth us in our study and search of Scripture not to let pass the smallest circumstance sith under it lye hid Doctrine so substantiall For wisdome we should search saith Solomon as men do for silver Prov. 2.4 turning up every clod and almost grain of dust wherein the least portion of pure metall may seem to lye hid In sacris liter is nihil est quod non ingentem thesaurum contineat modò scrutatorem habeat Ruizius reg 118. è Chrysostomo singuli sermones syllabae apices puncta in divinis Scripturis plena sunt sensibus Hieron ad Ephes. 3. Howbeit that we mistake not we must not forget that even the Scripture hath its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore it is not safe always to reason from order of narration except by other circumstances it be evident that the narration be to the order of times A Second collection of some Interpreters hence is this That the grace of justification is not tyed to Sacraments because it may be had without them And that was it as they think the Lord would teach us by the time of Abrahams circumcision and justification that look as the Lord furnishing the earth with hearbs and fruits before he made starrs by their heat or influence to give them vigour or raine to yeild them moysture would teach us that they are but Arbitrary Jnstruments which he useth ad Placitum So the the Lord giving Abraham Testimony of righteousnes before his circumcision would thereby teach us that his grace may be had without the Sacraments The question hath been already treated ad cap 2. Let us yet resume it that at least Our Judgement may be more manifest Necessity of Baptisme whereof the question chiefly is may be two ways conceived First Calvin justifi lib. 4. cap. 19. Serm. 26. Whether the receiving thereof be a necessary duty pressing the conscience by the law of God Whereto we answer with joynt consent it is necessary and so necessary that the wilfull contempt yea neglect of it where it may be had lays guilt of sin upon the conscience of the negligent or contempuous refuser Secondly It may be thus apprehended whether it be necessary as a mean of salvation In this also we consent that it is necessary as a mean of salvation Because 1. The observation thereof is a work of obedience and so part of that vita Regni 2. Because in the right use it serves to confirm faith and to nourish all graces that do accompany salvation What is then the question betwixt us and Papists It stands chiefly about the decree or manner of necessity namely whether it be absolutely necessary Vt perijsse protinùs existimetur cui ejus obtinendi ademta fucrit facultas Bellarm de Bapt. lib. 1. cap. 4. As Calvin explains it This measure of necessity of Baptisme we deny Papists affirm The question is saith Bellarmine whether Baptisme be necessary as a mean of salvation so that if any be not Baptised he perisheth etiamsi forte obignorantiam excusetur a praevaricatione praecepti that they affirm and if any demand what time it came to this height of necessity They answer Baptismus Christicaepit esse necessarius necessitate medii praecepti a die pentecostes As touching what we are to hold in this question I had rather utter in Bernards terms then in my own considering what adversaries we are are to deal with He therefore thus delivers his judgment Bernard Epist 77. That whosoever in men of years if any man since the publishing of that remedy for sin refuseth to be Baptized he adds to the generall contagion of nature the crime of pride and so carries with him a double cause of just damnation if he so dye yet if before death he repent and have a will and desire to be Baptized and cannot being prevented by death so be it he want not fides recta spes pia charitas sincera propitius sit mihi deus quia huic Ambrose de obitu valentiniani imperator ob solam quauam si defuerit nequaquam desperare possum omnino salutem nec vacuam credere fidem nec confundere spem nec excidere charitatem tantum si aquam non contempus sed sola prohibeat impossibilitas His reasons are First from authorities of Ambrose and Augustin Ambrose doubts not of the salvation of Valentinian for his faith only though he dyed unbaptized because he had a purpose S. Augustin de Bapt. lib. 4. cap. 22. and desire to be baptized Hear himself speak I hear saith Ambrose you are grieved because he received not the Sacrament of Baptisme Hear his reply Dicite mihi quid aliud nobis est nisi voluntas nisi petitio Atqui etiam dudum hoc voti habuit ut cúm in Italiam venisset initiaretur proximè baptizari se a me velle significabit c. Non habeat ergó gratiam quam desideravit Non habet quam poposeit Certe quia poposcit accepit mox quem eram regeneraturus amisi sed illi gratiam quam speraverat non amisit To Ambrose Saint Bernard adds S. Augustine determining that not only suffering for Christ but faith also and conversion of the heart doth supply the stead of Baptisme when not contempt of religion but point of necessity excludes the Sacrament of Baptisme 2. His next reason is collected out of Mark. 16.16 Our Saviour in likelihood when he said he that believes and his baptized shall be saved even for this so cautelously did not repeate he that is not baptized but onely he that believes not shall be damned intimating no doubt solam interdum sufficere fidem ad salutem sine ipsa sufficere nihil 3. His third Reason that which gives Martyrdom its value and causeth it to supply the stead of Baptisme shall it be thought so weak that what it gives to another thing it cannot alone by it self obtain we cannot think it Now faith gives Martyrdome this power that without any doubt it is reputed Baptisme For what is Martyrdome without it nisi poena It therefore alone may out of case of contempt suffice to salvation 4. Suppose the Lord see as great Faith in the heart of a man dying in Peace as in his that suffers martyrdome Surely God needs not outward evidences for discerning of faith and there may be in a man dying in peace a readiness to suffer death for the maintenance of faith suppose now this man to desire Baptisme but prevented by death to die without it damnabit fidelem suum Deus damnabit inquam hominem prose etiam paratum mori God forbid his peremptory conclusion is this Pro certo cùm non aliunde martyrium nisi ex Fidei merito illam obtinuerit praerogativam ut fingulariter vice Baptismi secure suscipiatur Non video cur non ipsa aeque sine Martyrio apud eum tantundem possit cùm sine Martyrii probamento proculdubio innotescit 5.

speaks of it it is rather a desire to fear then actuall fearing and therefore needs mercy to accept it hath no merit to procure so great a blessing from God August de verb. Apost Ser. 16. To like purpose Augustine In his quae jam habemus landemus Deum largitorem in his quae nondum habemus tenemus debitorem Debitor enim factus est non aliquid à nobis accipiendo sed quod ei placuit promittendo Illo ergò modo possumus exigere Dominum nostrum ut dicamus Redde quod promifisti quia fecimus quod jussisti hoc tu fecisti quia laborantes juvisti Their second argument because our works are vera salutis causa we may put confidence in any true cause which is known fit to bring us to the end wished and hoped for such are our works Ergo. To this argument the answers are divers amongst our Divines The Apologie of the Augustane confession seems not to deny that there is some virtue in the works of the faithfull procuring unto us eternall life But that virtue they imagine to be extrinsecall issuing from the merit of Christ imputed to us whereby it comes to pass that the blemishes of our obedience are covered and our works presented as pure and without spot before God And sundry others eminent in the Church of God think it no heresie to say that our good works tincta sanguine Christi make us worthy of eternal life In which and many the like speeches I must needs profes●e I see nothing derogatory to the glory of Gods grace or Christs Mediation nor worthy the tragicall exclamations of many if they be duely considered Our Sacrifices saith Peter are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ 1. Pet. 2.5 See Reynolds contra Hart. cap. 8. pure and clean saith Malachy though not by inherence yet by acceptation and by that tincture they receive from Christs bloud and intercession Rev. 8. But will it not hence follow that they are true causes of salvation Answ In no wise as Papists conceive it namely that ex propria dignitate and because they satisfie the Law of God such dignity we acknowledge none inherent in them nor such perfection as satisfies the Law The worth they have is from their die and tincture in Christs bloud and that is it alone that makes them capable of reward so that the term of our confidence is Christs bloud not our works into which the whole causality as I may term it of salvation in respect of us is to be resolved Others there are that choose simply and without distinction to deny the assumption least peradventure the proud heart of man should swell with opinion of its own conferring any thing to its own salvation They are via regni saith Bernard non causa regnandi Causes if ye will sine quibus non necessary antecedents to salvation no virtuall efficients or procurers thereof unto us most truly and fitliest to the Popish opinion according whereto they are made so exactly answerable to the justice of the Law that they need no mercy to cover their defects no imputation of Christs merits to hide their blemishes from Gods justice yea have a worth in them proportionall to the transcendent weight of glorie The Apostle otherwise Rom. 8.18 The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed Non si unus omnes sustineat saith Bernard Totis licèt animae Bern. de Annun Ser. 1. Euseb Emess Hom l. 3. ad Monach corporis laboribus desudemus totis licèt obedientiae viribus exerceamur nihil tamen condignum merito pro coelestibus bonis compensare offerre valebimus saith Eusebius Emissenus We conclude therefore That no confidence may be placed in our works of righteousness The whole must relie upon the mercy and truth of the promiser and on his Christ in whom the promises have their accomplishment 2. Cor. 1.20 And of the dutie and object thereof thus far His Periphrasis followeth Sense Who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead For the sense of the words It may be enquired how the resurrection of Christ is ascribed to the Father whereas it is said The Sonne hath power to lay down his life and to take it up again Joh. 2.19 and 10.18 Answ The answer rests in that old rule of Augustine The externall works of the Trinity are undivided in them all the whole three persons work joyntly in regard that the same divine virtue is equally residing in all If it be yet demanded why most usually the resurrection of Christ is assigned to the Father Answ Thus we may conceive that Christ in state of humiliation emptyed himself Phil. 2.7 Not as loving his glory but as forbearing for the time the ordinary manifestation of his Divine power inasmuch that howsoever there was no work of the father wherein he did not equally communicate quod ad substantiam operis yet so little shew thereof was there in the infirmity of his flesh that they might seem to be wholly from the father without any concurrence of Christ incarnate Again It may be demanded What the reason is that the Apostle singles out this effect of raising Christ from the dead to describe the father by Answ Some think to maintain the proportion betwixt the faith of Abraham and the faith of his seed that as he respected the power of God raising the dead in like sort should ours This is somewhat but if I be not deceived there is some farther aym of the Apostle he speaks methinks as if he thought there were some speciall reason and ground for confidence in God for justification in this act of God raising Jesus from the dead And weigh it well we shall finde there is scace any thing more fit to stablish faith in perswasion of justification then this For when the Lord losed the sorrowes of death and delivered our surety from bond age thereunto doth he not give evidence that his justice is fully satisfied for our sins he fully reconciled unto us Had not our surety Christ Jesus paid the utmost farthing due for our sins he had yet continued under the dominion of death the wages of our sins Hence saith Peter 1 Pet. 1.3 that the Lord hath begotten us to a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ from the dead there being no greater or more effectuall means to perswade us of pardon of sins reconciliation with God acceptation to life eternal then that Christ our surety and undertaker is risen from the dead There is a kinde of wisdome and prudence in believing the Apostle seems here to give us an hint for the nature and use of it thus conceives it It is when a man fits the consideration of the attributes and actions of God to the particulars most necessary and fit for faith to respect according to severall occasions as here The Apostle prescribing confidence in God for justification fits us with a description of him by

nations and my self also shall be blessed The premisses these God that hath promised is faithfull and able to give it In respect of the premisses his faith is generall In respect of the conclusion particular as we see In like sort we conceive the faith of every justified man to proceed from generalls to their own particular and to the particular by virtue of the generals Assent they yield to generals but with reference still to particulars For example That which for comfort of conscience cast down by the Law they believe is this particular conclusion My sins are or shall be forgiven me How come they to believe this particular Answ By belief of generals The sins of all that believe in Christ are for Christs sake forgiven according to Gods promises in the Evangelical Covenant therefore my sins are forgiven me since I have received by grace to rest on Christ for the pardon of my sins so is faith justifying Generall in respect of the premisses Particular in respect of the conclusion Their third deduction Faith concurrs to justification not as an instrument but as the formal cause of our righteousness For Abrahams faith was imputed justice c. Bellarm. de justif l. 1. c. 2. Ipsa fides censetur esse justitia Answ Whether whole justice or justice in part They answer justice in part for it is only Initium justitiae according to their conceit The sense then must be this absurdly Faith is counted justice that is the beginning of justice And Abrahams faith must be his justice in part only whereas the Apostle ascribes to Abraham whole justification in respect of his faith or else forgets the state of the question For this Scripture the sense is this Sense Abrahams faith was imputed to righteousness that is set on his score or taken notice of so far that the Lord in respect of it allowed him the esteem of righteousness See supra ad vers 3 4 5. The substance of Doctrine conceived in this verse hath been already handled ad vers 3. Pass we from it therefore to the third member of the Chapter the applying of all that hath been said of Abrahams justification to us VERS 23 24 25. Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him But for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead Who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification THe passage to this last member we may thus conceive The Apostle supposeth some weakling thus to enquire It is true Theophylact. ad loc quid nostra interest thou hast taught of Abraham that his faith was to him imputed to righteousness But what is that to us Answ It was not written for him only as matter of his glory and priviledg but for us also for our profit and comfort The points of the text are three First The use and comfort arising to us from the records of Abrahams justification Secondly The condition required of us to the end we may share with Abraham in the blessing of justification Thirdly The Reason brought to assure us of like favour in like faith c. for better confirming the comfort unto us It was not written for him only c. but for us also Where first observe we The method of conversing in the histories of the Saints let it still be with reference to our selves and our use They were written for us see Rom. 15.4 Heb. 11. and 12. Their favours for our comfort their chastisements for our terrour their vertues to our patterns their falls for our caution And it is idle to conceit them as encomiasticall narrations of their glory only Gods Spirit intended their records to our benefit A Second generall here observable is That Gods mercifull proceedings with his children are exemplary he justified Abraham believing he shall justifie us also performing like faith He pardoneth Paul repenting his blasphemies and made him a pattern to all that shall believe in him to eternall life 1 Tim. 1.16 He saved Noah from the deluge delivered Lot from the fire of Sodome Peters inference from these particulars is this generall God knows to deliver his out of temptation 2 Pet. 2.9 It is therefore a discomfortable misprision of Gods Children in temptations to conceive Gods favour as the priviledges of some eminent amongst his Saints and their great weakness to study differences betwixt themselves and others in points of necessary comforts For to yield that there were that had their speciall prerogatives in some particulars as Prophets to be taught by dreams and visions and immediate inspirations c. Yet in matter generally necessary for comfort of conscience and eternall salvation what was vouchsafed one may be expected of all 1. The Covenant is made with all without difference with the least as well as with the greatest Ier. 32.40 2. The mediation of Christ available for all 1 Tim. 2.4 of all sorts sexes nations and ranks of men God is he the God of Abraham only nay even of his seed also Christ is he the Mediatour for Apostles only nay even for all that the Lord hath given him out of the world Ioh. 17.9 Their is neither male nor female bond nor free weak nor strong but all are one in Christ Jesus The same blood of Christ redeemed all the same love of God embraced all the same spirit seals all to the day of redemption the impression in some is more evident then in others the image all one wherewith all are stamped and thereby sealed unto the day of redemption The only thing that concerns us is to provide we resemble in our behaviour the Lord we shall finde impartiall in his favours if we be not dissonant in our demeanure and that is the next thing the text leads unto To us it shall be imputed as to Abraham believing as Abraham in him that raised up Iesus from the dead Observ The generall instruction the text affords is this That a man desiring to partake the favours of the Saints must be carefull to resemble the practice of Saints Wouldest thou be justified as Abraham believe as Abraham pardoned as Paul repent as Paul delivered as Lot be righteous as Lot The same God is a like to all in his blessings that are alike to him in their obedience There is a generation of men enviously emulous of the priviledges of Gods Children dissolutely careless of their behaviour Let my soul dye the death of the righteous saith Balaam but the hellish wretch cares not to live the life of the righteous Bernard in Psal qui Habitat Ser. 7. life of the righteous Tantus est pietatis fructus saith Bernard tanta justitiae merces ut ne ab ipsis quidem non desiderari queat impiis injustis I would the conditions might seem as reasonable as the reward is glorious But the complaint of that Father who sees it not fitting the times quam