Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	bind_v	remit_v	retain_v	2,099	5	9.6847	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88693	Suspension reviewed, stated, cleered and setled upon plain scripture-proof. Agreeable to the former and late constitutions of the Protestant Church of England and other reformed churches. Wherein (defending a private sheet occasionally written by the author upon this subject, against a publique pretended refutation of the same, by Mr W. in his book, entituled, Suspension discussed.) Many important points are handled; sundry whereof are shortly mentioned in the following page. Together with a discourse concering private baptisme, inserted in the epistle dedicatory. / By Samuel Langley, R.S. in the county palatine of Chester.	Langley, Samuel, d. 1694.	1658 (1658)	Wing L405; Thomason E1823_2; ESTC R209804	201,826	263

he may fall into such sins wherein if he finally continue he cannot expect to be saved but is bound to think he shall perish continuing therein Matth. 18.3 and 2. wherein afterward he repenting acknowledgeth God might justly have cast him off in his sin and damned him for it notwithstanding his former interest in Christ Now these accusations of Conscience are true grounded upon the threatnings of the word of God against such as are any while particularly impenitent under such sins Therefore the guilt of conscience charged on him was really on him at that time 3. And he may fall into such sins as the Church may justly retain and bind as it is conceived the incestuous Corinthian was godly before and these are bound in heaven therefore their sins at that present are not remitted in heaven §. 4. 3. How these positions both which seem manifest in Scripture should agree together and not contradict one another is the great difficulty That learned Divine before named most happy in solving of difficulties though he ingenuously confesse himselfe much in the dark here yet inclines to this answer viz. That pardon belongs not onely to actuall repentance and faith but to habituall And so David was actually pardoned on the condition performed of his habituall faith and repentance which kept the interest of Christ most prevailingly in his soul when he was so foiled by actuall wickedness Which he is driven to hold as he saith because he supposeth a godly man may die in gross sins not particularly repented of But then methinks it would follow hereupon that David after his rising again by actuall repentance was pardoned onely as to his sense being really and actually pardoned before even in the committing the crimes on the condition of his habituall faith which yet I think that Mallcus and happy confuter of the Antinomians will not grant 4. Some distinguish of habituall and actuall pardon according to their habituall and actuall faith and repentance And so David should have the former before he was recovered by repentance not the later But this distinction may not be granted because though there be habits of sanctifying grace insused into and inherent in us distinguished from the actuall exercise thereof yet grace justifying and pardoning is wholly without us and is Gods act and therefore I see not how any can be said to have habitual pardon §. 5. I shall now cast in my Mite for explicating this matter by propounding explaining and applying these two distinctions 4. Distinguish betwixt virtuall pardon and the formall application of pardon The terms of the distinction after I had in my thoughts pitched on them I found in Ames Medul lib. 1. c. 27. though he explain them in a sense different from what I intend to signifie thereby Per formalem applicationem saith he remittuntur peccata praeterita sutura autem virtuailter Praeterita in se futura in subjecto vel personâ peccante The fore-praised Mr. Baxter also in his Method for setling Peace of Conscience p. 266. speaks of virtuall justification which David did not lose and actual which he did at present lose by his sin And of which comes to the same effect imperfect and more prefect justification But I mean by virtuall pardon and the formal application of pardon an actual and potential pardon not onely in potentiâ remotâ but proxima As the fruit is virtually contained in the seed so where there is a seed of habituall faith there is a principle certainly through Gods grace promised productive of actual particular repentance for particular gross sins in due time The kingdom of heaven true grace is thus compared to a grain of Mustard seed The virtuall or potentiall pardon is acquitting from sin on such a condition which is inchoatly in the sinner viz. in regard of the seed of it certainly productive of actuall particular repentance for those gross sins not onely as what shall be in respect of Gods Decree which hath no condition to which Ames seems to referre if there were such a pardon or justification in respect of Gods decree to pardon a man might be said to be justified before he is born but especially in that there is that habituall faith and repentance in the sinner which will certainly produce actuall before death And thus David was virtually or potentially inchoatly pardoned as to those gross sins not yet particularly and actually repented of and so he was not out of the state of justification then as out Divines express it But yet he was not formally pardoned till upon actuall repentance he had attained actuall reconciliation with God especially in reference to those particular sins whereby he was disobliged from Gods wrath due to him for the same For this forgivenesse is not to be expected but upon actuall repentance 1 John 1.7 9. Prov. 28.13 And if it were otherwise a godly man could not presume §. 6. 2. Distinguish the way God hath confined us to wherein only we may expect pardon from the way God out of his Royall prerogative may take for pardoning a sinner The way prescribed in the word wherein onely we may expect pardon through Christ is in performance of the Gospel-condition of actuall faith and repentance for all sins in general for more particular gross sins particularly and in the continuance hereof Now God ties us not himselfe If any of the elect should die before actuall particular repentance they having not oppotunity for such repentance as in the case of self-murder upon a violent temptation or the like God may acquit them from the guilt of that particular sin upon their habituall repentance for it But this we cannot expect nor build upon having no Rule for it that God will do so though we cannot say he never will Besides we know not what actuall repentance God may give to such in the instant before death such secret things belong not to us And therefore as we cannot judge others as to this so neither may we vary from the Rule of actuall faith and repentance in order to our expecting the obtaining and continuance of pardon and justification unto life and salvation The Reader will perhaps say To what purpose hath this perplexed question about the state of a Christian under some notorious sins been here spoken of I answer Because it is as I suppose much conducing to the clearing of the caution we have in hand that it is not the visibility or probable appearance of habitual faith primarily that is requited which should authorize the Church or Ministers to admit a person to the Sacraments but a visible actuall faith shewed probably in a present conformity and obedience to the Gospel For since habitual faith repentance cannot according to the rule we must expect to be ordered by entitle a person to actuall pardon or the formal application of pardon it followes that that habitual faith isnot enquired for primarily in order to admission to the Sacraments which are instituted to seal

actuall remission of sin and are so designed by the ministrators thereof It is true where we require actuall faith habituall is supposed but habituall is not sufficient though we could be assured thereof being not sufficient in its kind as a condition for the obtaining of pardon of sins And this leads us to the second Caution which is this §. 7. 2. That a person is not judged by the Church or Minister to be destitute of grace no not visibly and apparenter necessarily upon the account of their debarring him from the Sacrament but onely that he doth not live in the visible actuall exercise of faith but walketh in wayes inconsistent therewith And which therefore bring him under guilt at present so that his sins are retained in heaven that is unpardoned as well as on earth in the Church As by the preaching of the word they are retained in soro interno or poenitentiali so by the Church-censures in foro externo juridicali Matth. 16.19 18.18 As in preaching I say the threatnings or comforts mens conditions are manifested to their own consciences so in Church-censures inflicted on offenders and in Ecclesiasticall restoring of them there is a solemn application of the threats or promises of comforts to particular persons upon credible evidence of their states being such as may require the same respectively either the one or the other Now a godly man may have need of having the threatnings applied to him supposing his fall into any gross sin not particularly repented of And so may have his sins retained by the Church not onely he who hath the habit of saving faith inwardly and undiscernably as to others but also he of whose habituall justifying or sincere faith the Church or Ministers have probable hopes at that very time As suppose in Davids case one who had long known his former upright life might by that have had more probable grounds whereupon to judge and esteem him habitually holy then from his present crimes to judge or esteem him destitute of true holiness The like is the case of some few of the Quakers and such notorious heretickes in our dayes who upon the account of their former holy conversation a long time are hoped to have a seed of grace in them which will in due time through Gods mercy exert it selfe for their conversion from their present blasphemies as it hath done in some Yet what sober person can doubt that at present they are in such wayes of actuall infidelity and wickedness as to be rejected as they are by our Churches §. 8. The third Caution that must be here remembred which was hinted before viz. That it belongs primarily to the governing Church to judge what persons are so unbelievers in respect of their notorious disobedience to the Gospel as that the Lords Supper may not be administred to them this being confessed by all to be one instance of Ecclesiastical punishment or rather castigation viz. in exclusion from the Sacrament And then where the Church is in such a capacity to judge I humbly conceive the Minister while he is their Minister is to administer according to their judgement yea although their publick judgement thwart his own opinion For in such a case the question is not whether unbelievers by notorious disobedience to the Gospel should be admitted that he cannot recede from to gratifie any but whether this or that person be such an unbleliever which is regularly in a Church under Ecclesiasticall government to be determined by a publick judgement wherein particular persons are and an Officer considered as a single person is concluded so as it may not be resisted by him alone though he hath the liberty of appeal as opportunity is offered As when a Judge acquits one upon the verdict of the Jury whom he thinkes ought not to be acquitted The question there is not whether the guilty should be acquitted that may not be done by him upon any terms but whether that person is guilty and here without any injustice he submits his own opinion to the publick judgement of them whom the Law makes Judges in some sort of the fact in such cases I said while the Minister continueth to be their Minister he is obliged thus to comply but in some gross and palpable male-administrations it is thought the Minister and so the Judge in the former instance should leave his place rather then continue to execute the wicked determinations of the publick judgement aforesaid As Hooker in the Preface to his Ecclesiasticall Polity sayes Calvin did in such a case preaching his farewell Sermon upon such a wrong judgement passed by the Consistory of Geneva for the admission of a notorious offender to the Sacrament §. 9. 4. But when the Church is not in that capacity there being not a governing Church nor can be procured I suppose it is devolved to the diseretion and prudence of the Minister for suspending his own act of delivering the Sacrament to such as are openly wicked and profane and as it were ipso jure excommunicate For the proving hereof or what is tantamount that reverend Divine Mr. Blake hath given us his ren reasons in his Covenant sealed ch 7. § 16. well worthy of consideration and answered objections made by Mr. Jeanes against the same To which if it would not be counted too much presumption I would add There is no one I think doubts but a Minister if cast among heathens to whom he preacheth the Gospel and they tender themselves to baptisin might make use of his prudence and judgement of discretion to direct him in administring or not administring baptism to those he discerns capable or incapable who are fit Catechumens and who not who seem to professe the Christian faith seriously and who saying the same words do yet manifestly scorn what in words they profess And where he hath no governing Church to whose publick judgment he should have recourse I see not but the case as to this is of the same exigence either he is to administer to all that come or he must discern and judge who are to be refused and who embraced Now there is no publick judgement for him to be guided by But none sure will say the former The Minister is greatly concerned to do his endeavour in keeping the manifestly uncapable from participating even where there is a governing Church much more where there is not and so agreater burden is cast upon him Cyprian in his 54. Epistle Cornelio fratri after advising him to admit the penitent to the communion saith Si autem quod Dominus avertat à fratribus nostris aliquis lapsorum fefellerit ut pacem subdole petat impendentis praelii tempore communicationem non praeliaturus accipiat seipsum fallit ac decipit qui aliud corde occultat aliud voce pronunciat Nos in quantum nobis videre judicare conceditur faciem singulorum videmus cor scrutari mentem perspicere non possumus De