Now this being one of the attributes of God which are called communicable it is truly affirmed That that Justice which is in God is the very same in substance communicated to men though in a lower degree Reason of Christian Religion p. 24 Pacif. As it is seems a Paradox to me that Metaphysical Goodness is all one with Truth Goodness and Truth being by all that I have met with made distinct affections of Ens so it is to me also at least propositio male sonans that the Justice which is in God is the very same in substance communicated to men though in a lower degree for the Justice which is in God is the same with his Infinite Essence so is not the finite justice in the creature the same with his finite essence but really distinct from it Now that thing which is substantially just and that whose justice is but an accident seem to differ more than gradually But I pray you proceed and it may be I shall be better able to find out your mind Laud For a thing to be true i. e. to have a being either potential or actual depends partly on Gods power partly on his will in respect of its potential being it depends on his power in respect of its actual on his will Now Gods power though it may in some sense be said communicable to the creature because all ability in the creature is a gleam of infinite ability in God yet is not this so communicated as his Justice or Goodness was said to be for goodness in the creature is a kind of image truly resembling the goodness in God and that a kind of natural image as is the face in the glass not a voluntary one which hath its being from the variable will of the Artificer But power in the creature is not thus a natural image of Gods power but as reflection of a thing which voluntarily and variously casts its beams Voluntarily I say because the dispensing of his power either in manner or measure is a free act of his will and variously because he doth it first unequally and secondly not so to any but that he can and sometimes doth withdraw or suspend it when it is bestowed so that I cannot say that as that which is just in God to be done is just to be done by the creature so what is possible to be done by God is possible to be done by the creature the reason of the not communicating of Gods power to the creature as well as his justice may be this because it conduced not to the end of the creatures creation as the other did for though God intended to make a creature truly good and just yet he did not truly powerful Reas. Christ Relig p. 25. Pacif. Here are sundry things which I cannot digest 1 I do not see but that the creature is truly powerful as well as truly just or good if that power which is in the creature be true power then it denominates the creature truly powerful 2 Nor secondly Do I see but that goodness is as the reflection of a thing which voluntarily and variously casts its beams as well as power for doth not God communicate his goodness unequally as well as his power 3. I dare not say that what is just in God to be done is just to be done by the creature To let a creature starve whom it was in my power to relieve it would not be just in me but it is just in God he being not so bound to the creature as I am And 4. I must from all conclude that as the reason of the creature apprehends many things to be impossible which yet are possible so it may also apprehend sundry things not to be just which yet are just as the Stulta Dei sunt credenda so the Impia Dei sunt facienda that which our reason counts folly is to be believed that which it counts wicked to be done Laud The Church Representative cannot err in points of Faith Gagg p. 48. The Decision of the Catholick Church we receive as the dictate of the Holy Spirit Gagg p. 19. Pacif. This had need to be well and warily understood or else it will contradict the 21. Article General Councils when they be gathered together for as much as they are an Assembly of men whereof all be not governed by the Word and Spirit of God they may err and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining to God wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither strength nor authority unless they may be declared that they be taken out of the Holy Scriptures Laud Many things appertain unto God which are not of necessity to salvation both in practice and speculation in these haply General Councils have erred in the other none can Appeal p. 124. Pacif. This doth not satisfie Those words things ordained of them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority unless do suppose that it is not impossible for a General Council to determine those points to be necessary to salvation which are not and if so why not also those not to be necessary which are Besides the reason assigned is because they are an assembly of men whereof all are not governed by the Spirit and Word of God Now I would argue thus May a General Council consist of men not guided by the Spirit or may it not If you say it may not I ask what assurance have you that there shall never be an Assembly made up of such men If you say it may why then I ask why such may not as well err in Fundamentals as in Non-Fundamentals Do you think an elect person may not err fundamentally I wish you did but I know you do not If one single elect person may err why may not an Assembly or the major part of an Assembly consisting of such But let us now proceed to the consideration of the several estates of mankind Laud That Adam was made mortal in his nature is infinitely certain and proved by his very eating and drinking his sleep and recreation by ingestion and egestion by breathing and generating his like which immortal substances never do and by the very tree of life which had not been needful if he should have had no need of it to repair his decaying strength and health D. J. T. Fur. Explic. of Orig. sin p. 453. Death came not in by any new sentence or change of nature for man was created mortal and if Adam had not sinned he should have been immortal by grace i. e. by the use of the Tree of Life To die is a punishment to some to others not it was a punishment to all that sinned before Moses and since upon the first it fell as a consequent of Gods anger upon Adam upon the later it fell as a consequent of that anger which was threatned in Moses Law but to those who sinned not at all as Infants and Ideots it was meerly a condition of
it a Christion Faith they had for they looked for all benefits of God the Father through the merits of his Son Jesus Christ as we now do This difference is betwixt them and us that they looked when Christ should come and we be in the time when he is come therefore saith St. Augustine the time is altered and changed but not the faith The same Doctrine is delivered Part. 2. p. 187. Of this judgement also was Ignatius if I understand him Epist. ad Antiochenos {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. and in the Epistle ad Philadelph Sed Prophetas diligamus propter ipsos in Evangelium annunciasse in Christum sperare ipsum expectare in quo credentes salvati sunt in unitate Jesu Christi existentes And I should thank any one that would tell me if the Types and Ceremonies of the Law did not represent Christ to come and were not thought by Saints then so to do why God did institute that Ceremonial Paedagogy Laud That God instructed our first Father Adam in the duty of Sacrifice I shall easily grant and I shall grant as easily that God proposed some other end of them in that institution then to receive them as a quit-rent from the hands of men in testimony that they held their estates from him as the Supreme Landlord for though this may be held as to Sacrifices Eucharistical yet there was another sort which we may call Expiatory ordained by God himself as the Types and Figures of that one only real and propitiatory Sacrifice which was to be performed in the death of Christ yet were they not bare Types and Figures that had no efficacy in themselves but such efficacy as they had was not natural to them but either in reference to the Sacrifice to be made of Christ or else extrinsecal by the Divine Ordinance and Institution of Almighty God and that they might be so in this last respect there want not very pregnant reasons in the Word of God for whereas God considered as the Supreme Law-giver had imposed a Commandment on man under pain of death although it stood not with his wisdom to reverse the Law which with such infinite wisdom had bin first ordained yet it seemed very sutable to his grace and goodness to commute the punishment and satisfie himself with the death of Beasts offered in Sacrifice unto him by that sinful creature Id p. 93. p. 95. for ought appeareth to the contrary the Sacrifices both before and under the Law had in themselves a power of Propitiation by vertue of the Ordination and Institution of Almighty God and not a relative vertue only in reference to the All-sufficient Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ Pacif. I think as you that neither the only nor the chief end of Gods instituting Sacrifices was this that he might receive a quit-rent from his creatures I grant also that the Sacrifices had an efficacy in them as to the taking away of sin but the Law being made He that sinneth shall die I see not any ground to think that God would dispense with his Law without a valueable consideration and that the death of a Beast is not The government of Israel was a Theocracy and God who would have any other laws made with cruelty would not make his own laws without merciful condescension to the infirmity of men therefore as he would not let those sins go unpunished for which Sacrifices were appointed so he would not have all offenders cut off by the hand of justice but mercifully appointed a commutation that not the sinner but the Beast should be slain and the slaying of the Beast did procure a man immunity from that death temporal which else would have been inflicted on the offendor in that Common-wealth but that God ever made any Institution or Ordination that upon the offering of a Sacrifice without respect to Christ the Anti-type sin should be forgiven in the Court of Conscience or of Heaven that with the common consent of Divines I deny you that say he did must show us where any such Ordination or Institution is recorded Laud When God brought Israel out of Egypt he began to make a Covenant with them with some complyance to their infirmities for because little things could not be avoided Sacrifices were appointed for their Expiation but for great sins there was no Sacrifice appointed no repentance ministred And therefore still we were in the ministration of death for this mercy was not sufficient as yet it was not possible to be justified by the Law it did not promise Eternal life it ministred no grace but fear and temporal hope it was written in Tables of stone not in their heart that is the material parts of the Law of Moses was not consonant to natural and essential reason but arbitrary impositions they were not perfective of man but very often destructive Unum Necess p. 39. Pacif. There are many passages at which just exception may be taken you say God when he brought Israel out of Egypt began to make a Covenant with some complyance to their infirmities But I pray you had he not begun till then you say as yet it was not possible for a man to be justified by the law was it ever since possible you say the Law was written in Tables of stone not in their hearts But you do not sure hope to perswade us that the Law Moral was not then written in every good mans heart and no other laws were ever written in Tables of stone when you say That is the material parts of the Law of Moses was not consonant to natural and essential reason but arbitrary impositions they were not persective of a man but often destructive I understand you not that is what is Did the writing of the Law on the Tables import any such as that which follows and why say you that the material parts of the Law of Moses were not consonant to natural and essential reason are not the ten Commandments material parts of the Law of Moses yet sure they are consonant to natural essential reason but if you will call only the Ceremonial Law the material part of the Law of Moses the reason of which appellation I cannot guess yet how this was ofen destructive of man and not perfective will be very difficult to apprehend Laud If we consider the particular of Moses Law it was such a burden which the Jews themselves were loth to part with because it was in the Moral part of it but a Law of abstinence from evil Unum Neces p. 20. p. 21. the righteousness of the Law was in abstinence from evil the righteousness of the Gospel in thatand in the doing of all the affirmative Commandments of Christ Pacif. Was the Law in the Moral part of it but a law of abstinence from evil What make you of the fourth and fifth Commandment the other eight indeed are expressed in a Negative form
such is his graciousness that he will accept of what we can do and what we cannot do that he will set on the score of Christ But let me hear you speak plainly Whether a man can keep the Law and be without sin Land There are who I hope out of ignorance teach the people such doctrine as not accidentally and occasionally but directly and per se causeth them to sin such is that Catechetical doctrine that no man is able either by himself or by any grace received in this life perfectly to keep the Commandments of God but doth daily break them in thought word and deed Dr. Gell. p. 247. Pacif. What then do you think a man may be without sin Laud They are justly to be reproved who plead for their spots and stains and alledge for themselves that they must be defiled with them while they live here but when shall they be cleansed from them cleansed they must be they say they shall be purified at the end of this life yea when they can sin no more then they shall be cleansed from their spots what Scripture can they alleadge for this Sure I am there 's none in the whole Word of God besides they attribute more to their own natural death then they do the death of Christ and our conformity thereunto If therefore the spots cannot be washed out in this life nor at the end of this life it must then follow that there must be a time after this life and before we enter into the holy City when these spots be washed out and when and where must that be but in Purgatory Mark now Beloved whither this unclean doctrine of necessity leads the Authors of it they who are great enemies to Popery are by this their Tenent the greatest Patrons of Purgatory Id. p. 750. Pacif. What then think you of those places Eccles. 7. 20. There is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not and 1 Joh. 1. 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us Laud Solomon speaks of such a just man as is under the first dispensation that of the Father which is the fear of God p. 768. But those children of the Father who have their sins forgiven them through his Name and are now brought unto the Son and grown so strong in him that they overcome the Evil one these at length attain to the old age in the Spirit and experimentally know him who is from the beginning This is that state {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is without sin such an estate is possible and attainable through the grace of God and his Holy Spirit that men may be without sin p. 790. Pacif. I shall hereafter know whence some of our Quakers and Antinominans get their canting language But doth not this discourse of yours quite pull down what was laid by our first Reformers Artic. 15. Sin was not in him i. e. Christ but all we the rest although baptized and born again in Christ yet offend in many things and if we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us If you think this Doctrine be false no better way for confuting it then by bringing out some of your Saints that have attained the full age of the Spirit and so live without sin such a one could I never meet with never hear of yea I have observed that those who have made the greatest pretensions to perfection have been so far from perfection of grace that they have discovered themselves to have no Religion at all But I have heard of certain new Precepts by which Christ did perfect the Moral Law concerning the perfection of which I have alway had high thoughts Laud Christ hath perfected the Law and set it higher then any the most studyed Doctor did think himself obliged by it formerly Prac Catec 2. Ed. p. 93. God is light and in him is no darkness at all 1 Joh. 1. 5. This is to be understood of Gods Law and Commandment that they had before some mixture of imperfection but now have none had before some vacuities in them which are now filled up by Christ p. 94. Of this the same Author may be seen in his Letters to Dr. Cheynell Pacif. That our Saviour in the 5 of Matthew doth but expound the Law and clear it from the absurd glosses and interpretations of the Scribes and Pharisees seems to be plainly resolved by our Church in the Homilies p. 41. p. 79. Part. 1. Edit. Lond. 1623. which Edition I all along follow and had Christ acted the part of a new Law-giver and not of an Interpreter only it is not like he would have said Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees but except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of Moses and the Prophets you cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Maldonate indeed tells us that Christ doth all along tacitely oppose himself to Moses by that form of speech but I say unto you only ad declinandam invidiam he names him not but who can think our Lord opposeth himself to a servant that was faithful in all his house but whether Christ did intend to fill up the vacuities of the Moral Law by adding new Precepts will best appear by examination of particulars and shewing that the Moral duties which are supposed to be de novo enjoyned in that chapter were duties enjoyned to Israelites as well as us to some Precepts no addition is pretended to be made but yet because there is Controversie made and raised about them all it may not be amiss to take all into consideration you know the Church of Rome is commonly charged with Idolatry and made to transgress both first and second Commandment the first by worshipping the Bread in the Eucharist the second by making Images of the the true God c. what think you of these matters Laud Idolatry is a forsaking the true God and giving divine worship to a creature or Idol that is to an imaginary god who hath no foundation in essence or existence Libert. Prop. p. 258. Pacif. You seem already to forsake the Doctrine of our Church as also doth Mr. Mountague who saith in his Gagge that Ido's and Images may be two things whereas the Homily saith expresly Part. 2. p. 12. That the Scriptures use the words Images and Idols indifferently for one thng alway and in the said Homily it is further asserted that there may be Idolatry in worshipping the true God in an undue manner Laud It is evident that the object of the Papists Adoration in the blessed Sacrament is the only the Eternal God hypostatically joyned with his holy humanity which humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the Sacramental signs and if they thought him not present they are so far from worshipping the Bread in this case that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so which
Expiations were appointed for small sins but none for great ones 't is a notion borrowed from the Socinians but hath nothing of truth in it forif we look into Levit. 6. 1 2 c. We shall find a trespass-offering appointed for sins done wittingly for a mans lying in that which was delivered to him to keep and swearing falsely which sure are not small sins And in the Feast of Expiation of which mention is made Levit. 16. we find very general tearms used v. 16 21 30 34. and therefore God promising to his people the remission of their sins that were very grievous Isai. 1. 18. useth a metaphor say the Rabbins taken from that which hapned in the Feast of Expiation when the thread by which the Scape-goat was led into the Wilderness did miraculously change its colour and become white Every great sin say you brought death infalibly What death do you mean temporal or eternal All men were not cut off by death temporal who did fall into soul gross sin much less did they all suffer the vengeance of eternal death witness David who scaped notwithstanding adultery and murder whereas Volkelius saith this was not by vertue and efficacy of Sacrifices but by the singular mercy of God he 's well answered by Maresius among others that he makes a faulty opposition betwixt that pardon which was by the typical efficacy of Sacrifices and that which proceeded out of the singular mercy of God whereas that pardon of sin which was obtained by any Expiatory Sacrifice whether typical or real was ever to be ascribed to the special mercy of God and indeed seeing it cannot be denyed but that some very enormous crimes were pardoned under the Law it seems very irrational to deny that such pardon was signified to those who were guilty by some Sacrifices if not particular yet common and universal especially seeing David himself being about to ask the pardon of his sin expresseth himself in terms taken from Ceremonies and legal Sacrifices Psal. 51.4 5 7. Purge me with hysop But I pray you tell us more of your mind about Moses his Law Laud As it had a little image of Repentance so it had something of Promises to be as a grace and auxiliary to set forward Obedience But this would not do it the Promises were temporal and that could not secure Obedience in great instances and there being for them no remedy appointed by Repentance the Law could not justifie it did not promise life Eternal nor give sufficient security against the temporal only it was brought in as a paedagogy for the present necessity Unum Necess p. 3. Pacif. How to make sense of those words the Law did not promise life Eternal nor give sufficient security against the temporal I know not but I suppose your meaning in the whole that you said is this That under the Law the Promises were temporal not of matters Spiritual or Eternal Now if you mean that the Law considered barely as a law had no promises of Eternal life I cannot gain-say but in that sense neither had it any promises temporal for a law as a law promiseth nothing but only declareth what is to be done or avoided but if you should mean that God under Mos s his Law did not encourage his people to Obedience by promises of Eternal life as well as of a Temporal our Divines against the Socinians and Papists have said enough to confute you and you plainly contradict the 7th Article of our Church in which the words are these The Old Testament is not contrary to the New for both in the O d and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Jesus Christ who is the only Mediator between God and Man being both God and Man wherefore they are not be heard which fain that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises Laud At first there were no promises at all of any good nothing but a threatning of evil to the transgressors and after a long time they were entertained but with the promise of good things temporal which to some men were performed by the pleasures and rewards of sin and then there being a great imperfection in the nature of man it could not be that man should remain innocent and for Repentance in this Covenant there was no regard or provisions made Unum Neces p. 2. Pacif. Either I understand you not or this is uncouth Divinity you say at first there were no promises at all of any good nothing but a threatning of evil what mean you by at first if while Adam was innocent Can any one think that the most holy and merciful Creator should threaten death to Adam upon his disobedience and not promise him life and happiness on condition of obedience if by the first you mean that time in which the world consisted of Adam and Eve Abel and Cain and some few other sure you cannot think that in that period of time there was no promise of good things there was the promise of the seed of the woman and God tells it Cain as a thing well known to him that if he did well he should be accepted the Hebrew word there used cometh from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a root saith Pagnin of very vast and comprehensive signification if any other in all the Hebrew tongue it may carry these three significations in that place 1. If thou do well shalt thou not be pardoned 2. Shalt thou not lift up thy count nance i. e. have access to God with boldness 3. Shalt thou not receive i. e. receive the things thou askest and standest in need of How any of these were or could be performed to any by the pleasures and rewards of sin I wot not But what may one think of the faith of them who lived before Christs Incarnation Laud That both the Patriarchs and the Jews did rely on God for the accomplishment of his promise touching their salvation I do nothing doubt but that they were acquainted with the means and method which God did purpose to make use of in so great a work or did rely on Christ to come for their justification as the Scripture no where saith it for ought find so is there no reason to believe it for ought I can see Dr. Hey Fid. Apost. p. 96. after a long discourse to that purpose Pacif. The Writers of our Homilies seem to be of another mind for Part. 1. p. 25. we find these words All these Fathers Martyrs and other holy men had their faith surely fixed in God when all the world was against them they did not only know God to be the Lord Maker and Governor of all men in the world but also they had a special confidence and trust that he was and would be their God their Comforter Aider Helper Maintainer and Defender This is the Christian Faith which these holy men had and we also ought to have And although they were not named Christian men yet was
satisfaction to Divine Justice thereby to make way for mans Redemption be any secret insinuation to me that I must rather surfer a boisterous wretch to sheath his Sword in my bowels then sheath mine in his if I have no other probable way to secure my own person then by dispatching his Christianity is indeed a law of highest charity but charity not only may but also must begin at home Laud Those words If a man will sue thee at the law and take thy cloak let him have thy coat also are a particular instance in pursuit of the general Precept resist not or avenge not evil the Primitive Christians were sometimes severe in observation of the letter not subtilly distinguishing Counsels from Precepts but swallowing all the words of Christ without chewing or discrimination They abstained from tribunals unless they were forced thither by persecutors but went not thither to repeat their goods Id. part 2. p. 135. Pacif. The reason why the Primitive Christians went not to the Tribunals to repeat their goods might be because the Tribunals were then occupied by Heathen Judges the appearing before whom might be a snare to them but undoubtedly the words of our Saviour are a precept not a counsel For 1. the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} need not to be understood of a legal impleading a Brother in a Court of Judicature both Beza and Grotius which is strange agree that it may mean any contentious striving or quarrelling or fighting which a man must not allow himself for a greater matter cloak This Exposition is confirmed by St. Luke who useth a word that plainly denoteth and implyeth force and violence 2. Let the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} be taken in the sense that our Translators retain yet questionable it is whether it be not unlawful to go to law for so small and slight a matter as a coat {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was the Vestis interior minoris pretii saith Causabon Laud To go to law for revenge we are simply forbidden i. e. to return evil for evil and therefore all those suits which are for vindictive sentences not for reparative are directly criminal To follow a thief to death for spoiling my goods is extreamly unreasonable and uncharitable for as there is no proportion between my goods and his life so the putting him to death repairs not my estate the first makes it in me to be unjust the later declareth me malicious and revengeful Id. Ibid. Pacif. If all suits that are for vindictive sentences are directly criminal then is it also directly criminal for the Judge to give such sentences as are vindictive And doth it become an English Divine without prefacing an Apology or adding any one reason to call the prosecuting of a thief to death for spoiling my goods extreamly unreasonable and uncharitable when as it is not only allowed but also enjoyned by our English Law I perceive you and I hit it not at all in the Exposition of the Commandments Pray you let me hear your mind about Repentance and the three commonly assigned parts of it Confession Contrition Satisfaction Justification or Pardon of Sin promised to those who repent c. Laud The New Covenant is then consigned to us when we first come to Christ when we first profess our selves his Disciples and his Servants Disciples of his Doctrine and Servants of his Institution i. e. in Baptism in which Christ who dyed for our sins makes us partakers of his death and then it is that God pours forth together with the Sacramental waters a Salutary and holy Fountain of Grace to wash the soul from all its stains and impure adherencies G. E part 2. p. 61. Pacif. Either you would be understood of the Baptism of Infants or of the Baptism of persons adult if of the Baptism of Infants I desire to know 1. How a salutary and holy fountain of grace is poured out to wash them from all stains and impure adherencies when as you told us before that the souls of such have no impure adherencies where God hath promised that when a child is baptized he will pour out such a salutary and holy fountain of grace If he do at any time give grace at baptism sure I am baptism can be no either physical or moral instrument of such a change if you speak of the baptism of adult persons they are supposed before they are baptized to have repented and believed and so to have been made partakers of grace before they are baptized Laud This first access to Christ is in the stile of Scripture called Regeneration the new Birth Redemption Renovation Expiation or Atonement with God and Justification and these words in the New Testament relate principally and properly to the abolition of sins committed before baptism Id. ibid. Pacif. Throughout all the Scripture I dare boldly say our first access to Christ is never called either atonement with God or Justification nor do these words relate either more properly or principally to sins committed before baptism then to sins committed after baptism When sins committed after baptism are pardoned are we not then justified freely by the grace of God through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation to declare his righteousness c. Laud After we are once reconciled in Baptism and put intirely into Gods favour when we have once been redeemed if we then fall away into sin we must expect Gods dealing with us in another manner and to other purposes Never must we expect to be so again justified and upon such terms as formerly The best dayes of our repentance are interrupted not that God will never forgive them that sin after baptism and recover by repentance but that restitution by repentance after baptism is another thing then the first redemption No such intire clear and integral determinate and presential effects of repentance but an imperfect little growing uncertain and hazardous reconciliation A repentance that is alwayes in production a renovation by parts a pardon that is revocable a salvation to be wrought by fear and trembling all our remanent life must be in bitterness our hopes allayed with fears our meat attempered with Colloquintida and death is in the pot as our best actions are imperfect so our greatest graces are but possibilities and aptnesses to reconcilement and all our life we are working our selves into that condition we had in baptism and lost by our relapse G. E. part 2. p. 64 65. Pacif. Strange doctrine for which you can neither produce Scripture nor yet the authority of any one Protestant Writer we are not justified upon other terms before baptism and after nor is our reconciliation after baptism more uncertain or hazardous then before nor our pardon more revocable God promiseth pardon to adult persons only upon the condition of Faith Repentance where these are a man is justified though he have not as yet had an