so ingrost the truth that others may not in some points be righter then they or that they may not be guilty of running too farre in any one point either by the power of prejudice or heat of opposition or some other disadvantage temptation or imperfection this is such arrogancy as modest Christians should not be guilty of Much lesse should they be unwilling to heare and try whether it be so or not Undoubtedly there are many differences that seeme real and momentous through mis-informations and prejudice which indeed are but in words or methods or of inferiour nature And abundance of good might be done by drawing differences into a narrower compasse and discovering the true point of disagreement and cutting off all the superfluous contentions were it not that by zealous censorious faction and by men that know not what Spirit they are of the world is swayed by reproaches and prejudice and the matter brought to that passe that none can set their hand to so blessed a work til they first resolve to subject themselves to the scorne and slanders even of Divines and to cast overboard their interest and reputation even with zealous godly men And how few are they even among those that can contemn the censures of the openly profane that are able to deny themselves so far as to conquer in this assault We look on the ignorant vulgar as fooles and therfore pride it selfe can spare their applauses But when wee take such pious persons and Learned Divines to be men of valuable judgments that are able indeede to honour or dishonour us How hardly will a proud heart lie down to be trod upon Think not that I injuriously dishonour the pious or the Church guides in supposing any or many of them to be such and become such instruments to hinder the work of Christ and to further the cause and kingdom of the divel were they perfect Saints it would not be so But he that observeth not the sad imperfections of the best of Saints and how farre they make them serviceable to the enemie and that all men even the best are vanity and lyars and that the Churches greatest danger is from it selfe more then from all enemies without yea and that every one is the greatest enemy to himselfe he knoweth not himself he hath sure beene a sleepe at least these 12 years and not seen the discoveries that our late tryals have made and he hath more of the Popish opinion of perfection then is safe To be ignorant after our convincing experiences is to be mad Well may the best of Divines say to them that call them Rabbie and see wholly with their eyes and bow down to their understandings as the Angel said to John Rev 22.9 see thou doe it not for I am thy fellow servant and of thy brethren and of them which keepe the sayings of this book Which I speak not to diminish the just estimation and authority of the Ministry which I am blamed by some for maintaining to be so great and which God of late hath vindicated by delivering their most raging enemies Quakers and such like to be plainly possest or ruled by the divel nor yet do I lay these accusations upon all seeing by the great mercy of God we have many of eminent moderation and sobriety and I observe among the best that within this year or two their zeale for the Churches unity is very much increased for which I heartily blesse the Lord. But the number of such is too smal and of the selfe conceited and contentions so considerable as cannot be hid For my owne part when I remember that it is but about the sixth part of the world that are Christians all the rest being Pagans Infidels and Mahometans and of that sixth part how few the Protestants are in comparison of the Papists the Greeks the Abassines and the rest and of the Protestants how many countries are Lutherans besides all others I confesse I have no great zeale to confine the Church to the party that I best like nor to shut Christ out of all other Societies and coope him up to the congregations of those few that say to all the rest of the Church Stand by wee are more holy then you In a word and a plaine word I am loth to make Christ only the head of the Calvinists in stead of being the head of Christians and Catholicks and loth he should cease to be the head of the body and become only the head of any party or faction and therefore I would contribute the utmost of my endeavours to reconcile the differing members of that body If I have digressed unprofitably I crave pardon and returne to the subject of this Exercitation And because the Reverend Authour seems to mee in some few passages to have exprest his mind somewhat obscurely or in terms lyable to mis-construction I shall adventure upon a presumption of his consent to give the Reader a key for the understanding of them and to tell him my thoughts of some of them in particular leaving the rest to his judgment As to the nature of pardon of sin from which all the consectaries of this Treatise are drawn I conceive there are three distinct species of it arising from the three parts of Gods regiment of mankind 1. As God is Legislator he doth conferre on all believers a right to impunity or dissolve the obligation to punishment in regard of the Law of works he doth this as he is about that law by relaxing it In regard of the Law of grace he doth it as the free Legislator thereof And it is this law it self or promise that is his instrument of doing it and the act of that Law which is his pardoning act it is conditional to all before faith It is actual pardon to those only that believe I conceive this pardon is the main observable Act that Scriptures and Divines do commonly treat of And that it is the same in substance with justification constitutive though some respective difference is imported in the terms 2. As God is judge of the world according to his lawes so he hath a sentential remission of sinne or justification But there is this difference between these two terms Remission of sin doth more properly signifie the legal or donative remission and lesse properly the judicial sentence it being in strictest sense the Prerogative of a Ruler as he is above all law to pardon the faults against the Law and not of a Judge who as such must be regulated by law yet the word Pardon may be applied to the sentence too But contrarily justification signifieth very fitly both acts legal and judiciall but more fully and strictly the sentence then the grant And therefore justificatio juris justificatio judicis is a most necessary currant distinction but justificatio judicis is the more proper phrase But remissio juris et judicis is tolerable but the later member somewhat less proper 3. As God is the executioner
distinction CONSECT VI. 6. IT followes that we may safely distinguish the pardon of sinne how harsh and unsavorie soever the distinction may seeme in the sound thereof into totall and partial perfect and imperfect into Remissionem magis or minus plenariam for pardon of sinne being the taking off of the obligation to punishment and consequently punishment it selfe a man is no farther pardoned executivè and plenarily then his punishment is taken off which being sometimes more and sometimes lesse taken off we must needes say that pardon is somtimes more and sometimes lesse perfect CHAP. XIII That one and the same sinne may be more or lesse pardoned CONSECT VII 1. IT followes that one and the same sinne may be more or lesse pardoned because it may be more or lesse punished And the contrary assertion thereof though it be the assertion of our Divines See his book of justif p. 21. 19. 143 261. as I think generally and in particular of that very learned and pious Divine Mr. Anthony Burges a man for sound judgment and School learning much renowned I say the contrary assertion viz. that one and the same sinne cannot be more or lesse pardoned I cannot assent unto but must needs by vertue of the premises professe yet humbly my dissent from CHAP. XIIII That no sinner is fully pardoned in this life nor yet afore the day of judgment CONSECT VIII 8 IT followes that however a believer is pardoned in this lsfe yet he is not fully pardoned til the day of judgment because he is not till that day of refreshing freed from all the sad effects and punishments of sin viz. death and the grave of corruption The premises considered do also give us to see a reason of that saying of Christ Mat. 12 32 And moreover plainly and easily to interpret the sense of it he saying that the sin against the H. Ghost shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come And for that cause the day of judgment may as wel be stiled the day of Remission or Absolution as the day of Redemption as it is stiled Ephes 4.30 And for the same cause doth Saint Peter assert our sins to be blotted out in a signal sense viz fully and compleatly at and not before that Great and good day of the Lord Act. 3.19 there being certain remainders of grace to be brought unto the Saints at and not before the revelation of Jesus Christ for which till that time they are to wait and hope according to the counsel of the same Apostle 1 Pet. 1.13 And in this sense Saint Paul prayes to God that good Onesiphorus with his compassionate houshold may find mercy with the Lord at that day 2 Tim. 1.16 17 18. CHAP. XV. The difference betwixt remission of sinne and Sanctification commonly assigned that being said to be perfect in this life this imperfect rejected and refuted CONSECT IX 9. IT followes that the difference commonly said to be betwixt the remission of our sins and our sanctification that the one is perfect in this life the other is imperfect is a plain mistake and in very deed not a justifiable but a pardonable saying I mean an errour that stands in need of pardon and not of pardon only but also of amendment And besides the premises for a farther detecting and rectifying this mistake let it be considered that the selfe same reason which proves the imperfection of our sanctification in this life wil also prove the imperfection of our remission for the reason demonstrating the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that our sanctification is here imperfect is besides the testimony of Scripture the experimental sense of that Fomes peccati that Peccatum peccans or relicks of sin which doe still remaine in our natures which said sinne in being both sinne and punishment for which cause it may well be stiled in a peculiar sense peccatum puniens as well as peccans it being I say both a sin and the punishment of sin it must of necessity and infallibly follow from thence as I humbly conceive that a sinners remission or release from sinne is imperfect also And if any one shall except saying that a sinner even in this life hath right to perfect remission I answer looke what right a sinner hath in this life to perfect remission the same right he hath to glorification and to sanctification with the Saints made perfect so that in this respect there is no difference Briefly then If wee must believe either Scripture or our owne experience wee must acknowledge that our remission is in this life as well imperfect as is our sanctification CHAP. XVI That remission of sinne doth imply somewhat positive as well as privative and for that reason that it differs not from Justification as hath beene by some supposed CONSECT X. 10. IT followes that seeing Gods pardoning sinne is his not punishing it unto which I adde and that which all do acknowledge nemine contradicente that seeing punishments are either privative or positive if I may be allowed the latter expression notwithstanding the common saying Omne malum est formaliter quid privativum but my meaning is seeing punishments are either damni or sensus of losse or sense it wil I say follow from thence that the pardon of sinne is not only Ablativa mali but also Collativa boni as the Schoolemen expresse it or that the pardon of sinne is not only a privative but also a positive blessing and benefit i. e. it doth in the precise nature thereof import not only a freedome from the punishment of sense or from the bare suffering of paine and torment but it importeth also a restoring of the sinner to the positive enjoyment of such comforts or to the enjoyment of such positive comforts and to such a state of love friendship and favour with God as by his sins were lost and forfeited I speake this in humble dissent from those who do for this cause make justification to be more then forgivenesse of sinne in that as they say justification doth connote or connotate a state of favour that the subject or sinner is put into whereas I see not how we can acknowledge any state of favour which justification puts a sinner into which remission of sin doth not likewise invest him with or put him into as I shall have occasion to say againe and shall prove more at large in my progresse upon this subject in hand Only note that which is here said concerning pardon of sin is to be understood not concerning any of those three sorts of pardon which for distinction sake I stiled of the halfe blood those also being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing to the text in hand but of that kind of pardon which is by the Apostle promised in my present text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called CHAP. XVII That one and the same sinne may be said and that in a Scripture sense to be pardoned and not pardoned
the threatnings of Scripture as uselesse to them will by their direct consequence lead them to cast off both Precepts and Promises as useless also Now for the proof the Point let thâ— following particulars be considered 1. That God doth no lesse threaten the godly themselves with hell and damnation if they fall away from their goodnesse then hee doth the wicked if they continue in their wickednesse See for this * My intent in quoting those Scriptures is not as that of the Remonstrants to prove the Apostacy of the Saints but to prove that God doth threaren them that if they do as others do they shall so suffer as others suffer which they are to believe or to make account of and acordingly to fear Ezek. 18.24 1 Chron. 28.9 Rom. 8.13 Heb. 10.38 39. Matth. 6.15 Not to transcribe the fore cited places at length we do perceive plainly therein that in case the godly do fall from their righteousnesse do forsake God do live after the flesh do draw back do not forgive one another their trespasses God will not pardon them will have no pleasure in them wil cast them off for ever Yea I am perswaded that upon search of Scripture it will be found that the most terrible threatnings of all other are directed to the Saints and the most fearful things that are threatned to any are threatned to them in case of their not persevering in the faith For which see Heb. 6.4 5 6. and 10.26 27. 2 Pet. 2.20 21. 2 Consider to what end God doth so threaten them or direct the said threatnings to them And to a Question of that nature propounded I answer 1. To beget the faith 2. The fear of them 1. To beget in the Saints a belief of the said Threatnings or that they might believe them for God is to bee believed in all his sayings of what nature soever they be or whatever the contents there of are the truth of God being alike in all his sayings It is no less the duty of the godly to believe God in what he threatens to them then of the wicked to believe God in what he threatens to them according to the pattern of the men of Nineveh of whom it is said That in what was threatned by Jonah they believed God Jonah 3.5 And according to the pattern of Noah who believed Gods threatning the world with a universal deluge Heb. 11.7 Briefly As the Israelites were to hear the curses of the Law denounced upon Mount Ebal as wel as the blessings thereof pronounced upon Mount Gerizim and were to say Amen to the former as well as to the latter so the godly are to affix their Amen or to put their Seal of Faith unto the Threatnings as well as to the Promises of the Word whensoever they read or hear them yea they are as well to read and hear the Threatnings as the Promises of Scripture with an applicative faith i. e look in what sort or sense in what cases or upon what suppositions God doth denounce his threatnings against them in such cases or upon such suppositions they are to apply the curses and threatnings of God to their owne souls no lesse then in other respects or upon other suppositions they are to apply the Promises of the Word all Scripture Threatnings as well as Promises being written for the learning of the godly And accordingly we find that the Saints have applyed the curses and comminations of the Word to themselves Heb. 2 3. How shall we escape saith Saint Paul if we neglect so great Salvation 1 Cor. 9.16 Wo is me saith the same Apostle if I preach not the Gospel 2 John 8. Look to your selves that we lose not the things which we have wrought 2 To beget fear in them As the immediate end of Gods Promises is to beget hope so the immediate end of his Threatnings is to beget fear the subject of the one good things being the proper object of Hope and the subject of the other evil things being he proper object of Feare This fear is commanded the Saints in sundry Scriptures Heb 12.28 29. Let us have grace to serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear Andlest any man should think that it is not the property of a godly man who is designed for heaven or to receive a Kingdom that cannot beshaken to fear Hel as if such afear could not be a godly fear observe therefore the Apostles reason For our God is a consuming fire It is a Threatning taken out of the Old Testament which the Apostle a Gospel Minister did not scruple to apply to New Testament Believers Deut. 4.24 See also Heb. 4 1. Let us therefore fear lest a Promise being left us of entering into his rest any of you should seem to come shoâ—t of it q.d. As in every Threatning there is vertually a Promise for he that expresseth Whosoever believeth not shall be damned doth imply in the way of Promise He that believeth shall be saved so in every Promise there is vertually a Threatning he that promiseth Whosoever endures to the end shall be saved doth implicitely threaten That those who do not endure to the end shall be damned Let us therefore feare left such a said Promise vertually containing a Threatning being left unto us any of us should fall short of it See also Luke 12.4 5. where Christ doth command his Disciples to fear God because of Hell I say because of Hell for that description Who or which Which after he hath killed is ratiocinative or causal i.e. it imports the reason or motive of that counsel which Christ gives his Disciples of searing God to bee his power of casting into hell together with his pleasure so to do in case they should fear man and not him The Relative Particle which is not in the Orginal the Apostle expressing himself in a Particle of the Present Tense Fear him having power Now I think it a good Observation of him that tels us saying It is a known propriety of the Greek tongue to import the Reasons or Grounds of things by their Particles as in 1 Tim. 5.17 I shall in the next place apply my self to make answer to such Objections as may be or usually are made against this Truth e.g. Obj. 1. What good Believers do or what evils they do avoid they do them and avoid them out of a principle of life and love and not out of fear Answ Let it be first rightly understood what the meaning of the word Life is and what it is to do a thing out of a principle of life for which purpose bee it known That all of us being by nature dead in trespasses and sins we are not able to do any good of our selves no more then a dead man is able to perform the actions of a living man God must quicken us by his Holy Spirit and regenerate us by his grace before we can do any thing that is good in a spiritual and acceptable manner as to
there also acknowledged that albeit we are adopted and regenerated so soone as we are believers neverthelesse the time of our Adoption and regeneration is not in some sense afore the day of judgment because afore that time they shall not be compleated in soul and body nor the benefits of them as to the whole man fully enjoyed as appeares Rom. 8.23 Matth. 19.26 2. The reinvestment or restauration of a sinner into the love and favour of God being as was aforesaid the positive part of pardon who will say to the contrary but that a sinner may grow in the love and favour of God and that the Saints now triumphant in heaven are more in Gods favour or do enjoy more of his love and favour then they were or did being sinners militant here on earth Yea Christ himself though no sinner is said to grow in the favour of God Luke 2.52 Quest. 2. How farre forth or in what sense may it be said that a sinner doth receive a present pardon immediately upon the confession of his sinnes Answ Though this question be a different question from the former and hath more difficulty in it neverthelesse a due consideration of the premises touching the quiddity or true nature of forgiveness of sinne will enable us to make an unerring answer as I suppose thereunto and unto the said question Therefore I reply That a sinner in or upon the confession of his sinnes doth instantly enjoy the pardon of his sins three wayes or in a threefold sense or for as much as doth amount to these three things 1. The sinner is immediately discharged delivered or disobliged from that Wrath to come as is the Apostles phrase 1 Thes 1.10 or from being actually bound over to eternal damnation or the condemning power of sin is taken away or in the phrase of the Prophet Micah chap. 7.19 subdued As sin hath a commanding power over the sinner enslaving him to its service so likewise it hath a condemning power upon the sinner which power is immediately taken away so soon as sin is in a Scripture sense way or manner confessed Having mentioned these two powers of sin let me crave leave to interpose this one thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the by viz That when we read in the writings of Saint Paul or in any other Scripture concerning the reign and dominion of sin we must have a special regard to the Context if we will rightly interpret the true meaning of the Holy Ghost concerning which of these two powers of sin he speaketh for I am half minded that some Texts of Scripture are commonly interpreted one way when upon a more through consideration wee shall find reason rather to interpret them another especially that in Rom. 6.14 Sin shall not have dominion over you which is commonly interpreted concerning the coÌ„manding power of sin I think is intended by the Apostle concerning the damning power thereof that power or strength which hee elsewhere saith sin hath by the Law i. e. the commination of the Law by vertue whereof sin doth damn or condemn the sinner 1 Cor. 15.56 and for victory over which saâ—d damning power or strength of sin the Apostle doth blesse God in the following verse saying But thanks be to God which giveth us the victory thâ—ough our Lord Jesus Christ Sure I am of these three things 1. That when God doth pardon sin hee is said to subdue it Mic. 7.19 2. That sin hath never got a full conquest or its full victory over the sinner or that sin doth never reign in its full power and strength over the sinner till it hath brought the sinner into the pit of Hell or hath actually damned him or in the Apostles phrase Rom. 5.28 doth reigne unto death 3. That Gods not suffering sin in respect of its damning power to reign over the Saints is a very fit proper and prevalent Argument to perswade them not to suffer sin in respect of its commanding power to reign over them Freedom from both these powers of sin or from sin with respect to both these powers it being stiled with respect to its commanding power over us the Law of sin and with respect to its damning power over us the Law of Death the Apostle doth mention in one place Rom. 8.2 The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus i.e. the living or quickning Spirit of Jesus Christ hath made me free from the law of sin and * Those who by the Law of Death do here understand the Law of Works do not vary as I suppose from the interpretation which I have here given seeing that sin hath its condemning power from or by vertue of the Law of Works deah i. e. from sin which doth as a Law command condemn This last particular being considered doth make me boldly yet humbly to offer this as a rule viz. That when God doth exhort us not to suffer sin to have dominion over us then and there we are to understand the commanding power of sin but when he promiseth on his part that sin shall not have dominion over us then and there we are to understand the condemning power of sin the former being mans duty is fit matter for a command the latter being Gods mercy is fit matter for a Promise Yet let me add these two things in the way of Caution 1. I do acknowledge that the usual interpretation of Rom. 6.14 which I do for the Reasons aforesaid dissent from is a mis-interpretation if indeed such of no dangerous consequence because these two powers of sin like Hypocrates his twins do decay and flourish do live and dye and revive together I mean if or whensoever the one doth revive the other doth revive also Now in such cases I think it my duty however to offer what strength of reason or Scripture I have for my owne sense and apprehension neverthelesse not much or stifly to contend with any man of a contrary mind but rather in the spirit of meeknesse to suffer every man to abound in his owne sense according to the analogy or proportion of faith from which those do not vary who do understand grace to performe duty and the successeful exercise of it to be promised also 2. Albeit in my Exposition of Rom. 6.14 I seeme to have taken off the edge of one weapon or rather to have endeavoured the wresting of one weapon out of the hands of our Divines in their contest with the Arminians about the Apostacy of the Saints neverthelesse I have done no prejudice as I think to the Doctrine of Perseverance as commonly taught and received by our Divines for I deny not but that there is as much promised in other Scriptures as doth amount unto or accord with that usual Interpretation of Rom. 6.14 which I do professedly dissent from But to returne See Mr. Burges of Justification p. 137. As soon as sin is committed there doth accrue unto God a moral right or power as a
wrote about six years ago but have not yet published To the Question therefore I answer That a penitent and truly believing sinner having confessed his sins once is notwithstanding in order to forgivenesse to confesse them upon occasion againe and again according to the example of David and other of the Saints and Servants of God in Scripture Psal 25.7 18. and 51.9 And me thinks besides other Reasons e.g. 1. Then should no Christian ever mention Original sin in his confession to God having once in his life acknowledged it 2. If we may infer from the Text in hand that sin is but once to be confessed because the Apostle saith If we confesse our sins God is faithful and just to forgive us why may we not by a like reason conclude That wee are but once in our lives to pray to God because the Apostle saith Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall bee saved Rom. 10.13 Besides I say these and other reasons me thinks the true know ledge of the nature of forgiveness of sin as was afore declared it being a thing not here perfect but in perfecting more and more till out dying yea till our rising day is a very sufficient and satisfactory ground and reason for the same Seeing wee are more and more capable of receiving or capable of receivâ—ng more and more of the forgiveness of our sins why should we not in order thereunto viz. the degrees of pardon make confession of them again and again Besides Although it be granted as was afore acknowledged and asserted That as soon as ever a penitent sinner hath confessed his sins he is immediately pardoned so far forth as that his obligation to damnation is taken away yet who can or dare say that this dis-obligation shall be continued to such a sinner as shall never afterwards so much as once in his life God prolonging his life confesse those sins againe Sure I am that the promise of Salvation is made only to those who do patiently continue in well doing i. e. in all the wayes of doing well among which I take this to be one viz. frequent Prayer and frequent confession And so the continuance of our pardon and Justification is yet but conditional in the Covenant though certaine in Decree As well for the confirmation as explanation of what hath beene said in the Consectaries immediately foregoing wherein was asserted that new sinnes doe bring a new obligation to punishment which obligation must be taken off by a new pardon Be it further considered 1. The sinnes of a godly man as well as the sinnes of a wicked man or sinnes committed after conversion as well as sins committed before conversion are mortal in their owne nature and doe deserve punishment even the punishment of hell and damnation What law it is by vertue wherof the sinnes of believers do deserve damnation is not so unanimously by Divines agreed upon it being a question agitated amongst them whether the old law or covenant of works be only relaxed or whether it be not abrogated to all mankind For my owne part I can scarce discerne any real difference in this controversie one choosing to stile that an Abrogation which another thinks fittest with a precise respect to the rule of the civil law to call a Relaxation and it being my opinion that the controversie is rather verball then real I hope therefore that I may without the offence and with the good leave of either partie expresse my sense in the same to be this viz. I humbly conceive that whereas in the old law or covenant of works all manner of sinne was threatned with death as unavoidable ex parte legis that law as threatning death in such sort and upon such terms and as commanding perfect universal obedience as the only condition of life is taken away so that mankind is not under that law or covenant as in the sense aforesaid in stead whereof wee all are Sub lege remediante under a new law or covenant of the Lord Redeemer in which law there are threatnings of two sorts viz. Conditional and peremptory in the former all manner of sinne being threatned with damnation in the latter only final impenitencie and unbeliefe But it is not material to my present purpose to determine ought in that question it being sufficient for mee only to say that all Protestant Divines do unanimously accord in this viz. 1. That all sin is in its owne nature mortal and deserves damnation by vertue of the threatning of one law or another either the new or else the old threatning in that respect or so farre forth being in force or continuing 2. All sinne deserving damnation by vertue of divine commination it will follow thereuponâ— that the sinner upon the commission of sinne is actually obliged to suffer accordingly for why or whence is sinne said to be mortal but from that strength which it hath from or by the vertue of the lawes commination to oblige the sinner to damnation 3. As a consequent hereof it followes that a sinner hath neede of pardon for every sinne that so the penalty of the law may not be executed according to the obligation 4. In order to the procuring of the said pardon or dis-obligation and to the diverting of damnation threatned it is necessary that the godly should use such meanes from time to time as God hath in his word commanded them to use i. e. that they should confess their sinnes pray for the pardon of them flie for refuge by faith to the blood of Christ daily 5. Immediately upon a sinners taking such a course or using such meanes as God hath appointed him to take and use for pardon the law is disabled and the sinner is disobliged from damnation because its threatning is only conditional viz. in case of non-repenting and faith which conditions being performed the new law or covenant can no longer hold the sinner guilty 6. This disobligation of the sinner is that particular and new pardon of which as was asserted a godly man hath need in respect of his new and particular sinnes I am not ignorant that some Divines doe not use in this case the expression new and particular pardon but a renewed application of pardon But because this expression is to my seeming very obscure they not explicating what they doe intend by the said renewed application of pardon whether they meane some renewed act of the sinner or else some renewed act of God and because I know no fitnesse in the phrase in what sense soever it be taken for if any one alledge the former sense I answer That pardon of sin actively taken is not our act but Gods Besides A sinners renewed application of pardon to himselfe is his renewed act or acting of faith which act of faith I should chuse to expresse by a sinners renewed application of himself to Christ or the Promises of Christ for pardon and not by the sinners renewed application of pardon to
he was from eternity beloved and pardoned A Doctrine fitter for a Tho. Collier and a Paul Hobson then for any well grounded Divine to own and by how much we do detest such a Doctrine by so much it concernes us to beware how we take in those Principles or lay and owne those grounds that will necessarily but unawares lead us to it 3 The Doctor holds That remission of sin and the acceptation of our persons with God do only note certain internal and immanent Actions in God which never had any beginning with God Lib. 3. pag. 434. 4. He asserts That the Righteousnesse of Christ was ours afore faith that faith doth not interesse us in it or give us any new right unto Christs Righteousnesse which we had not before but only the sight sense and agnition of the same Yea whereas the learned Lubbert against Vorstius had said most Orthodoxly Quod satisfactio Christi non est mea aut tua priusquam ego aut tu eam verâ side receperimus The Doctor doth go about to spoil that saying of his by affixing to it his owne heterodox sense Lib 2. p 277. It is a very strange thing that such a learned Philosopher and Schoolman as Doctor Twisse famous for that throughout all Protestant Churches should not distinguish betwixt Gods designing his Sons Righteousnesse for us or to bee ours and that by Faith or by means of faith or upon the conditions of faith and betwixt Gods actually making it ours or actually bestowing it upon us or investing us into it upon our believing And whereas hee sayes That Christs Righteousnesse is ours Quatenus ex intentione Dei Patris Christi pro nobis praestita as it was performed on our behalf by vertue of the intention of God and Christ I answer 1. That hints no more but this viz. That God and Christ did design or purpose it for us 2 From thence the Doctor himselfe might have concluded against himselfe viz. That Christs Righteousnesse is not actually made ours afore we believe for what is intended for mee is not mine before it be actually conferred upon mee and this actual conferring of Christs Righteousnesse upon us is not as saith the Scripture before we believe 5 He sayes ibidem and to the same purpose as before that the merits of Christ are not applied to us by faith before God but only apud conscientias nostras in our own consciences and that Christs Righteousnesse is said to be imputed unto us by faith only because by faith imputari dignoscitur it is known to us to be imputed 6. As he doth oppose Arminius in his sense of the distinction betwixt Redemption and Remission of sin as impetrated and as applyed so the Doctor errs on the other hand in his owne sense or sensing of that distinction making the application thereof by faith unto us Non ut sint sed ut sentiantur percipiantur agnoscantur not that they may be ours indeed and actually but that they may appear be felt known and acknowledged as ours Lib. 2. pag. 277. and Lib. 3. pag. 434. Here againe it seemes very strange That so accute and profound a man as the Doctor was should forget to distinguish betwixt Remission and Redemption as purchased or procured for us and as actually conferred or bestowed upon us The foresaid particulars as I conceive them to bee mistakes in the Doctor and of an ill aspect and influence so I am perswaded they were all or the most of them occasioned from his Errour about the nature of forgivenesse of sin making it at least in part to be Gods nolle punire or velle non punire Gods not willing to punish CHAP. XXV That a Believer his pardon notwithstanding is in his confession of sin to put himself under the curse of the Law Why and how declared That a sinner after pardon is a sinner and that God doth look upon him as a sinner albeit he doth not deal with him or punish him as such CONSECT XVIII 18. IT followes That a Believer notwithstanding his pardon is still to put himselfe in his confession of sin undre the curse of the Law as guilty thereof i. e. to acknowledge himselfe guilty of hell it selfe and eternal damnation to present himselfe before God with such a degree and depth of humble devotion as did Ezra in the name of the whole Church saying to this purpose O Lord the righteous God I am here before thee in my trespasses I cannot stand before thee because of my sins In such sort and with such acknowledgments of their guiltinesse the best amongst Gods servants and Prophets were wont to make their humble addresses to and before God See Psal 130.3 If thou Lord shouldst mark iniquities O Lord who shall stand and Psal 143. beg Enter not into judgment with thy servant O Lord for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Job 9.2 3. How shall man be just with God If hee will contend with him he cannot answer him one of a thousand Dan. 9.7 8 Daniel himself doth there acknowledg That confusion of face doth belong unto him i. e. was deserved by him or did belong unto him in his own pure and proper deserving So that every sinner whether pardoned or not pardoned so long as he lives on earth is to confesse to God his desert or guiltinesse to punishment yea could it be proved that the Saints in heaven do confesse their former sins to God I would not doubt to affirm That even they in heaven together with their sins do also confesse the * As that guilt which is taken off from the sinner by a pardon is commonly stiled Reatus poenae so that guilt which is never taken off and of which alone I speak and would be understood to speak in this Consectary is commonly stiled Reatus culpae of which see Mr. Burges in his Sâ—rmons of Justification p. 134. And I think it not amisse to give the Reader to undeâ—stand how several Writers do in several expressions declare the difference betwixt Reatus culpae and Reatus poenae e. g. The former is stiled by some Meritum poenae and the latter Obligatio ad luendam poenam by others the former is stiled Duenesse of punishment to our sins the latter Duenesse of punishment to our persons which latter is it alone which remission of sin doth free us from because what is due to our sins is inflicted upon the person of another viz. Jesus Christ By others the former is stiled Guilt potential and the latter Guilt actual guilt or merit of them the inward innate dignity or desert of them or their guiltinesse of Gods wrath by reason of them this kind of guilt being as inseparable from sin as heat is from fire I think this inference the rather to be observed not only because it is practical and of frequent use but also because of that new mode or model of praying taken up by too too many in these times infected with
godly and the wicked so farre or in such a sense I doe assert that God doth not remember the sins of his people 2. God doth not so farre remember the sins of his people as to damne them or to punish them in hell for the same as hee will the wicked for their sins 2. God doth not in such sort remember the sins of his people now in times of the New Testament as he did remember the sins of his people in times of the Old Testament Quest How so and not so Answ Wheras in times of the Old Testament God did daily remember the sins of his people as being minded thereof by their frequent and daily sacrifices even as he was minded of his covenant with Noah in the behalfe of all flesh by the sight of the rainbow Gen. 9.12 13 14 15. and whereas God was put in mind of their sins by the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ upon the crosse hee doth * viz. Heb. 10.17 there signifie unto them that he would not remember their sins any more i.e. By the Levitical sacrifices for Christs death the antitype or substance of those sacrifices being come and accomplished the types or shadowes must now vanish or give place not yet by the death of Christ for it was not necessary that Christ should die often or more then once he having by himself once offered for ever perfected those that are sanctified and this being one special difference betwixt Jesus Christ a Priest after the order of Melchisedec and those Priests which were after Aarons order these being to offer daily sacrifices as memorials of sin but he being to offer but one and that one but once And this I take to be the true meaning of the Apostle in that of Hebrewes ch 10.17 18. as wil I presume appeare unto any intelligent reader who will impartially and without prejudice peruse the text and context in which respect I might have spared my large answer in shewing how farre forth God doth and doth not remember the sins of his people albeit as to other purposes and respects the reader I think hath no cause to judge my paines and labour therein to be amisse and needlesse And I shall adde as a third consectary and in the next place how and with what caution it behoveth us to interpret this phrase God not remembring our sinnes together with other phrases of the like straine or kind recorded in Scripture CHAP. IX Caution given as touching the interpretation of such Metaphoricall phrases whereby forgivenesse of sinne is expressed that we construe them warily and in a sober sense CONSECT III. 3. IT follows that in all such metaphorical phrases whereby the pardon of sin is expressed in Scripture E. g. Gods not seeing sin his not remembring it his covering it blotting it out hiding his face from it casting it behind his back and the like we must be wary and circumspect in their construction understanding them in a modest moderate and sober sense and not stretching them hower they sound beyond the due limits of their intended meaning so as to think soberly of God of our selves and sins I have already given certain rules or directives as touching the right interpretation of such phrases and shall need therefore in this place to say the lesse Onely I shall adde what followes as a reason or motive to double our caution and circumspection in the interpretation of the said phrases by saying That should we regard the bare sounds of such phrases or the phrases themselves barely as they sound without a due search into their true scope and sense which is apparently the fault of the Antinomians we may besides other monstrous and intolerable inferences as well conclude from other Scriptures where some of the like phrases are used that God doth pardon all the sins of every wicked man without any exception of sins or sinners as of any of the godly seeing it is expresly said that God is a God of purer eyes then to behold evil or to looke upon iniquity whatsoever or in whomsoever the iniquity and evil is Hab. 1.13 The meaning then of the forecited metaporicall phrases which do hold forth the pardon of sin is this not to stand upon the school-distinction concerning Gods seeing as it is taken in sensu simplici or modo merè intuitivo in sensu connotativo or connotantè which to this purpose is both considerable and satisfactory viz. That such sinners whose sins God is said not to see or remember but to blot out cover and cast behind his back shall be no more damned for their sins then if so be God did not behold them or had forgot them Or that such sinners shal as undoubtedly be saved from ther sinnes as from the greatest wrath to come at the day of judgment as if God had forgot them or as if their sins were covered and blotted utterly out of his sight CHAP. X. In what sense or how farre forth as true and false those common sayings of our Divines Sublatâ culpâ tollitur poena justificatio tollit omnia poenalia may or are to be construed and interpreted and in what sense to be rejected CONSECT IV. 4. IT followes in what sense or how far forth as true and not true to understand those common sayings of our Protestant Divines as well Calvinists as Lutherans Sublatâ culpâ tollitur poena And Justificatio tollit omnia poenalia 1. It is most true that seeing pardon of sinne is the taking off of the obligation to punishment and consequently punishment it self so farre forth as tollitur culpa tollitur etiam poena i.e. so far forth as sinne is pardoned so far forth the punishment of sin is taken away 2. As Poena is taken in a like sense with pardon viz. for punishment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in a signal sense viz. for everlasting punishment as opposite to life eternal or for punishment meerly and purely such as are the punishments of the wicked so it is most true Sublatâ culpâ tollitur poena And in the other sense that other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is true also Justificatio tollit omnia poenalia the word poenalia being taken in the sense immediately aforesaid 3. In such a sense as the Apostle asserts whom God hath justified them also hath he glorified Rom. 8.30 i.e. He hath alreadie glorified them in part and he will at last and in due time glorifie them fully and in such a sense we commonly say Positâ justificatione ponitur etiam glorificatio I say in such a sense the foresaid sayings Sublatâ culpâ tollitur poena justificatio tollit omnia poenalia are most unquestionably true i.e. A person justified or pardoned shall in due time citius serius sooner or latter at one time or other be delivered from all things penal or from all punishment due to his sins 2. If in the foresaid sayings we take justificatio for our justification immediately upon or at our first believing and
conversion and if we take Sublatâ culpâ in the like sort or sense then the said sayings will not consist with the truth of Scripture as hath beene made at large to appeare but with the aforesaid restrictions Object Those sayings of our Divines are alledged by them in the controversie betwixt us and the Papists about humane satisfaction for sinne by suffering and are asserted by our said Divines commonly in the sense aforesaid which I doe oppose Answ 1. If in this or in any other particular I do recede from what is commonly taught by our Divines I do it with much unwillingnesse and not without cleare evidence of Scripture as I think enforcing me thereunto and must therefore in such cases crave leave salvâ modestiâ et vericundâ fronte to appeale from their sense and writings to the sense and writings of the inspired Prophets and Apostles submitting the premises to the censure of the unprejudicate and impartial judgment of the Churches according to the Scriptures 2. Though I doe not acknowledge the common sayings Sublatâ culpâ tollitur poena Justificatio tollit omnia poenalia to be true in such a sense as many of our Divines have asserted in oppositito the Papists neverthelesse I am far very farre from concurring with the Papists in their doctrine about mans satisfaction to Gods justice by his owne personal sufferings whether voluntary or involuntary I think that the said Popish doctrin about humane satisfactions might very sufficiently be impugned and expugned by other mediums and Arguments then by those common sayings Justificatio tollit omnia paenalia sublatâ culpâ tollitur poena 3. It is a thing not to be wondred at that in controversal divinity a greater errour be impugned with a lesse and one extreme with another sometimes CHAP. XI That there is no such thing as Remissio culpae remission of the fault in way of distinction from Remissio poenae remission of the punishment these two being one and the selfe same thing The four following Chapters do declare that forgivenesse of sin is a dividual and not an individual action as is commonly supposed CONSECT V. 5 IT followes from hence that there is no such thing as Remissio culpa in way of distinction from Remissio poenae I say cherish no such thing as remission of the fault as distinct from he remission of the punishment I adde this consectary not only in opposition to the Papists who do assert and use this distinction whereby to support their Apocriphal doctrine of humane satisfaction for sin for the remission not of the fault say they but of the punishment and consequently to overturne that foundation upon which they build their said doctrine of humane satisfactions but also in the way of humble dissent from divers of our Protestant Divines who do in their writings generally both Latine and English Authors such as I have read I say they do generally upon occasion assert that Christ by his death hath abolished or taken away sin both in the guilt and in the fault that both the guilt and faultinesse of sin is pardoned by God unto the regenerate I need not say any thing for the detecting the unwarrantableness of this assertion more then what already hath beene said in those severall both Negative and Affirmative particulars where we have heard it set down wherin the forgiveness of sin doth and wherein it doth not consist and in special that it doth not consist in taking away the fault of sin or sin in the faultiness therof It is true the fault is remitted but how or in what sense viz. in respect of the punishment it self and obligation to punishment not otherwise And as for that guilt which is called Reatus culpae guilt of fault this we have heard is not taken away by remission but only that guilt which is called Reatus poenae guilt of punishment The Schoolmen of old have much perplexed themselves about these questions what manner of act it is in God whereby he doth remit sin And seeing the act of sin is transient what is it that is forgiven Here they Answer that sin though praeteriit physicè yet manet moraliter though sinne be past and gone in a physicall yet it remaines in a morall sense and though it be past in respect of the sinful action yet it remaines in respect of its sad effects which sad effects are done away or taken away by pardon But what these effects are which by pardon are taken away they have as touching that been much divided in their opinion making a great stirre about Macula the spot or staine of sinne in the explicating whereof as the Learned Wotton relates they have occupied themselves for the space of five hundred years without any agreement or satisfaction as not able to declare what it is But the truth is as I think and as hath been before laid down that the sad effects of sinne which remaining after the sinful actions are taken away by a pardon are the obligation of the sinner to punishment and punishment it selfe the former being stiled by some of the Schoolmen Relatio rationis scilicit ordinatio ad poenam The premises considered It appears that there is no such thing as the remission of the fault in contradistinction to the remission of the punishment that the said distinction is a distinction without a difference As an introduction to the Consectaries next following I think meet to give the Reader to understand that it is a question much debated among what kind of actions remission of sin is to be placed or accounted whether among those actions which are cals called immanent or else among such as are stiled transient And againe since actions transient are subdivided into actions stiled dividual and individual it is questioned whether forgivenesse of sinne if a transient action be to be reckoned a dividual or an individual action Now as in chap. 22 Consect 16. I shall undertake to manifest it to be a transient action so by the four chapters and consectaries next following it will be manifested to be a dividual action i. e. such an action as hath its progresse per partes by degrees and is not compleated at the selfe same instant contrary to what is commonly received it being generally asserted as a difference betwixt Sanctification and remission of sin that that is a dividual but this an individual action Now a transient action being the same with the effect produced and that which is produced by remission of sinne viz. the taking off of the obligation to punishment and punishment it self being produced or taken off as it is laid on viz. per partes by degrees viz. as new sins are committed it seems to me evidently apparent that remission of sin is not an individual but a dividual action and as wil appeare by the Consectaries next following CHAP. XII That the distinction of the pardon of sinne into totall or partiall perfect or imperfect is a justifiable