Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	faith_n	forgive_v	forgiveness_n	3,744	5	10.4274	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91862	ʼIgeret HaMaskil Iggeret hammashkil. Or, An admonitory epistle unto Mr Rich. Baxter, and Mr Tho. Hotchkiss, about their applications (or mis-applications rather) of several texts of Scripture (tending cheifly) to prove that the afflictions of the godly are proper punishments. Unto which are prefixed two dissertations; the one against Mr. Baxter's dangerous problems and positions, about the immanent acts of Gods knowledge and will, as if any of those could be said (without blasphemy) to begin in God, in time, and not to be eternal as himself is: or, as if God could be said (without derogation to His infinite perfections) to begin to know and will in time, any thing which He did not know and will before, yea from all eternity: the other, both against Mr. Baxter and Mr. Hotchkiss, about their definition of pardon and remission of sins, in opposition to great Doctor Twisse's definition of pardon, as it is in God from all eternity towards his elect in Christ. / By William Robertson, Mr. of Arts from the University of Edenburgh.	Robertson, William, d. 1686?	1655 (1655)	Wing R1610; Thomason E1590_1; ESTC R208822	104,273	182

his labours next unto the Scripture shall be mainly instrumental to effectuate all and more then is said in the foregoing lines about the extirpating and utter eradicating all Jesuitical and Arminian principles which have for so long a time infested the peace of the Church Yet I say it is a greater reproach to those who upbraid him with it then to himself because it is a notoriously known slander to say that the Doctor was so much taken up about the Decrees of God as that he was ignorant of this truth That by the law of faith of grace and Christ we are freed in time from the law of sin death and damnation and so dissolved from the obligation-to punishment threatned and due unto us thereby And what is that but that lagally or in sense of Law our sins are forgiven us when that obligation to punishment is so dissolved by the law of Grace and through faith How could then the sharp-witted Doctor be ignorant that the dissolution or freedom from the obligation to punishment might be legally or in sense of law called remission and forgiveness of sin Or where did ever the Doctor wilfully for I am sure he never did it ignorantly or mistakingly as being ignorant of it it being a point so clear of it self for so far as is truth in it as that not only the Doctor but who is there any else that is rational and can deny it Nay he never did deny it at all The Eagle is therefore too sharp and piercing not only seeing that most brightly which others do see but dimly but seeing that which is impossible to be seen because it is not at all as Doctor Twisse's ignorance denial or contradiction of this truth so far as it is a truth is a meer non-entity that cannot be seen by all the Eagle-eyed ones in the world But I rather think that Eagle-eyes do sometimes sleep as well as others and then I suppose they see no more then others yet then perhaps the fancy or imagination even of Eagle-eyed ones may dream of non-entities and feign to themselves and their own imaginations meer Chimera's But say you Sir that the Doctor doth not only say that negatio punitionis the negation of punishment may be called remission of sin but also that negatio volitionis puniendi the negation of the will or the denial in the act of the will to punish that is the purpose and resolution of the will or a willing not to punish may also be called remission of sin and that the nature of forgiveness may be said therein to consist And I answer Sir 1. Yet that doth not infer that either he doth contradict you or that he doth deny what ye affirm about the point For say you the nature of remission of sin consisteth in the takeing away of the punishment it self so saith the Doctor that the very quiddity of remission of sin is punitionis negatio the denying of the punishment or the denying to punish and what is that but to take it away How doth he then contradict you when he affirmeth the very thing that you affirm But 2. whereas he saith also that remission of sin is negatio volitionis puniendi the denial of the will to punish or a will not to punish yet this doth not infer that he contradicteth you or denieth what you say but rather that he affirmeth the same thing with you and doth only add somwhat thereunto which is not I hope to contradict or deny what you say You affirm that remission of sin is the taking away of the punishment it self the Doctor saith that remission of sin is indeed or may be said to be the negation or the taking away of the punishment it self This is not to deny or contradict what you say I am sure but to say the same with you But the Doctor saith also and I hope with more reason then you can oppugne it that remission of sin is or may be said not only to be the negation of the punishment it self but also to be the negation of the will to punish or the act of the will determining not to punish But he doth not say that remission of sin is only this act of the will not to punish Therefore this is to say somewhat more then you say indeed but it is not to contradict or deny what you say since he also affirmeth and granteth it Else when Mr. Baxter saith that remission of sin consisteth in the dissolving of the obligation to punishment and you acknowledging that same yet you do add to it somewhat more and say that the negation or taking away of the punishment it self is also to be called remission of sin Doth this contradict what Mr. Baxter saith No your self do affirm that you do not contradict him in so saying And whether doth the Doctor contradict what either of you saith because he saith somewhat more rationally then both of you say 3. But further Neither doth the Doctor say in these words transcribed by you positively that the determination of the will not to punish is formally remission of sin But he saith only disjunctively thus The remission of sin in the nature of it is nothing else but either the negation of the punishment or the negation of the will to punish Leaving it fully free to you which part of the disjunction to choose and which you please you may like best without any contradiction of him to you or of you to him if you choose either of those disjunctive parts And where is then the Doctors contradiction of you or his denying what you affirm But lastly Sir what if the Doctor should contradict you by affirming indeed what you so much labour to disprove in him I say that he then doth no more contradict you then you do contradict the truth and your contradiction of him even under all the great patrocinie and protection with which you conceive your self securely sheltered is nothing less then the contradiction of the truth it self in this point which we do now insist upon Which that it may rationally be made out let 1. The question be stated Whether the will of God not to punish be in it self and can be so properly called pardon remission or forgiveness of sin And 2. Let it be supposed and granted that the Great Twiss doth affirm that Volitio non puniendi or negatio volitionis puniendi in Deo the will of God not to punish may be properly called pardon remission and forgiveness of sin And 3. Do you but come out into the field and deny this truth which the Doctor affirmeth as you do indeed in your Exercitation and Mr. Baxter also doth labour much to disprove it by many seeming reasons or sophistications rather and by manifold absurdities which you and he doth alleadge it inferreth c. Then 4 Notwithstanding all those terrors yet under the shelter of Truth and even of the famous Doctors umbra though himself be gone from amongst

enough to hammer down all Jesuitized and Arminianized Theologasters and to beat them from all they dare oppose him in Him I say you do take to oppose you indeed methinks a most impar congressus Achilli and to be your Antagonist and Adversary in your Notions about remission of sin Whereas either he is nothing at all such that is your adversary in so far as there is truth in your conceptions about that point or else if he be your Antagonist at all it is but onely in so far as you your self are an Antagonist to Truth it self in that point and to that which nill ye or will ye you must acknowledg to be truth if you have either sense reason or any fundamental principles of the orthodox reformed faith and religion left in you I say again that the learned Doctor is either not your Adversary at all as you do fallaciously and sophistically bespeak him to be or else only in so far as you are adversary to the truth about the nature of remission and forgiveness of sin For first if the Doctor be a real Antagonist to you and your Patron in your notions about the nature of forgiveness and remission of sin then he must either deny that remission of sin is the dissolving of the obligation to punishment by the law of Grace which is the so much decantated and Eagle-eyed Baxterian definition of remission of sin or else he must deny that remission of sin is the suspending or the effectual taking away the punishment it self in the real execution thereof which is the so much cry'd up Hothckissian definition of remission of sin Hotchkis in this being sharper in sight and more accurate it seems then the Eagle himself But if ever Doctor Twiss did deny either of those notions so far as there is any truth in them or if any of his words inferring a denial of these truths so far as they are truths can be produced by any of his Antagonists although I have not looked upon any of his Works this four or five years by-gone but one half day only when I had an occasion to turn over his Volumes about another question not so much as minding because having never so much as heard of this to be disputed against him by you yet if any such thing can be found in him as that he averreth that the taking away of the punishment of sin together with the dissolving the obligation to the punishment thereof cannot be called remission or forgiveness of sin then I shall be content to be whipt as a School boy by Mr. Hotchkis my master when ever he shall teach and shew me so much out of the Doctors own words and writings Nay upon the contrary his very words which you cite and quote here out of him do clearly infer the concession of both the forementioned definitions so far as there is any truth in them For what is Negatio punitionis the denial or the negation and denying of punishment which in the very words you transcribe out of him as against you he doth acknowledg to belong to the nature and formal reason or quiddity of remission of sin What is it I say but either the delaying suspending or taking away in whole or in part the punishment due unto sin And is not this the very nature and remission of sin even in your so accurate and more then eagle-ey'd definition it self thereof And if so how doth then Doctor Twiss contradict you or you contradict him when both of you agree in the very quiddity it self or in the very nature of remission and forgiveness of sin Have you not had an eager and sharp'ned spirit of contradicting Twiss when you make a contradiction where there is none between you Again shall ever any rational man imagine that ever hath look'd upon and understood but a page of the Doctors most accurate writings and think that the most Rational Doctor was ignorant of this That the dissolving of the obligation to punishment by the ●aw of Grace when the condition thereof is fulfilled may be called a legal remission and forgiveness of sin or remission and forgiveness of sin in a Law-sense or by the Law As I must acknowledg I could not but with much indignation read so often from the pen of your Eagle-eyed Patron the learned Doctor to be so much upbraided and reproached with ignorance of this point so I do verily profess I rather believe that as he saith of himself that he hath had most of his Scholastical learning so he hath had the explication of this Notion also from the famous Doctors writings I say I rather believe this say what he will to the contrary then that I will believe either him or you though both of you should scandalize the Doctor by affirming a thousand times and upbraiding him now when he is dead and gone and so cannot answer for himself by word of mouth to be ignorant of this point so clearly revealed in Scripture What did ever the most Orthodox Doctor deny that being justified by faith we have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord and that there is no condemnation of the Law of the Devil of Sin or of any other thing to those that are in Christ Jesus and that the Law of grace and faith in Christ hath freed us from the law of sin death and damnation Did ever I say the most Rational and Scriptural Doctor deny those and many such other like Scriptural Doctor deny those and many such other like Scriptural truths or rather did he not strenuously by great strength and light given him from above maintain them against all biasphemous opposers of these truths and such like And what are those truths but this in substance that by faith in Christ we have remission of sins that is by the new law of Grace the condition thereof to wit Faith in Christ being wrought in us by the Spirit we are legally and in a Law-sense dissolved from the obligation to the punishment of death threatned and due unto us by the law of Works And nothing of all this I think not any that ever was taught or catechised understandingly in the Christian Church will deny And I am sure the Doctor defended them to the smart of all Jesuites and Arminians to his very dying day and his writings after his death will do the same so long I am confident as there is either Jesuite or Arminian upon earth till all the monsters of their luxuriant brains be so dashed and crushed into peeces as that there shall not so much as a remnant of them be heard of in the Church How then is the learned Dr. feigned by you and your imperiously dictating Patron to be ignorant of those truths and of that your so much extolled explication of them As if that the Doctor had been so much taken up with the doctrine about the Decrees of God as indeed he was so taken up with those mysterious truths as that I hope

what can be a more absolute pardon and a more compleat remission then this and who can deny it to be such Now Sir the application I leave to your self for it is obvious For hath not the Lord from all eternity determined and decreed not to punish his elect in Christ for their sins with eternal death What is this decree and determination of the will of God but the real pardon remission and forgiveness of their sins secretly in the breast of God although it be not known unto them And what though the sensible enjoyment of Gods favor be suspended for a season until the performance of a condition which is Believing yet hath not God purposed also to work and effectuate that faith in them which is the condition and doth not that make their pardon in his breast altogether absolute And lastly what though he hath appointed also to correct them with the rods of men for their sins yet the pardon of their souls for the main that is from eternal death is sure unto them and altogether absolutely determined of God from all eternity And therefore as to that they are from eternity pardoned from all the sins that they shall commit in time because from eternity he hath purposed in Christ not to punish their souls with eternal death Now this is all that Dr Twiss and all other Orthodox Divines do mention about this point when they do affirm that the sins of the Elect are pardoned from eternity viz. That God hath from eternity purposed and determined in his immutable will not to punish his Elect with eternal death for their sins but to free them from it And what is pardon from eternal death if it be not firstly chiefly and most properly the determinate purpose of the will of God not to punish with eternal death I profess Sir I am almost ashamed to use so many words in so clear a case Who but your self and some few others from whom you have drunk in those principles will or can deny that Pardon may be properly called the will or the purpose of the will not to punish And who else can deny that the will not to punish is really and may be called properly pardon Truly methinks the very first thoughts about the formal conceptions of those words Remission Pardon and Forgiveness should at the first inform any rational understanding that they are most properly rational acts of rational and knowing faculties I mean that they are rational or reasonable acts proceeding from rational and reasonable agents and that they are immanent acts elicited out of the rational faculties of those agents I mean in their first chief and most proper signification For what is it to pardon to remit to forgive but to resolve not to exact the rigor of punishment or to lay aside the resolution of exacting strict punishment As if you be offended at my rude informal way of writing as you may think and if it were in your hand to punish me as you pleased if I should come and require pardon of you and that ye would forgive me my offence c. I profess I know nothing that I should require or desire of you in such a suit but that ye would freely and willingly be pleased to resolve or determine not to punish me I say this is the first thing that I would require and desire of you that you would purpose not to punish me and then if you were a man indeed that is constant in your resolutions I would really hope that the punishment effectually should not be inflicted upon me So I say that which I do conceive is the first and formal conception to be apprehended about these words pardon remission and forgiveness c. is the will not to punish For what is it that formally I mean when I do say I pardon I remit I forgive you c. What is it I say that I mean by these words but only this I will not punish you or I will not deal with you in the strictness of punishment according as I could and as ye deserve I say this is the first formal apprehension and conception of those words which is firstly primarily and most properly meant by them although afterwards an instrument or a grant of pardon and the act thereof may be called pardon in a legal or in a law-sense as also the negation of or cessation from punishment it self may be called executive pardon Yet both those presupposing the first chief and most proper pardon which is mental in the breast or in the purpose and resolution of the will not to punish from which flow all the other as secondary less proper and more remote pardons to him who pardoneth at least and more improper pardons both to the pardoner and to the pardoned The truth is Sir I think this truth explained upon these grounds is so clearly evident to the understanding of any rational consideration even of a rustick or clownish apprehension that as I said at the beginning if you have any reasonable sense or understanding you cannot deny it And yet since the great scope of your whole Exercitation is to disprove it and seeing that your great Moecenas at every turn whensoever it comes in his way doth labor as much also as in him lieth to disprove it I shall add yet one proof more and then I shall draw to an end of the point to clear the explication of it both against you and him and I think will ye or nill ye both it shall strain an acknowledgment of the Truth in general from you both 1. You say Sir that the will not to punish is not pardon properly why because you alleadge that the taking away of the punishment it self is properly and formally the nature of pardon 2. Mr. Baxter saith that the will not to punish is not pardon why Because saith he the dissolving of the obligation to punishment by the law is properly Pardon and the nature of it But 3. I say against you both that in neither of those the remission and forgiveness of sin in its form and nature doth so much and so properly consist as in the resolute and determinate purpose of the will not to punish And I prove it thus by one general Reason against you both That which may separated and really severed from the remission pardon and forgiveness of delinquencies is not the nature of pardon and remission c. For I hope you 'll acknowledg that the nature of a thing cannot be really severed nor separated from it self But both the real or effectual taking away of the punishment it self and the dissolving of the obligation to punishment by the law may be really separated and severed from pardon c. Therefore in neither of them doth the nature of pardon consist I prove the Minor first against you Sir and your definition of Pardon viz. That it is the effectual taking away of the punishment it self And that by supposing this case which

as I had both resolved and desired to do Always Sir if you shall be pleased to take notice of the matter in any ways as you think fit your self not regarding or looking too much to formalities which I never did nor can endeavour much to do you shall engage me to take notice of what you shall please to communicate and impart unto me in any way that you shall approve of or think most convenient Providing that a mutual freedom be not prohibited and that silence be not imperiously expected or commanded if satisfaction be not given and dissatisfaction removed and taken away Now Sir as for that particular which the inscription of this Missive doth mainly point at and which I did mainly intend at this time in these Epistolary lines I could willingly give you an account of it of my thoughts about it and the occasion of it But first because I fear that I have wearied you already with my tediousness in the Proem to it and secondly because another of your Friends and followers together with your self is concerned into it I shall therefore crave your permission to let me breathe a little and refresh my self in changing the person to whom as well as the subject matter about which I shall speak in the following part of the Missive In the mean time what shall be spoken hereafter to your friend in so far as it belongeth to your self and concerneth your own interest as well as his you may be pleased if you will to take as much notice of it and make all the use of it which your prudent discretion shall think fit and convenient and that as freely as if it were spoken to your self by Your friend and follower so far as you follow Truth WILLIAM ROBERTSON Unto the Learned Mr. THOMAS HOTCHKIS Preacher at Granton in the County of WILTS SIR SOme few days ago a Friend of mine and a high Esteemer of a Friend and Patron of yours one morning told me that he had seen a Book bearing your name about Remission of Sin and the Nature thereof with Mr. Baxters Patrocinie prefixed to it I cannot but much esteem of that learned man and most judicious Divine in so far as I have rational grounds so to do even as far as he doth evidence himself to be indeed what you do stile him that is one Eagle-ey'd in Rational disputations Thus far I do go hand in hand along with you in estimation of him but no further And therefore I could not chuse but be desirous to know and be acquainted with one I mean you Sir whom so great a man doth send abroad into the world under his tuition and patronizing recommendation as conceiving and expressing so my self unto my Friend that told me of it that it could not be without some special reason and deserving consideration as indeed I did perceive afterwards my suspition failed me not when I did all along through your whole Tractate in tracing of your steps observe his large foot I did therefore presently with my friend go to the Booksellers shops to see if I could find you out and so have the opportunity of my so much desired acquaintance with you for your Friend and Patrons sake whom I do so much respect There indeed I did find you but could not leave you till I did bring you home to my Chamber to the end I might be the more familiarly intimate with you I spent most of the hours following ten a clock of that day first in hearing Mr. Baxter preface his recommendation of you and his good-liking approbation of your Tenets and opinions and no marvel thought I to my self because I suspected as I afterwards in the progress did find all or most of them to be his own And then in hearing you speakfully your own mind from the beginning to the end of your discourse Upon which consideration I hope common equity will require at your hands that I may be also taken notice of and heard a little in giving you now an account what then were some of my thoughts and observations in going along with you in your elaborate Exercitation and which I could not have leisure to put in paper to acquaint you with till now about eight or ten days after my first hearing of you And first I would preface thus much That I do not intend at this time and in this Missive to give you my Judgment about all the points by you disputed in that Dissertation of yours That Sir could not be done conveniently in an Epistle But there are chiefly two things that I desire to acquaint you freely with my thoughts about them The one I purpose to insist a little upon as being at first my chief intended scope and purpose to signifie to you and to your great Friend by these what were my thoughts about it and therefore I shall leave it to the second place The other I will but mention and touch in as few lines as I can and it is this I would intreat you not to be offended that I do verily suppose your whole Book in the chief intent and scope of the whole Exercitation therein contained to be notoriously peccant and halting in that known Fallacie called Ignoratio Elenchi taking quid pro quo and quite mistaking or wilfully misconstruing your Antagonists meaning in your disputing against him I give this censure upon the whole bulk of the Book because the mistake lieth in the very subject of it as it is cleared and explained in reference to the chief scope and purport thereof A sharp censure it may be perhaps looked upon and construed But Sir let me make out my reason to others which makes it out thus much and nothing less to me and then let indifferent and unprejudiced arbitrators judg of it My reason of such a censure is this Sir The subject of your Book is the Explication of the Nature of Forgiveness or Remission of Sin in an Exercitation thereabout chiefly tending as I conceive to refute and disapprove and so to beat down that so much startled at and conceived to be the grand pillar of Antinomianism to wit Remission or forgiveness of all the sins of the Elect ab aeterno from all eternity And hereupon you take upon you to deal with that truly so reputed great Malleus and indeed the grand hewer down of all Jesuitical and Arminian principles root and branch comparatively with whom I do not ever think to see any one or all of such his Antagonists worthy to be named in one and the same year He being absolutely to be set aside by himself at least in opposition to all his Adversaries as the truly so reputed and stiled Flos illibatus Ingeniorum Scholasticorum I say Sir upon the forementioned account you take that noble and victorious Champion of the Grace of God against all the blasphemous opposers thereof the great Doctor William Twiss whose very name in the mouth of any that understands his principles is

us against you and all the shelter you have or can expect from all his living Antagonists if Scriptural reason may be Judge I dare stand up and affirm That the determinate purpose of the will of God from all eternity not to punish the sins of his elect in Christ with eternal death is properly mental pardon remission and forgiveness of sin in the breast of God and may yea ought properly and most properly to be so called Yea I do aver this to be such a truth and so clearly evident to Scriptural reason that I do profess that though all the Devils in hell and all their erronious instruments on earth were each and all of them turned into Angels of light employing all their delusions to oppose it I would not fear the shaking of it And I am eagerly desirous to come into a formal rational and methodical dispute with you about it and the consequents of it to shame and canvase all your sophistications against it and to retort all your absurd consequences by manifesting the absurdity of all such irrational illations For I have looked over all your reasonings against it again and again either where Mr. Baxter or you purposely do dispute against it or where you touch and hint at it but the the by And I do profefs I can give no better censure of them but that each and all of them are either false and fallacious or quite irrational as being quite besides and out of the way and nothing at all against the present truth in question And although I would be glad to particularize this censure and make it good in each of them yet I cannot have the opportuity to do it at this time and it would be too much for an Epistle Therefore I shall only here as briefly as I can propose such an Explication of the present Truth as that in my apprehension may make it evident of it self to every rational consideration of it First therefore I dare appeal to the most common vulgar sense and reason about the truth of the point in general Whether the purpose and resolution of the will not to punish delinquencies and faults be not the real pardon remission and forgiveness of these faults and delinquencies Let any rational man retire himself and look back with reflecting thoughts upon the actings of his own soul and the faculties thereof within himself and let him consider if that whensoever he had taken distaste or hatred and displeasure against any person by reason of any fault of commission or omission or upon any consideration whatsoever and if it were in his hand to punish him any manner of way which he pleased let him consider I say whether or not that all along the time that he did retain a purpose and resolution in his will to punish the delinquent some way or another the fault it self and the person for the fault was not unpardoned and unforgiven But so soon as ever that either by an act of his free favor or by some satisfaction offered or given or upon any consideration whatsoever he hath laid aside the purpose to punish the delinquent and the delinquencie and is so well pleased with him that he doth take up a determinate resolution and purpose not to punish him yea he doth determine moreover that at that time he shall think fit and most convenient he will bestow many special favors upon him and keep him continually in favor with him yea never resolve to cast him quite out of his favor again I say let any ratinal consideration reflect upon such actings of the will in such resolutions and purposes as these and let it be seriously thought upon whether at the very passing of these favorable acts of the will towards the delinquent though the delinquent know it not yet himself both he himself and his faults be not pardoned and whether the very passing of these acts of the will that is whether those same favorable purposes and resolutions of the will not to punish but to bestow so many favors be not really the mental pardon remission and forgiveness of the delinquent and his faults and whether it may not ought not and must not properly yea most properly be so called and stiled if we will call it any thing at all to distinguish it from other acts of the will towards the same object The truth is I think it so clear that I count him sensless or wilfully irrational that dareth to deny it Take another illustration of the point thus A King hath a number of his Subjects broken out in rebellion against him let it be supposed that they are but mad in doing of it and that he can take order with them and punish them when he will yet he is pleased out of his free absolute and royal favor to decree purpose and resolve within himself not to punish those Rebels but in due time at the intercession and perhaps the satisfaction some way or other of his Son or Favorite in their behalf to bring them home to himself and to prefer all and each of them to places of honor about himself and never to degrade nor reject them out of his favor nor from their places of honor again Is not this very decree not to punish and to restore into favor real and mental pardon remission and forgiveness of these Rebels and their rebellions in the councel of the Kings own breast heart minde and will and is it not properly to be called so Will any after this favorable decree of the Kings will not to punish the Rebels is past be so irrational as to say that the Rebels are not mentally pardoned in the Kings own breast and in the cabinet-councel within his own heart And what though none know of it but the Kings self yet is it a real pardon though a secret one And what though the Rebels themselves come not to know those favorable acts of their Soveraigns will and pleasure towards them for a long time after as being perhaps a thousand miles distant or by some other impediment or upon some political consideration kept from hearing of it yet is it notwithstanding a real remission and really past in the Kings breast though not knowingly to them Yea lastly what though the full fruition of the Kings favor be suspended to the Rebels for a time and till such or such a condition be performed by them and that it be with such a caution that if after their reception into favor they fall into lesser faults they shall be chastised with lesser stripes yet all this doth not obstruct the reality of their pardon and remission as to the main point of their lives For he is fully determined not to punish them in that highest degree of punishment so that they are fully pardoned as to that and as for the condition of their enjoyment of his favour if the King himself hath fully and absolutely determined also to bring them effectually to the performance of it

thereof That whosoever believeth in him and so cometh to him by true faith him he will in no ways cast out and that he shall not perish but have eternal life And that this is done according to the purpose of the will of God for this is the will of the Father that of all those who are given unto the Son and who come unto him by saving faith not any one should perish This is certain then that God hath purposed not to punish with eternal death the sins of any true believer I say that this purpose and intention is in God at least when any one doth actually believe even according to your own principles to wit not to punish the sins of any true believer with eternal death is past question But Sir say I then your Definition is undone as to the perfection of it in opposition to Twisse's Definition of Pardon For this you will grant me which I will lay down for a ground That what once God hath purposed he hath immutably purposed it and cannot change it If you deny it let the world once know the atheism of such a principle and I hope it shall be soon hissed out But a Believer whom God hath thus once immutably purposed not to punish with eternal death and so whom he hath immutably pardoned as to that punishment and therefore who never can be unpardoned again in the breast of God because that purpose not to punish with eternal death can never be recalled again yet I say even such a one may fall grievously though not totally nor finally because God will perfect the good work of grace begun in him in the time and by the means he thinks meetest from his first love not only by hainous sinning against God actually but by continuing in an habitually sinful condition for so long a time too too much sad experience doth dolefully testifie this to be too true alas for it yet the foundation of the Lord standeth sure and he knoweth who are his own chosen ones whom he hath immutably purposed not to punish with eternal death so that he will never change that purpose and therefore they are fully and perfectly pardoned in his breast for ever as to that punishment And yet notwithstanding all the time of that their foresaid sinful estate and condition the Law threatens them and obligeth them to punishment for their sins even to no less then eternal punishment for such it threatens to all universally living in such sins as even a Believer may fall and continue in for a season Here the person is pardoned in the breast of God as to eternal punishment for he hath immutably purposed never to inflict that upon him because a Believer though in a backsliding condition and yet the obligation of the Law unto that same punishment is not dissolved actually as to him living in such an impenitent and sinful condition at least this must be most certain according to the Baxterian principles which do acknowledg no sin to be pardoned and so the obligation of the Law to punishment for it not to be dissolved before it be committed and till the sinner actuate faith and repentance about it Nay it threatens him with it and binds him over to it as justly deserving it because of his living and walking in such sins Therefore Pardon is not the dissolving of the Laws obligation to punishment because here there is Pardon or a purpose not to punish with eternal death in the breast of God which perfectly pardoneth absolveth and freeth him from the real danger of that death which is a real and a perfect pardon from the punishment thereof and yet the Law is not dissolved from its obligation of him to that punishment but is of force against him binding him over to it as his due desert in himself because of his sins and so sinful a condition Therefore these two are not all one to wit Pardon from eternal punishment and the dissolving of the Laws obligation unto that punishment For here in this case they are severed and really separated one from the other therefore they are really distinct one from the other and hence the one cannot be the nature and express the definition of the other I do profess I do here again and more then ever stand a little and amuse my self what can be answered by you especially upon the Baxterian Semi-Arminian principles which go so nigh to affirm that such a man in such a case should be lookt upon as quite and totally fallen away from grace and that the law of grace doth dissolve the obligation to punishment for no actual known sin far less to a habitual living in sin for a time till actual faith and repentancc be newly performed But here the sinner is supposed to lie not only in a sinful but in an impenitent condition so that the law of grace cannot dissolve him in such a condition from the obligation of the law of death to the punishment thereof And yet he that should say that in the supposed case wherein the person is supposed intentionally in the breast of God to be freed and absolved from that punishment of eternal death and so to be perfectly pardoned as to that punishment because God is supposed immutably to have purposed not to inflict it upon him because one supposed also to be elected in Christ and once a real and true believer I say that whosoever dare fay that such a one though in such a condition is not really and perfectly pardoned as to the punishment of eternal death he dareth to belie the Truth of God to the face which sheweth us That God is immutable in all the purposes of his will and so one once freed from eternal death by a purpose thereof can never be in real danger of it again although he know not so much and therefore ought to fear it in himself and that though he chastise his children and people once in Covenant with him by Faith in Christ and correct them for their sins when they turn away from him So that a believing sinner in such a back-sliding condition may indeed be and is in danger of falling under many sad strokes of providential fatherly and castigatory corrections of several sorts For I never do say that God hath purposed not to inflict upon him any of those temporary chastisements by which he useth as means to bring home to himself his sheep that has gone astray from him and bewildred themselves by wandring in the vanity and wickedness of their own inventions for a season and therefore I shall not much make a quarrel with the Baxterian princip es for saying That Believers are not perfectly freed in this life from those temporal and correcting strokes of fatherly and loving chastiments because as is said God hath not purposed not to inflict such temporary corrections upon them for their sins in their estrangements from him in this life yet I say notwithstanding of all those

his truth That although he correct them with those rods of tender and fatherly-hearted men yet his mercy and his loving kindness he will never remove from them nor break his Covenant with them by quite again turning them out of it whom he hath once taken within it in Christ Now Sir if you will grant those Truths and say That that purpose of Gods will not to punish such an Elect Believer with eternal death doth dissolve the Laws Obligation as to that punishment he being the supreme Law-maker himself Then I say first That if Mr. Baxter say so he will contradict himself in the defence of his own definition for he saith and affirmeth expresly That a purpose to punish is no obligation to punishment and that a purpose not to punish is no remission of any such duness to obligation and so no dissolving of any obl gation And if you Sir say so for him as if there be any truth in that which he and you say both in the point of difference about the definition you must say so and can say nothing else for ought that I know to the supposed case then I say That the Baxterian definition so much contended for falls to the ground because all the truth that is in it is co-incident with the Doctors definition of pardon to wit That it is a purpose or determination of the will not to punish which is perfect pardon in it self Whether the Law be dissolved or whether there be any Law to be dissolved or not at all And therefore it is most irrationally maintained and disputed for so much as true being taken as distinct from and in opposition to the Doctors definition of pardon from which his hath all the truths in it if it hath any in it all in the cases propounded I have one case yet more Sir briefly to propound against your so much fought for definition of pardon and then to concluded by trampling it under Twisse his definition so that it shall never again rise to oppose it The case is this Sir Suppose when Adam had faln that God had not proclaimed unto him the Law of Grace in Christ the Seed of the Woman immediately after his fall I think you will acknowledge the case supposed and the supposition possible for it was in the free choice of God how and at what time to reveal the way of Salvation to lost man man by the Messias Well you will say let the case be supposed What will ye make it onely Sir I would desire you but to answer me this one question In that supposition and before there was any Saviour revealed to Adam could not God have pardoned Adam Or could not he freely have forgiven his sin of disobedience to his commands And that without making known unto him a way to forgiveness by Faith in the Son and Saviour of the World It may be now Sir you may guess and give a hint at that which I aim at and I can also by remembring what I read in your Book conjecture how you would answer the question if you be stedfast to your Tenets But the truth in my thoughts is Sir that I do esteem that opinion from which I do conceive by what I do remember I did hear you speak a little to once or twice in your discourse when I sell first in conference with you That you would draw your answer to the question here proposed I say I do account that opinion from which vou would answer the question proposed to be no less then Blasphemy for so it sounds in my ears every syllable of it and so my thoughts cannot ruminate upon it otherways and therefore in words I can afford no better expression about it who ever be the authors and abettors of it and if you please by your next to call for an account of so harsh a censure I hope you shall as readily have the grounds of the censure as here you have the censure it self In the mean time Sir I do propose the question above named to any retional understanding and I am confident the very rational light of natural Reason will dictate unto me this answer That God might and could if he would have pardoned Adam freely without infinite satisfaction nay I say that there is no impossibility nor repugnant implication of contradiction in this supposition But that when God called to Adam in Paradise as he fled foolishly for fear and shame to hide himself and after he had convinced him of his sin and drawn him to an humble acknowledgment of it as Nathan did to David and of his guilt and desert of death that immediatly upon that acknowledgment it was possible and no implication of contradiction in it That God might not onely have pardoned him as Nathan declared David to be pardoned But he might also have immediately if he had pleased translated him to glory by taking him up presently to himself so that he should have lived no longer upon earth as he did to Enoch I say the light of nature demonstrateth that God might and could have done so if he had pleased without any wrong or contradiction to his Righteousness and Justice for the rational light of nature dictateth this principle That the will and pleasure of the absolutely supreme Law-giver Maker and Governor of the World is the absolute rule of all Righteousness and Justice If you think otherways Sir tell us by your next and perhaps you shall be told again That you think irrationally Well then I will suppose until I hear from you that God might have so pardoned Adam before he had revealed unto him that his Messiah Christ the Seed of the Woman was appointed to destroy the works of the Devil And in that supposed case of pardon Sir What say you to the Baxterian definition of pardon Where would then have been the dissolving of the obligation to punishment by the Law of Grace When in the case supposed the Law of Grace would not have been at all proclaimed to dissolve any obligation to punishment by the Law of Death What would have been more in such a pardon in that or the like case then the meer free and gracious will of God freely passing from his right of the strictness of rigorous punishment and so resolving not to punish Adam by death for the disobedience of his command I think it is here clear as the Sun not over clouded at Noon in a bright day That there would have been nothing here in such a pardon but the will and the purpose of it not to punish and so freeing from deserved punishment and yet this would have been as perfect a pardon I think as Adam would have desired and it would have been as proper a pardon as any that could be so called The truth is Sir I wonder not a little that Eagles eyes did not see thorough so far as to reach the consideration of those or some such cases when they did look about them every

of the Psal 51. the same word in the original was translated in the ninth Verse presence and in the eleventh Verse face a pretty or petty observation indeed But I doubt I shall not in haste finde the like from you again but on the quite contrary I doubt not but I shall always hereafter finde from you but just such pitiful stuff as I finde here that is nothing when ever ye touch the Hebrew but either ignorant wilful negligent or careless mistakings of the original And I fear nay I know the event will prove in our progress the thing to be true that here I conjecture so that there will nothing remain but that you must suffer your self to be informed when you are in mistakes about the original as about the end of that third Chapter of your Exeration Pag. 14. you fall just into such another mistake as we had last in hand bewraying your far less knowledge diligence and study in the Hebrew then in the Greek For in these two last pages of your third Chapter your scope is to enumerate so many diverse Negative phrases in Scripture about Gods not forgiving and pardoning sin and amongst those diverse phrases differing one from another in form of words you make your second phrase to be Gods not holding guiltless in the Third Commandment Exod. 20. 7. to which you adde 1 Kings 2. 9. In both which places indeed the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakah is used in the Future tense of Piel as in Exod. 20. 7. in 3. Pers sing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah lo Jenakkeh The Lord will not absolve or declare innocent or hold guiltless for such is the force of the word in the conjugation Piel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nikkah He absolved he acquitted he declared innocent or he did hold guiltless c. The Root in kal being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakah He was pure or innocent and in Piel He declared to be pure or innocent he absolved c. And so in the other place of the Kings it is the same word in the 2. Pers sing piel m. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 al tenakkehu Thou shalt not absolve him acquit him or hold him guiltless or do thou not absolve him or hold him guiltless c. Thus far you go right and according to your scope but I suppose little further for in the very next words you bring your third diverse phrase or your third different form of expression in Scripture about Gods not forgiving of sin and that is say ye Gods not clearing or acquitting the sinner and for this different phrase or form of speech from the former you do bring two places to wit first Exod. 34. 7. and secondly Nah. 1. 3. Well Sir I have followed your quotations and in both these places I do finde this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lo jenakkeh He will not hold him guiltless c. But this phrase and form of expression I found before in two places to wit Exod. 20. 7. and 1 King 2. 9. How then is it another and diverse or different phrase from these Alas Sir thus it is to declare your Lord and Masters Commission and Instructions to you onely by a translating Interpreter not understanding the words of your own commission your self Your Interpreters may make you believe any thing they please they may cause you believe that to be the same which is not the same that to be diverse which is not diverse that to differ which doth not differ and that to agree which doth not agree and that to be an article of your commission by an instruction to you which is not an article of your commission nor an instruction to you at all And if they can make you believe contradictions they may make you believe that the Moon is made of Green Cheese for ought I know and that every Star in the Firmament is another World if they would but say so much for neither of those doth imply so much as a flat contradiction These escapes Sir in the beginning of your Book with the notice taken thus of them I was the more willing with all the hast I possibly could that they should come into your hands it being but a fort-night by-gone yesterday since I did first either see or hear of your Book And after I had once run over it the day I saw it I did not for nine days following look upon it more nor all that time had I leisure to begin to write a word of this missive directed to your great friend and your self Yet when I did begin I say for to write unto you I willingly would not leave off till I had put a period to the course of my thoughts at this time especially about advertising you as I have said about your escapes in the beginning of your Book because in the end of it I do see that you notifie unto us a design of a second part to this Treatise in which you do propose to your self to communicate unto us those several phrases both of the Old and New Testament which you take to be synonimous and equivalent to forgiveness of sin c. But Sir how is it possible that you can take upon you to do so much so daringly What Sir to finde out and set down those several phrases in the Old Testament which you take to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equivalent to forgiveness of sin as you do phrasifie your thoughts about your design Will you do this I say Sir out of the Old Testament when for ought that I can see in this book you know not your self and by your own eyes a B. by a Bull-foot in it as the word goes in it self unless that others put glasses of theirs before your own eyes to look into it by But Sir how can you satisfie your self with those glasses that others do make and fit for your eyes how do you know but that they are either multiplying or magnifying glasses making things and words representing things either greater or less more or fewer and many manner of ways otherways then they are in themselves unto your view May not you thereby think things and words to be diverse which are one and the same to differ which do agree and in a word any thing to be what it is not and therefore those things which you may take to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 synonimous and equivalent to forgiveness of sins may be really such to non-non-forgiveness of sins for ought that you know with your own eyes And how shall others take that from your knowledg Sir which you know not your self Have we not had experience of some of your mistakes and gross ones too already why may not you be mistaken in many moe likewise as I am confident you will if you meddle with many moe These advertisements I desire you timously and seriously to think upon before that second Tractate of yours that so you do not any more expose