AN EXERCITATION Concerning the NATURE OF FORGIVENESS of SIN.  
Very necessary (as the Author humbly conceiveth) to a right information, and well grounded decision of sundry Controversal Points in Divinity now depending.  
Directly intended as an Antidote for preventing the danger of Antinomian Doctrine.  
And consequently subservient for promoting the true faith of Christ and fear of God, in a godly, righteous, and sober life.  
By THOMAS HOTCHKIS, Master of Arts of C.C.C.C. And Minister of God's Word at Stanton by Highworth in the County of Wilts.  
To which is prefixed Mr. Richard baxter's Preface.  
London, Printed by T.M. for Tho. Underhill at the Anchor, and Math. Keinton at the Fountain in Paul's Church Yard. 1655.   

VENERABILI VIRO, NEC NON PATRONO SUO IN CHRISTO, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ROBERTO HIPPISLEIO Armig.  
Ob Amorem, qui sedecem ab hinc (plus minus) annis inter nos coaluit, & citra ullam reconciliationem hactenus obtinuit, conjunctiorem.  
Chartaceum hoc, qualecunque, munusculum non ingrati erga ipsummet animi, propensique 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
(Quod foelix faustumque sit)  
EXERCITATIONEM de Nobilissimo, juxta & (immane quantum!) amabili subjecto, Ut Putà DE REMISSIONIS PECCATORUM QUIDDITATE, seu NATURA, D.D.D. THOMAS HOTCHKIS.  
HOTCHKIS on Forgiveness of Sin.   

Gracious is the Lord and righteous, yea our God is merciful.  Psal. 116.5. 
Brethren, if any of you err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know, that he which converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hid a multitude of sins.  James 5.19, 20. 
Amicus Lutherus, Amicus Calvinus, sed magis Amicus Christus veritas, & veritas Christi, Gloria Dei, & salus populi.   

CHRISTIAN READER,  
THe Reverend Author of this ensuing Treatise, hath it seems, such humble thoughts of himself, and these his Labours, that unless some other do lead them forth into the public light, they must be condemned to unprofitable obscurity. I apprehend myself the most unfit of any for such an office, were it but because I found, it had pleased him to make such mention of my name, as I may not approve of; and well knowing that we might hear a Mulus Mulum scabit; from the party that will undoubtedly be offended at his Discourse. But when it pleased himself to remit his Exercitation into my hands, with a full and final Resolution, that by me it should live or die (on what reason I little know,) I durst not stand on such personal punctilio's, nor be guilty of such cruelty as to stifle such a birth, for the avoiding of the toothed censures of those men, who are implacable to them that bow not to their Judgements; and whose good words can never be won with Innocency, but only with a compliance with the Interest of their Party, and a listing ourselves and marching under the Colours of their Division, and Conduct of their admired Leaders, against the Verity of Christ, and the unity and Purity of his Church. I know it is none of the Author's expectation, that I should justify every word in his writings: I dare not do so by my own: nor will he do it himself. Nor is it an applauding Commendation that he desires, but an Impartial censure, and what intimations may be most profitable to the Reader. I understand he hath not been rash in fixing on the Conclusions in this book; but hath tendered it to several Learned, Judicious Divines, esteemed Orthodox, for their perusal and Censure: and where some of them have advised to the alteration of some phrases, he hath condescended very much to their desires.  
Though he be my Country man, I have no further acquaintance with the Author, than an hour or two's conference, and the perusal of his papers, and the good report of others do afford me: by which I judge him a grave, pious, sober Divine, not so quick and sharp, as deliberately Judicious and solid, not made so much for words as Matter, nor to please men's ears with smoothness and eloquence, as to inform their Judgements by a plain discovery of practical Truths. I perceive he liveth not far from the place where Dr. Crispe did exercise his Ministry; and so having more to do with the Antinomians, either for their recovery, or the Defence of the Truth against them, then in most other parts our Ministers have; and more need to fortify the people against the infection of their errors; it turned much of the stream of his studies and labours this way. God hath made the several errors that have risen in most ages, an occasion of the clearing and advantaging his truth; and one error a means of the destruction of another. The Papists errors in the point of Justification by the Merit of works, and other such like self ascribing conceits, did occasion from Luther, Melancthon, and other leading Reformers of those times, a more ample discovery of the freeness of God's grace, and a fuller vindication of the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, then else the Church had been like to have so soon enjoyed. When the contrary error was sown by Islebius and his Antinomians, and too much watered by Illiricus and his Lutherans, and grown to maturity in the former Libertines and late Antinomians here with ourselves; God made this an occasion to awaken his Ministers to maintain more vigorously the use of the Law, the necessity of Faith, Repentance and Obedience, and more clearly to open the nature of the Covenants, & the Reason of Duty, then formerly had been done; yet were the writings but few & brief that have been published against this kind of men, (except only those between the Majorists and the Flaccians, who were somewhat learned men) because the opinions of these Libertines were so carnal and gross, and their lives ordinarily so scandalous, and the ends of many of them so fearful, that through God's mercy, it was but very few that were seduced by them; and both they and their reasonings did seem so contemptible, that learned men thought it needless to trouble themselves with them: especially having a learned, and subtle kind of adversary on the other side, (the Papist and Arminian) that found them work. The turbulence and scandalousness of some of them in London, first drew forth Dr. Tailors Regula Vitae: But lately they were headed by many public preachers; Eton, Town, Randall, Simpson, Saltmarsh, but the man that most credited and strengthened their party was Dr. Crispe: These have occasioned those profitable labours of Mr. Gataker, Master Burges, Mr. Rutherford against them, seconded by Mr. Bedford, Mr. Geree, and others: And Mr. Eyre hath happily now drawn forth against them that Judicious man Mr. Benjamin Woodbridge. And this Exercitation doth next take its place in this Army that is engaged against the Libertines: which though it be yet the last, and one of the least in my Judgement, is not the least useful. Divers weighty Truths are here asserted and cleared, which too many have overlooked: the objections of the Adversary are solidly answered. The only or chief thing that is like to be offensive to some of the Orthodox, is the Authors too free declaring his dissent about certain Propositions from many of his brethren, and that by name. Had he been as well acquainted with men's impatiency of contradiction, as I am; I believe he would have declined this way. That none of the brethren excepted against, have reason to suppose me to be interessed against them, or to subscribe to such exceptions may appear in that it hath pleased the Author to put me also in the number.  
In Chap. 2●. Cons. 16. where he labours to show the insufficiency (though not the falsehood) of my discovery, how Pardon is a transcient act (but indeed it was another kind of pardon that I spoke of, and of which I was to resolve that question) I have oft declared, that there is little reason we should take it so ill, to be questioned of imperfection, or charged with a mistake in lower controvertable points, especially when it's more about words and method, than the matter itself. But most detestable is the practice of those men that under pretence of being Orthodox, and enemies to error, are carried so violently in the stream of their party, that they are not able with any patience to hear or read a line that accuseth that party of mistake, or that differeth from them, though but in method or terms: and though it be with the greatest humility, submissiveness and hatred of dissensions; yea though it be directly for peace, by reconciling the differences of several parties, that by their divisions have long troubled the Church. These men look not far beyond the borders of their own party, but live among them, as if they were all the Church, or the world; (Like the fellow, that having never gone out of the City he was born in, imagined that the wo●ld was all enclosed in those walls) they think, he that doth but keep the unity and peace of their party, doth keep the unity and peace of the Church. Be it but one schismatical congregation of Separatists, Anabaptists, or Antinomians, who themselves have divided from almost all the Churches of Christ on earth, yet they seem to affect a unity in their own separated body, and will condemn a man for disturbing the peace of their Church. So is it with many of the greater parties, called Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. But none so horridly guilty of this, as the Papists, who will needs have it to be all one to be of the Roman Church and of the Catholic; and to differ from the Roman, as to differ from the Catholic. Shall we imitate them in this, and make a Popery of our own, whilst we contend against theirs? Yet alas, how common is it with us? Who can deny it? The Lutherans are more perversely guilty of it, than we. Yet I must speak to those that are within hearing of me, If a true Catholic Christian that understandeth the unity of the Church, and abhorreth the name of parties, and desireth their reconciliation for a recovery of unity, do but take on him to show any party that they have run into some extreme, in some lesser points; and how that mistake hath occasioned division, and still alienates the other party, and that the reversing of that error would tend to a reconcilement; How furiously do a sort of factious (though godly and Learned) men rise up against him, and charge him with innovation, with bringing new light, and breaking the peace of the Church, as if he were the schismatic, and had a mind to head a Party, whose mind is to endeavour that there might be no parties, but a unity? as if all the kernel of the Church were within our nutshell: as if all were new, that is new to the ears of that society: And as if he did charge the whole Church with error, or thought himself wiser than the whole Church, or did disturb the peace of the whole Church, who doth but suppose one party to have some mistakes, and seek to cure them. As if in a separated congregation of Anabaptists or Antinomians, they should charge me with innovation, and thinking myself wiser than all the Church, because I say that infants must be baptised, or that elect infidels are not in Christ, nor pardoned, nor absolved from the guilt of sin: were not this ridicilous vanity? yet can these same men that seem so zealous for unity and peace, and the credit of divines, not only be well contented, that we be zealous against all others but their party, but also do applaud that man as Orthodox, that will clamour and rail against them, and cry them down as heretical, or most furiously censure them to be none of the Church, or so desperately corrupted, that there must be no talk of reconliation; and he that flies furthest from their opinions, (as if there were no extreme on the other hand) doth best escape the censures of this sort of men, when reconcilers are still suspected as guilty complyers. And thus godly and zealous men, while they are too confident of the judgement of themselves, and their party, are made the great enemies of truth, and the unity of the Church; and lay those grounds which would make the wounds of the Church uncurable. And though they are disabled from laying violent hands on dissenters, yet by their keen and furious censures of all that step out of the road of their party, they have brought things to that pass, that students lie under a strong temptation, to study no further, then to know what is the opinion which is most in credit, and which their leaders hold, and to take heed of knowing any more than others in the least point; and to shun all things that tend to a reconciling of the Churches; yea, and to make some raving onset on others, if they mean to be glorious among their own.  
They say, If this should keep out some truths, yet withal it will keep out heresies, whilst all innovations are kept in such disgrace. But I doubt, it rather occasioneth heresies, seeing it is the property of heretics to affect singularity, and to make it their glory among their own party, to be vilified by others. For my part, I believe one Catholic Church, and the Communion of Saints: and when I preach to one congregation, I remember how small a part of the Church they are. And when I writ of the opinions of any one party, I remember how many there be of another mind. But these men object, that the number of the erroneous is not to be regarded; seeing it is our party only that is in the right, and hath the Scripture on their side, their doctrine and unity is to be defended, and the rest, if they will have unity, must come over unto them. To which I answer, that I do confidently believe, that no one party on earth is so sound in Doctrine, and way of worship, as those called Calvinists. But to think that any one party is infallible, or hath so engrossed the truth, that others may not in some points be righter than they, or that they may not be guilty of running too fare 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 less should they be unwilling to hear and try whether it be so or not. Undoubtedly there are many differences that seem real and momentous through misinformations and prejudice, which indeed are but in words or methods, or of inferior nature. And abundance of good might be done by drawing differences into a narrower compass, 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 pass, that none can set their hand to so blessed a work, till they first resolve to subject themselves to the scorn 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 fools, and therefore pride itself can spare their applauses. But when we take such pious persons, and Learned Divines to be men of valuable judgements, that are able indeed 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 devil; were they perfect Saints, it would not be so: But he that observeth not the sad imperfections of the best of Saints, and how fare they make them serviceable to the enemy, and that all men, even the best are vanity and liars, and that the Church's greatest danger is from itself, more than from all enemies without; yea, and that every one is the greatest enemy to himself; he knoweth not himself, he hath sure been a sleep, at least these 12 years, and not seen the discoveries that our late trials have made; and he hath more of the Popish opinion of perfection than 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 do it not, for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, and of them which keep the say 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 possessed or ruled by the devil; 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 zeal for the Church's unity is very much increased, for which I hearty bless the Lord. But the number of such is too small, and of the self conceited and contentions so considerable, as cannot be hid.  
For my own 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 confess; I have no great zeal to confine the Church to the party that I best like, nor to shut Christ out of all other Societies, and coop him up to the congregations of those few that say to all the rest of the Church, Stand by, we are more holy than you. In a word, and a plain word, I am loath to make Christ only the head of the Calvinists, in stead of being the head of Christians and Catholics, and loath 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 return to the subject of this Exercitation.  
And because the Reverend Author seems to me in some few passages to have expressed his mind somewhat obscurely, or in terms liable to misconstruction; 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 judgement.) 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 God's regiment of mankind. 1. As God is Legislator, he doth confer 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 itself 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 laws, so he hath a sentential remission of sin, or justification. But there is this difference between these two terms: Remission of sin doth more properly signify the legal or donative remission, and less 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 judicial; but more fully and strictly, the sentence, than 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 of his laws, either in this life, before the final sentence (for some men's sins go before to judgement, and some follow after) or in the life to come, so it belongeth to him actually to punish or to remit punishment; and thus his pardon is, not to punish: yet not simply not to punish, but not to punish one that deserved it. This I call, for distinction sake, executive pardon Now I conceive, that the word Justification, hath principal respect to the obligation and sentence, and less to the punishment. But the word Remission more emphatically connoteth the punishment, than the Obligation dissolved; and yet the Obligation more than the sentence. It seems to me that this Reverend Author doth sometime look only at the executive Remission in his Consectaries; sometime at the Legal Remission; and sometime he joineth them together as one. And it must be confessed, that this last is the full end and perfection of both the former, and the former are both but means to this. Therefore doth God give us pardon, and judge us pardoned, that we may escape the Penalty and live. The Reverend Author calls this the ultimate Term, and the dissolving of the Obligation the nearest: which may admit of a double sense: Either as this species of executive pardon is the end of the foresaid species of pardon: or as Impunity enters the Definition of the Donative or Legal sort of Pardon: and so it is not considered in esse existenti, as in executive pardon it is; but as future and in esse volito. And so as Gild (or Obligation to punishment, which is all one) is the nearest term, specifying this sort of pardon; so Impunity is the remote term, seeing the Obligation dissolved is an Obligation to Punishment. Reader, here's nothing but what's obvious, and beyond question for the truth; and if thou have but the skill to use the Key of this distinction of Remission, and apply it to some dubious passages in the Exercitation, it will prevent thy misunderstanding, and I suppose, thy wronging of the Author, and thy causeless offence. Chap. 4. p. 10. where he saith that Gild is taken sometime for the punishment itself, I confess I have not observed so much; nor yet do. So Chap. 5. p. 12. Nor do I suppose that the Reatus redundans in personam contains punishment itself, but only connotes it as the Term of the Obligation. Therefore when Chap. 4. p. 10. he saith, pardon is not a freeing us from the simple Gild and Defect, I should, to avoid misunderstanding, have left out the word guilt, and said only it is the freeing us from the desert, because I have not observed it usual to make guilt to be the same with desert. Though I confess he may be called, 

1. Guilty of deserving punishment, that hath deserved it. As he is  
2. Guilty of punishment, that is obliged to it; and he is  
3. guilty of the fault simply considered, who did indeed commit it.   Distinguish of these three well, and you will also be the better able to understand some dubious application of the Reatus simplicis, et reatus culpae, which you after here meet with. As to c. 18. n. 4. p. 33. I conceive that it is not the tenor of the Gospel, but the law of nature that obligeth believers to punishment for a gross sin; and so it doth for the smallest; that this obligation is a making him guilty of death in general, but not of the loss of former Pardon in specie: And that as Pardon is a Benefit of the new Convenant, which the old knew not: so the loss of pardon, is a penalty threatened by the new Covenant properly. Though I suppose God suffers none to fall under that penalty that were actually pardoned, as to the eternal Punishment.  
When Ch. 23. Cons. 17. he dedenyeth Justification to be a change merely Relative, his Reason is, because it is the same with Remission and Remission is a real change, viz. not punishing. Ergo, etc. But note, 

1 That he explains himself to speak only of Executive Remission, which is nothing to the other two sorts.  
2. I think executive Remission is not usually called Justification. And therefore I shall still say, that Justification is but a Relative change.    
So Ch. 25. Cons. 19 where there is mention of Gild in heaven, I conceive the word can mean no more than that the Saints did deserve God's wrath: and whether that be a proper sense of the word Gild, or usual, I must leave to wiser Lawyers than myself.  
I do not take these or any the like obscurityes or inprefections to be a sufficient reason to quarrel with the labours of this Reverend man, much less to deprive the Church of the benefit of them. Nay I hope it is no small gain that many will receive by it: (so far am I from damning, exploding, or contemning every thing that hath somewhat disagreeable to my opinion Doubtless it must needs be very useful to ordinary Christians to see the nature of pardon more plainly, and to see such clear Reasons for a Necessity of our daily praying for pardon, yea for pardon of the same sins that were before pardoned; and to see Providential, Castigatory Punishments so well reconciled with the fullness of Christ's satisfaction for the same sins; and to see such full Evidence for a necessity of holy fear & working out our savaltion, yet without ascribing any merit unto man; to see the Reason of the necessity that the promise of our continued and final Justification should be on the condition of our perseverance, and so that continued and final Justification be but conditional; and this not only consistent with the certain perseverance of the Saints, but also the ordinate rational means of their perseverance; to see the imperfection of that Remission and Justification which we have in this life, beyond all reasonable exception manifested; with many the like points, I conceive will have much influence on men's affections and practices, and free them from some mistakes that do no whit befriend their Graces, nor a Godly life. But I must from experience advise the Reverend Author to expect the offence of some, the bitter censures of others, and perhaps to be scorned and snarled at, if not be worried by some of the fautours of the Libertine sect, or some that make a trade of voluminous Disputation; if they find him not in their road, they may seek him by a Digression: and such men are never out of their way. If I may advise him, unless they convince him of some mistake to be revoked, he should hear them as if he heard them not, and never think of wording it with them, but suffer them to ease themselves without Contradiction, and leave the success of his Labours to God. The Lord pity his poor, divided, imperfect Church, and acquaint the Guides with the Necessity of its Unity, and those Principles which have a tendency to the healing of our breaches, and pour out more adundance of the Spirit of Illumination, Concord and purity, that with one (and that a Pure and Charitable) Mind and Mouth, we may Glorify God. Amen. Thus daily Prayeth  
A weak and sinful Labourer in Christ's harvest. RICH. BAXTER. May 27. 1654.   

Of forgiveness of Sin.  1 JOHN 1.9. 
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  

CHAP. I. An Introduction to the whole.  
IN these words we have the Great Mystery of Godliness [Mercy and truth met together, Righteousness and Peace kissing each other.] We have in it the pith and marrow, the sum and substance of the blessed Gospel of Jesus Christ Gods manifested in the flesh; the several parts whereof having gone through Sermon-wise in the ordinary course of my Ministry, I shall only transfer from thence into these sheets of paper what I have delivered in that way [with the addition of sundry particulars, which since that time have come into my thoughts] concerning the Nature of forgiveness of sin; and this I intent to do [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in a direct, but copious answer to the following Question, or Questions.  
What is Forgiveness of sin? Or, 
Quest.  what is it for God to forgive us our sins?  
In order to the resolution of this very material Question, and from the right resolution whereof much light (as I think) will be let into sundry controversal points now depending in Divinity, if I should [by way of proem, or premisall] tell the Reader, that in sin there are several things considerable (e. g. Matter, Form, Gild, Blot, or Stain) as some among the Shoolemen and our modern Divines have done, I should thereby in likelihood rather amuse the Reader, then expedite the matter. Waving therefore that course, I shall go a more plain way to work, and such as is more suitable both to the capacity of the undertaker, as also of every ordinary Reader, as followeth.  
That we may not labour (i. e.) deceive, or be deceived in that kind of fallacy, which Logicians style Fallaciam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, supposing that to be single, which indeed is complicate; I mean, supposing that to be one Question, which indeed is two, take this Praecognitum, viz. That it is one thing to inquire, that is evermore meant by Forgiveness of sin in the language of Scripture, and another thing to inquire, what is thereby meant in this text of the Evangelist and the Apostle St. John: these being indeed two such Questons', as will not admit of one and the self same answer, as will be made (I think) most evidently apparent in the procedure of this present Exercitation, or undertaking.  
Now in order to the joint resolution of both the said Questions proposed, I shall in the first place set down much of that variety of phrase whereby forgiveness of sin is notified; set forth, or expressed in the writings both of the Old and New Testament: which said expressions I will sort into Negative and Affirmative; and would have set them down in their several columes one over against another, that we might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take view of them both together: but the narrowness of the several pages will not permit Take them therefore as they follow, beginning with the Affirmative in the first place.   

CHAP. II. The various phrases whereby God's forgiving sin, and his not forgiving sin are intimated and expressed in Scripture, which said phrases of both kinds are sorted into Negative and Affirmative.  
The Affirmative phrases, whereby forgiveness of sin is held forth in Scripture, are such as these, viz.  
GOds covering of sin, Psal 85.2. Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin. His blotting them out and hiding his face from them, Psal. 51.9. Hid thy face from my sins and blot out all mine offences. His purging them away, Psal. 79.9. Purge away our sins for thy Names sake. And Psal. 65.3. As for our transgressions, thou wilt purge them away. So Ps. 51.7. Purge me with hyssop (i. e.) Wash me from the guilt of sin with the blood of the Messiah, which blood of his was tipifyed by the blood of the Paschal Lamb; which, according to the command of God in the levitical Law, was to be sprinkled upon the people with a bunch of hyssop; whence it is, that the blood of Christ is styled the blood of sprinkling, Heb. 12.24. His casting them behind his back, Esa. 38.17. Thou shalt cast all my sins behind thy back, says Hezekiah. His putting away our sins, 2 Sam. 12, 13. The Lord hath put away thy sin, says Nathan to David. His taking away our sins, 2 Sam. 24.10. Take away the iniquity of thy servant, says David; in which form of words the Church is taught to pray to God for pardon, Hos. 14.2. Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity. His subduing sin and casting it into the depths of the Sea, Mic. 7.19. He will subdue our iniquities, and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the Sea. His healing our sin, Hos. 14.4. I will heal their backslidings, I will love them freely; which words are a direct answer, and as in Terminis terminantibus, unto the Church's petition form in ver. 2. Take away all iniquity and receive us graciously. So Jer. 3.22. Return you backsliding children, and I will heal your backsliding. His healing (as the sin, so) the sinner Isa. 53.5. by his stripes we were healed. And Joh. 12.40. Lest they should be converted and I should heal them, (i. e.) forgive and save them. His washing and cleansing us from sin, Psal. 51.2. Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. Thus doth the Prophet Jeremy both use and interpret the said phrase of cleansing from sin, ch. 33.8. And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me, and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me. So also in the N. T. 1 Joh. 1.7. The blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin; and in this sense I should understand the phrase in the text [and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness] viz. as importing one and the self same thing with Forgiveness: for albeit Sanctification doth frequently go under the name of cleansing (as in Psal. 119.9 and Jam. 4▪ 8.) and albeit remission of sin and sanctification do always go together in the same subject, in which regards we may warranttably interpret the phrase to be meant of Sanctification in this text; nevertheless I should choose to interpret it rather to be all one with forgiveness, not only because forgiveness of sin doth oft go under that name, and because it is ordinary in Scripture to express one thing by two words, or phrases; but more especially because our cleansing from unrighteousness is in the text promised as a merit, not commanded as a duty. Now I take it for a Rule, which will generally hold true, That where cleansing from sin is enjoined as a duty, 
Exceptio non tollit, sed firmat regulam.  we are thereby to understand Sanctification, or holiness of life; but where it is promised as a mercy, there we are to understand it by Justification, or forgiveness of sin. But as for this, let every one abound in his own sense.  
I proceed. God's forgiving us our sins is styled his passing by our sins, Mich. 7.18. [Who is a God like unto thee, who pardonest iniquity and passest by the transgression?] His removing our sins from us, Psal. 103.12. As fare as the East is from the West, so fare hath he removed our transgressions from us. His being merciful to our sins, Heb. 8.12. I will be merciful to your unrighteousness. And (as to the sin, so) to the sinner, Luke 18.13. Lord be merciful to me a sinner. Psal. 51.1.  Have mercy upon me, O Lord, have mercy upon me. 
The Negative phrases whereby Forgiveness of sin is held forth in Scripture, are such as these; viz.  
Gods not imputing sin, Psal. 32.2. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no iniquity. In this form or phrase doth Shimei, having played the part of a notorious Delinquent against David his Liege Lord, pray for the pardon of his offence, 2 Sam. 19.19. Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me. His not remembering our sins. Psal. 25.7. Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions, saith the Psalmist. The like phrase did Shimei use in the case, and to the purpose aforesaid, saying, Neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely, the day that my Lord the King went out of Jerusalem. His not remembering our sins against us: Psal. 79.8. O remember not against us former iniquities. This phrase doth somewhat explicate the former, Gods not remembering of our sins, not being his simple forgetting them, or simply his not remembering them; but his not remembering them; Quoad hoc, or, against us. His not mentioning our sins unto us: Ezek. 18.22. His not laying our sins to our charge: 2 Tim. 4.16. Where Saint Paul praying God to pardon the sin of those that did desert him under his trial of persecution, saith, I pray God it may not be laid to their charge. So Saint Stephen prayeth for his persecuters, saying, Lord lay not this sin to their charge, Act. 7.60. That prayer being in full sense all one with that of our Saviour for those that did murder him by a Law, saying, Father, forgive them. Only let it be noted concerning the two last places, viz. 2 Tim. 4.16. and Acts 7.60. that albeit the phrase in the Translation be all one (both being rendered, A not laying sin to the charge of the sinner;) nevertheless the phrases in the Original are divers, the former being [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] which doth properly signify to be reckoned, or imputed, and is so rendered, Rom. 4.22. Where Abraham's faith is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To be imputed to him for righteousness; and in the latter place the phrase being [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] which word doth properly signify, to establish or to fasten; q. d. Fasten not this sin upon their backs, or, upon their score. God not entering into judgement with us: Psal. 143.2. Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord.  
I shall in the next place set down such phrases as do hold forth the non-forgiveness of sin, or Gods not forgiving us our sins (because contraries do help to illustrate each other;) which said Phrases I shall sort likewise into Negative and Affirmative, and will set them down in the same order as I have done the former.  
Affirmative phrases, which do hold forth Gods not forgiveing us our sins are such as these, viz.  
God's remembering our sins, Hos. 9.9. He will remember their iniquity Jer. 44.21. The iniquities of your fathers, did not the Lord remember them, and came they not into his mind? His setting of our sins continually before him. Ps. 109 14.15. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord, Let them be before the Lord continually. God's visiting sin, or for sin. Hos. 9.9. He will remember their iniquity. He will visit their sins Jer. 9.9. Shall I not visit for these things? His covering with anger and persecuting the sinner, 
* That covering whereby pardon of sin is expressed being a covering with love.  Lam. 3.42, 43. we have rebelled, thou hast not pardoned, thou hast covered with anger, and persecuted us. God's retaining sin: John ●0 33. Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whosoevers sins ye retain, they are retained. The sinners bearing his iniquity, which is a phrase frequently used in Scripture, especially by the Prophet Ezekiel, and by him also explained to be the sinners bearing the punishment of his iniquity, Ezek. 14.10. And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity.  
With many other the like passages, or expressions of both sorts (as well negative as affirmative) which I suppose may be found in Scripture; concerning both God's forgiving and his not forgiving sin.  
Negative phrases, which do hold forth God not forgiving us our sins, are such as these, viz.  
Gods not covering, his not blotting out, his not purging away sin. Neh. 4.5. Cover not their iniquity, and let not their sin be blotted out from before thee. 1 Sam. 3.14. The iniquity of Elies' house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever. Gods not holding guiltless, in the the third Commandment, Exod. 20.7. and 1 King. 2.9. where David admonishing Solomon not to pardon Shimei, bids him not to hold him guiltless. Gods not clearing, or Acquitting the sinner, Exo. 34.7. He will by no means clear the guilty. Nah. 1.3. He will not at all acquit the wicked. His not forgetting sin. Amos 8.7. The Lord hath sworn by the excellency of Jacob, Surely, I will never forget any of their works. His not accepting the sinner: Jer. 14.10. The Lord doth not accept them, he will now remember their iniquity, and visit their sins. Suitable to the phrase of Gods not accepting the sinner is that phrase in the New Testament of Gods not knowing the sinner, Mat. 25 12. the direct contrary being Gods receiving the sinner graciously, Hos. 14.2. Take away all iniquity and receive us graciously. Gods not turning away the punishment of the sinner; a phrase frequently used in the first Chapter of Amos, where God threatens such and such persons and Places that because their transgressions were iterated and multiplied, He would not turn away their punishment.   

CHAP. III Reasons and Grounds for the said variety of phrase, or various expressions, together with rules for a right understanding and due interpretation of them.  
COncerning the said various expressions of the pardon of sin, let two things be observed or considered.  
1. The ground or reason of them, which said ground or reason seems to be taken from that variety of phrase, whereby sin, and the fruits or issues of sin are set forth and signified in Scripture: for according to the various names or titles given to sin, and the effects thereof, such are the various names or expressions of God's pardon or not pardon of sin. For example, As sin is styled filthiness or uncleanness 2 Cor. 7.1. Rom. 6.19. So the pardon of sin is styled, washing, cleansing, covering, purging away. As sin is the souls sickness or disease (in which sense some Expositors do understand that in Psal. 103.3. Who forgiveth all thy sins, and healeth all thy diseases.) Or as sin doth wound the sinner, so pardon is styled Healing. As sin maketh us guilty, so the pardon of sin is styled, Gods not imputing it, his not laying it to our charge; and his not pardoning us, is said to be his not clearing us, or holding us guiltless. As sin makes us wretched and miserable; so pardon of sin is styled Gods being merciful to the sin or sinner. As sin is styled a Debt, making us liable to God in such sort as Debtors to their Creditors, so Gods pardoning mercy is said to be his blotting out our sins, & casting them into the depths of the sea. And in this sort (allusiuè) the Apostles phrase in the Text, which is now before us, seems to be (the express word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a word most frequently used by other of the Evangelists and Apostles) which word doth signify to dismiss, leave, let alone, absolve, send away, release, or set at liberty (Mat. 4.20 and 18.27.) being twice used in one verse, Luke 4.18. though it be rendered in different English words; viz. Deliverance, and setting at liberty. It seems to be a Metaphor taken from those who are loosened from their bonds, or delivered out of prison, into which they were cast for their Debts, or misdemeanours. To proceed, As the sinner by committing sin doth (as it were) arm his sin against himself; or as sin hath a power accrueing to it, (as I may so say) to do us mischief by virtue of the Law's commination (for which cause the Law is said to be the strength of sin, 1 Cor. 15.56.) so Gods pardoning sin is said to be his subduing our sin, or giving victory to the sinner over his sin, 1 Cor. 15 57 Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ. As sin makes us obnoxious to God's hatred and abhorring; so Gods pardoning the sinner is said to be Gods gracious receiving the sinner, Hos. 14.2. Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously. And contrarily, Gods not pardoning us, is said to be his not accepting us.  
2. Let it be observed and considered, that the most of the said various expressions are allusive Translations, or metaphorical; being spoken of God after the manner of men, in them Deus humanum dicit, God doth condescend to our capacity, he doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (to use the Apostles phrase, 1 Cor. 4.6.) he doth in a figure transfer the said things and expressions from us to himself, whereby to assist us in our weakness; e. g. it being usual with men when they do forgive to forget; God therefore forgiving sin is said not to remember it; and it being usual with men, when they threaten to be revenged to say to their adversary, Well, I'll be sure to remember you, I'll never forget this injury and affront so long as I live: Gods not pardoning therefore is said to be Gods not forgetting sin, or his remembering sin  
Again, Men when they do forgive being moved with inward pity and compassion, as was the father of the Prodigal upon the sight of his relenting Son: God's forgiving us therefore, is said to be his having compassion on us, Mic. 7 19 God's compassion Quoad terminum, or terminatiuè, is the self same with forgiveness of sin, but being considered connotatiuè, it doth farther intimate the rise of pardon, or the inward moving cause, together with the external occasion thereof, viz. Man's misery and Gods free love and mercy, God's compassion being verbum consignificans.  
This latter particular being duly observed and considered, it will appear, how wary and cautious we should be in the Interpretations of the said Metaphorical phrases, and how needful it is therein to observe the Apostles rule in another case; viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 12.3. We must beware how we do in our conceptions about the said phrases, supra sentire, that we do not understand more in them then is fit, or in reason possible to be understood; we must be careful not to sense them above their scope and intendment, but ever to interpret them in a modest, moderate, and sober sense: that the words may be the words of truth (as indeed they are) the sense must be the sense of soberness. For want of observing of due caution in the sober construction of the said phrases, it may (in a sort) be said unto many a one, as to him in the Poet,  
Quem recitas mens est, O Fidentine, libellus,  
Sed malè dum recitas, incipit esse tuns.  
Thus may the Lord say unto many amongst us, who do misconstrue such metaphorical phrases (as Gods casting sin behind his back, his blotting it out, his not remembering it) stretching them beyond their due scope and intendment, and (as it were) gathering that in and from them, which God never strawed; viz. The words as uttered by me are my words, and true Scripture, but as over-sensed and misunderstood by you, they are your own, and no part of any Scripture of mine.  
Quest. What Rules are to be observed, for the safer, better and right understanding of the foresaid Metaphorical phrases?  
Answ. These three.  
1. The like rule, which is given us for the sensing of Parables and similitudes, is here to be observed; & that is, to observe their true scope and intendment; and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as is the Apostles word 2 Cor 10.14.) not to wretch and tenter them beyond that scantling, or to stretch them beyond the measure of their said scope and intendment. It's a common saying, Similitudo non currit quatuor; and as the learned Stegman doth learnedly express it, Parabolae nihil probant ratione circumferentiae, sed tantum ratione centri; the like may be said concerning the foresaid expressions, If we respect them in their circumference, & in such a latitude of sense as they sound to our ears, they prove nothing, the sense of them being to be confined to their centre, (i.e.) their bare scope and drift; that look how really a man forgives an offence when he hath forgotten it, so really doth God forgive.  
2. We are here to interpret, as Saint Paul elsewhere directs us to prophesy; viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 12.6. according to the Analogy of faith, and so as that the said phrases may hold proportion and correspondency with other Scriptures. This indeed is a general rule to be observed in the expounding of any place of Scripture; and it is in the present business especially to be made use of, viz. to compare Scripture with Scripture, and to make the sense of one Scripture coherent with another, and to preserve the harmony of the whole; that so, all Scripture being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, breathed by God (as the word signifies 2 Tim. 3.16.) we may not make God to utter hot and cold with the same breath; I mean, to speak contradictions, or to be contradictious to himself.  
3 We are to calculate (as I may so say) our sense and constructions of the said phrases according to the meridian of the Divine Nature: I mean, we are to construe them in no other sense, than the Essence Nature, and Properties of the Godhead or Deity will permit. It is an old and good rule given by one of the Greek Fathers (Theodoret, as I remember) that those things which are spoken of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Those things which are spoken of God after the manner of men, are to be understood in a sense becoming God, condecent of, or to his divine properties and excellencies.  
These rules are the rather to be observed, because of their consequence. I mean the momentous consequence of observing or not observing them: For as the careful heeding of them, is a special preservative that our Table become not a snare to us; I mean, That our conceptions of God and the things of God be not occasionally perverted by those very expressions which were intended of God as means to help and assist our understandings touching him and them; so the not-observing of them is one main cause, as I am persuaded, of much error in those of the Antinomian party, who do hold, in a sense most intolerable and blasphemous, that God sees no sin in Believers whose sins are pardoned; and that he doth not in any sort remember them: of which I shall have occasion to speak more particularly and largely afterwards.   

CHAP. IU. What forgiveness of sin is not, laid down in four negative Propositions.  
HAving intimated (as Chap. 1. in the way of Proem, or Preface) that sacred phraseology or variety of phrase, whereby forgiveness of sin (together with its contrary, viz. non-forgiveness) is expressed in the sacred Scriptures both of the Old and N. Testament.  
I will in the next place set down what is (as to me seemeth) the true resolution of the matter in question, and this I will endeavour to do, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, declaring, 

1. Negatively, What the pardon of sin is not.  
2. Affirmatively: What it is, according to the true scope, purport, or intent of the aforesaid various expressions.    
For the former then, be it known.  
1. God's pardoning a sin, or sinner, is not his freeing the sinner from the very fact of sin. Not so: for this is impossible ex natura rei; it is (I say) a thing simply impossible, implying a palpable contradiction. What is once done, can never be undone, or rendered not done. That which is once past, cannot by the power of God be made or rendered not past; in so saying, I would be understood in sensu compositiva: for although whatsoever is done or passed, might by the power of God have been prevented; and in such a divided sense might never have been done, or come to pass; yet being once done and passed, it cannot be undone, recalled, or rendered not come to pass it being a flat contradiction, that a thing should be done, and not done, past and not past, come to pass, and not come to pass.  
2. It is not Gods freeing a sinner from the fault of sin; i.e. the faultiness and sinfulness of sin: It is not Peccata non peccata facere, or Peccata pro non peccatis habere (taking the phrase according to its simple and absolute import, and not with a quasi or tanquam, which doth much qualify and alter the sense of the expression). I say, Pardon of sin is not so to be taken, for this also is impossible, ex natura rei, and doth implicare, involve a contradiction; viz. That a fact should be faulty and not faulty, a sin and not a sin: for take away sinfulness from a fact, and it doth no longer remain sinful. It is therefore to be observed, That a sin pardoned is as well a sin, yea, as much a sin; i.e. every whit as sinful as ever it was before the pardon of it. When a Prince or State doth pardon a Delinquent, or Malefactor, they do not, yea they cannot thereby make them of Delinquents no Delinquents, or of Malefactors no Malefactors. To clear one (e. g. an accused person) from the fact or faultiness of the fact wherewith he is charged, is one thing; and to pardon a person so accused, is another. God by doing the latter, doth not do, and therefore cannot be said to do the former. When a sinner therefore is pardoned, we must not conceive that he is thereby made innocent again.  
3. God's pardoning a sin or sinner, is not his freeing them from the simple guilt and desert; I mean, their guiltiness and deserving of punishment. I use these latter words to explain the former; For though the word, Reatus, or Gild, be a word much in use both in Authors and in our Sermons, yet is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ambiguous and of doubtful construction, being sometimes taken for the deserving of punishment, and sometimes for the punishment itself deserved, and sometimes for both. Yea, in such various senses I take the word to be used in the Text, at least in the Translation of sundry Scriptures. For example, Num. 35.27. Where it being laid down as a Law, That if the Revenger of blood finding the  without the borders of the city of Refuge, shall there kill the slayer, he shall not be guilty of blood; that is, as I conceive, he doth not deserve or incur the desert of punishment, neither shall he suffer for it. Deut. 21.9. Where God commanding that the City-Inhabitants next to any place where an unknown murder was committed, being commanded to offer a certain peculiar Sacrifice, 
Prov. 30.10. Lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty: i.e. Lest thou sin, & suffer deservedly; otherwise the curse causeless shall not come, and is not therefore to be feared.  God doth there promise, that they shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from among them; that is, (as I conceive) the punishment which the shedding of that innocent blood did deserve. Levit. 5.5. where it being declared in what special cases a soul should be guilty, I conceive, that by guilt there is meant, as sin itself, so the deserving of punishment.  
However I may be mistaken in the exact sense of the forenamed Scriptures, (about which I list not to contend with any men of a contrary mind) yet sure I am that the word Gild as commonly used, is sometimes taken for the bare deserving of punishment, and sometimes for the punishment itself deserved, which two the Schoolmen do usually distinguish, the former being by them styled Reatus Simplex, simple guilt, and the latter 
* Yet not as excluding, but as including the sinner's obligation to punishment of which more distinctly I shall speak by and by. Concerning Gild taken in these two senses; (viz. for the deserving of punishment and for punishment itself deserved) let the Reader observe, That when we commonly say, That the guilt of our sins was imputed unto Christ, that saying must be understood, as guilt is taken in the latter sense, but not in the former; viz. for the punishment, which we for our sins (and not he upon any such account) did deserve.  Reatus redundans in personam, guilt running over from the sin upon the sinner. Now I say That Gods pardoning a sin or sinner is not his freeing it, or the sinner from the simple gu●lt, bare desert, or deserving of punishment.  
For, 1. As was said concerning the foregoing particulars, so it may be said concerning this; viz. That it doth implicare, import a contradiction; namely, That a sin should be an offence against God's Law, threatening punishment, and yet should not deserve the punishment threatened by that Law. As sinfulness, so guiltiness of punishment is impossible, ex natura rei, to be separated from any sin or sinner; I mean, the saying in a compound sense; e. g. Though it was possible to the power of God to have prevented a sinner from becoming a sinner, and so from becoming guilty of, or deserving punishment; yet it is impossible, that he should be made in such a sense not sinful, as not to have incurred the desert of punishment; and as in itself considered, not still to deserve punishment. I say, in itself considered: for (as I shall have occasion to speak by and by) we are to distinguish betwixt punishment as deserved by sin, or by the sinner in himself, or by itself considered; and betwixt dueness of punishment to the sin or sinner, as considered with reference unto satisfaction made for it.  
2. In the pardoning of a sin or sinner, it is no way necessary for the benefit or behoof of a sinner, that God should free the said sinner (were such a freedom in its own nature not impossible) from the simple guilt or deserving of punishment: for such a sinner may be altogether freed from suffering his deserved punishment, though he be never freed from deserving the suffering of that punishment. Yea, a sinner may in such sort, and as much be freed from suffering the punishment, which he hath by his fins deserved, as if he had never committed any sin whereby to have deserved such punishment; as is, and will be manifested in the experience of the glorified Saints, who notwithstanding their sin and desert of sin, are or shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Equal to the Angels, who by sin did never incur the guilt or desert of suffering. And therefore touching such a freedom or freeing the sinner from the deserving of suffering, (he or his sin being in themselves considered) I say, Cui bono?  
Caution. We are carefully to distinguish (as was before intimated) betwixt the simple demerit of sin, or a sinner deserving of punishment by his sin, as considered barely in himself, or in his sin; and betwixt dueness of punishment to the person of the sinner, as considered with respect to his interest in the satisfaction which Christ hath made for the pardon of sin: for notwithstanding the demerit of sin, or a sinners deserving of punishment be never taken away, yet upon some  account or consideration (such as is the satisfaction made by the Redeemer) dueness of punishment or obligation to suffer punishment, may be taken away from the sinner, as shall by and by be declared, when I come to show Affirmatively wherein the pardon of sin doth consist.  
4 For God to pardon a sin or sinner, is not for God (to speak simply and absolutely) not to see or behold the sin, or not to see and behold the person as a sinner, or for God to take no notice or knowledge at all of a sin, or of a person as a sinner: for this likewise is impossible. For albeit the pardon of sin be expressed by his covering it, blotting it out, hiding his face from it, casting it behind his back, (the meaning of which phrases shall in due place be interpreted) nevertheless we may not construe such expressions concerning a bare, simple, and infinitive knowledge or sight in God. For whatsoever hath been, or is, in such sort as it is or hath been, the eye of the All seeing God doth, and cannot but behold or take knowleng of it, Prov. 15 3. And what I say concerning Gods not seeing the same; I say, and in a like sense, concerning Gods not remembering sin; viz. That the pardon of sin doth not consist simply in Gods not remembering it, as if (to speak simply and absolutely) God had utterly forgotten it, this also being a thing impossible, as to the nature of Almighty God, who as he hath had from all eternity the knowledge of whatsoever will be, so he will have unto all eternity the knowledge of whatsoever hath been, there being with God, or as to his eternity, neither prius nor posterius, and consequently there being no difference betwixt God's knowledge, foreknowledge and remembrance, saving in order to the object only, but not to any act of Gods: so that as his knowledge and foreknowledge is not opposed to postscience, so his remembrance of things is not opposed to his former knowledge; but as his foreknowledge doth signify only a futurity of the object, so his remembrance signifies the object to be past or as past; so that as God's foreknowledge is, a knowing that such a thing will be, which is not (not a knowing that such a thing is which is not) so Gods remembrance is a knowing, that such a thing was, which albeit being past, it now is not: nevertheless it is no more possible for God not to remember, or not for ever to know that once it was, than it was possible for God not to know that it would be before it was, or that once it was when actually it was. God's knowledge, foreknowledge and remembrance, are all of them knowledge in praesenti, though not de praesenti; his foreknowledge being a knowledge de futuro, and his remembrance de praeterito. So that to take away the remembrance of any thing from God is to deal with him (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to use the Apostles phrase, Rom. 12.18. if possible as much as lies in us) even as the Philistims dealt with Samson, viz. to put out the eyes of God; i. e. the eye of his knowledge, and to bereave him of his Omniscience.   

CHAP. V What forgiveness of sin is, laid down in two Affirmative propositions, together with the explication of them.  
2. AS for the second part of my intended answer, I answer Affirmatively, viz. That Gods pardoning a sinner is, his taking off the finners' obligation to punishment, and consequently in due time the punishment itself; I have thus defined forgiveness of sin as taking my aim from that which is contrary to it, viz. Gild as guilt is taken not in such a sense as in which I afore said, 
In these two consists that Reatus which Schoolmen call Reatus redundans in personam, viz. In a sinner's obligation to punishment; and in his actual suffering of that punishment to which he was obliged: having therefore afore said, that Reatus redundans in personam, is with the Schoolmen a Sinners suffering his deserved punishment, I would be understood not as excluding, but as including a sinners personal obligation to the suffering of such punishment. And here let me offer this to the observation of the Reader, viz. That as in some respect the sinner is said to make himself guilty, (viz. in respect of simple guilt or the bare deserving of punishment;) so in respect of guilt redundant, or the actual suffering of the punishment itself deserved, God is said to make him guilty, for which see Psal. 5.10. where Gods making the wicked guilty, is interpreted to be his destroying the sinner.  that it is impossible to be taken away; but as it may be taken, and as it is usually taken in a second sense, 1. for Obligation, to punishment, in which sense many do define Gild, saying, Reatus est obligatio ad poenam.  
2. For the punishment itself inflicted, to which we were obliged, in both which senses it is taken in Scripture, and particularly in that Speech of Abimelech to Isaac, Gen. 26.10. What is this that thou hast done unto us? One of the people might lightly have lain. With thy wife, and thou shouldst have brought Guiltiness upon us (i.e.) We might thereby have made our selus liable or obnoxious to suffering, and accordingly might actually have suffered. Thence it is, that I define pardon of sin as consisting in these two things opposite thereunto, and wherein our full liberation, or remission doth (as I think, consist, viz. 

1. The taking away, or dissolving the obligation of the sinner to punishment, which I take to be the terminus preximus, or immediatus of pardon.  
2. The denying or taking away, or the not inflicting of punishment itself, which I take to be the terminus remotus thereof;   I doubt not but we may find in several Authors, as well ancient as modern, several definitions or descriptions of Forgiveness, and some of them more at large expressing not only the quiddity or nature of the thing itself; but also the Author, grounds, causes, effects, ends, consequents, antecedents of it (all or most of which this text in 1 John 1.9. doth minister just occasion to touch and dilate upon:) but it is beyond my present purpose to meddle with them, my bare intent by these presents, being to discover and to demonstrate only, ipsam rei quidditatem, the bare form or naked essence of the thing; what be the Parts constitutivae, what those things are, which do make up forgiveness of sin; or wherein the thing itself or nature of it doth consist.  
I remember the definition which Dr. Twisse gives of it, lib. 1. p. 272. Vind. Grat. saying, Remissio peccatorum, si quidditatem inspicias, nihil aliud est quam aut punitionis negatio, aut volitionis puniendi negatio: Pardon of sin in its precise nature is nothing else but either Gods not punishing, or not willing to punish. Had the learned Doctor by Gods not willing to punish, meant God disabling the Laws obliging us to punishment, or his taking away our obligation to punishment, I had gone into his opinion, Manibus, pedibus (as the saying is;) I had fully, even to a tittle consented with him: but he meaning thereby another thing, I cannot (but with due respect otherwise to the Learning and Piety of an Author so renowned) professedly descent from him: For, by Gods not willing to punish a sinner (for example, the faithful; for of those he speaks in the place forecited) he means, Gods electing them to salvation, in opposition to unbelievers, whom he did from all eternity design to punishment.  
To the refuting of this opinion I shall take occasion to speak more at large hereafter. In the mean time, had the Doctor said only this, That Remissio est nihil aliud quam puniendi negatio,  
1. He had said the selfsame thing, and given the selfsame description of forgiveness of sin as Austin and Anselme (those two famous men in their generations, the one in the list of Fathers, the other of Schoolmen) did of old, as Zanchy upon this Text doth inform me; they saying, Remittere, nihil aliud est quam non punire: To forgive is nothing else then to not punish.  
2. I had yielded my full consent unto that saying as a truth, or a true description.  
3. The saying being understood or interpreted, as it ought to be, viz. not as excluding, but as including, and presupposing the taking away the obligation to punishment, I should have yielded my assent unto it as a full truth, or as a full description of pardon; the taking off a sinner's obligation to punishment being the terminus proximus, and Gods not punishing being the terminus remotus of pardon; of pardon (I mean) as actively taken; for in these two terms, or things, doth consist the very nature or quiddity of pardon, as it is taken in a passive sense, which said pardon as passively taken is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the state of the Question, or the very thing upon which Gardo praesentis controversiae vertitur: and in this sense I would be understood, whensoever I shall in the progress of this Discourse assert pardon of sin to be nothing else but Gods not punishing; viz. As pardon is taken in a passive sense; and as Gods not punishing doth presuppose or imply Gods taking off the obligation to punishment.  
And let the aforesaid description serve as a direct and full answer to the first Question propounded; viz. What is meant by forgiveness of sin evermore in the language of Scripture? And for proof of the truth of the said description; as a direct and full answer to the foresaid Question, I need not, as I presume, to say much more than hath been already said concerning that, which in Scripture is made the direct opposite to pardon; viz guilt (Gods not pardoning a sinner, being said to be Gods holding the sinner guilty, or not guiltless.) Neither need I to instance in any particular Scriptures for the proving of it: it being sufficient to say, That look in what place of Scripture soever God doth promise pardon to the sinner, or the sinner doth beg pardon of God, still there is meant in the sense both of God and man, Gods not punishing the sin or sinner, either Gods forbearing, or his surceasing to punish, in the sense as was aforesaid. The like also I say concerning all such places of Scripture, wherein God doth declare himself to have pardoned any sin, or sinner.  
I shall only add two or three particulars as in the way of Caution, and for the right understanding of the said description.  
1. When I say that pardon of sin doth consist in dissolutione obligationis ad poenam, in dissolving the obligation to punishment, I must not necessarily be understood of all manner of punishment, and de praesenti, for the instant, present time; but either de praesenti, or the future, either for the present or for the future: for albeit God pardoning the sinner doth dissolve the obligation to punishment, and doth thereby confer upon the sinner Jus ad liberationem, a right to impunity; nevertheless this right to freedom from punishment may be for present only from a part of punishment, and so not a plenary freedom; but not from all punishment save only the future, for the future, as I shall have occasion afterwards to demonstrate.  
2. When I say, That pardon of sin doth consist in a dissolution of the obligation to punishment, I must not be understood necessarily, and always concerning an absolute, but either an absolute or conditional dissolution. For I take remission of sin in this life to consist only in a conditional dissolution of the obligation; I mean, full remission, or remission as to all manner of punishment; the condition hereof being our perseverance in the faith and fear of God: for as a sinner is not actually remitted and discharged or disobliged from punishment but upon the condition of his faith, repentance, &c so neither is this discharge or disobligation continued, but upon the condition of perseverance. Though a Believer be actually disobliged from punishment immediately upon his believing, and though the full and final pardon of such a one, be never so certain in respect of the eternal purpose of God, and in respect of the purchase of Christ, (God having purposed and Christ having purchased for them grace, to persevere) yet is it but conditional in the Covenant of Grace, or promise of the word. This seems to me apparent by the description of that person to whom God doth promise fully and finally to pardon: for which see Rev. 2.17. To him that overcometh will I give a white stone: in which Scripture, observe two things: 

1. What is meant by the thing there promised under the name of a white stone? viz. Absolution or pardon, the sign being put for the thing signified: the Apostle alluding in that expression to the custom of the Romans, with whom a white stone was a sign of absolution, as a black stone of condemnation.  
2. To whom this absolution is promised; viz. To him who doth overcome, or persevere.   It is a vain thing to except, that perseverance is only a qualification in a person, or the qualification of a person to whom pardon shall be continued, or who shall fully and finally be pardoned: for, whatsoever is such a qualification, hath the nature of a condition, without which the mercy shall not be continued, and perfectly enjoyed. It appears likewise by the express promises and threaten of the Word; for which see, Heb. 3.14. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold fast, etc. 2 Tim. 2.12. If we suffer for him, we shall reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us. Ezek 18.24. But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doth according to all the abominations that a wicked man doth, shall he live? All his Righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned, in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Although the common saying of our Divines be (as I believe) a true saying, [Peccata non redeunt,] yet I do not believe it to be true otherwise then upon supposition; viz. of a Believers perseverance in Faith and Obedience: otherwise to what purpose is that admonition, 2 Joh 8. Look to yourselves, that we lose not the things which we have wrought? And that admonition to the like purpose, Rev. 3.11. Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown? And otherwise, why should God threaten to deal with Apostates, as with that wicked servant, whose doom we find recorded, Matth. 18.32. O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desinedst me, shouldst not thou also have had pity on thy fellow servant as I had pity on thee? And his Lord was wroth, etc. I know what some do here except, saying. That the scope only of a Parable is Argumentative; and the scope of that Parable is not to show, That a sinner may forfeit the benefit of his former pardon by relapsing into, and persisting in new sins; but only to manifest, That forgiveness of others, is a necessary qualification to be forgiven of God, or a necessary condition without which God will not forgive us. Unto which I answer, That look as forgiveness of others is a condition without which God doth not at the first vouchsafe actual forgiveness to any person, so the continuance of that forgiveness on man's part, is a condition of the continuance of forgiveness on God's part, or a condition without which God will not forgive him at the last. I do willingly believe, That God useth these and the like conditional comminations, as a 
* And ergo, I think those do deserve to be blamed, who are so zealous for the doctrine of the Saints perseverance, as they will not patiently suffer even those who do hold the said Doctrine of Perseverance, to use all such means as God hath appointed to be used, and which God doth sanctify for that end, among which I doubt not, but this is one; viz. To inform the Saints, that their sins are not absolutely pardoned in this life, but conditionally, or upon the condition of their perseverance; and that therefore they are to fear hell and damnation no less than others, unless they hold that fast which they have: (of which said fear I shall speak more at large in Chap. 26.) whereupon I cannot but profess my opinion, how (I think) that the foresaid persons are so affected in their zeal, that they do much disservice both to God and his Saints, as taking a direct way to confute the Doctrine of the Saints perseverance, and to overthrow that in practice which they do labour to uphold in Doctrine; I mean, they do take the ready way to cause the Saints to Apostatise.  sanctified means for the perseverance of the Saints in the faith and fear of God: and therefore it is in no sort agreeable unto my intent to urge those and the like Scriptures to prove the Apostasy of the Saints; but only thereby to prove, That the continuance of our pardon in this life is but upon the condition of our perseverance, in which respect it is not absolutely, but conditionally in this life enjoyed.  
3. There being several sorts and degrees of punishment; viz Punishments in this world, and punishments in the world to come; look how far forth, or in what sense God doth forbear to punish, so far forth, or in that sense, or with respect to that kind or degree of punishment, but no further to be understood, God in Scripture is said to pardon. Let this be observed the rather, because it will (as I verily think) serve as a clue or key to unlock and lead us through divers intricacyes and ambiguities of phrase, where the pardon of sin is mentioned in Scripture, which said ambiguities I shall in the following Chapters, as in their due place specify.   

CHAP. VI The various senses or significations wherein forgiveness of sin is taken in Scripture, it being taken in four several senses, but most commonly and signally in one sense; and what sense that is, declared.  
1. GOD'S forbearing, or ceasing to punish sinners with temporal punishments, is styled his pardoning them, Num. 14.19. Pardon I beseech thee (saith Moses) the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of thy mercy, as thou hast forgiven this people from Egypt even till now. What was God's forgiveness of the people from Egypt until then, but Gods sparing of them in regard of temporal judgements, either not at all inflicting them, or after a short time removing them? So Psal. 85.1, 2, 3. where God's forgiving the iniquity of his people is interpreted to be Gods taking away all his wrath, and turning himself from the fierceness of his anger. And contrarily Gods punishing sinners with temporal punishments, is styled, his not pardoning them, Lam. 3.42, 43. We have transgressed and rebelled, thou hast not pardoned: Thou hast covered with anger and persecuted us, thou hast slain, thou hast not pitied, There Gods not pardoning them is interpreted to be his plaguing them with temporal judgements.  
2 Though God doth not wholly forbear to punish, or wholly take off the temporal punishment of sinners, yet if he doth punish with lenity or moderation, or make some commutation of the punishment (to use the term of the Civil Law) this said moderating or commuting is said to be Gods pardoning: And no wonder; for it is truly and really pardon; viz. in its kind, Quomodo libet, taliter qualiter, in a diminutive sense, or with respect to punishment in part and in some degree. Thus Psal. 78.38. God's being full of compason, and forgiving their iniquities, is expounded by that which follows; He destroyed them not, and did not stir up all his wrath. See also for proof of this, Numb. 14.20, 21, 22, 23. compared with ver. 12. by the due consideration of which place of Scripture it will appear, That Gods not instant or sudden disinheriting, or destroying the whole body of the people as one man, and their whole race (according to the tenor of the threatening, ver. 12) is styled his pardoning them, ver. 20, notwithstanding that God did otherwise, and in part punish very many of them for their sin of murmuring; viz. so far forth as to debar all those from ever enjoying the Land of Promise who had seen his miracles in the house of bondage, Caleb and Joshuah excepted. Thus Gods sparing David's life, and not taking him away by sudden death (making as it were a commutation of the child's life in stead of the life of the parent) is styled by Nathan, Gods putting away or pardoning his sin, albeit God did in the mean time sundry ways, even to his dying day, punish him for those sins; which albeit they might well be said to have been put away, in respect of sudden death not inflicted; yet were they not so put away in respect of certain other punishments which he suffered. Yet in this saying I would not be so understood, as if I did confine the meaning of the Prophet's absolution in those words, [Thou shalt not die] to a temporal death, for that instant time: for as a sudden temporal death was not the only, or the greatest evil doubtless, which David then feared, (rebus sic stantibus) so I am persuaded, that freedom from such an evil was not the only, or chiefest good, which God therein and thereby did promise.  
3. God's suspending his judgements, and reprieving sinners (as I may so say) or his delaying to punish them for the present time, whether with sudden death, or with some other notorious, dreadful, exemplary judgement, is styled his pardoning them: and no wonder, for it is truly so; viz. pro tempore, in a diminutive sense: and so long as it is to last according to the purpose of God. This I take in part to be the meaning of Numb. 14.20 where God saith, he had pardoned them; viz. pardoned them for that time, as appears in that he doth in the next words threaten, that he would take a time to punish them; and that in such sort as whereby to make his power and his justice the more glorious throughout the world. In this sense elsewhere God is said to pardon those sinners (the self same Nation as afore was instanced in) at one time, on whom he took vengeance at another (as appears by comparing Psal. 99.8 with Exod. 32.34) yea whom he doth threaten with certain vengeance at that very time, when it is said, That he repent of the evil which he thought to do unto them, (that phrase, Gods repenting of the evil, importing the selfsame thing with remission of sin, as I shall demonstrate in due place) Exod. 32.34. with v. 14.  
These three kinds of pardon, or Gods pardoning a sinner any of those three said ways, I may style (docendi gratiâ, and for distinctions sake, from pardons in the sense immediately following) pardon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, improper, or improperly so called, they being but pardon of the half blood (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in that they are not produced of the self same seed; i.e. of the self same electing and redeeming love of God in Christ, as doth the true heir; I mean that kind of pardon which I am in the next and last place now to set down.  
4. God's taking away from a sinner the obligation unto, and his forbearing to punish sinners with eternal damnation, is styled his pardoning sinners, or forgiving them their sins. This kind of punishment is variously styled in Scripture; e. g. That wrath to come, 1 Thess. 1.10. Damnation simply, John 5.29. Eternal damnation, Mark 3.29. The damnation of hell, Matth. 23.33. The damnation of the devil, 1 Tim. 3.6. The time when it shall be suffered is said to be the world to come; and as for the place where, it is said to be Hell, or the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. Rev 21 8. 
Marc 5.29.  Now because this last kind of punishment is the worst of all and chief of punishments that are threatened to sin and sinners (it being the punishment not only of the body, but also of the soul, and that both easeless, endless, and remediless) therefore is the pardon of sin with respect to freedom from this kind of punishment, more especially and principally styled pardon, or pardon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for as this last punishment is the king of punishments (to allude unto that expression of Job, chap. 18.14. so this kind of pardon may be styled the king of pardons. And in this sense (chief I mean, but not exclusively) the word is taken in the tenor of the New Covenant, recited, Jer. 31.34. Heb. 8.12. where God promiseth to forgive our inquities, and remember our sins no more. And so likewise most commonly in the writings both of the Old and New Testament, passim. And in this sense (chief, I mean, but not exclusively) it is to be taken in the present Text.  
And that may serve for a direct and positive answer to the second Question; viz. What is meant by forgiveness of sin, in the present Text, or texture of the Apostle Saint John? Only let it be remembered, that I have inserted this parenthesis as emphatically to be observed, [chief I mean, but not exclusively] for I do not think that that promise of forgiveness is altogether exclusive of, or doth altogether 
* And therefore (to speak my sense more fully) I may say of pardon in this last sense, That it is Gods taking away from a sinner the obligation to all kinds of punishments, proceeding from his pure Justice, his delivering sinners from all such punishments, more especially from the damnation of hell, it being the chiefest of punishments, which God in Justice doth threaten to sinners.  exclude all manner of mercy unto, or all kind of freedom of the sinner from temporal punishment in this life: and that upon the following Grounds or Reasons.  
1. Because, albeit the pardon of sin is not necessarily to be understood as consisting in the disobligation of a sinner from suffering of all manner of punishment, de praesenti, but either de praesenti, or de futuro (as was aforesaid;) nevertheless, God may be, and sometimes is pleased of his superabundant grace to vouchsafe unto a penitent sinner at once, as a discharge or disobligation from eternal punishment; so likewise actual freedom from such temporal sufferings as his sin had brought upon him, according to the tenor of that promise, James 5.15 Wherein the Apostle promiseth, That the prayer of Faith, should at once prove an effectual mean, whereby the sins of the sick party should be forgiven, and his body also cured of, or restored from his sickness. How many of God's servants have reason to call upon their souls to bless God, who at once, or at the self same time hath forgiven their sins, and healed their diseases, as in Psal. 103.3. and for that reason to call not only upon their souls, but also upon their bodies and bones to praise God; as in Ps. 35.10.  
2. Though God doth not always do so, but taking off the obligation of the sinner from suffering the torments of hell hereafter, doth chastise or punish him with a kind of hell here, (as David and others even to their dying day have been punished) nevertheless such temporal punishments, or chastisements, are evermore,  
1. Moderated from that degree, which otherwise would have been, as appears by 2 Sam. 12.13. Isai. 27.8. Jer. 10.24. and 47.28. Which said moderation of punishment may in a sense be called pardon, as was aforesaid; viz. Aliquousque, and in some degree.  
2. Sweetened with the influences of comfort from God, his holy Word and Spirit; God informing them in his Word, that his end in punishing them is upon the main their non-condemnation, according to that in 1 Cor. 11.32. and that no suffering whatsoever in this life shall separate them from the love of God in Christ, justifying them from their sins; according to that triumphant challenge of the Apostle, Rom. 8.35. Who shall separate u● from the love in Christ? Shall, etc.  
3 Sanctified by God's grace, and turned to good, according as is witnessed abundantly in the Scriptures, Isai. 27.9. Rom. 8.28. Heb. 12.11. And as in these and the like respects, the temporal punishments of all penitent and believing sinners do differ from the temporal punishment of Reprobates, who shall be damned for their sins; even so for the same respects or reasons, or Eatenus such penitent sinners may be said to be pardoned as to, or in regard of temporal punishments.  
Thus have I set down, wherein (according to my present thoughts and according to truth, as I hope,) the nature of forgiveness of sin doth not, 
Though all pardon be of God, in which respect Remissio Juris is Remissio Judicis, nevertheless that doth not hinder, but that pardon may be distinguished into Juris & Judicis, because this latter is pardon in sensu famofiori, in a more notable and signal sense; Even as in Logic though Omnis materia be immanens, yet may materia be distinguished into immanens and transciens. Now pardon of sin, as it consists in taking off the obligation to punishment being by the power of God's word or Law; and as it consists in taking off the punishment itself, it being by the Word of his power, I think therefore that this latter may be styled Remissio judicis, it being effected by the hand of God, as the other by the Word or Law of God.  and wherein it doth consist, it consisting (as was aforesaid) in these two things, 

1. In a sinners discharge from the obligation of the Law to punishment.  
2. In his actual impunity or immunity from punishment: in Gods not binding him by his Law to punishment, and in Gods not actually inflicting punishment upon him.   The former of these I may call Remissio Juris, pardon in Law Title, or in the sense or title of Law; the latter I may style Remissio Judicis, the pardon of the Judge: for albeit that Remission of sin which we shall receive at the day of Judgement and not afore, be commonly styled by Divines (as I think) Remissio judicis, in way of contradistinction from the Remission which we have in this life, and which they style Remissio legis or Juris; nevertheless, seeing those two do alike differ, as do Right or Title to a thing, and the actual possession of the thing itself, and seeing it is the hand or power of God that must put us into the actual possession, or that must give us the actual enjoyment of that which according to his will revealed in his Law, Word, or Promise we have Title or Right unto; these things (I say) considered, I think I may not unfitly distinguish the said part of pardon by the name of Remissio juris & judicis.  
The premises considered (as well what hath been spoken in the Negative, as in the Affirmative part of my Answer to the said Questions) I shall from thence make these following Deductions or Conclusions, as necessarily resulting from them, whether as jointly or as severally considered.   

CHAP. VII. That a Reprobate may be said in some sense, even in a Scripture sense to be pardoned, and how?  
CONSECTARY I.  
1. THere is a sense of Scripture with respect whereunto those who shall be damned may be said, yea in Scripture are said to be pardoned; viz. with respect to some kind or degree of temporal punishment, either wholly forborn and taken off, or else suspended and delayed for a time.   

CHAP. VIII. That a sinner, notwithstanding his pardon (upon the main) may and oft times doth suffer temporal punishments for his sins, together with an Answer to several Objections, wherein the distinction betwixt chastisements and punishments is examined, and how far forth allowable, declared; wherein also the true differences betwixt the sufferings of the Godly and the wicked are asserted and proved, and the false ones, (commonly assigned) are rejected and refuted. That the Saints may and ofttimes do in this life suffer for their sins, Christ's satisfaction notwithstanding, proved and cleared. In what sense God doth, and in what sense he doth not remember the sins of Believers, laid down in sundry Propositions, Affirmative and Negative; wherein likewise is declared, what difference there is betwixt Gods remembering the sins of the Godly and of the wicked, as also betwixt his remembering the sins of Believers under the Old Testament, and the sins of Believers under the New Testament.  
CONSECT. II.  
2. A Sinner may be said to be pardoned; viz. upon the main, and with respect to everlasting punishment in hell, from the suffering whereof he may be for the present altogether disobliged, though he be not discharged from suffering of all or all manner of punishments temporal and de praesenti, which notwithstanding his pardon upon the main, he may suffer in some measure, yea, in a very great measure, and that to his dying day, yea, and in a sort after his death, so fare as a man being dead is said to suffer in his posterity (he being a parent) or in his subjects (he being a Prince) as the sad experience of many of the Saints recorded in Scripture, doth witness beyond exception, specially of David, Solomon, and Manasseh. 2 Sam, 12, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14. 1 King. 3.13, 14. & ch. 11.11. 2 King. 24.3. And in that respect the sins of the Saints, though pardoned upon the main, may be said not to be pardoned, viz. as to those temporal punishments which they did suffer; and in this respect it is expressly said concerning the sins of Manasseh, (however pardoned upon the main, and as to eternal punishment, as is generally and upon good ground conceived) that he would not pardon them, 2 King. 24.3, 4. Surely at the command of the Lord, came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did. And also for the innocent blood that he shed, which the Lord would not pardon.  
Object. The sufferings of the Saints are not punishmen, but chastisements? and chastisements are not punishments, properly so called?  
Ans. 1. What difference soever there is between punishments properly and improperly so called, It seems clear to me, that Scripture doth not distinguish the sufferings of the Saints, and of the wicked, by the name of chastisements and punishments, their names being of promiscuous use in Scripture. For,  
1. The sufferings of the Saints are frequently called punishments, and the righteous God in his Word is said as well to punish the godly as the wicked with some kind of punishments, for which see Amos 3.2. You have I known above all the nations of the earth, therefore will I punish you for all you iniquities. Ezra 9.13. Thou hast punished us less than our iniquities do deserve, Lam. 3.39.  
Object. Those Scriptures are spoken of the whole Church, in which were wicked as well as godly?  
Answ. God is said not to leave the remnant of the godly in the Church altogether unpunished, Jer. 46. last. and 30.11. and what is that but in part, or in some measure to punish them, as appears by comparing the forecited Scriptures with Isaiah 27.8. and Jerem. 10.24.  
2. How often are the punishments of the wicked styled chastisements? See Psal. 94.10. He that chastiseth the Heathens, shall not he correct? The punishments which were inflicted upon Pharaoh, and the plagues of Egypt are called chastisements. Deut. 11.2, 3. I speak not with your children that have not known and seen the chastisement of the Lord your God, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched out arm, and his miracles, and his acts which he did in the midst of Egypt. See also Hos. 7.12. and 10.10. Jer. 30.14. Specially see Leu. 26.28. where the last punishment of all which God threatens for their final obstinacy, as seven times greater than all the former, is styled by the name of chastisement. And the sufferings of Christ which were punishments in a very proper sense, are called chastisements, Isa 53.5. The chastisement of our peace, i.e. the punishment of our sins in order to our reconciliation was upon him. So that it doth not appear that there are any such distinct words in the Scriptures of the old Testament (the one signifying or being rendered chastisements, the other punishments) whereby to express the different sufferings of the godly and the wicked, nor can it be made appear (for aught I know) that there are any such words in the New Testament, as doth in this sort difference them. For albeit Aristotle doth distinguish betwixt such sufferings as are inflicted for the sake of the sufferer, and such as are inflicted for the sake of the punisher, calling these by the names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former by the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: nevertheless I am most assured, that the sufferings of the godly and the wicked, are not by these names distinguished in the New Testament; for I find therein, that the everlasting punishment of the wicked in hell, are expressed be the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for proof whereof, see Matth▪ 25 last, and 2 Pet. 2.9. where te ʰ words translated punishment, and to be punished, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
If any one shall ask me whether I do blame our Divines for their usual distinguishing the sufferings of the godly and the wicked by the names of chastisements and punishments.  
I Answer, albeit I think it our duty as near as we can, to speak Scripture sense in Scripture words; nevertheless, lest I might seem captious, I would not condemn those who have differenced them by the aforesaid words; yet with these Salvoes and Prouisoes: 1. Provided that they impose not upon me or others, a necessity of distinguishing them by those names, as names distinct, or of distinct use and signification in Scripture.  
2. Provided that as I leave them to their liberty, so they leave me to my liberty, and not blame me, who shall choose rather to keep close to the language, as well as the sense of Scripture in this matter, and to distinguish rather betwixt punishments and punishments, then betwixt chastisements and punishments.  
3. Provided, that under the foresaid names, they vary not from the sense of Scripture, making such differences between the sufferings of the godly, and the wicked, as Scripture doth not make, or will not warrant; which last proviso is the rather considerable; because there are some, I mean, not only Antinomians, but others also, who in their explication of the differences betwixt chastisements and punishments, do difference them in such sort, as the Word of God will not (for aught I know) allow. E.g. Undertaking to define, or state the differences betwixt punishments properly and improperly so called (which latter they style chastisements) they tell us, that chastisements are inflicted à Deo Patre, not Judice, by God not as a Judge, but as a Father. Whereas I think, that the sufferings of the godly, are inflicted by God both as a Father and as a Judge also, for why otherwise are such sufferings styled judgements? or why else should the Saints in so suffering, be said (as indeed they are) to be judged of the Lord. 1 Cor. 11. ult. Isa. 26.8. In stead therefore of saying that the sufferings of the Saints are inflicted by God, Tanquam patre, non judice, I should choose to say rather, Tanquam judice patrizante, they being paternal judgements, or fatherly punishments.  
2. Whereas some say that the punishments of the wicked are for sin, but the chastisements of the godly are from sin; I find no such difference warranted in the word, the contrary thereunto being plainly therein asserted, viz. that God doth punish the godly, for, or because of their sins. 2 King. 24.3. Surely at the command of the Lord, came this upon Judah, for the sins of Manasseh, and also for the innocent blood which he shed, 2 Sam. 12.14. Howbeit, because by this thy deed, thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is borne unto thee shall surely die. 1 Cor. 11.30. For this cause many are sickly among you, and many sleep. Rev. 2.4. I have somewhat to say unto thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Yea I add, that the temporal punishments of the wicked are not only for, but also in some sense from sin, in that the use which they ought to make of them is their repentance and amendment, unto which God doth as by lively voice call them; for otherwise we cannot well conceive how the obstinacy and impenitency of men should be aggravated by God's judgements. Thence that expression Mic, 7.9. Hear the red: yea, one special intent or end of God's inflicting judgement on some wicked men is, that all the wicked may take warning, or that they may hear and fear, and do no more so wickedly. Deut 17 23. thence did the heathen resemble God's judgements to thunder and lightning, the end thereof being thus, viz.  poena ad paucos, terror ad amnes perveniat.  
3. Whereas some distinguish betwixt chastisements and punishments, saying, that these do proceed from the wrath and justice of God, but thosê only from his love: I see no warrant for such a difference, seeing Scripture doth plainly tell us, that the sufferings of the Saints are inflicted by an angry God, and by virtue of the justword and threatening of God. For what reason else were there for the Saints under sufferings to acknowledge the displeasure and justice of God, as frequently we find they did, and according as it was (no doubt) their duty to do. See Ezra 9.13, 14. Dan. 9.12, 13. Neh. 9.33. And why else is the wrath of God said to be kindled against his own people, and in special against Aaron the Saint of the Lord? Deut. 9.26. in stead therefore of saying that the sufferings of the wicked are inflicted by God's wrath and justice, but of the godly by his love; I should choose to say, that the sufferings of the wicked (comparatively with the sufferings of the godly) do proceed from pure wrath & justice; but the sufferings of the godly from wrath and justice mixed with fatherly love and mercy: I say (comparatively with the sufferings of the godly) the sufferings of the wicked do proceed from pure wrath and justice; for if we compare the sufferings of the wicked here, with their sufferings in hell, I suppose, that we cannot say, that their sufferings here do so purely proceed from God's justice, or from his pure justice in such sort, as do their sufferings in hell; and that for the reason aforesaid, viz. because their repentance and amendment is one gracious and direct end of their sufferings, of many of their sufferings, at least in this life. And because what I have here delivered, is objected against by the Antinomians: I shall endeavour to clear and vindicate the same from their exceptions and objections, as followeth.  
Ob. Christ hath fully satisfied God's justice, and how then can the sufferings of the Saints proceed from his justice, or for sin?  
Ans. The sufferings of the Saints and Christ's perfect satisfaction for sin, are not incompossible, but may very well stand together; the coexistence whereof, that it may the better appear, the following answers are (to me) considerable, and as I hope, will prove as to myself, so to others, satisfactory.  
1. Notwithstanding the sufferings of the Saints are from God's justice, yet are they not for the satisfaction of his justice in any such sense as Christ's sufferings were. Had the sufferings of the Saints been inflicted by God, and endured by them, for the satisfaction of divine justice in such a sense, the objection had been of considerable force, not otherwise. Now I say, the sufferings of the Saints are not either inflicted by God, or endured by the Saints, to satisfy God's justice in any such sense, as wherein Scripture affirms Christ's sufferings to be alone satisfactory, i. e. the sufferings of the Saints are no part of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or price, whereby a propitiation and atonement is made for sin and sinners. And let it be noted, that herein we differ from the Papists, who do make the sufferings of the Saints in such a sense satisfactory to God's justice, as whereby they derogate from the all-sufficient satisfaction of Jesus Christ.  
2. The procurement of this privilege, viz. that the Saints should not at all suffer for their sins in this world, was not a thing intended in or by the satisfaction of Christ; so that in calling into question how fare forth, or unto what intents and present effects, the satisfaction of Christ was intended by God and actually to avail. I say, in calling this into question, we cannot reasonably be thought to impeach the perfection of Christ's satisfaction. And let it be observed, that I speak concerning the effects and fruits of Christ's satisfaction according to the intention of himself and of his Father. For albeit there be never so much intrinsecal worth or value imaginable in the sufferings of Christ, (I exclude not his active obedience from all ingrediency into his merits) I conceive, notwithstanding, that his sufferings did not satisfy by a natural necessity, but by reason of the voluntary compact, and agreement betwixt God and him, and consequently that he satisfied for no other intents and purposes, than were agreed upon betwixt them.  
Q. What did Christ by his satisfaction (according to compact betwixt him and his father) procure and purchase for, or in behalf of the Saints?  
Answ. 1. Negatively, not an actual present immunity from all manner of suffering for their sins, or that they should be so fare privileged as not at all, or in no sort to be punished for their sins in this life; neither did Christ make or undertake to make satisfaction, neither did God the Father accept of his making or undertaking to make satisfaction for any such intent and purpose.  
2. Affirmatively, The Lord Christ by his satisfaction did procure for the Saints a discharge and deliverance, (viz. at, in, or upon their believing, or when they become believers) from wrath to come, at the great day of judgement. 1 Thes. 1.10. This he did procure as the direct end and fruit of his satisfaction, and consequently, or as a second end he did procure for them a right unto, and in due time an actual enjoyment of an inheritance eternal in the kingdom of heaven; God the Father being so over and above (as I may so say) well pleased with his Son's satisfaction, as by reason thereof, not only to deliver the Saints from that wrath to come; the desert whereof by sin they had incurred; but moreover to grant unto them an immortal crown and inheritance within the kingdom of glory, which for degree, is commonly thought to be a greater felicity than Adam, if he had stood, should have attained unto.  
2. Christ by his satisfaction did procure for them the sweetening, moderating and sanctifying of all their sufferings in this life, and the delivering of them from all those cursed effects, which the said sufferings are of themselves apt to work and occasion, and which actually they do work or occasion in the wicked; these evil and cursed effects of sufferings being that from which Christ in the days of his flesh, did pray to the Father to keep the disciples; but not altogether from suffering itself, no more than he prayed to God to take them out of the world, john 17.15. Briefly as Christ was a voluntary surety, and his Father's free gift, so was his satisfaction (however most perfect, yet) a 
* In saying that Christ's satisfaction, being considered abstractly, was a refusable satisfaction, I mean, only this, viz. that it was freely and voluntarily accepted by God the Father  refuseable satisfation, if it be in itself, or in its abstracted nature simply considered; and therefore as it was in Christ's own choice, whether or not to have made satisfaction, and in the Father's choice whether or not to have accepted it (for God the Father might have chosen whether or not to have sent his Son, and the Son might have chosen whether or not to have come into the world, and to have taken our flesh) so may they choose how fare forth, or unto what intents and purposes this satisfaction shall be paid and accepted; which said intents, effects and purposes are, and are not, as is aforesaid, in the Negative and Affirmative part of my answer to the foregoing Question.  
3. I answer to the objection in the third place, that Gods being satisfied with Christ's sufferings, may be understood two ways, 

1. In respect of the surety and the value of his payment as being the full value of what his justice required, and more than which he required not at his hands.  
2. In respect of the Debtor, the sinner, and the effecting of his complete and universal freedom: and in this latter respect, God was not upon, by, or with Christ's satisfaction or payment, so well pleased or satisfied, as immediately thereupon to grant unto the sinner a complete, actual, and universal freedom from all manner of suffering for sin; the denying or not granting of which said present, immediate and universal freedom, doth arise not from any imperfection in Christ's satisfaction, which imperfection is to be made up by the sufferings of the Saints, but from the mutual compact betwixt the Father, and the Son, to have it otherwise to be, as is aforesaid.    
4. Or in answer to the Objection, I may distinguish betwixt the satisfactory price, which Christ did pay for our redemption from all suffering for our sins, and betwixt our enjoyment of the fruits and benefits of that satisfactory price, or saisfaction. The former, viz the price paid by Christ, was most perfect; but our enjoyment of the benefits fruits, or effects thereof, is not perfect presently, and at once, we enjoying the benefits thereof pedetentim, piecemeal, some at one time, some at another; some in this world, and some of them in the world to come. And I shall therefore add that the inflicting of temporal punishments upon the Saints for their sins, or Gods not vouchsafeing such a privilege to the Saints as in no sort to suffer for their sins in this world; this I say, is no more against the perfection of Christ's satisfaction, or Christ's perfect satisfaction against it, then is Gods not perfect sanctifying his people in this world; he suffering the remainders of corruption to abide and work in their natures so long as they live in this mortal body.  
Whensoever the Antinomians shall prove, that God is obliged by the perfection of Christ's satisfaction in no sort to punish the Saints for their sins in this world; they will prove that God is alike obliged, perfectly to sanctify, and immediately to glorify the Saints at the first moment of their believing and converting; seeing the sanctification and glorification of the Saints is as well a fruit, effect, and benefit of Christ's perfect satisfaction as is their justification, or their freedom from any temporal punishment.  
Ob. When God doth pardon a sinner, he is said to remember his sins no more, Heb. 10.17. And how then is it true, that God may, or doth punish the Saints, or inflict any suffering upon the Saints for their sins?  
Answ. I have already declared in what sense this expression (Gods not remembering the sins of his people) cannot be understood; but because this is so usual an objection with the Antinomians, and in their conceit a kind of invincible Goliath; or as they mean, unanswerable Argument; 
* I call the forgetfulness of injuries an imperfection in men. For albeit as generally considered it be a virtue, and so no imperfection, yet as considered physically, it may be styled an imperfection; for such is all manner of forgetfulness in a physical consideration.  I will therefore make a more large answer thereunto, as followeth.  
We are to know, that the phrase is translatitious or Metaphorical, wherein God is represented under a humane imperfection; which said phrase doth import, or hold forth some such act or acts of grace in God towards those that have offended him, as do carry a resemblance, proportion, or similitude with those acts of favour in men, expressed towards those who have offended them, and whose offences they are said not to remember. Now that the similitude and resemblance may not be stretched beyond the bounds of reason, religion, and Scripture, I will set down, 

1. Affirmatively, how far forth God may be said to remember the sins of the Godly.  
2. Negatively, how far forth, or in wha sense he doth not remember them.    
For the former. 1. God doth so fare remember the sins of his people, as to be displeased with them, and to be incensed against them. 2 Sam 11.27. David's sin in the matter of Vriah, is there said to displease God. Dent. 9 20. God is there said to have been very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him.  
2. So fare as to check and reprove them for their sins, whereby he would have them take special notice that he doth remember them; and these reproofs God doth convey sometimes in a most cutting and convincing way: for proof hereof, see Rev. 2.4. where the Church of Ephesus is reproved for her declining. And 2 Sam, 12.1. Where David is sharply taxed about the matter of Vriah.  
3. So fare as to threaten them with suffering for their sins, and that, 1. Conditionally, except they repent, Rev. 2.5. Remember from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do thy first works, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and remove thy Candlestick.  
2. Absolutely, notwithstanding they have, or shall repent. 2 Sam. 12, 13, 14. where David is threatened with the death of his child (if any one shall say it is a prediction (to speak properly) rather then a commination, it will make nothing against the intent and purpose for which I allege it) notwithstanding his professed repentance, and the Prophet's absolution of him (as to the main of pardon) in the name of God, related in the foregoing verse.  
4. God doth so fare remember the sins of his people, as actually to inflict punishment upon them for the same, and that both while they live, and when they are dead.  
1. While they live, and that variously, viz. not only by withholding and withdrawing those mercies and favours from them, which otherwise would have been bestowed and continued, but also by inflicting such evils upon them which otherwise he would not have inflicted, as doth evidently appear, and as David himself did know to his smart and cost. 2 Sam. 12.8, 9, 10.  
2. When they are dead, viz. in their posterity, successors and Subjects, they being Parent's Princes, or Sovereigns, as appears undeniably, in the instances of Eli, Solomon, and Manasses, for which see 1 Sam. 3.13, 14. 1 King. 11.33 and 2, 24, 3, 4. Thus doth God so fare remember the sins of his people, as to smite them for the same not only with the rod of reproof, but also with the reproof of his rod; it being the duty of God's people under extraordinary sufferings to take notice that God doth thereby remember; or take knowledge of their sins, as did the widow of Zareptah▪ by occasion of the unexpected death of her Son, saying to the Prophet, O thou man of God, art thou come to call my sin into remembrance, and tr slay my Son, 1 King. 17.18. And if their sins do not presently appear, it's their duty to search for them, and to pray to God to discover them unto us according to the example of Job, chap. 10.3. & 13.23. Where he prays to God to show him wherefore he contended with him: and according to the pattern of the Church, Lam. 3.40. Exciting one another to search and try their ways.  
5. If, as there be degrees of grace on earth, so there be degrees of glory in heaven (as is commonly and very probably conceived.) I see not, but that it may be affirmed, that God doth so fare remember the sins of his people, particularly their backslidings and declinings in grace, after their conversion, as to deny unto them such an eminent degree of glory in heaven, which otherwise had they been more circumspect and zealous, they might have obtained, or had attained unto, they in mean time losing of the fullness of the reward; to which purpose, that of the Apostle may not unfitly be understood 2 Joh. 8. Look to yourselves that we lose not the things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. But I will not say, that this is properly to be called punishment.  
2. In the next place I am to show Negatively, or in what sense God doth not remember the sins of his people: and for that end be it known,  
1. God doth not in such fort remember the sins of his people, as he doth remember the sins of the wicked, whom he doth not pardon, E. g  
1. God doth not so remember the sins of his people, as to punish them, with, or in such pure justice, as he doth punish the sins of the wicked; but with, or in justice, tempered with fatherly love.  
2. He doth not punish them with revenge merely judicial, or purely vindictive. I say, revenge merely judicial, or purely vindictive; and let it be observed, 

1. What I do acknowledge.  
2. What I do deny.    
1. I grant and acknowledge, that the punishments which God doth inflict upon his people, are in a sort vindictive, they proceeding from God's justice, and being inflicted for sin, (as was aforesaid) and one end of the inflicting thereof, being to make the Saints to smart; and for that cause I deny not, but that such punishment which God doth inflict upon the Saints for their sins, may be called and are called sometimes in Scripture vengeance, and for which cause I do fully assent unto Mr. Ainsworth's Exposition of that in Psalm. 99.8. Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance on their inventions. Where that pious and Learned Textman doth interpret by vengeance, not only the punishment that in process of time, was inflicted upon the body of the rebellious people; but also what was inflicted upon Moses and Aaron for their miscarriages, he comparing that of the Psalmist, not only with Num. 14.20, 21, 23. Exod. 32.14, 34, 35. but moreover with Num. 20.12. Deut. 3▪ 23, 24, 25. in which latter places the punishment which God did inflict upon Moses and Aaron for their sins is recorded. And here let it be observed, that whereas some do distinguish betwixt▪ chastisements and punishments (meaning thereby the sufferings of the godly and the wicked) saying, that chastisements are not vindictive. I cannot assent thereunto for the reasons aforesaid, and which I forgot to insert in its proper place, where I spoke concerning the difference betwixt chastisements and punishments.  
2. I deny, that the punishments of the Saints are revenge merely judicially or purely vindictive as are the punishments of the wicked: and the reason is evident, because they proceed not from pure justice; and again, albeit God's end in inflicting them be to make them smart for their sins; nevertheless this end of God's justice is but in subordination unto other effectual ends of his mercy or in subordination to other gracious ends, which God will actually effect thereby; mercy therein rejoicing (as I may so say) against judgement. Herein the revenge, which God taketh upon a penitent sinner, is like to that revenge which a penitent sinner doth sometimes take upon himself, which is not purely vindictive, but in part; it being upon the main medicinal and preventive, 2 Cor. 7.11.  
Briefly, whatsoever differences have been, or can be truly assigned betwixt the temporal punishments of the godly, and the wicked, so fare or in such a sense I do assert, that God doth not remember the sins of his people.  
2. God doth not so fare remember the sins of his people as to damn them, or to punish them in hell for the same, as he 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. Whereas 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 behalf 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 cross, he doth 
* viz. Heb. 10.17  there signify unto them, that he would not remember their sins any more; i.e. By the Levitical sacrifices, (for Christ's death, the antitype or substance of those sacrifices being come and accomplished, the types or shadows 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 than 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 Aaron's 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 Hebrews, ch. 10.17, 18. as will (I presume) appear 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 showing how fare 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 pains and labour therein to be amiss and needless.  
And I shall add as a third consectary and in the next place, how and with what caution it behoveth us to interpret this phrase (God not remembering our sins) together with other phrases of the like strain or kind recorded in Scripture.   

CHAP. IX. Caution given as touching the interpretation of such Metaphorical phrases, whereby forgiveness of sin 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 remembering 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 (hour they sound) beyond the due limits of their intended meaning, so as to think soberly of God, of ourselves 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 less. Only I shall add what follows, 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 expressly said, that God is a God of purer eyes then to behold evil, or to look 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 shall as undoubtedly be saved from their sins, as from the greatest wrath to come at the day of judgement, 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 fare forth as true and false, those common say 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 follows in what sense, or how far forth as true, and not true; to understand those common say 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 sin, is the taking off of the obligation to punishment, and consequently punishment itself, so fare forth, as tollitur culpa, tollitur etiam poena; i.e. so far forth as sin 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 merely 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 already glorified them in part, and he will at last and in due time, glorify them fully; and in such a sense we commonly say, Positâ justificatione, ponitur etiam glorificatio. I say, in such a sense the foresaid say [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 say 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, than the said sayings will not consist with the truth of Scripture (as hath been made at large to appear) but with the aforesaid restrictions.  
Object. Those say of our Divines are alleged by them in the controversy betwixt us and the Papists, about humane satisfaction for sin by suffering, and are asserted by our said Divines commonly in the sense aforesaid, which I do 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 unwillingness, and not without clear evidence of Scripture (as I think) enforcing me thereunto, and must therefore in such cases crave leave (saluâ modestiâ, et vericundâ front) to appeal 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 judgement of the Churches, according to the Scriptures.  
2. Though I do not acknowledge the common say (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; nevertheless, I am far, very fare from concurring with the Papists in their doctrine about man's satisfaction to God's justice, by his own personal sufferings, whether voluntary or involuntary, & I think, that the said Popish doctrine about humane satisfactions might very sufficiently be impugned and expugned by other mediums and Arguments, then by those common say, Justificatio tollit omnia paenalia, & sublatâ culpâ tollitur poena.  
3. It is a thing not to be wondered at, that in controversal divinity, a greater error be impugned with a less, 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 self same thing. The four following Chapters do declare, that forgiveness of sin is a dividual, and not an individual action, as is commonly supposed.  
CONSECT. V  
5 IT follows 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 add this consectary, not only in opposition to the Papists, who do assert, and use this distinction, whereby to support their Apocryphal doctrine of humane satisfaction for sin [for the remission not of the fault, say they, but of the punishment] and consequently to overturn 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 Latin 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 faultiness of sin is pardoned by God unto the regenerate. I need not say any thing for the detecting the unwarrantableness of this assertion, more than what already hath been said in those several both Negative and Affirmative particulars, where we have heard it set down, wherein 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 thereof. It is true, the fault is remitted: but how or in what sense? viz. in respect of the punishment itself, 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 sin be past and gone in a physical, yet it remains in a moral sense; and though it be passed in respect of the sinful action, yet it remains 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 stir about Macula, the spot or stain of sin, 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 sin, which remaining after the sinful actions are taken away by a pardon, are the obligation of the sinner to punishment, and punishment itself; the former being styled 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 calls called immanent, or else among such as are styled transient. And again, since actions transient are subdivided into actions styled dividual, and individual; it is questioned, whether forgiveness of sin (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 progress [per parts] by degrees, and is not completed at the self 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 sin, viz. the taking off of the obligation to punishment, and punishment itself, being produced or taken off as it is laid on. viz. per parts, 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 will appear by the Consectaries next following.   

CHAP. XII. That the distinction of the pardon of sin, into total, or partial; perfect or imperfect, is a justifiable distinction.  
CONSECT. VI  
6. IT follows, that we may safely distinguish the pardon of sin, (how harsh and unsavoury soever the distinction may seem in the sound thereof) into total and partial, perfect and imperfect, into Remissionem magis, or minus plenariam; for pardon of sin being the taking off of the obligation to punishment, and consequently punishment itself, a man is no farther pardoned executiuè and plenarily, than his punishment is taken off, which being sometimes more, and sometimes less taken off; we must needs say, that pardon is sometimes more and sometimes less perfect.   

CHAP. XIII. That one and the same sin may be more or less pardoned.  
CONSECT. VII.  
1. IT follows that one and the same sin may be more or less pardoned, because it may be more or less 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 judgement and School learning much renowned) I say the contrary assertion, viz. that one and the same sin cannot be more or less pardoned, I cannot assent unto; but must needs by virtue of the premises profess (yet humbly) my dissent from.   

CHAP. XIIII. That no sinner is fully pardoned in this life, nor yet afore the day of judgement.  
CONSECT. VIII.  
8▪ IT follows, that however a believer is pardoned in this lsfe, yet he is not fully pardoned till the day of judgement; 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 judgement may as well be styled the day of Remission or Absolution, as the day of Redemption, as it is styled 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 completely) 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 prays to God, that good Onesiphorus, with his compassionate household may find mercy with the Lord, at that day, 2 Tim. 1.16, 17, 18.   

CHAP. XV. The difference betwixt remission of sin and Sanctification, commonly assigned (that being said to be perfect in this life, this imperfect) rejected and refuted.  
CONSECT. IX.  
9 IT follows, 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 error 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 self same reason, which proves the imperfection of our sanctification in this life, will 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 Foams peccati, that Peccatum peccans, or relics of sin, which do still remain in our natures; which said sin in being both sin and punishment (for which cause it may well be styled, 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 sinner's remission, or release from sin, is imperfect also. And if any one shall except, saying, that a sinner even in this life hath right to perfect remission; I answer, look 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 we must believe either Scripture, or our own experience, we must acknowledge, that our remission is in this life as well imperfect, as is our sanctification.   

CHAP. XVI. That remission of sin doth imply somewhat positive, as well as privative, and for that reason, that it differs not from Justification, as hath been by some supposed.  
CONSECT. X.  
10. IT follows, that seeing Gods pardoning sin is his not punishing it; unto which I add (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 loss, or sense; it will, I say, follow from thence, that the pardon of sin is not only Ablativa mali, but also Collativa boni, (as the Schoolmen express it;) or, that the pardon of sin 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 freedom from the punishment of sense, or from the bare suffering of pain 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 speak this in humble dissent from those who do for this cause make justification to be more than forgiveness of sin, 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 again, and shall prove more at large in my progress 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 styled of the half 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 sin may be said, and that in a Scripture sense, to be pardoned, and not pardoned; to be imputed, and not imputed to a sinner.  
CONSECT. XI:  
11. IT will follow, that one and the same sin may be said, and that in a Scripture sense, to be pardoned, and not pardoned; to be imputed, and not imputed to a sinner; for as much as God in some kind or degree may punish the sinner for a sin, and yet not in another; or for as much as God may impute the sin to the sinner for some intents and purposes, E. g. for some kind and degree of punishment, at least for sometime, and yet not for others, or always. Thus, or in this sense God, though he did pardon the sins of Manasses, yet is said not to have pardoned them. 2 King. 24.4. At the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did, and for the innocent blood that he shed, which the Lord would not pardon.   

CHAP. XVIII. The necessity for believers themselves to pray daily for pardon (according to the tenor of the fifth Petition in the Lord's Prayer) asserted and evinced, as well by Argument as Answer to an Objection; it being withal more at large, and distinctly declared, what are the particular things which a believer (according to the tenor of that Petition) is to pray for.  
CONSECT. XII.  
12. A Ready answer follows from hence, to be made unto those who shall demand a reason of believers, why they do pray to God, and dare not otherwise choose then daily pray to the Lord God, according to the tenor of the fifth Petition in the Lord's prayer, saying, Forgive us our trespasses. For seeing that the pardon of sin doth not consist in indivisibile, or in puncto mathematico, or sicut punctum in mathesi; yea, seeing there is a great latitude in it, and that we are every day capable of receiving more and more of the pardon of our sins; i.e. deliverance from the sad issues, effects, and punishments of our sins; yea, seeing that we shall not receive the plenary forgiveness of our sins till our dying day, yea, till our resurrection day; we may therefore, yea we must and ought therefore daily to pray unto the Lord for the pardon of our sins. Now because the Antinomians do so dangerously err in slighting, yea, decrying this Petition as vain and needless, to be incessantly made by believers, I shall offer the following particulars unto consideration, in order to the converting of all such from the error of their way in that behalf. Be it then considered.  
1. That in that Petition we pray, that in the great day of judgement we may find mercy with God (which I styled pardon of sin in a signal sense) according to the tenor of the Apostles prayer for Onesiphorus, 2 Tim. 1.18. Saint Paul doubtless did look upon Onesiphorus as a Saint, as a true believer, yet did not he think that Onesiphorus stood in no need of such a prayer, otherwise he would have abstained from making such a request to God in his behalf, as a taking of God's holy Name in vain. And I doubt not, but that Onesiphorus was very glad and thankful to the Apostle for this his prayer; though it seems that the Antinomians of our times would have conned the Apostle, or any other, little, or rather no thanks at all for making such a prayer in their behalf.  
Object. Believers have already the pardon of their sins, and God in Christ is said to have already forgiven them their trespasses. Col. 1.14. and 2.13. Ephes. 4. last.  
Answ. 1. That is said in Scripture to be already done, and spoken of therefore in the preterperfect tense, which shall certainly and infallibly be done in due time; E. g. Rom. 8.30. Whom he justified, them also he glorified, i. e. he will glorify. Thus God is said to have given that grace to the elect, before the world began, which at that time he did only purpose infallibly to give in due time. 2 Tim. 1.9.  
2. I have already proved that the Saints in this life are forgiven but in part, and not fully. In such a sense therefore as believers are said to be already saved (Eph. 2.5.8. By grace ye are saved. 1 Cor. 15.2. by which also ye are saved. 2 Tim. 1.9. Who hath saved us) In such a sense are the Saints said to be already pardoned, and for the same reasons, or upon the like grounds.  
1. Because in part they are already saved and pardoned; pardon and salvation is already begun in and upon them.  
2. Because of that right which they have unto perfect and full remission and salvation in the kingdom of heaven, or at the day of judgement; notwithstanding the certainty of which their present right, they are not only to pray, but also by all due means, to labour for the future actual and full possession of remission and salvation. So soon as God hath made a promise of any blessing, whether temporal or spiritual to a believer, a believer (I conceive) hath right unto it; (in which sense we commonly expound that of the Apostle, all things are yours, 1 Cor. 3. last) but what of that? is not a believer therefore to pray for the actual enjoyment of what God hath promised? Yea, is he not the rather to pray for it for that very reason, even as David did in a like case? 2 Sam. 7.27. God having made a promise to David, what he would do for him and his house, observe David's words ver. 27. For thou O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house; Therefore (mark therefore) hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this prayer unto thee. And the rather is this considerable, because we cannot regularly expect that God's promises shall be accomplished; and consequently, that we shall ever actually enjoy what we have a present right unto by virtue of God's promises, unless we do continue instant in prayer for the accomplishment of the same, prayer being one of God's appointed ways or means for the accomplishment of his said promises, as appears by the Scriptures passim; particularly by that in Ezek. 36.37. having made a promise concerning the Church's restauration in the foregoing verses, the Prophet adds to prevent security. ver. 37. Thus saith the Lord God, I will yet for this be enquired of by the house of Israel to do it for them. See also Jer. 29.11, 12, 13. Though God did tell them what he had a most assured purpose to do for them, ver. 10.11. (After seventy years be accomplished at Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word towards you, in causing you to return to this place: for I know the thoughts that I think towards you saith the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you an unexpected end.) Yet he doth intimate unto them, that the actual performance of this promise should depend upon their prayers, as the condition on their parts; (yet through his grace freely given) to be performed. For read ver. 12.13. Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you; and ye shall seek me and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. This the Prophet Daniel understood very well (though the Antinomians of these times, through the just judgement of God do seem so blinded, as not to understand things of this nature) as appears by his practice, 
I have heard it as a tradition that petty Malefactors amongst us condemned to be burnt in the hand, were to suffer the hot iron till they prayed with a loud voice, God save the King. And do not the Antinomians deserve to lie under the afflicting hand of God till such time as they pray with the Psalmist saying, Look up on my affliction and my pain, & forgive all my sins? Psal. 25.18.  together with the ground, rise, and reason of it, recorded, Dan. 9 beg. Because he did know gods assured purpose by his promise, therefore he set his face to the Lord God to seek by prayer and supplication; yea with fasting, sackcloth and ashes. To seek God by prayer and fasting for the averting of what God hath threatened, seems strange to none; but to seek God by fasting and prayer, for that which God hath promised infallibly to believers, doth seem so strange to Antinonians, as that they account it a thing needless and ridiculous. May God be pleased of his greatmercy to enlighten and reduce them.  
2. Be it considered, that in the said fifth Petition of the Lords prayer, we pray for forgiveness of sin, not only as to be enjoyed after death, but also in this life, i.e. that present judgements which our sins might deservedly bring upon us may be prevented, suspended, moderated, or if inflicted, may be shortened, sweetened, removed, sanctified, and turned to our benefit: for in these things (as hath been already demonstrated) doth consist partly the forgiveness of sin. Now what intelligent Christian is there, who will not acknowledge, that they have need of such things as these, viz. the preventing, moderating, removing, sanctifying of temporal judgements and afflictions?  
3. Be it considered, That as the Saints do sin daily more or less; so their new sins do bring a new obligation to punishment (or else they could not be accounted sinners, neither could they be pardoned, as needing no pardon) which said obligation they have need should be taken off by a particular pardon, besides their first general pardon (for that any sin is pardoned afore it be committed, I shall at large disprove in another Consectary;) for which said particular pardon a believer is according to his need to pray to God, he having no assurance from God to obtain either it, or aught else without prayer; such cause have we to give the like counsel to the best among the godly, as Simon Peter did to Simon Magus, saying, Repent, and pray to God, that thy daily sins may be forgiven thee.  
4. Be it considered (which I think will generally be acknowledged) that the sins of believers after conversion, specially their more gross, false, and eminent backslidings, do subject them meritoriously, to the condemnation of the law, and to the 
* Else why doth God threaten them upon their back sliding with the forfeiture of their former pardon? Ezek. 18.24. Matth. 6, 15. & 18. lat. See Mr. Burges of justification. p. 242, 243.  forfeiture of that right which they had to the pardon of former sins by virtue of the Covenant; and that these new sins do not de facto condemn a believer, is to be ascribed to the Lord Christ, by whose blood we have an entrance into the Covenant of grace, and a standing, or continuance in it by his intercession. Rom. 5.2. with Heb. 12.24. & 7.24. by which intercession the Covenant of forgiveness, or the promise of pardon is continued to be the believers discharge against all new sins, and the remembrance of old.  
Now have not believers need to pray to God that he would not take that advantage of their forfeiture of former pardon, as justly he might do? Yea, is it not necessary that they should so do, as ever they do expect that he should not take the advantage of the said forfeiture? For consider, that as Jesus Christ doth intercede in heaven for the continuance of remission of sin in the behalf of the Saints, so he doth intercede, and actually procure for them all such grace or graces, as without which their pardon shall not be continued; thence is he said to be exalted by God, not only to give to Israel remission, but also repentance, not the former without the latter; yea, first repentance for sin, and then remission of it. Act. 5.31 Now what ground hath any believer to hope for the continuance of his pardon, except he shall pray for it; as Christ doth continue in heaven, so he shall continue so long as he is on earth to make intercession for it. I have been the larger in this particular, not only for the reducing of the Antinomians in this point, and for the information of certain others, who do think that assurance of pardon is the main thing prayed for by believers in that Petition; but moreover, that every man understanding what he is to pray for, and hath need to pray for in that behalf, may be induced not only the more frequently, but also the more feelingly and fervently to pray to the Lord for the same.   

CHAP. XIX. An answer to the three following questions. 1. Doth God always pardon a sinner instantly upon the confession of his sins? 2. In what sense, or how fare forth doth a sinner receive a present pardon, immediately upon the confession of his sins? 3. Whether a truly penitent and believing sinner having once confessed a sin, is at any time thereafter to confess it in order to forgiveness? The affirmative to which last question, is asserted and proved. Certain particulars added as Cautions for the preventing of mistakes, and for the better understanding of the Authors true sense and meaning.  
CONSECT. XIII.  
13. THE premises being duly considered, will assist and guide us in a right resolution of the following questions.  
1. Doth God always pardon a sinner instantly upon the confession of his sins? Or, when shall the present promises of the text be made good to the sinner that confesseth his sins?  
Answ. Not fully for the present time, or as soon as confession is made, nor fully so long as he lives in this world, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as is the Apostles phrase, Rom. 5.6.) in due season, and in God's good time. Besides the reasons forecitied in evidence thereof, I shall subjoine these two considerations.  

1. Remission of sin being a grace or benefit purchased by the blood of Christ, as our adoption and regeneration are, why should it be thought more strange that we are not fully made partakers of remission afore the day of judgement, then of adoption and regeneration? And yet the truth is here, and so it must be there also acknowledged, that albeit we are adopted and regenerated so soon as we are believers, nevertheless the time of our Adoption and regeneration is not in some sense afore the day of judgement, because afore that time they shall not be completed in soul and body, nor the benefits of them as to the whole man fully enjoyed, as appears 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 God's favour, or do enjoy more of his love and favour than 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 fare forth, or in what sense may it be said, that a sinner doth receive a present pardon immediately upon the confession of his sins?  
Answ. Though this question be a different question from the former, and hath more difficulty in it; nevertheless a due consideration of the premises touching the quiddity, or true nature of forgiveness of sin, 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 sins, doth instantly enjoy the pardon of his sins three ways, 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 we 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 commanding power of sin, & I think is intended by the Apostle concerning the damning power thereof, that power or strength which he elsewhere saith, sin hath by the Law, i. e. the commination of the Law, by virtue whereof sin doth damn or condemn the sinner, 1 Cor. 15.56. and for victory over which sa●d damning power or strength of sin, the Apostle doth bless God in the following verse, saying, But thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Sure I am of these three things,  

1. That when God doth pardon sin, he 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 reign 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 persuade 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 styled 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 quickening 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 virtue 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 man's duty, is fit matter for a command; the latter being God's 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 Reason's aforesaid dissent from, is a misinterpretation (if indeed such) of no dangerous consequence, because these two powers of sin, like Hypocrates his twins, do decay and flourish, do live and die 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 own sense and apprehension; nevertheless not much or stiffly to contend with any man of a contrary mind, but rather in the spirit of meekness to suffer every man to abound in his own sense, according to the analogy or proportion of faith; from which those do not vary, who do understand grace to perform duty, and the successful exercise of it to be promised also.  
2. Albeit in my Exposition of Rom. 6.14. I seem 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 Apostasy of the Saints, nevertheless 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 descent from.     
But to return: 
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 Judge to inflict eternal punishment upon the sinner, and so there is a legal obligation of the sinner to such a punishment (with respect to which said bond, or obligation a sinner not pardoned is said (as I conceive) by Solomon, to be held in the cords of his sins, Prov. 5.22.) and when this bond or obligation is dissolved or taken off, God is said to forgive sin, or to untie, lose, or remit the sinner. Now such an obligation (I say) is immediately dissolved, or taken off upon a sinner's confession of his sins, God thereupon blotting out his sins, or not remembering his sins any more; i. e. not willing the obligation of the sinner (for sin so confessed) to eternal wrath. This is, as I may so say, the pith and marrow, the heart and spirit of forgiveness presently enjoyed; viz. Gods present taking away the actual ordination of the sin, or obligation of the sinner to everlasting condemnation, so that the sinner may lift up his head thereupon, and say with the Apostle, Rom. 8.1. Now therefore there is no condemnation for me.  
2. A sinner is immediately upon his confession restored into grace and favour with the Lord, the loss or 
* Here note, That look what favour of God a sinner by his sin hath forfeited, such is the favour into which, upon his penitent confession he is restored; e. g. we all having forfeited in Adam the favour of children, we are restored into the favour of children, or adopted. And having by new sins incurred Gods fatherly displeasure, we are upon our confession restored into his fatherly favour, as opposite to the said displeasure.  forfeiture whereof being one part of the punishment of sin. This branch of pardon is called, Gods graciously receiving of the sinner, Hos. 14.2. The truth hereof I shall hereafter demonstrate, when I come to set down such things, as I do judge in Scripture phrase to be equivalent to forgiveness; in the mean time only let it be observed, That whensoever God pardons the sin, he is reconciled to the sinner, and Christ's expiating, or being a propitiation for sin, is all one, as for Christ to make reconciliation for sin, Heb. 2.17. with 1 Joh. 2. beg. It is therefore to be noted, that David in Psal. 51. much insisting upon, and being instant for the pardon of his sins, both original and actual, especially his sin of murder and adultery, as he doth express his mind and meaning in various phrases, so in this phrase among others; viz. That God would not cast him away from his face. i.e. his love and favour, ver. 11. I say, his favour; for as by the 
* In this sense the face of G. is sometime styled the back of God, Jer. 18.17.  face of God, is sometimes meant the wrath and displeasure of God, Psa. 34.16. (and this face of God David prays against, saying, Hid thy face from my sins, ver. 9) so by God's face is sometimes meant his favour (Psal. 80.3, last. 'Cause thy face to shine, etc.) so it is to be taken in the forecited Text; ver. 11, it being the self same word in the Original as is used ver. 9 although it be differently rendered by our Translators; E. G. in ver. 9 Face, in ver. 11. Presence. Though Gods dislike then of the sin be never taken away (in which respect that of Hab. 1.13. will be everlasting true, That God is a God of purer eyes then to behold evil) yet his 
* God's favour or disfavour, not signifying God's Essence, but his Dispensations, may be said to be altered without any change in God.  disfavour of, or towards the sinner, is immediately upon confession altered or taken off, so far forth, as that of an enemy he becomes to God, as, or in the relation of a friend; or as of a friend under a cloud of God's displeasure, he becomes a friend restored into former favour.  
3. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as I may so say) the sting or strength of sin is presently taken away; i. e. the curse of the curse, or the evil of all evils, that do remain as inflicted, or to be inflicted upon the sinner, are so altered from their native import, vergency or tendency, as that they are, or shall be through God's blessing and favour towards the sinner turned to good, so that the sinner may immediately triumph upon them all (even as Christ upon the Cross is said to triumph over all enemies, Col. 2.14, 15.) and defy them for the worst that they can do unto him, saying in good sort, as in 1 Cor. 15.55, 56. O l●sse, cross, pain, torment, Where is thy sting and victory? This spoiling (as I may so say) and disabling of sin, thus far forth is one other part of the pardon, which (as I think) is presently enjoyed by the sinner, unto whom God doth promise forgiveness in the Text.  
Quest. 3. Whether is a truly penitent and believing sinner, having once confessed a sin, at any time thereafter to confess it in order to forgiveness?  
This is a Question of so much the more moment above the former, by how much  
1. It is not a mere notional or speculative, but a practical case, and that of very frequent use.  
2. Of Universal concernment.  
3. In respect of these woeful, sinful, and most unhappy times (wherein the Gospel of Christ is so notoriously turned into lasciviousness, even by many of those who are high pretenders to Gospel light, and have with two many the chief, if not only name of Gospel Preachers) most necessary and seasonable: In these times (I say) wherein many do hold that a sin once acknowledged is never afterwards to be confessed in order to forgiveness. The Author of the Book styled, Religio Medici, (written as is commonly supposed by Dr. Browne; a Traveller, and a man of great Learning and Reading, as appears by his Pseudodoxia Edidemica) doth so far acquaint us with his Devotion and Orisons, as to tell us, that having once confessed a sin, he doth not from thenceforward make any particular confession thereof in his Prayers to God. And I doubt that Religio Medici is at this day in this point too much Religio Wallici, and may become in time Religio Populi, my meaning is (I doubt) that this Doctrine, [That sin once confessed, is no more to be confessed.] is one of those sweet and Gospel-truths (as it is named) which is now in dispersing in South and North Wales, by some of those Itineraries in those parts. The reason of my jealousy herein is, not only because I know an ancient and an eminent professor of Religion lately entangled in their Errors, to have come from thence to disperse that as a precious truth in England; but also because several of the Licentiate Preachers themselves are famed to be infected with Antinomian Principles, which do directly lead unto such irreligious courses and neglect of Duty, as I have (I suppose) made more at large to appear in my Examen of Dr. Crisp his book, styled, His Third Volume of Sermons, and which I 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 forgiveness, to confess them upon occasion again 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 confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us; why may we not by a like reason conclude, That we are but once in our lives to pray to God, because the Apostle saith, Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be 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 we are more and more capable of receiving, or capable of receiv●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) confess those sins again? 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 ways 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 certain in Decree.  
As well for the confirmation, as explanation of what hath been said in the Consectaries immediately foregoing, wherein was asserted, that new sins do bring a new obligation to punishment, which obligation must be taken off by a new pardon; Be it further considered,  
1. The sins of a godly man, as well as the sins of a wicked man; or sins committed after conversion, as well as sins committed before conversion, are mortal in their own nature, and do deserve punishment, even the punishment of hell and damnation. What law it is, by virtue whereof, the sins 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 own part, I can scarce discern any real difference in this controversy, one choosing to style 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 controversy is rather verbal, then real, I hope therefore, that I may without the offence, and with the good leave of either party express 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 sin was threatened with death, as unavoidable ex parte legis, that law as threatening 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, we all are Sub lege remediante, under a new law, or covenant of the Lord Redeemer: in which law there are threaten of two sorts, viz. Conditional and peremptory; in the former, all manner of sin being threatened with damnation; in the latter only final impenitency and unbelief. But it is not material to my present purpose, to determine aught in that question, it being sufficient for me only to say, that all Protestant Divines do unanimously accord in this, viz. 1. That all sin is in its own nature mortal, and deserves damnation, by virtue of the threatening of one law or another, either the new, or else the old (threatening in that respect, or so fare forth) being in force, or continuing.  
2. All sin deserving damnation by virtue of divine commination, it will follow thereupon●, that the sinner upon the commission of sin, is actually obliged to suffer accordingly: for why, or whence is sin said to be mortal, but from that strength which it hath from, or by the virtue of the law's commination to oblige the sinner to damnation?  
3. As a consequent hereof it follows, that a sinner hath need of pardon for every sin, 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 threatened; it is necessary, that the godly should use such means from time to time as God hath in his word commanded them to use; i. e. that they should confess their sins, pray for the pardon of them, fly for refuge by faith to the blood of Christ daily.  
5. Immediately upon a sinners taking such a course, or using such means as God hath appointed him to take and use for pardon, the law is disabled, and the sinner is disobliged from damnation, because its threatening 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 sins. I am not ignorant that some Divines do 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 do intent by the said renewed application of pardon, whether they mean some renewed act of the sinner, or else some renewed act of God; and because I know no fitness in the phrase in what sense soever it be taken) for if any one allege 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 himself, is his renewed act or acting of faith (which act of faith I should choose to express, 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 himself.) If any shall allege the latter sense; I answer, That God's application of pardon is pardon; or, Gods renewed application of pardon is neither more nor less but plainly this, viz. Gods bestowing a new pardon, or (in the phrase of the Prophet Isaiah, chap. 55.7.) his multiplying to pardon, or his pardoning again and again.) These things (I say) considered, I have thought meet to forbear the use of that expression [A renewed application of pardon.] and in stead thereof to say, [New pardons.]  
I am not ignorant likewise, that some Divines in stead of saying, [There is an actual obligation of the sinner by, or immediately upon the commission of sin, to damnation;] they sometimes say [There is an aptitude in all sin to damn the sinner;] which phrase as being more mollifying, it was once in my thoughts to have used, and accordingly to have expressed Gods particular and new pardons, by his hindering or obstructing the foresaid aptitude of such particular and new sins, from taking effect in the actual obligation of a sinner to damnation. But upon a due consideration of this expression, I found (as I thought, and still do think) just cause to wave and decline the use of it; that expression being as much as to say, I should have fallen out, if I had not been reconciled; or, I should have been wounded, if I had not been healed; or, I had been bound and tied, if I had not been loosed and untied; or, a sinner should have been obliged to suffer, if he had not been pardoned. These two last phrases (I confess) in a sense are true, and for that purpose may be used; viz. I had been still bound, and tied, if I had not been loosed and untied; or, A sinner should have been still obliged to suffer, if he had not been pardoned; importing, that time was, when the sinner or person now loosed, untied and pardoned, was actually tied, bound, and obliged to suffer: Nevertheless, without the supposal of a sinners precedaneous actual obligation to suffer, the foresaid expressions are intolerable; because pardon doth not prevent the sinner's obligation to suffer, no more then healing doth prevent wounding or losing doth prevent binding, but always follows after it in order of Nature at least, if not in time, as the remedy thereof. The premises being duly weighed, I can perceive no just cause why any person, under what pretence soever, should be offended for my asserting, as is before asserted; viz. That new sins do bring a new obligation to punishment, which obligation must be dissolved, or taken off by a new pardon.   

CHAP. XX. That all sins, past, present, or to come, are not at once actually pardoned. That no sin is from eternity actually pardoned. An Objection answered That no sin is actually pardoned, till the sinner be in a capacity of receiving or enjoying it. What those things are which do put a sinner into a capacity of actual pardon, declared in their particulars; together with Reasons for the remarkableness of the same. An Objection answered; with a vindicating of that assertion in Rom. 4.17. wherein God is said, to call the things that are not, as though they were, from Antinomian purposes.  
CONSECT. XIII.  
13. IT follows, That all sins past, present, and to come, are not forgiven at once. Had the Authors and Abettors of the contrary Opinion; (viz. That all sins, past, present and to come, are at once actually remitted, and that from eternity) either rightly known or duly considered the nature of forgiveness of sin, what it is, and wherein it doth consist, then doubtless they would not have owned an opinion so absurd and irrational: for they who do understand that forgiveness of sin doth consist in Gods taking off the obligation to punishment, and punishment itself, and yet will affirm, That all sins past, present and to come are at once remitted; must consequently affirm, That a man may be disobliged afore he is obliged, loosed, afore bound; set at liberty, afore captivated or imprisoned; and that punishment is taken off afore it be inflicted and laid on. then which to affirm or imply, what is more inconsistent with sense and reason? Nevertheless, because there hath been some very Learned and Pious men, who have adhered to this opinion, that all sins past, present, and to come are forgiven at once, and that from eternity. I shall for the more satisfaction subjoin certain propositions, partly in the way of concession, and partly in the way of exception.  
As to the former, I grant that at what time God did will or purpose to pardon any one sin, yea any one elect sinner he did at that instant time will, or purpose to pardon all and every sin all and every sinner, and this he did will and purpose from all eternity: for Gods will or purpose being his essence, it cannot therefore be said, that he did ever begin to will or purpose any thing.  
2. When Christ Jesus did purchase the pardon of any one sin, or sinner, he did purchase the pardon of all and every sin and sinner; and this was actually done when he died upon the cross, Heb. 10. 12, 14. Albeit in such a sense as Abraham is said to have offered up Isaac, Heb. 11.17. viz. in regard of his purpose, readiness, and resolution to offer him; in such a sense it may be said that Christ did long before offer himself, he being willing thereunto and resolved thereupon, which said willingness and resolution in him was to such intents and effects accepted with God, as if he had actually accomplished his said will and resolution. Whence that common saying, Christ's sufferings were effectual afore they were effected.  
3. When God did promise pardon to any one sin or sinner, he did promise the pardon of all sins 
* I mean, of all sins that shall be pardoned, for there are some sins that never shall be pardoned, as final impenitency, or the final non-performance of the conditions of the Gospel, and the sin against the Holy Ghost; and unto these sins God doth not promise any pardon upon any terms.  and sinners, and that upon the self same terms, viz. of repenting, believing, converting from sin. That Gospel promise [I will be your God, or whosoever believeth in Christ shall receive remission of sins] doth at once hold forth the pardon of all sin; which said promise itself may in a sense be styled a sinner's pardon, even as the instrument or writing under the King's hand and Seal is called the King's pardon: which said promise also may be styled a complete and full pardon, for as much as it wants nothing to make it in its kind a perfect and legal discharge from all sins; the pardon of all sins as well as of any one sin being therein promised to sinners, so that what person soever hath a right by faith unto the said Gospel grant, or promise of pardon, hath right to the pardon of all his sins in these three respects. viz. In respect of God's purpose, of Christ's purchase, and of the Gospel-promise: We may be said to have the pardon of all our sins at once, i e. we have all at once in God's purpose, in Christ's purchase, and in the Gospel promise; or they are all at once, I mean, the pardon of them purposed by God, purchased by Christ, and promised in the Gospel.  
2. In the way of exception, I shall lay down this in the first place, and as in general, viz. It will not follow from any, or all the said propositions, whether severally or jointly taken, that all sins and sinners are actually pardoned at once; no more than it will follow, that because a Father did purpose an inheritance for his child afore it was borne; or purchase for his child an inheritance as soon as it was borne, or promise the said inheritance as soon as it could speak and understand, that the child did therefore at, or from the time of the said purpose, purchase, or promise actually enjoy, or was made actual possessor of the said inheritance. And because it is a very common and foul error; yea, a mother-errour (as I may so say) in the Antinomians, not to distinguish betwixt the decree, or will of God, and the execution thereof, or betwixt God's purposes & his performances. Be it therefore considered,  
1. That albeit this proposition [God did not will or decree any thing in time] be a true proposition, referring [in time] to his will or decree; nevertheless the contrary proposition [God did will or decree every thing in time] is true, [referring in time] to the being, or actual existence of the thing.  
2. As God did from eternity will or purpose the beginning of the thing; e. g. the creation of the world (though he never did begin to will it, having willed it from ternity) so he also from eternity did will or purpose the ceasing of things, e. g. the dissolution of the world; both these God did will at once. Will it therefore follow, that the world was created and dissolved from eternity, and both created and dissolved at once?  
3. God did purpose from eternity to sanctify and glorify his Elect, yea at what time he did will their birth, he did will their new birth; at what time he did purpose to give them life on earth, he did purpose to give them life in Heaven: Will it therefore follow, That the Elect are sanctified and glorified actually from eternity, or borne again so soon as borne, or glorified so soon as sanctified?  
Obj. Things are otherwise to God than they are to us, and therefore what is not from eternity in respect of us, may be from eternity in respect of God.  
Answ In respect of actual existence, things are to God no otherwise then they are to us; i e. God doth not see or know any thing actually to be or exist, afore it actually is, or doth exist: however it be true, that he doth foreknow in these things what we do not, and cannot; viz. That a thing shall be, or shall exist before it actually is, or doth exist.  
2. As it is the power of God which makes a thing possible, and the pleasure or will of God, that makes a thing future; so it is the application of his power by his will and pleasure to the production of this or that, which doth make it actually to be, or doth make it of possible and future, to become actually existent.  
3. Till there be an application of God's power by his pleasure to the producing of a thing, that thing hath no actual coexistence with the eternity of God, neither is it in God otherwise then Objectiuè, or per modum Objecti (as the Schools use to speak) that is, it is in the power and purpose of God to do it. See Barlowes elegant and judicious Exercitation concerning God's eternity, as also other metaphysical Authors concerning this Question, An res insint aeternitati per proprias existentias; per quas cum sunt, tempori coexistunt, an Objectiuè solum?  
I desire the Reader, that the several answers to the foresaid Objection may the rather be well weighed and remembered, because they serve to make void and null one special Argument of the Antinomians, whereby they would prove actual Justification before faith: (this being the scope of a late Book written by Mr. William Eyre of Salisbury, against Mr. Benjamin Woodbridg of Newberry; it being, as it now appears, Mr. Eyre his lot to have among many others, the son and successor of his learned Schoolmaster Mr. John Woodbridg (my worthy Predecessor) his declared Adversaries in that and in some other points, as depending on it, or it on them:) to make void (I say) an Argument for the said purpose taken out of Rom. 4.17. it being there asserted, That God doth call the things which be not, as though they were, therefore (say they) though we are not, yet we are said to be justified in the sight of God, as if we were. But be it known, that the import or reason of that Scripture-saying is not because things are in actu entitative, that things do exist or have an existence as to God, or before God, though they have no existence in themselves, or as to us; but because God doth foresee that things will be, or will exist, before they are or do exist, which no humane eye can foresee; (for which cause he is said to Foresee the Justification of the Heathen through faith, Gal. 3.8. The Scripture foreseeing; i. e. the Holy Ghost the Author of the Scripture foreseeing (as Piscator interprets the place) that God would justify the heathen through faith) as also, because God can do those things by his power, which we cannot do, yea, which (I do not say, in nature, but) as to nature are impossible to be done; and that he can do these things at any time, whensoever he shall by his will and pleasure apply his Omnipotent power for the effecting thereof, as was manifested in the case of Sarah there specified. Having said, That God doth foresee those things which we do not, and that he is said for that cause, to call the things that are not, as though they were. I shall exemplify that saying in one instance; e. g. The only wise God did foresee the dissolution of the late Parliament, even afore the convention of it, albeit as it seems Mr William Eyre did not foresee it a few days before it was dissolved; for if he had foreseen, that that Parliament would have been so soon dissolved upon account of its being no longer profitable for the Commonwealth, doubtless he would not have told them (as to their faces) in his Epistle Dedicatory unto them, That they were in his judgement, the fittest of any company of men on earth, to umpire and judge in the points controverted betwixt him and Mr. Woodbridg. Had Mr. Eyre in very deed delivered the truth of his judgement and the judgement of truth in that suffrage supersuperlative, I must have said, That it had been a thousand pities that the said company of men, though dissolved as to a Parliament of the Commonwealth (both name and thing;) yet had not been continued under some new name; e. g. Apollinis tripos; Concessus Apostolicus, Aaron's Breastplate, Vrim and Thummim, England's Oracle, The Church Virtual, or the like Notio secunda; as unto whom all dissenting persons and parties, both in our own, and in all the Nations throughout the world might have had recourse for resolution in the great things and truths of God. But seeing that it was concluded by themselves, that their company so constituted, was no longer profitable to the Commonwealth, I believe that Mr. Eyre is now convicted, that their longer sitting was not like to be profitable for the Church; whereupon I shall conclude, that it was for want of foresight, that Mr. Eyre did so far luxuriate in their high praises, as to say, That of any company of men on earth, they were the fittest to umpire in such Theological Disputes as are betwixt him and his old School fellow Mr. Benjamin Woodbridg.  
Let the second Negative Proposition be this; viz. No sin is actually pardoned, till a person be made capable of it, or put into a capacity of receiving or enjoying it. This Proposition carries its own evidence in the body or bowels of it: for nothing is before it can be. I shall therefore immediately apply myself to the resolution of the following Question.  
Quest. When is a person capable of receiving the actual pardon of his sins? Or, When are the Elect capable of receiving, or actually enjoying that pardon which was so long since purposed, purchased, promised to and for them?  
Answ. 1. When they need it.  
Quest. When do they need it?  
Answ. When they are, or do become sinners, have committed sin, or are guilty of sin. Till sin be past, pardon is to come. To pardon sin before it is committed is to pardon sin that is no sin, it is to pardon that which is not, which is a contradiction, and a mere impossibility: for where there is no guilt, there can be no pardon. As a man is not capable of an Alms, till he be miserable and indigent; so nor of pardon, till he be peccant: Or as a man is not capable of a cure by Physic and Chirurgery till he be sick and wounded; so nor of pardon, till he be sick of sin, and wounded by it. These similitudes are the rather apt, because Gods pardoning sin is said to be his taking compassion on us, (Mic. 7.19. Luke 18. 13. God compassionate me a sinner, saith the Publican:) and his healing us, Isai. 53.5. Hos. 14.4. This is a remote capacity. The next particular doth declare and set forth the sinners proximous, or immediate capacity of pardon.  
2. Then are the Elect capable of actual pardon, when they are in God's way fit or fitted for it.  
Quest. When is that?  
Answ. When they see their sins (I speak of persons adult, or of ripe age) confess them, repent for them, believe in Christ. See Act. 10.43. To him give all the Prophet's witness, that whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Luke 24.47. And that repentance and remission of sin should be preached in his name among all Nations. Acts 5.31. Him hath God exalted, to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sin, (observe, Repentance is given first, and then remission.) As the ground is not capable of receiving the seed of the Husbandman till it be ploughed, so nor are the Elect capable of receiving the precious seed of pardon, till the fallow ground of their hearts be ploughed up by Repentance (to speak in the metaphor of the Prophet Jeremy chap. 4.4.) In this sense that saying of the Evangelist is most true, according as by some it is interpreted; John 1.16. Of his fullness we receive, and grace for grace; i. e. by reason of one grace we receive another (even as the God of all grace doth give one grace in order to another) e g. for, or by reason of the grace of faith, repentance and conversion (all which were merited by Christ) God gives us the grace of Remission, according to that Proverbial saying among the Jews, and in this case appliable, Habenti dabitur. As God doth by Grace adapt, or make us fit and meet for glory, (Col. 1.12 Giving thanks to the Father, who hath made us meet for the inheritance among the Saints in light,) So by one grace God doth make us meet for receiving of another. And as the Wedding Garment did fit and make meet the Guests for the Wedding Supper; so doth Faith, Repentance and new obedience (being as the Wedding Garment) fit, or make meet the sinner for partaking in the pardon of his sins, which is as the Wedding Supper.  
This particular is the rather to be observed, because it is useful, as otherwise, so specially for these two purposes.  

1. To prevent and redress the presumption of impenitent and ungodly sinners, who are apt to expect to reap where they have not sowed, and to gather where they have not strawed. I mean, who do usually expect an harvest of comfort in the pardon of their sins, and to reap in mercy, when they have not sown to themselves one seed (the least mustard seed) of grace, or one grain of righteousness (to speak in the phrase of the prophet, Hos. ch. 10.12)  
2. It is useful, whereby to obviate or answer the common objection of the Antinomians, whereby they would involve us as guilty of impeaching the freedom of God's grace in the pardon of our sins, because we affirm with the Scriptures, that pardon of sin cannot actually be enjoyed without the performance of such and such conditions, the performance of which said conditions is notwithstanding of, and cannot be without God's free grace given to us, and enabling us for that end and purpose. I shall close this particular with the words of that very Learned and godly man, Mr. Anthony Burges, in his book of justification, p. 18. There go more causes to the pardon of sin besides the meritorious cause; faith the instrumental cause, which is as necessary in its kind for this great benefit as the meritorious cause is in its kind; that though Christ hath born such a man's sins, yet they are not pardoned till he do believe; for as the grace of God (which is the efficient cause of pardon) doth not make a sin completely forgiven without the meritorious cause, so neither doth the meritorious without the instrumental, but there is a necessity of the presence and the cooperation of all these.   
Caution. Though I have not expressly made mention of the merits of Christ through his blood shed in order to a sinners being made capable of pardon. Nevertheless,  
1. I do acknowledge, and let it be known, that the intervention of his merits are necessary to the said sinners capability of pardon. Whether his merits be so absolutely necessary hereunto, as that God could not have pardoned a sinner without it, although that be a question, in the resolution whereof, Learned and Godly men do differ, (Mr. Owen the Learned Deane of Christ's Church hath in an elaborate tractate lately put forth, endeavoured to prove the said absolute necessity of Christ's satisfaction) nevertheless it is without all question, that (rebus sic stantibus, etc.) according as things are now set and fixed by God, and according to his will revealed in his Word; no sinner can be pardoned without the intervention of Christ's merits and satisfaction.  
2. In mentioning faith as that which puts the sinner into a capacity of pardon, I have included the merits of Christ's bloodshed, his blood being the object of faith, or that which faith doth lay hold and rest upon; according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 3.24, 25. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are passed through the forbearance of God. Where let the Antinomian observe two things.  

1. Remission is of sins past, [mark past.]  
2. Though justification and remission of sin be not otherwise then through Christ's blood; yea, through faith in his blood; nevertheless it is a grace, a freegrace.   
Object. If all sins, past, present, and to come, are not at once pardoned, than Christ is not a perfect satisfier, or hath not perfectly satisfied for our sins?  
Answ. This objection is a very weak one, and for the weakness thereof, I may well style it a woman's objection: and I shall the rather so style it, because it was in very deed, the objection which a certain woman in these parts (much perverted, as it seems, by Antinomian principles, and frequenting as I have heard, the teachings of such teachers as are sent abroad by the Church of Abbingdon) objected in my hearing against the truth here asserted by me, viz that all sins, past, present and to come, are not pardoned at once; and albeit the said Sister did express as much confidence in her opinion to the contrary, as if so be she had been inspired with a spirit infallible, and did receive so little satisfaction by my answers, as that she did plainly tell me to my face, that my answers did make it apparent unto her, that I was a person not as yet justified; I shall nevertheless set down in this place the self same answers, and no other answer than what I made unto her objection as now follows.  
1. I told her that she might by a like reason infer, that Christ Jesus is not a perfect Red emer, seeing the Saints are not in this life perfectly redeemed from their sins, but must wait for the accomplishment thereof till the day of judgement, which for that cause is styled the day of Redemption.  
2. I asked her whether she would assert herself to be a Saint already in heaven, actually singing hallelujah; She answered no. Whereupon I told her, that the glorification of believers, is the fruit or benefit of Christ's satisfaction; and I had therefore as good reason upon this account to make the same objection against her, viz that then Christ was not a perfect satisfier.  
3 Finally I told her, that she is carefully to distinguish betwixt the price which Christ paid for satisfaction, or for our remission, ransom or redemption, and betwixt the fruits, effects and benefits which the Saints do enjoy thereby; The former I told her was a price most perfect, but the latter are not all at once in perfection bestowed upon us, but by degrees, and in God's due time and way, some now, some then, some in this life, some at death, and some not afore the day of judgement.  
These answers I then thought, and still do think satisfactory, but I do find, that the confidence of a woman possessed with Antinomian principles, is insuperable The Lord in his great mercy pity those who are under strong delusions, believing in lies, and put some restraint upon such teachers as are purposely sent forth under pretence of propagating the Gospel, to adulterate and corrupt it, and to make merchandise of the souls of the simple, whom with good words and fair speeches, they do most pitifully and impiously beguile.   

CHAP. XXI. Caution given as touching a right understanding of the two following Propositions; laid down by that very learned and pious Divine, Mr. Anthony Burges, in his Sermons concerning Justification; viz. 1. No wicked man ever hath any sin forgiven him. p. 22. 2. It is one thing for God to forgive, and another thing for God not to demand and exact punishments. p. 143.  
CONSECT. XIV.  
14. IT follows, which might have been more fitly inserted as the second Consectary) how far forth, or in what sense to understand those two Propositions of My. Burges, in his Book of Justification.  

1. No wicked man ever hath any sin forgiven him. p 22.  
2. It is one thing for God to forgive, and another thing not to exact and demand punishment. p. 143.   
I have already proved, That God is said sometimes to forgive the sins of wicked men; as also, That Gods punishing is said to be his not forgiving, and his forgiving his not punishing; so that the said Propositions, being taken in their latitude as they sound, cannot ageee with the truth of Scripture: which that they may do, it is necessary that we understand and restrain them unto that kind of forgiveness, which doth respect the disobliging or discharge of a sinner from eternal damnation; for which respect, and indeed for the prevention of much mistake in this Subject, I should think it expedient for any one who undertaketh to write more at large concerning the nature of forgiveness of sin, to set down almost in the first place, this distinction; viz. There is a twofold forgiveness of sin plainly expressed in Scripture; the one peculiar to the Saints, which for that cause may well be styled The remission of God's Elect, as for a like cause faith is styled by the Apostle, the faith of God's Elect, as Tit. 1.1. The other common to the Reprobate with the Elect. Now I say, the said Propositions are to be restrained to the former, and are not to be extended to the latter kind of forgiveness. For my own part, I must needs say, That Mr. Anth●ny Burges is a Gamaliel so h●●h in my esteem, as that I do judge myself unworthy to sit at his feet, or to bear his Books, and for that cause I am so unwilling in aught to express my dissent from him, as rather than contradict so worthy an Author, I should study to the uttermost of reason, how to interpret all his say and assertions in a true sense; and for that cause it was once in my mind to have interpreted the meaning of that Proposition of his (p. 21. When a sin is forgiven, it is totally and perfectly forgiven.) rather then to have declared my dissent from it. I say, it was in my mind to have interpreted that Proposition, as barely intending a sinners discharge, or disobligation from eternal damnation, which I doubt not, was the meaning of that worthy Author, even as he seems to explicate himself, saying, p. 49. God pardeneth sin and removeth the guilt of it totally and perfectly, so that a sin cannot be more pardoned than it is, it is as absolutely forgiven as can be desired, it can be no better pardoned, then if we were in heaven. But upon consideration I found a necessity to declare my dissent from him in that Proposition, together with its explanations: for the sins of the Elect are not in this life pardoned at all 
* Though the sins of the Elect are actually pardoned in this life, yet not absolutely as to the continuance of their pardon, the continuancewherof is not absolutely promised, but upon condition of their Perseverance.  absolutely (as to discharge from eternal damnation) and therefore I see no just reason, why any one should say with Mr. Burges, That they are pardoned as absolutely as can be desired: and if absolute and conditional do vary the degrees of perfection (as for aught I know they do) I see no warrant to say, That when God pardons a sin, he doth it perfectly: It's true, God doth it perfectly, so far as upon grounds of reason and Religion the Saints can expect or desire to have it done in this life; viz. conditionally upon their perseverance in Grace: yet not so perfectly, because not so absolutely, as when they come to heaven. And I have thought it my part the rather to profess my dissent in this particular, because such a Position as this, [The Saints here are as perfectly and absolutely pardoned as can be desired,] doth give ground and countenance to those unwarrantable comforts which the Antinomians, having spun out of their own fancies, do frequently tender to their Disciples, saying unto them in these words, or to this effect, Make not the least doubt of your Salvation, you shall as absolutely go to Heaven as if you were already in heaven, your sins are as absolutely pardoned as the sins of the Saints, that do now reign with Christ in glory: of which said Apocryphal and unwarrantable way of comforting the Saints, I shall have occasion to speak somewhat more hereafter in a peculiar Consectary.   

CHAP. XXII. That forgiveness of sin is a Transient, and not an Immanent Act in God, proved and cleared. Several Descriptions of Actions Immanent and Transient set down. Mr. Baxter vindicated in a passage about this distinction, wherein Mr. Kendal, hath (as the Author thinks) causelessly excepted against him. Transient Actions are of two sorts, and unto what sort of transient Actions forgiveness of sin is to be referred.  
CONSECT. XV.  
15. IT follows, That forgiveness of sin is not an immanent action in God, but a transient action. I shall the rather endeavour to prove and to clear this inference, for the following Reasons,  

1. Because some of our eminent Divines, not minding to distinguish here (as they use to do in other things) betwixt God's purpose to pardon, and his actual pardon of a sinner, have erroneously asserted, That forgiveness of sin is an immanent action in God.  
2. Because the aforesaid erroneous Assertion is of very ill influence and consequence, it being (as Mr. Baxter hath well observed, and warns us therefore of it) one of the main props and pillars of Antinomianisme.  
3. Because Mr. Baxter says in his Aphorisms of Justification, p. 174. That albeit he is of opinion with others, That forgiveness of sin is a transient action; nevertheless, (as he saith) he had never the happiness to see that point cleared by any.  
4. Albeit Mr. Baxter himself hath endeavoured to clear it, and it is not my purpose to contradict him in aught that he hath said in that behalf; nevertheless I think it expedient, that there should more be added for clearing the point: for Mr. Baxter defining remission of sin to be a dissolving or taking away the obligation to punishment (not at all mentioning the effectual taking away of punishment itself, but leaving that, as I suppose his intent, to be understood) hath endeavoured to demonstrate the transiency of the act of forgiveness, barely with respect to the taking away of the said obligation to punishment. Because he speaks of Justification or Remission in Law sense, and not in execution, as being another distinct sort or part of pardon. As his endeavour therefore hath been in that particular, so I shall endeavour to clear the transiency of the act of forgiveness of sin as it respects the taking away the punishment itself, which I shall desire to do with such modesty and sobriety, as finding great cause to approve what Mr. Burges about this very Point doth speak in his entrance thereupon, saying, We are in mere darkness, and not able to comprehend how God is said to act or work.   
Now for the better clearing of the point in hand, I shall set down in the first place, what an immanent and transient action is, and what is the difference betwixt them; and to that end it will be expedient to have recourse unto what Philosophical Authors in their metaphysical Divinity have said in the same; and in special I shall set down the Descriptions which the acute and learned Scheibler gives of them, Met. lib. 2. p. 233, 234, 235. Actio immanens dicitur ab immanendo, quod scilicet in agente maneat, quod tamen intelligendum est non positive, said negative; nempe, Actio immanens qua talis est, est in agente hoc sensu, quia non transit ad patience; in ipso autem agente non est per modum adjuncti, seu per positivam inhaerentiam in ipso, sed simpliciter ad ipsum comparatur ut ad causam.  
This Explication is the rather to be minded, because in this sense only can we attribute an immanent action to God; viz. Negatiuè, non Positiuè, because God, or the Divine Essence is not capable, as of other compositions, so of this, viz. of Subject and Accident; such compositions being a, against the absolute simplicity of the divine nature; for which cause I think Mr. Baxter 
* And the rather because [to speak precisely] Actiones non habent modum essendi In, sed modum essendi Ab.  did very well, (having said, that those who speak of immanent acts in God by [immanent in God] must needs mean Negatively, not Positively) to add this as the reason thereof, saying, for acts have not the respect of an adjunct to its subject, but of an effect to its cause. Where (by the way) let me crave leave to give notice to the Reader, that I cannot but wonder at Mr. Kendal's haste and oversight, so much to mistake Mr. Baxter, as to charge him for rendering that as a reason of one thing, which he plainly renders as a reason of another. For Mr. Baxter having given it in as a reason why immanent acts cannot be ascribed unto God positively, but negatively: [for acts have not the respect of an adjunct to its subject, but of an effect to its cause.) Mr. Kendal doth argue against him, as if he had rendered that as a reason of his following conjecture, that he thinks it beyond our understanding to know certainly, that all Gods immanent acts are eternal. 
* E.g. Whereas Mr. Kendal excepts against Mr. Baxter, saying that acts have the respect not of an effect to its cause, but of a cause to its effects. Mr. Kendal might have done well to have more fully remembered (for he being an excellent Philosopher as well as a Divine, doth know it very well) be difference betwixt cause causalitas, & causatum, actions being [to speak precisely] causalitates; which causalities, as they do respect the effect wrought, have the name and respect of causes, but as they do respect the Agent, they have the respect and name of effect; herein the common saying in Logic being verified, unaeademque respotest ad diversa referri argumenta.  More I think might justly be spoken to vindicate Mr. Baxter, against what Mr. Kendal hath with such acrimony of stile written a 'gainst him: but as they said concerning the blind man, so may I well say in this place concerning one eagle-eyed, Mr. Baxter is of age, let him speak for himself. For my own part, though I look upon Mr. Kendal as worthy of much honour, not only as a very Godly and Learned Divine, but as one also who hath deserved very well of the Churches of God for his great and worthy pains against Mr. John Goodwin; nevertheless I cannot but say of him as he said of Mr. Baxter, viz. Mr. Kendal having told him that he did ill consult his own honour in opposing in some points, those two famous Divines Dr. Twisse, and Mr. Pemble) that Mr. Kendal hath ill consulted his own honour by writing in such a sort against Mr. Baxter in that sheet of paper as he hath done; so much cause have the best among us to pray to God to take away the iniquity of our holy things, and to praydaily, Forgive us our trespasses, known and unknown.  
I shall add no more but this, That having read Mr. Kendal's book, as I cannot but say, that in dealing with Mr. John, Goodwin, Miscuit, utile, dulci; so I cannot say, that in dealing with Mr. Baxter, Omne tulit punctum.  
Craving excuse for this digression, I shall now return. As for a transient action, it is commonly said to be such as doth transire in subjectum externum, seu extraneam materiem, or is terminated in some subject from without. But withal we must know, that this is a description of a transient action not in general, or in its general nature, but of transient actions of one sort or kind, there being another kind of transient actions, and so styled, because they do refer ad terminum, seu eum producere, qui sit extra causam agentem; in which respect creation is justly accounted a transient action: for although it doth not transire in praejacentem materiem (quia actio creantis antevertit omne subjectum, quia illa est ex nihilo) yet is it such an action of God, by which God produceth something, not in, but without himself. Thus have I set down what an immanent, and what a transient action is, and the difference betwixt them out of the aforesaid Author [the one being terminated within the subject, and working no real change out of it, as doth the other:] unto which, though nothing more seems needful to be added, [the said Author being among metaphysical Writers in my slender judgement verè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] nevertheless be cause there is a content and pleasure afforded by variety, I shall therefore set down another description out of Ludovicus Castaneus in his distinctions, as followeth, Actio immanens dicitur, quae manet in eodem supposito, et in eadem potentiâ à qua elicitur, ut eligere, velle: Transiens est, quae non recipitur in potentiâ, à quâ producitur, sive transeat in diversum suppositum [ut illuminatio dimanans à sole in aerem] sive in distinctam potentiam, aut partem ejusdem suppositi [ut calefactio, qua manus manum calefacit.] These two actions in God may very fitly be resembled unto those two kind of actions in men, which the Philosophers use to stile Elicite, and Imperate; the former being Actus voluntatis, qui producitur immediatè ab ipsa voluntate et manet in ea; ut velle diligere Deum, velle redere debitum, et ejusmodi. Imperatus est ille, qui producitur ab alia potentia tanquam à principio proximo, et immediato, sed voluntate illam potentiam movente ad exercitium; ut quando voluntas movet intellectum ad intelligendum, vel cum movet appetitum ad actum temperantiae, aut fortitudinis, et sic de aliis. By the premises I suppose, it will in some good sort appear what actions of God are immanent, and what are transient; in special it will appear, that among God's immanent or elicit actio●s are his knowledge, volition, bare will, decrees purposes; and of this sort is God's decree, will, or purpose to pardon the fins of his elect; but of the latter sort, viz. ransient, imperate, transitive, or effective actions (called by Philosophers Actiones actae) are. God's ●eal performances and executions of what he hath from all eternity for known, willed, decreed, or purposed; the former kind of actions depending upon, or having reference unto the sole pleasure of God; but the latter referring unto, or depending upon the executive power of God: transient actions being not effected but by the application of God's power, made by his will and pleasure; whereby to work, or effect the thing which God did will or purpose: And that forgiveness of sin is of this latter sort of actions (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) doth seem to me sufficiently apparent by several reasons; e.g.  

1. Because datur externum subjectum in quod transit, which said subject is the penitent, believing, and converting sinner.  
2 Because in the said Subject God doth producere aliquid extra esse; viz. God doth actually remove those evils, or punishments, which were inflicted upon the sinner, working in, or upon the sinner a real change from what he was before. And when I say a real change, it comes into my mind to annex hereunto as a sixteenth Inference or Consectary, viz.    

CHAP. XXIII. That remission of sin, (quoad terminum remotum, or as in execution) is a real, yea, Physical change, 
What is said in this Consectary, I mean concerning remission of sin in execution, & not of remission, as barely disobliging to punishment, which in the close of this consectary I do acknowledge to be but a change of our relation.  and not a change purely Relative, as is commonly supposed.  
CONSECT. XVI.  
16. THat the difference betwixt Sanctification and Justification is not (as hath been commonly said,) That that doth work a real change in a sinner, but this a change barely and purely Relative: for both of them, viz. Gods sanctifying, and Gods justifying or pardoning a sinner; (I say, or Gods pardoning a sinner; for Justification and Remission of sin are all one, as I shall demonstrate in the sequel of this Exercitation;) do work in or upon the sinner a real change: and as to the reality therefore of a change there seems to me to be no difference at all; and yet there being sundry kinds of real changes, or all real changes being not of the same kind, this to my seeming is the difference betwixt them; viz. That Gods sanctifying a sinner, doth work a real change in the sinner, from Corruption to Grace, from the evil of sin, to the good of holiness; which for that cause may not unfitly be styled a real, moral, or holy change; and Gods justifying or pardoning a sinner, doth work in him, or upon him, a real change from the evil of misery or punishment, to the good of happiness; and which for that reason, & docendi gratiâ, I may style a real, physical, or political, or happy change: but why this change should be styled purely relative, and be denied to be real, in way of contradiction to that of Sanctification, I for my part am not as yet convinced, this change being such in reality and in very deed, as is wrought in or upon a poor naked and wounded man, when of poor he is made rich, and of wounded is made whole. Thus really, as to me seemeth, doth Gods justifying or pardoning a sinner, altar or change the sinner from what he was afore, as well in person as in relation; the subjects of this change as really differing from those who are not justified and pardoned, as doth a child of wrath and mercy, or as doth a Saint in glory from a Reprobate in hell. Solid and judicious Mr. Blake, in his Vindiciae Foeàeris, in his undertaking to prove Justification to be not an Immanent, but a transient act in God, doth seem to vary from what hath been commonly taught by our Divines, in acknowledging that the Effect which Justification doth work, as terminated in a sinner, is a 
* The like also doth Mr. Burges acknowledge in his Book of Justif. p. 169.  real Effect: for otherwise I see no cause why he should parallel God's grace in justifying a sinner, to the grace or favour which Pharaoh did express towards Joseph in bringing him out of Prison, saying, That act of Pharaoh had as real an effect upon Joseph, and was terminated in him in his advancement out of Prison, for rule in Egypt, as though a Physician in case of sickness had wrought a cure upon him. For my own part, I cannot but think, that look what real change is wrought in a poor prisoner by his deliverance out of prison, or in a wounded man by his cure, such a real change is wrought in or upon a sinner by Gods justifying and pardoning him; Gods remitting sinners being resembled to, or being set forth by healing the broken hearted, delivering Captives, and setting at liberty them that are bruised. And yet notwithstanding the said comparison to illustrate that change which Justification doth work in a sinner, Mr. Blake (and in that particular I am not satisfied) doth expressly deny, That Justification doth work any physical change in man; and in that saying I cannot but profess my dissent from him. The reason why our Divines have commonly denied, that Justification or remission of sin doth work any real change, or any change upon the sinner more than relative, I humbly conceive to be this; viz. Because they do generally look upon remission of sin to be only a disobligation of the sinner from punishment; i. e. from being bound to suffer that punishment, which otherwise would have been sooner or later inflicted: but seeing remission of sin is as well Gods taking away of punishment already inflicted upon the sinner, as Gods discharge of the sinner from being obliged to suffer that punishment, which otherwise according to desert, he would have inflicted at one time or other; as in this respect the change is relative, so in that respect it is unquestionably real.   

CHAP. XXIV. The Description of forgiveness of sin, given by that very learned and godly Divine, Dr. Twisse (which is by some highly commended as most accurate) examined and refuted; and the evil consequences of the same detected; together with the Author's Apology for his taking upon him in aught to express his dissent from men of such prime worth, (Stars of the first Magnitud) as confessedly that Doctor was.  
CONSECT. XVII.  
17. IT follows, That that Description of D. Twisse undertaking to acquaint us with the nature or quiddity of Remission of sin, is not Vsquequaque quadrant, & consistent with truth, he saying, That remission of sin is nothing else but either Gods denying to punish, or else his will not to punish: His words are, Remissio peccatorum, si quidditatem inspicias, nihil aliud est, quam aut punitionis negatio, aut volitionis puniendi negatio. Lib. 2. pag. 273. It is the latter part of the Doctor's description which I do dissent from, and shall endeavour to expugn.  
In my entrance hereupon, I shall suspect that some will censure my attempts herein (as also what I shall in an intended supplement to this Discourse attempt in one point against Mr. Pemble) as an act of insolency and unsufferable presumption; objecting against me with such reproach, as Mr. Kendal doth against Mr. Baxter for a like attempt against the self same renowned Author, saying, 
— Sic dama Leonem  
Insequitur, audetque viro concurere virgo.   
Surely Mr. Kendal hath said, Satis pro imperio, & satis pro opprebrio, whereby to deter any such as I am from contradicting aught in the said worthy Authors, he having concluded his Digression against Mr. Baxter with this Sarcasme, 
— Ne tu divinam Iliada tents,  
Said longè sequere, & vestigia semper adora.   
But my Apology is, 1. As I do much magnify the said Authors, (Dr. Twisse and Mr. Pemble, worthily accounted among the most pious and learned Divines that our English Nation hath brought forth) so I should abhor myself as in dust and ashes, should my conscience in the least accuse me of any willingness to detract from them, or of seeking to magnify myself in opposing them; unto whose inferiors by very many degrees I must ever confess myself inferior not a little.  
2 An endeavour (as in the fear of God with modesty and humility) to discover error in whomsoever, and to vindicate the truth (specially such Truths and Errors which are of momentous consequence) will be (I doubt not) acceptable to God, however it should prove ungrateful to some men.  
3. By how much any man is more eminently pious and learned who hath vented and laboured in the support of an Error, by so much the more taking and spreading is the Error like to prove.  
4. I am verily persuaded, that were the foresaid Authors (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) now living upon earth, they would upon all due occa●ion, declare themselves to be men after David's heart in this particular (even as David was a man after Gods own heart in the general;) viz. accounting it their happiness to see that as an error, which they looked upon as a truth, and a kindness from any one, who under God should prove the instrument of such a discovery.  
5. If I myself, when first a Student in controversal divinity, being less able to distinguish betwixt things that differ, have been ready to swallow all things as true which I have read in the foresaid Authors; is it not my duty being now converted, to strengthen my brethren?  
Now for the purpose in hand, viz. for discovery, that God's Negatio volitionis puniendi, is no part of the pardon of sin, be it considered.  
1. That the pardon of sin, both the whole and every part thereof, is [in toto and in solido, as we use to say] to be ascribed to the merits, bloodshed, or satisfaction of the Lord Jesus Christ, as the meritorious and procuring cause thereof, as is abundantly testified in Scripture, Ephes. 1 7. Col 1.14. But Gods Negatio volitionis puniendi is not to be ascribed to Christ's blood shed or satisfaction as the procuring or meritorious cause thereof. For God's Negatio volitionis puniendi is all one with his velle non punire, as the Doctor doth immediately express himself afterwards; and Gods velle non punire is all one with his velle misereri, which said velle non punire, or velle misereri, are precedent, and not consequent to the consideratation of Christ's bloodshed and Satisfaction: For Christ by his satisfaction or blood shed, did procure and purchase for sinners (as our Divines in answer to those Arguments which the Socinians do object against Christ's satisfaction usually acknowledge) not Gods misereri velle, but his misereri posse. 
* In saying so I do not exclude but include the particular fruits of God's mercy, as purchased by the blood of Christ.  Briefly, God's velle non punire, is all one exactly in sense and substance with his election, or electing love; which albeit it is in Christ, yet it is not for Christ, i. e. not for Christ as the procurer or purchaser thereof, as the Doctor himself in a large dispute doth prove, lib. 1. p. 151. there being scarce any one of our reformed Divines, except Rolloc, who says the contrary.  
2. God's will not to punish, is all one as his purpose not to punish. Now, albeit this will or purpose (being all one with election) is the rise or fountain of pardon, yet is it not pardon itself, or any part or parcel of it, but differs as much from it, as a gift doth from the free love and good will of him, who did bestow it, or did design the bestowing of it. Briefly, God's willing not to punish, is nothing else but God's purpose to pardon. Now God's purpose to pardon is one thing, and pardon itself is another, as hath been afore proved.  
3. Gods not willing to punish is (as the Doctor himself doth rightly acknowledge in the following column) an immanent act in God, and from eternitity, and no consequent of faith (he might have added likewise, no consequent of Christ's merits and satisfaction as was aforesaid.) But remission of sin is not an immanent act in God, nor from eternity (as was before proved) [for albeit God doth from eternity will the remission of our sins, yet he doth not will the remission of our sins from eternity;] and it is moreover (as shall hereafter in due place be proved) a consequent of our faith: Ergo, Gods not willing to punish sin, is no part of (however a thing necessarily presupposed unto) the pardon of sin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I have thought it my duty to give notice of, and to animadvert upon this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or oversight in the Doctor, because (as to me seemeth) it was the cause of certain other errors in him tending to the weakening of his own authority, and to the strengthening of the hands of the Antinomian party; (that I may not add also) to the hardening of his Arminian adversaries. E. g.  
1. He makes the sense only of pardon, and not pardon itself to be the effect, or consequent of faith, or that which doth terminate our believing, lib. 2. p. 273. making faith to be necessary only in this respect, viz.  gratia, ac misericordia divinà in peccatis propter Christum remittendis nobis innotescat, that divine grace and mercy in forgiving our sins for Christ's sake, may be manifested or made known unto us, lib. 2. p. 276, 277.  
2. Yea, though the Doctor doth frequently acknowledge, that Christ hath impetrated, purchased, or procured for the elect remission of sin; Nevertheless how the merits of Christ should be necessary for more than the effecting the sight, sense, or knowledge of the said pardon according to the Doctors own principles, I for my part, do not conceive; and let the Reader judge by the following evidence. E. g. 1. The Doctor doth deny that Christ did purchase for believers Gods velle remittere, or his will to pardon them, lib. 2. p. 273. And so far I believe him to be in the right.  
2. He doth deny that Christ did purchase for believers, Gods misereri posse, or a power in God to pardon them [justitiâ non obstante] his justice notwithstanding, and this he doth endeavour industriously to prove, not only against Arminius, but also against Piscator and Lubbertus, who did strenuously assert the contrary, lib. 1. p. 278. But in that particular, I cannot but descent from him; Amyraldus being so fare offended both with him and Rutherford (as I remember) in that behalf, as to think himself excusable in a lesser regard of their authority in that important point of Universal redemption; I mean, as understood in the middle sense with Davenant, Camero, and others.  
Now if Christ did purchase neither will nor power in God to pardon (as saith the Doctor) how can we rationally conclude that Christ did purchase any more than the sense and manifestation of pardon? 
I desire that what I have here written in the way of refutation of Doctor Twisse his Description of forgiveness of sin and in my demonstrating the evil consequences thereof, may the rather be well weighed and duly considered, because Mr. Will. Eyre in his late Book against Mr. Woodbridg doth highly applaud the said description given by the Doctor as a description most accurate; it being (as I think I have made apparent) no otherwise accurate then in this sense; viz as accurately serviceable for Mr. Eyre his purpose whereby to uphold his unjustifiable opinion of a man's being actually justified with out or before faith.  This indeed is a conclusion; which as it doth follow (for aught I know) from the Doctor's premises, so also from the Antinomians Principles, which some of them being sensible of, have chosen rather than to leave their opinion, to swallow down the iniquity and absurdity thereof, and to assert, That Christ did not purchase or procure any love from God for man: but only published and declared, That he was from eternity beloved and pardoned. A Doctrine fit 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 concerns us to beware how we take in those Principles, or lay and own 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 Righteousness of Christ was ours afore faith, that faith doth not interest us in it, or give us any new right unto Christ's Righteousness, 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 own 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 Son's Righteousness for us, or to be 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 he says, That Christ's Righteousness is ours, Quatenus ex intentione Dei Patris, & Christi pro nobis praestita, as it was performed on our behalf by virtue 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 himself might have concluded against himself; viz. That Christ's Righteousness is not actually made ours afore we believe; for what is intended for me is not mine, before it be actually conferred upon me; and this actual conferring of Christ's Righteousness upon us, is not (as saith the Scripture) before we believe.    
5 He says, (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 Christ's Righteousness 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 applied, so the Doctor errs on the other hand in his own 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 again it seems very strange, That so acute 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 be mistakes in the Doctor, and of an ill aspect and influence, so I am persuaded, they were all, or the most of them occasioned from his Error about the nature of forgiveness of sin, making it (at least in part) to be God's 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 follows, That a Believer, notwithstanding his pardon, is still to put himself in his confession of sin, undre the curse of the Law, as guilty thereof; i. e. to acknowledge himself guilty of hell itself, and eternal damnation, to present himself 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 acknowledgements of their guiltiness the best amongst God's 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 judgement 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 he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand. Dan. 9.7, 8 Daniel himself doth there acknowledge, 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 confess to God his desert or guiltiness to punishment; yea, could it be proved, that the Saints in heaven do confess their former sins to God, I would not doubt to affirm, That even they in heaven, together with their sins, do also confess the 
* As that guilt which is taken off from the sinner by a pardon is commonly styled 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 styled, Reatus culpae, of which see Mr. Burges in his S●rmons of Justification, p. 134. And I think it not amiss to give the Reader to understand, how several Writers do in several expressions declare the difference betwixt Reatus culpae and Reatus poenae; e. g. The former is styled by some, Meritum poenae; and the latter, Obligatio ad luendam poenam; by others the former is styled, dueness of punishment to our sins; the latter, dueness 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 styled Gild potential, and the latter, Gild actual.  guilt or merit of them, the inward, innate dignity, or desert of them, or their guiltiness of God's 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 Antinomian leaven, who do so neglect the confession of their sins, and the guilt thereof, together with supplication to the Lord for the pardon of them, as if these were no parts of prayer for a believer, or as if they were antiquated, and like an old Almanac, useless and out of date. Or if they do make the said confessions and supplications, they do but juggle and dissemble, saying, (if they be reasoned with) That praying with others, or as the voice of others, it is the sin and guilt of the wicked and unbelievers which they confess, and of which they pray for pardon; but not of their own and of the godly, of the pardon whereof they are already assured; faith itself being in their sense, and according to their Apocryphal Gospel, nothing else but a firm belief or persuasion, that all their sins past, present, and to come, were remitted at once, and that from eternity. The not understanding the true nature of forgiveness of sin, as well wherein it doth not consist, as wherein it doth consist (as hath been opened and asserted in the Premises) is a main reason (as I humbly conceive) of the pride and profaneness of that sort of people, both in this particular and sundry other ways.  
What I have said as the ground of this Inference, I would have the Reader to know, That it doth fully agree with what Mr. Burges saith in his book of Justification, p. 29. Now when sin is forgiven, the sense is (saith he) not that he is made innocent again, for that can never be helped; but that it must be affirmed, such a one hath sinned; this cannot be repaired again. And therefore if any Reader is not able to reconcile what Mr. Burges hath there said, with what he saith, p. 142. When God doth pardon sin, he takes it away so, as that the party acquitted is no more looked upon as a sinner; All the expressions about pardon amount to thus much, Even as when one accused of theft and murder in the Commonwealth, and is legally acquitted by the Judge, he is no more reputed a Thief or Murderer: Therefore it is a calumny of the Papists, as if we held, That a man is a sinner after God hath pardoned him. If any one, I say, cannot reconcile these say with the former, I would advise him (if I might be so bold with my betters, to observe well what he saith in the former place, and to let that pass what he saith in the latter passage. For my own part, as I must profess my insufficiency to reconcile Mr. Burges to himself in the said passages, and withal my ignorance, that I know no such calumny of the Papists against us; so (had I known it) I would not have sought by an answer to have wiped it off; for I am persuaded with Mr. Burges in p. 19 That a man after God hath pardoned him, is not made innocent again; and if he be not innocent again, he is (to my thinking) a sinner still, and as we are, so doth God look upon us, for his unerring eye sees all things as they are, and not otherwise; and as for all the expressions of Scripture about the pardon of sin, they do (being rightly understood and interpreted) amount to this; viz. That albeit a sinner being pardoned, is not thereby made innocent, but is still guilty, and a sinner; and albeit God doth look upon such a one as a sinner, and as guilty; viz in the sense aforesaid, nevertheless God of his superabounding grace and mercy, in and for Christ's sake, doth not deal with such a one according to his sin and guilt, or merit. To this sense, and no more, do I take that of the Prophet Jeremy to amount, which is one of the highest expressions touching the pardon of sin that we read of in the Scripture, chap. 50.20. In those days and at that time, saith the Lord, The iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found; for I will pardon them. This expression, I say, is Tantamount (as I think) but this, That God will in his great mercy so deal with his Church▪ as if she had been innocent, or as if she had not transgressed.  
The whole of this inference is grounded on what was aforesaid concerning the nature of forgiveness of sin, wherein it doth not consist; viz. Not in making a sinner to be no sinner, or a a guilty person not guilty, as in the sense aforesaid.  
The next Inference will be grounded upon what was said concerning the obligation of a sinner to hell and damnation, being taken off not absolutely in this life, but conditionally; viz. upon condition of their perseverance in the faith.  
But in the close of this Consectary, let me inform the Reader, how that since I wrote this Exercitation, I have read Mr. Wotton's learned Book, De Reconciliatione, as also Mr. Pembles book of Justification, in both which I find the truth of that which Mr. Burges doth say, and of which I was ignorant before; viz That the Papists do charge us for asserting, That a sinner after pardon doth remain a sinner. And I find, that Mr. Pemble doth endeavour to wipe off that imputation, by saying That sin is pardoned both in the guilt and in the fault: In which answer of his I am very much dissatisfied, having afore proved, That the remission of the fault, is the remission of the very punishment; or that the remission of the punishment is wholly and solely that wherein the remission of the fault doth consist; the remission of the fault and punishment not being two things distinct, but exactly one and the same: so that wheresoever we read in God's Word concerning the remission of our faults, or sins, we are to understand thereby, the remission of the punishment due to our said faults or sins.  
The phrase, [To be looked upon as a sinner,] is indeed an ambiguous phrase, implying (according to the usual distinction of God's sight, or sight in God it being taken either in sensu simplici, or in sensu connotativo) either Gods bare or mere intuitive sight, and beholding us as sinners; or else his dealing with us as sinners: in which latter sense it is most true, That God doth not look upon a sinner pardoned as a sinner (for then he should look upon him as not pardoned; since God's pardon is his not dealing with a sinner as a sinner; i. e. according to his desert by sin;) and for this reason I do allow, and not quarrel with the foresaid expression, it being also an expression very near to Scripture: but in the former respect God doth look upon him as a sinner, for otherwise he should not look upon him as pardoned, it being impossible, ex naturâ rei either for God or man in this sense to look upon any person as pardoned, and not as a sinner; for still where there is pardon there must be 
* Sin is the res substracta to pardon.  sin, else a person were not in a capacity of pardon.  
Now as I am not satisfied with Mr. Pembles, so neither with Mr. Burges his answer to the foresaid imputation of the Papists, the one saying, That both the fault or guilt is taken away by pardon; and the other granting, that we hold, That a sinner is not a sinner after God hath pardoned him; which I for my part cannot see reason to grant, because (as hath been before proved) the effect of pardon is not to make a sinner no sinner, but not to deal with him as a sinner, or in the phrase of the Psalmist, Psal. 103.10. Not to deal with him after his sins, or to reward him according to his iniquities. I doubt that some will sharply censure, and almost be embittered against me for thus scanning the words of such most learned and godly men, (with whom, 'tis true, I am not worthy to be named the same day) and will prophesy concerning me, That I shall be sure to have the same measure from others, in having all my words and sentences scanned to purpose; but my own heart witnessing to me, That I do bless and magnify the name of God for those men and their excellent Labours, from whom in some things I do express my dissent, and that I do endeavour, expiscari veritatem, to find out the truth with all due respect, and in another sense, without any respect to persons; I am hopeful, that the most of my reverend and learned brethren in the Ministry will not hold me guilty, especially when I shall profess before the world (even as I now do by these presents;) viz. That if there be any man who shall evidence that to be currant and justifiable, wherein I do declare my dissent or dissatisfaction, I shall not in any measure (by the grace of God) be offended at the discovery of Truth, though thereby, and therewithal my own weakness of judgement be discovered also.   

CHAP. XXVI. That a Believer during his warfare on earth, is to fear Hell and damnation; why, and how proved and manifested; as also cleared in the way of answer to several Objections, notwithstanding the Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints be acknowledged; in answer to which objections, the consistency and co-operation of the love of God, and the fear of God is proved. What manner of fear it is that love doth expel, and what manner of fear it is that love doth retain declared: Notwithstanding, that Believers are restrained by the love of God, yet that God doth use several other means whereby to constrain; i. e. effectually to induce them, proved: and what those several means are, specified more at large. The consistency and co-operation of faith and fear, maintained and proved. That filial and slavish fear do not d●ffer in their object matter, or in the thing feared, but in the manner of fearing, asserted, and how, proved and cleared by a due interpretation of that Scripture in Luke 1.74. The difference betwixt fear as it is the fruit of the spirit of bondage, and as a fruit of the Spirit of Adoption, opened and asserted.  
CONSECT. XIX.  
19 IT follows, That a person justified and pardoned, 
As a wicked man is to hope for heaven suppositively; i.e. if he turn from sin, and return to God; so a godly man is to fear hell suppositively; i. e if he turn from God, and return to fin.  believersthemselus, so long as they are militant here on earth, are to fear Hell and damnation; namely upon supposition of their Apostasy and backsliding, or unless they do continue in the doctrine and practice of the faith.  
Albeit this inference be very clear from the Premises, and of unavoidable necessity, nevertheless I shall be very punctual and copious, as well in the proving of it by other Scriptures, as in answering such Objections as may, or are usually made against it by the Antinomians; and this I shall the rather do for the following Reasons.  
1. Because it is a Truth under much prejudice, and against which many misinformed people, especially the Antinomians, do conceive such indignation of heart, as that upon the hearing thereof from the mouth of any Minister, they are ready almost to rend their , as the Jews were wont to do upon the hearing of blasphemy, crying out against us, and saying, Away with such legal Preachers from the Church, it is not fit that they should live upon the maintenance, or bear the name of Gospel-Ministers.  
2. It is a truth of concernment, the greater, by how much the contrary Doctrine is of consequenc. (as I think) exceeding dangerous: for I cannot easily think any opinion more dangerous for a Christian to entertain then this; viz. That he is to live altogether without the fear of hell, as being in no possible danger thereof. I read of some in these times (particularly of one Coppin, who preaching frequently in these parts, as in several other Counties in the Land, hath gathered of the profane sort of people sundry Disciples after him) who do hold, that there is 
* This appears by several Pamphlets in print under the name of Rich. Coppin.  no Resurrection, no day of Judgement, no Salvation, no Damnation, no Heaven, nor Hell, but what is in this life. Next to the belief of this, [That there is no hell after death,] I hold this opinion or belief to be most dangerous; viz. That a Christian, after he is once a true Believer, is in no danger at all of hell, and is not therefore in any sort to entertain the fear of it.  
3. As the danger is very great, so it is very common; for we see in experience, how ordinary it is with the Antinomians to cast off all fear, and that which should cause fear; viz. the threaten of God in Scripture, as not at all, or in any sense concerning them. As it is the profession of some in these times to live above all Ordinances and all Scripture, even every part of God's Word, so it is the profession of the Antinomians, though not to live above all Ordinances and all Scriptures, yet to live above all the thereatning of Scripture, and above all the curses and comminations of the Word of God, in so much that as God laid it to the charge of his Israel of old, that he had written unto them the great things of his Law, but they accounted them as a strange thing, Hos. 8.12. So may it be said of the Antinomians, with respect to the comminations of the Word, God hath written unto them the grand threaten of his Law, and they look upon them as strange things; as things strange to them, because in no sort (as they think) concerning them, or written as intended for them, but only for the wicked, who are actually under the curse. This their practice is so much the more dangerous, because as to live above one part [the threaten] of the Word is, a ready way to live above another part [the Precepts] of the Word; so many of those Arguments whereby they plead to defend their practice in casting off the threaten of Scripture as useless 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 th● following particulars be considered.  
1. That God doth no less threaten the godly themselves with hell and damnation, if they fall away from their goodness, than he doth the wicked if they continue in their wickedness. See for this 
* My intent in quoting those Scriptures is not as that of the Remonstrants to prove the Apostasy 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 accordingly 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 righteousness, 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, will cast them off for ever. Yea, I am persuaded, that upon search of Scripture it will be found that the most terrible threaten of all other are directed to the Saints, and the most fearful things that are threatened to any are threatened 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 threaten 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 Threaten, or that they might believe them: for God is to be believed in all his say, of what nature soever they be, or whatever the contents there of are, the truth of God being alike in all his say. 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 threatened by Jonah they believed God. Jonah 3.5. And according to the pattern of Noah, who believed Gods threatening 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 well 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 Threaten 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 Threaten 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 threaten against them, in such cases, or upon such suppositions they are to apply the curses and threaten of God to their own souls, no less then in other respects or upon other suppositions they are to apply the Promises of the Word; all Scripture (Threaten as well as Promises) being written for the learning of the godly. And accordingly we find that the Saints have applied 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. Woe is me (saith the same Apostle) if I preach not the Gospel. 2 John 8. Look to yourselves, that we lose not the things which we have wrought.  
2 To beget fear in them. As the immediate end of God's Promises is to beget hope, so the immediate end of his Threaten 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 Fear. 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 Hell, 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 Threatening 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 sho●t of it: q.d. As in every Threatening there is virtually 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 virtually a Threatening (he that promiseth, Whosoever endures to the end shall be saved, doth implicitly threaten, That those who do not endure to the end shall be damned.) Let us therefore fear, left such a said Promise (virtually containing a Threatening) 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 be 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 tells 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 myself 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 be it known, That all of us being by nature dead in trespasses and sins, we are not able to do any good of ourselves, no more than 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 Salvation; so that to do a thing out of a principle of life, is to do it as one being quickened, renewed, and regenerated by the sanctifying Spirit of God.  
Now this being the meaning of that phrase, I answer, That by the same reason that a beliver is said to do the good he doth out of a principle of life and love, he may be said to do it out of a principle of life and fear: for  
1. The love of God, and the fear of God, are not things opposite, but consistent with the same subject.  
2. It is as well the command of God to a Believer, and consequently the duty of a believer to fear God, as to love him; yea, to fear the threaten of God, as Josiah d●d 2 Chron. 34.19▪ 21. I doubt not, but this fear was one part of, or one ingredient into that tenderness of heart for which that gracious King is commended, 2 Chron. 34 27.  
3. The fear of God is as well a fruit of Christ's holy Spirit as is the love of God; for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, Eph. 5.11. which Spirit is therefore styled, the Spirit of the fear of the Lord, Isat. 11.2.  
4. The fear of God is as well a qualification of that service which we own and do to God, as is the love of God. Psal. 2.11. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Hebr. 12.28 Let us have grace to serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.  
Obj. 2. Believers are to fear God and his goodness, Hos. 3.5. (The children of Israel shall fear the Lord and his goodness.) They are to fear God and his Commandments, Ezra 10.3. (Let us make a Covenant according to the counsel of my Lord, and of those that tremble at the Commandments of our God) and therefore they are not to fear God and his threaten, wretch, ourse.  
Answ. The things which are consistent are therefore not to be opposed, but composed; and what God hath joined in his Word, we are to keep together, and by no means to put asunder. Be it known therefore, that as God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as God (I say) is Maximus, as well as Optimus, The great, righteous, and terrible Lord God, Dan. 9.4. Nehem 9.32 as well as a good and gracious Father; so is he to be dreaded in regard of his power, wrath, judgements, as well as to be feared or loved in regard of his goodness, pity, kindness: Yea, one special reason why a Saint doth tremble, and is to tremble at the commandments of God, is because of the wrath, power, and justice of God, (they being the Commandments of that Lawgiver, who alone is able to save and to destroy, James 4.12. and they being Commandments not without a Sanction; i.e. comminations of terror annexed to them, which God in Justice is obliged to execute.)  
And that it is the duty of believers not only to fear God, because of his goodness, but moreover because of his wrath, and the curse, may be undoubtedly proved.  
1. Because they are upon this ground commanded, or for this reason instigated, and urged to fear him, as was before said out of Luke 12.4, 5. Hebr. 12.28, 29.  
2. Because God doth no less threaten them then he doth any others with wrath and judgement, in case of their Apostasy, as was before proved; the end of the said threaten being to beget fear in the Saints, God thereby intimating not only what is in his power to do, but moreover what is his pleasure actually to do in the said cases, or upon the said suppositions of their Apostasy.  
3. Because the Saints, who have in this sort stood in awe of God, are commended in Scripture, and their examples recorded for our imitation. See the example of David and Job, Psal. 119.120. My flesh trembleth for fear of thee, and I am afraid of thy Judgements. Job 31▪ 23 For destruction from the Lord was a terror to me. Job was a man most eminently pious (as appears by the testimony of God himself, both in that book and elsewhere, Ezek 14 14.) yet one thing which restrained him from evil, was the terror of destruction from the Lord. See also 2 Cor 5.11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.  
Obj. 3 Perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment  
Answ. 1. There is no Christians love here so perfect as utterly and altogether to cast out fear, for so long as we are in the flesh we shall not be free from fear: though at the day of Judgement love being perfected, will cast out all fear, as saith the Apostle there.  
2. By fear the e is meant only a tormenting fear, or fear so far forth as it hath torment in it, as is evident by the Apostles explication of himself. Now though the fear of hell, as that which a man is actually obliged to suffer, [rebus sic stantibus,] be indeed a 
* Of this fear see Heb. 2.15. There be those who do understand, that tormenting fear which perfect love is said to cast out, to be that carnal fear of men, and dangers, by means of which, we do as Peter did, choose rather to deny christ, and sin against God, rather than express our love by suffering for him. And this Interpretation is not improbable, as will appear by comparing that in 1 John 4.18. with 2 Tim. 1.7.  tormenting thing, yet what torment is there to a Believer, being actually discharged or disobliged from the curse, nevertheless to fear it in case of his Apostasy? Was Saint Paul tormented with fear when he said, How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? or when he said, I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast away or a Reprobate? Or was Saint Peter tormented with fear, or was it his intent to torture the Saints with fear, by telling them, That God will without respect of persons judge righteously? and that the latter end of Apostates will be worse than the beginning? They only will account this torment, who do judge it a torment to be kerbed from their sins, or restrained from following of their lusts: of which torment, see Rev. 11.10.  
3. True love will, till the flesh be cast out, preserve this fear for its assistant and fellow helper, two being better than one, according to that Proverb of Solomon. Eccl. 4.9. Sure I am, that the love of God is never otherwise then in conjunction with true love to ourselves: and as sure I am, that if any one should under pretence of perfecting his love to God, endeavour to cast off all fear of his judgements in case of Apostasy, he should therein cast off the true love of himself, as taking therein a ready way to prove the destroyer of himself, neglecting one way or means which God hath appointed him for the preserving of himself. I think it well said by him, whosoever he be that said it, The flesh would soon make Love a wanton and entice her unto Folly, did not Fear help to dissolve the enchantments, and protect her Chastity. A Christian that would be safe indeed, must put on the whole Armour of God (not some pieces only) among which I doubt not to say, 
Jer. 32.40. Heb. 12.28, 29  is the fear of damnation, as well as the hope of Salvation.  
Object. 4. The love of God, and not the fear or curse of God, doth constrain a Believer to do his duty. 2 Cor. 5.14. The love of God constraineth us.  
Answ. Here again I answer, as before; viz. That we are not to oppose things compatible and consistent, such as are the love of God, and the fear of divine wrath, in opposing whereof the Antinomians do usually err, as those who do endeavour to set discord betwixt brethren.  
Know then, That as a Believer is constrained by the love of God, so moreover by the wrath of God is he constrained; i.e. strongly, powerfully, and effectually induced to do his duty; and for proof hereof we need go no further save to look back upon what the Apostle saith in the verse next save two precedent, Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men. It being the very scope of the Apostle both in that verse and in the foregoing verse to declare with what Arguments, among others, he was moved, or impelled unto faithfulness in discharge of his Ministry and Apostleship (which the false Apostles in the Church of Corinth did traduce;) viz. the consideration of the reward of life and death, heaven and hell, at the great day of Judgement.  
2. By the same reason that the Antinomians say, that threaten are need-nots, and useless to believers, [Because (say they) the love of Christ constraineth them to duty;] Why may they not infer, That Precepts, Promises, Exhortations, their own vows and Covenants, are need notes and useless also? So dangerous a thing it seems to me for any one to profess to live above any piece or part of God's Word: for as unfaithfulness in a lsttle is the direct way unto faithfulness in much; so the casting off of one Ordinance, or one part of the Scripture, is the ready way to cast off all Scripture and all Ordinances.  
3 The very truth is this; The only wise God (who knows our frame, both our natural and our spiritual frame; i.e. how that we consist of bodies and soul, of flesh and spirit) did see it needful in his manifold wisdom to use manifold and multiforme means and Arguments (for which the Saints, who know the strength of their corruptions from within, and the variety of strong temptations from without, cannot but be thankful,) whereby to keep believers in the state of grace and in acourse of life becoming the Gospel, that so they may not miss the end of their faith; viz. the salvation of their souls.  
And here I shall think it not inexpedient, but behooful rather, to enumerate and specify several of those means; e.g.  
1 Exhortations and commands to stand fast, to continue and persevere. 1 Cor. 16.13. Watch ye, stand fast in the faith. 1 Cor. 15.58. Be ye steadfast, unmoveable. Acts 13.43. and 14.22. 2 Thess. 2.13, 14, 15.  
2. Admonitions of several sorts.  

1 Admonitions with respect to the end; viz. Apostasy, 2 Pet. 3.17. Ye therefore Beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware, lest ye also being led away with the error of the wicked fall from your own steadfastness. 1 Cor. 10.12. Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.  
2 Admonitions with respect to the means leading to Apostasy, or to the avoiding of all such things as will endanger their perseverance; e.g.   
1 The avoiding all occasions of sin, and more especially the company of the wicked, and of all Seducers; for which read the following Scriptures, with the like; Prov. 23.31. and 1.15 and 4.14. Deut. 7.3, 4, 25. Rev. 18.4. Rom. 16.17. 1 Tim. 6.3, 4, 5. 1 John 4. beg. and 1.2, 26. Yea, God hath told us before hand, that unless we are careful to shun the means of Apostasy, we shall not persevere but backslide, Deut. 7.3, 4. Neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son; for they will turn away thy son from following me. To this purpose is that proverbial saying among the Jews considerable, A little leven leveneth the whole lump, 1 Cor. 5.6 Gal. 5.9.  
2. As the direct way to Apostasy, the Saints are admonished of pride, Rom. 11.20. Be not high minded, but fear.  
3 A third means which God useth towards the perseverance of the Saints is the promise of reward unto all those who are faithful to the end▪ See for this purpose, Revel. 2.10. 1 Cor. 15.58. Rom. 2.7, 8. where, to those who are faithful to death, who are steadfast unmoveable, abounding in well-doing, who by patiented continuance in well doing, seek for glory, honour and immortality, there is promised a crown of life, and that life eternal.  
4 Threaten of hell and damnation, in case they fall off, Prov. 14.14. The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways, 2 Pet. 2.20, 21. If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, they are again entangled therein, and overcome; the latter end is worse with them then the beginning: For it had been better for them not to have known the way of Righteousness, then.—  
5 God commands them to oblige themselves by Oaths, Vows, and frequent renewing of their Covenant with him. Psal. 76.11. Vow unto the Lord, and pay: The making and keeping of our Vows, is confessedly a moral duty, and perpetually obliging by virtue of the third Commandment. To this purpose God requires us frequently to receive the Lords Supper, as that Ordinance, whereby the Covenant betwixt God and us is sealed.  
6. In order to preserve the Saints from Apostasy God doth propound and set before them Examples, and that of both sorts, as well such as they are to fly, as such as they are to follow.  

1. Examples for their imitation, as of Christ himself; and other of the Saints that have gone before us, and held out to the end both in doing and suffering of God's will, which we are expressly called on to imitate. Heb. 6.12. Be ye followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the Promises. Heb. 12.1, 2. Being compassed about with such a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin that doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith, who for, etc. Hebr. 13.7. Remember them who have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the Word of God, whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversations.  
2. Examples for their admonition, among which we have the examples both of particular persons, as also of whole Towns, Cities, and Nations. Thus doth Saint Paul admonish Timothy of Apostasy by the example of Hymeneus and Alexander, 1 Tim. 1.18, 19 Holding faith and a good conscience, which some having put away concerning faith, have made shipwreck, of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander. Thus likewise doth he warn every one that professeth Christ, by the example of the Apostasy of Hymeneus and Philetus, saying, Let him that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity, 2 Tim. 2.18, 19 Thus are the Corinthians admonished, by the Apostasy and infidelity of the Israelites in the wilderness, whose example, (as he tells them) were written for their admonition, 1 Cor. 10.11, 12. By the like example he doth also admonish the believing Hebrews, ch. 4. beg. And by the fall of the whole nation of the Jews, Saint Paul doth admonish the believing Romans, concluding the relation with this admonition, Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by Faith: Be not high minded, but fear, Rom 11.20. Yea, the example of the Apostate Angels is set before the faithful as a warning and admonition, whereby to avoid their sin, and to escape their punishment, Judas begin.   
7 In order to the perseverance of the Saints, God doth inflict sometimes very grievous judgements.  

1. Upon the wicked, commanding the Saints to take warning thereby, that they may hear, and fear, and learn not to sin presumptuously; Deut. 17.13. 1 Cor. 10.11, 12. This use did Nehemiah persuade the Jews to make of God's judgements upon their predecessors, chap. 13.18. Did not our fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this City? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaneing the Sabbath. The contrary sin is laid to the charge of Judah, who would not take warning by the sore hand of God upon her Sister Israel, Jer. 3.8. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed Adultery, I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.  
2 Upon themselves. This means, viz. the rod of correction God doth use sometimes, whereby to keep the Saints from running the same excess of riot with the wicked; by this means, as it were by thorns hedging up the way of sin (as is the Prophet's phrase, Hos. 2 6) but more especially to reduce them from their wander when they have gone astray, 1 Cor 11.32. I have some where read or heard of a similitude very apt for this purpose, of one resembling us to Tops, that by means of whipping are got up when they are down, and being up are kept going.   
8. One main end of Church Discipline, of Ecclesiastical censure, as of public Authoritative admonition and excommunication, is, that Believers may stand in awe, and persevere in holiness, 1 Tim. 5.20. Them that sin rebuke openly, that others also may fear.  
The Premises considered, it appears evidently, that Believers are and are to be constrained, not only by love, but also by fear, and by the rod of God, if by any means (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as is the Apostles word, Phil. 3.11.) they may attain the Resurrection of the dead, and the salvation of their souls. And surely did not some men in these times go about to make themselves wiser than God Almighty, they would rather bless and magnify, yea, admire and adore both the wisdom and goodness of God (becoming all things to all men, and to every part of man, both the old man and the new) in that variety of means which he useth for the preservation of believers in the state of grace: I say, they would rather so do then cry out upon God's Ministers as legal Teachers for mixing Threaten with Promises, and thereby endeavouring to preserve the Saints as well in the fear of the wrath of God, and the curse, as in the love of God and his goodness.  
Obj. 5. Believers are preserved through their faith unto salvation, 1 Pet. 1.5.  
Answ. Though Saint Paul says, That they are preserved through faith unto salvation, yet he saith not through faith only, and to interpret him exclusively there is no ground: and here I say once again as before; viz: Those graces and virtues which God hath joined together, we must not make opposite one to another, or sever one from another. Though faith and fear are divers, yet are they not adverse and repugnant.  
More distinctly than I answer,  

1 That as the Saints are preserved to salvation through their faith, so likewise through their fear, Jerem. 32.40. I will put my Fear into their hearts, that they shall never departed from me.  
2. He that rightly understands himself in saying, That Believers are preserved through faith, will understand how that he doth by necessary consequence in so saying, imply, That they are preserved through their fear: for what is the object of faith? is not the whole Word of God? Though I should grant, That in some peculiar sense the Promise is the object of Faith, (in which respect Saint Paul calls the Promise, the Word of faith, Rom. 10.8.) yet who can deny, that the whole Word of God is Fides objectiva, or the object of Faith? and consequently, who can deny that Believers are to exercise faith, as well in the threaten as in the promises of the Word? and the scope of God in his threaten being to beget faith and fear, as well as in his Promises to beget faith and hope in his people; who can deny, That Believers are kept to Salvation, as well through faith and fear of the Threaten of God in his holy Word, as through faith and hope in his promises.  
3. Consider, that as the wicked have been reclaimed to their duty by faith and fear of God's threaten (for which see the example of the Ninevites, of whom it is said, That they believed God, and proclaimed a Fast, Jonah 3.5. So the godly have been by the like means contained, or retained in their duty, as was made appear by several instances before recited, unto which I shall add the example of Noah, of whom it is said, That he by faith, moved with fear, prepared an Ark for the preserving of himself and his household, Heb. 11.7. Observe thence as to the purpose in hand, these two things: 

1. The conjunction,  
2. The cooperation of faith and fear.     
1. Observe, That faith in God as touching his Promises, and the fear of God as touching his threatenings, may very well stand together.  
2. As Saint James said concerning faith and works, (Chap. 2.22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works,) so I may here say, concerning faith and fear, Seest thou how faith and fear did cooperate to Noah's obedience and preservation?  
4. Be it considered, that as every Threatening doth imply a Promise, so every Promise doth imply a Threatening, as is manifest by that remarkable Scripture Heb. 4. beg. where the Apostle in the foregoing Chapter having spoken of an express threatening [of not entering into God's Rest.] he admonisheth them by way of Inference, saying, Let us therefore fear, lest a Promise being left us of entering into his Rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. And as the consequence hereof, be it cosidered in the next place  
5 That it is the duty of God's Church and people to exercise not only faith and hope, 
2 Cor. 7.1. compared with 2 Cor. 6.17, 18.  but moreover to exercise faith and fear even in, or by occasion of the Promises of God, considering that as every Threatening doth imply a Promise, so every Promise doth imply a Threatening; so that the word, which is formally a Promise, is also implyedly, and virtually a Threatening, and Vice versâ, the Word which is formally a Threatening, is implyedly or virtually a Promise. The ground hereof is this, because God's Promises and Gods threaten have always conditions, if not expressed, at least employed. This Noah did very well understand, and therefore God having made him a Promise to preserve him from the Deluge by means of an Ark, which he commanded him for that end to prepare, Noah is therefore said by faith, as moved through fear, to have prepared it.  
The main cause which hinders the Antinomians from the sight and acknowledgement of the consistency and co-operation of faith and fear is (as I conceive) because they do imagine justifying faith to be nothing else but a persuasion or a firm belief that Christ will unquestionably save them, and they are therefore apt to interpret all Scriptures, wherein any thing is ascribed unto faith, or said to be done through faith, or by means of saith, unto faith in their said sense, which is a very gross error in itself, and a cause of much more.  
Object. 6. Believers know that they cannot fall away from grace, because God hath promised as will their perseverance in grace, as their crowning with glory? Joh. 13 1. Luke 22 32.  
Answ. God who promiseth the end, doth not promise it to be attained absolutely, or Quocunque modo; but with express, or at least with an implicit reference to the use of the means; e. g God who promised to add fifteen years to the life of Hezekiah, did promise the same with reference unto Hezekiahs' making use of all the due means of conserving life, whether by food, physic, or other ways, 2 King. 20.6, 7.  
2 As God who promiseth salvation (the ultimate end) to the Elect, doth promise to give them perseverance in the faith to that end; even so God, who hath promised perseverance (the subordinate and subservient end) unto the Saints, hath promised to give them grace to be diligent in the use of all such means which he hath appointed as helping and conducing to their perseverance: e. g. God who hath decreed and promised that Believers shall never totally and finally departed from him, hath withal decreed and promised, that he will put as well his fear as his faith unto them, 
Note.  together with all other graces needful for that purpose, Jer. 32.40.  
3. Among other means which God in his Word hath appointed for the perseverance of Believers, this is one (as hath been already plentifully proved;) viz. The setting before them the curse of the Law, even hell itself as the desert and certain reward of Apostasy and all Apostates, which said danger, whosoever shall be fearless and regardless of, as such a person doth take a ready course to ruin himself by incurring the danger, so by his said fearlessenesse and regardlesness he doth give just occasion for himself and for all others to doubt or question, whether he be for present in the number of God's Elect, to whom the said Promises of perseverance are made and of whom therefore they shall be verified.  
4. Notwithstanding God doth promise to preserve Believers in the state of Grace, he doth nevertheless set before them the danger of Apostasy, whereby to cause them to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. For proof whereof I shall quote several very remarkable Scriptures. See Phil. 1.6 with ch. 2.12, 13. notwithstanding the Apostle had expressed his confidence both concerning their present, and also their future and final estate, that the same God, who had begun a good work, would finish it until the day of Christ; he doth nevertheless exhort them, to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. See Rev. 3.10. where albeit God doth promise to the Church of Philiadelphia, that he will infallibly preserve her in the hour of temptation, he doth notwithstanding admonish her of the danger of Apostasy, and exhort her to perseverance, lest her crown be taken from her. See the Epistle of St Judas, where he doth expressy tell us to what manner of persons he writes; viz. To them that are sanctified and preserved in Christ Jesus, ver. 1. yet the said preservation notwithstanding, he tells them, that it was needful both for him and them to use the means of their preservation; ver. 3. [Beloved (saith he) when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you,] and observe what means he useth for that end; e. g. He exhorts them earnestly to contend for the faith; he sets before them in sundry examples, especially that of the Reprobate Angels, the danger of Apostasy, that so in them, as in a Looking-glass, they may behold the fearful end of all Apostates; and notwithstanding their preservation in, or by Christ, (as some render the word,) yet doth he exhort them, to preserve themselves, ver. 20, 21. namely, as by a careful heeding, and diligent using of all the means, which in that Epistle of his he had prescribed to them, so in especial, by constant prayer to God, and edifying one another, The word rendered. Preserved, in ver. 1. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which as Critics do observe, doth properly signify to be most solicitously kept as under lock and key, as by watch and Ward, as prisoners use to be kept (see the same word used Acts 4.3. and 5.18. and 24.23. and 25.4.) and yet he useth the self same word in his exhortations unto them, ver. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, keep yourselves as with Watch and Ward; it being the same word which Saint John also useth, 1 John 5 18. where he tells us, that every one who is born of God doth in such sort preserve himself. See also 1 Cor. 1.8. with 1 Cor. 16.13. and 1.6, 9, 10, 11. notwithstanding the Apostle had told them in the former place, That the Lord Jesus would confirm them to the end, that they might be blameless in the day of our Lord. He doth (I say) notwithstanding exhort them to stand fast, and threaten them with the loss of their inheritance in heaven in their pursuits of any unrighteous way. See also 2 John 2.8. In the second Verse Saint John tells the Elect Lady and her children, that the Truth which did dwell in them, should abide with them for ever, & yet doth he admonish them, saying, v. 8. Look to yourselves, that we lose not the things which we have wrought  
5 If because God hath promised to Believers, that they shall persevere in his grace and love, they therefore are to live above all fear of the curse, and the threaten of the Word, why are they not by a like reason to live above all Scriptures, and all Ordinances, above all exhortations to persevere, and above all such admonitions against Apostasy which S. Peter himself doth give unto such who were truly sanctified, and had received a like precious faith with himself, saying, (2 Pet. 3.17, 18.) Ye therefore, Beloved, seeing ye know these things (and what those things were, among others, see 2 Pet. 2. beg. and latt. viz. the fearful end and doom of all Apostates) beware lest ye also being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness: But grow in Grace.— There be many things which Saint Peter writes to the Saints in that Epistle, for which the Antinomians would charge us (should we say the same things to the Saints) as legal Preachers; but I doubt not, but that Saint Peter himself having been a backslider, having received that Item from Christ, [Thou being converted strengthen thy brethren,] was mindful of that very counsel of Christ given to him, by writing in such sort as he doth in his Epistles, in order to the strengthening and perseverance of his brethren the believing Jews, and to their effectual preservation from Apostasy by what temptations soever.  
The great Error of the Antinomians in things of this nature is, That they separate the means from the end; Christ from duty, and duty from Christ, the Spirit from the Word, and the Word from the Spirit.  
Obj. 7. One end of the Redemption of Believers from the curse of the Law, and from all enemies, is, that they should serve God without fear, as is plainly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asserted. Luke 1.74.  
In untying the knot of this Objection, I shall decline two Answers,  

1 I will not dispute or argue, whether the Greek Adverb, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] being the first word in the verse, aught to be referred to the word [Serve,] or too the word, [Delivered.] Theophylact joining it with the Particle [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Delivered,] and interpreting it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; i.e. Sine ullo nostro periculo; Christus enim (saith he) quiescentibus nobis crucifixus est. I will speak nothing to argue the probability of the said reference, and interpretation (Christ having delivered or redeemed us without any fear or danger on our parts sustained) but I shall take the words according as they stand in our own Translation, and as they are commonly interpreted by our modern Divines.  
2. I will decline the usual distinction of fear into filial and servile. Yet this I will do, 

1. Not because I do disaprove the said distinction;  
2. Nor because I think it not applicable or useful in the present case, and for my present purpose; but because I am well assured, that the difference betwixt these two sorts of fears, is much mistaken by very many: for, whereas it is commonly thought and taught, that filial and servile fear do differ in their material object, or have different objects; the object of filial fear being God in the notion of a loving Father, or God and his goodness and no otherwise: and the object of servile fear being (as they say) God as a Judge, or God and his vengeance.     
I must crave leave in this place, to give in my opinion to the contrary, and to assert, That these two fears do differ, not in the object matter, or thing feared, but in the manner of fearing; for the material object even of godly and filial fear, is God [a consuming fire,] or the eternal vengeance of God, as well as of servile fear; as is to me past all doubt or contradiction most evident by those two Scriptures before cited, Heb. 12.28, 29. and Luke 12.4, 5. A godly man, or a child of God, as well as a wicked man, or an enemy of God, is to fear hell and damnation, as was before plainly and plentifully proved; and therefore hell and damnation must needs be the object, as well of filial as of servile fear. One main difference betwixt these two fears, I do therefore conceive to be in the manner how those dreadful objects are feared, they being in a different manner feared by a son and by a slave, by a godly, and by a wicked man.  
The Answer then which I will give to that place of Scripture, shall be by distinguishing concerning a twofold fear, I mean twofold in respect of the manner of fearing, as followeth. A man may fear hell and damnation two ways:  

1. As that which he is actually for present obliged to suffer, or as that which he knows will betid him [rebus sic stantibus,] in his present state and condition, or in those ways wherein hitherunto he hath walked, and still doth walk in.  
2 A man may fear hell and damnation, as that from the suffering whereof, albeit for the present he be discharged, as being in the state of grace, which nevertheless he may and shall suffer, if he abide not in his present state of Grace, or continue not in that way of holiness wherein he is going. The former kind of fear I may not unfitly style a positive fear, and the latter suppositive; the one being absolutely exercised, or exerted, the other conditionally. The former indeed is that kind of fear which we commonly call servile, and it is the fruit or effect of the spirit of bondage spoken of by Saint Paul, as that which the sons of God are delivered from, Rom. 8.15. and Heb. 2 14, 15. None but the slaves of Satan and the Devil's bondmen are in such sort to fear hell and damnation. The meaning then of that in Luke 1.79. is, That Christ hath delivered us from this positive fear of evil, or the fearing of evil in this positive manner, it being the scope of Zachary in that his Song, to intimate, that Christ is indeed an Horn of salvation, ver. 69. i. e. a strong and mighty Saviour, (horn being frequently put for strength and effectual defence, Psal. 18.2.) and consequently, that the redeemed one's of Christ, whom he hath redeemed from the service of sin to the service of himself, need not in his service, or so long as they do continue in ways of his service, to fear any enemy whatsoever. What Beza notes upon the place is noteworthy, 
Batach, or Betach, signifying, Spem & securitatem & cum Lamed adverbiascit, significans tutò, securè, confidenter. Psal. 4.9. Gen, 34.25. See S●bindler.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) is the same with the Hebrew, [Tabetach] used Lev 25.18. and 26 5 which is there rendered, in safety; or with the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used Ephes. 3.12 and there rendered, With confidence; so that to serve God without fear, is no more than with faith, boldness, or confidence to build upon the Power, Promise, Goodness, Truth, Faithfulness, and the like Attributes of God for safety and defence from all enemies whatsoever, so long as we keep to, or continue in the ways of his service, God having said, Who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? 1 Pet. 3.13. This I say, is that fear, our deliverance from which is the scope, or one part of our redemption by Jesus Christ; but Christ did not intent to deliver his Saints in this life from the latter kind of fear, they being so long as they live on earth to fear hell and damnation upon supposition of their not continuing in his service, as was afore said and proved. As Saint Paul says to the believing Romans, with respect to the power, wrath, and vengeance of God's Vicegerent, [the Magistrate,] so may I say, unto the best among the Saints on earth with respect to the power, wrath, and vengeance of God himself, Wilt thou not be afraid? do that which is good, [for in so doing thou hast cause to serve God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, boldly and without fear;] but, If thou dost evil, be afraid, Rom. 13.3, 4.   
Briefly, Albeit Believers serving God, or in their service of God, they are to serve him without fear, yet they are to fear, if they do not serve him, or not persist in his service.  
Object 8. Ye have not received the Spirit of bondage to fear again; but ye have received the Spirit of Adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father, Rom. 8.15.  
Answ. I have already said, that the fear of hell as that which a man is actually obliged to suffer, upon the consideration of his present estate and condition, is the effect of the spirit of bondage, and that indeed which subjects a man unto bondage. But as for that fear of hell, which is only upon supposition of a Saints Apostasy;  
1. It is in no sort contrary unto, but it is altogether consistent with the spirit of Adoption. For 

1. The adopted children of God are commanded in such sort to fear hell, as was before proved.  
2. This kind of fear poth not in any sort hinder the Saints from crying, Abba, Father. The whole family of the Saints on earth, notwithstanding this their fear, can call God their Father no less than the family of the Saints in heaven.    
2 
This is more especially to be observed for the satisfaction and right information of those who because they are exercised with doubts and fears, and do want assurance of their salvation, are apt to conclude from thence (but unwarrantably) that they have not the Spirit of Adoption.  2. This fear is not only consistent with the Spirit of Adoption. but it is moreover from the Spirit of Adoption; for the Spirit of God (which is in them the Spirit of Adoption) doth dictate to them, and doth dictate in them this very fear. And when I say, that this fear is not only with the Spirit, but also from the Spirit of Adoption; I would have it the rather to be observed for this reason; viz. Because there may be, and sometimes actually there is a fear [with] the Spirit of Adoption, that is not [from] the said Spirit of Adoption. E.G. God's Adopted one's for want of Assurance, and through a misapprehension of their state and condition to God ward, may possibly, and ofttimes do actually fear hell and damnation even with that kind of fear which we commonly style legal or slavish; i.e. they fear hell as that which they think they are actually obliged to suffer, but this fear in them is not from the Spirit of Adoption, by virtue of which they should cast off, or cast away that fear, it being for the slaves of Satan, and not for the sons and daughters of the living God to fear hell in such sort.  
Having been so large in proving and clearing this Confectary, I shall be briefer in the next.  
I shall conclude this Confectary with the saying of Bernard, as I have seen him quoted, who writing to one, whom he thought not to be sufficiently solicitous about the Judgements of God, in steed of wishing him (according to the usual form of salutation) Salutem plurimam, much health; said, Timorem plurimum, much fear; So shall I wish to all the Saints and servants of God, not only much joy, but also (as in the sense before explicated,) much fear.  
And if any one shall object against me, That I do not (as becomes a Gospel Minister) endeavour to help forward the joy of the Saints, I have these two things to answer, 

1. I do conceive, That the great work of a Minister, and the grand bent of his preaching, and that which he should chief and directly have an eye upon in all his preaching, aught to be the future and eternal safety of people, rather than their present ravishments and comforts in the way.  
2. Whatsoever I have written in this, or in any other part of this Exercitation, doth most directly tend unto, and make for the safety of the Saints; and if for their safety, then consequently and necessarily for their comfort, both in this world and in the world to come. Yea, I am persuaded that no Doctrine is indeed, and in a Scripture sense comfortable Doctrine, but that which doth of its own nature minister to the safety of the Saints, and to their preservation in the state of grace. And if I be not herein mistaken, I would to God that people would make use of that saying, whereby to judge what manner of Preachers are the most comfortable Preachers, and what Doctrines are the most comfortable Doctrines.     

CHAP. XXVII. That a Minister of the Gospel hath no warrant so to absolve a Believer, as in the name of God to tell him, That his sins are as absolutely pardoned, and that he is as absolutely sure of heaven, as if he were already in heaven.  
CONSECT. XX.  
20. IT follows. That a Minister hath no warrant to tell a Believer, how that he may assure himself for his comfort, that his sins are as absolutely pardoned, and that he shall as absolutely be saved, as if he were already in the bosom of Abraham, and actually translated with Enoch and Elias, The obligation of a sinner, as to eternal condemnation being taken off, not absolutely but conditionally, for what is to come, or as to the actual enjoyment of what mercy is to come: for what dismission soever God doth vouchsafe to a sinner in this life, we must suppose the sinner to be dismissed of God no otherwise then with such an Item, or admonition which Christ giveth to the restored Cripple, Sin no more, lest (the same thing, or) a worse thing come unto thee, John 5.14.  
My meaning in this Confectary is plainly this, (as I have before expressed it, and which I desire to be remembered) viz. That though the obligation of a sinner to eternal condemnation be actually taken off so soon as he is converted, nevertheless the continuance of that mercy is not absolute, but conditional, God not having intended, and Christ not having intended, and Christ not having purchased full and final pardon for any sinner, (I mean) that any sinner should enjoy the full and final pardon of his sins, otherwise then upon the condition of his perseverance, (as was afore said.) This Confectary is of necessity. (I suppose) unavoidable.  
In Isai. 30.1. The Prophet denounceth a woe to those, [Who take counsel but not of him, and that cover with a covering, but not of his Spirit.] I may truly say of the Antinomian Preachers, that they do minister consolation but not of God, and they do comfort their Disciples with comforts, but not of God's Spirit the Comforter. Such is this comfort whereby they do seek to comfort their hearers in telling them, That their sins are as absolutely forgiven as if they were in heaven. I do less wonder, that the Antinomian Preachers are accounted by the ignorant and profane multitude the only comfortable Preachers: for well I wots their error here is twofold: 

1. They comfort those to whom comfort doth not belong; our commission being limited (in the application of comfort) only to the broken hearted, which they not observing, do speak peace to the wicked oft times.  
2 That they tender to Believers their own dreams, and the fulsome, luscious conceptions of their own fancies, in steed of the savoury, wholesome consolations of Scripture. But as Elijah said to the Messengers of Ahaziah, 2 Kin. 1.3. Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to inquire of Baalzebub the God of Ekron? So may I say unto this sort of Comforters, Is it not because ye think that the comforts of Scripture are not sufficient, that ye frame and feign comforts of your own devising? Or is it not because your mouths and the mouths of your Disciples being out of taste, the comforts of Scripture do not relish but are so unsavoury, that they will not down with you? For my own part, I know no more warrant for a Minister to create Comforts, than he hath to create Commands, it being as much against the sufficiency and perfection of Scripture to attempt the one as the other; and as our blessed Saviour did therefore admonish his Disciples to beware of the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, [they teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men;] so have I reason to admonish Christians to take heed of the leaven (in special of this leaven) of Antinomian Preachers, (they preaching for Gospel, consolations of their own framing.)    
This admonition is the rather needful,  
1. Because, albeit it be very toothsome, yet it is not therefore the more wholesome. There be sweet poisons, as well as bitter.  
2 By how much it is more sweet by so much it is like with the more eagerness to be swallowed. The mouths of people do water after such delicacies & their ears do itch to hear such Gospel, they loving to hear rather what is smooth, than what is right, what will please rather than what will profit, what is sweet rather than what is sound; according the humour of the people of old, as is recorded by the Prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, Isal. 30.9.10. This is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the Law of the Lord; which say to the Seers, See not, and to the Prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophecy deceits. So we preach comforts to people, though they be deceitful comforts, they regard not; though we cousin people, yet so we comfort them, they care not. Jer. 5. lat. The Prophet's prophecy falsely, and the Priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so; and what will ye do in the end thereof? This Question, [What will ye do in the end thereof?] is in this case not to be omitted; for consider in the next place the danger of comforting Believers by telling them, That their sins are as absolutely pardoned as if they were in heaven. The danger hereof will appear, by what I shall next offer unto consideration, as a reason of the foresaid Admonition.  
3 Consider the tendency of this comfort. For my own part, as I look upon the whole body of Antinomianism as a Doctrine of security so I look upon this particular branch as that which tends directly to make a Christian to neglect his watch, to lay down his weapons, and to cast off his Armour. It is such Music as tends to lull a Christian asleep in the Devil's lap, and it is Gods great mercy if he awake out of that his dream of being in heaven, before he sees himself absolutely to be in Hell.  
I would have said more to this particular, but that Mr. Baxter in his Book styled, [Directions for getting and keeping Spiritual Peace and Comfort] hath spoken directly and amply thereunto in his eighteenth and twentieth Direction, which I shall here transcribe;  
Know, that God hath not commanded you to believe that you do believe; nor that you are justified, or shall be saved (but only conditionally) and therefore your Assurance is not a certainty properly of Divine faith. Pag. 189. Direction 18.  
Never expect so much Assurance on earth as shall set you above all 
* If there be no possible danger, what need of such admonition's caveats, & cautions, as in Eph. 6.11. 2 Joh. 8. 2 Pet. 3.17. Caveats need not, but where danger is in some respects at least possible.  possibility of the loss of heaven, and above all apprehensions of real danger. Pag. 211. Direction 20.  
I shall conclude this Consectary with that Item which Ahab gave to Benhadad, when swelling in his confidence, 1 King. 20.11. Let not him that girdeth on his harness, boast himself, as he that putteth it off. Let not any Saint militant here on earth, that girdeth on his harness for the spiritual warfare, boast himself as if he were as absolutely sure of heaven as the Saints now triumphant, who have put it off.   

CHAP. XXVIII. That the repentance, which the Gospel requires, is not only repentance [from] the pardon of our sins, as the Antinomians affirm, but [for] the pardon of them, proved and evinced by several Arguments. Several Objections of the Antinomians answered; wherein it is punctually declared, In what sense Evangelical Repentance may be said to be [from] pardon of sin, and in what sense [for] the pardon of it. It is disputable whether God's glory and our own salvation are to be looked at as two ends, or only as one, the former being a necessary result of the latter. An Objection answered, That it is a singular favour of God, and a favour in some sense peculiar to the times of the New Testament, that God hath so clearly revealed unto us our eternal salvation, as the great end, not excluding, but including his glory) of man's working, or of all Christian duty. That good works may be styled the way to salvation. That the difference betwixt the Covenant of Work and of Grace lies not in this, that Adam was to work for life, and we not for, but only from life. Our own good works, duties graces or holiness, how far forth, or in what sense to be disclaimed, and not trusted unto for salvation, as also in what sense, or how fare forth they may be trusted unto, or rested in for salvation, declared more at large. A Caution annexed to prevent mistake. That there are two kinds of presumption, both which are distinctly to be made known unto people by the Ministers of the Gospel, and carefully to be avoided by all, as dangerous rocks in the steering of our course towards the haven of eternal happiness.  
CONSECT. XXII  
22. IT follows, That the repentance which the Gospel requireth is not only repentance [from] the pardon of our sins, but [for] the pardon of them. Pardon of sin being the taking away from the sinner obligation to punishment, and punishment itself, and these being not taken away till a sinner hath repent of his sins (as is evident by the Scriptures, otherwise an impenitent person had as much right to heaven, and were as much in the state of salvation as the penitent;) it doth unavoidably from thence follow, That that repenpentance which the Gospel requireth as saving repentance, or repentance necessary to salvation, (I mean, our first repentance, or repentance at our first conversion) is for, and not from the pardon of our sins.  
I am willing to take occasion to speak somewhat more at large for the confirmation and clearing of this inference, and for the confutation of the contrary, because it is one branch of the Antinomian Doctrine in these times, That all repentance which is not from the pardon of sin; i. e. the sense and belief of pardon, is but Legal and not Evangelical repentance; and that to teach people to repent for the pardon of their sins, is to dishonour and to dethrone Christ, to make a Christ of our repentance. Now for the confutation of this new Anti-Gospel Doctrine, and for a Christians confirmation in the good and old Doctrine of Christ, the Prophets and Apostles, I will endeavour to demonstrate, touching the said Doctrine of the Antinomians, these two things, 

1. That it is directly and abundantly against the truth of the Gospel.  
2. Against the comfort of the Gospel.    
For the demonstration of the former, let the following particulars be considered.  
1. We do very seldom, I think, never at all read in the Word of God, that any of God's Prophets, Christ Jesus or his Apostles, did press any person or people to repent from the pardon of their sins. It's true indeed, that sinners are frequently exhorted to repent, from the consideration of God's mercy and goodness, in his readiness to pardon them; i.e. to pardon them in such ways, or upon such terms, as in and upon which God is purposed to dispense pardon; i.e. to pardon them if they do repent, Joel 2.12, 13, 14. but where shall we read in all the Book of God, that sinners are urged and exhorted to repent from the belief, sense, or consideration of God's grace and goodness in this, That he hath already pardoned those sins, for which they are called upon to repent?  
2 Suppose that some instance could be produced out of Scripture of some sinner or sinners, that have been informed from God, and told before hand, that their sins were pardoned, and were thereupon exhorted to repent: I would answer, That such an instance or instances will not prove, that it is a Christians duty to repent from and not for the pardon of his sins: for it is the manner of of the Holy Ghost in Scripture sometimes to pronounce or make promise of the end, and then to direct and exhort unto the use of means for the accomplishing of that end, and without the use whereof it shall not be accomplished; e. g. God doth first tell Hezekiah, that he shall recover of his disease, and that he would add to his life fifteen years, and thereupon God directs him what means to use for his recovery; viz. A bunch of figs applied to his boil. Because God had told Hezekiah before hand that he would add fifteen years to his life, shall we therefore conclude, That Hezekiah did apply the bunch of figs, and did ever after that time eat and drink from life, and not for life?  
3. To say, That a sinner must repent from the pardon of his sins, and not for the pardon of them, if he will repent Evangelically, is to make a sinners pardon to go before his repentance; whereas the Scripture informs us, that pardon of sin doth follow repentance, and not go before it, as reward follows the Service, or as the bestowing of a promised reward doth follow the performance of the condition of the Promise, Acts 2 38. Repent and be baptised for the remission of your sins. Acts 5.31. Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give Repentance to Israel and remission of sin. Isai. 55 7, 8. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and unto our God, for he will, (not he hath) abundantly pardon. 2 Chron. 7.13, 14. If my people that are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their evil ways, then will I hear from heaven my dwelling place, and will forgive their sins. Where do we read, that Christ his Prophets and Apostles did ever preach to any sinner or sinners that their sins were actually pardoned, till they had actually repent? Yea, what warrant hath a Minister of the Gospel so much as to propound or promise unto any person or people the Pardon of their sins, but upon precedent repentance for sin? See Luke 4.18. and 24.47. Well I wots, That the Ministers of the Gospel are to publish to all the world, That the Messiah is come in the flesh, hath satisfied God's Justice, made an atonement or propitiation for the sins of the whole world; i. e. that Christ Jesus hath done whatsoever did belong for him to do on earth (as a Surety) to the satisfying of God's Justice, the pardon and reconciliation of sinners: But I wots withal, That albeit the satisfaction of God's Justice and the purchase of pardon doth wholly and solely depend upon the do and sufferings of Christ's as the meritorious cause thereof; so our enjoyment of a part or benefit in the said purchase and satisfaction doth depend upon the doing or performing of all such Gospel Duties which Christ hath appointed or commanded, as the condition without which we are to have no saving comfort and benefit by him; the performance of which said duties, is nevertheless through the help of God's free grace purchased by Christ, and a fruit of his Redemption.  
4 As we have no precept in God's Word, bidding us to repent from the pardon of sin, so we have frequent precepts commanding us to repent for pardon, or that we may be pardoned, or lest we should miss of pardon. See Acts 2.38. Repent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into the remission of your sins. Acts 3.19. Repent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into the bloting out of your sins. Amos 5.14. Seek good and not evil, that ye may live. So that to preach, that That repentance which is for, and not purely from the pardon of our sins, is not evangelical repentance, is directly and clearly to pervert the Gospel of Christ in its Doctrine of repentance.  
5. It is far more agreeable unto Scripture and to right reason to say, That we are to rejoice from the pardon of our sins, then to say We are to repent from the pardon of them.  
1. That it is more agreeable to Scripture to say the former than the latter, may appear (besides by what hath been already said) by that in Match 9.2. Son, be of good cheer, t●y sins are forgiven thee. And by that in Isai. 40. beg. Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God, speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, That he iniquity is pardoned.  
2 It is more agreeable to reason: for the pardon of sin is the object of Joy, not of sorrow. As sin itself is the proper object matter, or material object of sorrow, so the pardon of it is the material object of joy; thence that of the Angel to the Shepherds, Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people: for unto you is born this day a Saviour, Luke 2.10, 11.  
3. Yea thirdly, agreeable hereunto is the experience of the Saints: for as some do weep for sorrow, that their sins may be pardoned; so others do weep for joy that to their own sense they are pardoned; neither ought this to seem strange, there 
* Such it seems were the tears of her in Luke 7.38. Christ saying of her, not she grieved much, (though that doubtless was true) but she loved much.  being tears of love and rejoicing, as well as of mourning.  
These things considered, let any one judge whether those who tell people, That to repent evangelically is to repent from, not for the pardon of sin, do not tell them in effect, That to weep for sin in a Gospel way, is to weep for joy, but not for grief? and consequently whether they do not overturn Gospel Repentance, sursum vorsum, topsy-turvy (as we use to say?) For whereas the Gospel of Christ tells us, that evangelical repentance is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to sorrow after a godly manner, or a sorrow after God, 2 Cor. 7.9, 10. Consider and judge whether these new Gospel Preachers do not rather make it a joy after God, or a rejoicing after a godly manner, or godly joy, rather than godly sorrow  
5 Were Evangelical repentance only from, and not for the pardon of sin, than should our Saviour Christ in rendering the reason of the blessedness of such mourners; 
Mat. 5.4.  have said, not as he did, For they shall Be comforted, but For they Are comforted; there being no greater comfort than the sense or assurance of pardon.  
6. Let it (for a further confutation of the said Doctrine) be considered, what are those grounds Ends, Reasons, or Motives, for, or upon which sinners are invited, or exhorted in Scripture to repent. E.g.  
1 Because we have offended and dishonoured God by transgressing his command. Psal. 51.4. Against thee, thee only have I finned, saith David.  
2. Because as by our sins we have dishonoured God, so by our repentance we do glorify God, or give glory to him: especially if our repentance be made public as our sin. Josh. 7.19. Jerem. 13.16. Give glory to the Lord your God, before he cause darkness, etc.  
3 Because God is very gracious and merciful, ready to pardon all those who do repent, Joel 2.12, 13, 14. Isai. 57.7, 8. 2 Chro. 30.9. Ezek. 18. lat.  
4. Because as God promiseth pardon to the penitent, so he threatneth utter and inevitable ruin to the impenitent, Luk. 13. 3, 5. Rev. 2.5.  
5. Because Christ is a Saviour given of God, All sufficient, and most able to save to the uttermost all sinners whatsoever, yea, and is exalted of God to give repentance and remission of sin to the most heinous sinners, Acts 5.31.  
6. Because of that injury and irreparable mischief which we have done, and shall do against ourselves and our own souls by continuing in our sins, Hos. 14. beg. and 13.9. Ezek. 18. last.  
These and the like Arguments, or Grounds of Repentance, we do frequently read of in the Word of God; which I do allege, not to prove, that the sense of the free mercy of God in pardoning a Believers former sins should not induce him the more to repent of his present sins (for in that sense I do acknowledge, that a Believer is to repent, and doth repent from the pardon of sin; yet so from the pardon of former sins, or sins long since pardoned, as still for the pardon of his other sins:) but the aforesaid Reasons are alleged by me to prove, That a sinner is to repent for the pardon of his sins, and that repentance for pardon is true, genuine, Scripture-Gospel-Repentance; i. e. such as Christ, his Prophets and Apostles do enjoin both for substance and circumstance, as a saving grace.  
2 As the said Doctrine is against the Truth, so is it also against the Comfort of the Gospel; and let it be considered what a most uncomfortable Doctrine it is to tell sinners, that Gospel-Repentance is from and not for pardon; for, will it not follow from thence, That no sinner did ever truly, savingly, and Evangelically repent, but such only who have the sense or assurance of pardon in their own souls? then which Doctrine we cannot lightly preach any more dismal, dark, and uncomfortable. Is the preaching of this Doctrine the way to comfort those who mourn in Zion, and the preaching of glad tidings to the meek? Is this to pour oil and wine, or is it not rather to pour gall and vinegar into wounded consciences? And is it not strange then, that those who do preach such anti-Gospel Doctrine, so opposite both to the Truth and comfort of the Gospel, should pretend to such zeal for Christ and his Gospel, and to such art in comforting a Christian? May not we truly say concerning these men's zeal of the Gospel, as Saint Paul said of his Country men their zeal of the Law; viz. That it is not according to knowledge?  
The main ground of the Antinomians Error in saying, That Gospel repentance is from, and not for pardon, is (as I conceive) because they hold, That sin is actually pardoned before it be repent of; and observing therefore how one error (like the links of a chain) doth draw on another, we should be the more watchful against every error, and pray to the Father of lights to give us understanding in all things.  
I shall in the next place endeavour to answer the usual Objections which are made by the Antinomians against their adversaries, who hold, That a Believer is to work not for pardon, for life, for redemption, and for salvation, but from them. Mr. Baxter hath indeed in several of his writings said so much already about this Point, as that I shall not much need to say any thing more. For my own part, I am singularly glad that Mr. Baxter hath admonished Christians to beware of the Book styled, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, that doth harp so much upon that string, not for, but from. The said Book was about six or seven years ago commended unto me by a very honest and well meaning Christian, which having sought after, and throughly read, I could not but wonder (and not without some little but just, indignation) that three such most excellent and famous Divines, as Mr. C. M B. and Mr. S. should by their several Epistles commend such an Interimystical and Cassandrian piece as that Book may in its kind (I think) deservedly be called; and I did thereupon make some Animadversions upon it long since, and in special concerning this particular Point [From and not For;] For well I wots, that albeit we are to endeavour, as much as may be, the peace of God's Churches (and I doubt not but goodness and sweetness of nature and zeal for peace did so far prevail with those three forementioned Worthies as to procure such Testimonials from them) nevertheless we are not to assert gross Errors (however we may, and its fit we should sometimes, conceal some Truths) for peace sake.  
I shall here therefore insert what I have long since written, and upon occasion also preached about this Point, as followeth.  
There is much ignorance and error in opposing these two, [From and For salvation] as things incompatible and inconsistent; whereas, like brethren they may very well dwell together in unity. Know then, That Believers may and aught to do good duties, both from and for salvation; e.g.  
1. From Salvation as purposed and appointed by God for them.  
2. From salvation as purchased and procured by Christ in their behalf.  
3. From salvation as promised to them in the Word, and in the ways of well doing. Thence is it frequent with the Holy Ghost in Scripture, to urge Believers unto constancy in obedience, with Arguments taken from the consideration of the said Purpose, Purchase, and Promises; for which see Heb. 12 28.2 Cor. 7.1. and 1.6, 20. 1 Thes. 5 8, 9  
2. As a Believer is to work from salvation purposed, procured promised (I add also, As a wicked man is to repent from salvation by God in Christ, appointed for him, and promised to him upon terms of believing, repenting, converting, and upon those terms made over to him in the Gospel grant) so are we all, one with another to work, to begin, and to hold on in the ways of Righteousness for salvation, actually and fully in Gods due time to be enjoyed.  
And that every man may and aught in this sort or sense work for his salvation, may be proved by the following Arguments.  

1. We are expressly commanded, To work out our salvation, Phil. 2.12. So to run that we may obtain, 1 Cor. 9.24. To do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord, that it may be well with us, Deut. 6.18. To wash our hearts from wickedness, that we may be saved, Jer. 4 14.  
2. God promiseth to give eternal life to those, and those only who by patiented continuance in well-doing seek for it, Rom. 2.7. So that unless we work for our salvation, we can never be saved, as having no promise of salvation made of God unto us; so truly hath Mr. Baxter said, That should the Asserters of the said Doctrine, so commended in the Marrow of Modern Divinity, put in practise their own Doctrine, they could not be saved.  
3. What reason had Saint Paul to assert, that a Christians patiented suffering of the Cross doth work glory for him, if a Christian may not therein, and in all his ways of well doing, work for it? 2 Cor. 4.17, 18.  
4. Consider the examples of the Saints, who did the will of God for the obtaining of this end. We run, strive, are temperate in all things, (saith Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 9.25.) to obtain an incorruptible Crown. Heb. 11.35. Not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better Resurrection. Phil. 3.14. I press towards the mark, (saith Saint Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) for the price of the high Calling of God in Christ Jesus; and what himself did in this, he calls upon all, the most perfect not excepted, to imitate, saying, ver. 15. Let as many as be perfect be thus minded; and v. 17. Brethren be followers together of me.  
5. Salvation is one great end, as of our believing, 1 Pet. 1.9. so also of our working; i. e. of all the acts of new obedience, Rom. 6. 22. Being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. Thence is salvation styled, the Fruit of our do, Isai. 3.10. and the reward or recompense of our labours, 2 John 8. Luke 14.14. Yea, as glory is styled, Grace 1. Pet. 1.13. so is salvation, (the reward of our works) styled by the name of Works, Rev. 14.13. Their works shall follow them; i. e. Merces operum, the reward of their works shall follow them.   
How absurd and irrational then is it for any one to say, That a Christian is not to repent for pardon, or to work for salvation? it is as if a man should say, We must not use means for the end.  
Yea, why may I not say, That salvation (I mean our own, and the salvation of others) is the main and utmost end of a Christians working, for as much as the glory of God doth therein consist to the height or uttermost? and therefore it seems vain for any one to except, saying, God's glory is the utmost end: for the utmost of God's glory [quoad hoc,] is in our salvation. Yea, so inseparable is God's glory from our glory, as that God is not glorified to the uttermost by our glorifying him on earth, but by his glorifying us in heaven. 2 Thess. 1.10. When he shall come to be glorified in his Saints, and to be admired in all them that believe. When our blessed Saviour did pray to his Father, saying, Father, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also [may] glorify thee; making his Father's glory the end of his own; what is the meaning of Christ in that prayer, but that God would strengthen and enable him to go through his approaching sufferings for the efectual accomplishing of that great end for which they were designed? viz. the bringing of many sons unto glory, according to the expression of the Apostle, Heb. 2.11. and according to the supplication of our Saviour, saying, viz, Father, I will that those whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory: and according to his assertion, ver. 19 For their sakes I sanctify myself. I add, it seems to me to be a thing impossible, for any one (truly, and in a Scripture sense) to aim at his own salvation, and not to aim at God's glory. I say, truly and in a Scripture sense, for in a true moral or Scripture sense, he only can be said to aim, (yea, to desire) his own salvation, that takes the way, or doth the things which lead and tend to his salvation. Now since salvation is that wherein God's glory doth most eminently consist, how is it possible to aim at the one, and not the other? We are indeed commanded to make God's glory the end of all our actions, 1 Cor. 10.31. but if any one shall say, 
Besides, Albeit God's glory and our salvation be not one thing, yet may they perhaps be one end: Res quoad entitates suas diversae possunt esse in ratione causandi una causa, five possunt exercere finalem causalitatem excitando sui desiderium per modum unius. See Scheibl. Top. p. 191.  We are commanded to make God's glory the end of our salvation, I shall reply to such a one, Proffer tabulas, show me any Scripture where that command is written. For my own part, till a Scripture record be produced for that purpose, I shall think such a command to be superfluous: for if it be not said, that God's glory and our salvation are one and the self same thing, nevertheless it must (I think) be said, That God's glory doth issue and flow from our Salvation (will we, nill we) per modum resultantiae, by result unavoidable.  
The end of my dilating thus upon this particular, is not peremptorily to conclude, That God's glory and our salvation are to be looked at as one end (for whether they ought to be looked at as one end, or as two ends in subordination, this to that, it is not to my purpose, neither shall I contend with any one who shall affirm either way) but to show the exceeding weakness and unreasonableness of the Antinomians, who under the pretence of exalting God and Christ in their glory, do forbidden us to make our own salvation the end of our working. I have heard of some professors of Religion, who are accounted knowing and gifted Christians, at lest who are such in their own account, who though they will acknowledge, that a Christian may eye his own salvation, or have an eye to it or upon it, yet will stiffly deny, that he may aim at it, or labour for it. But I would that such wise ones would seriously peruse that place of Saint Paul, 2 Cor. 4.18. [While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen.] and that withal they would peruse the Original, or at least suffer themselves to be informed touching the word in the Original, which is translated, While we look at, the Greek word being [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which doth signify, to look on a thing with such an eye, as an Archer doth upon the white at which he aims and shoots; so that the Apostle doubted not to say, that he did make the things not seen, viz. the eternal weight of glory, spoken of in the verse foregoing, (this being such indeed as eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, 1 Cor. 2.9. 1 Joh. 3.2.) I say, The Apostle did not doubt to aver, that he with other faithful Christians did make these things his scope and aim. And they who say, that we may eye Heaven, but not aim at it, or labour for it, do speak as wisely, as if they had said, An Archer may eye the white, or have an eye upon it, but he is not to aim at it, or labour to hit it.  
Obj. Christ Jesus hath purchased salvation and remission for us, and why then should we repent and work for them?  
Answ. 1. This Objection hath in effect been answered already; viz. Whatsoever Christ hath purchased we are not to enjoy, but in Christ's way and upon his terms, which is and are, that we give all diligence in the path of piety, to obtain the same, Heb. 5.9. Christ is not the Author of Salvation unto any but such as do obey him.  
2. There is no outward blessing and comfort (be it meat, drink, and clothing) but is purchased for the Elect by Christ, as well as is their salvation. If Christ's purchase therefore is a sufficient Argument, why we should not work for salvation, and repent for pardon, by a like reason we are neither to work, yea, nor so much as to pray for daily bread. The truth is, the Antinomians have as good reason to forbid us to pray for daily bread, for health and strength, for food and raiment, and to command us to pray from daily bread, from health & strength, from food and raiment, as they have to forbid us to repent and work for the remission of our sins, and for the salvation of our souls, and to command us to work from them.  
3 By the same reason, that the Antinomians forbidden a Christian to repent for pardon, and to work for salvation, they may forbid him likewise to pray for remission, and to pray for salvation; for is not prayer a work, yea, a prime part of a Christians constant work so long as he is on earth? And if there be any colour of accusing those as Merit-mongers who assert, That we must work for salvation; there is a like colour for the same accusation against those, who shall assert, That we must pray for salvation, which I doubt not is the duty of all those who shall come to salvation.  
Some Antinomians say, We are not to propound any end at all in doing duty, meaning not base and carnal ends, but the highest and noblest ends; which Doctrine, though intended by them to make us perfect Saints, or to raise us to the highest pitch of Saints, doth lay us almost level with Beasts, as denuding us of reason: for take away the end, which every reasonable creature, as reasonable, propounds in his actions, and we do eatenus, or therein levelly him with a beast; for bruit beasts do act or move ad finem, though not in finem, as is the Philosophical expression; i. e. they move and work to some end, albeit not under the notion or specification of an end, Ad finem eventum, licèt non ad finem intentum.  
The Premises considered, I hope it will appear past all doubt, that a Christian may, and aught to work for his salvation. Yea, I think it to be a special favour for which we who live in times of the New Testament are to be very thankful to the Lord, that he hath therein so clearly revealed our own salvation to be that high and great end (not excluding, but therein including the glory of his great Name, as therein most eminently consisting, as was afore said) for which we ought to act and work. And that the mercy and favour of God therein towards us may the better appear, let it be considered at what an uncertainty, not only the Heathen, but many of the Disciple of Moses were, and in what byways they have erred for want of more full and clear revelation in that Point, which through the great mercy of God we Christians do now enjoy.  
The Heathen knowing thus much by the light of Nature, that some end was to be proposed unto man in all virtuous actions, they did therefore much beat their brains, and busy themselves to find out what that end must be; in the determination whereof it fell out with them, as in most of their other great inquests, some thought one thing, and some another, scarce any among them being constant to themselves, or so fixing in aught, as not to fluctuate Some of them did conceive, that the main end of their acting should be the hope of another life after this. This indeed was asserted by many of their Poets and Philosophers; yet not without some hesitancy even in the chiefest, viz. with a Fortasse, and a Non nimium affirmaverim. I have seen Tully, 
* Epist. 64. Et fortasse quem putamus perisse praemissus est.  Seneca, and Socrates quoted as hesitating herein, Plato himself bringing in his Master Socrates; saying thus before his death, Hoc scio, spem mihi esse venturum me ad viros bonos, quod tamen non nimium affirmaverim. And when the heathen sought Arguments for the confirmation of their hopes herein they found little to fix them in a certitude and assurance of such a life to come; much of what they alleged holding no better for men then for beasts. Whence it was that some of them devised a transmigration of souls, from men into beasts, and from beasts into men. And this opinion of theirs being built upon no certain evidences, others were inclined to assert, That virtue is reward to itself, and that we must labour to be virtuous, and to do virtuously, only for Virtue's sake; a wise man being sufficiently happy (as they said) when he is tormented in the Bull of Phalaris. But others were much unsatisfied in this Opinion, as irrational and absurd, they taking it for granted, That where dangers, torments and death are, there felicity, especially in the highest, cannot consist, unless men should content themselves with a sound of empty words without any reality. Some of them did therefore place their supreme good and utmost end in the enjoyment of sensual pleasures after this life, which divers of their Poets meant by their fancy of the Elysian fields; and this is the opinion of the Mahometans at this day. But this opinion was rejected by many of the wisest and most virtuous among the Heathens, they thinking that this opinion did degrade men into the rank of bruit Creatures, and concluding, rather that man was born and fitted of the Gods for higher things. Thuswe may perceive at what an uncertainty the Heathen were in this point.  
Now for the Writings of Moses, there were some among the Jews, professors of the Moisaick Law, viz. the Sadduces, who held, That there was no such thing as eternal life, or everlasting salvation promised, or held forth by Moses in his Writings (which alone the Sadduces do receive for Scripture) nor in any of the Writings of the Old Testament, as the Socinians at this day do assert, though I think, that if there were no other Scripture to confute them in this, that one place in Joh. 5.39. were sufficient, where Christ bids the Jews, search the Scriptures, saying, For in them ye think to have life eternal. However I say, the Sadduces did not expect any such thing as eternal life in the Writings of Moses, (being therein veiled under Types and Shadows rather than clearly revealed) renouncing therefore all hope of good things to come as the end of doing good, they did [cum gentibus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] jump with some of the Heathen in their foresaid Opinion; viz. That Virtue itself is the end of Virtue, and that we must do virtuously for no other end then for Virtue's sake. To this purpose I am assured, that I have somewhere read in the Writings of Josephus, concerning the Sect of the Sadduces, though I cannot presently direct to the particular place.  
These things being considered, should (me thinks) move us Christians unto thankfulness, that God hath not left us in the dark about this matter, as he did the Jews, especially the Heathen, but hath given us as with open face to behold our eternal salvation, as the great end of faith and a good life; so that we may say thereupon with the blessed Apostle, 1 Cor. 9.26. We therefore run, not as uncertainly (as did the Sadduces, and as did the Heathen;) So fight we, not as one that beateth the air; but we run, to obtain a Crown incorruptible. And the consideration hereof should also cause us to stop our ears against the insinuation of those amongst us who have suggested to us, That to love Jesus Christ for the benefits (e. g. freedom from hell, and eternal life,) which we expect by, from, and through him, is but a whorish love, like that of a dishonest woman, who loves her harlot for the Rings, Bracelets and Jewels that he bestows upon her; which is in effect to suggest, That to love Jesus Christ as our Saviour and Redeemer is not conjugal, but adulterous love. How far such suggestions are from Scripture warrant, whither they tend, and where they are like to end, I leave to the consideration of the wise.  
Object. Are good works the way of, or to salvation?  
Answ. Whatsoever the Marrow of Modern Divinity says to the contrary, Scripture will warrant us to say, That albeit good works are not the way to salvation, in such a sense as Christ is the way, yet they are the way thither, they being styled the way of peace, and the path of life, Isai. 5.9, 8. Prov. 3.17. and 5.6. and we being commanded to walk in them, Ephes. 2.10 A man cannot walk, but where there is a way either of his making or finding. And if good works be not the way to salvation, then are they the way to damnation, seeing all ways do lead either to God or the Devil, to heaven or hel● Because Christ Jesus is in some sense our only Saviour, did Saint Paul therefore blaspheme or wrong Christ by saying to Timothy, that in looking to himself and his Doctrine, he should both save himself and those that heard him? And why then because Christ is in some sense the only way to salvation, should we be accused as blaspheming or wronging Christ in saying, (yet with the Scriptures) That good Works or good Duties are the way to salvation.  
Obj. Is not this the difference betwixt the Covenant of Works and of Grace, that Adam under the former was to work for life, and Believers under the latter are to work from life.  
Answ. As the Covenant of Works and of Grace do differ in many things, so they do accord in some, and particularly in this thing, viz. That as Adam was to act for life, so are we also, as hath been already proved.  
Quest. Where then is the difference betwixt the Covenant of Works and of Grace?  
Ans. The differences betwixt them is a point (as I think) of very great concernment, well worthy much to be studied, and frequantly to be preached by us Ministers; nevertheless I shall not go about at this time to enumerate all the differences betwixt them, but shall content myself to name only this one, as being sufficient for my present purpose; viz The conditions which God requires of man in both these Covenants are very different; the condition of the Covenant of Works being perfection of obedience, or the perfect fulfilling of the whole Law; but the condition of the Covenant of Grace, is Faith in Christ, Repentance and Sincerity of Obedience. Now as Adam was to do or perform the former condition, or the condition of the former Covenant for life, so are we to perform the latter condition, or the condition of the latter Covenant for life also. Should we go about to set up the perfect fulfilling of the whole Law, as the condition of salvation, and in such sort work for salvation, this indeed were legal working, and to work as Legalists: or should we expect salvation as merited wages for our work, this were to work legally; but to labour by his strength to perform the conditions of the Covenant of Grace (to believe, repent, to return unto, and to keep with God in the duties of New Obedience) that so we may live, and to expect from God's free grace and mercy, that in so doing we shall live, this is to work as a Christian, and as becomes the Gospel of Christ.  
Object. But is it not the ready way to make people trust unto, or to rest in their own good works or duties to tell them, that they may do them for salvation?  
Answ. 1. I shall in the next place answer this Question with two or three other Questions.  

1 Is it not the ready way to make people to cast off the doing of all good duties and good works, to tell them, that they may not, ought not, need not to do them for salvation?  
2 Is not the danger as common and great this way as that? Or, is it not as dangerous to think to go to heaven without the doing of good, as by resting on the good we do? Is it not as ordinary for people to perish for barrenness, as for bringing forth fruit to themselves?  
3 Whether is it not fit for a Minister to instruct people, how far forth they may, and how far forth they may not trust in, and rest upon their own Duties, Graces, works, or holiness for salvation, then to tell them, that they ought not to do any good duty for salvation? As this latter is a thing unlawful, so the former is a thing, I am well assured, not only lawful, but also expedient and necessary: in order therefore thereunto, be it known.   
1. In general, That we are not to trust unto, or rest upon our own good Works, Duties or Graces for salvation in any such sort as Christ alone and his Righteousness is to be trusted unto, or rested upon.  
2. More particularly be it known;  

1. That we may not trust unto, or rest in them as our legal Righteousness, i. e. such as for which the Law of Works will pronounce us righteous, or as any part of our legal Righteousness in conjunction with Christ's.  
2. Consequently hereupon we may not rest in them as things that are absolutely perfect and exactly commensurate or answerable to the rigour of the Law.  
3. Not as things by which Gods Justice is satisfied, his wrath pacified, or by which we make him an amends for breach of the first Covenant.  
4. Consequently hereupon, not as things whereby in any strict or proper sense we do merit salvation we having indeed no works formally ours, which do make the reward to be of debt, and not of Grace. In these respects we are to disclaim all our own Works Duties, Graces, Holiness, and to trust unto, or rest upon Christ and his Righteousness wholly and solely.   
2 But in the second place be it known, 

1 In general, That because Christ alone is to be rested upon for salvation in the foresaid respects, we have no more reason to conclude from thence, that we may, can, or aught in no sense to rest in our own good works or duties for salvation, than we can conclude, that because Christ alone doth save us, therefore it may not, can not, ought not to be said in any sense, that we do save ourselves; which notwithstanding is the frequent language of Scripture.  
2 More particularly be it known, 

1. That we may rest in, or trust unto our own good Works, Duties and Holiness for salvation, in subordination to the free grace and mercy of God in Christ Jesus accepting them, and pardoning the sinfulness of them.  
2 We may rest on them, as things which do assure us of our title unto, or actual interest in the satisfaction and Righteousness of Jesus Christ, there being a personal or evangelical righteousness necessary to salvation, as well as a legal righteousness; i. e. it being not sufficient for our actual enjoyment of salvation, that Christ was righteous, or did fulfil all righteousness of the Law, unless we in our own persons do labour to be righteous as he was righteous, 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. Know ye not, that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom ●f God? be not deceived, neither Fornicators, nor—    
3 We may rest in them as the ways wherein, or (which is to the same purpose as was said in the particular foregoing) as the conditions without which Christ Jesus will not save us: for without holiness no man shall see the Lord, Heb. 12 14. neither is Christ the Author of salvation (actually enjoyed,) unto any other than such as do obey him, Heb. 5.9. 1 Tim. 4.16. Neither is the resting upon our own holiness in these senses any whit against the glory of Christ, this being in effect and in deed neither more nor less but this, viz. To rest upon Christ, and Christ alone for salvation in Christ's own way; i e. the way of holiness and righteousness. I do not mean, perfect holiness and righteousness according to the Covenant of Works, but such as is expected and required from us as necessary to salvation, according to the tenor of the Covenant of Grace. I doubt not but the most self denying servants of Christ did in this sort rest upon their own holiness for salvation, in special Hezekiah praying to the Lord, That he would remember how he had walked before him with a perfect heart, 2 King. 20. beg. and Nehemiah praying to the like purpose with subordination to the mercy of God pardoning his defects, chap. 13.22. and David praying and saying, Lord save me, for I am holy, Psal 86.2. and Saint Paul saying, I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith, hence forward is laid up for me a Crawn of Righteousness, 2 Tim. 4.7 8. To rest upon our own holiness for salvation in the sense immediately aforesaid, is no more than for a man who doth use the creatures moderately, (as meat, drink, sleep, recreation,) in or upon the use of them, to depend on God (the only Author and Preserver of life) for health and strength. May not we depend on bread as bread, and upon the Physician as the Physician, for health and strength; i. e. as the means appointed of God for the restoring and continuing of health & strength, so as with a dependence subordinate to God? Or, do we make an Idol of God's Creatures, as of bread and the Physician, by making them such as God hath made them; viz. Means under him to accomplish their end, and in such sort making use of them, and depending upon them? What colour of reason than is there to say, That by depending upon our own works and holiness for salvation in such a sense as aforesaid, we do idolise and make a Christ of them?    
Caution. Only let not the former similitudes be wrested beyond their scope and my intent, which is not to assert or evince that our good works are physical causes of eternal life as meat, & drink are of our natural life: but only to intimate, that they are means of their kind, in the use whereof, or that they are ways of Gods ordaining, wherein we walking, God will save us, and not otherwise, or in other ways. I say, no otherwise, for we have no more warrant to trust unto Christ as our Mediator and Advocate for the life of our souls, without the use of all spiritual means of his appointment in order thereunto, than we have to trust unto God as Creator and Preserver for the life of our bodies, without using the means appointed for that end. Be it therefore known and well considered, That there is no trusting to Christ for salvation, but in Christ's own way, which is not the way of profaneness, (Ephes. 5.3, 4.5, 6. Gal. 5.19, 20.) but the way of holiness; i.e. of a godly, righteous and sober life, Tit. 2.11, 12, 13. To rest upon Christ for salvation, otherwise then in Christ's own way, is to presume, not to believe: it is, I say, to presume, and that in such sort, as if a man should resolve never to eat and drink, or as if a man should resolve to take poison, a knife or halter, to st●b or strangle himself, and yet should trust unto God, and rest upon the power, providence and mercy of God for the preserving and prolonging of his life.  
There is a double kind of presumption, which as rocks upon which we shall undoubtedly split our selus, we are carefully to avoid in the steering of our course towards the haven of eternal happiness.  
1. Presuming upon, trusting unto, and resting in our own good works, duties, graces and holiness without Christ. This was that rock upon which the Pharisaical Jews did dash themselves and perish, Rom. 10.3 [They being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the Righteousness of God.] Such kind of zeal for good works is not according to the knowledge of the Gospel.  
2. Presuming upon, trusting unto, and resting on Christ and his Righteousness for salvation without any personal righteousness and holiness in ourselves, which latter is the common and most damning presumption of the ignorant and profane multitude, who though they allow themselves in known wickednesses, yet will rest upon Christ for salvation, as is evident to be seen in sad experience; this being no new thing, but a common thing of old for wicked men in their wickedness to lean and to stay themselves upon the Lord, as appears by Isai. 48.2. They did call themselves of the holy City, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel, albeit they did persist in their obstinacy, their neck being as an iron sinew, and their brow as brass. ver. 4. See also Micah 3.11 The Heads thereof judge for reward, and the Priests thereof teach for hire, and the Prophets thereof divine for money, yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil shall come unto us. And that it shall be thus with very many in the Church to the world's end, doth seem to be a thing as it were foretold by our Saviour, saying, Matth. 7.22, 23. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out devils? Have not we eat and drunk in thy presence? And then I will profess unto you, I never knew you, depart from me all ye that work iniquity. The sin of those Professors was not (as some suppose, alleging that Scripture as a warning whereby to drive people from resting in their duties) that they did make a Christ of their duties, and did rest upon them for salvation; but their sin, (as is evident by the answer which Christ gives to them) was this, viz. That they trusted to Christ, and expected that Christ should save them (they making an external profession of his name,) in their profane course of life: for could those formal Professors have said to Christ as Saint Paul did, I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; or could they say with that faithful servant, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds; or with Hezekiah, I have walked before thee with a perfect heart. Christ would not have said to them, Depart from me, ye Scribes and Pharisees, ye Merit-mongers, that expect salvation from your own righteousness, and not from mine; but he would have said to them, Euge, hone serve, Well done good and faithful servants, enter ye into the joy of your Lord. But as David did trust God for his bodily safety, in such sort should we trust in God for our souls safety and salvation, Psalm 44.6. I will not trust to my bow, neither shall my own sword save me, says he. And yet for all that David did not trust in God that God would save him without his bow, or without his sword; for if so, he would never have blessed God for teaching his hands to war and his fingers to fight, and for girding him with strength, in so much a● that a bow of steel was broken by his arms. Even so let a Christian say, I will not trust to my own Duties, Works, Graces, Holiness, neither shall my own inherent righteousness save me, and yet I will not trust to be saved without them.  
If what I have so largely spoken in this place be thought by any to be insufficient, whereby to prevent or wipe off from me the said imputation of making good works to be physical causes of salvation, I shall wish such a one to consider, That as the Prophet Isaiah doth style a Saints eternal reward, the fruit of his do, and his enjoyment of that reward, his eating the fruit of those his do, chap. 3.10. So the blessed Apostle Saint Paul (that great Preacher of free grace, and Exalter of Christ's righteousness) doth resemble good works to seed sown, and salvation to the crop or harvest. Gal 6.8. He that soweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting; by sowing to the Spirit, meaning, as he interprets himself, ver. 9 well doing, or doing that which is good; this seed, and that crop being in the phrase of the Prophet Hosea, Righteousness and Mercy, chap. 10.12. Sow to your selus in righteousness (which Solomon styleth, Sowing righteousness, Prov. 11.18.) reap in mercy. So that if I shall be thought blame-worthy for the foresaid comparisons as if I made good works to be physical causes of salvation, the foresaid Prophets and Apostles will be alike liable to the same censures, the thought of which ought to be far from us. I have been the larger in this Consectary, because I judge it to be of weight and consequence more than ordinary.   

CHAP. XXIX. The Conclusion.  
THE next Work which I design to myself as a second part of this Tractate concerning the Nature of Forgiveness of Sin, is to find out and set down those several phrases both in the Old and New Testament which I take to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, synonimous, commensurate, or equivalent with forgiveness of sin, and to deduce from thence sundry Consectaries according to the method observed in this part.  
But because I am willing to make trial what acceptance this first part of my labour will find, before I publish a second; and because it may perhaps be long ere my leisure from my weekly pains in preaching will permit me fully to accomplish what I intent as a supplement hereof; I will therefore suffix unto this first Part that which otherwise I had reserved for the close of my whole labour of this kind; viz. The following Consolatory Apology. or Apologetical consolation, saying:  
If in this present undertaking, to discover the true and full nature of forgiveness of sin, I have in aught [Humanum passus,] 
For Homo sum, & humani nihil à me alienum puto.  committed any sin of Error, and needing forgiveness, my comfort is, that (as my heart tells me, and I hope, that how deceitful soever, yet therein it doth not much deceive me) I am, and by the grace of God I ever shall be ready at any time upon the discovery thereof, plainly to confess it; and I am well assured from the Text in hand, That in so doing God is not only very gracious and merciful, but just and faithful likewise to forgive it. And as for the pardon of man, especially of my fellow servants and brethren in the Ministryl what shall I say? Shall I say, that I despise it, and care not much for it? God forbidden, let such a spirit of pride and disdain be far and far from me, and not from me only, but from all those who profess themselves to be disciples unto that Lord, who hath given both a Precept and a Pattern of Humility unto all his servants, instructing them hereunto both Voce & Vitâ, saying, Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart. I am therefore resolved by the helping grace of God, not to stick to crave pardon of man as well as of God, according as my need of it, and necessity of ask it shall be made appear unto me; and in so doing I do not at all doubt, but that I shall obtain it, according to that Hemistick,— Veniam petimusque damusque vicissim. Even so, O thou Preserver of men, for Christ Jesus his sake; Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. Amen, Amen.  Luke 2.14. 
Glory to God in the Highest, on earth peace, good will towards men.  
FINIS.    

The CONTENTS of the several CHAPTERS.  

Chap. 1. AN Introduction to the whole p. 1  
Chap. 2. The various phrases whereby God's forgiving sin, and his not forgiving sin are intimated and expressed in Scripture; which said phrases of both kinds are sorted into Negative and Affirmative. p. 5  
Chap. 3. Reasons and Grounds for the said variety of phrase, or various expressions, together with rules for a right understanding and due interpretation of them. p. 16  
Chap. 4. What forgiveness of sin is not, laid down in four Negative Propositions p 26  
Chap. 5 What forgiveness of is, laid down in two Affirmative Propositions, together with the Explication of them. p. 38  
Chap. 6 The various senses or significations, wherein forgiveness of sin is taken in Scripture, it being taken in four several senses, but most commonly and signally in one sense, and what sense that is, declared. p. 53  
Chap. 7. That a Reprobate is said in some sense, even in a Scripture sense to be pardoned, and how. p. 66  
Chap. 8 That a sinner, notwithstanding his pardon (upon the main) may, and ofttimes doth suffer temporal punishments for his sins, together with an Answer to several Objections, wherein the distinction betwixt chastisements and punishments is examined, & how far forth allowable, declared; wherein also the true differences betwixt the sufferings of the godly and the wicked are asserted and proved; and the false ones, (commonly assigned) are rejected and refuted. That the Saints may, and ofttimes do in this life suffer for their sins, Christ's satisfaction notwithstanding, proved and cleared. In what sense God doth, and in what sense he doth not remember the sins of Believers, laid down in sundry Propositions, Affirmative & Negative; wherein likewise is declared what difference there is betwixt Gods remembering the sins of the godly, and of the wicked, as also betwixt his remembering the sins if Believers under the Old Testament, and the sins of Believers under the New Testament. p. 67  
Chap. 9 Caution given as touching the interpretation of such metaphorical phrases whereby forgiveness of sin is expressed, that we construe them warily and in a sober sense. p. 99  
Chap. 10 In what sense, or how far forth, as true and false, those common say 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. p. 102  
Chap. 11. 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 self same thing. The four following Chapters do declare, That forgiveness of sin is a dividual, and not an individual action, as is commonly supposed. p. 107  
Chap. 12. That the distinction of the pardon of sin into total or partial, perfect or imperfect is a justifiable distinction. p. 113  
Chap. 13. That one and the same sin may be more or less pardoned p. 114  
Chap. 14. That no sinner is fully pardoned in this life, nor yet afore the day of Judgement. p. 115  
Chap. 15. The difference betwixt remission of sin and sanctification, commonly assigned, (that being said to be perfect in this life, this imperfect) rejected and refuted. p. 117  
Chap. 16. That remission of sin doth imply somewhat positive as well as privative, and for that reason that it differs not from Justification, as hath been by some supposed. p. 120  
Chap. 17. That one and the same sin may be said, and that in a Scripture sense, to be pardoned and not pardoned, to be imputed, and not imputed to a sinner 123  
Chap. 18. The necessity for believers themselves to pray daily for pardon (according to the tenor of the fifth Petition in the Lord's Prayer) asserted and evinced, as well by Argument as answer to an Objection; it being withal more at large and distinctly declared, what are the particular things which a Believer (according to the tenor of that Petition) is to pray for 125  
Chap. 19 An answer to the three following Questions, 

1. Doth God always pardon a sinner instantly upon the confession of his sins?  
2. In what sense, or how far forth doth a sinner receive a present pardon immediately upon the confession of his sins?  
3. Whether a truly penitent and believing sinner, having once confessed a sin, is at any time thereafter to confess it in order to forgiveness? The Affirmative to which last Question is asserted and proved. Certain particulars added as Cautions for the preventing of mistakes, and for the better understanding of the Author's true sense and meaning.   p. 137  
Chap. 20. That all sins, past, present, and to come, are not at once actually pardoned. That no sin is from eternity actually pardoned. An Objection answered. That no sin is actually pardoned, till the sinner be in a capacity of receiving or enjoying it. What those things are which do put a sinner into a capacity of actual pardon, declared in their particulars, together with Reasons for the remarkableness of the same. An Objection answered. With a vindicating of that Assertion in Rom. 4.17. [wherein God is said to call the things that are not, as though they were] from Antinomian purposes. p. 163  
Chap. 21. Caution given as touching a right understanding of the two following Propositions, laid down by that very learned & pious Divine, Mr. Anthony Burges, in his Sermons concerning Justification, viz. 

1. No wicked man ever hath any sin forgiven him.  
2. It is onething for God to forgive, and another thing for God not to demand and exact punishments.   p. 187  
Chap. 22. That forgiveness of sin is a Transient, not Immanent act in God, proved▪ and cleared. Several descriptions of actions Immanent and Transient set down. Mr. Baxter vindicated in a passage about this distinction, wherein Mr. Kendal hath (as the Author thinks) causelessly excepted against him. Transient Actions are of two sorts, and unto what sort of transient Actions forgiveness of sin is to be referred. p. 192  
Chap. 23. That remission of sin, [Quoad terminum remotum or as in execution;] is a real, yea, physical change, and not a change purely relative, as is commonly supposed. p 204  
Chap. 24. The description of forgiveness of sin, given by that very learned and godly Divine Dr. Twisse, (which is by some highly commended as most accurate) examined and refuted, and the evil consequences of the same detected, together with the Author's Apology for his taking upon him in aught to express his dissent from men of such prime worth (Stars of the first Magnitude) as confessedly that Doctor was. p. 209  
Chap. 25. 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. p. 223  
Chap. 26. That a Believer during his warfare on earth is to fear hell and damnation why, and how, proved and manifested, as also cleared in the way of answer to several Objections, notwithstanding the Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints be acknowledged; in answer to which Objections, the consistency and co-operation of the love of God, and the fear of God is proved. What manner of fear it is that love doth expel, and what manner of fear it is that love doth retain, declared: Notwithstanding, that Believers are restrained by the love of God, yet that God doth use several other means whereby to constrain; i. e. effectually to induce them, proved: and what those several means are, specified more at large. The consistency and co-operation of faith and fear, maintained and proved. That filial and slavish fear do not differ in their object matter, or in the thing feared, but in the manner of fearing, asserted, and how, proved and cleared by a due interpretation of that Scripture in Luke 1.74. The difference betwixt fear as it is the fruit of the spirit of bondage, and as a fruit of the Spirit of Adoption, opened and asserted. p. 235  
Chap. 27 That a Minister of the Gospel hath no warrant so to absolve a Believer, as in the name of God to tell him, That his sins are as absolutely pardoned, and that he is as absolutely sure of heaven, as if he were already in heaven. p. 289  
Chap. 28. That the repentance, which the Gospel requires, is not only repentance [from] the pardon of our sins, as the Antinomians affirm, but [for] the pardon of them, proved and evinced by several Arguments. Several Objections of the Antinomians answered; wherein it is punctually declared, In what sense Evangelical Repentance may be said to be [from] pardon of sin, and in what sense [for] the pardon of it. It is disputable whether God's glory and our own salvation are to be looked at as two ends, or only as one; the former being a necessary result of the latter. An Objection answered, That it is a singular favour of God, and a favour in some sense peculiar to the times of the New Testament, that God hath so clearly revealed unto us our eternal salvation, (as the great end, not excluding, but including his glory) of man's working, or of all, Christian duty. That good works may be styled the way to salvation. That the difference betwixt the Covenant of Works and of Grace lies not in this, that Adam was to work for life, and we not for, but only from life. Our own good works, duties, graces or holiness, how far forth, or in what sense to be disclaimed, and not trusted unto for salvation; as also in what sense, or how fare forth they may be trusted unto, or rested in for salvation, declared more at large. A Caution annexed to prevent mistake. That there are two kinds of presumption, both which are distinctly to be made known unto people by the Ministers of the Gospel, and carefully to be avoided by all, as dangerous rocks in the steering of our course towards the haven of eternal happiness. p. 297  
Chap. 29 The Conclusion. p. 350   
FINIS.   

In the Epistle. 〈…〉 above, p. 23 l. 19 r. direct  
Book. Pag, 1. line 18. r. God. p. 9 l. 3 r. mercy. l 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p 11 r Gods. p 17 r Gods. p 17 r sort allusive. p 19 l 12 r. translatitious. p 35 l 16 r intuitive. l 24 for same, r sin. p 38 l 21 for second, r. double. p 58 l 18 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p 73 l 13 for are r is. and for be r by. l 16 r the. p 77 l 14 r this. p 79 l 17 r or be for sin. p 88 marg l 9 r morally. p 95 l 20 r judicial. p 101 l 24 for as r or. l 25 r great. p 103 l 19 for the other r this. p 108 l 1 for cherish r there is, l 3 for he r the. p 117 l 15 blot out [in] p i 42 l 11 for and r but. p 144 l 4 r bold. p 151 l 22 r Epidemica. p 157 l 23 blot out [threatening] p 203 l 3 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l 12 for esse r se. p 205 l 28 r contradistinction. p 216 l 4 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p 229 l 4 blot out [that] p 233 l 24 for or r and, and marg l 2 r substrata. p 248 l 19 for with r in. p 250 r will execute. p 257 l 2 r unfaithfulness. p 272 l 22 r into. p 278 l 24 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p 279 l 6 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p 285 l 29 r doth. p 294 l 8 r according to. p 336 l 10 for next r first.