indeed prove, that the salvation of the godly is sure, so that it cannot fail. That we deny not: only we judge, that the doctrine we impugn, is not the doctrine of the gospel; because it is not consistent with this certainty of the salvation of the regenerate, which is here taught us by the scripture cited; but their salvation is sufficiently sure, without this renewing of the acts of repentance, though in some cases at least it is necessary to their comfort. I deny not, but there are promises of the influences of grace for the renewing of repentance, made unto believers: but this I say, that they are no more to be extended to every time, than the promises of increase of grace; so that they are indefinite in respect of time. It is a command to grow in grace, and there is a promise thereof too, Psal. xcii. 13, 14. as well as repentance is commanded and promised. And yet I suppose it will not be denied, but that the last days of some may be worse than their first days, and that believers may die in a time of the decay of grace. But if we may judge of what God hath promised (as certainly we may) by the event, for "his counsel shall stand," we shall soon find that there is no such thing. Let us consider Eli* sitting by the way-side, and in an instant falling back and breaking his neck. Was it not his sin, that the news of the ark of God being taken, did so affect him as to destroy nature? Though this argued much good in him, yet doubtless it was his sin, arising from weakness of faith; which, if it had been duly exercised, would rather have set him on to wrestle with God for the bringing of the ark back again; which faith could tell he was able enough to do. Yet Eli dies under this sin unrepented of; but yet we have no reason to doubt his being in glory. Yea, unless we maintain a perfection of grace in this life, it is impossible to evite this: for suppose that the renewed acts of repentance were the actions of the last moments of our time, yet repentance itself is as filthy rags; there is still sin in it when it is in the most lively exercise; so that either we must never die, or die under sin unrepented of. It will not at all satisfy here to say, that the question is not to be understood of sins of infirmity, but of the more gross sins; that the latter is that which thus makes liable to eternal wrath. For, 1. The distinction is naught here; all the sins of the godly being sins of infirmity, Heb. iv. 15. Wherefore I cannot but differ from Mr. Bridge, who, in his sermon" of the sin of infirmity,"† tells us, that a great, gross, foul, scandalous sin cannot be a sin of infirmity. He gives the reason, because it is a sickness, not a weakness. If a man have some distemper in his body, and yet he bears 1 Sam. iv. 18. † Prop. 2. VOL. VI. up to meat and to his work, he is not sick, but hath an infirmity. Thus he. Now, I think it will not be denied, but a godly man may fall into a great, gross, and scandalous sin; so then they fall into sins that are not sins of infirmity. Let none then that have fallen into gross sins, take any comfort of that, Heb. iv. 15. "For we have not an High Priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; though he was in all points tempted like as they have been," even to those of the grossest sort, self-murder, and worshipping of the devil. This is strange divinity. The reason is no less strange; because it is a sickness, not a weakness. The learned gentleman Leigh* tells us, that astheneia, the word put for infirmity signifies invaletudo, morbus often, and imbecillitas, debilitas, morbus for which he cites Plato, Xenophon, and Thucydides. And the Apostle, when he would show what sickness, or rather death, we were under by nature, he tells us, we were infirm, so far were we from bearing up to work, Rom. v. 6. onton hemon asthenon. But not to stand on words; Was not Peter's sin in denying of his Master a sin of infirmity? He was resolved against it; and Christ prayed for him, that his faith should not fail; he had a principle of resistance within, by the weakness whereof the tempter gained the day: so that it was a sin of infirmity indeed, yet a gross sin.t But the foresaid author tells us, that, properly and strictly, an infirmity is that sin which a man is taken captive by, against his will, Rom. vii. that is, against the general bent and frame of his heart, which he hath not present strength to resist. So Rom. xv. 1. Thus he. And this is the very truth which the scripture teacheth, Rom. vii. and elsewhere; and thus it was with David, Peter, and others, in their gross sins. But here is the mystery of this distinction according to him, that gross sins committed by a believer are not against his will, nor the general bent of his heart; that there is no resistance at all made to the temptation by the will, but that it goes on with full swing. And so Rom. vii. hath no respect to gross sins: and that law whereby a godly man is brought into captivity, against his will, to the law of sin that is in his members, hath no respect to adultery, fornication, &c.; the contrary whereof the Apostle teacheth, Gal. v. 17, 19; and John, while he tells us, that he that is born of God doth not commit sin, 1 John. iii. 9. But enough of this. The learned Zanchius teacheth more orthodoxly in answer to that question, "But how do the saints make increase when they sin daily, and sometimes most grossly?" His answer is, "They sin of infirmity and according to the flesh; but their mind abides right with God." But, 2. Those sins which are quotidianæ incursionis, as some term them, and the more • Crit. Sac. + Ubi supra. Cum on Eph. iv. 15. p. 147. gross sins are alike as to the point in hand; in regard it is not sin as it is lesser or greater, more or less evitable, but sin as contrary to the law of God," that makes men liable to God's wrath or eternal punishment in actu primo; and sin as it is unrepented of (ad hominem), that makes them liable in actu secundo; for a qua tali ad omne valet consequentia. Further, I urge, That a believer may die even under gross sins unrepeuted of: as we see in the Patriarchs and others their polygamy and incestuous marriages: which I hope will readily be reckoned gross sins: yet it is generally said by divines, that they repented not of these sins expressly, but virtually. Which is no doubt a firm truth. But if any shall make use of it here for an evasion, it will be so far from helping them, that it is a manifest yielding of the cause: for what is virtual repentance, but actual repentance virtute suæ causæ ?* So that the meaning is, That although they did not expressly and actually repent, yet they had a principle or habit of repentance in them, which, positis ad agendum requisitis, would have broke forth into action with respect to that particular. But the question is not of this virtual and habitual repentance; for a believer in the case supposed hath still the habit of repentance, and the act is in the virtue of the cause, power, or habit; but it is of actual repentance, or else there is nothing said at all. If any shall say, that this is not the virtual repentance they mean, but that it is when a man is heartily affected with such a particular sin or sins as he knows, and for the corrupt inclination that is in him that is the seed of all, though there be some particular which either he knows not, or is not actually in his mind; yet so he may be said virtually to repent of the same; because he repents of one sin upon the account which is common to all: I answer, That when it comes to the arguments for it, taken from the necessity of confession, forsaking, &c. more than all this seems to be pleaded for. But however, the necessity of actual repentance is pleaded for in the case of sins known, and minded, but not in the case of sins unknown, or out of mind. But where find they this difference? Psal. xix. 12. "Cleanse thou me from secret sin," will not ground it; for that is a prayer for repentance, not repentance itself otherwise than was said before; unless it be said, as is indeed alleged, that the actual turning from one sin unto God, is a virtual turning from all, sufficient to bring the soul from under the liableness to eternal wrath for the sin unminded and unknown; which I suppose they shall not easely prove: and, if I mistake not, it will be found inconsistant with their own principles; for they will readily allege Mares. indist. cast. p. 149. for their cause, I mean the necessity of repentance in believers in order to their pardon, David's case, supposing him to be liable to eternal punishment ay and until he renewed his repentance, when Nathan came unto him and yet I think it will be very hard to say, that David, all that three quarters of a year and more, never exercised one act of repentance for any one sin all that time. So Joseph's brethren remind their sin in selling Joseph, when they say, "We are verily guilty concerning our brother;" which our adversaries understand of actual liableness to eternal wrath. But who can suppose, that they did not forsake one sin by repentance all that time; But what more ordinary than for saints to commit sins which they know not to be sins for some time; or if they do, they slip out of their mind not repented of: yet ere they know that particular action to have been sinful, or before the other come back into their minds, it may be a long time, and they may both have and lose a tender frame, and a repenting heart, in the interval. I say then, in this case, when the sin is known, and minded first before actual repentance for the same, the man is either actually liable to eternal punishment for it, or not. If it be, then the virtual repentance now pleaded for is not sufficient to free the soul from actual liableness to eternal punishment, as is alleged: if not, then actual repentance is not necessary for the taking off the obligation to eternal wrath by known sin; the contrary whereof is here pleaded. Whence it appears, that this is a mere shifting of the thing that is in question. Moreover, it were surely worth their pains who stand so much for believers' liableness to eternal wrath by their sins while unrepented of, seriously to consider, whether or not all those that die by their own hands, are set beyond a possibility of salvation; and whether or not it may be, that some truly godly under unrepented of sin may be struct with madness, or taken with a raging fever, and die in that case? and whether or not good men in a carnally secure frame may be killed while asleep, and surprised with sudden death; It may be rationally supposed that many such cases fall out in the .world. * ARG. VII. Justification is an instantaneous act, and immediately perfect upon our believing, as is generally maintained by the orthodox: for, as Mr. Durham says, "If Justification be not immediately perfect, it must either be upon one's not believing in Christ, or because of some defect of the righteousness that faith presenteth, and so faith were not a sufficient shield; or it must be because the word doth not pronounce him just upon the ground of that righteousness; which were also absurd." I shall not stand more upon the * Com. on Rev. iii. p. 150. proof of this. But from thence it follows, that the after sins of the justified do not make them actually liable to eternal punishment: which I prove thus. The state of perfect justification is either interrupted by the after sins of believers, or not. If ye say it is, then, 1. The gifts and calling of God are not without repentance. 2. A believer is sometimes under grace, sometimes under the law. 3. There is condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus; or, the after sins of believers dissolve the union. I shall say no more of this at the time. If ye say, it is not interrupted by their after sins, then they do not make them liable to eternal wrath; for an uninterrupted state of justification, and being actually liable to eternal wrath, are utterly inconsistent. And I prove the assertion thus. 1. To be justified, is to be absolved from guilt in actu secundo. To be liable actually to eternal punishment, is not to be absolved from guilt in actu secundo; which is a flat contradiction: The man is absolved, and not absolved; absolved, because justified; not absolved, because he is liable to eternal punishment. I know it will be said, for solving the matter, that it is in different respects that the man is absolved, and not absolved; absolved in respect of sins repented of; not absolved in respect of sins unrepented; he is justified in respect of his state, but in respect of that particular sin or sins he is liable to eternal wrath. But I answer, That this is meant either of the man's past state, whereof he hath no benefit now, or of his present state. If you say the former, then the state of justification is interrupted, in such sort that the man must begin anew again, as at the first moment of believing; and so the believer under unrepented of sin, is in no better case, in respect of justification before God, than he was when unconverted; and if so, why is it urged here? If it be meant of his present state, the distinction is not to be admitted: for the man hath no benefit of that state, more than what flows from former experience of God's goodness, and readiness to forgive; and so his state is not indeed a state of justification, (call it as you will), but of condemnation; for bonum non nisi ex integra causa, malum ex quolibet defectu: which, according to the law, is applicable here; for the curse is pronounced on him "that continueth not in all things written in the law to do them," Gal. iii. 10; and the Spirit of the Lord expressly tells us, that "whosoever offends in one point, is guilty of all," James ii. 10.; and when "the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, all the righteousness that he hath done, shall not be mentioned," Ezek. xviii. 24. I confess these scriptures hold forth the Lord's way of dealing with men according to the covenant of works, not according to the covenant of grace; which knows nothing of con |