The next thing in the progress of sin is lust’s conceiving. When it hath turned off the heart from its communion with God or consideration of its duty, and entangled or hampered the affections in delight with the sinful object proposed, prevailing with the soul to dwell with some complacency upon the thoughts of sin, it then falleth to “conceiving;” that is, it warms, foments, cherisheth thoughts and desires of the sin entertained, until it so far prevails upon the will (in them in whose wills there is an opposition unto it), that, being wearied out with the solicitations of the flesh, it giveth over its power, as to its actual predominant exercise, and sensibly dissenteth not from the sin whereunto it is prompted. That this may sometimes befall a regenerate person I have granted before, and what is the difference herein betwixt them and unregenerate persons may be collected from what hath been already delivered.

Of the next step of sin, which is its bringing forth, or the actual accomplishment of the sin so conceived, as above expressed, there is the same reason. Τίκτει, “it bringeth out” of its womb the child of sin which it had conceived. It is the actual perpetration of sin formerly consented unto that is expressed under this metaphor. I have little to add upon this head to what was formerly spoken; for, —

1. As they are not the sins of daily infirmity that are here intended, in the place of the apostle under consideration, but such as lie in an immediate tendency unto death, as to their eminent guilt; as also being the fruit of the heart’s conception of sin, by fomenting and warming thoughts of sin with delight, until consent unto it be prevalent in the soul: so falls of this nature in the saints are extraordinary, and always attended with their loss of peace, the weakening of their faith, wounding of their souls, and obnoxiousness, without repentance, unto death. God, indeed, hath provided better things for them; but for themselves, they have done their endeavour to destroy their own souls.

2. That God never suffereth his saints to fall thus, but it is for the accomplishment of some very glorious end of his, in their afflictions, trials, patience, humiliation; which he will bring about. These ends of God are many and various. I shall not enter into a particular discourse concerning them.

3. That an impenitent continuance in and under the guilt of such a sin is a sore sign of a heart that neither hath nor ever had any true faith. In others, there is a truth in that of Austin, who affirmed that “he dared say that it might be good for some to have fallen into some eminent particular sin, for their humiliation and caution all their days.”

4. That this frequent conception of sin and bringing of it forth, in persons who have been heightened by conviction to a great regularity of walking and conversation, is the means whereby they do go forth unto that which is mentioned in the last place, which is finishing of sin; that is, so to be brought under the power of it as to complete the whole work of sin. Now, men bring it forth by the temptations and upon the surprisals forementioned; but they that come to finish it, or do the whole work of it, in them it will bring forth death. This I take to be the intendment of that expression, Ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα, “Sin perfected.” The word ἀποτελεῖν is nowhere used in the New Testament; τελεῖν ανδ ἐπιτελεῖν are. There is τὸν νόμον τελεῖν, which is, not to do any one act which the law requireth, but to walk studiously and constantly according to the rule thereof; and so ἐπιτελεῖν, as the apostle useth it, Phil. i. 6, where we translate it, as here, ἀποτελεῖν. To “perfect the good work,” is to walk in the way of grace and the gospel unto the end: so to “perfect sin” is to fulfil the work of sin and to walk in the way of sin, to be under the dominion and reign of sin so far as to be carried out in a course of sinning. And this is that alone which we exempt believers from; which that they are exempted from, unto all that hath formerly been spoken, I shall add the consideration of one place of Scripture, being turned aside from my thoughts of handling this at large as the second part of the doctrine of the saints’ perseverance, the former being grown under my hands beyond expectation.

Now, this place is 1 John iii. 9, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God;” — a place of Scripture that always hath amazed the adversaries of the doctrine which hitherto, through the grace of God, we have asserted, being in itself fully sufficient to captivate every understanding unto the obedience of its truth that is not resolved to cleave to a contrary conclusion, let what demonstration soever lie against it. In the defence of the doctrine under consideration, should we use expressions of the same importance with those here used by the apostle, as we should abundantly satisfy ourselves that we had delivered our mind and sense to the understanding of any indifferent person with whom we might have to do, so we should by no means avoid all those imputations of folly and error that our doctrine suffereth under from the men that have entertained an enmity against it, as it is held forth in equivalent expressions by us. The authority of the Holy Ghost hath gained thus much upon our adversaries, that when he asserteth in express and expressive terms the very thing or things that in us are called “folly,” evasions should be studied, and pains taken to rack his words to a sense which they will not bear, rather than plainly to deny his authority. But let the words, with the scope and tendency, be considered. The scope and intendment of the apostle in the place is, to give a discriminating character of the children of God and the children of the devil. Thus he fully expresseth himself unto us, verse 10: “In this,” saith he, “the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother;” and withal, to press on an exhortation against sin, whereunto he useth the argument that lieth in the following words, “If any one sin that thinketh himself to be born of God, he deceiveth himself:” verses 7, 8, “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil.” But how proveth he this? In these words, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, — doth not, cannot sin.” Such is the genius and nature of the children of God, of them that are born of him, that they do not, they cannot sin. You are persuaded that you are so born of God; therefore you must press after such a frame, such an ingenie and disposition, such a principle, as that thereby you cannot sin. It must manifest itself to be in you, if you be the children of God.

Now, whereas it is offered by Mr Goodwin, chap. x. sect. 27, p. 194, “That the context or scope of the whole place doth not invite such an exposition as is usually insisted on, because” (saith he) “the intent and drift of the apostle, from verse 3 even to the end of the chapter (as he that doth but run the context over may read), is not to show or argue whether the sons of God may possibly in time so degenerate as to live sinfully and die impenitently; but to evince this, that those who claim the great honour and privilege of being the children of God cannot justify or make good this claim, neither unto others nor unto themselves, but by a holy and Christian life and conversation. Now, it is one thing to argue and prove who are the sons of God at present; another, whether they who are such at present must of necessity always so continue. The former is the apostle’s theme in the context; the latter he is wholly silent of.”

I say, It is evident that the scope of the place is to evince that in the children of God, those that are born of him, there is such a principle, genius, new nature, as that upon the account thereof they cannot sin; and therefore, that those who have not such principles in them, whatever their pretences be, are not indeed born of God; — and in this he manifesteth that those who are indeed born of God cannot possibly so degenerate as to fall into total impenitency, so as to become children of the devil, which he emphatically affirmeth.

He doth, indeed, declare that none can make good their title to be children of God, but those who can justify their claim by a holy and Christian conversation; but yet, moreover, he maketh good the assertion by this farther discovery which he maketh of their new nature to be such as that they cannot sin, or degenerate into a condition of lying under the power of a vain conversation. So that though his intent should not be primarily to manifest that those who are at present the children of God cannot apostatize, but must so continue, yet it is to confirm their nature and genius to be such, with the principles which from God they have received, that so it shall be with them, so they shall abide; and to this he is not silent, but eminently expressive.

The context being thus clear, the words themselves are a proposition or thesis, and a reason for the confirmation of the truth of that proposition. The proposition is ready at hand in the words, “He that is born of God doth not, cannot commit sin.” The reason of the proposition confirming the truth thereof is twofold:— 1. Because he is born of God; 2. Because His seed, whereof he is so born, remaineth.

The proposition is universal: Πᾶς ὁ γεγενημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, “Every one that is born of God;” whence these two things ensue:— 1. The truth of it hath a necessary cause or causes. Universal propositions must have so, or they are not true. If that which is their ground may be otherwise, it invalidates their certainty. Such, then, must be the cause of this assertion of the apostle. 2. That it compriseth all and every one that is interested in that which is the cause of the certainty of this universal assertion or proposition; “every one who is born of God,” that hath this seed, be he young or old, weak or strong, wise or foolish, exercised in the ways of God or newly entered into them, all is one. Whosoever is thus interested in the foundation is equally interested in the inference.

In the proposition itself may be considered the subject, and what is affirmed of it. The subject is, “Every one that is born of God.” That which is affirmed of it is, “Sinneth not, cannot sin.”

1. For the first, namely, the subject, they are those which are “born of God;” and who they are that are so born of God the Scripture is clear in, neither is there any difference of importance as to the intendment of this expression. Those who suppose that believers of some eminency only are denoted in it, do not consider that all believers whatever are sharers in the grace intended therein. They are all said to be born not of the will of the flesh, but of God, John i. 13; for it is ascribed to all believers on the name of Christ, verse 12. He begetteth them all of his own will, James i. 18; as also, 1 Pet. i. 23. He is said to beget them, as to quicken them, Eph. ii. 1; and they to be born of him, as they are quickened or raised from the dead. Two things are intimated in this expression:— (1.) A new principle, habit, or spiritual life, which such persons have; hence they are said to be “born.” As they who are born in the world are partakers of a vital principle, that is the foundation of all their actions, so have they here a new life, a new vital principle. By their being born are they made partakers of it. (2.) The divine original of that principle of life is from God. They have the principle of life immediately from him; and therefore are said to be “born of God.” And both these considerations are here used as descriptions of the subject; and in the close of the reason of the proposition, they are insisted on as the cause of that effect of not sinning: “He sinneth not, because he is born of God.” Both the nature of the principle itself, which in itself is abiding, and the rise or original that it hath from God, have an influence into that causality that is ascribed to it; but about this there can be no great contest.

2. That which is affirmed of every such person is, that he “doth not commit sin.” That this expression is to be attended with its restrictions and limitations is evident from that contrariety wherein, in its whole latitude, it standeth to sundry other testimonies in the book of God, yea, in this very epistle. “There is no man that doeth good, and sinneth not,” saith Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 46; and, “In many things we offend all,” saith James, in chap. iii. 2. And this apostle putteth all out of question by convincing the best of saints that have “communion with the Father and with his Son,” that by saying we have no sin, by a denial of it, we involve ourselves in the guilt of it: “ ‘If we,’ we apostles, we who have fellowship with the Father and the Son, ‘say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,’ ” 1 John i. 8. “Doth not commit sin,” then, cannot be taken absolutely for Doth not sin at all. There is a synecdoche in the words, and they must be restrained to some kind of sin, or to some manner or degree in or of sinning. Some say, “ ‘He doth not, cannot sin,’ is, They do not commit sin with delight, not deliberately and with their full and whole will, without reluctancy and opposition in their wills unto sin” (which reluctancy is at a vast distance from the reluctancy that is raised in wicked men from the convictions of their conscience and judgment); which sense is canvassed by Mr Goodwin to no advantage at all, sect. 25, for, in the way and manner formerly explained, this may well take place. “Doth not commit sin,” then, is, Doth not so commit sin as that sin should reign in him spoken of, and prevail with him to death. There is an emphasis and intension in the words, “Doth not commit sin,” — that is, Doth not so commit it as to be given up to the power of it; he doth not commit sin in such a way as to be separated from communion with God thereby, which is only done when sin taketh the rule or reign in any person.

“This exposition,” Mr Goodwin saith, “if it can be made to stand upright, will bear the weight of the whole cause depending alone; but as it is, it argueth weakness to determine for our own sense in a controversy or question, without giving a very substantial reason for the exposition.” I doubt if Mr Goodwin’s discourses in this treatise were to be tried by this rule, a man might, upon very substantial grounds and reasons, call many of his assertions into controversy. And because he addeth, that “such is his hard hap, he can meet with no reasons at all,” I must needs question whether he made any diligent search or no; to this purpose I shall supply him with one or two that lie hard at hand.

This, then, to be the intendment of the words is evident, —

1. From the scope of the place and aim of the apostle therein; this is, to distinguish, as was said, betwixt the children of God and of the devil. The children of the devil commit sin: Verse 8, “He that committeth sin is of the devil,” as he giveth an instance of one that did so sin. Verse 12, “Cain,” saith he, “was of the devil; he was of that wicked one, and he committed sin.” How did Cain commit sin? Impenitently, to death; that is the committing of sin which is ascribed to them that are of the devil, of the wicked one. “Now,” saith he, “whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;” that is, he doth not so commit sin as the children of the devil, that wicked one, do; he sins not to death, with impenitency.

2. The same apostle doth most eminently clear his own intendment in this expression, chap. v. 17, 18, of this epistle, “All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” That expression, verse 18, “Sinneth not,” standeth in opposition to the sin mentioned, verse 16, “Sin unto death.” “ ‘There is a sin unto death;’ but ‘he that is born of God sinneth not’ unto death.” So that both the context and the exposition of the words given in a parallel place afford us the sense insisted on.

Three reasons are attempted by Mr Goodwin against this exposition; “and many more,” saith he, “are at hand,” which it seems he is willing to spare for another season. Of those that he is pleased to use, I have already considered that which is of the chiefest importance, being taken from the scope of the place. It hath been already declared, not only that the sense by him urged is not suitable to the intendment of the Holy Ghost, and that Mr Goodwin is not a little mistaken in his analysis of the chapter, but that the exposition insisted on by us is from thence enforced.

His other reasons are:— first, “That the grammar or letter of the phrase breatheth not the least air of such a sense.”

Ans. That the expression is synecdochical was before affirmed; what it importeth under the power of that figure is the grammatical sense of the words. To the grammatical regularity and signification of them doth their figurativeness belong. Let the words be restrained, as the figure requireth, and the sense is most proper, as was signified.

But secondly, saith he, “The phrase of ‘committing sin’ is nowhere in the Scripture found in such a sense as to sin with final impenitency, or to sin to death.”

Ans. The contrary hath been demonstrated. The same phrase necessarily importeth no less, verse 8 of this chapter; and an equivalent expression, beyond all contradiction, intendeth the same, chap. v. 17, 18. Besides, a phrase may be so circumstantiated as to be in one only place restrained to a sense which it doth not elsewhere necessarily import. So that, notwithstanding these exceptions, the exposition of the words is clear as before given in. And yet this is all Mr Goodwin produceth as his ground and foundation whereon to stand in denying this proposition, “He that is born of God sinneth not;” — that is, falleth not under the power of reigning sin, sinneth not to death, as the children of the wicked one do: which I shall leave under that consideration wherewith it is educed from the scope of the text, and the parallel place of chap. v. 17, 18. The truth is, there is not much need to contend about this expression, Mr Goodwin granting that the intendment of it is, “That such as are born of God do not walk ordinarily and customarily in any ways of known sin,” sect. 28; “which,” as he saith, “is the import of that phrase, ποιεῖν ἁμαρτίαν” (the contrary whereof might yet be easily evinced), — “he maketh no trade or occupation of sinning; that is, he doth not sin in an inconsistency of communion with God in the covenant of his grace.” Now, in this sense he granteth his proposition, “He that is born of God sinneth not,” — that is, ordinarily or customarily; that is, so as not to be accepted of God; that is, no believer sinneth at such a rate as not to be accepted with God. Add now hereunto the ground and reason of this assertion, namely, his being born of God, and the abiding of the seed in him, and we have obtained all that we desire to evince from this place. Because such an one is born of God (which is a reason which holdeth good to eternity, being an act irrevocably past), and because the seed abideth in him, he cannot sin ordinarily or customarily; which kind of sinning alone (as is supposed) can eject the abiding seed; — that is, he sinneth not beyond the rate of sins of infirmity, nor in any such way as should render him incapable of communion or acceptance with God.

The apostle nextly advanceth farther with his design, and saith, “He that is born of God cannot sin;” that is, that sin which he sinneth not he cannot sin; he cannot fall under the power of reigning sin unto death. I confess the words “can” and “cannot” are variously used in the Scriptures; some kind of impossibility, in one respect or other (for things may be in some regard impossible that are not so absolutely), it always denoteth. The whole of the variety in this kind may be referred to two heads:—

1. That which is morally impossible. Of that it is said that it cannot be done. 2 Cor. xiii. 8, saith Paul, “We can do nothing against the truth;” and Acts iv. 20, say the apostles, “We cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard.” It was morally impossible that ever any thing should have been done by Paul against the truth; or that the apostles, having received the Spirit, should not speak what they had seen and heard of Christ. And of many things that are thus morally impossible, there are most certain and determinate causes as to make the things so impossible as, in respect of the event, to be absolutely impossible. It is morally impossible that the devil should do that which is spiritually good, and yet absolutely impossible. There is more in many a thing that is morally impossible than a mere opposition to justice; as we say, “Illud possumus quod jure possumus.” The causes of moral impossibility may be such as to tie up the thing which it relateth unto in an everlasting non-futurition. There is also, —

2. An impossibility that is physical, from the nature of the things themselves. So Jer. xiii. 23, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin?” — that is, he cannot. Matt. vii. 18, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit;” — that is, nothing can act contrary to its own natural principles. And, as we shall see afterward, there is this impossibility in the “cannot” here mentioned. They cannot do it, upon the account of the new spiritual nature wherewith they are endued.

Now, there may be a third kind of impossibility in spiritual things arising from both these, which one hath not ineptly called the ethico-physical or morally-natural, partaking of the nature of both the others. It is moral, because it relateth to duty, what is to be done or not to be done; and it is physical, because it relateth to a cause or principle that can or cannot produce the effect. So our Saviour telleth the Pharisees, “How can ye, being evil, speak good things?” or, “ye cannot,” Matt. xii. 34. “Ye cannot hear my word,” John viii. 43. It was morally impossible they should either speak or hear, — that is, either do or believe that which is spiritually good, — having no principle that should enable them thereunto, having no root that should bear up unto fruit, being evil trees in themselves, and having a principle, a root, continually, universally, uninterruptedly, inclining and disposing them another way, to acts of a quite contrary nature. Of this kind is that impossibility here intimated. The effect denied is morally impossible, upon the account of the internal physical cause hindering of it.

However, then, the word in the Scripture may be variously taken, yet here it is, from adjacent circumstances, evidently restrained to such a signification as, in respect of the event, absolutely rejecteth the thing denied. The gradation of the apostle also leadeth us to it. “He sinneth not,” nay, “he cannot sin.” “He cannot sin” riseth in the assertion of that before expressed, “He sinneth not;” which absolutely rejecteth the gloss that some seek to put upon the words, namely, “That ‘cannot sin’ is no more but ‘cannot sin easily, and cannot sin but as it were with difficulty, such is the antipathy and habitual opposition which they have to sin,’ ” which Mr Goodwin adhereth unto: for besides that this is in itself false, there being no such antipathy in any to sin but that they may easily fall into it, yea, and with great difficulty and labour do restrain [themselves] from it, as the apostle argueth at large, Rom. vii.; so is it also flatly contradictory to the words themselves. The apostle saith, “He that is born of God sinneth not, cannot sin.” “He can sin,” saith this gloss, “though difficultly.” Now, he that can sin difficultly, can sin. “Can sin” and “cannot sin” are flatly contradictory. He cannot, then, sin at all the sin that is intended in the place of whom it is said, “He cannot sin.”

Thus we have cleared the first proposition in the words, both as to the subject, “Every one that is born of God,” and the predicate, “Sinneth not, cannot sin;” which last expression, taken in its only proper and most usual signification, denoteth an impossibility of the event, and plainly confirmeth in direct terms the position we insist on from the words.

Mr Goodwin knoweth not well (if I am able to gather any thing of his thoughts from his expressions to the argument in hand) what to say to this assertion of the apostle. The argument he intendeth to deal withal from the place he casteth into this form: “He that sinneth not, neither can sin, cannot fall away; ‘whosoever is horn of God sinneth not, neither can sin:’ ergo.”

Coming to the consideration of that expression, “Cannot sin,” he findeth out, as he supposeth, four several acceptations in the Scripture of the word “cannot,” and giveth us an account of his thoughts upon the consideration of them, — that in respect of these senses both propositions are false. Now, one of the propositions being the express language and literal expression of the Holy Ghost, not varied in the least, there is no way to relieve himself from being thought and conceived to give the lie to the blessed Spirit of God, by flatly denying what he peremptorily affirmeth, but only by denying the word “cannot” to be taken in this place in any of the senses before mentioned. Doth he then fix on this course for his own extrication? doth he give in another sense of the word, which he accepts, and grants that in that sense the affirmation of the Holy Ghost may be true? Not in the least; yea, plainly, for one of the senses he supposeth himself to have found out of the word “cannot,” — namely, that it is said of men they cannot do such or such a thing, because of their averseness and indisposition to it, which he exemplifieth in that of Christ to the Pharisees, John viii. 43, — he afterward more than insinuateth that this is the sense wherein the words “Cannot sin” are in this place to be taken, sect. 34: so that he will not allow the Holy Ghost to speak the truth, although he take his words in what sense he pleaseth; yea, and adding a fifth sense, sect. 31 (which is all, it seemeth, he could find out, for we have heard not of any more), he denieth that to be the meaning of the place: and so shutteth up the mind of the Holy Ghost into some of those significations wherein if the words be taken, he saith, they are false. The discourse of Mr Goodwin, sect. 28–30 (being taken up with the consideration of the various significations of the word “cannot,” and his inferences thereon, taking it in this place, this way or that way, then it is so or so, showing himself very skilful at fencing and warding off the force of our arguments, — as perhaps his thoughts of himself were upon a review of what he had done), we are not concerned in. And though it were very easy to manifest that, in the distribution of his instances for the exemplification of the several significations which in part he feigneth and fasteneth upon the words, he hath been overtaken with many gross mistakes, some of them occasioned by other corrupt principles than those now under consideration, yet none of the senses insisted on by him coming really up to the intendment of the Holy Ghost, without any disadvantage to our cause in hand, being wholly unconcerned therein, we may pass by that whole harangue.

That which looketh towards the argument under consideration appeareth first in sect. 31, which he thus proposeth: “If the said argument understandeth the phrase ‘Cannot sin,’ according to the fifth and last import mentioned of the word ‘cannot,’ wherein it soundeth an utter and absolute incapacity and impossibility, then in this sense the major proposition is granted, namely, ‘He that doth not nor can sin cannot fall away from his faith.’ Yet the minor is tardy, which saith, ‘Whosoever is born of God sinneth not, neither can sin:’ for he that is born of God is in no such incapacity of sinning; of sinning, I mean, in the sense formerly asserted to the scripture in hand, which amounteth to an absolute impossibility for him so to sin.”

Ans. Because this seemeth to be the sense intended in the argument, and the minor proposition in this sense to be built upon the scripture in hand, let us consider whether the reason which is assigned for the said assertion doth necessarily enforce such a sense thereon. What we understand by this phrase, both as to that sin that is here intended, and that impossibility of committing it, or falling into it often, in that expression “cannot,” hath been before discovered. An impossibility it is of the event, from the causes above mentioned, that the Holy Ghost intendeth. An utter and absolute incapacity to sin on any account we assert not; an impossibility of so sinning, in respect of the event, for the reasons and from the causes above mentioned, the Holy Ghost averreth. In this sense the first proposition is granted: “He that doth not commit sin, nor can sin, cannot fall away from his faith, or can [not] utterly lose it.” The minor, which is the express language of the Holy Ghost, is questioned, and found tardy; that is, as I suppose, false. And the reason is added, namely, “That he that is born of God is in no such incapacity of sinning;” that is, of sinning in that kind of sinning which is here intended, which amounteth to an impossibility for him so to sin. Not to play fast and loose, under these ambiguous expressions of “incapacity” and “Absolute impossibility,” the event is positively denied upon the account of the prohibiting causes of it; and the incapacity asserted relateth not to the internal frame and principle only, but respecteth also other considerations. Whether these are such as to bear the weight of this exposition, is that which cometh nextly to be discussed; namely, the causes of this state and condition of those who are thus born of God, and the reasons investing that universal proposition, “Every one that is born of God cannot sin,” with a necessary truth.

In the reasons added of the former affirmation, there is an emphatical distribution of the two parts of the predicate of the former proposition, by the way of ascending to a more vehement confirmation of them: “He that is born of God sinneth not.” But why so? “His seed remaineth; neither can he sin.” Why so? “Because he is born of God.” It is an expressive pursuit of the same thing, and not a redoubling of the proposition; and this contexture of the words is so emphatically significant that it seemeth strange how any head of opposition can be made against it. There is no reason, then, to resolve the words into two propositions of distinct consideration each from other, it being one and the same thing that the apostle intendeth to express, though proceeding to heighten the certainty of the thing in the minds of them to whom he delivered it by the contexture of the words which he maketh use of. What is meant or intended by the “seed of God” we need not dispute. The argument of the apostle lieth not in the words “seed of God,” nor in the word “abideth,” but in the whole, “The seed of God abideth;” and therefore it were to no purpose at all to follow Mr Goodwin in his consideration of the word “seed,” and then of the [words] “seed of God,” and then of the word “abideth,’ divided one from another. The sum of his long answer is, “The word ‘seed’ doth not import any such thing as is aimed at from the text., nor the word ‘abide;’ ” but to the whole proposition, “The seed of God abideth in him,” as produced to confirm the former assertion of the not sinning of the persons spoken of, there is nothing spoken at all. I shall therefore briefly confirm the argument in hand by the strength here communicated unto it by the Holy Ghost, and then consider what is answered to any part of it, or objected to the interpretation insisted on. That “lie that sinneth not, neither can sin,” in the sense explained, shall never fall away totally or finally from God, is granted. That believers sin not, nor can sin so, or in the manner mentioned, besides the testimony of the Holy Ghost, worthy of all acceptation, in the clear assertion of it, we have the reasons thereof manifested in the discovery of the causes of its truth. The first reason is, “Because the seed of God abideth in them.” A tacit grant seemeth to be made that fruit sometimes may not visibly appear upon them; as the case is with a tree in winter when it casts its leaves, but its seed remaineth. Grace may abide in the habit in and under a winter of temptation, though it doth not exert itself in bearing any such actual fruit as may be ordinarily visible. The word of God is sometimes called “incorruptible seed,” — seed causatively, as being an instrument in the hand of God whereby he planteth the seed of life and holiness in the heart. That it is not the outward word, but that which is produced and effected by it through the efficacy of the Spirit of God, that is by “seed” intended, is evident from the use and nature of it, and its abiding in the person in whom it is. Whatever it is, it is called “seed,” not in respect of that from whence it cometh, as is the cause and reason of that appellation of other seed, but in respect of that which it produceth, which ariseth and ensueth upon it; and it is called the “seed of God,” because God useth it for the regeneration of his. Being from God, being the principle of the regeneration of them in whom it is, abiding in them even when it hath brought forth fruit, and continuing so to do, it can be no other but the new creature, new nature, inward man, new principle of life or habit of grace, that is bestowed upon all believers, whence they are regenerated, quickened, or born again; of which we have spoken before.

This seed, saith the Holy Ghost, “abideth” or “remaineth in him.” Whatever falling or withering he may seem to have or hath, this seed, the seed of God, remaineth in him, — the principle of his new life abideth. Some exceptions are made, as we shall see afterward, to the signification of the word μένει, “remaineth,” and instances given where it signifieth “to be,” and denoteth the essence of a thing, not its duration. That to “abide,” or “remain,” is the proper signification of the word, I suppose will not be questioned. That it may in some place be used in another sense is not disputed. All that lieth under consideration here is, whether the word in this place be used properly, according to its genuine and first signification, or no. It supposeth, indeed, “to be” also, but properly signifieth only to “abide” or “remain.” Now, if nothing can be advanced, from the text or context, from the matter treated on or the parallel significancy of some expression that is in conjunction with it, that should enforce us to carry it from its proper use and signification, the instancing of other places, if any such be, wherein it is restrained to denote being, and not duration, is altogether impertinent to the business in hand. When an argument is urged from any place of Scripture, to pick out any word in the text, and to manifest that it hath been used improperly in some other place, and therefore must be so in that, is a procedure so far from an ingenuous answer, that it will scarce pass for a tolerable shift or evasion. To “remain,” then, or to “abide,” is the proper signification of this word, and nothing is in the least offered to manifest that it must necessarily in this place be diverted from its proper use.

According to the import of the word, the seed of God remaineth in believers. Now, that remaining of the seed is the cause of their not sinning that sin, or in that manner as the apostle here denieth them to be liable to sin; for that is the reason he giveth why they cannot sin, even because the seed of God remaineth in them. Mr Goodwin granteth that this seed remaineth in believers always, unless they sin by a total defection from God. Of not sinning the sin of total defection from God, the remaining or abiding of this seed is the cause. Whilst that abideth they cannot sin that sin; for it is an unquestionable cause, and uncontrollable, of their not so doing. This seed, therefore, must be utterly lost and taken away before any such sin can be committed. Now, if the seed cannot be lost without the commission of the sin, which cannot be committed till it be lost, neither can the seed be lost nor the sin be committed. The same thing cannot be before and after itself. He that cannot go such a journey unless he have such a horse, and cannot have such a horse unless he go such a journey, is like to stay at home. In what sense the words “Cannot sin” are to be taken was before declared. That there are sins innumerable whereinto men may fall notwithstanding this seed, is confessed. Under them all this seed abideth. So it would not do under that which we cannot sin because it abideth; but because it abideth that sin cannot be committed.

The latter part of the reason of the apostle’s assertion is, “For he is born of God;” which is, indeed, a driving on the former to its head and fountain. What it is to be “born of God” we need not dispute; it was sufficiently discovered in the mention that was made before of the “seed of God.” God, by his Holy Spirit bestowing on us a new spiritual life, which by nature we have not, and in respect of whose want we are said to be dead, is frequently said to “beget” us, James i. 18, and we are said to be “born of God.” He is the sovereign disposer, dispenser, and supreme fountain, of that life which is so bestowed on us, which we are begotten again unto, and are born with and by. And Jesus Christ, the mediator, is also said to have this “life in himself,” John v. 26, because he hath received the Spirit of the Father to give to his, for their quickening; who taketh of his, and thereby begetteth them anew. And this life which believers thus receive, and whereby, indeed, radically they become believers, is everywhere in Scripture noted as permanent and abiding. In respect of the original of it, it is said to be “from above, from heaven, of the will of God, of God;” as to its principle, to be “not of flesh, or blood, or of the will of man,” or of any thing done by us, but of the “seed of God, incorruptible seed, seed that abideth;” in respect of its duration, to be “eternal,” and that it may so be, to be safe-guarded, being “hid with Christ in God.” In this place, receiving this life from God is placed as the cause, and “Cannot sin” as the effect. “He cannot sin, for” or because, “he is born of God.” The connection that is between this cause and effect, or wherein the causality of being born of God to a not sinning doth consist, needs not be inquired into. That it hath such a causality the Holy Ghost hath asserted, and our argument resteth thereon. If that be the nature of regeneration or being born of God, that it doth exclude apostasy, then he that is regenerate or born of God, as every believer is, cannot so sin as to apostatize or fall totally from God; but that such is the nature of regeneration, whereby any one is born of God, the Holy Ghost here declareth, for he denieth apostasy upon the account of regeneration, “He cannot sin, because he is born of God;” which is that which we intended to demonstrate from this text of Scripture.

To evade the force of this argument, Mr Goodwin, as hath been declared, undertaketh to give an exposition of this place of Scripture, turning every stone, and labouring to wrest every word in it. The several significations of the words in other places are set out, and suppositions made of taking them this way or that way; but in what sense the scope of the matter treated on, and the most usual, known, common acceptations, call for their use in this place, nothing is spoken, neither is any clear answer once attempted to be given to the words of the text, speaking out and home to the conclusion we intend, or to the argument thence deduced. What I can gather up from sect. 31 and forwards, that may obstruct the thoughts of any in closing with the interpretation given, I shall consider and remove out of the way:— First, then, he giveth you this interpretation of these words, “Sinneth not,” or “Cannot sin:” “ ‘Every one that hath been born of God sinneth not;’ that is, whosoever hath, by the word and Spirit of God, been made partaker of the divine nature, so as to resemble God in the frame and constitution of his heart and soul, doth not, under such a frame or change of heart as this, make a trade or practice of sinning, or of walking in any course of inordinateness in the world. Yea, saith he, in the latter proposition, ‘Every such person doth not only or simply refrain sinning in such a sense, but he cannot sin;’ that is, he hath a strong and potent disposition in him which carrieth him another way, for he hath a strong antipathy or averseness of heart and soul against all sin, especially all such kind of sinning.”

Ans. 1. What is meant by being “born of God,” the way whereby any come so to be, the universality of the expression, requiring a necessary cause of its verity, with the like attendancies of the proposition, have been before declared.

2. What Mr Goodwin intendeth by such a “frame and constitution of heart and soul as may resemble God,” with his denial of the stowing on us from God of a vital principle of grace, wherein the renovation in us of his image should consist, hath in part also been already discovered, and will yet farther be so, in our consideration of his rare notion of regeneration, and its consisting in a man’s return to the innocent and harmless estate wherein he was born.

3. That “Sinneth not” is “Sinneth not that sin,” or “So sinneth not as to break his relation to God as a child,” hath been already also manifested, and the reader is not to be burdened with repetitions.

4. In the interpretation given of the latter phrase, “He cannot sin,” I cannot so sin against the light of the text as to join with Mr Goodwin in it. It is not the “antipathy of his heart to sin,” but the course of his walking with God in respect of sin, that the apostle treateth on. His internal principling against sin he hath from being “born of God” and the “abiding of his seed in him;” of which this, that “he cannot sin,” is asserted as the effect. “He cannot sin,” — that is, he cannot so sin upon the account of his being “born of God” (thence, indeed, he hath not only “a potent disposition another way and antipathy to evil,” but a vital principle with an everlasting enmity and repugnancy to and inconsistency with any such sin or sinning as is intimated); and that he cannot sin is the consequent and effect thereof, and is so affirmed to be by the Holy Ghost.

Nextly, Mr Goodwin giveth you the reason of this assertion used by the apostle, why such an one as of whom he speaketh sinneth not, and cannot sin: “ ‘Now the reason,’ saith the apostle, ‘why such a person committeth not sin in the sense explained is, because his seed, the seed of God, by whom and of which he was born of him, remaineth in him;’ that is, is, or hath an actual and present being or residence, in him. And that in this place it doth not signify any perpetual abiding, or any abiding in relation to the future, is evident, because the abiding of the seed here spoken of is given as the reason why he that is born of God doth not commit sin; that is, doth not frequently walk in any course of known sin. Now, nothing in respect of any future permanency or continuance of being can be looked upon as the cause of an effect, but only in respect of the present being or residence of it. The reason why the soul moveth today is not because it will move or act the body tomorrow, or because it is in the body today upon such terms that it will be in tomorrow also, much less because it is an immortal substance, but simply because it is now or this day in the body. So the reason why angels at this day do the will of God is not because they have such a principle of holiness or obedience in them which they cannot put off or lose to eternity, but because of such a principle as we speak of residing in them at present. Therefore, when John assigneth the remaining of the seed of God in him that is born of him for the reason why he doth not commit sin, certain it is that by this remaining of the seed he meaneth nothing else but the present residence or abode thereof in this person; and if his intent had been either to assert or imply a perpetual residence of this seed in him that is born of God, it had been much more proper for him to have saved it for a reason of the latter proposition, ‘He that is born of God cannot sin,’ than to have subjoined it as a reason of the former; for though the future continuance of the thing in being can be no reason of the effect present, yet it will be a ground or reason of the continuance of a present effect.”

Ans. I have thus at large transcribed this discourse, because it is the sum of what Mr Goodwin hath to offer for the weakening of our argument from this place. Of what weight this is will quickly appear; for, —

1. This reason, “The seed abideth in him,” though brought in illatively, in respect of what was said before, “He doth not commit sin,” yet hath its causal influence chiefly into that which followeth, “He cannot sin.” To make good what was first spoken of his not commiting sin that is born of God, the apostle discovereth the cause of it; which so far secureth the truth of that expression as that it causeth it to ascend, and calls him up higher, to a certain impossibility of doing of that which was only at first simply denied. Neither is this assertion, “The seed of God abideth in him,” any otherwise a reason of the first assertion, “He committeth not sin,” than as it is the cause of the latter, “He cannot sin.” Now, Mr Goodwin granteth, in the close of his discourse, that “the future continuance of a thing in being is, or may be, the cause of the continuance of an effect which at present it produceth;” — and what [ever] Mr Goodwin may more curiously discover of the intent of the apostle, his words plainly assert the continuance and abode of the seed of God in them in whom it is; and using it as he doth, for a reason of the latter clause of that proposition, “He cannot sin,” he speaketh properly enough, so great a master (of one language at least) as Mr Goodwin being judge.

2. The reason insisted on by the apostle is neither from the word “seed,” nor from the word “abideth,” nor from the nature of the seed simply considered, nor from its permanency and continuance, “The seed abideth;” so that it is no exception to the intendment of the apostle to assert the abiding of the seed not to be a sufficient cause of the proposition, because its abiding or permanency is not a cause of present not sinning, for it is not asserted that it is. His present not sinning in whom it is, is from God, his being born of God by the seed; his continuance and estate of not sinning (both which are intended) is from the abiding of the seed. The whole condition of the person, that “He sinneth not, neither can sin” (which terms regard his continued estate), is from the whole proposition, “The seed of God abideth in him.” Separate the permanency of the seed, which is asserted, in the consideration of it, and it respects only and solely the continuance of the effect which is produced by it as seed, or of the estate wherein any one is placed by being born of God. All that Mr Goodwin hath to offer in this case is, that the abiding of the seed is so asserted to be the reason of that part of the proposition, “He committeth not sin,” as not to be the cause τῆς αὐξήσεως, “He cannot sin;” when the abiding of the seed, singly considered, is not used as any reason at all of the first, nor in the proposition as it lieth, “The seed abideth,” any otherwise but as it is the cause of the latter, “He cannot sin.”

3. Even the expression, “He committeth not sin,” denoteth not only the present actual frame and walking of him of whom it is spoken, but his estate and condition. Being once born of God, he committeth not sin. No one that is so born of God doth. None in the state and condition of a regenerate person doth so; that is, in his course and walking to the end. And this is argued not so much distinctly to the permanency of the seed, as from the seed with such an adjunct.

4. Mr Goodwin’s allusions to the soul and the obedience of angels are of little use, or none at all, to the illustration of the business in hand; for though the reason why the soul moveth the body today is not because it will move it tomorrow, yet the reason why the body moveth, and cannot but do so, is because it hath the soul abiding in it, and he that shall say, “He that liveth moveth, for he hath a soul abiding in him and cannot but move,” shall speak properly enough. And the reason why the angels do the will of God in heaven, — that is, actually continue in so doing, — is, because they have such a confirmed and uncontrollable principle of obedience. So that all these exceptions amount not to the least weakening of the apostle’s arguments.

Sect. 32. Our author giveth two instances to prove that the word μένει in the Scripture signifieth sometimes only “to be,” and not “to abide,” and they are, the one, John xiv. 17, and the other, 1 John iii. 14; and one argument to manifest that in the place under consideration it must needs signify a present abode and being, and not a continuance, etc.

Ans. 1. If any such places be found, yet it is confessed that it is an unusual sense of the word, and a thousand places of that kind will not enforce it to be so taken in another place, unless the circumstances of it and matter whereabout it treateth enforce that sense, and will not bear that which is proper.

2. Mr Goodwin doth not make it good by the instances he produceth that the word is tied up in any place to denote precisely only the being of a thing, without relation to its abiding and continuance. Of the one, John xiv. 17, “But ye know him, because he abideth with you, and shall be in you,” saith he, “The latter clause, ‘Shall be in you,’ will be found a mere tautology if the other phrase, ‘Abideth with you,’ importeth a perpetual residence or in-being.” But that this phrase, “Abideth with you,” importeth the same with the phrase in the foregoing verse, where it is clearly expounded by the addition of the term “For ever” (“That he may abide with you for ever”), I suppose cannot be questioned. Nor, —

3. Is there any the least appearance of a tautology in the words, his remaining with believers being the thing promised, and his in-being the manner of his abode with them. Also 1 John iii. 14, Μένει ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ, doth not simply denote an estate or condition, but an estate or condition in its nature, without the interposition of almighty grace, abiding and permanent; so that neither have we yet any instance of restraining the significancy of the word, as pretended, produced; nor, if any place could be so, would it in the least enforce that acceptation of the word in this place contended about. Wherefore Mr Goodwin, as I said, addeth an argument to evince that the word must necessarily be taken in the sense by him insisted on in this place; which is indeed a course to the purpose, if his argument prove so in any measure; it is this: “Because such a signification of it would render the sense altogether inconsistent with the scope of the apostle, which is to exhort Christians unto righteousness and love of the brethren. Now, it is contrary to common sense itself to signify unto those whom we persuade to any duty any such thing as imports an absolute certainty or necessity of their doing it, whether they take care or use any means for the doing of it or no; and a clear case it is that the certainty of a perpetual remaining of the seed of God in those that are born of him importeth a like certainty of their perpetual performance of that duty whereunto they are exhorted.”

Ans. If this be all, it might have been spared. The argument consisteth of two parts:— 1. An aspersion of the infinite wisdom of God with a procedure contrary to all reason and common sense. 2. A begging of the thing in question betwixt its author and its adversaries. That there is any thing at all in the text, even according to our interpretation of it, that importeth an absolute necessity of men’s doing any thing, whether they take care to use the means of doing it or no, the reader must judge. The abiding of the seed is that, we say, which shall effectually cause them in whom it is to use the means of not sinning, that eventually they may not do so; and that a certainty of the use of means is imported is no argument to prove that their necessity of persevering is proved, whether they use means or no. To take care to use means is amongst the means appointed to be used; and this they shall do upon the account of the abiding seed. That, indeed, which is opposed is, that God cannot promise to work effectually in us by the use of means, for the accomplishment of an appointed end, but that withal he rendereth useless and vain all his exhortations to us to use those means. This is Mr Goodwin’s argument from the place itself, to enforce that improper acceptation of the words “Remaineth in us.”

What remaineth of Mr Goodwin’s long discourse upon this text of Scripture is but a fencing with himself, and raising of objections and answering of them suitably to his own principles, wherein we are not in the least concerned. There is not any thing from the beginning to the end of it that tendeth to impeach our interpretation of the place, or impede the progress of our argument, but only a flourish set up on his own exposition; which if he were desired to give in briefly, and in terms of a plain, downright significancy, I am verily persuaded he would be hardly put to it to let us know what his mind and conceptions of this place of Scripture are. But of this subject, and in answer to his fifth argument, with the chapter, this is the issue.

---

---

← Chapter XIV. Argument against the doctrine from the exhortations of the gospel · Contents · Chapter XVI. The bearing of the doctrine of the saints’ apostasy on their consolation →

Footnotes

1. Altered from the original, which runs thus, affording no sense, “That sin taking the opportunity to fill their corrupt part, … to continue means for its accomplishment.” — Ed. ↩