sin in the beleever is in the sight of God 69 17 How Gods anger manifesteth it self upon his children when they sinne pag. 75 18 What kinde of sins God is displeased with 79 19 How God manifesteth his displeasure against his people in spirituall and eternall things 82 20 How the Antinomian would prove that God doth not see sinne in a justified person 88 21 How the Antinomian distinguisheth between Gods knowing and seeing of sin ibid. 22 How seeing is attributed to God 89 23 How Gods knowledge and ours do differ ibid. 24 How the Antinomians are contrary to themselves 93 25 How farre Gods taking notice of sinne so as to punish it is subject to the meer liberty of his will 95 26 How freedome may be extended to God 96 27 How the attributes of God and the actions of them differ in respect of freedome 97 28 How Gods justice essentially and the effects of it differ 100 29 How Christ satisfied God 101 30 How afflictions on Beleevers can agree with Gods justice ibid. 31 Why sins are called debts 105 32 What in sin is a debt ibid. 33 What is meant by that petition Forgive us 113 34 Whether we pray for the pardon it self or for the sense thereof only 4 Reasons proving the affirmative 116 35 What is implied in the petition Forgive us our debts 121 1 In the subject who doth pray ibid. 2 In the matter praied for 126 3 In the person to whom we pray 128 36 How sin a considered 130 37 How all sin is voluntary 132 38 Whether sin be an infinite evil 138 39 What remission of sin is 139 40 Why repentance and faith is pressed as necessary 146 41 How our repentance consists with Gods free grace in pardoning of sin 147 42 How many doe mistake concerning repentance p. 150 43 Why God requires repentance seeing it is no cause of pardon 157 44 Why repentance wrought by the spirit of God is not enough to remove sin in the guilt of it 161 45 Why repentance should not be as great a good and as much honour God as sin is an evil 163 46 What harm comes to God by sin ibid. 47 What kinde of act Forgivenesse of sin is and whether it be antecedent to our faith and repentance 166 48 Whether justification precede faith and repentance 176 49 Whether infants have actuall faith and are Beleevers 181 50 How we are sinners in Adam 185 51 How an elect person unconverted and a reprobate differ and what kinde of love election is 188 52 Whether in that petition Forgive us our debts we pray for pardon or for assurance only 196 53 Why God doth sometimes pardon sinne not acquainting the person with it 200 54 What directions should be given to a soul under temptation about pardon of sin 203 55 Whether a Beleever repenting is to make difference between a great sin and a lesser 205 56 What is meant by covering of sin 216 57 How God by pardoning sin is sâ—id to cover it 217 58 Whether the phrase of Gods covering sin imply that he doth not see it 219 59 How sins being in justified persons can stand with the omnisciency truth and holinesse of God 220 60 How God doth see sin in beleevers when they have the righteousnesse of Christ to cover it 221 61 How a face is attributed to God 226 62 What sins Gods children may fall into 230 63 How the sinnes of Gods people and of the reprobate differ 234 64 How farre grosse sinnes make a breach upon justification 236 65 Why the guilt of new grosse sinnes doth not take away justification p. 245 66 Whether God in pardoning doth not forgive all sins together 246 67 Wherein the compleatnesse of the pardon of sin at the day of judgement consists 262 68 Whether the sins of Gods people shall be manifested at the last day 264 69 Whether we are justified in Christ before we beleeve as we are accounted sinners in Adam before we actually sinned 186 70 Whether reconciliation purchased by Christs death doth necessarily inferre justification before faith 190 OF JUSTIFICATION LECTURE I. ROM 3.24 25. Being justified freely by his Grace c. THE Apostle in the words precedent laid down two Propositions to debase man and all his works that so he might make way for the exaltation of that grace of justification here spoken of The first Proposition is that By the deeds of the Law no flesh shall be justified in his sight where two things are observable 1. That he cals every man by the word Flesh which is emphaticall to beat down that pride and tumor which was in the Jews 2. He addeth in his sight which supposeth that though our righteousnesse among men may be very glorious yet before God it is unworthy The other Proposition is that All come short of the glory of God Some do make it a Metaphor from those in a race who fall short of the prize Whether by the glory of God be meant the image of God and that righteousnesse first put into us or eternall life or which is most probable matter of glorying and boasting before God which the Apostle speaks of afterwards is not much materiall Now the Apostle having described our condition to be thus miserable he commends the Grace of God in justifying of us which is decyphered most exactly in a few words so that you have in the Text a most compendious delineation of justification First There is the benefit set down being justified Secondly The efficient cause Gods Grace and here we have a two-fold impulsive cause one inward denoted in the word Freely the other outward in the meritorious cause Christs death which is further illustrated by the appointment of God for this end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some understand this of Gods manifestation as if it were spoken to oppose the propitiatory in the Ark which was left hidden some to the whole polity in the Old Testament which in the Legal shadows and the Prophets predictions did declare Christ Others upon better ground refer it to the Decree of God This death of Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which denoteth both the action it self as also the effect and benefit which cometh by it Chrysostome observeth that it is called redemption and not a simple emption because we were the Lords once but by our sins became slaves to Satan and now God doth make us his again In the third place you have the instrumentall cause Faith in his bloud this is that Hysop that doth sprinkle the bloud though it be contemptible in it self yet it is instrumentall for a great good and hereby is denoted That Faith hath a peculiar nature in this work of Justification which no other grace hath for none saith Love in his bloud or Patience in his bloud Lastly here is the final cause To declare the righteousnesse of God for the remission of sins past Some observe those words sins past as implying no sinne is
if he be a Beleever the wages due to his sin is only temporal chastisements but to a wicked man it 's eternal death I say this is not safe for although a Beleevers sin shall not actually damn him yet God hath made the same Law to both and repentance as a means is prescribed so that we may by supposition say If the wicked man repent his sin shall not damn him If the justified person do not his sin will damn him It 's true it is not proper to say of sin in the abstract it shall be damned no more then that grace shall be saved but we are to say the person shall be damned or saved Yet the guilt of the sin will cause the guilt of the person if not taken off by Christ as the meritorious and faith as the instrumentall cause The sins then of Beleevers and ungodly are both alike only that the guilt of them doth not redound upon the persons alike is because the one takes the way appointed by God to obtain pardon and the other doth not Not that the godly man makes himself to differ from the wicked but all is the work of grace In some respects the sins of godly men are more offensive to God then those of wicked men because committed against more light and more experience of the sweetnesse of Gods love and the bitternesâ—e of sin What is the cause Heb. 10.28 29 30. the Apostle maketh the condition of a wilfull Apostate to be so dreadfull but because of the excellency of the object in the Gospel above that in the Law If he that despised Moses his Law died without mercy of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy c. Observe that interposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 think ye do you not easily think that such sins offend God more Now although the truly sanctified can never fall into such a condition totally and finally yet their sins committed wilfully against the Gospel are gradually and in some measure of such a nature and therefore they fall terribly into the hands of the living God when they so sin against him and consider how that the Apostle speaks these things even to them of whom he hoped better things and things that accompany salvation Heb. 6. If therefore we see a godly man who hath tasted much of Gods favour play the prodigall walk loosely we may and ought notwithstanding Antinomian positions powerfully and severely set home these places of Scripture upon his conscience And observe how in the New Testament the Apostle alledgeth two places out of the Old Vengeance belongeth to me Deut. 32.35 and the Lord will judge his people Psal 135.14 To judge is to avenge so that the people of God have those considerations in their sins to provoke God which wicked men cannot have and therefore have the same motives to humble them as the Apostle argueth To which of the Angels said he Sit at my right hand c. so may we To what wicked man hath God poured out his love revealed himself kindly as unto the godly therefore do they neglect the greater mercies LECTURE X. JEREMIAH 50.20 In those daies and at that time the iniquity of Iudah shall be sought for c. LEt us in the next place consider the particulars wherein Gods eye of anger doth manifest it self upon his own children if sinning against him The effect of his wrath may be considered in that which is temporal or spiritual or eternal in all these Gods anger doth bring forth in one respect or other For the temporal objects take notice of these particulars first When they sin against God they are involved in the common and ordinary afflictions which do usually accompany sin in the wicked Thus 1 Cor. 11.30 for their unworthy receiving of the Sacrament and some even of those were godly as appeareth v. 32. many were weak and sickly weak were such as did languish and sickly is more such as had diseases on them now these were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strokes from God and therefore came from his anger for their sins Though the Lords Supper consist of a twofold bread the one earthly for the body the other heavenly the bread of life for the soul yet both body and soul did miserably decay because of unworthy receiving This Table being as Chrysostom said mensa Aquilarum not Graculorum food for Eagles not Jaies As therefore those children who have fainting diseases upon them and do secretly eat salt oatmeal c. though they have never such excellent food at their fathers table yet thrive not but look pale and consuming so it was with the Corinthians by reason of their corruptions they inclined to death though they fed on the bread of life Now that these bodily diseases are the common issue and fruit of sin appeareth Lev. 26.16 Deut. 28.22 grace therefore of justification can give no Supesedeas to any disease that shall arrest a believer offending but are the wicked in Consumptions Agues Feavers for their sins so are the godly yea the people of God are in these calamities before the wicked Amos 3.2 You only have I known of all the Families of the earth therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities I have known you that is acknowledged ye for mine see what that is Exod. 19.5 A peculiar treasure unto me above all people The Hebrew word signifieth that which is dear and pretious and to be desired of all This is aggravated by what followeth for all the earth is mine that is seeing there are so many nations in the world over whom I have full power and dominion how great is Gods goodnesse in taking you for his above others now mark the Prophets reason because I have done this therefore I will visit you for your iniquities for to all your other wickednesses you adde an ingratefull heart So there is another place 1 Pet. 4.17 where God is said to judge them before others and this hath been a great offence to the godly It is time that is a seasonable opportunity by the decree and appointment of God for judgement that is chastisements for former sins which are called judgements because they are publique testimonies and manifestations of Gods anger against sins and are to put the godly in minde of their sins only it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the original The word is used even of the godly 1 Cor. 11.31 32. 1 Pet. 4.6 By the house of God he meaneth the true Members of the Church and whereas he saith it begins in them he thereby intimates that the godly in this life are more exposed to afflictions for sin then the wicked are and this made David and Jeremy so expostulate with God in this matter so that the godly in their afflictions ought to say as that widow of Sarepta 2 Kin. 17.18 This is to call my sin to remembrance It is thought the Apostle though he doth not
pardon can never be called an inherent righteousnesse or a qualitative Justice but rather it opposeth it but it may be called a Legal or Judicial righteousnesse because God for the obedience and satisfaction of Christ doth account of us as righteous having pardoned our sin and withall imputing Christs righteousnesse to us both which make up our Justification For the understanding therefore of the first particular viz. Remission of sins take these Propositions which will be the foundation upon which many material questions will be built 1. That forgivenes of sin is possible there may be and is such a thing Hence in that ancient Creed we are said to believe a remission of sins where faith is described not in the meer historical acts of it but fiducial the remission of my sins Now this is some stay to a troubled sinner that his sins may be forgiven whereas the devils cannot God no where saying to them Repent and believe And although Salmeron holdeth that God gave the lapsed Angels space to repent before they were peremptorily adjudged unto their everlasting torments yet he hath scarce a guide or companion in that opinion were not therefore this true that there is such a thing in the Church of God as forgivenes of sin How much better had it been for us if we had never been born 2. Consider That a sin may be said to be forgiven divers wayes First in the decree and purpose of God as Christ is called the Lamb slain from the beginning Though I do not know where the Scripture useth such an expression yet the Antinomians build much upon it Secondly A sin may be said to be forgiven in Christ meritoriously when God laid the sins of his people upon him which the Prophet Isaiah doth describe as plainly Isa 53. as any Evangelist hence some have called Isaiah the fifth Evangelist Now you must not conclude such a mans sins are pardoned because they are laid upon Christ a long while ago which is the Antinomians perpetual panalogizing for to this effect of remission of sin there go more causes besides the meritorious faith the instrumental cause which is as necessary in its kinde for this great benefit as the meritorious cause is in its kind that though Christ hath born such a mans 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 compleatly forgiven without the meritorious cause so neither doth the meritorious without the instrumental but there is a necessity of the presence and the co-operation of all these Thirdly A sin is said to be pardoned when the guilt is taken away and this is properly Remission of iniquities Fourthly Sin is pardoned in our sense and feeling when God takes away all our fears and doubts giving us an assurance of his love And lastly Sin is forgiven when the temporal affliction is removed and in this sense the Scripture doth much use the word forgivenesse of sins and his not pardoning is when he will punish 3. There are several things considerable in sin when we say it is forgiven First In sin there is a privation of that innocency which he had before as when a man is proud by that act of pride he is deprived of that innocency and freedom from that guilt which he had before This is properly true of Adam who lost his innocency by sinning It cannot be affirmed of us but in a limited sense thus far that when a man commits a sin that guilt may be charged upon him whereof he was innocent before Now when sin is forgiven the sense is not that he is made innocent again for that can never be helped but that it must be affirm'd such an one hath sin'd this cannot be repaired again It is true the Scripture useth such expressions That iniquity shall be sought for and there shall be found none Jer. 51.20 But that is in respect of the consequence of it We shal have as much joy and peace as if we had not sinned at all A 2d thing in sin is the dignity desert it hath of the wrath of God and this is inseparable from any sin if it be a sin there is a desert of damnation thus all the sins of the godly howsoever they shall not actually condemn them yet they have a desert of condemnation Thirdly There is the actual ordination and obligation of the person sinning to everlasting condemnation and forgivenes of sin doth properly lie in this not in taking away the desert of the guilt of sin but the actual ordination of it to condemnation Therefore its false that is affirmed by some that reatus est forma peccati guilt is the form of a sin for a sin may be truly a sin and yet this actual ordination of it to death taken away Fourthly There is in sin an offence done unto God or an enmity to him so that now he is displeased and this is taken away in some measure by forgivenesse yet so as his anger is not fully removed If we speak exactly God doth not punish his children yet as a Father he is angry with them and that makes him to chastise them though the sin be forgiven Fifthly In sinne is likewise a bloâ— or pollution whereby the soul loseth its former beauty and excellency and this is not removed by remission but by sanctification and renovation Hence it is ordinarily said that Justification hath a relative being only but Renovation an absolute inherent change And lastly In all sin there is an aversion from God either Habitual in Habitual sins or Actual in Actual and in this aversion from God the soul abideth till it be turned to him again as a man that turneth his back on the Sun continueth so till he turn himself again now Conversion and not Justification doth rectifie this so that by this you may see what it is to have a sin forgiven not the foulnes or the disformity of it to Gods Law removed nor yet the dignity and desert of Gods wrath no nor all kinde of anger from God but the actual ordination of it to condemnation 4. There is a great difference between original sin and actuals for that of original is much more perplexed in the matter of remission then those of actuals when an actual sin is committed the act is transient that is quickly passed away there remaineth only the guilt which sticketh till God by pardon doth remove it and then when he hath forgiven it there is all of that sin past But now in original sin it is otherwise for that corruption adhering to us cleaving to our nature like Ivie to the tree as the Father expresseth it though it be forgiven yet it still continueth and that not only as an exercise of our faith and prayers or by way of a penal languâ—r upon us but truly and
who writing to have one Nicias sent to him that was accused used this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nicias if he have done no wrong absolve him if he have absolve him for my sake but howsoever absolve him or set him free And in this sense forgivenesse of sins may well be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the Scripture it seemeth rather to be an expression from those that are loosned out of their bonds for their debts and therefore frequently is applied to the forgiving of debts Mat. 18.25 27 32. and this is more notably set down Luk. 4.18 to preach to captives or prisoners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freedom or forgivenesse of sin and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to loosen bonds as the word is used Luke 16.26 Acts 27.40 Therefore howsoever Grotius thinks the word to remit to be a metaphor from those who part with or leave a thing that they might retain yet it seemeth rather to be taken from releasing of debts and loosning of bonds in which the conscience of a sinner was tied being bound to answer at the Tribunal of God Hence the Scripture useth several names to expresse pardon of sin according to the several titles that sin hath in the Scripture As sins are Debita Debts so God doth forgive as they are Sordes a filth and loathsomnesse so God doth cover them as they are vincula bonds so he doth remit them As they are debts written down in a book so he blots them out As they make us miserable and wretched so he is mercifull and propitious in removing of them A second word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 2.13 Having forgiven you all trespasses Col. 3.13 Even as Christ forgave us Now this word doth excellently signifie the fountain and the effect of pardon The fountain that it cometh from the meer grace and favour of God There is nothing in us to merit or satisfie God with Therefore howsoever there be a necessity of faith and repentance yea and God will not forgive sin in persons grown up but where these are yet these are no meritorious causes nor can they satisfie God for all that offence and dishonour which our sins have cast upon him And this may encourage the broken heart who feeleth a load of sin upon it self and hath nothing to bring unto God remember the root and fountain of all forgivenesse is grace which is so far from supposing any worth of condignity in thee for pardon that it rather implieth the contrary And as it doth imply grace thus in the fountain so also acceptablenesse and joy too in the party to whom sin is forgiven So that there can be nothing in the world more welcome or a greater matter of joy then to bring this glad tidings and indeed therefore is the Gospel called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it preacheth the glad tidings of Gods love and reconciliation thorow Christ with a sinner A third word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus the Publican prayed Luk. 18.3 Some derive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because we desire to look on those to whom we are propitious But this word doth more immediately relate to the bloud of Christ as the way by which God becomes thus pacified So that as the other words set up the grace of God in pardoning so this the merits and satisfaction of Christ 1 Joh. 2.2 1 Joh. 4.10 Rom. 3.25 Heb. 2.17 In which places the appeasment of God towards us is attributed to the bloud of Christ Therefore if we put the former words and these together we may see an admirable temperament and mixture of grace and justice in forgiving of sins The former places exclude Popish Doctrines The later Socinian blasphemies A fourth word may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to obtain mercy For although the Scripture apply this to all the benefits and mercies of God yet Paul applieth it more particularly to pardon of sin 1 Tim. 1.13 and when Dives prayed Luk. 16.24 Father Abraham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have mercy on me and so by consequent to be removed from that place of torment Hence in that form of prayer which Paul useth by way of salutation there are these three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this word is more expresly used for this end in the grand Covenant and Promise for pardon of sin Heb. 8.12 For I will be mercifull to their iniquities c. This is so comprehensive a Petition that it seemeth to be a generally received form of prayer in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea the wiser among the Heathens used this prayer as appeareth by Arrianus epist. diss lib. 2. cap. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now this word supposeth 1. The party praying for pardon to look upon himself as in a most miserable and undone estate that no outward calamity or evil lieth so heavily upon him as his sins do And then secondly on Gods part it supposeth that he doth not only pardon but that even his bowels yearn within him when he doth forgive Hence Luk. 1.78 they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bowels of mercy This goodnesse of God is excellently represented in the father of the Prodigal Luk. 15.20 Therefore how great a sinne is unbelief and refusing to have good thoughts of God when God hath manifested himself thus gracious The last word I shall mention though there be others that are used is by way of negation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 4.8 2 Cor. 5.9 And this is a metaphor from those that cast up their accounts and account so much upon such an one for debt Now by this word is shewn the terrible nature of sin as also that howsoever for a while we may live jollily care for nothing and be in security yet God will one day cast up his accounts and charge such and such debts upon us but if so be the Lord will not impute them to us and account them upon our score this will be our blessednesse And thus you have heard the most choice and principal words the holy Ghost expresseth our forgivenesse by We proceed 1. Proposition Lay this down as a foundation That when God doth pardon sin he takes it away so as that the party acquitted is no more looked upon as a snner All the expressions about pardon amount to thus much even as when one accused of theft and murder in the Common-wealth 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 It is true we say That sin doth remain in a man though he be justified and that sin hath a desert of condemnation with it but where God hath pardoned there he doth not look upon that man as a sinner but as a just man
Scripture less loving is called hating sometimes as the Learned observe Neither doth this make any change in God it only denoteth a change in the creature as hereafter is to be shewed So that the gross mistake as if Eleâ—tion were all love actually and expresly and the confounding of the love of God as an immanent act in him with the effects of this love hath made several persons split upon rocks of errors But how love and anger are in God is more exactly to be examined when we speak of the meritorious cause of Justification which is Christs merits for indeed this Argument from Election will as well put in for a Justification before any consideration of Christ as well as of Faith if every thing be duely weighed as in that part God willing is to he shewed where also the distinctions about Gods love are to be considered of Some making a general love and a special love others a first love and a second or one flowing from the first others a love of benevolence or beneficence and of complacency But of these in their proper place We proceed and in the next place we will put his fourth and sixth Argument together being both grounded upon this That Christ by his death gave a full satisfaction to God and God accepted of it whereby Christ is said so often to take away our sins and we to be cleansed by his bloud This Argument made the learned Pemble pag. 25. to hold out Justification in Gods sight long before we were born as being then purchased by Christs death otherwise he thinks we must with the Arminians say Christ by his death made God placabilem reconcilable not placatum reconciled No saith he it is otherwise the ransome demanded 〈◊〉 paid and accepted full satisfaction to the divine Justice is given and taken all the sins of the Elect all actually pardoned This is a great oversight For first Though Christ did lay down a price and the Father accept of it yet both agreed in a way and order when this benefit should become theirs who are partakers of it and that is when they believe and repent Now Bonum est ex integris causis if God the Fathers Covenant be to give pardon for Christs sake to those that do believe which faith also is the fruit of Christs death then may we not separate Christ from faith no more then faith from Christ or God the Fathers love from both If Christ had died for such a man to have his sins pardoned whether he had faith in him or no then this Argment would have stood firm God then did accept of Christs death and becomes reconciled but in that order and way which he hath appointed 2. This Argument doth interfâ—re with that of Election for there pardon of sin doth take its rise from Election but here from the time God laid our sins upon Christ And indeed the Antinomians are at a variance amongst themselves some fetching the original of pardon from one way and some from another 3. We do not say That faith is the condition of Christs acquiring pardon but of the application of pardon Faith doth not make Christs merits to be merits or his satisfaction to be satisfaction This ariseth from the dignity and worth of Christ It would be an absurd thing to say That faith is the cause why God doth accept of Christs merits and receiveth a satisfaction by him This were to make the instrumental cause a meritorious cause The Arminians they make Christ to have purchased pardon upon condition of believing which believing they do not make a benefit by Christs death yea they say Nihil ineptius nibil vanius nothing is more foolish and vain then to do so Now this indeed is an execrable errour to hold Christ died only to make a way for reconciliation which reconciliation is wholly suspended upon a mans faith and that faith comes partly from a mans will and partly from grace not being the fruit of Christs death as wel as remission of sins it self But we say a far different thing Christ satisfied Gods wrath so that God becomes reconciled and gives pardon but in the method and way he hath appointed which is faith and this faith God will certainly work in his due time that so there may be an instrument to receive this pardon For the opening of this when it is said Christ satisfied Gods wrath this may have a different meaning either that Christ absolutely purchased reconciliation with the Father whether they believe or no without any condition at all as Joab obtained Absoloms reconciliation with David or Esther the Jews deliverance of Ahashuâ—rosh Or with a condition In the former sense it cannot be said because the fruits of Christs death are limited only to believers If with a condition then either Antecedent which is to be wrought by us that so we may be partakers of his death and that cannot be because it is said He died for us while sinners and enemies And this is Arminianism for by this means only a gate is set open for salvation but it may happen that no man may enter in or else this condition is Concomitant or consequent viz. A qualification wrought by the Spirit of Christ whereby we are enabled to receive of those benefits which come by his death And in this sense it is a truth and by this the foundation of the Opponent is totally razed For Christ took away the sins of those for whom he died and reconciled them to God and this absolutely if by it we understand any condition anteceding to be done by us but not absolutely if it exclude a condition that is consequently wrought by the Spirit of God to apply the fruits of Christs death so that the actual taking away of sins is not accomplished till the person for whom he died be united to him by Faith Hence the Scripture speaks differently about Christs death sometimes it saith He died for us sinners and enemies and in other places John 15.13 He layeth down his life for his friends and his sheep Joh. 17.19 He saith he prayeth and sanctifieth himself for those that shall believe in him viz. in a consequent sense for those who by faith shall lay hold on his death So that faith hath a two-fold condition the first of the time when sins are taken away by Christs death and that is when they believe 2. Of whom these priviledges are true and that is of such who do believe Now all this may be the further cleared if we consider what kinde of cause Christs death is to take away our sins It is a meritorious cause which is in the rank of moral causes of which the rule is not true Positâ causâ sequitur effectus The cause being the effect presently followeth This holdeth in natural causes which necessarily produce their effects but moral causes work according to the agreement and liberty of the Persons that are moved thereby As for
make little or nothing of it as it were a great fault in a childe to slight or make nothing of his fathers corrections Now let all the world judge whether the Antinomian Doctrine doth not open a wide gate to despise Gods afflictions this makes them cry down Fast-daies repentance humiliation and confession of sin yea they make it Popery and hypocrisie what is done this way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we may say with Homer 6. If God hath commanded Magistrates to execute outward evils upon some godly men that have hainously offended then its Gods will to afflict them for sin but he hath done so If a godly man being through the Dalilah of some corruption perswaded to have his hair cut off his spirituall strength gone and so he fall into the sin of murder is it not Gods will that the Magistrate should put him to death for this sin and what God would have the Magistrate do is it not as much as if God himself had done and must not all say this is a chastisement upon him because of his sin Thus have I brought reasons to prove that which I think was never denied before till this age which every day like Africa bringeth forth some Monster And certainly the Doctrine of afflictions upon the godly is so sweet and wholesome a truth that none but a Spider could suck out such poison from it as the Antinomian hath done LECTURE V. ROM 3.24 25. Being justified freely by his grace c. WE come now to consider how the Antinomian can make good that Paradox of his God chastiseth not believers because of their sins and indeed the Author forementioned doth much sweat and tug in bringing in severall absurdities which he conceives will follow upon the truth asserted by us But before we examine them let us take notice of the Authours great contradiction to himself in this point and that within very few Pages Falshood is not only dissonant from truth but also from it felf for whereas in the forequoted place he makes his assertion universal that Ged seeth not sin in persons converted and therefore there are no afflictions befall them because of sin Now see how flat contrary that same Authour speaks in the same book pag. 117. for there making an opposition between the condition of believers in the Old Testament and those in the new he expresly gives this difference God saith he saw sin in them as they were children that had need of a rod by reason of their non-age but he seeth none in us as being full-grown heirs and again God saw in them and punished them for it as they were under the Schoolmaster of the Law but he seeth none in us Hence pag. 99. he makes it peculiar to the time of the Law that Moses for an unadvised word was strucken with death and Vzzah and Jonah and Ely with others temporally corrected Therefore it was saith he came those terrible Famines whereby mothers were driven to eat their own children all was because they were under the severity of the Law that if they did but a little step awry they were sharply scourged for the same Now how great a contradiction is this to his other assertion for were not the godly under the Old Testament actually converted had they not Christs righteousnes made theirs were they not elected how cometh it about then that they were afflicted for sin and not believers under the New Testament when a man can bring the East and West together then may he reconcile these assertions but self contradiction is no strange thing in that book But I come to his Arguments The first place he urgeth is Ro. 5.1 2 3. Being justified by faith we have peace with God that is all beating blows and anger are ceased saith he and hence it is that we glory in our afflictions but now if they were for our sins we had no more cause to glory in them then the childe hath in his whippings for his faults For the opening of this place consider these things some ancient Commentators reade the word imperatively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us have instead of we have and thus they have interpreted it Being justified by Faith let us take heed how we sin again but preserve our peace with God The words taken this way would much confirm rather then debilitate our assertion but I doe not judge this so suteable to the scope of the Apostle in this verse we will take them as they are indicatively or assertively and first we may mean by peace either that reconciliation which is made with God or the sense and feeling of this which is nothing but tranquillity and security of conscience through the perswasion of Gods favour to us Now these may be separable one from the other a believer may be reconciled with God and in the state of friendship with him yet he not feel this or know this as many passages in Davids Psalms do witnesse even as the childe in the womb knoweth not the great inheritance and rich Revenues it shall be possessed of or as Agar did not see the well of water by her but thought she must perish till God opened her eyes There is a seal of the pardon of sin when yet the proclamation of it is not made in the conscience If we take peace in the first respect it is an absolute universal proposition and true of every justified person but in the latter sense it is true only of some persons and at some times for the sense of Gods favour is a separable priviledge from those that are in it If by peace we should understand the sense of Gods favour and the declaration of it in our consciences as by their arguments they must do then it proveth against their opinion as well as any others for they hold that a believer needeth to pray for pardon in the declaration or sense and feeling of sin though not for the pardon it self of sin now there cannot be at the same time a want of the feeling of pardon of sin and the tranquillity of conscience together so that this place must needs be a thorn in their side But 2ly the true and direct answer to this place is that there is a twofold peace one which is opposite to the hatred of God as he is a terrible enemy to sinners unreconciled with them in which sense he is often described in Scripture The other as it is opposite to that fatherly anger and displeasure whereby though for the main reconciled yet he may for some particular faults be displeased now the Apostle speaks of the former kinde of peace Being justified that is God being once reconciled with us in Christ he hath no more hostile enmity against us and if we do sin afterwards he will not become an enemy to us or satisfie his justice by punishing of us but as a father he may in his displeasure chastise us
Therefore in different respects we may say That pardon of sin is an utter abolition of it and it is not an utter abolition of it It is an utter abolition of it as it doth reflect upon the person making him guilty and obliging him actually to condemnation in this respect a man is as free as if he had never sinned but if you speak of the inherency of sin and the effects of original corruption that do abide in all which are also truly and properly sins so pardon of sin is not an utter abolition and although Christ wrought no semiplenam curationem as is observed no half-cures upon any diseased persons but whom he healed he healed perfectly yet he works by degrees in the grace of Sanctification as he did perfect the world by severall degrees successively and not as Austin thought all at once So that this particular viz. That forgiveness is a perfect abolition of sin in the former consideration is of transcendent comfort to the believers and indeed it is impossible that sin should be forgiven divisibly and by parts so a man should be at the same time under the favour of God and under his hatred which is impossible Thou therefore who art a believer hast cause to rejoyce for this perfect work of remission of thy sins past wherein nothing more is or can be done for thy good and consolation Do not think it is with God as with men who say indeed They forgive with all their heart yet retain their secret inward hatred as much as before Indeed the pain of sin may roul and tumble in thy conscience a long while after though it be forgiven we see so in David as the sea which hath been enraged by tempests and windes though they be quiet yet the sea will roar and make a noise a long time after The heart of a man awakened and pierced with the guilt of sin doth not quickly and easily compose it self again Prop. 2. It is one thing for God to forgive and another thing not to exact and demand punishments As we see among men a Judge many times through fear or otherwise when Justice is obstructed doth not call such a malefactour to an account but deferreth it yet for all that the man is not acquitted so it is often to be seen in Gods providence There are multitudes of sinners who after their transgressions committed are not onely without punishment but enjoy great prosperity and much outward successe yet these men are not pardoned they have no acquittance from God This hath been such a temptation to David Jeremiah and others of Gods people that they have many times staggered through unbelief But men may have their punishments deferred their damnation may sleep or linger but it is not taken off Let not men therefore delude themselves with vain hopes as if their sins were forgiven because not yet punished No there must be some positive gracious act of God to acquit thee else thy sins are alive to condemn thee Examine thy self therefore whether thy peace comfort plenty be a fruit of Gods forbearance meerly or of his acquittance This later is alwayes an act of his gracious mercy but the other may be a terrible fruit of his hatred against thee insomuch that thou hadst better wander up and down like Cain fearing every thing will kill thee or damn thee then be in such security Prop. 3. A godly man may account not only himself bound to thank God for the pardon of those sins he hath committed but he is to acknowledge so many pardons as by the grace of God he hath been preserved from sin And if a believer enter into this consideration how will it overwhelm him So often as God hath preserved thee from such and such sins which thy own heart or temptations would have inclined thee to God hath virtually given thee so many pardons That God preserved David from killing Nabal and his Family here was interpretatively as great mercy as in the expresse forgiving of the murder of Vriah It is a rule of Divines Plures sunt gratiae privativae quà m positivae There are more preventing graces then positive The keeping of evils from us is more then the good he bestoweth on us Therefore Austin observed well that as Paul said By the grace of God I am what I am So he might also have said By the grace of God I am not what I am not Though therefore we are not so sensible of preventing mercies as of positive yet a due and right consideration of Gods love in this matter might much inflame our hearts Say therefore O Lord I blesse thee not onely for the pardon of those sins I have committed but also for thy goodnesse in preserving me from those many thousands I was prone to fall into which is in effect the pardon of so many Prop. 4. Remission of sin is not to be considered meerly as removing of evil but also as bestowing of good It is not only ablativa mali but collativa boni it is not a meer negation of punishment due to us but a plentifull vouchsafing of many gracious favours to us such as a Sonship and a right to eternal life as also Peace with God and Communion with him God also never pardons any sin but where he sanctifieth the nature of such an one Indeed it will be worth the enquiry Whether this connexion of pardon of sin with inherent holiness arise from a natural neâ—essity so that one cannot be without the other or whether it be by the meer positive will and appointment of God for the present this is enough God hath revealed he will never dis join these Prop. 5. Iâ— every sin there are as to the purpose of Justification these two things considerable the offence that is done to God whereby he is displeased and the obligation of the man so offending him to eternal condemnation Now remission of sin doth wholly lie in removing of these two so that when God doth will neither to punish or to be offended with the person then he is said to forgive We must not therefore speak of two kinds of remissions one remission of the punishment another of the offence and fault for this is one remission and God never doth the one without the other It is true there remain paternal and medicinal chastisements after sin is forgiven but no offence or punishment strictly so taken What kinde of act this remission is whether immanent or transient is to be shewed in the next Question Prop. 6. From the former Proposition this followeth That sin in the guilt of it is not remitted by any act that we do but it is a meer act of God So that neither the grace of repentance or love of God is that which removeth guilt out of the soul but it is something in God onely It is the opinion of many Papists That God in pardoning doth onely inable to repent for sin and then the guilt of
it is not reported that she found such grief for her sins So that as in corporal things a man would choose the tooth-ach rather then a pestilent feaver yet a man is more afflicted and pained at the tooth-ach or burning of his finger then at a feaver So it may be here a godly man would rather choose the losse of his children or dearest relations then lose the favour of God by his sinne yet it may be have more painfull grief in the one then the other Again it is to be observed That the Scripture requiring sorrow or repentance for sin doth not limit such a degree or such a length of time which if necessary would certainly have been prescribed 6. It cannot be denied but that the ancient Fathers have spoken hyperbolically of tears and repentance which phrases were the occasion of that corrupt doctrine in Popery Chrysostom compareth repentance to the fire which taketh away all rust of sin in us Basil cals it The medicine of the soul yea those things which God properly doth are attributed to tears and sorrow as if the water of the eyes were as satisfactory as the bloud of Christ his bloud is clean enough to purge us but our very tears need washing It is true indeed we reade of a promise made to those who turn from their evil wayes Ezek. 18.27 he shall save his soul alive but this is not the fruit of his repentance but the gift of God by promise It qualifieth the subject it hath no influence upon the priviledge Even as a man doth by the power of nature dispose and prepare the body to receive the soul but it is the work of God immediately to infuse it 7. Though therefore repentance be necessary to qualifie the subject yet we run into falshood when we make it a cause of pardon of sinne And thus ignorant and erroneous people do Ask why they hope to be saved or justified why they hope to have their sins pardoned they return this answer Because they have repented and because they lead a godly life Thus they put their trust and confidence in what they have done But the Scripture though it doth indispensably command repentance in every one yet the efficient cause of pardon is Gods grace and the meritorious is Christs bloud And if repentance come under the name of a cause it can be only of the material which doth qualifie the subject but hath no influence into the mercy it self We reade Luk. 7. that Mary Magdalen had many sins pardoned her because she loved much But the Parable of a Creditor which forgave debts that is brought by our Saviour to aggravate her kindnesse doth plainly shew That he speaks not of a love that was the cause of pardon of her sin but which was the effect of it Gods love melting her heart even as the Sun doth snow The highest expressions that we meet with in Scripture where pardon of sinne seemeth to be ascribed to godlinesse as a cause is Dan. 4.27 Break off thy iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor Here we would think that if a man would on purpose hold that doing of a good work would be a proper cause to remove sin he would use no other expression But first it appeareth by the context that Daniel giveth not this counsel in reference to Justification and the pardon of his sin so as to be accepted with God but to prolong and keep off that temporall judgement which was revealed in the vision as appeareth by those words If there may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity And we have the like instance in Ahab who prorogued his calamity by an external humiliation Again although the Vulgar translate it Redeem thy sins yet the Hebrew word doth properly signifie To break a thing as we translate it and although by a metaphor it be applied to redeem and deliver yet that is alwayes of men and persons not things especially it would be ridiculous to say Redeem thy sins so that the meaning is That whereas before Nebuchadnezzar had by injustice and oppression done much rapine and violence now Daniel counselleth him to break off such wicked wayes by the contrary expressions of love and chastity So that this place giveth not any spiritual mercy to repentance as the proper cause thereof 8. As repentance is thus necessary but not as a cause of pardon so neither is it required as that whereby we appease and satisfie God and this all Popery goeth upon yea and all Pharisaical spirits in their humiliation that by those afflictions and debasements of their souls they shall satisfie God and make him amends But this is so grosse that the more learned of the Papists are fain to mitigate the matter and say That satisfaction cannot be properly made to God by any thing we do because all we have and do is from God and therefore there must be an acceptation or covenant by way of gift interposed whereby we may be able to satisfie And then further they say There cannot be satisfaction made to gain the friendship of God which sin hath violated but to take away some thing of temporall punishment that belongs to sinne So that by all this which hath been delivered we may give repentance those just and true bounds which Gods Word doth assign to it and yet not give more then Gods Word doth Neither may we think it a nicety or subtilty to make a difference between a qualification and a cause for if we do not we take off the due glory that belongs to Christ and his merits and give it to the works we do and we do make Christ and his sufferings imperfect and insufficient and by this we may see in what sense grace inherent or sanctification doth expel sin for if we speak of the filth and pollution of sin so sanctifying grace expels it as light doth darknesse heat doth cold by a reall mutation and change So that God in sanctifying doth no more to expel the sin in the filth of it afterwards even as the Physitian needs to do no more to the removing of the leprosie then by producing a sound health in the body But when we speak of the guilt of sin it is not grace sanctifying within us that doth remove the guilt but grace justifying without us Insomuch that although a man after sin committed were perfectly sanctified yet that would not take off the guilt his sin had brought upon him So that although that man needed in such a case no further grace of sanctification to make him holy yet he needed the grace of remission to take away this guilt So that the guilt of sin doth not cease by a natural necessity upon the removing of the nature of the sin but upon a distinct and new act of Gods favour in forgiving for if this were so then Gods mercy in giving a repenting heart and his mercy in pardoning should not be two distinct mercies which yet are evidently distinguished by
may easily see which of these two Justification or Remission of sinne is The first and proper difference is this An immanent action is that which abides in God so that it works no reall effect without As when God doth meerly know or understand a thing but a transient action is when a positive change is made thereby in a creature as in Creation c. So that we may conclude of all Gods actions which do relate to believers only predestination is an immanent act of God and all the rest Justification Regeneration Glorification are transient acts for Predestination though it be an act of God choosing such an one to happinesse yet it doth not work any reall change or positive effect in a man unlesse we understand it virtually for it is the cause of all those transient actions that are wrought in time Howsoever therefore Justification be called by some an immanent action and so made to go before Faith and Repentance as if Faith were onely a declaration and signe of pardon of sinne from all eternity yet that cannot be made good as is to be shewed A second difference floweth from the other An immanent action is from eternity and the same with Gods essence but a transient action is the same with the effect produced Hence the Orthodox maintain That Gods decrees are the same with his nature Hence when we speak of Gods willing such a thing it is no more then his divine Essence with an habitude and respect to such objects Gods Decrees are no more then God decreeing Gods will no more then God willing otherwise the simpliciy of Gods nature will be overthrown and those volitions of God will be created entities and so must be created by other new volitions and so in infinitum as Spanheimius well argueth only the later part seemeth not to be strong or sufficient because when man willeth he doth not will that by a new volition and so in infinitum and why then would such a thing follow in God Besides its no such absurdity in the actings of the soul to hold a progresse in infinitum thus far that it doth not determinately pitch or end at such an act It is one thing to have things distinguished in God and another thing for us to conceive distinctly of them The former is false The later is true and necessary But with transient actions it is otherwise they being the same with the effects produced are in time And this is a perpetual mistake in the Antinomian to confound Gods Decree and Purpose to justifie with Justification Gods immanent action from all eternity with that transient which is done in time Whereas if they should do thus in matters of Sanctification and Glorification it would be absurd to every mans experience whereas indeed a man may as truly say That his body is glorified from all eternity as that his sins are forgiven from all eternity And certainly Scripture speaks for one as well as the other when it saith Whom he hath justified them he hath glorified By these two differences you may see That pardon of sin is a transient action and so Justification also partly because it leaveth a positive real effect upon a man justified he that was in the state of hatred is hereby in a state of love and friendship he hath peace with God now that once was at variance with him Now when we say There is a change made in a man by Justification it is not meant of an inward absolute and physical one such as is in Sanctification when of unholy we are made holy but morall and relative as when one is made a Magistrate or husband and wife partly because this is done to us in time whereas immanent actions were from all eternity and therefore it would be absurd to pray for them as it is ridiculous for a man to pray he may be predestinated or elected Some indeed have spoken of Predestination as actus continuus a continued act and so with them it is good Divinity Si non sis praedestinatus ora ut praedestineris If thou beest not predestinated pray that thou maiest be but this is corrupt doctrine and much opposeth the Scripture which doth frequently commend election from the eternity of it that it was before the foundations of the world were laid whereas now for pardon of sinne it is our duty to pray that God would do it for us This being thus cleared we come to answer the next Question depending upon this viz. Whether God doth justifie or forgive our sins before we believe or repent and our answer is negative That God doth not Although there are many who are pertinacious that he doth and so they make Faith not an instrumental cause to apply pardon but only a perswasion that sin is pardoned and thus repentance shall not be a condition to qualifie the subject to obtain forgiveness but a sign to manifest that sin is forgiven This Question is of great practical concernment and therefore to establish you in the truth consider these Arguments 1. The Scripture speaks of a state of wrath and condemnation that all are in before they be justified or pardoned Therefore the believers sins were not from all eternity forgiven for if there were a time viz. before his Regeneration and Conversion that he was a childe of wrath under the guilt and punishment of sin then he could not be at the same time in the favour of God and peace with him Now the Scripture doth plentifully shew That even believers before their Regeneration are detained in such bonds and chains of guilt and Gods displeasure Ephes 2.1 2 3. There the Apostle speaking to the converted Ephesians telleth them of the wretched and cursed condition they were once in and he reckons himself amongst them saying They were children of wrath and that even as others were So that there is no difference between a godly man unconverted and a wicked man for that present state for both are under the power of Satan both walk in disobedience both are workers of iniquity and so both are children of wrath It is true the godly man is predestinated and so shall be brought out of this state and the other left in it But predestination as is more largely to be shewed being an immanent act in God doth denote no positive effect for the present of love upon the person and therefore he being not justified hath his sins imputed to him lying upon him and therefore by the Psalmists argument not a blessed man This also 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. The Apostle saith of some Corinthians That they were such as abiding in that state could not inherit the kingdom of God and such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are justified Therefore there was a time when these Corinthians were not justified but had their sins abiding on them Likewise all the places of Scripture which speak of Gods wrath upon wicked men and that
they have no peace with God must needs be true of all godly men while unconverted He that believeth not hath not life and the wrath of God abideth on him and without faith it is impossible to please God Now who can deny but that this is true of Paul while no believer but an opposer of godlinesse The Psalmist also saith God is angry with the wicked every day Was not this true of Manasses before his conversion It must therefore be a very poisonous Doctrine to say That God is as well pleased with a man before his conversion as after 2. If the Scriptures limit this priviledge of Justification and pardon only to those subjects that are so and so qualified then till they be thus furnished they cannot enjoy those priviledges The places are many which testifie this Act. 3.19 Repent that your sins may be blotted out Therefore their sins stood uncancelled as so many Debts in Gods register Book till they did repent Act. 26.18 To turn them from darknesse to light from the power of Satan to God that they may receive forgivenesse of sins Therefore they had it not while under the power of darknesse 1 Joh. 1.9 If we confesse our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins which supposeth That God doth forgive our sins only when we confesse and forsake them Matth. 6.15 If ye forgive not neither will my heavenly Father forgive you It is in vain to number up more places for these do necessarily prove sinne is not forgiven till Faith and Repentance They do not indeed argue a causality or merit yet they infer a necessary presence in those that obtain pardon and do hold by the same proportion as those places which require Sanctification before Glorification 3. Where the Scripture requireth many things to the obtaining of any speciall benefit there that benefit cannot be said to be enjoyed till all those things be brought about Now the Word of God speaks of several things required to pardon of sin There is the Grace and mercy of God as the efficient cause Psal 51.1 Isa 43.25 Rom. 3.25 2. There is requisite the bloud of Christ as the meritorious cause for there can be no remission of sins without effusion of bloud Rom. 3.25 1 Cor. 15.3 Heb. 1.3 1 Joh. 4.10 3. There is Faith required as an instrumental cause Act. 26.18 Rom. 3.25 Now although an instrumentall cause have not that worth or excellency as the efficient and meritorious have yet it is as necessary in the way of an instrument as the others are in their respective causalities so that as a man may not from those places which speak of Gods grace inferre therefore remission of sins is before Christs death So neither may a man argue because Christ died to take away our sins therefore these are taken away before we believe So that this Argument may fully establish us We see the Scripture speaking of three causes cooperant to pardon of sin therefore I may not conclude the effect is wrought till all those causes be And as the Scripture speaks of these causes so as you heard of many qualifications in the subject Insomuch that it is so far from being a duty to believe our sins were pardoned from all eternity antecedently to faith and repentance that we are undoubtedly to believe they were not If the King proclaim a pardon to every one that shall humble himself and seek it out If the Physician prepare a potion for the patient to receive it shall any man say because of those causal preparations that either the one is pardoned or the other healed before their particular application of those things 4. If our sins be pardoned antecedently to our Faith and Repentance then all those effects which are inseparable in the least moment of time from Justification are also antecedent to our Faith and Repentance But it is evident by experience that is not so It is a clear truth That Sanctification of our natures is individually conjoyned one with the other So that although there be a priority of nature yet they are together in time God pardons no mans sins whom he doth not heal Rom. 8.1 1 Joh. 1.9 Psal 32.2 A man may be justified and not glorified but not justified and unregenerated Then if so a man shall be at the same time unconverted and converted at the same time a member of Christ and a member of the devil and so as they say we are justified only declaratively in our own consciences so we shall be regenerated and converted only declaratively Again where sins are pardoned there is blessednesse as the Psalmist speaks then I may call Paul a blessed Persecutor Manasses a blessed murderer for they had no sin imputed to them at that time Besides those whose sins are pardoned may boldly go to the throne of grace and call God Father all which are contrary to the whole tenour of Scripture which expostulateth with men for taking his name or words into their mouth and hate to be reformed yet a Doctor of this Antinomian sour leaven affirmeth boldly That God doth love us as well before conversion as after That God did love Paul with as great a love when he persecuted the Church as when he preached the Gospel How must this devour up all godlinesse when I may have the same faith and confidence in God for pardon in the acting of flagitious crimes as well as out of them in prayer and humiliation and if he may have the same faith why not then the same consolations and joy in conscience 5. If Justification do antecede our Faith so that Faith doth only declare our pardon of sin then any other grace may be said to justifie as well as Faith For take any other grace repentance humility joy these are all the fruits of Gods Spirit and so demonstrate his election of us his justification of us But how unanswerably do the Orthodox prove a peculiar instrumental vertue in faith for pardon which others have not The Apostle expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through faith in his bloud not love of his bloud and indeed the Apostle maintaineth that Gospel-position against false teachers viz. That we are justified by Faith not by works The Question was not Whether the works of the Law did justifie us declaratively only but causally So then by this Doctrine Faith must no more be called the hand or the eating and drinking of Christs body and bloud but only made a sign of such mercies 6. If pardon of sin be from all eternity going before our Faith and Repentance because of Gods election then it must also be antecedent to the death and obedience of Christ So that not only our tears but Christs bloud shall be excluded from this great favor The reason is plain Because Gods predestination and election is antecedent to Christ yea Christ is a fruit of our election so that the Orthodox maintain against Arminians though we be chosen
that controversie The opponent it may be knoweth that there are some who say Christ or the Spirit of Christ is first in us by way of a moving or preparing principle and afterwards as a principle inhabiting and dwelling in us That as some say Anima fabricat sibi domicilium the soul makes its body to lodge in it works first efficiently that afterwards it may formally so they say Christ doth in us As the silk-worm prepareth those silken lodgings for her self to rest in So that according to the judgement of these men Christ or his Spirit doth efficiently work in us the act of believing by which act Christ is received to dwell in us And in this way Christ hath no union with us till we do believe He worketh indeed in us before but not as united to us Now according to this opinion the answer were easie That we are not in Christ till we do beleeve Though Christ be in us as working in us and upon us Yea faith would first be wrought and then Christ with his benefits of justification c. would be vouchsafed to us but there are Reasons why it is not safe to go this way And indeed that Charta magna or grand promise for regeneration doth evidently argue the habits or internall principles of grace are before the actions of grace Ezek 36.26 God takes away the heart of stone and giveth a new heart an heart of flesh which is the principle of grace and afterwards causeth them to walk in his Commandments which is the effect of grace But secondly which doth fully answer the Objection It is true our being ingraffed into Christ is the root and fountain of faith and of Justification too but yet so that these being correlates faith and Justification they both flow from the root together though with this order that faith is to be conceived in order of nature before Justification that being the instrument to receive it though both be together in time Therefore the major Proposition should be thus regulated He that is in Christ doth believe and is justified or believing is justified for Justification as our Glorification though it flow from Christ yet it is in that order and time which God hath appointed Neither is it any new thing in Philosophy to say Those causes which produce an effect though they be in time together yet are mutually before one another in order of nature in divers respects to their severall causalities Christ is in us and we in Christ Christ is in us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of gift and actual working and we are in Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of receiving and both these are necessary as appeareth Joh. 15.5 and both are together in time yet so that in order of nature Christs being in us is before our being in him and the ground of all our comfort and fruit is not because we are in him but he in us even as the branch beareth fruit not because it is in the Vine but because the Vine is in it communicating efficacy to it Thus also faith and Justification are together yet so as one is produced by the other we are not justified and therefore believe but we believe and are therefore justified Lastly This may be retorted upon the opponent who as was alleadged before denieth any actual reconciliation till we do believe But may not we strike the adversary with his own reason in this manner He that is in Christ is actually reconciled But we must be in Christ before we do believe Therefore we must be actually reconciled before we do believe I pass over the third and reserve the fourth and sixth Argument being all one for the next Lecture because in them is matter worthy of a large consideration I come therefore to the fifth Argument which is taken from the collation between the first Adam and second out of Rom. 5.18 19. From whence is argued As in the first Adam we are accounted sinners before any thing done on our part so in the second Adam we are to be justified before any thing wrought in us This the opponent doth much triumph in but without cause as the answer will manifest And in the first place we cannot but reject those Expositors of that text fore-quoted who understand us to be sinners in Adam only by imitation or by propagation meerly as from a corrupted fountain but we suppose it to be by imputation Adam by Gods Covenant being an universal person and so as Austin said Omnes ille unus homo fuerunt All were that one man And therefore these do not rise up to the full scope of the text who parallel Christ and Adam only as two roots Origens or fountains for there must be a further consideration of them as two common persons for our immediate fathers are a corrupted root and we are corrupted by them yet their sins are not made ours as Adams was Hence the Apostle laieth the whole transgression upon one as by one mans disobedience c. Those that deny imputation of Adams sin as the Pelagians of old and Erasmus with others of late do not relish that translation of those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom all have sinned but prefer the other Forasmuch as all have sinned in him but both come to the same sense and howsoever Erasmus say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a dative case must be understood causally yet that is not universally true for Mar. 2.4 there is mention made of the bed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which the paralytique lay it would be ridiculous to translate that inasmuch So Act. 2. Be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the name Heb. 9. Those ordinances consisted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in meats We therefore grant That Adams sin was ours by imputation before we had any actual consent to it In which sense Bernard called it Alienum nostrum anothers sin and ours yea it is so farre from being ours by consent that if a man on purpose should now will that Adams sin should be his this would not make Adams sin imputed to him it would be a new actual sin in the man it would not be Adams sin imputed to him Now although all this be concluded upon yet it followeth not that therefore we are justified in Christ before we believe I acknowledge some eminent Divines have pressed this comparison but there is a vast difference in this very act of imputation and the ground of it for supposing the Covenant at first made with Adam all his posterity by a naturall way are involved in his guilt and so whether they will or no antecedently to their own acts they are obnoxious to this guilt Hence all men none excepted that are propagated in a natural way are thus corrupted but in Christ we are by a supernatural way and none are made his but such as beleeve in him and he doth not represent any to God as his members till
this world Hence our Saviour cals it The day of our redemption upon the coming whereof they are to lift up their heads The Observation is That a compleat and full absolution from all sin is not enjoyed till the day of judgement The Beleevers have not a full discharge till then we are in this life continually subject to new sins and so to new guilt whereby arise new fears so that the soul hath not a full rest from all till that final absolution be pronounced at the day of judgement Before we shew the grounds whereby it may appear that the remission of our sins is not fully compleated till then we must lay down some Propositions by way of a grand work First The Scripture not only in this priviledge of remission of our sin but in others also makes the complement and fulness of them to be at the day of judgement Redemption is the totall summe as it were of all our mercies and we are partakers of it in this life Col. 1.14 Rom. 3.24 Yet the Scripture cals the day of judgement when we shall rise out of our graves in a peculiar and eminent manner the day of redemption Ephes 1.7 Ephes 4.30 because at that day will be the utmost and last effects of our redemption Adoption that also is a priviledge we receive in this life yea a learned man Forbes in his book where he handleth the order of Gods graces makes adoption as I take it to be the first and to go before justification yet the Apostle Rom. 8.23 calleth the last day the day of adoption Hence 1 Joh. 3.2 the Apostle though he saith We are now the sons of God yet he saith it doth not appear what we shall be because the glory God at the last day will put upon us is so farre transcendent and superlative to what now we are Thus Mat. 19.28 the last day is also called the day of regeneration unto the people of God yet in this life they partake of that grace but because then is the full perfection and manifestation of it therefore the Scripture cals it the day of regeneration Even as the Apostle Act. 13.33 applieth that passage of the Psalm to Christs resurrection This day have I begotten thee because then was such a solemn and publique declaration that he was the Son of God No marvel then if the Scripture do also call the day of judgement a time when sins shall be blotted out because then is the publique absolution of the godly and according to philosophy motions receive their names from the term to which they tend Secondly Howsoever Justification be said to consist in pardon of sin yet there is a great difference between the one and the other for Justification besides the pardon of sin doth connote a state that the subject is put into viz. A state of favour being reconciled with God Hence it is that this state cannot be reiterated often no more then a wife after that first entrance into the relation is frequently made a wife In this sense the Scripture alwaies speaks of it as connoting a state or condition the subject is put into as well as a peculiar priviledge vouchsafed to such It is true There are indeed learned men who think Justification may be reiterated as you heard Peter Martyr and Bucer Others call it a continued action as conservation But although there is a continuance of Justification and the godly are preserved in that estate yet we cannot say God doth renew Justification daily as he doth pardon of sin There are some that think the Scripture gives a ground for a second Justification or the continuing and encreasing of it and bring those places Tit. 3.5 6 7. Rev. 22.11 The learned and excellent Interpreter Ludovicus de Dieu in Cap. 8. of the Romans vers 4. largely pleadeth for a two-fold Justification The first he makes to be the imputing of Christs righteousness to us received by faith which is altogether perfect and is the cause of pardon of sins The second he makes an effect of the former whereby through the grace of God regenerating we are conformable unto that love in part and are day by day more and more justified and shall be fully so when perfection comes of which Justification he saith these texts speak Jam. 2.21 24. Revel 22.11 Mat. 11.37 1 King 8.32 This two-fold Justification he makes to differ toto coelo from the Papists whose first is founded upon the merit of congruity the second upon the merit of condignity But the discussing of this will be more proper in the other part viz. of imputed righteousness Austin seemeth to hold Justification a frequent and continued act lib. 2. contra Julianum cap. 8. When we are heard in that prayer Forgive us our sins we need saith he such a remission daily what progress soever we have made in our second Justification He speaks also of a Justification hujus vitae which he cals minorem the lesser and another plenam and perfectam full and perfect which belongs to the state of glory Tract 4. in Joannem lib. de spiritu lit cap. ultim But the more exact handling of this will be in the place above-mentioned It seemeth more consonant to Scripture if we say That Justification is a state we were once put into which is not repeated over and over as often as sin is forgiven neither can it admit of increase or decrease so that a man should be more or less justified for even David while he was in that state of suspension was not less justified though the effects of Justification were less upon him It is true in some sense learned men say Justification may increase viz. extensivè not intensivè as they express it by way of extension when more sins are pardoned not intensively in its own nature Even as the soul of a man in its information of the body admits of no increase intensively but it doth extensively the more the parts of the body grow the further doth its information extend But of these things more in their proper place Thirdly Howsoever an absolution shall be compleated at the day of judgement yet our justification shall not abide in such a way as it is in this life Now our Justification is by pardon of sin and a righteousness without us imputed to us which is instrumentally applied by faith but this way shall then cease for having perfect righteousness inherent in our selves we shall need no covering It is true the glory and honour of all this will redound upon Christ and he shall not be the less glorified because he hath then brought us to the full end of all his sufferings I know some may doubt whether any righteousness but that which is infinite can please God and therefore as some think the Angels were accepted of God through Christ though perfect so it may of the Saints in heaven but I see no ground for this This seemeth to be undoubted That the
her self further appeareth in making her Hair heretofore the instrument of her pride and wantonness now a Towel to wipe his feet In the third place Christs love towards her is remarkable and in the general it is so great that the Pharisee puffed up with his own pride was offended at it not considering First That though she had been a sinner yet now she manifested Repentance And secondly That every commerce and communion with a sinner is not forbidden but that which is of incouragement or consent unto his sin but our Saviours was like the communion of a Physician with the Patient to heal and cure Hence our Saviour touched the leper whom he healed yet was not unclean because he touched him to restore him to health But as the people murmured because Moses married a Blackmore so the Pharisees grudged because Christ shewed mercy to sinners but Moses indeed could not make the Blackmore white whereas Christ doth purifie the defiled soul Now our Saviour doth aggravate his love to her First by a diligent enumeration of those several acts of service which she had exhibited to him not mentioning any of her former sins and all this he doth with an Antithesis or opposition to that carriage which the Pharisee had presented him with 2. To convince the Pharisee he declareth a Parable that so from his own mouth the Pharisee may judge her love to Christ to be greater then his In the last place his grace to her is further declared by pardoning her sins though so hainous which pardon is first declared unto the Pharisee in my Text and afterwards to the woman her self In my Text is the first promulgation of her pardon now because the words have some difficulty and the later part is brought to prove love to be a meritorious cause of Remission of sins two Questions are briefly to be resolved First When this womans sins were pardoned And the Answer is That as soon as ever she repented in her heart of her evil wayes and believed in Christ her sins were forgiven her for so God doth promise and this was before she came to Christ but she cometh to Christ for the more assurance of Pardon and not only so but that he should authoritatively absolve her from her sinne for Christ did more then declare her sins pardoned as appeareth by the standers by who with wonder made this question v. 49. Who is this that forgiveth sins also Whereas to declare the forgiveness of sin only any Minister may do as we read of Nathan to David 2 Sam. 12.13 So that her sins were pardoned by God before at the first time of her Faith and Repentance but now Christ as the Mediator doth particularly absolve her and that in her own conscience therefore he bids her Go in peace The second Question is Whether that expression Much is forgiven her for she loved much be causal as if her love were antecedent and a cause of her forgiveness or consequential only as an effect or sign of her forgiveness in this sense She loved much because God did forgive her many sins not she loved much and therefore God forgave her Here is a great and vast difference between these two many Papists are for the later the Protestants generally for the former and there is this cogent reason for it for that Christ doth not speak of Repentance or Love which should go before and be the cause of the pardon of sins is plain by the Parable he brings of a Creditor who forgave one Debtor more another Debtor less hereupon our Saviour asked the Pharisee Which of them will love him most Simon answered I suppose him to whom most was forgiven Now of such a love our Saviour speaketh when he mentioneth the woman which is clearly a love of Gratitude Because much was forgiven not an antecedent love of merit to procure pardon so that as from her actions of anointing and washing his feet by way of a sign or effect we gather her Faith and Love of Christ so by her Faith and Love as by a sign and effect it may be gathered that her sins are forgiven her But you may ask How could she come to know her sins were forgiven before Christ told her I answer By the promise of God made to every true Penitent and Believer though this assurance of hers was imperfect and therefore admitted of further degrees whereas then all this Repentance and Humiliation was not that sinne might be forgiven but from Faith that they were forgiven We may observe this That the sense and apprehension of pardon of sins already obtained doth not beget carnal security but a further mollifying and humbling of the heart in a gracious manner This is a practical truth of great concernment And for the opening of it take notice of this distinction as a foundation viz. That there is in Scripture a two-fold Repentance or Humiliation of the soul for sin the one antecedent and going before pardon and this the Scripture requireth as a necessary condition without which forgiveness of sin cannot be obtained of this Repentance the Scripture for the most part speaks Ezek 14.18 30. Mat. 3.2 Mark 6.12 Luk. 13.3 Act. 3.19 and generally in most places of Scripture In the second place there is an Humiliation of heart and brokenness of soul for sin arising from thâ— apprehension of Gods love in pardoning whereby we grieve that we should deal so unkindely with so good and gracious a God This though more rarely yet is sometimes spoken of in Scripture as first in this woman who out of the apprehension of Gods love in pardoning so much to her did pour out her soul in all wayes of thankfulness After this manner also was Davids Repentance Psal 51. for he was thus deeply affected after Nathan had told him His sin was taken away Although it doth appear by the Psalm also that he had not as yet that sense of pardon which did quiet his conscience This kinde of affection was also in Paul 1 Tim. 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 15.8 9. in which places the Apostle remembring his former sins confesseth them and acknowledgeth thereby his unworthinesse of all that grace and favour he had received so that the Apostle doth not there humble himself that he may obtain mercy but because he had obtained mercy The most eminent instance of this kinde of sorrow and shame is Ezek. 16.62 63. where God promiseth to establish his Covenant with them and then mark the event of this That thou mayâ—st remember and be confounded and never open thy mouth more because of thy shame when I am pacified towards thee So then both these kindes of Humiliations are to be owned and practised and therefore it is a false and dangerous error to acknowledge no other kinde of Repentance then the later The Papists will not acknowledge this later Humiliation at all because they deny all Faith and Assurance that a believer may have of
is not to make a difference of sin 212 213 A three-fold difference between the sins of a godly and wicked man 232 233 Seeing and knowing how they differ 90 No difference to our capacity between Gods seeing and knowing 91 A two-fold difference between Gods forgiving our sins and our forgiving others 113 114. The Properties of God and the actions of them how they differ p. 97 Justification and pardon of sinne how they differ 257 The sense of Gods displeasure for sin may be retained in us two wayes servilely filially 22 The Antinomian distinction examined 89 90 Believers have not a full discharge from sin till the day of Judgement 256 It is the duty of justified persons to pray for pardon and for forgiveness of sin 113 It is the duty of Believers to repent of sinne that it may be pardoned and why 114 E Election is Amor ordinativus non oâ—llâ—tiâ—us 188 In what sense an elect man before conversion is loved of God â—88 God hath other ends then to satisfie his Justice when he afflicts his people 26 There are many errors about Justification and the danger of them 4 The ground of Popish errors about Justification 5 The errors of Papists Antinomians concerning remission of sinne 43 44 45 The errors of the Saints displeasing to God 80 81 Who they are which do esteem of pardon of sin and why 221 222 Why Creation and Justification are not from Eternity 167 How sin doth and how it doth not expell the Grace of Justification 243 F How the word Face is attributed to God 226 All men called flesh 1 A two-fold Faith in all Petitions Applicative Fiducial 61 Forgivenes is the removing the guilt though not the nature of sin 45 Prayer for and faith in God for forgiveness may well stand together 62 God doth reiterate forgivenss of sin 127 Christians ought to pray for forgiveness and in what sense 129. from 113. to 116 Forbearance of punishment differs from forgiveness 143 144 What forgiveness of sin is 214 Whether God in forgiving sin doth forgive all sin together 244 245 The meaning of the Petition Forgive us our Debts declared in eight particulars 113 to 118 How freedom is extended to God 96 G The Glory of God what 2 The nature of Gospel-grace 253 Great sins as weâ—l as lesser are forgiven the godly 51 Two considerations which will much help us to see the greatness of our sins 204 Gross sins procure wrath to the godly 208 Gross sins exclude from the society of the Church ibid. Gross sins require many conditions before pardoned 209 Gross sins require a more intense act of faith to apply pardon 210 A godly man falling into gross sins is under sequestration though not ejection 238 Why the guilt of new gross sins doth not take away Justification 243 244 H Hay and stubble 1 Cor. 3. what 81 Humiliation and Repentance denied by the Antinomians 59 125 A Christian is to be humbled more for gross sins then ordinary infirmities 208 209 Hyperbolical expressions of the Fathers 250 I Five things implied from the subject praying Forgive us our debts Mat. 6.12 1. That all are sinners 2. A sense of sin 3. Godly sorrow 4. Earnestnesse and perseveâ—ance until we obtain 5. Constant renewed acts of faith 121 to 125 Three things implied in the object matter Mat. 6.12 125 126 The act of imputation and the ground of it how they differ 185 There is a two-fold impulsive cause of Justification 2 Justification what it implieth 6 How Infants are justified whether without faith or no 181 182 183 How Christ is in us and we in him 184 A man is not justified untill he doth repent and believe 12 Wherein Justification consists 17 How Justification can be said to be the pardon of sin ibid. Whether the Justification of Believers be the same under the old and new Testament 62 How sin is injurious to God 164 How we are justified before faith 177 Justification and faith are correlatives 183 God cannot in Justice but punish sinners 98 The Justice of God admits of a surety 200 The Justice of God essentially ad intra and the effects ad extra how differ ibid. Four Propositions shewing the nature and time of a believers Justification 257 258 259 Justification is not reiterated 115 K Gods Knowledge and ours how they differ 89 90 L How Gods taking notice of sin to punish it is subject to the meer Liberty of his will 95. to 102 God takes notice of little sins 79 M Whether the sins of Gods people shall be manifested at the last day 261 262 The Ministers of God commanded to binde and retain sins 65 The spirit doth mortifie our sins 56 External and spiritual mortification how differing 57 Sin is mortified in us not only declaratively but really ibid. N The Nature of Justification 116 117 The nature of sin what and how expressed in Scripture 130 131 132 The nature of the sins of Gods people 230 231 Faith and Repentance how necessary to the pardon of sin 140 141 God takes notice of the sins of believers 60 1â—9 O The answering of Objections sometimes profitable 41 42 Antinomian Objections and distinctions discussed 88. to 102 An Obligation to punishment follows sinne long before committed 137 139 False Opinions liable to the anger of God proved 80 81 Habitual original sin how truly it may be called sin 132 The original of justification and assurance 171 172 173 The Orthodox truth concerning afflictions upon a justified person against the errors of Antinomians and Papists â—6 P Pardon of sin is not only privative bâ—t positive 118 Five Reasons proving that the sense of pardon doth not beget carnal security 267. Five Reasons why God doth sometimes pardon sin and not manifest it to the soul 199 200 Whether the sins of believers be pardoned before they be committed 246 Eight Arguments proving they are not 247 to 253 Three Directions to a soul tempted about the pardon of sin 122 Our sins are perfectly pardoned in this life 258 Whether God by his absolute power may not pardon sin without the graces of faith and repentance 148 Peace with God what it is 34 35 Whether in that Petition Mat. 5.12 we pray for pardon and assurance 116 117 196 Four Reasons proving that we pray for the pardon it self and not only for assurance 196 Four sorts of men praying for pardon and the manner of their praying 195 196 197 Four Reasons proving that not only assurance but the pardon it self is to be prayed for 197 Who are the best Preachers of Christ and the Gospel 122 The Promises of God require an holy and humble walking 172 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is signifieth 2 Thirteen Propositions to clear the nature of Justification 3. to 13 Nine Propositions for the understanding the nature of pardon of sin 18. to 22 Seven Propositions laid down to clear the truth of that assertion that God doth afflict his people as a Father 27 28 29 30 A
of Instruction to the godly Observ It is the duty of justified persons to pray for forgivenesse of their sins The meaning of the Petition Forgive us c. 1 â—hat God wâ—uld not require of us the satisfaction of his justice for our sins 2 That God would lay our sins on Christ A two-fold diffâ—rence between Gods forgiving our sins and our forgiving others 3. As we pray for justification so for the continuance in it 4. We pray for daily renewed acts of pardon and imputation of Christs righteousnesse Bellâ—rmines objection answered 5. We pray for the sense of this pardon in our consciences more and more We pray for pardon it self and not for the sense thereof only Reasons proving this Reas 1. Reas â— Reas 3. Reas 4. 6 We pray that as God forgives the sin so he would release the punishmâ—nt 7 We pray to be delivered from the effects of sin 8 We pray for pardon and the concomitants thereof Three things implied in this Petition 1. On the part of the subject or he who praieth is implied 1 That all men are sinfull 2. A sense of sin within us 3 Godly sorrow for sin 4 Earnest perseverance till we obtain 5 Constant renewed acts of faith 3 In the object or matter praâ—ed for are implâ—ed 1 That fâ—rgâ—venâ—ss of sin may he had after Bâ—ptism 2 That a remission of great sins may be hoped for 3 That there is an iteration of pardon 3 In the person to whom we pray are implied 1 That God only can forgive sins 2 That he takes notice of sin Vse Sin considered â—our vvayes 1 Abstractedly in its own nature The nature of sin expressed in the severall names of it 2 In the definition of it Hovv all sin is voluntary 2 Of sin relating to the person sinning A man possibly may not or rather formâ—lly cannot intend sinne 3 The proper effâ—ct of sinne which is to make guilty Whence comes 1 A stâ—in upon the soâ—l taken out by sanctification Liv. de Rec. â— An oâ—â—igation to â—tâ—râ—â—l â—â—â—shment 〈◊〉 by reâ—ission Sin considered as an â—ffence to God Whether sin bâ— an infinite evil Vse What remission of sin is From the names of it Propos 1. Propos 2. Propos 3. Propos 4. Propos 5. Propos 6. Object Answ Vse How our duty of repentance consists with Gods free grace in remitting Propos 1. Propos 2. Propos 3. Propos 4. 5 Two great practical mistakes concerning repentance observed The first of the prophane man The second of the godly Propos 6. Propos 7. The scope of the whole Vse 1. Vse 2. Practical Objections concerning repentance Object 1. Of what use repentance may be Answ 1. Answ 2. Six Reasons of congruity betwixt repentance and remission Reas 1. Reas 2. Reas 3. Reas 4. Reas 5. The sixt Reason two â—old 1. In regard of Gods justice 2 In regard of his grace and mercy Object 2. Whether repentance of it self may not take away the guilt of sin Answ 1. Answ 2. Answ 3. Why repentance bears not the proportion in satisfaction that sin does in the offence Object 3. What harm to God in sin Answ By distinguishing Gods Attributes Vse 1. Vse 2. What kinde of act in God forgivenesse of sin is Two cautions concerning the workings of God 1. There are no accidents in him 2. No new will in him Differences between an immanent traâ—sient action 1. An immanent action produceth no outward effecâ— * Exâ—ra controversiam est remissionem peccatorum prout actâ—â— est in Dâ—o immanens antecedere nostram fidem resipiscentiam Twiss Vin. gr pag. 18. 2. An immanent action in God is from eternity Arguments proving our belâ—ef and repentance antecedents of justification Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Arg. 4. * Den reconcil with God p. 25 Arg. 5. Arg. 6. Den. Arg. 3. to prove we are justified before vve believe Arg. 7. Vse Whether Justification precede faith and repentance Arguments for the affirmative From authority of orthodox men What the opinion above-said may mean That so expounded it seemeth but weak for thâ—se Reasons Reas 1. Reas 2. * Den recon of man with God p. 3 4. Reas 3. 1. Argument fâ—om Infants * Neither may this seem such a wonder seeiâ—g that the orthodox hold even in men growâ— up the first grace is wrought in us as meer patients our understandings wils no waies antecedently concurring to it so that the grace of God is then wrought in us without us Argum 2. Arg. 5. Answ Arg. 7. Ans 1. Answ 2. Answ 3. Answ 4. Answ 5. An elect person unconvâ—râ—ed and a reprobate in many things differ not As Argu. 4. and Argum. 6. Answ 1. Answ 2. Answ 3. A two fold condition of faith Arg. ult Answ Whether we pray here for Pardon or for Assurance of Pardon only The Answer to the Question propounded 1. Thâ—y who are assured of Pardon ought yet to pray 2. This Petition relates to four sorts of men 3 Assurance of pardon not the only thing prayed for proved by four Reasons Reas 1. Reas 2. Reas 3. Reas 4. The instance for the coâ—trary opinion answered Why God doth sometimes pardon sin not acquainting the sinner vvith it Reas 1. Reas 2. Reas 3. Reas 4. Reas 5. What directions should be given a soul under temptation about pardon of sin Direct 1. Direct 2. Direct 3. Whether in repentance the difference between great sins and Less is to be respected Propositions premised concerning this Quâ—stion The Question stated in these Propositions following 1. This difference is to be attended in suing for pardon 2. In respect of humiliation 3. Gross sins procure wrath and hinder the consolations of Gods Spirit 4. Gross sins exclude from the society of the faithful 3 Some gross sins requste mâ—ny conditions before pardon 6 Grosse sins require a more intense act of faith to apply pardon Some particulars wherein no difference is to be put between great and lesser sins 1. In respect of the efficient cause of pardon 2. Nor in respect of the meritorious cause 3 Neither in the means of pardon 4. No difference to be made as to the state of justâ—fication Illustration The text contains a description of the pardon of sin 1 From several expressions to magnifie the mercy of it 2 From the adjunct of remâ—ssion viz. blessednesse Observations raised from the Text. 1 That forgiveness of sin is a covering of sin What is meant by covering of sinne How God by pâ—rdâ—n is said to cover sin Some particulars not extended to in this phrase of covering sin Whether the phrase of Gods covering sinne favour the errour That God seeth not sinne in beleevers Answer negative Two Objections answered Object 1. Object 2. Answ Pardon of sin duly valued by those only who inwardly feel Gods anger against it Vse 1. Of the first Observation Vse 2. Vse 3. The text divided into tvvo Petitions A face attributed to God in a double sense Observation from the first Petition The aggravation of Davids sin in ten particulars The degrees of Davids repentance The teâ—t considered in theâ— What sins Gods children may fall into The sins of Gods people in what kinde to be ranked Differences between the sins of the godly and reprobate Differ 1. Differ 2. Differ 3. Vse How far grosse sins make a breach upon Justification Answered negatively The Question answered affirmatively Why the guilt of new grosâ—e sins doth not take avvay Justification The second Petition handled Whether God in pardoning do forgive all sins together Three things laid down by way of concession The Question held negatively upon these grounds Vse Observ Propositions laid down in prosecution of this Observatâ—on Wherein the compleatnesse of the pardon of sin at the day of judgement consisteth 1. In our sense of that pardon 2. In the accomplishment of all effects of pardon 3. Then no more iteration of pardon 4. Then justification shall be perfected Whether the sins of Gods people shâ—ll be manifested at the last day Vse 1. Vse 2. An Entrance into the Text from the consideration of the history Two Questions resolved for cleâ—ring the Text. Answ 1 When this Penitents sinne was pardoneâ— 2. Whether the expression in the text favour any causality in the Penitents love in reference to hâ—r pardon Observ 1. A two fold repeâ—taâ—ce in Scriptâ—re The Observation proved from Scripture By reason Further evidence from experience Vse 1. To press this use upon us two things especially to be insisted upon 1. The doctrine of oâ—iâ—inal coâ—ruption 2. The strict obligation of the Law Vse 2.
formally a sin so that its both a sin and the cause of sin and the effect of sin at the same time Now in this particular lieth the greatest part of the difficulty in the doctrine of forgivenes of sin for here sin is in the godly and truly so yet for all that it doth not condemn The Papists finding by experience such motions of original sin in us yet do say they are only penal effects and remain as opportunities by spiritual combate to increase the Crown of glory and this they urge as impossible they should be sins and yet not condemn the godly because guilt is inseparable from sin And the Antinomian doth expresly stumble at this stone Dr Crisps Serm. vol. 2. p. 92. For my part saith he I do not think as some do that guilt differs from sin but that it is sin it self They are but two words expressing the same thing Now if it were so that sin and guilt or the ordination of it to punishment were the same thing there could be no sin in the godly It is true guilt cannot be but where sin hath been yet guilt of punishment may be removed when the sin is past But this the Author doth shew that sin was so laid on Christ that from that time he ceaseth to be a sinner any more Thou art not a Thief a Murderer when as you have part in Christ p. 89. ut supra But of this hereafter 5. When a sin is forgiven it is totally and perfectly forgiven This is to be considered in the next place for when the Antinomian would have us so diligently consider that place Jer. 50.20 where God saith noneâ—â— â—â— If I say this were all his meaning sin shall be as if it had never been in respect of condemnation he shall be as surely freed from hell as if he had never sinned all this is true But they have a further meaning and that is That the sin was so laid upon Christ that the sinner ceaseth to be a sinner as if because a surety payeth the debt of some lend bankrupt that very paiment would make him cease to be a bankrupt that is false yet God doth so forgive sin that it can be forgiven no more perfectly then it is Those sins cannot be forgiven any more then they are which is matter of infinite comfort and as it is totally so irrevocably God will not revive them again Hence are those expressions of blotting them out of throwing them into the depth of the sea and howsoever that Parable Mat. 18. which speaks of the Master forgiving a servant so many talents yet upon the servants cruelty to some of his fellows his master calleth him to account and throweth him in prison for his former debts howsoever I say this be brought by some to prove that sins forgiven may upon after-iniquities be charged upon a man yet the ground is not sufficient For first The main scope only of a Parable is Argumentative The Fathers do fitly represent Parables to many things to a Knife whose edge doth only cut yet the back helps to that to a Plow whose Plow-shear only cuts yet the wood is subservient so in a Parable the main scope and intent is only argumentative the other parts are but like so many shadows or flourishes in the picture to make it more glorious now this instance was not mainly intended by our Saviour but forgivenesse of one another so that this part doth only shew what is in use amongst men or what sin doth deserve at Gods hands not that God revoketh his pardon or repenteth that ever he hath forgiven us but this is more expresly answered afterwards 6. Though sin be forgiven yet there may be the sense of Gods displeasure still for as though God doth forgive there are many calamities and pressures upon the godly so though Christ hath born the agonies that do belong unto sin yet some scalding drops of them do fall upon the godly not that the godly is by these to satisfie the justice of God but that hereby we might feel the bitternes of sin what wormwood and gall is in it that so we may take heed for the future and that we may by some proportion think on and admire the great love of Christ to us in undergoing such wrath Didst thou not judge the least of his anger falling upon thee more terrible then all the pains and miseries that ever thou wast plunged into And by this then thou mayest stand amazed and wondering at this infinite love of Christ to stand under this burden for thee David is a pregnant instance for the truth of this As when Saul was angry with Jonathan and run a Javelin at him he escaped and that run into the wall so the wrath of God which was violently to fall upon thee missed thee and ran into Christ But the sense of Gods displeasure for sin may be retained in us two wayes 1. Servilely and slavishly whereby we run from the promise and Christ and have secret grudgings and repinings against God this is sinfull for us to do 2. There is a filial apprehending of Gods displeasure though we are perswaded of the pardon this is good and necessary as we see in David who made that Psalm of Repentance Psal 51. though he had his absolution from his sin Tears in the soul by the former way are like the water of the Sea salt and brackish but those in the latter are sweet like the rain of the Clouds falling down on the earth 7. No wicked man ever hath any sin forgiven him for seeing remission of sins is either a part or fruit of Justification no wicked man is more capable of the one then the other Indeed we may read concerning wicked men Ahab and the Israelites when they have humbled themselves though externally and hypocritically yet God hath removed those judgements which were imminent upon them and thus far their sins have been forgiven them but God did not at the same time take off the curse and condemnation due to them Though they were delivered from outward calamity yet not from hell and wrath This therefore doth demonstrate the wofull condition of wicked men that have not one farthing of all their debts they owe to God paid but are liable to account for the least sins and it must needs be so for Christ the true and only paimaster of his peoples debts doth not own them so that when their sins shall be sought for every one in all the aggravations of it will be found out 8. This remission of sin is onely to the repenting believing sinner To the repentant Act. 5.31 To give repentance to Israel and forgivenesse of sins So Luk. 44.47 That repentance and forgivenesse of sins should be preached in his name Act. 8.22 Repent and pray if the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee 1 Joh. 1.9 If we confesse our sins he is faithfull to forgive c. These and