A LEARNED AND Accurate Discourse CONCERNING The Guilt of Sin Pardon of that Guilt and Prayer for that Pardon Written many Years ago by the Reverend Mr. THOMAS GILBERT Minister of the Gospel lately Deceased at OXFORD Now Published from his own Manuscript left by him some Years before his Death with a Friend in LONDON LONDON Printed for Nath. Hiller at the Princes Armes in Leaden-Hall-Street over-against St. Mary Axe 1695. THE PREFACE THE Light held out in these Papers is accounted so clear and so useful that it hath been thought great Pity it hath not been set up upon a Candlestick They have passed up and down in Manuscript about Thirty Years being much valued by those who were Possessors of them It is Credibly reported that a very great and Learned Man whom for some Reasons I will not name though his Commendation would have great weight with Persons of different perswasions did upon the perusal of them speak to the Learned Author to this purpose That it was worth a Mans Living a great while though he did nothing else but bring forth such a Composure The Subjects Treated on are so weighty and of such concernment that any contribution of Light therein ought to find Acceptance and be rejoyced in by all The manner of this Authors Treating on them is succinct and plain and wholly unoffensive The Differences and Contests about these Points which have of late appeared among us do further recommend them and the Publishing of them as very seasonable at this Juncture The Blessing of God go along with them So prayeth L. R. A Learned and Accurate Discourse concerning the Guilt of Sin Pardon of that Guilt and Prayer for that Pardon THE Reader least he should stumble at Terms the most proper I could think of to express my Notion is desired to observe that in this Discourse I understand by Legal 1. Precepts Such as rigidly exact their observance for Justification 2. Sins The Transgression of such Legal Precepts 3. Threatnings Such rigid unallay'd Threatnings as being Curses as well as Threatnings form Obligation to Legal Punishment for such Legal Sins 4. Punishments the Execution of such Legal Threatnings as Curses as well as Threatnings Legal Guilt and Legal Pardon are in the Discourse expresly defin'd And in Proportionable Opposition to the former I mean by Gospel 1. Precepts Mainly the same for Substance with those of the Law but not exacting their Observance with the same Rigor namely for Justification 2. Sins The Transgression of such Gospel-Precepts 3. Threatnings Mainly the same for Substance with those of the Law but now such mitigated allay'd Threatnings as being Threatnings only and not Curses form Obligation only to Gospel Punishments or Chastisements for such Gospel Sins 4. Punishments The Execution of such Gospel-Threatenings which have therefore no more of Curse in them than such Threatnings themselves Gospel-guilt and Gospel-pardon are in the Discourse expresly defin'd and the Sense wherein the Distinction of Legal and Gospel-pardon proceeds plainly enough declared Some Considerations touching the Guilt of Sin Pardon of that Guilt and Prayer for that Pardon Wherein something is attempted towards the further clearing of the great both Speculative and Practical Truths in these so important Points for the Satisfaction of a Learned and Judicious Friend I. Touching Guilt of Sin Three things in Sin 1. Power to be Subdued 2 Filth to be Purged 3. Guilt to be Pardoned Guilt of Sin is two-fold 1. Fundamental Intrinsecal Habitual which is Desert of Punishment 2. Formal Extrinsecal Actual which is Oblication to Punishment The first I call Intrinsecal Guilt because arising from within from the very Nature of Sin And the Second Extrinsecal Guilt because arising from without from the Penal Constitution of God As also the First Habitual Fundamental Guilt because the Foundation of that Penal Constitution or Threatning of God which formeth the Second Actual Formal Guilt As the Punishment to which and Threatning according to which Sin binds So is the Formal Actual Guilt or Obligation it self two-fold 1. Legal 2. Evangelical 1. Legal Guilt according to Legal unallay'd Threatning binding over to Legal Punishment the mere Wrathful Dispensation of God as a Judge aiming at the Satisfaction of his Justice 2. Gospel Guilt according to Gospel allay'd Threatning binding over to Gospel Chastisement a mixt Dispensation of the Justice and Mercy of God as a Father aiming as at the Vindication of his Fatherly Authority and Honour so at the Correction and Amendment of his Child The 1. is the Guilt of Condemned Prisoners out of Christ The 2. is the Guilt of Justified Persons in Christ For one of these Guilts Sin deriveth every where and but one of them any where according to the respective Condition or State of the Person in whom it resides or by whom it is committed II. Touching Pardon of Guilt As the Guilt of Sin is its Obligation to Punishment so is the Pardon of Sin the Dissolution of that Obligation and as the Obligation is two-fold Legal or Evangelical so also is the Dissolution or Pardon The distinction of Legal or Gospel Pardon doth here manifestly proceed according to the distinction of the Subject-Matter or thing Pardoned Legal or Gospel Guilt of Sin otherwise for the Original or Rise of it all even Legal Pardon is of Gospel Grace First Legal-Pardon of Legal Guilt which is the Dissolution of Legal Obligation to Legal Punishment for Legal Sin and is twofold 1. Fundamental in Christ as a Common Person of all the elect before Faith which lieth in Christs making full Satisfaction for their Sins Meriting Faith for them and utmost Advantage of such his Satisfaction upon their Faith 2. Actual of all the Elect in Christ upon their Faith This Actual Pardon being nothing else but the Actual Possession in their own Persons of their Fundamental Pardon in the Person of Christ. This Actual Pardon of the Legal Guilt of Believers Sins is twofold 1. Formal of all their Sins past removing their Legal Guilt 2. Virtual of all their Sins to come preventing their Legal Guilt Formal Pardon takes off Legal Guilt where once it was Virtual Pardon keeps it off where else it would be Formal Pardon takes away all the Actual Legal Guilt contracted upon the Person from all Sin whether inherent in or committed by him before his Faith Virtual Pardon all capacity from the Person upon his Faith not indeed of having in his Nature or committing in his Actions any more Sin for then could there be no room for so much as Virtual Pardon but of contracting any more such Legal Guilt from any Sin whether inherent in his Nature or committed by him in his Actions for time to come And in this very Point lying the main stress of the Controversie consider briefly which will much help to clear it that not the Nature not the Actions but the Person according indeed both to his Nature and Actions is the proper Subject of all Law-Obligation whether of the Precept to
So their Sins however in the Acts of them severally and successively committed by them are yet through that Satisfaction of those Sufferings so Imputed all together in their Legal Guilt at once Remitted to Believers If a Believers Sins past before his Justification needed not many particular Legal Pardons but were in his Justification all compriz'd in one General Act of Formal Pardon neither do his Sins to come after his Justification need many particular Legal Pardons but are in his Justification as to their Legal Guilt all as well compriz'd in one General Act of Virtual Pardon But c. Ergo c. Nay to speak more accurately Formal and Virtual Pardon are not indeed two different Legal Pardons but only two Different Respects of one and the same General Legal Pardon which as it respects Sins foregoing is Formal As Sins following Justification Virtual Pardon Where can be no new Application of Christ's Legal Satisfaction there can be no new Pardon of Legal Guilt To the Persons of Believers can be no new Application though there may to their Consciences of Christs Legal Satisfaction Ergo though there may to their Consciences there can be to their Persons no new Pardon of Legal Guilt Proof of the Minor Where by the first Act of Faith the whole Satisfaction of Christ was wholly Apply'd and never after either in whole or in part again disapply'd there can be no new Application of it But c. Ergo c. In whose Natures Sin can never any more recover its Reigning Power upon their Persons it can never any more derive its Legal Guilt In the Natures of Believers Sin can never any more Recover its Reigning Power Ergo c. The Minor is clear from the Apostles Assertion Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have dominion over you The Major also clear from the Reason of that his Assertion there rendred For you are not under the Law i. e. the Rigorous unallay'd Threatening of the Law Ergo not under Legal Guilt But under Grace i. e. Gospel-Grace allaying the Legal into a Gospel-Threatning Ergo under only Gospel-Guilt of Sin And this if needful may be thus further clear'd The Unsubdu'd Power of Sin in Unbelievers is a Legal Punishment Ergo the Guilt binding over to it Legal Guilt The Subdued Power of Sin in Believers only a Gospel-Chastisement Ergo the Guilt binding over to it only Gospel-Guilt Both these Enthymems proceed upon the Reason of the 14th Argument And yet further thus As the Subdued Power of Sin in Believers considered under the Notion of Malum Paenae is only a Gospel-Chastisement to which therefore only Gospel-Guilt obligeth So consider'd under the Notion of Malum Culpae it is only Gospel-Sin Deriving therefore only Gospel-Guilt binding over only to Gospel-Punishment So far as Believers are freed from Law-Curse for their Sins so far are they freed from Law-Guilt of their Sins They are wholly freed from all Law-Curse for all their Sins even Sins to come as well as present and past Sins Gal. 3. 13. Ergo c. Reason of the Major Because the Commination forming Obligation to Punishment as the Command to Obedience a Soul cannot be farther under the Obligation of its Commination than under the Commination it self Those who cannot be Condemned with a Sentence of Law-Condemnation for their Sins to come cannot be guilty with Law-Guilt of their Sins to come Believers Joh. 5. 24. cannot be Condemned c. Compare Psal. 32. 2. with Rom. 4. 8. both Translations and Originals with Rom. 8. 1. and Joh. 5. 24. Ergo c. Reason of the Major Because Law-Threatning according to which Sin derives Law-Guilt or Obligatito Law-Punishment upon any Persons is the Rule of Gods Judgment or Sentence which accordingly he always exactly passeth and pronounceth touching such Persons He will by no means clear the Guilty Exod. 34. 7. Numb 14. 18. Nah. 1. 3. compared with the immediately before cited Texts The Principal can no longer be under any thing of that Law-Obligation which was fully satisfied by the Surety and that Satisfaction fully apply'd to the Principal And so 't is between Christ and Believer in this Point Ergo c. Reason of the Major Because Principal and Surety however Physically or Metaphysically Distinct are Legally or in Law-Construction but one and the same Person The Curse of the Law can have no more to do with Believers in Point of Condemnation than the Command of the Law in Point of Justification The Command of the Law can have nothing at all any more to do with Believers in point of Justification Ergo c. Or thus The Threatnings in the hand of Christ is temper'd and allay'd with as much of Gospel-Indulgence to Believers as the Precept The Precept in the hand of Christ bindeth not to Obedience for Justification in any their Duties to come Ergo Neither the Threatning to Condemnation or any Legal Punishment for Disobedience in any their Sins to come The perfect Satisfaction of Christ Imputed to Believers is no more consistent with any their future Obligation to Death and Hell for their Sins to come than the perfect Merit of Christ imputed to Believers is consistent with any their future forfeiture of Heaven and Glory by their Sins to come But c Ergo c. The Satisfaction of Christ imputed to Believers is of as much force to prevent the Legal Guilt of their Sins to come as to Remove the Legal Guilt of their Sins past But c. Ergo c. And if it do not keep off such Guilt of their Sins to come from Redounding how doth it keep off such Guilt of their Sins past from Recurring upon their Persons Law-Guilt can no more Redound upon the Persons of Believers from any the Acts of Sin proceeding from them than from all the Habits of Sin Residing in them and even Original Sin it self more deeply rooted in corrupt Nature then the Habits But c. Ergo c. Nay the Transient Acts of Sin proceeding from Believers have much less Fundamental Habitual Guilt or Demerit in them than the Indwelling Habits or Original Sin they proceed from And therefore are much less able to Derive any Actual Legal Guilt upon their Believing Persons And this was one main ground of Comfort the Apostle bore up his believing Soul upon under the trouble of all the Habits of Sin in his Nature Rom. 7. 24. that they derived no Legal Guilt upon his Person Rom. 8. 1. Such as is the Punishment of a Believers Sin before Formally Pardoned such is the Guilt of his Sin when committed That is not Ergo this cannot be Legal but only Evangelical Reason Because Guilt being a Penal Obligation and Penal Obligation a Relation of the Person to the Punishment This Relation must be such as its Term the Punishment related to A Person cannot be under two cross and contrary Sentences of God together A Sentence of Justification adjudging
him to Heaven and Glory upon the Righteousness of Christ And a Sentence of Condemnation adjudging him to Death and Hell for his own Sins But so should a Believer be could any Legal Guilt Redound upon his Person from his Sins The Reason of the Major in the 8th Argument having its full force here also An Elect Persons Sins to come are in a better posture and state of Pardon to him in his own Person upon his Believing than they were in the Person of Christ only before his Believing They before his Believing were Fundamentally pardoned Ergo upon his believing pardon'd Actually Actually-Virtually though not Formally Otherwise something might be Legally laid to the Charge of God's Elect contrary to that of the Apostle Rom. 8. 33. Where the Word Elect is to be understood consequenter as they call it of Elect Believing Ones The main strength of all that any otherwise minded may have where-against mainly to oppose themselves lyeth here All Obligation to Punishment is from the Threatning as all to Obedience from the Precept a Threatning whose own power of Penal Legal Obligation is Dissolved can no more give power of Penal Legal Obligation to Sins to come then it can to Sins past So that in Conclusion These cannot be Formally pardoned where those are not pardoned Virtually The Opposite Opinion Unavoidably exposeth Justification to Infinite Intercision For if any the Greatest Sin of a Justified Person bring him under Actual Obligation to Legal Punishment every even the least Sin must do so too And the Answer by Distinguishing the Act and State of Justification that the Act of Justification is Subject to much but the State to no Intercision will be found altogether incompetent if we consider 1. That the Act of Justification if we 'l speak properly being God's and the State ours The Act cannot be rescinded where the State of Justification remains intire Because God alway exactly judgeth of things accordingly as they are in themselves 2. That the State of Justification cannot remain intire where the Act is rescinded Because things are alwayes exactly in themselves accordingly as God judgeth of them Insomuch that whereas the Truth of things is the Measure and Rule of our Judgment Gods Judgment is the Rule and Measure of the Truth of things 3. That God's Act of Justification as well Conserveth as Createth our State of Justification And therefore so strict and necessary is the Dependance of our Justified State upon his Justifying Act that the One cannot be more or less either Intire or Rescinded then the Other 4. That this Answer provides not any Salvo against the Mischief of such Intercision as well if not as much by our less as greater Sins Less Sins indeed do not waste the Conscience destroy its Peace and Dead the Sense of Justification wherein the main of that Peace lyeth as Greater Sins do But if the Greatest Sins of a Believer Rescind his Justification as they cannot but do if they bring him under Legal Guilt or Obligation to Legal Punishment his Least Sins must do it no less than they Which either as to State or but Act of Justification one would think no man should be forward to assert Plainly destroyeth much of the Essential Difference not only between Chastisement and Punishment properly so called But even between the two Estates in and out of Christ and the two very Covenants themselves of Works and of Grace Preserve but these two States under these two Covenants both in their due Distinctions and the following Notion must in its full Strength and Evidence irresistibly prevail to the Final Decision of this Controversie Such as is the Law a Person is under such is his Transgression of the Precept of that Law such the Guilt according to the Threatning of that Law redounding upon the Person from that Transgression Such the Punishment that Guilt bindeth over to And such the Pardon of that both Guilt and Punishment If the Law or Covenant of Works the Transgression Guilt Punishment Pardon all Legal If the Law of Faith or Covenant of Grace The Law made up into Gospel in the Hand of a Mediator for the Law of Nature or Moral Law is one and the same under both these distinct Covenants The Transgression Guilt Punishment Pardon all accordingly Evangelical Two only considerable Objections I apprehend may be made against this Doctrine This Doctrine throws open a wide gap to all Loosness and Licentiousness of Life as throwing down the greatest Mound and Bar against Sin Fear of contracting Legal Guilt or Obligation to Legal Punishment Ans. 1 This seems to be an Objection of meer Carnal Men who according to the meer carnal corrupt complexion and agreeable Inclination of their own Hearts thinking with themselves what perverse use they should make of such Pardoning Grace were they the Subjects of it make an Estimate of others who are indeed so by themselves judging they also cannot but do the like But Ans. 2 To whose Persons the Legal Guilt of Sin is thus Pardon'd in their Natures the Reigning Power of Sin is so Dethron'd and broken down as thenceforward they can only be Guilty of Sins of Child-like Infirmity as to which God stands in Christ engaged upon their Gospel-Repentance to walk with them in a Covenant of Fatherly Pardoning Grace and Mercy Insomuch that whereas Rom. 6. 12. the Percept makes it their Duty that Sin should not reign in their mortal bodies the Promise ver 14. makes it their Priviledge that sin should not have Dominion over them because not under the Law but under Grace And in ver 15. the Apostle urging this very Objection puts it off as he doth else-where also with the greatest abhorrence of a God forbid Ans. 3 Those who pass under this Relative change of the State and Condition of their Persons from a State of Sin to a State Grace perfectly Justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus i. e. by the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ imputed to them pass also at the same time under an Absolute Change of the meerly carnal sinful Complexion and Disposition of their Natures to some Degree of a Spritual Frame and Temper Sanctified by the Spirit of their God 1 Cor. 6. 11. put into them in Habitual Sanctification and as to Actual Sanctification by his Actual Influences Rom. 8. 14. Acting and Leading them as Children of God in all the good wayes of God their Father So that from the Later of those Changes they have their Principle and Power and from the Former their Argument and Engagement not to walk after the Flesh but after the Spirit Rom. 8. 1. Their Dis-obligation to Legal Punishment their Obligation to Gospel-Obedience and that a powerful Constraining Obligation also 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. Ans. 4 Among and above other Habits and Principles of Grace Gospel-Faith Child-like Love and Fear have an especial Influence upon and Sway in the Souls of such changed ones to this Purpose 1. Faith that instates in such