make use of Texts and Sayings in the Old Testament in a different Sence from that which did belong to them there As in Mat. 2.15 and 23. 2 Cor. 8.15 and elsewhere frequently And this Answer I take to be sufficient for this first Objection against our Interpretation of St. Peters words 2. Objection But another main Objection and that which is most like to be insisted upon against this Interpretation is that it seems to favour the Popish Doctrines of Merit Satisfaction and Justification by Works and to be repugnant to the Evangelical Doctrine of the most full perfect and sufficient Expiation and Satisfaction for the sins of the whole World made only by the Sacrifice of Christs death and applied only by Faith The covering and pardon of sin is the Effect of Gods grace granted only upon the consideration of Christs death upon condition of a true Faith in him wrought by the Spirit of God through the hearing of the Gospel Answer To this Objection I answer 1. That although some Papists interpreting this Text as I do may be found to alledge it among other Texts for the confirmation of some of the Doctrines mentioned in the Objection yet neither is this Sense vouched by all Interpreters of their Profession nor can any of those Doctrines be further evinced or confirmed from this Text so understood then it may be from other Texts before alledged for the Confirmation of the Doctrine against which the Objection is made Nor is the free grace of God or the sufficiency of that Expiation or Satisfaction which was made by the death of Christ any more abated by this Doctrine than it is by that which all the forementioned Texts import 2. The words Merit and Satisfaction are known to have been familiarly used in reference to Good Works by the most ancient of the Latin Fathers and particularly by St. Cyprian one of the most Primitive in a Catholick Orthodox Sense Both the words are Innocent in the Sense of the Fathers though they have been perverted by the Schoolmen And Justification by Works is certainly as true in St. James's Sence as 't is false in St. Pauls The late Controversies that have been concerning these Points do not so much respect the words as the extravagant Sense that hath been put upon them by the Schoolmen who have intangled and corrupted a great part of Christian Doctrine by their misinterpreting the Fathers determining the simplicity of their Popular Expressions by their own Capricious and Litigious Conceits into such Dogmatical Sense as was never thought of by the Antients But in the particular Controversies about Merit Satisfaction and Justification by Works there hath been so much of Logomachy or word-bate as might in my opinion be fairly compromised or accorded by Judicious Arbitratours whose minds were free from all prejudice but that against Contention and Division and were more zealous for Unity and Concord than for disputable and opinionative Truth But for to undertake that task in this place would not be reasonable That all Pardon of sin is founded upon the Expiation or Propitiation made by the Bloud of Christ and granted or obtained only by the Free Grace of God is not denied by any Sect or Party of Christians that I know of Although some Differences have been about the Conditions of this Grant For to say that this Grace is granted without any Condition or Qualification of the Receiver is in my Judgment to deny a great part of the Scriptures as well of the New Testament as of the Old destructive as well of the New Covenant as of the Old no more Antinomian than Anti-evangelical Doubtless it is of Free Grace that God will pardon a sinner upon any Condition Nor is it possible for us to do any thing sufficient to make Satisfaction for our sins or to merit the Forgiveness of them in rigor of Justice because all that is in our Power to do is no more then our Duty if God requires it And all that we do is much less And as the duty of Well doing in the utmost Extent is a just Debt of Thankfulness at least if not of Preceptive Obligation to Almighty God to whom we owe our selves and all that we have or can do So the Punishment we are liable to for neglecting our Duty or acting contrary thereunto in our Evil doings is another Debt by our Saviours account signified to us in that Form of Prayer which he hath taught us to use Forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors Mat. 6.12 But it is altogether unreasonable one Debt can be discharged by the Payment of another especially when the Payment falls so much short of the old Debt as it doth in any thing we do Besides that upon a due account Charity it self and every Good Work that can be done by us doth increase our debt to God because it cannot be done without his Grace Nevertheless God of his Free Grace hath promised the Remission of sin upon certain Conditions declared in his Word amongst which this of Charity is one that by a common Synechdoche of a Part for the Whole includes all the rest And whereas in the New Testament Faith in Christ is more commonly propounded as the Condition of Justification importing the Remission of sin it is to be considered that this Faith is so far from excluding Charity that it is expressly said to include it by St. Paul himself the supposed Author of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith without Works Gal. 5.6 For in Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor Vncircumcision but Faith which worketh by Love 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be to be understood in a Passive sense as most commonly it is elsewhere in Scripture and in other Books and as it is here rendred by the Syriack Translator and so meaning that Faith is actuated perfected and made effectual by Love or in the Active sense as our English Translation gives it signifying the Efficacy Energy or Operation of Faith only The Meaning of the Apostle by the Addition of these Words can be no other then to limit and distinguish the nature of that Faith which is available to Justification from an hypocritical dead and ineffectual Faith which is altogether invalid availing nothing at all to the Effect of Justification The Active sense of the Word as well as the Passive serving to declare the true Nature and Notion of a Justifying Faith to be Energetical and Practical i. e. producing such effects of the Will as are agreeable to the entire Object of it that is to the Authority of Christ his Doctrine and Precepts as well as such as respect only the Effect of Redemption or Expiation of sin by his Death And such is the necessity of this Charity by the Doctrine of the same Apostle that he elsewhere saith Though I have all Faith so that I could remove Mountains and have not Charity it profiteth me nothing 1 Cor. 13.3
Where by all Faith undoubtedly is meant all the Faith that can be had without Charity and needs not to be restrained to the particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or extraordinary Gift of the Faith of Miracles whereof he speaks in the former Chapter ver 12. To this Purpose St. James Chap. 2.22 saith Faith is made perfect by Works not excluding any sort of Good Works but specially treating of the works of Charity as appears by the Context from verse the 13. to the 18. And whereas he saith Faith is made perfect by Works he speaks not only of a Gradual Perfection or of the Consummation or Preservation of Faith or of the Ornament Demonstration or signal evidence of Faith as some would have it but of such an essential and formal Perfection as is necessary to the nature of Truth and sincerity of Faith as appears by that repeated Sentence both before and after these Words ver 17. Faith without Works is dead and ver 26. As the Body without the Spirit is dead so Faith without Works is dead also Whether by the Spirit he means the Breath as some take it because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritus sometime signifies no more or rather the Soul which is the most usual Sense of the word in Scripture the Meaning comes all to one signifying that an idle or fruitless Faith hath no more of Spiritual Life or Reality in it than a Body can have without Breath or without a Soul and therefore is no more a true and unfeigned Faith than a dead Carcass is a human Body Indeed the true justifying saving Faith in the practical Notion which is the only true Notion of it includes Charity together with all other Good Works as I have elsewhere largely shewed So that if Faith be necessary to the Covering or Remission of sin Charity is so too But the common Answer to these and all other Texts produced to evince the Necessity of Charity and Good Works to the Salvation of a sinner is that they prove only a necessity of Presence and Concomitancy or at most a necessity of Consequence not of Efficacy that is that this Necessity doth not respect the End or Effect of Faith in the Justification or Salvation of the Believeer but proceeds only from the common nature and principle of that Faith which is an effect of the Spirit of God the necessary Fruits whereof do consist in Love Joy Peace Long-suffering c. which distinct Vertues with their proper Works do not contribute any thing to the Effect of our Justification but are meer Concomitants or at most but gratefull Effects of that Faith which justifieth us Which useth to be illustrated by a Similitude borrowed from the natural and animal Life wherein the particular faculties of Seeing or taking hold of a thing by the Touch do necessarily imply such a common Principle of sensitive Life as doth also comprehend the powers and faculties of Hearing Smelling and Tasting yet none of these Faculties or any act of them do or can contribute any thing efficiently to the effect of Seeing Apprehending or laying hold of an Object So the Grace of Charity or Love to God and Man together with all those other Fruits of the Spirit which are mentioned by the Apostle and all the Effects and Works which do proceed from them are indeed necessary Concomitants of such a Faith as justifies or saves a Man but do contribute no more nor have any more Efficacy to this effect of Justification and Salvation than the distinct Faculties of other Senses do to the effect of Seeing This I take to be a true Account of their Sense that assert the Doctrine of Justification and Pardon of sin by Faith only as that imports a habit or act really distinct though not separated from other Christian Vertues In opposition to this Opinion contradicting the Doctrine which I maintain to be the Sense of the Apostle in this Text confirmed as hath been seen by many others I am engaged to prove that Charity and Good Works are necessary to the Justification of a sinner that is to the Remission of his sin not only by way of Concomitancy or joint Presence with Faith or consequent to it but also by way of moral Efficacy as a Condition or Means to obtain that Effect This I hope will be sufficiently done by the following Arguments this one postulate or conclusion which I suppose will not be denied being first granted me viz. That if any thing else beside the habit or act of Faith considered as really distinct from other Christian Vertues or Acts be effectual or available to the Remission of sin then Charity is or may be so in as much as that is one of the most Excellent of Christian Vertues most agreeable to the Nature of God and consequently most pleasing to him So that if that be not available to this End nothing else besides Faith can be so This Proposition being granted I argue as followeth 1. Argument If it be certain from Scripture and we be bound to believe that nothing which can be done by us besides such a Faith as is supposed to be really distinct though not separate from all Good Works can be of any Efficacy towards the remission of our sins then ought nothing else to be done by us towards that end because every such other act done to this end would by this supposition be perfectly vain and unreasonable and not so only but also contrary to our obliged belief And then to pray for the forgiveness of our sins that being an act distinct from Faith would be not only needless and useless but unlawful especially if it should be acted with any opinion hope or belief that such a prayer could avail us any thing in order to this end or that this end could any way be promoted by our Prayers But this is directly contrary to our Saviours Precept in that Form of Prayer which he hath taught us to use wherein we are directed to pray that God will forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us And contrary to the advice of St. Peter to Simon Magus Acts 8.22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee Where also it is to be noted that the Apostle adviseth him not only to pray for the forgiveness of his sin but also to repent of it in order to the same end The same advice is given by the same Apostle to the Jews in the first Sermon which he made unto them after the reception of the Holy Ghost Acts 2.37 38. Having convinced them of their hainous sin in the murder of the Lord Jesus and made them sensible of it Now when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts and said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles men and brethren what shall we do Then Peter said unto them repent and be baptizid every one of you in the
same natural Spirit Nor do we deny but that Faith is the first Act that disposeth a Man to the Receipt of this Divine Spirit dwelling in him whereby it may be said to effect or procure our Union with Christ whereby we partake both of the Nature and the Effects and Benefits of his Righteousness But the imputation of Christs Righteousness to us is no Scriptural Phrase but differs very much from that of St. Paul asserting not the Righteousness of Christ but Faith working by Charity to be imputed for Righteousness to them that believe Rom. 4.5 24. But if it be the act or habit of Faith which is imputed to us for Righteousness according to the express literal Sense of the Apostles words then 't is not the Personal Righteousness of Christ that is imputed to us for our Faith is no part of his Righteousness But because the Phrase of Christs Righteousness imputed to us hath been commonly used by Divines of very good Note amongst Protestants though no man can be obliged to admit it in a strict Sense it being not found in Scripture yet I think for Peace sake it should not be absolutely rejected much less with any reflections of Reproach or Disparagement to them that have used it but rather admitted in such a Candid Sense as it may fairly bear As if the Son of a Prince or some other Person of Great Merit and Favour with him should undertake to be Mediator for some Rebel that had justly incurred the Displeasure of his Prince and rendred himself obnoxious to the highest penalty of Law should of his own Good Will by the Appointment and Will of the Prince act or suffer something for and on the behalf of the Delinquent and thereby obtain by the Grace of the Prince a free Pardon for him under some equitable Conditions required of the Delinquent In this case the Merits Act and Sufferings of such a Mediator might in a reasonable Sense be said to be imputed to the Redeemed Person Such an Interpretation of this Phrase of Christs Righteousness imputed to us I think should not be quarrel'd but may fairly agree with the Scripture phrases of Propitiation Expiation and Attonement of Christ made for us and with the Discourse of the Apostle Rom. 5. from the 15 Verse to the end of the Chapter Other Senses there are of this Phrase insisted upon by some Divines which cannot be maintained without gross and absurd Consequences as hath been shewed by some that have lately written sharply concerning this Point This Explication of the Question what is meant by that Efficacy which any act that can be done by us towards the Remission of our sins or our Justification can have being premised and cleared from the most usual Objections against it I proceed in my Reply to the fore-mentioned Answer to the Arguments for the Confirmation of the Doctrine in hand drawn from the Promises and Exhortations of Scripture as followeth To the First part of that Answer alledging only the necessity of Presence of Charity and Good Works together with Faith in order to the obtainment of the Benefits propounded as a sufficient Account for the use of those Motives contained in the said Promises and Exhortations I reply by demanding whether the Charity and Good Works supposed to be necessary do concurr to the Qualification of the Person that is to receive these Benefits or not If they do concurr as any Part of the Qualification of the Person for the Receipt of those Benefits it cannot be denied by the Explication of the forementioned Question but that they are as truly available to the Obtainment of those Benefits as Faith or any thing else can be If they do not concurr as any Part of Qualification for these Benefits the bare necessity of their Presence upon any other account can be no reasonable ground of Exhortations to such Actions in order to the Advantages thereunto promised Nor can those Advantages or Benefits be any reasonable Motives to such Actions whiles they are supposed to contribute nothing at all to the Obtainment of them And consequently the only design of propounding those Motives to such Actions would be utterly frustrate For all Exhortations Counsels or Advices to any Act or Practice do include this general Supposition to common Understanding that the things advised or exhorted to are of some Use and Validity to the End that is propounded either by removing some Impediment or by some kind of Causality or other else the Advice is altogether vain and a Man should be never the nearer his End by following it And therefore it hath been said that although Charity and Good Works be in themselves of no Validity or Efficacy to the Covering of sin Justification or Salvation of a sinner nor do contribute any thing towards the Obtaining of these Benefits yet they have the nature of a Causa sine quâ non that is of something without which a thing is not to be effected or gained but if that Something hath no manner of Causality at all in it it cannot be called a Causa sine quâ non without a real Contradiction in the Terms For to be a Cause without which a thing cannot be and yet to have no manner of Causality in reference to the Effect is to be a Cause and no Cause But suppose the design of the Holy Ghost in the forementioned Promises and Exhortations had been as we really suppose it was to instruct men what they should do or what things possible to be done by them would be available to the ends propounded I demand how such a Design could have been expressed more significantly then it is by the Terms used in the Exhortations and Promises alledged And as for the bare necessity of presence of Charity and Good Works together with Faith in the Persons which are to be justified and saved that 's no more then is equally true of the faculties of Life Sense and Reason there being a perfect necessity of the presence of all these things to the act of Faith which is supposed to be the only thing that justifies a man But would it therefore be reasonable to exhort men to take care to preserve these faculties in order to their Justification or might the Promises of Pardon of Sin Life and Salvation be reasonably annexed to such a care of preserving these Faculties upon the bare account of their necessary presence or concomitancy with a justifiing Faith Now where it hath been said that Charity and Good Works are necessary to the verification of that Faith by which we are justified i. e. to declare and manifest the truth of it but have otherwise no concurrent Efficacy to the Justification of the Believer and that is a sufficient account of the reasonableness of all Promises made to the habit and exercise of this Vertue as also of the Exhortations before mentioned I answer that if indeed these things be necessary to the verification of that Faith that justifies us so
Briefly then Charity or Love relating to our Neighbour as by the express words of the Text it doth is not to be confined to that one eminent Branch thereof which consists only in Alms or works of Beneficence because these are things which possibly may be done without any true Charity as the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 13.8 Though I give all my goods to feed the Poor and have not Charity which Supposition were absurd if it were simply impossible it profiteth me nothing Vain-glory carnal and worldly Ends and Interest may utterly destroy the notion and vertue of Charity in such Works And 't is possible for a man to exercise some acts of pretended Charity to such ends as are utterly repugnant to the Nature of it as when they are done of purpose to corrupt the Minds and Manners of them upon whom they are bestowed to entice them to Iniquity and to serve the ends of the Donor to the prejudice of the Receiver And where none of these things are designed a man may yet be otherwise as destitute of true Charity as the Devil is and as much tainted with those Viciosities that are most contrary to it Malice Envy Pride Cruelty c. and yet seem to be Charitable in his Alms. On the contrary a true and acceptable Charity may exist without them I mean without the outward Works and that only in case of Inability to afford them or want of Objects to receive them for otherwise the Disposition and Preparation of mind to afford them according to Ability and opportunity is in separable from any true and real Charity This possible Mistake grounded upon a vulgar use of the Word being prevented I say That Charity in the due extent of its Notion comprehends all the Good and excludes all the Evil that our Neighbour is capable of receiving from us or that we are capable of intending or extending to him Charity signifies all the benefit that is reasonably desirable from one Man to another All that can profit or reasonably please him all that can any way better his Condition present or future The Acts of it are as various and numerous as are the needs or capacities of advantage and benefit by our Neighbour in any kind To conclude Rom. 13.10 Charity imports an aversion or declining of all manner of Evil to him in Thought Word or Deed all Mis-affection to him all Mispeaking of him or to him and all Misdoing And not only all sorts of Injuries but all Unkindnesses inward of will and affections and outward of words actions and gestures He that desires any more Particular Character of this Vertue may find it set forth in that known Chapter of St Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 13. And all that most exactly abridged by that General Precept of our Saviour of doing to others as we would be done to only the word do is therein to be extended as well to thoughts and words as to any sort of outward actions agreeable to the common use of the same word in our Language applied to thoughts and words as well as deeds whilst we say we do think and we do Love and we do speak Col. 3.17 Whatever ye do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord Jesus c. Indeed thoughts and words are the most Peculiar of Humane Acts. This Precept I say in the due extent of it rightly interpreted by the Rules and Measures of a reasonable will which only can be understood in the sentence is the most Perfect Rule of Humane Equity that can be given in words comprehending also the utmost Perfection of Christian Charity Having now premised this brief Description of the Vertue of Charity I come to the Particular Argument or Motive whereby it is urged by the Apostle in this Text. Charity shall cover a multitude of sins And here I am to speak by way of Explication and Confirmation By way of Explication I shall make these three Inquiries First Whose sins they are which the Apostle means will be covered by Charity Secondly What 's meant by the covering of sins Thirdly What sort of sins will be covered by Charity and under what Limitations After I shall have given a Competent Explication of the Proposition in the resolution of these Questions I shall Confirm the General Doctrine from other Texts of Scripture with some Allegations of Reason and then answer some Objections like to be made against that Interpretation of the Text which I shall pitch upon and against the General Doctrine thereby asserted CHAP II. § 1. I Am to begin with the first Question viz. Whose sins they are which will be covered by Charity And here I find Interpreters differing some understancing the sins of others to whom the Charity is extended which is the sense accepted by most Protestants and some Pontificians And some the sins of the Charitable Person which for the Reasons hereafter to be advanced seems to me most probable and specially intended by the Apostle in this Text. Some also taking in both senses not without reason because so the Sentence is undoubtedly true Charity especially if it be servent will cover a multitude of sins both in the Charitable Person as shall be afterward confirmed and in other men to whom it is exercised And so both Senses are but distinct Verifications of the same words taken in the greatest amplitude of signification and containing in each Sense a strong motive to enforce the preceding Exhortation Above all things have fervent charity for c. Wherefore although I do in my own judgement prefer the second Sense as most specially intended by the Apostle and that is the main Argument and Design of my Discourse yet I shall not wholly neglect the other Sense importing a special Effect and Branch o◠that Charity which is here recommende◠to all Christians with the promise o◠declaration of so great a Reward as the covering of a multitude of sins in him than hath it which is that Sense of the word◠that I insist upon not only as the stronges◠Motive to enforce the Exhortation but also as most agreeable to the Context i◠this place I. This Sense if it may be allowed in the matter of it to express a certain truth as I doubt not to prove past all doubt from other Texts affords a Motive to the inforcement of the Apostles Exhortation so much more strong and effectual than the other Sense as the covering of a multitude of a mans own fins is a greater Benefit to him than the covering of any multitude of other mens sins can be and therefore the hopes of it must needs be most prevalent with any man that hath not more Charity for his Neighbour than he hath for himself Whereas therefore the scope of the Apostle in these words as appears by that Causal Particle For is only to press the foregoing Exhortation it seems not reasonable to abate the strength of his Argument by excluding the most perswasive
shall give place to Joy and stir no more whereas here it is restless and never can cease till it be fully satisfied But to return from this digression to the Discourse that occasion'd it I said before that all sin is a transgression or opposition to the will of God and all punishment consists in something opposite to the reasonable Object of our own wills But here it is to be noted that as men may be mistaken in the Object of the Divine Will thinking that to be agreeable which is contrary thereunto So may they be deceived in the right Object of their own wills which in the true Notion is something that is good for them and tending to their safety welfare and happiness But this apprehension is very liable to errour and nothing more common then for men by such errour to call evil good and good evil to put darkness for light and light for darkness to put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter as in things that relate to the Will of God so in things relating to the right Objects of their own will and happiness But this errour cannot change the nature of the things in either case The bare thinking of a thing to be good or evil doth not make it so either in a Moral or in a Physical sense Men may be punished in the enjoyment of their own blind and infatuate wills and they may be blessed and rewarded in the want of such enjoyments and in things contrary thereunto A reputed good though it gratifies the deceived will may be a real punishment and a sensible evil suffered against a mans will may be a signal Blessing To be punished by Prosperity and blessed by Adversity is no contradiction Pharaoh was hardned to his destruction by the cessation of the Plagues and Manasses was saved by his Captivity and the Fetters of his Prison And many a man may say periissem nisi periissem I had perished eternally if I had not been undone for a time It is not necessary to the punishment of sin that men should be at the present sensible of it And though he must needs be unhappy for the present that thinks himself so because that thought is enough to make him so as being inconsistent with his present happiness yet he is not necessarily happy that accounts himself so otherwise men might be happy when they are out of their wits and made miserable in recovering them As the man in the Poet complained Pol me occidistis amici Non servâstis ait cui sic extorta voluptas Et demptus per vim mentis gratissimus error Horat. Epist 2. Lib. 2. But to hold to the Analogy between the Will of God and the will of Man in the nature of sin and punishment I say further that as the Will of God is transgressed by omission or commission by leaving undone something which he requires or doing something which he forbids so the punishments of sin are either Privative or Positive consisting in the loss or want of something that is Good and Desirable by a reasonable Will or in the sense and suffering of something which is Evil and grievous to the Will And both these sorts of Punishments are such as befall Men in this Life or in that which is to come and so are temporal or Eternal Some of them also are natural and necessary and some contingent and avoidable as being ordered and appointed by the just Will and Providence of God without any natural or absolute Necessity of their Event I say some sorts of Punishment of sin are Natural and Necessary as being the Natural Effects and Consequents of the sin and so necessary and unavoidable and that either absolutely or without a Miracle Absolutely unavoidable the Punishment must needs be when the Separation of the Penal Event imports contradiction to the sinfull act as is evident not only in the case of Self-murder which being nothing else but the depriving a man of his Life cannot without Contradiction be separated from the privative Punishment but also in all other sins whereby Men do deprive themselves at least for the present of the enjoyment of Health Honour Friends or any other good thing And as every act of true Vertue doth in a just sense reward it self by its real and moral Goodness Virius est sui ipsius merces so doth every sinfull Act punish it self by its turpitude or evil deformity which in the School Language is called the Macula or stain of sin And this Punishment is in the nature of the thing inseparable from the sin Other punishments are not so absolutely necessary as to imply any Contradiction in the avoidance or evasion of them and yet are really unavoidable without a Miracle as is obvious enough to conceive without any Instances Now in such cases the covering of the sin as it signifies a total Remission or perfect Exemption from all Punishment is either simply unpossible as in the case of such absolute necessity of the Event as implies a contradiction to the sin in the avoidance or else is not promised or to be expected though possible by Miracle upon any condition I say such a covering of sin as imports a total Remission of Punishment is either impossible or unexpectable Yet may the same sin in some other sence be many ways covered viz. by abatement of the degrees of the Punishment which is not wholly avoidable or by deliverance from some other Punishment which might be added in this Life and that which is to come or by sundry manner and measures of Support Relief and Comfort in the Suffering or by other ways whereby the Punishment may be converted to the Advantage of the Sufferer especially in his Spiritual Estate which Advantages are so far from being inconsistent with the nature of a Punishment that they are ordinarily designed as the main end of it both by God and Man as in all castigatory Punishments whence God is said to chasten us for our Profit Heb. 12.10 And a Punishment ceaseth not to be so by being converted to a Blessing Thus may the sins of a Charitable Person be covered without any absolute Remission or Exemption from Punishment which may be in it self necessary And where it is not so but contingent at the Will and Providence of God it is more easie to conceive how the sin may be covered by Suspension or Remission of Punishment in whole or in part Here a question may be moved viz. How far that Remission of sin which is signified by the Term of covering in this Text may be expected to extend i. e. Whether only to the Temporal Punishment which a sinner is liable to in this Life or to that also which is to come in another World Towards a full Answer to this Question it will not be amiss to reflect upon â—he words of the Apostle immediately preceding the Text which I am treating upon wherein I conceive a convenient hint â—s offered for the Resolution of this