satisfaction where he hath done wrong Thus our Saviour also Mat. 5. If thou remember any man have ought against thee leave thy gift at the Altar and go and be reconciled It is a known saying of Austin Non remittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum The sinne is not remitted unlesse what thou hast unjustly taken be restored And it is a most wretched perverting of the sense which an Antinomian makes Reconcil with God pag 90. that this reconciliation is to be made of man to man but not true in respect of God to man and whereas the same Authour speaks of Zacheus that he did beleeve first and afterwards made restitution which pag. 91. he cals an example beyond all exception let him the second time consider Zacheus his expression and he will see it nothing to his purpose The words are in the present tense Luke 19.8 Behold Lord the half of my goods I give to the poor and if I have wronged any man I give him four-fold Now either Zacheus means this of his former life past or else he declares his ready and prepared will for the time to come and there are Interpreters of both sides and which way soever you expound it it overthroweth the adversaries tenent For if it be understood of his course of life formely past then it goeth clear against him If of his readinesse of minde for the future it makes nothing for him For although by this it will appear That Zacheus did joyfully receive Christ before he made actuall restitution yet not before he had a preparednesse and resolution of heart to do it And certainly Zacheus speaking thus to Christ Behold I give cannot but be understood that this penitent frame of heart was upon him before he said so If Zacheus speaks this of his former course of life then he doth manifest this not in a way of pride or oftentation but to see whether Christ would command him to do otherwise so that he might be thought to say this for instruction sake to be directed for the future 6. As there must necessarily be more sorrow and will be greater terrors from the Lord so there is also required greater and stronger actâ— of faith whereby pardon may be applied For the agony and temptation being greater the strength of faith also must proportionably be encreased Hence we see the incestuous person was almost overwhelmed so great a matter was it to exercise faith when God was apprehended thus angry and certainly if faith be a grace so difficultly put forth even for the least sin What conflicts must there needs be when nothing but mountains are in the way and great gulfs apprehended between pardon and him The mariner doth need more skill and strength in a tempest then in a calm and the souldier must shew more courage in the midst of a furious battell then when all things are quiet Thus you see wherein a great difference is to be made Now there are some particulars wherein a beleever repenting is to make no difference at all And that is in these things First There is no difference in respect of the efficient cause Gods grace in pardoning The godly man is not to think that God can more easily pardon lesse sins then great sins No all these are equally pardoned by him Even as in the earth though there be great and high mountains in respect of other hâ—ls yet both them and these are meerly as a paâ—ctum in respect of the heavens So although some sins exceed others in guilt divers waies yet all of them in respect of Gods grace are but as a drop before the Sun which is quickly dried up Hence when God proclaimeth himself in all his goodnesse he is described to be a God pardoning iniquity transgression and sinne And thus Isaiah 1. he can make sins as red as scarlet as white as snow So that compared to Gods grace there is no difference at all Nor secondly may any difference be made in respect of the meritorious cause which is Christs obedience and sufferings For that cleanseth away great sinnes as well as small And certainly when we consider of what infinite value and worth the sufferings of him who is God as well as man do amount to the beleeving soul need not wonder if Christ do away one as well as the other In the Red Sea the stoutest and most valiant Champion was drowned as well as the meanest souldier He is the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world and his bloud is said to cleanse us from all our iniquities Here is no difference made from one sin as well as another So that although thy great sins require greater humiliation yet not a greater Mediator then Christ is Thou must pour out more tears but Christ needs not pour out more bloud so that in respect of Christs righteousnesse applied the least and the greatest sinner are pardoned both alike neither is it blasphemy though the Papists judge it so to say Mary Magdalen and the Virgin Mary are both justified alike 3. Neither may we make any difference in the means of pardon thus farre as if our merit and satisfaction were to goe to the pardon of one and not of the other We are to shew greater sorrow more means are to be used yet we are not to judge these actions of ours as having any worth or dignity in them for reconciliation so that after we have done all we must confesse It's grace only that pardons And this is the more to be observed because it is hard not to do any thing extraordinarily in a way of pardon and not presently to rest upon this as if it had some worth in it But certainly if so be it be the goodnesse of God meerly to forgive us our farthings it is much more his liberality to pardon our pounds and if by our own strength we cannot remove a straw how shall we a beam But in the primitive times the Church being severe against grosse offenders appointed more solemn and extraordinary duties of humiliation for satisfaction to the Church of God in point of scandal and in processe of time these were taught to be satisfactory even to God himself 4. Neither may this difference be made as if lesse sins might consist with the grace of Justification but such grosse sins did wholly exclude out of that state For there are some who pleade for the distinction of mortall and veniall sins in this sense veniall are all those which may stand with the favour and grace of God to the person so failing but mortall are such which though a man hath been justified yet being committed will cast him out of this sonship Such a distinction Musculus acknowledgeth loc com de peccato and others but this supposeth a totall apostasie from grace which I have already disproved As the Ark was made of that wood which would not be corrupt or putrifie so is the Church of God in
more Again see the like dealing with David 2 Sa. 11.12.8 9. I anointed thee King over Israel and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul and if that had been too little I would have given thee such and such things wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of God c. Must not this pierce into the very bowels of David Shall God upbraid his people falling into sin spread before their eyes the manifold mercies he hath bestowed upon them and all this while see no sin in them Therefore when it is said Iam. 1.5 That God upbraideth not that is to be understood in respect of his frequent and liberal giving as men use to say I have given thus often and I will give no more which kinde of giving Seneca cals panem lapidosum but if men walk unworthy of the benefits received he doth then upbraid as Mar. 16.14 He is said to upbraid the Disciples because of their unbelief Thirdly The Scripture applieth the threatnings of God to believeâ—s as well as to others making no difference between them unless they repent Indeed we say against the Papists that all the sins of justified persons are venial and not mortal that is such as in the event will have pardon but that is because the seed of grace will be operative in them so that they shall either habitually or actually repent of their sins Neither when the Orthodox say That Election is absolute do they exclude the media instituta means appointed by God in which the fruit of Election is accomplished but conditions antecedanâ—ous as if that decree did remain suspense and uncertain till the will of man had determined 1 Cor. 6.9 10. The Apostle laieth down an universal rule such and such grosse offenders shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven that is those who live so and do not repent and this is to be extended not only to those who are habitually so but actually likewise unlesse they are reformed Therefore no godly man falling into any of those grosse sins may deceive himself and think he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven without a change Godly or ungodly yet if found in the committing of such a gross sin unless they do repent God will not accept one or the other As repentance is appointed for the wicked man as a duty without which he cannot be saved so confession and forsaking of sin is prescribed a godly man fallen into sin without which he cannot have remission 1 Jo. 1.9 There is no such free grace or Gospel as faith to a believer if fallen into a foul sin whether you repent or no your sins shall be pardoned to you Hence 1 Cor. 11. the Apostle makes every man that receiveth unworthily and yet some of them were godly to receive their damnation that is their eternal damnation without repentance and reformation and after repentance their judgement though not of condemnation yet affliction and castigation How terrible likewise is Paul He. 12.29 where speaking to the godly that are to receive a kingdom that is eternal he exhorteth them to duty Let us have grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Let us retain and keep grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Ro. 15.4 and observe the manner with reverence and godly fear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such a fear as relateth to punishment compare this place with Ps 2.12 and thus the words following suppose for our God is a consuming fire this is taken out of Deu. 4.24 and the meaning is God is no less angry with Christians sinning against him then formerly with the Israelites it is as easy for him to destroy whom he is offended with as for the fire to destroy stubble How directly doth this place overthrow that Antinomian assertion God saw sin in believers in the Old Testament and therefore afflicted them but it is not so under the New Now when it s said God is a consuming fire this denoteth the great anger of God compare it with Deu. 9.3 Deu. 32.22 Fire is most efficacious and least capable of transmutation as other elements are for which reason the Persians worshipped fire for a god but fire might be extinguished whereas God is such a fire as consumeth all and remaineth immutable Know then brethren that as there are places in the New Testament which speak of the riches of his grace so also of his consuming anger As therefore the promises of the Scripture are for consolation hope to the godly so are the threatnings for a godly fear Between these two milstones a Christian is made dulcis farina as Luther once said and neither of these milstones may be taken for a pledge as the Law was in the Old Testament because one cannot work without the other Therefore for a man to take only those places of Scripture which speak of the goodnesse of the promises and to reject the terrors of the threatnings is spiritual theft in an high degree Doth not Paul 2 Cor. 5 excite himself to run like a Gyant in his ministerial race because of the terror of the Lord at the day of Judgement See ver 10. We must all appear so to appear as to be seen through and made manifest before the judgement-seat of God as those that are to plead a cause in an eminent place before a Judge to receive a reward sutable to his life nâ—w knowing this saith the Apostle we perswade it may relate to himself and to those whom he perswadeth Yet this apprehension of the Lords terror did not exclude love for v. 14. he saith The love of Christ constraineth us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either an expression from those who had a spirit of prophecie upon them that was very powerfull whereby they could not but speak or else from women in travell Heb. 12.15 which through pain cannot but cry out so efficacious was love in Paul 4. The sins of godly men cease not to be sins though they are justified We may not say that in Cain killing of another is murder but in David it is not We may not say denying of Christ in Judas is indeed a sin but in Peter it is not No priviledge they have by justification can alter the nature of a sin He that receiveth unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord whether he be a wicked man or a Beleever It is not with a Beleever and a wicked man as with a man and a beast comparatively If a beast kill a man it is not sin because the subject is not reasonable but a man if he do so whether godly or ungodly it is a sin because against Gods Law It is not safe to say that God doth with the Beleever and wicked as if a Magistrate should make a Law that whosoever committeth such a crime if he be a free-man he shall only be imprisoned but if a servant he shall be put to death so God whosoever murdereth or committeth adultery
and gripes he had within because of sin and no wonder he did not confess it and bewail it before God If therefore God keeps thy heart in many doubts and fears giving thee no rest consider whether thou hast cast all that leaven out of thy house whether every Achan within thee be stoned or no. It is in vain to cure the wound as long as any splint of the poisoned arrow lieth within it or if thou finde no sin unrepented of search whether thy formal lazy duties be not the cause of all the blackness that is in thy heart We reade in the Canticles that the Churches laziness and her not opening the doors to Christ when he knockt was the cause of that spiritual desertion she was plunged into seeking up and down for her Beloved but not finding of him The standing pool begets the croaking Frogs not the running stream and it is the dull negligent Christian whose heart is filled with sad fears and doubts whereas the hidden Manna and white stone is promised to him that overcometh 3. Though thy soul walk thus in darkness yet exercise acts of dependency and recumbency upon Christ howsoever As David many times cals upon his soul to trust in God and not to be sinfully dejected How is that woman of Canaan commended for her faith who though our Saviour called her Dog and did in effect tell her she was excluded from pardon did yet earnestly pursue him and gave him no rest till he gave her rest And certainly this is the noblest act of Faith this is indeed to give glory to God when in the midst of all thy fears and guilt thou canst relie upon him for pardon as in wicked men who are filled with Satan as Ananiaâ— was there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a desperate boldness whereby they dare venture upon sin So in the godly there should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a confidence of Faith whereby maugre the devil and our consciences we dare throw our selves into the arms of a Promise Thus by frequent putting forth of strong fiducial applicative acts of Faith we shall at last enjoy obsignative Howsoever hereby thou wilt shew thy heavenly courage in enduring a kinde of spiritual Martyrdom As that Love is the highest Love which is carried out to enemies so those are the strongest acts of Faith which make us depend on God though he seem to kill us yea to damn us LECTURE XXIV MAT. 6.12 And forgive us our Debts ANother Question which is also of great use we are to dispatch at this time viz. Whether a Believer repenting and suing for pardon is to make any difference between a great sin and a lesse For if a man should be perswaded of the negative then would gross and notorious sins which Tertullian cals Devoratoria salutis whirlpools and gulfs wherein the party offended is plunged be no more then those sins which Austin cals Quotidiana levia daily infirmities which continually flow from the most sanctified person Again on the other side A Christian falling into such a gross sin may so far be swallowed up with sorrow as that he shall think the whole bond of friendship is dissolved between him and God that he is cast out of that spiritual Paradise he was in and that God is no more his Father nor he his childe It is therefore necessary to have a pillar of fire to guide us in this wilderness And that the whole truth of this matter may be understood observe these Propositions First Every sin even the least sin doth deserve eternal death As appeareth by those general places Cursed is every one that abideth not in all things the Law commands Gal. 3.10 Now every sin is a transgression of the Law This the Apostle speaks universally of all sin without any exception Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is death And indeed this must needs be so if you consider the least sinne is an offence against an infinite God and in this respect because God is not a little but a great God so every sin is not little but a great sin Again if you consider the necessity of Christs bloud to expiate this no sinne can be thought little for if a man had no sin in the world but one of these little ones he could not escape eternall wrath without Christs mediation Therefore we cannot say any sin is venial either from its kinde and nature as Papists distinguish such they make to be officious or jesting lies or from the imperfection of the act such they make those that are committed indeliberately or out of ignorance without full consent or knowledge Or from the smalness of the matter as to steal a farthing or the like None of these sins are so small but that they deserve hell because they are the transgression of the Law of an holy and great God and our Saviour confirmeth this when he saith Of every idle word a man shall give an account Mat. 12.36 and that phrase of giving an account is not a diminutive but aggravative expression Our Saviour doth there argue from the less to the greater Thus If a man must give an account for every idle word much more for blasphemy against the holy Ghost Take we heed therefore how we bring down the weight and guilt of the sinne here also we may see why Paul found such a mountain upon him by sinful motions only arising in his heart There are two places that seem to import such a difference between sins as if some only deserved hell and others not The first is Mat. 5.22 where our Saviour speaking of three degrees of sin doth proportionably assign three degrees of punishment and the last only is guilty of hell fire But the clear Answer is That our Saviour speaks allusively to those three Courts of Judicature among the Jews the least punishment whereof was death so that the first Court punished with death the second death with a more grievous torment The third with a most grievous For that our Saviour doth only allude to these Courts and not speak of what faults the Courts punished is plain for none can think that the Court put any to death for calling his brother fool It was murder and such â—ins that they punished with capital punishments The other place is 1 Joh. 5.15 17. where the Apostle makes a difference between a sin unto death and a sin not unto death but that is clearly to be understood either of the sin against the holy Ghost which in those times when the spirit of discerning was frequent might easily be known or of such sin that did plainly discover obstinacy and impenitency accompanying of it otherwise no man might pray for another man that hath committed a mortal sin if by a sin unto death the Papist will mean every mortal sin Lay therefore this foundation That every sin is mortal in respect of its desert and guilt howsoever to the godly believing and repenting no sin is mortal
doctrine extreamly derogating from the full satisfaction of Christs death as the Orthodox shew against the Papists Therefore in the third place the truth is this That God when he forgiveth a sin or sins he doth likewise take off all temporal punishment properly so called viz. in order to any vindicative justice as if a further supply were to be made to Christs sufferings by what we indure yet we say withall that God indeed doth take notice of the sins of those that are justified and doth correct them for them so that when he chastiseth them it is in reference to their sins they are the occasion or the impulsive cause as we may say though improperly when we speak of God Although the final cause and the end why God doth so is not to satisfie his justice but for other ends It is doubted whether we may call them punishments or no but we need not litigate about the word I see Chemnitius and Rivet cals them so And if we make a distinction in Gods end why he afflicts the godly for their sins from that when he punisheth the wicked though both for their sins we speak the truth fully enough though we call them punishments and certainly the words punish or punishment used Hos 4.19 Ezek. 9.13 Levit. 26.41 do not take the word punishment in such a strict sense The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used of the damned Angels and men 2 Pet. 2.9 Mat. 25.46 and this word seems not applicable to the afflictions of Gods people for their sins and so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seemeth to be an act of some Judge who doth not attend to mercy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suidas in voc But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Iudge is attributed to God when he doth correct his children 1 Cor. 11.31 where the Apostle useth three words in an elegant paronomasia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so then when God doth afflict his people he may be said to do it as a Iudge and afflictions are called judgements 1 Pet. 4.17 only when God doth thus correct and punish his people he is paternus Iudex a fatherly Judge But the most expressive word of these afflictions is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which denoteth God afflicting his people as a father his childe and although he doth it because of their faultslts yet he hath tendernesse in what he doth This is the truth and for the proving of it consider these Propositions First That God doth not afflict any but where there is sin in the subject for so was the threatning at first in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die By death is meant all kinde of evil and punishment so that had there been no sin going before there had no curse either upon man or creatures followed after Hence it is that Divines say The very hunger and thirst which Adam had while in the state of integrity was without that pain and provocation as it is in us So that the state of man in righteousnesse was like the heavens that admit of no corruptive alterations As for that dispute Whether God may not by his absolute Soveraignty adjudge man without the consideration of sin to everlasting misery the affirmative decision of it will not much incommodate this truth seeing that even then they say God doth this per modum simplicis cruciatus by way of a meer naked trouble and pain not per modum poenae by way of a punishment As for Christ he though innocent was a man of sorrows because our sins were laid on him Secondly That God may and sometimes doth afflict yet not in reference to sin Thus God doth exercise Job who though he was not without sin yet God seemeth not to do it for sin Therefore such calamities were rather exercises of his graces then correctives of his sins they were to him what a storm or a tempest is to a skilfull Pilate what a valiant adversary is to a stout Champion and to this purpose is that answer of our Saviour when the question was Whether the parents or the blinde man himself had sinned that he should be born blinde speaking according to the opinion of some Philosophers that was now also received among the Jews as learned men think viz. That there was a prexistency of the souls before they were united to their bodies our Saviour returneth this answer Neither hath this man sinned because he had no being before his birth nor his parents viz. some grievous sin for which God would punish the childe but only that the works of God may be made manifest This also must be granted Thirdly That all afflictions and crosses are to be reduced to the Law We may acknowledge this truth also if so be by Law we mean strictly whatsoever doth command and threaten and the Gospel to be only promissory though if largely taken the Gospel hath its curses and afflictions so God threatning or afflicting of a godly man doth so far use the Law as an instrument to make him sensible of his sin and therefore this is a sure Argument that the Law is not abolished as to all uses to the Believer because still there do befall afflictions to the godly not only from sin as the Antinomians speak but for sin only as the Law without the grace of God worketh all evil so do all afflictions likewise to men that are not godly Therefore wicked men in afflictions are as garlik or any ill-smelling herb the more it is pounced the worse smell it sends forth so that there must be teaching as well as chastening to make that affliction blessed Fourthly That in the calamities which fall upon the godly there is a great difference some are common and absolutely determined others more special and not necessary This distinction must be attended for God hath so peremptorily and irrevocably concluded upon some miseries as the fruits of sin that no repentance or humiliation can ever take them off Thus though a man should have as much faith as Abraham as much meeknesse as Moses as much uprightnesse as David as much zeal and labour for the Church as Paul yet all this would not free from death nor could it remove the curse that is upon the ground so a womans holiness and humiliation cannot take away the pains and throbs in childe-bearing for these are absolutely decreed But then there are special calamities which many times by turning unto God are taken away yea and God very frequently when he pardoneth sin he taketh also away those outward miseries as we see in many whom he healed both in soul and body at the same time So that we say not God is bound alwaies when he doth pardon sin outwardly to afflict for it Fiftly There are again some calamities that come upon them because of sin others for other ends We acknowledge it as clear as the sun that many troubles upon
know is to understand the nature of a thing but to see according to them is to behold the real existence of a thing now that cannot be of sin because it s taken away Thus say they God did know the sins of Abraham and men did reprove him but God did never once rebuke him in all his life after his calling for any one sin So that by these Positions you may see their meaning to be That a justified man is by Christ so cleansed that God seeth nothing but what is perfectly holy in him sin not only in the punishment but in the existence of it is removed quite away as to Gods sight Hence God takes no notice never chastiseth them never reproveth them because he seeth nothing but what is exceeding good and therefore because the justified feel the contrary that they have sin they commend and presse faith to live above sense reason and all our experience for say they as a man that looks thorow red glasse seeth every thing red so God looking thorow Christ seeth not only our persons but all our actions perfectly righteous with Christ righteousnesse What else may be said of their opinion is to be spoken of when we treat of imputed righteousnesse In the next place let us consider what is Popery in this point The Papists as Bellarmine lib. de Justif c. 7. say with the Antinomian That forgivenesse of sin is the quite abolishing of it and that whether it be original or actual so that no sin abideth any more in a man so justified till he fals from it and saith Bellarmine If the Scripture would have invented words on purpose to shew that sin is quite extinguished it could not use other then it doth and they think it impossible to conceive that there should be sin in a man and yet justified for this is say they to make him at the same time a childe of God and the devil The devil to dwell in him by sin and Christ by Justification Thus they distinguish not between sin reigning and sin being Though sin be in a godly man yet it neither hath vim damnatricem or dominatricem condemning power or reigning power Now its wonder the Papists should conceive this so impossible when they hold that the godly have venial sins which yet are truly sins and so by their own argument God must hate and punish them yet God doth not break off his friendship for all that now compare these two errors together in their agreement and difference 1. Both Papist and Antinomian agree in this That remission of sin is quite abolishing and extinguishing of sin both in the existence of it and punishment although some Papists hold for the later viz. of punishment at least temporal that that may abide though the sin be forgiven 2. They both agree in the places of Scripture as Christ cleansing us from all sin Thou art all fair my love To purchase to himself a Church without spot or wrinkle These and the like they both insist much upon 3. They both agree in reason to prove it viz. That sin is so odious to God that he hateth it wheresoever it is and therefore a godly man must at the same time be the object of Gods hatred and love which say they is absurd to affirm but here they differ the Antinomian makes a believer without sin because of Christs righteousnesse which he is cloathed with The Papist he makes him to be without sin inherently because of the grace of sanctification perfectly renewing him And indeed though the Antinomian seem to shew more zeal to Christ and grace yet the Papist speaks more to reason and if those places of Scripture did prove an utter extinguishing of sin it would carry it fairer for an inherent perfect holinesse then such a mystical perfection as they imagine In the third place I shall lay down the truth and wherein Scripture-doctrine doth indeed sail between these two rocks And 1. The Orthodox do distinguish of the nature of sin especially original and the guilt of it now say they the Scripture makes forgivenes to be the removing of the guilt but the nature doth still abide in some degrees 2. This sin even in the godly is seen by God taken notice of he hates it and doth punish it only he doth not punish it in their own persons but in Christ so that the sin of a godly man doth offend God and he abhorreth and will punish it but Christ intervening it fals upon him so that our being in Christ doth not hinder Gods taking notice of our sins and hating of them but onely freeth us from final destruction by them 3. If by seeing of sin should be meant judicial and final punishing of a man then we would say God doth not see sin in the godly in that sense and this some Orthodox have spoken which the Antinomian mistaking have lost the truth Thus Pareus lib. 2. de Justific cap. 9. p. 491. maintaining That the godly mans sins are covered which saith he supposeth not that sins are not but that they are not seen maketh this objection but nothing is covered or hid to God and then answereth True but what he would have covered but he will not fasten his eyes upon believers sins because through Christ he turneth away the eyes of his justice that he may place the eyes of his mercy upon them and to this purpose he quoteth Austin Tecta peccata quare dixit ut non viderentur quid enim erat Dei videre peccata nisi punire Brockman likewise de Justific cap. 2. qu. 10. p. 526. In vain is it objected That nothing is covered to God for that is true with this restriction unlesse it be that which he would have covered so that if by seeing were meant Gods judicial punishing and condemning in that sense God doth not see the sins of believers for he throweth them behinde his back but if by seeing be meant as the Antinomian doth Gods not taking notice of nor being offended with the sins of the godly so that he doth not chastise them for them this is a very dangerous error and is far more then a difference about words for the truth is That the sins of a Godly man do offend God and he is angry not as a Father but as a Judge hence as you heard the afflictions upon the Godly are for their sins and called Judgements onely he is a Fatherly Judge There is an excellent temperament of both these in God relatively to his people For the further discussion of this main point let us consider practically the sweet and full expression of the Scriptures about pardoning of sin One word frequently used is Nasa which signifieth to lift up and take away a thing so as that it was an heavy burden and so some translate that Psal 32.1 Blessed is he who is eased of his sin for you may see in that Psalm David feeling an insupportable weight upon him by
of Religion is kept up by acknowledging the fulness and perfection of the Scripture Both Papists and Illuminatists agree in this dangerous Error that they look for and expect a Doctrinal teaching immediately by Gods Spirit above and besides that of the Word Hence as the Papists make the Scripture but a sheath to receive any sword either of gold or iron words that will bear any sense you put upon them so do the Illuminatists that a godly man is above all books teachers writings and feels nothing but God working and acting in him We have therefore the greater cause to set up the Scriptures in their Divine authority and fulnes by how much the more others indeavor to diminish it This noble encomium of Gods word begineth v. 12. where you have the subject of the commendation the commendation it self The subject is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of God Bellarmine and other Papists that they might depress the Authority of the Scriptures understand this of Christ who is often called the Word Their reasons are partly because Christ is in other places called so as Joh. 1.1 alibi and partly because this Word is spoken of as a person and therefore all things are said to be open and naked to his sight But these are not Cogent for although in other places Christ is called the word yet the context doth there clearly evince it whereas here the contrary will appear for having before exhorted them to receive the Gospel and to hearken to the voice while it cals to day among other Arguments he brings this from the nature of Gods word which is to be understood both of the Law and the Gospel and its further observed as a peculiar thing to John only in his Gospel and the Epistles to call Christ the word of God and although the Text speaks of the word of God as preached and not as written yet because the word written and preached differ not essentially but accidentally in respect of the manner therefore this Argument holds true of the Scriptures As for the second reason it is ordinary by a metonymy to attribute that to the Scripture which belongs to God speaking by the Scripture as Gal. 3.22 The Scripture hath concluded all under sin c. so the Scripture is said to speak Ja. 4.5 So that it is no wonder if here the word of God be spoken of as knowing all things because God by this doth discover and manifest every thing In the next place consider the commendation and that is 1. from the adjunct qualities 2. from the powerfull effects The adjunct qualities are quick and powerfull that is it is not dead or frustrated but puts forth its power and efficacy which our words cannot do It is thought to be an allusive expression to the fire which was on the altar of sacrifices that was not to go out Secondly It s commended from the effect it s sharper then a two-edged sword it s an Hebraism to give a mouth to the sword because it doth so devour but because a two-edged or two-mouthed sword doth divide more forcibly therefore is Gods word compared to that Such a sword they say the Levites in the Old Testament did use in dividing and opening the sacrifices in which Metaphor the Apostle continueth afterwards Now by this comparison two things are insinuated 1. That God knoweth all sin even the most hidden 2. This knowledge is not a meer bare knowledge but such as is of a Judge examining and punishing For as the sword doth pierce and hurt so Gods word doth see and punish therefore it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is most exactly discerning and separating gold from drosse and judging accordingly so that the Text speaking not barely of an omniscient eye of God but an eye discerning judging and punishing doth in this consideration pertinently belong to the controversie We need not be curious in distinguishing between the spirit and the soul only the Scripture doth not confound these together nor between the things understood by the marrow and joints which are translated from the body to the soul This is intended in the general by the joints he means the minima the least things and by the marrow the intima the most secret and inward things Having thus described the efficacy of Gods word he layeth down two Propositions in my Text one negative the other affirmative Negative There is no creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inapparent but he seeth thorow it Affirmative All things are naked and opened opened is more then naked Naked is that which is not clothed or covered Opened is that whose inwards are discovered and made conspicuous Much is said by Criticks concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cameron thinks it translated from wrastlers who are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their adversary when they so take him by the neck and turn him upside down so as to object him in every part to the eyes of the beholders some say the Metaphor may be taken from those who being before the Judge hold down their neck and face to the ground as not daring to behold his face but that which is most received and which is most consonant to the context is of those who take the word from those who begin at the neck and divide the sacrifice in the middle so that all the inwards do appear Thus you see how emphatical and full the Scripture is in describing of Gods omniscient eye of any sin wheresover it is and that not by a meer bare cognition but of judging so that the Observation is That seeing there is sin in justified persons Gods eye must needs see it and judge it To this it is answered very confidently by a distinction never heard of before That God indeed knoweth the sins of believers but he doth not see them Hon. Comb p. 67 68 69 70. and this distinction they plead so boldly for that they say although all men Devils and Angels would gain-say it yet it must stand for the opening of this silly distinction they expresse themselves thus That although to see and know be all one in the pure uncompounded nature of God yet they are not so to us even as justice and mercy are all one in God but not to us yea contrary and the Author giveth two strong reasons as he cals them to prove this first The Scripture saith he distinguisheth them now he argueth that as it is a sin to distinguish where the Scripture doth not and thereupon he instanceth in the distinction of the guilt of sin and the nature of sin making it a new distinction and suspecting it for a corrupter of the Gospel as if Christ had taken away the guilt of our sins and not the sins themselves so where the Scripture doth distinguish there it is a sin for us not to distinguish Now concerning the former that there is in the Scripture a distinction betweeen the guilt
of sin and sin it self is in its due time to be proved Let us consider how he proveth this distinction of Gods seeing and knowing The place he brings is Psal 94 9 10. He that formed the eye shall not he see he that teacheth man knowledge shall not he know Here saith he they are distinctly set down and the Scripture useth this continual practice saying no where That God doth not know the sins of justified persons but in many places That he seeth no sin in them His second reason is because among men and Angels yea in God himself there is a reason to our capacities of this difference for to know a thing is to understand the nature of it though the thing it self be abolâ—shâ—d and hath no existence but to see a thing is to have a real existence of it before our eye As for instance God saith he knoweth the floud that drowned the whole world but he doth not see it having an existence now so God knoweth the leprosie of Naaman more perfectly then Naaman did himself yet he doth not see it upon Naaman and thus God knoweth the sins of the wicked and of his justified children more perfectly then they themselves do and herein is no difference between them but here is the difference that God seeth sin in the one and not in the other because abolished by Christ Thus you have a heap of falshoods and non-sense together as if the Author had no knowing or seeing while he speaks of these things To let you understand the truth in these particulars howsoever it would be very profitable in this place to give you the Scripture Doctrine about the eye or seeing of God as also the different use of it in Scripture namely that sometimes it s taken for a meer naked apprehension of a thing sometimes for the actions or effects that do flow from Gods seeing and then it is used either in a good sense for the eye of his care protection and approbation or in a bad sense and that two waies either for an eye of condemnation in which sense God doth not see the sins of Beleevers or of displeasure and anger in which sense it s expresly said the sinfull actions of godly men are evil in Gods eyes Howsoever I say it would be very profitable to speak of this here yet I shall put it off I shall therefore examine what truth is in this distinction which they so applaud and that shall be by several Propositions First That seeing is attributed to God only metaphorically God hath no bodily eies It is well observed by a Father that the meaner and more debased the things are to which God is compared there is the least danger because every common apprehension will judge it not to be truly and formally so in God And thus it is of eyes and when to see is attributed to God it is the same thing with to know so that to make a difference between these two is grosse ignorance Secondly Knowledge is attributed likewise to God but in a far different sense from what it is in us and therefore differs from our knowledge many waies 1. His knowledge is his substance Hence Synesius said God to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his understanding 2. It s not caused from objects Gregory expressed it well Ipse mundus nobis non notus esse posset nisi esset deo autem nisi notus esset esse non posset 3. It 's simple and one There is properly no memory of things past no prescience of things to come but all things are presâ—nt to him As if there were a body that were all eies that needed not to turn it self backward and forward to see things or as a man standing upon an high Tower doth with one cast of his eye behold Passengers at the bottom of the Tower which go successively one after another Thus Deus est totus lux totus oculus God is altogether light and wholly an eye 4. Knowledge in us is properly taken for to know a thing by its causes but it is not so in God This rightly understood will overthrow that distinction of knowing and seeing Thirdly That text Psal 94. doth no waies suppose such a distinction for the Psalmist doth there intend whatsoever perfection is either in bodily seeing or mentall knowing it is eminently and more transcendently in God neither doth he limit seeing to the sins of wicked men and knowing only to the sins of the godly yea the text maketh thus against the Antinomian if a believer himself and others see sin in him shall not God much more Indeed in the creatures there is a distinction between seeing and knowing in some respects for knowing may be of a thing in the abstract but seeing doth denote the intuitive present apprehension so that knowing hath a perfection which seeing hath not and seeing which knowing hath not but in God all his knowledge is intuitive and all things are present to him because of his eternity and omnipresence so the Schools determine and rightly upon that Text 2 Pet. 3. afterwards to be explained and the reason is because intuitive knowledge or the apprehension of a thing present is the most noble knowledge not that the things themselves do coexist or are present to one another but unto God in Eternity for as Gods immensity is in respect of his essence so his eternity is in regard of time so that although the things themselves vary yet Gods knowledge doth not As an Artificer who hath the Idea or form of an house in his minde before he makes it when it is made and after it is destroyed he hath still the same form in his minde though the house be altered Fourthly Neither doth the Scripture customarily use such a difference yea to know when attributed to God is used many times for a knowledge of approbation and then we cannot say God knoweth the sins of Believers but we may as well say God knoweth no sin in them that is to condemn them for it as well as he seeth none in them so Hab. 1. God is said to be of purer eyeâ— then to behold iniquity that is with approbation and so in this sense we may say God seeth no sin no not in wicked men Besides it is very false that the Scripture doth no where say that he seeth sin in Believers for it is expresly said of Davids numbring the people and of his murder that it was evil in Gods eyes and he confesses that he had done that evil in Gods sight But of this more hereafter So then wheresoever the Scripture saith God seeth no sin there we may also as truly say God knoweth none and where it is said he doth see there we may say he doth know also Fifthly There is in reason no distinction to be made to our capacities between Gods knowing and seeing for in those instances the Author giveth we may say God knoweth in
that respect as he seeth and he doth not see in that respect he doth not know As for example God doth not see the floud now to be no more can we say he knoweth it now to be for that is false God doth not see the Leprosie upon Naaman no more doth he know it to be on him So God knoweth his people in Christ as well as seeth them in Christ and therefore if by Christ he seeth no sin in them he must likewise know none in them Now this error is grounded upon a dangerous conceit as if Gods seeing were limited to things existent and his knowledge to things past or future so that it 's inexcusable ignorance to say with this Author that God knew the Sun and Moon before he made them but he did not see them He did not indeed see them to be before they were no more did he know them to be before they were but when they were made his seeing and knowing of them were all one Sixtly If Gods seeing were to be explained oppositely to his knowing then nothing that had a present being were known by God But doth not the Scripture give to God the knowledge of all things and though the things be diversified by time past present and to come yet to God they are not so Consider that eminent place 2 Pet. 3.8 A thousand years with God are but as one day The Apostle alledgeth this place out of Psal 90. ver 4. with a little variation The Psalmist saith as yesterday when it is past The Apostle as one day The Psalmist saith in thy eyes O Lord The Apostle with the Lord. The Psalmists expression in the eyes of the Lord are very pregnant to our purpose Here is a description of eternity proving that God seeth all things with one intuitive cast of his eye and that although to us things are present past and to come yet to God all things are present and although we are not able to reach this with our understanding no more then a pigmie the Pyramides yet we must rest more upon this Scripture assertion then our own understanding Quicquid de Deo dici we may add cogitari potest eo ipso est indignum quia dici cogitari potest and again dignè Deum aestimamus dum inaestimabilâ—m dicimus The Schoolmen dispute whether those things which God did once know he still knoweth as for example God once knew that Christ was to die but now it is not true that he is to die and their resolution is that we cannot properly say God begins to know what he did or ceaseth to know what he did but rather that the thing it self beginneth to be known or ceaseth to be known so that the change is not in respect of Gods knowing but the thing known as when I see the Sun and afterwards it is hid in the cloud the change is not in my eye but in the Sun Hence they also resolve that God knoweth all things simul together that his knowledge is invariable that it admitteth not of increase or decrease that all things are present to him and that as the Sun is alwaies in actu lucendi so God in actu intelligendi So that this very Text doth briefly overthrow all that which the Antinomian in so many pages sweateth to prove and that the consideration of Gods eternal knowledge in this manner is of profitable use appeareth by that when the Apostle saith Be not ignorant of this one thing Seventhly If Gods seeing of things were limited in our capacity only to things present then all the by-past sins of ungodly men though unrepented of yet God doth not see them because they have no present being and so God shall not only not see sins in the godly but likewise not in the ungodly All the past sins of Judas and Cain God did not see at the day of their death for they were pâ—st away Here will be much comfort to unbelievers as well as Believers Eightly If therefore God doth not see a thing because it is past what need the Antinomian run to Christs merits taking away sin out of Gods sight for this would follow by natural consequence because the object is taken away Take their own instances God doth not now see the Floud that drowned the world The Leprosie upon Naaman The Israelites wound that is healed why so doth there need the bloud of Christ to remove these No it followeth naturally because the objects are removed and taken away and so it would be here Ninthly All these instances for Gods not seeing yet knowing are contrary to the doctrine they hold God doth not see the Floud that drowned the world he seeth not Naamans Leprosie why so because these things have no being but here is their grand absurdity that they hold sin hath still an objective existency in us to Gods understanding and yet he doth not see it They should have instanced in some thing that hath a being and yet for all that God not see it If Naamans Leprosie had continued on him still and yet God not see it then it had been to the purpose for they grant that we have truly sin in us and we are to judge so yet though it hath such a being in us God doth not see it Tenthly What an empty Cobweb is this distinction even for that very purpose they bring it Oh say they if God see sin he is of so pure a nature that he cannot be but horribly and infinitely displeased with us Those say they that hold God seeth sin in Believers consider not how loathsom even the least sin is in his eyes But will this comfort my conscience if they say at the same time though God doth not see it yet he knoweth it Alas God is of that pure nature that if he knoweth but the least sin by me he cannot but be infinitely displeased at it So that you see this distinction will no waies ease a Believer in point of the trouble of his conscience And thus have I laboured to break the heart of this false and ignorant distinction LECTURE XII HEBREWS 4.13 All things are naked and opened to him c. THe second answer made by the Antinomians to this Argument from Gods omnisciency is this For when we say how weak and absurd is it to hold God doth not see that which we see They answer Honey-Comb pag. 61. Here we oppose the power of God against his will for he seeth all things saving that which he undertakes to abolish out of his own sight that he may not see it so that by his mysticall cloathing of us with his sons righteousnesse he hath abolished it out of his own sight though not out of ours Now we told you that this answer is not universally to be slighted for our Divines Pareus and others as I mentioned before maintaining that remission of sin though it be the utter deletion of the guilt yet not the ful
to be wounded and melted within us at that time And indeed why is there a promise Zech. 12. for the spirit of prayer and mourning together if it were so easie and customary a work Why Rom. 8. are these groans unutterable wrought by the Spirit of God in us at that time insomuch that a soul in prayer is in spiritual travel and heavenly Agonies All which cannot be unlesse the heart of a man be deeply humbled within for sin so that this Petition doth not only imply sin is in us and that God seeth it but also that all within us ought to be moved and troubled at it Beg therefore for pardon with the same zeal and movings of bowels as David did Psal 51. who had his broken bones A tear in our eye for sin doth more adorn it then a jewel doth the ear Now the Antinomian Doctrine is like an Eastern or Northern winde that drieth up or bloweth away this spiritual rain If God seeth no sin in us then he would see no humiliation nor debasement in us for sin and so whereas as heretofore repentance in believers hath been necessary now it shall be prejudicial to salvation and all sorrow shall be ungodly What direct Antipodes are these to Scripture-directions Hence they repent that ever they did so much repent and look upon their sorrow for sinne as Christ upon his enemies Lord forgive me for I did not know what I did But we have not so learned the Gospel The people of God when sinning are called upon to afflict themselves and to mourn and because the Corinthians did not so at first though afterwards they did therefore the Apostle threatens to come with a rod unto them Take heed then of all Doctrines or practices that may obstruct the running streams of thy soul Keep thy self alwayes in this spirituall sweat Take not the Limbeck from the fire that so spirituall distillations may flow continually 4. It supposeth earnestnesse and importunity with perseverance till we do obtain That which is requisite in every prayer must not be excluded here Prayer without fervency is like a messenger without legs an arrow without feathers an advocate without a tongue Hence are those phrases Be instant in prayer and Watch unto prayer and Pray without ceasing Till the heart be deaded to every creature and minde this thing only it will not pray aright Seeing therefore our blessednesse and happinesse is made to consist in this That our sins are pardoned how ought we to lay every thing aside till this be vouchsafed unto us Hierom complained of his distractions and dulness in praier Siccine putas orasse Jonam Sic Danielem inter leones Sic latronem in cruce Where is thy faith Did Jonah pray thus in the Whales belly Did Daniel thus among the Lions Did the thief thus upon the crosse If spiritual things were as truly and really apprehended by us as temporal are how should we bid all comforts stand afar off even refusing to be comforted till Gods favour shine upon us If the frowning of a King be like the roaring of a Lion how terrible then are the frowns of God for sin Lastly It supposeth in the subject constant renewed acts of faith For as there is constant pardon begged and offered so there must be a continual lifting up and stretching out the hand to receive As the branch in the Olive doth constantly suck juice and nourishment so ought we perpetually to be receiving from the fulnesse of Christ This then is the only grace that hath the promise of pardon made to it although where this is there will also be the presence of all other graces Neither may we with Spalato judge the distinction that is made between faith and other graces in this matter of Justification and Remission of sins a meer metaphysicall subtilty and formality as is to be shewed If therefore thy faith be asleep within no marvel if such tempests and storms arise that thou fear drowning As a tradesman will part with any thing rather then his tools for they are instrumental to his whole livelihood so above all we ought to look to our faith 3. In the object matter we suppose these things 1. That forgivenesse of sin may be had after Baptism That although we sin after that solemn stipulation yet God will not divorce us or cast us as it were out of the Ark into the deluge There have been some of old as the Novatians and Anabaptists of late who have maintained There is no hope of pardon to those that after their Baptism do fouly sinne for there they suppose is given the plenary Remission but this is false and uncomfortable for we have the incestuous person after his repentance received into favour again How desperate had Peters condition been if this had been true And when our Saviour bids us Forgive our brother seventy times seven we may not think there is more love in the creature then in the Creator and Gods kindenesse beyond that of a mans is most emphatically described Jer. 3.1 Where God promiseth a reconciliation to his people though they played the adulteresse with him 2. That we may with hope and faith pray for the pardon of great sins as well as lesse In Justification by Christ greater sins are as easily forgiven as lesse Though as is to be shewed the party offending doth not come by pardon so easily and more is required of him now this is a good cordial to the afflicted spirit who is apt to limit God in his pardon He may forgive such and such sins but can these great mountains ever be removed out of his sight sins of such a magnitude and aggravation But our Saviour doth not determine us in our Petition but whatsoever your sins are pray for the pardon of them Had it not been a great dishonour to Christ if any diseased man had said his malady was greater then Christ could cure he might heal others but not him No lesse injurious is thy doubting when the greatnesse of thy sin makes thee stagger The obedience of Christ is as much above thy greatest sin as Christs person is above thy person 3. It supposeth iteration of pardon that God is not wearied out neither doth upbraid us Who would not think that the soul should be ashamed and blush to go for the pardon of the same sins committed over and over again How easily might we think What hope is there to have me speed Have I not a thousand and thousand times intreated God to forgive me such pride such vain thoughts such negligence in his service and must I still go to ask pardon How shall I look up into Heaven any more and this temptation is more terrible as is to be shewed if it be a sin or sins of a more grievous nature that the petitioner hath been overtaken frequently with but as we are commanded to forgive to a brother offending in a day many times against us so
in Christ yet not for Christ Christ is the meritorious cause of Justification and Glorification but not of predestination that is meerly from his own self so that if Gods act of predestinating us be enough to instate us into all this favour and love what need is there of an atonement by Christs bloud and thus we may urge a Doctors Argument upon himself All the elect of God are justified but all the elect of God are elected antecedently to Christs merits therefore they are justified before Christs merits 7. If because it s said Ephes 2. That while we were dead Christ gave himself for us And Rom. 5. That he died for the ungodly it followeth Our sins are pardoned before we believe then it will also follow that all mens sins are pardoned For the Texts that speak thus of his dying for the ungodly and for enemies make no distinction of one from another And thus a Judas as well as a Peter is bound to believe his sins are pardoned Those that argue against all qualifications and say God requireth nothing of thee though lying in thy bloud must needs hold an universal promiscuous pardon of all and that such a sin as presumption is not possible for if I believe that Christ died to take away my sins though I walk in all disobedience yet that is not presumption but a duty It is true the Orthodox call upon those who lie groveling in their swinish lusts to come unto Christ and to believe in him but what is that faith Not a faith that sins are already pardoned but a faith relying on him for pardon which faith also at the same time cleanseth and purifieth the heart Therefore let us take those general Texts which speak of Christs dying to take away the sins of enemies and let any Antinomian give a true reason why one mans sin is pardoned rather then another and although to evade this they fall into another error holding Christ died for all yet that will not serve the turn unlesse they hold That all men shall actually be saved and none damned for those Texts speak of a benefit that is actually obtained for those in whose behalf he died And thus I have produced seven Arguments for the antecedency of our Faith and Repentance to our Justification as many in number as the fore-quoted Author brings against it Other grounds may be pleaded to this purpose when we shall demonstrate that all sins are not pardoned together Use Of Exhortation To avoid all presumption whether it be wrought in thee by thy own carnal heart or corrupt Teachers and that is when thou believest pardon any other way then in Scripture-bounds there is a Pharisaical presumption or Popish and there is an Antinomian or Publican presumption The former is when we hope for pardon partly by Christ and partly by our own works and merits The other is when we expect it though living and walking in sin Now it is hard to say whether of these is more derogatory to Christ The one sins in the excesse the other in the defect Be not therefore a Pharisee excluding Christ either in whole or in part from the cause of pardon Tutius vivimus quando totum Deo damus we live more safely when we give all unto God and take nothing unto our selves In the next place be not a Publican Think not to have Christ and Belial together expect not pardon for sin without repentance of it The world is filled with these two kinde of presumers some limit Gods grace and associate their performances with it Others extend it too far and conjoyn their lusts with it But as the Apostle saith If of works and of the Law then there is no grace So we may if of lusts and prophane impieties then there is also no grace We are therefore both to avoid sins and carnal confidence in our own righteousnesse if we would have Christ all in all In vain did Peter and Mary Magdalen pour out their souls with so much bitternesse if pardon of sin may be had without this It is Hieroms observation That in all Pauls Salutation Grace goeth before Peace for till Gods grace hath pardoned our sins we can have no peace and God doth not pardon but where he gives repentance Labour therefore for that which is indeed the good of thy soul viz. Pardon of sinne When the rich man in the Parable speaking of the corn in his barns said Soul take thine ease thou hast much good laid up for thee He spake as if he had porcinam animam the soul or life of an hog for what good is corn and wine to a mans soul Forgivenesse of sin and reconciliation with God that is the connatural and sutable good and happinesse for the soul LECTURE XXI MAT. 6.12 And forgive us our debts IT hath been proved That God doth not justifie or pardon a man till he doth believe and that the wrath of God abideth upon such an one It is necessary in the next place to answer those Objections which are propounded by the Adversaries because some of them carry a specious pretence with them And indeed the Antinomian with those Arguments he fetcheth from some places of Scripture is like David in Sauls Armour not able to improve them the weapons being too big for him But before I enter into the Conflict its worth the enquiry what the judgement of the Orthodox is in this point The Remonstrants Acta Synod p. 293. bring severall places out of our Authours Lubertus Smoutius Piscator and Others wherein they expresly say That God doth blot out our sins before we either believe or amend our lives and that this pardon doth antecede our knowledge of God Faith Conversion or Regeneration of the heart Thus also D. Twisse in the place before quoted Pemble also to this purpose pag. 24. The Elect saith he while unconverted they are then actually justified and freed from all sin by the death of Christ and so God esteems of them as free and having accepted of that satisfaction is actually reconciled to them But the falshood of this will appear in Answer to the sixth Argument When Grotius had distinguished of a two-fold remission a full remission and a lesse full remission holding this later kinde of remission to be given to impenitent sinners abusing two places of Scripture for this purpose Rom. 5. 10. 2 Cor. 5.19 Rivet confuteth him making it a sure truth That sins are not actually remitted but to those that repent and saith Quinam sunt ii qui volunt actu remissa peccata cuiquam ante conversionem certè nobis sunt ignoti Who are they that say sins are actually pardoned before conversion Certainly they are unknown to us Although we acknowledge the price of reconciliation and redemption to have been prepared for the elect from all eternity or in Gods purpose and intention remission of sins to have been ordained for them even as conversion which in his time by
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
reality of this justification 10 The Scripture speaks of justification as to us in a passive sense 11 God in justifying considered as a fatherly Judge 12 Iustification in Scripture described by Gods actions not ours 13 The Scripture hath phrases equivalent to this of justification Psaâ— â—2 1 2. Cautions concerning justification I. Caution II. Caution III. Caution IV. Caution V. Caution Justification consists in remission of sin and imputation of righteousnesse How justification can be said to be pardon of sin Answer Propositions for the under standing of remission of sins 1. That for giveness of sin is possible Vide Gerard inâ— Epist Pet. 2. Sin may be said to be for given divers wayes 1. In Gods de cree 2 In Christ meritoriously through faith 3. Sin is pardoned when the guilt is taken away 4. When God gives us assurance of his love 5. When temporal affliction is removed 3. Several things considerable iâ— sin when it is said to be forgiven 1. A privation of innocency 2. Desert of the wrath of God 3. An actual ordination of the person sinning to everlasting condemnation 4. An offence done unto God 5. A blot or pollution in sin 6. An aversion from God What it is to have sin forgiven 4. There is great difference between original and actual sin 5. When sin is forgiven it is totally and perfectly forgiven 6. Though sin be forgiven yet the sense of â—ods displeasure may remain And that two wayes 1. Servilely 2. Filially 7. The wicked hath no sin fâ—rgiven 8. Remission of sin only to the penitent 9. Remission of sins not limited How afflictions come on the godly after their sins are pardoned The Antinomians errour therein Cap. 7. p. 121. Dr Crispe The Papists error concerâ—ing the same The Orthodox truth is that God forgiving sin remits the punishment in order to vindicative justice but yet corrects in mercy as a father Propositions proving the same 1 God afflicts not any but where sin is 2 Objection answered 2 God sometimes afflicts yet not in reference to sin 3 All afflictions are to be reduced to the Law There is a great differeÌ„ce in the calamities of the godly 5 Some calamities for sin others for other ends 6 Afflictions for sins of the godly and wicked diffâ—r 7 God sometimes chastises hâ—s people in reference to their sinnes though forgiven This proved 1. from Scripture 2 In the places that do assert Gods judging of the people 3 From the iâ—couragement to duties by temporal arguments and thâ—eâ—s of temporal â—fflâ—ctions 4 From the comparison God useth concerning his affliction upon his people Hony Com. 133. 5 From the Command not to despise our afflictions but to humble our selves 6 From the command given to Magistrates Whether God chastiseth believeâ—s because of their sins The Aâ—tinomian Paradox discussed Antinomian Arguments answered 1. Argum. 1. Answer 2. Answer 2. Argum. 1. Answer 2. Answer 3. Argum. Absurdities oâ—jected by Antinomians 1 Absurdity objected 1. Answer 2. Answer 3. Answer 4. Answer 2 Absurdity objected 1. Answer 2. Answer 3. Answer 3 Absurdity objected 1. Answer 2. Answer 3. Answer 4 Absurdity objected Answer 5 Absurdity objected 1. Answer 2. Answer 3. Answer 4. Answer The Text opened Observation Errours concerning remission of sin Antinomian errors Popish errours concerning remission of sin Papists and Antinomians agreement as also difference The Orthodox truth concerning remission of sin Expâ—essions in Scripâ—uâ—e â—bout pardoning of sin 1. Verbal 2. Real â—xpressioâ—s Comfortable consideration arising from the fore going phrases Arguments proving that God doth see sin so in the Justified as to be offended with it 1 Rank of arguments from Scripture I. Argument The Antinomian answer refelled Honey Com. pag. 81. 2 Argument Antinomian Evasions answered 1 Evasion answered 2 Evasion answered 2 Rank of arguments from Scripture The Antinomians answer confuted Third sort of Arguments Revel 2.18 Jam. 4.9 10. 2 Cor. 7.9 10. Fourth kinde of Arguments Fifth rank of Arguments Question considerable propounded Six sort of Arguments Antinomian objections answered Seventh rank of arguments Eighth kinde of Argument Ninth sort of Arguments Particulars expressing how great the guilt of sin is in believers even in Gods sight How Gods anger manifâ—sts it â—elf upon his own children sinning In temporals 1. By involving them in common and ordinary afflictions 2. In bringing extraordinary and unusuall calamities 3. By striking with sudden dâ—ath 4. Gods anger reaches to tâ—eir children and what is dear to them 5. These temporal evils wil râ—ach to the publike Church and State wherein they live God is angry at the least sins God angry at errors in judgements and false opinions Manifesâ—ation of Gods anger to believers sinning in spiritual and internal things 1. In matter of consolâ—tion â— In sanctification The manifestation of Gods anger Eternal The coherence The Text opened Observ Antinomians anâ—wer by distinguishing And reasons thereof The truth of the Antinomian distinction examined by several Propositions 1. Seeing attributed to God only metaphorically 2. Gods knowledge and ours differs 3. The alledged text Psal 94 no ground foâ— their distinction 4. The Scripture useth no such diffâ—rence 5. There is no distinction to our capacities between Gods knowing and sâ—eing 6 Gods seeing â—nd kâ—â—wing not opposite 7. Gods seeing not limited to things present 8 Gods not â—â—â—ing sins past excludâ—s Christs merits 9 Antinomian 〈◊〉 contâ—aâ—y to their doctrine 10. The vainnesse of this distinction 2. Antinomians second answer Propositions shewing how far Gods takiâ—g notice of sin so as to puâ—ish it is subjecâ— to the meer liberty of his vvill 1. There is in God a libâ—rty whereby he doth whatsoever he pleaseth 2. How freedom may be extended to God 3. We cannot propeâ—ly say God seeth all things because he will see them 4. Great difference in respect of Gods freedom betweeâ— the attributes of God and the actions of them 5. God cannot in justice but punish sinners 6. It is in Gods freedom to punish sin in the party offending or in a saâ—ety 7. Great differeâ—ce between Gods justice essentially aâ— intra and the effecâ—s of it ad extra 8. Christ satisfied God as a just Judge not as a Father 9. Afflâ—ctions on believers agreeable to Gods Justice The Text divided Observables from the connexion Why sins are called Debts Observ Sins are debts What in sin is a dâ—bt Why sins are called debts â— By sinning we rob God of his honour glory c. â— A sinner is a debtor to Gods justice 3 Sinners not able to satisfie Gods justice become debtors to everlasting pâ—nishment 4 All the good we have we are betrusted with as so mâ—ny talents and we have the evil properties of debtors 1 We are unwilling to be called to an account â— We are full of shame and fear 3 Of shifts delays 4 We hate those to whom we are indebted In two respects spiritual debts exceed wordly debts 1 In the danger of non-paiment 2 In the Impossibility of escaping the punishment Use
but all venial Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus Therefore Musculus observes well That in this case the persons offending are to be considered whether they be believers more then the sins themselves A second Proposition Howsoever every sin even the least doth thus deserve eternal damnation yet there is a great difference between some sins and others And therefore sin is not a meer negation but a privation as diseases are and so as one disease may be more desperate then another so may one sin be more hainous then another The Stoicks thought all sins alike And Cyprian among the Ancients is reported by the Learned to have been of that minde But Scripture doth evidently confute this He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin John 16.11 So you have the phrase no be worse then an Infidel 1 Tim. 5.8 Thus Ezek. 16.47 Israel is said to be more corrupted and to do more abomination then Sodom For although to sinne be to miss the mark yet some may shoot farre wider from it then others one sinne therefore may be more hainous then another divers wayes as Divines shew As 1. From the Person offending if he know the will of God or if he be in publick place or office 2. From the Object If it be sin against God immediately or man only as Eli said 1 Sam. 2.25 If one man sin against another the Judge shall judge him but if a man sin against the Lord who shall intreat for him 3. From the Matter about which If it be in the life of a man and not in his goods that thou wrongest him Some also may be aggravated from the disposition of the man the means he enjoyes to overcome sin from the frequency of it or defending of it and the like Hence some sins are compared to Camels others to Gnats some to Beams other to Moats some to Talents other to Farthings This then being clear let us consider what difference a true believer should make between these in matter of pardon and what difference he should not make And in the first place he is to make a vast difference about them when he sueth out for pardon As 1. He is to believe Gods wrath is more kindled against him and that his indignation burneth more hotly when such an iniquity is committed then in our daily infirmities Thus when Aaron had made the Idolatrous Calf how angry was God both with Aaron and the people How angry also was God with David after his murder and adultery David had continual infirmities but God did not break his bones for them he made not such a breach upon his peace conscience as he did in these sins Therefore it must argue high prophaneness of spirit if a man after the committing of gross and loathsom sins be no more troubled then for the continual motions and incursions which sinne necessarily makes upon us No as sins have a greater guilt in them so Gods wrath is stirred up in a more vehement manner against such 2. There is a great difference to be made in respect of Humiliation and the measure of godly sorrow for it For as the sin may exceed another as much as the Camel doth a Gnat so ought the sorrow as much as an Ocean doth a drop Thus Peter goeth out and weeps bitterly he did not so for every defect and spiritual imperfection in him as for this abominable Apostasie We reade also of the incestuous person as he committed a sin that was not so much as named among the Gentiles so he manifested such sorrow as was scarce heard among Christians insomuch that the Apostle was afraid of him lest he should be overwhelmed with too much sorrow Now if for every sin of infirmity there should be as much sorrow and humiliation as for these crimson and scarlet sins how would the whole life of man be but a continual trouble of soul and in what darkness would he live alwayes Although all thy continual failings ought to be matter of humiliation unto thee yet when such as these shall break out thy soul ought to set open the floud-gates of thy soul Neither may this be thought a low mercenary way as if the party so humbled did intend a compensation unto God But all places of Scripture must be regarded as those which speak of Christs glorious grace so also those which speak of our duties 3. The Spirit of God doth not only in his Word reveal a greater wrath against such sins but he doth also withdraw all those consolations and comforts which were in the heart before So that a man thus offending doth as it were bolt himself in a dark dungeon and shut out all the beams of the Sun against him Insomuch that although Assurance and the consolations of the holy Ghost may consist with the weaknesses and sinful infirmities of Gods people yet they do not with the gross impieties they plunge themselves into as appeareth in David Psal 51. who prayeth for the restoring of that salvation he had lost by his sin The Spirit of God is a Dove and that delighteth not in noisom buildings The Spirit of God may be grieved and quenched in respect of the fruits thereof So that a man thus wounded for sin feels a very hell in his heart admits of no comfort Neither can it be otherwise for when we refuse the Spirit of God sanctifying we presently repel it comforting If we have not the heat of this Sun neither shall we have the light thereof 4. In these gross offences the Spirit of God doth not onely forsake him in respect of Consolation but it s a Command laid upon the Church-Officers to cast such an one out of their society as 1 Cor. 6. neither may the people of God have any familiar communion or acquaintance with such now what horror and trembling may justly arise in such a mans heart who shall thus be cast out of all gracious Priviledges and that by Gods appointment What darkness must this work in his heart when he shall argue thus with himself Its Gods command I should not be admitted to the Seals of his love he hath given his Officers charge to pour no oil in my wounds how can I plead for the grace signified when he denieth me the Seals thereof God hath shut me out like the unclean leper and whither shall I go Now then if the Church of God make such a vast difference between him and others and that following the directions of Christ Ought not the person offending also to judge the same things about himself 5. In some kinde of grosse sins although there may be deep humiliation yet there are many other conditions requisite without which pardon of sinne cannot be obtained and that is in sins of injustice violence and fraud of others Thus Zacheus it is not enough for him to beleeve Christ the Messias and receive him into his house but he makes