his sins in particular And others that there is only this later and therefore the fore-mentioned Author in his Treatise of Gospel-repentance makes this only Gospel-repentance but as Gospel-faith is not that reflect act of the soul in a man whereby it is perswaded that Christ is his but a direct act of taking and receiving Christ to be ours so a Gospel-repentance is not that mainly whereby we are humbled because we receive Gods love to us in pardoning but principally in that loathing of our selves to obtaâ—n pardon It is therefore great ignorance in that Author in his Treatise of Gospel-repentance when pag. 58. he cals Repentance that goeth before this Faith viz. that my sins are pardoned a dead work as if the Faith that justifieth and without which it is impossible to please God were the believing that my sins are pardoned whereas the Scripture makes it to be the receiving of Christ and laying hold on him and seeing that the object must in order of nature be before the act that is imployed about it it followeth infallibly that I must have Justification before I can believe I have it Repentance therefore may be thought to go before a two-fold act of Faith First That whereby Christ is laid hold upon and made ours and so the Repentance that precedeth this may be called legal and slavish Or secondly Before a perswasion that my sins are pardoned and before this act of Faith Repentance must necessarily go because the Covenant of Grace dispenseth pardon only to such But because I have already spoken enough of the former kinde of Repentance anteceding Remission of sins vindicating the necessity of it I shall press upon this later as being most proper to my Text. And that assurance of apprehension of pardon doth not beget security but rather increase godliness will appear several wayes And first thus Those places which speak of Gods gracious Properties do represent them as grounds of duty as well as of consolation Psal 130.4 There is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared Mark that expression There is forgiveness with thee which implieth forgiveness to be in God as in a fountain and therefore he doth easily and plentifully forgive but lest any Spider should suck poison out of this sweet flower he addeth That thou mayest be feared here is no incouragement to security Thus Hos 3.5 there is a gracious Promise of God to his children that they shall fear him and his goodness As it is Gods glorious Property to work good out of evil so it is a most devilish quality to work evil out of good 2. The Promises of God they also require an holy and humble walking 2 Cor. 7.1 The Apostle having in the Chapter before mentioned those glorious Promises in the Covenant of Grace That he would be our God and we his sons and daughters makes this inference Having those promises let us cleanse our selves from all filthiness perfecting holiness in the fear of God So that here is no danger as long as we keep close to the genuine use of the Scripture Thus also Eph. 4.30 Grieve not the Spirit of God whereby ye are sealed c. Where Assurance is so far from incouraging to sin that by sin it is weakned and destroyed The more gracious then we perceive God to us the more humiliation and debasement we finde in our selves Thus the Apostle Peter 1 Pet. 1.17 If ye call on the Father who without respect of persons judgeth all men pass the time of your sojourning here in fear To make therefore doubting a duty and meritorious as some Papists have done is to betray great ignorance of Scripture motives 3. That Assurance of pardon is apâ— to kindle spiritual affections in us is plain if you consider the nature of such Assurance 1. Originally it is wrought by the Spirit of God as a man by the power of Free-will is not able to do any supernatural good thing so neither by the strength of natural light can he discern the gracious priviledges God bestoweth upon him 1 Cor. 2.12 The Spirit whereby we know the things that are freely given us of God is opposed to the spirit of the world If then this perswasion be not the fruit of the flesh but of the Spirit is it any wonder that it inclineth us to holy things Again 2. This perswasion of pardon cometh in the use of those means appointed by God 2 Pet. 1.10 By giving great diligence in the use of the means we only come to Assurance How then can such a perswasion of forgiveness cause a neglect of the means Lastly That Spirit which doth thus assure doth work also at the same time concomitant gracious effects especially servent and effectual prayer Rom. 8. Gal. 3. Now where constant powerful Prayer is that soul is like a tree planted by the waters side 4. That this perswasion of pardon doth inflame much to Holiness appeareth from the nature and state of those who are in it They are sons Now by experience we see that in an ingenuous son the more apprehension there is of his fathers tender love and kindeness to him the more obsequious and serviceable he is Can we think that the fathers great love to his prodigal son was not like coals of fire poured on him to melt and thaw him We rather see jealousies and suspitions of love to breed hatred at last Hence diffidence worketh despair and despair hatred of God It is therefore a special duty lying upon the people of God to entertain good thoughts of God and to be perswaded of his loving kindeness to them 5. That the people of God do yet mourn and abhorre themselves for their sins though perswaded of the pardon of them ariseth from the sincerity and uprightness of their heart whereby they hate sin as sin and grieve for the dishonour they have put upon God It is indeed lawful yea a duty to repent of sin that it may be pardoned because the Scripture propounds this as a motive and incouragement to the duty And it is a vain thing to affect more high and spiritual strains then the Scripture But Humiliation of sin when pardoned and after the knowledge of the pardon doth evidently discover an upright heart that the dishonour of God is more trouble and grief to him then his own punishment and destruction Whereby it is that hedoth so accuse and condemn himself for dealing so wretchedly and frowardly with so gracious a God 6. That ingenious principle of Gratitude and Thankfulness which reigneth in the godly will put them upon all these services Godliness in the lives of the godly may be considered two wayes First as a means wherein they attain to eternal life Secondly as an expression of Thankfulness unto God Hence Vrsine in his Catechism inscribeth that part of Divinity which containeth our duty de gratitudine of Thankfulness Bern. Ep. 107. Justus quis est nisi qui amanti se Deo vicem rependit amoris quod non
make little or nothing of it as it were a great fault in a childe to slight or make nothing of his fathers corrections Now let all the world judge whether the Antinomian Doctrine doth not open a wide gate to despise Gods afflictions this makes them cry down Fast-daies repentance humiliation and confession of sin yea they make it Popery and hypocrisie what is done this way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we may say with Homer 6. If God hath commanded Magistrates to execute outward evils upon some godly men that have hainously offended then its Gods will to afflict them for sin but he hath done so If a godly man being through the Dalilah of some corruption perswaded to have his hair cut off his spirituall strength gone and so he fall into the sin of murder is it not Gods will that the Magistrate should put him to death for this sin and what God would have the Magistrate do is it not as much as if God himself had done and must not all say this is a chastisement upon him because of his sin Thus have I brought reasons to prove that which I think was never denied before till this age which every day like Africa bringeth forth some Monster And certainly the Doctrine of afflictions upon the godly is so sweet and wholesome a truth that none but a Spider could suck out such poison from it as the Antinomian hath done LECTURE V. ROM 3.24 25. Being justified freely by his grace c. WE come now to consider how the Antinomian can make good that Paradox of his God chastiseth not believers because of their sins and indeed the Author forementioned doth much sweat and tug in bringing in severall absurdities which he conceives will follow upon the truth asserted by us But before we examine them let us take notice of the Authours great contradiction to himself in this point and that within very few Pages Falshood is not only dissonant from truth but also from it felf for whereas in the forequoted place he makes his assertion universal that Ged seeth not sin in persons converted and therefore there are no afflictions befall them because of sin Now see how flat contrary that same Authour speaks in the same book pag. 117. for there making an opposition between the condition of believers in the Old Testament and those in the new he expresly gives this difference God saith he saw sin in them as they were children that had need of a rod by reason of their non-age but he seeth none in us as being full-grown heirs and again God saw in them and punished them for it as they were under the Schoolmaster of the Law but he seeth none in us Hence pag. 99. he makes it peculiar to the time of the Law that Moses for an unadvised word was strucken with death and Vzzah and Jonah and Ely with others temporally corrected Therefore it was saith he came those terrible Famines whereby mothers were driven to eat their own children all was because they were under the severity of the Law that if they did but a little step awry they were sharply scourged for the same Now how great a contradiction is this to his other assertion for were not the godly under the Old Testament actually converted had they not Christs righteousnes made theirs were they not elected how cometh it about then that they were afflicted for sin and not believers under the New Testament when a man can bring the East and West together then may he reconcile these assertions but self contradiction is no strange thing in that book But I come to his Arguments The first place he urgeth is Ro. 5.1 2 3. Being justified by faith we have peace with God that is all beating blows and anger are ceased saith he and hence it is that we glory in our afflictions but now if they were for our sins we had no more cause to glory in them then the childe hath in his whippings for his faults For the opening of this place consider these things some ancient Commentators reade the word imperatively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us have instead of we have and thus they have interpreted it Being justified by Faith let us take heed how we sin again but preserve our peace with God The words taken this way would much confirm rather then debilitate our assertion but I doe not judge this so suteable to the scope of the Apostle in this verse we will take them as they are indicatively or assertively and first we may mean by peace either that reconciliation which is made with God or the sense and feeling of this which is nothing but tranquillity and security of conscience through the perswasion of Gods favour to us Now these may be separable one from the other a believer may be reconciled with God and in the state of friendship with him yet he not feel this or know this as many passages in Davids Psalms do witnesse even as the childe in the womb knoweth not the great inheritance and rich Revenues it shall be possessed of or as Agar did not see the well of water by her but thought she must perish till God opened her eyes There is a seal of the pardon of sin when yet the proclamation of it is not made in the conscience If we take peace in the first respect it is an absolute universal proposition and true of every justified person but in the latter sense it is true only of some persons and at some times for the sense of Gods favour is a separable priviledge from those that are in it If by peace we should understand the sense of Gods favour and the declaration of it in our consciences as by their arguments they must do then it proveth against their opinion as well as any others for they hold that a believer needeth to pray for pardon in the declaration or sense and feeling of sin though not for the pardon it self of sin now there cannot be at the same time a want of the feeling of pardon of sin and the tranquillity of conscience together so that this place must needs be a thorn in their side But 2ly the true and direct answer to this place is that there is a twofold peace one which is opposite to the hatred of God as he is a terrible enemy to sinners unreconciled with them in which sense he is often described in Scripture The other as it is opposite to that fatherly anger and displeasure whereby though for the main reconciled yet he may for some particular faults be displeased now the Apostle speaks of the former kinde of peace Being justified that is God being once reconciled with us in Christ he hath no more hostile enmity against us and if we do sin afterwards he will not become an enemy to us or satisfie his justice by punishing of us but as a father he may in his displeasure chastise us
The sense of Gods displeasure as a father may well stand together with an assurance that for all this he is no enemy A childe that bitterly crieth out because of his fathers chastisements yet even then hath that hope and comfort which he would not have if fallen into the hands or rage of an enemy that would kill him Hence it is that we presse all believers though sorely punished for their sins as their own hearts can tell them yet they must never pass such a sentence Now God is become my enemy he deals with me as with a Judas as with a Cain these we say are sinful inferences but they may conclude thus God though a loving father is now very angry and much displeased with me Distinguish then between a peace that doth oppose the hatred of God to a sinner as an enemy and a peace which doth oppose only the frowns of a father and this objection is answered I will acknowledge the people of God are apt under his sore displeasure not to discern between a father and an enemy They have much adoe to keep up this in their hearts God he smites he frowns he chides yet he is a father still but this is their temptation and weaknesse and we are apt to endeavour some kinde of compensation to God in our troubles for sin therefore it was a most blessed thing when God at the Reformation out of Popery caused this truth to break out That punishments for sin were not satisfactory to God but fatherly chastisements Thus you have this answered and as for that which followeth we glory in tribulations the Apostle must be limited to those which fall upon us for professing of Christ and his truth In these we may glory as the souldier doth of his marks and wounds he hath received in the wars for a good cause and to this purpose we told you in one Proposition That there was a great difference between those troubles that fell upon us because of the good in us and those which come upon us because of the evil in us What glory is it saith Peter 1 Pet. 2.20 if ye be buffeted for your faults Now who can deny but that even a godly man may fall into some hainous crime for which he may receive a sentence of death This man though he may rejoice in God who doth pardon the sin to him yet he can no more glory of this tribulation then a childe doth of whipping for his faults Another place of Scripture is Isa 53.5 The chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed This Text of Scripture is again and again pressed by them and certainly it is more sweet then the Honey or Honey-Comb but truly they do with it as the thieves with the man of Jericho leave it half dead and much wounded First Let us open the place and then see how far they are from the meaning The Prophet Isaiah in this Chapter may be called as we said before the fifth Evangelist for he seemeth rather to write an History of Christ then make a prophecie of him Among other passages these two are to our purpose 1. That the chastisement of our peace was upon him by Peace here Calvin doth well understand not that of quietnes in the conscience but a reconciliation made with God through his sufferings And it is observed by some how emphatical the Scripture is in that Pronoun He He hath born and He hath been wounded The second follows With his stripes we are healed Some think that this is spoken to debase that condition Christ so voluntarily put himself in that so his love might appear the more to us it being an allusion to the State of servants who used to be chastised by their lords The phrase is the same with that He hath born our griefs or diseases which Matth. 8.17 is applied to Christs healing of diseases and 1 Pet. 2. to that suffering upon the Crosse And well may this be because the outward healing of diseases was a Symbole or Testimony of his inward healing Although Grotius observeth That Christ is therefore said to bear our diseases when he cured them because of the great pains and travell he took therein for it was after Sun-set and the multitude did much throng him so then by the words you see the whole price of our peace laid upon Christ and by him all evils both temporall and spirituall removed but what is this to the purpose Yes say they here our chastisements are laid upon Christ therefore we have none for sin but 1. if this proved any thing it will be more then the Antinomians will yield for it would infer that there are no chastisements at all either for sin or no sin now the Antinomians cannot deny and experience confuteth them but that the godly have afflictions though as they say not for sin and this will inevitably follow by their argument for as they would prove from hence they have no sin at all not only sin that will not condem as the Orthodox say but even no sin so it will by the same reason follow that believers have no chastisements at all I do not say not for sin but none at all But Secondly The Antinomian in that place pag. 129. doth fully answer himself All chastisement saith he for sin needfull for the making perfect peace between God and his justified children was laid upon him very true Therefore say we though these chastisements be for sin yet they are not upon the godly as upon Christ they are not to satisfie Gods justice to work a reconciliation but only to humble them in themselves and make them the better feel how much they are beholding to Christ who bore so much wrath for them To say therefore as the Papists Christ by his death did only remove the spirituall evil and we by our sufferings must take away the temporall punishment this would indeed be derogatory to Christ and take off in a great measure from his glory A Third place brought in to maintain their errour is James 1.2 3 4 5. Count it matter of all joy when you shall fall into divers temptations therefore saith he they are not for sin because they are matters of joy and mark how he baptizeth goeth on the Author crosses and afflictions as it were with a new name taken from the nature of the change of them through the Gospel calling them temptations and trials But mark the ignorance of the adversary rather then the name of afflictions for Is it peculiar to beleevers under the Gospel that their afflictions are tryals what then will he return to that place Deut. 8.2 God saith the afflictions upon the people of Israel for fourty years in the wildernesse and they were not all beleevers much lesse beleevers under the Gospel were to humble them and prove or try them And Jer. 9.7 God speaking of the Israelites saith He will melt them and try them See
godly this must be the more terrible because they are of a more tender apprehension As they say Christs bodily pain was more then other mens could be because of the excellent temper and tender constitution of his body so it is with the godly every expression of Gods anger fals like a drop of scalding lead into a mans eye the conscience of the believer when once awakened feels every frown of God like an hell Thus after the committing of gross sin God hides his face and then for the while they are like so many Cains and Judas's crying out Their sin is greater then they can bear and truly this worm would never die this fire would never be quenched in them did not God again take them into favor there is no difference between a man damned in hell and a godly man troubled in conscience but the adjunct of time one is perpetual and the other is not Now our Divines say That eternity is not essential to the punishment of hell for Christ suffered the torments of hell for us which yet were not in time eternal but accidental because those in hell are not able to satisfie Gods justice therefore they must continue there till they have paid the last farthing which because they cannot do to all eternity therfore they are tormented for ever Look upon David again in Psal 32.3 4. How it fared with him because of his sins My bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long my moisture is turned into the drought of Summer Did David speak these things hyperbolically and rhetorically only Did he not finde such anguish and consumption in his soul that he thought no words could express it and all this he saith was because of sin O then believe this and tremble lest such a whale of sorrow and grief should swallow thee up as did David Thus it was also with the incestuous person the devil was ready to swallow him up he was delivered to him to be tormented by him and can all this be done yet God take no notice of sin As the godly in this life time may have that joy in the Gospel which passeth all understanding and more then the heart can perceive so they may have for sin such trouble and spiritual desertions that shall make every thing their chamber the field a very hell to them and David in many Psalms manifesteth such desolation upon his soul especially this is seen in lapses when persecutions do abound and men through fear have denied that truth which in their consciences they were assured of We may read in Ecclesiastical Histories of the grievous wounds and gashes Gods people through frailty have made upon their own souls And as it is thus in matter of consolation so in the particular of sanctification how may you observe some who have been planted by Gods grace like a Paradise through their negligence and corruptions become like a parched wilderness was not David in his fall till recovered like a tree in winter though the moisture of grace was within yet nothing did outwardly appear Was he not like Samson when his hair was cut off not able to break the cords of sin he was tied in some have thought a godly man can no more fall from the degrees of grace then the essence state of grace but if sin increase and grow certainly grace must decrease for whether sin expel grace meritoriously only or formally still the introduction of the one must be the expulsion of the other Thus Rev. 2. the Church is reproved for abating in her first love and the people of God complain Why hast thou hardened our hearts from thy fear Isa 63.17 not that God doth infuse hardness but only he denieth mollifying grace And certainly a gracious tender heart must fear a deliverance up to hardnesse more then up to Satan Illud est cor durum quod non trepidat ad nomen cordis duri said Bernard That is an hard heart which doth not tremble at the name of an hard heart A godly man therefore may so provoké God that he be left in a senslesse stupid way acting sin without tender remorse and securely lying down therein Lastly The anger of God eternal cannot indeed be in the event upon him but yet it doth conditionally oblige him till he doth repent so that you may suppose a Believer to be damned if you suppose him not to repent A conditional Proposition Nihil ponit in esse but it doth in posse and therefore the Scripture makes such hypothetical Propositions wherein a possibility of Apostacy is supposed in the godly if left to themselves as in that famous place Ezek. 18.14 When the righteous man turneth away from his righteousnesse and committeth iniquity all his righteousnesse shall not be mentioned in his sins he shall die This place is not as some do to be understood of a righteous man in appearance only for it s opposed to a wicked man in reality and it is such a righteousnesse that if continued in he should have lived eternally Neither may we stretch it to an apostacy from the state of Justification as others do but it is to be understood as comminatory by way of threatning and supposition for it is true that if a godly man should forsake his righteousnesse it would not be remembred to him and therefore if you suppose a justified person not to repent of his grievous sins committed you may also suppose him to die in the displeasure and eternal wrath of God but this is more exactly to be considered of when we handle that Question Whether Remission of sin obtained may be frustrated and made void by new subsequent actual sins LECTURE XI HEB. 4.13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do ALthough this Text in the general sense of it will not fully prove Gods eye of anger against sin in justified persons yet because a more special scrutiny and search into the words will make much against the Antinomian Error and also because the Answers which are given to this Text and the like do contain grosse falshoods so that in the refuting of them all things in this controversie will be clearly discovered as also because that principal and noble Question How far Gods taking notice of sin to chastise and punish it is subject to the meer liberty of his will will in some measure be discussed I shall therefore insist upon this Text. Not that the Orthodox make it their shield of Achilles as the Antinomian slandereth Honey-comb p. 73. But because the vanity of that distinction which they make between Gods seeing and his knowing may be brought out from behinde the stuff where like Saul it had hid it self And first for the Text absolutely in it self The words are part of that excellent commendation which is given to Gods word The purity and power
Example God the Father is moved through the death of Christ to pardon the sins of such persons for whom he dieth This agreement is to be made good in that time they shall pitch upon in their transaction Now it pleased the Father that the benefits and fruits of Christs death should be applied unto the believer and not till he did believe though this faith be at the same time also a gift of God through Christ It is good therefore when we either call Election absolute or say Christ died absolutely to consider that Absolute may be taken as opposite to a Pre-requisite Condition which is to be fulfilled by us so that upon this Election and the fruits of Christs death shall depend or else Absolute may be taken as it opposeth any Means or Order which God hath appointed as the way to obtain the end and in this later sense it would be a grand absurdity to say Election is absolute or Christ died absolutely for if this were so the prophane Argument about Election would have truth in it If I be elected let me live never so wickedly I shall be saved And the Arminian Argument That every one were bound to believe that Christ died for him though wicked and abiding so would not well be avoided His last Argument is from the unchangeableness of Gods love If we are not justified in his sight before we believe then God did once hate us and afterwards love us And if this be so why should Arminians be blamed for saying We may be the children of God to day and the children of the devil to morrow Hence he concludes it as undoubted That God loved us first before we believe even when we were in our bloud In answering of this Argument several things are considerable First It must be readily granted That God is unchangeable Jam. 1.17 God is there compared to the Sunne and is therefore called the Father of Lights but yet is preferred before it because that hath Clouds sometimes cast over it and sometimes is in eclipse but there is change or shadow of change with him The Heathens have confessed this and so argued If God should change it would be either for better or worse for worse how could it be imagined for better then God were not absolutely perfect Most accursed therefore must Vorstius his blasphemy be who purposely pleads for mutability in God But secondly As this is easily to be confessed so the difficulty of those Arguments brought from the things which God doth in time and not from all Eternity have been very weighty upon some mens shoulders insomuch that they thought this the only way to salve all by saying That all things were from Eternity And certainly by the Antinomian Arguments we may as well plead for the Creation of all things from all Eternity as that we are justified from all Eternity for all are equally built upon this sandy foundation That because the things are done in time therefore there must be some new act of will or love in God which would imply God is mutable not loving to day and loving to morrow Therefore to avoid this they say All is from Eternity Origen who was called by an ancient Writer Centaur because of his monstrous opinions argued thus lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 2. As there cannot be a father without a sonne or a Master and Lord without a possession so neither an omnipotent unless there be those things about which this power may be exercised Now although it be true That De Deo etiam vera dicere periculosum est because of the weakness of our Understandings to perceive his infinite lustre Yet thirdly It is well cleared by the Schoolmen That those relations which are attributed to God in time as a Creatour Father or Lord are not because of any new thing in God but in respect of the creatures so that when the world is created when a man is justified we say God who was not a Creator before is a Creator who was not a Father by grace is now by grace not because any new accident is in him but because there is a new effect in the creatures Thus if a man once the childe of wrath be now a son of Gods love the change is not in God but in the creature For the better clearing of this we are to take notice in the fourth place That it is one thing as Aquinas observeth Mutare voluntatem to change the Will and another thing Velle mutationem to Will a change By the same unchangeable Will we may Will several changes in an Object As the Physician without any change of his Will may will his Patient to take one kinde of Physick one day and another the third here he wils a change but doth not change his Will Thus God with the same Will decreed to permit in time such an elect man to be in a state of sin under the power of Satan and afterwards to call him out of this condition to justifie his person here indeed is a great change made in the man but none at all in God There is no new act in God which was not from all Eternity though every effect of this love of God was not from Eternity but in time Hence when our Divines argue against Arminians That if the Saints should apostatize Gods love would be changeable it is meant of Gods love of Election which is an absolute purpose and efficacious will to bring such a man to glory now although such a decree was free and so might not have been yet ex hypothesi supposing God hath made this decree it doth very truly follow That if that Saint should not be brought to glory God would be changeable And besides this immutability which may be called an immutability of his nature there is another of his Word and Promise whereby he hath graciously covenanted to put his fear in their heart that they shall never depart from him Now if any of the Saints should totally or finally apostatize Gods mutability would be seen in both those respects of his nature or will and of his truth and fidelity But the case is not the like when a man at his first conversion is made of a childe of wrath a childe of grace partly because there was no such absolute decree of God from Eternity that he should be for no space a childe of wrath but the clean contrary and partly because there is no such word or promise unto any unconverted person that he shall be in the favour of God but the Scripture declareth the clean contrary This duly considered will give a clear reason why it is no good Argument to say Such a man in his sins to day is a childe of wrath and converted to morrow is a son of grace Therefore God is changeable But on the other side if a man should argue An Elect man received into the state of grace may fall totally and finally Therefore God is
state dissoluble or indissoluble and if so then that neither great sins or less should break it and this makes us to wonder how David in his adultery and murder could be justified because we prepossess our selves with this principle That sin doth by a natural necessity expel the grace of God whereas many Schoolmen are bold to determine That de potentiâ absolutâ God might pardon sin though there were no Repentance or infused grace at all in a man Thirdly That a particular partial guilt is not the immediate opposition to universal Justification of the person unlesse it were to abide in him Justification of a mans person will keep him from being actually condemned though not from the guilt of condemnation As a guilty person thrown into prison is kept from the use of his house goods and all comforts but he is not deprived of them till he be actually condemned so a believer falling into gross sins is deprived of the use of all spiritual comforts but not cast out of the right of them because he shall never actually be condemned LECTURE XXVIII PSAL. 51.9 And blot out all my iniquities THe next thing in this Text to be considered is the second Petition which though differing from the former in words yet is coincident in the matter In this was observable as you heard the Petition it self Blot out my iniquities 2. The extent All all my iniquities Now from hence we may justly take an occasion to handle that Question Whether God in pardoning do forgive all sins together So that sins past present and future are remitted together for that is the opinion of some That as soon as ever a man is actually entered into the Covenant of Grace all his sins even future are actually forgiven and that they are bound to believe the same even before they actually repent of any iniquity committed This at large Cornwell maintaineth in his Book of Gospel-repentance Yea there are some learned and worthy Authours who seem to encline this way D. Ames in his Medulla in the Chapter of Justification saith Not only the sins of justified persons that are past are remitted but also in some sort those that are to come Neither saith he can sins past and present be altogether and fully remitted unlesse sins to come be in some sort remitted also Only he makes this difference sins past are remitted by a formal application sins to come only virtually sins past are remitted in themselves sins to come in the subject or person sinning But this in effect to say they are not remitted but that God by his Covenant of Grace will as sins are committed give Grace to repent whereby there may be a forgiveness of them This is to say rather No sin shall hereafter actually condemn them rather then to say they are forgiven Doctor Twisse Vindic. Gratiae pag. 82. de Eurat lib. 3. Quid si dicam in Justificatione nostra c. What if I say in Justification we receive the forgivenesse of our sins not only that are past but of future also that is we are made more certain of their forgivenesse For saith he that internal act of God whereby he doth remit sins cannot be renewed in God Certissimum esse judico c. I judge it most certain as he goeth on to whom God once doth forgive sins to the same man he forgives all his sins whatsoever they are of which absolution there is indeed a frequent pronunciation iterated to Penitents often in the Scripture Thus that learned Authour going upon those two grounds 1. That Pardon of sinne is an immanent act in God 2. That application of Pardon to us is no more then the sense and manifestation of that pardon which was from all Eternity But the weakness of these grounds hath been already demonstrated and we have other Orthodox Writers speaking more consonantly to Truth denying that future sins are forgiven before committed and repented of When Grâ—tius had objected That the Protestants Doctrine was Peccata condonari antequam fiant That sins were forgiven before they were committed Rivet in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 467 replieth Imo id nos absurdissimum credimus c. Yea we think such a Doctrine most absurd and the imputation of it to us most unjust For though saith he God decreed to pardon our sins from all Eternity yet the execution of this is not from all Eternity As God decreed from all Eternity to create the world yet the world was not from all Eternity Those that know God hath decreed from Eternity to pardon sinne upon the condition of Repentance Those that know God hath not decreed the end without the means will never ascribe to themselves Pardon of sin without these exercises of Repentance Thus the same Author in the same Book pag. 533. Absurdum est credere c. It is absurd saith he to believe a Remission of sins which are not yet committed for neither in the Decree of God is there an actual Remission decreed without Repentance preceding Remission To this purpose Perkins in his Book of Predestination There is no actual Pardon saith he offered on Gods part to us nor on our part received without Faith and Repentance When Thomson in his Diatriba had made mention of an answer formed by some Author That in Justification all sins past present and future were forgiven and a justified person was bound to believe this Bishop Abbot in his Answer cap. 24. cals this incommodè dictum an incommodious expression and argueth against it Having premised this I come to lay down the grounds that sins are not pardoned to a justified person before they be committed and repented of and therefore it is dangerous presumption to believe such a thing Only these things must be acknowledged First That God when he pardons sins past to those that repent He forgiveth all them together God doth not pardon some and leave out others Thus the gracious Promise Heb. 8. of remembring our iniquities no more and blotting them all out is to be thus farre universally interpreted that all those sins which then are found in the lives of believing persons shall be removed and taken away All past sins are forgiven together And the ground of this Truth is two-fold partly because the same Grace and love of God which moveth him to blot out one will also stirre him up for the other And indeed if it were not so God would have love to a man as his friend and hatred to him as an enemy at the same time whereas Remission is Reconciliation with God and therefore every obstacle must be removed partly this ariseth from the nature of Repentance for where that is truly for one sin it is also for all other sins and then the guilt of all must needs be taken away Secondly We must grant That to speak properly there is nothing future to God and those things that are not yet to us they are present to him For he calleth