having fallen into, do lie in, at least for a time, through the growing power
committing capital crimes. The malefactor by his deed first deserves death, then he is adjudged thereto, and last of all the sentence is executed. All these are not only to be distinguished, but they may indeed be divided; which I need not stand to enlarge upon.
4. Punishment is taken either largely or strictly. Largely, it is used for the afflictions, or mala tristia, that come upon men,* whether good or bad, for their sin. So the scripture useth it, so orthodox divines use it sometimes; and therefore we may make use of the word in the present inquiry without any imputation of heterodoxy. Strictly so called, it respects only those evils that are inflicted for sin upon men, by the Lord as a just judge, without any mixture of fatherly love; and so it is termed judicial punishment, in opposition to the evils inflicted on the children of God, flowing from fatherly love. In respect of the end of punishment, it is either correctory or vindictive. The first is inflicted for the correction of the offender; the other for the satisfying of justice without respect to the amendment of the party; which I understand of God's intention simply: for as to the vindictive punishments inflicted on the reprobates, on this side of time at least, the amendment of the party may be justly looked on as the finis operis, though we cannot rationally suppose it to be the finis operantis, seeing it is not effected. In respect of its duration, it is either temporary or eternal. Correctory punishments are temporary, in regard the end of them is effected, therefore are they confined within the limits of time; but the other are eternal, and never have an end, in regard men are never able completely to satisfy the justice of God.
5. Lastly, The sins of believers are of two sorts. First, Some such as they having fallen into, do lie in, at least for a time, through the growing power of corruption, not having risen therefrom by the renewed acts of grace. In this case was David when Nathan came unto him, 2 Sam. 12. Secondly, Some they have fallen into; but, by the influences of the Spirit upon the principles of grace in their hearts, putting grace in exercise, they have recovered therefrom, having renewed their faith and repentance. In this case find we David, Psal. 51. These things premised, we
ASSERT I. That the sins of believers whether repented of or not, in regard of their disconformity to the law of God, make them liable in actu primo, not only to temporal, but to eternal punishment. This is so clear that none
who know what God is, or what sin is, will deny it, but will cheerfully subscribe to the truth of it. Therefore David testifies,* that no man living can be justified in God's sight; and when the worst comes upon us here from our Father for sin, we must still say, "That with us he hath not dealt as we sinned. Therefore believers not only may, but ought to confess their sins, mourn over them, condemn themselves for them, &c. And the contrary practice is so far from a gospel spirit, that it doth evidently argue a licentious spirit, regardless of the honour of God, and the purity of his law. Believers, so far as in them lies, by their sins do cast themselves into the fiery furnace of eternal wrath, so that if there were not one with them, "like unto the Son of God," the fire should actually fasten on them; wherefore they may look on themselves, as indeed they are, "brands plucked out of the fire; and sing that song, "Not unto us, Lord, not to us," &c. And the truth is, as one says well, In some respects the sins of the godly are worse than the sins of others; for they grieve the Spirit more, they dishonour Christ more, they grieve the saints more, they wound the name of God more, they are more against the love, and grace, and favour of God, than other men's sins are.
ASSERT. II. The sins of believers while unrepented of make them liable actually to the temporary strokes of God's fatherly hand. So that a guilty conscience in a believer, fearing a stroke from the hand of God, doth not fear where no fear is: for though God "sees no iniquity in Jacob, nor transgression in Israel," so as to punish them in a way of vindictive justice, as he does the reprobate, though Papists would have it so, yet no doubt he sees it in them, so as to punish them with the stroke of a fatherly hand; which is manifest (whatever Antinomians say to the contrary) from the many instances thereof recorded in scripture, as Moses, Samson, David, and many others; and from that plain scripture, Psal. 89:30, 31, 32. "If his children forsake my law—Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, &c." of which more anon.
ASSERT. III. The sins of believers, even while unrepented of, do not make them liable, in actu secundo, to the stroke of vindictive justice, or make them not actually liable to eternal wrath. Take it in hypothesi thus: David being a gracious man, even while he lay under the sins of murder and adultery unrepented of, though he did lay himself open to the
temporary strokes of God's paternal anger, and deserved eternal death thereby, yet he was not actually liable to eternal wrath.
ARGUMENT. I. That promise Psal. 89:30, 31, 32, 33. seems to carry it so, "If his children forsake my law—Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes Nevertheless, my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail." Where it is evident, that by the rod and stripes, he means only temporary strokes of his fatherly anger. This is a repetition of that promise, 2 Sam. 7:14, 15. Let us inquire to whom these scriptures do relate, that it may be seen how they favour our purpose. To exclude David and his son Solomon here, and the continuance of David's line and kingdom, were unaccountable, especially considering that clause, 2 Sam. 7:15. "As I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee." But surely it looks farther than to David and his seed, even to the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from 1 Chron. 22:10. He is the true Solomon, the builder of the Lord's house, whose kingdom is established for ever indeed; and of him Solomon, the king was a type. David himself testifieth this, while he shews that these promises were to be fulfilled in him, 2 Sam. 7:21. "For thy word's sake (says he) hast thou done this." Compare 1 Chron. 17:19. "For thy Servant's sake hast thou done all this." Where it is observed by Witsius* and others before him, that whom he calls in the one place, the Lord's Word, in the other place he calls, the Lord's Servant, meaning thereby the Messiah. But the Apostle puts it beyond all doubt; when speaking of Christ, he cites that scripture, and applies it to him, "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a son," Heb. 1:5. From all which it seems to be plain, that the promise mentioned does belong to Christ's spiritual seed; that is, believers; "who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12, 13. Here then is a promise of temporary punishments, which are to be merely correctory, to bring them in from the extravagancies into which, by temptation they may fall. And I think I may call it a promise of the covenant: for it is much to be doubted, if the gospel and covenant of grace know any threatenings properly and strictly so called. And truly this fatherly nurture is that which the children of God cannot want; yea, these rods and stripes are the peculiar privilege of those who are his; and they have as good right to them by the covenant, as to any other benefit. Here we have a discovery of the Lord's
way of dealing with his people as plainly laid down as any where else: yet not the least hint of any actual liableness to eternal wrath. So that we may justly conclude, that their liableness to temporal strokes, is their utmost hazard; which will more clearly appear, if we consider, under what notion the Lord deals thus with them; even as they are Christ's seed, the fruit of his soul-travail under the pangs of death, in which he having taken on their guilt, they can be no more liable: only the rod of a reconciled God remains to them, called "the rod of men,"* 2 Sam. 7:14.
ARG. II. If the sins of believers, even while unrepented of, do make them actually liable to eternal wrath, it must be by virtue of some law: wherefore there must be one found in this case, who may say of the believer, as the Jews said of Christ, "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die;" or, which is all one upon the matter, he must be liable to death by some covenant: for however God might have exacted obedience of man, and threatened and inflicted punishment in case of disobedience, merely upon the account of his sovereignty, without making any covenant with him; yet being pleased to enter into a covenant with man, he deals with him covenant-ways; which I think I need not stand to prove. But I say, there is no such law, and no such covenant, by virtue whereof the believer can be made actually liable to eternal wrath: for if there were any such, it must either be the covenant of grace, or the covenant of works. I can scarcely think it will be said, That it is the covenant of grace, by virtue whereof the believer under sin unrepented ought to die; for that were to bring in the law, with its cursing and condemning power, into the new covenant, and so utterly to overturn it, and make it a covenant of works. The tenor of the covenant of grace runs thus, "Believe, and thou shalt be saved;" but it does not say, "He that believeth not, shall be danmed;" for the covenant of Works says that completely, and secures the destruction of those that despise the covenant of grace: but Frustra fit per plura, &c. It must needs be said then, that it is by virtue of the covenant of works, or by the law. But the Scripture teacheth us, that believers being now under the covenant of grace, are no more under that of works; for a man cannot be under both; they are therein incompatible. We are plainly taught in God's word, that believers are "dead to the law," Rom. 7:4, "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body," i. e. the sufferings of Christ in his body), (Pars pro toto, Senec., that ye should be
married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead; that is, to Christ. It seems then that the Apostle is of opinion, that a man cannot be married to Christ, unless he be dead to the law, more than a wife can be married to two husbands at once; that is plainly, one cannot be both under the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace, at one time: for if to be married to Christ, signify the bringing of the man within the covenant of grace, which I think cannot be denied, with any colour of reason, by those that acknowledge consent of parties necessary to the making up of the covenant; the being dead to the law, must be freedom from the covenant of works. Now, I pray you, what is it that makes the believer liable, in any case, to eternal punishment? If there be any thing, it must needs be the law; but we hear he is dead to it; but if dead to it, how can it have any power over him? To be dead to the law, says Luther,* is to have nothing at all to do with it; not to be held by the law, but to be free from it, and not to know it. And so the orthodox teach with one consent, that believers are free from the law, as to its cursing and condemning power; for "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." And indeed, according to the Apostle's reasoning in the fore-cited place, the law, as it is the covenant of works, and as to its condemning power, has no more to do with believers, or no more authority over them, than a man has over her, who alive was his wife, but is now dead; and therefore the believer needs no more fear the threats of the law, nor concern himself with them, as directed against him, than a dead wife, the threatenings of him who sometime was her husband; for what has the law to do with him now, when death hath dissolved the relation? The Apostle teacheth the same doctrine, Rom. 6:14. where, speaking to believers, he tells them, it is their privilege, that "they are not under the law, but under grace." The law and grace have two distinct dominions; therefore a man under grace is not liable to answer at the court of the law, he not being under the jurisdiction of the law, or covenant of works. So that the law, with its condemning power, can no more reach the believer, than the laws of this kingdom, those that dwell under the great Turk. From all which I may thus argue, He that is thus divorced from the law, that lives not under its dominion, but is as a dead man unto it, cannot be condemned by it, nor by virtue of it made liable to punishment; but such is every believer. Ergo. And I doubt not, but if we were as much dead to the law in point of practice, as we are in point of
privilege, we would more easily believe this. But the truth is, that, in respect of practice, believers are rather dying than actually dead to the law. And it is not easy for a man that is exercised, to quit living to the law: and therefore Lather,* speaking of this privilege of believers, has that feeling expression, "These things (says he) are easily said, but happy he who knows them well in the conflict of conscience; that is, who, when sin rushes on him, when the law accuseth and terrifieth him, were able to say, What is that to me, that thou, O law, makest me guilty, and convincest me that I have committed many sins? That is nothing to me. Now am I deaf, I hear thee not, because I am dead to thee." This will be yet more clear and convincing, if we consider, that the law is dead to them, as well as they to it, Rom. 7:1. "Know ye not, brethren, how that the law hath dominion over a man, as long as he liveth?" So our translation reads it: the words in the original are, eph' hoson chronon ze; and may as well be rendered, "as long as it liveth, referring the life to the law, not to the man. And I think the context does fairly carry it this way: for all along this discourse, the Apostle speaketh of the law under the notion of an husband, even the first husband to elect sinners; and it is clear, that in the two verses immediately following, he speaks of the life and death of the husband: "The woman is bound to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead,"—ver. 2. "If while her husband liveth—but if her husband be dead," ver. 3. So the connection of the fourth verse with the former, plainly appears; for having premised that the law is dead to the believer, he concludes, that therefore they are dead to it, and their relation to it is now ceased. And thus it is read and understood by several judicious interpreters, both ancient and modern. The Apostle more clearly asserts this, ver. 6. "That being dead wherein we were held; apothlanontos en ho cateichometha." The context also cleareth this exposition: for the Apostle adds, "that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the latter;" importing so much, as that "that wherein we were held," made us to "serve God in the oldness of the latter," viz. of the law: which cannot be properly said of the flesh, or of sin, for that stirs up, even to sin against the letter of the law; but well may be said of the law, with its threatenings, which forcibly sets on even the unregenerate to outward obedience. Whereunto well agrees the term used by the Apostle, speaking here of the law, "in which (says he) we were held;" the word signifies forcibly holden, and is used of those who are
detained in prison and custody, which the Apostle Gal. 3:23. doth plainly speak of, the "keeping under the law;"—"We were kept ephrouroumetha," kept as in a prison, and shut up, &c. And this word held, seems plainly to answer to that, ver. 2. "The woman is bound to her husband." Now, that husband is dead, even the law wherein we were held. Thus said Luther, "The law which bound me, and held me captive, is now bound and holden captive by grace." The law then is dead to the believer. Christ, by his death, hath been the death of the law, in point of condemning power: the law, which was the strength of sin, that is, whereby sin had a power of binding over the soul to eternal wrath, is now gone by the death of Christ, 1 Cor. 15:46. By his blood he hath "blotted out the hand-writing, (Col. 2:14.), nailing it to his cross." For to the cross two were nailed, the Son of God, and the law of God. The law nailed Christ to the cross, and Christ would not die alone, but crucifies the law that crucified him; as Samson at his death was the death of those that were the cause of his death. Upon which consideration, Luther brings in the believer insulting over the law, with a kind of holy pride, and thus speaking to the law: "I do nothing value thy terrors and threatenings, because thou hast crucified the Son of God. Therefore the sin which thou hast committed against him, is unpardonable; thou hast lost thy right; and now hereafter thou art not only to Christ conquered and strangled, but also to me believing in him, to whom he hath gifted that victory." Thus he. All which being considered, I think it will be very hard to shew, how a believer can ever be actually liable to eternal wrath.
ARG. III. Those scriptures which declare the believer to be "free from condemnation," plainly teach this doctrine which we now prove. John 3:18, "He that believeth, is not condemned; but he that believeth not, is condemned already. It is easy to see what the meaning of this is, which is said of him that believeth, if we consider the antithesis in the text; "He that believeth not, is condemned already;" not that the sentence is already executed upon him, but that he is sentenced by the law, and so liable, in actu secundo, to eternal wrath: so he that believeth is under no sentence, or is not liable so as the other is. So John 5:24, "He that believeth, shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death to life;" where it is plain, that the same thing is taught; for passing from a legal death, to a legal life, which is nothing else but the taking off of the
sentence of death, whereby the soul is made actually liable to eternal wrath, is opposed to coming into condemnation. The words in the original press this more strongly; eis krison uk erchetai alla metabebeken ek tu thanatu; cometh not, in the present time into judgment, but hath passed, &c.;* the word krisis here, and krinomai in the former, being simple words, do no doubt signify judgment, and to be judged, but tropically condemnation: only properly, I think the judgment or condemnation here spoken of, relates not only to the judgment and condemnation to come, but also to that which is in this life, But nothing can be more plain than what the apostle hath, Rom. 8:1, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." But believers even lying under sin unrepented of, are in Christ Jesus; therefore there is no condemnation even to them. I shall not say with Jackson, that the meaning is, there is no cause of a damnatory sentence in them; but I shall say with judicious interpreters, that it holds forth freedom from guilt, whereby they might be bound over to eternal punishment; and am well content to hold by the argument from this place, which Wendelin says the orthodox use against the Papists for the perfection of justification. The argument is this "Where there is no condemnation, there is no punishment; but to the justified there is no condemnation: Ergo, To them there is no punishment; or, they are bound over to no penal satisfaction. The proposition is proved, because condemnation is an adjudging to punishment." Thus he. How shall the force of this argument be invalidated? Will any say that this privilege is restricted by the following clause, "that walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit," and so belongs not to those who lie under unrepented-of guilt? This were to make two sorts of persons in Christ; some in Christ, that "walk after the Spirit;" and others in him, that "walk after the flesh:" and if there be such, let us no more ask, what concord Christ can have with Belial, light with darkness? But the apostles plainly applies the not walking after the flesh, but after the Spirit, to all believers, to all in whom the "righteousness of the law is fulfilled, ver. 4. And the walkers after the flesh, he makes the same with them that are in the flesh, ver. 5, who cannot please God, ver. 8. have not the Spirit, and are none of Christ's, ver. 9. If any shall say, that the meaning is, There is no actual condemnation to them, though there want not something condemnable in them; it is the truth, and the very thing we plead for, viz. That though
by their sins they deserve to be damned, yet there is no sentence passed against them, binding them over to eternal wrath, even though this sentence should never be put in execution. But this is not the meaning of those that make this exception; but thus they understood it, as we commonly say, They shall never be damned; that is, the sentence shall never be executed upon them; the wrath they are actually liable to by their sins, shall be diverted; the antecedent being put for the consequent, condemnation for the execution of it. But if so, I would fain learn of those men, what the apostle hath done, in asserting this, seemingly at least, great privilege of believers beyond others? and why he adds this NOW to it, importing, as it would seem, somewhat which those persons had not before? Are there not thousands out of Christ, that are as highly privileged as they? Are there not many that are yet enemies to Christ, walking after the flesh, regardless of the Spirit, who shall never have the sentence of condemnation executed upon them, but shall certainly be saved? Is it not as true of the elect unconverted, that the sentence shall never be executed against them, as of believers? Yea, surely. It must needs then be meant of this actual liableness to eternal wrath, the freedom from which is the peculiar privilege of believers.*
ARG. IV. If believers under sin unrepented of, be actually liable to eternal wrath, or the strokes of vindictive justice, then they are liable to pay a debt over again which hath been once already paid to the full; which is absurd, and unworthy of the divine Majesty, impeacheth his justice, as our divines say against the Papists, and reflects dishonour on the merits of Christ's death. We believe, that "by once offering Christ hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified;" he hath fully paid the believer's debt, and satisfied for all his sins past, present, and to come: and shall the believer himself be yet liable to pay that debt? This argument Beza hath pithily holden forth in his confession of faith, "Thou wilt say then," says he, "that there be infinite iniquities in me, which deserve eternal death. I do grant; but I add more to it, which thou, (Satan) hast maliciously omitted: that is, that the iniquities which be in me, were sufficiently revenged and punished in Jesus Christ, who hath borne the judgment of God in my stead. So upon this I make my conclusion contrary to thine; that is to say, Forasmuch as God is righteous, and will not be paid double, and Jesus Christ, God and man, hath, by one infinite obedience, made
satisfaction to the infinite Majesty of God; it followeth, that my iniquities can no more fray nor trouble me, my accounts and debts being assuredly erased and wiped out by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, who was made accursed for ME." But here it will perhaps be said, that if this prove anything, it proves too much, viz. that the elect unconverted are not actually liable to eternal wrath, for Christ hath satisfied for their sins, as for the sins of believers. In answer to this, it would be considered, That there is a vast difference betwixt a man's paying his own debt in person, and another's paying it for him. When he pays it himself, he is ipso facto discharged of it; but when another pays it for him, the debtor is not presently discharged from the debt, in regard of the surety, but to be discharged when the surety pleaseth. Now, our sins were charged on Christ as our surety, and he did pay our debt; look therefore, when he pleaseth, we are discharged from them, and that (saith he*) is upon your believing, not before, Rom. 5:1. So Bridge. It is certain, the remission of sin, which takes away actual liableness to eternal wrath, is not communicated but to those who believe; for as Parisiensis saith, As the damnation of Adam doth not pass, but by natural generation, upon those that are carnally generated of him; so the grace of Christ, and remission of sin, doth not pass but by regeneration, to those who are spiritually regenerated through him. Further, it is to be considered, that although payment be made by the surety, yet the debtor is still liable in law, till it be instructed that the debt was paid for him in particular; the ground of which is the union betwixt the cautioner and the princpal debtor. Now, it is certain, that the union betwixt Christ and a soul is made by faith only; that is, when the soul believes, and not till then. It is true, that from all eternity there was an union betwixt Christ and the elect, in the designation and decree of God; but as sure it is, that Decreta Dei nibil pomunt in actu. To this purpose speaks Mr. Durham, "It is not," says he, "the cautioner's payment simply, that is sustained, as a relevant defence in judgment, till that be instructed, and except the defence be founded thereon; for so the law provideth: so it is not Christ suffering simply, but his satisfaction pleaded by faith, and fled unto, that justifieth." And thus I think there remains nothing in this exception to invalidate the argument: for the elect unconverted are still liable to eternal wrath, in regard the time set by the surety for their personal discharge is not yet come; they are not yet Christ's seed by regeneration; they are not yet united to Christ;
nor have they by faith pleaded his satisfaction before the bar of the court of heaven. But believers being united to Christ by faith, even then when they lie under sins unrepented of, cannot be liable. And therefore the believer, even in this case, may look the law in the face, and say, "It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth?" I was crucified with Christ, in him I obeyed, in him I satisfied thee, O law, in whatsoever was demanded; I am therefore no more liable to thy condemnation: and with Lather,* "O law, thou hast no power over me, in vain dost thou accuse and condemn me; I believe in Christ, he has poured out his life most largely for me, besides him I will hear and see nothing." This I say a believer, may do de jure, though he cannot de facto, under those sins that waste the conscience, and darken the sight of his interest in Christ.
If it be alleged, that there must still be a fresh application of the merits of Christ's death, before the soul have the benefit of them for the particular sin, and repentance must be renewed for the same end: this is a mere begging of the question. But I truly wonder. how repentance comes in here: for it can have no instrumentality here, consistent with the nature of the new covenant; for it is a giving, not a taking grace; and therefore the Lord hath made it to be "of faith," not of repentance, "that it might be of grace," Rom. 4:16. As for that of the necessity of faith, it is more tolerable; and there is no doubt but it is necessary in order to the attaining of the comfort of the pardon of after sins, as repentance may likewise be. But I believe, that the righteousness of Christ is a perfect righteousness; and that at the first moment of believing, we put on the Lord Jesus with his perfect righteousness; that the Lord seeing us clothed therewith, declareth us perfectly just; and that we remain for ever without interruption clothed with the same, and are thereby kept from all liableness to eternal wrath in actu secundo. So that there is no need of fresh application here for this end, the thing supposed being false. But I would gladly understand what they mean by a fresh application of the merits of Christ's death here: for either they are applied to them before that application, or not till then; or that righteousness is theirs before the fresh application, or not till it be anew applied. If they say the latter, then the state of justification is interrupted by the believer's after sins; if the first, then they cannot be liable to eternal wrath. This must only be needful for the comfort of their privilege. And this leads us to another
argument; which is,
ARG. V. Believers, even in their worst case, have a perfect righteousness, and so are perfectly righteous: therefore they can never be liable to eternal wrath. The reason is, because to be perfectly righteous, is to be conformed to the law,; but to be perfectly conformed to the law, and yet to be liable to the condemnanation of the law, is a flat contradiction. It is true, that the righteousness is not originally and inherently theirs; but it is derivatively theirs, and imputed to them; which, with respect to Adam's sin, was sufficient to make us actually liable to eternal flames: and why shall not the imputed righteousness of Christ be sufficient to make us free from that actual liableness to the revenging wrath of God? Are they not perfectly righteous; Hath the law any more to require of them than what it has got? There were but two things it could demand, according to the strictest tenor of the first covenant; to do and to suffer perfectly; and they have in Christ their head both done, and suffered accordingly, Rom. 8:3. 4. "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us," &c. Rom. 6:10, 11. Gal. 4:4, 5. "We learn (says Beza.*) to pay by him, who hath set himself debtor and payer for us, who hath put himself in our place, and hath paid our debt, as the principal debtor, even unto the uttermost penny, in such wise, that the rigour of the law, which did before fear us, now comforteth us in Jesus Christ; forasmuch as life eternal is due to those who have fully obeyed the law, and Jesus Christ hath fulfilled the same for us." Now, surely, what Christ hath done for us, is as good as if we had done it ourselves; yea, for the honour of the law, it is a thousand times better, because of the incomparable dignity of the person. What then should make them liable at any time to eternal wrath, being at all times clothed with this perfect righteousness? It cannot be, that falling asleep, and faith not being in exercise, they let the grips of it go, and therefore they are thus made obnoxious to divine vengeance. But surely it is not so easily made ineffectual. If inherent grace remain so securely under the grievous backslidings of the regenerate, that they cannot become children of the devil; much more doth the imputed righteousness remain, so that they cannot become children of wrath, that is, actually liable thereto, Eph. 2:2. If they cannot keep the covenant, the covenant will keep them. If any shall say, that God will not impute it to us for the covering of that particular sin or sins we lie under for the time, till we do
anew receive it by faith for that end; it is false: for if a perfect righteousness be at all imputed, it covereth all sins. The ground of this opinion seems to be a mistake anent the imputation of Christ's righteousness, as if the imputation of it were a making of it ours, and that this imputation were carried on by repeated acts, so as it is still made anew as the soul stands in need of it, falling into new sins. That the first of these is a mistake, appears from this, that Christ's righteousness is ours before it be imputed, I mean not in order of time, but in order of nature. It is not ours, because it is imputed; but is imputed, because it is ours. It is evident, that it is used in this matter forensically, and is a judicial word and act; and is nothing else but a legal accounting of a thing to be ours. Now we know, "that the judgment of God is according to truth; and therefore he cannot account that to be ours which really is not so.* And the word itself will import no other: for whether you understand the primary signification of it to be the casting up of an account, and finding the total sum, as Arithmeticians do; or the concluding of a thing by reason, and argument, as in Logic; it still imports the being of the thing so, before it be imputed; as two tens are twenty, before the Arithmetician cast up the number, and the Logician finds the conclusion in the premises, before he gather it out of them. So, in this metaphorical sense, we are sinners in Adam, before Adam's sin be imputed to us, or we be reckoned guilty of his sin; and also righteous in Christ, before his righteousness be imputed to us. Hence I cannot but judge, that the Westminster Assembly, in their definition of justification, are much more accurate than several learned foreign divines, who make our justification formally consist in the imputation of Christ's righteousness: for indeed, as they accurately give it, it is presupposed to our justification, as the ground thereof. Now, the way how Christ's righteousness becomes ours, is by faith, (as the aforesaid Assembly teacheth), and that as it doth make up an union betwixt Christ and the elect person; which I conceive to be the primary and immediate effect of faith. Hence issues a communion betwixt Christ and the believer; so that as all his sins, wants, &c. become Christ's; the righteousness, obedience, and death of Christ become theirs; which so being, God accounts it, and judicially owns and acknowledgeth it to be theirs, as indeed it is; and therefore justifies them; that is, pardons their sins, and accepts them as righteous upon the account of the righteousness they appear before him clothed with. So Witsius teacheth.
Now, what is it to be righteous, but to be conformed to the law? And seeing no righteousness can be sustained at the tribunal of God but that which is perfect, it remains that believers, at their first believing, are reputed perfectly conformed to the law of God; that is, to have perfectly obeyed and suffered; and this in regard of their union with Christ: and therefore, unless this his state be changed, which can never be till the union be dissolved, which the scripture holds forth as constant and perpetual, he can never be liable to eternal wrath. Hence it follows, that the opinion of a repeated imputation is also a mistake: for the imputation can no more be anew made, than the soul can be anew united to Christ Jesus. And, as Durham* saith, "Imputation being a judicial word and act, it supponeth an instant sentencing of such a righteousness to belong to such a person, as it were, and to be accepted for him: for if he hath not perfect right, there is no legal imputation, (to say so); but if it be perfect, then it is an instantaneous act." I add, and if instantaneous, then it is not repeated; nor is it a continued act, formally considered, though virtually it be; that is, the virtue of the imputation once made in the court of heaven never ceaseth, but remains still in force for all time to come.
ARG. VI. If the sins of believers unrepented of make them actually liable to eternal wrath, the salvation of many of the regenerate is lost; yea I shall add, "Who then can be saved?" for believers may die under sins unrepented of; and therefore, according to this principle, they must needs perish, being actually bound over to the eternal wrath of God; unless you say, either that God saves them, and takes them into glory while they lie under a sentence of condemnation, or that he takes off the obligation after death: both which are absurd. This argument is not so trivial as to be dismissed, as some would, with a, What if they die not in that case? But it is said here, that although God, by his absolute power, can cut off believers in this case, yet, by his ordinate power, he cannot; for he will not do it; he hath secured them in that point, that though they fall, yet they shall arise by repentance ere they go off the world; they cannot die under sin without repentance, because they "are kept by the power of God unto salvation," 1 Pet. 1:5. But this I refuse, as what cannot be made out by the scriptures; and must needs do so till I see a promise of it in God's word; for to expect a benefit not promised, were too great rashness: but such a promise I confess I have never, as I conceive, heard of, or seen in the
word of God. The scripture alledged doth indeed prove, that the salvation of the godly is sure, so that it cannot fail. That we deny not: only we judge, that the doctrine we impugn, is not the doctrine of the gospel; because it is not consistent with this certainty of the salvation of the regenerate, which is here taught us by the scripture cited; but their salvation is sufficiently sure, without this renewing of the acts of repentance, though in some cases at least it is necessary to their comfort. I deny not, but there are promises of the influences of grace for the renewing of repentance, made unto believers: but this I say, that they are no more to be extended to every time, than the promises of increase of grace; so that they are indefinite in respect of time. It is a command to grow in grace, and there is a promise thereof too, Psal. 92:13, 14. as well as repentance is commanded and promised. And yet I suppose it will not be denied, but that the last days of some may be worse than their first days, and that believers may die in a time of the decay of grace. But if we may judge of what God hath promised (as certainly we may) by the event, for "his counsel shall stand," we shall soon find that there is no such thing. Let us consider Eli* sitting by the way-side and in an instant falling back and breaking his neck. Was it not his sin, that the news of the ark of God being taken, did so affect him as to destroy nature? Though this argued much good in him, yet doubtless it was his sin, arising from weakness of faith; which, if it had been duly exercised, would rather have set him on to wrestle with God for the bringing of the ark back again; which faith could tell he was able enough to do. Yet Eli dies under this sin unrepented of; but yet we have no reason to doubt his being in glory. Yea, unless we maintain a perfection of grace in this life, it is impossible to evite this: for suppose that the renewed acts of repentance were the actions of the last moments of our time, yet repentance itself is as filthy rags; there is still sin in it when it is in the most lively exercise; so that either we must never die, or die under sin unrepented of. It will not at all satisfy here to say, that the question is not to be understood of sins of infirmity, but of the more gross sins; that the latter is that which thus makes liable to eternal wrath. For, 1. The distinction is naught here; all the sins of the godly being sins of infirmity, Heb. 4:15. Wherefore I cannot but differ from Mr. Bridge, who, in his sermon "of the sin of infirmity," tells us, that a great, gross, foul, scandalous sin cannot be a sin of infirmity. He gives the reason, because it is a sickness, not a weakness.
If a man have some distemper in his body, and yet he bears up to meat and to his work, he is not sick, but hath an infirmity. Thus he. Now, I think it will not be denied, but a godly man may fall into a great, gross, and scandalous sin; so then they fall into sins that are not sins of infirmity. Let none then that have fallen into gross sins, take any comfort of that, Heb. 4:15. "For we have not an High Priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; though he was in all points tempted like as they have been," even to those of the grossest sort, self-murder, and worshipping of the devil. This is strange divinity. The reason is no less strange; because it is a sickness, not a weakness. The learned gentleman Leigh* tells us, that astheneia, the word put for infirmity signifies invaletudo, morbus often, and imbecillitas, debilitas, morbus: for which he cites Plato, Xenophon, and Thucydides. And the Apostle, when he would show what sickness, or rather death, we were under by nature, he tells us, we were infirm, so far were we from bearing up to work, Rom. 5:6. onton hemon asthenon. But not to stand on words; Was not Peter's sin in denying of his Master a sin of infirmity? He was resolved against it; and Christ prayed for him, that his faith should not fail; he had a principle of resistance within, by the weakness whereof the tempter gained the day: so that it was a sin of infirmity indeed, yet a gross sin. But the foresaid author tells us, that, properly and strictly, an infirmity is that sin which a man is taken captive by, against his will, Rom. 7 that is, against the general bent and frame of his heart, which he hath not present strength to resist. So Rom. 15:1. Thus he. And this is the very truth which the scripture teacheth, Rom. 7 and elsewhere; and thus it was with David, Peter, and others, in their gross sins. But here is the mystery of this distinction according to him, that gross sins committed by a believer are not against his will, nor the general bent of his heart; that there is no resistance at all made to the temptation by the will, but that it goes on with full swing. And so Rom. 7 hath no respect to gross sins: and that law whereby a godly man is brought into captivity, against his will, to the law of sin that is in his members, hath no respect to adultery, fornication, &c.; the contrary whereof the Apostle teacheth, Gal. 5:17, 19; and John, while he tells us, that he that is born of God doth not commit sin, 1 John. 3:9. But enough of this. The learned Zanchius teacheth more orthodoxly in answer to that question, "But how do the saints make increase when they sin daily, and sometimes most grossly?" His answer
is, "They sin of infirmity and according to the flesh; but their mind abides right with God." But, 2. Those sins which are quotidianœ incursionis, as some term them, and the more gross sins are alike as to the point in hand; in regard it is not sin as it is lesser or greater, more or less evitable, but sin as "contrary to the law of God," that makes men liable to God's wrath or eternal punishment in actu primo; and sin as it is unrepented of (ad hominem), that makes them liable in actu secundo; for a qua tali ad omne valet consequentia.
Further, I urge, That a believer may die even under gross sins unrepented of: as we see in the Patriarchs and others their polygamy and incestuous marriages: which I hope will readily be reckoned gross sins: yet it is generally said by divines, that they repented not of these sins expressly, but virtually. Which is no doubt a firm truth. But if any shall make use of it here for an evasion, it will be so far from helping them, that it is a manifest yielding of the cause: for what is virtual repentance, but actual repentance virtute suœ causœ?* So that the meaning is, That although they did not expressly and actually repent, yet they had a principle or habit of repentance in them, which, positis ad agendum requisitis, would have broke forth into action with respect to that particular. But the question is not of this virtual and habitual repentance; for a believer in the case supposed hath still the habit of repentance, and the act is in the virtue of the cause, power, or habit; but it is of actual repentance, or else there is nothing said at all. If any shall say, that this is not the virtual repentance they mean, but that it is when a man is heartily affected with such a particular sin or sins as he knows, and for the corrupt inclination that is in him that is the seed of all, though there be some particular which either he knows not, or is not actually in his mind; yet so he may be said virtually to repent of the same; because he repents of one sin upon the account which is common to all: I answer, That when it comes to the arguments for it, taken from the necessity of confession, forsaking, &c. more than all this seems to be pleaded for. But however, the necessity of actual repentance is pleaded for in the case of sins known, and minded, but not in the case of sins unknown, or out of mind. But where find they this difference? Psal. 19:12. "Cleanse thou me from secret sin," will not ground it; for that is a prayer for repentance, not repentance itself otherwise than was said before; unless it be said, as is indeed alleged, that
the actual turning from one sin unto God, is a virtual turning from all, sufficient to bring the soul from under the liableness to eternal wrath for the sin unminded and unknown; which I suppose they shall not easely prove: and, if I mistake not, it will be found inconsistant with their own principles; for they will readily allege for their cause, I mean the necessity of repentance in believers in order to their pardon, David's case, supposing him to be liable to eternal punishment ay and until he renewed his repentance, when Nathan came unto him: and yet I think it will be very hard to say, that David, all that three quarters of a year and more, never exercised one act of repentance for any one sin all that time. So Joseph's brethren remind their sin in selling Joseph, when they say, "We are verily guilty concerning our brother;" which our adversaries understand of actual liableness to eternal wrath. But who can suppose, that they did not forsake one sin by repentance all that time; But what more ordinary than for saints to commit sins which they know not to be sins for some time; or if they do, they slip out of their mind not repented of: yet ere they know that particular action to have been sinful, or before the other come back into their minds, it may be a long time, and they may both have and lose a tender frame, and a repenting heart, in the interval. I say then, in this case, when the sin is known, and minded first before actual repentance for the same, the man is either actually liable to eternal punishment for it, or not. If it be, then the virtual repentance now pleaded for is not sufficient to free the soul from actual liableuess to eternal punishment, as is alleged: if not, then actual repentance is not necessary for the taking off the obligation to eternal wrath by known sin; the contrary whereof is here pleaded. Whence it appears, that this is a mere shifting of the thing that is in question.
Moreover, it were surely worth their pains who stand so much for believers' liableness to eternal wrath by their sins while unrepented of, seriously to consider, whether or not all those that die by their own hands, are set beyond a possibility of salvation; and whether or not it may be, that some truly godly under unrepented of sin may be struct with madness, or taken with a raging fever, and die in that case? and whether or not good men in a carnally secure frame may be killed while asleep, and surprised with sudden death; It may be rationally supposed that many such cases fall out in the world.