lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" viz. those of them that believe.
goodness, and readiness to forgive; and so his state is not indeed a state of justification, (call it as you will), but of condemnation; for bonum non nisi ex integra causa, malum ex quolibet defectu: which, according to the law, is applicable here; for the curse is pronounced on him "that continueth not in all things written in the law to do them," Gal. 3:10; and the Spirit of the Lord expressly tells us, that "whosoever offends in one point, is guilty of all," James 2:10.; and when "the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, all the righteousness that he hath done, shall not be mentioned," Ezek. 18:24. I confess these scriptures hold forth the Lord's way of dealing with men according to the covenant of works, not according to the covenant of grace; which knows nothing of condemning or adjudging to eternal wrath, as was said before. But if men will needs be dealt with according to the law, is it reasonable they take their hazard of all it says. Should the foresaid distinction be used (as it might be on the same grounds) for the comfort of a man, who having been frequently accused of treason, yet was still absolved; but now one treasonable act being proven against him, and he for the same condemned to die; would he not think you miserable comforters; and conclude himself to be in a state of condemnation?
2. The Apostle Paul makes them inconsistent, Rom. 8:33, 34. "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" viz. those of them that believe. Synec. generis.* The interrogation is a strong denial. Q. d. None shall lay any thing to their charge. The word encaleo here used, signifies to enter action or suit against a man in some open court. Now, if there be none to lay any thing to their charge, yea none so much as to enter action or suit against them de jure, then there can no sentence pass upon them, making them actually liable to eternal wrath. So saith Luther, "Every one that believeth on him, is righteous; the law cannot accuse him," &c. The Apostle goes on in his holy boasting, "It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth?" says he. NOT Christ, he is our Advocate; not sin, for Christ "was made sin for us;" not the law, for Christ hath "fulfilled the law for us;" not Satan, for God is his judge; and if he have acquitted us, what can the jailor DO? We see the ground of the Apostle's boasting his justification before God. Q. d. God justifies us, Ergo, None can condemn us. Now, where lies the strength of this argument, if to justify and condemn be not inconsistent; or, which is all one, to be justified, and to
be liable actually to eternal wrath? If believers may be so liable notwithstanding that they are justified, or in a state of justification, when the Apostle says, "Who is he that condemneth?" he may have an answer to his question. Yea, may the law say, I condemn him, for he lies under unrepented of sin, though he be a believer. "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" Yea, says Satan, I have unrepented of sin to lay to his charge. "But who is he that condemneth?" Why? here is the charge, his own conscience cannot deny it. The law then must condemn him, yea hath condemned already; for he is actually liable to eternal punishment, so that there remains nothing but the execution of the sentence. If any shall say, That the Apostle's meaning is, that howsoever the godly be condemned, reproached, &c. by the world, yet they have no ground to be discouraged, seeing God justifies them; I shall not quarrel it, so that it justle not out the other; which cannot rightly be done, as the context makes evident. See the golden chain, ver. 29 30. what, knits the links together, ver. 32. and how he goes on in that holy exultation, particularly in the two last verses of the chapter. The ground of non-condemnation here alleged, which is the death, and resurrection, and intercession of Christ, plainly teacheth the same. And indeed it had been small ground of boasting, if a man were still in hazard of the judgment of God, though he needed not fear the world's condemning him. In fine, the words are general; and it were too much boldness to restrict them. But what if God himself condemn them, or declare them actually liable to eternal wrath? then I say, the Apostle hath an answer to his question. And their is not so great cause of boasting of the privileges of believers; for if a man were freed from all hazard of angles, devils, and men, but yet liable to God's wrath, it is too great boldness to boast till that be over. But one would think, that the Apostle had sufficiently secured us against suspicion with respect to God, while he tells us, ver. 31. "If God be for us;" that is, seeing God is for us, as appears from the context: and so it is that God is for them; therefore they need not fear he will turn against them to condemn them.
If it be said, Why may not the state of justification consist with a believer's being actually liable to eternal punishment upon the account of some particular sin unrepented of, as well as a state of sanctification with the prevailing of some particular lust, or as well as health and sickness in
the same body? I answer, the reason is plain: Because justification is a legal and judicial act, makes only a relative change, is perfected in an instant, and admits not of degrees: but sanctification is a physical or hyperphysical work, makes a real change on a man's nature, is imperfect, and carried on by degrees. If a man be not perfectly justified, he is not justified at all; if the least unpardoned sin remain, the law condemns him for it, Gal. 3:10. But a man may be holy, though not perfect; and in health, though not perfectly. Suppose a murderer to be lying in prison, dangerously wounded with the same sword wherewith he killed others. The libel is drawn up against him, consisting of several articles. The man hath both the physician and the advocate to employ. The physician sets to work, and by his medicine so prevails, that he cures his wounds, though not perfectly as yet; but he tells him, and that truly, he is in a state of health, though he goes halting, and that there is no fear of death. The advocate doth his part, and of twenty articles disproves nineteen; but as to the twentieth article, though he said much against it, yet he could not invalidate the proof of it; but thereupon he is condemned. He cannot say now to him, as the physician, that there is no fear of death. And the reason is obvious.
OBJECT. 1. The command to repent, with respect to believers lying under unrepented of guilt, is prefixed to the promise of pardon, as is manifest in the church of Ephesus, Rev. 2:4, 5; and the ground is general, Rev. 3:19. "Whom I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous therefore and repent;" where repentance is put in as a necessary midst for removing of God's rebuke and quarrel, even from those whom he loveth. John keeps the same method, writing to believers, 1 John 1:9. "If we confess our sins, he is just to forgive." This is confirmed by the experience of the godly. Witness David, Psal. 32:3, 4, 5.—"I acknowledged my sin,—and thou forgavest," &c. Ergo. Answ. 1. That there is a necessary connection betwixt the pardon of sin and repentance, I grant: so that there is no pardoned sinner, but he is also a penitent; so that, sooner or later, virtually or expressly, whatever way sin be forgiven, it is also repented of. But will the objectors screw up this so high, as that no sin can be forgiven, unless it be expressly repented of? They cannot, surely, as long as that remains true, "Who can understand his errors?" Psal. 19:12. And so we must admit of virtual repentance in the first scripture, and virtual
confession in the two last. Which I say still is beside the question. And therefore, if they mind to prove any thing here by these scriptures cited, they will prove to much, viz. That express repentance is necessary to pardon; which is contrary to the scripture cited before. For if a sin be not known, it cannot be expressly repented of. And yet no doubt they must say, that a sin unknown may be pardoned. E. g. Jacob lives in polygamy, and that with two sisters; he could not expressly repent of it, not knowing it to be a sin, as is commonly said: yet this sin was no doubt pardoned, and Jacob saved. Then virtual repentance was sufficient, which Jacob never wanted, unless he lost the habits of grace; which I hope our adversaries will not say. As for the prefixing of the command to repent unto the promise of pardon, it can of itself have little weight, in regard the order of words is not always the order of the things themselves. So Mark 1:15. repentance is prefixed to faith; though it is evident, that, in order of nature, it follows the same, if it be understood of gospel-repentance. See 2 Cor. 7:10, 11. But of this perhaps more afterwards. But, 2. I deny the consequence of this argument; which I conceive may be, and must be thus framed categorically. Repentance must go before pardon; but pardon is the removal of the obligation to eternal wrath: Ergo. Now, the minor, if understood of the elect entering into a state of justification, is true; but so it hits not the point in hand. But if understood of those that are already justified, or in a justified state, it is false; pardon to them being nothing else but either the sense of pardon, or the taking off of temporal strokes, or relaxation of temporary punishment or chastisements. Which interpretation the instances adduced do very fairly accept of. In the church of Ephesus there were some under a decay of their love. What were they liable to upon the account of it? Not to hellfire; but to a famine of the word, a removing of the candlestick; that, being pinched with want, they may learn not to loathe the heavenly manna; which God threatens actually to accomplish unless they repent, and that according to the tenor of the covenant, Psal. 89:31, 32. And what else mean these words in the objection, "Whom I love?"—where repentance is put in as a necessary midst for removing of God's rebuke and quarrel. I cheerfully yield it. But assuredly there is a vast difference betwixt God's removing of his rebuke and quarrel, and his taking off the obligation to eternal wrath; unless it be that God cannot rebuke but as a judge. In that scripture it is plain the exhortation is to repentance; and
the argument used to enforce it, is very plain to our purpose, viz. "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten, unless they repent; but ye are they whom I love: therefore unless you repent, be sure I will rebuke and chasten you. As to that, 1 John 1:9. that he writes to believers, is plain, as we shall hear more afterwards; and it receives the same answer, viz. That they are to confess in order to the removal of temporary wrath. It is evident, that David's case, Psal. 32 is thus to be understood, of the removal of temporary strokes or chastisements. The words are, NaSathaGna V on Chattathi.* The word Nasa properly signifies levavit, to take off, or ease people of burdens; and so David says, ver. 4, "Thy hand was heavy on me." The lifting off that heavy hand, which was but the hand of a father, is then the forgiving of sin, or lifting it off. Gna V on is rendered iniquity, according to the proper signification of the word; for it denotes the crookedness and vitiosity of the action: but it must be expounded of punishment, metonymically, as it is frequently used. So the old translation reads it, Thou forgavest the punishment, &c. Amesins reads it, Sustulisti pœnam peccati mei. And so it must needs he understood, whatever way it be translated: for God never takes away the crookedness or vitiosity of sin, for that were to make it no sin; but he takes away the punishment of it. Now, this we heard before was God's hand that was heavy on him; yet the hand of a father, not of a judge. Compare Psal. 25:18. "Look upon mine affliction, and my pain, and forgive all my sins. Then, says Mr. Rutherford,* sin here is pardoned only according to the present pain and grief of body and soul that was on David.
OBJECT. 2. Nathan tells David, upon his confession, and taking with guilt, that his sin was pardoned, or put away, 2 Sam. 12:13. "The Lord also hath put away thy sin; and yet, ver. 9, 11, 12, 14. he threatens him with temporal strokes. Now, this putting away of sin, must he either as to the obligation to eternal or to temporal wrath. It cannot be the latter, because we see plainly he lies under the same: therefore the first must be said. Now, let it be marked, when it is said to be put away, even after his confession, and taking with the guilt; therefore he was actually liable to eternal wrath before his confession; and so believers lying under unrepented of sin, are actually liable to eternal punishment. ANSW. In the first place, It cannot be denied, but that these words are the words of
Nathan, declaring by the Spirit what God had done for David; and so they are not a formal pardon, but an intimation of pardon. Now, there is a great difference betwixt these two. But if the conclusion be valid, it must be drawn from the formal forgiveness of sin after confession, which doth not at all appear here; and not from the intimation of it at that time: for a man may be freed in foro Dei from guilt, and yet not have it intimated to him, till some time after, and particularly till he be in the exercise of repentance; yet is he not therefore liable to eternal wrath before the Lord till that time. In the next place, It comes to be considered, in what sense David's sin is said to be put away. In respect simply of the actual obligation to eternal wrath, say the objectors. Giving, though not granting it to be so, it remains still, that here is the intimation of pardon only. And truly David's conscience being now awake, and accusing him of these gross abominations of murder and adultery, it was no wonder if he lost his sight of his interest in Christ and his justification. This being supposed, such an intimation of pardon was most seasonable, that he might have somewhat to keep him from desponding. And this intimation made by the ministry of Nathan, with some measure of the Spirit's light illustrating this, though but, as it were, with a dawning light, and some secret underpropping, was sufficient for this; though a greater influence of the Spirit was necessary in order to the full establishment of his heart in this truth which the Prophet told him. This then being supposed, we may thence judge his sin to have been pardoned before. So Luke 7:48. Christ saith to the woman, "Thy sins are forgiven." Of this woman it is said, that "she washed Christ's feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head." After this Christ tells her, that "her sins are forgiven." But this is nothing else than an intimation of the pardon granted before her washing Christ's feet with her tears, &c. as is evident from ver. 47. But of this more afterwards. Hemmingius* speaking of David in this case, tells us, there were in him horrible terrors, and extreme fears; for he did fear everlasting punishment: but hearing this voice of the Prophet by the commandment of God, "Thou shalt not die, the Lord hath put away thy sin," he turneth again unto the Lord, and repenteth; he hateth his sin, he fleeth unto mercy by faith. Ye see in what order the learned man placeth David's pardon and repentance; and how he supposeth him under fear of everlasting punishment. But, if I mistake not, acute Beza will not grant so much: for, says he, "When David and
Peter fell so beastly, yet there is no doubt but they lamented and sorrowed, till they felt the working of their generation and sanctification: but being in their temptation, they stayed themselves upon the anchor of the testimony which the Spirit of God brought into their conscience; which caused them not to doubt, (notwithstanding their fall), but that they were the children of God, and that their fault was forgiven them." Thirdly, But why must it needs be understood of putting away his sin touching the obligation to eternal wrath, and not with respect to temporary and and fatherly displeasure and chastisments? Because, say they, he still lies under temporary wrath. Let us hear holy and learned Mr. Rutherford's judgment in this case. Having laid down this assertion, Sins of youth already pardoned as touching the obligation to eternal wrath, may so rise against the child of God, as he hath need to ask forgiveness of them, as touching the removing of present wrath, sense of the want of God's presence, of the influence of his love, the cloud of sadness and deadness, &c.; he adds, enlarging on the same, "We may well say, that God pardoneth sin, when he removeth temporary wrath. So 2. Sam. 12:13. Nathan saith to David, "The Lord also hath put away thy sin." Why? "Thou shalt not die." This is meant of temporal death especially, as the context cleareth, ver. 10. "The sword shall not depart from thine house;" and ver. 14. "The child born unto thee shall surely die." Then the Lord's putting away of David's sin, was in loosing him from the sword, in his own person, not in his house and children." And herein do I cheerfully acquiesce. We say then, that this putting away of David's sin respects temporary wrath, though David be yet threatened with it. Now, in that temporary wrath which believers lay themselves open to by their sins, there are several particular strokes; but none of them any way for the satisfying of justice, but for correcting the offender, the terror of others, &c. And therefore the executive pardon here is capable of degrees, and may be remitted or intended, as the Lord sees meet. So that the alleviating of the chastisement, or relaxation of the fatherly punishment due to David for his murder and adultery, is that which is holden forth in these words, The Lord also hath put away thy sin;" not excluding, but rather including the other. And thus David's case herein was as of a man who by the law is punishable by death, but is only actually punished with banishment. To this purpose the worthy author just now named, explains it, and I think has proven it. I add, that it further appears, if we consider
and compare ver. 5. with the text. While the thing is kept in thesi, David himself pronounceth the sentence on the guilty person, not knowing as yet on whose head it would alight: "The man that hath done this, shall surely die." Now, when Nathan tells him flatly, that he was the man, he found, that by his own sentence he was condemned to death; and he knowing that sentence to be according to the law of God in the case of the murderer and adulterer, it may well be supposed, that he concluded, that if men would not execute the sentence, God himself would do it. Wherefore it answers aptly to the sentence passed against himself by him, and exalts the mercy of of God towards him: "He shall die," said he. "Thou shalt not die," says Nathan. Consider also the antithesis, ver. 13, 14, "Thou shalt not die. Howbeit—the child shall die; not an eternal, but a temporal death. There was great reason for both. The text tells us expressly the reason why the child should die; even because David by that deed had given great occasion to the enemy to blaspheme. Wherefore the Lord (to speak so) behoved to vindicate the glory of his holy name, shewing that sin was displeasing to him in whomsoever it be found. The other is not without great reason likewise: for God had promised to him, 2 Sam. 7:12. that his seed, viz. Solomon, who was not yet begotten, should sit in his throne, and build the Lord's house; therefore he must not die; it was inconsistent with the faithfulness of God. That the Lord's putting away of sin, should be thus expounded of the relaxation of temporal punishment, needs not seem strange: for so it is used elsewhere in the scriptures, Neh. 9:17, 18, 19. "But thou art (or wast) a God ready to pardon." How? Thou "forsookest them not in the wilderness." Yet who knows not what strokes those people met with in the wilderness? But herein was pardoning mercy; the Lord forsook them not, he did not cast off his care of them, as a people peculiar to himself. We may see this yet more plainly Num. 14 where let it be considered, what the Lord threatens that people with. It is death in the wilderness; "I will smite them with the pestilence," &c. ver. 12. "If thou shalt kill all this people, as one man," says Moses, ver. 15. "Moses in his prayer asks forgiveness for them;" "Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people," ver. 19; he prevails, "And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word." But mark what follows: "Because they have tempted me these ten times surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers." Now, what is their pardon they get, but the relaxation we speak of? They are freed from
death, but are kept out of the land of Canaan, for their sin so pardoned. And David himself tells us of this way of the Lord's dealing with him, Psal. 119:18. "The Lord hath chastened me sore, but he hath not given me over unto death." The same way is that to be understood, Psal. 99:8. "Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions." Compare Psal. 106:43, 44. "They were brought low for their iniquity; nevertheless he regarded their affliction," &c.
OBJECT. 3. If believers lying under unrepented of sin be not liable actually to eternal wrath, what need is there of Christ's intercession? Yet John, 1 Epist. 2:1. when he is directing believers what course to take for the pardon of their sin, he tells them of "an Advocate with the father" whom they are to employ; but what needs he an advocate, who is not liable to the lash of the law? To this I answer, 1. The object of Christ's intercession is confined within too narrow limits, if it be supposed only to be employed for the obtaining of the pardon of sin. Christ prayed for Peter, that his "faith might not fail." See John 14 per totum. He intercedes always for his people, in whatever case they be; and I think it will not be denied, but that the benefits we enjoy, most of them come by Christ's intercession. 2. The pardon of sin, as it denotes the taking away of an actual obligation to temporary wrath, either in a total removal of the same, or a relaxation thereof, is not such a small thing as to be so overlooked. God's deserting of the soul, shooting his arrows against them, are not easy to the godly; and that they have Christ to employ for the removal of these, is no small ground of comfort 2. There is great fallacy in that which is said, that a man not liable to eternal wrath needs not an advocate. If it be meant of liableness thereto in actu primo, it is true. But who denies that they are so liable? If they mean it of liableaess thereto in actu secundo, it is false; for advocates use not to be employed for reversing a sentence of death, but to hinder it from passing. And upon this ground I say, that this doctrine is very far from invalidating the necessity of Christ's intercession; yea, it is indeed founded on the intercession of Christ: Rom. 8:34. "Who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died;—who also maketh intercession for us." And, if I mistake not, this scripture used against us, affords us a solid argument against the doctrine of our adversaries in this point. Which ye may take thus: Those who have always an Advocate at the right hand of the Father, who hath
undertaken their defence, and never fails to gain his point, their cause cannot go wrong in heaven; but whenever an accusation comes in against them, he will undertake their cause, so that it cannot come to a sentence against them; which is the only thing that can make them actually liable to wrath: but if believers sin, they have such an Advocate: Ergo. And it is worthy of our consideration, that our Advocate is called "Jesus Christ the righteous, "But he is not (says Zanohius*) a just advocate who defends an unjust cause: but Christ defends our cause, because he is our Advocate, and he is a just Advocate. John therefore teaches, that our cause which Christ defends, is just." So he. Now, where lies the justice of the cause?— in our repentance? No; in that Christ became liable for us, and hath paid the debt, and satisfied justice; and we are now one with him. And if our cause be just, how can it go to a sentence against us, though it never be executed? A just judge will no more pass a sentence against one that has a just cause, than he will execute it. And truly it seems, that those who will have such a sentence to pass against a believer in the court of heaven, though they believe it will never be executed, do not deeply consider Christ's sitting continually at the Father's right hand, and exhibiting the merits of his death and sufferings: for if this be, how can any accusation that comes in against them proceed so far? For, as one says well, he interupts the accusation, and strikes in for us, Heb. 7:25. because he hath not only died for us, and risen for us, but he follows the business to the utmost. If he does not thus effectually stop sentence passing against us, it must either be because he cannot, or because he will not. The first is more than absurd; if the latter be said, it is like it will be alleged that it is because we do not employ him, and so the oil must come from earth to anoint the wheels of his compassion towards those persons, for whom he poured out his blood while they were yet enemies. And if his intercession in this case depends open our motion, why not in other cases also? And so we shall never exercise faith nor repentance more: but these are undeniably the fruits of his intercession, as well as freedom from condemnation; for we cannot employ him but by faith. If any shall say, that if Christ's intercession do stop the sentence of eternal wrath's passing, why does it not hinder the believer's actual liableness to temporary strokes? I answer, The reason is obvious; because temporary strokes to believers are merely correctory, and, according to God's dispensation, cannot be wanted, Is. 27:6; but eternal wrath is not so. And
I think it is no solecism to say, that as the taking off of temporal strokes in due time, so the laying them on in due season, is a fruit of Christ's intercession.
OBJECT. ult. This doctrine opens a gap to licentiousness and carnal security, and therefore cannot be of God. ANSW. I take notice, that the Apostle hath the same objected to him against this doctrine, Rom. 6:15. and therefore I say, with him, God forbid, &c. But, 1. In such sins as so waste the conscience that they blind men as to their state, there is no place for this objection; for then the man looks on himself de facto as liable to eternal wrath; but de jure he cannot so look on himself. And why should this seem strange? for "will a man speak wickedly for God?" 2. Is not the same objection to be retorted on the adversaries who side not with Arminians, &c.? does not their doctrine upon the same ground lie open to this calumny? for, according to them, the punishment shall never be executed. If a man had the privilege that he should never be actually liable to capital punishment, then you will say, that man may do what he pleaseth without control, I say, on the other hand, if a man be so privileged, as that although ten thousand sentences of death pass upon him, yet they shall never be executed, upon the same ground he may do what he pleaseth: for, at most, there is but magis and minus betwixt them, quœ non variant speciem; and so they shall both be licentious doctrines, though the one more than the other. 3. I suppose it can scarcely be denied, but that temporal strokes, or the fear of them, may be curbs to our licentious humours suo quodam modo; though, without restraining grace, the fear of ten thousand hells will not be sufficient to hold in a man from the pursuit of his lusts. But why may not fear of death help to keep the church from murmuring at cross dispensations in life, Lam. 3:39. and the fear of a whale's belly the second time make Jonah to go to Nineveh? That which truly seems to be the ground of this objection, is, the not considering what is the extent and power of God's fatherly displeasure to which believers are made actually liable by their sins. The pondering of this aright would silence such objectors. Temporal strokes, the effects of God's fatherly displeasure, are not confined to strokes upon our bodies, or crosses in our outward estate; though indeed sicknesses of several sorts, poverty, losses, &c. yea and death, are not very light things, but such, as the prospect of them may make a stout heart to stagger. But
these strokes reach the soul likewise; and strokes upon the soul are very heavy. They may all come under the general name of desertion; which spreads itself into innumerable branches, such as, want of communion with God, a wounded spirit, yea the arrows of the Almighty driven into the soul, and their poison drinking up the spirit, &c. I add, the Lord's suffering men to fall into one sin, and that sometimes a very gross sin or sins, for a correction of them because of former miscarriages; as David's security was punished with his being suffered to fall into murder and adultery; Peter's self-confidence, with denying his master. All these the godly make themselves actually liable to by unrepented of sin. And it is well worth our noticing, that here is something in the obligation to temporary wrath, that is more to be feared than hell, if so be that sin be the greatest evil; which I hope no serious soul will deny. I thus think, and thus will ever preach. It is more bitter to sin against Christ, than to suffer the torments of hell, said Chrysostom.* Anselm said, that if on the one side were presented unto him the evil of sin, and on the other side, the torments of hell, he would rather choose to fall into hell, than to fall into sin. Now, I refer it to the judgment of any godly, if, these and the like things considered, the doctrine we maintain be chargeable justly with opening a gap to licentiousness? I shall not dispute here, whether or not the temporary wrath which is inflicted on the godly, be the same essentially with that which is poured out upon the damned. But sure I am David calls those strokes that had been upon him, "the pains of hell," Psal 116:3. Job speaks very terribly of them, Job 6:4. "For the arrows of the Almighty are within me," &c. Heman gives the same name to what was upon him that the Psalmist gives to what comes on reprobates, Psal. 88:16. compared with Psal. 58:9. The word in both places is Charon; only the godly man Heman hath it in the plural number. Lastly, We say this doctrine gives true gospel liberty; which perhaps the contrary doth not; and it is our duty to "stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free;" which if we will hear Zacharias in his song, Luke 1:74. is, "that we, being delivered from all our enemies, might serve him without fear. And if we would know what enemies we are delivered from, the apostle tells us, the law is one of them, as it curseth and condemneth the sinner, Gal. 3:13. And as we answer Arminians, Papists, and other enemies of Christian assurance, when they object, That it is a pillar of security; so I positively affirm, that this doctrine is so far from being justly chargeable
therewith, that it is a most strong inducement to gospel obedience, and a strick walk with God; I mean, to a gospel spirit. So that I fear not to say with Dr Preston,* he that hath the strongest faith, he that believeth in the greatest degree the promise of pardon and remission of sins, hath the holiest heart and the holiest life. And I think it is worthy of our observation, that Paul never groaned more deeply under the body of death, than in the midst of the discourse of a believer's being dead to the law, and freed from condemnation: Rom. 7:24. compared with chap. 7:1, &c. and 8:1. The scripture is very plain in teaching us, that it was Christ's design in bringing his people from under the law, that they might be employed in new obedience, Rom 7:4, 6. And surely it doth not fail. Nothing hath greater influence on gospel obedience than love; love is a strong cord to draw souls to a holy walk, 2 Cor. 5:14. "For the love of Christ [whether ye understand it subjectively or objectively, it is all one to the purpose] constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead;" i. e. legally dead, as is clear from the antithesis. Yet it cannot be meant of the actual execution of the sentence upon us; therefore only of this actual liableness to death. And indeed this is the very force of the Apostle's argument, how can that love but constrain us, seeing by him we have been freed from the obligation to eternal wrath, in which respect we were dead? dead juridically, says Mr. Pool. We were all as dead condemned persons, because he died in our stead. But more of this afterwards. I shall conclude with that saying of Mr. Merriton in his sermon of Christ's humiliation, "Sin is done away by this blood [of Christ], as it binds over to wrath and punishment. Sin may remain, but it shall not condemn, if the channel of Christ's blood runs through thy soul, thou hast shut the gulf as to condemnation."
QUESTION. II
WHETHER OR NOT ALL SINS, PAST, PRESENT, AND TO COME, ARE PARDONED TOGETHER AND AT ONCE?
THIS question hath much affinity with the former; and what is already said, may contribute to clear our way in answer to this. I mind not here to consider the doctrine of the deluded Antinomians, who assert, that men are justified and actually pardoned from all eternity; and so not only before they believe, hut before they are born; not distinguishing between active and passive justification. The former, being an imminent act in God, and a constant will to pardon such persons as he hath chosen to everlasting life, is no doubt from eternity, and complete from that date. But the latter a transient act, exercised not only about, but terminated on the creature living and believing, whereby he is actually pardoned, and judicially declared righteous, while he stands trembling before the tribunal of God; and so cannot be from eternity.
Their doctrine in this is flatly opposite to the Scriptures; which declare all men once and by nature to be children of wrath, and under condemnation, and unpardoned; and truly overturns both law and gospel at one blow; the law, in that the case being so as they pretend, there is no need of it to accuse, convince, condemn, and to stop every mouth, and to make all the world guilty before God. And no better friends are they to the gospel, which proclaims salvation to lost sinners. Yet none greater pretenders to the purity of the gospel than they; none seem to cry up free grace more, which nevertheless in very deed they labour to hide, while they set off the law altogether, without which a man shall never have a right taste of the grace of God. They cry down the law and a legal walk; which is, no doubt, the bane of many professors; but plucking up the law out of the conscience in the matter of justification, and a sinner's acceptance with God, they root it out of the heart in the matter of sanctification. So true is it, Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt.
But had more care been taken of preserving pure and entire the doctrine of free grace, it would no doubt have prevented the delusion of many
simple and well-meaning people, and cut off the occasion of crying down good works, and the study of holiness, under pretence of sacrificing all to free grace, from others led merely by their own licentious humours. And therefore, if I mistake not, the greatest noise that Antinomianism hath made in the church in these later centuries, hath been after a deluge of superstition; formality, and ignorance of the doctrine of the gospel, had overwhelmed the church, and sermons sounded rather like Seneca's morals, than Paul's doctrine of Christ crucified, and the riches of God's grace. So was it in the time of the reformation from Popery; so in the time of Britain's struggling with and wading out from Prelacy and Arminianism, &c. How dangerous is it to set up morality instead of the power of godliness, and life of faith? to turn the covenant of grace into a bastard covenant of works; and to mix the law with the gospel, which is indeed accounted by the Spirit of God another gospel, the preacher whereof is devoted to a curse? Gal. 1:6, 8.
And indeed nothing is more incident to men than this; for it is as natural to them to seek to go to heaven by the covenant of works, as it is for fishes to swim, or birds to fly; we being naturally disposed to apprehend God as a great lord and master, and ourselves as his servants, who must work for wages. And so it comes to pass, they consider God absolutely, forgetting Christ the way to the Father; and this while their consciences remain in darkness, without any illumination: for indeed, if the conscience were awakened, the sight of Majesty would dazzle our eyes. Wherefore Luther,* on Psal. 130 saith, "Often and willingly do I incnlcate this, that you should shut your eyes and your ears, and say, You know no God out of Christ." On the other hand, until the conscience is indeed enlightened, and the soul sees what a holy God it hath to do with, how hard is it to attain suitable apprehensions of the riches of his grace? And therefore the woful remains of corruption whereby we are inclined to measure God's ways by our own, start that question, concerning the privileges of the saints, "How can these things be?" and, with Peter, in a fit cry out, "Depart from me for I am a sinful man." But to the question.
In this point the orthodox themselves do not agree; which is the more to be lamented, and the rather to be considered and seriously weighed, that it is not a mere speculation, but a very practical point, and cannot but