which, let us remember the distinction formerly made betwixt pardon of
endued with this qualification, ere it can certainly determine that God will forgive its sin; and the confidence of hearing cannot be in greater degree than the feeling of that qualification. Fourthly, That it is so to be understood, appears from the parallel place, Luke. 11:4. "Forgive us—for we also forgive; kai gar hemeis aphiemen. Picator expounds forgiveness in the petition, plainly of the manifestation of pardon. "Christ (says he) by devine remission* in this place understands the sense of it in our minds, which is the sense of faith; signifying, that it cannot be that we by faith can feel the divine remission, unless we be conscious to ourselves of our remission whereby we have forgiven others." That we pray here then for the sense of pardon, is evident from what is said; and so far I acquiece in it: but I mean not to say, that pardon is taken here or elsewhere only for the manifestation of pardon. But it seems no less evident to me, that, upon what is said, they that understand it only of the manifestation of pardon, may hold their ground against those who acknowledge no pardon but what respects the obligation to eternal wrath. But in regard that a soul may have the sense of pardon touching the obligation to eternal wrath continuing with him, and that he is still obliged daily to pray, "Forgive us our trespasses," in respect of which he can only pray in such a case for the continuance of it; and seeing the words are apt to beget in us a conception of a formal pardon, and that the scripture teaches us another sort of a formal pardon than what respects God's eternal wrath; I do not judge, that the sense of pardon is all that we are taught to pray for in this petition. Therefore,
2. I answer, We pray here also for a formal pardon. For understanding of which, let us remember the distinction formerly made betwixt pardon of sin as it relates to the obligation whereby the sinner is bound over to eternal wrath, and that which respects the obligation whereby the soul is bound over to temporary strokes. That pardon of sin is in scripture used in the last sense, hath been already proven, and it is very commonly so taken. I shall adduce some other instances. 2 Kings. 24:4. "And also for the innocent blood which he shed, which the Lord would not pardon." Jer. 5:1. "Run, through the streets of Jerusalem, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth, and I will pardon it." Would not the Lord pardon the bloodshed by Manasseh (to them that were involved in the guilt with him) as to the obligation to
eternal wrath? Manasseh himself was pardoned in that sense, and doubtless God passed no such peremptory sentence on the rest that were involved in his guilt. But the context plainly tells us, it is meant of temporary strokes that came upon the Jews by the hands of their enemies. Is that the gospel offer to pardon Jerusalem as to the obligation to eternal wrath, if there were found but a few among them* that sought the truth? No, sure; though the Lord averts temporal strokes on that account many times. The believing and repenting people of God still under temporary strokes complain, Lam. 3:42. saying, "We have transgressed, and have rebelled, and thou hast not pardoned." But will God hold his people under obligation to eternal wrath, though believing, repenting, confessing, and forsaking? Is. 40:2. "Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her iniquity is pardoned, for she hath received of the Lord's haud double for all her sins;" not in a way of vindictive justice, surely, but of temporary strokes from fatherly displeasure. I say then, that in this petition we are taught to pray daily for the pardon of sin, as it respects temporary strokes, and fatherly displeasure; but no otherwise, even no more than that God would justify us, and adopt us, &c. which are done already perfectly. And that this is the formal pardon which we are commanded to seek, is plain from that we are directed to go to a father for it. To conclude: we are taught there to pray for the sense of pardon as touching the obligation to eternal wrath, and for a formal pardon respecting temporary strokes; or, if you please, call it only that formal forgiveness just now mentioned, so that ye include the other in it, as a certain species in the general kind. For the confirmation of the objection, what the practice of the saints is de facto, is not the question; but what it ought be de jure, or in point of right. When the children of God have lost sight of their interest in Christ, what wonder is it that they pray as those who have no part in him? But such a practice is grounded on a mistake, and therefore is not warrantable. But that their prayers are actually sometimes for the removal of temporary anger, when they pray for pardon of sin, though some may understand them otherwise, is evident: As when David, Psal. 25. "Lifting up his soul to God," ver. 1; "trusting in him," ver. 2; "waiting on him all the day," ver. 5; recalling to mind former experiences of God's loving kindness, ver. 6; and conscious to himself of those acts; yet prays, ver. 7. "that the Lord would not remember the sins of his youth:" can it be supposed, that he thought
they were unpardoned as to the guilt of eternal wrath still? Or did the church think so, Psal. 79:8. when she prays, "O remember not against us former sins?" It is plain both aim at the guilt of temporary strokes, that may be brought on after they are, by their pardon, put out of hazard of eternal wrath. I shall conclude this answer with what Mr. Rutherford* says: "Our deliverance from misery is twofold, as our misery is. First, There is a guilt of sin, or our obligation to eternal wrath; the other misery is the blot of internal guilt of sin. In regard of the former, we are freely and perfectly justified, and pardoned at once from all sins in our person and state. Through the sense of this, and in regard of deliverance from temporal judgments, and doubtings, and fears of eternal wrath, every day, while we seek daily bread, we desire that our sins may be forgiven."
OBJECT. 5. It is possible, that a believing person may fall into such a sin or sins of scandal, for which he may be justly cast out from the visible church; and, upon his neglect or practice of repentance, he stands bound or loosed from his sin, not only in earth, but also in heaven; for so Christ himself delievers it to us in Matth. 18:18. But this cannot possibly be, if all sins be already pardoned in heaven; for then they are always loosed, and never bound in heaven.
ANSWER. That it is possible a believer may fall into such sins, for which he may be justly so treated by the church; and that what the church does that way in that case is ratified in heaven, I doubt not. But that such a person is bound over, upon his contumacy, either in heaven or earth, to eternal wrath, or loosed upon his repentance therefrom, I do utterly refuse: and till that be proven, the argument is of no force. I will not here enter upon an inquiry into the nature of excommunication. But the screwing it up so high in the case supposed, is so far from confirming the hypothesis of adversaries, that it doth exceedingly weaken it: for by this the sin of a believer may be loosed in heaven, and yet bound on the earth, and the church in her duty still as to that person. Put the case, (which may very well supposed), that the excommunicate believer, thinking himself (though wrongously) lesed by the sentence of excommunication, goes over seas into a far country, where there is no church at all, and is there touched with the sense of his sin, renews his faith and repentance, and sues for a pardon, or the removal of the obligation to eternal wrath;
he cannot but have it, even according to the principles of our adversaries: yet still he is bound on earth; and if so, bound in heaven too, as we heard just now: and so his sin is both pardoned and unpardoned in heaven at one and the self-same time—pardoned, because he has repented; unpardoned, because he still lies under the sentence. And if this binding of a believer's sin on earth and in heaven respect the obligation to eternal wrath, it seems to me natively to follow, that a believer in a state of excommunication is in a state of condemnation. For, as one says* well, "If there were any sin remaining, a man is still in the state of condemnation." How powerful is truth! If we turn over but another leaf before that in which this argument is applauded as Achillean indeed by the learned man, we shall find him telling us, that if God did yet hold you guilty, ye could not say, that ye have peace with God; for God is not at peace with you, nor are ye at peace with him, while enmity continues between you; and so it doth while any sin remains unpardoned. And after he hath told us there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ, he adds, "And verily, if all condemnation be removed, all sin is pardoned; if any one sin remained unpardoned, then condemnation would still be in force upon us for that one sin." But if we shall understand this binding and loosing of a believer's sin with respect to temporary anger or temporal judgments, the matter is plain, and the absurdity is evited: for though the man in such a case may, by the renewing of his faith and repentance, recover the sense of his pardon touching the obligation to eternal wrath; yet, till he be loosed on earth, he is not loosed in heaven from the temporary judgment he was laid under; but still he feels the weight of God's fatherly displeasure, having no access to the communion of the church; which is no doubt a very heavy band to a tender heart, and will make such an one go with a bowed down back.
OBJECT. 6. If all sins, past, present, and to come, are forgiven at once, then a justified person, in the midst of the grossest sins, may rejoice in God, as much as when he humbles his soul, repents, and seeks his face.
ANSWER. This objection is justly raised against Antinomians, who deny a believer's liableness, either to eternal wrath or temporary strokes for sin. But it can, with no colour or shadow of reason, be brought against us, who are taught, that the frowns of our dearest Father are bitter as death.
See more above.
OBJECT. 7. Forgiveness of sin is a judicial act in God, as the contrary act of condemning is. Now, the judge neither condemns nor forgives offences which are not extant.
ANSWER. This objection is of a piece with the first, and does truly strike at the root of the doctrine of the gospel, and quite overturns the satisfaction of Christ; and is as unadvisedly objected here by the adversaries, as some do object that logical maxim, Non-entis nulla sunt accidentia. It is dangerous to endeavour to regulate the procedure of the omniscient judge, according to the order of human policy. It was a judicial act in God, "for sin to condemn sin in the flesh"* of Christ; but wo to us that live now, if it was only sin that was extant which was thus condemned.
OBJECT. 8. ult. The continual work of Christ in heaven as our intercessor, 1 John 2:1. and the daily suing out of pardon in his name, seems to carry much in it for the acquiring of daily pardon.
ANSWER. It does so for pardon; that is, the taking off of temporary strokes. And that we might be sure of what we sue daily for, he left that comfortable word with his people before he ascended into heaven, "I go to your Father and my Father, to your God and my God." But of this before.
I conclude with that of the Apostle, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occassion to the flesh, but by love serve one another."
QUESTION. III
WHETHER OR NOT REPENTANCE BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO THE OBTAINING OF THE PARDON OF SIN?
HAVING, in the former questions, had so frequent occasion to speak of repentance and its relation to the pardon of sin, I shall endeavour to clear what I have hinted at before in this matter. I do not now speak of the repentance that may be found in Cain and Judas, arising merely from the sense of God's wrath, which is called legal repentance; but of the true gospel repentance, which is a saving grace, and acceptable to God. Laying aside the Popish and Arminian necessity of it, and the conditional necessity thereof urged by others; not needing to consider them particularly, seeing a fortiori they will be overturned, if it can be proven, that the pardon of sin is prior to repentance; I shall lay down some concessions touching this matter, then our assertion confirmed with arguments, and objections answered.
CONCESS. 1. Repentance is necessary necessitate prœcepti. It is a commanded duty, and ought to be preached by the ministers, and practised both by them and hearers of the gospel. And whoso make no conscience thereof, plainly appear to me to know neither Moses nor Christ, law nor gospel.
CONCESS. 2. It is necessary also necessitate medii. It is a holy mean appointed of God, or a mids necessary to be gone through in order to the attaining of eternal life.
CONCESS. 3. Faith and repentance, as they are ordinarily linked together in preaching, so they cannot be separated in practice. And though we may, and must distinguish them, yet they must not be divided. And whatsoever precedency is here, it is rather in order of nature, than order of time. The graces of the Spirit being given together and at once, yet much depends on the distinct uptaking of the native order of those graces.
CONCESS. 4. As pardon denotes a relation to temporal strokes, as hath been above explained, repentance is a necessary mean in order to the obtaining of it; that is, the removal of temporal strokes. The reason of this is obvious: for the Lord's design in inflicting such strokes, is the believer's
repentance, humiliation, and amendment, &c. So that when the Lord hath inflicted temporary strokes on a believer for his sins, they are not taken away till he repent and amend, and so answer the design of God in inflicting them.* It is true, they may be changed as to the species of them; and when one sort prevails not, the Lord brings on another. But still there is a continuance of them till they prove effectual. I do not say, that presently the sin is pardoned, or the stroke removed upon repentance. Scripture and experience tell us the contrary. David, though repenting, yet lies under the effects of God's fatherly displeasure; it is a while ere his broken bones be cured. The Lord will not, upon every repentance of a sinner, pass by the ordinary course of nature. Men may be cast into diseases for their sins, and repent while God's hand is upon them, and may recover, but by degrees. Besides, some temporary strokes of God upon believers, are of that nature that they cannot be taken off without a miracle; as the death of David's child, &c. And there is great reason for this: for God, in inflicting of temporary strokes on believers, has other designs besides that of the amendment of the party; as the vindication of his own honour, that others may fear, and the like.
CONCESS. 5. Repentance also is necessary in order to the attaining of the sense of the pardon of sin, as it relates to eternal wrath; as the tree must be known by its fruits. Repentance is a fruit of faith; and where there is no repentance, it cannot be supposed that assurance can be had. Yet this concession I understand so as, that although a clear discerning of repentance in a believer is necessary unto a firm assurance which fully quiets the heart, yet the believer may, without that, attain unto such an assurance, as is that of an adherence unto the truth of that proposition, "My sins are pardoned;" of which perhaps we may hear more afterwards. These things being yielded,
I assert, with Rutherford,* That in regard of our obligation to eternal wrath, and all the punishments of sin according to the order of justice by the law of God, faith in Christ is the only means and way to get out of our bondage and misery. And I wish this way of speaking of faith as a mean were more generally received. If it were so, it might be of good use to bury the debates about the conditionality of the covenant of grace, and the instrumentality of faith in our justification, and might tend to give us
distinct uptakings of the true nature of the second covenant. "I had rather," says Durham, "call it [faith,] the mean by which it, [Christ's righteousness,] is apprehended." So then repentance is not required as a mean in order to the obtaining of the pardon of sin, touching the obligation to eternal wrath. In a word, gospel repentance doth not go before, but comes after remission of sin, in the order of nature.
ARG. I. The first and immediate effect of saving faith, is union with the Lord Jesus Christ: for the formal act of faith as justifying, is the receiving of Christ, by which the soul is joined unto him. The union betwixt Christ and believers may be considered, as with respect to us, actively and passively; as we are said to join ourselves, and to be joined to the Lord: in respect of the latter, the Spirit, on God's part, apprehending us; and in respect of the former, faith on our part apprehending him, makes up the blessed union, as the immediate result thereof. Moreover, it is evident we can have no saving benefit from Christ by faith, without communion with him; which communion supposeth, and is grounded upon union with him. So Parson,* speaking of the effects of faith, tells us, that first there is union with Christ. "What can," says he, "more necessarily and immediately follow upon the offer, on God's part, in the gospel, of Christ to be ours, and our receiving him by faith, than union to his person? This I take to be the fruit of the first consummate vital act of the quickened soul, and then is the marriage-knot tied." Now, if union with Christ be the immediate effect of faith, repentance must either go before faith, or it must come after remission of sins. The former cannot be said, seeing the repentance in question is pleasing to God; but "without faith it is impossible to please God." The Lord himself tells us, that without him we can do nothing: choris emu; extra me, says Grotius; seorsim a me, says Beza. Now, we are still without Christ, till by faith we be united to him, Eph. 3:17. Wherefore true repentance cannot go before faith. It remains then, that it comes after remission of sin. For how can it be conceived, that the soul is united to Christ, but that sin is also immediately pardoned? Seeing by virtue of this union the soul hath a perfect righteousness to present unto God, it cannot but eo ipso be justified and pardoned. If anything shall be supposed to intervene betwixt union with Christ and justification, we shall have a man righteous and unrighteous, condemned and not condemned at once; condemned, because, ex
hypothesi, he is not justified, nor his sins pardoned; not condemned, because he is "in Christ Jesus," Rom. 8:1.
ARGUMENT II. We may clearly perceive this doctrine from the parable of the two debtors, Luke 7 where the conclusion of the whole is in ver. 47. "Wherefore I say unto thee, her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but," &c. The occasion of this parable is told us, vers: 37, 38, 39. A woman who was a sinner comes to Christ, washes his feet with tears, wipes them with her hair, kisseth his feet, &c. The Pharisee having known what a profane wretch this woman was some time, but being ignorant of the change wrought on her, and the favour she had obtained with God, thinks with himself, that Christ cannot be a Prophet, in regard he admitted such a profane person to treat him so; which he supposeth he would not have done, had he known what sort of a woman she was. The scope of the parable is, to convince the Pharisee, that this woman was not such a one as he took her to be; but that she was a pardoned sinner, and one who, nothwithstanding her former course of life, had now obtained favour with God; and therefore there was no ground for the Pharisee's inference, that Christ was not a Prophet, and he was mistaken in thinking Christ knew not what she was. To prove that this woman was such a one as is said, he makes use of the parable of two debtors; the one whereof owed five hundred, the other fifty pence, both to the same creditor; and both are forgiven; then proposes the question, "Which of the two will love most?" Simon answers, "He to whom most is forgiven." Wherefore the conclusion of the point is, That seeing those love most to whom most is forgiven, and it is evident this woman loves most, which is manifest by those her expressions of love, and her tears, most is forgiven to her, she is a pardoned sinner. And thus our divines against the Papists unanimously understand this love as the effect or consequent of her forgiveness. See Calvin,* instead of all, handling this place at large against the patrons of the merit of works. Hence I argue thus: Our love to God follows upon, and is a fruit of remission of sin; but our repentance proceeds from love to God, and so in order of nature is posterior thereto: Ergo, Repentance follows remission of sin. Both the premises are evident from this parable, especially the proposition. To confirm the assumption, we are told, 1 John 4:19. "We loved him, because he first loved us." God's love to us is always antecedent to ours towards him. Now, these presuppose
remission: for how can God delight in those whom his law condemns? He hates those whose sins he hath not pardoned, as we heard before: or how can we love God while he is our enemy, which he is still so long as our sins are not pardoned? This is plainly taught us, Hos. 14:4. "I will heal their backslidings, I will love them freely." Upon which Zanchius thus comments: "He says not, in the first place, I will love them, then I will heal their rebellions; but first I will heal; then, I will love." He teacheth then, that God loves none with that love whereof we speak, but after the forgiveness of their sins through Christ; and that those whose sins are not pardoned, are hated of God. For there can be no love, says Hemmingius, no obedience, except mercy and reconciliation, for the Mediator's sake, be first apprehended. We heard before Bayn telling us there can none love God, but those that are first loved of him, and have their sins covered with him.
A godly and learned divine hath an exception here; which is this. Repentance may be considered as it doth not only follow pardon, but also the intimation thereof; so it is a melting of heart, and a self-loathing that floweth from felt love. This is the melting of heart spoken of in that woman. But repentance, as it is a work of sanctifying grace, arising from the sense of bypast sin, and hope of future mercy, goeth along with faith, for the attaining of the hoped-for remission.
Contra. 1. That it is granted, this woman's repentance followed her pardon, is well; but that it followed the intimation thereof, is not proven; yea the contrary seems pretty clear, if we consult the place: for after she had expressed her penitency, as the Evangelist tells us, her pardon is intimated, ver. 48. "And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven:" and adds, ver. ult, "Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace;" which is a manifest check to her doubts and fears, creates a calm in her troubled soul; and tells us plainly, that she came to him in trouble, fear, and anxiety. So far was she from the intimation of pardon. And no wonder it was so; for it is but the Lord's ordinary way to use a hard wedge for knotty timber. She was a sinner, a harlot, says Piscator, and, it seems, but very lately converted; they who knew her before, not having as yet discerned the change. If it be said, that intimation was made, not so much for her who had the sense of pardon before, as for those who sat at meat with