be pardoned without injustice and therefore Christ did not undertake to satisfie the wrath of God in an absolute illimited manner but in an ordered way viz. in the way of faith and repentance Again It is not beseeming the grace of God to give pardon without repentance for hereby a floud-gate would be opened to all prophanenesse and impiety and then what sense or taste could men have of the grace of God if it were thus exposed to all impenitent as well as repenting who would magnifie grace who would desire it So that you see it s neither agreeing with the mercy or the justice of God to forgive sin before or without repentance A second Objection may be Why repentance wrought by the Spirit of God is not enough to remove sin in the guilt of it What necessity is there that besides this there should be a special and gracious act of God to pardon 1. The Answer is from many grounds First The Scripture makes these two distinct mercies and therefore ought not to be confounded God promiseth to turn the heart unto him and he will turn to it in the way of pardon So that a man absolved at the throne of grace hath two distinct benefits for which he is to give God thanks the one is that he makes him to see his sins and be humbled for them The other that being thus humbled God giveth him pardon for although God hath ordered it so that where the one goeth before the other shall infallibly follow yet all this is of Gods goodnesse He might have commanded repentance in a deep and broken manner and when we had done all yet might have had no pardon and therefore it is no thanks to thy repentance but to Gods grace that thou doest meet with forgivenesse 2. Our repentance is infirm and weak needing another repentance Lava Domine lachrymas meas saith he O Lord wash my tears That is only true of Christs bloud which Ambrose spake in commendations of water Quae lavas ownia nec lavaris which washest all things and art not washed thy self So that repentance cannot be the remedy to lean upon for alas that needeth another remedy which is the bloud of Christ If therefore when asked How dost thou hope to have thy sins pardoned thou answer because thou repentest and humblest thy self for thy sins It will be further demanded But how doest thou hope to have thy sins of thy repentance taken away Here all must necessarily be resolved into the bloud of Christ Take heed then after sin of trusting in thy own sorrow It is a most subtil sinne unlesse a man be much acquainted with the Gospel-way and his own self-emptinesse its impossible but that he should look upon his repentance as that which maketh God amends 3. If it were possible that our repentance were perfect and without spot yet that could not take away the guilt of sin committed because sinne is an infinite offence and dishonour to God and therefore can never be made up by any man though he should be made as holy as Angels for if man had committed one sinne onely if the same man should presently be made perfectly holy or if he had the holinesse of Angels and Saints communicated to him all this could not take off the guilt of sin neither would all that holinesse have as much satisfied God as sinne displeased and dishonoured him Hence God sent Christ into the world to make a reparation and to bring a greater good then sinne could evil Oh therefore how low must this lay thee in the dust after sinne committed O Lord Could I repent to the highest degree Could I bring the holinesse of men and Angels it could not make up the breach sinne hath made upon me what then shall I think of my self whose graces may be much perfected and bettered then they are But you may say Why should not repentance be as great a good and as much honour God as sinne is an evil For when you say sinne hath an infinite evil in it it is meant only objectivè because God against whom it is committed is an infinite God Now then if sinne be called infinite because it turneth from an infinite God why should not repentance be said to be infinite because it turneth to an infinite God This hath much puzled some and hath made them hold that repentance hath as much infinite worth in it because of God to whom a man is turned by it as sinne hath infinite evil in it But there is a vast difference because it is enough for sinne to have an infinite evil in it because the offence is done against an infinite God and so the nature of an offence is according to the object against whom it is As an offence against a King or Emperour is more then against a private man so that still offences are more or lesse as the persons against whom they are be of greater or lesse dignity but now it is otherwise in good things that are done by way of satisfaction that ariseth from the subject not the object as now repentance though it be a turning to God who is infinite yet that cannot have infinite satisfaction because the subject which doth repent is finite Therefore this cleareth the difficulty offences arise according to the object but satisfaction encreaseth according to the subject Hence it is That Christ only could satisfie because he only was an infinite person Otherwise if grace or holinesse could have done it Angels might have wrought our redemption Besides our repentance And turning to God cannot be as meritorious of good as sinne is of punishment because of that true rule Malum meum purè malum est meum est bonum meum neque purè est neque meum est Our sins are altogether and onely sins and they are truly ours but our good things are neither purely good things nor yet ours but the gifts of God The last Objection is Why should there be such pressing of mourning and repenting for sin and that because it is such an offence to God For seeing God is all-sufficient and happy enough in himself our sins do not hurt him or make him miserable no more then our graces adde to his happinesse but as he is above our graces so he is also above our sins seeing therefore God is incapable of any injury from man why should sin be such an offence The Answer is easie If you consider the internall Attributes of God as Justice Wisdom Glory and Happinesse So God can have no losse or injury for he is alwayes the same happy and immutable glorious God but if you do consider the â—â—â—â—nall good things that are due to him from men as Honour Praise Reverence c. These may be taken away from God by the perverse wils and lives of men and so God have lesse of this eternal Honour and Glory then he hath And although this external Honour and Reverence
insufficiency in Christs bloud for alas if Christs bloud be not able to cleanse away thy sin how shall thy tears do it Hence it s no lesse then blasphemy which Rivet reporteth of Panigirolla the Papist who cals it foolishnesse and a grievous sin to put confidence wholly in Christs bloud Although therefore God puts up thy tears in his bottle yet if he do not also take notice of the bloud of Christ thy soul must still remain filthy Do not therefore magnifie thy tears and undervalue Christs bloud The bloud of the Sacrifice which represented Christs bloud was to be sprinkled upon the posts of the door but not on the threshold it was not to be trampled upon or despised no more is Christs bloud In the second place There are many reasons of congruity and fitnesse why a man should repent though it procure not pardon as a cause Though God cause the Sunne to shine and the rain to fall upon the wicked as well as the righteous yet pardon and reconciliation is not vouchsafed to the impenitent as well as the penitent The first reason of Congruity is Because hereby a man shall experimentally know the bitternesse of sin as well as the sweetnesse of it For as God though Christ hath fully satisfied his justice to take away all punishment doth yet heavily afflict his own people for sin that so they may in their own sense apprehend what wormwood and gall is in sin so the Lord though pardon come wholly by Christ yet will give it to none but to those that repent that so according to their delight in sin may also be their bitternesse for it Jer. 2.19 Aristotle said Homo est magis sensus quam intellectus much more is he sensus then fides more sense then faith and what he experimentally doth most feel in that he is most affected 2. Another Congruity is this Hereby we shall come to prize pardon the more and to esteem the grace of God in forgiving The sick esteem the Physician The broken bones make a man cry out for ease The famished Prodigal would be glad of crums It is therefore fit that a mans sins should be a burden and an heavy trouble to him that so pardon may be the sweeter and Gods love the more welcome When Josephs brethren were put in fear and dealt with roughly as spies after this to know that Joseph was their reconciled brother did work the greater joy Again we shall hereby judge the better of Christs love to us his sufferings in his soul were more exquisite then those in his body when he cried My God why hast thou forsaken me in this was the height of his Agony Now thou that in thy repentance feelest Gods displeasure art ready to cry out Why dost thou forsake me By these throbs and agonies in thy own soul thou maiest have some scantling of what Christ had in his soul and certainly to think that Christ was thus tempted thus under Gods displeasure for thee will more indear Christ to thee then that he was made poor a worm and no man yea crucified for thee 3. Hereby we shall give God the glory of his Justice that he might damn us if he did enter into strict judgement with us In repentance we judge our selves 1 Cor. 11. that is we condemn our selves acknowledge such sins to be committed by us for which God might shew no mercy for which he might say Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire and by this means God is highly honoured and we debased See this notably in David Psal 51.4 Against thee have I sinned that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest and clear when thou judgest By this expression David doth acknowledge that all the afflictions laid upon him for sin were just and therefore God was to be cleared howsoever Thus in repentance a man comes to know himself how low and vile he is and that if he be saved from wrath and hell it is meerly from Gods good pleasure and therefore repentance is a kinde of a revenge upon a mans self 2 Cor. 7.10 The Lord is set up in his greatness and soveraignty we are made wholly prostrate 4. As there is a Congruity So repentance floweth by naturall consequence from a regenerated and sanctified heart For seeing regeneration is taking away the heart of stone and giving an heart of flesh thereby also is given a flexiblenesse and tendernesse and aptnesse to relent because God is dishonoured As there is in children a natural impression to mourn and relent when a father is displeased so that this godly sorrow floweth from a gracious heart as a stream from the fountain as fruit from the tree From this inward principle David doth so heartily mourn and pray from this Peter goeth out and weeps bitterly It is therefore a vain Question to ask Why a godly man is humbled for sinne it is as if you should ask Why a childe mourneth for the death of his father That love of God within him which doth abundantly prevail and reign there is like fire that doth melt and soften So that as naturall forms are the principles of actions which flow from them Thus is a supernatural principle of grace within the ground of all spiritual actions that issue thencefrom but although it flow as a fruit yet many times this stream is obstructed or dried up 5. There is in godly sorrow an aptnesse or fitnesse to be made the means or way wherein pardon may be obtained And this is the highest our godly sorrow can attain unto in reference to pardon of sinne viz. an ordinability of it to be such a way wherein we may finde mercy And thus we cannot say of impenitency or any other sin That God may forgive a man living in his impieties and wicked wayes for they have no aptitude or condecency in their natures to be referred to such an end We grant therefore that when the Spirit of God doth humble and soften a mans heart for sin that it works that in a man which hath a fitnesse to be used as the means whereby mercy is obtained yet that hath no merit or condignity in it to purchase salvation Hence it is that we may not say It is all one whether a man doth repent or not or that repentance is in a man as a sign only that God hath pardoned but we must go further and say it is the means and way which God hath aâ—pointed antecedently to pardon so that where this goeth before the other cometh after 6. There is a Congruency in repentance for sin Though it be not expiatory or satisfactory If we do regard the justice of God or the mercy and grace of God The justice of God For if he should pardon sinfull impenitent men though they wallow in all mire and filth that despise his grace and mercy how could his justice bear it Though therefore repentance doth not satisfie his justice yet sins unrepented of cannot
they have no peace with God must needs be true of all godly men while unconverted He that believeth not hath not life and the wrath of God abideth on him and without faith it is impossible to please God Now who can deny but that this is true of Paul while no believer but an opposer of godlinesse The Psalmist also saith God is angry with the wicked every day Was not this true of Manasses before his conversion It must therefore be a very poisonous Doctrine to say That God is as well pleased with a man before his conversion as after 2. If the Scriptures limit this priviledge of Justification and pardon only to those subjects that are so and so qualified then till they be thus furnished they cannot enjoy those priviledges The places are many which testifie this Act. 3.19 Repent that your sins may be blotted out Therefore their sins stood uncancelled as so many Debts in Gods register Book till they did repent Act. 26.18 To turn them from darknesse to light from the power of Satan to God that they may receive forgivenesse of sins Therefore they had it not while under the power of darknesse 1 Joh. 1.9 If we confesse our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins which supposeth That God doth forgive our sins only when we confesse and forsake them Matth. 6.15 If ye forgive not neither will my heavenly Father forgive you It is in vain to number up more places for these do necessarily prove sinne is not forgiven till Faith and Repentance They do not indeed argue a causality or merit yet they infer a necessary presence in those that obtain pardon and do hold by the same proportion as those places which require Sanctification before Glorification 3. Where the Scripture requireth many things to the obtaining of any speciall benefit there that benefit cannot be said to be enjoyed till all those things be brought about Now the Word of God speaks of several things required to pardon of sin There is the Grace and mercy of God as the efficient cause Psal 51.1 Isa 43.25 Rom. 3.25 2. There is requisite the bloud of Christ as the meritorious cause for there can be no remission of sins without effusion of bloud Rom. 3.25 1 Cor. 15.3 Heb. 1.3 1 Joh. 4.10 3. There is Faith required as an instrumental cause Act. 26.18 Rom. 3.25 Now although an instrumentall cause have not that worth or excellency as the efficient and meritorious have yet it is as necessary in the way of an instrument as the others are in their respective causalities so that as a man may not from those places which speak of Gods grace inferre therefore remission of sins is before Christs death So neither may a man argue because Christ died to take away our sins therefore these are taken away before we believe So that this Argument may fully establish us We see the Scripture speaking of three causes cooperant to pardon of sin therefore I may not conclude the effect is wrought till all those causes be And as the Scripture speaks of these causes so as you heard of many qualifications in the subject Insomuch that it is so far from being a duty to believe our sins were pardoned from all eternity antecedently to faith and repentance that we are undoubtedly to believe they were not If the King proclaim a pardon to every one that shall humble himself and seek it out If the Physician prepare a potion for the patient to receive it shall any man say because of those causal preparations that either the one is pardoned or the other healed before their particular application of those things 4. If our sins be pardoned antecedently to our Faith and Repentance then all those effects which are inseparable in the least moment of time from Justification are also antecedent to our Faith and Repentance But it is evident by experience that is not so It is a clear truth That Sanctification of our natures is individually conjoyned one with the other So that although there be a priority of nature yet they are together in time God pardons no mans sins whom he doth not heal Rom. 8.1 1 Joh. 1.9 Psal 32.2 A man may be justified and not glorified but not justified and unregenerated Then if so a man shall be at the same time unconverted and converted at the same time a member of Christ and a member of the devil and so as they say we are justified only declaratively in our own consciences so we shall be regenerated and converted only declaratively Again where sins are pardoned there is blessednesse as the Psalmist speaks then I may call Paul a blessed Persecutor Manasses a blessed murderer for they had no sin imputed to them at that time Besides those whose sins are pardoned may boldly go to the throne of grace and call God Father all which are contrary to the whole tenour of Scripture which expostulateth with men for taking his name or words into their mouth and hate to be reformed yet a Doctor of this Antinomian sour leaven affirmeth boldly That God doth love us as well before conversion as after That God did love Paul with as great a love when he persecuted the Church as when he preached the Gospel How must this devour up all godlinesse when I may have the same faith and confidence in God for pardon in the acting of flagitious crimes as well as out of them in prayer and humiliation and if he may have the same faith why not then the same consolations and joy in conscience 5. If Justification do antecede our Faith so that Faith doth only declare our pardon of sin then any other grace may be said to justifie as well as Faith For take any other grace repentance humility joy these are all the fruits of Gods Spirit and so demonstrate his election of us his justification of us But how unanswerably do the Orthodox prove a peculiar instrumental vertue in faith for pardon which others have not The Apostle expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through faith in his bloud not love of his bloud and indeed the Apostle maintaineth that Gospel-position against false teachers viz. That we are justified by Faith not by works The Question was not Whether the works of the Law did justifie us declaratively only but causally So then by this Doctrine Faith must no more be called the hand or the eating and drinking of Christs body and bloud but only made a sign of such mercies 6. If pardon of sin be from all eternity going before our Faith and Repentance because of Gods election then it must also be antecedent to the death and obedience of Christ So that not only our tears but Christs bloud shall be excluded from this great favor The reason is plain Because Gods predestination and election is antecedent to Christ yea Christ is a fruit of our election so that the Orthodox maintain against Arminians though we be chosen
sinne doth naturally and necessarily go away so that there needeth no acceptation from God or act of remission but onely an infusion of grace to repent But this in the next Sermon shall mainly be insisted upon and it is of great practical use to take us off from having confidence and trust in our sorrow for sin For as when a creditor doth forgive his debtor it is the sole act of the creditor not any thing of the debtor So in pardoning it is not any thing that we do though with never so much love and brokennesse of heart that doth release and untie the bond of sinne but it is an act of God onely If you say Why then is repentance and faith pressed so necessarily that God doth not forgive without it For if it be onely an act of Gods then it may be done without any work of the sinner intervening But of this in the next place onely for the present take notice That it is not any sorrow or retraction of ours that makes a sinne either remissible or actually remitted but a meer act of Gods and if all the men of the world were askt this Question What they mean when they pray God to forgive their sins The sense of all would be not that they should doe something which would remit them but that God by his gracious favour would release them So then if all these particulars be cast up together you may clearly conceive how God doth forgive sin not by infusing or putting grace into us which may expel sin as light doth darkness but by his outward grace and favour accepting of us and therefore we are not to relie upon any thing we do not to presume no not of our godly sorrow for sinne but to look up to Heaven desiring God would speak the word that he would pronounce the sentence of absolution Let the Use be To look upon our selves as bound in chains and fetters by our sins as made very miserable by them that so we may the more earnestly desire pardon and put an high prize upon it Though Gods forgiving be not the putting of godly sorrow and the working of a broken heart within us yet we can never obtain the one without the other The grace and mercy of a pardon is no more esteemed by us because we look not upon our selves as so many guilty persons adjudged to eternal death Thus the Publican cried out Have mercy upon me a sinner What Plutarch said of the Husbandman That it was a pleasant sight to him to see the ears of corn bending to the earth because that was an argument of fruit within No lesse joyfull is it to spiritual husbandmen to see their people walk with humble debased broken hearts through sense of sin and not to walk confidently and delicately like Agag saying The worst is past God said of Ahab though humbled for externall motives only Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself How much more will God take notice of those who humble themselves upon spiritual grounds desiring ease from Christ As therefore Bernard writing to one epist 180. who he thought was not sollicitous enough about the Judgements of God in stead of wishing him according to the ordinary custom of salutation Salutem plurimam much health said Timorem plurimum much fear So may the Ministers of God we wish you not much joy but much holy fear Alas thou fearest pain poverty death but the guilt of sin is chiefly to be feared but we like children are afraid of a vizard and do not fear the fire which is a real danger LECTURE XVIII MAT. 6.12 And forgive us our debts YOu have heard Pardon of sin is Gods work only as also his manner of doing it is not by infusing grace into us which takes away the guilt of sin but besides grace sanctifying there is also an act on Gods part repealing the sentence of condemnation against us Now because this may seem to overthrow the duty of repentance and because this is the rock many have been split upon not being able to reconcile our duty of repentance with Gods gracious favour of pardoning I shall speak though not all yet as much as relateth to my purpose in hand concerning the duty and necessity of repentance although there be no causality or merit in it to take away sin and this may rightly inform us about the true efficacy of our sorrow for sin To open this Truth consider these Propositions First That God doth never remit or forgive sin but where also he giveth a mollified and softened heart to repent The Scripture doth abudantly confirm this by precepts and examples It is indeed disputed by the Schoolmen as you have heard whether God by his absolute power might not forgive sin without Sanctification of our natures and the grace of Repentance for seeing they are two distinct mercies why may not God separate the one from the other But it is a vain thing to dispute what God might do when he hath revealed what he will do And although we cannot say That there is a natural necessity between Justification and Sanctification such as is between the light and heat in the fire yet this conjoyning of them together by Gods will and appointment ariseth from a condecency and fitnesse both to God himself who is an holy God and to the nature of the mercy which is the taking and removing of sin away 2. Although the Scripture attribute pardon of sin to many qualifications in a man yet Repentance is the most expresse and proper duty The Scripture sometimes makes forgiving of others a necessary disposition sometimes confessing and forsaking of them sometimes believing though that hath a peculiar nature in receiving of pardon which other graces have not and therefore faith obtaineth pardon by way of an instrument applying which other graces do not But if we speak of the expresse formall qualification it is repentance of our sins not repentance as it is a meer bare terrour upon thy heart but as it is sweetned with Evangelical considerations Luther said There was no word so terrible unto him and which his soul did more hate then that Repent But it was because he understood not Gospel-grounds We read then of some places of Scripture which make God to be the only Author of blotting out and pardoning sin And again we reade of other places where God doth this for none but the broken and contrite heart Now both these places must not be opposed to each other neither may we so dwell upon the one as to neglect the other so to look upon it as Gods act as if there were nothing required in us and again so to look upon that which we do as if God were not to be acknowledged 3. None may believe or conclude that their sins are pardoned before they have repented To this I shall speak more particularly when I handle the Doctrine of Justification before Faith As for the Assertion
it self it is plain by all those places of Scripture which make repentance requisite to pardon Ezek. 14.6 Ezek. 18.30 Mat. 3.2 Luk. 13.3 The learned Dr Twisse Vind. grat p. 18. confesseth that there are Arguments on both sides in the Scripture Sometimes he saith Pardon of sin is subjoyned to confession and repentance of which sort he confesseth there are more frequent and expresse places but yet sometimes remission of sin already obtained is made an argument to move to repentance and he instanceth in David and Mary Magdalen who did abundantly and plentifully break out into tears upon the sense of pardon But these instances are not to the purpose for David repented of his wicked ness before Nathan told him That his sin was taken away and his penitential Psalm was not made so much for the first pardon of his sin as the confirming and assuring of him in his pardon Thus it was also with Mary Magdalen But more of this in time 4. There is a necessity of Repentance if we would have pardon both by a necessity of precept or command as also by a necessity of means and a way Whatsoever is necessary Necessitate medii by a necessity of means or a way is also necessary by a necessity of command though not è contra That repentance is necessary by way of a command is plain by the places fore-quoted and in innumerable other places I do not handle the case Whether an actual or explicite repentance be necessary to salvation of every sinner but I speak in the general It is disputed Whether it be a natural precept or a meer positive command and if it be a natural or moral command to which command it is reduced Those that would have it under the command of Thou shalt not kill as if there were commanded a care of our souls that they should not be damned are ignorant of the true limits and bounds of the several Commandments It s disputed also When this time of repentance doth binde It is a wonder that some should limit it only to times of danger and fear of death Certainly this command binds as soon as ever a man hath sinned Venenata inducias non patiuntur A man that hath swallowed down poison is not to linger but presently to expell it And one that is wounded who lieth bleeding doth presently dispatch with all readinesse for Physitians to have his bloud stopt and thus ought men to take the first opportunity Hence in that famous miracle wrought at the pool of Bethesda not the second or third but he that stept first into it was the only man that was healed As repentance is thus necessary by way of command so also by way of means for the Spirit of God worketh this in a man to qualifie him for this pardon So that although there be no causality condignity or merit in our repentance yet it is of that nature that God doth ordain and appoint it a way for pardon So that the command for repentance is not like those positive commands of the Sacraments wherein the will of the Law-giver is meerly the ground of the duty but there is also a fitnesse in the thing it should be so even as among men nature teacheth That the injurious person should be sorry and ask forgivenesse before he be pardoned 5. Concerning this duty of repentance there are two extream practical mistakes the one is of the prophane secure man who makes every empty and heartlesse invocation of mercy to be the repentance spoken of in the Scripture whereas repentance is a duty compounded of many ingredients and so many things go to the very essence yea the lowest degree of godly sorrow that by Scripture-rules we may say Repentance is rarely to be seen any where for if you do regard the nature of it it is a broken and a contrite heart Now how little of the heart is in most mens humiliations Men being Humiliati magis quam humiles as Bernard said humbled and brought low by the hand of God rather then humble and lowly in their own souls Again if you consider the efficient cause it is from the Spirit of God the spring of sorrow must arise from this hill Zech. 12. Rom. 8. Further if you consider the motive it must be because God is displeased and offended because sin is against an holy law and so of a staining and polluting nature Lastly If you consider the effect and fruit of repentance it is an advised forsaking and utter abandoning of all those lusts and iniquities in whose fetters they were before chained so that a man repenting and turned unto God differs as much from himself once a sinner as a Lazarus raised up and walking differs from himself dead and putrifying in the grave Do not thou then whose heart is not contrite who dost continually lick up the vomit of thy sin promise to thy self repentance No thou art far from this duty as yet On the other side There is a contrary mistake and that is sometimes by the godly soul and such as truly fear God They think not repentance enough unlesse it be enlarged to such a measure and quantity of sorrow as also extended to such a space of time and by this means because they cannot tell when they have sorrowed enough or when their hearts are broken as they should be they are kept in perpetual labyrinths and often through impatience do with Luther in such a temptation Wish they never had been made men but any creatures rather because of the doubts yea the hell they feel within themselves Now although it be most profitable bitterly to bewail our sins and to limit no time yet a Christian is not to think Pardon doth not belong to him because his sorrow is not so great and sensible for sin as he desireth it David indeed doth not only in his soul but even bodily expresse many tears yea rivers because of his sin and other mens sins yet it is a good rule That the people of God if they have sorrow in the chiefest manner appretiativè though not intensivè by way of judgment and esteem so that they had rather any affliction should befall them then to sin against God if this be in them though they have not such sensible intense affections they may be comforted When the Apostle John makes this argument He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen how shall he love God whom he hath not seen implieth That things of sense do more move us then matter of faith David made a bitter out-cry upon the death of Absolom with sad expressions Would to God I had died for thee O Absolom my son my son c. But when Nathan told him of his Adultery and Murder though he confessed his sin yet we reade not that he made such sensible lamentation Thus Hierom writeth of a godly woman Paula that at the death of her children would be so dejected that she did hardly escape death yet
it is not reported that she found such grief for her sins So that as in corporal things a man would choose the tooth-ach rather then a pestilent feaver yet a man is more afflicted and pained at the tooth-ach or burning of his finger then at a feaver So it may be here a godly man would rather choose the losse of his children or dearest relations then lose the favour of God by his sinne yet it may be have more painfull grief in the one then the other Again it is to be observed That the Scripture requiring sorrow or repentance for sin doth not limit such a degree or such a length of time which if necessary would certainly have been prescribed 6. It cannot be denied but that the ancient Fathers have spoken hyperbolically of tears and repentance which phrases were the occasion of that corrupt doctrine in Popery Chrysostom compareth repentance to the fire which taketh away all rust of sin in us Basil cals it The medicine of the soul yea those things which God properly doth are attributed to tears and sorrow as if the water of the eyes were as satisfactory as the bloud of Christ his bloud is clean enough to purge us but our very tears need washing It is true indeed we reade of a promise made to those who turn from their evil wayes Ezek. 18.27 he shall save his soul alive but this is not the fruit of his repentance but the gift of God by promise It qualifieth the subject it hath no influence upon the priviledge Even as a man doth by the power of nature dispose and prepare the body to receive the soul but it is the work of God immediately to infuse it 7. Though therefore repentance be necessary to qualifie the subject yet we run into falshood when we make it a cause of pardon of sinne And thus ignorant and erroneous people do Ask why they hope to be saved or justified why they hope to have their sins pardoned they return this answer Because they have repented and because they lead a godly life Thus they put their trust and confidence in what they have done But the Scripture though it doth indispensably command repentance in every one yet the efficient cause of pardon is Gods grace and the meritorious is Christs bloud And if repentance come under the name of a cause it can be only of the material which doth qualifie the subject but hath no influence into the mercy it self We reade Luk. 7. that Mary Magdalen had many sins pardoned her because she loved much But the Parable of a Creditor which forgave debts that is brought by our Saviour to aggravate her kindnesse doth plainly shew That he speaks not of a love that was the cause of pardon of her sin but which was the effect of it Gods love melting her heart even as the Sun doth snow The highest expressions that we meet with in Scripture where pardon of sinne seemeth to be ascribed to godlinesse as a cause is Dan. 4.27 Break off thy iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor Here we would think that if a man would on purpose hold that doing of a good work would be a proper cause to remove sin he would use no other expression But first it appeareth by the context that Daniel giveth not this counsel in reference to Justification and the pardon of his sin so as to be accepted with God but to prolong and keep off that temporall judgement which was revealed in the vision as appeareth by those words If there may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity And we have the like instance in Ahab who prorogued his calamity by an external humiliation Again although the Vulgar translate it Redeem thy sins yet the Hebrew word doth properly signifie To break a thing as we translate it and although by a metaphor it be applied to redeem and deliver yet that is alwayes of men and persons not things especially it would be ridiculous to say Redeem thy sins so that the meaning is That whereas before Nebuchadnezzar had by injustice and oppression done much rapine and violence now Daniel counselleth him to break off such wicked wayes by the contrary expressions of love and chastity So that this place giveth not any spiritual mercy to repentance as the proper cause thereof 8. As repentance is thus necessary but not as a cause of pardon so neither is it required as that whereby we appease and satisfie God and this all Popery goeth upon yea and all Pharisaical spirits in their humiliation that by those afflictions and debasements of their souls they shall satisfie God and make him amends But this is so grosse that the more learned of the Papists are fain to mitigate the matter and say That satisfaction cannot be properly made to God by any thing we do because all we have and do is from God and therefore there must be an acceptation or covenant by way of gift interposed whereby we may be able to satisfie And then further they say There cannot be satisfaction made to gain the friendship of God which sin hath violated but to take away some thing of temporall punishment that belongs to sinne So that by all this which hath been delivered we may give repentance those just and true bounds which Gods Word doth assign to it and yet not give more then Gods Word doth Neither may we think it a nicety or subtilty to make a difference between a qualification and a cause for if we do not we take off the due glory that belongs to Christ and his merits and give it to the works we do and we do make Christ and his sufferings imperfect and insufficient and by this we may see in what sense grace inherent or sanctification doth expel sin for if we speak of the filth and pollution of sin so sanctifying grace expels it as light doth darknesse heat doth cold by a reall mutation and change So that God in sanctifying doth no more to expel the sin in the filth of it afterwards even as the Physitian needs to do no more to the removing of the leprosie then by producing a sound health in the body But when we speak of the guilt of sin it is not grace sanctifying within us that doth remove the guilt but grace justifying without us Insomuch that although a man after sin committed were perfectly sanctified yet that would not take off the guilt his sin had brought upon him So that although that man needed in such a case no further grace of sanctification to make him holy yet he needed the grace of remission to take away this guilt So that the guilt of sin doth not cease by a natural necessity upon the removing of the nature of the sin but upon a distinct and new act of Gods favour in forgiving for if this were so then Gods mercy in giving a repenting heart and his mercy in pardoning should not be two distinct mercies which yet are evidently distinguished by
do not make to the internal Happinesse of God yet he is pleased with this and commands it of men and threatens to punish where it is denied him and certainly we may not think the Scripture doth aggravate sinâ—e under this title as an injury to him as that which offends him and is disobedience unto him if so be there were not some Reality Besides the Necessity of Christs death by way of satisfaction doth necessarily argue That sinne is a reall offence and dishonour to him And lastly a sinner as much as lieth in him depriveth God of all his inward happinesse and glory insomuch that if it were possible God would be made lesse happy by our sins It is no thanks to a sinner that he is not but it ariseth from his infinite Perfection that he cannot Let the first Use be To commend Repentance in the necessity of it if ever we would have pardon God hath appointed no other way for thy healing Never perswade thy self of the pardon of sinne where sinne it self hath not been bitter to thee Besides where godly sorrow is there will be earnest prayer and heavenly ascensions of the soul unto God for his pardon Hence Zech. 12. The spirit of Prayer and Mourning is put together and Rom. 8. Prayer and groans unutterable As the fowls of the Heaven were at first created out of the water so do thy heavenly breathings after God arise from thy humbled and broken soul It is presumption to expect pardon for that sinne which hath not either actually or habitually been humbled for by thee If a man should expect health and life yet never eat or drink would you not say he tempted God and was a murderer of himself So if a man hope for pardon and yet never debase or loath himself repenting of his sins will you not â—â—y he is a murderer of his soul And be encouraged to it because God hath annexed such a gracious Promise to it He might have filled thee with sorrow here and hereafter It might be with thee as the damned Angels who have neither the grace of repentance nor the mercy of pardon 2. Not to trust in repentance but after all thy humiliations still to depend only upon Christ Though Christ died and was crucified yet he did not lose his strength and efficacy This was represented in that passage of Gods providence That a bone of his was a broken Relie therefore upon Christ wounded for sinne not upon thy own heart that is wounded use this but trust only in Christ Dependance upon Evangelical graces doth evacuate Christ as well as confidence in the Law A man may not only preach the Law and the duties thereof to the prejudice of Christs glory but also the duties and graces of the Gospel If a man relieth upon his repentance and believing he maketh Justification and Salvation to be of works though it be of faith for he makes his faith a work and gives that glory which belongs to Christ to his own repentance LECTURE XX. MAT. 6.12 And forgive us our Debts IT hath already been demonstrated at large How God doth remit or forgive sins We come now to shew What kinde of act forgivenesse of sin is and whether it be antecedent to our faith and repentance Both these Questions have a dependency one upon another and therefore must be handled together The first Doubt is What kinde of act in God forgivenesse of sin is Whether it be an immanent act in-dwelling and abiding in God or transient working some reall effect and change upon the creature Now in handling of this I shall not trouble you with that perplex Question so much vexed by the Schoolmen Whether a transient action be in the Agent or in the Patient but lay down some differences between an immanent action and a transient action only you must take notice that we are in meer darknesse and not able to comprehend how God is said to act or work For on the one side we must not hold that there are any accidents in God or that he can be a subject recipient of such because of his most pure and simple Essence so that whatsoever is in God is God And yet on the other side the Scripture doth represent God doing and working such mercies and judgements as seemeth good to him Only this some conclude of wherein others with some probability dissent that Gods knowledge and will is the cause of all things that are done so that there is not an executive power besides them whereby he doth this or that As we see there is in man though an Artificer wils such a thing to be done yet that is not existent till he hath wrought it but now God worketh all things by a meer command of his will as appeareth Gen. 1. God said Let there be light and there was light Here was Gods will to have it so no executing power distinct from that will Therefore it is a sure truth De Deo etiam vera dicere periculosum est It is dangerous to assert things though true of God and Tunc dignè Deum aestimamus cum inaestimabilem dicimus then do we rightly esteem of him when we judge him above our thoughts or esteem We must not therefore apprehend of God as having a new will to do a thing in time which he had not from eternity as Vorstius and others blaspheme but his will was from all eternity that such a thing be in time accomplished by his wisdome As for example in Creation God did not then begin to have a will to create but he had a will from all eternity that the world should exist in time and thus it is in Justification and Sanctification not that these effects are from eternity but Gods will is And if you ask Why seeing Gods will to create or justifie is from eternity Creation and Justification are not also from eternity The answer is because God is a free Agent and so his will is not a necessary cause of the thing for then it would be immediately as the Sun beams are necessarily as soon as the Sun is but it is a voluntary principle and so maketh the effect to be at the time he prescribeth As if there were an Artificer or Carpenter that could by his meer wiâ— cause an house to be reared up he might will this to be done in such and such a year long after his will of it to be So God when the world is made when a sinner is justified willed these things from all eternity and when they come to have a being these effects cause an extrinsecal denomination to be attributed to God which was not before as now he is a Creator and was not before now he justifieth and did not before There is no change made in God but the alteration is in the creature But of this more in its time Let us come to give the differences between an immanent action and a transient and then we
Gods grace are to be effected Thus Rivet vind Apol. p. 127. If therefore any of our Orthodox Authors have acknowledged a remission of sins before faith it hath been in a particular sense to oppose the Arminians who maintain a reconciliability and not a reconciliation by Christs death and not in an Antinomian sense as is more largely to be shewed in answering of their Objection brought from Christs death for enemies and sinners Indeed some learned and worthy men speak of a Justification before faith in Christ our head as we are accounted sinners in the first Adam or common person Thus Alstedius in his supplement to Chamier pag. 204. when Bellarmine arguing against the holiness of the Protestants Doctrine and bringing this for a paradox above all paradoxes That I must be justified by faith and yet justifying faith be a believing that I am just and righteous which is saith Bellarmine besides and against all reason He answereth among other things That Christ and the elect are as one person and therefore an elect man is justified before faith in Christ as the principle of righteousnesse before God and then he is justified by faith as an instrument perceiving his justification in that righteousnesse of Christ So that faith as it goeth to the act of justification is considered in respect of that passive application whereby a man applieth the righteousnesse of Christ to himself not of that active application whereby God applieth to man the righteousnesse of Christ For this application is only in the minde of God To this purpose the learned Zanchy in his Explication of the second Chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians upon those words vers 5. And you being dead in sin he hath quickned together with Christ doth in the first place distinguish of a two-fold quickning One whereby we are freed from the guilt of sinne and invested with a title or right to eternal life The other from the power of sinne whereby we are made spiritually alive to God The former is Justification the later Sanctification Now saith he this two-fold blessing is to be considered in Christ and in our own persons In the first respect God did quicken us in Christ when by his death sinne being expiated he freed from guilt all the elect that have been and shall be considering them as members in Christ their head In the later respect God doth it when having given us faith he gives us also remission of sins and imputeth Christs righteousnesse to us And afterwards the fore-quoted Author making this Objection to himself How Christ could be said to be freed from the guilt of sinne who had no sin He answereth The person of Christ is considered two wayes First in it self as God-man and so Christ was not bound by any guilt Secondly as appointed head and so representing our persons In this respect as God laid our iniquities upon him Isa 55. So when they were expiated by his bloud then was he released from the guilt of those sins We might instance in other Authors but these may suffice to certifie that some orthodox and learned Divines do hold a Justification of the elect in Christ their head before they do believe yet so as they acknowledge also a necessity of a personal Justification by faith applying this righteousnesse to the person justified Therefore although this Doctrine passe for true yet it will not strengthen the Antinomists Although even the truth of this opinion may modestly be questioned unlesse by being justified in Christ our head we mean no more then that Christ purchased by way of satisfaction our Justification for us and so virtually we were justified in Christs death and resurrection But the learned men of that opinion speak as if God then passed a formal Justification upon all though afterwards to be applied that are elected even as in Adam sinning all his posterity were formally to be accounted sinners Now this may justly admit a debate and there seem to be many Arguments against it First If there were such a formal Justification then all the elect were made blessed and happy their sins were not imputed to them for so in Adam when accounted sinners they are wretched and miserable because sin is laid to their charge And if the elect before they believe or repent were thus happy how then at the same time could they be children of wrath and so God imputing their sins to them Can God impute their sins to them and not impute them to them at the same time It is true if we say That Christ by his sufferings obtained at Gods hand that in time the elect should beleeve and be justified this is easily to be conceived but it is very difficult to understand how that all our sins should be at the same time done away in Christ who is considered as one person with us and yet imputed to us Secondly I do not see how this Doctrine doth make our justification by faith to be any more then declarative or a justification in our conscience only and not before God and so by believing our sins should be blotted out in our sense only when they were blotted out before God by Christs death already And so our Justification by faith shall be but a copy fetcht out of the Court roll where the sentence of Justification was passed already whereas the Scripture speaks to this purpose That even before God and in his account till we do believe and repent our sins are charged upon us and they are not cancelled or blotted out till God work those graces in us Therefore this opinion may symbolize too much with the Adversary and indeed none of the meanest Antinomians speaks of an original reconciliation which was wrought by Christ on the cross without any previous conditions in us and urgeth that parallel of the first Adam in whom we all sinned before we had any actual being as also that Text Col. 3.1 where we are said to be risen with Christ Thirdly It is difficult to conceive how Christ should represent any to his Father thereby to partake of the heavenly blessings which come by him till they do actually beleeve and are incorporated in him for they are not his Members till they do believe and till they are his Members he cannot as an head represent them It is true God knoweth whom he hath elected and to whom in time he will give faith whereby they may be united to Christ and so it 's in Gods purpose and intention to give Justification and Sanctification to all his elect but these being mercies vouchsafed in time and limited to such qualifications in the subject I see not how they can be said to be justified in Christ before they do believe otherwise then virtually and meritoriously It is true we are all condemned in Adam because that was a Covenant made with him and his posterity so that the issues thereof fell upon them by a natural and necessary way but
changed would be a strong and undeniable inference And indeed for this particular may the Arminians be challenged as holding Gods mutability because they hold That notwithstanding Gods decree and purpose to save such a man yet a man by his own corruption and default shall frustrate God of this his intention Otherwise all know Adam was created in a state of Gods favour and quickly apostatized into the contrary so that we may truly say Adam was one day yea hour as some a childe of Gods favour and in another of his wrath yet the change was in Adam not in God both because God had not made an absolute Decree from all Eternity for his standing as also because he had made no Promise to preserve him in that happy condition In this sense 1 Pet. 2.10 it is said Which in time past were not a people but now are the people of God which had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy And whereas the Opponent saith God loved us before we did believe it is true with a love of purpose but many effects of his love are not exhibited till we do believe He loveth us and so worketh one effect of love in us that that effect may be a qualification for a new and further effect of love He loveth us to make us his friends and when he hath done that he loveth us with a love of friendship God loved us before he gave Christ for out of that love he gave us Christ that so when Christ is given us he may bestow another love upon us Now because it is ordinary with us to call the effect of love love as the fruit of grace is grace Therefore we say In such a time God loved not one and afterwards we say He doth love the same not that herein is any change of God but several effects of his love are exhibited As we call the effects of Gods anger his anger Poena patientis ira esse creditur decernentis The punishment on the offender is judged the anger of the inflicter and by this means we say sometimes God is angry and afterwards he ceaseth to be angry when he removeth these effects of his anger so a man is said to be loved or not to be loved according to the effects of Gods love exhibited in time and God hath so appointed it that one effect of his love should be a qualification in the subject for another as sanctification for glorification LECTURE XXIII MAT. 6.12 And forgive us our Debts THe next Question to be considered is Whether in this prayer we pray only for the Assurance of Pardon not Pardon it self For thus the Antinomians answer to the Objection fetched from this place that the whole sense of this Petition is That we may feel in our selves and assuredly perceive what pardon God had given us before Honey-Comb p. 155. So Den reconcil of God to man p. 44. making this Argument of the Text against himself If we pray for forgiveness of sins then sins are not forgiven before answereth The Protestants saith he with one consent hold That they do beg at the hands of God greater Certainty and Assurance of Pardon and he instanceth in a condemned person that is upon the ladder who having received the pardon of his Prince may when called into the Kings presence fall down and say Pardon me my Lord and King but this is to abuse Protestant Authours for although many of them may make this part of the meaning yet none make it the only meaning Gomarus in his Explication of this Petition doth excellently confute Piscator for explicating Pardon of sin by a Metonymy of the subject viz. The sense and feeling of this in our hearts and saith That such a signification cannot be proved out of any place of Scripture nor out of the language of any good Authors and one of his reasons is this Prayer for pardon of sin would be imprudently taken out of the Lords Prayer for he who prayeth for the sense and feeling of a thing supposeth it already done Now saith he every wise Petition hath for its object a thing to come and not a thing past This also Bellarmine objecting against special Faith as if it were a confidence that my sins are forgiven already he makes it as absurd upon this ground to beg for pardon as it would be to pray that Christ may be incarnated or made flesh Crocius in his answer to this Disput de fidei justificantis objecto pa. 131. saith as you heard before That those things indeed use not to be prayed for which are so done that they are never done more but those things which are so done as that they may be often done again may be prayed for The incarnation of Christ was once done and can be no more but Remission of sins is so done that it continueth further to be done and its last effect is reserved for the future For as often as we sin so often there is need of Repentance So that by his Judgement Remission of sinne is not like Creation which once was and is not reiterated but conservation More might be said out of Authors but I come to answer the Question First We grant it a duty for that believer who knoweth his sins are pardoned to pray for further Faith and Assurance of the Pardon For seeing our Faith admits of degrees and is sometimes staggering ready to sink no marvel if it needs supports Thus David although he heard his Pardon proclaimed yet makes that poenitential Psalm Psal 51. for mercy to do away his sins which was by appeasing his conscience and satisfying his soul with the goodness of God for as a godly man though he have truly repented of his sins yet upon any sad occasion doth reiterate his Pardon as Paul many times hath his heart-ake for his former blasphemies and persecutions so it is necessary to have the sense and apprehension of his Pardon reiterated to his own comfort and consolation There is no mans Assurance about Pardon so high and unmoveable but it many times meeteth with violent assaults and therefore needeth oil to be frequently poured into his wounds Comfort comfort ye my people saith the Prophet There must be an ingemination of the duty else the soul at first will not hearken In the second place We may conceive of four sorts of persons praying for this Pardon of sin The first is an unconverted and unregenerated man For although he cannot call God Father and so not pray in Faith yet he is bound to pray The Socinians interpret that compellation Our Father not actually but dispositively as if the meaning were who art ready and willing to be a Father But that is not the full meaning of that place There lieth an obligation upon unregenerate men to perform holy Duties though they cannot do them acceptably Their impotency to do them doth not disoblige from the command to do them Now its plain that such a person
of Instruction to the godly Observ It is the duty of justified persons to pray for forgivenesse of their sins The meaning of the Petition Forgive us c. 1 â—hat God wâ—uld not require of us the satisfaction of his justice for our sins 2 That God would lay our sins on Christ A two-fold diffâ—rence between Gods forgiving our sins and our forgiving others 3. As we pray for justification so for the continuance in it 4. We pray for daily renewed acts of pardon and imputation of Christs righteousnesse Bellâ—rmines objection answered 5. We pray for the sense of this pardon in our consciences more and more We pray for pardon it self and not for the sense thereof only Reasons proving this Reas 1. Reas â— Reas 3. Reas 4. 6 We pray that as God forgives the sin so he would release the punishmâ—nt 7 We pray to be delivered from the effects of sin 8 We pray for pardon and the concomitants thereof Three things implied in this Petition 1. On the part of the subject or he who praieth is implied 1 That all men are sinfull 2. A sense of sin within us 3 Godly sorrow for sin 4 Earnest perseverance till we obtain 5 Constant renewed acts of faith 3 In the object or matter praâ—ed for are implâ—ed 1 That fâ—rgâ—venâ—ss of sin may he had after Bâ—ptism 2 That a remission of great sins may be hoped for 3 That there is an iteration of pardon 3 In the person to whom we pray are implied 1 That God only can forgive sins 2 That he takes notice of sin Vse Sin considered â—our vvayes 1 Abstractedly in its own nature The nature of sin expressed in the severall names of it 2 In the definition of it Hovv all sin is voluntary 2 Of sin relating to the person sinning A man possibly may not or rather formâ—lly cannot intend sinne 3 The proper effâ—ct of sinne which is to make guilty Whence comes 1 A stâ—in upon the soâ—l taken out by sanctification Liv. de Rec. â— An oâ—â—igation to â—tâ—râ—â—l â—â—â—shment 〈◊〉 by reâ—ission Sin considered as an â—ffence to God Whether sin bâ— an infinite evil Vse What remission of sin is From the names of it Propos 1. Propos 2. Propos 3. Propos 4. Propos 5. Propos 6. Object Answ Vse How our duty of repentance consists with Gods free grace in remitting Propos 1. Propos 2. Propos 3. Propos 4. 5 Two great practical mistakes concerning repentance observed The first of the prophane man The second of the godly Propos 6. Propos 7. The scope of the whole Vse 1. Vse 2. Practical Objections concerning repentance Object 1. Of what use repentance may be Answ 1. Answ 2. Six Reasons of congruity betwixt repentance and remission Reas 1. Reas 2. Reas 3. Reas 4. Reas 5. The sixt Reason two â—old 1. In regard of Gods justice 2 In regard of his grace and mercy Object 2. Whether repentance of it self may not take away the guilt of sin Answ 1. Answ 2. Answ 3. Why repentance bears not the proportion in satisfaction that sin does in the offence Object 3. What harm to God in sin Answ By distinguishing Gods Attributes Vse 1. Vse 2. What kinde of act in God forgivenesse of sin is Two cautions concerning the workings of God 1. There are no accidents in him 2. No new will in him Differences between an immanent traâ—sient action 1. An immanent action produceth no outward effecâ— * Exâ—ra controversiam est remissionem peccatorum prout actâ—â— est in Dâ—o immanens antecedere nostram fidem resipiscentiam Twiss Vin. gr pag. 18. 2. An immanent action in God is from eternity Arguments proving our belâ—ef and repentance antecedents of justification Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Arg. 4. * Den reconcil with God p. 25 Arg. 5. Arg. 6. Den. Arg. 3. to prove we are justified before vve believe Arg. 7. Vse Whether Justification precede faith and repentance Arguments for the affirmative From authority of orthodox men What the opinion above-said may mean That so expounded it seemeth but weak for thâ—se Reasons Reas 1. Reas 2. * Den recon of man with God p. 3 4. Reas 3. 1. Argument fâ—om Infants * Neither may this seem such a wonder seeiâ—g that the orthodox hold even in men growâ— up the first grace is wrought in us as meer patients our understandings wils no waies antecedently concurring to it so that the grace of God is then wrought in us without us Argum 2. Arg. 5. Answ Arg. 7. Ans 1. Answ 2. Answ 3. Answ 4. Answ 5. An elect person unconvâ—râ—ed and a reprobate in many things differ not As Argu. 4. and Argum. 6. Answ 1. Answ 2. Answ 3. A two fold condition of faith Arg. ult Answ Whether we pray here for Pardon or for Assurance of Pardon only The Answer to the Question propounded 1. Thâ—y who are assured of Pardon ought yet to pray 2. This Petition relates to four sorts of men 3 Assurance of pardon not the only thing prayed for proved by four Reasons Reas 1. Reas 2. Reas 3. Reas 4. The instance for the coâ—trary opinion answered Why God doth sometimes pardon sin not acquainting the sinner vvith it Reas 1. Reas 2. Reas 3. Reas 4. Reas 5. What directions should be given a soul under temptation about pardon of sin Direct 1. Direct 2. Direct 3. Whether in repentance the difference between great sins and Less is to be respected Propositions premised concerning this Quâ—stion The Question stated in these Propositions following 1. This difference is to be attended in suing for pardon 2. In respect of humiliation 3. Gross sins procure wrath and hinder the consolations of Gods Spirit 4. Gross sins exclude from the society of the faithful 3 Some gross sins requste mâ—ny conditions before pardon 6 Grosse sins require a more intense act of faith to apply pardon Some particulars wherein no difference is to be put between great and lesser sins 1. In respect of the efficient cause of pardon 2. Nor in respect of the meritorious cause 3 Neither in the means of pardon 4. No difference to be made as to the state of justâ—fication Illustration The text contains a description of the pardon of sin 1 From several expressions to magnifie the mercy of it 2 From the adjunct of remâ—ssion viz. blessednesse Observations raised from the Text. 1 That forgiveness of sin is a covering of sin What is meant by covering of sinne How God by pâ—rdâ—n is said to cover sin Some particulars not extended to in this phrase of covering sin Whether the phrase of Gods covering sinne favour the errour That God seeth not sinne in beleevers Answer negative Two Objections answered Object 1. Object 2. Answ Pardon of sin duly valued by those only who inwardly feel Gods anger against it Vse 1. Of the first Observation Vse 2. Vse 3. The text divided into tvvo Petitions A face attributed to God in a double sense Observation from the first Petition The aggravation of Davids sin in ten particulars The degrees of Davids repentance The teâ—t considered in theâ— What sins Gods children may fall into The sins of Gods people in what kinde to be ranked Differences between the sins of the godly and reprobate Differ 1. Differ 2. Differ 3. Vse How far grosse sins make a breach upon Justification Answered negatively The Question answered affirmatively Why the guilt of new grosâ—e sins doth not take avvay Justification The second Petition handled Whether God in pardoning do forgive all sins together Three things laid down by way of concession The Question held negatively upon these grounds Vse Observ Propositions laid down in prosecution of this Observatâ—on Wherein the compleatnesse of the pardon of sin at the day of judgement consisteth 1. In our sense of that pardon 2. In the accomplishment of all effects of pardon 3. Then no more iteration of pardon 4. Then justification shall be perfected Whether the sins of Gods people shâ—ll be manifested at the last day Vse 1. Vse 2. An Entrance into the Text from the consideration of the history Two Questions resolved for cleâ—ring the Text. Answ 1 When this Penitents sinne was pardoneâ— 2. Whether the expression in the text favour any causality in the Penitents love in reference to hâ—r pardon Observ 1. A two fold repeâ—taâ—ce in Scriptâ—re The Observation proved from Scripture By reason Further evidence from experience Vse 1. To press this use upon us two things especially to be insisted upon 1. The doctrine of oâ—iâ—inal coâ—ruption 2. The strict obligation of the Law Vse 2.