THE True Doctrine OF JUSTIFICATION Asserted and Vindicated, FROM The Errors of PAPISTS, ARMINIANS, SOCINIANS, and more especially ANTINOMIANS.  
In XXX. LECTURES Preached at Lawrence-Iury, London.  
By Anthony Burgess, Preacher of God's Word.  
The second Edition Corrected and Revised.  
LONDON, Printed by A. Miller for Tho. Vnderhil at the Anchor in Pauls-Church-yard, near the little North-door, 1651.   

TO THE Right Honourable EDWARD Earl of Manchester, Viscount Mandeville, Baron of Kimbolton.  
My Lord,  
THE many favours your Honour hath vouchsafed unto me, altogether undeserving, may justly command a public acknowledgement thereof to the whole world; But that which doth especially encourage me to seek for your Protection, in the publishing of this Treatise, is your unfeigned love of, and steadfast continuance in the Truth: So that those two things which Pythagoras said, made a man complete, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to do good to others, and to embrace truth, may without flattery be affirmed to be in your Lordship. And as for the latter, Paul speaks it as a great commendation, that the true faith did dwell in Lois, 
2 Tim 1▪ 5.  which denoteth a stable and firm permanency, as the Apostle elsewhere saith, Sin dwelleth in him. In some men's breasts, Truth is only a sojourner, and their assent to it passeth away (as the Psalmist speaks of our life; like a tale that is told. Now herein Christ speaks of a peculiar privilege to the Elect, that it is not possible for them to be deceived by false Prophets (if it were possible to deceive the very Elect) which is to be understood of a total and final seduction: 
Mat. 24.24.  Thus also when the Apostle had mentioned the Apostasy of Hymenaeus and Philetus, he interposeth by way of comfort to the godly, 
2 Tim. 2.19.  nevertheless the foundation of the Lord standeth sure, having this Seal, the Lord knoweth who are his; and no wonder, if the truths of Christ are worthy of all hearty acceptation, seeing they are wholly by supernatural revelation, in which sense, some say, Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
joh. 1.1.  the Word, because he revealed the will of his Father to us; but in another respect are we to take heed how we decline from the truths of God, because they are the inlet and first instrument of our Sanctification and Salvation, 
1 Tim▪ ●. 4. joh▪ 1▪ 7.17.  God would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth; Sanctify them by thy truth, thy Word is truth; and our regeneration is described partly by the renewing of our mind, 
Ep●. 4.23.  so as corrupt distillations from the head are apt to putrify the vitals, so Errors and false Doctrines do quickly corrupt our practise. One thing more I make bold to recommend to your Lordship, that besides the bare receiving of the truth, there is (as the perfection of knowledge) the acknowledgement of truth after godliness, 
Tit. ●. 1. Eph. 4.21.  and the learning of truth as it is in Jesus Christ; which is, when the truths we believe have a savoury and powerful effect upon us, and nothing causeth our abode in the truth so much as the experimental efficacy of it upon our hearts. 
Heb. 13 9  It is good (saith the Apostle) to have the heart established with grace and not with meats. One would have thought the Apostle should have said it is good to have the heart established with sound Doctrine, because he exhorteth them not to be carried aside with every wind of Doctrine; but he saith Grace rather than knowledge, because this is the choicest Antidote against falsehoods; Tantum scimus, quantum operamur, we know no more (viz. favourily, clearly, and steadfastly) than we have powerful practice of: Now of all supernatural truths the doctrine of Justification hath no mean excellency, this is the article which Luther said reigned in his heart; In this is a Christians treasury of hope and consolation: and because the Antinomians, whose opinions may be styled as those of Epicurus were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (enticing Sirens of a man's fleshly mind) have put their dead flies in this precious Box of ointment, I have endeavoured to select this precious Gold from their dross. Though the matter I handle be in part controversal, yet it is also in a great measure practical. The greatest mercy I can wish to your Lordship, is this glorious privilege of justification, in which only, and not in riches, honours, or any earthly dignity, consisteth true and perfect blessedness, as David a King, doth heartily, and with much affection acknowledge, Psal. 32.1. and Paul by virtue of this justification, Rom. 8. triumphs over all adversity and trouble whatsoever. Of which glorious happiness that your Lordship may be made partaker, is the Prayer of  
Your Lordship's most humble Servant in the Lord, ANTHONY BURGESS.   

TO THE Christian Reader.  
Christian Reader,  
WEre I not already engaged (I know not how) in this public way of Controversies, I should wholly decline such service; partly because of that ill fate, (if I may say so) which doth accompany books through the various Palates of those that read them, whereby they are unwilling agnoscere quod Dei est, or ignoscere quod hominis est; partly because of expectation, (which is an heavy prejudice) all men judging it reasonable, that now in these latter times there being the advantage of all the abilities of those who went before us, a man should not so much libros, as thesauros scribere, write not Books, but rich Treasuries, as the heathen said; partly because this controversal way doth so possess the intellectual part, that the affectionate part is much dulled, and made remiss thereby. Even a Papist, Granada (in his way of Devotion) said, A Learned man that was busied in such kind of employment, should reckon himself in the number of those wretched Captives that are ad metalla damnati, Though all the day long they dig up Gold, yet they are not any whit enriched by it, but others for whom they work: And Rodericus (as I remember) relate●h of Suarez, 
De perfec.  that he was wont to say, He esteemed that little pittance of time, which constantly every day he set apart for the private examination of his own conscience, more than all the other part of the day, which he spent in his voluminous Controversies. The Apostle speaks of doting about questions, 
1 Tim. 6.4.  but the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to be sick and languishing, which doth declare the nature of needless disputations, that they fret away, and make to consume the true power of Godliness. God once only spoke out of a thorny bush, and as the Israelites were to go out of the military Camp to gather manna, so must a man shuntedious disputes, who would enjoy the fat and marrow of Christian Religion. But notwithstanding these d●scouragements, yet the Apostle with a vehement obtestation calls upon Timothy, 
1 Tim. 6.10.  and in him all faithful Ministers to preserve that good thing committed to their Charge, so that it is the duty of Ministers not only by Preaching, but otherwise as occasion serveth, to see that the golden treasure deposited in the Church, be not debased with drossy errors, 
Probl. Sect. 9 quae. 2.  or the children's necessary food mingled with destructive poison. Truth is a Depositum. Aristotle doth rationally conclude, That it is a greater injustice to deny a little thing deposited, than a great sum that we are indebted for, because he that depositeth any thing in our custody, trusteth in us as a faithful friend; the other expecteth only justice from us. Now of all points of Divinity, there is none that with more profit and comfort we may labour in, then in that o● Justification, which is styled by some, articulus stantis & cadentis ecclesiae, The Church stands or falls, as the truth of this is asserted, and a modest, sober vindication of this point from contrary errors, will not hinder, but much advantage the affectionate part of a man, even as the Bee is helped by her sting to make honey. God's way of Justification is for the truth of it above natural reason, and therefore there is required a supernatural Revelation to manifest it: Insomuch that the Divine Authority of the Scripture is in nothing more irradiant, then in the discovery of this glorious way of our Justification. But it hath been a stumbling block, and a rock of offence to many men's hearts, who look for a Philosophical Justification, or righteousness of works, either wholly issuing from our free will (as they suppose) or partly from it, and partly from the grace of God, and on this hand, have erred the Pelagians, Papists, Arminians and Socinians: But while the Orthodox have been diligent to keep this fountain pure from the filth those Philistims daily threw in, There arose up another error on the right hand, which the Apostle Paul in his Epistles doth many times▪ Antidote against, viz. such a setting up of Freegrace in Justification, that should make the Law as to all purposes useless, and while it extolleth privileges debases duties; That as the Arminians on the one side, think it most absurd that the same thing should be officium requisitum & donum promissum, a duty required on our part, and yet a gift promised on God's part; So on the other side the Antinomian cannot at the same time see the fullness of Grace, only in blotting out our sins, and yet at the same time, A necessity of repentance, without which this Justification could not be obtained. Hence it is they fix their Meditations and Discourses upon the promissory part of the Scripture, not at the same time attending to the preceptive part. But whether it be their weakness or their wilfulness, they seem to be upon those passages of Scripture, which speak of God's grace and Christ's satisfaction, as David in Saul's arms, which were an hindrance, not an advantage to him. Men destitute of sound knowledge and Learning, should be afraid lest they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 3.16. wrest the Scripture, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to their own destruction. It is no less a sin (saith Oecumenius) to torture the Scripture by perverse interpretation, than it was to torment and Crucify the very bodies of the Apostles: but to how many ignorant men attempting beyond their strength in Controversies of Divinity, hath that fallen out, 
Adversus indoctum.  which did to one Lucian speaks of, who finding Orpheus his harp consecrated to Apollo in a certain Temple, bribed the Priest of the Temple, thinking to make the same melody which Orpheus used to do, which he attempting, through his ignorance made such an horrid sound, that it enraged all the dogs near him, which presently fell on him, and tore him in pieces.  
It is therefore good for men in all humility and modesty, not to think of themselves above what they ought, or to affect to be Doctors, before indeed they have been Disciples.  
But to my matter in hand, I shall briefly give an account of my method in this Treatise. Whereas in Justification many things are considerable, the efficient and impulsive Cause, God's grace, the meritorious Cause, Christ's satisfaction, the instrumental Cause, Faith; and ev●ry one of these hath many Debates upon it by Learned men; Yet I have insisted upon that where●n the nature of it doth consist, and because that is made by some two fold, partly in remission of sins, partly in imputation of Christ's righteousness, this Discourse is wholly upon the former, endeavouring to clear all the Doctrinal and Practical doubts that are of greatest consequence in this matter. And if God should bless this part with any good success, to establish the minds of those that waver, I shall (with God's assistance) proceed to the other point, viz. The Imputation of Christ's righteousness; the mistaking of which point, is no mean cause of Antinomianism. I am not ignorant, how subject to blindness and several imperfections the best of men are, whereby through after-thoughts, they see such an argument might have been more strongly managed, and such expressions better ordered, insomuch that most men may say, as Luther said of his Books, He could (like Saturn) eat up his own children: It is also to be considered how difficult it is, with pure ends and godly intentions, aiming only at the glory of God, and edification of others, to undertake such a business as this is; therefore in all these exercises, it is good to go out of ourselves, depending upon the strength of God only, and not to boast as if we had not received. Tutius vivitur, quando totum Deo damus, Et in nihilo gloriandum est, quia nihil nostrum est.  
One thing more I am to inform thee of, which is, that in the former part of this treatise, I have more remissly spoken of Justification in the general (because that will more pertinently be handled in the other point of imputed righteousness) and have endeavoured more vigorously to prosecute the other part which is wholly spent about pardon of sin. These things premised, I leave thee to the Lord, who teacheth his children to profit.  
Thine in Christ Jesus Anthony Burgess.   

THE CONTENTS.  

WHy the doctrine of justification ought to be kept pure. pag. 3  
2 Propositions clearing the nature of justification. 3, 4  
3 What is implied in justification. 6, 7  
4 What cautions are to be observed to conceive the nature of justification. 14  
5 Wherein justification consists. 17  
6 Propositions for the understanding remission of sins. 18  
7 How sins may be said to be forgiven. ibid.  
8 How sin is to be considered, when it is said to be forgiven. 19  
9 What it is to have sin forgiven. 20  
10 How afflictions come upon God's people after their sin is pardoned. 24  
11 Whether God corrects his people for sin. 26  
12 How the Antinomians prove that God doth not chastise his people for their sins. 34  
13 Whether any absurdities follow upon that doctrine, that God doth correct his people for their sins. 39  
14 What errors the Antinomians hold concerning remission of sin. 43  
15 How it may be proved that God doth see sin in a believer, so as to be offended with it. 53  
16 How great the guilt of sin in the believer is in the sight of God. 69  
17 How Gods anger manifesteth itself upon his children when they sin. pag. 75  
18 What kind of sins God is displeased with. 79  
19 How God manifesteth his displeasure against his people in spiritual and eternal things. 82  
20 How the Antinomian would prove that God doth not see sin in a justified person. 88  
21 How the Antinomian distinguisheth between Gods knowing and seeing of sin. ibid.  
22 How seeing is attributed to God. 89  
23 How Gods knowledge and ours do differ. ibid.  
24 How the Antinomians are contrary to themselves. 93  
25 How far Gods taking notice of sin so as to punish it, is subject to the mere liberty of his will. 95  
26 How freedom may be extended to God. 96  
27 How the attributes of God, and the actions of them differ in respect of freedom. 97  
28 How Gods justice essentially and the effects of it differ. 100  
29 How Christ satisfied God. 101  
30 How afflictions on Believers can agree with God's justice. ibid.  
31 Why sins are called debts. 105  
32 What in sin is a debt. ibid.  
33 What is meant by that petition, Forgive us. 113  
34 Whether we pray for the pardon itself, or for the sense thereof only: 4 Reasons proving the affirmative. 116  
35 What is implied in the petition, Forgive us our debts. 121 

1 In the subject, who doth pray. ibid.  
2 In the matter prayed for. 126  
3 In the person to whom we pray. 128    
36 How sin a considered. 130  
37 How all sin is voluntary. 132  
38 Whether sin be an infinite evil. 138  
39 What remission of sin is. 139  
40 Why repentance and faith is pressed as necessary. 146  
41 How our repentance consists with God's free grace in pardoning of sin. 147  
42 How many do mistake concerning repentance. p. 150  
43 Why God requires repentance seeing it is no cause of pardon. 157  
44 Why repentance wrought by the spirit of God, is not enough to remove sin in the guilt of it. 161  
45 Why repentance should not be as great a good, and as much honour God, as sin is an evil. 163  
46 What harm comes to God by sin. ibid.  
47 What kind of act Forgiveness of sin is, and whether it be antecedent to our faith and repentance. 166  
48 Whether justification precede faith and repentance. 176  
49 Whether infants have actual faith, and are Believers. 181  
50 How we are sinners in Adam. 185  
51 How an elect person unconverted, and a reprobate differ, and what kind of love election is. 188  
52 Whether in that petition, Forgive us our debts, we pray for pardon or for assurance only. 196  
53 Why God doth sometimes pardon sin not acquainting the person with it. 200  
54 What directions should be given to a soul under temptation about pardon of sin. 203  
55 Whether a Believer repenting, is to make difference between a great sin and a lesser. 205  
56 What is meant by covering of sin. 216  
57 How God by pardoning sin is s●id to cover it. 217  
58 Whether the phrase of Gods covering sin, imply that he doth not see it. 219  
59 How sins being in justified persons, can stand with the omnisciency, truth, and holiness of God. 220  
60 How God doth see sin in believers when they have the righteousness of Christ to cover it. 221  
61 How a face is attributed to God. 226  
62 What sins God's children may fall into. 230  
63 How the sins of God's people and of the reprobate differ. 234  
64 How far gross sins make a breach upon justification. 236  
65 Why the guilt of new gross sins doth not take away justification. p. 245  
66 Whether God in pardoning, doth not forgive all sins together. 246  
67 Wherein the completeness of the pardon of sin at the day of judgement consists. 262  
68 Whether the sins of God's people shall be manifested at the last day 264  
69 Whether we are justified in Christ before we believe, as we are accounted sinners in Adam before we actually sinned. 186  
70 Whether reconciliation purchased by Christ's death, doth necessarily infer justification before faith. 190    

OF JUSTIFICATION.  

LECTURE I.  ROME 3.24, 25., 
Being justified freely by his Grace, etc.  
THE Apostle in the words precedent laid down two Propositions, 
The Coherence.  to debase man and all his works, that so he might make way for the exaltation of that grace of justification here spoken of.  
The first Proposition is, that By the deeds of the Law no flesh shall be justified in his sight, where two things are observable.  
1. That he calls every man by the word Flesh, which is emphatical to beat down that pride and tumour which was in the Jews.  
2. He addeth, in his sight, which supposeth that though our righteousness among men may be very glorious, yet before God it is unworthy. The other Proposition is, that, All come short of the glory of God; Some do make it a Metaphor from those in a race, who fall short of the prize. Whether by the glory of God be meant the image of God, and that righteousness first put into us, or eternal life, or (which is most probable) matter of glorying and boasting before God, which the Apostle speaks of afterwards, is not much material. Now the Apostle having described our condition to be thus miserable, he commends the Grace of God in justifying of us, which is deciphered most exactly in a few words; so that you have in the Text a most compendious delineation of justification. 
The division and opening of the Text.  First, There is the benefit set down, being justified. Secondly, The efficient cause, God's Grace; and here we have a twofold impulsive cause, one inward, denoted in the word Freely; the other outward, in the meritorious cause, Christ's death; which is further illustrated by the appointment of God for this end, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Some understand this of God's manifestation, as if it were spoken to oppose the propitiatory in the Ark, which was left hidden; some to the whole polity in the Old Testament, which in the Legal shadows, and the Prophet's predictions did declare Christ; Others (upon better ground) refer it to the Decree of God. This death of Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which denoteth both the action itself, as also the effect and benefit which cometh by it. chrysostom observeth, that it is called redemption, and not a simple emption, because we were the Lords once, but by our sins became slaves to Satan, and now God doth make us his again. In the third place you have the instrumental cause, Faith in his blood; this is that Hyssop that doth sprinkle the blood, though it be contemptible in itself, yet it is instrumental for a great good; and hereby is denoted, That Faith hath a peculiar nature in this work of Justification, which no other grace hath, for none saith Love in his blood, or Patience in his blood. Lastly, here is the final cause, To declare the righteousness of God 
a In what sense righteousness is taken here, See Lect. 12.  for the remission of sins past. 
b whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be so well translated remission of sin, as indulgence & connivance, as B●za rendereth it, you have largely discussed, Lect. 12.  Some observe those words sins past, as implying, no sin is forgiven till it be committed; it must be passed before it can be forgiven; But the Apostle might use this speech in reference to sins passed before his coming, to show the efficacy and power of Christ's death, that it was not the blood of Rams and Goats, but that of Christ, which could expiate our offences. My intent is to speak of the benefit first, and then the Causes: the Benefit is Justification: And for the better understanding of this, 
Propositions clearing the nature of Justification.  consider the Propositions following, which will be subservient to clear the nature of it, although the more exact opening of the word, and the nature of it, is to be looked for when we come to speak of imputed righteousness.  
First, It is of great consequence to have this Doctrine kept pure. 
1 The doctrine of Justification ought to be kept pure.  Luther called it Articulus stantis aut cadentis Ecclesiae, as if this were the soul and pillar of Christianity. Pighius, though a Papist, calleth this the chief par● of Christian Doctrine, confessing that it had been obscured rather then cleared by their own Writers: yea, this Doctrine about Justification is that which discerneth the Orthodox from Pagans, Papists, Socinians and Arminians. Now there are divers reasons why we should keep the Philistims from throwing in earth to stop up this pleasant spring: 
And why.  As 1. because herein is the grace and good favour of God especially revealed. Therefore the Gospel is called glorious, because God did not so much exalt, and manifest his excellency in creating the world, as he did in providing of a Saviour, and pardon for a poor sinner: Hence it's called the riches of his grace, rather than of power or righteousness. We are therefore solicitous (whatsoever the Antinomians say to the contrary) that the doctrine of God's grace in Justification may be fully improved to the uttermost, and that every broken heart may be put into a ravishment and admiration of it. We bewail those times of Popery, when the name and efficacy of Christ and his Grace, were obscured by the works and pretended righteousness of men.  
2. It is very necessary to keep this pure, because of the manifold truths that must fall if this fall; if you err in this, the whole truth about Original sin, freewill, and Obligation of the Law will likewise perish.  
3. It is of great influence into practice; for what doth the heart smitten for sin, and filled with the displeasure of God, but run to this▪ Doctrine, as the City of refuge? This is the water that their souls pant after, this is the bread that their fainting stomaches would▪ gladly feed on: now if this water be turned into mud, if this bread be made into stones by the corrupt Doctrines of men, how must the soul perish for want of sustenance?  
Secondly, 
2 Satan hath endeavoured the corrupting of it.  Satan hath endeavoured several ways the corrupting of it. You may judge of the preciousness and excellency of it by Satan's malicious endeavours to suppress it: Herod not more diligently seeking to take away the life of Christ when he was in his Cradle, than Satan's instruments were busy to stifle this truth in the infancy. 
Loc▪ Com. de Just●fic.  Chemnitius relateth, that he did saepè cohorrescere, many times tremble when he thought of a speech which Luther would often say (and it was ominous) That after his death the Doctrine of Justification would be corrupted: And indeed when those first Reformers had made the body of this truth in all the several parts of it like that of Absalon, comely and beautiful, without any blemish, there presently rose up many perverted in mind, and set upon it, as those thiefs upon the man going to Jericho, leaving it wounded, and half dead. There are errors about the very nature of it, making it to be the infusion of righteousness in us, for which God doth accept us: Thus they speak of Justification, as Aristotle would about Physical motions. Some take away the imputation of Christ's Righteousness; some take away the satisfaction of Christ; some make Faith to be accounted for Righteousness; some make such a Justification, that thereby God shall see no sin in those that are justified whatsoever they do. Thus in the nature, parts, instrument, consequents and subject, there are manifold errors, and hereby Satan bringeth much mischief to the Church, for by this means our lives are spent in disputing about this benefit, when it were far more comfortable to be enjoying of it. And when Satan could not overthrow the truth by mingling of our works with the Grace of God, as in Popery, than he bendeth himself to errors on the right hand, by setting it up in such a seeming way, by amplifications of it, that thereby all repentance and godly humiliation shall he quite evacuated: Even as when he could not by his instruments, the Pharisees, disprove the Deity of Christ, than he sets instruments on work to confess that he was the Son of God, thereby to get in some errors.  

3 God in the way of Justification goes above our thoughts and reason.  Thirdly, God in this way of Justification goeth above our thoughts. And certainly, when a Christian will set his heart to think about this truth, he must lay this for a foundation, that, in this matter of Justifying, God's thoughts and his thoughts do differ as much as heaven and earth; so that the doctrine of Christ's hypostatical union is not more above our thoughts and expectation in the truth of it, to be believed, then that of Justification is above our hearts in the goodness of it, to be embraced. It is in this case with us, as with Samson, who found honey in the carcase of a Lion, this could not be expected how it could come there; had he found it in some holes of a Tree in the Wood, where Bees will sometimes hive themselves, there had been some probability, but here is none: Thus thinketh the soul troubled, to find this honey of Justification in the death of Christ, how unlikely is it? If I should look for it in the works I do, in my holiness, and righteousness that is wrought by my own hands, this were according to rules of righteousness.  
And this is the ground of all that dangerous error in Popery, they look upon it as against the principles of reason, that we should be accounted righteous any other way, then by that which is inherent in us; and this made Luther profess, that when he did rightly understand the doctrine about free remission of sins, yet he was exceedingly troubled with the word Justify, for that old opinion had much soaked into him, that it must be to make righteous, as sanctificare is to make holy, or calefacere to make hot; some positive quality to be brought into a man, which he might oppose against the judgement of God. And hereby you may see, that it's no wonder if the people of God are so difficultly persuaded of their Justification; if they be again and again plunged into fears about it; because this way which God taketh is above our thoughts: It is a great matter to deny our own righteousness, and to be beholding to Christ only for pardon.  
Fourthly, As the Doctrine itself is by peculiar revelation, 
4 The Scripture hath proper words to express this doctrine by.  so the Scripture hath proper words to express it by, which we must wholly attend to. This would be a good Pillar and Cloud to direct us; for then men began to decline from the truth, when they left off a diligent search of the use of the word in the Scriptures. What makes it so confidently and generally asserted by Papists, that Justification is a transmutation, a change from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness, but only neglect of the Scripture-use of this word?  
And though this matter was agitated seven months in the Council of Trent, yet because they did not follow the Star of the Scripture, they came not to the lodging where Christ was. There are some kind of words, which the Scripture takes from the common use and custom amongst men, and they are to be interpreted as commonly they are taken; but then there are other words, which the Scripture doth peculiarly use, as being subservient to express that peculiar matter, which the holy Ghost only teacheth, and such is this word, to justify, for the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is observed by learned men to have two significations, one to punish a man, or condemn h●m, which is clean contrary to the Apostle his use of the word; or else to determine and judge a thing as just, but than it doth not come up to the Apostles meaning; for he speaks of persons, but the Grecians use it of things themselves: Thus the word justificare is not used by any approved humane Authors, no more than sanctificare and glorificare. As therefore we must go to the Scripture▪ only for the knowledge of the nature of the thing, so we must express it in such words as the holy Ghost useth; and this is the ground which hath made our learned men call upon all to consider the Grammatical use of the words in this matter.  

1 Justification implies an accounting just.  First, The word doth imply an accounting just: And this is acknowledged by the Papists themselves, as more frequent▪ though they plead much for such a sense, as to make just. Now the truth is, there needs not much quarrel even about that signification, though the Scripture doth not manifest it: For we confess that he is made just, who is justified, and that not only in respect of the inward renovation of a man, but also in respect of justification; for God doth not account him just who is not so, and certainly to esteem a man just without righteousness, is as absurd as to account a man learned without learning, or the wall white without whiteness; only we say this Righteousness that doth to make a man just, is not inherent in him, but reckoned to him by the satisfaction of another: for a man is accounted righteous two ways, either when he is not guilty of the crime charged upon him, or when he doth make satisfaction; and in this latter sense by Christ we become righteous. 
2 To make righteous.   
2. So that if the word should signify as much as to make righteous, as to sanctify doth signify to make holy, still we could grant it, though not in the Popish way; and indeed the Apostle Rom. 5. saith, many are made righteous by the second Adam, which if not meant of inherent holiness, doth imply, that the righteousness we have by Christ is not merely declarative, but also constitutive; and indeed one is in order before the other, for a man must be righteous before he can be pronounced or declared so to be. But the Hebrew word doth not signify this sense primarily; for whereas the Hebrew word in Cal doth signify to be righteous by a positive quality; The word in Hiphil according to that Rule in Grammar, signifieth to attribute and account this righteousness unto a man by some words, or other testimony, even as the word that in Cal signifieth to b● wicked, doth in Hiphil signify to condemn and judge a man as wicked, so that there are these two things in justifying, whereof one is the ground of the other, first to make righteous, and then to pronounce or declare so.  
From these two followeth a third, 
3 To deal with as a just man.  which is to deal with a man so justified as a just man, so that condemnation, crimes, reproach and fear shall be taken away from him. This declareth the admirable benefit of being justified before God, for when this is done, Rom. 5.1. We have peace with God, Ephes. 3. We come with boldness into his presence, and open face; so that unbelief and slavish fears in the godly are great enemies to this grace of justification; yea, they are a reproach and dishonour to it. Thou thinkest if thy heart were not conscious to sin, if nothing but holiness were in thee, thou wouldst be bold, thou wouldst not fear or be troubled, but thou dost not consider that God walketh towards thee as a righteous man, looketh upon thee as so, so that if Christ be bold thou mayst, if God will not reject Christ, or thy sins cannot condemn him, so neither will God reject thee, or shall thy sins overwhelm thee; this is the sweet consolation of the Gospel, to a sinner brokenhearted, who would give a world for a perfect righteousness, to make him accepted.  
4. This is a judicial word, and taken from Courts of judgement. It is good to consider this also, 
4 It is a judicial word.  for this supposeth God as a just Judge offended, and man summoned to his Tribunal to appear before it. This work of Justification may be excellently compared with that Parable, Mat. 18. where a man owing many talents to his master, is called upon to pay them, and although the servant prayed his Master to have patience, and he would pay him all (which we cannot say) yet, it is said, his Master forgave him all the debt. That the word is a judicial word in the general appeareth, Deu. 25.1. where the Scripture speaketh of a controversy between men brought to judgement, and the Judge justifying the righteous, so 2 Kin. 15.4. There Absalon wisheth he were Judge in the land, that he might justify him who brought his case to him; so Psa. 51. That thou mayest be justified, and overcome when thou are judged; As it is thus in general, so in this particular case, it is a word taken from Courts of judgement: Thus Rom. 3. That every mouth might be stopped, and the whole world be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 guilty.  
Hence there is an accuser, and our sins called debts, and the opposite to this justification is condemnation, and the Apostle calleth it a charge that is laid upon men. Therefore Christ is called an Advocate, and he is said to make intercession; all these expressions denote a judiciary proceeding: Thus David, Enter not into judgement with thy servant; for in thy sight no man shall be justified, Psa. 143. and Paul, 1 Cor. 4.3. It is a very small thing to be judged of man's judgement, where a man's judgement is called a day, according to the Cilician phrase (as Jerome saith) and having spoken this, he addeth something of his justification before God; so that there is nothing clearer than that the word is a judicial word, and with John who in his Epistles never useth the word justify, the sense of it is expressed, by not to come into judgement, or to be translated from death unto life. And certainly if to justify were to make righteous inherently, it would not be an abomination in that sense to justify the wicked.  

5 There can be no Justification but where there is accusation.  Fifthly, There can be properly no justification, but where there is accusation or a charge: Therefore condemnation is opposite to it. Hence it is that though it be said that Angels and Adam were justified, and that by works, yet if we would speak properly, they were no more justified, than they had an Advocate, or Intercessor. Thus when Christ is said to be justified in the Spirit, that is, declared to be the Son of God by the Spirit, which was spoken in reference to those calumnies and reproaches that were cast upon him; so that this consideration may comfort a godly man even in that particular wherein he is most troubled; for thus the godly argue, my heart chargeth me with such folly, and so the devil doth, oh it is too plain! I cannot dissemble it, I cannot hide it; oh what shall I do? even this very thing may support; for how could there be Justification, if there were not a charge? What need a Christ to justify, if there were no fault?  
Sixtly, No man can do any thing, 
6 No man can do any thing whereby to be accounted just before God.  whereby he should be accounted just before God. This is the grand truth that is such a stumbling block to the world; this makes the Papist gibe and scoff; this makes God (say they) to dissemble; this makes him a liar, to account that ours, which is his Sons; who will say a lame Vulcan goeth upright with another man's legs? who will compare some deformed Thersites to a fair Absalon, because of some imaginary beauty which is not in him? But the Scripture is too plain, 2 Cor. 5. to be eluded, Ipse factus est peccatum, sicut nos justitia non nostra sed Dei, nec in nobis sed in ipso, sicut ipse factus est peccatum non suum sed nostrum, nec inse, said in nobis constitutum. He is made sin as we are righteousness, not our righteousness but the righteousness of God, not in us, but in him: as he was made sin, not his own, but ours, not in himself, but in us. Neither do we say, we are made righteous without a righteousness, that indeed were absurd, but we say it is not in us.  
Seventhly, That righteousness whereby we are made just, 
7 We are made just only by Christ.  is only by Christ; of this more hereafter; only the Scripture doth carry us always from our own righteousness to that of Faith, which is by his blood; this made Bernard say, Quid tam ad mortem quod morte Christi non salvetur, Meum meritum est miseratio Domini, non planè sum meriti inops quamdiu ille miserationum non fuerit inops. Though we want, Christ doth not want, though we sinned away our good, yet not Christ his merits: And if a man were made perfectly holy, yet he could not be justified for all that, but he needs a Christ to satisfy for his former transgressions.  
Eightly, 
8 Terror and comfort in the word justification.  This description of Justification in a judicial way containeth much terror, and also much comfort. It is good for a Christian to meditate, why God describes the way of pardon by these terms; and first it may be to rouse up secure and Epicurean consciences. Thy heart will not always be quiet, neither will thy sin always lie still at the door, but it will awaken thee, and hale thee to judgement. O the terror thy soul will then be put into! And as it doth thus terrify, so it doth the more comfort; nothing is so welcome as a pardon after a man is condemned, and his head laid upon the block: Thus when all this charge is laid upon thee, and thou summoned before the tribunal, how precious must grace then be to thee?   

LECTURE II.  ROME 3.23. 
Being justified freely by his grace, etc.  
THe ninth Proposition is, concerning the reality and truth of this Justification: 
9 The reality of this justification.  for when we say God doth justify, that is, account and pronounce righteous, this is taken by Papists, as if here were nothing, but a mere fiction and imagination, without any truth indeed: Therefore the godly are for their comfort to know that this Justification of theirs, is no less a real and solid foundation for comfort (yea it is more) then if they had the most perfect and complete inherent righteousness that could be: for all things that are constitutive of this Justification, are real; God his gracious accounting and esteeming of us so, is real: and seeing he is most wise, just and holy, what he doth judge must needs be so; we many times justify ourselves, but than it is sometimes a mere opinion, we are indeed condemned at that present, but it cannot be so with God. Again the foundation of this Justification, is as solid and firm as any rock, it being the righteousness of Christ, if therefore the righteousness of Christ be not a fancy or imagination, no more is this. And lastly, the effects of this are real, viz. deliverance from wrath, peace with God, joy in the holy Ghost, and the spirit of Adoption. Now in this treasure the godly heart may much enrich himself, he is not in a dream when his soul is ravished with this privilege; thou mayest be in this transfiguration, and say, it's good for us to be here, and still know what thou sayest; What shame then is it to thee, when if thou hadst inherent perfect righteousness, thou wouldst bid thy soul take her spiritual ease, for she hath much good stored up for her, and thou canst not do this upon an imputed righteousness: imputed righteousness and inherent, differ only in the manner, not in reality: it is all one, as to God's glory, and as to thy comfort, whether righteousness be thine inherent, or thine imputed, if it be a true real righteousness.  
Tenthly, Consider, the Scripture speaks of this justification, as to us, 
10 The Scripture speaks of justification as to us in a passive sense.  still in a passive sense, we are justified, and that whether it speaks upon a supposition of Justification by works of the Law, or in an Evangelicall manner, and this it doth to show that God only doth justify: for sin is only against him, and therefore none but himself can remit his own offence. Besides, none can condemn but God, therefore none can Justify. Who can lay trouble on thy soul, bind thee in chains, and throw thee into hell, but God? and who but God can command all the tempests and waves in thy troubled soul to be still? When therefore others are said to Justify, that is only to be understood declaratively, and no more. Now this particular may suppress all those proud, Pharisaical thoughts in us, whereby we are apt to be puffed up within ourselves: what if we Justify ourselves, and clear our ways? yet if God doth not, we remain still obnoxious, and bound in God's wrath.  
Again, It is for comfort to the godly, what though Satan, thy own heart, and the world doth condemn thee? yet if God Justify, thou mayest rejoice; you see Rom. 8. what a challenge Paul there makes, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? it is God that Justifieth. Who shall charge any thing? The devil, thy own heart, can lay much pride, hypocrisy, sloth fullness to thy charge: it is true, but God through Christ doth Justify. What a Cordial and reviver would it be to God's people, to live in the power of this gift bestowed upon them? it is God that justifieth thee, O my troubled soul! who can then condemn? who can hinder it, or invalidate it? Certainly we are therefore in dejections, despondencies, and perplexities often, because we drink not of this water of life. Lay and apply this excellent Doctrine to thy fainting dying soul, and it will become to it, like Elisha applying himself to the dead child, cause spirit and life again to return to him; right thoughts here, will sweeten all thoughts in other things.  

11 God in justifying considered as a fatherly Judge.  Eleventhly, Although Justification be a Court action, and drawn from judicatories, yet God is not in this action, considered merely as a judge, but as paternus Judex, a fatherly judge, having an admirable temperament of justice and mercy, so that God pronounceth this sentence from the Throne of Justice and Mercy also; of Justice, in that he will not absolve, till satisfaction be made, and he will not pronounce righteous, but where there is a perfect righteousness: Therefore that opinion, of making Faith to be accepted of for righteousness is a dangerous and false assertion. God in this work of Justification, is never described, as accepting of an imperfect righteousness for a perfect. No, God doth not cease to be just, while he is thus gracious. Again his Justice and righteousness is herein seen, that none shall be Justified, but such sinners who feel their guilt, and desire to be eased of that burden, believing and rolling their souls upon him. It is very hard to give the right order of the benefits of Vocation, Justification, Adoption and Sanctification; but yet this may be made good against the Antinomian, that a man is not Justified, till repenting and believing. Here is Justice then but there is also a great deal of Grace and Mercy; As in the accepting of a surety for us, that he would not keep to the Law, of having us in our own persons to pay the utmost farthing: This was great love; so likewise to find out a way for our reconciliation; that when the devils had no remedy provided for them, we have. Further, that when this price is laid down, we have the application of this benefit, and so many thousands have not. Two in a Bed, in a Family, in a Parish, one Justified, and the other condemned; What Grac● is this?  
Twelfthly, 
12 justification in Scripture described by God's actions not ours.  This grand mercy is described in Scripture by God his giving something to us, not our doing any thing to him. It is described by God's actions, & not ours to him, which may abundantly satisfy the heart against all doubts and fears; thus the Scripture calls it forgiving, not imputing sin, imputing righteousness, making righteous, all which are actions from God to us, not ours to him, so that we are no where said in a good sense to Justify ourselves, or commanded to it, as we are to repent, or believe, and to crucify the lusts of the flesh, because it is wholly God's action; by faith indeed we apprehend it, but it's God's action, as the window letteth in the light, but it is the Sun that doth enlighten. And from this particular, we may gather much comfort, for when we look into ourselves and see no such righteousness or holiness, that we dare hold out to God, than we may remember, this is not by our doing to God, but receiving from him; and in this sense, it is more blessed for us to receive, then to give. This made the Father say, justitia nostra, est indulgentia tua, our righteousness is thy indulgence. Therefore let not the troubled heart say, where is my perfect repenting? where is my perfect obedience? but rather ask, where is God's forgiving? where is Gods not imputing? how hardly is the soul drawn off from resting in itself? it is not thy doing, but Gods doing; thou must not consider, what do I, but what God doth. The Antinomian, he indeed wringeth these breasts of Consolation, till blood cometh, but the true sweet milk of the word must not therefore be thrown away. Do not then as they sought for Christ, look for him in the grave, when he was risen out thence. Do not thou po●r in thyself for this treasure, when it is to be looked for from heaven; duties, graces will say, this is not in me.  
Lastly, 
13 The Scripture hath phrases equivalent to this of justification. Psa●. ●2. 1, 2.  The Scripture hath other equivalent phrases to this of Justification, which likewise do amplify the comfort of this gift. It is called Blessedness, as if this indeed were the true heaven and happiness. If thou art justified, thou carriest heaven about with thee, and thy name may be Legion, for many are the mercies that do fill thee. Nothing can make thee blessed but this, it is not Blessed is he to whom the Lord giveth many riches and honours, many parts and abilities, but to whom the Lord imputeth no sin; and howsoever those who wallow in a Laodicean fullness, judge not this such blessedness, yet, ask a Cain, ask a Judas, demand of the tormented in hell, whether it be not a blessed thing to have sin pardoned. That thou shouldest be able to look on thy sins as so many serpents without stings, as so many Egyptians dead upon the shore, as if they had never been, that thou shouldst be able to say, Lord, where are such lusts, such sins of mine? I find them all canceled; Is not this blessedness indeed?  
Another expression is of accepting us in Christ, and herein lieth much of Justification, that it is an acceptation of us to eternal life, Eph. 1.6. This must needs embolden and encourage the heart, when it knoweth, that both person and duties are accepted, though so much frailty and weakness, yet God will receive thee, The third phrase is to make Just, Rom. 5.9. For God doth not pronounce that man just, which is not so. Therefore when we are Justified, this is not absolutely and simply against a righteousness of works, but in a certain respect, as done by us, and as obedience coming from us, and this must needs support the soul: for when satisfaction is made, when God hath as much as he desireth, why should not this quiet the heart of a man? will nothing content thee, unless thou thyself art able to pay God the utmost farthing? A fourth word is not imputing of sin, or imputing righteousness, and this, as you heard before, is a very sure and real thing, though it be not in us, for there are many real benefits do come to us, wheh yet the foundation is extrinsical, as when a man's debt is discharged by his Surety, he hath his real benefit, is discharged, and released out of Prison, as if it had been his own personal payment. Now when God doth this, he goeth not against that text, To Justify the ungodly, for its an abomination to do so, because it's against Law, but when God doth not impute sin, because of the satisfaction of Christ intervening, that is most consentaneous and agreeable to Justice. There is one word more equivalent, and that is reconciliation, some indeed make this an effect of Justification, some make reconciliation the general, and remission of sin a particular part; but we need not be curious, where Justification is there is reconciliation; and this doth suppose, that those who were at discord before, are now made friends, and where can friendship be more prized then with God?  
Having laid down these introductory Propositions, which describe most of the matter or nature of Justification, I shall now come to show, wherein it doth particularly consist, wherein the true nature is, 
Cautions concerning justification.  only let me premise two or three Cautions.  
1. We must not confound those things, which may be consequent, or concomitant to justification, 
I. Caution.  with justification itself, for many things may necessarily be together, and yet one not be the other; so Justification is necessarily joined with Renovation, yet a man is not justified in having a new nature put into him: The water hath both moistness and coldness in it, yet it doth not wash away spots as it is cold, but as it is moist. We will not enter into dispute (as some of the Schoolmen have, and concluded affirmatively) Whether God may not accept of a sinner to eternal life, without any inward change of that man's heart: It is enough that by Scripture we know he doth not.  
2. To place our justification in any thing that is ours, or we do, 
II. Caution.  is altogether derogatory to the righteousness and worth of Christ. Some there are who place it partly in our righteousness, and partly in the obedience of Christ, supplying that which is defective in us; some of late have placed it in our Faith, as if that were our righteousness, and not for any worth or dignity of Faith, but God out of his mere good pleasure (say they) hath appointed Faith to be that to man fallen, which universal righteousness would have been to Adam: and hence it is, that they will not allow any trope or metonymy in that phrase, Abraham believed, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. But here appeareth no less pride and arrogancy in this▪ then the opinion of the Papists, and in some respects it doth charge God worse, as is to be showed in handling of that point: Therefore let us take heed, how by our distinctions we put any thing with Christ's righteousness in this great work.  
3. In searching out the nature of Justification, 
III. Caution.  we must not only look to the future, but that which is past. For suppose a man should be renewed to a full perfection in this life, yet that absolute complete holiness could not justify him from his sins past. Those committed before would still press him down, though he were now for the present without any spot at all. Therefore though now there were no defects, no frailties in thee, yet who shall satisfy the Justice of God for that which is past, though there were but the least guilt of the least sin? there is no Samson strong enough to bear the weight of it, but Christ himself.  
4. The Orthodox sometimes make the nature of Justification in remission of sin; sometimes in imputation of Christ's righteousness, 
IV. Caution.  which made Bellarmine charge them, though falsely, with different opinions, for some make these the same motion, it's called remission of sin, as it respecteth the term from which; but imputation of righteousness as it respecteth the term to which; even, say they, as the same motion is the expulsion of darkness, and the introduction of light. But I rather conceive them different, and look upon one, as the ground of the other; remission of sin, grounded upon the imputation of Christ's righteousness, so that his righteousness imputed to us, is supposed to be in the order before sin forgiven; and although among men, where righteousness is imputed, or a man pronounced just, there is, or can be no remission of sin, yet it is otherwise here, because righteousness is not so imputed unto us, as that it is inherent in us; so among men, the more a man is forgiven the less he is Justified, because forgiveness supposeth him faulty, yet it is not so in our Justification before God.  

V. Caution.  Lastly, We must not confound justification with the manifestation and declaration of it in our hearts and consciences. This is the rock at which the Antinomian doth so often split, he supposeth Justification to be from all eternity, and that therefore a man is Justified before he doth believe; Faith only justifying by evidence and declaration to our consciences: but this is to confound the decree of God, and its execution, as shall be proved. Hence it is a dangerous thing, though some excellent men have done it, to make Faith a full persuasion of our Justification, for this supposeth Justification before Faith; It is one thing to be Justified, and another thing to be assured of it. It is true, we cannot have any peace and comfort, nor can we so rejoice in, and praise God, though we are justified, unless we know it also.   

LECTURE III.  ROME 3.24, 25. 
Being justified freely by his grace, etc.  
JUstification consisteth in these two particulars, 
Justification consists in remission of sin, and imputation of righteousness.  Remission of sin, and Imputation of righteousness: Indeed here is diversity of expressions among the learned, as you have already heard: some thinking the whole nature of Justification to be only in Remission of sin, and therefore make it the same with Imputation of righteousness; others make one the ground of the other; some make Imputation of righteousness, the efficient or meritorious cause of our Justification, and Remission of sin, the only form of our Justification; others make Remission of sin the effect only of Justification. But howsoever we call these two things, yet this will be made plain, that God in Justification, vouchsafeth these two privileges to the person justified; First, He forgiveth his sins; Secondly, He imputeth righteousness, or rather, this latter is the ground of the former, as I showed before.  
That Justification is remission of sins, is generally received, 
How justification can be said to be pardon of sin? Answer.  the great Question is about imputation of Christ's righteousness (but of that afterwards) only here may be a Doubt, how we can properly say, That Justification is pardon of sin, for a man is not justified, in that he is pardoned, but rather it supposeth him guilty: It is true, Remission of sin doth suppose a man faulty in himself, but because Christ did take our sins upon him, and we are accepted of through him, as our Surety, therefore may remission of sin be well called Justification: Indeed pardon can never be called an inherent righteousness, or a qualitative Justice (but rather it opposeth it) but it may be called a Legal or Judicial righteousness, because God for the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, doth account of us as righteous, having pardoned our sin; and withal imputing Christ's righteousness to us, 
Propositions for the under▪ standing of remission of sins.  both which make up our Justification▪ For the understanding therefore of the first particular, viz. Remission of sins, take these Propositions, which will be the foundation upon which many material questions will be built.  
1. That forgiveness of sin is possible, 
1. That for▪ giveness of sin is possible.  there may be, and is such a thing. Hence in that ancient Creed, we are said to believe a remission of sins, where faith is described, not in the mere historical acts of it, but fiducial, the remission of my sins. Now this is some stay to a troubled sinner, that his sins may be forgiven, whereas the devils cannot; God no where saying to them, Repent and believe. 
Vide Gerard▪ in● Epist▪ Pet.  And although Salmeron holdeth, that God gave the lapsed Angels space to repent, before they were peremptorily adjudged unto their everlasting torments; yet he hath scarce a guide or companion in that opinion; were not therefore this true, that there is such a thing in the Church of God, as forgiveness of sin; How much better had it been for us, if we had never been born?  

2. Sin may be said to be for▪ given divers ways.  2. Consider, That a sin may be said to be forgiven divers ways. First in the decree and purpose of God, as Christ is called the Lamb slain from the beginning. Though I do not know where the Scripture useth such an expression, yet the Antinomians build much upon it. 
1. In Gods de▪ cree.  Secondly, A sin may be said to be forgiven in Christ meritoriously, 
2 In Christ meritoriously through faith.  when God laid the sins of his people upon him, which the Prophet Isaiah doth describe as plainly, Isa. 53. as any Evangelist; hence some have called Isaiah the fifth Evangelist. Now you must not conclude, such a man's sins are pardoned▪ because they are laid upon Christ a long while ago, which is the Antinomians perpetual▪ panalogizing, for to this effect of remission of sin, there go more causes besides the meritorious, faith the instrumental cause, which is as necessary in its kind for this great benefit, as the meritorious cause is in its kind, that though Christ hath born such a man's sins, yet they are not pardoned▪ till he do believe; for as the grace of God, 
3. Sin is pardoned when the guilt is taken away.  which is the efficient cause of pardon, doth not make a sin completely forgiven, without the meritorious cause, so neither doth the meritorious without the instrumental, but there is a necessity of the presence, and the co-operation of all these. Thirdly, 
4. When God gives us assurance of his love.  A sin is said to be pardoned, when the guilt is taken away, and this is properly, Remission of iniquities. Fourthly, Sin is pardoned in our sense and feeling, when God takes away all our fears and doubts, giving us an assurance of his love. And lastly, 
5. When temporal affliction is removed.  Sin is forgiven when the temporal affliction is removed, and in this sense the Scripture doth much use the word, forgiveness of sins, and his not pardoning, is when he will punish.  
3. There are several things considerable in sin, 
3. Several things considerable i● sin, when it is said to be forgiven.  when we say it is forgiven. First, In sin there is a privation of that innocency which he had before; as when a man is proud, by that act of pride he is deprived of that innocency and freedom from that guilt which he had before. This is properly true of Adam, 
1. A privation of innocency.  who lost his innocency by sinning: It cannot be affirmed of us but in a limited sense, thus far, that when a man commits a sin, that guilt may be charged upon him, whereof he was innocent before. Now, when sin is forgiven, the sense is, not that he is made innocent again, for that can never be helped, but that it must be affirmed such an one hath sinned, this cannot be repaired again. It is true, the Scripture useth such expressions, That iniquity shall be sought for, and there shall be found none, Jer. 51.20. But that is in respect of the consequence of it. We shall have as much joy and peace, as if we had not sinned at all.  
A 2d thing in sin is the dignity & desert it hath of the wrath of God; 
2. Desert of the wrath of God.  and this is inseparable from any sin, if it be a sin, there is a desert of damnation, & thus all the sins of the godly, howsoever they shall not actually condemn them, yet they have a desert of condemnation.  
Thirdly, There is the actual ordination and obligation of the person sinning to everlasting condemnation: 
3. An actual ordination of the person sinning to everlasting condemnation.  and forgiveness of sin doth properly lie in this, not in taking away the desert of the guilt of sin, but the actual ordination of it to condemnation. Therefore its false that is affirmed by some, that reatus est forma peccati, guilt is the form of a sin: for a sin may be truly a sin, and yet this actual ordination of it to death, taken away.  
Fourthly, There is in sin an offence done unto God, 
4. An offence done unto God  or an enmity to him, so that now he is displeased: and this is taken away in some measure by forgiveness; yet so, as his anger is not fully removed. If we speak exactly, God doth not punish his children, yet as a Father he is angry with them, and that makes him to chastise them, though the sin be forgiven.  
Fifthly, In sin is likewise a blo● or pollution, whereby the soul loseth its former beauty and excellency, 
5. A blot or pollution in sin.  and this is not removed by remission, but by sanctification and renovation. Hence it is ordinarily said, that Justification hath a relative being only, but Renovation, an absolute inherent change.  

6. An aversion, from God.  And lastly, In all sin there is an aversion from God; either Habitual, in Habitual sins; or Actual, in Actual: and in this aversion from God, the soul abideth, till it be turned to him again; as a man that turneth his back on the Sun, continueth so, till he turn himself again: now Conversion, and not Justification, doth rectify this; 
What it is to have sin forgiven.  so that by this you may see, what it is to have a sin forgiven, not the foulness or the disformity of it to God's Law removed, nor yet the dignity and desert of God's wrath; no, nor all kind of anger from God, but the actual ordination of it to condemnation.  

4. There is great difference between original and actual sin.  4. There is a great difference between original sin, and actuals; for that of original is much more perplexed in the matter of remission, than those of actuals; when an actual sin is committed, the act is transient, that is, quickly passed away, there remaineth only the guilt, which sticketh, till God by pardon doth remove it, and then when he hath forgiven it, there is all of that sin past. But now in original sin it is otherwise; for that corruption adhering to us, cleaving to our nature, like Ivy to the tree (as the Father expresseth it) though it be forgiven, yet it still continueth, and that not only as an exercise of our faith and prayers, or by way of a penal languor upon us, but truly and formally a sin, so that its both a sin, and the cause of sin, and the effect of sin at the same time. Now in this particular lieth the greatest part of the difficulty, in the doctrine of forgiveness of sin, for here sin is in the godly, and truly so, yet for all that it doth not condemn. The Papists finding by experience such motions of original sin in us, yet do say, they are only penal effects, and remain as opportunities by spiritual combat to increase the Crown of glory: and this they urge as impossible they should be sins, and yet not condemn the godly, because guilt is inseparable from sin. And the Antinomian doth expressly stumble at this stone; Dr Crisps Serm. vol. 2. p. 92. For my part (saith he) I do not think as some do, that guilt differs from sin, but that it is sin itself: They are but two words expressing the same thing. Now if it were so, that sin and guilt, or the ordination of it to punishment were the same thing, there could be no sin in the godly. It is true, guilt cannot be but where sin hath been, yet guilt of punishment may be removed, when the sin is past. But this the Author doth show, that sin was so laid on Christ, that from that time he ceaseth to be a sinner any more. Thou art not a Thief, a Murderer, when as you have part in Christ, p. 89. ut supra. But of this hereafter.  
5. When a sin is forgiven, it is totally and perfectly forgiven. 
5. When sin is forgiven it is totally and perfectly forgiven.  This is to be considered in the next place; for when the Antinomian would have us so diligently consider that place, Jer. 50.20. where God saith, none●● ●● If (I say) this were all his meaning, sin shall be as if it had never been in respect of condemnation, he shall be as surely freed from hell, as if he had never sinned, all this is true. But they have a further meaning, and that is, That the sin was so laid upon Christ, that the sinner ceaseth to be a sinner, as if because a surety payeth the debt of some lend bankrupt, that very payment would make him cease to be a bankrupt, that is false; yet God doth so forgive sin, that it can be forgiven no more perfectly than it is: Those sins cannot be forgiven any more than they are, which is matter of infinite comfort, and as it is totally, so irrevocably, God will not revive them again: Hence are those expressions of blotting them out, of throwing them into the depth of the sea; and howsoever that Parable, Mat. 18. which speaks of the Master forgiving a servant so many talents, yet upon the servants cruelty to some of his fellows, his master calleth him to account, and throweth him in prison for his former debts; howsoever (I say) this be brought by some to prove that sins forgiven, may upon after-iniquities be charged upon a man, yet the ground is not sufficient. For first, The main scope only of a Parable is Argumentative. The Fathers do fitly represent Parables to many things; to a Knife whose edge doth only cut, yet the back helps to that: to a Blow whose Plow-shear only cuts, yet the wood is subservient; so in a Parable, the main scope and intent is only argumentative; the other parts are but like so many shadows or flourishes in the picture to make it more glorious; now this instance was not mainly intended by our Saviour, but forgiveness of one another; so that this part doth only show, what is in use amongst men, or what sin doth deserve at God's hands; not that God revoketh his pardon, or repenteth that ever he hath forgiven us, but this is more expressly answered afterwards.  

6. Though sin be forgiven▪ yet the sense of ●ods displeasure may remain  6. Though sin be forgiven, yet there may be the sense of God's displeasure still; for, as though God doth forgive, there are many calamities and pressures upon the godly: so though Christ hath born the agonies that do belong unto sin, yet some scalding drops of them do fall upon the godly; not that the godly is by these to satisfy the justice of God, but that hereby we might feel the bitterness of sin, what wormwood and gall is in it, that so we may take heed for the future, and that we may by some proportion think on, and admire the great love of Christ to us, in undergoing such wrath. Didst thou not judge the least of his anger falling upon thee more terrible, than all the pains and miseries that ever thou wast plunged into? And by this then, thou mayest stand amazed, and wondering at this infinite love of Christ to stand under this burden for thee. David is a pregnant instance for the truth of this. As when Saul was angry with Jonathan, and run a Javelin at him, he escaped, and that run into the wall; so the wrath of God, which was violently to fall upon thee, miss thee, and ran into Christ. 
And that two ways,  But the sense of God's displeasure for sin, may be retained in us two ways;  

1. Servilely.  1. Servilely and slavishly▪ whereby we run from the promise and Christ, and have secret grudge and repine against God: this is sinful for us to do.  

2. Filially.  2. There is a filial apprehending of God's displeasure, though we are persuaded of the pardon; this is good and necessary, as we see in David, who made that Psalm of Repentance, Psal. 51. though he had his absolution from his sin. Tears in the soul by the former way, are like the water of the Sea, salt and brackish; but those in the latter are sweet, like the rain of the Clouds falling down on the earth.  

7. The wicked hath no sin forgiven.  7. No wicked man ever hath any sin forgiven him; for seeing remission of sins, is either a part or fruit of Justification, no wicked man is more capable of the one than the other: Indeed we may read concerning wicked men, Ahab and the Israelites, when they have humbled themselves, though externally and hypocritically, yet God hath removed those judgements, which were imminent upon them, and thus far their sins have been forgiven them; but God did not at the same time take off the curse and condemnation due to them. Though they were delivered from outward calamity, yet not from hell and wrath. This therefore doth demonstrate the woeful condition of wicked men, that have not one farthing of all their debts they owe to God, paid, but are liable to account for the least sins, and it must needs be so, for Christ the true and only paimaster of his people's debts, doth not own them; so that when their sins shall be sought for, every one in all the aggravations of it will be found out.  
8. This remission of sin is only to the repenting, believing sinner. 
8. Remission of sin only to the penitent.  To the repentant, Act. 5.31. To give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. So Luk. 44.47. That repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name, Act. 8.22. Repent, and pray, if the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee, 1 Joh. 1.9. If we confess our sins he is faithful to forgive, etc. These, and many other places do abundantly prove, that there is not forgiveness but where there is repentance▪ Therefore look upon all those doctrines, as false and dangerous, which make justification to be before it. Not that we do with Papists make any merit, or causality in repentance, or that we limit it to such a measure and quantity of repentance, nor as if we made it the condition of the Covenant of Grace; but only the way, without which (not the cause for which) remission of sins is not obtained, neither can there be any instance given of men forgiven, without this repentance; and the same likewise is affirmed of faith, though faith is in another notion than repentance, this being the instrument to apply and receive it. But of this hereafter.  
9 This remission of sin is not limited to persons, times, 
9 Remission of sins not limited,  or the quantity and quality of sins. Indeed the sin against the holy Ghost cannot be forgiven: we will not explain that (cannot) by difficulty, as if indeed it might be forgiven, but very hardly. The ordinary answer is, that therefore it cannot be forgiven, because the person so sinning, will not confess, humble himself, and seek pardon. God is described by pardoning iniquity, transgressions and sins. Christ is said to take away the sin of the world. David and Peter's sins were voluntary, yet God forgave them.   

LECTURE IU.  ROME 3.24, 25. 
Being justified freely by his grace, etc.  

How afflictions come on the godly after their sins are pardoned.  THe Doctrine about remission of sin being thus particularly declared, we come to that great Question, How afflictions come upon the godly after the pardon of their sins? For the Antinomian goeth into one extremity, and the Papist into another, so true is that of Tertullian, Christ is always crucified between two thiefs; that is, Truth suffers between two extreme errors. Therefore in prosecuting this point, which is of great practical concernment, I will lay down, First, What the Antinomian saith; Secondly, What the Papist; And lastly, What the Orthodox. The Antinomian, 
The Antinomians error therein.  in his book, called the Honeycomb of Justification, explaineth himself in these particulars, by which you may judge, that his Honey is Gall. Having made this Objection to himself, That the children of God are corrected by God, therefore he seeth sin in them, maketh a large Answer: Distinguishing first of afflictions, 
Cap. 7. p. 121.  calling some Legal, and some Evangelical, and then he distinguisheth of Persons, making some unconverted, others converted; the unconverted again, he makes to be either such as are reprobate, or else elected; now (saith he) the legal crosses have a twofold operation, either vindicative or corrective: Vindicative are such afflictions as God executeth upon the wicked and reprobates▪ in which sense God is called the God of vengeance: Corrective, are such lashes of the Law, as are executed upon those persons that are the children of God by election, but not yet converted, and so under the Law, therefore these afflictions are not in wrath, to confound them, but in mercy to prepare them to their conversion, for God seeing sins in them, layeth crosses upon them. Now these elect persons he calls unconverted, actively and declaratively, in a very ambiguous, and suspicious manner, as if conversion were from all eternity, as well as Justification, so that as they say, a man in time is justified only declaratively, being indeed so from all eternity, thus he must be said to be converted: and if this be true, than it will likewise follow, that a man in heaven is glorified likewise only declaratively, but actually and indeed glorified from all eternity, even while he is in this miserable house of clay. In the next place he comes to Evangelical crosses, which fall upon them that are actively and declaratively (as he calls it) converted, and these he denieth expressly to be for their sins, for this were (saith he) to deny Christ's satisfactory punishment, because by his death, we have not one spot of sin in us: therefore he makes them to be only the trial of their faith, and to exercise their faith: so that (by his divinity) when a godly man is afflicted, the flesh would indeed persuade a man hath sin in him, but this is to try whether thou canst believe thou art cleansed from sin for all these afflictions. Therefore if any man yield to this temptation (viz. that he hath sin in him when he is afflicted) what is this (saith he) but to deny Christ and his blood? Think you this to be the voice of the Scriptures? Hence he laboureth to show that twelve absurdities would follow from this doctrine of Gods afflicting his children for their sins, the strength of which shall be in his place considered; I have now only laid down his judgement; and he makes the Doctrine of the Protestants opposing this to be Popish, and confounding the Law and the Gospel together. Hence intending the Protestant Authors and Ministers, he saith, They paint God like an angry father, ever seeing sin in us, and ever standing with a rod and staff in his hand, lifted up over our heads, with which by reason he seeth sins in us, he is ever ready, though not to strike us down, yet to crack our crowns, and sorely to whip us: whereas the Gospel describeth him to be not only a loving Father, but also our well-pleased Father, at perfect peace with us; so that the upshot of his position is to show, that they are taskmasters and do degenerate to the legal teaching in the Old Testament, whosoever preach that God doth correct Believers for their sins: and I have, saith he, somewhat the more largely hunted this Fox, because it is so nourished, not only by the Papists, but also some of us Protestants, who by lisping the language of Ashdod▪ do undermine the very roots of the Lords vine. And that you may see it is not one man's judgement amongst them, see what their great General saith in a Sermon, 
Dr crisp.  pag. 162. Know this, that at that instant, when God brings afflictions upon thee, he doth not remember any sin of thine, they are not in his thoughts towards thee. Again, whatsoever things befall the children of God, are not punishments for sins, they are not remembrances of sin, and if men or Angels shall endeavour to contradict this, let them be accounted as they deserve. 
The Papists error concer●ing the same.  Thus the Antinomian. The Papist goeth into another extremity, for thus they hold, Bellar▪ de poen. lib. 4. cap. 1, & 2. That when God hath forgiven a sin, yet it is according to his Justice, that the sinner should suffer, or do something to satisfy this justice, not in respect of the sin as it is against God (for although some say so, yet others reject it) but in respect of some temporal punishment, either in this life, or in the life to come, which is the ground of Purgatory. And that this may be made good, they say, When God doth forgive a sin, he doth not presently remit the temporal punishment; therefore men may by some satisfactory penalties voluntarily taken upon themselves, rescue themselves from these temporal punishments. Now this is a doctrine extremely derogating from the full satisfaction of Christ's death, 
The Orthodox truth is, that God forgiving sin, remits the punishment in order to vindicative justice, but yet corrects in mercy as a father▪  as the Orthodox show against the Papists. Therefore in the third place, the truth is this, That God when he forgiveth a sin or sins, he doth likewise take off all temporal punishment, properly so called, viz. in order to any vindicative justice, as if a further supply were to be made to Christ's sufferings by what we endure: yet we say withal, that God indeed doth take notice of the sins of those that are justified, and doth correct them for them: so that when he chastiseth them, it is in reference to their sins, they are the occasion, or the impulsive cause (as we may say, though improperly when we speak of God.) Although the final cause, and the end why God doth so, is not to satisfy his justice, but for other ends. It is doubted whether we may call them punishments or no: but we need not litigate about the word, I see Chemnitius and Rivet calls them so. And if we make a distinction in God's end, why he afflicts the godly for their sins, from that when he punisheth the wicked, though both for their sins, we speak the truth fully enough, though we call them punishments; and certainly the words punish or punishment, used Hos. 4.19. Ezek. 9.13. Levit. 26.41. do not take the word punishment in such a strict sense. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used of the damned Angels and men, 2 Pet. 2.9. Mat. 25.46. and this word seems not applicable to the afflictions of God's people for their sins, and so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seemeth to be an act of some Judge, who doth not attend to mercy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Suidas in voc. But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to judge, is attributed to God when he doth correct his children, 1 Cor. 11.31. where the Apostle useth three words in an elegant paronomasia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so then when God doth afflict his people, he may be said to do it as a judge, and afflictions are called judgements, 1 Pet. 4.17. only when God doth thus correct and punish his people, he is paternus judex, a fatherly Judge. But the most expressive word of these afflictions, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which denoteth God afflicting his people, as a father his child; and although he doth it, because of their faultslts, yet he hath tenderness in what he doth. This is the truth: and for the proving of it, 
Propositions proving the same.  consider these Propositions:  
First, That God doth not afflict any but where there is sin in the subject; for so was the threatening at first, 
1 God afflicts not any but where sin is.  in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die. By death is meant all kind of evil and punishment, so that had there been no sin going before, there had no curse, either upon man or creatures followed after. Hence it is that Divines say, The very hunger and thirst which Adam had, while in the state of integrity, was without that pain and provocation as it is in us. So that the state of man in righteousness, was like the heavens that admit of no corruptive alterations. As for that dispute, 
2 Objection answered.  Whether God may not by his absolute Sovereignty adjudge man without the consideration of sin to everlasting misery, the affirmative decision of it will not much incommodate this truth, seeing that even then (they say) God doth this per modum simplicis cruciatus, by way of a mere naked trouble and pain: not per modum poenae, by way of a punishment. As for Christ, he though innocent, was a man of sorrows, because our sins were laid on him.  

2 God sometimes afflicts, yet not in reference to sin.  Secondly, That God may, and sometimes doth afflict, yet not in reference to sin. Thus God doth exercise Job, who though he was not without sin, yet God seemeth not to do it for sin: Therefore such calamities were rather exercises of his graces, than correctives of his sins: they were to him, what a storm, or a tempest is to a skilful Pilate, what a valiant adversary is to a stout Champion; and to this purpose is that answer of our Saviour, when the question was, Whether the parents, or the blind man himself had sinned, that he should be born blind? (speaking according to the opinion of some Philosophers, that was now also received among the Jews (as learned men think) viz. That there was a prexistency of the souls before they were united to their bodies) our Saviour returneth this answer, Neither hath this man sinned (because he had no being before his birth) nor his parents (viz. some grievous sin, for which God would punish the child) but only that the works of God may be made manifest. This also must be granted.  
Thirdly, That all afflictions and crosses are to be reduced to the Law. 
3 All afflictions are to be reduced to the Law.  We may acknowledge this truth also, if so be by Law we mean strictly whatsoever doth command and threaten, and the Gospel to be only promissory, though if largely taken, the Gospel hath its curses and afflictions; so God threatening or afflicting of a godly man, doth so far use the Law as an instrument to make him sensible of his sin: and therefore this is a sure Argument, that the Law is not abolished as to all uses to the Believer, because still there do befall afflictions to the godly, not only from sin (as the Antinomians speak) but for sin; only as the Law without the grace of God worketh all evil, so do all afflictions likewise to men that are not godly: Therefore wicked men in afflictions, are as garlic, or any ill-smelling herb, the more it is pounced, the worse smell it sends forth; so that there must be teaching, as well as chastening, to make that affliction blessed.  
Fourthly, 
There is a great difference in the calamities of the godly.  That in the calamities which fall upon the godly there is a great difference, some are common and absolutely determined, others more special, and not necessary. This distinction must be attended, for God hath so peremptorily and irrevocably concluded upon some miseries as the fruits of sin, that no repentance or humiliation can ever take them off. Thus though a man should have as much faith as Abraham, as much meekness as Moses, as much uprightness as David, as much zeal and labour for the Church, as Paul; yet all this would not free from death, nor could it remove the curse that is upon the ground; so a woman's holiness and humiliation cannot take away the pains and throbs in child-bearing, for these are absolutely decreed. But then there are special calamities, which many times by turning unto God are taken away; yea, and God very frequently when he pardoneth sin, he taketh also away those outward miseries, as we see in many whom he healed both in soul and body at the same time. So that we say not God is bound always when he doth pardon sin, outwardly to afflict for it.  
Fiftly, 
5 Some calamities for sin, others for other ends.  There are again some calamities that come upon them because of sin, others for other ends. We acknowledge it as clear as the sun, that many troubles upon the godly, are by way of trial and temptation upon them, and because of the good that is in them; of these the Apostle James speaks, when he bids them count it all joy, when they fall into divers temptations; of these Paul speaks, when he saith he will rejoice in his infirmities; so that the persecutions and miseries which come upon them are an Argument of the good in them, more than of the evils; as the tree that is full of fruit, hath its boughs more broken, then that which is barren, and the Pirates watch for the ship that is fraughted with gold. And thus a martyr comforted himself; That though he had many sins, for which he deserved death, yet he thanked God, that his enemies did not attend to them, but to the good that was in him, and for that he suffered: so then, all the grievances upon the godly are not of the same nature.  
Sixtly, 
6 Afflictions for sins of the godly and wicked differ.  The afflictions for sins upon the godly do differ much from those that are upon the wicked. This we also grant, that when God doth punish the godly and the wicked for their sins, though the punishment for the matter of it may be alike, yet they differ in other respects very much; as in the cause from which, one cometh from a God hating their persons, the other from anger indeed, but the anger of a father. Hence secondly, they differ in the fittedness of these afflictions to do good, God doth moderate these afflictions to his people, that thereby grace may be increased; but to the reprobate, they are no more to their good, than the flames of hellfire are to the damned; The Butcher he cuts the flesh far otherwise then the Chirurgeon, saith August. Again, in the end they differ; All afflictions to the godly, are like the beating of clothes in the Sun with a rod, to get out the dust, and moths, but it is not so with the wicked; many other differences practical Divines prove out of the Scripture.  
Seventhly, 
7 God sometimes chastises h●s people in reference to their sins though forgiven. This proved 1. from Scripture.  Yet God doth in reference to the sins of his people, though forgiven, sometimes chastise them. This is proved,  
1. From the Scripture, that makes their sin the cause of their trouble: Thus of David, Because thou (saith Nathan, 2 Sam. 12.14.) hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born of thee, shall die: Thus God speaks to all the godly in Solomon, 2 Sam. 7.14, 15. I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men▪ but my mercy will I not take away: In these places, sin is expressly made the cause of those afflictions; and it is a poor evasion to say, this was in the Old Testament, for was not the chastisement of the godly men's peace in the Old Testament, laid upon Christ, as well as in the New? but their folly herein, and their contradiction to themselves, will be abundantly showed, in answering their objections.  

2 In the places that do assert Gods judging of the people.  2. In the places that do assert Gods judging of his people, and rebuking of them: and they are divers, 1 Cor. 11. For this cause many are sick, and weak: where again, you have not only the affliction, but the cause why, viz. irreverent profaning of that Sacrament. Thus James 5.14. Is any man sick? Let him call for the Elders, and let them pray for him, and if he have committed sins (saith the Text) they shall be forgiven him: There is none but hath committed sins; yet the Apostle makes such an if, because he speaks of such sins, that may provoke God to lay that sickness upon him. Thus in the Old Testament, Psal. 99.8. Thou forgavest them, 
3 From the encouragement to duties by temporal arguments, and th●e●s of temporal afflictions.  though thou tookest vengeance on their inventions: Here the Psalmist calls the chastisements upon those, whose sins were forgiven, vengeance: as in other places, his anger is said to smoke against the sheep of his pasture; but we must not understand it of vengeance strictly so called, as if God would satisfy his justice out of their sufferings.  
3. From the encouragement to duties by temporal Arguments, and threats of temporal afflictions. If the godly have these goads, then certainly, as they may conclude their temporal mercies to be the fruit of their godliness, which hath the promise of this life, and the life to come; so they may conclude that their afflictions are the effects of their evil ways, which have the threatening of this life, and the life to come; only here is this difference, that the outward good mercies, are not from their godliness by way of merit, or causality, but their afflictions are so, because of their sins: Hence the Apostle urgeth the godly, Heb. 12.19. with this, that even our God is a consuming fire: Thus 1 Pet. 3.10, 11. He that will love life and see good days, let him eschew evil, and do good. So that the Scripture pressing to holiness, because of outward good mercies, and to keep from sin because of external evils, and pressing these to the godly, doth evidently declare this truth; and certainly the Apostle, speaking of the godly, Rom. 8.10. saith, the body is dead because of sin; for by body, Beza doth well understand our mortal body, and not the mass of sin, as some interpret it.  
4. From the comparison God useth concerning his afflictions upon his people; and that is, to be a father in that act, 
4 From the comparison God useth concerning his affliction upon his people.  correcting of them. Thus Heb. 12.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. compare this with Rev. 3.19. As many as I love, I rebuke; now rebuke is always for some fault, and this is further cleared, because he makes this conclusion, be zealous therefore and repent, therefore sin was precedent. Now in these places, God compareth himself to a Father, and believers to children, 
Honey Com. 133.  and we all know that fathers never correct but for sin; it would be ridiculous to say, the father whips the child from sin, not for sin. It is true, he doth it from sin, by way of prevention to the future, yet for sin also. The Antinomian saith this is spoken of many believers together, where some were not converted, but this is weak, because the persons whom he reproveth, God is said to love them, and they are children not bastards. Again he saith, There is no sin mentioned, therefore it was not for sin; But I answer, 
5 From the Command not to despise our afflictions but to humble ourselves.  the very comparison of God with a Father correcting his child, doth evidently argue, it was for sin; though it be not expressed.  
5. From the command not to despise, or to make little account of God's afflictions, but to humble ourselves, and search out our ways. Why should this be spoken, but because they are for our sins? Heb. 12.5. Despise not the chastening of God, neither faint when thou art rebuked of him. Where two things may seem to be forbidden, though some make them all one, one not to faint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a metaphor from those who faint in the race, through languor, and dissolution of mind. The other is in the other extreme, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to despise, or to make little or nothing of it: as it were a great fault in a child, to slight or make nothing of his father's corrections. Now let all the world judge, whether the Antinomian Doctrine doth not open a wide gate to despise God's afflictions: this makes them cry down Fast-days, repentance, humiliation, and confession of sin: yea they make it Popery, and hypocrisy what is done this way. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we may say with Homer.  

6 From the command given to Magistrates.  6. If God hath commanded Magistrates to execute outward evils upon some godly men, that have heinously offended, than its Gods will to afflict them for sin; but he hath done so. If a godly man, being through the Dalilah of some corruption, persuaded to have his hair cut off, his spiritual strength gone, and so he fall into the sin of murder: is it not Gods will that the Magistrate should put him to death for this sin? and what God would have the Magistrate do, is it not as much as if God himself had done? and must not all say this is a chastisement upon him because of his sin? Thus have I brought reasons to prove that, which I think was never denied before, till this age, which every day like Africa bringeth forth some Monster. And certainly the Doctrine of afflictions upon the godly is so sweet and wholesome a truth, that none but a Spider could suck out such poison from it, as the Antinomian hath done.   

LECTURE V.  ROME 3.24, 25. 
Being justified freely by his grace, etc.  
WE come now to consider how the Antinomian can make good that Paradox of his [God chastiseth not believers because of their sins] and indeed the Author forementioned doth much sweat and tug, in bringing in several absurdities, 
Whether God chastiseth believers because of their sins. The Antinomian Paradox discussed.  which he conceives will follow upon the truth asserted by us. But before we examine them, let us take notice of the Authors great contradiction to himself in this point, and that within very few Pages; Falsehood is not only dissonant from truth, but also from it self; for whereas in the forequoted place he makes his assertion universal, that God seeth not sin in persons converted, and therefore there are no afflictions befall them because of sin: Now see how flat contrary that same Author speaks in the same book, pag. 117. for there making an opposition between the condition of believers in the Old Testament, and those in the new, he expressly gives this difference: God (saith he) saw sin in them, as they were children that had need of a rod, by reason of their nonage, but he seeth none in us, as being fullgrown heirs; and again, God saw in them, and punished them for it, as they were under the Schoolmaster of the Law, but he seeth none in us: Hence pag. 99 he makes it peculiar to the time of the Law, that Moses for an unadvised word was strucken with death, and Vzzah, and Jonah, and Ely, with others temporally corrected: Therefore it was (saith he) came those terrible Famines, whereby mothers were driven to eat their own children, all was because they were under the severity of the Law, that if they did but a little step awry, they were sharply scourged for the same.  
Now how great a contradiction is this to his other assertion? for were not the godly under the Old Testament actually converted? had they not Christ's righteousness made theirs? were they not elected? how cometh it about then, that they were afflicted for sin, and not believers under the New Testament? when a man can bring the East and West together, then may he reconcile these assertions: but self contradiction is no strange thing in that book.  

Antinomian Arguments answered.  But I come to his Arguments; The first place he urgeth is Ro. 5.1, 2, 3. Being justified by faith we have peace with God, that is, all beating, 
1. Argum.  blows, and anger are ceased, saith he, and hence it is that we glory in our afflictions: but now if they were for our sins, we had no more cause to glory in them, than the child hath in his whip for his faults. For the opening of this place consider these things, some ancient Commentators read the word imperatively (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) let us have, instead of we have, and thus they have interpreted it,  
[Being justified by Faith, let us take heed how we sin again, but preserve our peace with God] The words taken this way would much confirm, 
1. Answer.  rather than debilitate our assertion: but I do not judge this so suitable to the scope of the Apostle in this verse; we will take them as they are indicatively or assertively: and first, we may mean by peace, either that reconciliation which is made with God, or the sense and feeling of this, which is nothing but tranquillity, and security of conscience, through the persuasion of God's favour to us. Now these may be separable one from the other, a believer may be reconciled with God, and in the state of friendship with him, yet he not feel this, or know this, as many passages in David's Psalms do witness; even as the child in the womb knoweth not the great inheritance, and rich Revenues, it shall be possessed of, or as Agar did not see the well of water by her, but thought she must perish, till God opened her eyes. There is a seal of the pardon of sin, when yet the proclamation of it is not made in the conscience. If we take peace in the first respect, it is an absolute universal proposition, and true of every justified person; but in the latter sense it is true only of some persons, and at some times, for the sense of God's favour is a separable privilege from those that are in it.  
If by peace we should understand the sense of God's favour, and the declaration of it in our consciences (as by their arguments they must do) than it proveth against their opinion as well as any others: for they hold that a believer needeth to pray for pardon in the declaration or sense and feeling of sin, though not for the pardon itself of sin; now there cannot be at the same time a want of the feeling of pardon of sin, and the tranquillity of conscience together: so that this place must needs be a thorn in their side.  
But 2ly, the true and direct answer to this place is, that there is a twofold peace, one which is opposite to the hatred of God, 
2. Answer.  as he is a terrible enemy to sinners, unreconciled with them, in which sense he is often described in Scripture. The other, as it is opposite to that fatherly anger and displeasure, whereby though for the main reconciled, yet he may for some particular faults be displeased; now the Apostle speaks of the former kind of peace. Being justified that is God being once reconciled with us in Christ, he hath no more hostile enmity against us, and if we do sin afterwards, he will not become an enemy to us, or satisfy his justice by punishing of us, but as a father he may in his displeasure chastise us. The sense of God's displeasure as a father, may well stand together with an assurance, that for all this he is no enemy. A child that bitterly crieth out because of his father's chastisements, yet even then hath that hope and comfort which he would not have if fallen into the hands or rage of an enemy that would kill him. Hence it is that we press all believers, though sorely punished for their sins, as their own hearts can tell them, yet they must never pass such a sentence, Now God is become my enemy, he deals with me as with a Judas, as with a Cain; these (we say) are sinful inferences, but they may conclude thus, God, though a loving father, is now very angry, and much displeased with me.  
Distinguish then between a peace that doth oppose the hatred of God to a sinner as an enemy, and a peace which doth oppose only the frowns of a father; and this objection is answered. I will acknowledge the people of God are apt under his sore displeasure not to discern between a father and an enemy. They have much ado to keep up this in their hearts; God he smites, he frowns, he chides▪ yet he is a father still: but this is their temptation and weakness, and we are apt to endeavour some kind of compensation to God in our troubles for sin: therefore it was a most blessed thing when God at the Reformation out of Popery, caused this truth to break out, That punishments for sin were not satisfactory to God, but fatherly chastisements. Thus you have this answered, and as for that which followeth, we glory in tribulations, the Apostle must be limited to those which fall upon us for professing of Christ and his truth. In these we may glory, as the soldier doth of his marks and wounds he hath received in the wars for a good cause, and to this purpose we told you in one Proposition, That there was a great difference between those troubles that fell upon us, because of the good in us; and those which come upon us, because of the evil in us. What glory is it, saith Peter, 1 Pet. 2.20. if ye be buffeted for your faults? Now who can deny but that even a godly man may fall into some heinous crime, for which he may receive a sentence of death? This man though he may rejoice in God, who doth pardon the sin to him, yet he can no more glory of this tribulation, than a child doth of whipping for his faults.  
Another place of Scripture, is Isa. 53.5. The chastisement of our peace was upon him, 
2. Argum.  and with his stripes we are healed. This Text of Scripture is again and again pressed by them, and certainly it is more sweet than the Honey or Honeycomb: but truly they do with it, as the thiefs with the man of Jericho, leave it half dead, 
1. Answer.  and much wounded. First, Let us open the place, and then see how far they are from the meaning. The Prophet Isaiah in this Chapter, may be called, as we said before, the fifth Evangelist, for he seemeth rather to write an History of Christ, then make a prophecy of him. Among other passages these two are to our purpose.  
1. That the chastisement of our peace was upon him: by Peace here, Calvin doth well understand, not that of quietness in the conscience, but a reconciliation made with God through his sufferings. And it is observed by some, how emphatical the Scripture is in that Pronoun [He] He hath born, and He hath been wounded.  
The second follows, With his stripes we are healed: Some think that this is spoken to debase that condition Christ so voluntarily put himself in, that so his love might appear the more to us; it being an allusion to the State of servants, who used to be chastised by their lords. The phrase is the same with that, He hath born our griefs, or diseases, which Matth. 8.17. is applied to Christ's healing of diseases, and 1 Pet. 2. to that suffering upon the Cross. And well may this be, because the outward healing of diseases, was a Symbol or Testimony of his inward healing. Although Grotius observeth, That Christ is therefore said to bear our diseases when he cured them, because of the great pains and travel he took therein, for it was after Sunset, and the multitude did much throng him; so then, by the words you see the whole price of our peace laid upon Christ, and by him all evils, both temporal and spiritual removed: but what is this to the purpose? Yes (say they) here our chastisements are laid upon Christ, therefore we have none for sin; but 1. if this proved any thing, it will be more than the Antinomians will yield, for it would infer, that there are no chastisements at all, either for sin, or no sin; now the Antinomians cannot deny (and experience confuteth them) but that the godly have afflictions, though as (they say) not for sin; and this will inevitably follow by their argument; for as they would prove from hence they have no sin at all, not only sin that will not condemn (as the Orthodox say) but even no sin; so it will by the same reason follow, that believers have no chastisements at all, I do not say (not for sin) but none at all.  
But Secondly, 
2. Answer.  The Antinomian in that place pag. 129. doth fully answer himself, All chastisement (saith he) for sin, needful for the making perfect peace between God and his justified children, was laid upon him: very true, Therefore say we, though these chastisements be for sin, yet they are not upon the godly as upon Christ, they are not to satisfy God's justice, to work a reconciliation, but only to humble them in themselves, and make them the better feel how much they are beholding to Christ who bore so much wrath for them. To say therefore as the Papists, Christ by his death did only remove the spiritual evil, and we by our sufferings must take away the temporal punishment, this would indeed be derogatory to Christ, and take off in a great measure from his glory.  
A Third place brought in to maintain their error, 
3. Argum.  is James 1.2, 3, 4, 5. Count it matter of all joy when you shall fall into divers temptations, therefore (saith he) they are not for sin, because they are matters of joy; and mark how he baptizeth (goeth on the Author) crosses and afflictions, as it were with a new name, taken from the nature of the change of them through the Gospel, calling them temptations and trials. But mark the ignorance of the adversary rather than the name of afflictions: for, Is it peculiar to believers under the Gospel, that their afflictions are trials? what then will he return to that place, Deut. 8.2. God saith, the afflictions upon the people of Israel for forty years in the wilderness (and they were not all believers, much less believers under the Gospel) were to humble them, and prove or try them? And Jer. 9.7. God speaking of the Israelites saith, He will melt them and try them. See also Dan. 9.25. Zech. 13.9. Whereby you will presently judge of the man's bold ignorance. But as for the place itself, certainly the words are very emphatical. Count it (implying a man in his choicest deliberation ought to do so) all joy, an Hebraism, full, perfect joy, when ye fall, the word is so fall that ye are compassed round about. And lastly, divers temptations, By temptations Austin seemeth to have understood enticements or provocations to sin, and whether such temptations may be desired, or to give ground of a just joy, is disputed by the Schoolmen, but that is impertinent: we see the Apostle speaketh of afflictions, as appeareth by the word following, and not all kind of afflictions, but such as are for Christ's name: certainly the Apostle writing to the Corinthians, and speaking of the chastisements of God upon them for their sins, he doth not bid them count that all joy, but rather exhorts them to judge themselves that they be not condemned with the world. He doth not then speak of all kind of afflictions, but some only, and his meaning is not, that under even those afflictions they should have no grief (for he saith, no affliction is for the present joyous but grievous) but he giveth one respect why they should rejoice, because of the good work of their faith manifested thereby, though in other considerations they may be humbled. And I see not but even in those persecutions which befall the godly for the Gospel's sake, they may not, some of them at least, and sometimes, be humiliations for the Godlies' former sins, as well as explorations of their Graces, and more eminent glorifying of them here and hereafter. I deny not but even in afflictions for their sins, the people of God may take comfort to their souls from several considerations, but I think not that the Apostle doth refer to them in this place: Let us now consider what dangerous Absurdities would flow from this doctrine of ours; 
Absurdities objected by Antinomians. 1 Absurdity objected.  and first (saith he) this is to confound Law and Gospel together. The Law should be preached only to secure sinners, the Gospel to broken sinners only; whereas if you tell the godly when they are afflicted, that it is from their sins, you preach Law to them.  
But first, Then the Apostle mingled Law and Gospel, 
1. Answer.  when he commands the Corinthians to judge themselves under God's hand upon them: and how legal was Peter, when he said, judgement must begin at the House of God?  
2. The Gospel and the Law are to be mingled in all spiritual administrations, but for different ends. 
2. Answer.  As they must not in preaching be confounded, so neither divided.  
3. The people of God have still sin, pride, 
3. Answer.  and hardness of heart remaining in them, and shall a Minister preach the Gospel to his pride? shall we comfort them, because their hearts are sometimes dull and froward?  
Lastly, Though we say they are afflicted for their sins, 
4. Answer.  yet this is not to make the crosses Legal but Evangelical; for we do not say they are so for their sins, as that thereby they must satisfy the justice of God in their own persons, but for other considerations.  
A second Absurdity will be, say they, 
2 Absurdity objected.  hereby to make the Gospel unsufficient to abolish the old man, unless it borrow help from the Law.  
But first, Observe his contradiction, 
1. Answer.  The Gospel doth abolish sin in the believer; how can that be, when he holdeth there is no sin to be abolished? certainly that which is not, needs not to be abolished, for it is not already.  
Secondly, If the Gospel be so powerful to abolish sin, 
2. Answer  why will he have the Law preached to obstinate sinners? certainly by his rule the Gospel would sooner melt the toughest and most Ironny sinner that is.  
Thirdly, 
3. Answer  That which he would have such an absurdity is an eminent truth: the Law and the Gospel are mutually subservient to each other, and are to be preached as conjoined, though not confounded one with another.  
Another Absurdity (for I cannot take them in order, 
3 Absurdity objected.  seeing he doth absurdly make one thing several arguments, and so doth but tautologize) This would be to deny Christ's perfect righteousness, and that we are not made without all spots or blemishes.  

1. Answer.  But first, It doth not derogate from Christ, that we are not freed from sin, while here in this life, for he himself holdeth the believers in the Old Testament, had sin in them, and God scourged them for it, yet Christ bore their sins, and took away their iniquities.  

2. Answer.  Secondly, If this place prove any thing, it would the Popish Tenet, That we are inherently without sin: and the Antinomian denieth that, for he saith, we are made perfectly holy; not actively, but passively, whereas those places speak of an active holiness.  

3. Answer.  Thirdly, If so be the sin remaining in us did not only bring temporal evils but eternal; did not bring only a disease but hell also; then this would evacuate the fullness of Christ's death, but now it doth not.  

4 Absurdity objected.  A fourth Absurdity he would fetch from an Argument of Bish. Babingtons', Ejus quod non est, non est poena, but sin when it is forgiven, is not; therefore to forgiven sin there is no temporal punishment.  

Answer.  I answer first, If by that which is not, should be meant that which hath a physical and natural existence, than the Argument would prove that no sin whether forgiven or not forgiven, could damn a man, because no sin (according to the received opinion) hath any positive natural being: therefore it must be understood of a moral being, that is, a desert of punishment. Now when sin is said to be forgiven, the reason is not, at if remission of sin made sin no sin, drunkenness no drunkenness; or as if that sin did not deserve punishment, for that is inseparable from the nature of it: but forgiveness of sins takes away the actual ordination of them to condemnation. So then a sin, though forgiven, hath some kind of being, though not that of actual ordination to everlasting death; when therefore sins are said to be thrown into the bottom of the sea and they shall be no more, that is to be understood quoad hoc▪ in respect of actual condemnation. So David's sin was forgiven, viz. as to damn David, yet though forgiven, it was still, viz. to afflict David, and to make God angry with him.  

5 Absurdity objected.  A fifth Absurdity, If you say the people of God are afflicted for sin, this would trouble the consciences of God's children exceedingly, and make them fearfully to expect horrible temporal plagues every hour, because the least sin is so infinitely distasteful to God.  
But first, 
1. Answer.  It seemeth then a godly man though fallen into murder, adulteries, etc. his conscience must not be troubled: Peter if he denieth Christ, must not weep bitterly.  
Secondly, we give many cordials and antidotes against despair, 
2. Answer.  while we say they are afflictions even for sin, for we add further, That they are all bounded within a due measure; God considers our strength, and will lay no more than he will enable to bear.  
Thirdly, There is a twofold trouble, 
3. Answer.  one that is holy and effectual for good, such a trouble as that was which the Angel made in the pool of Bethesda; and there is a trouble by way of torment, driving from, and raging at God; now we all forbid this later, neither will this Doctrine give any ground to such a distemper.  
Lastly, 
4. Answer.  If a doctrine shall be branded for such an event as shall come through the corruptions of men, than we may say their opinion will encourage believers, or men that do presume they are so, to act all manner of flagitious crimes, and yet to have no fear that God will plague them for those things.   

LECTURE VI.  JER. 50.20. 
In those days, and at that time, the iniquity of Judah shall be sought for, and it shall not be found, etc.  
ALthough the Apostle say true, 1 Tim. 6.4. that there is a doting about questions, whereby the soul of a man is made sick and spiritually diseased, as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implieth, weakening and debilitating grace, as much as fretting doth waste away the flesh; and this is done when men encounter in controversies as beasts in their combats, seeking only victory; yet there may be such a doctrinal clearing of truth by answering of Objections, that may tend much to edification, both in knowledge and affections; and by the striking of flint stones together, there may fly out sparks enough to kindle godliness and zeal in our breast. This I shall endeavour by God's assistance in that necessary and famous question, of God's forgiving sin. For to preach in crabbed controversies, is like Gideon, Judg. 8.16. to teach men with briers and thorns, as the phrase there is. The Antinomian placeth this Text in the forefront, for that absurd opinion, God seeth no sin in persons justified: 
The Text opened.  if therefore their Goliath be slain, the rest will speedily quit the field. The words contain a gracious promise to Judah and Israel.  
First, To deliver them from their temporal evil: They shall be brought out of their captivity into their own country again: we need not dispute how many came back again, it's enough this mercy was offered them, howsoever they might neglect it.  
Secondly, Here is a promise to remove their spiritual evil, which was the cause of the former; God will pardon their sins; and by this a profitable Doctrine is taught, That a people ought to be more desirous of God's pardon, then of removal of their calamities, whereas commonly like unwise diseased men, we complain more of the Symptoms then of the disease itself. The evil of sin depriveth us of an infinite good; but the evil of afflictions, only of a finite. Now this promise is not to be stretched out only to the times of the Gospel, but is particularly true of the Jews, when removed out of their banishment, yet not to be limited to that time only; and howsoever the promise for pardon be general to all, yet it is to be understood in this manner, that to the wicked, their sin was no farther forgiven, then in this sense, That their captivity was removed: but to the true believers, there was a real taking away of God's wrath and displeasure from them. The promise of pardon is described very emphatically and comfortably to the truly humbled Jews, There shall be none of their sins, and none shall be found when sought for: This expression doth suppose a judicial inquiry, (as when God is said to make inquisition for blood) and to be found doth imply, God judicially taking notice of a man to punish him, so Rev. 20.15. In her was found the blood of the Saints: So Beza amplifieth that word, Phil. 3.9. be found in him, as if the justice of God were pursuing Paul as a malefactor, and Christ was a City of refuge unto him.  
Observation. Remission of sin is such a taking of it away, 
Observation.  as if it had never been: he that denieth sins forgiven to be quite removed, denieth Pharaoh and his host to be drowned in the red Sea, said Gregory.  
This point practically improved is the treasure of a believers comfort: But there is the Antinomian error on the right hand, and the Popish on the left, whereby a godly heart, if not well instructed, may when it calls for bread, meet with a stone, 
Errors concerning remission of sin.  and when for fish, with a serpent. Therefore for the more orderly proceeding, let us consider what the Antinomian saith, than what the Papist; and lastly, what the truth is. 
Antinomian errors.  The Antinomians opinion may be discovered in these particulars.  
1. That a justified person having on Christ's wedding garment, hath thereby all his sins quite taken away from before God, and so utterly abolished, that we have not any spot of sin in the sight of God (Honeycomb of Justification, pag. 24. cap. 3. per tot.)  
2. This is extended by them (pag. 27.) not only to actual sins but original sins, for we easily grant that in actual sins, if once forgiven, there remaineth no more defilement, but that he is made in that respect of remission, as white as snow, though there may remain a further disposition to evil, by that sin once committed, if renewing grace help not.  
3. This abolition of sin, they understand both of the fault and the guilt; so that God doth not only take away the punishment, but both the form of the sin also is wholly removed, so that there is neither punishment nor cause of punishment, in one thus justified. Hence they say, there is no sin in the Church now, and they express it thus, As a Physician, though he healeth a man, yet he cannot take away the scars; but God healeth sin so, as no scar remaineth, yea, he giveth a fresh colour again. They say likewise, our sin is consumed, as if one drop of water should be abolished by the heat of the Sun, yea, pag. 39 the Author affirmeth, that whosoever have not confidence in this one point, that our sins are so taken away by Christ, that God doth not see our sins in us, without doubt are damned as long as they continue to rob the blood of Christ of this honour; Therefore (saith he) true Divinity teacheth that there is no sin in the Church any more.  
4. He distinguisheth (p. 51.) of a twofold abolishing, the one mystical and secret, wrought only by Christ, and his righteousness; The other gross and palpable, wrought by us, by the help of God's Spirit, to our sense and feeling; so that they grant sin in us, and sin to be mortified, but this is not in God's sight, although it be in our own.  
5. Whereas it might be, and is objected, God hath an all-seeing eye, and therefore he cannot but see sin if it be in us, They answer, God indeed seeth all things, saving that which he will not see, but undertakes to abolish out of his sight, and they distinguish of Gods knowing and his seeing (p. 68.) God knoweth believers sins, but he doth not see them. To know, is to understand the nature of a thing: but to see (according to them) is to behold the real existence of a thing: now that cannot be of sin, because it's taken away. Thus (say they) God did know the sins of Abraham, and men did reprove him, but God did never once rebuke him in all his life after his calling, for any one sin.  
So that by these Positions you may see their meaning to be, That a justified man is by Christ so cleansed, that God seeth nothing but what is perfectly holy in him: sin not only in the punishment, but in the existence of it is removed quite away as to God's sight. Hence God takes no notice, never chastiseth them, never reproveth them, because he seeth nothing but what is exceeding good; and therefore because the justified feel the contrary, that they have sin, they commend and press faith, to live above sense, reason, and all our experience; for (say they) as a man that looks thorough red glass, seeth every thing red, so God looking thorough Christ, seeth not only our persons, but all our actions, perfectly righteous with Christ righteousness. What else may be said of their opinion, is to be spoken of, when we treat of imputed righteousness.  

Popish errors concerning remission of sin.  In the next place, let us consider what is Popery in this point, The Papists, as Bellarmine, lib. de Justif. c. 7. say with the Antinomian, That forgiveness of sin is the quite abolishing of it, and that whether it be original or actual, so that no sin abideth any more in a man so justified, till he falls from it; and saith Bellarmine, If the Scripture would have invented words on purpose, to show that sin is quite extinguished, it could not use other than it doth, and they think it impossible to conceive, that there should be sin in a man, and yet justified; for this is (say they) to make him at the same time a child of God and the devil, The devil to dwell in him by sin, and Christ by Justification. Thus they distinguish not between sin reigning and sin being. Though sin be in a godly man, yet it neither hath vim damnatricem or dominatricem, condemning power, or reigning power. Now its wonder the Papists should conceive this so impossible, when they hold that the godly have venial sins, which yet are truly sins, and so by their own argument God must hate and punish them, yet God doth not break off his friendship for all that: now compare these two errors together in their agreement and difference.  
1. Both Papist and Antinomian agree in this, 
Papists and Antinomians agreement,  That remission of sin, is quite abolishing and extinguishing of sin, both in the existence of it and punishment (although some Papists hold for the later, viz. of punishment, at least temporal, that that may abide, though the sin be forgiven.)  
2. They both agree in the places of Scripture, as Christ cleansing us from all sin, Thou art all fair my love, To purchase to himself a Church without spot or wrinkle; These and the like, they both insist much upon.  
3. They both agree in reason to prove it, viz. That sin is so odious to God that he hateth it wheresoever it is, and therefore a godly man must at the same time be the object of God's hatred and love, which (say they) is absurd to affirm; but here they differ; the Antinomian makes a believer without sin, because of Christ's righteousness which he is clothed with; 
as also difference.  The Papist he makes him to be without sin inherently, because of the grace of sanctification perfectly renewing him. And indeed though the Antinomian seem to show more zeal to Christ and grace, yet the Papist speaks more to reason; and if those places of Scripture did prove an utter extinguishing of sin, it would carry it fairer, for an inherent perfect holiness, 
The Orthodox truth concerning remission of sin.  than such a mystical perfection as they imagine. In the third place, I shall lay down the truth, and wherein Scripture-doctrine doth indeed sail between these two rocks.  
And, 1. The Orthodox do distinguish of the nature of sin, especially original, and the guilt of it, now (say they) the Scripture makes forgiveness to be the removing of the guilt, but the nature doth still abide in some degrees.  
2. This sin even in the godly, is seen by God, taken notice of, he hates it, and doth punish it, only he doth not punish it in their own persons, but in Christ; so that the sin of a godly man doth offend God, and he abhorreth, and will punish it: but Christ intervening, it falls upon him; so that our being in Christ doth not hinder Gods taking notice of our sins, and hating of them, but only freeth us from final destruction by them.  
3. If by seeing of sin should be meant judicial and final punishing of a man, than we would say, God doth not see sin in the godly in that sense, and this some Orthodox have spoken, which the Antinomian mistaking, have lost the truth. Thus Pareus, lib. 2. the Justific. cap. 9 p. 491. maintaining, That the godly man's sins are covered, which (saith he) supposeth not that sins are not, but that they are not seen, maketh this objection, but nothing is covered, or hid to God; and then answereth, True, but what he would have covered, but he will not fasten his eyes upon believers sins, because through Christ he turneth away the eyes of his justice, that he may place the eyes of his mercy upon them; and to this purpose he quoteth Austin, Tecta peccata, quare dixit, ut non viderentur, quid enim erat Dei videre peccata, nisi punire? Brockman likewise the Justific. cap. 2. qu. 10. p. 526. In vain is it objected, That nothing is covered to God, for that is true with this restriction, unless it be that which he would have covered; so that if by seeing were meant God's judicial punishing and condemning, in that sense God doth not see the sins of believers, for he throweth them behind his back: but if by seeing be meant (as the Antinomian doth) Gods not taking notice of, nor being offended with the sins of the godly, so that he doth not chastise them for them; this is a very dangerous error, and is far more than a difference about words; for the truth is, That the sins of a Godly man do offend God, and he is angry, not as a Father, but as a Judge: hence (as you heard) the afflictions upon the Godly are for their sins, and called Judgements, only he is a Fatherly Judge. There is an excellent temperament of both these in God relatively to his people. For the further discussion of this main point, 
Exp●essions in Scrip●u●e ●bout pardoning of sin▪  let us consider practically, the sweet and full expression of the Scriptures about pardoning of sin. One word frequently used is Nasa, which signifieth to lift up; and take away a thing so, 
1. Verbal▪  as that it was an heavy burden, and so some translate that, Psal. 32.1. Blessed is he who is eased of his sin, for you may see in that Psalm, David feeling an insupportable weight upon him by his iniquities, such as he could not stand under: now to pardon, is to take this weight off, so Gen. 4.13. My sin is greater than can be born, or taken away, i.e. forgiven: again, If thou dost well, is not Levatio, that is, pardon and ease? It is then no marvel, if forgiveness of sin be accounted such a blessed thing, by those who truly feel the burden of their iniquities. Hence you have it excellently, Zech. 3.9, 10. made the cause of all quietness and content, when their sins were pardoned, than they called to their neighbours to sit under their figtrees. And well doth Calvin call this, The chief hinge of Religion, and the truth of this Doctrine is to be sought out with all care, for what quietness can a man have till he know what judgement or esteem the Lord hath of him, and in what manner it is wrought?  
Another expression of it is called covering of sin, there are two words for this, the one is Chasah, and is used properly of such a thing that is put between the object and the eye, Numb. 9.15. It is used of the Cloud that covered the tabernacle, it's applied to a Garment, or any other thing that doth cover, Gen. 3.21. It's applied to God covering Adam's nakedness: Hence a learned man thinks, those skins were of beasts sacrificed, which did prefigure Christ, and God by this covering, would as by an outward Symbol teach them, by whom their sins should be covered, and to this an allusion seemeth to be, Rev. 3.18. I counsel thee to buy of me white garments, that thy nakedness may not appear. A like word is Caphar, which signifieth covering with pitch, or the like, which doth so cleave to the thing it covereth, that it can hardly be removed. It's applied Exod. 15.27. to the propitiatory, or covering made of pure gold, wherein God showed himself gracious. It is used Levit. 16.30. The word also is used of the pitching of the Ark, and as that pitch kept the waters from coming in, so doth the blood of Christ our sins from overflowing us, and this doth excellently describe the nature of pardoning of sin, God doth as it were hide it from us, he will not punish it: but you must not stretch this word too far with the Antinomian, as if indeed God did not take notice of them, for David's when it was covered, yet was visited afterwards by God, but it's covered so far, as that it shall not condemn. We do not therefore as the Antinomian saith, make God peep under the covering again, but we say the word is a Metaphor, and must not be understood grossly and palpably, as if there were any real thing put before the eyes of God, that he could not behold our sins, but only that God will not finally condemn us for sin. Furthermore, when a sin is pardoned, it is said to be hid from God's eyes, as if God did not know it, Jer. 16.17 The Hebrew word Zaphan, is applied to the Northern part of the world, because it is hidden from the heat of the Sun. Hence Joseph is called, Gen. 41.45. Zapthnath paaneah, because he was a revealer of hidden things. Those iniquities therefore which are so often before thee, 
2. Real ●xpressio●s.  they are as it were hidden from God.  
Another is Mechah (and I will name no more) which is to blot out, or wipe out, a Metaphor from those who cancel or blot out their debts▪ when once discharged. Now besides these verbal expressions, you have many real phrases that do declare this great mercy, as Micah 7.19. He will subdue our iniquities, and thou wilt cast them into the bottom of the sea, where the Prophet doth admire the goodness and freeness of God herein, Who is a God like thee? passing by iniquity, subduing sins. The word implieth, that our sins were as our enemies, the guilt of them did enslave us, and keep us like vassals in fear, but now they are mastered. And further, He throweth them in the bottom of the sea, there is no more memory or footsteps of them, as when the Egyptians were drowned in the bottom of the sea, they could never hurt the Israelites more. Thus God doth to thy sins when they are pardoned. Another expression you have, Isa. 44.22. some expound it thus, As the Sun rising doth make the thick clouds to vanish away, and there is nothing but serenity to be seen; so it is with God pardoning: but Junius understands it thus, As the thick cloud dissolved into rain, washeth away the soil and filth of the earth, so will the Lord in pardoning, take away that noisomeness and offence their sins made. Consider Hezekiahs' expression, Isa. 38.17. Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back; It is an expression from men, who when they will not regard a thing, cast it behind their backs, and thus God doth, not as if he did not take notice to chastise for them, but they shall not have their proper effect, which is to condemn. And these expressions are very necessary to a contrite heart, which is apt to imagine God as always beholding his sins, and sending forth his judgements because of them, whereas it must be as a foundation laid, That God is gracious and merciful, not only in the general, but even to us in particular. The last I will pitch upon, is Psal. 13.12. As far as the East is from the West, so far hath he removed our sins from us, where the Psalmist makes Gods mercies as much above our sins, as heaven is above earth; and lest the guilt of sin should hinder the descent of it, he makes God to throw away our sins from him, as far as it can be. Thus you see how abundant the Scripture is, in describing this mercy of mercies: This mercy, which if not enjoyed, 
Comfortable consideration arising from the fore▪ going phrases.  every thing, our beds, our fields and houses, will be an hell to us▪ The sum of these words and phrases amounteth to these comfortable considerations.  
First, That God pardoneth sin, and removeth the guilt of it totally and perfectly, so that a sin cannot be more forgiven than it is: not that all the pollution of sin is likewise totally taken away, for that would contradict other places of Scripture, which say, sin is still in us, but only the condemning power is subdued; and therefore this doctrine doth afford as much comfort, as any Antinomian would desire, and yet doth not fall foul with other places of Scripture. Those sins committed by thee and repent of, are as absolutely forgiven as can be desired: they can be no better pardoned if thou wast in heaven, or hadst perfect righteousness bestowed upon thee. It hath pleased God that the guilt of thy sin should be perfectly remitted, though the power be not fully mortified.  
Secondly, These phrases imply, That its Gods mere act without us, which doth expel the guilt of sin, not any thing done in us, or by us, and therefore thou art not to build thy hope of pardon upon any work of Regeneration or Mortification within thee, but God's goodness without thee; even as a Creditor doth forgive many thousands to a Debtor, by his mere voluntary Act. Now we are apt to think according to the principles of Popery, that our Justification is no better than our inherent holiness is, whereas any godly man may sit down and consider, that he is not able to go out with his five thousrnd, against, the Justice of God that comes against him with ten thousand. Grace justifying takes away all guilt of sin; grace sanctifying doth not, because as Bonaventure well observeth, the remedy given by grace against original sin, is not ordained against it, prout corrumpit naturam, sed prout personam, as it doth infect our nature, for so it sticketh till death, but as it doth defile the person; measure not therefore the perfection of grace justifying, by the perfection of grace sanctifying.  
Thirdly, This Scripture language doth infer, That sin forgiven, is as if it had never been; now the troubled soul cryeth out, Oh that I had never been thus, done thus▪ Why? God when he doth pardon, makes it as if it had never been: do not fear the drowned Egyptians will rise up and pursue thee again. We may tell a David, a Paul, it is so with them, as if no adultery, murder, or persecutions had been committed by them.  
Fourthly, As God doth indeed really thus remit, so the Scripture commands the repentant sinner to believe this, and with confidence to rest satisfied. Oh what holy boldness may this truth believed work in the tender heart! You may see a poor man, though he hath much ado to live, yet if his debts be discharged, how glad he is he can go abroad, and fear no Sergeant to Arrest him, no writ issued out to attach him; and thus it is with a sinner repenting and believing; and if there be any whose heart is not ravished with this glorious mercy, it is to be feared, he never felt the burden of sin, or else never strongly believed this gracious way of God. Let not then any Antinomian say, we put water into the believers wine, or wormwood into their bread; for who can rationally desire more than this doth amount to? but to expect such a pardon, such a justification, as that God shall take no notice of sin, to chastise or afflict for it, is to say, There is forgiveness with God▪ that he may not be feared, contrary to David's expression.   

LECTURE VII.  JEREMIAH 50.20. 
In those days, and at that time, the iniquity of judah shall be sought for, etc.  
FIfthly, From this Scripture-expression is gathered, That gross sins are blotted out, as well as sins of an inferior nature; Though there be sins that waste the conscience, yet they do not waste the grace of remission; how is the true repentant affected with slavish fears sometimes, as if his sins did blot out God's mercy like a thick cloud? as if our transgressions had subdued his goodness, and thrown it into the bottom of the Sea? What a comfortable expression is that, Isaiah 1.18. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow, etc. It was wonderful mercy that ever so horrid and bloody sinners (therefore their sins are said to be like scarlet) should become so clear, yet the grace of Justification doth as totally remit great sins, as less sins, as Christ did with the same easiness cure several diseases. Thus David also, Psal. 51. after he had wallowed in that mire, he prayeth to be purged, in an allusive expression, with hyssop, which was the last thing used in their legal purifications, and therefore doth imply the total and complete cleansing by Christ, and upon this, David saith, He shall be whiter than snow, which phrase is neither with the Papist to be extended to sanctification, as if such perfect clean righteousness were vouchsafed to him, as that there were no sin in him, nor with the Antinomian, as if God did quite abolish sin from David out of his sight, so as to take no notice of it, or chastise him for it (for after the pardon was past, yet his child was to die, and much more evil to come to David's house) but in respect of final condemnation, God having thus pardoned David through Christ, would no more adjudge him to everlasting punishment, than he would one that was innocent, or without any spot of sin. And this is to encourage great sinners; ten thousand talents was a great sum of money, yet how easily forgiven by that kind Master? Thus Exod. 34.7. God is described forgiving sins of all sorts, and this he proclaimed, when his glory passed by; and how necessary is this for the contrite heart, which judgeth his sins, because of the aggravations of them, to be unpardonable? If they had not been of such a breadth and depth, and length, they would not fear overwhelming as now they do. There are sins of all sorts described, and which is to be observed, God putteth no term or bounds to his mercy, whereas he doth set some to his anger. Let not therefore the greatness of sin be thought more than the greatness of mercy pardoning, and Christ's obedience suffering; as it is hypocrisy to extenuate and make our sins less than they are, so it is unbelief to diminish his grace; and God's greatness above us is as much celebrated in this his kindness, as in any other attribute. The sins of all the world, if they were thy sins, were but like a drop of water to his mercy, no more than our essence or power is to his Majesty: Take heed then of saying Such and such sins may be forgiven, but can he forgive such as mine are also?  
Lastly, In that Honey Comb (for we may say of these places, if of any, they are sweeter than honey) this sweetness may be pressed out; That all their sins, though never so many, shall likewise be blotted out. The Sea could as easily drown an whole Host of Pharaohs men, as twenty Soldiers. The Apostle is excellent, Rom. 5. in this, making an opposition between the first Adam and second, aggravating the superlative power of the gift by grace, above the evil through sin: Hence it's called the riches of his grace, rather than power or wisdom, because of the plenty, and abundance of it. Who would not think that while God's goodness in the Scripture is thus unfolded, there should not be a dejected, unbelieving Christian in the world? shall our sin abound to condemnation, more than his grace to justification? because sin is too strong for us, is it therefore too much for the grace of God also? you see by this, that we may drink wine enough, in the Scripture Wine-cellars, to make our hearts glad, and yet swallow not down any dregs of Popish or Antinomian errors. These things thus explained, 
Arguments proving that God doth see sin so in the Justified, as to be offended with it.  I come to confirm you with several Arguments, that God doth see sin so as to be offended and displeased with it, in those that are already justified.  
And the first rank of Arguments shall be taken from those places of Scripture where the godly do aggravate their sin, under this notion, that it was in God's sight, that he especially beheld it, 
1 Rank of arguments from Scripture.  and was offended with it: and this aggravation the Prophet Nathan doth set home upon David, 2 Sam. 12.9. why hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do this evil in his sight? 
I. Argument.  Now this would be a falsehood, by the adversaries Doctrine, and not fit to be confessed by the justified; but rather to be looked upon as robbing God of his glory. Let us observe the places, Psal. 51.4. Against thee, thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight; Observe that, in thy sight; Therefore God did see and take notice, so as to be displeased with David, and of all considerations this did most wound and break his heart; so that indeed the Antinomian Doctrine doth properly overthrow that which is the choicest ingredient in godly sorrow, viz. because God is angry. For what is David's meaning but this, Although men do not know how wicked I was in the matter of Vriah and Bathsheba, yet thou dost, and although the world would flatter me, yet as long as thou art angry, I can have no peace. Haec regula tenenda est, si vero paenitentiae sensu imbui velimus, saith Calvin upon the place, that is, this rule is to be observed, when at any time we would be truly affected in a way of repentance. This Argument seemeth to be Cogent, but see what an answer the Antinomian giveth, whereby you may see that true of Tertullian, that besides the poëtica, and pictoria, tertia jam est, eaque haeretica licentia, besides the boldness of Poets and Painters to invent any thing, there is a third, and that is of Heretics.  
The Answer is this, David doth here judge according to his sense and feeling, what he was to find at God's hand by the Law, 
The Antinomian answer refelled.  so that he doth not speak this (according to their divinity) in a way of faith, but sense and failing; and therefore the Author doth compare this with that place, Ps. 31.22. I said in my haste, I am cut off. 
Honey Com. pag. 81.  Oh boldness! Shall David be thought in haste and rashness, to say, Against thee have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight? Then all the other verses. Have mercy on me, Thou delightest in truth, may be said by David to be spoken in haste. How unpardonable is this error, to make that which was a special tenderness of godly sorrow upon David, to be a part of his humane weakness? But (saith the Author) he speaketh in the Gospel-way afterwards, when he saith, purge me, and I shall be whiter than Snow: But in what sense that is true, you have already heard; when a gross actual sin is committed, is repent of, the sinful act is quite passed away and gone, the guilt by forgiveness is quite extinct, and so, as to that respect, remission of sin doth make us as white as Snow. But it is not thus with original sin, whose guilt though removed, yet the proper stain of it doth still abide; (but of this more, when we declare what that is, which doth denominate a sinner) Therefore David doth not here speak contradictions, but his soul may be made white by Justification, and yet in the committing of new sins, God be angry and much offended with him.  

2 Argument.  A second Text to this purpose, is, Psal. 90.8. Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance. Where Moses the penman of the Psalm, speaks in the behalf of the Church then afflicted, that God had put their sins before him; so that God did not only take notice of them to chastise them, but he put them before his eyes. How the sin of a justified man, may at the same time be covered, and yet put before God, is to be showed in answering their Objections. And the Text to put the matter out of all doubt, addeth in close, they are before the light of his countenance, which is very emphatical. God (as is to be showed) hath in the Scripture a threefold eye, to our purpose, the eye of omnisciency (which the Antinomian will grant) and all agree in; the eye of his anger, which they deny; and an eye of condemnation which the Papist pleads for: now we go further than the Antinomian, we say God hath an eye of omnisciency, and of anger, upon the sins of justified persons, but not so far as the Papist, to say he hath the eye of condemnation upon them. 
Antinomian Evasions answered.  You would think this Text stood unmoveable, but let us hear how they would shake it.  
First, It may be said, that these are places in the Old Testament, whereas they speak of Believers under the New.  
I answer, first, 
1 Evasion answered.  The chiefest places which they bring for seeing no sin, are in the Old Testament. Thus God seeth no iniquity in Jacob: Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow: Thou art all fair, my love: Their sins shall be blotted out. These places and the like were true in the Old Testament, and applied particularly to the godly Jews then living, by way of comfort to them, as the context plainly evidenceth.  
Secondly (As I showed in the Treatise of the Law) there can be no sound reason given, why God should see sin in the justified person then and not now: For did not God elect them from all eternity? Were not they in Christ, and their sins laid upon Christ? Now these are the great Arguments why God seeth no sin in believers (as they hold) and were not▪ all these as verificable upon the godly in the Old Testament?  
2. It may be answered, 
2 Evasion answered.  that Moses speaks here in the behalf of the whole Church then, and there were many among them that were not justified. But this is easily taken away.  
1. The Scripture speaks universally, and Moses reckoneth himself in the number with them.  
2. The calamity was general, and who can say, none of the Justified suffered under it? and this chaftising of them, is that which is called setting of sins before God's face.  
Lastly, Some places of Scripture which they bring, and the chiefest ones, for seeing no sin in believers, are universal, as this is, and spoken of the whole Church: thus my Text, The iniquity of Judah and Israel shall be sought for, and not found: so God seeth no iniquity in Jacob, that is spoken of the body of them, when yet they must acknowledge, all were not justified among them.  
I will name one place more in this rank, and that is Luke 15.21: Where you have a confession of a penitent son, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee. This penitent was a son and therefore calleth God Father; and indeed he could not cease to be a son, therefore he doth not say, I am not thy son, but I am not worthy to be called thy son. As for Grotius his observation upon the place, Haec fabula declarat, quod omnes homines sunt ortu filii Dei, sed●e● jure excidunt semet à Deo alienando, that is, this fable declareth that all men are by birth the sons of God, but they fall from that right, by alienating themselves from God, it deserveth a double Animadversion, one for calling this Parable fabula, which although in a critical notion, it may have a right sense, yet use doth not now endure it; It would be very offensive to call Christ's Parables, Christ's Fables: Secondly, he showeth unsound Divinity, worse than Pelagians or Arminians, as his very expression declareth; (but to pass that) The Parable doth represent a godly man foully lapsed in sin, and now returning to God, and he accuseth himself, aggravating sin, that his Father took notice of it; and whatsoever other Doctors teach, yet this is the best way, for godly persons repenting, to aggravate their sinfulness, in reference to Gods beholding of them, and being angry with them, Quicunque sibi se excusat, accusat Deo, whosoever excuseth himself to himself, accuseth himself to God, said Salvian and Tertul. In quantum non peperceris tibi, in tantum tibi Deus (crede) parcet, so much as thou shalt not spare thyself, God (believe it) will spare thee.  
Lastly, This is to be observed, that after his father had kissed him, which was a sign of reconciliation and pardon; yet the son confesseth he had sinned against heaven, and before him.  

2 Rank of arguments from Scripture.  A second rank of Arguments shall be from those places where the Spirit of God is said to mortify our sins, or we by his help to crucify our sins: if the Spirit of God do enable us to crucify and mortify sin, as that which is an enemy and loathsome to him, then notwithstanding Christ's righteousness imputed, God doth take notice of that which is filthy, and to be removed in the godly: But we are assisted by God's Spirit, to this, Ergo.  
Rom. 8.11, 13. If ye by the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body. Gal. 3.18 If ye be led by the Spirit, ye shall not fulfil the deeds of the flesh. In these words are two plain Conclusions,  
First, That the godly have still sins in them, for these are called the deeds of the flesh. By deeds of the flesh, are not meant gross sins, but all the inward motions and thoughts of the soul corrupted.  
Secondly, That the Spirit of God seeth them, taketh notice of them, they are loathsome to him, and therefore he mortifieth them. Now the Spirit of God being the same with God, that which he mortifieth, must needs be taken notice of by him as offensive.  
To this what do they answer?  
They say, We do not mortify sin, no not by God's Spirit, 
The Antinomians answer confuted.  out of God's sight, but only out of our own sight, so that when the Spirit of God overcometh a corruption in us, this is not by removing it out of God's sight, but our own only, Honeycomb, pag. 164. for (say they) Christ's righteousness being made ours, we are all clean before God, and that which the Spirit of God doth afterwards in sanctification, is cleansing away sin only declaratively before men; Hence (as you heard) they distinguish of a two▪ fold cleansing, one secret and mystical by Christ's righteousness, and the other palpable and gross to our sense and feeling, which is by God's spirit in us; but here are many mistakes and errors.  
1. That they oppose Christ's cleansing and the Spirits cleansing together; for what Christ's blood doth meritoriously cleanse away, the same Christ's Spirit doth by efficacious application. Hence Christ by his death doth quite remove sin, in respect of the guilt of it here on earth, and doth give his Spirit to crucify the power of it; so that both Christ's cleansing, and the Spirits cleansing, do relate to God's sight: for it is God's will that we should not only be clean by imputed righteousness, but also by inherent holiness.  
2. It is false, that we only mortify sin declaratively to men, for it is really and indeed done, even to God-ward. Hence this is the great difference between a Pharisaical or external mortification, and a spiritual; The former is from humane principles to humane motives; the other is from God, and to God, and through God: so that as that is not a divine faith, but humane, which is not from a divine principle, and because of divine Authority; so neither can that be divine and spiritual mortification, which is not from divine efficiency, and because of divine grounds. Hereby it is that the whole work of grace is called a new creature, and it is a new creature not only man-ward, but God-ward, and who can think when Eph. 4. we are exhorted to put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness, that any other sense can be drawn out of it, then that, the putting off the old man, and putting on the new, have relation to God as well as man? It is therefore well observed by Musculus on the former Text, that both these are put together, If ye through the Spirit do mortify; we and the Spirit. The Spirit, and that showeth all the Popish means of mortification to be unprofitable, the Spirit of God neither appointing them, or working by them. Then he addeth ye, denoting that we also are to work and act (being first quickened with a spiritual life put into us) and not as some do now dangerously maintain, give up all, expecting the operation of the Spirit only.  
3. The falsehood of this Assertion will further appear; If the Spirit of God by mortification doth not remove sin out of us, as to God's sight, then by further sanctification, it brings no good thing into us as to God's sight likewise; and thus as God shall see no sin in his people, so neither no good thing inherently in his people; for this must necessarily follow by their principles, as God takes no notice of sin inherent in believers to be angry with them; so likewise no notice of inherent grace to be well pleased with them; for if the Spirit of God do not cleanse our corruption from God's sight, than still the more corruption is washed away, God still doth no ways approve that holiness, but it is only the imputed holiness of Christ, which he regards. Therefore he that maintaineth God seeth no sin in believers to chastise, must maintain, he seeth no graces in them to reward them; and take their own similitude, as he (say they) that looks thorough a red glass seeth every thing in it red, if there be dirt in it, it looks red, if there be pearls in it, it looketh red, all is one to the sight; so when God looketh upon us in Christ, if there be sin, if there be our own inherent holiness, it is all one, God seeth only Christ's holiness. Thus while the Antinomian laboureth to have our sins covered from God's eyes; he likewise spreads a covering over all the fruits of God's Spirit in us, that they shall not be taken notice of: whereas none ever denied but that the graces of God's people are acceptable to him, though not to justification; and many promises he makes to them, the imperfection being done away by Christ. But in their way, as God takes no notice of Paul's sinful motions to be offended at them, so neither of all his labourings and sufferings in the Gospel way.  
Lastly, If the Spirit of God do only mortify, as to our feeling, and not to God's sight, then when the soul departs into glory, all that inherent purity, must only be declaratively also; but in heaven we are made holy perfectly in God's sight, and that without any imputed righteousness of Christ, though Christ did purchase and obtain that for us. Now what the Spirit of God doth finish and consummate upon the souls dissolution, he had begun even in this life.  
A third sort of Arguments is from those places which commend repentance, humiliation, and godly sorrow for sin; 
Third sort of Arguments: Revel 2.18.  for if God takes no notice of our sin, be not offended at it, we may indeed be sorrowful for sin because of men, but not because of God▪ 
Jam. 4.9, 10. 2 Cor. 7.9, 10.  Shall I be sorrowful because God is offended when he is not offended? shall I weep because God is angry when he is not angry? If you ask Peter why he weeps bitterly, will he not say, Because he offended God? If you ask the Corinthians, why they are so deeply humbled, will not they say, because by their sins they provoked God to bring temporal calamities upon them? so that the poisonous nature of this Doctrine, appeareth in nothing more than in this, it taketh away all grounds of humiliation and repentance of sin in those that do believe. Therefore mark it, He that saith there is no sin in the Church of God now (which is their express opinion) he must likewise say, There is no godly sorrow in the Church of God now. For what is the reason there can be no godly sorrow in heaven, there was none in the state of innocency, but because there was no sin there? and it must be thus now in the Church of God. This error eateth into the vitals of godliness, therefore beware of it. Say, I will have no such free grace, as shall take away godly sorrow; Remember the gracious Promise, Zech. 12. where God promiseth, a spirit of prayer and mourning for sin, as well as to blot out sin, he shall not obtain the promise for the later, that feeleth not the promise for the former. And certainly, if this Doctrine were true, why did Paul say, Though I made you sorry, I did not repent? We Ministers ought to repent, that ever we made you sorry; and you are to repent that ever you have been sorrowful.  
A fourth kind is from all those places, 
Fourth kind of Arguments.  where God is said so to take notice of the sins of justified persons, as that he doth grievously afflict them for their transgressions. This Argument doth properly and directly overthrow the whole Antinomian assertion, but because I have largely proved this already, I will not insist on it. To make good their assertion, that God seeth no sin, they are forced also to hold, that all the afflictions upon the godly, are only trials of their faith, preservatives from sin, but not correctives for sin. But did not God see sin in Moses, when for his unbelief he kept him out of Canaan? Did not he see sin in David, though pardoned, grievously chastising him afterwards? Did he not see sin in Jonah, who would fain have run from God's face, that he might not have seen him? Did he not see sin in the Corinthians, when many of them were sick and weak, for abusing the Ordinances, yet many of them were such, that therefore were chastened, that they might not be condemned of the Lord.  
There are more arguments, but at this time I conclude with an use of exhortation, to brokenhearted, and contrite sinners, again and again to meditate upon the great and glorious expressions which the Scripture useth about forgiveness of sin. Your fears and doubs are so great, that only such great remedies can cure you. Tell me ye afflicted and wounded for sin, is not this the best oil that can be poured into your sores? Tell me ye spiritual Lazarusses, that lie at the gate of God daily, who is rich in mercy, desiring the very crumbs that fall from this table of grace, are you thankful because God provideth food and raiment, and not much rather because of a pardon? how great is God's goodness, he might have removed us out of his sight, and he hath done so to our sins; he might have thrown us into the bottom of hell, and he hath cast our iniquities into the bottom of the sea; he might have blotted our names out of the book of life, and he hath blotted out our sins from his remembrance.   

LECTURE VIII.  JEREMIAH 50.20. 
In those days, and at that time the iniquity of Judah shall be sought for, and it shall not be found, &c,  
A Fifth rank of arguments is from those places of Scripture, 
Fifth rank of Arguments.  wherein the people of God in their petitions and supplications, do necessarily imply this truth, that God seeth, taketh notice, and is angry with their sins. Now all petitions use to be in a twofold faith, one applicative and fiducial, the other doctrinal and assertive, which is the foundation of the former. If a Papist pray for the deliverance of any out of purgatory, it is a vain prayer, because there is not a theological verity to ground his prayer upon: thus a Socinian cannot truly pray to God in Christ, because he hath not a dogmatic or assenting faith to the truth of Christ's divine nature, and so cannot have a fiducial faith in the same.  
Thus it would be with the people of God, how can they in their prayers entreat God to turn away his anger from them, to hide his face from their sins, if he were not indeed angry? Now that the petitions of God's people are for this end, will appear by several places. I shall not here mention that petition, we are directed to in the Lord's prayer, viz. forgive us our sins, for that is a noble instance, and deserveth a single consideration of its self; but we have many other instances, as Psa▪ 51.9. Hide thy face from my sins. It is plain by this prayer, God's face, and so his eyes were upon David's sins though justified, and that a godly man falling into grievous sins, hath them not presently covered from God's eyes; for his meaning by this phrase, is, that God would not regard them to visit them on him, the contrary whereof is Psa. 119.15. Let their sin be continually before thee; and this is observable, that David doth again and again petition for pardon, whereby is showed how difficult a thing it is to obtain the favour of God after we have offended him by our sins. Neither let that be replied, that this is done by Believers in the Old Testament; for Paul bringeth a proof from Psa. 32.1. to show what is the nature of Justification, even under the Gospel. And that I may once for all this dissolve this objection of theirs, I shall handle distinctly this question, Whether the Justification of believers under the Old Testament and New, be not uniform and altogether the same? which is to be affirmatively maintained, and therefore remit you to that question. For the present, we see how David here doth twice and thrice with much vehemency desire that God's face would not be upon his sins. 
Question considerable propounded.  Here may be one considerable question made, seeing Nathan the Prophet had told David his sin was forgiven him; Was not this great unbelief and diffidence, to pray for pardon after that consolation? To this it may be answered,  
1. That nathan's comfort might be given after this penitential Psalm: for although 2 Sam 12.13. the History makes mention of nathan's oil poured into David, as soon as ever he was wounded, yet it is a frequent thing in Scripture to have those things immediately connected in story, when yet there was a great distance in the practice. But grant it was immediately upon David's repentance; yet faith in God for pardon, may well stand with prayer for pardon; The deep sense and feeling of God's offence, cannot but provoke to earnest petition, though faith at the same time persuadeth the heart God will hear: Hence David doth not here pray in unbelief, thinking God would not pardon him; therefore some translate v. 7. in the future tense, Thou wilt purge me with hyssop, because of his assurance. Again, though God removed David's sin in respect of condemnation, yet not in respect of all other effects of his anger, for so his sin did still lie as a burden on him, and in this respect he still seeketh God's face. In the next place consider, Psa. 32.1, 3, 4. Of all parts of the Scripture, the Psalms have this excellency, that they do in a lively experimental way set forth the gracious works of God upon the soul, and David doth in many Psalms, still as it were play upon the Harp, to drive out the evil spirit of unbelief and diffidence out of a man's heart. Now this Psalm is a most excellent directory for the obtaining of pardon after sin committed; wherein David being for a while grievously crushed by God's anger for his sins, at last feeling the Sunshine of his favour breaking through the clouds, he doth in the beginning of the same joyfully break out, admiring the happiness of those who have their sins pardoned, and he doth in several words repeat the same benefit, because of the excellency of it: and certainly were your hearts touched with the sense of God's displeasure for sin, neither riches, nor good trading, or any advantage in the world, would so glad your heart, as to have a pardon of sin. For how cometh David to be thus affected with forgiveness of his sins? even because he confessed it not, was not humbled under it, till God's wrath was heavy upon him, and then he resolved to acknowledge it, whereupon God immediately forgiveth him. Now lest any should think What is this to us in the times of the Gospel? observe v. 6. For this every one that is godly shall pray unto thee, that is, for this remission, for this pardon every one that is godly shall pray; so that its ungodliness by David's judgement not to confess sin, or to pray for the pardon, which how can any Antinomian do by his principles, that holdeth, God seeth not, or taketh notice, so as to be offended with the sins of justified persons: and so they are not only Antinomists, but Anti▪ Confessionists, Anti-Petitionists, and Anti-penitents.  
Take one more instance, Psa. 6.1. where David prayeth God would not rebuke him in his hot displeasure, Compare this with Jer. 10.24. where you see the servants of God do suppose an anger from God will fall on them for their sins, and they do not refuse his rebukes, only they desire God would moderate and set bounds to his wrath, that it may not overwhelm them. Many other places there are, where its plain, the people of God praying, do suppose him to be angry with them for their sins; and it is a truth so engraven in the heart of a godly man, that no error can ever quite obliturate it.  
A sixth sort of Arguments shall be from those places, 
Six sort of Arguments.  where God is said to take notice of our sin, more than we can or do, 1 Joh. 3.18, 19, 20. where the Apostle presseth believers to a sincere love of one another with this Argument, that hereby we shall assure our hearts before him; the Greek word signifieth to persuade, and doth excellently set forth the difficulty of being assured in God's presence. Now this great benefit he illustrates by the contrary, if our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts; and this holdeth universally in every holy duty, as well as that of love: if our hearts condemn us for hypocrisy, and insincerity in them, God doth much more, for he knoweth more evil by ourselves than we do. Now how can this Apostolical assertion be true, if so be God took no notice, or were not offended at the sins of his people? It's an argument of sweet meditation to humble us, that if where there is but a drop of grace, our sins are so loathsome and offensive; how much more must they be to the ocean of all purity? 
Antinomian objections answered.  To this the Antinomian replieth (Honeycomb p 89.) that John speaks this of hypocrites, and not the justified children of God; But 1. he gives the express title of little children to them, ver. 18. and my little children, so that he taketh upon him the bowels of a father to them. Again, let it be granted that he describes hypocrites, yet there is no godly man but this text will in some sense belong to, there is no man so godly, but he hath some hypocrisy and insincerity in his best love; there is that worm in his best fruit, that dross in his best gold. It followeth then by proportion, that so far as the godly do discern imperfections, and insincerity in their duties, so far they are to be humbled before God, who knoweth much more by them then they discern; as you see little moats are discerned by the Sunbeams in the Air, which were not discerned before: therefore when John addeth, If our hearts condemn us not, then have we confidence with God, his meaning is not, as if we could have no confidence where our hearts do condemn us in some degrees, for than none in the world could have confidence; but he speaks of condemning ourselves upon a discovery of a total and wilful hypocrisy; and so we will indeed grant that he speaks of hypocrites, but yet it proveth as much as we desire, namely, that where there is any condemnation of ourselves for any degree of insincerity in any duty, we are to tremble, and to remember that God is greater than our hearts, knoweth more by us, and so his wrath might break out hotter than we can imagine. Neither is the former answer weakened, though we grant it to be understood of total hypocrites, for it is usual with the Apostle to threaten even those that are godly, and dear to him, with the condition and punishment of Hypocrites and Apostates, as Heb. 6. See another instance, 1 Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by myself; yet am I not thereby justified, for it is God that judgeth me; where the Apostle doth not speak of an Anabaptistical perfection, as if Paul knew no sin by himself; but his meaning is to be restrained to the faithful dispensation of the office committed to him, in which though he had not perfection, yet his conscience did not accuse him of gross negligence or unfaithfulness; but for all this, he doth not think himself justified, by any godliness in him; and why so? because God judgeth him, who takes notice of, and is offended with more sins than he understands by himself; so that Paul doth acknowledge God to see sin in him, and therefore he cannot be justified by any thing inherent; and this made Bernard say excellently, Tutior est justitia donata, quam inhaerens, Imputed righteousness is safer to rely upon then inherent. Think it therefore a small thing to be acquitted by Antinomian principles, when it is God that judgeth; and whatsoever the Adversary speaketh about a righteousness of Christ communicated unto us, so that thereby God seeth no sin; yet because they say, he seeth no sin in us inherently▪ they must conclude for some perfect inherent righteousness. Lastly, Ps. 19 David crying out, Who can understand his errors? prayeth thereupon, Cleanse thou me from secret sins; and this doth imply, that there were many sins that David had, which were loathsome and foul in God's eyes, though undiscovered by himself, and therefore he would have God wash him, and make him clean▪  
A seventh rank of Arguments, shall be from those places, 
Seventh rank of arguments.  wherein God hath commanded Ministers to bind and retain the sins of scandalous offenders, and hath promised, to ratify that in heaven, which they according to his will, do on earth. Experience witnesseth, that a justified person may fall into some scandalous sin, whereby the whole Congregation may be much offended, and God highly provoked. Now in this case God hath commanded the Ministers of the Gospel to bind & to retain such a man's sins till he doth repent. This binding is not by way of authority, but ministerial declaration, & effectual application of God's threatenings in his Word to such a person sinning, and when this is done, God hath promised, that all this shall be ratified and made good in Heaven against that man. Now how can God make good the Ministers threatenings applied to that godly man, if he take not notice, and be not offended with the person so heinously sinning? The places that prove such a binding of sin, and Gods ratifying of their sentence, are Joh. 20.23. Mat. 16.19. Mat. 18.18. Can any man say, that when a godly man is cast out of God's family, the seals of God's grace denied him, and he delivered up to Satan, that God is not angry with him? yea, is not he bound then to apprehend God estranged from him? when a godly man is excommunicated, he is not only cast out from the external Church-society, but likewise there is a deprivation from internal communion with Christ; not as if he were cut off from the purpose or decree of God's election, or as if the habitual seed of grace were quite extinct in him, but only as the outward seals of God's favour are denied him; so also doth God being angry with him, deny him any inward testimonies of his favour; and it would not be faith against sense (as the Adversary calls it) but presumption against Scripture to say▪ God was at that time well pleased with him; yea Divines say (Synopsis puri. Theol. dis. 48.) that there is a conditional exclusion of the person so offending from future glory, for the Church threatens him, that as they judge him now, and bid him depart from their society, so if he do not repent, Christ at the last day will command him to depart from his presence and the holy Angels, according to that of Tertul. in Apologetico, Summum futuri judicii praejudicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut à communicatione orationis & conventus, & omnis sancti commeroii relegetur.  

Eighth kind of Argument▪  The eighth kind of Arguments is from those places, where Christ is said still to be an Advocate, and to make Intercession for believers after they are justified, which would be altogether needless, if God did not take notice of their sins, and were ready to charge them upon believers '; consider the places, 1 Joh. 2.1. Heb. 7.25. In the former place, John having said, That Christ's blood cleanseth us from all sin (a place the Antinomian much urgeth, not considering that at the same time the Apostle ver. 9 requireth confession and shame in ourselves, if we would have pardon) in the first verse of the second Chapter, he saith, He writes these things that they should not sin; all true doctrine about Christ and freegrace tendeth to the demolishing, and, not encouraging of sin: but the Apostle supposeth such fragility that we will sin, and therefore speaketh of a remedy, If we sin we have an Advocate; now this makes several ways against the Antinomian.  
First, That sins committed after our Justification need an Advocate; it is not enough that we were once justified, our new sins would condemn us for all that, were it not for Christ.  
Secondly, In that Christ is an Advocate, it supposeth, That though God be a Father to his people, yet he is also a Judge, and that he so taketh notice of, and is displeased with their sins, that did not Christ intercede and deprecate the wrath of God, it would utterly consume them. Thou therefore who sayest, God the Father is not offended, why then doth Christ perform the Office of an Advocate? If thy sins be not brought into the Court, what need any pleading for thee? In the other place, Heb 7.25. The Apostle acknowledgeth a twofold function of Christ's Priestly Office, The one is, The offering up of himself for our sins; The second is, The continual Intercession for us, which the Apostle, Chap. 9.24. calleth, Appearing before God's face in our behalf; now we must not so advance Christ's sufferings in the taking away of sin, so as to exclude the other part of his Priestly Office, which is, continually to plead our cause for us: for the Apostle makes Christ to stand before the face of God, as some great Favourite before an earthly Prince, to plead in the behalf of those who are accused; so that the Doctrine which denieth God seeing of sin in his people, doth wholly overthrow Christ's Intercession, and the efficacy of it. Concerning the manner of Christ's Intercession, it is not to be conceived in that way as he prayed here upon the earth; but it is his holy will, and express desire of his soul, that God the Father should be reconciled with those for whom he hath shed his blood: and truly that point of Divinity, viz. Christ's affections and sympathising with his people now in heaven, is an Ocean of infinite comfort.   

LECTURE IX.  JER. 50.20. 
In those days, and at that time, the iniquity of Judah shall be sought for, and there shall be none, etc.  

Ninth sort of Arguments.  I Shall now conclude with the last sort of Arguments, which are from those Scriptures that speak how God is affected with his people when they have sinned, which affections do necessarily imply Gods seeing of sin, so as to be angry with them, yea in some respects God's anger is more to them than others, and we say, in some sense God doth more see and take notice of the sins of believers than others.  
The places of Scripture which speak in what manner God takes the sins of believers, are these, Ephes. 4.30. Grieve not the holy Spirit of God, etc. where the godly in their sins are said to grieve God's Spirit. Now can the Spirit of God, which is also God, be grieved (to speak after the manner of men) at our sins, and not take notice of them? certainly if they grieve God, they ought to grieve us, let us not neglect that which the Spirit of God is so offended with. This place seemeth to be taken out of Isa. 63.10. They vexed his holy Spirit. So that it is such a grieving, as doth vex and embitter the holy Spirit of God. O what a dreadful consideration should this be against all falsehoods in this point▪ Doth not God, doth not the Spirit of God take notice of thy corruptions, yet it is grieved and vexed at them? furthermore the aggravation of this sin is seen in that it is against the Spirit that doth seal us to the day of redemption. A Metaphor, saith Zanchy (in loc.) from Merchants, who having bought such goods, seal them as their own, that so leaving others, they may transport them. Now for the godly to sin, it is to deface this seal, and if it be so great an offence to violate humane seals, how much more divine? Observe likewise that passage of God to Moses, Ex. 4.14. where Moses out of the sense of his infirmity, refusing the office God called him to twice or thrice, it is said, The Lord's wrath was kindled against him. In the Hebrew it is very emphatical, The fury of the Lord was angry against Moses, and the LXX, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by which expression was signified, God was not lightly, but grievously angry with him; So Ps. 74.1. the Church crieth out, Why doth thine anger smoke against the sheep of thy pasture? and in many other places. Now, can God be angry, and that in so high a degree, with that which he doth not see, or take notice of? It is true Isidor. Pelus. l. 1. ep. 144. will not suffer, that notice and affliction which God layeth upon us, to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but then anger is to be taken in a strict sense, for punishment by way of satisfaction, but otherwise the Scripture doth frequently use this word, and that of God to his own people, yea vengeance, which is more, Ps. 96.8. But that it may the better appear, how great the guilt of sin in believers, even in the sight of God is, and what his account is of it, take notice of these particulars. 
Particulars expressing how great the guilt of sin is in believers even in God's sight.   
First, What the Scripture styles them, 1 Sam. 2.29. There God reproveth Eli in his indulgence about his sons, with this remarkable expression, Thou honour'st thy sons above me. Is not this an aggravation which God taketh notice of? and yet Eli did reprove his sons, but because he failed in the measure of zeal, therefore is God thus angry with him; so that God doth not only see the gross sins committed by his people, but a less measure of their graces, and is angry for that. So Rev. 2. because the Church abated in her first love, and her works were not perfect, therefore doth God threaten her. As the godly are said to honour the creature above him when they sin, so they are likewise said to despise God; and can God but be offended with them that despise him? 1 Sam. 2.13. They that despise me, shall be lightly esteemed, saith God again to Elimine Thus likewise to David, 2 Sam. 12.9. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord? God cannot but take notice of that which is a despising, and contemning of him. As their sins are a despising of God, so are they said to displease God, which cannot be if God see no sin; for if God see no sin, it is all one in reference to God, whether a believer wallow in the mire of sin, or whether he live holily; so that this Doctrine must needs eat and consume like a Gangrene. Is God as well pleased with Peter denying Christ, as Peter repenting? as much pleased with David in his adultery and murder, as when making his penitential Psalm? The Papists indeed would fasten such prodigious consequences upon the Protestants Doctrine, but they abhor it, whereas it followeth naturally from the Antinomian assertion. Indeed the Orthodox say, David and Peter in their lapses, did not fall from the state or grace of justification; but wherein the Antinomian and they differ, is hereafter to be shown. That God is thus displeased with justified persons, when they thus sin, is plain, 2 Sam. 11.29. where what we translate (displeased) according to the original, is, was evil in the eyes of the Lord; where you see express Scripture, That God did see sin in David, because that which he had done, was evil in God's eyes: so again, 1 Chron. 21.7. David's numbering of the people, is said to be evil in the eyes of the Lord. Thus the very letter of the Scripture is against them. Lastly, Their sins are offences against God, and can God be offended with that which he doth not behold? Elihu speaks true and excellent Doctrine, job 34.32. though he erred in the application, Surely it is meet to be said unto God, I have born chastisement, I will offend no more; where he acknowledgeth, That chastisements are for sins, and that sins are offences. If then the sins of God's people are a dishonour to him, a despising of him, a displeasing of him, they are evil in his eyes, and an offence to him, it cannot be but that he must see sin in his people.  
Secondly, The Scripture describeth Gods threatening and upbraiding of them with all his kindnesses he did to them, so that God doth not only take notice of them, but in the several aggravations of their ingratitude and unkindness unto him, in all that they offend. Thus observe Gods dealing with Eli, 1 Sam. 2.28. Did not I choose thy father out of all the Tribes of Israel to be my Priest, to offer upon my Altar? Did I not give unto thy father all the offerings by fire of the children of Israel? wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice? What a cutting sword must this needs be in Eli's heart? and because the children of God have a Spirit of love in them, these upbraid must needs wound their heart the more. Again, see the like dealing with David, 2 Sa. 11.12.8, 9 I anointed thee King over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul: and if that had been too little, I would have given thee such and such things, wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of God? etc. Must not this pierce into the very bowels of David? Shall God upbraid his people falling into sin, spread before their eyes the manifold mercies he hath bestowed upon them, and all this while see no sin in them? Therefore when it is said, jam. 1.5. That God upbraideth not, that is to be understood, in respect of his frequent and liberal giving, as men use to say, I have given thus often, and I will give no more; which kind of giving Seneca calls panem lapidosum; but if men walk unworthy of the benefits received, he doth then upbraid, as Mar. 16.14. He is said to upbraid the Disciples, because of their unbelief.  
Thirdly, The Scripture applieth the threatenings of God to believers, as well as to others▪ making no difference between them, unless they repent. Indeed we say against the Papists, that all the sins of justified persons are venial, and not mortal, that is, such as in the event will have pardon, but that is, because the seed of grace will be operative in them, so that they shall either habitually or actually repent of their sins. Neither when the Orthodox say, That Election is absolute▪ do they exclude the media instituta, means appointed by God, in which the fruit of Election is accomplished, but conditions antecedaneous, as if that decree did remain suspense and uncertain, till the will of man had determined, 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. The Apostle layeth down an universal rule, such and such gross offenders shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, that is, those who live so and do not repent, and this is to be extended not only to those who are habitually so, but actually likewise▪ unless they are reform. Therefore no godly man falling into any of those gross sins, may deceive himself, and think he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven without a change. Godly or ungodly, yet if found in the committing of such a gross sin, unless they do repent, God will not accept one or the other. As repentance is appointed for the wicked man as a duty, without which he cannot be saved; so confession and forsaking of sin, is prescribed a godly man fallen into sin, without which he cannot have remission, 1 Jo. 1.9. There is no such free grace or Gospel▪ as faith to a believer, if fallen into a foul sin, whether you repent or no, your sins shall be pardoned to you. Hence 1 Cor. 11. the Apostle makes every man that receiveth unworthily (and yet some of them were godly) to receive their damnation, that is, their eternal damnation, without repentance and reformation; and after repentance, their judgement, though not of condemnation, yet affliction and castigation. How terrible likewise is Paul, Herald 12.29. where speaking to the godly that are to receive a kingdom that is eternal, he exhorteth them to duty, Let us have grace (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that is, Let us retain and keep grace, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Ro. 15.4. and observe the manner, with reverence and godly fear, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such a fear as relateth to punishment; compare this place with Ps. 2.12. and thus the words following suppose, for our God is a consuming fire; this is taken out of Deu. 4.24. and the meaning is, God is no less angry with Christians sinning against him, then formerly with the Israelites, & it is as easy for him to destroy whom he is offended with, as for the fire to destroy stubble. How directly doth this place overthrow that Antinomian assertion, God saw sin in believers in the Old Testament, and therefore afflicted them, but it is not so under the New?  
Now when it's said, God is a consuming fire, this denoteth the great anger of God, compare it with Deu. 9.3. & Deu. 32.22. Fire is most efficacious, and least capable of transmutation as other elements are, for which reason the Persians worshipped fire for a god, but fire might be extinguished, whereas God is such a fire as consumeth all, and remaineth immutable. Know then (brethren) that as there are places in the New Testament, which speak of the riches of his grace, so also of his consuming anger. As therefore the promises of the Scripture are for consolation & hope to the godly, so are the threatenings for a godly fear. Between these two millstones a Christian is made dulcis farina, as Luther once said; and neither of these millstones may be taken for a pledge, as the Law was in the Old Testament, because one cannot work without the other. Therefore for a man to take only those places of Scripture, which speak of the goodness of the promises, and to reject the terrors of the threatenings▪ is spiritual theft in an high degree. Doth not Paul, 2 Cor. 5 excite himself to run like a Giant in his ministerial race, because of the terror of the Lord at the day of Judgement? See ver. 10. We must all appear (so to appear, as to be seen through and made manifest, before the judgement-seat of God (as those that are to plead a cause in an eminent place before a Judge) to receive a reward suitable to his life: n●w knowing this (saith the Apostle) we persuade; it may relate to himself, and to those whom he persuadeth. Yet this apprehension of the Lords terror did not exclude love, for v. 14. he saith, The love of Christ constraineth us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either an expression from those who had a spirit of prophecy upon them, that was very powerful, whereby they could not but speak, or else from women in travel, Heb. 12.15. which through pain cannot but cry out, so efficacious was love in Paul.  
4. The sins of godly men cease not to be sins, though they are justified. We may not say, that in Cain killing of another is murder, but in David it is not: We may not say, denying of Christ in Judas, is indeed a sin, but in Peter it is not. No privilege they have by justification, can alter the nature of a sin. He that receiveth unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, whether he be a wicked man or a Believer. It is not with a Believer and a wicked man, as with a man and a beast comparatively. If a beast kill a man, it is not sin, because the subject is not reasonable, but a man if he do so, whether godly or ungodly, it is a sin, because against Gods Law. It is not safe to say, that God doth with the Believer and wicked, as if a Magistrate should make a Law, that whosoever committeth such a crime, if he be a freeman he shall only be imprisoned, but if a servant, he shall be put to death: so God, whosoever murdereth or committeth adultery, if he be a Believer, the wages due to his sin, is only temporal chastisements, but to a wicked man, it's eternal death. I say this is not safe: for although a Believers sin shall not actually damn him, yet God hath made the same Law to both, and repentance as a means is prescribed, so that we may by supposition say, If the wicked man repent, his sin shall not damn him; If the justified person do not, his sin will damn him. It's true, it is not proper to say of sin in the abstract, it shall be damned, no more, than that grace shall be saved; but we are to say, the person shall be damned or saved. Yet the guilt of the sin will cause the guilt of the person, if not taken off by Christ as the meritorious, and faith as the instrumental cause. The sins then of Believers and ungodly are both alike, only that the guilt of them doth not redound upon the persons alike, is because the one takes the way appointed by God to obtain pardon, and the other doth not. Not that the godly man makes himself to differ from the wicked, but all is the work of grace. In some respects the sins of godly men are more offensive to God, than those of wicked men; because committed against more light, and more experience of the sweetness of God's love, and the bitterness of sin. What is the cause, Heb. 10.28, 29, 30. the Apostle maketh the condition of a wilful Apostate to be so dreadful, but because of the excellency of the object in the Gospel, above that in the Law? If he that despised Moses his Law, died without mercy: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy? etc. Observe that interposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, think ye, do you not easily think that such sins offend God more? Now although the truly sanctified can never fall into such a condition, totally and finally, yet their sins committed wilfully against the Gospel, are gradually, and in some measure of such a nature, and therefore they fall terribly into the hands of the living God, when they so sin against him; and consider how that the Apostle speaks these things, even to them, of whom he hoped better things, and things that accompany salvation, Heb. 6. If therefore we see a godly man, who hath tasted much of God's favour, play the prodigal, walk loosely, we may and ought (notwithstanding Antinomian positions) powerfully and severely set home these places of Scripture upon his conscience. And observe how in the New Testament, the Apostle allegeth two places out of the Old, Vengeance belongeth to me, Deut. 32.35. and the Lord will judge his people, Psal. 135.14. To judge, is to avenge; so that the people of God, have those considerations in their sins to provoke God, which wicked men cannot have; and therefore have the same motives to humble them; as the Apostle argueth, To which of the Angels said he, Sat at my right hand? etc. so may we, To what wicked man hath God poured out his love, revealed himself kindly, as unto the godly? therefore do they neglect the greater mercies.   

LECTURE X.  JEREMIAH 50.20. 
In those days, and at that time, the iniquity of judah shall be sought for, etc.  
LEt us in the next place consider the particulars wherein God's eye of anger doth manifest itself upon his own children, 
How Gods anger manif●sts it ●elf upon his own children sinning.  if sinning against him. The effect of his wrath may be considered in that which is temporal, or spiritual, or eternal; in all these God's anger doth bring forth in one respect or other. For the temporal objects, take notice of these particulars; first, 
In temporals, 1. By involving them in common and ordinary afflictions  When they sin against God, they are involved in the common and ordinary afflictions, which do usually accompany sin in the wicked: Thus 1 Cor. 11.30. for their unworthy receiving of the Sacrament (and some even of those were godly, as appeareth v. 32.) many were weak and sickly: weak, were such as did languish, and sickly is more, such as had diseases on them; now these were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, strokes from God, and therefore came from his anger for their sins. Though the Lords Supper consist of a twofold bread, the one earthly for the body, the other heavenly the bread of life for the soul, yet both body and soul did miserably decay, because of unworthy receiving; This Table being as Chrysostom said, mensa Aquilarum, not Graculorum, food for Eagles, not Jaies. As therefore those children, who have fainting diseases upon them, and do secretly eat salt, oatmeal, etc. though they have never such excellent food at their father's table, yet thrive not, but look pale, and consuming; so it was with the Corinthians by reason of their corruptions, they inclined to death, though they fed on the bread of life. Now that these bodily diseases are the common issue and fruit of sin, appeareth Leu. 26.16. Deut. 28.22. grace therefore of justification can give no Supesedeas to any disease that shall arrest a believer offending; but are the wicked in Consumptions, Agues, Fevers for their sins? so are the godly; yea, the people of God are in these calamities before the wicked, Amos 3.2. You only have I known of all the Families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. I have known you, that is, acknowledged ye for mine, see what that is, Exod. 19.5. A peculiar treasure unto me above all people: The Hebrew word signifieth that which is dear and precious, and to be desired of all. This is aggravated by what followeth, for all the earth is mine, that is, seeing there are so many nations in the world, over whom I have full power and dominion; how great is God's goodness in taking you for his above others? now mark the Prophet's reason, because I have done this, therefore I will visit you for your iniquities, for to all your other wickednesses you add an ingrateful heart. So there is another place, 1 Pet. 4.17. where God is said to judge them before others, and this hath been a great offence to the godly; It is time, that is, a seasonable opportunity by the decree and appointment of God, for judgement, that is, chastisements for former sins, which are called judgements, because they are public testimonies and manifestations of God's anger against sins, and are to put the godly in mind of their sins (only it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the original) The word is used even of the godly, 1 Cor. 11.31, 32. 1 Pet. 4.6. By the house of God he meaneth the true Members of the Church, and whereas he saith it begins in them, he thereby intimates, that the godly in this life are more exposed to afflictions for sin, than the wicked are, and this made David and Jeremy so expostulate with God in this matter, so that the godly in their afflictions ought to say, as that widow of Sarepta, 2 Kin. 17.18. This is to call my sin to remembrance.  
It is thought the Apostle, though he doth not expressly mention a place, yet he takes this out of the Doctrine of the old Testament, for so God did begin first with his people, Isa. 10.12. Jer. 25.17, 18. Ezek. 9.6. begin at my Sanctuary, Ezek. 21.4. There God in public calamities maketh no difference between the righteous and the ungodly; now this is so great, that the Apostle saith, the righteous is hardly saved: The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used of those things that with much labour are brought about, Act. 14.18. Act. 27.7. These tribulations are so great, that they almost destroy the godly themselves: see also Jam. 5.13. Is any sick, where the godly man is supposed to be sick, and the cause (if he hath committed sin) that is, such sins as were the causes of that disease, they shall be forgiven him; so that even justified persons afflicted by diseases, are to inquire what sins the Lord would humble them for, and to labour that the sickness of the body, be the sanctified occasion of the health of the soul.  
2. God's anger is seen in bringing extraordinary and unusual calamities upon them because of their sins; 
2. In bringing extraordinary and unusual calamities.  so that they have strange punishments, which even the wicked do many times escape: Jonah who endeavoured to fly from God's face (and that he might easily have done by Antinomian Doctrine) with what a prodigious judgement was he overtaken? Jonah 2. The Prophet calls it the belly of hell; and how deeply his soul was afflicted under that punishment, appeareth, in that he saith, his soul fainted within him, and he concluded, he was cast out of God's sight.  
He that voluntarily ran from God's presence, doth now bewail that he is cast from it. He makes the Whale's belly an house of prayer, and this came up to God, in his holy Temple, that is Heaven. You see by this, that God prepareth strange judgements sometimes for those that offend him, though his children: so in that 1 Cor. 11.30. when he saith, that many of the Corinthians were dead for their unworthy receiving, it is to be understood of an immature and untimely death; they did not live out to the term of those days, that according to natural causes they might have done, so that it is the same with being [cut off] in the old Testament, Exod. 12.15. Whosoever did eat the Passeover with leaven was to be cut off from Israel: Therefore even godly men may procure to themselves untimely deaths, and may provoke God to cut them off in the midst of their years.  
3. Yea further, 
3. By striking with sudden d●ath.  God may not only afflict them in an extraordinary manner, but even strike them with sudden death, and that while their sins are upon them. I will not instance in Ananias and Saphira, nor in Nadab and Abihu, though some have thought charitably of them; we have a clear instance in Vzzah wherein Gods anger was so apparent, by striking him suddenly dead, that the thing is said to displease David, 2 Sam. 6.7. The anger of God was kindled against Vzzah, and he smote him for his error. His error was not, because he was not a Levite, for its plain he was, but because they put the Ark upon a new cart, whereas they should have carried it upon their shoulders; although its thought the carrying of the Ark was limited only to the Levites that were the sons of Kohath, and that no other Levite might touch the Ark, which if so, than it was a second offence against the Law, because he touched it; and indeed this seemeth to be the proper cause, because it was a personal fault of Vzzah, whereas the putting of it on a new cart, was the error of others besides him.  
Thus Vzzah in his very sins is stricken dead; you have likewise another sad example of Ely, Lege historiam, ne fias historia, 1 Sam 4.18. Because he failed in the measure of zeal about the reproof of his sons, therefore he fell backward and broke his neck; Ely manifested his pious affections, in submitting to the hand of God punishing, and in being more affected with the public calamity, than his own private, yet this is his sad Tragical end.  

4. God's anger reaches to their children, and what is dear to them.  4. God's anger doth not limit itself to them only, but it reacheth even to their children, and to those that are dear to them. Thus David's child is stricken dead, for his sin; and thus Flies daughter gives up the ghost with sad grief. The family both of David and Ely, have remarkable calamities following them, and all because of their sins. When any of Elies' posterity shall be forced to crouch for a morsel of bread, this is a Memento of Elies' sin.  
Here a man may see the seed of the righteous begging bread, but for their Parents sins; Therefore that of David▪ Psal. 36. must not be understood universally. That this calamity may the more wound his heart, God telleth him what he will do to his house after his death; if any were left alive, it should be like that indulgence to Cain, to carry up and down a token of God's displeasure; and if you ask for how long should this anger of God endure, 1 Sam. 3.14. His iniquity must not be purged away from that house for ever. Well may the Scripture say, that whosoever heareth this judgement of God, his ears shall tingle. By this instance, how watchful should godly parents be, lest for their sins committed, a curse should cleave to the family for many generations? I acknowledge these calamities as they fell upon Ely a godly man, so they were wholesome medicines, and fatherly corrections, but as they came on his wicked children, or posterity continuing in wickedness, so they were strictly, and properly, punishments.  
Lastly, 
5. These temporal evils will r●ach to the public Church and State wherein they live.  These temporal evils will reach even to the public Church and State wherein they live, so that the sins of godly men may help to pull down public judgements. Thus it was with Hezekiah, for his unthankfulness and pride, there was wrath upon Judah and Jerusalem, 2 Chron. 32.25. so David's sin in numbering the people, it was the death of many thousand in Israel; for Elies' sin, the Israelites are slain in the Army, and the Ark is taken. Hence you have Esay, Daniel and Ezra joining themselves in the number with others, who made public confessions of their sins upon days of humiliation. It is therefore a cursed and secure opinion, that faith, the godly when they keep Fast-days, do it not, because they have any sins that God punisheth, b●t because of wicked men. The Scripture doth manifest the contrary, and the holiest men living do bring some sparks and firebrands to increase the wrath of God, and therefore they ought to bring their buckets for the quenching of it.  
The aggravation of this anger will appear, if you consider, 
God is angry at the least sins.  what kind of sins they have been for which God hath been so sore displeased, and in them enumerated, or instanced in, you may perceive they were the Belzebub-sins, the firstborn of iniquities: Vzzah failed only in the order God had appointed, what he did was out of care, and a good intention; yet the Lord smiteth him; so Moses was denied entering into the land of Canaan▪ which was an heavy affliction to him, because he spoke unadvisedly with his lips: Commentators are at loss to find out what his sin was. So David's sin in numbering the people, it's disputed wherein the transgression lay. Elies' heavy judgements that came so frequently one upon another, were for a want of that measure of zeal which should have burnt within him. Oh therefore consider that God doth not only see sins, that are mountains▪ but that are molehills comparatively: He doth not only see the beams, but the motes that are in us; he doth not only take notice of our mire and vomit, if we return to that, but of the least spot and wrinkle; how deeply mayest thou humble thy self under every Religious duty performed by thee. How often do we fail in the manner of a command, as Vzzah in the order? How often out of pride and self-confidence do we number our earthly props, and refuges, relying upon them? How unadvised are our thoughts and words? now these hairs of sins (as I may so call them, both for number and seeming littleness) are all numbered before God.  

God angry at errors in judgements and false opinions.  As the Lord is angry with these lesser sins and defects in graces; so also for Errors in Judgements, and false opinions: How well would it be for the Antinomian, if God did not see this sin in them, that they hold, he seeth no sin in Believers? I fear me God seeth, and taketh notice of their erroneous Sermons, of their corrupt Doctrines and seducing Books. There are indeed those, who would make heresy, almost innocency, and that it is more to be pitied then punished, but the Apostle, Gal. 5. reckons heresies among gross sins, such as exclude from the Kingdom of heaven; and how severe God's anger is to those who do err, though in less matters, and although they keep the foundation, appeareth in that notable place, 1 Cor. 3.12, 13, 14, 15.  
It is a difficult place, and those that would build Purgatory out of it, they are the Architects of that hay and stubble the text speaks of. Not to join with that exposition of some, who by hay and stubble, do understand evil works; nor with Beza, who denieth it to be meant of false doctrine, but only of the manner of preaching: He makes the building of gold and silver, etc. to be the pure and sincere doctrine of Christ; the hay and stubble to be the vain affecting of eloquence and words; but I rather go along with those that interpret the place of false doctrines, but not such as do overthrow the foundation; only they build superfluous & unsound doctrine, upon the true foundation, which is as uncomely, as if you should see a royal palace, which hath gold for the foundation, and precious stones for the walls, yet have the covering of straw and stubble; what deformity would this be? yet so it is with the best preachers that are, who yet add some errors to the sound Doctrine they deliver. Now for the opening of the place, it is wholly Allegorical; The preachers of God's word are builders, and they are to raise up a stately palace; the materials are compared to gold and silver, to precious stones. The place is an allusion to Isa. 54.12. I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of Carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones; it is a description of the precious Graces and Doctrines which the Ministers of God are clothed with; and this showeth with what esteem and high price all the truths of Christ ought to be received by you. The Ark, Ex. 25.3, 4, 5, 6. was to be made of gold, silver, and other precious materials; this is the nature of true Doctrine. Now false Doctrine, though it be not in fundamentals, but in mere accessories, is called hay and stubble, and he that preacheth these shall come to a severe trial. Every man's work, saith the Text, shall be made manifest; where you see the spreading of false Doctrine, is called the work of a man, as in the second Epist. of John, it's called evil deeds; and this evil work hath a twofold effect; First, it makes the owner to suffer loss, that is, all that labour and pains he hath taken shall bring him no profit, whereas if he had employed himself in the truth, his reward would have been great. The lucrum cessans is as great a loss, as the damnum emergens. Oh! what a fearful thing will it be for false teachers, who have made it their whole business to spread new opinions, to lose all their labour! The other effect is, that though he be saved, yet it shall be so as by fire, that is, he shall be in extreme danger, and he shall have sad tribulations and miseries falling upon him; see the like phrase Judas 23. pulling them out of the fire. That which thou comfortest thyself with, and gloriest in, as if it were persecution, it may be is nothing but part of the fire in the Text, which is to afflict thee, that thy dross may be purged out: let therefore all false teachers (though belonging to God) expect a fire of burning, great afflictions and tribulations. And if Antinomians have trouble for their Doctrine, they are bound to believe God chastiseth them for this very opinion, that he doth not chastise for sin. I have been the longer on this place, because of the multitude of hay and stubble that is built every where. God will have his day, when a fire shall rise to consume it all, and the true Doctrine will only continue. The Apostle speaks as terribly afterwards, v. 17. If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy, where the Apostle calleth the Corinthians, The temple of God: now this is not so much true of every single Christian, as when collected together in a Church or body; and the Spirit dwelling among them, is much more admirable than his presence in the Ark; and he defileth this Temple, who by any false Doctrine and error, corrupts that society; now the greatness of this sin is seen by the words following, The Lord will destroy him, for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that as God destroyed Athaliah, and Beltashazzar for profaning the Temple, and the offerings or gifts of the Temple, no less punishment (unless they repent) shall fall upon those who pervert the Doctrines of Christ.  

Manifestation of God's anger to believers sinning in spiritual and internal things. 1. In matter of consolation.  I come to the second demonstration of God's anger to believers when sinning, and that is in spiritual and internal things; now they are of two sorts; first, the consolations of the holy Ghost, with the light of God's favour; secondly, the flourishing and sprouting of the graces of sanctification; In both these you shall find the godly man after sin much withered. What anger in the first sense, after sin, the godly may feel, David will abundantly tell you, Ps. 11. he calls it the breaking of his bones; you know how terrible and grievous that is, and in the godly this must be the more terrible, because they are of a more tender apprehension: As they say, Christ's bodily pain was more than other men's could be, because of the excellent temper and tender constitution of his body; so it is with the godly, every expression of God's anger, falls like a drop of scalding lead into a man's eye; the conscience of the believer, when once awakened, feels every frown of God like an hell. Thus after the committing of gross sin, God hides his face, and then for the while, they are like so many cain's and Judas', crying out, Their sin is greater than they can bear; and truly this worm would never die, this fire would never be quenched in them, did not God again take them into favour; there is no difference between a man damned in hell, and a godly man troubled in conscience, but the adjunct of time, one is perpetual, and the other is not. Now our Divines say, That eternity is not essential to the punishment of hell (for Christ suffered the torments of hell for us, which yet were not in time eternal) but accidental, because those in hell are not able to satisfy God's justice, therefore they must continue there till they have paid the last farthing, which because they cannot do to all eternity, therefore they are tormented for ever. Look upon David again in Psal. 32.3, 4. How it fared with him, because of his sins; My bones waxed old, through my roaring all the day long, my moisture is turned into the drought of Summer; Did David speak these things hyperbolically and rhetorically only? Did he not find such anguish, and consumption in his soul, that he thought no words could express it? and all this he saith, was because of sin; O then believe this and tremble, lest such a whale of sorrow and grief should swallow thee up, as did David. Thus it was also with the incestuous person, the devil was ready to swallow him up; he was delivered to him to be tormented by him; and can all this be done, yet God take no notice of sin? As the godly in this life time, may have that joy in the Gospel, which passeth all understanding, and more than the heart can perceive; so they may have for sin such trouble, and spiritual desertions, that shall make every thing, their chamber, the field, a very hell to them; and David in many Psalms manifesteth such desolation upon his soul; especially this is seen in lapses, when persecutions do abound, and men through fear have denied that truth, which in their consciences they were assured of. We may read in Ecclesiastical Histories of the grievous wounds and gashes, God's people through frailty have made upon their own souls. And as it is thus in matter of consolation, so in the particular of sanctification, 
●. In sanctification.  how may you observe some, who have been planted by God's grace like a Paradise, through their negligence and corruptions become like a parched wilderness? was not David in his fall, till recovered, like a tree in winter? though the moisture of grace was within, yet nothing did outwardly appear; Was he not like Samson when his hair was cut off, not able to break the cords of sin he was tied in? some have thought a godly man can no more fall from the degrees of grace, than the essence & state of grace; but if sin increase and grow, certainly grace must decrease, for whether sin expel grace meritoriously only, or formally, still the introduction of the one must be the expulsion of the other. Thus Rev. 2. the Church is reproved for abating in her first love; and the people of God complain, Why hast thou hardened our hearts from thy fear? Isa. 63.17. not that God doth infuse hardness, but only he denieth mollifying grace. And certainly a gracious tender heart, must fear a deliverance up to hardness more than up to Satan, Illud est cor durum, quod non trepidat ad nomen cordis duri, said Bernard, That is an hard heart, which doth not tremble at the name of an hard heart. A godly man therefore may so provoké God, that he be left in a senseless, stupid way, acting sin without tender remorse, and securely lying down therein.  

The manifestation of God's anger Eternal.  Lastly, The anger of God eternal cannot indeed be in the event upon him, but yet it doth conditionally oblige him till he doth repent, so that you may suppose a Believer to be damned, if you suppose him not to repent. A conditional Proposition, Nihil ponit in esse, but it doth in posse, and therefore the Scripture makes such hypothetical Propositions, wherein a possibility of Apostasy is supposed in the godly, if left to themselves; as in that famous place, Ezek. 18.14. When the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, all his righteousness shall not be mentioned, in his sins he shall die. This place is not (as some do) to be understood of a righteous man in appearance only, for it's opposed to a wicked man in reality; and it is such a righteousness, that if continued in, he should have lived eternally. Neither may we stretch it to an apostasy from the state of Justification, as others do; but it is to be understood as comminatory, by way of threatening and supposition: for it is true, that if a godly man should forsake his righteousness, it would not be remembered to him; and therefore if you suppose a justified person not to repent of his grievous sins committed, you may also suppose him to die in the displeasure and eternal wrath of God: but this is more exactly to be considered of, when we handle that Question, Whether Remission of sin obtained, may be frustrated and made void by new subsequent actual sins?   

LECTURE XI.  HEB. 4.13. 
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.  
ALthough this Text in the general sense of it, will not fully prove God's eye of anger against sin in justified persons; yet because a more special scrutiny and search into the words, will make much against the Antinomian Error, and also because the Answers which are given to this Text, and the like, do contain gross falsehoods, so that in the refuting of them, all things in this controversy will be clearly discovered, as also because that principal and noble Question, How far Gods taking notice of sin, to chastise and punish it, is subject to the mere liberty of his will, will in some measure be discussed, I shall therefore insist upon this Text. Not that the Orthodox make it their shield of Achilles, as the Antinomian slandereth, Honeycomb, p. 73. But because the vanity of that distinction, which they make between Gods seeing and his knowing, may be brought out from behind the stuff, where like Saul it had hid itself.  
And first, for the Text absolutely in itself, 
The coherence.  The words are part of that excellent commendation, which is given to God's word. The purity and power of Religion is kept up by acknowledging the fullness and perfection of the Scripture. Both Papists and Illuminatists agree in this dangerous Error, that they look for, and expect a Doctrinal teaching immediately by God's Spirit, above, and besides that of the Word: Hence as the Papists make the Scripture but a sheath to receive any sword, either of gold or iron (words that will bear any sense you put upon them) so do the Illuminatists, that a godly man is above all books, teachers, writings, and feels nothing but God working and acting in him. We have therefore the greater cause to set up the Scriptures in their Divine authority and fullness, by how much the more others endeavour to diminish it. This noble encomium of God's word beginneth, v. 12. where you have the subject of the commendation, & the commendation itself. The subject is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word of God. Bellarmine and other Papists, that they might depress the Authority of the Scriptures, understand this of Christ, who is often called the Word. Their reasons are partly because Christ is in other places called so, as Joh. 1.1. & alibi, and partly because this Word is spoken of as a person, and therefore all things are said to be open and naked to his sight. But these are not Cogent; for although in other places Christ is called the word, yet the context doth there clearly evince it, whereas here the contrary will appear: for having before exhorted them to receive the Gospel, and to hearken to the voice, while it calls to day, among other Arguments he brings this from the nature of God's word, which is to be understood both of the Law and the Gospel; and its further observed as a peculiar thing to John only in his Gospel, and the Epistles, to call Christ the word of God; and although the Text speaks of the word of God as preached, and not as written, yet because the word written and preached, differ not essentially but accidentally in respect of the manner, therefore this Argument holds true of the Scriptures. As for the second reason it is ordinary by a metonymy to attribute that to the Scripture which belongs to God speaking by the Scripture, as Gal. 3.22. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, etc. so the Scripture is said to speak Ja. 4.5. So that it is no wonder if here the word of God be spoken of, as knowing all things, because God by this doth discover and manifest every thing. In the next place consider the commendation, and that is, 1. from the adjunct qualities, 2. from the powerful effects. The adjunct qualities are (quick and powerful) that is, it is not dead or frustrated, but puts forth its power and efficacy, which our words cannot do. It is thought to be an allusive expression to the fire which was on the altar of sacrifices, that was not to go out.  
Secondly, It's commended from the effect, it's sharper than a two-edged sword; it's an Hebraism to give a mouth to the sword, because it doth so devour; but because a two-edged or two-mouthed sword doth divide more forcibly, therefore is God's word compared to that. Such a sword they say, the Levites in the Old Testament did use in dividing and opening the sacrifices, in which Metaphor the Apostle continueth afterwards. Now by this comparison two things are insinuated,  
1. That God knoweth all sin, even the most hidden.  
2. This knowledge is not a mere bare knowledge, but such as is of a Judge examining and punishing. For as the sword doth pierce and hurt, so God's word doth see and punish, therefore it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, most exactly discerning and separating gold from dross, and judging accordingly: so that the Text speaking not barely of an omniscient eye of God, but an eye discerning▪ judging and punishing, doth in this consideration pertinently belong to the controversy. We need not be curious in distinguishing between the spirit and the soul (only the Scripture doth not confound these together) nor between the things understood by the marrow and joints, 
The Text opened.  which are translated from the body to the soul. This is intended in the general, by the joints, he means the minimums, the least things; and by the marrow, the intima, the most secret and inward things. Having thus described the efficacy of God's word, he layeth down two Propositions in my Text; one negative, the other affirmative. Negative, There is no creature, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inapparent, but he seeth thorough it. Affirmative, All things are naked and opened, opened is more than naked: Naked, is that which is not clothed or covered; Opened, is that, whose inwards are discovered and made conspicuous. Much is said by Critics concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Cameron thinks it translated from wrestlers, who are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their adversary, when they so take him by the neck, and turn him upside down, so as to object him in every part to the eyes of the beholders: some say, the Metaphor may be taken from those, who being before the Judge, hold down their neck and face to the ground, as not daring to behold his face: but that which is most received, and which is most consonant to the context, is of those who take the word from those who begin at the neck, and divide the sacrifice in the middle, so that all the inwards do appear. Thus you see how emphatical and full the Scripture is in describing of God's omniscient eye of any sin wheresover it is, and that not by a mere bare cognition, 
Observe.  but of judging; so that the Observation is,  
That seeing there is sin in justified persons, God's eye must needs see it, and judge it.  

Antinomians answer by distinguishing,  To this it is answered very confidently by a distinction never heard of before, That God indeed knoweth the sins of believers, but he doth not see them, Hon. Comb p. 67, 68, 69, 70. and this distinction they plead so boldly for, that (they say) although all men, Devils and Angels, would gainsay it, yet it must stand; for the opening of this silly distinction, they express themselves thus; That although to see and know be all one in the pure uncompounded nature of God, yet they are not so to us; even as justice and mercy are all one in God, 
And reasons thereof.  but not to us, yea contrary; and the Author giveth two strong reasons (as he calls them) to prove this, first, The Scripture (saith he) distinguisheth them, now he argueth, that as it is a sin to distinguish where the Scripture doth not (and thereupon he instanceth in the distinction of the guilt of sin, and the nature of sin, making it a new distinction, and suspecting it for a corrupter of the Gospel, as if Christ had taken away the guilt of our sins, and not the sins themselves) so where the Scripture doth distinguish, there it is a sin for us not to distinguish. Now concerning the former, that there is in the Scripture a distinction between the guilt of sin, and sin itself, is in its due time to be proved.  
Let us consider how he proveth this distinction of Gods seeing and knowing. The place he brings is Psal. 94▪ 9, 10. He that form the eye, shall not he see? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? Here (saith he) they are distinctly set down, and the Scripture useth this continual practice, saying no where, That God doth not know the sins of justified persons, but in many places, That he seeth no sin in them. His second reason is, because among men and Angels, yea in God himself there is a reason (to our capacities) of this difference; for to know a thing, is, to understand the nature of it, though the thing itself be abolished and hath no existence; but to see a thing, is to have a real existence of it before our eye. As for instance, God (saith he) knoweth the flood that drowned the whole world, but he doth not see it having an existence now; so God knoweth the leprosy of Naaman, more perfectly than Naaman did himself, yet he doth not see it upon Naaman; and thus God knoweth the sins of the wicked, and of his justified children more perfectly than they themselves do, and herein is no difference between them; but here is the difference, that God seeth sin in the one, and not in the other, because abolished by Christ.  
Thus you have a heap of falsehoods and nonsense together, as if the Author had no knowing or seeing, while he speaks of these things.  
To let you understand the truth in these particulars; howsoever it would be very profitable in this place, to give you the Scripture Doctrine, about the eye or seeing of God; as also the different use of it in Scripture; namely, that sometimes it's taken for a mere naked apprehension of a thing; sometimes for the actions or effects that do flow from Gods seeing, and then it is used either in a good sense for the eye of his care, protection and approbation, or in a bad sense, and that two ways, either for an eye of condemnation, in which sense God doth not see the sins of Believers, or of displeasure and anger, in which sense it's expressly said, the sinful actions of godly men are evil in God's eyes: 
The truth of the Antinomian distinction▪ examined by several Propositions.  Howsoever (I say) it would be very profitable to speak of this here, yet I shall put it off. I shall therefore examine what truth is in this distinction, which they so applaud, and that shall be by several Propositions.  
First, That seeing is attributed to God only metaphorically, 
1. Seeing attributed to God only metaphorically.  God hath no bodily eyes. It is well observed by a Father, that the meaner and more debased the things are to which God is compared, there is the least danger, because every common apprehension will judge it not to be truly and formally so in God. And thus it is of eyes, and when to see is attributed to God, it is the same thing with to know, so that to make a difference between these two is gross ignorance.  
Secondly, Knowledge is attributed likewise to God, 
2. God's knowledge and ours differs.  but in a far different sense from what it is in us, and therefore differs from our knowledge many ways: 1. His knowledge is his substance: Hence Synesius said, God to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by his understanding. 2. It's not caused from objects; Gregory expressed it well, Ipse mundus nobis non notus esse posset nisi esset, deo autem nisi notus esset, esse non posset. 3. It's simple and one. There is properly no memory of things past, no prescience of things to come, but all things are present to him: As if there were a body that were all eyes, that needed not to turn itself backward and forward, to see things; or as a man standing upon an high Tower doth with one cast of his eye behold Passengers at the bottom of the Tower, which go successively one after another; Thus Deus est totus lux, & totus oculus, God is altogether light, and wholly an eye. 4. Knowledge in us, is properly taken for to know a thing by its causes, but it is not so in God. This rightly understood will overthrow that distinction of knowing and seeing.  

3. The alleged text, Psal 94 no ground fo● their distinction.  Thirdly, That text, Psal. 94. doth no ways suppose such a distinction; for the Psalmist doth there intend, whatsoever perfection is either in bodily seeing, or mental knowing, it is eminently and more transcendently in God; neither doth he limit seeing to the sins of wicked men, and knowing only to the sins of the godly; yea, the text maketh thus against the Antinomian, if a believer himself and others see sin in him, shall not God much more? Indeed in the creatures, there is a distinction between seeing and knowing in some respects, for knowing may be of a thing in the abstract, but seeing doth denote the intuitive present apprehension, so that knowing hath a perfection which seeing hath not, and seeing which knowing hath not; but in God all his knowledge is intuitive, and all things are present to him, because of his eternity and omnipresence, so the Schools determine, and rightly, upon that Text, 2 Pet. 3. afterwards to be explained, and the reason is, because intuitive knowledge, or the apprehension of a thing present, is the most noble knowledge, not that the things themselves do coexist, or are present to one another, but unto God in Eternity; for as God's immensity is in respect of his essence, so his eternity is in regard of time: so that although the things themselves vary, yet God's knowledge doth not; As an Artificer, who hath the Idea, or form of an house in his mind, before he makes it, when it is made, and after it is destroyed: he hath still the same form in his mind, though the house be altered.  

4. The Scripture useth no such difference.  Fourthly, Neither doth the Scripture customarily use such a difference; yea, to know, when attributed to God, is used many times for a knowledge of approbation, and then we cannot say, God knoweth the sins of Believers; but we may as well say, God knoweth no sin in them (that is) to condemn them for it, as well as he seeth none in them, so Hab. 1. God is said to be of purer eye● then to behold iniquity▪ that is, with approbation, and so in this sense, we may say, God seeth no sin, no not in wicked men: Besides it is very false, that the Scripture doth no where say, that he seeth sin in Believers; for it is expressly said of David's numbering the people, and of his murder, that it was evil in God's eyes, and he confesses that he had done that evil in God's sight. But of this more hereafter.  
So then wheresoever the Scripture saith, God seeth no sin, there we may also as truly say, God knoweth none; and where it is said, he doth see, there we may say he doth know also.  
Fifthly, 
5. There is no distinction to our capacities between Gods knowing and s●eing.  There is in reason no distinction to be made to our capacities between Gods knowing and seeing, for in those instances the Author giveth, we may say God knoweth in that respect as he seeth, and he doth not see in that respect he doth not know; As for example, God doth not see the flood now to be, no more can we say, he knoweth it now to be, for that is false; God doth not see the Leprosy upon Naaman, no more doth he know it to be on him: So God knoweth his people in Christ, as well as seethe them in Christ, and therefore if by Christ he seeth no sin in them, he must likewise know none in them. Now this error is grounded upon a dangerous conceit, as if Gods seeing were limited to things existent, and his knowledge to things past or future, so that it's inexcusable ignorance, to say with this Author, that God knew the Sun and Moon before he made them, but he did not see them. He did not indeed see them to be before they were, no more did he know them to be before they were, but when they were made, his seeing and knowing of them were all one.  
Sixtly, 
6 Gods seeing ●nd knowing, not opposite.  If Gods seeing were to be explained oppositely to his knowing, than nothing that had a present being were known by God. But doth not the Scripture give to God the knowledge of all things? and though the things be diversified by time past, present, and to come, yet to God they are not so; Consider that eminent place, 2 Pet. 3.8. A thousand years with God, are but as one day. The Apostle allegeth this place out of Psal. 90. ver. 4. with a little variation. The Psalmist saith, as yesterday when it is past: The Apostle as one day. The Psalmist saith, in thy eyes O Lord: The Apostle with the Lord. The Psalmists expression in the eyes of the Lord, are very pregnant to our purpose. Here is a description of eternity, proving that God seeth all things with one intuitive cast of his eye, and that although to us things are present, past and to come, yet to God all things are present, and although we are not able to reach this with our understanding, no more than a pigmy the Pyramids, yet we must rest more upon this Scripture assertion, than our own understanding, Quicquid de Deo dici (we may add cogitari) potest, eo ipso est indignum quia dici (cogitari) potest: and again dignè Deum aestimamus, dum inaestimabil●m dicimus. The Schoolmen dispute, whether those things which God did once know, he still knoweth, as for example, God once knew that Christ was to die, but now it is not true, that he is to die; and their resolution is, that we cannot properly say, God begins to know what he did, or ceaseth to know what he did, but rather that the thing itself beginneth to be known, or ceaseth to be known, so that the change is not in respect of Gods knowing, but the thing known, as when I see the Sun, and afterwards it is hid in the cloud, the change is not in my eye, but in the Sun; Hence they also resolve, that God knoweth all things simul together, that his knowledge is invariable, that it admitteth not of increase or decrease, that all things are present to him, and that as the Sun is always in actu lucendi, so God in actu intelligendi: So that this very Text doth briefly overthrow all that which the Antinomian in so many pages sweateth to prove; and that the consideration of God's eternal knowledge in this manner is of profitable use, appeareth by that, when the Apostle saith, Be not ignorant of this one thing.  

7. God's seeing not limited to things present.  Seventhly, If Gods seeing of things were limited in our capacity, only to things present, than all the bypast sins of ungodly men, though unrepented of, yet God doth not see them, because they have no present being, and so God shall not only, not see sins in the godly, but likewise not in the ungodly: All the past sins of Judas and Cain, God did not see at the day of their death, for they were p●st away. Here will be much comfort to unbelievers, as well as Believers.  
Eightly, If therefore God doth not see a thing because it is past, 
8 Gods not ●●●ing sins past exclud●s Christ's merits.  what need the Antinomian run to Christ's merits taking away sin out of God's sight, for this would follow by natural consequence, because the object is taken away? Take their own instances, God doth not now see the Flood that drowned the world; The Leprosy upon Naaman; The Israelites wound that is healed; why so? doth there need the blood of Christ to remove these? No, it followeth naturally, because the objects are removed and taken away; and so it would be here.  
Ninthly, All these instances for Gods not seeing, yet knowing, 
9 Antinomian 〈◊〉 cont●a●y to their doctrine.  are contrary to the doctrine they hold▪ God doth not see the Flood that drowned the world, he seeth not Naaman's Leprosy, why so? because these things have no being; but here is their grand absurdity, that they hold sin hath still an objective existency in us to God's understanding, and yet he doth not see it. They should have instanced in some thing that hath a being, and yet for all that, God not see it. If Naaman's Leprosy had continued on him still, and yet God not see it, than it had been to the purpose; for they grant that we have truly sin in us, and we are to judge so; yet though it hath such a being in us, God doth not see it.  
Tenthly, What an empty Cobweb is this distinction, 
10. The vainness of this distinction.  even for that very purpose they bring it? Oh say they, if God see sin, he is of so pure a nature, that he cannot be but horribly and infinitely displeased with us: Those (say they) that hold God seeth sin in Believers, consider not how loathsome, even the least sin is in his eyes. But will this comfort my conscience, if they say at the same time, though God doth not see it, yet he knoweth it? Alas, God is of that pure nature, that if he knoweth but the least sin by me, he cannot but be infinitely displeased at it. So that you see this distinction will no ways ease a Believer in point of the trouble of his conscience. And thus have I laboured to break the heart of this false and ignorant distinction.   

LECTURE XII.  HEBREWS 4.13. 
All things are naked and opened to him, etc.  

2. Antinomians second answer.  THe second answer made by the Antinomians to this Argument from God's omnisciency, is this, For when we say, how weak and absurd is it, to hold, God doth not see that, which we see? They answer (Honeycomb pag. 61.) Here we oppose the power of God against his will, for he seeth all things, saving that which he undertakes to abolish out of his own sight, that he may not see it, so that by his mystical clothing of us with his son's righteousness, he hath abolished it out of his own sight, though not out of ours. Now we told you that this answer is not universally to be slighted, for our Divines, Pareus and others (as I mentioned before) (maintaining that remission of sin, though it be the utter deletion of the guilt, yet not the full eradication and abolition of the filth, but that it still continueth in us) make this objection to themselves, Nothing is hid or covered from God's eyes, if therefore sin be there, God cannot but see it. To this they answer, God seeth all, but what he will not see, and that is a known saying of Augustine's, Noluit advertere, noluit animadvertere, noluit agnoscere, maluit ignoscere, God will not take notice of the sins of justified persons, he will not punish them, he had rather forgive them. It seemeth then by this, that God will not see sin in Believers to condemnation but yet he will to castigation; but if Christ hath fully satisfied God's wrath, and it be a mere arbitrary thing in God, whether he will chastise or no, why then should not God's anger and his chastisements be removed from the godly by Christ's death as well as his justice and punishments? It's therefore worthy the inquiry, how far Gods taking notice of sin so as to chastise or punish it, is subject to the mere liberty of his will: And in answering of this, I will not range as far as this question will carry me, for the total discussion of it in its large extent will be when we speak of the meritorious cause of justification against Socinians. 
Propositions showing how far Gods taking notice of sin, so as to punish it, is subject to the mere liberty of his will▪  To speak therefore in a more restricted way of this matter: Consider these Propositions, some whereof are groundworks and foundations, the other more immediately reaching to our scope in hand.  
First, There is in God a liberty and freewill, whereby he doth whatsoever he pleaseth, so that as the Psalmist saith, He that made the eye to see, shall not he see? He that maketh man to know, shall not he know? and thus he that gave man and Angels this perfection of freedom, shall not he much more be free? 
1. There is in God a liberty whereby he doth whatsoever he pleaseth.  Therefore those titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Greek Fathers sometimes give to the will of man, are too proud and lofty, and do more properly belong to God. Indeed so far as freedom is conceived in creatures to have some potential 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indifferency, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a suspendedness to be determined by some other, so far we are not to conceive it in God; for this mutability or Potential indetermination, is an imperfection; and so that same potest as peccandi, power to sin, which some make necessary to liberty, and which they call a perfection▪ though they grant the action of sin itself to be an imperfection (though this should be granted, which must not) yet neither could this be found in God's liberty, and no marvel, seeing that it is not in the liberty of Christ's humane will, for though Christ's obedience was truly and properly so, being under a command of God, yet not only as he was God, but as he was man, he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impeccablo, or free from the temptation of sin. Therefore its detestable blasphemy of Durand and other Schoolmen, saying, Christ might have sinned, lib. 3. Sentent. didst 12. quae. 2. as also of the Remonstrants who say, Christ after he had taken this Office of a mediatorship, might have forsaken it, and given it over, but of this more in its proper place; God therefore is a free agent, Psal. 135.6. He hath done whatsoever he pleased in heaven and earth, so that he made not the world as the fire burneth, or the Bees make their Honey-Combs, by a natural necessity, but according to the counsel of his will; hence it is that all his spiritual mercies become commended unto us, under the title of grace. There was no natural or moral necessity, obliging God to elect us, to give his Son for us, or to save us, and indeed it could not be liberality, if it were not a libero, from one that is free.  

2. How freedom may be extended to God.  Propos. 2. According to the different descriptions of liberty and freedom; so it may be extended larger or narrower unto the actions of God. Those who make liberty consistent with a necessity of immutability, and do not think indifferency necessary, but only knowledge, and judgement going before, they extend it even to the goodness and holiness of God; so they say, God is liberè bonus, freely good, and doth freely love himself, so they make the confirmed Angels and Saints, freely to love God, though necessarily, thus we sin freely, though necessarily: But others, who make a power to do, or not do, necessary to liberty, think it a kind of blasphemy to say, God doth freely will that which is good: hence they make liberty not an attribute of his nature, as holiness, omnipotency, etc. are, but an affection of his will only, and they think that necessarium and contingens, under which liberty is comprehended, are differences of ens in its full latitude, as finitum and infinitum; therefore as the same thing cannot be finite and infinite, so neither necessary and free, but this is to put the definition of liberty into too straight fetters, as in time may be shown. I join with those, that think immutability and liberty may be in the same act, and that God doth freely, though unchangeably love himself; but that freedom of his actions to the creatures, is with a power to do otherwise if he pleaseth.  
There is also another kind of liberty mentioned by the learned, which is opposed to servitude, and is the same with sui juris; now God in all things is this way free: He hath no law imposed upon himself by any other, but only what he prescribeth himself, that doth he work by; therefore when we say, its just with God to damn an impenitent sinner, this justice ariseth not from any obligation put upon him by another, but what he hath eternally prescribed himself.  

3. We cannot properly say God seeth all things because he will see them.  Propos. 3. God's omnisciency, or his bare seeing and taking notice of sin, when it is, is not subject to his liberty, He cannot but see, whatsoever is, and also possible to be, so that we cannot say properly God seeth all things because he will see them; for this is an attribute founded in the nature of God; but if we take knowledge or seeing for the effects accompanying them, as the Scripture for the most part doth, because God is not an idle spectator of things, but upon his seeing, there is either care and protection, or anger and punishment, then in this sense, all these effects are subject in some sense to the liberty and freewill of God. God cannot but see the adultery of David, but whether he will so see it, as to punish David for it in his own person, or in Christ; or whether he will chastise him at this time, or in this manner; that is merely at the good pleasure of God. Whether indeed he is free to punish at all, or chastise at all, you will hear in the other Propositions; thus much we may conclude, That God cannot abolish sin so out of his sight, so that with his eyes of omnisciency he should not behold it, when it is there.  
Propos. 4. In respect of God's liberty and freedom, 
4. Great difference in respect of God's freedom between the attributes of God, and the actions of them.  there is great difference between the attributes of God, as also the exercises and actions of them. There are some properties that require no object for their exercise, but they make it; thus the omnipotency of God, doth not find, but make its object. Again there are others, which though they require an object, yet not any condition, or circumstance in it; so the wisdom of God, can and doth order every object, let it be what it will be, to a glorious end. It ordered an harmonious world out of a Chaos, he made all things, qua omnipotens, as omnipotent, and ordered them all qua sapiens, as a wise God. But then there are other attributes, which though essential to him, yet cannot be exercised, but where the objects are so and so conditionated; as that mercy of God, whereby he doth forgive sins, requireth an object penitent and believing: so that Justice of God, whereby it is punitive and vindicative of sin, requireth an object, that is a sinner and impenitent. Now in the actions about the objects of the former sort, God is every way free, he might have created the world, or not have created it; but in the actions of the latter sort, though he be also free, yet not so as to use Justice, or not Justice, when there is an object with its due condition. As now it was free to God, whether he would make man or no, it was free for him, whether he would permit man to fall or no, but when fallen, not free whether he would be just or no: Thus God is free, whether he will procure, or prepare an object of justice; but then when he hath so prepared an object, than he is not loosened from the obligation of Justice. To procure an object of Justice ariseth from the Sovereignty and mere freedom of God: Hence God's permission of sin, or reprobation negative. which is the passing by of some, are not acts of Justice properly so called; but condemnation for sin is truly and properly Justice. The former arise from God's supreme dominion and freedom. When an Object of Justice is, there is an obligation to execute the same upon it, but not when an object of mercy is, because its necessary to mercy, that it should be indebita, but to justice, debita.  
I do not here intent to meddle with that Question, Whether God absolutely might not have let sin go unpunished, and yet forgive it, as we see men can: (This is disputed even among the Orthodox; some are for the Negative, as Pis●ator, Lubertus, etc. Others for the Affirmative, as Davenant, Twist, etc. but the proper place for this will be, when we speak of Christ's satisfaction) nor yet with that other of the Schoolmen, Whether God may absolutely accept of a sinner to pardon, and eternal life, though he do not regenerate, or sanctify him; these are to be handled in their proper place. You see by this delivered, how far the actions of God's Justice may be said to be free, or not free.  

5. God cannot in justice but punish sinners.  Propos. 5. Whatsoever may be said in an absolute sense about God's Justice, yet since that threatening promulged (In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the death) God cannot in justice, but punish sinners. Though it be in his freedom whether he will give thee a being, or no, yet if thou art an obstinate sinner, it is not in his freedom, whether he will damn thee or no; so that as God cannot but love that Image of his holiness where he seeth it, so he cannot but hate the contrary, wheresoever it is, though that hatred shall not always fall upon the person in whom it is, because removed by Christ.  
It is cameron's opinion, That the word justitia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when attributed to God, doth always signify Goodness, Salvation, Redemption, but never in the Scripture (saith he) doth it denote an affection in God, whereby he avengeth himself upon sinners; but that the words Ira and judicium, Anger and judgement express this; But though the word signify so sometimes, yet in some places it must needs mean this disposition in God, Psal. 9.5. 1 Tim. 4.8. 2 Thess. 1.6. so that in some sense, we may with several Orthodox men, say, justice is essential to God. Sin is not indeed Physically contrary to God, as water is to fire, for if it were so, God would not suffer it to be, because he is an infinite good; as if there were infinite fire, or light, there could not be any water or darkness; but it is morally contrary to him, Hab. 1. Thou art of purer eyes then to behold iniquity; even sins against any positive command of God, that are sins only because prohibited, they are thus far against his nature, and not his will only; because it is against his nature, to have his will and commands disobeyed in any thing, he being the supreme and most holy Lawgiver. If God did only punish sin because he will, and not because he is essentially just, there could no true cause be given, why Heathens should have terror in their consciences after sins committed, seeing the Word is not revealed unto them, declaring Gods will: and when the Scripture speaks of God punishing sins, it doth not attribute it to God's mere will, because he will do so, but to his justice, Rev. 16.5, 7. Thus Exod. 24. God is described by this property, Not acquitting the guilty. Now when we say, God cannot but punish sin with death since the promulgation of the threatening, that is not so to be understood, as if then only the tie and obligation of justice came upon God, but it was from eternity: for as God did in time reveal this threatening; so he did from all eternity will this threatening; and so therefore from all eternity it was just with God to punish a sinner, neither could he forgive him without a satisfaction. This is diligently to be observed, because men speak sometimes, as if vindicative justice were then only due when the actual threatening was; whereas the executions of God in time, are, as his decrees were from eternity; and truly we should not give way to such Disputes, Whether God could have pardoned absolutely, or provided any other way and remedy, when we see God pitching upon this, and the Scripture only revealing this. Hence the Scripture commandeth us to eschew sins, not merely because of his will only, but because he is holy in his nature, Leu. 11.44. Josh. 24.19. It is true God's hatred and displicency of sin cannot but be, yet the destination of it actually to punishment comes in some sense under his liberty.  

6. It is in God's freedom to punish sin in the party offending, or in a safety.  Prop. 6. Though God cannot but take notice of sin, so as to punish it, yet it is under his freedom, whether he will punish it in their own persons or in a surety; and by this means the wisdom of God found out an excellent temperament of justice and Mercy, so that the one doth not oppose the other; notwithstanding God's justice, yet his love and wisdom put him upon that remedy, which neither men or Angels could have excogitated; so that God doth not let sin go unpunished, only he provideth a Ram to be sacrificed for Isaac, a Mediator to come between his wrath and us. It is true, reason (as we see) doth much gainsay this mystery; but we may say, mulier ista taceat, let this woman hold her peace in the Church of God: Though therefore God cannot but execute justice upon sinners, yet his justice did admit of a temperament, whereby God doth proceed to see the sins of his people, to hate them, but yet to punish them upon Christ.  

7. Great difference between God's justice essentially a● intra, and the effects of it ad extra▪  7. Prop. There is a great deal of difference between justice, as it is an essential property in God, ad intra, and between the effects of it, ad extra. These latter come much under the liberty and freedom of God; which appeareth in the variety of his judgements upon wicked men, some being consumed one way, and some another, so that it is merely at his pleasure, whether he will stir up more or less wrath, Ps. 2. there is a little anger of his spoken of: but you may read a remarkable expression, Ps. 78.38. He turned away his wrath from th●m and stirred not up all his wrath. Here you see the anger of God subject to his freewill. If the effects of God's justice should flow from him as burning from fire, or drowning from water, the whole world were not able to endure before him who is a consuming fire. How could it come about, that the wicked do so overflow with prosperity in this world, if so be that God did necessarily punish and destroy, which are effects of his justice? So that there is a great difference between justice taken for an attribute, and justice for the effects; God cannot but be always just the former, whereas there is a liberty in the latter. As in man, the power of laughing is an essential property in him, yet the act of laughter ariseth in some measure by the freeness of his will. Hence it is that Gods essential justice doth not receive more or less, but the effects of his justice may be more or less: If many men be in the same sin, and God doth punish some of them with a remarkable temporal judgement, we may not say, God dealeth more justly with these then the other; yet we may say, the effects of his justice are greater upon some then others.  
8. Propos. Christ satisfied God as a just judge, not as a Father provoked, and by this means, though punishments are taken away, 
8. Christ satisfied God as a just Judge, not as a Father.  yet afflictions for sin are not; and this doth directly answer the whole Question, whereas it is demanded, seeing Christ fully reconciled God to us, and thereby all punishments are taken away, why not as well all afflictions? If he hath removed greater, will he think much at the less? The answer lieth fully in this, Christ by his blood and satisfaction undertook that the justice of God should never fall upon us to punish us, not that he should never be angry with us a Father, to chastise us. By this redemption, it's Christ's will that God should not as a just judge, require compensation of us; not, that as a provoked Father, he should not scourge us for our sins when committed. The reason is clear, because fatherly anger is an ●ffect of love; but punishment the fruit of hatred. And thus now you see, why God will not see sin to condemnation, because Christ hath made up that; yet he will see it in believers to angry castigation, because Christ did not interpose there: it is therefore no derogation to Christ's death, no injury to his sufferings, if notwithstanding them, God doth afflict for sin, even his own children.  
9 Propos. By reason of this anger of God against sin, 
9 Afflictions on believers agreeable to God's Justice.  even still abiding, those afflictions which come upon believers, are from a conveniency with the justice of God. Although we cannot say rigidly, That if God did not chastise believers for their sins, he were unjust; yet we may say, his afflicting of them, is beseeming his justice, partly, because he hath prescribed this law to himself, 1 Sam. 7.14. Even as to wicked men upon their obstinate sinning, to punish them, so upon his own, if they offend, to chasten them; and partly by afflicting of his people for their sin, he demonstrates the hatred of it unto the world. Although therefore God do not always chastise every godly man, but sometimes by their repentance these very chastisements are either prevented or removed, yet when God doth thus break out in his anger against them, this is becoming his just nature, and the world thereby seeth how he is displeased with it. One of the Articles which Arminius relateth, as laid against him, was, that he should hold, The temporal afflictions of believers, were not chastisements but punishments, properly so called. To this he answereth, pa. 103. Resp. ad Artic. 31. That the calamities inflicted upon David for his sin, in the matter of Vriah, may be called punishments properly; and that the Text seemeth to be better explained so, and yet withal, that there will be no favour to the Popish opinion: for he grants, That Christ satisfied both for eternal and temporal punishments, but yet God when he takes off the spiritual punishment, may for a while reserve the temporal, as though Christ hath taken away the jus, the power and right death hath over us, yet he hath not quite destroyed actual death: but all this is a mere itching, to innovate needlessly in Religion; for if Christ have satisfied for temporal death, then though it be not removed presently, yet it cannot abide as a punishment strictly.   

LECTURE XIII.  MATTH. 6.12. 
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.  
THis Text shall be the last (because the noblest) to prove that God seeth sin in those that are believers; for if they be bound to pray that God would forgive them their debts, therefore they are involved in debts, and in deep humility they are to acknowledge this, withal desiring the cancelling or blotting them out; so that as the Church anciently used this place against those Pelagian Doctrines, which dreamt of a perfection in this life, and immunity from all sin, no less doth it overthrow those novel Assertions, of being without sin (though not inherently) yet as to God's eye and account. What Ter●ullian said of the Lords-Prayer in general, is most true of this Petition, Quantum substringitur verbis, tantum diffunditur sensibus, it is as comprehensive in sense, as straightened in words, 
The Text divided.  so in this Petition, you have few leaves of words, but much fruit of matter; It's like Christ's Mustardseed, which by a good Interpreters managing, will grow into a tall tree. The material things that belong to remission of sins, I shall enclose as pertinent to my purpose. In the words you have the Petition itself, Forgive. Secondly, The Subject, Us, Disciples and Believers. He that thinketh himself without sin, that very thought is a sin in him. Thirdly, The Object or Matter of Petition, Our debts (that is) as Luke 11▪ expounds it, sins. Fourthly, The Condition or Qualification of those who are to expect pardon (As we forgive our Debtors) which words are not to be understood causally and meritoriously of Justification, nor as if we did hereby teach God to imitate us: Therefore those expressions of the Ancients, intimating that in other things we imitate God, but here God doth us, are not rigidly justifiable. Cassianus Collat. 9 cap. 23. reproveth some that would not forgive others, but yet lest they should lie in their prayer, they would leave this part out of the Petition: But our Saviour maketh this a necessary qualification for remission of sin, whether we express it or not. Lastly, There is the Particle of order, 
Observables from the connexion.  And; so that the very connexion of it to the Petition for daily bread, doth teach us; first, that our hearts are not to stay long in prayer for temporal things, but presently to return to spiritual: As some Fowls of the air, suddenly catch their prey off from the ground, but dare not abide, lest they should be ensnared; so ought we to do in our affections about heavenly things: many times the Bee is drowned in its own honey. Hence we have but one Petition for earthly things, and two for spritual things, belonging to ourselves; this, and the Petition following; In this we pray for remission of sin; in the following for sanctification; which are the sum of the new Covenant. Besides this order doth well teach us, That although we have all bodily necessaries, yet if our sins are not forgiven we cannot take any delight in any worldly advantage whatsoever. I shall begin with the Object of the Petition, which is in the Text Debts. Sins are so called to aggravate the nature of them, 
Why sins are called Debts▪  and make us more fearful and cautelous how we run into them. As Solomon speaks of Suretyship for another, Deliver thyself like the swift Roe; the same is much more to be applied to our sins, which are debts of a more terrible nature. Now when sins are called Debts, or said to be forgiven, it's a Metaphor from pecuniary Debts, as the Debtor was said luere when he did pay his money; and it is generally used of any that are obnoxious to punishment; so the Grecians say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latins, Poenas debere. So the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used both for Debts and Gild, Dan. 1.10. Ezech. 18.7. as also for Sin, Exod. 32. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is applied to a Sinner, Jam. 2.20. is also frequently used of Punishments, as Mat. 5.21, 22.  

Observe. Sins are debts.  The Observation, Sins are Debts. This is excellently described, Mat. 18.24. where our sins against God are not only compared to a Debt▪ but a debt of a vast sum, ten thousand talents, which there is no hope for us ever to discharge, so that the aggravation of a sin lieth in this, that it is against God; therefore observe, that offence which man doth against man, is compared to an hundred pence only, but that which we do against God to ten thousand talents. O that men therefore who account it such a misery and slavery to be in money-debts, would bemoan their condition of sin-debts. As sins are debts, so God is said to have a debt-book▪ wherein he writeth all our transgressions: hence is that phrase of blotting them out, and of cancelling the hand-writing that is against us. This hand-writing in the Scripture should as much appall and astonish us, as that on the wall did Belshazzar. So that phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to reckon or impute, is taken from accounts in debts. But to open the Point,  

What in sin is a debt.  1. Let us consider, What in sin is a Debt. And  
2. Why sins are called Debts.  
In sin there is the obliquity and dissonancy from the Law of God; and this is not called a Debt, for we do not owe this to God, but the contrary, obedience and holiness. In sin there is a guilt and obligation unto eternal punishment, and this is properly a Debt; but yet in this Petition we must not limit it to the latter respect only, but include both the deformity and demerit of sin, that God would forgive both. What it is in sin that doth denominate a sinner, will in time be discussed.  
Secondly, Consider Why they are called debts, 
Why sins are called debts. ● By sinning we rob God of his honour, glory, etc.  and that may be in these respects.  
First, Because upon our sin, we owe God his honour, his glory, yea, his very deity again, which as much as lieth in us, we by transgressions have taken away. Omne peccatum, est quasi deicidium, say the Schools. Every sin doth as it were deprive God (as much as lieth in a sinner) of his Godhead and blessedness; so that if God were capable of misery and grief, thy sins would bring it upon him. Hence are those expressions of being pressed by our sins as a cart is under sheaus, Amos 2.13. And the Prophet Ezekiel his lying so many days on one side, and then on the other, to his great pain and trouble, was as some think, to represent, how much God was affected with the Israelites sins, and how great his patience was to endure them so long. If then they said to David, Thou art worth ten thousand of us: how much rather may we say to God, Thy honour, thy glory, it is worth ten thousand thousand of us? it is fitter for us to be damned or annihilated, than the least glimpse of his glory obscured. For this is such a debt in sin, as we are never able to make up again. If a mean Peasant should defame a great King, and reproach him, he were never able to make satisfaction in way of Honour to him; how much rather is this true of us, seeing there is no proportion between that which is finite and infinite?  
Secondly, He is a debtor to God's Justice to satisfy that: 
● A sinner is a debtor to God's justice.  and hereby it is, that Christ gave himself a price for our sins, and reconciled God to us: for we were not in that condition, as to say with the servant in the Parable, Mat. 18. Have patience and I will pay thee all I owe. They have low and narrow thoughts of sin, which think any external or internal humiliation for sin, can be satisfactory to God's Justice. Hence the godly do not (as the Antinomians charge them) put any such meritorious efficacy, and causality in them. They attribute not that to their tears, which belongs to Christ's blood; they do not judge their crucifying sin to be equivalent with Christ crucified; they do not in practice that which some have done in opinion, say, they are the Messias or Christ: and certainly if the Psalmist say, we cannot ransom ourselves from the grave, much less can we from hell. Now this debt of God's Justice is in every sin, the least idle thought or word: we may say of every sin pardoned, here is the price of blood, even of Christ's blood.  

3 Sinners not able to satisfy God's justice, become debtors to everlasting punishment.  Thirdly, Being not able to satisfy God's justice, in the next place, we by sin become debtors to everlasting punishment in hell; so that as the murderer or flagitious person by his crimes becomes a debtor to the capital punishments to be inflicted by a Law, so doth a sinner to the Scripture punishments threatened in the word, so that hell and damnation are the proper wages that are due to him. Oh how dear doth every pleasant or profitable sin cost thee? thou owest eternal damning for it. chrysostom in his time complained of some, who would say, Give me that which is sweet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and let it choke me: so do all sinners, Give me that sinful profit and pleasure, though I am obliged to eternal wrath thereby. Ambrose thought wicked men were called debtors, because the devil lends them their lusts and sins as so much money, for which he will exact eternal torment as the usury of them. Whatsoever it be, certainly this notion of sins being debts ought much to affect and trouble thee. Thy sins are worse debts than any thou owest.  

4 All the good we have, we are betrusted with as so m●ny talents.  Fourthly, In sin we become debtors by this means, All the good we have, whether natural or supernatural, we are betrusted with as so many talents, and for abusing of these, or not improving of them, we become debtors unto God. You have a full parable to this purpose, Mat. 25. Where you have every opportunity, even the least, that God puts into our hands, compared to a talon, and that for the greatness and preciousness of it, and a man may be accountable unto God, either propter damnum emergens, for the loss that comes to our master therein, or for lucrum cessans, the very ceasing of gain. As that servant who hid his talon in a napkin, and returned it safe again, though he was not guilty of any prodigal decoction of it, yet he is called a wicked and unprofitable servant, Now, because all our talents are many, hence our debts do arise to an infinite sum: none so indebted as those who have great wealth, great parts, Sicut crescunt dona, sic cr●scunt rationes donorum, The more mercies the greater account to be given. This consideration may deeply humble us.  
As our sins are thus debts, so we have all naturally the evil properties, and wicked customs of ill debtors. 
and we have the evil properties of debtors   
1. We are very unwilling to be called to any accounts; we do not love to hear of the day of judgement; we love not that the Ministers of God should tell us of our bills and hand-writings that are against us. Hence some observe that expression, 
1 We are unwilling to be called to an account.  Mat. 18.24. When the Master begun to reckon, it is said, One was brought that owed ten thousand talents, as if it were by force; and he was haled to his master. What an amazement and astonishment will that voice from heaven put us into, Give an account of thy Stewardship, unless Christ be our surety, and he undertake to discharge all? so that the very word debts, may breed in us much love to Christ, who was willing to stand engaged for us. Phocian the Athenian, coming to one in public office, that was very solicitious about giving up his accounts, and (saith he) I am solicitious how I may give no account at all. Thus if it were possible, would every man be studious how he may decline that day of accounts: how gladly would he have the grave to detain him there always?  
2. To be full of shame and fear: Thus are men in debt, 
● We are full of shame and fear.  desirous to lie latitant, and not to be seen, Grave vocabulum debitorum, said Ambrose, The name of debts is very dreadful and terrible. Hence Ambrose speaketh of some, who for the shame and distress thereof, have made away themselves, fearing more opprobrium vitae, then mortis periculum, the reproach of life, than the punishment of death. Suidas speaks of a Proverb in lit. A. A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Once red with blushing at the time of borrowing, and afterwards ten times pale for fear of paying, Canis latrat, & cor tuum palpitat, Ambros. de Tob. cap. 7. The dog doth but bark, and thy heart feareth an Arrest: and if men have been thus perplexed about worldly debts, when yet death would at last release them, how much more may men be afraid of these spiritual debts? There was a certain Roman died in a vast sum of debts, which in his life time he concealed, and after his death, when his goods were to be sold, Augustus the Emperor sent to buy his pillow he lay upon, because saith he, I hope that would make me sleep, on which a man so much indebted could take his ease. It is much that we who have so many debts spiritual, can sleep, or eat, or drink, till we see them discharged by Christ. Oh that every natural man should not like Cain fear every thing would damn him!  

3 Of shifts & delays.  3. To shift and put off, to be in continual delays, and if so, to be no further troubled. This a custom in worldly debts, if men can shift one way or other they care not: hence Horace calls the wicked debtor, Sceleratus Proteus, fiet aper, modo avis, modo saxum, & cum volét arbour, become in all shapes, to evade the Creditor, and thus it is in spiritual debts. How unwilling to acknowledge our debts, to confess them to God? I look upon all Pelagian Doctrines on one side, and Antinomian opinions on the other side, which would either make no sin in us, or at least not to be taken notice of by God, but as so many cozening cheats of a guilty heart, that is unwilling to be found a debtor before God. Cum delationem impetraveris, gauds, said Ambrose of a debtor, If men can but delay they do rejoice. And are we not all thus naturally affected, if we can from day to day get one worldly comfort after another, and so be able to support ourselves, we think all is well: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing is more troublesome, then to hear, Pay what thou owest: do not therefore please thyself with delays and excuses, lest thou die in thy misery.  

4 We hate those to whom we are indebted.  4. To hate those to whom we are indebted: Leave aes alienum debitorem facit, grave inimicum; A little money borrowed makes a man a debtor, but a great deal an enemy; and so the more they owe, the more they hate: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, said Aristotle, Debtors wish their Creditors to have no being, such is the hatred that ariseth thereby: and this is most eminently true in wicked men, They hate God because they fear him as a just Judge, who will severely demand to the last farthing: Comfortable therefore is this direction, to pray in this Petition, for hereby is supposed, that God is propitious, and ready to release us; we may have a Jubilee ever day; No devil hath any warrant to say, Forgive us our sins, God hath cast them into utter darkness, and bound them up in perpetual chains for their debts, but he is ready to forgive us. As therefore we read of David, That men in debt and distress followed him, hoping thereby to be freed from their Creditors hands, so let us follow Christ, who only is able to take off this heavy burden from us, and know the longer we lie in our debts, the more they will increase upon us.  
Now in two respects spiritual debts do exceed worldly debts. 
In two respects spiritual debts exceed worldly debts.   
1. In the danger of nonpayment: Suppose the highest punishments that we read of in Histories against perfidious debtors, yet that doth not amount to the punishment of our spiritual debts. In some Laws they were bound to sell their children, 
1 In the danger of non-paiment.  yea, themselves to become slaves, Exodus 21.7. Exodus 22.2. 2 Kings 4.1. Thus God commanded in the Jewish Laws. This was very miserable, to have children sold for parents' debts. Valentinian the Emperor would have such put to death that were not able to pay their debts; but above all, that Law in the 12. Tables, that who was in debt, the Creditors might take him, and cause him to be cut alive in as many pieces as the Creditors pleased. This cruelty saith Tertullian, was afterwards erased out by public consent, Suffudere maluit homini sanguinem, quam effundere: but, what is this to that Mat. 18.30. His master was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he had paid all that was due? so then chains and imprisonments are the worst of worldly debts, but the eternal wrath of God falleth upon spiritual debtors.  
2. In the impossibility of escaping this punishment. 
2 In the Impossibility of escaping the punishment.  In these debts death will free a man: but then is the beginning of our misery by spiritual debts. So Mat. 5.26. Thou shalt by no means come out, till thou hast paid the utmost farthing; and because we are never able to do that, therefore must our condemnation be eternal. We pity the indebted prisoners that out of their grates cry, Bread, bread; But how more doleful is that cry of Dives out of hell for a drop of water, and none giveth unto him? This is some mitigating consideration to the worst troubles here, that they are not eternal; and it is the aggravation of the least in hell, that they are eternal. Therefore in that the Scripture calls our sins by these names, and we have an innumerable heap of them, let us mourn under the weight of them, and bewail their burden, and this is to be done with all speed, not knowing how soon justice may take us by the throat, saying, Pay that thou owest.  
The use may be of instruction to the godly, 
Use of Instruction to the godly.  that notwithstanding their Justification and forgiveness of sins past, yet they run into debt daily, and such debts, as for the pardon of them, they must renew daily sorrow and confession, as also sue out continual pardon: for certainly our Saviour did not direct us to say this Petition, humiliter only, for humility sake, as some of old thought; but also veraciter truly, and if it be true, than we are not in a cold customary way of lukewarmness to beg this pardon, but with the same deep sense, conflict and agony of spirit, as we see malefactors importune the Judge for a pardon. Now if there were a malefactor, that thought the Judge saw no crimes, nor matter of death in him; but on the contrary, that he was altogether righteous and free, how could this man with any deep remorse and acknowledgement bewail himself? so that this Petition containeth excellent Doctrine as well as practice. Tertullian called the Lord's Prayer, Breviarum Evangelij, a breviary or sum of the Gospel, for legem credendi, add & operandi, lex statuit supplicandi, said another, The Law or Rule of Prayer, teacheth the rule of faith and practice; and this is very true in this Petition, which teacheth both Doctrine and Practice against the Antinomians: It is true, they make glosses upon this Text, but such cursed ones as do wholly corrupt it; do not therefore think that Justification giveth thee such a quietus est that new sins daily committed by thee should be no matter of humiliation or confession; certainly our Saviour's command is, That we should desire this forgiveness, as often as we do our daily bread.   

LECTURE XIV.  MAT. 6.12. 
And forgive us our debts.  
WE have already considered the object in this Petition, viz. sins, which according to the Syriak Idiotism are called debts, as alms are called righteousness, ver. 1. in an Hebraism. The next thing to be treated of, is the Petition itself, forgive us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: this word is most commonly used by the Apostles to signify pardon of sins; they have it about seven and twenty times; but more of this when we show what remission of sins is. The work I have for the present to do, is, to show how comprehensive this Petition is, and what it is we pray for herein. Bellarmine opposing the Doctrine of the Protestants, holding a special and peculiar faith, appropriating pardon of sin, mistaking the question, as if we maintained justifying faith to be that whereby we believe our sins are certainly forgiven us in Christ, chargeth this absurdity upon us, lib. 1. de Just. c. 10. That we take away this Petition in the Lord's Prayer: For saith he, If I be bound certainly to believe my sins are forgiven already, it would be as absurd to pray that God would forgive us our sins, as to pray Christ might be incarnated, seeing we believe he was incarnated already. And l. 4. the noti● ecclesiae, c. 11. He makes this opinion of the Protestants, holding we are righteous before God for Christ's sake, and the believing of this with a special faith, to be comparable with any Paradox in the world, as not being above or besides, but plainly contrary to all reason, and as that which makes it impossible for us to say, Forgive us our sins, unless we lie. It is true according to the Antinomian Divinity, which saith, there is no sin now in the Church, this Prayer doth no more belong to us then to the Angels in heaven: therefore the Antinomian makes not the meaning of this Prayer to be as if we prayed for the forgiveness which we had not before, but only for more full and rich assurance of it. Honeycomb p. 156. But the Sequel will show the falsehood of both these assertions.  
Obser. 
Observe.  It is the duty of justified persons to pray for the forgiveness of their sins. To understand this, we will show, first, 
It is the duty of justified persons to pray for forgiveness of their sins.  what is the express meaning of this Petition, and then what is the implied sense of it.  
In the first place, our meaning in this Petition is, That God would not require of us the payment and satisfaction of his justice for our sins. We have a Parable, 
The meaning of the Petition Forgive us, etc.  Luke 16.8. Of an unjust Steward, who called his Lords debtors, who bid him that owed an hundred measures of oil, set down fifty: but if God should condescend thus far to us, instead of millions of sins we owe, 
1 ●hat God w●uld not require of us the satisfaction of his justice for our sins.  to set down but an hundred, yea, should we come down as low in the number of sins, as Abraham of his righteous men, yet that would not avail us. Yea, as long as there is but a farthing, the least sin unpaid, so long are we unable to give an account to God. We therefore desire of God, that he would not call upon us to pay for the least vain thought, or idle word, much less for those more grievous sins which we have committed. As it is, Not unto us Lord, not unto us, let the glory be given: so Not of us Lord, not of us, let thy justice be satisfied.  

2 That God would lay our sins on Christ A twofold difference between God's forgiving our sins, and our forgiving others.  2. We pray, That God would lay our sins upon Christ, and accept of satisfaction in and through him; for seeing God hath declared his will, that man shall die for sin; if we should pray, that God would absolutely forgive our sins, it would be to pray, that he might be unjust. There is a twofold difference between God's forgiveness of our sins, and our forgiving of others. First, We may and aught in some cases to forgive others freely, without any satisfaction at all, but God hath bound himself to another way. Yet God's grace is much to be magnified, and extolled in pardon, as we shall show against the Socinian. Again secondly, We may and aught to forgive others though they do not repent, and ask pardon of us; but God hath declared his will otherwise: we do not therefore pray, that God would out of an absolute sovereignty and dominion remit our sins; but that he would account them upon Christ, and take him for our surety. As the Prophet's wife who died in debt, was wonderfully relieved by the Prophet's oil, so that she was enabled to satisfy all her creditors; no less advantageous is the blood of Christ to us, whereby the justice of God is appeased towards us. Therefore in this prayer, thus we may argue, O Lord, we call not upon thee to repeal any threatening, to nullify thy word, to become unjust; but thy wisdom hath found out a way that we may be pardoned, and thou satisfied. Neither will this be any injury to Christ, to lay them upon him though innocent, for this he voluntarily undertook, and he is not made a Surety or Mediator against his will, neither in the midst of all his agonies and troubles he grappled with, did he repent of his suretyship, or desire to give it over; so that there goeth more to make this Petition good, and possible, then did to make the world at first, for there it cost Christ but a word, Let there be light, and there was light, but it is not so here, Let there be pardon, and there shall be pardon: besides Christ's speaking, there must be his doing and suffering.  
3. As we pray thus for Justification, so also for continuance and preservation in it. As we pray for daily bread, 
3. As we pray for justification, so for the continuance in it.  though our store be full; so, Though our Justification be sure, and persevering, yet by prayer we are to be preserved in it. A certain knowledge and faith of a thing, takes not away prayers; we know certainly God will gather a Church, and preserve it to the end of the world; yet we pray, Thy Kingdom come. Paul knew Act. 27.24. that none in the Ship with him should perish, because God had given him their lives, yet none can doubt, but he prayed for their preservation, as well as used other means. Howsoever now, grievous sins committed by a David or Peter, may fasten upon them, as the Viper upon Paul's hand, yet by the grace of God, they shall not be able to unstate them out of God's favour, but at last their repentance will revive, and so they will sue out a pardon; and certainly God's power and grace is no less seen in preserving of us in the state of Justification, then at first justifying us.  
4. We do not only pray for preservation in this estate, 
4. We pray for daily renewed acts of pardon and imputation of Christ's righteousness.  but for daily renewed acts of pardon, and imputation of Christ's righteousness. Howsoever, as in the controversal part is to be showed, Justification is not reiterated, but is a state in which we were at first believing put into, without Apostasy from it, either total or final: yet those particular acts of pardon, and imputing of Christ's righteousness, are continually by God communicated unto us: neither may we think, That our sins past, present and to come, are all taken away by one sentence, so that there is no new or iterated pardon. Then indeed Bellarmine's Argument would have strength in it, That it were as absurd to pray for forgiveness of sin, 
Bell●rmines objection answered.  as to have Christ new incarnated; or that we might be predestinated, according as some have falsely said, Si non sis praedestinatus, ora, ut praedestineris, If thou art not predestinated, pray that thou mayest be. We might indeed pray for the believing of these things in a more settled manner, but not for the things themselves. But this is the proper answer to Bellarmine's Objection, We pray for pardon of sin, and not for the Incarnation of Christ, or the making of the world, because these were so once done, that they are never to be done more. The Incarnation of Christ was once done, and is not to be done again; but remission of sin is so done, as that it is continually to be done for us, and the ultimate complete effect of it will then only be, when sin shall be quite taken away, so that a total and full remission will be only at the day of Judgement, as appeareth Act. 3.19. That your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come: Not but that every sin here forgiven is fully and perfectly forgiven, but because we renew sin daily, therefore there is need of a daily pardon: Away therefore with all such opinions, as shall either plead such an inherent righteousness in the Pelagian way, or such an imputed righteousness in the Antinomian way, that will overthrow this Petition for forgiveness of sins. If all thy former sins be forgiven, and no pardon for future, thy case would be desperate, for sin like Samsons hair, though it be cut, yet it will grow again, and come to great strength.  

5. We pray for the sense of this pardon in our consciences more and more.  5. We pray for the sense and feeling of this pardon in our consciences more and more. For although God hath pardoned our sin, yet if we know not of this, it taketh off much from our comfort and God's glory; we are in this case like some Heir or Prince, that hath many temporal dignities, but by reason of his infancy doth not understand it. Hence David, though Nathan told him, His sin was pardoned, yet Ps. 51. he prayeth for mercy and pardon, and that in a plentiful manner; so that although a sin is perfectly remitted, so that it cannot be more of less forgiven than it is, yet the assurance or knowledge of this, may be more or less; and indeed though to have sins pardoned be an objective happiness, yet to know that they are pardoned, is formal happiness; so that he is completely happy, who both hath his sins pardoned, and also knoweth they are so; and this made David Ps. 103. so exult and rejoice, Bless the Lord, O my soul, who forgiveth all thine iniquities. This particular assurance enlarged his heart to praises. But although this be part of the sense in this Petition, yet this is not all we pray for, as the Antinomian contends; for we pray principally for the real exhibition of pardon; and secondarily for the Declaration and manifestation of it in our consciences. Their conceit is, That God from all eternity hath pardoned our sins past, present and to come, and that when we believe or repent, our sins are pardoned declaratively only to our conscience, they being forgiven before. This I shall handle in a Question by it self: Only I shall lay down some few Arguments to prove that we do not only pray for assurance and manifestation of pardon, but also for pardon itself. The reasons are these, 
We pray for pardon itself, and not for the sense thereof only.   
First, We might by the same rule, interpret all the other Petitions in regard of Declaration only, and not exhibition; when we pray for sanctification and glorification in that Petition, Thy Kingdom come, it might be as well said, 
Reason's proving this. Reas. 1.  that we were sanctified and glorified from all eternity; and therefore when we are converted or saved in heaven, this is but to our sense and feeling. This Argument seemeth to be so strong against them, that they have confessed, A man is already glorified while he is upon earth, most absurdly confounding the Decrees of God from eternity to do things, with the executions of them in time. How ridiculous would it be to expound that Petition, Give us our daily bread, thus, Not that God should give us daily bread, but only make us to see and feel that he hath given it us?  
A second reason is, from the nature of forgiveness of sin. 
Reas. ●.  When sin is pardoned, it is said to be blotted out: now that blotting out is not only from a man's conscience and feeling, but more immediately out of God's Book. So that when God doth forgive, he doth cancel those debts which are in his Book, and not only the guilt that lieth upon our hearts: therefore these are very separable the one from the other: A man may feel no weight or burden of sin upon him, and yet it stand in fiery Characters against him in God's Book; and on the contrary, a sin may be blotted out there, yet be very heavy and terrible in a man's feeling and apprehension: so sin pardoned is said to be covered or hid, not in respect of us, as if it were taken from our sight, but from God's sight, and he is said to cast our sins behind his back, not ours.  
The third reason, This Explication, 
Reas. 3.  as the whole sense of the Petition, would overthrow all other places of Scripture, which make no pardon of sin to be, but where the subject hath such qualifications, as this in the Text of forgiving others, it is not indeed put as a cause or merit, but yet it is as a qualification of the subject; therefore our Saviour repeateth this again, Except ye forgive others, neither will my heavenly Father forgive you. So Act. 10.43. Whosoever believeth on him shall have remission of sins, Rom. 3.15. He is a propitiation through faith in his blood; here faith is made an instrument to apply and bring that pardon to the soul, which it had not before. So 1 Joh. 1.9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. By these and the like Scriptures, it is plain, That remission of sin is given us only in the use of these graces: not that hereby we merit at God's hand, or that God is tied to these ways; but it is here, as in the Sacraments, he hath tied himself to convey his graces in no other channels or conduits than he hath appointed.  

Reas. 4.  Lastly, This would make no difference between sins repent of, and not repent of; for if they be all pardoned from eternity, than sins that are humbled for, and that are unhumbled for, have the like consideration on God's part, and I may feel the pardon of the latter, though not repent of, as well as the former, yea I may have the sense of the pardon of all the sins I shall commit for the future, and so whereas I pray for daily bread, not tomorrow bread, I shall here beg for the sense of the pardon, not only of my sins to day, but tomorrow, and the next year: But I never read that God made such a Jubilee, as one Pope did, who promised a plenary Indulgence, not only for sins past, but aforehand also, for all sins to come; God doth not antedate his pardon before the sin be committed or repent of; but of this more largely in time.  

6 We pray that as God forgives the sin, so he would release the punishment.  6. We pray, That as God doth forgive the sin, so also he would release the punishments, and take away all the wrath that doth belong to it. It is a mockery which Papists make about pardon, as if indeed God did pardon the sin, but the punishment that abideth still, and we must work out a release from that by our own selves. It is true as we have proved, God though he doth pardon sin, yet he may grievously afflict; but these are fatherly chastisements, not judicial punishments: but in this Prayer, we desire also that as the sins are removed, so also whatsoever troubles, afflictions and chastisements do remain, that they also may be taken away; that as the gulf of hell is removed, so every cloud also may be dispelled.  

7 We pray to be delivered from the effects of sin.  7. In this Petition, we pray, That God would deliver us from those effects of sin, which God hath immutably set upon it, such as are sicknesses, death and corruption; For although God by virtue of the Covenant of Grace hath promised a perfect pardon of sin, yet we cannot come to a full enjoyment of all those privileges which remission of sin doth bring, till we be freed from death and corruption. So that as long as there is the death and grave, still sin hath some power. We therefore pray, that whatsoever mortality and corruption sin hath brought in, it may be taken away, and we made fit for eternal life, which is the consequent of pardon of sin; for you must know that pardon is not a mere privative mercy, freeing us from God's wrath, but there is also a positive investing of us with a title to everlasting life and glory, only our corruptibility hinders us from the actual possession of that which we have a right unto: we therefore pray, That as God removed our sins, so he would also remove all the sad effects and mischievous fruit which came in by it.  
8. We pray not only for pardon of sin, 
8 We pray for pardon, and the concomitants thereof.  but also for the good concomitants and effects of it, which are Peace with God, and Joy in the holy Ghost, Rom. 5.1. Hence Luther speaketh of a twofold pardon, one secret and hidden, when he forgiveth sins, but the people of God do not feel or regard it; The other is open and experimental: now both these condonations are necessary. The first (saith he) is more bitter and troublesome, but more noble and acceptable. The first cleanseth, the latter pacifieth: the first is of mere faith, and obtaineth much of God; the latter is of experience more, and takes off from the excellency of faith: for as that is the best manifestation of love when it is carried out to an enemy, so is that of faith, when relying upon God, though feeling terrors, and an hell within us. God useth the first kind of pardon to more heroical Christians. The latter to those that are more infirm. An instance of this twofold remission we have in Mary Magdalen; the former, when Christ turned his back on her, and told Peter, Much was forgiven her; the other, when he turned towards her, saying, Thy sins are forgiven thee, go in peace. Now in our prayer we must not be limited; but as in the Law every Commandment is spiritual, and hath a great latitude in it; so in prayer every Petition is spiritual, and hath much in it: let us therefore enlarge our hearts, and open them wide when we seek to God for pardon of sin. The privilege is exceeding great, and many are the dignities that do depend on it. If thy sins be pardoned, thou becomest a favourite of Heaven, there is no contrariety between God and thee. The devil showed the glory of the world, and falsely said, All this is mine, but thou mayest show all the glory of the Gospel and promises, yea all the glory of Heaven, and say, All this is mine. Yea there is a full reconciliation made between God and that person, notwithstanding all former enmity, as appeareth in the example of the Prodigal son, he hath all love, favour and honour. Again, insomuch that such come not into judgement, Joh. 5.24. There is no condemnation to them, Rom. 8.1. yea there is not so much as any charge or indictment against them. What devil, what conscience, what law may accuse thee when God justifieth thee? Now in this Petition we desire that not only pardon of sin, but all these blessed fruits of it, may be vouchsafed to us. Oh therefore the congealed and icy temper of men, who are no more inflamed in prayer about this! There are many that can heartily and feelingly pray the former Petition, for the necessaries of this life, but how few for the grace of God in pardoning in a spiritual manner? Harken then, O man, to what Christ hath said is good for thee to importune and seek after. Philo. lib. de Somniis saith, and it was also the opinion of Philosophers, That the Heavens make such an harmonious melody, that if the sound and noise of it could reach to our ears, it would make men leave off all their inferior and sublunary labour and profit, attending to that only: Certainly this Doctrine of remission of sin, which is revealed from Heaven only, hath such excellent harmony in it of God's Justice and his mercy, of God's satisfaction and our happiness, that it may justly make us forget to eat our bread, or delight in other comforts, meditating of, and being ravished with his excellency. Let this then instruct thee concerning that necessary duty of seeking out the pardon of thy sins; this belongs to every one, though a Paul, though a Moses, though in the highest form of Christianity. It is a great comfort that all voluntary sins after grace received, are not unpardonable, as well as that against the holy Ghost. How often do we sin voluntarily and willingly after we are enlightened? And then the sins of infirmity and ignorance are more than the sands of the seashore: Is it not therefore necessary that thou shouldest be continually begging for pardon? Know then that these indulgences are not like the Papal, to be bought by money, but they are purchased by the blood of Christ: Peter thought it a great matter to forgive a brother seven times a day, but if God should not forgive us seventy times seven a day, our condition would be damnable. Those that look to have pardon by their meritorious works, and penal satisfactions, cannot look up to God. Whereas all Nations used to look up to Heaven for rain, In Aegypto (saith Seneca) nemo aratorum aspicit Coelum, etc. No Husbandman regards the Heavens, but Nilus only, from which they have rain; so in Popery Christ is neglected, and Angels or Saints set up, as those that can give pardon; Men therefore look upon their Pilgrimages, their Penance, as if they were to forgive their sins to their own selves.   

LECTURE XV.  MAT. 6.12. 
And forgive us our Debts.  
WE come to show, what is implied in this Petition, 
Three things implied in this Petition.  and this may be reduced to three heads:  
First, What is implied in the subject who doth pray.  
Secondly, What in the object or matter that is prayed for.  
Thirdly, What in respect of the person to whom we do pray.  
For the first, 
1. On the part of the subject, or he who prayeth, is implied 1 That all men are sinful▪  There are many things supposed in those who are to pray thus: As  
1. That all men, though never so eminently sanctified, yet have sins in them: And this hath been generally urged by Antiquity against Pelagians, who have dreamt of perfect righteousness in this life, as if we might be sons of light, without any spot in us; and that evasion is ridiculous, that we speak this humiliter for humility sake, not veraciter truly: for if we had no sin, this hypocrisy were enough to make it in us, and 1 Joh. 1.9. putteth it out of all doubt, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. He doth not say, we extol or lift up ourselves, and there is no humility in us, but we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us: Now this the Apostle saith immediately upon those words, The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin: So that whether this cleansing of Christ be understood in regard of the filth or guilt of sin, it's not completely fulfilled, till we come into heaven. So true is that of Ambrose, Qui semper pecco, debeo semper habere medicinam, I who sin always, need forgiveness always. And whereas the Apostle saith, We all have sin, that is to be understood, partly in regard of the vicious affections and inordinate concupiscence, which is in every one; and partly in regard of the guilt, which doth accompany them; neither may we limit this to some, for the Apostle puts himself in the number of those who ought to say so. Neither may this be restrained as some would have it, to sins passed in our former conversation only, although the Apostle speak, vers. 10. in the preterperfect tense, for he saith, we so sin, as that if we confess our sins, God is faithful to forgive: therefore he speaks of sins, which are yet to be pardoned, and not of those that are passed only.  
I acknowledge it is one thing to say, Every man hath sin, and another thing, that he sinneth in every good action he doth, and if this place did not demonstratively prove it, yet other places do. It is good to observe the danger the Apostle makes to come from this opinion, That we have no sin in us, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; and than which is worst, We make God a liar, who in his Word doth testify of us, as having sin in us. So that this opinion argueth those that maintain it, neither to understand or firmly believe the Scriptures; and this is to be extended to those who hold no sin in us, as to God's eye, by reason of Christ's righteousness: For the Scriptures do equally overthrow both. The most material Answer that I have observed by any given to this Argument from our duty of praying for pardon of sin, is given by Castalio de Iustif. p. 63. It is this, This prayer is not so prescribed us (saith he) that we should always pray so, and we never read that any in the Scripture used these prescribed words: Nay (saith he) we never read that the Apostles prayed for remission of sins, no nor Christ never prayed for pardon of them. Therefore the meaning of this Petition must be to pray for pardon as oft as they need it, not that they need it always. Therefore he compareth this Petition to such places, Love your enemies, Agree quickly with your adversary, Honour your father and mother; that is, when you have enemies or adversaries, when you have a father and mother: so here, Pray for pardon, that is, when you have sinned. But this very answer needeth a pardon, because it's fraughted with much falsehood; for first, although we read not that they prayed those express words, yet in their very address to Christ to be instructed how to pray, and our Saviour teaching them to pray thus, as one Evangelist; or after this manner, as another hath it: it had been hypocrisy and mockery, never to have conformed to it. Besides, our Saviour supposeth they have need of pardon, when he tells them, Except ye forgive one another, neither will my heavenly Father forgive you, vers. 15. which implieth their need of pardon. Hence Mat. 7.11. he calls them evil, If ye then being evil, which is not to be understood comparatively in respect of God only, for so the Angels are, Joh. 4.18. but inherently, because of the remainder of that corruption in them. Hence (as you heard) the Apostle John puts himself in the number here, If we say we have no sin, etc. certainly the Apostle Paul was far from these thoughts, 1 Tim. 1.18. where he calls himself the chiefest of all sinners: that is, one in the rank of those, whose sins had a scarlet hue; and he saith this in the present tense, not of whom I was chief, but I am chief; for although Cajetans' Exposition be very probable, that makes this relate not merely to sinners, but to sinners saved, thus, Christ came to save sinners, of which saved sinners I am chief; yet the former is not to be rejected; and certainly in some sense every man is bound to think of himself, as a greater sinner than others; As the Pharisee said, I am not as other men, adulterers, covetous, etc. The godly man on the contrary, thinketh he is not holy, zealous, sincere, as other godly men are. When Paul Rom. 7. complaineth of that evil in him, and law of sin, can we think he never desired the pardon of it? And when our Saviour, Joh. 17.17. prayeth God to sanctify his Disciples; what is that but to set them apart for their office, by forgiving their sin, even as Isaiah was purified by a live coal from the altar. As for his parallel places and duties, it is a most absurd comparison; for he may as well say, That the Kingdom of God, and hallowing his Name, are not constantly to be prayed for, but upon occasion only. Certainly those places of Scripture which make original sin to cleave to us, even as Ivy to the Oak, and which is as leven in us, souring every thing we do in some measure: And those places which speak of such a perfection in the Law, that we are never able to perform it, argue a constant abiding principle of sin in us, we may conclude then, that this Petition doth suppose a worm in our best fruit, dross in our purest gold, and many spots in our choicest beauty. Neither may we dream of such an imputed righteousness, as shall take away the necessity of this praying; not that the godly are therefore to be denominated sinners, because we call them godly, though sin be in them, because godliness is the most noble quality in them, as we call that a field of corn, which yet hath many weeds in it.  

2. A sense of sin within us.  A second thing implied, is, feeling of sin a burden and weight upon us: For none can heartily and with feeling experience importune God for this pardon, but such who are sensible of a pressing load by sin. Hence the Hebrew word Nasa, doth signify (as you heard) the taking of a weight and burden. So the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used of deliverance from bonds, Luke 4.18. where what was literally true of the Jews that were in captivity and prisons, is applied to us spiritually, and the Gospel of Christ is said, to preach deliverance to the captives: so that hereby is declared, that as a captive Jew in Babylon was wearied with his estate, and did vehemently expect deliverance: no less doth a man burdened with sin, desire a freedom and relaxation. Therefore the time of the Gospel is expressed allusively to the year of Jubilee, vers. 19 as that was proclaimed with the sound of a Trumpet, so this by the mouth of the Apostles. How many are there then who pray this prayer, but want much feeling and zeal within. Now sin hath a double weight, one of punishment, the other of offence and displeasure to God, and in this later, we ought especially to groan under it. Cam felt a burden of his sins, and David also felt a pressure by them, but the tears of these two differed much. The one was merely because of punishment; the other, because it was against God, Against thee only have I sinned. This inward disposition is that which putteth an excellent relish and high prize upon Christ and his benefits. Hence the word to trust signifieth also to roll and cast our burden upon the Lord: As a man who beareth an heavy weight upon his back, being ready to break under it, rolls it upon the next stall he meets with, to ease himself, Psal. 55.22. Consider therefore what thou feelest within; what pressures upon thee, while thou desirest this forgiveness: Art thou as the poor prisoner, bound in his chains and irons, longing for a releasement? Art thou as one ashamed in the presence of so glorious a God? Quidni totis artubus contremiscat ranuncula è palude accedens ad thronum Regis? Why should not the Frog coming out of the lake to the King's Throne, altogether tremble?  
3. It implieth godly sorrow, and spiritual mourning of heart: 
3 Godly sorrow for sin.  For we may not think this is appointed as a mere compliment to use to God, but our hearts ought to be wounded and melted within us at that time. And indeed why is there a promise, Zech. 12. for the spirit of prayer and mourning together, if it were so easy and customary a work? Why Rom. 8. are these groans unutterable wrought by the Spirit of God in us at that time? insomuch that a soul in prayer, is in spiritual travel and heavenly Agonies: All which cannot be, unless the heart of a man be deeply humbled within for sin: so that this Petition doth not only imply sin is in us, and that God seeth it, but also that all within us aught to be moved and troubled at it. Beg therefore for pardon with the same zeal and movings of bowels, as David did, Psal. 51. who had his broken bones. A tear in our eye for sin, doth more adorn it, than a jewel doth the ear. Now the Antinomian Doctrine is like an Eastern, or Northern wind, that drieth up, or bloweth away this spiritual rain. If God seeth no sin in us, than he would see no humiliation nor debasement in us for sin: and so whereas as heretofore repentance in believers hath been necessary, now it shall be prejudicial to salvation, and all sorrow shall be ungodly. What direct Antipodes are these to Scripture-directions? Hence they repent that ever they did so much repent, and look upon their sorrow for sin, as Christ upon his enemies. Lord forgive me, for I did not know what I did. But we have not so learned the Gospel. The people of God, when sinning, are called upon to afflict themselves, and to mourn: and because the Corinthians did not so at first, though afterwards they did, therefore the Apostle threatens to come with a rod unto them. Take heed then of all Doctrines or practices, that may obstruct the running streams of thy soul: Keep thyself always in this spiritual sweat. Take not the Limbeck from the fire, that so spiritual distillations may flow continually.  

4 Earnest perseverance till we obtain.  4. It supposeth earnestness and importunity, with perseverance till we do obtain. That which is requisite in every prayer, must not be excluded here. Prayer without fervency is like a messenger without legs, an arrow without feathers, an advocate without a tongue. Hence are those phrases, Be instant in prayer: and Watch unto prayer: and Pray without ceasing. Till the heart be deadened to every creature, and mind this thing only, it will not pray aright. Seeing therefore our blessedness and happiness is made to consist in this, That our sins are pardoned; how ought we to lay every thing aside, till this be vouchsafed unto us! Hierom complained of his distractions and dulness in prayer, Siccine putas orasse Jonam? Sic Danielem inter leones? Sic latronem in cruse? Where is thy faith? Did Jonah pray thus in the Whale's belly? Did Daniel thus among the Lions? Did the thief thus upon the cross? If spiritual things were as truly and really apprehended by us, as temporal are, how should we bid all comforts stand afar off, even refusing to be comforted, till God's favour shine upon us! If the frowning of a King be like the roaring of a Lion, how terrible then are the frowns of God for sin?  

5 Constant renewed acts of faith.  Lastly, It supposeth in the subject, constant renewed acts of faith; For as there is constant pardon begged, and offered, so there must be a continual lifting up, and stretching out the hand to receive. As the branch in the Olive doth constantly suck juice and nourishment, so ought we perpetually to be receiving from the fullness of Christ. This then is the only grace that hath the promise of pardon made to it: although where this is, there will also be the presence of all other graces. Neither may we with Spalleto judge the distinction that is made between faith and other graces in this matter of Justification and Remission of sins, a mere metaphysical subtlety and formality, as is to be showed. If therefore thy faith be asleep within, no marvel if such tempests and storms arise, that thou fear drowning. As a tradesman will part with any thing rather than his tools, for they are instrumental to his whole livelihood; so above all, we ought to look to our faith.  
3. In the object matter we suppose these things, 
3 In the object or matter pra●ed for, are implied.   
1. That forgiveness of sin may be had after Baptism. That although we sin after that solemn stipulation, yet God will not divorce us, or cast us (as it were) out of the Ark into the deluge. There have been some of old, as the Novatians, 
1 That forgiveness of sin may he had after Baptism,  and Anabaptists of late, who have maintained, There is no hope of pardon to those that after their Baptism do foully sin; for there they suppose is given the plenary Remission; but this is false and uncomfortable: for we have the incestuous person after his repentance received into favour again. How desperate had Peter's condition been, if this had been true? And when our Saviour bids us Forgive our brother seventy times seven, we may not think there is more love in the creature, then in the Creator, and God's kindness beyond that of a man's, is most emphatically described, Jer. 3.1. Where God promiseth a reconciliation to his people, though they played the adulteress with him.  
2. That we may with hope and faith pray for the pardon of great sins as well as less. In Justification by Christ, 
2 That a remission of great sins may be hoped for.  greater sins are as easily forgiven as less. Though, as is to be showed, the party offending doth not come by pardon so easily, and more is required of him; now this is a good cordial to the afflicted spirit, who is apt to limit God in his pardon. He may forgive such and such sins, but can these great mountains ever be removed out of his sight, sins of such a magnitude and aggravation? But our Saviour doth not determine us in our Petition, but whatsoever your sins are, pray for the pardon of them. Had it not been a great dishonour to Christ, if any diseased man had said, his malady was greater than Christ could cure, he might heal others, but not him? No less injurious is thy doubting, when the greatness of thy sin makes thee stagger. The obedience of Christ is as much above thy greatest sin, as Christ's person is above thy person.  

3 That there is an iteration of pardon.  3. It supposeth iteration of pardon, that God is not wearied out, neither doth upbraid us. Who would not think that the soul should be ashamed, and blush to go for the pardon of the same sins committed over and over again. How easily might we think, What hope is there to have me speed? Have I not a thousand and thousand times entreated God to forgive me such pride, such vain thoughts, such negligence in his service, and must I still go to ask pardon? How shall I look up into Heaven any more? and this temptation is more terrible, as is to be showed, if it be a sin, or sins of a more grievous nature, that the petitioner▪ hath been overtaken frequently with; but as we are commanded to forgive to a brother offending in a day many times against us, so may we expect greater things of God. Know then, as we sin daily, so there are out-going of pardon continually; and the goodness of God, doth like the Sun, rejoice to run his race without any weariness.  

3 In the person to whom we▪ pray, are implied,  Lastly, In the Person to whom we pray, there is supposed,  

1 That God only can forgive sins.  First, That God only can forgive sins. This is an incommunicable property of God, Isa. 43.1. and Exod. 34.7. It is there reckoned as one of his prerogatives: Hence Matth. 9 this is made an argument of Christ's Deity, that by his mere command he forgave sin, for this power to forgive sin, is greater than to create Heaven or Earth, or to work the greatest miracles; Therefore a power to work miracles hath been vouchsafed to the Apostles, but not of forgiving of sin, unless declaratively only. When therefore our Saviour, Matth. 9 asketh which is easier, To forgive sin, or to say, Take up thy bed and walk; intending by this miracle to prove that he did also forgive sin, it is not spoken as if this later were greater than the former, but only the curing of the paralytical man, was a more visible sign to confirm the other, for when they saw that which he commanded accomplished upon the man's body, they might well conclude the other fulfilled in his soul. Now when we say, God only can forgive sin, this is to be extended both to the forgiveness in Heaven, and to that in a man's own conscience; for the former it is plain, because the injury is done only against him, when we sin; and for the later, it is clear, because he is the Father of Spirits, and so can command whatsoever peace and security he pleaseth in the conscience. We see when Friends and Ministers do pour oil into a wounded soul, they feel no benefit or refreshment, till God speak to the heart. This is notably asserted by Elihu, Job 34.29. When he giveth quietness, who then can make trouble? and when he hideth his face, who then can behold him? O therefore with all humble thankfulness acknowledge this great mercy of pardon, if thou art made partaker of it; If the Lord should work miracles for thee, he would not display so much power and mercy, as he doth in this forgiveness of thy sins.  
Secondly, It supposeth God doth see, 
2 That he takes notice of sin.  and take notice of sin in us, after we have believed: For how can God be said to forgive that which he taketh no notice of? If forgiving be covering of sin, and a blotting it out, than it is seen and open to God, and uncancelled till this be done. Suppose our Saviour had used these words in this Petition, Cover our iniquities, as we cover the sins of others; would not that expression have necessarily implied, That God did see them, and look on them, till he covered them? Certainly Joseph did upon a good ground, abstain from sin, when he said, How can I do this, and sin against God? That is, who seeth me, and beholdeth me in secret, and will be angry with me: But if God take no notice of my sin; how can I truly awe myself from sin, saying, How can I do this evil in God's eyes? How can I provoke him to anger?  
Let the Application then be, to importune for this mercy, 
Use.  of forgiveness, which makes all other things mercy. Health, riches, learning, peace, are mercies, if with these there be a pardon of all our sins: especially be pressed to seek for it, from this motive which I shall only mention at this time, viz. That pardon of sin is the only support and help in all miseries and calamities whatsoever. This only can sweeten thy pain, thy poverty, thy fears of death. When the Apostle, Rom. 5.1. had spoken of Justification by faith, and the peace we have thereby with God, inferreth from thence, We glory in tribulation. Alas, there would be little glory, if at the same time man be against us, and God also. So Rom. 8.33, 34, 37. when the Apostle had gloriously triumphed in this privilege of Justification, and that none could lay any thing to our charge, than he concludeth, We are more than conquerors. Again 1 Pet. 3.16, 17, 18. exhorting the people of God to be ready to suffer for well-doing, giveth this reason, For Christ once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, etc. So that no misery or calamity can be joyfully undergone, unless the Lord forgive our sins to us. In these times of war, while we have been under continual fears of an enemy, what could rightly support us, but remission of our sins? To have men accusing and condemning of us; but to have God clearing and absolving, this can make an Heaven in the midst of an hell.   

LECTURE XVI.  MAT. 6.12. 
And forgive us our debts.  
HAving explained this Petition positively and practically, we come to handle those Questions, which may make to the clearing of that truth, which is contained in the Text. And I shall pitch upon those that are useful and necessary, not on thorny and perplexed. God indeed once spoke out of the thorny bush, but seldom doth truth discover herself in those thickets, which the Schoolmen have made.  
The first in order that should be discussed is, What remission of sin is; Or, What is meant, when we say, God doth forgive sin? But before we can come to that, another Doubt must be rolled out of the way, and that is, What sin is, and what are the proper effects of sin? For a man can never understand, what it is to have sin blotted out, or taken away, 
Sin considered ●our ways,  unless he be first informed, What the nature of sin is, and what effects it hath wrought upon the sinner. Of this therefore in the first place,  
And first, 
1 Abstractedly in its own nature.  I shall speak of sin abstractedly in its own nature.  
Secondly, Relatively to the person who sinneth.  
Thirdly, The proper effects of it.  
Fourthly, The weight or aggravation of every sin.  
Let us begin with the former. Sin in the Scripture hath several names, which do in some measure describe the nature of it. The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used commonly for sin, 
The nature of sin expressed in the several names of it.  and it doth in a proper signification, wherein it is once used, denote an aberration from the mark we shoot at, Judg. 20.16. Every one could sling stones at an hairs breadth, and not miss; and from hence metaphorically is signified the nature of sin, for every man's action is to have an end, which end is manifested by the Scripture; and when a man reacheth not to this, he is said to sin; answerable unto this word in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, to err from the scope: And another word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is going beyond the bounds and limits which are set us. Though a learned Critic, Dieu, doth make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to signify beyond, but by, as if it did denote a negligent and careless passing by the commands of God. Another word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cometh of a word that properly signifieth crookedness and obliquity in the body, and so is applied to the soul, and doth denote perverseness in him that sinneth, and to this may answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be understood privatively only, but adversatively: for a mere want of the Law, may not be a sin always, but a repugnancy must necessarily be. And thus the word is used, 2 Thess. 2.8. 1 Tim. 4.9. The Hebrews also express sin by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as a desection, or falling off from God; and answerable to this in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a falling away from that integrity and purity we either once had, or aught still to have. As for the Latin word peccatum, some have derived it from pellicare, which is to commit adultery, as if a sin were so called in the general, from one kind of it; and others from pecus, because a man in sin wanders like a beast, or becomes like a beast; yet many conceive the word peccare to be a theme itself, and not derived from any other word.  

2 In the definition of it.  As for the definition of sin, What it is; though there have been many disputes about it, and Chemnitius wished for one public definition of it, to which all Churches should agree; yet certainly that of John is full and comprehensive enough, 1 Joh. 3.4 Sin is the transgression of the Law: Answerable whereunto is that, 2 Sam. 15.24. I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord: Only you must remember not to limit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to a mere want of the Law, but as comprehending that which is against it. Now this definition agreeth both to habitual and actual sins.  
To habitual, whether it be that innate and imbred of original sin; or whether it be that habitual voluntarily contracted, you have both the actual and habitual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, excellently put together, Rom. 6.19 As you have yielded your members servants to iniquity unto iniquity: where by the former iniquity is meant original and habitual sin; by the later, actual sin as the fruit of the former. It hath been doubted, how habitual, especially original sin can be called truly sin, because it is not voluntary: for that voluntariness should be of the nature of sin, is so universally acknowledged, that neither Doctorum paucitas, nor Indoctorum turba do dissentive: neither the few learned men, or the many unlearned did ever gainsay, said Austin: And besides, All sin must be forbidden by a Law, now how are we forbidden to be born without sin? Would not such a prohibition be ridiculous?  
Again, The commands of God seem to be for good actions, not for the habits of good actions.  
Now although it might fairly be maintained, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the transgression of a Law, and not voluntariness, 
How all sin is voluntary.  is of the nature of a sin; for the Apostle, Rom. 7.15. saith, He doth that which he would not do; and there are many sins of ignorance, which must necessarily be without any express act of the will, yet we may with Austin call this sin voluntary, taking voluntary, as it comprehends the will of Adam, that universal person, and principle in whom we all willed. And by this means, though Infants are not in themselves capable of any precept, much less before they were born, which they were to accomplish in their own person, yet they were bound up in a command, even before they had an actual being in Adam, in whose will they were to fulfil that command, for that command was not given to Adam as a single person, but as an universal.  
Hence it is, that habitual sin, whether remote, or proxime, is forbidden by the Law of God, which requireth not only good things to be done, but also that they flow from a clear and pure fountain within, even an entire perfection of the nature; so that although infused habits of grace come not under a precept, in respect of the infusing and ingenerating of them, for that is God's act, and we are not bound to do that, yet they are commanded both before they are infused and after; Before, by the Law, which requireth of us, that inward rectitude, which is now lost; and after they are infused, to be diligent in those pious actions, whereby those habits may be preserved and retained. So that by this we may see a sin to be, whatsoever doth transgress the Law of God, whether habitually or actually, whether internally or externally, whether by commission, or by omission, and from hence ariseth the curse which the Law pronounceth against sinners, because its broken by them.  
In the next place, 
2 Of sin relating to the person sinning. A man possibly may not, or rather formally cannot intend sin.  if we speak of sin as it relates to the person sinning; so there is not required; first, That a man should not intend sin, and will it as sin, for that is impossible: even as the understanding cannot assent to any thing false as false, but as the object is either true really, or apparently: So neither can the will, desire any thing that is evil, as evil, but as it is apparently good. As the devil appeared in samuel's clothes, so doth sin and evil always under the notion of some good or other. Hence the Apostle saith, Lusts saves, i. do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, entice a man, as a Fisherman doth the silly fish by the bait upon the hook, which the Apostle elsewhere calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a deceiving or putting a false Syllogism upon ourselves. So that they do not sufficiently vindicate the pure providence of God from sin, who say, God doth will the act, but not the deformity, or the evil of it; for so neither doth man will expressly the evil of the act, although in willing that act to which sin is necessarily annexed, it be interpretatively to will the sin.  
Neither secondly is to sin, to produce sin, as the proper and immediate terminus of our action, for sin being a privation, or at most a relation, it cannot be the immediate effect of any action. Sin is not indeed a mere pure privation, such as blindness is, but mixed and compounded, such as sickness is, which hath both the inordinacy, and want of a good temperament, and also the ill humours in it. So that a man sinneth by producing or doing that action, to which sin is annexed. And herein neither do they sufficiently clear God's concourse about sin, in saying it goeth to the material act of sin, but not to the immediate obliquity of it. For so neither doth man, and indeed sin being a privation, or as some, a relation, it is impossible it should be produced any other way, but by that act unto which it is joined to, as theft is committed by doing that material action, to which that deformity is inseparably adjoined. Therefore to sin, is to do a thing deficiently from the Law of God, so that God in all those several acts of his about sin, whether they be permissive or ordinative, is gloriously vindicated, because he doth nothing deficienter, as falling from that eternal and immutable Law of righteousness; whereas the Angels and man did, missing or coming short of the rule, by which they were to be guided: but because this Discourse is more remote to our present matter of Pardon of sin, we come to that which doth more nearly concern it.  

3 The proper effect of sin, which is to make guilty.  Therefore in the third place, there is the proper effect, and consequent of sin, which is to make guilty, and oblige to eternal wrath. To omit the many things that are in sin, Divines do acknowledge two things in every sin, the Macula, or filth, and the Reatus, the guilt; which guilt some do again distinguish into the guilt of sin, which they call the inward dignity and desert of damnation, which they make inseparable from sin, even as heat is from the fire; and the guilt of punishment which they make separable: For the present, let us examine, What is that effect of sin, whereby a man when a sin is committed is truly denominated a sinner, for seeing Remission is a taking away of sin in that respect, whereby we are adjudged and accounted of as sinners, it is necessary to know what that is, which doth so constitute a sinner: As for example, David after his adultery, Peter after his denial, have contracted such a guilt upon them, whereby they are accounted as sinners, though the acts of their sins be gone and passed; and in this condition they stand, till remission or forgiveness come, which takes away their sins. For the understanding of this, consider this foundation, That every sin committed by a man, though the sin be transient, and quickly passeth away, yet it doth still continue, and is as it were still in acting, till by remission it be removed. And this consideration is of great practical use. A man is apt to look upon his sins committed a long while ago, as those which are passed, and are no more to be thought upon; but you must know, that there is something which doth remain after a sin is committed, which is somewaies the same with the action of sin: so that not figuratively, but properly the sin itself is said to continue. Thus the Scripture calls something by the name of sin, that doth continue, when yet the commission of the sin is past. As David many months after he had sinned, prayeth God, To blot out his sin: why, where was his sin? It was committed long before, and it was a transient act, but yet David by this doth acknowledge that there is something which doth continue that act of sin, whereby David is as much bound up in his conscience, as if he had been in the very commission of it. Consider therefore that till there be a pardon of sin, though thy sins have been committed forty or fifty years ago, yet they are continued still, and thou art truly a sinner, though so many years after, as thou wast at the first committing of them. Sin is not taken away by length of time, but by some gracious act of God vouchsafed unto us: How justly may it be feared, that many a man's sins do still lie at his doors! Thou art still in thy sins, and looked upon as so by God; though it may be thou hast left such sins many years ago. Thy youthful sins it may be, thou hast left them along while ago, yet thou art still in them, and they are continued upon thee, till by remission they are taken away. It is not thy other course of life and abstinence from sin, that makes a sin not to be, but there must be some gracious act on God's part, removing of this. Consider therefore of it, that thy soul remaineth as polluted and guilty twenty years after a sin, yea a thousand of years, if thou couldst live so long, as when it was in the very first act of sin. Remember the action of sin doth pass away, but not the sin; you may therefore ask, Wherein doth the sin continue still? What is that which makes me still to be reputed of as if I were a sinner in the very act? It is commonly out of the Schoolmen determined, 
Whence comes 1 A st●in upon the so●l, taken out by sanctification.  That after a sin is committed, there doth remain a Macula, a blot in the soul, and that continuing, the sinner doth thereby remain obliged unto eternal wrath. That there is such a filth and blot remaining because of sin, 
Liv. de Rec.  I see generally acknowledged by our Divines: only that learned Wootton doth much oppose it, and saith, the Schoolmen have been five hundred years labouring to declare, what it is, and are not able to do it. Indeed he grants, That in Adam's sin we may well conceive a blot remaining after the sin was committed, because he was endowed with grace; but now in a man grown up that hath grace, no sin that he commits takes away his grace, and therefore he is not deprived of that beauty by the blot of sin. And as for wicked men, they have no beauty at all in them; and therefore how can sin make such a blot in them? There must be beauty in them by grace, which is nitor animae, the lustre of the soul, before there can be Macula, which is the deformity of it. For the right conceiving of this, know, 1. That it is one thing to acknowledge such a defilement and impurity by sin absolutely; and another to acknowledge it so, That justifying grace, or remission of sin must take that blot away. Herein the Papists err, That they hold sin leaveth such a stain, which remission of sin taketh away; whereas indeed there is such a filth by sin, but that is taken away by sanctifying grace, not justifying; so that it is a dangerous error to speak of such a defilement by sin, and then to say, God by pardoning takes it away; This were to confound Justification and Sanctification.  
But in the second place, we may according to Scripture, say, not only in Adam's sin, but in every sin we commit there is a blot and slain made upon the soul, Matth. 15.20. These things that come from the heart defile a man, Ephes. 5.27. Sin is compared to a spot and wrinkle. So Rom. 3.12. All by nature are said to become unprofitable. The Hebrew word in the Psalm, out of which this is taken, signifieth corruption or putrefaction, for such sin is to the soul, not that you may conceive that the essence of the soul is naturally corrupted by sin, as rust doth the iron, and moths the garment; but in a moral sense, by sin the soul in its faculties is disenabled from doing its duty. Thus the Apostle calls sins dead works, Heb▪ 9.14. not in that sense, as if they did bring death to a man, for that the Apostle expresseth otherwise, killing us, when he speaks of the Law; but he calls them dead works, because they defile man, as dead carcases in the old Testament: For the Apostle, vers. 1. spoke of cleansing by the blood of an heifer, which was to be used when a man had touched any dead thing, which made him legally unclean. Thus (saith he) Christ's blood will cleanse from sin that contaminateth a man. Neither is it necessary that grace must really have been in the soul before, and then sin by depriving the soul of it, so to slain it: for it's enough that the soul ought to have grace in it, though it were not present before: as when a man doth not believe God's Word, though this unbelief do not deprive him of the beauty and grace of faith, which he had, yet it doth of that beauty of faith, which he ought to have. 
● An obligation to ●t●r●●l ●●●shment 〈◊〉 by re●ission.  And thus as particular actual sins are multiplied: so are particular stains and defilements also increased; we therefore must grant a stain by sin, though this be not that which is removed by remission. Therefore that which continueth a man a sinner in God's account, and is to be removed by remission, is that obligation to eternal wrath appointed by God; for as soon as a man hath sinned, there doth accrue to God a moral right (as we may speak with reverence) and power, being a Judge, as thereby he may inflict vengeance upon a sinner; and in this respect sin is called an offence, because it doth provoke him, who is a just Judge, unto anger and vengeance. This then is that, which makes a sin to continue still as if it were in act, because upon the sin committed there is an obligation by God's appointment to everlasting punishment, and when this is taken off, then is God said to forgive, and till it be, sin is alive, crying for vengeance, as fiercely, as if it were newly committed. So that the act once committed that causeth the obligation to punishment, and this obligation continuing, God doth not forgive. When a sin is committed it may remain in God's mind, and in our mind. In our mind, by way of guilt and trouble; as David said, His sin was always before him; or else in God's mind, so that he doth will the punishment of such. Now when God doth forgive, he blots sins out of his mind, and remembers them no more. He doth not will the obligation of them to punishment, being satisfied thorough Christ, and the party believing in him. By all this you may see, That after a sin is committed there remaineth obligation in the will and mind of God to eternal punishment, and God when he doth forgive, cancelleth this debt or obligation. This being cleared, we may the easilier judge with what act God doth forgive sin, but of that hereafter.  

Sin considered as an offence to God.  Let us consider the aggravation of sin, as it is an offence to God, which may the more instigate us to pardon. In sin we may consider two things; First, The deprivation of that rectitude which ought to be in every thing we do: in which sense, sin is a moral monster, as there are natural monsters, for the soul in sin doth not bring forth fruit answerable unto reason and the Law of God; this consideration may much humble us; but there is another thing in sin which doth more aggravate it, and that is as it is a dishonour, and an offence to God, and by this means it becometh above our power ever to satisfy God for it. Therefore in every sin besides the particular considerations, look upon that general one, which is in all, viz. That peculiar deformity it hath, 
Whether sin b● an infinite evil.  as it is an offence against God. It's disputed, Whether sin have an infinite evil and deformity in it? To answer this, If a sin be considered in its kind, so it's not infinite, because one sin is so determined to its kind, that it is not another sin, as theft is not murder.  
Neither secondly can sin be said to be infinite evil, in respect of the being of it, for it cometh from finite creatures, who are not able to do any thing infinite; and therefore sin is not infinite, as Christ's merits are infinite, which are so, because of the dignity and worth of the person, though the actions themselves had a finite being. Besides, if sins were infinite in such a sense, than no sin could be greater than another, because that which is truly infinite cannot be made more or less.  
Therefore thirdly, Sins are said to have infinite evil in them, in respect of the object or person against whom they are committed, viz. God, who is an infinite object. For seeing the aggravation of a sin ariseth from the worth of the person against whom it is committed; if the person offended be of infinite honour and dignity, than the offence done against such an one, hath an infinite evil and wickedness in it. So that the infiniteness of sin ariseth wholly from the external consideration of God against whom it is. But of this more when we speak of the necessity of Christ's satisfaction to God's justice by his death.  
Let the Use be to inform thee, That every sin committed, 
Use.  continueth as fresh to cry vengeance many years after, as if it were but lately done, till remitted by God. Think not therefore that time will wear it out, though they may wear out of thy conscience, yet they cannot out of God's mind. Consider that of Job 14.17. Thou sealest up my transgression as in a bag, and thou sowest up mine iniquity. So that what the Apostle speaks of some, 2 Pet. 2. is true of all impenitent sinners, Their damnation slumbereth not, nor doth it linger. Therefore till the mercy of God hath taken off this guilt, thou art to be in as much fear and trembling, as if the very sins were still committed by thee.   

LECTURE XVII.  MAT. 6.12. 
And forgive us our Debts.  

What remission of sin is.  THe next Question to be handled, is, What remission of sin is, and how God doth forgive them. And although the discussing of the former Question, viz. What maketh a man a sinner doth make an easy and quick way of dispatching this, because Justification doth take off that consideration and respect of a sinner from a man, yet that the whole nature of it may be better understood, I shall lay down several Propositions, all which will tend to give us much light in this great and glorious benefit of the Gospel.  

From the names of it.  And in the first place, as we formerly considered some choice Hebrew words that set forth the pardon of sin, so now let us take notice of some Greek words in the new Testament, that express this gracious act of God: for the holy Ghost knoweth best in what words to represent this glorious mercy to us.  
The word that is most frequently used by the Evangelists and Apostles is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in the general, is as much as to dismiss or send away, to let alone, to leave, to permit or suffer; in which senses the Scripture often useth it: and certainly God in this sense doth pardon sin, because he lets it alone, he leaves it, he meddles no more with it, but handleth the person forgiven, as if he never had been a sinner. But commonly this word is used of absolving those who are accused as guilty, which appeareth in that famous sentence of Agesilaus, who writing to have one Nicias sent to him that was accused, used this expression, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nicias, if he have done no wrong, absolve him, if he have, absolve him for my sake, but howsoever absolve him, or set him free. And in this sense forgiveness of sins may well be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but in the Scripture it seemeth rather to be an expression from those that are loosened out of their bonds for their debts; and therefore frequently is applied to the forgiving of debts, Mat. 18.25, 27, 32. and this is more notably set down, Luk. 4.18. to preach to captives or prisoners, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, freedom or forgiveness of sin, and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall be as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to loosen bonds, as the word is used, Luke 16.26. Acts 27.40. Therefore howsoever Grotius thinks the word to remit, to be a metaphor from those who part with, or leave a thing that they might retain, yet it seemeth rather to be taken from releasing of debts, and loosening of bonds, in which the conscience of a sinner was tied, being bound to answer at the Tribunal of God. Hence the Scripture useth several names to express pardon of sin, according to the several titles that sin hath in the Scripture. As sins are Debita, Debts, so God doth forgive, as they are Sordes, a filth and loathsomeness, so God doth cover them, as they are vincula, bonds, so he doth remit them. As they are debts, written down in a book, so he blots them out: As they make us miserable and wretched, so he is merciful and propitious in removing of them.  
A second word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Col. 2.13. Having forgiven you all trespasses, Col. 3.13. Even as Christ forgave us. Now this word doth excellently signify the fountain, and the effect of pardon. The fountain, that it cometh from the mere grace and favour of God. There is nothing in us to merit or satisfy God with. Therefore howsoever there be a necessity of faith and repentance, yea and God will not forgive sin in persons grown up, but where these are, yet these are no meritorious causes, nor can they satisfy God for all that offence and dishonour which our sins have cast upon him. And this may encourage the broken heart, who feeleth a load of sin upon itself, and hath nothing to bring unto God: remember the root and fountain of all forgiveness is grace, which is so far from supposing any worth of condignity in thee for pardon, that it rather implieth the contrary. And as it doth imply grace thus in the fountain, so also acceptableness and joy too in the party, to whom sin is forgiven. So that there can be nothing in the world more welcome, or a greater matter of joy, then to bring this glad tidings; and indeed therefore is the Gospel called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it preacheth the glad tidings of God's love and reconciliation thorough Christ with a sinner.  
A third word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thus the Publican prayed, Luk. 18.3. Some derive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because we desire to look on those to whom we are propitious. But this word doth more immediately relate to the blood of Christ, as the way by which God becomes thus pacified. So that as the other words set up the grace of God in pardoning, so this the merits and satisfaction of Christ, 1 Joh. 2.2. 1 Joh. 4.10. Rom. 3.25. Heb. 2.17. In which places the appeasment of God towards us, is attributed to the blood of Christ. Therefore if we put the former words and these together, we may see an admirable temperament and mixture of grace and justice in forgiving of sins. The former places exclude Popish Doctrines, The later, Socinian blasphemies.  
A fourth word may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to obtain mercy. For although the Scripture apply this to all the benefits and mercies of God, yet Paul applieth it more particularly to pardon of sin, 1 Tim. 1.13. and when Dives prayed, Luk. 16.24. Father Abraham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, have mercy on me, and so by consequent to be removed from that place of torment. Hence in that form of prayer which Paul useth by way of salutation, there are these three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But this word is more expressly used for this end in the grand Covenant and Promise for pardon of sin, Heb. 8.12. For I will be merciful to their iniquities, etc. This is so comprehensive a Petition, that it seemeth to be a generally received form of prayer in the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yea the wiser among the Heathens used this prayer, as appeareth by Arrianus epist. diss. lib. 2. cap. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Now this word supposeth, 1. The party praying for pardon to look upon himself, as in a most miserable and undone estate, that no outward calamity or evil lieth so heavily upon him, as his sins do▪ And then secondly, on God's part, it supposeth that he doth not only pardon, but that even his bowels yearn within him, when he doth forgive. Hence Luk. 1.78. they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the bowels of mercy. This goodness of God is excellently represented in the father of the Prodigal, Luk. 15.20. Therefore how great a sin is unbelief, and refusing to have good thoughts of God, when God hath manifested himself thus gracious!  
The last word I shall mention (though there be others that are used) is by way of negation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 4.8. 2 Cor. 5.9. And this is a metaphor from those that cast up their accounts, and account so much upon such an one for debt. Now by this word is shown the terrible nature of sin, as also that howsoever for a while, we may live jollily, care for nothing, and be in security, yet God will one day cast up his accounts, and charge such and such debts upon us; but if so be the Lord will not impute them to us, and account them upon our score, this will be our blessedness. And thus you have heard the most choice and principal words the holy Ghost expresseth our forgiveness by. We proceed,  
1. Proposition. Lay this down as a foundation, 
Propos. 1.  That when God doth pardon sin, he takes it away so, as that the party acquitted is no more looked upon as a snner.  
All the expressions about pardon amount to thus much; even as when one accused of theft and murder in the Commonwealth, and is legally acquitted by the Judge, he is no more reputed a thief or murderer. Therefore it is a calumny of the Papists, as if we held, That a man is a sinner after God hath pardoned him. It is true, we say, That sin doth remain in a man, though he be justified, and that sin hath a desert of condemnation with it, but where God hath pardoned, there he doth not look upon that man as a sinner, but as a just man. Therefore in different respects we may say, That pardon of sin is an utter abolition of it, and it is not an utter abolition of it. It is an utter abolition of it, as it doth reflect upon the person, making him guilty, and obliging him actually to condemnation; in this respect a man is as free as if he had never sinned; but if you speak of the inherency of sin, and the effects of original corruption, that do abide in all, which are also truly and properly sins; so pardon of sin is not an utter abolition, and although Christ wrought no semiplenam curationem, as is observed, no half-cures upon any diseased persons, but whom he healed, he healed perfectly, yet he works by degrees in the grace of Sanctification, as he did perfect the world by several degrees successively, and not (as Austin thought) all at once. So that this particular, viz. That forgiveness is a perfect abolition of sin in the former consideration, is of transcendent comfort to the believers: and indeed it is impossible that sin should be forgiven divisibly, and by parts: so a man should be at the same time under the favour of God, and under his hatred, which is impossible.  
Thou therefore who art a believer hast cause to rejoice, for this perfect work of remission of thy sins past, wherein nothing more is, or can be done for thy good and consolation. Do not think it is with God, as with men, who say indeed, They forgive with all their heart, yet retain their secret, inward hatred, as much as before. Indeed the pain of sin may roll and tumble in thy conscience a long while after, though it be forgiven (we see so in David) as the sea, which hath been enraged by tempests and winds, though they be quiet, yet the sea will roar and make a noise a long time after. The heart of a man awakened and pierced with the guilt of sin; doth not quickly and easily compose itself again.  

Propos. 2.  Prop. 2. It is one thing for God to forgive, and another thing not to exact and demand punishments.  
As we see among men, a Judge many times through fear or otherwise, when Justice is obstructed, doth not call such a malefactor to an account, but deferreth it, yet for all that, the man is not acquitted; so it is often to be seen in God's providence, There are multitudes of sinners, who after their transgressions committed, are not only without punishment, but enjoy great prosperity, and much outward success, yet these men are not pardoned, they have no acquittance from God. This hath been such a temptation to David, Jeremiah, and others of God's people, that they have many times staggered through unbelief. But men may have their punishments deferred, their damnation may sleep or linger, but it is not taken off.  
Let not men therefore delude themselves with vain hopes, as if their sins were forgiven, because not yet punished: No, there must be some positive gracious act of God to acquit thee, else thy sins are alive to condemn thee. Examine thyself therefore whether thy peace, comfort, plenty, be a fruit of God's forbearance merely, or of his acquittance. This later is always an act of his gracious mercy: but the other may be a terrible fruit of his hatred against thee, insomuch that thou hadst better wander up and down like Cain, fearing every thing will kill thee, or damn thee, then be in such security.  
Prop. 3. 
Propos. 3.  A godly man may account not only himself bound to thank God for the pardon of those sins he hath committed, but he is to acknowledge so many pardons, as by the grace of God he hath been preserved from sin.  
And if a believer enter into this consideration, how will it overwhelm him! So often as God hath preserved thee from such and such sins, which thy own heart, or temptations would have inclined thee to, God hath virtually given thee so many pardons. That God preserved David from kill Nabal and his Family, here was interpretatively as great mercy, as in the express forgiving of the murder of Vriah. It is a rule of Divines, Plures sunt gratiae privativae, quam positivae. There are more preventing graces then positive. The keeping of evils from us, is more than the good he bestoweth on us. Therefore Austin observed well, that as Paul said, By the grace of God I am what I am: So he might also have said, By the grace of God I am not what I am not. Though therefore we are not so sensible of preventing mercies, as of positive, yet a due and right consideration of God's love in this matter might much inflame our hearts: Say therefore, O Lord, I bless thee, not only for the pardon of those sins I have committed, but also for thy goodness in preserving me from those many thousands, I was prone to fall into, which is in effect, the pardon of so many.  
Prop. 4. 
Propos. 4.  Remission of sin is not to be considered merely as removing of evil, but also as bestowing of good.  
It is not only ablativa mali, but collativa boni: it is not a mere negation of punishment due to us, but a plentiful vouchsafing of many gracious favours to us, such as a Sonship, and a right to eternal life, as also Peace with God, and Communion with him. God also never pardons any sin, but where he sanctifieth the nature of such an one. Indeed it will be worth the enquiry, Whether this connexion of pardon of sin with inherent holiness, arise from a natural necessity, so that one cannot be without the other; or whether it be by the mere positive will, and appointment of God; for the present this is enough, God hath revealed he will never does▪ join these.  

Propos. 5.  Prop. 5. I● every sin there are (as to the purpose of Justification, these two things considerable) the offence that is done to God, whereby he is displeased, and the obligation of the man so offending him to eternal condemnation.  
Now remission of sin doth wholly lie in removing of these two: so that when God doth will neither to punish or to be offended with the person, than he is said to forgive. We must not therefore speak of two kinds of remissions, one remission of the punishment, another of the offence and fault; for this is one remission, and God never doth the one without the other. It is true there remain paternal and medicinal chastisements after sin is forgiven, but no offence, or punishment strictly so taken. What kind of act this remission is, whether immanent or transient, is to be showed in the next Question.  

Propos. 6.  Prop. 6. From the former Proposition this followeth,  
That sin in the guilt of it is not remitted by any act that we do, but it is a mere act of God.  
So that neither the grace of repentance, or love of God is that, which removeth guilt out of the soul, but it is something in God only. It is the opinion of many Papists, That God in pardoning doth only enable to repent for sin, and then the guilt of sin doth naturally and necessarily go away, so that there needeth no acceptation from God, or act of remission, but only 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 brokenness of heart, that doth release and untie the bond of sin, but it is an act of God only.  
If you say, 
Object.  Why then is repentance and faith pressed so necessarily, that God doth not forgive without it? For if it be only an act of Gods▪ then it may be done without any work of the sinner intervening. But of this in the next place; only for the present take notice, 
Answ.  That it is not any sorrow or retraction of ours, that makes a sin either remissible, or actually remitted, but a mere act of Gods, and if all the men of the world were asked this Question, What they mean, when they pray God to forgive their sins? The sense of all would be, not that they should do 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 rely upon any thing we do, not to presume, no not of our godly sorrow for sin, 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 ourselves as bound in chains and fetters by our sins, 
Use.  as made very miserable by them, that so we may the more earnestly desire pardon, and put an high prize upon it. Though God's 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 ourselves, 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▪ less joyful 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 external 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 solicitous 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.  

How our duty of repentance consists with God's free grace in remitting.  YOu have heard, Pardon of sin is God's 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 God's 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:  

Propos. 1.  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 conjoining of them together by God's will and appointment, ariseth from a condecency and fitness 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. 
Propos. 2.  Although the Scripture attribute pardon of sin to many qualifications in a man, yet Repentance is the most express 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 express formal qualification, it is repentance of our sins, not repentance as it is a mere bare terror upon thy heart, but as it is sweetened 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 read 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 God's 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. 
Propos. 3.  None may believe or conclude that their sins are pardoned before they have repent.  
To this I shall speak more particularly, when I handle the Doctrine of Justification before Faith. As for the Assertion itself, 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. great. p. 18. confesseth, that there are Arguments on both sides in the Scripture: Sometimes he saith, Pardon of sin is subjoined to confession and repentance, of which sort he confesseth there are more frequent and express 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.  

Propos. 4.  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 forequoted, and in innumerable other places. I do not handle the case, Whether an actual or explicit 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 mere 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 bind? 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 expel it. And one that is wounded, who lieth bleeding, doth presently dispatch with all readiness for Physicians, to have his blood stopped: 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 stepped 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 qualify 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 Lawgiver is merely the ground of the duty; but there is also a fitness in the thing it should be so: even as among men, nature teacheth, That the injurious person should be sorry, and ask forgiveness before he be pardoned.  
5. Concerning this duty of repentance, 
5 Two great practical mistakes concerning repentance observed.  there are two extreme practical mistakes; the one is of the profane, secure man, who makes every empty and heartless invocation of mercy, to be the repentance spoken of in the Scripture, whereas repentance is a duty compounded of many ingredients, 
The first of the profane man.  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 men's humiliations? Men being Humiliati magis quam humiles, as Bernard said, humbled and brought low by the hand of God, rather than 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 thyself repentance: No, thou art far from this duty as yet.  

The second of the godly.  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, unless 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 express many tears, yea rivers, because of his sin, and other men's sins; yet it is a good rule, That the people of God, if they have sorrow in the chiefest manner appretiatiuè, though not intensiuè, by way of judgement 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, than matter of faith. David made a bitter outcry upon the death of Absolom, with sad expressions, Would to God I had died for thee, O Absolom, my son, my son, etc. But when Nathan told him of his Adultery and Murder, though he confessed his sin, yet we read 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 toothache, rather than a pestilent fever, yet a man is more afflicted and pained at the toothache, or burning of his finger, then at a fever: So it may be here, a godly man would rather choose the loss of his children, or dearest relations, then lose the favour of God by his sin; yet it may be have more painful grief in the one than 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, 
Propos. 6.  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 calls 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 blood of Christ; his blood is clean enough to purge us, but our very tears need washing. It is true indeed, we read of a promise made to those who turn from their evil ways, 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 privilege: 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 qualify the subject, yet we run into falsehood, 
Propos. 7.  when we make it a cause of pardon of sin. 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 repent, 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 God's grace, and the meritorious is Christ's blood: And if repentance come under the name of a cause, it can be only of the material, which doth qualify the subject, but hath no influence into the mercy itself. We read 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 kindness, doth plainly show, 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 sin seemeth to be ascribed to godliness, as a cause, is Dan. 4.27. Break off thy iniquities by showing 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 temporal 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 signify, To break a thing, as we translate it, and although by a metaphor it be applied to redeem and deliver, yet that is always of men and persons, not things, especially it would be ridiculous to say, Redeem thy sins: so that the meaning is, That whereas before Nabuchadnezzar had by injustice and oppression done much rapine and violence; now Daniel counselleth him to break off such wicked ways, 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 satisfy 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 satisfy God, and make him amends. But this is so gross, 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 satisfy. 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 temporal punishment that belongs to sin. 
The scope of the whole.   
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 than God's Word doth. Neither may we think it a nicety or subtlety 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 darkness, heat doth cold, by a real mutation and change: So that God in sanctifying doth no more to expel the sin, in the filth of it, afterwards; even as the Physician needs to do no more to the removing of the leprosy, 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 God's favour in forgiving; for if this were so, than God's mercy in giving a repenting heart, and his mercy in pardoning should not be two distinct mercies (which yet are evidently distinguished by the Scripture) but the same entire mercy. Now although this be true, yet how few do reform their judgements in this point? and thereupon they come to put that upon their grace within them, which belongs to grace without them.  
Use of Instruction, 
Use 1.  That there may be an happy reconciliation and accord between God's grace in forgiving, and man's duty in repenting, one need not be preached to justle out the other. All error is an extremity of some truth, and therefore it is hard to discover truth, because its difficult to find out where the bounds are, that truth parts from error. Let not therefore a Christian so rely upon his repentance, as if there were no Covenant of grace, no blood of Christ to procure an atonement: so neither let him extol these causes to the extinguishing of his duties.  

Use 2.  To stir up to this duty of repentance, as that without which pardon of sin cannot be obtained. There is no such free grace nor Gospel-mercy that doth supersede a broken and contrite heart. Christ was broken for thy sins, yet that will not excuse thee from a broken heart for them also. Christ was wounded, and a man of sorrow for thy sins, yet that will not take of● thy wounds and sorrow also. Indeed if these were able to satisfy God's wrath, or to make an atonement, than Christ was wounded, and became a man of sorrows in vain, for God doth not require a twofold satisfaction: but we are wounded for sin upon other grounds than Christ was: we mourn for other causes than he did: and consider, thou that art afraid to grieve here for sin, how little is this to that which thou shalt be forced to grieve for hereafter! Thou art unwilling to be burdened here; but oh how easy is that to the load thou must stand under hereafter! This Bernard urged, When, saith he, we urge men to repent, they say, this is durus sermo, an hard speech, who can bear it? But you are deceived, when God shall say, Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire. This is indeed an hard speech. And account that repentance is as much as the bringing of a man to his wits and mind again. All the while thy sins are not a burden to thee, thou art in blindness: even as the child as long as it is in the dark womb, weeps not, but as soon as ever it cometh into the light, than it crieth. As long as thou liest in the womb of darkness and ignorance, thou mournest not, but when God shall open thy eyes to see thy estate, and the aggravation of thy sins, than thou wilt burst out into sorrow.   

LECTURE XIX.  MAT. 6.12. 
And forgive us our debts.  
IT hath been showed, That there is an happy accord between God's grace in pardoning, and our duty in repenting. In bounding of which you have heard the Scripture excludes all merit and causality from our repentance, and gives the glory of all to God's grace, and Christ's blood.  
Before I leave this point, 
Practical Objections concerning repentance.  it will be necessary to answer some practical Objections, for there is a great miscarriage in many about this very duty of repentance. If they be asked, How they hope to be saved? they will reply, by their repentance. Thus they make that their Ark and city of refuge; they look upon that as the brazen serpent, and not Jesus Christ. And it is no wonder, if this be so among ignorant people, when the most learned amongst the Papists, do give such power and merit unto repentance. Insomuch that Vasques saith, He wonders at those Catholics, who have such low and despicable thoughts of the righteousness in us, as that it should not exclude sin, without any new favour or pardon of God: as if the enabling us to repent, did expel the guilt of sin, as fire doth water, by a natural necessity.  
The first Objection therefore may be, To what purpose doth God require Repentance, seeing it is no cause of pardon? 
Object. 1. Of what use repentance may be.  Why may not God forgive sin, as well without this sorrow of ours; for if it have no efficacy of itself, to deliver from the guilt of sin, than sin might be pardoned, as well without it as with it; for if the Spirit of God prepareth us for pardon, by exciting and stirring up Repentance, this Repentance must have some respect of causality to pardon, or else to what purpose it is wrought? It is hard therefore to see the necessity of Repentance, unless it have such effects. Insiste fortitèr poenitentiae, inhaere tanquam naufragus tabulae, said Ambrose; And this efficacy all are pron● to give to Repentance.  

Answ. 1.  Now to answer this, lay first this foundation, That God doth indispensably require repentance of all, Act. 17.30. where not only the command of repentance is made known, but the goodness of God in pressing this duty: for whereas God hath neglected and passed over the former times of ignorance, by not revealing any such command unto them, now by the general spreading of the Gospel he doth. For howsoever we translate it (winked at) as also Beza doth, yet Dieu upon the place showeth more probably, that it signifieth God's anger, and indignation to them, and therefore hid the means of salvation from them. This grace is also required of the godly sinning, 2 Cor. 7.9, 1O. Revel. 2.16. Tertullian subtly, but not solidly saith, God first dedicated repentance in his▪ own self; for before God said, It repenteth me that I have made man, the name of repentance was not heard. But we know that God cannot in a proper sense be said to repent, because there is no ignorance in his understanding, or mutability in his will. But to answer, Why God doth require it; this in the first place might be enough, Because it is his will and command, Bonum est poenitere, an non, quid revolvis? Deus praecipit, said Tertul●ian: Is it good to repent, or not? Why doubtest thou? Hath not God commanded it? It is God's will, to join pardon and repentance together. Though there were no more connexion between these two, then by that mere appointment of God, we were bound up to do it. As we see in the Sacraments, God hath promised such spiritual grace in the holy use and application of such outward signs, where there is no natural connexion at all between the grace and the sign; but the union comes by the mere institution and command of God. Although the conjoining of pardon with repentance, be more than from a mere positive command, there is an aptness and fitness in the thing itself. Now God in commanding of this, doth not because he needed it, or as if he could not do otherwise; for if a man may forgive another, that hath injured him, although he do not grieve or be troubled for such an offence, why may not God, if we speak of absolute power? Thy tears therefore and thy repentance, they make not God more happy; neither are they required for God's good, but for thy own good. Neither doth God require them, as if they should make up any defect or insufficiency in Christ's blood; for alas, if Christ's blood be not able to cleanse away thy sin, how shall thy tears do it? Hence it's no less than blasphemy, which Rivet reporteth of Panigirolla the Papist, who calls it foolishness, and a grievous sin to put confidence wholly in Christ's blood. Although therefore God puts up thy tears in his bottle, yet if he do not also take notice of the blood of Christ, thy soul must still remain filthy. Do not therefore magnify thy tears, and undervalue Christ's blood. The blood of the Sacrifice, which represented Christ's blood, 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 Christ's blood.  
In the second place, 
Answ. 2.  There are many reasons of congruity and fitness, why a man should repent, 
Six Reasons of congruity betwixt repentance and remission.  though it procure not pardon as a cause. Though God cause the Sun 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, 
Reas. 1.  Because hereby a man shall experimentally know the bitterness of sin, as well as the sweetness 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 bitterness for it, Jer. 2.19. Aristotle said, Homo est magis sensus quam intellectus, much more is he sensus then fides, more sense than 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. 
Reas. 2.  The sick esteem the Physician. The broken bones make a man cry out for ease. The famished Prodigal would be glad of crumbs. It is therefore fit, that a man's 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 joseph's 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 Christ's love to us, his sufferings in his soul were more exquisite than 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 mayest have some scantling of what Christ had in his soul: and certainly to think that Christ was thus tempted, thus under God's displeasure for thee, will more endear Christ to thee, then that he was made poor, a worm and no man, yea crucified for thee.  

Reas. 3.  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 ourselves, 1 Cor. 11. that is, we condemn ourselves, acknowledge such sins to be committed by us, for which God might show 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 merely from God's good pleasure; and therefore repentance is a kind of a revenge upon a man's self, 2 Cor. 7.10. The Lord is set up in his greatness and sovereignty, we are made wholly prostrate.  

Reas. 4.  4. As there is a Congruity; So repentance floweth by natural 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 tenderness, and aptness 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 sin, it is as if you should ask, Why a child 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 natural 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 aptness or fitness, 
Reas. 5.  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 sin, viz. an ordinability of it to be such a way, wherein we may find mercy. And thus we cannot say of impenitency, or any other sin: That God may forgive a man living in his impieties and wicked ways, 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 man's heart for sin, that it works that in a man, which hath a fitness 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 appointed antecedently to pardon, so that where this goeth before, the other cometh after.  
6. There is a Congruency in repentance for sin, 
The sixth Reason two ●old.  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: 
1. In regard of God's justice.  For if he should pardon sinful, 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 satisfy his justice, yet sins unrepented of cannot be pardoned without injustice; and therefore Christ did not undertake to satisfy the wrath of God in an absolute illimited manner, but in an ordered way, viz. in the way of faith and repentance.  

2▪ In regard of his grace and mercy.  Again, It is not beseeming the grace of God, to give pardon without repentance, for hereby a floodgate would be opened to all profaneness and impiety; and than 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 magnify 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.  

Object. 2. Whether repentance of itself may not take away the guilt of sin.  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?  

Answ. 1.  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 God's goodness. 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 God's grace that thou dost meet with forgiveness.  

Answ. 2.  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 Christ's blood, which Ambrose spoke in commendations of water, Quae lavas ownia, nec lavaris, which washest all things, and art not washed thyself. So that repentance cannot be the remedy to lean upon, for alas that needeth another remedy, which is the blood of Christ. If therefore when asked, How dost thou hope to have thy sins pardoned? thou answer, because thou repentest and humblest thyself for thy sins. It will be further demanded, But how dost thou hope to have thy sins of thy repentance taken away? Here all must necessarily be resolved into the blood of Christ: Take heed then after sin, of trusting in thy own sorrow. It is a most subtle sin, unless 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, 
Answ. 3.  yet that could not take away the guilt of sin committed, because sin 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 sin only, if the same man should presently be made perfectly holy; or if he had the holiness of Angels and Saints communicated to him, all this could not take off the guilt of sin, neither would all that holiness have as much satisfied God, as sin displeased and dishonoured him. Hence God sent Christ into the world to make a reparation, and to bring a greater good, than sin could evil. Oh therefore how low must this lay thee in the dust, after sin committed! O Lord, Could I repent to the highest degree, Could I bring the holiness of men and Angels, it could not make up the breach sin hath made upon me; what then shall I think of myself, whose graces may be much perfected and bettered than they are?  
But you may say, 
Why repentance bears not the proportion in▪ satisfaction that sin does in the offence.  Why should not repentance be as great a good, and as much honour God, as sin is an evil? For when you say, sin hath an infinite evil in it; it is meant only objectiuè, because God against whom it is committed, is an infinite God; Now than if sin 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 puzzled 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 sin hath infinite evil in it. But there is a vast difference, because it is enough for sin 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 Emperor is more than against a private man; so that still offences are more or less as the persons against whom they are, be of greater or less 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 increaseth according to the subject. Hence it is, That Christ only could satisfy, because he only was an infinite person. Otherwise if grace or holiness could have done it, Angels might have wrought our redemption. Besides, our repentance And turning to God, cannot be as meritorious of good, as sin 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 only sins, and they are truly ours: but our good things are neither purely good things, nor yet ours, but the gifts of God.  

Object. 3. What harm to God in sin.  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 than our graces add to his happiness, 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?  

Answ. By distinguishing Gods Attributes.  The Answer is easy, If you consider the internal Attributes of God, as Justice, Wisdom, Glory and Happiness: So God can have no loss or injury, for he is always the same happy and immutable glorious God: but if you do consider the ●●●●nall good things that are due to him from men, as Honour, Praise, Reverence, etc. These may be taken away from God by the perverse wills and lives of men, and so God have less of this eternal Honour and Glory than he hath. And although this external Honour and Reverence do not make to the internal Happiness 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 sin●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 Christ's death by way of satisfaction, doth necessarily argue, That sin is a real offence and dishonour to him. And lastly, a sinner as much as lieth in him, depriveth God of all his inward happiness and glory; insomuch that if it were possible God would be made less 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, 
Use 1.  To commend Repentance in the necessity of it, if ever we would have pardon. God hath appointed no other way for thy healing. Never persuade thyself of the pardon of sin, where sin itself 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 breathe after God, arise from thy humbled, and broken soul. It is presumption to expect pardon for that sin, 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 loathe himself repenting of his sins, will you not ●●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.  

Use 2.  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 God's providence, That a bone of his was a broken; Rely therefore upon Christ wounded for sin, not upon thy own heart that is wounded, use this, but trust only in Christ. Dependence 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 Christ's 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 show, What kind of act forgiveness of sin is, 
What kind of act in God forgiveness 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 kind of act in God forgiveness of sin is? Whether it be an immanent act indwelling and abiding in God, or transient, working some real 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; 
Two cautions concerning the workings of God.  only you must take notice that we are in mere darkness, 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; 
1. There are no accidents in him.  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 God's 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 mere command of his will, as appeareth Gen. 1. God said, Let there be light, and there was light; Here was God's 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, 
2. No new will in him.  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 wisdom. 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 justify 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 than 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 mere wi● 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 extrinsical 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. 
Differences between an immanent & transient action.  Let us come to give the differences between an immanent action, and a transient, and then we may easily see, which of these two Justification or Remission of sin is.  

1. An immanent action produceth no outward effect.  The first and proper difference is this, An immanent action is that which abides in God, so that it works no real effect without: As when God doth merely know or understand a thing; but a transient action, is when a positive change is made thereby in a creature, as in Creation, etc. So that we may conclude of all God's actions, which do relate to believers, only predestination is an immanent act of God, and all the rest, Justification, Regeneration, Glorification, are transient acts: for Predestination though it be an act of God choosing such an one to happiness, yet it doth not work any real change or positive effect in a man, unless we understand it virtually, for it is the cause of all those transient actions that are wrought in time. Howsoever therefore Justification be called by some an immanent action, and so made to go before Faith and Repentance 
* 
Ex●ra controversiam est, remissionem peccatorum▪ prout act●● est in D●o immanens antecedere nostram fidem & resipiscentiam.  
Twiss. Vin. gr. pag. 18.   as if Faith were only a declaration and sign of pardon of sin from all eternity, yet that cannot be made good, as is to be showed.  

2. An immanent action in God is from eternity.  A second difference floweth from the other, An immanent action is from eternity, and the same with God's essence, but a transient action is the same with the effect produced. Hence the Orthodox maintain, That God's decrees are the same with his nature. Hence when we speak of Gods willing such a thing, it is no more than his divine Essence, with an habitude and respect to such objects; Gods Decrees are no more then God decreeing, Gods will no more than God willing: otherwise the simpliciy of God's nature will be overthrown, and those volitions of God will be created entities, and so must be created by other new volitions, and so in infinitum, as Spanheimius well argueth, only the later part seemeth not to be strong or sufficient, because when man willeth, he doth not will that by a new volition, and so in infinitum, and why then would such a thing follow in God? Besides its no such absurdity in the actings of the soul, to hold a progress in infinitum, thus far, that it doth not determinately pitch or end at such an act. It is one thing to have things distinguished in God, and another thing for us to conceive distinctly of them. The former is false: The later is true and necessary. But with transient actions it is otherwise, they being the same with the effects produced, are in time; And this is a perpetual mistake in the Antinomian, to confound God's Decree and Purpose to justify, with Justification, God's immanent action from all eternity, with that transient, which is done in time. Whereas if they should do thus in matters of Sanctification and Glorification, it would be absurd to every man's experience, whereas indeed a man may as truly say, That his body is glorified from all eternity, as that his sins are forgiven from all eternity. And certainly Scripture speaks for one as well as the other, when it saith, Whom he hath justified, them he hath glorified.  
By these two differences, you may see, That pardon of sin is a transient action, and so Justification also, partly, because it leaveth a positive, real effect upon a man justified; he that was in the state of hatred, is hereby in a state of love and friendship, he hath peace with God now, that once was at variance with him. Now when we say, There is a change made in a man by Justification, it is not meant of an inward, absolute and physical one, such as is in Sanctification, when of unholy we are made holy, but moral and relative; as when one is made a Magistrate, or husband and wife: partly, because this is done to us in time, whereas immanent actions were from all eternity, and therefore it would be absurd to pray for them, as it is ridiculous for a man to pray he may be predestinated or elected. Some indeed have spoken of Predestination, as actus continuus, a continued act, and so with them it is good Divinity, Si non sis praedestinatus, ora ut praedestineris, If thou be'st not predestinated, pray that thou mayest be; but this is corrupt doctrine, and much opposeth the Scripture, which doth frequently commend election from the eternity of it, that it was before the foundations of the world were laid; whereas now for pardon of sin, it is our duty to pray that God would do it for us. This being thus cleared, we come to answer the next Question depending upon this, viz. Whether God doth justify or forgive our sins before we believe or repent? and our answer is negative, That God doth not. Although there are many who are pertinacious, that he doth; and so they make Faith not an instrumental cause to apply pardon, but only a persuasion that sin is pardoned; and thus repentance shall not be a condition to qualify the subject, to obtain forgiveness, but a sign to manifest that sin is forgiven. This Question is of great practical concernment; and therefore to establish you in the truth, consider these Arguments. 
Arguments proving our belief and repentance antecedents of justification.   
1. The Scripture speaks of a state of wrath and condemnation, that all are in before they be justified or pardoned. Therefore the believers sins were not from all eternity forgiven; for if there were a time, viz. before his Regeneration and Conversion, that he was a child of wrath, under the guilt and punishment of sin, than he could not be at the same time, in the favour of God, and peace with him. 
Argum. 1.  Now the Scripture doth plentifully show, That even believers before their Regeneration are detained in such bonds and chains of guilt and God's displeasure, Ephes. 2.1, 2, 3. There the Apostle speaking to the converted Ephesians, telleth them of the wretched and cursed condition they were once in, and he reckons himself amongst them, saying, They were children of wrath, and that even as others were: So that there is no difference between a godly man unconverted, and a wicked man, for that present state, for both are under the power of Satan, both walk in disobedience, both are workers of iniquity, and so both are children of wrath. It is true, the godly man is predestinated, and so shall be brought out of this state, and the other left in it. But predestination (as is more largely to be showed) being an immanent act in God, doth denote no positive effect for the present of love upon the person; and therefore he being not justified, hath his sins imputed to him, lying upon him, and therefore by the Psalmists argument, not a blessed man. This also, 1 Cor. 6.9, 10, 11. The Apostle saith of some Corinthians, That they were such as abiding in that state could not inherit the kingdom of God, and such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are justified. Therefore there was a time when these Corinthians were not justified, but had their sins abiding on them. Likewise all the places of Scripture, which speak of God's wrath upon wicked men, and that 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 godliness? 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 privilege of Justification and pardon only to those subjects that are so and so qualified, 
Argum. 2.  then till they be thus furnished, they cannot enjoy those privileges. The places are many which testify this, Act. 3.19. Repent, that your sins may be blotted out. Therefore their sins stood uncancelled, as so many Debts in God's register Book, till they did repent, Act. 26.18. To turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins. Therefore they had it not, while under the power of darkness, 1 Joh. 1.9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, which supposeth, That God doth forgive our sins only, when we confess 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 sin 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 
Argum. 3.  of any special 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 blood of Christ, as the meritorious cause; for there can be no remission of sins without effusion of blood, 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 instrumental 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 God's grace, infer, therefore remission of sins is before Christ's 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?  

Arg. 4.  4. If our sins be pardoned antecedently to our Faith and Repentance, than 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 conjoined one with the other. So that although there be a priority of nature, yet they are together in time. God pardons no man's 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 blessedness, as the Psalmist speaks, than 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 tenor of Scripture, which expostulateth with men, for taking his name or words into their mouth, and hate to be reform: yet a Doctor of this Antinomian sour leaven, affirmeth 
* Den reconcil. with God, p. 25  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 godliness, 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, 
Arg. 5.  so that Faith doth only declare our pardon of sin, than any other grace may be said to justify as well as Faith. For take any other grace, repentance, humility, joy, these are all the fruits of God's Spirit, and so demonstrate his election of us, his justification of us. But how unanswerably do the Orthodox prove, a peculiar instrumental virtue in faith for pardon, which others have not? The Apostle expresseth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, through faith in his blood, not love of his blood; 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 justify us declaratively only, but causally. So then by this Doctrine, Faith must no more be called the hand, or the eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood, but only made a sign of such mercies.  
6. If pardon of sin be from all eternity, 
Arg. 6.  going before our Faith and Repentance, because of God's election, than it must also be antecedent to the death and obedience of Christ. So that not only our tears, but Christ's blood shall be excluded from this great favour. The reason is plain, Because God's 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 in Christ, yet not for Christ. Christ is the meritorious cause of Justification and Glorification, but not of predestination, that is merely from his own self; so that if God's act of predestinating us be enough to instate us into all this favour and love, 
Den. Arg. 3. to prove we are justified before we believe.  what need is there of an atonement by Christ's blood? and thus we may urge a Doctor's Argument upon himself: All the elect of God are justified, but all the elect of God are elected antecedently to Christ's merits, therefore they are justified before Christ's merits.  

Arg. 7.  7. If (because it's said, Ephes. 2. That while we were dead, Christ gave himself for us: And Rom. 5. That he died for the ungodly) it followeth, Our sins are pardoned before we believe, than it will also follow, that all men's sins are pardoned. For the Texts that speak thus of his dying for the ungodly, and for enemies, make no distinction of one from another: And thus a Judas as well as a Peter is bound to believe his sins are pardoned. Those that argue against all qualifications, and say, God requireth nothing of thee, though lying in thy blood, must needs hold an universal promiscuous pardon of all, and that such a sin as presumption is not possible; for if I believe that Christ died to take away my sins, though I walk in all disobedience, yet that is not presumption, but a duty. It is true the Orthodox call upon those who lie grovelling in their swinish lusts to come unto Christ, and to believe in him; but what is that faith? Not a faith that sins are already pardoned, but a faith relying on him for pardon, which faith also at the same time cleanseth and purifieth the heart. Therefore let us take those general Texts, which speak of Christ's dying to take away the sins of enemies; and let any Antinomian give a true reason, why one man's sin is pardoned rather than another; and although to evade this, they fall into another error, holding Christ died for all; yet that will not serve the turn, unless they hold, That all men shall actually be saved, and none damned; for those Texts speak of a benefit that is actually obtained for those, in whose behalf he died. And thus I have produced seven Arguments for the antecedency of our Faith and Repentance to our Justification, as many in number, as the forequoted Author brings against it. Other grounds may be pleaded to this purpose, when we shall demonstrate, that all sins are not pardoned together.  
Use, Of Exhortation, To avoid all presumption, whether it be wrought in thee by thy own carnal heart, or corrupt Teachers, 
Use.  and that is, when thou believest pardon any other way then in Scripture-bounds; there is a Pharisaical presumption or Popish; and there is an Antinomian or Publican presumption. The former is, when we hope for pardon, partly by Christ, and partly by our own works and merits. The other is, when we expect it, though living and walking in sin. Now it is hard to say, whether of these is more derogatory to Christ. The one sins in the excess, the other in the defect. Be not therefore a Pharisee, excluding Christ either in whole or in part from the cause of pardon, Tutius vivimus, quando totum Deo damus; we live more safely, when we give all unto God, and take nothing unto ourselves. In the next place be not a Publican. Think not to have Christ and Belial together; expect not pardon for sin without repentance of it. The world is filled with these two kind of presumers: some limit God's grace, and associate their performances with it. Others extend it too far, and conjoin their lusts with it. But as the Apostle saith, If of works, and of the Law, than there is no grace: So we may, if of lusts, and profane impieties, than there is also no grace. We are therefore both to avoid sins, and carnal confidence in our own righteousness, if we would have Christ all in all. In vain did Peter and Mary Magdalen pour out their souls with so much bitterness, if pardon of sin may be had without this. It is Hieroms observation, That in all Paul's Salutation, Grace goeth before Peace, for till God's grace hath pardoned our sins, we can have no peace, and God doth not pardon, but where he gives repentance. Labour therefore for that which is indeed the good of thy soul, viz. Pardon of sin. When the rich man in the Parable, speaking of the corn in his barns, said, Soul, take thine ease, thou hast much good laid up for thee. He spoke as if he had porcinam animam, the soul or life of an hog; for, what good is corn and wine to a man's soul? Forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God; that is the connatural and suitable good and happiness for the soul.   

LECTURE XXI.  MAT. 6.12. 
And forgive us our debts.  

Whether Justification precede faith and repentance▪ Arguments for the affirmative  IT hath been proved, That God doth not justify or pardon a man till he doth believe; and that the wrath of God abideth upon such an one. It is necessary in the next place to answer those Objections which are propounded by the Adversaries, because some of them carry a specious pretence with them. And indeed the Antinomian with those Arguments he fetcheth from some places of Scripture, is like David in Saul's Armour, not able to improve them, the weapons being too big for him. But before I enter into the Conflict, its worth the enquiry, what the judgement of the Orthodox is in this point. 
From authority of orthodox men.   
The Remonstrants, Acta Synod. p. 293. bring several places out of our Authors, Lubertus, Smoutius, Piscator, and Others, wherein they expressly say, That God doth blot out our sins, before we either believe or amend our lives, and that this pardon doth antecede our knowledge of God, Faith, Conversion, or Regeneration of the heart. Thus also D. Twisse, in the place before quoted. Pemble also to this purpose (pag. 24.) The Elect (saith he) while unconverted, they are then actually justified, and freed from all sin by the death of Christ; and so God esteems of them as free, and having accepted of that satisfaction, is actually reconciled to them: But the falsehood of this will appear in Answer to the sixth Argument. When Grotius had distinguished of a twofold remission, a full remission, and a less full remission, holding this later kind of remission to be given to impenitent sinners, abusing two places of Scripture for this purpose, Rom. 5. 10. 2 Cor. 5.19. Rivet confuteth him, making it a sure truth, That sins are not actually remitted, but to those that repent, and saith, Quinam sunt two, qui volunt actu remissa peccata cuiquam ante conversionem? certè nobis sunt ignoti. Who are they that say, sins are actually pardoned before conversion? Certainly they are unknown to us. Although we acknowledge the price of reconciliation and redemption to have been prepared for the elect from all eternity, or in God's purpose and intention remission of sins to have been ordained for them, even as conversion, which in his time by God's 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 Christ's death, and not in an Antinomian sense, as is more largely to be showed in answering of their Objection, brought from Christ's 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 righteousness before God; and then he is justified by faith as an instrument, perceiving his justification in that righteousness 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 righteousness of Christ to himself, not of that active application whereby God applieth to man the righteousness of Christ: For this application is only in the mind 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 quickened together with Christ] doth in the first place distinguish of a twofold quickening, One whereby we are freed from the guilt of sin, and invested with a title or right to eternal life; The other from the power of sin, whereby we are made spiritually alive to God. The former is Justification, the later Sanctification. Now (saith he) this twofold 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 (sin 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 Christ's righteousness to us. And afterwards the forequoted Author, making this Objection to himself, How Christ could be said to be freed from the guilt of sin, who had no sin? He answereth, The person of Christ is considered two ways; First, in itself, 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 blood, than was he released from the guilt of those sins. We might instance in other Authors, but these may suffice to certify, 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 righteousness to the person justified. Therefore although this Doctrine pass for true, 
What the opinion abovesaid may mean.  yet it will not strengthen the Antinomists. Although even the truth of this opinion may modestly be questioned, unless 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 Christ's 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, 
That so expounded it seemeth but weak, for th●se Reasons.  and there seem to be many Arguments against it.  
First, If there were such a formal Justification, than 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. 
Reas. 1.  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 God's hand, that in time the elect should believe 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, 
Reas. 2.  I do not see how this Doctrine doth make our justification by faith to be any more than 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 Christ's death already. And so our Justification by faith, shall be but a copy fetched 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 canceled or blotted out, till God work those graces in us. Therefore this opinion may symbolise too much with the Adversary; and indeed none of the meanest Antinomians 
* Den recon, of man with God p. 3, 4.  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, 
Reas. 3.  how Christ should represent any to his Father, thereby to partake of the heavenly blessings which come by him, till they do actually believe, 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 God's 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 it is not so in the second Adam. Neither do those places, Ephes. 2.5, 6. Colos. 2.13, 14. prove any more, then that in and through him, we do obtain such mercies there spoken off: and although we are said to sit in heavenly places already, yet that is because of the certain right we have thereunto; in which sense also, he that believeth is said to have eternal life; and Christ being the first fruits doth sanctify the whole lump.  
As for that place, 1 Tim. 3. where Christ is said to be justified in the spirit, that makes nothing at all to this Justification we speak of. For the meaning is, That Christ was declared just, and absolved from all the reproaches cast upon him, by the spirit of God, which was done several ways, as by the witness exhibited from heaven unto him, by the innumerable miracles he wrought. In which sense, Mat. 11. Wisdom is said to be justified of her children. So that Act. 2.22. seemeth to be a full Commentary on this place, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by signs and wonders, which God did by him in the midst of you: And this is that Justification of himself, which Christ speaks of, Isa. 50.8. It is true the Apostle doth apply that spoken of Christ to every believer, Rom. 8. by way of allusion; and the rather, because Christ being the head of the elect, it will be made good of them in time, when they do believe: otherwise election is not enough to free from present accusation or condemnation, unless by faith they be actually in Christ, as is to be showed more at large.  
But this is a digression. It is the constant opinion of the Orthodox, That a man is not justified, or hath his sins pardoned, till he doth believe. I have brought Arguments to prove the point, and now address myself to remove their Objections.  
The first is brought from Infants, who are justified, 
1. Argument f●om Infants.  and yet do not believe, therefore before faith some are justified.  
First, The case of Infants is of a peculiar consideration, and therefore not to be attended unto in most Questions: yea the Scripture pressing the things requisite to salvation, as repentance, obedience, &c. cannot be understood of Infants. And Suarez argueth against Justification by faith in the general, upon this ground, Because Infants are justified without it, so that the Argument (if it proveth any thing) would prove a Justification without faith, rather than before faith. Suppose a man should argue about glorification, as the adversary doth about Justification. Infants are glorified without fruits meet for repentance, Therefore men grown up also may be, How absurd would that be? Therefore if the conclusion of the Argument were granted, viz. Some that do not believe are justified, restraining it to Infants, the main Question would have no detriment. The opponent layeth down this conclusion (Reconc. of man with God, p. 5.) That man's actual reconciliation to God, requireth previous conditions to be wrought in him by God's Spirit, before he can be reconciled actually to God; among which he reckoneth believing as the chief. Now I may retort on him thus, Infants are actually reconciled to God, but Infants do not believe, Therefore some are actually reconciled to God that do not believe.  
Secondly, The opponent cannot but know, that there are Learned men, who hold Infants have actual faith, and do believe, Therefore to them his Argument is of no force. It may very well be thought, that they have actual sins, not such as are in men grown up, accompanied with reason and will; but those immediate motions of original corruption in them. For although original sin be not peccatum actuale, yet it is, peccatum actuosum, if it be not an actual sin, yet it is an active sin, and therefore may not be thought idle in an Infant. Austin lib. 1. Confess. c. 2. Vidi ego Zelantem parvulum, etc. I have observed envy in an Infant, when another little child hath sucked his breast, and so they have sinful anger, which made the same Father say, Imbecillit as m●mbrorum infantilium innocens est, non animus infantum. There is more innocency in their bodies, then in their souls. Now if there be actual motions of sin before the use of reason, why not actual motions of God's Spirit. That it is possible, John Baptist makes it without question: all the doubt is, Whether God doth ordinarily so to Infants. Aretius is alleged by some to hold, That 
* Neither may this seem such a wonder, seeing that the orthodox hold even in men grow● up, the first grace is wrought in us as mere patients, our understandings & wils no ways antecedently concurring to it; so that the grace of God is then wrought in us, without us.  even repentance may be attributed to Infants out of Joel 2.16. but the command there is, That parents should bring their children into the public humiliation, that by the sight of them they may be the more fervently stirred up to pour out their prayers before God.  
Thirdly, That which the most solid Divines pitch upon, is, That Infants have, (I speak not generally, but indefinitely) a seed of faith, because they have the Spirit of God and regeneration, otherways they could not be saved; and by this seed of faith, they become members of Christ, and that relation which is in their faith to Christ's merits, is the instrument by which they obtain remission of sin. As for that place, Faith cometh by hearing, it is to be applied to the ordinary means of faith, and that in persons grown up. Neither can I say, that an Infant is bound to have actual faith; for happily in the state of integrity, Infants then, though they had the image of God, yet could not have put forth the actual exercise of graces, and if they could not do it in that state, it is not to be expected they do so now.  
Fourthly, It is not enough for him to prove they are justified before they believe, but also before they be any way united to Christ, Let that union be conceived how it can by us. For if a man be justified, because he is elected, as his third Argument would prove; then he is to show, that Infants not only before they believe, but before they have any union with Christ are justified, for the election of Infants must needs go before their union with Christ. And howsoever the opponent quoteth Austin saying, That which was wrought in John Baptist, to be a singular miracle, yet Serm. 14. d● Verbis Apostoli, on those words, He that believeth not shall be damned, makes this question, Vbi ponis parvulos baptizatos? Where put you little children baptised? profectò in numero credentium, truly in the number of believers.  
His second Argument is to this effect. 
Argum▪ 2.  He that is in Christ is justified. Now a man is in Christ, before he doth believe, because the tree must be good before the fruit can be. Therefore a man must be justified before he do believe.  
In answering this Argument many things are considerable.  
First, It must be acknowledged a very hard task to set down the true order of the benefits bestowed upon us by God. The assigning of the priority and posteriority of them is very various according to the several judgements of men interessed in that controversy.  
The opponent (it may be knoweth) that there are some, who say Christ, or the Spirit of Christ is first in us by way of a moving or preparing principle, and afterwards as a principle inhabiting and dwelling in us; That as some say, Anima fabricat sibi domicilium, the soul makes its body to lodge in; it works first efficiently, that afterwards it may formally, so they say Christ doth in us. As the silkworm prepareth those silken lodgings for herself to rest in. So that according to the judgement of these men, Christ, or his Spirit, doth efficiently work in us the act of believing, by which act Christ is received to dwell in us. And in this way, Christ hath no union with us, till we do believe. He worketh indeed in us before, but not as united to us. Now according to this opinion, the answer were easy, That we are not in Christ, till we do believe; Though Christ be in us, as working in us, and upon us. Yea faith would first be wrought, and then Christ with his benefits of justification, etc. would be vouchsafed to us; but there are Reasons why it is not safe to go this way. And indeed that Charta magna or grand promise for regeneration, doth evidently argue, the habits or internal principles of grace, are before the actions of grace, Ezek 36.26. God takes away the heart of stone, and giveth a new heart, an heart of flesh, which is the principle of grace, and afterwards causeth them to walk in his Commandments, which is the effect of grace.  
But secondly (which doth fully answer the Objection) It is true, our being ingraffed into Christ, is the root and fountain of faith, and of Justification too; but yet so, that these being correlates (faith and Justification) they both flow from the root together, though with this order, that faith is to be conceived in order of nature before Justification, that being the instrument to receive it, though both be together in time. Therefore the major Proposition should be thus regulated, He that is in Christ doth believe, and is justified, or believing is justified; for Justification as our Glorification, though it flow from Christ, yet it is in that order and time which God hath appointed. Neither is it any new thing in Philosophy, to say, Those causes which produce an effect, though they be in time together, yet are mutually before one another in order of nature in divers respects to their several causalities.  
Christ is in us, and we in Christ, Christ is in us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by way of gift and actual working, and we are in Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by way of receiving; and both these are necessary, as appeareth, Joh. 15.5. and both are together in time, yet so that in order of nature Christ's being in us is before our being in him, and the ground of all our comfort and fruit, is not, because we are in him, but he in us (even as the branch beareth fruit, not because it is in the Vine, but because the Vine is in it, communicating efficacy to it.) Thus also faith and Justification are together, yet so as one is produced by the other, we are not justified, and therefore believe, but we believe and are therefore justified.  
Lastly, This may be retorted upon the opponent, who (as was alleged before) denieth any actual reconciliation, till we do believe. But may not we strike the adversary with his own reason in this manner? He that is in Christ is actually reconciled. But we must be in Christ before we do believe. Therefore we must be actually reconciled, before we do believe.  
I pass over the third, and reserve the fourth and sixth Argument (being all one) for the next Lecture, because in them is matter worthy of a large consideration.  
I come therefore to the fifth Argument, 
Arg. 5.  which is taken from the collation between the first Adam and second out of Rom. 5.18, 19 From whence is argued, As in the first Adam we are accounted sinners before any thing done on our part; so in the second Adam, we are to be justified before any thing wrought in us. This the opponent doth much triumph in, but without cause, as the answer will manifest.  
And in the first place we cannot but reject those Expositors of that text forequoted, 
Answ.  who understand us to be sinners in Adam, only by imitation, or by propagation merely, as from a corrupted fountain; but we suppose it to be by imputation: Adam (by God's Covenant) being an universal person, and so as Austin said, Omnes ille unus homo fuerunt, All were that one man. And therefore these do not rise up to the full scope of the text, who parallel Christ and Adam only as two roots, origen's or fountains; for there must be a further consideration of them as two common persons, for our immediate fathers are a corrupted root, and we are corrupted by them, yet their sins are not made ours, as adam's was. Hence the Apostle layeth the whole transgression upon one, as by one man's disobedience, etc. Those that deny imputation of Adam's sin (as the Pelagians of old, and Erasmus with others of late) do not relish that translation of those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in whom all have sinned, but prefer the other, Forasmuch as all have sinned in him; but both come to the same sense: and howsoever Erasmus say, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a dative case must be understood causally, yet that is not universally true; for Mar. 2.4. there is mention made of the bed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which the paralytique lay, it would be ridiculous to translate that inasmuch. So Act. 2. Be baptised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the name, Heb. 9 Those ordinances consisted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in meats. We therefore grant, That Adam's sin was ours by imputation, before we had any actual consent to it. In which sense Bernard called it, Alienum & nostrum, another's sin and ours: yea, it is so far from being ours by consent, that if a man on purpose should now will that Adam's sin should be his, this would not make Adam's sin imputed to him, it would be a new actual sin in the man, it would not be Adam's sin imputed to him. Now although all this be concluded upon, yet it followeth not, that therefore we are justified in Christ before we believe. I acknowledge some eminent Divines have pressed this comparison; but there is a vast difference in this very act of imputation, and the ground of it: for supposing the Covenant at first made with Adam, all his posterity by a natural way are involved in his guilt, and so whether they will or no, antecedently to their own acts they are obnoxious to this guilt. Hence all men (none excepted) that are propagated in a natural way are thus corrupted, but in Christ we are by a supernatural way, and none are made his, but such as believe in him; and he doth not represent any to God as his members, till they be incorporated into him by faith, which faith although it be a gift of God, yet by it we are enabled voluntarily to choose and embrace Christ. Many other differences there are, but I pitch on this only, as being fully to my purpose in hand. If therefore we were in Christ by a natural way, as we are in Adam, then antecedently to any thing wrought in us, we might be partakers of privileges by one, as we are of curses by another.   

LECTURE XXII.  MAT. 6.12. 
And forgive us our Debts.  
WE proceed to the remaining arguments, which would maintain a justification before faith.  

Arg. 7.  The next is from God's election, thus, All the elect of God are justified before God. But some of the elect do not believe. And the major is proved from, Rom. 8.33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? It is God that justifieth.  

Ans. 1.  In the first place this Argument might easily be laid aside, for the Apostle doth not speak here of election, antecedentèr, antecedently to his other graces, which flow from that in time, but executiuè, as it is executed and completed in those that are elected. Therefore by the elect he meaneth those elect that believe, that are holy, that are conformable to the image of God, that do love him, as the context showeth; for otherwise we know Paul himself laid much to the charge of the Ephesians, though elect, when before their conversion, he said they were children of wrath as well as others; and therefore by that adamantine chain, Whom he hath predestinated he hath called, whom he hath called he hath justified, whom he hath justified he hath glorified, it is plain, he takes election terminatiuè (as they say) in the effects of it, even till it hath obtained the utmost terminus, which is everlasting glory.  
2. From this chain also is an infallible Argument against the Opponent, thus, 
Answ. 2.   
Those only are justified that are called, But none are called or converted from all Eternity, Therefore none are justified from all Eternity.  
The major is grounded upon the method and order which the Apostle observeth, beginning with the highest round in that chain, which is Predestination, and ending in the lowest, which is Glorification: so that it cannot rationally be thought that the Apostle did not intend an exact order, and method in those expressions.  
3. If so be a man (because he is elected) be justified from all Eternity, than it will also follow he is glorified from all Eternity. 
Answ. 3.  And so Hymenaeus●nd ●nd Philetus may be excused in this sense, if they say, The resurrection is passed already. It is true, the Apostle useth words signifying time past, Whom he hath predestinated, he hath called, etc. But that is either to show the certainty and infallible connection of these benefits together; or else, because Predestination being necessarily for the time past, he would not alter the current of his expression for the following mercies.  
4. The Apostle might well say, 
Answ. 4.  Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? and not of Believers, because election is the maternal mercy, it is the fountain and head from which all other flow. Hence the Apostle doth in the same Chapter limit mercies to those that are called according to God's purpose, implying hereby, that this is the ground and root of all.  

Answ. 5.  But fifthly, To discover the fundamental weakness of this Argument. We are to take notice, That Predestination is an immanent act of God, and works no positive real effect upon the party elected, till in time, for howsoever it be an act of love, yet of love only by way of purpose and decreeing, and so doth not denote a change in the creature, but when that purpose or council of God, (which is altogether free) hath determined it. Hence we are to conceive a love of God electing us from all Eternity, which doth produce another love of God (not immanent in him, for so nothing is new in God, but transient in us) and that is Justification; from this love floweth another effect of love, which is Glorification. Some have doubted, Whether Election be an act of love; and therefore have distinguished between Dilection and Election, as if Dilection did go before, and Election follow. But certainly the same act of God, as it doth will good to the creature, is Dilection, as it willeth it to this rather ●hen another, is Election. We grant therefore that Election is an act of great love, but it's a love of purpose or intention, not execution, it is Amor ordinativus, not collativus; it is a love ordaining and preparing of mercies, but not bestowing them presently. Thus Austin defined Predestination, to be Praeparatio beneficiorum quibus liberantur, a preparing or ordaining of those mercies and privileges, which the Elect shall have in time. And among men we see the purpose of giving such a gift is accounted love, as well as the gift itself. Now while a man is only under the love of Election, and no more, there is no actual Remission of sin, no acceptance or complacency in his person or duties. There is a purpose in God to do all these in time, but the mercies are not from eternity exhibited. 
An elect person unconv●r●ed, and a reprobate in many things differ not. As  So that in some respects there is a great difference between an elect Person unconverted, and a Reprobate: And again in some respects there is none at all. As for example, there is this grand difference, That although both be equally in sin, and under wrath, yet God hath a purpose to bring the elect person infallibly out of that misery; and in this respect God may be said never to hate him that is elect, (In which sense, God is said to love Jacob, and hate Esau) but the Reprobate shall perish eternally in his sin. The Apostle saith, Rom. 11. Election hath obrained, because that will most certainly bring about both the means and the end. So that for all the Elect, The foundation of God standeth sure, having this Seal, The Lord knoweth who are his, 2 Tim. 2.19.  
2. There is no difference in this, in that for the present both are children of wrath, both aliens from the promise of grace, no promise of any gracious privilege either for pardon of sin, or eternal glory belongs unto them, only God's purpose will in time make an actual difference between them. Neither is this to make any contradictory will in God, for both these may well stand together, viz. God's will, for the future to give pardon and glory, and yet to will neither of them to be for the present. All this is done with the same act of Gods will. If therefore hatred be taken as opposite to that love of Election, which God had from all Eternity, so an elect man, though unregenerate, is never hated; but if it be taken largely for that displicency or wrath of God, which is contrary to the grace of Justification exhibited in time, so he may be said to be hated before his conversion: neither is it any wonder, if this be called hatred, seeing in the Scripture, less loving, is called hating sometimes, as the Learned observe. Neither doth this make any change in God, it only denoteth a change in the creature, as hereafter is to be showed. So that the gross mistake, as if Election were all love, actually and expressly, and the confounding of the love of God, as an immanent act in him, with the effects of this love, hath made several persons split upon rocks of errors. But how love and anger are in God, is more exactly to be examined, when we speak of the meritorious cause of Justification, which is Christ's merits: for indeed this Argument from Election, will as well put in for a Justification before any consideration of Christ, as well as of Faith, if every thing be duly weighed, as in that part (God willing) is to he showed, where also the distinctions about God's love are to be considered of. Some making a general love, and a special love; others a first love and a second, or one flowing from the first; others a love of benevolence or beneficence, and of complacency: But of these in their proper place.  
We proceed, and in the next place, we will put his fourth and sixth Argument together, 
Argu. 4. and Argum. 6.  being both grounded upon this, That Christ by his death gave a full satisfaction to God, and God accepted of it, whereby Christ is said so often to take away our sins, and we to be cleansed by his blood. This Argument made the learned Pemble, pag. 25. to hold out Justification in God's sight long before we were born, as being then purchased by Christ's death, otherwise he thinks we must with the Arminians say, Christ by his death made God placabilem, reconcilable, not placatum, reconciled. No (saith he) it is otherwise, the ransom demanded 〈◊〉 paid and accepted, full satisfaction to the divine Justice is given and taken, all the sins of the Elect, all actually pardoned. This is a great oversight.  

Answ. 1.  For first, Though Christ did lay down a price, and the Father accept of it, yet both agreed in a way and order when this benefit should become theirs, who are partakers of it, and that is, when they believe and repent. Now Bonum est ex integris causis, if God the Father's Covenant be to give pardon for Christ's sake to those that do believe (which faith also is the fruit of Christ's death) then may we not separate Christ from faith, no more than faith from Christ, or God the Father's love from both. If Christ had died for such a man to have his sins pardoned, whether he had faith in him or no, than this Argment would have stood firm: God then, did accept of Christ's death, and becomes reconciled, but in that order and way which he hath appointed.  

Answ. 2.  2. This Argument doth interfere with that of Election; for there pardon of sin doth take its rise from Election, but here from the time God laid our sins upon Christ. And indeed the Antinomians are at a variance amongst themselves, some fetching the original of pardon from one way, and some from another.  

Answ. 3.  3. We do not say, That faith is the condition of Christ's acquiring pardon, but of the application of pardon. Faith doth not make Christ's merits to be merits, or his satisfaction to be satisfaction. This ariseth from the dignity and worth of Christ. It would be an absurd thing to say, That faith is the cause why God doth accept of Christ's merits, and receiveth a satisfaction by him. This were to make the instrumental cause, a meritorious cause. The Arminians they make Christ to have purchased pardon upon condition of believing, which believing they do not make a benefit by Christ's death; yea they say, Nihil ineptius, nibil vanius, nothing is more foolish and vain then to do so. Now this indeed is an execrable error, to hold Christ died only to make a way for reconciliation, which reconciliation is wholly suspended upon a man's faith, and that faith comes partly from a man's will, and partly from grace, not being the fruit of Christ's death, as well as remission of sins itself. But we say a far different thing, Christ satisfied God's wrath, so that God becomes reconciled, and gives pardon, but in the method and way he hath appointed, which is faith, and this faith God will certainly work in his due time, that so there may be an instrument to receive this pardon.  
For the opening of this, when it is said, Christ satisfied God's wrath, this may have a different meaning, either that Christ absolutely purchased reconciliation with the Father, whether they believe or no, without any condition at all, as Joab obtained Absoloms' reconciliation with David, or Esther the Jews deliverance of Ahashu●rosh, Or with a condition. In the former sense it cannot be said, because the fruits of Christ's death are limited only to believers. If with a condition, than either Antecedent, which is to be wrought by us, that so we may be partakers of his death, and that cannot be, because it is said, He died for us while sinners and enemies. And this is Arminianism, for by this means only a gate is set open for salvation, but it may happen that no man may enter in: or else this condition is Concomitant or consequent, viz. A qualification wrought by the Spirit of Christ, whereby we are enabled to receive of those benefits, which come by his death; And in this sense it is a truth; and by this, the foundation of the Opponent is totally razed. For Christ took away the sins of those, for whom he died, and reconciled them to God, and this absolutely, if by it we understand any condition anteceding to be done by us: but not absolutely, if it exclude a condition that is consequently wrought by the Spirit of God, to apply the fruits of Christ's death: so that the actual taking away of sins is not accomplished, till the person for whom he died be united to him by Faith. Hence the Scripture speaks differently about Christ's death; sometimes it saith, He died for us sinners and enemies; and in other places, John 15.13. He layeth down his life for his friends, and his sheep. Joh. 17.19, He saith, he prayeth and sanctifieth himself for those that shall believe in him, viz. in a consequent sense; for those who by faith shall lay hold on his death. 
A two fold condition of faith,  So that faith hath a twofold condition, the first of the time, when sins are taken away by Christ's death, and that is, when they believe. 2. Of whom these privileges are true, and that is, of such who do believe. Now all this may be the further cleared, if we consider, what kind of cause Christ's death is, to take away our sins. It is a meritorious cause, which is in the rank of moral causes; of which the rule is not true, Positâ causâ, sequitur effectus, The cause being, the effect presently followeth. This holdeth in natural causes, which necessarily produce their effects, but moral causes, work according to the agreement and liberty of the Persons that are moved thereby. As for Example, God the Father, is moved through the death of Christ to pardon the sins of such persons, for whom he dieth. This agreement is to be made good, in that time they shall pitch upon in their transaction. Now it pleased the Father, that the benefits and fruits of Christ's death should be applied unto the believer, and not till he did believe, though this faith be at the same time also a gift of God through Christ. It is good therefore, when we either call Election absolute, or say, Christ died absolutely, to consider that Absolute may be taken as opposite to a Pre-requisite Condition, which is to be fulfilled by us, so that upon this, Election, and the fruits of Christ's death shall depend; or else Absolute, may be taken, as it opposeth any Means or Orders which God hath appointed, as the way to obtain the end; and in this later sense, it would be a grand absurdity to say, Election is absolute, or Christ died absolutely, for if this were so, the profane Argument about Election, would have truth in it. If I be elected, let me live never so wickedly, I shall be saved. And the Arminian Argument, That every one were bound to believe that Christ died for him, though wicked and abiding so, would not well be avoided.  
His last Argument is from the unchangeableness of God's love, If we are not justified in his sight before we believe, 
Arg. ult.  than God did once hate us, and afterwards love us. And if this be so, why should Arminians be blamed, for saying, We may be the children of God to day, and the children of the devil to morrow? Hence he concludes it, as undoubted, That God loved us first, before we believe, even when we were in our blood.  
In answering of this Argument, several things are considerable,  
First, It must be readily granted, That God is unchangeable, 
Answ.  Jam. 1.17. God is there compared to the Sun, and is therefore called, the Father of Lights, but yet is preferred before it, because that hath Clouds sometimes cast over it, and sometimes is in eclipse, but there is change, or shadow of change with him. The Heathens have confessed this, and so argued, If God should change, it would be either for better or worse; for worse, how could it be imagined? for better, than God were not absolutely perfect. Most accursed therefore must Vorstius his blasphemy be, who purposely pleads for mutability in God.  
But secondly, As this is easily to be confessed, so the difficulty of those Arguments, brought from the things which God doth in time, and not from all Eternity, have been very weighty upon some men's shoulders; insomuch that they thought this the only way to salve all, by saying, That all things were from Eternity. And certainly by the Antinomian Arguments we may as well plead for the Creation of all things from all Eternity, as that we are justified from all Eternity, for all are equally built upon this sandy foundation, That because the things are done in time, therefore there must be some new act of will, or love in God, which would imply God is mutable, not loving to day, and loving to morrow; Therefore to avoid this, they say, All is from Eternity. Origen who was called by an ancient Writer Centaur, because of his monstrous opinions, argued thus, lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cap. 2. As there cannot be a father without a son, or a Master and Lord without a possession, so neither an omnipotent, unless there be those things about which this power may be exercised. Now although it be true, That De Deo etiam vera dicere periculosum est, because of the weakness of our Understandings to perceive his infinite lustre,  
Yet thirdly, It is well cleared by the Schoolmen, That those relations which are attributed to God in time, as a Creator, Father, or Lord, are not because of any new thing in God, but in respect of the creatures; so that when the world is created, when a man is justified, we say, God who was not a Creator before, is a Creator, who was not a Father by grace, is now by grace; not because any new accident is in him, but because there is a new effect in the creatures. Thus, if a man once the child of wrath, be now a son of God's love, the change is not in God, but in the creature.  
For the better clearing of this, we are to take notice in the fourth place, That it is one thing, as Aquinas observeth, Mutare voluntatem, to change the Will; and another thing, Velle mutationem, to Will a change. By the same unchangeable Will, we may Will several changes in an Object. As the Physician without any change of his Will, may will his Patient to take one kind of Physic one day, and another the third: here he wils a change, but doth not change his Will. Thus God with the same Will, decreed to permit in time such an elect man to be in a state of sin, under the power of Satan, and afterwards to call him out of this condition, to justify his person; here indeed is a great change made in the man, but none at all in God. There is no new act in God, which was not from all Eternity, though every effect of this love of God was not from Eternity, but in time. Hence when our Divines argue against Arminians, That if the Saints should apostatise, God's love would be changeable, it is meant of God's love of Election, which is an absolute purpose and efficacious will to bring such a man to glory: now although such a decree was free, and so might not have been; yet ex hypothesi, supposing God hath made this decree, it doth very truly follow, That if that Saint should not be brought to glory, God would be changeable. And besides this immutability, which may be called an immutability of his nature, there is another of his Word and Promise, whereby he hath graciously covenanted to put his fear in their heart, that they shall never depart from him: Now if any of the Saints should totally or finally apostatise, God's mutability would be seen in both those respects of his nature or will, and of his truth and fidelity. But the case is not the like, when a man at his first conversion, is made of a child of wrath, a child of grace; partly because there was no such absolute decree of God from Eternity, that he should be for no space a child of wrath, but the clean contrary; and partly because there is no such word or promise unto any unconverted person, that he shall be in the favour of God; but the Scripture declareth the clean contrary. This duly considered, will give a clear reason, why it is no good Argument to say, Such a man in his sins to day, is a child of wrath; and converted to morrow, is a son of grace: Therefore God is changeable. But on the other side, if a man should argue, An Elect man received into the state of grace, may fall totally and finally, Therefore God is changed, would be a strong and undeniable inference. And indeed for this particular may the Arminians be challenged, as holding God's mutability, because they hold, That notwithstanding God's 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 God's favour, and quickly apostatised into the contrary: so that we may truly say, Adam was one day, (yea hour, as some) a child of God's 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 God's 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.  

Whether we pray here for Pardon or for Assurance of Pardon only.  THe next Question to be considered, is, Whether in this prayer, we pray only for the Assurance of Pardon, not Pardon itself? 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 ourselves, and assuredly perceive, what pardon God had given us before, Honeycomb. 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, than 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 King's presence fall down and say, Pardon me my Lord and King; but this is to abuse Protestant Authors, 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 sin 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. 
The Answer to the Question propounded,   
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. 
1. Th●y who are assured of Pardon ought yet to pray.  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 penitential 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 repent 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 man's 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.  

2. This Petition relates to four sorts of men.  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 praying for forgiveness, doth not pray for the Assurance of that which is already past (for so no sin is forgiven to him) but for initial Pardon, which he never yet hath enjoyed.  
The second sort of persons praying this Prayer, are those that at their first conversion humble themselves, and seek unto God for his face, and reconciliation with him. Now those that are thus in their beginnings, and new birth, they can pray in no other sense, but for initial and first Pardon; for as that is the first time they begin to have sorrow and brokenness of heart; so that is the first time they begin to partake of Pardon; Pardon of sin and Faith they are correlates, and so are together.  
A third rank is of Believers in their progress of holiness and sanctification, walking without any scandal or offence in the ways of God: They, in this Petition have a twofold sense, the one an Assurance of the Pardon of sins, that are already forgiven them; and the other is a renewed Pardon for the renewed infirmities they continually are plunged into.  
Lastly, There are lapsed Believers, who have fallen into some grievous sins, and thereby have made desperate wounds upon their own souls, and these have agonies and pangs of heart, much like their first conversion. Therefore it's called so, When thou art converted strengthen thy brother, saith Christ to Peter. This recovery out of the sin they were plunged into, was like a new conversion. By such a commotion as this made in the soul, there is nothing but darkness and confusion, and they pray for pardon, as if this were the first time. They fear all their former ways to have been hypocrisies. Thus David Psal. 51. prayeth for the restoring of joy to him, that his broken bones may be heaeled; as also for truth in the inward parts. Now although such a man's former sins were indeed forgiven him, yet it is to his sense and feeling as if it were not so, but rather the contrary is feared by him, that God's wrath doth still abide on him. Hence he prayeth for Pardon in his own judgement, as one who yet never hath been acquitted by God. So that according to the several conditions of the persons prayings, we may suppose several senses in the Petition.  
But in the third place, to answer the Question, we say, 
3 Assurance of pardon not the only thing prayed for, proved by four Reasons.  That Assurance of pardon is not the only thing prayed for. And that for these Reasons.  
First, We are never to depart from the literal sense of the words, without an evident necessity, but the plain undoubted sense is, That God would forgive our sins; 
Reas. 1.  for our Saviour minding brevity in this Prayer, no doubt would speak his sense in the most perspicuous and clear manner that can be. As therefore if Christ had said, Make us to be assured of the pardon of sin. The Antinomian would not have gone from the letter, but pressed us to that: So on the other side, when Christ saith, Forgive us, and not Give us the sense of forgiveness, we have cause to cleave fully to that: and this may be illustrated by two further considerations, the former of those places where God is said not to forgive, the later of those where forgiveness is applied of one man unto another. When the Prophet Isaiah speaking of the Israelites, how their Land was full of Idols, and both great and mean men did humble themselves before them, Isa. 2.9. prayeth, that therefore God would not forgive them. Can any one make the meaning to be, that God would not give them the assurance of their forgiveness?  
Mat. 12.32. The Evangelist saith, All other sins may be forgiven, but that against the holy Ghost shall never: Now in that sense, other sins are said to be forgiven, in which sense that is denied to be forgiven: and that is denied to be forgiven, not in respect of Assurance and Declaration to a man's conscience only, but really and indeed. Therefore the sins forgiven are in the like manner forgiven.  

Reas. 2.  Again, It is plain, That by Pardon is not meant Assurance of Pardon only, because when applied to men, it cannot admit of such a sense. Now the Petition runs thus, That God would forgive us, as we forgive others; and there is no man will explain the later forgiveness of Assurance; and why then the former?  

Reas. 3.  Besides, The equivalent phrase of forgiveness doth evince more than an Assurance of Forgiveness; for when the Scripture calls it blotting out of sin, it is an expression from Debts, which are, as it were written in God's book, and therefore till he cancelleth them, they do remain in their guilt.  

Reas. 4.  Furthermore, If a sin be not really pardoned, till a man do repent and believe, than he beggeth for more than Assurance; but we have fully proved, That there is no remission of sin till confession and forsaking of it.  

The instance for the contrary opinion answered.  As for the above named Authors instance of a malefactor who hath received Pardon, may yet upon his coming into the King's presence, desire Pardon, it no ways advantageth him: For suppose a Malefactor might the first time do so, yet experience doth demonstrate it would argue folly and madness in a Malefactor, to do so frequently: Whereas it is our duty daily to beg the Pardon of our sins at the Throne of Grace. To conclude this Point (because we have elsewhere spoken to it) This Exposition doth overthrow the continual use of the Word, the equipollent phrases, the proper object of Prayer, and departs from the letter of the Text, without any just ground at all. Which is against the rules of Explication of the Scripture.  
The next Question is of great Practical Concernment, 
Why God doth sometimes pardon sin, not acquainting the sinner with it.  viz. Why God doth sometimes Pardon a sin, and yet not manifest it to the sinner's heart. It appeareth by David, Psalm. 51. That when a sin is forgiven in Heaven, it is not also remitted, and blotted out in a man's conscience; yet God can as easily work the one as the other. If he say, Let there be light in such a dark heart; of an Hell, it presently becomes an Heaven. We would judge that by this divine Dispensation, as the godly man loseth much of his comfort, so God of his Glory and Honour. But divers Reasons may be produced for this. As▪  
First, It may be God will teach us hereby, 
Reas. 1.  That Pardon of sin is not a necessary Effect of Repentance, but a gracious Gift bestowed, though not without it, yet not for it. Though therefore thy soul hath been deeply humbled, and is greatly reform, yet God suspends the light of his favour upon thy soul, that thou mayest acknowledge it his Grace, not the merit of thy sorrow; where Causes do naturally produce an Effect, there it is a Miracle, if the one followeth not the other. If the fire do not burn, if the Sun stand still; if Peter walking on the water sink not. But it is no wonder, to see a true contrite heart without Assurance and Consolation. These may be separated, that so thou mayest be as humble with thy Graces, as if they were not at all. Yea God hath delighted sometimes in natural Causes to work the Effects without them, lest the glory should be given to the instruments. Hence he caused light to be before the Sun, and the earth is commanded to bring forth Herbs before any rain, that so God may be acknowledged all in all. If God do this in the order of natural things, how much more of supernatural? Yet this is not so to be pressed, as if therefore God would forgive sin without Repentance. No, God hath ordered a way inviolably and indispensably, wherein he will vouchsafe his Pardon, and no otherways. But although God out of his mere good will hath inseparably conjoined Repentance and Remission together, yet the Discovery or Promulgation of this unto the broken and contrite heart, is altogether Arbitrary: And in this, as well as in other things, that speech is true, The wind bloweth where it listeth. Know therefore by these divine Dispensations, That though thou dost repent, God's forgiveness is a mere gift of liberality, and no natural, necessary fruit of thy sorrow. Insomuch that setting Gods gracious Promise aside, whereby he is a Debtor unto his own faithfulness, after thy purest, and most perfect Humiliation for sin, God might refuse to take thy guilt away.  

Reas. 2.  A second Reason, Why God though he pardon, may yet deny the manifestation of it, is, Because hereby God would make us feel the bitterness and gall of it in our own hearts. A Pardon easily obtained takes off the burden of the fault. Thus God dealt with David, The light of God's favour doth not presently break thorough the Cloud, that so David may feel how bitter a thing it is to sin against God. As God suffered Isaac to be bound, to have wood laid on him, the knife to be lifted up to strike him, in all which space, Isaac's fear could not but heighten: Thus God also will kill and wound those, whom he intends to make alive: he will bruise them and break them, that so they may judge the seeming good in sin, to be nothing to the real evil that followeth it.  

Reas. 3.  And from this second, issueth a third Reason, viz. To make us more watchful and diligent against the time to come: Peter's bitterness of soul, was a special preservative against the like temptations; as bitter Potions kill the worms in children's stomaches. It must needs argue much guilt in God's people, if after the particular gall and wormwood they have found in sin, they shall be ready to drink the like bitter potion, when sin presents itself. Certainly the heart-aches that Paul found afterwards, though pardoned, for his former persecutions, were like a flaming sword to keep him off from such attempts again; He might more truly say, than that Heathen did, He would not buy repentance so dear.  

Reas. 4.  4. By reason of the Difficulty, and supernatural way of believing, it is, that Pardon may be in Heaven, when we cannot apply it in our Consciences. Hence though the Promises be never so much for our ease, and thereupon infinitely to be desired, yet the way of believing this, is so far above natural conscience, which expects Justification by works, that the heart of a man hath much ado to close with it. Therefore faith is not like other Graces or Duties (viz. Love of God, Humility, etc.) which have some obscure footsteps in the natural dictates of conscience, but it is wholly supernatural; yea Adam in the state of integrity knew not this kind of believing in the righteousness of a Mediator. For as the object of faith, viz. Christ, is only by revelation, no council of men or Angels could have excogitated such a truth; so faith, as it is the hand or organ applying Christ's righteousness, is a duty not manifested by humane light, but wholly from above. And as flesh and blood doth not reveal to us, That Christ is the Son of the living God, so neither that we are to have remission of sins only by faith in his blood. Hence the Scripture makes faith the gift of God, which coming from the Spirit into our hearts, meeteth with much contrariety and opposition of doubts and unbelief. No wonder therefore if after the heart of a man hath been awakened for sin, there remain some commotions a long while after: even as the sea after tempests & winds, though they be allayed, yet for some space after roareth and rageth, not leaving its troubles presently, as you heard before. Though therefore as God pardoneth in Heaven, he offereth it also unto our Consciences, yet we refuse and put it off, we will not be comforted, because it is not a comfort flowing in the way we look for, viz. by working. And for this reason, though David heard Nathan pronounce his pardon, yet he doth vehemently importune for it afterwards in Psalm. 51. as if he had not the least notice of any such mercy to him.  
Lastly, God defers the notice of Pardon to thee, 
Reas. 5.  that so thou mayest be the more able to sympathise with those that are in the like tempted condition. For as one end of Christ's suffering in his soul, lying in agonies under God's displeasure, was because he might know how to have compassion upon his children in such temptations: So the Lord doth exercise his people to the same purpose; and certainly Christ accounted this, the tongue of the learned, to speak a seasonable word to a wounded heart. Besides, hereby shall we speak the more wonderfully of God's grace, and his goodness, after our deliverance out of those storms. Those that have been in these deep waters, see the wonderful works of the Lord, and so have their hearts and mouths the more opened to celebrate his praise.  

What directions should be given a soul under temptation about pardon of sin.  Another Question may be, What Directions are to be given unto a soul tempted about the pardon of sin? for many such there are, who like Paul's fellow passengers in the ship, have been so many days, months, yea it may be years, and have seen no Sun, enjoyed no comfort at all.  
Let the Persons thus affected use these remedies:  

Direct. 1.  First, Acknowledge God, and clear him howsoever. Thus David, Psal. 51. that thou mayest be clear, when thou art judged. If the devils and the damned in hell have no cause to complain of God as unjust, or too severe, then much less mayest thou who art kept in darkness for a season only, that afterwards thou mayest enjoy the more light. Let not God be the worse God, his goodness the less unto thee, because thou art not yet set free out of the bonds of sin. By being thus humble thou takest the way to be filled, whereas impatiency and discontent, causeth God the more to hide his face.  

Direct. 2.  Secondly, Examine thy Repentance, whether that hath been so sound, so pure, so deep, so universal, as it should have been. All sorrow and humiliation for sin, is not godly Repentance. ahab's tears and Peter differ as much as the water of the Sea, which is brinish and salt, and the water of the clouds, which is sweet. David, Psal. 32. acknowledgeth the pain and gripes he had within, because of sin: and no wonder he did not confess it, and bewail it before God. If therefore God keeps thy heart in many doubts and fears, giving thee no rest; consider whether thou hast cast all that leaven out of thy house, whether every Achan within thee be stoned or no. It is in vain to cure the wound, as long as any splint of the poisoned arrow lieth within it, or if thou find no sin unrepented of, search whether thy formal lazy duties be not the cause of all the blackness that is in thy heart. We read in the Canticles, that the Church's laziness, and her not opening the doors to Christ when he knocked, was the cause of that spiritual desertion she was plunged into, seeking up and down for her Beloved, but not finding of him. The standing pool begets the croaking Frogs, not the running stream: and it is the dull, negligent Christian, whose heart is filled with sad fears and doubts, whereas the hidden Manna and white stone is promised to him that overcometh.  
3. Though thy soul walk thus in darkness, 
Direct. 3.  yet exercise acts of dependency and recumbency upon Christ howsoever. As David many times calls upon his soul to trust in God, and not to be sinfully dejected. How is that woman of Canaan commended for her faith? who, though our Saviour called her Dog, and did in effect tell her, she was excluded from pardon, did yet earnestly pursue him, and gave him no rest, till he gave her rest. And certainly, this is the noblest act of Faith, this is indeed to give glory to God, when in the midst of all thy fears and guilt, thou canst rely upon him for pardon; as in wicked men who are filled with Satan, as Anania● was, there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a desperate boldness, whereby they dare venture upon sin: So in the godly there should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a confidence of Faith, whereby maugre the devil, and our consciences, we dare throw ourselves into the arms of a Promise. Thus by frequent putting forth of strong fiducial applicative acts of Faith, we shall at last enjoy obsignative. Howsoever hereby thou wilt show thy heavenly courage in enduring a kind of spiritual Martyrdom. As that Love is the highest Love, which is carried out to enemies; so those are the strongest acts of Faith, which make us depend on God, though he seem to kill us, yea to damn us.   

LECTURE XXIV.  MAT. 6.12. 
And forgive us our Debts.  

Whether in repentance the difference between great sins and Less is to be respected  ANother Question, which is also of great use, we are to dispatch at this time, viz. Whether a Believer repenting and suing for pardon, is to make any difference between a great sin and a less? For if a man should be persuaded of the negative, then would gross and notorious sins, which Tertullian calls, Devoratoria salutis, whirlpools and gulfs, wherein the party offended is plunged, be no more than those sins, which Austin calls, Quotidiana & levia, daily infirmities, which continually flow from the most sanctified person. Again, on the other side, A Christian falling into such a gross sin, may so far be swallowed up with sorrow, as that he shall think the whole bond of friendship is dissolved between him and God, that he is cast out of that spiritual Paradise he was in, and that God is no more his Father, nor he his child. It is therefore necessary to have a pillar of fire to guide us in this wilderness. And that the whole truth of this matter may be understood, observe these Propositions.  

Propositions premised concerning this Question.  First, Every sin, even the least sin, doth deserve eternal death. As appeareth by those general places, Cursed is every one that abideth not in all things the Law commands, Gal. 3.10. Now every sin is a transgression of the Law. This the Apostle speaks universally of all sin, without any exception, Rom. 6.23. The wages of sin is death. And indeed this must needs be so, if you consider the least sin is an offence against an infinite God: and in this respect, because God is not a little, but a great God, so every sin is not little, but a great sin. Again, if you consider the necessity of Christ's blood to expiate this, no sin can be thought little: for if a man had no sin in the world, but one of these little ones, he could not escape eternal wrath, without Christ's mediation.  
Therefore we cannot say any sin is venial, either from its kind and nature (as Papists distinguish) such they make to be officious, or jesting lies; or from the imperfection of the act, such they make those that are committed indeliberately, or out of ignorance, without full consent or knowledge.  
Or from the smallness of the matter, as to steal a farthing, or the like. None of these sins are so small, but that they deserve hell, because they are the transgression of the Law of an holy and great God; and our Saviour confirmeth this, when he saith, Of every idle word a man shall give an account, Mat. 12.36. and that phrase of giving an account, is not a diminutive, but aggravative expression: Our Saviour doth there argue from the less to the greater, Thus, If a man must give an account for every idle word, much more for blasphemy against the holy Ghost.  
Take we heed therefore, how we bring down the weight and guilt of the sin; here also we may see, why Paul found such a mountain upon him, by sinful motions only arising in his heart.  
There are two places that seem to import such a difference between sins, as if some only deserved hell, and others not. The first is, Mat. 5.22. where our Saviour speaking of three degrees of sin, doth proportionably assign three degrees of punishment, and the last only is guilty of hell fire.  
But the clear Answer is, That our Saviour speaks allusively to those three Courts of Judicature among the Jews, the least punishment whereof was death; so that the first Court punished with death, the second, death with a more grievous torment; The third with a most grievous. For that our Saviour doth only allude to these Courts, and not speak of what faults the Courts punished, is plain; for none can think that the Court put any to death for calling his brother fool. It was murder and such ●ins that they punished with capital punishments. The other place is, 1 Joh. 5.15, 17. where the Apostle makes a difference between a sin unto death, and a sin not unto death, but that is clearly to be understood either of the sin against the holy Ghost (which in those times, when the spirit of discerning was frequent, might easily be known) or of such sin that did plainly discover obstinacy and impenitency accompanying of it, otherwise no man might pray for another man that hath committed a mortal sin, if by a sin unto death, the Papist will mean every mortal sin.  
Lay therefore this foundation, That every sin is mortal, in respect of its desert and guilt, howsoever to the godly believing and repenting, no sin is mortal, but all venial, Rom. 8.1. There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus. Therefore Musculus observes well, That in this case, the persons offending are to be considered (whether they be believers) more than the sins themselves.  
A second Proposition.  
Howsoever every sin, even the least, doth thus deserve eternal damnation, yet there is a great difference between some sins and others. And therefore sin is not a mere negation, but a privation, as diseases are, and so as one disease may be more desperate than another, so may one sin be more heinous than another. The Stoics thought all sins alike. And Cyprian among the Ancients, is reported by the Learned to have been of that mind. But Scripture doth evidently confute this, He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin, John 16.11. So you have the phrase, no be worse than an Infidel, 1 Tim. 5.8. Thus Ezek. 16.47. Israel is said to be more corrupted, and to do more abomination than Sodom. For although to sin be to miss the mark, yet some may shoot far wider from it, than others, one sin therefore may be more heinous than another, divers ways, as Divines show: As  
1. From the Person offending; if he know the will of God, or if he be in public place or office.  
2. From the Object; If it be sin against God immediately, or man only, as Eli said, 1 Sam. 2.25. If one man sin against another, the Judge shall judge him, but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?  
3. From the Matter about which; If it be in the life of a man, and not in his goods, that thou wrongest him. Some also may be aggravated from the disposition of the man, the means he enjoys to overcome sin from the frequency of it, or defending of it, and the like. Hence some sins are compared to Camels, others to Gnats, some to Beams, other to Moats, some to Talents, other to Farthings. This then being clear, let us consider, what difference a true believer should make between these in matter of pardon, and what difference he should not make.  
And in the first place, 
The Question stated in these Propositions following.  he is to make a vast difference about them, when he sueth out for pardon. As  
1. He is to believe God's wrath is more kindled against him, and that his indignation burneth more hotly, when such an iniquity is committed, then in our daily infirmities. 
1. This difference is to be attended in suing for pardon.  Thus when Aaron had made the Idolatrous Calf, how angry was God both with Aaron and the people? How angry also was God with David after his murder and adultery? David had continual infirmities, but God did not break his bones for them, he made not such a breach upon his peace & conscience, as he did in these sins: Therefore it must argue high profaneness of spirit; if a man after the committing of gross and loathsome sins be no more troubled, then for the continual motions and incursions which sin necessarily makes upon us. No, as sins have a greater guilt in them, so God's wrath is stirred up in a more vehement manner against such.  
2. There is a great difference to be made in respect of Humiliation, and the measure of godly sorrow for it. 
2.▪ In respect of humiliation.  For as the sin may exceed another, as much as the Camel doth a Gnat; so ought the sorrow as much as an Ocean doth a drop. Thus Peter goeth out, and weeps bitterly; he did not so for every defect, and spiritual imperfection in him, as for this abominable Apostasy. We read also of the incestuous person, as he committed a sin, that was not so much as named among the Gentiles, so he manifested such sorrow as was scarce heard among Christians; insomuch that the Apostle was afraid of him, lest he should be overwhelmed with too much sorrow. Now if for every sin of infirmity there should be as much sorrow and humiliation, as for these crimson and scarlet sins, how would the whole life of man be but a continual trouble of soul? and in what darkness would he live always? Although all thy continual failings ought to be matter of humiliation unto thee, yet when such as these shall break out, thy soul ought to set open the floodgates of thy soul. Neither may this be thought a low mercenary way, as if the party so humbled did intend a compensation unto God. But all places of Scripture must be regarded, as those which speak of Christ's glorious grace; so also those which speak of our duties.  

3. Gross sins procure wrath, and hinder the consolations of God's Spirit.  3. The Spirit of God doth not only in his Word reveal a greater wrath against such sins, but he doth also withdraw all those consolations and comforts which were in the heart before. So that a man thus offending, doth, as it were, bolt himself in a dark dungeon, and shut out all the beams of the Sun against him. Insomuch that although Assurance, and the consolations of the holy Ghost may consist with the weaknesses, and sinful infirmities of God's people; yet they do not with the gross impieties they plunge themselves into, as appeareth in David, Psal. 51. who prayeth for the restoring of that salvation he had lost by his sin. The Spirit of God is a Dove, and that delighteth not in noisome buildings. The Spirit of God may be grieved and quenched in respect of the fruits thereof: So that a man thus wounded for sin, feels a very hell in his heart, admits of no comfort. Neither can it be otherwise, for when we refuse the Spirit of God sanctifying, we presently repel it comforting. If we have not the heat of this Sun, neither shall we have the light thereof.  

4. Gross sins exclude from the society of the faithful.  4. In these gross offences the Spirit of God doth not only forsake him in respect of Consolation, but it's a Command laid upon the Church-Officers, to cast such an one out of their society, as 1 Cor. 6. neither may the people of God have any familiar communion or acquaintance with such: now what horror and trembling may justly arise in such a man's heart, who shall thus be cast out of all gracious Privileges, and that by God's appointment? What darkness must this work in his heart, when he shall argue thus with himself; Its Gods command I should not be admitted to the Seals of his love; he hath given his Officers charge to pour no oil in my wounds; how can I plead for the grace signified, when he denieth me the Seals thereof? God hath shut me out like the unclean leper, and whither shall I go? Now then, if the Church of God make such a vast difference between him and others, and that following the directions of Christ. Ought not the person offending also to judge the same things about himself?  
5. In some kind of gross sins, although there may be deep humiliation, yet there are many other conditions requisite, 
3 Some gross sins requste m●ny conditions before pardon.  without which pardon of sin cannot be obtained, and that is in sins of injustice, violence, and fraud of others. Thus Zacheus, it is not enough for him to believe Christ the Messias, and receive him into his house. but he makes satisfaction where he hath done wrong. Thus our Saviour also, Mat. 5. If thou remember any man have aught against thee, leave thy gift at the Altar, and go and be reconciled. It is a known saying of Austin, Non remittitur peccatum, nisi restituatur ablatum: The sin is not remitted, unless what thou hast unjustly taken be restored. And it is a most wretched perverting of the sense, which an Antinomian makes (Reconcil. with God, pag 90.) that this reconciliation is to be made of man to man, but not true in respect of God to man; and whereas the same Author speaks of Zacheus, that he did believe first, and afterwards made restitution: which (pag. 91.) he calls an example beyond all exception; let him the second time consider Zacheus his expression, and he will see it nothing to his purpose. The words are in the present tense, Luke 19.8. Behold Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. and if I have wronged any man, I give him fourfold. Now either Zacheus means this of his former life passed, or else he declares his ready and prepared will for the time to come; and there are Interpreters of both sides, and which way soever you expound it, it overthroweth the adversaries tenant. For if it be understood of his course of life, formely passed, than it goeth clear against him. If of his readiness of mind for the future, it makes nothing for him. For although by this it will appear, That Zacheus did joyfully receive Christ before he made actual restitution, yet not before he had a preparedness, and resolution of heart to do it. And certainly Zacheus speaking thus to Christ, Behold I give, cannot but be understood, that this penitent frame of heart was upon him before he said so. If Zacheus speaks this of his former course of life, than he doth manifest this not in a way of pride or ostentation, but to see whether Christ would command him to do otherwise, so that he might be thought to say this, for instruction sake, to be directed for the future.  

6 Gross sins require a more intense act of faith to apply pardon.  6. As there must necessarily be more sorrow, and will be greater terrors from the Lord, so there is also required greater and stronger acts of faith, whereby pardon may be applied; For the agony and temptation being greater, the strength of faith also must proportionably be increased. Hence we see the incestuous person, was almost overwhelmed; so great a matter was it to exercise faith, when God was apprehended thus angry: and certainly, if faith be a grace so difficultly put forth even for the least sin; What conflicts must there needs be, when nothing but mountains are in the way, and great gulfs apprehended between pardon and him? The mariner doth need more skill and strength in a tempest, then in a calm; and the soldier must show more courage in the midst of a furious battle, then when all things are quiet.  

Some particulars wherein no difference is to be put between great and lesser sins.  Thus you see wherein a great difference is to be made. Now there are some particulars, wherein a believer repenting is to make no difference at all. And that is in these things.  

1. In respect of the efficient cause of pardon.  First. There is no difference in respect of the efficient cause, God's grace in pardoning. The godly man is not to think, that God can more easily pardon less sins, then great sins: No, all these are equally pardoned by him. Even as in the earth, though there be great and high mountains in respect of other h●ls, yet both them and these are merely as a pa●ctum in respect of the heavens; So although some sins exceed others in guilt divers ways, yet all of them in respect of God's grace, are but as a drop before the Sun, which is quickly dried up. Hence when God proclaimeth himself in all his goodness, he is described to be a God pardoning iniquity, transgression and sin; And thus Isaiah 1. he can make sins as red as scarlet, as white as snow: So that compared to God's grace, there is no difference at all.  

2. Nor in respect of the meritorious cause.  Nor secondly, may any difference be made in respect of the meritorious cause, which is Christ's obedience and sufferings: For that cleanseth away great sins as well as small. And certainly, when we consider of what infinite value and worth the sufferings of him who is God as well as man, do amount to, the believing soul need not wonder, if Christ do away one as well as the other. In the Red Sea, the stoutest and most valiant Champion was drowned, as well as the meanest soldier. He is the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world; and his blood is said to cleanse us from all our iniquities. Here is no difference made, from one sin as well as another. So that although thy great sins require greater humiliation, yet not a greater Mediator than Christ is; Thou must pour out more tears, but Christ needs not pour out more blood; so that in respect of Christ's righteousness applied, the least and the greatest sinner are pardoned both alike; neither is it blasphemy (though the Papists judge it so) to say, Marry Magdalen, and the Virgin Mary are both justified alike.  
3. Neither may we make any difference in the means of pardon thus far, 
3 Neither in the means of pardon.  as if our merit and satisfaction were to go to the pardon of one, and not of the other. We are to show greater sorrow, more means are to be used, yet we are not to judge these actions of ours, as having any worth or dignity in them for reconciliation, so that after we have done all, we must confess Its grace only that pardons. And this is the more to be observed, because it is hard not to do any thing extraordinarily in a way of pardon, and not presently to rest upon this, as if it had some worth in it. But certainly, if so be it be the goodness of God merely to forgive us our farthings, it is much more his liberality to pardon our pounds: and if by our own strength we cannot remove a straw, how shall we a beam? But in the primitive times the Church being severe against gross offenders, appointed more solemn and extraordinary duties of humiliation for satisfaction to the Church of God in point of scandal, and in process of time these were taught to be satisfactory even to God himself.  
4. Neither may this difference be made, 
4. No difference to be made as to the state of justification.  as if less sins might consist with the grace of Justification, but such gross sins did wholly exclude out of that state. For there are some who plead for the distinction of mortal and venial sins, in this sense, venial are all those which may stand with the favour and grace of God to the person so failing; but mortal are such, which (though a man hath been justified) yet being committed, will cast him out of this sonship. Such a distinction Musculus acknowledgeth, loc. come. de peccato, and others; but this supposeth a total apostasy from grace, which I have already disproved.  

Illustration.  As the Ark was made of that wood which would not be corrupt or putrify, so is the Church of God in respect of the living members. Therefore although God's people in such grievous falls lose their assurance, feel woeful commotions of heart, yet they are not to conclude, That God hath utterly cast them off. They are not to look upon themselves as unsound, though they have been Prodigals.   

LECTURE XXV.  PSAL. 32.1, 2. 
Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.  
Blessed is the man to whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity.  
DAvid is styled by some Ancients, The Divine Orpheus, by whose music the wild beasts, evil men, may be made tame: and certainly his material Harp was not more efficacious to drive out Saul's evil spirit, than his Psalms are sanctified means to expel all corrupt affections in us. And although all Scripture be equally excellent in respect of the Author, yea, and of the matter absolutely considered, yet in respect of us, our direction or consolation by reason of our present estate, one place of Scripture may be preferred before another: in which sense Junius interprets those Psalms, that have their inscription, A Psalm of Degrees, A Psalm of Excellencies, as the Hebrew word will bear it. Now this Psalm I am upon, may justly be so styled, because it hath a peculiar usefulness to those who are exercised about the guilt of sin; for here we have David like an anatomy, opened, that we may be instructed. Hence the title of the Psalm is Maschil, which is as much as giving instruction, and it is observed by Commentators, this is prefixed commonly to those Psalms that have some choice, eminent Doctrine, especially about afflictions, as this hath, about David's guilt and trouble under sin, and also his pardon of it.  
The Hebrews call this Psalm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cor, The heart of David, because he is so affected with God's displeasure for sin, and the excellency of the pardon. Therefore you must conceive the Text to be uttered by David, as one groaning and heavily pressed with the weight of his sin, and crying out, Oh how blessed and happy are they, that have these sins forgiven them!  
In which words you have pardon of sin described. 
The text contains a description of the pardon of sin,   
First, From several expressions to magnify the mercy, 
1 From several expressions to magnify the mercy of it.  Sins forgiven, covered, not imputed. It is much to consider how ancient Interpreters have made a difference between the sins enumerated; as if there were divers kinds, or at least degrees of sin enumerated; and hereupon also they make a difference between forgiving, covering and imputing, as if one were more than the other; but we are rather to take it according to the Scripture-custome, which doth use for amplification sake, to say the same thing in divers words, and this is autology, but not tautology. The difference that is, is from the several metaphors that are in the words. As the first word doth signify the taking away of sin, which is a burrhen, blessed is he that is eased of such a weight. The second, which is covering, doth suppose the loathsome filthiness of sin in the eyes of God, and therefore by grace is taken out of his sight. The third, not imputing or reckoning, is a metaphor supposing sin a debt, and God in his account will not set it upon our score, so that the several expressions are wonderfully comfortable, if sin trouble thee as an heavy weight on thee, pardoning is the easing and taking off this burden; if sin make thee to judge thyself loathsome, thou canst not endure thyself, pardon of sin is covering of it; if sin put thee in such a debt to God, that thou knowest not how to satisfy, pardon is not imputing.  

2 From the adjunct of remission, viz. blessedness.  Secondly, This is described from the adjunct, adherent to remission of sin, viz. blessedness. The Apostle, Rom. 4, allegeth this place to prove, That a man hath righteousness imputed to him without works, But the pertinency of the Apostles argument is disputed of: for how doth it from this place follow, that a man hath righteousness imputed to him without works? This is as if a man should argue, He is a rich man, because his debts are forgiven, which is a non sequitur, because they are two distinct things. This makes Piscator and Wotton, with others, to make justification to be nothing but remission of sins, and that imputation of righteousness, and remission of sins are the self same thing; a man being therefore accounted righteous because his sins are not imputed unto him. Hence they deny that the Scripture ever saith Christ's righteousness is imputed unto us, although in some sense they grant, it may be said so, inasmuch as by his death for us, he purchased remission of sin, which is our righteousness. This is to be considered of, when we speak of the other part of justification, viz.. imputation of Christ's righteousness. Although they that are for imputed righteousness, say, The Argument is good, which Paul useth, because imputing of righteousness is immediately contrary to the imputing of sin; and therefore Paul might argue righteousness imputed, from sin remitted, even as we truly argue, The night is not, therefore the day is, because darkness and light are immediate contraries, and the subject must necessarily have one of them.  
Lastly, This forgiveness of sin is described from the subject, in whom it is, viz. in him, in whose heart there is no guile; that is, who doth not cover his sins by not confessing, and not repenting of them, as David acknowledgeth he did for a while.  

Observations raised from the Text.  From the Text I shall raise such Observations as are to my particular scope. As,  
First, That forgiveness of sin is a covering of sin.  
This truth deserveth a diligent unfolding, because the mistake about it hath brought forth dangerous errors in two extremities, The one of the Papist, That because it is covered, Therefore there is no sin at all in the godly, otherwise God could not but see it, and hate it, as Pererius and others argue. The other of the Antinomian, who infer from thence, That therefore God seeth not sin, or taketh notice of it in justified persons, as Eton.  
To understand this aright, take notice, 
1 That forgiveness of sin is a covering of sin What is meant by covering of sin.  That to cover is a metaphorical expression, and we must not squeeze it too much, lest blood come out in stead of milk: Some make the metaphor from filthy, loathsome objects, which are covered from our eyes, as dead carcases are buried under the ground; some from garments that are put upon us to cover our nakedness, some from the Egyptians that were drowned in the Red Sea, and so covered with water; some from a great gulf in the earth, that is filled up and covered with earth injected into it. Lastly, some make it an allusive expression to the Mercy-seat, over which was a covering, which might signify God's grace, through and in Christ, abolishing our sins. Hence the Apostle attributes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Christ and his blood▪ which is given to the Mercy-seat; We may not strive for any of these Metaphors, they all in the general tend to show this, That God when be pardoneth, doth not look upon us as sinners, but deals with us, as if we had never sinned at all: as it is here made blessedness to have sin covered, so it is made a woe and misery, Nehem▪ 4.5. not to have sin covered, as Nehemiah prayeth against Sanballat and Tobiah, This expression is also used, Psal. 85.2.  
In the next place we may consider in what sense God doth cover sin when he pardons, and in what he doth not. 
How God by p●rd●n is said to cover sin.   
1. God is said therefore to cover sin from his eyes, because he will not take notice of it in justified persons to punish it with wrath and condemnation, although it be not so covered, as that God doth not see it to be angry with it, and chastise believers for it. yet it is so covered, as that he doth not see it to condemn believers for it. We do not therefore make God to cover sin (as an Antinomian saith we do) as if a man should cover a thing with a net, where the object is still seen, Honey comb, pag 57 but as to God's hatred and revengeful condemnation, so it is wholly covered; and therefore those expressions of taking away, blotting out of sin, etc. do fully imply, that God giveth not an half pardon, but that he taketh away the offence, and whatsoever punishment (properly so called) belongs unto it.  
2. It doth imply, That God when he hath thus forgiven, deals with a man as no more in that particular a sinner. Therefore David after his murder and adultery are washed away, he is as white as snow in respect of those actual sins; and every true believer repenting, is bound to believe, that God doth this graciously and gloriously to him, That he is no more in God's account that loathsome leper and unclean person he was.  
It doth imply, That God by degrees and in his due time will cover the believers sins, as from his own eyes, so from the believers eyes. So that the guilt of conscience, those arrows of the Almighty, shall not always stick in his heart. Thus as man's love to another, covers a multitude of sins, he will not mention, charge or upbraid the party with them; so doth God's love cover the multitude of believers sins committed by them, dealing with them as reconciled persons, not upbraiding of them but bestowing all encouraging mercies upon them; so that if we improve this phrase of covering sin no further, we shall split on no rock, and yet he soul have as much comfort as it can rationally desire.  

Some particulars not extended to in this phrase of covering sin.  In the next place, hear what it doth not reach to, and wherein the phrase is abused: As  
1. When we dream of such covering of sin, as that sin is wholly taken away; so that no relics of original corruption abide in us. Thus the Papists, We must not (say they) suppose such a covering as if sin were still there, only God will not impute it, but it is such a covering as is a blotting sin out. Now for actual sin, we grant covering to be a blotting it out; but for original sin, in the lusts thereof, We say, they are still in the godly, and properly sins, only covered, because not imputed to them: for the grace of regeneration, though it cut the hair of sin, as Dalilah did Samsons, yet it groweth again, as long as the root is there.  
2. We may not conceive sin covered in this sense, as if we by our subsequent good actions did cover sin, so some have expounded holy works to be the garment that covers our nakedness, but this would be our covering, and not Gods covering▪ whereas the Psalmist attributes it to God, Psa. 85.2. Therefore that Exposition will not hold, which some bring out of Austin, explaining this covering of sin, as Emplastrum tegit vulnus, the Plaster covers the sore, by healing of it: for although healing grace accompany justification, yet it is not justification.  
3. We may not conceive it said to be covered in this sense, As if God when he had pardoned, did not yet still retain anger against the persons sinning, and so chastise them. Though this doctrine be much pleaded for, yet Scripture is evident against it. David had sin covered, yet God would not let the sword depart from his house. Thus Job aweth himself against sin with this consideration, That God would see it in him, and take notice of it, Job 10.14. If I sin, thou markest me (God seeth sin in Job) and thou wilt not acquit me from mine iniquity; and Cham 14.16, 17. he saith, God doth watch over his sin, and seal it up in a bag. Let not then the people of God delude themselves into security, by any false doctrine; and what woeful conclusions there are of a godly man's peace, when he falls into a gross sin, I shall handle in another Question.  
Neither fourthly, may we conceive of sin covered, in a carnal gross manner, As if there were something interposed between God's eyes and sin; as if a man's face were covered with an hat, or a candle put under a bushel. The Antinomians similitude is gross and carnal, Honeycomb, pag. 275. as a man looking thorough a red glass, seeth the water all red within it, so God looking upon us in Christ, seeth nothing but the righteousness of Christ, and no sin at all; for the reason why our senses judge water red thorough a red glass, is, because it depends upon the fitness of a medium, and that being indisposed, the eye is deceived; but God in looking upon us, doth not depend upon any intervening thing; and indeed Gods seeing of sin in this point, is not so much an act of his understanding, as of his will, decreeing to punish sin, or not to punish it▪ So that this similitude doth no ways hold, for God in this matter of forgiving or punishing sin, is not to be looked upon as a natural agent, but voluntary. So that all these things rightly understood, we may take that which is good and comfortable, leaving that which is corrupt and false.  

Whether the phrase of Gods covering sin, favour the error, That God seeth not sin in believers. Answer negative.  And if the Question be made, Whether the phrase of covering sin, make for that error, That God doth not see sin in believers offending?  
I answer, No, by no means; for these Reasons,  
First, Gods covering of sin is to be limited only to condemnation, as I have proved; David's sin was at the same time open to God, and covered; open to fatherly chastisements, covered to revengeful condemnation. God did see it as a Father to be angry with him, not as a Judge to hate him.  
2. Because this covering is limited to those sins which are pa●, and repent of; not to new sins committed; they are not covered without a new gracious act of God's favour. David before this sin committed that is spoken of in the Psalm, he had his former sins covered, but this was not covered, till he did acknowledge it, and then saith he, Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin: Though therefore God should not see the sins past, yet the new ones committed, they are taken notice of by him.  
3. Because though God hath covered them, yet God may, and doth sometimes afflict his people for their sins, so that they cannot be in every sense said to be covered: But I have spoken largely of this already.  

Two Objections answered.  Two material Objections are to be answered, and then I shall proceed.  

Object. 1.  The first is, If sin be in the regenerate, yet covered and not imputed, How will this stand with the omnisciency, truth and holiness of God? His omnisciency, for he cannot but see sin if it be there: His truth, for God, must needs judge of things as they are; if therefore sin be there, he must judge it to be there, otherwise we make him like the wicked who covers sin, he will not acknowledge it to be there: Now what truth is this, to say of a regenerate man, he is cleansed and washed from all his evil, and yet his evil is in him? This the learned among the Papists do much urge, Pererius, Tiriws, etc. At most (saith Suarez de justificatione) it makes remission of sin to be nothing but a remission of the punishment, not of the offence or fault. The very same is urged by Antinomists. Lastly, How doth it consist with God's holiness; for he must needs hate sin in whomsoever he finds it; and therefore for the Saints to have sin in them, and yet God not to impute it to them, seemeth a contradiction.  
But to all this the answer is easy. As for God's omnisciency, none say, but by that God beholds sin, where it is; and in that sense, sin is not at all said to be covered, for he knoweth all in man. As for his truth, God doth judge as the thing is, for as he seeth sin, so he judgeth sin to be in them▪ and according to that eternal rule laid down, Psal. 89.32, 33▪ He chastiseth them with the rod, though he take not his loving kindness from them; so that God doth not judge things otherwise then they are. And as for his holiness, he is not only angry with their sins, but also would proceed to their eternal condemnation, were it not for Christ, their surety, so that their sins are punished, though not in their own persons. Neither is this a taking away of sin only in respect of the punishment, but of the offence also, God being wholly reconciled with his people, though the corruption (which is removed by sanctification, not justification) is by degrees purged away.  
The second Objection is, How can God see sin, seeing they have Christ's righteousness, and there being no sin in that, 
Object. 2.  therefore God must look upon them as in Christ, which is without any sin at all?  
The answer is, that when we say, Christ's righteousness is made theirs, it is not to be understood subjectively, 
Answ.  as if it were a quality inherent in them (for then indeed God could not see sin in them) but relatively, he is their Mediator, and by his obedience they are acquitted, so that the righteousness is in Christ, but by faith it becomes theirs, not formally, but as the merit for which God doth justify them, and God doth account it to them as theirs; now this is no contradiction to be sinful in ourselves, and yet at the same time acquitted by the righteousness of another. It is true, those expressions of making Christ's righteousness a formal righteousness, or as others, a material righteousness, and those disputations, Whether Christ's active or passive obedience, both or either of them be imputed to us; hath much darkened the Question: whereas if we consider of it, as a relative righteousness performed by our Surety in our stead, the matter will be made much clearer: yet I speak not this, as if Christ's active obedience were not made ours, as in time may be showed.  
I come to the second Observation out of the Text, which is,  

Pardon of sin duly valued by those only who inwardly feel God's anger against it.  That those only do esteem pardon of sin as a blessedness, who feel inwardly the anger of God for sin.  
David here in this Psalm, being deeply wounded with the guilt of his sin, judgeth not his kingdom, his wealth, his conquest over enemies an happy thing, but pardon of sin.  
Now the ground of this is, because such is our custom (though it be our weakness) to esteem of mercies more carendo quam habendo, by wanting of them, then having of them. The blind man earnestly desireth sight. The lame man prizeth sound limbs. A people distressed with war, and finding the bitterness of it, commend peace. Thus it is here, a man afflicted and embittered in his soul because of sin, he doth highly admire forgiveness, and accounts those happy that walk in the sense of God's favour. Though innocency or freedom from sin may be majus beneficium, a greater mercy than pardon and reparation, yet this is dulcius beneficium, a more sweet mercy to the sense and feeling of him, who enjoyeth it. Hence that Christ and the Gospel might be exalted, God permitted sin to be, and the Law is on purpose to discover sin, and aggravate it, that Christ and his grace may be the more welcome.  

Use 1.  The Uses of both points together, are,  

Of the first Observation.  1. From the former, Doth God in pardoning, cover sin? then with what boldness may true faith triumph? Why is the godly penitent, as if his sins were always in bloody characters before God? Why is he, as if there were no blood of Christ, wherein these Egyptians are drowned? If thou hadst never been a sinner, thy heart would not have trembled. Is not forgiveness making of a sin not to be, as you have heard? So that, as Rachel is mourning for her children, because they are not; so mayst thou be rejoicing, because thy sins are not, and although they be not covered out of thy sight, yet if covered out of God's sight, that is thy blessedness; better have them rise up always in thy conscience, than once before God.  
From the second we may be instructed, 
Use 2.  who are the b●st Preachers of Christ, and the grace of the Gospel, who are Gospel-Preachers, even such who make deep incisions and wounds first in men's consciences by the Law. The only way for a Minister to make his auditor's relish and savour of Christ and grace indeed, is to keep them in a godly sense and apprehension of their infirmities. We are not in our first conversion only to have throbs and pangs after God's grace, but also this hunger and thirsting after Christ, is to be kept up in the progress of sanctification: and therefore as those Ministers are to be blamed (if any such) that do only press duty, discover sin, but never set forth the fullness of Christ: So they also are to be blamed, who only press such Texts as manifest God's grace, but never open that issue and fountain of all filth that is within us. Both these tempered together, are like Aaron's excellent compound.  
The last Use of Exhortation, is, 
Use 3.  to be so deeply humbled and tenderly affected within yourselves, that all within you may cry out, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sin. O that every Auditor which heareth me this day, could with the same spirit, affection, and turning of bowels within him, proclaim this truth, as David did. What is said of Paul's Epistles, is also true of David's Psalms, Nunquam Davidis mentem intelliges, nisi prius Davidis spiritum imbiberis. You can never fully understand David's meaning, unless you be possessed with David's spirit. Now that you may be moved hereunto, consider the motive in the Text, and the means to get it. The motive is blessedness; a man is never an happy man, till his sins be pardoned. What makes hell and damnation, but merely not forgiveness? thy wealth, thy greatness, thy honours, cannot bring that happiness to thee which remission of sins doth. Hence this is the cause of all other blessedness. And observe, here is a great deal of difference between this place, Blessed is the man whose sins are pardoned, and those Texts where he is said to be blessed that feareth always, or he is said to be blessed that walketh not in the ways of the wicked, for in the Text is showed the cause or fountain of blessedness, viz. remission of sin; but in other places there is only deciphered, who they are that are blessed. A man that feareth is blessed, but his fear is not the cause of his blessedness. A man that liveth godly is blessed, but his godliness is not the cause of his blessedness, but his pardon of sin makes him blessed in all his graces; Thou art blessed, not because thou prayest, hearest, livest holily, but because God doth forgive all thy sins and imperfections in these duties. If therefore your graces, your holy duties are not the cause of your blessedness, never think your outward mercies can be. The means to obtain this, is in the Text, by having no guile in the heart, that is, by not hiding our sins, but repenting of them, and confessing them to God: For this (saith David) every one shall pray unto thee in an acceptable time; for this, that is, for this remission, and because thou wast so ready to forgive, when I said, I will confess my sin. Therefore shall every one seek to thee; where by the way, let none abuse that place, vers. 5. David said he would confess, and God forgave it: David did but say it, and God pardoned it; so some have descanted upon it. But to say, there, according to the use of the Hebrew word in some places, is firmly to purpose and decree so resolvedly, that he will be diligent in the practice of i●. Do not therefore think that a mere lip-labour is that brokenness and contrition of spirit, which God requireth as the means to pardon.   

LECTURE XXVI.  PSAL. 51.9. 
Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.  
YOu have heard of the peculiar usefulness of the Psalms, in respect of our conditions or temptatians. What some Authors (I know not upon what ground) have said of the manna, that it had the taste of all delicate meats in it, and gave a respective relish to what every palate desired; this may be truly affirmed of the Psalms, they have a respective direction, or comfort to every one's affliction or temptation. Hence they have been called by some the little Bible, or the Bible of the Bible? for although all the stars be of a quintess●ntiall matter (as the Philosophers say) yet one star differs from another in glory. And this Psalm among the rest, hath no mean excellency or usefulln●sse, it being a spiritual Apothecary's shop, wherein are choice antidotes against the guilt and filth of sin, so that every one may say that of this Psalm, which Luther of another, O Psalm, Tueris meus Psalmus, Thou shalt be my Psalm, The occasion of this Psalm is set down very diligently, and punctually in the inscription, it was made when Nathan reproved David for his adultery, after he had gone in to Bathsheba. The Hebrew word is translated in the time past, and so those that excuse Naaman, 2 King. 5.18. translate those words, wherein Naaman begs for pardon for his bowing down in the house of Rimmon, in the time past. Thus (pardon thy servant) when my master went into the house of Rimmon-and I bowed myself. And they bring this inscription of the Psalm to confirm such a translation. We are in this Psalm to look upon humbled●or ●or his grievous sins, as a Job sitting upon the dunghill abhorring himself, because of the ulcers and loathsomeness upon him, or like a wretched Lazarus full of sores, lying at God's throne, who is rich in mercy. For mercy is the scope of the Psalm, which he prayeth for in the negative effects of it, such as blotting out of his favour, etc. and in the positive effects thereof, such as creating a new heart, filling him with joy and gladness, etc. And this Petition is enforced with several arguments from God's multitude of mercies, from his confession and acknowledgement, with a ready submission to all God's chastisements, from the proneness of every one to sin, because of that original corruption seated in him, from the good effect this pardon shall work upon him, he will teach transgressors' Gods ways, so that his sins as well as his graces shall instruct others. My Text is a prayer about that negative effect of mercy, 
The text divided into two Petitions.  which is expressed in two Petitions to the same purpose.  
The first is, Hide thy face from my sins.  

A face attributed to God in a double sense.  The Scriptures give a face to God in a twofold sense. There is the face of his favour and his love. This David in the 11th verse, prayeth God would not take from him: And there is the face of his anger and his indignation. This David perceiveth upon him, and against him, wherefore he desireth God would hide it from him; So that it is an expression from a guilty person, who cannot endure the just Judge should look upon him; or rather from a child offending, who cannot bear the frowns of his father, casting his eyes upon him. David hath that filth and guilt now upon him, which he knoweth God cannot behold but with much wrath and indignation, therefore he prayeth God would not look on him. You see here David acknowledging, That God doth see and take notice of the sins of justified persons in a most provoked manner.  
This prayer is expressed to the same sense in the next Petition, Blot out all mine iniquities, wherein consider the mercy prayed for, Blot out, a metaphor (as you have heard) from merchants that cancel their debts, or as the Su●doth dissipate and cause the cloud to vanish.  
2. The extent of the object, all my iniquities. Whether this extend to future sins, so that all sins, past, present, and future are pardoned together, shall be considered in the second place.  
From the first Petition, Observe, 
Observation from the first Petition.   
That God seeth and taketh notice of in a most angry and provoked manner, the heinous and gross sins, which a Believer hath plunged himself into.  
For this reason, David prayeth God would turn away his eyes, and face from him, even as the sore eyes desire to have the light removed, as being unable to bear it. And this aggravation of Gods seeing it, he mentioneth also, vers. 4. Against thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight. That God did see it, and was offended, did more trouble him, than the eyes of all the world upon him: So 2 Sam. 11.27. where this History is related, there is this peculiar brand upon David's sin, that what he had done was evil in the eyes of the Lord; therefore God did see it, and take notice of it, so as to be displeased with it. This Doctrine is worthy of all diligent examination, both because it will be a strong Antidote, to keep God's people from scandalous gross sins, as also to inform how far in such sins the people of God make a breach upon their peace with God, and claim to the Covenant of Grace. And although this Question hath been vexed in some respects with the scratching claws of the Schoolmen, yet I shall endeavour not to be so ill a seedsman as to sow among thorns, nor as one of the Ancients alludes, Plantare nemus Aristotelicum juxta altare Dei, Plant Aristotle's dark Grove, near God's Altar.  
And for the clearer proceeding in this great Point, 
The aggravation of David's sin in ten particulars.  I shall consider the Doctrine briefly in the hypothesi, as it was David's case, and then in thesi, as it may be any believers condition: for David take notice of two things,  
First, The aggravation of his sin.  
Secondly, Of the evil befalling him, because of it. David's sin is at large mentioned, 2 Sam. 11. where you have several aggravations of this ungodly act.  
First, He was a King, and so his wickedness was the greater, by how much his person was greater▪ Men in place being like the Sun, which if in an eclipse, causeth much destructive alteration to inferiors.  
Secondly, A man advanced by God to special mercies, both temporal and spiritual, and for him to sin thus, we may cry out, What ailest thou, O Jordan, to run backward?  
Thirdly, The nature of the sin was a very gross one, against the light of an Heathens conscience, to deflower his neighbour's wife.  
Fourthly, It was a trespass against his faithful servant Vriah, who was venturing his life to preserve David: This was horrible ingratitude.  
Fifthly, This aggravation God addeth, That he had many other wives; and for him, as Nathan wisely reproved him, to go and take the poor man's lamb, who had only that, this was to become very guilty.  
Sixthly, Here was great deliberation, and consultation, how to cover the matter, and to make Vriah the father of it. O where is David's heart that it doth not smite him all this while?  
Seventhly, To bring this wretched plot about, h● sends Vriah with letters to Joab for his own destruction; Doth not David here, that which he condemned and prayed against so much in others, lie in wait like a Lion to devour the poor innocent?  
Eighthly, His sin becomes more heinous, in that to colour this, he will have Vriah, and many other innocent persons set in the forefront, on purpose to be killed, and afterwards with most transcendent hypocrisy, excuseth it with this, The battle falls alike to all. So that here is a sin with many sins complicated in it.  
Ninthly, When all this is done, David takes Bathsheba to wife, delights in her, and rejoiceth with her.  
Tenthly, To make his sin out of measure sinful, after these horrid sins committed thus against natural light, as well as spiritual, we find no remorse of conscience, no trouble of heart, till Nathan the Prophet come and arouse him. But presently upon his Reproof, How doth this Mountain melt like wax before the fire? And therefore let no man encourage himself with David's sin, unless he find in himself also David's Repentance.  
And therefore in the second place take notice, what way God takes to break him, and how much displeasure of God fell upon him.  

The degrees of David's repentance.  First, He hath great terror and trouble upon him, which he expresseth by the most exquisite torment that is, viz. Broken bones. It was with him, as if all his bones were brayed and pounced together. Thus fearful is it to fall into the hands of the living God, who even to his own people is a consuming fire. As the Sun which useth to dart forth resplendent beams of lustre, by gross and thick clouds is darkened and obscured; so David who heretofore rejoiced in God, took comfort in his Promises, doth now like Dives beg for one drop of comfort, and finds a great Gulf between that and him, insomuch that it cannot come to him, nor he to it. Now what are all Davids pleasures, all his lustful delights to these wounds of his soul? Hath he not bought Repentance at a dear rate? Let the godly hear this and tremble, and do no such thing.  
Secondly, As he found hell thus within him, So God was also really displeased, his sins were uncancelled till he repented. So that God's displeasure was not only in David's sense and feeling, but in God's heart also. As the earth of his own heart was like iron, in respect of the yielding any fruit of comfort, so the Heavens were like brass. God had spoke to his soul to be like the mountains of Gilboa, on which no dew of his favour shall fall. Therefore he doth not only pray for pardon, but plenty and iteration of pardon, Multiply to pardon, as vers. 2. I need pardon again and again, I need a plentiful pardon, because I have sinned many sins in one sin. Now David might justly be more solicitous and fearful about the pardon of these sins, because there was no particular Sacrifice appointed for murder and adultery, but an expectation of vengeance, either from God or man, but this must not be stretched to the Socinian errors, as before I have showed.  
Thirdly, He found in himself a loathsomeness, and defiling guilt upon his conscience, whereby like Adam, he could run and hide himself, that God might not see him. Hereupon he prayeth, Wash me, Cleanse me, Purge me. O how loathsome and abominable was he in his own eyes: if David's Righteousness be accounted a menstruous cloth, or dung by him; what debasing and abhorring thoughts must he needs have of his sins? He looketh upon himself as the Swine wallowing in mire, and the dog licking up his vomit.  
Fourthly, He feeleth a spiritual consumption and languish upon him, that he cannot exercise any of those graces that he used to do. Therefore he prayeth for a principal or voluntary spirit, that with delight and strength he may do Gods will. David ariseth as Samson when his Hair was cut off, thinking to do such great exploits, as he had before, but he finds his strength gone.  
Fifthly, He discovereth a world of Hypocrisy in his heart, and crieth out of that, praying for truth in the inward parts. He now (probably) fears himself for an Hypocrite, questions whether any truth of grace be in him at all; and certainly it might justly amaze and astonish him, to consider he could do all that wickedness deliberately in cold blood, without any remorse for a long while. This might justly plunge David into such a Chaos, that he might fear the very pillars and foundations of his soul were shaken.  
Sixthly, He had lost all that boldness and liberty arising from a good Conscience, in declaring God's truth, and reclaiming transgressors from their evil ways, verse▪ 13. Some have said that David in this interval lost the gift of Prophecy, and making of Psalms. I cannot tell that; but certainly guilt and shame had so sealed up his mouth, that he could not reprove others for murder, adulteries, destructive craft, which he himself was so foully guilty of. It was the Ancients Rule, Quicquid dictur●s aliis, prius tibi ipsi dic, Speak that first to thyself, which thou art to speak to others. But how could David have any boldness here, till there was a coal of fire from the Altar to sanctify him? So that all these things duly pondered, you may say, this Sermon is a spiritual-Anatomy-Lecture, wherein David's sin and punishment hath been so dissected before you, that every wise hearer may prevent the like desperate disease in himself.  

The te●t considered in the●.  And now I proceed to the Thesis, or this Doctrine in the general. And this method I shall use: First, Speak of the sins briefly the godly may fall into. And then more largely of their relation they stand unto God after the commission of them, till they repent.  
And to the former, two things are considerable: 
What sins Gods children may fall into.   
1. The nature of the sins they commit. And  
2. The quality of them, whereby they may be differenced from the sins of reprobates.  
For the former. There is no sin (except that against the holy Ghost) which a justified person, being left to himself, may not fall into, even such sins, that moral men, by the help of a natural conscience only would readily abhor. Thus David with deliberation and consent falls into adultery and murder, sins condemned by Nature's Statute-Law: You have Aaron guilty of Idolatry: joseph's brethren the Patriarches, as much as lieth in them murdering Joseph, and when they have cast him away into the pit, they sit down to eat, which implieth their wonderful security: and we read not of their Repentance, till many years after, being awakened thereunto by Joseph. Samson, he was like one of the Roman Emperors, a compound of vices and virtues, insomuch that doubt might have been made of his godliness, had not the Scripture put him in the Catalogue of Saints. Peter, although it was a passion of fear that caused his sin, yet his sin was very dreadful, to lie, swear, and curse, in the denying of Christ. This was such a sin that Peter thought it not possible he should fall into it. For first at the maid's accusation, by comparing of the Evangelists together, he doth not only basely deny himself to be Peter, but addeth, He knew not Christ, yea he knew not what she said: an expression which we use about a thing that we are in the highest manner ignorant of; and this he doth before all them that stood by. In the next place after a little while (which as Maldonat computes, must be at least three hours) he denieth Christ again: we might have thought that Peter's heart might have troubled him in that space, but in stead of repentance he aggravates his crime, with an oath he denied himself to be Peter; Here was lying against his own conscience, accompanied with perfidiousness against Christ: Then the third time, a little while after, being accused again, he still increased his sin, and did not only swear, but curse, that is, devote myself to the horridest judgements that can be, if he knew Christ, and this he did often, as that phrase, He began to curse, seemeth to imply, and his sin will yet rise higher, if that cursing be referred to Christ, that he cursed and anathematised him, and all this while though as some probably think, he heard the Cock crow, yet he reputes not till Christ looked upon him, and without question▪ would have denied him as often as the temptation was, had not Christ preserved him.  
Thus I have given you Examples of the heinous sins of God's people, which are not to encourage in sin, but if duly considered, a bridle against it. As he said, Plus debeo Thomae, quam Petro, he was more beholding to Thomas doubting, than Peter believing, because by Thomas his doubt, Christ's Resurrection was more confirmed: So in some sense, we may more acknowledge God's Wisdom and Goodness in his children's falls, then in their Graces; for hereby we are to tremble in ourselves at our own weakness, be more careful against sin; Observe the way they took for pardon, and admire God's goodness, who doth not utterly cast off his prodigal children.  
Thus you see there is no kind of crime, which the people of God, through their own neglect, may not fall into. And as for that other Question, Whether they may not frequently commit the same sins? We have examples in Scripture for the Affirmative, only the greater Doubt is, Whether after a thorough and deep Humiliation they may relapse in the same sins? But although we scarce have any instances of such in the Scripture, yet Gods command upon us to receive a brother seventy seven times offending, if he repent, may keep up the heart of such a sinner against despair, because goodness and love is in him as in the Ocean; in us, as in the stream only.  

The sins of God's people in what kind to be ranked.  The second thing considerable is, What kind of sins these are? whether they may be called sins of infirmity, though so atrocious in their nature, or reigning sins? Now herein godly Divines have differing expressions, though they mean the same thing. Zan●hy in his Thesis of the perseverance of the Saints doth industriously assert, That all the sins which elect Believers fall into, are sins of infirmity. Thus he calls David's and Peter's: His main ground is, Because every regenerate man hath a twofold principle within, the flesh and the spirit, both which fight one against the other: by which means they are never carried out to a full consent and purpose in any sin they commit. Hence he denieth they can be called reigning sins, or sins against conscience, that waste conscience, or that are from resolved purpose within. He giveth an instance from Jonah, and the Mariners; We know the Mariners had not any intent at first to throw Jonah into the Sea; again they rowed and used all their utmost endeavour to preserve him: Lastly, they pray to their gods, if possibly, they may not be necessitated to drown him. Now in all this, the Mariners, though they did throw him into the Sea, with their will and consent, yet they did it very unwillingly also. Thus, saith he, Jonah, in this respect, is like Christ, or grace in the hearts of God's people. And first, the people of God have no purpose to cast him out. Again, they use their diligent care in temptations not to do it. Lastly, they beseech and importune God they may never fall so foully: Therefore if at any time they are overtaken, it is with an unwilling willingness. Thus he. Neither is it any marvel if he judge so; When Bucer thought an Elect man, ever before ever he be converted, doth not sin with that full consent as reprobate wicked men do, but have many motions to the contrary. Now although Peter in his denial of Christ, might be thought with unwillingness and reluctancy to do what he did, yet it is hard to say, David, who so deliberated and plotted to accomplish his wickedness, did it not with some full consent at that time. And it may seem hard to call all the sins of the godly, sins of infirmity; Therefore others will grant them the name of reigning sins, but with this limitation, that this is not a total reigning: sin reigneth as a tyrant over them, not as a King; and although at some times, as in David's case, there be no actual resistance made, because all the actual exercise of Grace is suspended, yet the seed of God doth in time revive again, and so doth cast out that usurper: So than the conclusion is, That the gross sins, which some regenerate persons do commit, may be said to be sins accomplished with a full consent and delight, and for the time, no actual resistance made by the regenerate part, and so far may be called reigning sins, but because God hath promised to blow up those sparks of grace in the godly, in his due time; therefore they reign but as tyrants, and that for a while, not as Kings, which then properly is, when sins are customarily committed with an antecedent and consequent consent.  

Differences between the sins of the godly and reprobate.  But for the general, That there is a great difference between Saul's sins and Davids, Peter, and Judas', will appear evidently.  

Differ. 1.  1. From that principle of supernatural life, which although much weakened, yet is not quite taken away, 1 Joh. 3. He that is born of God, cannot sin, viz. so as Cain; or as one that is of the devil his father, because the seed of God abideth in him. And Paul, Rom. 7. doth excellently describe this in the person of a regenerate man, where some Expositors do not limit the good he would do, or the evil he would not do, to motions and desires only of the heart, but extend it to the outward actions done in the flesh.  

Differ. 2.  2. There is a difference in respect of God: He doth not wholly cast off the one offending, as he doth the other. Compare Saul's sin, for which God rejected him, and david's together, and you would think Saul's sin far the less; for Saul's was, because he spared Agag, 1 Sam. 15. and the best of the spoil, pretending it was for Sacrifice, and he dared not do other for fear of the people, but for this God rejected him. Now david's was in a more gross sin against the light of nature, whereas Saul's was against a positive command of God only, and was a sin only, because forbidden, not from itself, yet God showeth mercy to the one, and not to the other. Certainly, though God's grace be the great reason of the difference, yet Saul sinned with more contempt and slighting of God, than David did. There was a more bitter root in one than the other.  

Differ. 3.  3. A difference also may be seen in the consequent. When David was reproved, how presently did he melt and condemn himself? There could not be such a sudden thaw of David's heart, if like Nabals it had been like a stone within him. Thus Peter also, as soon as Christ looked upon him, He went out, and wept bitterly. It is true, we see Saul and Judas after their wickedness committed, cried out, They had sinned, but yet it was only for temporal motives, fearing the loss of their honours or fame, and at most, out of a slavish fear of God's wrath, not from any love of him, or faith in him.  
The Use is, If David lie thus in his gore, 
Use.  and what Michal said falsely concerning him, is now true, hath made himself like one of the vile fellows, let him then become a Pillar of salt to season the godly. Without a gracious solicitude and diligent depending upon God, how quickly may a star become like a dunghill? You see that the snakes, and other poisonous creatures, which lie lurking in the holes of ground, when the season is cold, do yet crawl abroad under the hot Sunbeams. And so those sins which thou supposest crucified in thee, may revive upon a warm temptation. Peter could not be persuaded he should ever be plunged into such foul perfidiousness, he thought all the men in the world would sooner do it then he. Now to prevent these scandals, harken always unto the motions of God's Spirit. While the Cock croweth, do thou go out and weep bitterly; while the Angel stirreth the pool, do thou presently step in: and if thou art at any time overtaken, continue not in the sin, return presently. The Candle newly put out, if presently blown upon, may be kindled again. The longer in the sin, the more senseless and stupid thy heart will grow; and know that of Bernard to be true, Illud est cor durum, quod non trepidat ad nomen cordis duri, That is an hard heart, which doth not tremble at the name of an hard heart.   

LECTURE XXVII.  PSA 1.51.9. 
Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.  

How far gross sins make a breach upon Justification. Answered negatively.  WE come in the next place to declare, How far a regenerate man upon the commission of such gross sins, doth make a breach upon his Justification?  
And for the further clearing of this, I shall lay down,  
First, What it doth not. And secondly, What it doth.  
And in the first place, No gross sin committed by a justified person, doth make void the former pardon of those sins he hath been guilty of. God when he pardons, he pardons absolutely, not with a condition suspended upon our future conversation, which if not performed, his pardon shall be revoked. The Lutheran Divines do generally oppose this Truth; Musculus also in his Common-place, De remissione peccatorum, handling this Question, doth incline to the affirmative, That new gross sins committed, make void the pardon of all former sins, so that all his bypast iniquities do reviviscere, live again in their guilt and accusation of such a man, Tompson in his Diatriba, pa. 48. Though he plead vehemently for the intercision of a believers Justification upon the committing of grievous and loathsome sins, yet he denieth, That sins once pardoned are ever imputed again, because (saith he) the irrevocability of that Remission doth only depend upon the immutability of God's counsel, whose gifts are without Repentance. For although (saith he) there is a necessity of Faith and Repentance, that sins be at first pardoned, yet that they should continue or abide pardoned, there is no necessity of Faith; and therefore none are damned for past sins pardoned, upon a defect of new Faith and Repentance, when new sins are committed. The Schoolmen handle this Question, and generally deny, That sins pardoned ever are imputed again, unless in a certain respect, viz. as far as bypast sins are virtually contained in the following sin, as if by a new sin a man's ingratitude is so great, that he becomes as guilty, as if he had all his former sins incumbent on him. But whatsoever men's judgements are, the Scripture-expressions about pardon of sin, which are, The remembering of them no more, The blotting of them out, and throwing them into the bottom of the sea, etc. do plainly evidence, That God when he pardons a sin, pardons it absolutely, and for ever, so that it shall never live again to condemn him here or hereafter.  
There are two places of Scripture, that seem to give a check to this Doctrine. The first is, Ezek. 18.24, 26. where God saith, If a righteous man turn away from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, his righteousness shall not be mentioned, but he shall die in his sin. Quid clarius? s●ith Bellarmine: What is more clear than this place? Hence this is strongly insisted upon by Papists, Arminians, Lutherans, as the Achilles.  
Now to this place, these Answers are given,  
First, That the Prophet speaks not of a truly righteous man, but a pharisaical, bragging man, who hath a conceit of his righteousness, without any reality at all; and such a feigned righteousness may quickly melt away; but this may seem too much forced (though learned men insist on it) partly, because the opposition is made of a righteous man to one really wicked; partly, because it is such a righteousness, which if a man had continued in, would have saved him, he should have lived by it. Others therefore say, The expression is only conditional, and by supposition, if he do this, which doth only imply a posse, if a man be left to himself, not an esse, or that indeed he will do so; yea God useth these conditional comminations, as a sanctified means to keep a righteous man from falling. This is a good Answer: but there are others with whom I join, that say, The Scripture doth here consider a man as of himself, and what he is in his own power, not what he is by a Covenant of Grace (which is only per accidens, and ex hypothesi) a mere extrinsical and accidental thing to a man. And now, speak of a godly man thus, we may say, that he may fall, and lose the favour of God; for although in respect of God's predestination and Covenant of Grace, he cannot, yet that is merely external, and from without. So that the Scripture speaks of a godly man, sometimes in respect of his external, relative condition, as elected and federated: Thus he is made unchangeable in respect of his state. Again, in other places it speaks of him, in respect of his internals, and what is dwelling in him; and in this sense, He that stands, must take heed lest he fall. And that this is the right interpretation, is plain by the opposition in a wicked man's estate; for there saith the Text, If the wicked leave his wickedness, and do that which is righteous, he shall live. Here is no mention of Grace at all; Can any from hence infer therefore, a wicked man without God's Grace, is able to turn to God? No. Other places demonstrate the necessity of that. So that it is plain, these Texts do not at all relate to any thing external and extrinsical to a man.  
The next place urged for the return of sins pardoned, is, Mat. 18.32, 34. where in the Parable, The Master is said to forgive a servant all his debt, but because the same servant showed not the like compassion to a fellow-servant, his master was wroth with him, and charged all the debt he had forgiven, upon him again. By which it may appear, That if we after our sins are forgiven, do those things that are very distasteful to God, he will remember our former sins against us. But the scope of the Parable, which is the right key to open it, is not to show, That God will remember sins pardoned for new ones committed, but to manifest, That forgiveness of others is a necessary qualification to be forgiven by God; and that we may not believe God will forgive us, unless we forgive others: and this is clear from the conclusion of the Parable, ver. 35. So will not my heavenly Father forgive you, unless you from your hearts forgive one another. Besides, every passage in a Parable is not argumentative, but the chief intention only. Many things are flourishes in the Picture, not lineaments.  
In the second place, Neither doth a justified person so sinning, fall from the Grace of Justification, or his Adoption, he is not cast out of the right of his Inheritance. Whom he loveth, he loveth to the end; all this while, Christ's intercession is effectual for him. Though he be a Prodigal living with Swine, and upon husks, yet he is a Son still, Quod Christus naturâ, nos gratiâ, as Christ is perpetually the Son of God by nature, so we in him, and by him, are always the sons of Grace; and the perpetuity or stability of our Justification, is not founded upon any thing in us, but upon God's will and love, and his sure promises.  
Neither thirdly, Doth he fall from the state of inherent or sanctifying Grace, no more then imputed; for by God's gracious Covenant, the principles of Grace are more firmly infixed and rooted in a godly man's soul, than his soul in his body. Vt custodiat nos per fidem, custodit in nobis ipsam fidem, That he may keep us by Faith, he keepeth Faith in us, saith a learned man.  
Neither fourthly, Doth a godly man fall into these gross sins, without a merciful ordering of them, even to the godly man's good. Although afflictions may befall a man to his good, yet some have questioned, Whether God suffers a godly man to fall into sins for good, because sins have an inward malignity and poison in their natures, which the evils of afflictions have not. But if Gregory said truly of Adam's sin, Foelix culpa, it was an happy fault, because God wrought such a good, the good of a Mediator, which is a greater good than that sin was; no question but God can over rule the sins of God's people for their own advantage; as a godly man said, He got more good by his sins, than his Graces, Audeo dicere, etc. (saith Austin de civet. Dei, lib. 13.) I dare be bold to say it, That it is profitable for proud men, to fall in manifest and open sins, whereby they may be ashamed and made loathsome in their own eyes, Salubrius sibi displicuit Petrus, quando flevit; quam sibi placuit, quando praesumpsit. It was better with Peter disliking himself in his weeping, then pleasing himself in his presumption. This therefore God doth to his people; to prevent sin he lets them fall into sin: and as Austin saith, Sectio dolorem operatur, ut dolor dolore tollatur. The cutting of the wound causeth pain, that so pain may be removed by pain, and sometimes venena venenis dispelluntur, poison is driven out by oison.  

The Question answered affirmatively.  And thus much for the Negative, we come to the Affirmative; and in the general we say,  
A godly man committing such a gross sin, till he doth repent, is in a state of suspension from all the effects of God's Grace in Justication, though not of abdication, or exheredation. He is under Sequestration, though not Ejection; he is under an interdiction, though not an exile. He is as Absolom, that was cast out of his father's family, though not from being a son. The English Divines expressed it well in the Synod of Dort, by a leper, who was shut out from his own house, so that although he had a right to his house, yet he had no claim by any law to enjoy his house: So though a godly man have a right to pardon of sin, yet he cannot claim this as due to him, as long as the guilt of sin abideth on him. Hence that is expounded, Purge me with hyssop, as an allusion to the leper, who in such a manner was cleansed, not that this state is to be conceived a third estate between a state of Justification and Condemnation, but a suspending of the benefits of the former. In which sense a godly man justly cast out by Church-officers for a sin, is said to have his sins bound in Heaven. And in this respect Zanchy saith, he doth, Quodammodo excidere à gratiâ Dei, and that they are made, quasi inimici, as it were enemies. Thus Perkins also, Upon the committing of such sins, saith he, God turneth the effects of his grace, into the effects, cujus dam odii, of a kind of hatred to their sins, so that quodammodo fiunt inimici Dei. Now that the terror of this condition may more fasten on the godly to make them cautelous against such falls, let us consider what particulars this general doth include.  
And first it supposeth a present unfitness for the Kingdom of Heaven, or any gracious Privilege. There is no aptitude or preparation in a godly man so lapsed, for comfort or salvation: but like the unclean man is to stand aloof off from all this. Now how woeful is this to consider, that such a man, who had God's gracious Sceptre always held out, to bid him come into his presence, must now find the doors and gates of mercy for a season shut upon him! Now the Master of the feast may say to him, How camest thou in here without a wedding Garment? When David sat not according to his custom at the King's Table, it was excused, he had uncleanness upon him. Alas, it is a godly man's aggravation of this guilt, why doth he not apply the Promises as formerly? Why is he not had into the Spouses Wine-cellar? Alas uncleanness is upon him. As Christ said to Mary, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended; we may apply otherwise, the Promise of Grace, Christ saith to thee, Touch me not, lay not hold upon me, for thou art not yet risen out of thy filth.  
2. As there is no aptitude for gracious privileges, So also God doth now change all his dealings and administrations towards them. Those effects of love, delight, comfort, assurance and sweetness they had, are now turned into the bitter effects of wrath, displeasure, trouble and grief of soul, sad pangs and convulsions of conscience, so that they have no peace with God nor themselves. Thus their sins swallow them up like Jonahs' Whale, and they are, as it were, in the bottom of hell. God is really offended and displeased with them, hereupon their conscience doth truly and sadly accuse them: And all this being set home by God's Spirit convincing of them of sin in all the aggravations of it, O the groans and agonies their souls must needs conflict with! This David doth evidently teach us in what he felt upon him. Harken then to David's cry and groan, and take you heed how you abuse the Grace of God, either doctrinally or practically to a secure committing of gross sin. Be sure (if ye belong to God) your sin will find you out; and no Doctrine of free Grace, will be Altar or Sanctuary safe enough for you to hide yourselves in. God who was the God of all consolation, is now the God of all sorrow and fear. Thou thinkest on him, and thy meditations are not sweet but troublesome. Now it's not the Spirit of God, that seals and comforts, but of Conviction and Humiliation. Now Christ's blood, which thou despisedst, doth speak bitter things against thee. A drop of God's anger falls into the conscience of a godly man thus awakened, like a drop of scalding lead into a man's eye. O what comfort do those pleasures, those lusts now afford him? Now he may say of them, as she of her husband, Thou art a bloody husband.  
3. Although he hath a right to the Covenant of Grace, to the privileges contained therein, yet as you have heard, He may not without renewed Repentance claim any of these. He cannot say, my God, my Christ, my Pardon; No, God hath spit in his face, as the expression is to Miriam, and the soul is become filthy and noisome, and she must be washed again, ere Christ will receive her. Though there be a Well of Salvation, yet thou hast no bucket to draw out of it. As long as a godly man's heart stands thus averse from God, and hath a purpose to continue in sin, all the Promises are like a fountain sealed up, and a Garden enclosed. He is in a worse condition, than the wounded man in the way to Jericho, for not only the Priest and the Levite (the Moral Law) pass by him, but even the good Samaritan, Christ and the Promises pour no oil into his wounds. All the while he applieth comforts to his soul, and supports himself with hopes of God's favour, he liveth upon spiritual robbery. And he can with no more truth (if we speak of the actual use and application) say of the Promises, than the devil of the world, and the glorious things thereof, All these are mine.  
4. By this they incur the guilt of eternal damnation. There is a twofold guilt, as some distinguish, one potential (which by others is Reatus simplex, a simple guilt) another actual (which by others is Reatus redundans in personam, a guilt falling upon the person. Now it is upon all sides agreed, That by those sins he deserveth eternal damnation. And therefore a godly man so offending, aught to bewail the forfeiture he hath made. If God should deal with him according to that strict rule, Cursed be every one that abideth not in all the things that the Law requireth; where should he appear? But may we not say, they have an actual guilt obliging them to eternal wrath, not absolutely, but conditionally, till they take the means appointed by God for their pardon? I see not but in a sound sense this may be said, for God doth not will to them salvation, while they abide in that state, though at that time he wils to give them such effectual Grace, that thereby they shall recover, and so remove that gulf which is between them and God. So that at the same time God doth will to give them grace to repent and recover, and yet he doth not will salvation to them, till they do recover. Here is no contrariety in God's will, because though this be about the same person, yet not in the same respects: for Gods will not to give salvation while in such an estate, and to give Repentance that he may come out of that estate, do no ways oppose one another; and because of this later mercy, it is, that we may always say, There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus. Their sins are never imputed to them for their condemnation, but there is a conditional obliging of them, till they sue out their pardon. So that it is here, as Solomon did with Abiathar▪ 1 Kin. 2.26. Thou art (saith Solomon) worthy of death, but I will not at this time put thee to death.  
5. Because of this guilt and demerit of sin, it is, that our Divines do say, That if such an one, David (for example) should die before these sins be repent of, he would be damned; For if you suppose a justified person to persevere always in gross and vile sins without reformation, you may as well suppose him to be damned. Hence there is, as some observe, a twofold impossibility, There is an impossibility that David elected and justified should be damned; There is also an impossibility, that David a murderer and an adulterer should without Repentance be saved; but God by his powerful grace will untie this knot by a certain and infallible recovery out of his sins, for that is a perpetual and sure rule, Election hath obtained, Rom. 11. otherwise, speak of David as in that state before Repentance, we may say, if he had died in it, he would have been damned. Thus Beza, Twiss, etc. Yet God's grace which was so potent at the first to raise out of the grave of sin how much rather if life be in us, will it quicken us to turn unto God?  
6. From hence further it ariseth, That he needeth a particular Justification in respect of that guilt, which is to be done away. Some Orthodox and learned Writers, Abbot and others, distinguish of a twofold Justification, one universal, whereby a man is absolutely received into the grace and favour of God, becoming his Son. A second is particular, whereby sins are remitted to them that are already made the children of God, without which, they would fall from their first benefit of sonship, The one is called, Justificatio simplicitèr. The other, Secundùm quid: and this particular Justification they make to be often repeated. Thus Peter Martyr, Rom. 3. Lapsis post Justificationem repetitâ denuò Justificatione per fidem condonari. Thus Bucer, Defensio, pag. 85. acknowledgeth an iteration of Justification after we repent, and arise from more grievous sins. Others call it not a particular Justification, but an application of that universal Justification. And certainly Justification doth denote the state of a man, but seeing the Remission of such sins doth not put them into a new estate (for they never fell from that) we cannot so properly call it Justification, and I know not any place where the Scripture calls it so, and it would be very hard to say, That Justification is reiterated as often as sin is pardoned. Though therefore there may be some difference in the words, yet the matter itself is clear, viz. There is a necessity of the removing of this guilt, that so the person offending may be brought into God's favour again.  
7. Seeing all this is true, than it followeth, That such a man so offending must renew an act of Faith and Repentance. So that the former acts of faith and godly sorrow, will not discharge or acquit from the new sins committed. Therefore lastly, it is a most dangerous error in practice, to hold, That after a known sin committed, the first thing a believer is to do, before Repentance or Humiliation, is to believe that that sin is already pardoned. Thus a late Writer, Cornwell in a Treatise called Gospel-repentance, wherein he labours to prove, That a believer entered into the Covenant of Grace, upon the commission of an actual known sin, aught to believe the actual pardon of that sin, before he actually repent of the same. Now although this is to be confuted, when we handle Faith and Repentance, yet thus much we may say, That this Doctrine must needs be very unsound; for first, There is no sin actually pardoned before Repentance, as at large I have showed; and no sin is pardoned before it be committed, as in the next Question is to be showed. So that it would be abominable presumption, yea and falsehood to believe such a thing. Hence such a persuasion as this, God hath or will pardon my sins, can bring no comfort or peace to our conscience till we repent; for a Scripture persuasion is, That God enabling me to repent, and to use the means, will vouchsafe pardon, and in this only can I have comfort▪ Besides, the Author makes the last work of Faith, the first; for upon a known sin committed, Faith is to be exercised, first, in the threatenings of God, to believe those due to him. In the next place, Faith is to rely upon Christ for pardon, that he may receive remission of sins; for as Rivet and Perkins urge well, There is no pardon offered on God's part, or received on man's, till he do believe, and then when these acts are done, God doth many times incline the soul to believe the sin is pardoned. But the pardon of sin must be received by a direct act of Faith, before we can believe that it is pardoned by a reflex. But this is more largely to be confuted.  
Now the Objection may be, 
Why the guilt of new gros●e sins doth not take away Justification.  How can sin thus far prevail in the filth and guilt of it, and yet the man so sinning not fall from his Justification? This will be cleared, if you consider these things.  
First, That Justification is an act of God merely, it is not our act. We are said to be justified, and God he doth justify. Now Opus Dei non potest irritum fieri per opus hominis, Those acts of God which he doth, we cannot make void, but he ordereth them for their time and continuance, as he pleaseth.  
Secondly, Consider, That sin doth not expel the Grace of Justification, efficiently, or physically, as darkness doth light, or coldness heat, but meritoriously by way of desert. Now God doth not with us according to our desert; when he entered into a Covenant of Grace with us, he so appointed it, that no sin should break the league of friendship, whereas if he had pleased he might so have appointed it, that the least sin should have dissolved this bond; and if sin did expel the Grace of Justification efficiently, the least sin would have done it. But now, if it was wholly at God's pleasure to make this state dissoluble or indissoluble; and if so, then that neither great sins, or less should break it; and this makes us to wonder, how David in his adultery and murder could be justified, because we prepossess ourselves with this principle, That sin doth by a natural necessity expel the grace of God, whereas many Schoolmen are bold to determine, That de potentiâ absolutâ, God might pardon sin, though there were no Repentance, or infused grace at all in a man.  
Thirdly, That a particular, partial guilt, is not the immediate opposition to universal Justification of the person, unless it were to abide in him. Justification of a man's person will keep him from being actually condemned, though not from the guilt of condemnation. As a guilty person, thrown into prison, is kept from the use of his house, goods, and all comforts, but he is not deprived of them, till he be actually condemned: so a believer falling into gross sins, is deprived of the use of all spiritual comforts, but not cast out of the right of them, because he shall never actually be condemned.   

LECTURE XXVIII.  PSAL. 51.9. 
And blot out all my iniquities.  
THe next thing in this Text to be considered, is the second Petition, which though differing from the former in words, yet is coincident in the matter.  

The second Petition handled.  In this was observable (as you heard) the Petition itself [Blot out my iniquities.]  
2. The extent [All] all my iniquities.  
Now from hence we may justly take an occasion to handle that Question, 
Whether God in pardoning do forgive all sins together.  Whether God in pardoning do forgive all sins together? So that sins past, present and future are remitted together, for that is the opinion of some, That as soon as ever a man is actually entered into the Covenant of Grace, all his sins, even future, are actually forgiven, and that they are bound to believe the same, even before they actually repent of any iniquity committed. This at large Cornwell maintaineth in his Book of Gospel-repentance. Yea there are some learned and worthy Authors, who seem to incline this way. D. Ames in his Medulla, in the Chapter of Justification, saith, Not only the sins of justified persons that are past, are remitted, but also in some sort those that are to come, Neither (saith he) can sins past and present be altogether and fully remitted, unless sins to come be in some sort remitted also. Only he makes this difference, sins past are remitted by a formal application, sins to come only virtually: sins past are remitted in themselves, sins to come in the subject or person sinning. But this in effect to say, they are not remitted, but that God by his Covenant of Grace, will as sins are committed, give Grace to repent, whereby there may be a forgiveness of them. This is to say rather, No sin shall hereafter actually condemn them, rather than to say, they are forgiven. Doctor Twisse, Vindic. Gratiae, pag. 82. the Eurat. lib. 3. Quid si dicam in Justificatione nostra, etc. What if I say, in Justification, we receive the forgiveness of our sins, not only that are past, but of future also, that is, we are made more certain of their forgiveness. For (saith he) that internal act of God, whereby he doth remit sins, cannot be renewed in God. Certissimum esse judico, etc. I judge it most certain (as he goeth on) to whom God once doth forgive sins, to the same man he forgives all his sins whatsoever they are; of which absolution there is indeed a frequent pronunciation iterated to Penitents often in the Scripture. Thus that learned Author going upon those two grounds, 1. That Pardon of sin is an immanent act in God. 2. That application of Pardon to us, is no more than the sense and manifestation of that pardon, which was from all Eternity. But the weakness of these grounds hath been already demonstrated, and we have other Orthodox Writers speaking more consonantly to Truth, denying that future sins are forgiven, before committed and repent of. When Gr●tius had objected, That the Protestants Doctrine, was, Peccata condonari antequam fiant, That sins were forgiven before they were committed, Rivet in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pag. 467 replieth, Imo id nos absurdissimum credimus, etc. Yea we think such a Doctrine most absurd, and the imputation of it to us, most unjust; For though (saith he) God decreed to pardon our sins from all Eternity, yet the execution of this is not from all Eternity. As God decreed from all Eternity to create the world, yet the world was not from all Eternity. Those that know God hath decreed from Eternity to pardon sin upon the condition of Repentance. Those that know God hath not decreed the end without the means, will never ascribe to themselves Pardon of sin, without these exercises of Repentance. Thus the same Author in the same Book, pag. 533. Absurdum est credere, etc. It is absurd (saith he) to believe a Remission of sins, which are not yet committed, for neither in the Decree of God is there an actual Remission decreed without Repentance preceding Remission. To this purpose Perkins in his Book of Predestination, There is no actual Pardon (saith he) offered on God's part to us, nor on our part received without Faith and Repentance. When Thomson in his Diatriba, had made mention of an answer form by some Author, That in Justification all sins past, present and future were forgiven, and a justified person was bound to believe this; Bishop Abbot in his Answer, cap. 24. calls this incommodè dictum, an incommodious expression, and argueth against it.  

Three things laid down by way of concession.  Having premised this, I come to lay down the grounds, that sins are not pardoned to a justified person, before they be committed and repent of, and therefore it is dangerous presumption to believe such a thing. Only these things must be acknowledged.  
First, That God when he pardons sins past to those that repent, He forgiveth all them together. God doth not pardon some, and leave out others. Thus the gracious Promise, Heb. 8. of remembering our iniquities no more, and blotting them all out, is to be thus far universally interpreted, that all those sins which then are found in the lives of believing persons, shall be removed and taken away. All past sins are forgiven together. And the ground of this Truth is twofold, partly because the same Grace and love of God which moveth him to blot out one, will also stir him up for the other. And indeed if it were not so, God would have love to a man as his friend, and hatred to him as an enemy, at the same time; whereas Remission is Reconciliation with God, and therefore every obstacle must be removed, partly this ariseth from the nature of Repentance, for where that is truly for one sin, it is also for all other sins, and then the guilt of all must needs be taken away.  
Secondly, We must grant, That to speak properly, there is nothing future to God, and those things that are not yet to us, they are present to him; For he calleth things that are not, as if they were; but although it be thus with God, yet we are not to conceive of things any other ways, then according to that manner of his dispensation, whereby things decreed from Eternity are produced to act in time; and certainly, as sins future to us are present to him, so Repentance also future to us is present to him. And therefore God's Decree for Remission, was also for Repentance, and both are present to him.  
Thirdly, This must be granted, That although future sins are not pardoned, before committed, yet by the Covenant of Grace, God will so preserve, that as sins are committed, so Grace will be dispensed, that no sin shall actually condemn us. And this may be the virtual Remission of future sins, which some speak of. So that although a justified person may not believe that his sins are pardoned, which he shall commit, yet he may believe that God will keep him by his power through faith to salvation, and that if he fall in sin, God will renew Repentance in his soul; and our peace of conscience doth not simply arise from hence, That God will pardon our sins, but that he will so preserve us from evil, and lead us into every good duty, that so pardon may be vouchsafed unto us.  
These things explained, I come to lay down the Arguments, 
The Question held negatively upon these grounds.  Why none should presume, that because of his Justification, all future sins not committed, or present sins not repent of, are forgiven unto him.  
The first ground is from those places which presume and necessarily suppose sin to be committed, before it is pardoned. One place is brought by some learned men, Rom. 3.25. Whom God hath set forth a Propitiation, to declare his Righteousness for the Remission of sins that are past. Here (say they) Remission of sins through Christ's blood, is restrained to sins past; and upon this some argue, Therefore future sins are not remitted. Thus, as I take it, argue Peter Martyr, Hiperius, Domnam; but it is more probable, that by sins past are meant those committed before Christ came into the world. And Beza, who is followed by other learned men, make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to be pardon, but connivance, as if the sense were, God did pass by the sins of our Fathers before Christ's coming, and did not manifest his wrath in a Sacrifice expiatory of their sins, till Christ himself came and suffered upon the Cross: So he makes this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, with that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Act. 17.30. Therefore I leave this, and urge one or two places more, 1 Job. 2.1. If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father. Here we see is intercession for sin, and a way for Remission; but how? upon a supposition that sin is, If any man. Ezek. 18.22. speaking of a wicked man that turneth to God, and now shall surely live, he expresseth it thus, All his transgressions that he hath committed shall not be mentioned to him. Observe, All that he hath committed, not all that he shall commit. A third place is eminently set down, Jer. 33.8. Where God makes a glorious Promise of the pardon of sin; but take notice to w●at sins he limits it, even to those that have been committed, I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me, and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me. It's of what they have done, not of what they shall do.  
A second sort of Arguments, is from the expressions God's word useth about Pardon; All which do suppose, That sin goeth before, and that God doth not antedate his Pardon. Such as these are, Remember not iniquity. Now although this be attributed unto God improperly, yet the very sense of the word supposeth, That sins were precedent, and how God by his grace will remember them no more. So the phrase to blot out, supposeth sin was already registered in God's book. Men do not use to forgive Debts before they be. Throwing them into the sea, what doth this imply? but that sins did appear before, and that in a terrible threatening manner. Covering of sin, How can that be understood, if sin be not with some loathsomeness? Thus we might instance in all the expressions used by Scripture to represent Pardon.  
Thirdly, This truth may be proved from the necessary qualifications required in those that have Pardon, which cannot be unless a man have already committed the sin, as 1 Joh. 1.9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful to pardon. Now confession is always of a thing already extant. How absurd would it be, for a man to go and confess the sins he will commit? This would rather be impudence then humiliation; look over all the confessions made by the people of God for themselves, or in the behalf of others, as david's, Ezrahs', Nehemiahs', daniel's, and you shall observe them all limited to sins that have been done, never extended to what they shall commit. Thus in the old Testament, when any had sinned, they offered sacrifices. There was no sacrifice appointed for a future sin, but only for that which was already committed. Thus to pardon is required forsaking of a man's sin, Prov. 28.13. Now how can a man be said to forsake that which is not, to leave that which is future? especially, as you have heard, repentance is commanded as the way wherein only pardon may be had, now how can repentance be about that which is to come? Can a man repent of any ●hing but what is past? The two Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be wise and understand after the fact is done, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reditus, a turning again to those whom we have offended, make it as clear as the Sun, that there is no pardon of sin before committed.  
Fourthly, There is no promise in all the word of God, made for the pardon of a sin before it be committed and repent of. If therefore the Word of God give no such encouragement, what presumption is it to make a faith, that all sins are pardoned, the Gospel-faith? for grant that such a thing were true, and to be believed, viz. That all sins are pardoned, yet that could not be the Gospel-faith, for the Gospel-faith is justifying faith: now the object of justifying faith, is not ens complexum, a proposition, such as this is, All my sins are pardoned; but ens incomplexum, a single object, which is Christ himself, received and applied by faith, I am not justified by believing my sins are pardoned, but by relying upon Christ for pardon; But this by the way. The strength of the Argument lieth in this, God hath made no promise for the pardon of a sin before it be committed and repent of. Therefore none may either believe or claim such a thing. The grand charter or privilege for pardon, as it is laid down in the Covenant of Grace, is contained in Jer. 31.34. which is also repeated, Heb. 8.12. Now this Covenant of Grace, as it promiseth pardon of sin, so also a new heart, and actual exercise of grace, so that they shall walk in all God's ways. Now the way wherein pardon is to be had, is repentance and faith. We must not therefore conceive of the Covenant of Grace, as promising pardon and forgiveness, without any qualification in the subject: this would contradict other places of Scripture. Therefore in the Covenant of Grace some things are promised absolutely, supposing nothing to go before, such are regeneration, the working of faith in us, giving his holy Spirit to us, and union with Christ. 2. There are many privileges in the Covenant of Grace, and those are given, where God hath wrought some former effects of his grace, and suppose them to be: such are Justification, pardon of sin, increase in grace, Glorification, all these things are promised in the Covenant of Grace, but made good where there are the former effects of God's grace wrought in them. We do not therefore say, God doth not pardon sin, unless repentance go before, as if God needed repentance, as if he could not do it without repentance, as if repentance made God the better, or made him amends. These are idle calumnies cast upon this Doctrine in some Pamphlets. But only God hath appointed one effect of his grace before another in order, and he will not vouchsafe one before he hath wrought the other. As for instance, God hath appointed no unclean thing shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven, God will not give glory where he hath not given grace. If one should tragically exclaim upon this, This is to make God need our graces, This is to make grace meritorious with God, This is to be a Papist, a Formalist, to make men rest in themselves; you would presently judge this a vain, weak cavil: No less is it, when we are charged thus, for holding God will not forgive sin but to those that believe and repent. It is not for any worth in what we do, but because God will have an order and a method in his graces, Justification where Repentance is, Glorification where Holiness is. It being not fit to give pearl unto swine, nor children's meat to dogs.  
Fifthly, If a man may believe his sins are pardoned, before they be committed, and so before repent of, than he may have full joy and unspeakable boasting in God, while he lieth wallowing in the midst of sins. The reason of the consequence is this, By such an act of faith, we have peace with God, and we glory in him. This floweth, as a proper effect of faith, though it do not always follow, yet it may follow, and happily it is our weakness, if it dovecot. And if so, than it was David's weakness to b● troubled about sin: It was for want of a right considering of the Covenant of Grace, that he had no joy in his heart, and that his bones were broken. The Adversary seeth the necessity of this consequent, and therefore is not afraid to say, That a justified person, even when sin is most prevalent, and the heart most hardened, yet then can glory in Jesus Christ, with a large heart, breaking forth into thanksgivings. Cornwell of Gospel-Repentance, pag. 125. How contrary is this to David's experience, Psal. 32. who, while he humbled not himself for his sin, found nothing but terror and trouble in his own soul? And certainly this Doctrine must be very distasteful to ●very gracious heart, which shall make faith and assurance in the glorious effects of it, amicably concording (as it were) with great and grievous sins. And let the Adversary show such an instance in all Scripture. For as for his example in Paul, Rom. 7. who found himself captivated unto sin, doing the things he would not, yet giving thanks to God through Jesus Christ: this is clean contrary to him, for Paul did greatly humble himself, and was deeply sensible of this tyranny of sin, which made him cry out, O miserable man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of sin. So that we cannot with any colour call him an hardened sinner, Somnium narrare vigilantis est, said Seneca; and to complain of sin, especially in the first motions and suggestions of it, as Paul did, argues a tender life of grace in him. No less absurd is it, to bring Habakkuk to patrocinate this great error, for although he said, He would rejoice in God, and glory in his salvation, Hab. 3.8, 9 in the midst of God's judgements upon the public: yet this doth not suppose any personal grievous sins he was fallen into.  
Sixtly, If sins be pardoned thus before committed and repent of, than it would be in vain to pray for forgiveness of sin, seeing it is already past. This Argument (as before was said) Gomarus urged against Piscator, explaining that Petition [Forgive us our sins] for the sense and assurance of it only in our hearts. It is true, we may pray for a thing that is past, thus far, for the continuance of it, but not for the thing itself. Although there can hardly be an instance in all Scripture given of such a Petition. We do not read of any prayer in Scripture that God would elect us, and predestinate us, yet that might admit of the same interpretation which they give for pardon of sin, viz. To make us more assured and persuaded of it in our own hearts. Hence when God speaks of pardon of sins, he useth many times the future tense, Jer. 31. I will forgive their iniquities, which if pardoned before, would be very difficult to say; even as hard, as if God should say, I will predestinate and elect such men. It is indeed often said, That when we pray for pardon of sin, we pray for the sense and feeling of it; but let such that interpret so, give any parallel place for such a sense, yet we deny not (as before hath been said) but reductively this may be included in that Petition.  
Seventhly, If a man's future sins be already pardoned in a justified man, then in a reprobate man, all his future sins are actually condemned. The consequence is firm upon that rule, Eadem est ratio contrariorum, there is the same reason of contraries. Therefore if a man's future sins be pardoned before they be committed, than a reprobate man's sins shall be punished before they be. Now how contrary is this to God's dispensation revealed in the Scripture? Where can we find any one man punished for a future sin? Were not all the sins men are afflicted for in God's Word, because they had done them, not because they were to do them? Indeed the Scripture, Matth. 5. sometimes makes the desires and lusts of the soul after sin, to be the sin itself, but that is because they are the proxime and immediate cause of such a sin; but we are now speaking of future sins, that it may be as yet have no preparation at all for them in any cause.  
Eightly, By what principles the Opponents can prove▪ That God pardons sins future, by the same we can prove, it is because of repentance future. So that still no sin will be forgiven without repentance. For suppose that were a true rule to stand upon, God's internal will to pardon is an immanent act, and therefore from all eternity, will it not as well follow, God's internal will to give repentance, is an immanent act, and therefore repentance is from all eternity. If another be a true rule, That God hath given us all pardon from eternity, only we have the sense of it, and manifestation in our own souls; may we not then say, that we had the grace of repentance from all eternity, but it is declarative in time in our own souls? For although justification be God's act, and repentance ours, yet we are passive in the infusion of this, as well as justification. I speak not of repentance as an act (which cannot so properly be said to be infused) but of the frame of the soul. If a third rule should be true, That therefore sins are pardoned because the Covenant of Grace saith, it will pardon all; Doth not this hold also for repentance, seeing in the Covenant God promiseth to give a repenting heart? Lastly, If God may be thought changeable, because now he pardons, and once he did not; will it not as well hold, because he now gives grace to such a man to repent, and once he did not?  
To conclude therefore, it followeth with an equal necessity, That if future sins are forgiven before they be committed, That God also did accept of future repentance before it was practised, or else if repentance be not received by God, till actually performed; so neither is sin forgiven, till actually committed and repent of.  
The result of this whole truth is, by way of Use, 
Use.  to admonish us, That we make not any Doctrine about grace in the genius and natural consequence of it, to encourage or harden to sin. If the grace of God which hath appeared to teach thee to deny all ungodly lusts, make thee love them the more; If because you are under grace, sin hath therefore dominion over you; If there be goodness with the Lord, and therefore you do not fear him: then know all things work contrary to their nature, and Scripture-directions. All Gospel-grace is a cleansing, purifying, refining property; it is fire to get out the dross; it is water to wash away the filth; it is oil to mollify the wounds of the soul; it is wine to make the heart glad, and rejoice in God. Do not while you promise yourselves a liberty by grace, therein become servants of corruption; more especially let the children of God, who have had sweet experience of the Covenant of Grace upon their souls, take heed of falls and relapses. If the Prodigal son after that reconciliation made with his father, after all that glory and love vouchsafed to him, had again wandered into far Countries, prodigally consumed all his estate, living with swine upon husks, How unpardonable and unworthy would this fact have been? No less guilty wilt thou be▪ who haste had the ring put on thee, who hast fed on the fatted Calf, if after this, thou provoke God by gross transgressions. Some have disputed, Whether it be possible for a godly man to be secure in sinning, and more willing to offend, because of God's gracious Covenant, which will infallibly rescue him out of that sin. But what sin is not possible (except that against the holy Ghost) even to a regenerate man? Take heed then, lest thou love the Gospel, because it hath always glad tidings, and thou canst not abide the precepts or threatenings, because they speak hard things to thee. There may be a carnal gospeler, as well as a Popish Legalist.   

LECTURE XXIX.  ACTS 3.19. 
Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.  
THe Apostle Peter in this exhortatory discourse of his to the Jews, deals like a wise Physician:  
First, Discovering the danger of the disease.  
Secondly, Applying an effectual remedy.  
The disease is that heinous sin the Jews were guilty of, in killing of Christ, the Prince of life. Which sin is aggravated by a threefold antithesis:  
1. They delivered up, and denied Christ in the presence of Pilate, when he would have acquitted him.  
2. They denied him, though he was an holy and just One.  
3. They desired a murderer to be released rather than him. This is their sin.  
In the next place, you have the remedy prescribed in two words, Repent and be converted. Repent, that denotes a change in the heart: and to be converted, an alteration in the outward conversation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Howsoever it be generally received that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth only true and godly sorrow, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that imperfect and unsound grief which is upon hypocrites, yet this is not universally true, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is applied to true repentance, Mat. 21.19. & 32. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to an outward repentance meeerly, Mat. 11.21. The other word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is to be understood reciprocally, Turn yourselves, or be turned. This exhortation doth not suppose freewill in us, it only denoteth our duty, not our ability. Neither is Grotius his assertion better than Semipelagianisme, when he compareth the will of a man to the mother, and grace to the father, so that as children are named after the father, and not the mother: thus good actions are denominated from grace, not freewill: for in our conversion freewill is neither a total or partial cause preoperant or cooperant, but the passive subject recipient of that Vim gratiae vorticordiam, as Austin called it, the heart-changing power of grace. This duty of repentance is urged from the profitable consequent. Piscator calls it effectu utili, the effect of conversion, which is, that your sins may be blotted out. It is not an inference of causality, but of consequence. Blotting out, is (as you heard) from merchants that expunge their debts, or the Scribe that raceth out those letters which ought not to be in the paper, or the Painter that defaceth those lineaments, which should not be in the Picture.  
In the next place, you have the time, when these sins shall be blotted out (that is) when the times of refreshing shall come, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is used Exod. 8.15. Some do not understand this, nor that expression, The times of restitution of all things, verse. 21. of the day of judgement, but of that preservation the elect should have, when the destruction of Jerusalem should be. Hence it is, that they expound the day of the Lord so much spoken of in Peter, and other places, which is said to be coming upon the believers, of that time when God came to destroy Jerusalem, but there is no cogent reason to go from the received interpretation, which maketh the day of judgement to be the times of refreshing to the godly, for so indeed it is, because than they are eased from all those troubles and oppressions they lay under in this world. Hence our Saviour calls it, The day of our redemption, upon the coming whereof they are to lift up their heads.  
The Observation is,  

Observe.  That a complete and full absolution from all sin, is not enjoyed till the day of judgement.  
The Believers have not a full discharge till then: we are in this life continually subject to new sins, and so to new guilt, whereby arise new fears, so that the soul hath not a full rest from all, till that final absolution be pronounced at the day of judgement.  

Propositions laid down in prosecution of this Observation.  Before we show the grounds whereby it may appear, that the remission of our sins is not fully completed till then: we must lay down some Propositions by way of a grand work.  
First, The Scripture not only in this privilege of remission of our sin, but in others also, makes the compliment and fullness of them to be at the day of judgement. Redemption is the total sum, as it were, of all our mercies, and we are partakers of it in this life, Col. 1.14. Rom. 3.24. Yet the Scripture calls the day of judgement, when we shall rise out of our graves in a peculiar and eminent manner, the day of redemption, Ephes. 1.7. Ephes. 4.30. because at that day, will be the utmost and last effects of our redemption. Adoption, that also is a privilege we receive in this life; yea a learned man (Forbes in his book where he handleth the order of God's graces) makes adoption (as I take it) to be the first, and to go before justification, yet the Apostle, Rom. 8.23. calleth the last day, the day of adoption. Hence 1 Joh. 3.2. the Apostle, though he saith, We are now the sons of God, yet he saith it doth not appear what we shall be, because the glory God at the last day will put upon us, is so far transcendent and superlative to what now we are. Thus Mat. 19.28. the last day is also called the day of regeneration unto the people of God, yet in this life they partake of that grace, but because then is the full perfection and manifestation of it, therefore the Scripture calls it, the day of regeneration. Even as the Apostle, Act. 13.33▪ applieth that passage of the Psalm to Christ's resurrection, This day have I begotten thee, because then was such a solemn and public declaration, that he was the Son of God. No marvel then, if the Scripture do also call the day of judgement a time, when sins shall be blotted out, because then is the public absolution of the godly; and according to philosophy motions receive their names from the term to which they tend.  
Secondly, Howsoever Justification be said to consist in pardon of sin, yet there is a great difference between the one and the other; for Justification besides the pardon of sin doth connote a state that the subject is put into, viz. A state of favour, being reconciled with God. Hence it is, that this state cannot be reiterated often, no more than a wife after that first entrance into the relation is frequently made a wife. In this sense, the Scripture always speaks of it, as connoting a state or condition the subject is put into, as well as a peculiar privilege vouchsafed to such. It is true, There are indeed learned men, who think Justification may be reiterated, as you heard, Peter Martyr, and Bucer. Others call it a continued action, as conservation. But although there is a continuance of Justification, and the godly are preserved in that estate, yet we cannot say, God doth renew Justification daily, as he doth pardon of sin. There are some that think the Scripture gives a ground for a second Justification, or the continuing and increasing of it, and bring those places, Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. Rev. 22.11. The learned and excellent Interpreter Ludovicus de Dieu, in Cap. 8. of the Romans, vers. 4. largely pleadeth for a twofold Justification; The first he makes to be the imputing of Christ's righteousness to us, received by faith, which is altogether perfect, and is the cause of pardon of sins: The second he makes an effect of the former, whereby through the grace of God regenerating, we are conformable unto that love in part, and are day by day more and more justified, and shall be fully so when perfection comes: of which Justification he saith these texts speak, Jam. 2.21, 24. Revel. 22.11. Mat. 11.37. 1 King. 8.32. This twofold Justification he makes to differ toto coelo from the Papists, whose first is founded upon the merit of congruity, the second upon the merit of condignity. But the discussing of this will be more proper in the other part, viz. of imputed righteousness. Austin seemeth to hold Justification a frequent and continued act, lib. 2. contra Julianum, cap. 8. When we are heard in that prayer [Forgive us our sins] we need (saith he) such a remission daily, what progress soever we have made in our second Justification. He speaks also of a Justification hujus vitae, which he calls minorem the lesser; and another plenam and perfectam, full and perfect, which belongs to the state of glory, Tract. 4. in Joannem lib. de spiritu & lit. cap. ultim. But the more exact handling of this will be in the place abovementioned. It seemeth more consonant to Scripture, if we say, That Justification is a state we were once put into, which is not repeated over and over, as often as sin is forgiven; neither can it admit of increase or decrease, so that a man should be more or less justified, for even David while he was in that state of suspension, was not less justified, though the effects of Justification were less upon him. It is true, in some sense learned men say, Justification may increase, viz. extensiuè, not intensiuè, as they express it, by way of extension, when more sins are pardoned, not intensively in its own nature. Even as the soul of a man in its information of the body, admits of no increase intensively, but it doth extensively, the more the parts of the body grow, the further doth its information extend. But of these things more in their proper place.  
Thirdly, Howsoever an absolution shall be completed at the day of judgement, yet our justification shall not abide in such a way, as it is in this life. Now our Justification is by pardon of sin, and a righteousness without us imputed to us, which is instrumentally applied by faith, but this way shall then cease; for having perfect righteousness inherent in ourselves, we shall need no covering. It is true, the glory and honour of all this will redound upon Christ, and he shall not be the less glorified, because he hath then brought us to the full end of all his sufferings. I know some may doubt whether any righteousness, but that which is infinite can please God, and therefore as some think the Angels were accepted of God through Christ, though perfect: so it may of the Saints in heaven; but I see no ground for this. This seemeth to be undoubted, That the way of Justification by faith in Christ, ariseth because of our imperfection and sinfulness remaining in us, and therefore is justificatio viae, not patriae, a justification of us in our way, not when we come to our home.  
Fourthly, Although pardon of sin be completed at that great day, yet this is not to be understood, as if God's pardon of any sin were imperfect, and something of sin did still remain to be done away. No, those expressions of forgiveness of sin in the Scripture, denote such a full and plenary pardon, that a sin cannot be more remitted than it is. But because we commit new sins daily, and so need pardon daily, Therefore it is that we are not completely pardoned till then. As also because the perfect pardon we have here, shall then solemnly and publicly be declared to all the world.  
These things thus premised, 
Wherein the completeness of the pardon of sin at the day of judgement consisteth.  I come to show the grounds or particulars, wherein our pardon of sin is thus completed.  
And first, In our sense and feeling: For howsoever God pardon a sin perfectly, yet our faith which receiveth it, is weak. This Jewel is taken with a trembling and shaking hand. 
1. In our sense of that pardon  Hence it is that we have not full faith and confidence in our spirits. We may see this in David, though Nathan told him his sins were forgiven him, yet his faith was not so vigorous and powerful, as wholly to apply this to his own soul; and therefore he had much anguish and trouble of heart afterwards; But now, at the last day, all these fears, diffidence and darkness, will be quite removed out of our hearts. There shall be no more disturbance in our souls, than there can be corruption in the highest heavens, we shall then have such a gourd as no worm can devour. Our souls shall not then know the meaning of sitting in darkness, and wanting God's favour. There will then be no complaints, Why hath the Lord forsaken me? Well may God's children be called upon to lift up their heads, when such a redemption draweth nigh; and well may that day be called the times of refreshment, seeing the people of God are so often scorched with the fiery darts of Satan.  
Secondly, Pardon of sin will at that day be perfected. 
2. In the accomplishment of all effects of pardon.  Because all the effects of pardon, will then be accomplished, and not so much as any scars remain, the wound will be so fully healed. Although God doth fully pardon sin, yet the effects of this are delayed, many chastisements and sad afflictions are to be undergone: howsoever, death itself, and the corruption in the grave must seize upon justified persons; now these are the fruit of sin, and howsoever the sting of these be taken away, yet they are not wholly conquered, till that last day, Then therefore may we justly say, Sin is pardoned, when there shall be no more grave, no more death, no more corruption, but all shall be swallowed up in immortality and glory.  

3. Then no more iteration of pardon.  Thirdly, Then, and not till then may we say, remission of sins will be completed, because then shall no more iteration of pardon be. Here in this life, because the root of corruption abideth in us; there are daily pullulant branches of sins, and so frequent guilt is contracted, whereby as we have daily sores, so we need daily plasters. It is with original corruption in us, as in that Tree in Dan. 4.14, 15. although the branches be cut off, yet the stump is still in the earth, and that sprouts out too fast by the temptations that are always by it. Hence it is that we always pray, Forgive us our sins, and because of th●se failings the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.20. writeth to, and exhorteth the godly Corinthians, who were already reconciled to God, to be further reconciled to him. But then this Petition shall wholly cease, than there will be no serpent to sting us, nor will the eye of justifying faith to look upon the brazen serpent exalted be necessary any more. The Lord will not only wipe away the tear of worldly grief, but also of godly sorrow at that time. Then, and not till then, will it be true, That God seeth no sin in his children. Then will the Church be without wrinkles, or any spot within her. In this respect it is, the Church of God p●aieth so earnestly for the Bridegrooms coming. For this it is, They look for, and hasten in their prayers that day.  

4. Then justification shall be perfected.  Fourthly, At that day will pardon of sin only be completed, if you consider the nature of justification. For what is that, but an overcoming the accusing adversary, and clearing of us against every charge? Now this is most eminently and fully done in those last assizes. The Syriack word to justify, is also to conquer and overcome, because when a man is justified, he overcometh all those bills and indictments which were brought in against him; now this is manifestly done in the day of judgement, when God shall before men and Angels acquit and absolve his people: and if the Apostle say in this life, Rom. 6.7. of a godly man dead in Christ, he is justified from his sins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in respect of sanctification, that sin doth not conquer him, but he sin, how much more will this be true at that day, when all the guilt and filth of sin shall be totally removed? Oh what a glorious conquest will that be over sin, hell and the devil, when the Judge of the whole world, shall pronounce them free from all sin, and command them to enter into his glorious rest!  
Having thus cleared the Doctrine, one Question may be briefly touched upon,  
Whether the sins of God's people shall be manifested at the day of judgement, and God for Christ's sake then acquit them? 
Whether the sins of God's people sh●ll be manifested at the last day.   
There are learned men for the affirmative, They shall be published; and there are learned men for the negative. Those that are for the affirmative, they say indeed godly men's sins shall not be examined for their ignominy or confusion, but only that the goodness and grace of God may be made the more illustrious, For this they urge these Arguments;  
First, Those places of Scripture, which speak of the universality of the real objects, and personal: Of the real; as when it's said, A man must give an account of every idle word, Mat▪ 12.36. 2 Cor. 5.10. an account must be made for every thing done in the body. For the universality of the object personal, 2 Cor. 5. We must all appear before the Tribunal seat.  
Again, They urge the opening of the book, which shall be at that day, and that is nothing, but the manifesting of the consciences of men.  
Furtther, Many wicked men's sins and godly men's are mingled together, and there cannot be a judgement of discussion preceding that of condemnation, unless godly men's sins also be produced.  
In sum, They think this conduceth more to the setting up of God's justice, the exaltation of his mercy; neither (say they) will this breed shame to the godly, for in heaven they shall remember their sins committed on earth, but without any grief or trouble, yea with joy and thankfulness to God, because delivered from them. Quandoque laeti recordamur dolorum, said Gregory. We may with joy remember bypast grief.  
But those that are for the negative, think this no ways suitable to God's goodness, that the sins of the godly should then be published, for these grounds following.  
First, From the judicial process, where Christ calls the blessed of his Father to inherit the Kingdom prepared for them; and then enumerateth only the good works they had done; no question they had many sins and failings, but God takes no notice of them.  
Secondly, This agreeth best (they say) with those expressions of Scripture concerning pardon, viz. that God blotteth them out, that they are thrown into the bottom of the sea.  
Thirdly, The godly are said not to come into judgement, and there is no condemnation to them, yea, they have already life everlasting.  
Lastly, Christ is their bridegroom, their friend, their advocate, and how ill becoming would it be one in such relations, to account or lay open their sins?  
Which of these opinions is truest, is hard to say, neither of them have cogent arguments, and the Scripture doth not expressly decide the question, yet the negative seems to have more probability on its side.  

Use 1.  The Use is, First, Of comfort and glad tidings to the children of God, howsoever in this life they have accusations from within, and from without, yet the day is coming, when they shall have a glorious and public justification from all objections: Then Satan can no more accuse Joshua for the noisome rags upon him; Then Joseph shall be brought out of the prison freed from all guilt and calumny, and exalted to great glory, and it may be therefore God suffereth thee to be exercised with much guilt and fear here, that thou mayst the more long for those days of refreshment. And as this truth is for their great consolation, so also it demonstrateth their happiness; That that which is so terrible and dreadful to wicked men, should be such matter of rejoicing unto them: when they through horror should cry for the mountains and hills to cover them, these shall desire the graves and the earth to deliver up her dead, that they may enjoy their Bridegroom. Certainly believers are not believers in this point as they should be; what an heavenly contempt would it work in them of this present world, what earnest desires, that this Kingdom might at last come? This is their marriage-day, the day of coronation. Then death, hell, grave, sin and Satan, are all conquered.  
And if the joy and peace, which remission of sin produceth in this life be so exceeding glorious, what will that be when we shall have no more streams but that fountain?  
2. Use by way of contrary, To terrify and arouse wicked men, 
Use 2.  for as the godly have but a glimmering, a little pittance in this life, in respect of that fullness of glory to be revealed hereafter, so the wicked feel not the least part of that guilt, torment, shame and confusion, which hereafter shall be poured upon them.  
There are many men's sins lie asleep, keep no noise either in their own consciences, or before God; but then these lions, these mastive dogs that lay tumbling at the door, will rise up in rage, and wholly devour: Do not therefore take God's forbearance for his gracious acquittance; oh do not embolden thyself with false encouragements, and say, The worst is over; As the Apostle said, these light afflictions were nothing to that eternal weight of glory: so on the contrary may the wicked say; These pangs and wounds of consciences which are felt here, are nothing to that eternal weight of sin hereafter. Bernard said, descendamus in infernum viventes, ne descendamus morien●es, let us go into hell while we are alive by a serious meditation, and holy consideration, that we may not go into it, when we be dead, by real miseries. As the Apostle saith, we are the children of God, but it doth not yet appear what we shall be; there is more glory than they can conceive: so wicked men are now the children of wrath, but it doth not yet appear what they shall be. Oh therefore that ungodly men were as wise as Jonah's mariners, who in the midst of tempests, seeing their ship necessarily sinking, throw away the goods that were a burden, knowing they and their safety could not consist together. Thus are ye to do: throw away thy sins, those heavy burdens that put all into danger, and so mayst thou safely arrive at last in heaven.   

LECTURE XXX.  LUKE 7.47. 
Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins which are many are forgiven her, for she loved much.  
THis Text is part of a famous history, which may well be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of the three great things observable in it; 1. Great sins. 2. Great repentance and humiliation. ●. Great love and grace of God through Christ in pardoning: And there is this one peculiar thing well observed about this woman in the history, that whereas divers others addressed themselves to Christ for corporal mercies, this only cometh for spiritual, even for remission of her sins.  

An Entrance into the Text, from the consideration of the history.  For the better understanding of the text, let us briefly consider the history; and first the woman is described by her quality inherent, a sinner, not in a common sense as all are, but in a more notorious manner; and therefore those that mitigate her fault, out of some reverence or honour to her, do not so much increase her honour (as Maldonat upon the place well observeth) as detract from Christ's honour: for the Physician's skill is most commended, where the disease is more desperate. That she was a known great sinner, appeareth, in that the Pharisee wondered at Christ, because he would have any commerce with her. Whether this woman was Mary, Lazarus his sister or no, is hotly disputed by Commentators, but impertinent to my scope. In the next place you have her great repentance expressed, wherein for the general you may see the Apostles duty accomplished, as she had given her members to be members of iniquity, so now of righteousness, insomuch that she is the true lookingglass of an humble convert. Her humiliation is described: 1. In bringing of a box of ointment to anoint his feet; not his head (say some) because she thought herself so unworthy, she brought indeed an outward visible box of ointment, but she had another invisible and spiritual one, even a contrite and broken heart. 2. She stands behind Christ (as being loathsome in her own eyes) and washeth his feet with her tears; which must suppose that to be true in her, which Jeremiah desireth, viz. Her head to be a fountain of water, but as long as her heart was such a fervent limbeck, it was no wonder to see such precious distillations: Chrysologus upon this fact of hers, saith, The Heavens are wont to water the Earth with rain, but ecce nunc rigat terra Coelum, here the earth watereth Heaven. Lastly, The debasement of herself further appeareth, in making her Hair, heretofore the instrument of her pride and wantonness, now a Towel to wipe his feet. In the third place, Christ's love towards her is remarkable, and in the general it is so great, that the Pharisee puffed up with his own pride, was offended at it, not considering, First, That though she had been a sinner, yet now she manifested Repentance. And secondly, That every commerce and communion with a sinner is not forbidden, but that which is of encouragement or consent unto his sin: but our Saviour's was like the communion of a Physician with the Patient to heal and cure: Hence our Saviour touched the leper, whom he healed, yet was not unclean, because he touched him to restore him to health: But as the people murmured because Moses married a Blackmore, so the Pharisees grudged, because Christ showed mercy to sinners; but Moses indeed could not make the Blackmore white, whereas Christ doth purify the defiled soul. Now our Saviour doth aggravate his love to her; First, by a diligent enumeration of those several acts of service, which she had exhibited to him, not mentioning any of her former sins; and all this he doth with an Antithesis, or opposition to that carriage which the Pharisee had presented him with. 2. To convince the Pharisee, he declareth a Parable, that so from his own mouth the Pharisee may judge her love to Christ to be greater than his. In the last place his grace to her is further declared, by pardoning her sins though so heinous, which pardon is first declared unto the Pharisee in my Text, and afterwards to the woman herself.  
In my Text is the first promulgation of her pardon; now because the words have some difficulty, and the later part is brought to prove love to be a meritorious cause of Remission of sins; 
Two Questions resolved for clearing the Text. Answ.  two Questions are briefly to be resolved: First, When this woman's sins were pardoned? And the Answer is, That as soon as ever she repented in her heart of her evil ways, and believed in Christ, her sins were forgiven her; for so God doth promise; and this was before she came to Christ, but she cometh to Christ for the more assurance of Pardon, and not only so, but that he should authoritatively absolve her from her sin; for Christ did more than declare her sins pardoned, as appeareth by the standers by, who with wonder made this question, v. 49. Who is this that forgiveth sins also? Whereas to declare the forgiveness of sin only, any Minister may do, as we read of Nathan to David, 2 Sam. 12.13. So that her sins were pardoned by God before, at the first time of her Faith and Repentance, but now Christ as the Mediator, doth particularly absolve her, and that in her own conscience, therefore he bids her, Go in peace.  

1 When this Penitents sin was pardone●. 2. Whether the expression in the text favour any causality in the Penitents love in reference to h●r pardon.  The second Question is, Whether that expression, Much is forgiven her, for she loved much, be causal, as if her love were antecedent, and a cause of her forgiveness; or consequential only, as an effect, or sign of her forgiveness; in this sense, She loved much, because God did forgive her many sins, not she loved much, and therefore God forgave her?  
Here is a great and vast difference between these two: many Papists are for the later, the Protestants generally for the former, and there is this cogent reason for it, for that Christ doth not speak of Repentance, or Love which should go before, and be the cause of the pardon of sins, is plain by the Parable he brings of a Creditor, who forgave one Debtor more, another Debtor less: hereupon our Saviour asked the Pharisee, Which of them will love him most? Simon answered, I suppose him to whom most was forgiven: Now of such a love our Saviour speaketh, when he mentioneth the woman, which is clearly a love of Gratitude, Because much was forgiven; not an antecedent love of merit, to procure pardon; so that as from her actions of anointing and washing his feet, by way of a sign or effect, we gather her Faith and Love of Christ; so by her Faith and Love as by a sign and effect, it may be gathered, that her sins are forgiven her. But you may ask, How could she come to know her sins were forgiven, before Christ told her? I answer, By the promise of God made to every true Penitent and Believer: though this assurance of hers was imperfect, and therefore admitted of further degrees, whereas then all this Repentance and Humiliation was not that sin might be forgiven, but from Faith that they were forgiven: We may observe this,  
That the sense and apprehension of pardon of sins already obtained, 
Observ. 1.  doth not beget carnal security, but a further mollifying and humbling of the heart in a gracious manner.  
This is a practical truth of great concernment. And for the opening of it, take notice of this distinction, as a foundation, 
A two▪ fold repentance in Scripture.  viz. That there is in Scripture a twofold Repentance or Humiliation of the soul for sin; the one antecedent, and going before pardon, and this the Scripture requireth as a necessary condition, without which forgiveness of sin cannot be obtained: of this Repentance the Scripture for the most part speaks, Ezek▪ 14.18, 30. Mat. 3.2. Mark 6.12. Luk. 13.3. Act. 3.19. and generally in most places of Scripture. In the second place there is an Humiliation of heart, and brokenness of soul for sin, arising from th● apprehension of God's love in pardoning, whereby we grieve, that we should deal so unkindly with so good and gracious a God: This, though more rarely, yet is sometimes spoken of in Scripture, as first in this woman, who out of the apprehension of God's love in pardoning so much to her, did pour out her soul in all ways of thankfulness. After this manner also was David's Repentance, Psal. 51. for he was thus deeply affected after Nathan had told him, His sin was taken away: Although it doth appear by the Psalm also, that he had not as yet that sense of pardon, which did quiet his conscience. This kind of affection was also in Paul, 1 Tim. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 1 Cor. 15.8, 9 in which places the Apostle remembering his former sins, confesseth them, and acknowledgeth thereby his unworthiness of all that grace and favour he had received; so that the Apostle doth not there humble himself that he may obtain mercy, but because he had obtained mercy. The most eminent instance of this kind of sorrow and shame, is Ezek. 16.62, 63. where God promiseth to establish his Covenant with them, and then mark the event of this, That thou may●st remember and be confounded, and never open thy mouth more because of thy shame, when I am pacified towards thee.  
So then both these kinds of Humiliations are to be owned and practised; and therefore it is a false and dangerous error to acknowledge no other kind of Repentance than the later: The Papists will not acknowledge this later Humiliation at all, because they deny all Faith and Assurance that a believer may have of his sins in particular: And others, that there is only this later, and therefore the forementioned Author, in his Treatise of Gospel-repentance, makes this only Gospel-repentance: but as Gospel-faith is not that reflect act of the soul in a man, whereby it is persuaded that Christ is his, but a direct act of taking and receiving Christ to be ours: so a Gospel-repentance is not that mainly whereby we are humbled, because we receive God's love to us in pardoning, but principally in that loathing of ourselves to obtain pardon: It is therefore great ignorance in that Author, in his Treatise of Gospel-repentance, when pag. 58. he calls Repentance that goeth before this Faith, viz. that my sins are pardoned, a dead work; as if the Faith that justifieth, and without which it is impossible to please God, were the believing that my sins are pardoned; whereas the Scripture makes it to be, the receiving of Christ, and laying hold on him: and seeing that the object must in order of nature be before the act that is employed about it, it followeth infallibly, that I must have Justification, before I can believe I have it: Repentance therefore may be thought to go before a twofold act of Faith; First, That whereby Christ is laid hold upon and made ours, and so the Repentance that precedeth this, may be called legal and slavish. Or secondly, Before a persuasion that my sins are pardoned, and before this act of Faith, Repentance must necessarily go, because the Covenant of Grace dispenseth pardon only to such.  

The Observation proved from Scripture  But because I have already spoken enough of the former kind of Repentance anteceding Remission of sins, vindicating the necessity of it, I shall press upon this later, as being most proper to my Text. And that assurance of apprehension of pardon, doth not beget security, but rather increase godliness, will appear several ways.  
And first thus: Those places which speak of God's gracious Properties, do represent them as grounds of duty, as well as of consolation, Psal. 130.4. There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared: Mark that expression [There is forgiveness with thee:] which implieth forgiveness to be in God as in a fountain, and therefore he doth easily, and plentifully forgive; but lest any Spider should suck poison out of this sweet flower, he addeth, That thou mayest be feared; here is no encouragement to security. Thus Hos. 3.5. there is a gracious Promise of God to his children, that they shall fear him and his goodness. As it is Gods glorious Property to work good out of evil, so it is a most devilish quality to work evil out of good.  
2. The Promises of God, they also require an holy and humble walking, 2 Cor. 7.1. The Apostle having in the Chapter before mentioned those glorious Promises in the Covenant of Grace, That he would be our God, and we his sons and daughters, makes this inference, Having those promises, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness, perfecting holiness in the fear of God: So that here is no danger, as long as we keep close to the genuine use of the Scripture. Thus also Eph. 4.30. Grieve not the Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed, etc. Where Assurance is so far from encouraging to sin, that by sin it is weakened and destroyed. The more gracious than we perceive God to us, the more humiliation and debasement we find in ourselves. Thus the Apostle Peter, 1 Pet. 1.17. If ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth all men, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear. To make therefore doubting, a duty and meritorious, as some Papists have done, is to betray great ignorance of Scripture motives.  
3. That Assurance of pardon is ap● to kindle spiritual affections in us, is plain, if you consider the nature of such Assurance. 
By reason,   
1. Originally it is wrought by the Spirit of God: as a man by the power of freewill, is not able to do any supernatural good thing, so neither by the strength of natural light, can he discern the gracious privileges God bestoweth upon him, 1 Cor. 2.12. The Spirit whereby we know the things that are freely given us of God, is opposed to the spirit of the world: If then this persuasion be not the fruit of the flesh, but of the Spirit, is it any wonder▪ that it inclineth us to holy things? Again,  
2. This persuasion of pardon cometh in the use of those means appointed by God. 2 Pet. 1.10. By giving great diligence in the use of the means, we only come to Assurance. How then can such a persuasion of forgiveness cause a neglect of the means?  
Lastly, That Spirit which doth thus assure, doth work also at the same time, concomitant gracious effects, especially servant and effectual prayer, Rom. 8. Gal. 3. Now where constant powerful Prayer is, that soul is like a tree planted by the water's side.  

Further evidence from experience.  4. That this persuasion of pardon doth inflame much to Holiness, appeareth from the nature and state of those who are in it. They are sons, Now by experience we see, that in an ingenuous son, the more apprehension there is of his father's tender love and kindness to him, the more obsequious and serviceable he is; Can we think that the father's great love to his prodigal son, was not like coals of fire poured on him to melt and thaw him? We rather see jealousies and suspicions of love to breed hatred at last. Hence diffidence worketh despair, and despair hatred of God: It is therefore a special duty lying upon the people of God, to entertain good thoughts of God, and to be persuaded of his loving kindness to them.  
5. That the people of God do yet mourn and abhor themselves for their sins, though persuaded of the pardon of them, ariseth from the sincerity and uprightness of their heart, whereby they hate sin as sin, and grieve for the dishonour they have put upon God. It is indeed lawful, yea a duty to repent of sin, that it may be pardoned, because the Scripture propounds this as a motive and encouragement to the duty: And it is a vain thing, to affect more high and spiritual strains then the Scripture. But Humiliation of sin, when pardoned, and after the knowledge of the pardon, doth evidently discover an upright heart, that the dishonour of God is more trouble and grief to him, than his own punishment and destruction. Whereby it is, that hedoth so accuse and condemn himself for dealing so wretchedly and frowardly with so gracious a God.  
6. That ingenious principle of Gratitude and Thankfulness which reigneth in the godly, will put them upon all these services. Godliness in the lives of the godly may be considered two ways: First, as a means wherein they attain to eternal life: Secondly, as an expression of Thankfulness unto God. Hence Vrsine in his Catechism inscribeth that part of Divinity, which containeth our duty, de gratitudine, of Thankfulness. Bern. Ep. 107. Justus quis est, nisi qui amanti se Deo vicem rependit amoris? quod non fit nisi revelante spiritu per fidem aeternum Dei propositum de sua salute. Who is a righteous man, but he that returneth love to God, for Gods loving of him? And how can this be, but by God's Spirit revealing his purpose of Election, concerning the just man's Salvation?  
Use of Instruction, Doth the apprehension of great pardon, 
Use 1.  breed great Humiliation, than we may see the necessity of that Ministry and preaching, which doth discover the depth, 
To press this use upon us, two things especially to be insisted upon.  length and breadth of sin. They take the best way to set up grace and magnify Christ, who do amplify the pollution of sin in us: Now that we may come to be convinced how much God doth forgive us, two points are much to be insisted upon.  
1. The Doctrine of original corruption, 
1. The doctrine of original corruption.  for thereby we shall see ourselves guilty of more sins than ever we thought of; a man without this Scripture-light, is like one in a dark dungeon, which is full of Serpents, Toads, and all venomous creatures, but is not able to see any of them, and so thinks himself without any danger at all. If therefore thou wouldst see how much is forgiven, reckon up all the debts thou owest. The mercy and skill of the Physician will then appear, when the worst of thy disease is made manifest.  
A second Point much to be pressed, is the pure, 
2. The strict obligation of the Law.  strict and exact obligation of the law, which being set as a pure glass before thee, all thy deformities will appear. In this sense it is good to be a legal Preacher and a legal Hearer often: that so knowing the holiness of the Law, and our imperfection, we may esteem the more of God's Grace in pardoning so much; As God in the outward passages of his providence doth therefore suffer one trouble to follow another, like so many waves, that so the greater their calamities have been, his wisdom, power and goodness may be the more conspicuous in delivering of them. Thus it is also in his spiritual administrations, he will not reveal the riches of Grace, but to the poor in spirit, nor will he give ease and refreshment, but to those that are heavy laden and burdened. And this is the reason, why a Pharisee, a formalist, a moral man, a self-righteous man, doth not love Christ, as converted Publicans and sinners do.  

Use 2.  Use second of Admonition, to those who have sinned much, and so have had much forgiven them, let such know their expenses of practised grace, must be according to the receipts of justifying Grace. Let such know, the pardon of many sins is a talon to be greatly improved. As thou hast abounded in many sins, and God in many pardons, so do thou in much thankfulness. How thankful would we be to a man who hath delivered us often from a temporal death! but behold a greater love is manifested here. Thou who hast (it may be) been the chiefest sinner of many thousands, be now the chiefest Believer of many thousands; If thou hast been a great sinner, and art not now a great actor, and spiritual merchant negotiating for God, fear the truth of thy grace; much love should be like much fire that consumes all dross; quicken up thyself with such thoughts as these, Lord, who was more plunged into sin than I? whose diseases were greater than mine? It may be thousands and thousands for less and fewer sins than I have committed, are now taking their portion in hell. O Lord, this thy overflowing goodness doth overcome me, oh that I had the hearts of all men and Angels to praise thee.  
FINIS.    

THE TABLE.  

A  
FIve absurdities objected by the Antinomians, which (they say) will follow from the Doctrine that God afflicts his people for sin, vindicated, p. 39, 40, 41  
What kind of act forgiveness is, and whether it be antecedent to our faith and repentance, 166, 167  
There are no accidents in God, ib.  
How afflictions come upon the godly after pardon of sin, 24  
God doth not always afflict with reference to sin, 28  
The afflictions of the godly are not legal, but evangelical, and why? 39  
How afflictions on believers agree with the justice of God, 101  
It is a great aggravation to the sins of God's people, that they have been committed in his sight, 53, 54  
Aggravations and diminutions of sin, 206, 208  
The unsound Answers of the Antinomian about the afflictions of the godly, 24, 25  
The Antinomian contrary to himself, 33, 34, 93  
Three Arguments of the Antinomian answered, 34, 35, 36, 37  
The Antinomians answer to, and evasion of certain Scriptures answered, 53  
How the anger of God is showed toward the the sins of his people, 76, 77, 78  
The Antinomian Arguments answered, 176 to 193  
Arguments proving that God doth see sin in the justified so as to be offended with it, 53  
Seven Arguments proving our faith and repentance antecedents of Justification, 169▪ to 172  
Three Reasons proving that Assurance of pardon, is apt to kindle spiritual affections in us, 269, 270   

B  
Sins committed after Baptism pardonable, 126, 127  
Christ is the advocate of Believers after Justification, 66, 67  
Bellarmine's objection answered, 115  
How sin is a blot in the soul, 136  
When sins are blotted out, 158   

C  
A threefold cause of Justification, 

Efficient,  
Meritorious,  
Instrumental,  — 2  
The people of God are not cast off for their sins, 232  
It is one thing to change the will, and another to will a change, 193  
It is no derogation from Christ that sin is in a believer, 40  
What the blood of Christ doth meritoriously cleanse, the Spirit doth efficaciously, 57  
Wherein the compleatness of the pardon of sin at the day of Judgement consists, 259 260  
Six comfortable considerations gathered from certain Scriptures, 49, ●0  
It is of great consequence to have the Doctrine of Justification kept pure, and why, 3  
A twofold condition of faith, pag. 191, 192  
Comfort to the children of God, 263  
Pardon of sin is a continued act, 115  
What is meant by covering sin, 216, 217  


1 What is  
2 What is not   implied in that phrase of covering sin, 217, 218, 219  
How sin being in the regenerate, yet covered, will stand with the omnisciency, truth and holiness of God, 220, 221  
Whether God doth see sin when he hath covered it. 219, 220   

D  
Eternal Death deserved by every sin, 206  
What in sin is a Debt, 105  
Sins called a Debt in a fourfold respect, 105, 106  
There is a great difference between original and actual sin, and wherein they differ, 20  
There is great difference in the calamities of the godly, 28  
The afflictions of the godly and the wicked for sin, how differ, 29  
The difference between a godly man troubled in conscience, and a man damned in hell, 82  
A twofold difference between actions immanent and transient, 166, 167, 168  
An elect person and a reprobate, how they are 

alike,  
differ,   188  
Whether a difference ought to be made between great and little sins. Six Propositions clearing the same, 206. to 212  
A Christian is to make a difference of sins six ways, 208, 209, 210  
Four things wherein a Christian is not to make a difference of sin, 212, 213  
A threefold difference between the sins of a godly and wicked man, 232, 233  
Seeing and knowing how they differ, 90  
No difference to our capacity between Gods seeing and knowing, 91  
A twofold difference between God's forgiving our sins, and our forgiving others, 113, 114.  
The Properties of God, and the actions of them, how they differ, p. 97  
Justification and pardon of sin, how they differ, 257  
The sense of God's displeasure for sin, may be retained in us two ways, servilely, filially, 22  
The Antinomian distinction examined, 89, 90  
Believers have not a full discharge from sin till the day of Judgement, 256  
It is the duty of justified persons, to pray for pardon and for forgiveness of sin, 113  
It is the duty of Believers, to repent of sin that it may be pardoned, and why? 114   

E  
Election, is Amor ordinativus non o●ll●ti●us 188,  
In what sense an elect man, before conversion is loved of God, ●88  
God hath other ends then to satisfy his Justice, when he afflicts his people, 26  
There are many errors about Justification, and the danger of them, 4  
The ground of Popish errors about Justification, 5  
The errors of 

Papists  
Antinomians   concerning remission of sin, 43, 44, 45  
The errors of the Saints displeasing to God 80, 81  
Who they are which do esteem of pardon of sin, and why? 221, 222  
Why Creation and Justification are not from Eternity, 167  
How sin doth, and how it doth not expel the Grace of Justification, 243   

F  
How the word Face is attributed to God, 226  
All men called flesh, 1  
A twofold Faith in all Petitions, Applicative, Fiducial, 61  
Forgiveness is the removing the guilt, though not the nature of sin, 45  
Prayer for, and faith in God for forgiveness, may well stand together, 62  
God doth reiterate forgivenss of sin, 127  
Christians ought to pray for forgiveness, and in what sense? 129. from 113. to 116  
Forbearance of punishment, differs from forgiveness, 143, 144  
What forgiveness of sin is, 214  
Whether God in forgiving sin, doth forgive all sin together, 244, 245  
The meaning of the Petition, Forgive us our Debts, declared in eight particulars, 113 to 118  
How freedom is extended to God, 96   

G  
The Glory of God, what, 2  
The nature of Gospel-grace, 253  
Great sins as we●l as lesser are forgiven the godly, 51  
Two considerations which will much help us to see the greatness of our sins, 204  
Gross sins procure wrath to the godly, 208  
Gross sins exclude from the society of the Church, ibid.  
Gross sins require many conditions before pardoned, 209  
Gross sins require a more intense act of faith to apply pardon, 210  
A godly man falling into gross sins, is under sequestration though not ejection, 238  
Why the guilt of new gross sins doth not take away Justification, 243, 244   

H  
Hay and stubble, 1 Cor. 3. what, 81  
Humiliation and Repentance denied by the Antinomians, 59, 125  
A Christian is to be humbled more for gross sins then ordinary infirmities, 208, 209  
Hyperbolical expressions of the Fathers, 250   

I  
Five things implied from the subject praying Forgive us our debts, Mat. 6.12. 1. That all are sinners. 2. A sense of sin. 3. Godly sorrow. 4. Earnestness and perseverance until we obtain. 5. Constant renewed acts of faith, 121, to 125  
Three things implied in the object matter, Mat. 6.12. 125, 126  
The act of imputation and the ground of it, how they differ, 185  
There is a twofold impulsive cause of Justification, 2  
Justification, what it implieth, 6  
How Infants are justified whether without faith or no, 181, 182, 183  
How Christ is in us and we in him, 184  
A man is not justified until he doth repent and believe, 12  
Wherein Justification consists, 17  
How Justification can be said to be the pardon of sin, ibid.  
Whether the Justification of Believers be the same under the old and new Testament, 62  
How sin is injurious to God, 164  
How we are justified before faith, 177  
Justification and faith are correlatives, 183  
God cannot in Justice but punish sinners, 98  
The Justice of God admits of a surety, 200  
The Justice of God essentially add intra, and the effects ad extra, how differ, ibid.  
Four Propositions showing the nature and time of a believers Justification, 257, 258, 259  
Justification is not reiterated, 115   

K  
God's Knowledge and ours how they differ, 89, 90   

L  
How God's taking notice of sin to punish it is subject to the mere Liberty of his will, 95. to 102  
God takes notice of little sins, 79   

M  
Whether the sins of God's people shall be manifested at the last day, 261, 262  
The Ministers of God commanded to bind and retain sins, 65  
The spirit doth mortify our sins, 56  
External and spiritual mortification how differing, 57  
Sin is mortified in us not only declaratively but really, ibid.   

N  
The Nature of Justification, 116, 117  
The nature of sin, what and how expressed in Scripture, 130, 131, 132  
The nature of the sins of God's people, 230, 231  
Faith and Repentance how necessary to the pardon of sin, 140, 141  
God takes notice of the sins of believers, 60, 1●9   

O  
The answering of Objections sometimes profitable, 41, 42  
Antinomian Objections and distinctions discussed, 88 to 102  
An Obligation to punishment follows sin long before committed, 137, 139  
False Opinions liable to the anger of God, proved, 80, 81  
Habitual original sin how truly it may be called sin, 132  
The original of justification and assurance, 171, 172, 173  
The Orthodox truth concerning afflictions upon a justified person, against the errors of Antinomians and Papists, ●6   

P  
Pardon of sin is not only privative b●t positive, 118  
Five Reasons proving that the sense of pardon doth not beget carnal security, 267.  
Five Reasons why God doth sometimes pardon sin and not manifest it to the soul▪ 199, 200  
Whether the sins of believers be pardoned before they be committed, 246  
Eight Arguments proving they are not, 247▪ to 253  
Three Directions to a soul tempted about the pardon of sin, 122  
Our sins are perfectly pardoned in this life, 258  
Whether God by his absolute power may not pardon sin without the graces of faith and repentance, 148  
Peace with God, what it is, 34, 35  
Whether in that Petition, Mat. 5.12. we pray for pardon and assurance, 116, 117, 196  
Four Reasons proving that we pray for the pardon itself, and not only for assurance, 196  
Four sorts of men praying for pardon, and the manner of their praying, 195, 196, 197  
Four Reasons proving that not only assurance, but the pardon itself is to be prayed for, 197  
Who are the best Preachers of Christ and the Gospel, 122  
The Promises of God require an holy and humble walking, 172  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is signifieth, 2  
Thirteen Propositions to clear the nature of Justification, 3. to 13  
Nine Propositions for the understanding the nature of pardon of sin, 18. to 22  
Seven Propositions laid down to clear the truth of that assertion, that God doth afflict his people as a Father, 27, 28, 29, 30  
A commendation of the Psalms, 225   

Q  
There is a twofold Quickening, 177, 178   

R  
Nine Ranks of Arguments to prove that God seeth sin in a believer, and is offended with it 53. to 68  
When we receive the fullness of Remission of sin, 256  
Five Rules for the understanding the nature of Justification, 14, 15, 16  
Remission of sin is such a taking it away as if it had never been, 43  
How the Papists and Antinomians do agree and differ concerning Remission, 45  
Remission of sin what, declared in fix Propositions, 139, 140. to 145  
Remission of sin is not only ablativa mali, but collativa boni, 145  
Remission of sin how obtained, 145, 146  
Why repentance and faith is urged as necessary to Remission, 146  
Eight Propositions declaring how repentance being our duty may stand with free grace in the Remission of sin, 147, 148, to 154  
When God remits sin he gives repentance, 148  
How repentance is necessary to remission of sin, 149, 150  
Two extremes in Repentance confuted, 150, 151  
Gods free grace and man's duty of Repentance may be reconciled, 155  
Repentance why required, 157, 158  
God doth indispensably require Repentance in all, 157  
Six Reasons of congruity between remission of sin and Repentance, 158, to 161  
Perfect Repentance cannot take away the guilt of sin, 161  
A twofold Repentance, 267  
Why Repentance is not as great a good, as sin is an evil, 163  
Six courses God took to bring David to Repentance, 228, 229  
Imputed Righteousness a more solid ground of comfort, than the most perfect and exact inherent righteousness, and why? 10   

S  
The Question whether repentance of itself may not take away sins, answered three ways, 161, 162, 163  
The full satisfaction of Christ to God, takes not away the precedency of faith and repentance to justification, 189, 190  
How Christ satisfied God's wrath, 191  
In what relation Christ satisfied God, 101  
God seeth and is angry with the sins of his people, 225  
How God can see sin in the believers when they have the righteousness of Christ to cover them, 219  
Rules concerning God seeing sin in a believer, 45, 46  
Six Reasons proving that God doth afflict his people for sin, 30, 31, 32  
Sins may be said to be pardoned five ways, 18, 19  
Six things considerable in sin when it is said to be forgiven, 19, 20  
What it is to have sin forgiven, 20  
No sin hath a positive natural being, 40  
Sins forgiven are as if they had never been, 50  
God is affected with the sins of his people, 68  
Sins of the godly and ungodly how they are alike or differ, 73, 74  
The most eminent sanctified person hath sin in him, 121  
Every sin hath a double weight 

punishment  
offence to God,   124  
We may ask pardon for great sins▪ 126  
Sin, and the effects of sin, what, 130, to 136  
Habitual sin forbidden by the Law, 132  
A man cannot intend sin formally, 133  
There is in every sin the Macula and Reatus, 134  
Sin● continue until pardoned, 135  
Two things considerable in every sin in itself, 138  
Two things considerable in sin relating to Justification, 145  
Whether sin be an infinite evil, 138  
There are degrees in sin, 206  
The sin of David aggravated by ten circumstances, 225, 226  
No sin though never so great for nature (except the sin against the holy Ghost) but the godly may fall into it, 228, 229  
In what sense the sins of the godly are reigning sins, 230, 231  
How far gross sins make a breach upon Justification, 233, etc.  
Why sins are called debts, 104  
Whether God may not by his absolute sovereignty adjudge man to eternal misery with consideration of sin, 27, 28   

T  
Spiritual the●● what, 7●  
threatenings applied to believers, 71  
Not to trust to repentance, 165  
There is a twofold trouble for sin, 41   

U  
Whether we be United to Christ before Justification, 183  
How all sin is voluntary, 132  
God doth sometimes upbraid his people, 70, 71   

W  
There is no new Will in God, 167, 193  
Five words used in Scripture to express Justification, 13, 14  
The several words used in Scripture to express forgiveness of sin, 46, 47  
The Word preached and written, differ not essentially, 86  
Words used in Scripture to declare Remission of sin, 139, 140, 141  
The effects of God's wrath upon his own children, how considered, 70, 71    

A Table of divers Scriptures which are opened or vindicated by this TREATISE.  
Genesis. Chap. Verse Pag. 3 21 47 4 13 47 Exodus. 4 14 69 Deuteronomy. 8 2 38 2 Samuel. 12 9 53 12 13 62 Job. 34 32 70 Psalms. 32 12 47, 63, 214 32 5 224 51 4 53 51 7 51 51 9 61 90 4 91, 92 90 8 54, 223 94 9, 10 90 99 8 30 103 12 49 130 4 269 Isaiah. 44 22 48 53 5 36, 37 63 17 83 Jeremy. 9 7 38 50 20 21, 41, 42 Ezekiel. 18 14 84 Chap. Verse. Pag. 18 24, 26 136, 255 Micha. 7 19 48 Matthew. 5 22 206 6 12 103, 104 12 36 206 18 27 8, 21 18 32, 34 238 Luke. 4 18 140 7 47 264, 265 15 22 55 10 3 141 Acts. 3 19 115, 257, 258 17 30 157 Romans. 3 24, 25 12, 247 5 19 7, 163 5 12 34, 35, 129 6 19 132, 260 8 33 11 1 Corinth. 2 2 12, 270 3 12, 13, 14, 17 80, 81 4 4 65 11 30 75, 80 11 31 27 2 Corinth. 7 1 270 Galatians. 5 18 56 Ephesians. Chap. Verse. Pag. 4 30 68 Colossians. 2 13  3 13 140 1 Timothy. 6 4 41 Hebrews. 4 13 85 7 25 67 8 12 141, 142 9 14 136 10 28, 29, 30 14 12 5, 6, 7, 8 31, 32 12 29 22 James. 1 2, 3, 4 37, 38 1 Peter. 3 13 160 4 17 76 2 Peter. 3 8 91, 92 1 John. 1 9 121 2 1 66, 67 3 18, 19, 20 63 5 15, 17 205 Judas.  23 81 Revelations. 3 19 31  
FINIS.