The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted and Vindicated, Lecture 27
LECTURE XXVII.
PSA 1.51.9.
Hide thy face from my ſinnes, and blot out all mine iniquities.
How far groſſe ſins make a breach upon Juſtification. Anſwered negatively.VVE come in the next place to declare, How far a regenerate man upon the commiſſion of ſuch groſſe 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 groſſe 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 encline to the affirmative, That new groſſe ſins committed, make void the pardon of all former ſins, ſo that all his by-paſt 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 Gods 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 by-paſt ſins are virtually contained in the following ſin, as if by a new ſin a mans ingratitude is ſo great, that he becomes as guilty, as if he had all his former ſins incumbent on him. But whatſoever mens judgments are, the Scripture-expreſſions about pardon of ſin, which are, The remembring of them no more, The blotting of them out, and throwing them into the bottom of the ſea, &c. 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 righteouſneſſe, and commit iniquity, his righteouſneſſe ſhall not be mentioned, but he ſhall die in his ſin. Quid clarius? ſ…ith Bellarmine: What is more clear then 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 joyn, 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 meer extrinſecal 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 Gods predeſtination and Covenant of Grace, he cannot, yet that is meerly 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 mans eſtate; for there ſaith the Text, If the wicked leave his wickedneſſe, 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 Gods 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 extrinſecal 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 ſhewed 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 ſhew, 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, unleſſe 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, Chriſts interceſſion is effectual for him. Though he be a Prodigal living with Swine, and upon husks, yet he is a Sonne ſtill, Quod Chriſtus naturâ, nos gratiâ, as Chriſt is perpetually the Sonne of God by nature, ſo we in him, and by him, are alwayes the ſons of Grace; and the perpetuity or ſtability of our Juſtification, is not founded upon any thing in us, but upon Gods 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 Gods gracious Covenant, the principles of Grace are more firmly infixed and rooted in a godly mans ſoul, then his ſoul in his body. Ʋt 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 groſſe ſins, without a merciful ordering of them, even to the godly mans 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 Adams ſin, Foelix culpa, it was an happy fault, becauſe God wrought ſuch a good, the good of a Mediatour, which is a greater good then that ſin was; no queſtion but God can over rule the ſins of Gods people for their own advantage; as a godly man ſaid, He got more good by his ſins, then his Graces, Audeo dicere, &c. (ſaith Auſtin de civit. 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 Gods 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 fathers 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 hyſop, 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 kinde of hatred to their ſins, ſo that quodammodo fiunt inimici Dei. Now that the terrour of this condition may more faſten on the godly to make them cautelous againſt ſuch fals, let us conſider what particulars this general doth include.
And firſt it ſuppoſeth a preſent unfitneſs for the Kingdom of Heaven, or any gracious Priviledge. 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 woful is this to conſider, that ſuch a man, who had Gods gracious Scepter alwayes held out, to bid him come into his preſence, muſt now finde 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 ſate not according to his cuſtom at the Kings Table, it was excuſed, he had uncleanneſs upon him. Alas, it is a godly mans 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 priviledges, 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 bottome 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 Gods 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. Hearken then to Davids cryings and groanings, and take you heed how you abuſe the Grace of God, either doctrinally or practically to a ſecure committing of groſs ſinne. Be ſure (if ye belong to God) your ſinne will finde you out; and no Doctrine of free Grace, will be Altar or Sanctuary ſafe enough for you to hide your ſelves 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 its not the Spirit of God, that ſeals and comforts, but of Conviction and Humiliation. Now Chriſts bloud, which thou deſpiſedſt, doth ſpeak bitter things againſt thee. A drop of Gods anger fals into the conſcience of a godly man thus awakened, like a drop of ſcalding lead into a mans 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 bloudy husband.
3. Although he hath a right to the Covenant of Grace, to the priviledges 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 mans 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, then 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 Gods 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, then 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 two-fold 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, ought 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 Gods 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 wayes oppoſe one another; and becauſe of this later mercy, it is, that we may alwayes 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 repented of, he would be damned; For if you ſuppoſe a juſtified perſon to perſevere alwayes in groſs and vile ſins without reformation, you may as well ſuppoſe him to be damned. Hence there is, as ſome obſerve, a two-fold 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, &c. Yet Gods 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 two-fold 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 cals it ſo, and it would be very hard to ſay, That Juſtification is re-iterated as often as ſin is pardoned. Though therefore there may be ſome difference in the words, yet the matter it ſelf is clear, viz. There is a neceſſity of the removing of this guilt, that ſo the perſon offending may be brought into Gods favour again.
7. Seeing all this is true, then 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 errour in practice, to hold, That after a known ſinne 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 entred into the Covenant of Grace, upon the commiſſion of an actual known ſin, ought 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 ſhewed; and no ſin is pardoned before it be committed, as in the next Queſtion is to be ſhewed. So that it would be abominable preſumption, yea and falſhood to believe ſuch a thing. Hence ſuch a perſwaſion as this, God hath or will pardon my ſins, can bring no comfort or peace to our conſcience till we repent; for a Scripture perſwaſion 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 threatnings of God, to believe thoſe due to him. In the next place, Faith is to relie upon Chriſt for pardon, that he may receive remiſſion of ſins; for as Rivet and Perkins urge well, There is no pardon offered on Gods part, or received on mans, 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 avvay Juſtification. How can ſinne 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 meerly, it is not our act. We are ſaid to be juſtified, and God he doth juſtifie. 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 Gods 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 our ſelves 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, unleſſe it were to abide in him. Juſtification of a mans 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.