The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted and Vindicated, Lecture 28
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 it ſelf [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 Authours, who ſeem to encline 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, unleſſe 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 then to ſay, they are forgiven. Doctor Twiſſe, Vindic. Gratiae, pag. 82. de Eurat. lib. 3. Quid ſi dicam in Juſtificatione nostra, &c. What if I ſay, in Juſtification, we receive the forgiveneſſe of our ſins, not only that are paſt, but of future alſo, that is, we are made more certain of their forgiveneſſe. For (ſaith he) that internal act of God, whereby he doth remit ſins, cannot be renewed in God. Certiſſimum eſſe judico, &c. 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 Authour going upon thoſe two grounds, 1. That Pardon of ſinne is an immanent act in God. 2. That application of Pardon to us, is no more then 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 repented 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 foreign, pag. 467 replieth, Imo id nos abſurdiſſimum credimus, &c. 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 ſinne 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, &c. 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 Gods part to us, nor on our part received without Faith and Repentance. When Thomſon in his Diatriba, had made mention of an anſwer formed 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. cals 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 repented 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 remembring our iniquities no more, and blotting them all out, is to be thus farre 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 two-fold, partly becauſe the ſame Grace and love of God which moveth him to blot out one, will alſo ſtirre 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 wayes, 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 Gods 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 repented of, are forgiven unto him.
The firſt ground is from thoſe places which preſume and neceſſarily ſuppoſe ſinne 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 Chriſts bloud, 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 foreign, not to be pardon, but connivance, as if the ſenſe were, God did paſſe by the ſins of our Fathers before Chriſts coming, and did not manifeſt his wroth in a Sacrifice expiatory of their ſins, till Chriſt himſelf came and ſuffered upon the Croſs: So he makes this foreign here, with that which is called foreign, 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, wherby they have ſinned againſt me, and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have ſinned, and whereby they have tranſgreſſed againſt me. Its of what they have done, not of what they ſhall do.
A ſecond ſort of Arguments, is from the expreſſions Gods word uſeth about Pardon; All which do ſuppoſe, That ſinne goeth before, and that God doth not antidate 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 regiſtred in Gods 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 threatning manner. Covering of ſin, How can that be underſtood, if ſin be not with ſome loathſomnes? 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 confeſſe our ſins, he is faithful to pardon. Now confeſſion is alwayes 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 Davids, Ezrahs, Nehemiahs, Daniels, 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 mans 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 foreign, to be wiſe and underſtand after the fact is done, and foreign, 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 repented 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 beleeved, 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 beleeving 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 repented of. Therefore none may either beleeve or claim ſuch a thing. The grand charter or priviledge 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 Gods waies. 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 priviledges 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 Gods grace wrought in them. We do not theref…re 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 cavill: 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 childrens meat to dogs.
Fifthly, If a man may believe his ſins are pardoned, before they be committed, and ſo before repented of, then 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 alway follow, yet it may follow, and happily it is our weakneſs, if it do… …ot. And if ſo, then it was Davids 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. Cornwel of Goſpel-Repentance, pag. 125. How contrary is this to Davids experience, Pſal. 32. who, while he humbled not himſelf for his ſin, found nothing but terrour and trouble in his own ſoul? And certainly this Doctrine muſt be very diſtaſtfull 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 ſhew 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 errour, for although he ſaid, He would rejoyce in God, and glory in his ſalvation, Hab. 3.8, 9. in the midſt of Gods judgements upon the publike: yet this doth not ſuppoſe any perſonal grievous ſins he was fallen into.
Sixtly, If ſins be pardoned thus before committed and repented of, then 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 it ſelf. Although there can hardly be an inſtance in all Scripture given of ſuch a Petition. We do not reade 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 perſwaded 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 mans 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 mans future ſins be pardoned before they be committed, then a reprobate mans ſins ſhall be puniſhed before they be. Now how contrary is this to Gods diſpenſation revealed in the Scripture? Where can we finde any one man puniſhed for a future ſin? Were not all the ſins men are afflicted for in Gods 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 it ſelf, 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, Gods internal will to pardon is an immanent act, and therefore from all eternity, will it not as well follow, Gods 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 Gods 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 repented of.
The reſult of this whole truth is, by way of Uſe,Ʋſe. to admoniſh us, That we make not any Doctrine about grace in the genious 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 oyl to mollifie the wounds of the ſoul; it is wine to make the heart glad, and rejoyce in God. Do not while you promiſe your ſelves 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 fals 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 haſt 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 Gods 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 alwaies glad tidings, and thou canſt not abide the precepts or threatnings, becauſe they ſpeak hard things to thee. There may be a carnal Goſpeller, as well as a Popiſh Legalist.