has been in a great mistake, while he tells us, that all his members were written in God's book, when as yet THERE WAS NONE OF

THEM.

OBJECT. 2. Other scriptures purposely speaking of the forgiveness of sins have a restrainedness unto sins committed, and look only at them, Jer. xxxiii. 8, whereby they have sinned,—have transgressed. Mark, have sinned, and have transgressed, respecting the sins past, not what they shall commit, Ezek. xviii. 22. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him. 1 John ii. 1. If any man sin; as if sin must be committed before he make intercession for the pardon of it. So in the Old Testament there was no sacrifice for any future sin.

ANSWER As for the first two scriptures, that they have a respect to past sins, I do not deny; but that they respect these only is said, not proven. If they be restrained to past sius, what comes of present sins, the second member of this tripartite division, very little, if at all, used, for anything that I have yet learned, by any but those of late? others that went before, being content with the phrase of pardon of sin, simply, or all sin, universally, as the scripture speaks. "It hath been (says Isaac Ambrose) commonly said by some of our best divines, that justification is transacted in our first union and incorporation into Christ; at which time it is conceived, that the pardon of all sin is sealed to the believer at once." If then it be restrained, I say, to sins past, then this assertion is false, That all sins, past, and present, are forgiven at once; which the adversaries themselves do hold true. But these clauses, have sinned, and bave transgressed, are plainly set down, not to distinguish their past and present, from their future sins; that would have been but small comfort to a man with a deceitful heart, that is ever sinning; but to press the sense of their sins upon their consciences, and to hold them before their eyes, that they might be the more affected therewith, and see the grace of God in Christ more. If we must consider that, Ezek. xviii. 22. all his transgressions that he hath commited, they shall not be mentioned; pray take in likewise the following clause, In the righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Here are sins that he hath committed; and righteousness that he hath done. If the sins that he hath committed be exclusive, in point of remission, of the sins he shall commit; then his righteousness that he hath done, which must be understood, in a gospel sense, of the righteousness of Christ received by faith, must, by virtue of the antithesis, be exclusive of the righteousness he shall do, in point of pardon, or legal life. And so the doctrine of obtaining the pardon

of future sins by the renewed acts of faith and repentance, falls to the ground: their life being appropriated to the righteousness they have done, as much as the not mentioning of their sins is to those that they have committed. Let no man tell me here, that the Lord is speaking to them in the tenor of the covenant of works, and according to the law, I acknowledge, that the phrase of doing righteousness, looks like the legal dispensation of the covenant of grace under the Old Testament. But the law strictly so called, or the covenant of works, knows nothing of repentance and turning from sin, nor of the pardon of sin, here mentioned. Nay, though a man under the influence of the covenant of works could turn from sin indeed, that covenant would not allow his former sins not to be mentioned. As for that place, 1 John ii. 1. it makes nothing against us, in regard the Apostle is there speaking of believers who have an Advocate with the Father, and are actually pardoned as to the obligation to eternal wrath, but do fall under God's fatherly displeasure by their after sins, for removal of which they must employ the Advocate. But take it as ye will, there is no necessity of the actual commission of sin before intercession can be made anent it, no more than before satisfaction be made for it. But this was spoken to at large already. As to what is said of the sacrifices under the Old Testament, we are sure of two things; First, That they were types of the true sacrifice, the Lord Jesus. Christ himself, as suffering for sinners; Secondly, That the sacrifice of Christ was for all sins, past, present, and to come; and therefore the believing Jews who were taught the mystery of Christ behoved to understand it so.

OBJECT. 3. Those qualifications which God himself makes with respect to the forgiveness of sins do necessarily suppose a precedent commission of them: 2 Chron. vii. 14. "If my people-shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face," &c. 1 John i. 9. "If we confess," &c. Prov. xxviii. 13. "He that confesseth and forsaketh shall find mercy." Acts iii. 19. "Repent ye,-that your sins may be blotted out." Doth God put us to humble our hearts to pray for the pardon of sins not yet committed? Would he have us to confess and forsake those sins? Wherefore, if these things be required for forgiveness, and yet respect only sins that are past, as indeed they do, all are not pardoned at once.

ANSWER. Somewhat of this nature I have met with before in the first objection against the first question. I think it strange, that men, when they hear the pardon of sin spoken of in any place of scripture do presently fancy to themselves, that is the taking off the obligation to eternal wrath. As for that 2 Chron. vii. 14. it

relates to the taking off of temporary strokes from the people, as is evident from the text. "I will forgive their sin." How? "I will heal their land." What is the disease? The shutting up of heaven that there is no rain, &c. So Rutherford expounds it. And that forgiveness they might have, and no doubt some had, and yet lie under God's wrath for ever. But suppose it did relate to the pardon of sin in the sense pleaded for, there are more conditional qualifications here, than the adversaries themselves will readily require as absolutely necessary. There is prayer made in the temple, ver. 14, 15. which I hope they will not say was, even under the Old Testament, necessary simply for the pardon of sin. The second scripture alleged I have already spoken to, and may afterwards speak to it further. The last of them will also be considered afterwards. Wherefore I leave them for the time. As for that, "He that confesseth and forsaketh, shall have mercy;" it seems to be that which hath most weight for that which is pleaded; but yet the weakness of it, we hope, will appear. That the argument then may be the more closely answered, I shall reduce it into this form. The soul's humbling of itself, confessing, forsaking, and turning from sin, respect only sins past, and cannot be where sin is not actually committed; but these qualifications mentioned, are necessarily required to the obtaining of the pardon of sin: Ergo. No sin can be pardoned till it be committed, and so all is not pardoned at once. I distinguish the major, The soul's humiliaation, confessing, and forsaking, &c. considered and taken explicitly, respect only sins past, and cannot be where sin is not actually committed; I grant: considered virtually, they respect only sins past, &c. I deny; for so they reach to future sins also. Apply this distinction to the minor: These qualifications are necessarily required to the obtaining of the pardon of sin, if they be taken explicitly, I deny; and so will our antagonists, so long as that remains true, "Who can understand his errors?" That they are requisite as considered virtually, transeat. But what can be made of that against us? Nothing at all in the point in hand: for this virtual humbling, confessing, &c. takes in future sins as well as past sins, and present, which we know not: for a man who is truly humbled for one sin, is virtually humbled for all, past, present, and to come; seeing he is humbled for it, confesseth, forsaketh, and turns. from it as sin; for a qua tali ad omne valet consequentia. Will our adversaries deny, that a believer's future sins are virtually pardoned upon his first entry into the state of justification? If they be vir

Christ's dying, p. 36.

tually pardoned, why not virtually confessed and forsaken, especially seeing they make confession, &c. so necessary antecedently to pardon. And truly this may as well be said of future sins, as of those sins which we neither know, nor yet shall ever after know in time; for as to us De non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio. Thus I think the weakness of this argument doth sufficiently appear. I shall not further meddle with the assumption here; but in what sense we understand repentance to relate to the pardon of sin, will afterwards be declared.

OBJECT. 4. If all sins, past, present, and to come, are forgiven at once unto believers, then no believer is to pray unto God for the forgiveness of any sin which he commits, after he is once brought into Christ; yet Jesus Christ doth teach even believers to pray, "Forgive us our trespasses," Matth. vi. 12; Luke xi. 4. To this may be added for confirmation, that the children of God do accordingly pray daily for the pardon of sin, as may be seen every where in the lives of the saints.

ANSWER. 1. Our Lord here teacheth believers to pray for the sense of pardon, and manifestation of the same to their own souls; and that prayer suits believers very well, though all their sins, past, present, and to come, are already pardoned before the Lord in the sense pleaded for. And though it may be hard to find where pardon is used precisely for the manifestation thereof, yet he is a great stranger in the scripture who knows not, that therein things are frequently said to be or be done, when the same is only manifested. We find the Apostle tells us, that "Abraham was justified by works," not formally, but manifestatively; his justification which he had long before, being then plainly evidenced. But as for those who are of opinion, that there is no pardon mentioned in the scriptures, but what respects the obligation to eternal wrath, there needs to be no great difficulty in finding such a place as may convince them, that pardon is used sometimes for the sense or manifestation of pardon precisely and only; and which may rationally convince any man, that pardon is not always taken for the removal of the obligation to eternal wrath, formally considered; Matth. vi. 14. "For if ye forgive men their traspasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." Not unlike to this is that, Luke vi. 37. "Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." We may see plainly here, that our forgiveness is required as previous to God's forgiveness; and the following verse tells us, that their can be no hope of forgiveness, so long as we do not forgive others. Mark, to whom he speaks; even to be

James ii. 21.

lievers, who may call God Father; yet, under a temptation, may be led away with a revengeful spirit against those who have done them wrong; but till they lay it down, God will not forgive them. Now, will any man who is orthodox, suspend our formal remission of sin at the hand of God, on our remission of offences done to us, as previous to God's formal act of removing the obligation to eternal wrath? This the Papists would indeed have to establish our justification by works. But the scripture teacheth us, that God's forgiving us formally considered, is the cause of our forgiving others; and so must go before it, as the cause before the effect. A judicious interpreter tells us, that our remission is posterior to the divine remission; as Christ teacheth in the parable of the king and the servants, Matth. xviii.; for the king forgave first, the servant behoved to forgive after: "I forgave thee all that debt, shouldst thou not also have had compassion on thy fellow-servant?" And a little after, pursuing the cause against the Papists, he will not so much as yield it to be a cause of remission sine qua non. Baynt speaks very

pithily to the same purpose: "Our forgiving (says he) followeth, and doth not go before forgiveness (divine): for none can forgive his brother, that doth not love his brother, none can love his brother truly, that loveth not God; none can love God, but those that are first loved of him, and have their sins covered by him. And this forgiveness of God is an action of his simul et semel." And afterwards he concludes; "When the scripture therefore bids us forgive that we may be forgiven, it meaneth the sense, that we may feel sealed to our spirits of God's pardon." Now if it be not a formal remission touching the obligation to eternal wrath, and yet all pardon have respect to that obligation, it must needs be understood of the manifestation of that pardon. Seeing then the scripture mentioned is an argument to enforce the duty injoined in the petition, it is very reasonable, that we understand the petition the same way; as we said before, that we are here taught to pray for the sense of pardon, not for a formal pardon, as it respects eternal wrath. And we prove it by the argument used already, thus the forgiveness mentioned in this petition is posterior to our forgiving others; but it is the manifestation of forgiveness, not the formal pardon, that is posterior to our forgiveness: Ergo. The assumption is proven already. I prove the proposition: First, We seek this remission as a benefit we yet want, but speak of our remission as a duty we in the present do. Secondly, How can we seek of God, that he would forgive us as we forgive others, if we have not

Pareus in loc.

† Com. on Eph. iv. 32. p. 569.