demning or adjudging to eternal wrath, as was said before. But if men will needs be dealt with according to the law, is it reasonable they take their hazard of all it says. Should the foresaid distinction be used (as it might be on the same grounds) for the comfort of a man, who having been frequently accused of treason, yet was still absolved; but now one treasonable act being proven against him, and he for the same condemned to die; would he not think you miserable comforters; and conclude himself to be in a state of condemnation? * 2. The Apostle Paul makes them inconsistent, Rom. viii. 33, 34. "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" viz. those of them that believe. Synec. generis. The interrogation is a strong denial. Q. d. None shall lay any thing to their charge. † The word encaleo here used, signifies to enter action or suit against a man in some open court. Now, if there be none to lay any thing to their charge, yea none so much as to enter action or suit against them de jure, then there can no sentence pass upon them, making them actually liable to eternal wrath. So saith Luther, "Every one that believeth on him, is righteous; the law cannot accuse him," &c. ‡ The Apostle goes on in his holy boasting, "It is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth?" says he. Nor Christ, he is our Advocate; not sin, for Christ "was made sin for us;" not the law, for Christ hath "fulfilled the law for us ;" not Satan, for God is his judge; and if he have acquitted us, what can the jailor DO? || We see the ground of the Apostle's boasting his justification before God. Q. d. God justifies us, Ergo, None can condemn us. Now, where lies the strength of this argument, if to justify and condemn be not inconsistent; or, which is all one, to be justified, and to be liable actually to eternal wrath? If believers may be so liable notwithstanding that they are justified, or in a state of justification, when the Apostle says, "Who is he that condemneth?" he may have an answer to his question. Yea, may the law say, I condemn him, for he lies under unrepented of sin, though he be a believer. "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" Yea, says Satan, I have unrepented of sin to lay to his charge. "But who is he that condemneth?" Why? here is the charge, his own conscience cannot deny it. The law then must condemn him, yea hath condemned already; for he is actually liable to eternal punishment, so that there remains nothing but the execution of the sentence. If any shall say, That the Apostle's meaning is, that howsoever the godly be condemned, reproached, &c. by the world, yet they have no ground to be discouraged, seeing God justifies them; I shall not quarrel it, so Com. in Gal. iv. 24. Piscat. schol, in loc. † Leigh's Crit. Sac. that it justle not out the other; which cannot rightly be done, as the context makes evident. See the golden chain, ver. 29 30. what, knits the links together, ver. 32. and how he goes on in that holy exultation, particularly in the two last verses of the chapter. The ground of non-condemnation here alleged, which is the death, and resurrection, and intercession of Christ, plainly teacheth the same. And indeed it had been small ground of boasting, if a man were still in hazard of the judgment of God, though he needed not fear the world's condemning him. In fine, the words are general; and it were too much boldness to restrict them. But what if God himself condemn them, or declare them actually liable to eternal wrath? then I say, the Apostle hath an answer to his question. And their is not so great cause of boasting of the privileges of believers; for if a man were freed from all hazard of angles, devils, and men, but yet liable to God's wrath, it is too great boldness to boast till that be But one would think, that the Apostle had sufficiently secured us against suspicion with respect to God, while he tells us, ver. 31. "If God be for us;" that is, seeing God is for us, as appears from the context: and so it is that God is for them; therefore they need not fear he will turn against them to condemn them. over. If it be said, Why may not the state of justification consist with a believer's being actually liable to eternal punishment upon the account of some particular sin unrepented of, as well as a state of sanctification with the prevailing of some particular lust, or as well as health and sickness in the same body? I answer, the reason is plain: Because justification is a legal and judicial act, makes only a relative change, is perfected in an instant, and admits not of degrees but sanctification is a physical or hyperphysical work, makes a real change on a man's nature, is imperfect, and carried on by degrees. If a man be not perfectly justified, he is not justified at all; if the least unpardoned sin remain, the law condemns him for it, Gal. iii. 10. But a man may be holy, though not perfect; and in health, though not perfectly. Suppose a murderer to be lying in prison, dangerously wounded with the same sword where with he killed others. The libel is drawn up against him, consisting of several articles. The man hath both the physician and the advocate to employ. The physician sets to work, and by his medicine so prevails, that he cures his wounds, though not perfectly as yet; but he tells him, and that truly, he is in a state of health, though he goes halting, and that there is no fear of death. The advocate doth his part, and of twenty articles disproves nineteen; but as to the twentieth article, though he said much against it, yet he could not invalidate the proof of it; but thereupon he is condemned. He cannot say now to him, as the physician, that there is no fear of death. And the reason is obvious. OBJECT. 1. The command to repent, with respect to believers lying under unrepented of guilt, is prefixed to the promise of pardon, as is manifest in the church of Ephesus, Rev. ii. 4, 5; and the ground is general, Rev. iii. 19. "Whom I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous therefore and repent;" where repentance is put in as a necessary midst for removing of God's rebuke and quarrel, even from those whom he loveth. John keeps the same method, writing to believers, 1 John i. 9. "If we confess our sins, he is just to forgive." This is confirmed by the experience of the godly. Witness David, Psal. xxxii. 3, 4, 5. "I acknowledged my sin,—and thou forgavest," &c. Ergo. Answ. 1. That there is a necessary connection betwixt the pardon of sin and repentance, I grant: so that there is no pardoned sinner, but he is also a penitent; so that, sooner or later, virtually or expressly, whatever way sin be forgiven, it is also repented of. But will the objectors screw up this so high, as that no sin can be forgiven, unless it be expressly repented of? They cannot, surely, as long as that remains true, "Who can understand his errors?" Psal. xix. 12. And so we must admit of virtual repentance in the first scripture, and virtual confession in the two last. Which I say still is beside the question. And therefore, if they mind to prove any thing here by these scriptures cited, they will prove to much, viz. That express repentance is necessary to pardon; which is contrary to the scripture cited before. For if a sin be not known, it cannot be expressly repented of. And yet no doubt they must say, that a sin unknown may be pardoned. E. g. Jacob lives in polygamy, and that with two sisters; he could not expressly repent of it, not knowing it to be a sin, as is commonly said: yet this sin was no doubt pardoned, and Jacob saved. Then virtual repentance was sufficient, which Jacob never wanted, unless he lost the habits of grace; which I hope our adversaries will not say. As for the prefixing of the command to repent unto the promise of pardon, it can of itself have little weight, in regard the order of words is not always the order of the things themselves. So Mark i. 15. repentance is prefixed to faith; though it is evident, that, in order of nature, it follows the same, if it be understood of gospel-repentance. See 2 Cor. vii. 10, 11. But of this perhaps more afterwards. But, 2. I deny the consequence of this argument; which I conceive may be, and must be thus framed categorically. Repentance must go before pardon; but pardon is the removal of the obligation to eternal wrath: Ergo. Now, the minor, if understood of the elect entering into a state of justification, is true; but so it hits not the point in hand. But if understood of those that are already justified, or in a justified state, it is false; pardon to them being nothing else but either the sense of pardon, or the taking off of temporal strokes, or relaxation of temporary punishment or chastisements. Which interpretation the instances adduced do very fairly accept of. In the church of Ephesus there were some under a decay of their love. What were they liable to upon the account of it? Not to hell-fire; but to a famine of the word, a removing of the candlestick; that, being pinched with want, they may learn not to loathe the heavenly manna; which God threatens actually to accomplish unless they repent, and that according to the tenor of the covenant, Psal. lxxxix. 31, 32. And what else mean these words in the objection, "Whom I love ?"-where repentance is put in as a necessary midst for removing of God's rebuke and quarrel. I cheerfully yield it. But assuredly there is a vast difference betwixt God's removing of his rebuke and quarrel, and his taking off the obligation to eternal wrath; unless it be that God cannot rebuke but as a judge. In that scripture it is plain the exhortation is to repentance; and the argument used to enforce it, is very plain to our purpose, viz. "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten, unless they repent; but ye are they whom I love: therefore unless you repent, be sure I will rebuke and chasten you. As to that, 1 John i. 9. that he writes to believers, is plain, as we shall hear more afterwards; and it receives the same answer, viz. That they are to confess in order to the removal of temporary wrath. It is evident, that David's case, Psal. xxxii. is thus to be understood, of the removal of temporary strokes or chastisements. The words are, NaSatha Gna Von Chattathi.* The word Nasa properly signifies levavit, to take off, or ease people of burdens; and so David says, ver. 4, "Thy hand was heavy on me." The lifting off that heavy hand, which was but the hand of a father, is then the forgiving of sin, or lifting it off. Gna Von is rendered iniquity, according to the proper signification of the word; for it denotes the crookedness and vitiosity of the action: but it must be expounded of punishment, metonymically, as it is frequently used. So the old translation reads it, Thou forgavest the punishment, &c. Amesius reads it, Sustulisti pœnam peccati mei. And so it must needs be understood, whatever way it be translated: for God never takes away the crookedness or vitiosity of sin, for that were to make it no sin; but he takes away the punishment of it. Now, this we heard before was God's hand that was heavy on him; yet the hand of a father, * Leigh's Crit. not of a judge. Compare Psal. xxv. 18. "Look upon mine affliction, and my pain, and forgive all my sins. Then, says Mr. Rutherford, sin here is pardoned only according to the present pain and grief of body and soul that was on David. ** OBJECT. 2. Nathan tells David, upon his confession, and taking with guilt, that his sin was pardoned, or put away, 2 Sam. xii. 13. "The Lord also hath put away thy sin; and yet, ver. 9, 11, 12, 14. he threatens him with temporal strokes. Now, this putting away of sin, must be either as to the obligation to eternal or to temporal wrath. It cannot be the latter, because we see plainly he lies under the same: therefore the first must be said. Now, let it be marked, when it is said to be put away, even after his confession, and taking with the guilt; therefore he was actually liable to eternal wrath before his confession; and so believers lying under unrepented of sin, are actually liable to eternal punishment. ANSW. In the first place, It cannot be denied, but that these words are the words of Nathan, declaring by the Spirit what God had done for David; and so they are not a formal pardon, but an intimation of pardon. Now, there is a great difference betwixt these two. But if the conclusion be valid, it must be drawn from the formal forgiveness of sin after confession, which doth not at all appear here; and not from the intimation of it at that time: for a man may be freed in foro Dei from guilt, and yet not have it intimated to him, till some time after, and particularly till he be in the exercise of repentance; yet is he not therefore liable to eternal wrath before the Lord till that time. In the next place, It comes to be considered, in what sense David's sin is said to be put away. In respect simply of the actual obligation to eternal wrath, say the objectors. Giving, though not granting it to be so, it remains still, that here is the intimation of pardon only. And truly David's conscience being now awake, and accusing him of these gross abominations of murder and adultery, it was no wonder if he lost his sight of his interest in Christ and his justification. This being supposed, such an intimation of pardon was most seasonable, that he might have somewhat to keep him from desponding. And this intimation made by the ministry of Nathan, with some measure of the Spirit's light illustrating this, though but, as it were, with a dawning light, and some secret underpropping, was sufficient for this; though a greater influence of the Spirit was necessary in order to the full establishment of his heart in this truth which the Prophet told him. This then being supposed, we may thence judge his sin to have been pardoned before. So Luke vii. 48. Christ saith to the woman, |