"Thy sins are forgiven." Of this woman it is said, that "she washed Christ's feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head." After this Christ tells her, that "her sins are forgiven." But this is nothing else than an intimation of the pardon granted before her washing Christ's feet with her tears, &c. as is evident from ver. 47. But of this more afterwards. Hemmingius* speaking of David in this case, tells us, there were in him horrible terrors, and extreme fears; for he did fear everlasting punishment: but hearing this voice of the Prophet by the commandment of God, "Thou shalt not die, the Lord hath put away thy sin," he turneth again unto the Lord, and repenteth; he hateth his sin, he fleeth unto mercy by faith. Ye see in what order the learned man placeth David's pardon and repentance; and how he supposeth him under fear of everlasting punishment. But, if I mistake not, acute Bezat will not grant so much: for, says he, "When David and Peter fell so beastly, yet there is no doubt but they lamented and sorrowed, till they felt the working of their generation and sanctification: but being in their temptation, they stayed themselves upon the anchor of the testimony which the Spirit of God brought into their conscience; which caused them not to doubt, (notwithstanding their fall), but that they were the children. of God, and that their fault was forgiven them." Thirdly, But why must it needs be understood of putting away his sin touching the obligation to eternal wrath, and not with respect to temporary and and fatherly displeasure and chastisments? Because, say they, he still lies under temporary wrath. Let us hear holy and learned Mr. Rutherford's judgment in this case. Having laid down this assertion, Sins of youth already pardoned as touching the obligation to eternal wrath, may so rise against the child of God, as he hath need to ask forgiveness of them, as touching the removing of present wrath, sense of the want of God's presence, of the influence of his love, the cloud of sadness and deadness, &c.; he adds, enlarging on the same, "We may well say, that God pardoneth sin, when he removeth temporary wrath. So 2. Sam. xii. 13. Nathan saith to David, "The Lord also hath put away thy sin." Why? "Thou shalt not die." This is meant of temporal death especially, as the context cleareth, ver. 10. "The sword shall not depart from thine house;" and ver. 14. "The child born unto thee shall surely die." Then the Lord's putting away of David's sin, was in loosing him from the sword, in his own person, not in his house and children."

'Com. on Jam. ii. digress. concerning repentance. † Confess. point. 4. art. 20. Christ's dying and drawing, p. 34.

ibid, 35, 36.

And herein do I cheerfully acquiesce. We say then, that this putting away of David's sin respects temporary wrath, though David be yet threatened with it. Now, in that temporary wrath which believers lay themselves open to by their sins, there are several particular strokes; but none of them any way for the satisfying of justice, but for correcting the offender, the terror of others, &c. And therefore the executive pardon here is capable of degrees, and may be remitted or intended, as the Lord sees meet. So that the alleviating of the chastisement, or relaxation of the fatherly punishment due to David for his murder and adultery, is that which is holden forth in these words, The Lord also hath put away thy sin;" not excluding, but rather including the other. And thus David's case herein was as of a man who by the law is punishable by death, but is only actually punished with banishment. To this purpose the worthy author just now named, explains it, and I think has proven it. I add, that it further appears, if we consider and compare ver. 5. with the text. While the thing is kept in thesi, David himself pronounceth the sentence on the guilty person, not knowing as yet on whose head it would alight: "The man that hath done this, shall surely die." Now, when Nathan tells him flatly, that he was the man, he found, that by his own sentence he was condemned to death; and he knowing that sentence to be according to the law of God in the case of the murderer and adulterer, it may well be supposed, that he concluded, that if men would not execute the sentence, God himself would do it. Wherefore it answers aptly to the sentence passed against himself by him, and exalts the mercy of of God towards him: "He shall die," said he. "Thou shalt not die," says Nathan. Consider also the antithesis, ver. 13, 14, "Thou shalt not die. Howbeit the child shall die; not an eternal, but a temporal death. There was great reason for both. The text tells us expressly the reason why the child should die; even because David by that deed had given great occasion to the enemy to blaspheme. Wherefore the Lord (to speak so) behoved to vindicate the glory of his holy name, shewing that sin was displeasing to him in whomsoever it be found. The other is not without great reason likewise for God had promised to him, 2 Sam. vii. 12. that his seed, viz. Solomon, who was not yet begotten, should sit in his throne, and build the Lord's house; therefore he must not die; it was inconsistent with the faithfulness of God. That the Lord's putting away of sin, should be thus expounded of the relaxation of temporal punishment, needs not seem strange for so it is used elsewhere in the scriptures, Neh. ix. 17, 18, 19. "But thou art (or wast) a God ready to pardon." How? Thou" forsookest them not in the

The

wilderness." Yet who knows not what strokes those people met with in the wilderness? But herein was pardoning mercy; the Lord forsook them not, he did not cast off his care of them, as a people peculiar to himself. We may see this yet more plainly Num. xiv. where let it be considered, what the Lord threatens that people with. It is death in the wilderness; "I will smite them with the pestilence," &c. ver. 12. "If thou shalt kill all this people, as one man," says Moses, ver. 15. "Moses in his prayer asks forgiveness for them;""Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people," ver. 19; he prevails, " And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word." But mark what follows: "Because they have tempted me these ten times, surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers." Now, what is their pardon they get, but the relaxation we speak of? They are freed from death, but are kept out of the land of Canaan, for their sin so pardoned. And David himself tells us of this way of the Lord's dealing with him, Psal. cxviiii. 18. "The Lord hath chastened me sore, but he hath not given me over unto death." same way is that to be understood, Psal. xcix. 8. "Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions." Compare Psal. exvi. 43, 44. "They were brought low for their iniquity; nevertheless he regarded their affliction," &c. . OBJECT. 3. If believers lying under unrepented of sin be not liable actually to eternal wrath, what need is there of Christ's intercession? Yet John, 1 Epist. ii. 1. when he is directing believers what course to take for the pardon of their sin, he tells them of "an Advocate with the father" whom they are to employ; but what needs he an advocate, who is not liable to the lash of the law? To this I answer, 1. The object of Christ's intercession is confined within too narrow limits, if it be supposed only to be employed for the obtaining of the pardon of sin. Christ prayed for Peter, that his "faith might not fail." See John xiv. per totum. He intercedes always for his people, in whatever case they be; and I think it will not be denied, but that the benefits we enjoy, most of them come by Christ's intercession. 2. The pardon of sin, as it denotes the taking away of an actual obligation to temporary wrath, either in a total removal of the same, or a relaxation thereof, is not such a small thing as to be so overlooked. God's deserting of the soul, shooting his arrows against them, are not easy to the godly; and that they have Christ to employ for the removal of these, is no small ground of comfort 2. There is great fallacy in that which is said, that a man not liable to eternal wrath needs not an advocate. If it be meant of liableness thereto in actu primo, it is true. But who

denies that they are so liable? If they mean it of liableness thereto in actu secundo, it is false; for advocates use not to be employed for reversing a sentence of death, but to hinder it from passing. And upon this ground I say, that this doctrine is very far from invalidating the necessity of Christ's intercession; yea, it is indeed founded on the intercession of Christ: Rom. viii. 34. "Who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died;-who also maketh intercession for us." And, if I mistake not, this scripture used against us, affords us a solid argument against the doctrine of our adversaries in this point. Which ye may take thus: Those who have always an Advocate at the right hand of the Father, who hath undertaken their defence, and never fails to gain his point, their cause cannot go wrong in heaven; but whenever an accusation comes in against them, he will undertake their cause, so that it cannot come to a sentence against them; which is the only thing that can make them actually liable to wrath: but if believers sin, they have such an Advocate: Ergo. And it is worthy of our consideration, that our Advocate is called "Jesus Christ the righteous, "But he is not (says Zanchius*) a just advocate who defends an unjust cause: but Christ defends our cause, because he is our Advocate, and he is a just Advocate. John therefore teaches, that our cause which Christ defends, is just." So he. Now, where lies the justice of the cause?-in our repentance? No; in that Christ became liable for us, and hath paid the debt, and satisfied justice; and we are now one with him. And if our cause be just, how can it go to a sentence against us, though it never be executed? A just judge will no more pass a sentence against one that has a just cause, than he will execute it. And truly it seems, that those who will have such a sentence to pass against a believer in the court of heaven, though they believe it will never be executed, do not deeply consider Christ's sitting continually at the Father's right hand, and exhibiting the merits of his death and sufferings: for if this be, how can any accusation that comes in against them proceed so far? For, as one says well, he interupts the accusation, and strikes in for us, Heb. vii. 25. because he hath not only died for us, and risen for us, but he follows the business to the utmost. If he does not thus effectually stop sentence passing against us, it must either be because he cannot, or because he will not. The first is more than absurd; if the latter be said, it is like it will be alleged that it is because we do not employ him, and so the oil must come from earth to anoint the wheels of his compassion towards those persons, for whom he poured out his blood while they were yet enemies. And if his in† Cotton in loc.

Com. in loc.

tercession in this case depends upon our motion, why not in other cases also? And so we shall never exercise faith nor repentance more: but these are undeniably the fruits of his intercession, as well as freedom from condemnation; for we cannot employ him but by faith. If any shall say, that if Christ's intercession do stop the sentence of eternal wrath's passing, why does it not hinder the believer's actual liableness to temporary strokes? I answer, The reason is obvious; because temporary strokes to believers are merely correctory, and, according to God's dispensation, cannot be wanted, Is. xxvii. 6; but eternal wrath is not so. And I think it is no solecism to say, that as the taking off of temporal strokes in due time, so the laying them on in due season, is a fruit of Christ's intercession.

OBJECT. ult. This doctrine opens a gap to licentiousness and carnal security, and therefore cannot be of God. ANSW. I take notice, that the Apostle hath the same objected to him against this doctrine, Rom. vi. 15. and therefore I say, with him, God forbid, &c. But, 1. In such sins as so waste the conscience that they blind men as to their state, there is no place for this objection; tor then the man looks on himself de facto as liable to eternal wrath; but de jure he cannot so look on himself. And why should this seem strange for "will a man speak wickedly for God?" 2. Is not the same objection to be retorted on the adversaries who side not with Arminians, &c.? does not their doctrine upon the same ground lie open to this calumny? for, according to them, the punishment shall never be executed. If a man had the privilege that he should never be actually liable to capital punishment, then you will say, that man may do what he pleaseth without control, I say, on the other hand, if a man be so privileged, as that although ten thousand sentences of death pass upon him, yet they shall never be executed, upon the same ground he may do what he pleaseth: for, at most, there is but magis and minus betwixt them, quæ non variant speciem; and so they shall both be licentious doctrines, though the one more than the other. 3. I suppose it can scarcely be denied, but that temporal strokes, or the fear of them, may be curbs to our licentious humours suo quodam modo; though, without restraining grace, the fear of ten thousand hells will not be sufficient to hold in a man from the pursuit of his lusts. But why may not fear of death help to keep the church from murmuring at cross dispensations in life, Lam. iii. 39. and the fear of a whale's belly the second time make Jonah to go to Nineveh? That which truly seems to be the ground of this objection, is, the not considering what is the extent and power of God's fatherly displeasure to which believers are made