sins, nothing is. It is certain, that remembering cannot be properly attributed to God; but God is then said to remember sins, when he does that which men do when they remember the faults of others. And who will not say, that a judge remembers a malefactor's crime, when he hath passed the sentence of death on him; or a bankrupt's debt, when he obligeth him to pay the same by a judicial sentence? Say not, that remembrance of sin is sometimes put for the punishment of it, therefore it must be so understood in this matter: for though I will not deny but it is so taken in the scripture; yet to fasten that upon the promises of pardon, touching the obligation to eternal wrath, is dangerous; in regard that then ye must assert, that what evil is inflicted on the elect unconverted, is laid on them by way of vindictive justice, and for satisfaction; which is too much positively to determine. It clearly follows, in regard the not remembering of sin is a privilege which is new, and supposeth that God remembered their sin before; not only does he promise not to remember them, but to remember them no more; Jer. xxxi. 34; Heb. viii. 12. Which confirms what was before said of the Lord's remembering the sins of the elect unconverted; and further plainly lets us see, that God will alter his former course and way of dealing with them in respect of their sins. So much does that NO MORE import evidently; as Job xxxiv. 32. "If I have done iniquity, I will do No MORE." Ezek. xxi. ult. "Thou shalt be NO MORE remembered." Now, what was God's way of dealing with them before they were brought into covenant? It was not to send them to hell for their sins; but it was not to pardon them, but to let them lie under the sentence of eternal wrath, ay and until they made application to Christ by faith, and repented them of their sins likewise, as some say; on what grounds we shall see afterwards. And where is there any alteration of the Lord's way of dealing with them, if their sins remain still unpardoned as to the obligation to eternal wrath, till they again believe and repent? It is still, I hope, the same faith and the same repentance. There is no doubt, but there is a vast difference betwixt the Lord's way of dealing with the elect unconverted and converted, considered in bulk, even by this way of our adversaries. But as to the precise point of the pardon of sins, of which alone we now speak, there is no difference at all left. Yet this promise holds out a quite contrary course, as is declared. Further, the scripture speaking of the pardon of sin, extends it to all sin, without distinction, Ezek. xxxvi. 25. Ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. That this is a promise of justifica- tion, and pardon of sin, in the removal of the guilt of it, is plain, as the following promise is of sanctification. And so Sedgwick, no friend to this doctrine, understands it. And on the text, indeed, if that be not a promise of pardon, there is none there. It will perhaps be said, that this promise secures the believer of the pardon of all his sins sooner or later, but not together and at once. But pray let it be considered, that the text tells us expressly, that it shall be then when he "sprinkles clean water on them, gives them a new heart, takes away the stoney heart," &c.; which is undeniably then when they are first brought into Christ. If you say, it respects only sins that are committed; I answer, Non distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit. But then future sins are not comprehended here and what have they then to lippen to for the pardon of these sins? It must surely be a great strait that will drive men to exclude hence the pardon of future sins; and if they will suffer them to be included, I say again, the text tells us when this cleansing shall be. The Apostle Paul delivers the same doctrine, Col. ii. 13. "quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; where we see all trespasses simply were forgiven them when they were quickened with Christ.* Upon this text saith a judicious commentator, But that we are quickened to eternal life, is evident from this, that all sins are forgiven on which our eternal death did depend. Now, I say, it is as evident that our death depended on all our sins, past, present, and to come; for it was all these that were the cause of Christ's death. And this the subsequent verse doth confirm. I shall only add that scripture, Num. xxiii. 21. "He beholdeth not iniquity, neither does he see perverseness in Israel;" thus read and cited by Amesiust upon this head. Upon which he saith, "Because justification hath left no place to condemnation ;" and tells us, that future sins are pardoned in the subject, or person sinning. It is true, he calls this pardon of future sins but a virtual pardon: but, if I mistake not, it is the very same thing that we assert. ARGUMENT II. Let us take a view of the sacraments, and see how they favour this full remission at once. The pardon of sin is at least among the first of the benefits of the covenant, sealed by the sacraments; and surely, if the sacraments seal the pardon of all sins, past, present, and to come, they are all pardoned; for God sets not his seal but to a truth. Again, a seal presupposeth a deed done; for a thing must be before the being of it can be confirmed. This is so evident, that I cannot think how it can be The stress of the argument lies denied with any colour of reason. then in the proof of that, That the sacraments seal the pardon of sins, past, present, and to come. That they seal the pardon of sin, I mean in the lawful use of them, or when they are conferred on believers, I think none will deny amongst the orthodox; they who acknowledge them at all to be seals, will acknowledge this likewise. That they seal the pardon of all sins, past, present, and to come, the Scripture teacheth us, 1 Pet. iii. 21. "Baptism now saveth us." There are many opinions about the efficacy of the sacraments, and how baptism is said to save us, which I shall not now meddle with; but take for granted, what is proven by the learned among Protestant divines, That the efficacy of the sacraments doth consist in effectual obsignation and application. So then baptism saveth us from sin, in so far as it seals our salvation therefrom: but if we be for one moment under the guilt of it, where is our salvation from it? for one sin is damning as well as a thousand. Therefore all must be pardoned at once. And learned Rutherford doubts not to say,* that Christ communicates to believers at first such a remission as he hath obtained; but he hath, saith he, obtained the remission of all sin: therefore such a remission doth he communicate to us: And addeth,† that there is no reason why he should communicate to us the purchased remission by halves. Further, Mark tells us, (chap. i. 4.), that "John baptized for the remission of sins;" and Peter calls those pricked at the heart to be "baptized for the remission of sins," Acts ii. 38. But will any exclude from this future sins? Surely so their comfort would have been exceeding lame; knowing that immediately after they would run into a new score, and then they are just where they were before; their baptism having not sealed the remission of these, but only of sins committed before or in baptism. And so this sacrament should rather be administered to the party when a-dying, than when new-born. But if future sins be included here, as certainly they are, then the remission of them is sealed, and consequently is before; for they are not called to be baptized in order to obtain a remission, (the scripture knoweth no such doctrine); but in order to their getting the remission obtained, sealed, in testimony of the remission of sins, as Piscatort expounds it. The same may be said of the sacrament of the Lord's supper. So then baptism seals unto worthy receivers (as also does the other sacrament) full freedom from eternal punishments, in the pardon of all And so Ursin,* after he sin, in that respect, together and at once. hath shewed that the outward baptism is a seal of the inward, tells us, that so is sin abolished in baptism, that we are freed from the guilt of sin, God's wrath, and eternal punishment. To the same purpose says Zanchius,† Indwelling sin actually remains, but is taken away as to the guilt. And baptism is ordained for that end, that we may be freed from all guilt of punishment due to sin. The thing signified, says Beza, and verily represented, is the aspersion or sprinkling of the death and passion of Jesus, in remission of sins. If it be said, That the sacraments do indeed seal the pardon of future sins, but that is only conditionally; whereas the remission of sins committed is sealed absolutely: I answer, This distinction is to be rejected. For a seal, as a seal, doth absolutely confirm the thing sealed, especially where the benefit made over is a free gift, as the pardon of sin is. Were there a thousand conditions in a bargain, the seal confirms the same absolutely. So, if we will make any thing of conditional sealing, it must be the sealing of some conditional promise of the pardon of sin, and that to a believer, touching the obligation to eternal wrath: which is a mere begging of the question; for we know of no such promise in the Bible. But this is not the sealing of a remission. When a king pardons a traitor, and formally gives it under his hand and seal, the pardon is then sealed; but not when he writes an obligation, and seals it, wherein he obligeth himself to pardon him for whatsoever he may afterwards do treasonably, upon condition he do so and so. Here the obligation, which is conditional, is only sealed; not a remission. But we have heard, that the scripture holds forth baptism as a seal of the remission of sin; of remission actually conferred, not merely promised, as a thing to come. So teacheth Wendelin, in answer to the Popish objection, Infants are baptized for the remission of sins; Ergo, Sins are pardoned by baptism in the Popish sense. He answers, "I deny the consequence. The reason is, Because to be baptized for the remission of sins, is by baptism to be confirmed of the remission of sin. So of old, adult persons were baptized by the Apostles for the remission of sins, which by faith they had received before baptism. So John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, Mark i. 4. who nevertheless baptized none but those who had before professed repentance, and believed the gospel." It is in vain to talk of the conditional sealing of the remission of sin: for the sacraments are seals of the covenant; but the covenant must be made ere it be sealed: unless we will say, † Com. in Eph. v. digress. de bapt. Syst. Theol. p. 438. Miscell. de bapt. th. 10. that God sets his seal to a blank, which no wise man will do. Now, faith is that which enters the soul into covenant; and then, and not till then, do the sacraments, though before received, seal the covenant. So that, although an elect infant be baptized, or an adult person partake of the sacrament of the supper, being unregenerate, the sacraments seal no saving benefit to them any manner of way; unless you either say, that the unregenerate, and such as have no saving good from God, are in covenant with God, or that God sets his seal to a blank; both which are most absurd. We speak not now of an external federal relation; for no saving benefits depend thereon. And what else is the meaning of that so frequently inculcated by the generality of Protestant divines, for ought I can learn, that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the time of its adminstration? We heard before wherein the efficacy of it doth consist. It seems then, it doth not always effectually seal any saving benefit at that time; and what is the reason of that, but that the party hath nothing of that nature to be sealed? The Lord does indeed call all men that hear the gospel, to believe; and tells them, that if they will believe, they shall be justified, pardoned, &c. But this is an offer of the covenant, and not the covenant itself, to which the seals are appended; otherwise every one to whom the gospel offer comes, ought not to be debarred from, but invited, encouraged, and pressed to receive the sacraments, as seals appointed of God to confirm them in the belief of the Lord's willingness to help them; that, being so persuaded, they might embrace the gospel offer, and so the heavenly pearls should be cast before dogs and swine. But the sacraments are confirming, not converting ordinances; appointed for friends, not for foes*. Moreover, as in civil contracts, some things are ipso facto disponded and given over by the one party to the other, and some things are promised to be given at such or such times, one seal serves for both; yet this seal confirms the former, as actually made over to the party for the present time; the latter, as to be given him at such a time so it is in the covenant of grace. There are some things actually made over in præsenti to the believer, such as justification, reconciliation, adoption, sanctification begun; there are other things promised to be given at such times as God sees meet afterwards, such as, progressive sanctification, final victory over sin, &c. Of the former kind is the pardon of sin, as hath been already said. And there is no promise in the Bible for the remission of sin in the sense pleaded for, made to a justified person; no more than there is of God ordaineth the sacraments to believers as believers, and because they are within the covenant; and their interest in the covenant is the only true right to the seals. Rutherf. Due Right of Presb. What infants to be baptized? |