CHAP. I.

NOW the Text that I am treating of is an Exhortation to this most Di­vine, most Christian, most Spiritual Vertue, emphatically expressed as a matter of grea­test Concern. Above all things have fer­vent Charity among your selves; And then urged with a strong argument or motive drawn from a special Effect and Consequent thereof, For Charity shall cover a multi­tude of sins.

The Design of my present Discourse is chiefly upon this particular Argument or Motive; which being well understood, and firmly believed, may be enough to save me the labour of adding many more found in other Texts, some of which have been briefly touched in the foregoing Chapter, and all, or most of them amply set forth by others, Dr. Is Barrow. especially by a late worthy Person in his excellent Sermon upon the Subject of Charity. Whereas that particular Argument which is alledged in this Text (though it may have been mentioned by others) hath not, to my knowledge, been so distinctly and [Page 14]largely discussed, as the Weight and Effica­cy of it seems to deserve. There being no argument or motive to the practice of this Vertue, more like to prevail with persons, sensible of the multitude and danger of their sins, than this, if it may be admitted in the Sense hereafter declared. For this is most notoriously known to have been the greatest, and most effectual Motive to that one common and eminent branch of this great Vertue, that hath in vulgar Speech monopolized the name of Charity, viz. that of Alms and Beneficence. This one simple Motive specified in this Text, hath (I believe) prevailed more to this effect in all parts of Christendom, with all sorts of Persons, in their life time, and at their death, than all the rest. And this especi­ally with such People, as being much sen­sible of their sins, have desired to verifie the truth of their Repentance, by bringing forth fruits worthy of it. Amongst which there is none to be compared to the works of Charity.

Though indeed there be many other Fruits worthy of repentance, in a just sense, but not equal to this. Such are all acts and works of extraordinary Devotion, all pra­ctices [Page 15]of Pennance and Mortification, which the Apostle calls judging of our selves, 1 Cor. 11.31. And Revenge, proceeding from a Godly sorrow, 2 Cor. 7.11. The Schoolmen from the Latine Fathers, especi­ally St. Cyprian, express them by the word Satisfaction, an innocent word, if rightly interpreted. These are such as do chiefly consist in Fasting, Watching, and Afflict­ing the body by abstinence from lawfull In­joyments, with various expressions of pe­netential Sorrows for sin, and Subjugation of carnal lusts: [...]. which the A­postle calls keeping under the Body, and bringing it under subjection, 1 Cor. 9.27. Not sparing the Body, Col 2.23. [...]. Bodily Ex­ercise he calls it elsewhere, and acknowledges it to be profita­ble, though but a little in com­parison of true Godliness, 1 Tim. 4.8. Hereunto belongs all that [...], hard usage of the Body, practised by the Asceticks in the ancient Church, especially in the East, where the severities of Mona­stick Life began, and most prevailed, in their course Diet, hard Lodging, and Clo­thing of Sackcloth and Haircloth. The [Page 16] [...], Humicubation, lying upon the ground, &c. which things have been over­acted, and still are in the Greek and Roman Churches.

These things being cleared from that Superstition, which they are liable to, in the kinds and measures of them, as also from such Hypocrisie as was practised by the Pha­risees, and is notorious in the later Ages of the Church, are not to be rejected, or de­nied to be proper and reasonable fruits and testimonies of Repentance, as exercise of Self discipline, and judging our selves that we may not be judged, 1 Cor. 11.31.

There are a multitude of Texts in the Old Testament, wherein such Afflicting of our selves, in testimony of repentance, are not on­ly approved, but expresly enjoyned by God himself, Lev. 16.29, 31. cap. 23.27, 32. Numb 29.7. Ezr. 8.21. Isa. 58.3. as may be seen in the Texts quoted in the Margin, & many others that might be ad­ded. And that this was no point of meer Jewish and Ceremonial Discipline, may be confirmed from the Ex­amples before quoted, particularly from St. Paul, in his own practice, and the approba­tion of it in the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 7.17. and the express precept of St. [Page 17] James, Cap. 4.9. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep. Such affliction, as naturally a­greeable to the affection of Sorrow, whiles we are mixt Creatures, consisting of Body as well as Soul, may be either imposed for satisfaction of Scandal, and testimony of Repentance, or voluntarily undertaken and practised by true Penitents to express, be­fore God, their Humiliation and Godly sorrow.

But none of these things are in their kind such worthy fruits of Repentance, or so acceptable to God, as the special exer­cises of Charity: Because none of them have any such intrinsick Goodness in them, as is opposite to the Evil repented of, or can be reasonably presumed to balance it, none so available as Charity for the remis­sion or expiation of the sin (pardon that Word for the present, which I shall inter­pret afterward in such a Sense, as will ap­pear to be nothing prejudicial to the Expi­ation by the Blood of Christ.) Charity is [...]herefore most acceptable to God, because most beneficial to Men, and most agreeable to his own natural and essential Goodness. Therefore doth God prefer Mercy, which [...]s but a branch of Charity, before Sacrifice [Page 18]and all manner of outward Worship, not Ceremonial only, but also Moral and Na­tural, as of Prayers and Praises. Vid. Isa. 1. v. 11. to the 19. To relieve the oppres­sed, to judge the fatherless, and to plead for the widow, are named for things so ac­ceptable and prevalent with God, that he promiseth an intire pardon of the grossest sins, to all them that joyn these things with the Essential duties of Repentance, expressed ver. 16. Wash ye, make ye clean, put away the evil of your doings from be­fore mine Eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do well, seek Judgment, relieve the Op­pressed, judge the Fatherless, plead for the Widow; Come now let us reason to­gether, saith the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow, though they be like crimson, they shall be as wooll; that is, the deepest dye and stain of them shall be quite taken out. But of this more hereafter.

Come we now to the express Doctrine o [...] the Apostle in the words of the Text Charity doth, will, or shall cover a multi­tude of sins. Such a variation of Lection i [...] found in the Greek Text, [...] aliàs [...], but the difference is not considerable.

Now concerning the nature of Charity, with the Extent and various Effects thereof. Though I might presume them to be so well known to any Reader, that will be capable of understanding the future Dis­course, (designed to be as plain as I am able to make it) as makes it unnecessary to give any large Description thereof, yet do I not judge it altogether needless to give any Account at all of it.

Briefly then, Charity, or Love relating to our Neighbour (as by the express words of the Text it doth) is not to be confined to that one eminent Branch thereof, which consists only in Alms, or works of Benefi­cence, because these are things, which pos­sibly may be done without any true Chari­ty, as the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 13.8. Though I give all my goods to feed the Poor, and have not Charity (which Supposition were absurd, if it were simply impossible) it profiteth me nothing. Vain-glory, carnal and worldly Ends and Interest, may utterly de­stroy the notion and vertue of Charity in such Works. And 'tis possible for a man to exercise some acts of pretended Charity, to such ends as are utterly repugnant to the Nature of it, as when they are done of [Page 20]purpose to corrupt the Minds and Manners of them, upon whom they are bestowed, to entice them to Iniquity, and to serve the ends of the Donor, to the prejudice of the Receiver.

And where none of these things are de­signed, a man may yet be otherwise as de­stitute of true Charity, as the Devil is, and as much tainted with those Viciosities, that are most contrary to it; Malice, Envy, Pride, Cruelty, &c. and yet seem to be Charita­ble in his Alms. On the contrary, a true and acceptable Charity may exist without them: I mean without the outward Works, and that only in case of Inability to afford them, or want of Objects to receive them; for otherwise the Disposition and Prepara­tion of mind to afford them according to Ability, and opportunity, is in separable from any true and real Charity.

This possible Mistake, grounded upon a vulgar use of the Word, being prevented, I say, That Charity in the due extent of its Notion comprehends all the Good, and ex­cludes all the Evil that our Neighbour is capable of receiving from us; or that we are capable of intending or extending to him. Charity signifies all the benefit that is rea­sonably [Page 21]desirable from one Man to another. All that can profit or reasonably please him, all that can any way better his Condi­tion, present or future: The Acts of it are as various and numerous, as are the needs, or capacities of advantage and benefit by our Neighbour in a­ny kind. To conclude, Rom. 13.10. Charity imports an aversion or declining of all manner of Evil to him in Thought, Word or Deed, all Mis­affection to him, all Mispeaking of him, or to him, and all Misdoing. And not only all sorts of Injuries, but all Unkindnesses, inward of will and affections, and outward of words, actions and gestures.

He that desires any more Particular Cha­racter of this Vertue, may find it set forth in that known Chapter of S ^t Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians, Chap. 13. And all that most exactly abridged by that General Precept of our Saviour, of doing to others as we would be done to: only the word do, is therein to be extended as well to thoughts, and words, as to any sort of outward actions: agreeable to the com­mon use of the same word in our Lan­guage, applied to thoughts and words, as well as deeds, whilst we say, we do [Page 22]think, and we do Love, and we do speak. Col. 3.17. Whatever ye do in word, or deed do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, &c. In­deed thoughts and words are the most Peculiar of Humane Acts. This Precept, I say, in the due extent of it, rightly in­terpreted, by the Rules and Measures of a reasonable will (which only can be under­stood in the sentence) is the most Perfect Rule of Humane Equity, that can be gi­ven in words, comprehending also the ut­most Perfection of Christian Charity.

Having now premised this brief De­scription of the Vertue of Charity, I come to the Particular Argument, or Motive, whereby it is urged by the Apostle in this Text. Charity shall cover a multitude of sins. And here I am to speak by way of Explication and Confirmation.

By way of Explication, I shall make these three Inquiries,

First, Whose sins they are which the Apostle means will be covered by Charity?

Secondly, What's meant by the cover­ing of sins?

Thirdly, What sort of sins will be co­vered by Charity, and under what Li­mitations?

After I shall have given a Competent Explication of the Proposition, in the re­solution of these Questions, I shall Confirm the General Doctrine from other Texts of Scripture, with some Allegations of Rea­son, and then answer some Objections, like to be made against that Interpretation of the Text, which I shall pitch upon, and against the General Doctrine there­by asserted.

CHAP II.

§. 1. I Am to begin with the first Question, viz. Whose sins they are, which will be covered by Charity? And here I find Interpreters differing: some under­stancing the sins of others, to whom the Charity is extended: which is the sense accepted by most Protestants, and some Pontificians: And some, the sins of the Charitable Person, which (for the Rea­sons hereafter to be advanced) seems to me most probable, and specially intended by the Apostle in this Text. Some also taking in both senses, not without reason, because so the Sentence is undoubtedly [Page 24]true: Charity, especially, if it be servent, will cover a multitude of sins, both in the Charitable Person (as shall be afterward confirmed) and in other men to whom it is exercised. And so both Senses are but distinct Verifications of the same words, taken in the greatest amplitude of signi­fication, and containing in each Sense a strong motive to enforce the preceding Exhortation, Above all things have fer­vent charity, for, &c. Wherefore although I do in my own judgement prefer the se­cond Sense, as most specially intended by the Apostle, and that is the main Argu­ment and Design of my Discourse; yet I shall not wholly neglect the other Sense importing a special Effect, and Branch o [...] that Charity, which is here recommende [...] to all Christians, with the promise, o [...] declaration of so great a Reward, as the covering of a multitude of sins in him than hath it; which is that Sense of the word [...] that I insist upon, not only as the stronges [...] Motive to enforce the Exhortation, but also as most agreeable to the Context i [...] this place.

I. This Sense, if it may be allowed in the matter of it, to express a certain truth [Page 25](as I doubt not to prove, past all doubt, from other Texts) affords a Motive to the inforcement of the Apostles Exhorta­tion, so much more strong and effectual than the other Sense, as the covering of a multitude of a mans own fins, is a greater Benefit to him, than the covering of any multitude of other mens sins can be; and therefore the hopes of it, must needs be most prevalent with any man that hath not more Charity for his Neighbour, than he hath for himself. Whereas therefore the scope of the Apostle in these words (as appears by that Causal Particle, For) is only to press the foregoing Exhorta­tion, it seems not reasonable to abate the strength of his Argument, by excluding the most perswasive Sense of his words, and confining it (without necessity) to a­ny other of less concern, and weaker ef­ficacy, as most clearly that is which re­spects only the sins of other men.

But that which most strongly confirms this to be the special Sense of the Apo­stles words, is to be collected from the Connexion of this Verse with the forego­ing, wherein he forewarneth the Jewish Christians, to whom the Epistle is directed, [Page 26]of a Fatal End that was near at hand: and thereupon adviseth them, what they should do to secure themselves in that e­vent The end of all things is at hand, be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. And above all things have fervent Chari­ty among your selves, for Charity will co­ver a multitude of sins. Whether by the end of all things be meant the End of the world, according to the common In­terpretation, and that said to be at hand in a certain Latitude of sence, because it was now the last time, the last hour, the last days, as was elsewhere frequently de­clared by himself and his fellow Apostles, 1 Pet. 1.5. and 2 Pet. 3.3. Heb. 1.2. Jam. 5.3. 1 Jo. 2.18. Jude 18. Mean­ing the last Age of the World, whereof, although the duration was not to be so short, as might then be imagined from such words as these: yet it was not to be long in the eyes of God, with whom a thousand years are but as one day, as he advertiseth them in his second Epistle, Chap. 3.8. I say whether it be the end of the World, or (which is more probable to be the Apostles meaning) the Fatal Destruction of the obdurate Jews, their Na­tion, [Page 27]Politie Royal City, and Temple, foretold by Christ himself, and often spo­ken of by his Apostles, which was then very near indeed: This being the ground, and occasion of the Apostles Exhortation to fervent Charity, leads us to the most reasonable Interpretation of these latter words of the verse: For Charity will co­ver a multitude of sins; That is, when the end of all things, which is near at hand, shall come, fervent Charity, ad­ded to, and joyned with Repentance, signified by the foregoing expressions of Sobriety, Watching and Praying, is the likeliest means to propitiate the wrath of God, deserved by a multitude of sins, and to save you from the formidable judgement of God, which is to be ex­pected. I appeal to any indifferent Per­son, whether this coherence of the Apo­stles words doth not determine his mean­ing to relate to the sins of the Charitable Person, much rather than the sins of o­thers. For although it be no less true, that the same Vertue of Charity will co­ver a multitude of sins in other men, in such a sence as shall be declared after­ward: yet how that should be referred, [Page 28](as by the Context in this place it is) to the end of all things: That is, how Cha­rity should cover a multitude of sins in o­ther Persons, when the end of all things is come, is hard to conceive; but easie e­nough to understand, how it may then co­ver a multitude of sins in the Charitable Person, as shall be shewed in its due place.

The most rational Objection against this Interpretation and Argument for the pre­ference of the other Sense, is raised from a parallel Text, Prov. 10.12. Hatred stirreth up strife; but Love covereth all sins. And if the Apostles words, seem­ing to be borrowed from that Sentence, must receive the same Interpretation with that, it must necessarily be understood of other mens sins; by the two contrary ef­fects of Love and Hatred, set forth in that Text, the one stirring up strife, the other preventing it, by covering the faults of other men, by not taking notice of them, or looking favourably upon them, in order to a peaceable and friendly living with them

But to this Objection it may be an­swered. 1. That it is not evident that S ^t Pe­ter did intend any quotation of that Pro­verb, [Page 29]there being no such intimation in the Apostles words, as usually there is, when any Text of the Old Testament is cited in the New, by those words, as it is written, or other like, not found in this place. But to this Objection, together with some others, a fuller answer shall be made afterward.

§. 2. The probability of this Sense, be­ing thus declared from the Context, the Truth of it remains to be further confirmed from many other Texts of Scripture: but I suspend the addition of them, till I have answered the second Question, viz. Sup­posing the sins spoken of in this Sentence to be the sins of the Charitable person, the question is, what's meant by the word Co­vering, or in what Sense they may be said to be covered by Charity? The Answer to this Question is to be collected from the ordinary use of the same Phrase in other places of Scripture; wherein it is frequent­ly used to express the pardon or forgive­ness of sin, as Rom. 4.7. quoting Psal. 32.1. Blessed are they whose iniquities are for­given, and whose sins are covered. So Psal. 85.2. Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy People, thou hast covered all their sins. [Page 30]In these Texts, I suppose, no doubt can b [...] made, but that the Covering of sin signifies the same thing with the Forgiving. So Neh. 4.5. Cover not their iniquities, an [...] let not their sin be blotted out, i. e. let i [...] not be forgiven. And because Covering a [...] thing is one way of hiding, therefore ou [...] Translators have rendred the same Greek word used in another Text of like signifi­cation by the word Hiding. [...]. Jam. 5.20. He which converteth a sin­ner from the error of his way, shall save a Soul from death, and shall hide a multitudes of sins, i. e. shall procure the Pardon of them (as the words are commonly inter­preted) or shall obtain the Forgiveness of a multitude of sins in himself, as the learned Grotius and Dr. Hammond interpret them, agreeable to the fore-given sense of the same Words in our Text. The con­verting of a sinner from the errour of his Way is an eminent act of Charity, when­soever it is industriously sought and inten­ded, whatever the success be. Nor is there any appearance of Incongruity, to say or suppose, that to endeavour the Conver­sion of an other man, and thereby to pro­cure the Pardon of his sins, should be a­vailable [Page 31]towards the obtaining of a pardon of sins in the charitable Procurer. For if that Sense, which I have given of the words of St. Peter, be admitted to import a cer­tain Truth, (as I doubt not to evince from many other Texts afterward) the like Sense of this of St. James (whether by him in­tended or not) will necessarily follow to contain the same Truth. The Conver­ting of a sinner, or the sincere and earnest Endeavour thereof, being (as before was said) an eminent act of Spiritual Charity. But for the probability of that Sense of St. James his words, I must at this time refer the Reader to the Notes of the forenamed Doctor upon the Text, because it would be too great an Excursion to undertake the Confirming of it in this place. But whe­ther this be the true Sense of St. James or not, no doubt can be made, but that the particular Phrase of Covering of sins doth very fitly express the Pardon of them, when it is attributed to God, as in the Texts ci­ted before: And when it is attributed to Men, or to any act or vertue in them, as it is in this Text, it may very fitly signifie the obtaining or procuring of such a favour (as the Pardon of sin) from God.

The Metaphor may be borrowed from the Covering of Nakedness, to which sin is often compared, or to the Covering of a Sore with a Plaister, or the Covering of a Debt charged in a Book, by way of Obli­teration or Blotting out, which is another Synonymous phrase, signifying the Pardon of sin. Both Phrases signifying the Pardon thing with the Hiding of sin from the face or the eyes of God, Psal. 51.9. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out mine iniqui­ties. Not that God should not see them, but that he should not impute them, as the same Words are interpreted by the Psalmist, Psal. 32.1, 2 and by the Apostle, Rom. 4.7, 8. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered, Bles­sed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. As Men are said to hide their own sins, when they will not acknowledge them, nor admit themselves chargeable with the imputation of them: So doth God co­ver sin, by his not imputing, or charging the guilt of it upon a man. And this is one way amongst others (as shall be here­after declared) whereby Charity, or the Charitable Person doth cover a multitude of sins in his Neighbour, according to the [Page 33]other Sense of the Text, that is, doth for­give and excuse them, and so cover them from his own eyes, either by not taking no­tice of them, or not imputing them to the Offender.

But to discharge this Question; If by the multitude of sins spoken of in this Text, be understood the sins of the Charitable Person, it is sufficiently evident by the Use of the Phrase, what the Covering of them meaneth, viz. nothing less than the Pardon or Remission of the said sins.

§. 3. But then for a clear understanding of this Effect, it will be necessary to enquire what may be understood by the Pardon of sin? A Phrase not so plain, but that it hath afforded matter of more Controversie, than I am willing to take notice of in this Place: intending to discharge my self and my Reader of all the puzzle of Distincti­ons about the nature and signification of this easie Word, and take up with that on­ly Meaning, which is most agreeable to common Sense and Vulgar apprehension: Namely, that by the Pardon or Remission of sin is meant a Discharge of the sin from the punishment, or obligation to punishment; For that the Remission of the Fault, without [Page 34]the Remission of the Guilt, which Bellar­mine, and Others of his Order contest for, is to me a Riddle, a senseless Notion, and the Effect of it a real Nullity. Not but that there may be a true and effectual Par­don of the fault, without an absolute and total Remission of all punishment, as shall be shewn hereafter. But then the Remissi­on of the fault, is no more then the Re­mission of the punishment, and no more of the Fault is remitted, then is of the Punish­ment, or the Fault is no otherwise remit­ted than the Punishment is. But to imagin a Fault to be entirely or perfectly remitted, without any Remission of the Punishment, is either a perfect Contradiction, or a very uncomfortable sort of Pardon, and such as I think, the Devils would not much envy a­ny part of Mankind to obtain.

I shall therefore take it for granted, that all Pardon of sin doth import some Remissi­on at least of the punishment, I say some Remission, because, as there is a great Va­riation in the nature, kinds, degrees, extent and duration of the Punishment; so may there be an answerable Variation and Diffe­rence in the Pardon of sins, (signified by the phrase of Covering of them in the [Page 35]Text) as to the matter, measures, degrees, and duration thereof. And so Sin may be truly said to be covered or pardoned, not only when all the Punishment is remitted or removed, but also when any sort, part or degree thereof is taken off or abated; as also when the remainder of Punishment is relieved, or balanced by some advantages to the Patient. But of this more is to be said in the following Discourse, concerning the Punishment of sin in general.

§. 4 The punishment of Sin, importing all evil consequences thereof, is as various as the sin, both in its kind and degrees. And as in the general Notion, all sin doth con­sist in some repugnancy or opposition to the Will of God: 1 Joh. 3.4. So all Punishment consists in something that is re­pugnant to the reasonable will and wellfare of the Sinner. And this is most just, that he that will not obey the Will of God, should be cross'd in his own Will; if Men be so willfull, as not to submit to the Will of God, they shall never have their own will, do what they can. For the natural and necessary Object of mans Will is no­thing less then a true and real Happiness, consisting in a perfect freedom from Evil, [Page 36]and in the injoyment of all the Good that he is capable of. But the only Qualificati­on for this Happiness is Holiness, which con­sists in the Conformity of our wills to the Will of God. He therefore that is not, at least in some measure Holy, can never be in any measure Happy. But to be com­pleatly or perfectly Happy, no man is, or can be capable, till he be perfectly Holy; that is, till there be a perfect Conformity of his will to the Will of God. There is no way to obtain a full and perfect Satisfa­ction to our own wills, but by submitting them to the Will of God. So shall we in­fallibly at last have our own will, and fill of Happiness: though for the present we do miss of our own carnal and foolish will, and must stay for the accomplishment of our most reasonable Desires, till we be ca­pable of it. The true, substantial, final, and perfect Object of our will, (supposing that it be conformable and obedient to the Will of God) we cannot fail of at last; but must not look for it, till we come where it is to be had, that is, in Heaven, (for Earth is not capable of it) where all our igno­rant, unsatisfying Volitions, Wishes and Desires will be utterly extinct, and our [Page 37]whole will and affections will be satisfied with the utmost Felicity they are capable of: So that we shall have nothing further to wish, but the unchangeable Continuance of that State; And that also we shall be so well assured of, as that the Will, and De­sire in that respect shall be abundantly sa­tisfied. Whence one hath fitly called Hap­piness Pax Desiderii, a rest or peace to all Desire. When Desire shall give place to Joy, and stir no more, whereas here it is restless, and never can cease, till it be fully satisfied.

But to return from this digression, to the Discourse that occasion'd it. I said before, that all sin is a transgression, or opposition to the will of God, and all punishment consists in something opposite to the reasonable Object of our own wills. But here it is to be noted, that as men may be mistaken in the Object of the Di­vine Will, thinking that to be agreeable, which is contrary thereunto: So may they be deceived in the right Object of their own wills, which in the true Notion is something that is good for them, and tending to their safety, welfare, and hap­piness. But this apprehension is very li­able [Page 38]to errour, and nothing more common then for men by such errour, to call evil good, and good evil, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness, to put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter, as in things that relate to the Will of God, so in things relating to the right Objects of their own will, and happiness. But this errour cannot change the nature of the things in either case. The bare thinking of a thing to be good, or evil, doth not make it so, either in a Moral, or in a Physical sense: Men may be punished in the en­joyment of their own blind and infatuate wills: and they may be blessed, and re­warded in the want of such enjoyments, and in things contrary thereunto. A re­puted good, though it gratifies the de­ceived will, may be a real punishment; and a sensible evil suffered against a mans will, may be a signal Blessing: To be punished by Prosperity, and blessed by Ad­versity, is no contradiction. Pharaoh was hardned to his destruction, by the cessation of the Plagues; and Manasses was saved by his Captivity, and the Fetters of his Prison. And many a man may say, pe­riissem, nisi periissem, I had perished e­ternally, [Page 39]if I had not been undone for a time.

It is not necessary to the punishment of sin, that men should be at the present sensible of it. And though he must needs be unhappy for the present, that thinks himself so, because that thought is enough to make him so, as being inconsistent with his present happiness: yet he is not ne­cessarily happy that accounts himself so: otherwise men might be happy when they are out of their wits: and made misera­ble in recovering them. As the man in the Poet complained.

But to hold to the Analogy between the Will of God, and the will of Man, in the nature of sin and punishment, I say further, that as the Will of God is trans­gressed by omission, or commission, by leaving undone something which he re­quires, or doing something which he for­bids: so the punishments of sin are either Privative, or Positive, consisting in the loss, or want of something that is Good [Page 40]and Desirable by a reasonable Will, or in the sense and suffering of something which is Evil and grievous to the Will. And both these sorts of Punishments, are such as befall Men in this Life, or in that which is to come, and so are temporal, or Eternal: Some of them also are natu­ral and necessary, and some contingent and avoidable, as being ordered and appointed by the just Will and Providence of God, without any natural or absolute Necessity of their Event. I say, some sorts of Pu­nishment of sin are Natural and Necessa­ry, as being the Natural Effects and Con­sequents of the sin, and so, necessary and unavoidable, and that either absolutely, or without a Miracle. Absolutely una­voidable the Punishment must needs be, when the Separation of the Penal Event imports contradiction to the sinfull act, as is evident, not only in the case of Self-mur­der (which being nothing else but the de­priving a man of his Life, cannot without Contradiction be separated from the priva­tive Punishment) but also in all other sins, whereby Men do deprive themselves, at least for the present, of the enjoyment of Health, Honour, Friends, or any other [Page 41]good thing. And as every act of true Vertue doth in a just sense re­ward it self by its real and moral Goodness; Virius est sui ipsius merces. so doth every sinfull Act punish it self by its turpitude or evil deformity, which in the School Language is called the Macula, or stain of sin And this Punishment is in the nature of the thing inseparable from the sin. Other punish­ments are not so absolutely necessary, as to imply any Contradiction in the avoidance or evasion of them, and yet are really unavoi­dable without a Miracle, as is obvious e­nough to conceive without any Instances.

Now in such cases the covering of the sin, as it signifies a total Remission, or perfect Exemption from all Punishment, is either simply unpossible, as in the case of such absolute necessity of the Event, as implies a contradiction to the sin in the avoidance, or else is not promised, or to be expected (though possible by Miracle) upon any condition. I say such a cover­ing of sin as imports a total Remission of Punishment, is either impossible, or un­expectable: Yet may the same sin in some other sence be many ways covered, viz. by abatement of the degrees of the Pu­nishment, [Page 42]which is not wholly avoidable; or by deliverance from some other Pu­nishment, which might be added in this Life, and that which is to come: or by sundry manner and measures of Support, Relief, and Comfort in the Suffering, or by other ways, whereby the Punishment may be converted to the Advantage of the Sufferer, especially in his Spiritual E­state; which Advantages are so far from being inconsistent with the nature of a Pu­nishment, that they are ordinarily designed, as the main end of it, both by God and Man, as in all castigatory Punishments; whence God is said to chasten us for our Profit, Heb. 12.10. And a Punishment ceaseth not to be so, by being converted to a Blessing. Thus may the sins of a Charitable Person be covered, without a­ny absolute Remission, or Exemption from Punishment, which may be in it self ne­cessary. And where it is not so, but con­tingent at the Will and Providence of God; it is more easie to conceive how the sin may be covered by Suspension, or Remission of Punishment, in whole, or in part.

Here a question may be moved, viz. [Page 43]How far that Remission of sin, which is signified by the Term of covering in this Text, may be expected to extend? i. e. Whether only to the Temporal Punish­ment, which a sinner is liable to in this Life, or to that also which is to come in another World?

Towards a full Answer to this Que­stion, it will not be amiss to reflect upon [...]he words of the Apostle immediately pre­ceding the Text which I am treating up­on, wherein I conceive a convenient hint [...]s offered, for the Resolution of this Que­stion, from a double Interpretation which is given of those words (the end of all things is at hand.) the one relating to this Life, the other to that which is to come.

1. Some Modern Interpreters of Good Note for their Learning and Judgement, Dr. Hammond, Mr. Jos. Mede, and others. do understand those words, not to be meant of the end of the World, or the day of Judgement, but of the end of the Jewish Common-wealth, by the Destru­ction of the Temple, and the City of Jerusalem, together with the General Calamity of that People by their Capti­vity [Page 44]and Dispersion throughout the World, by the Power and Victory of the Romans, often foretold by our Saviour, and called the abomination of desolation: For the a­voiding of which Calamity, the Apostle adviseth the Christian Jews, to whom he directs this Epistle, to be sober, and to watch unto prayer, as hopefull means to save them from the extremity of that Ca­lamity: Adding further, in this verse, an­other special Point of advice to the same end, to wit, the exercise of a fervent Cha­rity. If this sense of the Apostles words be allowed, supposing the end of all things so near approaching, as was the time of that Publick Calamity (which sense by the fore­mentioned Interpreters is also applied to many other Texts of our Saviours and the Apostles speaking of the end of the World, as very near) I say, if this be the Apostles Sense in this place, no doubt can be made of this effect of Charity, procu­ring Deliverance from Punishments of sin in this Life.

On the other side, If by the end of all things must be understood that General End which is to come at the day of Judge­ment, according to the more ordinary In­terpretation [Page 45]of the words, it is evident, that this benefit of Charity will extend to another Life. But because the Punishment of sin (as hath been said before) is both in this Life, and that which is to come, without Determining the true Sense of the foregoing Verse, I doubt not to conclude, that the Remission of sin, expressed by the covering thereof, declared by the Apostle, is not to be limited to this or the other Life, but may be understood of both, and will be verified either in both, or at least in one of these two Lives; that is where­soever this Vertue of Charity is found, it will be available by the Mercy of God at least to some kind of Remission of sin, i. e. of the Punishment thereof, either in this Life, and that which is to come too, or else in one of them more or less, according to the sincerity and degree of the Charity.

If the Charity be the Fruit of an unfai­ned Faith accompanied with Repentance, (as it must needs be, if it be sincere) it will undoubtedly be available to the Remis­sion of sin in the other World, if not also to the Remission of Punishment in this World; which is very hopefull, though not so certain in all Respects, as is the Re­mission [Page 46]of future Punishment in the Life to come: Because there are some sorts of Pu­nishments of sin in this Life, which (as was shewed before) are in themselves necessary, and inseparable Consequents of the sin, and so unavoidable in their Nature, as Shame and Dishonour in sins known to the World, privation of Benefits consequent to other sins, sorrow and remorse of Conscience, common to all sins, whereof a sinner is convinced: Besides some other sorts of Pu­nishments in this Life, not so necessary in their kind, may be consequent to the sin, by the Justice and Wisdom, and also by the Goodness of God: which therefore he may refuse to remit in this Life, where he intends a full Remission in the Life to come. This is plain in the Case of David, 2 Sam. 12. Many severe Punishments are threatned by Nathan the Prophet, to be executed up­on David for his scandalous sins of Adul­tery and Murder, which were never remit­ted, but punctually executed upon him, notwithstanding, that upon his Repentance, testified by his humble Confession, the Pro­phet assures him, that God had put away his sin, and that he should not die. Ver. 13. And David said unto Nathan, I have [Page 47]sinned against the Lord; and Nathan said unto David, the Lord also hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die.

His repentance expressed by extraordinary testimonies of his Sorrow and Humiliation, set forth in that Psalm, Psal. 51. which was penn'd and published by himself for that end, was not sufficient to deliver him from all Punishment of his sin, although it was accepted for his Deliverance, not only from the punishment of eternal Death, but also of such a temporal Death, as he was justly lyable to by the Law; which though it could not be executed upon him by any Human Authority, by reason of his Sove­raignty, yet might have been executed by the Hand of God, who had threatned by Himself to revenge and punish such pre­sumptuous sins, as the Magistrate could not, or should neglect to punish, Lev. 26.14. But did not thereby deprive himself of liberty to forbear such Execution of pu­nishment according to his Wisdom and Goodness.

By this Example, and several others that might be alledged (if it were needfull in this place) it appears, that a Part of the punishment of sin may be remitted, where [Page 48]the whole is not, which I take to be the common Case of Mankind, fallen under the guilt and punishment of Adams sin; for it is experimentally evident, Gen. 3. that the whole Punishment is not remitted to any Man, because all are known to suf­fer many Penalties threatned in this Life, besides that common one of Temporal Death; whilst that of Eternal Death is re­mitted to many, and promised to all that repent.

But to return to the Point in hand, I say, sincere Charity proceeding from a true Faith, and accompanied with an unfeigned Repentance, will certainly deliver the Cha­ritable Person from the Everlasting punish­ment of another Life, and may also be a­vailable either to save a man from all Pu­nishments in this Life, or to abate the De­grees of them.

But if the Charity be not fincere, nor ac­companied with any such Repentance, as will render the sinner capable of Salvation in the other Life, yet it may be, and doubtless will be available for the Delive­rance of the person from Punishments in this Life, either in whole or in part. For as o­ther temporal Rewards are given by God to [Page 49]partial and infincere Vertues, and good Works, so may this of Deliverance from temporal Judgments. And this perhaps was sometimes the only meaning of those words of our Saviour, recorded in the Gos­pel, to have been spoken to divers Per­sons that came to him to be healed of their bodily Diseases, expressing thereby some kind of Faith in him, and his Power. And he said unto them, thy sins are for­given thee, i. e. the Punishment of thy sins which lies upon thee is taken off, and remitted, Mark 3.34. cap. 10.52. Luke 7.50. cap. 8.48. cap. 18.42. and thou shalt be healed. Which seems to be the sence of another Phrase often used by our Saviour in like cases to them that came to him, for the healing of their Diseases. [...], Matth. 9.22. Thy faith hath saved thee, i. e. hath made thee whole, as 'tis there rendred in our English Tran­slation, agreeable to the following words, [...], and the woman was made whole from that hour. Not that I suppose this to be all the Be­nefit, that he ever intended to any Person, to whom he uttered those words, (thy sins are forgiven thee) amongst whom, it is [Page 50]more than probable, there were some, whose Faith did qualifie them for a better remission of their sin. But it is not evi­dent, that every one of those Persons, that were cured of their bodily Diseases by him, were endued with such an un­feigned Faith, as did render them capable of an absolute Remission of all their sins, as to another Life: For to think as some Divines have said, that our Blessed Savi­our never cured the body of any Patient, but he cured their souls also, seems to be but an improbable opinion.

But supposing this Remission of sin, as relating only to Temporal Punishments in this Life, to be granted, as a Reward of an Insincere Charity: the Question may be moved, whether the like Charity, or any works thereof may not be available also to some degree of Remission, or co­vering of sin, in the Life to come, at the last Judgement?

To this Question I shall not presume to answer dogmatically, as not remem­bring at present any particular Testimony of Scripture, whereby that Question may be determined, either in the Negative, or Affirmative: notwithstanding my Opinion [Page 51]inclines to the Affirmative, viz. that al­though such an infincere Charity can a­vail nothing towards a total Remission at the last Judgement, or the Salvation of the Person; whereof no man can be ca­pable, whithout an unfeigned Repentance, and such a true Faith as works by sincere Love to God and his Neighbour yet that even such Good Works, as do indeed pro­ceed from Charity, and are not done hy­pocritically, for self Interest, Worldly ends, or carnal Motives only, may abate the Degrees of the future Punishment in ano­ther Life.

My reason for this Opinion is grounded upon that Fundamental Principle of all Religion; That all men shall fare in the life to come, 2 Cor. 5.10. according to the things done by them in this Life, whether they be good, or whether they be bad. Which Rule is understood not only of the respective states of Salvation, and Damnation, but also of the degrees of Reward and Punishment in that state. As for the state of Punishment, no question hath been, or can be made, concerning the difference of its degrees, expressly de­clared in Scripture, signifying that it shall [Page 52]be more tolerable for some, Mat. 10.15. chap. 11.22. Luke 12.47, 48. than for others in that day; wherein some shall be beaten with many stripes, and some with fewer. And the Question that is made about the degrees of Glory, is but a novel one, none of the Ancients (that I know of) and very few Modern Di­vines have embraced the Opinion, that asserts the equality of that state.

The Catholick Doctrine founded upon Scripture supposes as much disparity of de­grees of Glory and Happiness in Heaven, as of Punishment in Hell, and that the respective measures of each condition will be allotted and assigned, according to such proportion of Good and Evil, as upon an exact and infallible Evidence before an Im­partial Judge, shall be found in the Per­sons to be judged, with Relation to the bodily Life past So is that Judgement described by S ^t John, Rev. 20.12. And I saw the dead, both small and great, stand before God, and the Books were opened, and another Book was opened, which is the Book of Life, and the dead were judged out of those things, which were written in the Books, according to their Works.

And that among all sorts of Good Works, those of Charity to our Brethren will then have a special Confideration, is sufficiently intimated by the words of our Saviour in his own Description of the last Judgement. Mat. 25.31. to the end of the Chapter, I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat, I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink, I was a stranger, and ye took me in, naked, and ye clothed me, &c, A Text which I shall have occasion to speak more largely of afterward, in the Con­firmation of this Doctrine. And as by this Declaration of our Saviour himself, who is to be Judge at that day, it is evident, that Works of Charity, proceeding from an unfeigned Faith, will then be special­ly considered, as a qualification for the General Reward; so that the Degrees and Measures of that Reward, will be propor­tion'd to the Measures of Charity, seems no less evident by the words of the A­postle, speaking also of the same sort of works, 2. Cor. 9.6. He which soweth sparingly shall reap sparingly, and he which soweth bountifully, shall reap bountifully. And in the words of our Saviour, in the forementioned Text, it is likewise added, [Page 54]as a Reason of the Sentence of Condem­nation to be denounced against them on the left hand, verse 41. Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels, For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meit, I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink, &c. Signifying, that one just cause of that just Sentence, will be the neglect of this great Duty of Charity; whence it will follow, upon a reasonable account, that look how much that sin of neglect, or omission shall be found to be abated, by any thing done by the Person to be judged, and con­demned for that fault, so much will be a­bated of the Punishment; And though some Works of Charity, bearing no pro­portion to the ability of him that doth them, may be reckon'd as none, in the Sense of our Saviours words, and in refe­rence to a mans discharge from the Sub­stance of the Sentence; yet it cannot be said, that he that hath done some Works of Charity, is altogether so guilty of the omission of that Duty, as he that hath done none: And consequently, cannot be equally liable upon that account to the same degrees of Punishment: And there­fore [Page 55]his Charity, how defective soever it was, will save him from some degrees of Punishment in that state: Besides all the validity it had to exempt him from Pu­nishments, and to procure any Temporal Reward in this Life.

What other Consideration may be had, by the Judge at that day of Works of Charity done by any Person, that then shall be found [...], Reprobate (and so fall into condemnation) towards any counterpoise of his other sins, or of the a­batement of the degrees of their Punish­ment, I cannot tell. But this is certain, that what ever can be equitably plended for the abatement of Punishment, will be considered by that Judge, who is infi­nitely Wise and Just, knowing exactly the Merits and Circumstances of every mans case, that is to be tryed before him; and who will be Advocate, as well as Judge, for every sinner, as far as his case will bear. And therefore, as in humane Ju­dicature, or Exercise of distributive Ju­stice amongst men, when a Criminal is to be judged, although his case be such, as can neither admit of a Justification, nor yet of a Plenary Pardon, yet it is thought [Page 56]no more than reasonable, that some con­sideration should be had of the rest of his Life, especially, if there be any Good E­vidence of any Special Laudable Actions done by him, they may be considered, toward the abatement of utmost severity in the Penalty, where any such abute­ment is possible, as in Punishments which are not Capital: So, (though I cannot assure any man, that it shall be so, in the case of any Persons falling under the ne­cessary Sentence of Condemnation, yet) I think there is some Reason to hope, that he that hath shewed Mercy to Men in this Life, though he be not saved, may find some Mercy in the degrees of his Punishment; And that not only up­on the account of such an abatement of his Guilt, as was before signified respect­ing his sins of omission, but also with respect to his sins of commission. That there will be some kind of Counterpoise, or Ballance of Good and Evil Works in the Divine Judgement, and execution of Justice, is not (in my opinion) to be rejected as a meer Rabi­nical or Platonical con­ceit, Mal po [...]se, qui ne contre poise. Is the French Prov. though it be so too, [Page 57]but seems to be in some measure probable, as it is agreeable to the nature of Ju­stice, exercised amongst men, privately and publickly.

The Summ of what I have said in the Explication of that Sense of the Apostles words, which I here maintain, is this: That Charity if it be sincere as the Fruit of an unfeighed Faith and Repentance, will be available towards a plenary Covering or Re­mission of a mans sins, at the last Judge­ment; If it be not so, yet it will procure him some Remission at least, if not Exem­ption from temporal Punishment in this Life, (besides other positive Rewards, or­dinarily given to the practice of this Ver­tue) and may also be available towards the Abatement of the Degrees of positive Pu­nishment in the Life to come. I say, of Po­sitive Punishment, commonly called Paena Sensûs, Pain or Punishment of Sense, be­cause the Privative Punishment, Poena Dam­ni, the Punishment of Loss, can admit of no degrees of Abatement: For the loss of Eternal Life will be equal to all that are not saved, and can be no other from the Nature of the thing, though the sense and affliction of that Loss may differ much, [Page 58]according to the different capacities Men were in to obtain that Life, and the inequa­lity of the Means thereof received, and re­jected or neglected. For in this respect the Loss of Eternal Life will be more tolerable (as our Saviour saith) for Sodom and Go­morrah, for Tyre and Sidon, that never had the like means of Salvation (though they were not excluded from all means or possi­bility thereof) then it will be for Bethsaida or Capernaum. And so it will be pro­portionably, for all People under like Ine­quality of the means of Life; neither is it possible for any Person, that never had any such Means, as some other had, and there­fore cannot be guilty of Rejecting or Neg­lecting them, I say, it is not possible for a­ny such Person to fall under the same De­grees of that necessary Punishment of the never-dying Worm, as that is supposed to signifie, the anguish and torment of the guil­ty Conscience. This natural punishment of the Afflicted, or afflicting Conscience, for the same Reason must needs be abated also to him, that hath done some Good works of Charity in this Life, because his Conscience cannot charge him, at the same rate, as it must needs do him, that hath [Page 59]totally neglected them, under an equal or larger Ability.

Whether the substance of this Interpre­tation of the Text, either necessary or most probable, must be left to the judgment of the Reader, but that it is neither Popish, nor Singular (as some may be ready to charge it) I must take leave to challenge, whiles I find that this Sense of the Words hath neither been received by all Papists, nor rejected by all Protestants: Some of the Pontificians baulking this Interpretation, as Estius, Tiri­nus, and others. which I insist upon, do give the same, which is given by most Protestants, namely, That Charity will cover the sins of other Men (not the sins of the Charitable Person) in such a Sense as is hereafter to be declared. And some Eminent Protestants do admit that other Sense, which I prefer, as most probable. And that not only in this Text, but also in that of St. James, wherein the same Phrase is used, Jam. 5.20. He which converteth a sinner from the Errour of his ways, shall save a Soul from Death, and shall hide a Multitude of sins. The origi­ginal Words are the same in both Texts, and are thus Paraphrased by a Learned Do­ctor [Page 60]of our own Church. Dr. Hammond. It is a most excellent glorious Work, which he hath wrought, the Effect of which is, that God will free him, on whom this Change is wrought, from Death eternal, and perhaps, from present temporal Death, through Sickness fallen upon him for that sin, vid. v. 15. And besides he will ac­cept, and reward the Charity of him that hath wrought that good Work, with the free Discharge of whatsoever sins he hath formerly been guilty of, but hath now repented of. See the same Authors An­notation upon the Text. This Sense is a­greeable to the words of the Prophet Da­niel, Dan. 12.3. They that turn many to Righteousness, shall shine as the Stars for ever, viz. in Heavenly Glory, which ne­cessarily implyes a Remission of their sins. And why the zealous Endeavouring to con­vert sinners from the Error, i. e. evil of their Way should be available to procure the Covering of a multitude of sins, in him that makes it his care and study so to do, a very good Reason may be given from the nature of the Act, which imports one of the best Testimonies of Repentance that can be. In that Penetential Psalm, where­in [Page 61] David sues to Almighty God, for the Pardon of his gross sins of Murder and A­dultery, he urges this as a Motive towards the obtaining of his Request, Psal. 5.13. Then will I teach Transgressors thy Ways, and sinners shall be converted unto Thee. And surely no greater Reparation can be made by sinfull man to Almighty God for the dishonour done to his Majesty by his own sins; than when the penitent sinner, together with his own Hearty repentance and amendment of Life, shall endeavour also, as much as lies in his power, the Con­version of other sinners unto God. So did Abner design to make his peace with King David, after his professed Enmity and Re­bellion first by Promising to serve him for the time to come in his own Person, and then to bring over all Israel with him to the Obedience of the King, 2 Sam. 3.10.

And that the Practice of this great ver­tue of Charity, in other Instances, as well as this of endeavouring to Convert sinners from their evil Ways, is the best Means of Satisfaction to God, or appeasing his Wrath for sin, may appear by these two Reasons.

1. Because it is in it self most pleasing [Page 62]and acceptable to Him, as most agreeable to his own Goodness.

2. Because it tends to the procuring of much Glory to his Name, as otherwise, so by the Thanksgiving of many (engaged by the Benefit of Charity extended to them) redounding to the Glory of God, 2 Cor. 1.11. & 4.15.

If a Man hath incurred the just Displea­sure of any Man, what better means can be used to recover his Favour, than by doing of such things, as he knows to be most pleasing and acceptable to him; or if he hath any way Dishonoured him, what bet­ter Satisfaction can be done him, towards the repairing of that Injury, than by Endea­vouring to promote his Honour effectually some other way.

CHAP. III.

HAving thus sufficiently illustrated that Sense of the Text, which seemeth to me most probable, I am sensible of the Ne­cessity of a further Confirmation thereof. Wherein I think this Demand should not be denied me by any Indifferent Judge; [Page 63]namely; That if the Doctrine collected from this Interpretation, be proved to be True; and sufficiently Confirmable from other Scriptures, this Interpretation hath a fair advantage of Preference before the o­ther, from the before noted Scope of the Context, and the far greater Validity of the Argument thus understood, to enforce the Exhortation that precedes it. And therefore towards the better satisfaction of some prejudiced Readers (whose Objections shall be considered in due place) it will be necessary to shew the undeniable Truth of this Doctrine, from other Texts of both Testaments, which for their Number are far more than are absolutely necessary for the Confirmation of any Doctrine. Nor should I think it reasonable to quote so many of them, as I shall do, were it not, that by the same Labour, I hope, not only to de­monstrate the Truth of this Doctrine, but also to promote the Practice of the Apostles Exhortation upon this singular Motive, ad­ded to many others, which fall not within the compass of this Text. I say, that by the many Texts (by which I hope to make it appear, that Charity to our Neighbours for Gods sake, and with respect to his Will [Page 64]and good Pleasure, is so much conducible to the Pardon of our sins,) the Practice of this Vertue, will also appear more advisable to them, that are least disposed to it, than perhaps hath been formerly considered or understood by them. And whereas most of the Texts, which I shall alledge to this Purpose, do seem to speak of a full and fi­nal Remission of all sins at the Day of Judgment I suppose it will be easily yiel­ded by the Argument from the Greater to the Less, that if Charity be available for Deliverance from the Eternal punishment of the Life to come, it may well be conclu­ded, it may also avail for a Redemption from Temporal punishments in this Life, (which are justly to be feared) or for an Abatement.

The first Argument which I shall pro­duce for the Truth of this Doctrine, shall be taken from those Texts, which speak of such an Act of Charity, as is more commonly understood in this Text; name­ly, That whereby we Cover the sins of others, by Forgiving them their Trespasses against our selves. And the express words of our Saviour, Mat. 6.14, 15. are, that if ye forgive men their Trespasses, your [Page 65]Heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive not Men their Trespasses, nei­ther will your Heavenly Father forgive you. By which Text it appears plainly, that the Truth of that Sense of St. Peters words, which I plead for, is no other then a just Consequence of the other, more common­ly received. That if it be true, that Cha­rity will cover a Multitude of sins in other Men, it will also procure the same Effect to the Charitable Person, that is, cover a Multitude of sins in him, he that forgives shall be forgiven. And in another Evange­list we find our Saviour expresly directing us to this Work of Charity for the same End, namely, that our sins may be forgi­ven, Mar. 11.25. When ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any, that your Father which is in Heaven may forgive you your Trespasses: But if you do not for­give, neither will your Father which is in Heaven forgive your Trespasses. That which our Saviour himself directs us to do for this End, may it not be done by us to that End? And is it not confidently to be believed to be Effectual and Available thereunto? And is not the same Effect as manifestly implyed in that Prayer which [Page 66]our Saviour hath taught us? Forgive us our Debts, i. e. our sins, as we forgive our Debters, i. e. them that trespass against us, Luke 11.4. Where the Particles As, in the one Evangelist, and For, in the other, do signifie the same thing, namely, A Mo­tive used by our Saviours direction to pro­mote the Effect of our Petition, confirm­ed by an express Promise, Luke 6.37. For­give, and ye shall be forgiven. Add to this from the beginning of the same Sermon of our Blessed Saviour, Mat. 5.7. Blessed are the Mercifull, for they shall obtain Mercy, and as Mercy in us is a Branch of Charity; so the Covering or Pardon of sins is an emi­nent Part of that Mercy that is to be ob­tained thereby. These Sentences of our Blessed Saviour, together with divers others to the same Purpose, I suppose might be alluded to by St. James in that Saying, Jam. 2.13. For he shall have Judgement without Mercy, that hath shewed no Mercy, and Mercy rejoyceth against Judgement. Mercy in the Text comprehends all works of Charity, as well in the latter as in the former Clause. They that would have the latter Clause to be understood only of the Mercy of God triumphing over his Justice, [Page 67]seem not to consider the Context, before and after these Words, which apparently speaks of such Mercy and Charity, as is to be exercised by Men toward their Brethren, which being also the undoubted Meaning of the Word in this Verse; the plain sense of the whole Verse can be no other than this, that the Unmercifull man shall find no Mercy in the day of Judgment. On the contrary, that Mercy, or the Mercifull man, shall have his Judgment so tempered with Mercy, as to give him cause of Re­joycing in that Day for Deliverance or Sal­vation from the Judgment of Condemnati­on, or the Fear of it. This Goodness or Mercy found in Men, (if it be true and sin­cere) being the Effect of Gods Grace, doth dispose and fit Men for Divine Mercy. Mercy in the Person to be judged qualifies him for the Mercy of the Judge. Not that any such Charity or Mercy can be found in a Sinner, as is sufficient in it self to justifie him, or expiate his sin in strictness of Ju­stice or Merit, but that by the Goodness and Mercy of God, for Christs Sake, it shall obtain this Effect in the last Judgment.

And as in this first Branch of the Text, the word Mercy twice used doth plainly sig­nifie [Page 68]the Mercy of God, as well as the mercy of Man; He shall have Judgment without Mercy, i. e. from God, that hath shewed no Mercy to men. So in the second Branch, the same word Mercy, may have respect both to the Mercy of God (as ma­ny Good Divines have interpreted it) and to the Mercy of men. It is Mercy in God rejoycing over Judgment or Justice, that gives men Cause of Rejoycing; and Mercy in men, that by Divine Acceptance quali­fies them for that Mercy of God.

This Sentence of St. James, in both Parts of it, stands fully confirmed by that [...], or Representation of the last Judgment, which is given by our Saviour, Matt. 25. from the 21 ver. to the end of the 41 ver. Then shall he say to them on the Left hand, depart from me ye Cursed into Everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels. There's Judgment with­out Mercy, and the Reason of it follows, For I was an Hungred and ye Fed me not, I was Thirsty and ye gave me no Drink, Naked and ye Clothed me not, &c. In as much as ye did it not to these little ones, ye did it not to me. That is, ye shewed no Mercy, for my Sake to them that needed [Page 69]it. So is the first Part of the Apostles Sen­tence confirmed, and exemplified by the latter Part of our Saviours: They shall have Judgment without Mercy that shewed no Mercy. The second Part of the Apostoli­cal Sentence is likewise abundantly confir­med by the first Part of our Saviours. Then shall the King say unto them on the Right hand, come ye Blessed of my Father, receive the Kingdom prepared for you from the Foundation of the World; For I was an Hungred and ye gave me Meat, I was Thirsty, and ye gave me Drink, &c. That is, by his own Interpretation, ver. 40. In as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of my Brethren (being also your Bre­thren) you have done it unto me. Where 'tis to be noted, how the Mercifull Man hath not only his sins covered, for which he might have been Condemned, but is ad­vanced to a state of Glory, and Triumph in the Kingdom of Heaven. So doth Mercy not only escape but triumph over Judgment.

In each part of this Description of the distributive Justice, or Judgement of God in the latter day, a common Synechdoche of the Part for the Whole, must be un­derstood, [Page 70]that is, in the Assignment of the respective Reasons of the contrary Judge­ments of Absolution and Condemnation. For neither will Charity be respected as the only reason, or condition of the Re­ward, but therewith also all other Chri­stian Vertues, and Good Works, especi­ally that of an unfeigned Faith, as the Root of them all. Nor will the want of Charity, or the Vices most contrary to it, be the only reason of the Sentence of Condemnation; but all other sins against the known will of God, will be jointly respected in the awarded Punishment. But since it hath pleased our Saviour, who is himself to be Judge at that day, to spe­cifie these two opposite Practises as the only Instances of the reason of his future Judgement, we have sufficient ground to conclude, that they will be especially, though not only, considered by him in that Judgement.

The same Synechdoche of the Part for the Whole, necessary to be understood in the words of our Saviour, which we have last mentioned, is no less necessary to be understood in all Promises of the same Re­ward to any particular Vertue, or sort of [Page 71]Good Works, of any kind. Partly be­cause no single Vertue, that is sincere and genuine, can exist without a Con­nexion of all other Vertues, as hath been often notified in the Doctrine, as well of Heathen, as Christian Vertues. And part­ly, because no single Vertue, in the want of the rest can be enough to qualifie a Man for the State of the Heavenly Life, or render a Man so much as capable there­of. Because that Life doth require, as an Indispensible Preparative for it, such a Principle of Divine Life, or Holiness, as comprehends the Habit and Disposition at least of all Goodness, and as is perfectly inconsistent with a total privation of any Real Vertue. So that if it were possible for a Man to have any such Vertue in him, as Charity, with a total privation of Sobriety, Humility, Temperance and Pi­ety towards God, he could not be capa­ble of that Benefit, or Reward, which the Text speaks of, that is, of having all his sins covered, or perfectly discharged from all Punishment at the last Judge­ment. Although that single Vertue, how­ever imperfect, and insincere, might pos­sibly abate the degrees of Punishment, for [Page 72]the want of the rest, as hath been inti­ [...]ed before.

But although in the promises of this reward to any particular Vertue, or sort of Good Works, there be a necessity of the foresaid Synechdoche, yet in the Threatnings of Judgments to particular Vices, there is no necessity of any such Figure. Because, as there is no such necessary Connexion of all sorts of Vices, (as there is of Ver­tues) some of which are contrary and in­consistent with some others; so it is cer­tain, that any one Vice, notwithstanding any freedom from others, is enough to reader a Man liable to the Sentence of Condem­nation: As in Humane Justice, one Ca­pital Crime renders a man liable to death, notwithstanding any possible Plea of In­nocence, as to other Crimes: And one Mortal Disease will kill a Man, notwith­standing any freedom from other Diseases.

So in the last judgement, if a Man be able to plead, (as many will be) that they were no Idolaters, Whoremasters, Theeves, or other sorts of Criminals: And that they are not guilty of starving any body, or depriving them of their bread, robbing or oppressing, or casting into Pri­son, [Page 73]or other like breaches of Charity; no such Plea will hold before the Righte­ous Judge, which will never change any thing upon a Man that he is not guilty of; nor doth he instance in any such pra­ctice in this Monitory Description of his last Judgement. He saith not, ye rob­bed me of my Meat, Drink, or Clothing, or ye wronged me by Violence or Fraud; but ye fed me not when I was hungry, ye clothed me not when I was naked, ye relieved me not in my Necessities nei­ther did ye visit, or comfort me in my Distresses: Go therefore ye cursed, &c. not for your Injustice or Injuries, but for your Uncharitableness. What could our blessed Lord mean by this negative man­ner of describing his future Judgement but to warn all People of that vulgar Deceit, which they are so apt to fall into, that not being guilty of doing any body any wrong or harm (wherein also they judge very partially, upon gross and false Ac­counts, without any regard to the many and great Injuries of the Heart and Tongue,) they must needs be excused at the Last Day. As if it were Charity enough to co­ver other sins, not to have done any Wrong [Page 74]in matter of Fact to any Body, and not to take the Meat out of another mans mouth, were to Feed him, not to strip him, or take away his Garment were to Clothe him I know no Plea of Common People so fre­quently alledged as this, nor any so De­ceitfull, or so contrary to the Express mea­ning of our Saviours Description of his own Judgment.

I have insisted something more largely upon this Testimony of our Saviour, as one that alone is sufficient to confirm the Do­ctrine here treated of. Nevertheless I shall proceed to the Allegation of a competent number of other Texts to the same purpose, which I judge to be partly necessary for the Conviction of a strong Prejudice against this Doctrine in the minds of many Good Peo­ple amongst us, and partly usefull for the more effectual perswasion of all People to the study and practice of this Vertue, which the Apostle recommends to us with such an Emphatical mark of Efficacy. [...], &c. before all things have fervent Charity: For Charity &c.

And because the Texts already quoted have been taken out of the New Testa­ment only, and chiefly from the Mouth of [Page 75]our Saviour himself, I shall proceed to add some others of the same Authority, before I mention any out of the Old Testament. But before I produce any particular Text, I must demand the Concession of this unde­niable Proposition, viz. That all Promises of entrance into Everlasting Life or of Re­ward in Heaven, made to the exercise of this Vertue, do necessarily suppose and im­ply the Covering or Remission of sin, be­cause all sin uncovered, i. e. unpardoned, is an invincible Barr to a mans entrance into that State, and renders him incapable of any place or reward in Heaven; because a Man must first be justified from the Guilt of sin, before he can be Glorified. Rom. 8.30. Whom he hath justified, them he hath glorified. And it is no more possible for a Man to be Glorified without being Justifi­ed, than it is to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven without being saved from Hell. Whatever therefore is, or can be available towards the Glorification of a sinner, must needs be available towards his Salvation, or Deliverance from Condemnation, which imports such Remission or Non-imputation of sin, as is specially signified by the Co­vering of it. Therefore all Promises of Sal­vation, [Page 76]Entrance into Heaven, Heavenly Treasure, Everlasting Life or Rewaid, made by our Saviour himself, or by his Apostles in his Name to the habit or exercise of Charity, do necessarily imply the Cover­ing of sin, to be hoped for upon the same account.

For to say as some Divines do, that Charity and Good Works are necessary to Salvation, but not to Justification, seems to me no less than a real Contradiction. For so it must needs be, if it be spoken concer­ning the Final and [...]udicial Justification, which certainly is the most compleat and perfect Signification of that Word, Justifi­cation in S [...]ripture phrase, being generally (though not always) opposed to Condem­nation in sensu forensi. As Rom. 8.33, 34. It is God that justifieth, who shall con­demn? and Prov. 17.15. He that justifieth the Wicked, and he that condemneth the Just, &c. To be Justified is not to be Condemned, and what is it to be Saved, but not to be Condemed in the last Judg­ment? But if to be Saved, be not to be Condemned, and not to be Condemned is to be Justified; to say that Charity and Good Works are necessary to Salvation; or [Page 77]not Condemnation, and yet not necessary to Justification is a perfect Contradiction, equal to the Saying, that Charity is neces­sary and not necessary to Justification; but this by the way, only to answer a common Subtersuge from the Doctrine of the Text.

Having thus premised this undeniable Postulate, I shall now proceed to alledge the particular promises of Salvation, Eter­nal Life, and entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, with the Possession of Everlasting rewards in that State, made to the habit and exercise of this Grace of Charity.

In the Sermon upon the Mount, (besides the Texts already cited from thence) I shall instance in two others, Mat. 6.3, 4. But when thou doest thine Alms, let not thy Left hand know what thy Right hand doth, That thine Alms may be in Secret, and thy Father which seeth in secret, shall reward thee Openly. That this open Reward pro­mised to the Alms-giver, is to be under­stood of the Heavenly Reward, I presume will not be questioned. And ver. 20. of the same Chapter, Lay up for your selves Treasures in Heaven, where neither Moth nor Rust doth corrupt. Where, that our Saviour speaks of the same practice of [Page 78]Alms giving is evident by comparing the Text with its Parallel, Luke. 12.33. Sell all that you have, and give Alms, provi­ding your selves Baggs which wax not old, a Treasure in the Heavens that faileth not, where no Thief approacheth, neither Moth corrupteth. Agreeable to the like words, Mat. 19.21. Jesus said unto him, if thou wile be perfect go and sell that thou hast, and give to the Pope, and thou shalt have Treasure in Heaven. To which Speech of our Saviour St. Paul doth undoubtedly al­lude, 1 Tim. 6.17, 18, 19. Charge them that are Rich in this world, that they do Good, that they be Rich in Good Works, ready to Distribute, willing to Communicate, laying up for themselves a good Foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on Eternal Life. By which words the Apostle plainly signifies, such Good Works as he speaks of, to be a good Foundation of the Hope of Eternal Life, but so they could not be, unless they were also a Foun­dation of Hope of the Pardon of all sins, because the want of this Pardon destroys the Foundation of all Hope of Eternal Life.

Another Text of the same importance is Luke 16.9. I say unto you, make to your [Page 79]selves Friends of the Mammon of Ʋnrighte­ousness, that when ye fail, they may receive you into Everlasting Habitations. Mammon is a Syriack word (the Language used by our Saviour) signifying Riches or worldly Wealth; and of the Reason, why they are called the Mammon of Ʋnrighteousness, or the unrighteous Mammon, ver. 11. a double Account may be given from the Context antecedent and consequent. The antece­dent Context is a Parable of the Unjust Steward, that provided for his future Main­tenance (when he was warn'd out of his Office) by cheating his Master, and ma­king himself Friends of his Masters Debtors, by Defaulking what he pleased, from the just Accounts of their Debts, and putting them upon his own Interest, by such an un­righteous Obligation. Now the Words of our Saviour in the Text cited, being the application of that Parable, may seem to imply the reason of that Phrase, the man­mon of unrighteousness, or the unrighteous mammon, to be taken from the unrighte­ousness, which is frequently used in the gaining, holding and using of Worldly Riches. But another and better account of the same Term, may be collected from [Page 80]the [...] verse; where the same [...] is re­p [...]ated and interpreted. If therefore ye have not been faithfull in the unrighteous Mammon; who will commit to your trust the tra [...] riches. Where the unrighteous Mammon is opposed to the true Mam­mon, or Riches. For the word Riches is not in the Greek, but understood in the Adjective, [...], the true, from whence it appears, that the reason of that te [...]m unrighteousness, is not to be drawn only from the manner of gaining, or u­sing Riches, but also from the proper na­ture, and just Value thereof, which being compared with the only true Riches, is found to be false, vain and deceitfull. The only true Riches is that which is Spiritual and heavenly, consisting in true righteousness, and the Reward thereof, in the Heavenly Trea­sure: therefore the Riches of this World are not the right, or true Riches, but are rather apt to deceive Men, and hinder them from obtaining the true Riches; whence our Saviour calls them the de­ceitfulness of riches, and Mark 4.19. the deceitfulness of riches choketh the seed of the word. And yet, so as they may be used, they may prove useful towards [Page 81]the gaining the true Riches, which is the thing signified by our Saviour in that Text; make to your selves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness (the false, and deceitful Riches of the World) that when ye fail, i. e. [...]. When ye fail of holding them, or they fail you (as they must needs do, when ye come to die) they may receive you, i. e. you may be received: The word they, not relating necessarily to the word friends, but the Verb [...] is rather to be un­derstood impersonally, they may receive you, i. e. you may be received, as Luke 12.20. Thou fool, this night shall they re­quire thy soul, so it is in the Greek, [...], but well trans­lated, thy soul shall be required of thee. Into everlasting habitations, i. e. into Hea­ven, Now although in this Text no ex­press mention is made of the practice of Charity, yet that that is the thing meant (principally at least) by the first words, make to your selves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness, no doubt can be made. And that being supposed to be the true Sence of those words, the thing which I observe is this, that the practice of Cha­rity [Page 82]is directed by our Saviour, to be u­sed to the end, that a Man may be re­ceived into the Heavenly Habitations, and therefore, that it must needs be some way available to that end (as I shall af­terwards shew more fully, in answer to the Objections made against this Doctrine) It being grossly absurd that any means should be directed to be used for any end, with­out supposing that it can be some way a­vailable thereunto. And because the en­trance into the Kingdom of Heaven, doth necessarily suppose the covering, or remis­sion of sin, which being uncovered, is an Invincible Barr to that entrance, I infer, that this Charity must be also available to the removing of this Ban, that is, to the covering of sin.

Another saying of our Saviours, which I take to be very agreeable to this, is in Luke 6.38. Give, and it shall be given unto you, good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom, for with the same measure that you mere withall, it shall be measured unto you again. The word Men is not in the Greek Text, but the Verb being the third Person plural, [Page 83] [...] signifies no more then they shall give, and is to be interpreted by the Pas­sive Vercle of the singular Number, used in the beginning of the verse, [...] it shall be given unto you. Which doth not signifie so much what shall be done by Men to the Charitable Person in this Life, as what shall be done by God for him, not in this Life only, or so much, as in that which is to come. For to con­fine the Sense of the Text to the kind­ness of Men, or of God, to the Chari­table Person only in this Life, is to abate the Liberality of the Promise, so empha­tically expressed. Now although some Re­ward in this Life may be given by God to particular Good Works, without a ple­nary Pardon of sin, yet so it cannot be in the Life to come, where a Man must first be discharged of his sin, before he can be capable of any Reward of his Good Works. And even in this Life every tem­poral Reward afforded to a sinner, implies some Exemption from the extremity of tem­poral Punishment, because it is inconsistent with it. Temporal Punishment, as well as Eternal is partly Privative, and partly Po­sitive, consisting as well in the privation or [Page 84]want of temporal Good things, as in the suffering of sensible Evils. And temporal Reward must needs consist in the Enjoy­ment of some temporal Privilege, or Bene­fit which imports Coutradiction to the Pri­vation thereof, which is part of the Punish­ment deserved by him.

I shall mention but one Text more from the Mouth of our Saviour, and that, is Luke 11.41. But rather give Alms of such things as you have, and behold all things are clean unto you. The scope of which words most agreeable to the Context appears to be this, That whereas the Pharisees, by a supersti­tious Tradition did imagin, that it was ne­cessary for them to wash their Hands before they did eat, to purge themselves from any Pollution, that might render them Un­clean, and so unfit to partake of the Bles­sing of God in the use of their ordinary meat: our Saviour reprooving that Super­stitious Conceit, instructs them to a better way of purifying both Themselves and their Meat: and that was by giving of Alms of what they possessed. That being a special testimony and fruit of Repentance, which is necessary and effectual to the Purgation of all Spiritual Pollution. A thing which [Page 85]by its Acceptance with God was fifted to procure his Parcon of all sin, that might render them unworthy of partaking of any of his Benefits. The only thing that could pollute them and those Creatures, which they were to receive, by Depriving them of the Blessing of God in the use of them was sin. And to think that that could be cleansed, or purged away by the outward Washing of their Hands, was a gross piece of Superstition: Although it wanted not some appearance of Foundation from the Ceremonial Precepts in Moses's Law; for several Washings were enjoined to cleanse the Jews from a sort of Legal and Ceremo­nial Pollution: but never were defigned for any Purgation from any Moral uncleanness or sin. But the giving of Alms, according to the Ability of the Giver (signified by the [...]) doth indeed import some­thing of a true and real Purification of the Heart, as it is an effect of Charity, which is the best Fruit of an unreigned Repen­tance, whereby the soul is cleansed from the guilt and pollution of sin.

For there are two Parts of Repentance: the First is to cease to do Evil, and the Se­cond, to learn to do Well. As 'tis descri­bed [Page 86]by the Prophet Isay, Chap. 1. v. 16, 17, 18. A Text which I am to urge after­ward, as a pregnant Confirmation of the Doctrine asserted in this Discourse. John the Baptist preaching the Baptism of Re­pentance for the Remission of sins, pres­seth this upon his Auditory, that they should bring forth Bruits worthy of Re­pentance. So did St. Paul in all places where he preached, Acts. 26.20. exhorting them to repent, and turn to God, and do Works meet for Repentance; such indeed are all manner of Good Works and Ab­staining from Evil: And works of Mercy and Alms-giving being most eminent a­mongst Good Works, are by a common Sy­nechdoche of the Part for the Whole, put for all Good Works. And the whole bu­siness of Repentance is sometime described by them, as shall be shewn from several Texts of the Old Testament, which remain to be quoted in their due place.

But as to the Sense of that Speech of our Saviour, which I am yet speaking of, it seemeth to agree with that of St. Paul, Tit. 1.15. Ʋnto the Pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and un­believing, is nothing pure, but even their [Page 87]Mind and Conscience is defiled. Where St. Paul speaks of all sorts o [...] Meats, and o­ther Creatures of God (as our Saviour doth in this Speech) declaring the Use of them to the Pure, i. e. to all penitent Be­lievers (opposed to them that are defiled and unbelieving, whose Mind and Conscience is defiled with sin unrepented of) are pure. The only Difference of these two Sayings seemeth to be this: That whereas St. Paul speaks of a general Purity, our Saviour ex­presseth the same thing Synechdochically, by a particular eminent Instance of Good Works, supposed to proceed from a common principle of Sanctification & Purity of Heart.

To conclude my Animadversion upon the Text, that which our Saviour means is, as if he had said, to go about to cleanse the Body, without regard to the Soul, is vain and unprofitable. But on the contrary, the Soul being cleansed by Repentance, testifi­ed by such an eminent Fruit of it, as is the giving of Alms (supposed to be conside­rable in their Measure, and proportionable to the Ability of the Giver) all things (not forbidden by God) are clean, and free to be used without fear of Pollution, and with confidence of his Blessing.

If this be not the Meaning of our Saviour in this obscure Text. I know not what it should be. But if it be so, it plainly and fully confirms the Doctrine which I have in hand, viz. that Charity is a special and effectual means for the Covering of sin, which is all one with the Cleansing from the Guilt of it.

But some Protestant Expositor preju­diced against this Doctrine, have utterly changed the Sense of our Saviour in this Speech, which they will not allow to be designed by him for any Direction or De­claration of the means of Cleansing men from the Guilt of sin: But to be spoken Ironically in reference to a common Opinion and Doc­trine of the Jews, See Dr. Lightfoots Horae. Hebr. viz. that Alms is equipollent to all the precepts of the Law, and enough to purge away sin, and save from Hell; and this Sentence to be cited from them by way of Irrision and Reprehension, rather then with Approbati­on, and so not to be uttered as his own words or meaning; but this Interpretation seems to be forced, as having no other Foundation, then the Prejudice of the Au­thors against the Doctrine which we are [Page 89]treating of, confirmed by this, and the fore­mentioned Saying of our Saviour.

I shall add but one Text more out of the New Testament; viz. that of St. Paul, Hebr. 13.16. To do good, and to distribute forget not, for with such Sacrifices God is well pleased: Where I shall not insist upon the Latine Translations, which may seem more expressly to favour our Doctrine, by the words promeretur, vulg. placatur, vel conciliatur, signifying God to be appeased, reconciled and made friends by works of Charity: But content my self with our English Translation, most literally agreea­ble to the Greek Word [...], God is well pleased. Which word doth as tru­ly, though not so expressly confirm our Doctrine, as any of the Latine Words fore­mentioned, used by Learned Interpreters, do. For whatsoever Good Works God is truly pleased with, must needs be profita­ble to the averting his Displeasure, from the Person that doth them, if he be any ways liable thereto, and whatsoever tends to the Averting his Displeasure, tends equally to the Averting the Punishment of sin, which is the Sense that I assert of St. Peters phrase of Covering of sins. Nor can God be well [Page 90]pleased with any Action of a sinner, till he be in some measure at least reconciled to him, and disposed to the Pardon of his sin. Other Texts out of the New Testament will be alledged afterward in Answer to the Objections against the Doctrine

At present I shall only add a few more of equal Authority out of the Old Te­stament, beginning with that of Solomon Prov. 14.21. He that despiseth his neigh­bour sinneth, but he that hath mercy on the poor, happy is he. The English An­notation upon this Text, commonly at­tributed to the Assembly of Divines, is remarkable in these words. He that will not give to the poor, shall be punished as a sinner, although he takes nothing from them, or because it is the Pro­priety and Priviledge of Charity to co­ver a multitude of sins, Jam. 5.20. and 1 Pet. 4.8. He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth, may be also, and is by some interpreted, shall be found a sinner, all his sins shall be reckoned un­to him, and he shall be punished without any mitigation. So 1 Kin. 1.21. I and my son shall be sinners, that i [...], shall be proceeded against as offenders, sin will [Page 91]be imputed unto us. Where we find the same Interpretation of the Text, in St. Peter, which is given by us, allowed by these Annotators, who are far enough from all suspicion of favour to any Popish Doctrines. Notwithstanding the same In­terpreters do give the other Sence of St. Peters words only in their Notes upon that place, making them to relate to the sins of others, thereby making peace. But this Interpretation is grounded only upon the parallel Text of the Proverbs cited by them, and as they think, by the Apostle, which Objection hath been an­swered before. Now the forementioned Sence of the first Branch of the Text, Prov. 14.21. given by the Annotator, doth determine the second, by way of op­position to the first, to signifie that Hap­piness which is promised to him that hath mercy on the poor, to consist in the non-imputation, covering, or remission of his sins.

But a more indubitable Testimony out of the same Book, to confirm this Do­ctrine, is in Chap. 16.6. by mercy and truth iniquity is purged. The vulgar La­tin reads redimitur, is redeemed, Junius and [Page 92]Tremellius, expiatur, is expiate [...], agree­able to the proper signification of the Hebrew word [...], from [...], placavit, expiavit, so the meaning of the words is, that by the practice of these Vertues, the Pardon of sin is impetrated, or obtained. And one would think this Exposition of the wise mans words, should be past all doubt. But because the admission of it imports an irrefragable confirmation of the Doctrine, which we labour to defend, some Interpreters out of meer prejudice a­gainst that Doctrine, have found out ano­ther meaning of the words, affording no manner of favour to this conclusion. Name­ly, that the Mercy and Truth, spoken of in this Text, are to be referred to God only, and not at all to Men▪ making the Sence to be, that iniquity is purged by the Mercy and Truth of God, without any respect to those Vertues, as practised by Men.

But whether this Interpretation be not forced to comply with the opinion of them that advance it; or to be preferred be­fore the other, which is so obvious and plain, must be left to the judgement of the Impartial and Ingenuous Reader, be­cause [Page 93]I am not willing to trouble him with a tedious confutation of it.

Another Text to this purpose is that of Daniel 4.27. Wherefore O King, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righte­ousness, (or by Alms, Vulg. Latin, Sep­tuagint, Munster. Syriack, Arabick, de Dieu. &c. as the word is there rendred by many learned Transla­tors, and as the same word is often used in the Old Testament) and thine iniqui­ties by shewing mercy to the Poor: if it may be a lengthening to thy tranquillity, or a healing of thine error, as it is in the Margent: where to let pass the contest about the Translation of the Verb, [...], whether it ought to be as we have it, according to other Protestant Translations, break off, or as it is in the Septuagint, vulgar Latin, Syriack, Arabick, and very many other Translators, redeem thine ini­quity, it is evident that the Prophets counsel to the King was given to the end, that he might obtain some remission of his sin, and avoid the extremity of the threat­ning declared in the foregoing verses. And the matter of that counsel consisting in the practice of Charity, it is likewise evi­dent, [Page 94]that in the judgement of the Pro­phet, such Charity is a thing available to that end, otherwise his counsel was vain, and unprofitable.

The like counsel is given by the Pro­phet Isaiah Chap. 1.16, 17, 18. verses, to the people of Judah, after a severe re­monstrance of Gods displeasure, threatning their Destruction, and rejecting their hy­pocritical services. He tells them what they should do, to escape that Punishment of their sin, and gain a full remission there­of. Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do well. seek judgement, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow; come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow, though they be red like crimson, they shall be us wooll. If these words uttered by the Prophet in the name of the Lord, do not confirm that Sense of the Apostle which we con­test for, I know not what words will do it. He that is not abundantly satisfied with the Evidence of these Texts of the New and Old Testament, may see more [Page 95]to the same purpose, Psal. 41.1. Isai. [...]8. from the 7 ^t• verse to the 12 ^th. Ezek. 18.7. Mic. 6.8. Luke 19.8, 9. And when he hath considered these Canonical Texts, he may cast his eye upon two or three A­pocryphals, Tob. 4.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. and Chap. 12.9. For Alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Eccle­siasticus 3.30. Water will quench a fla­ming fire, and Alms maketh an Atonement for sin. The authority of these Texts, doth not so much test upon the particu­lar Authors, as upon the general Sense of the Jewish Church, which they are justly presumed to deliver especially while their Doctrine is found so agreeable to the Ca­nonical Scriptures, which were the Rule of their Faith. To transcribe all the Texts, which are to be found in the Bible to this purpose, and make such particular Re­marks upon them, as we have done upon those few, which we have cited before, would swell the Discourse, and be a Work of Supererogation, by which we cannot hope to merit so much of the Reader, as perhaps we may do by sparing his pains, and our own.

CHAP IV.

HAving now sufficiently (as we think) confirmed the General Doctrine, founded upon this Text of St. Peter: we are to proceed according to our pro­mise to the answering some Objections, which have been or may be made against this Sence of the words. And I shall be­gin with that which seems to be most con­siderable,

I. Objection. Namely, that these words of the Apostle are quoted, or borrowed from a Proverb of Solomons, Prov. 10.12. Hatred stirreth up strife, but love covereth all sins. Where by the Antithe­sis of the two parts of the Sentence, it is past all doubt, that the sins to be co­vered by love, must be the sins of others, and not of the Charitable Person.

Answer. To this may be answered. 1. That it is no way evident, that the A­postle did intend any quotation of that Proverb, there being no such intimation thereof in this Text, as is usual in other quotations out of the Old Testament, by those words, as it is written, or the like, [Page 97]used by this same Apostle in this Epistle, Chap. 1.16. Because it is written, be ye Holy, as I am Holy. And as it is evi­dent, that he doth not quote the whole Proverb, whiles he leaves out the first part, Hatred stirreth up strife; so, that he doth not cite the second part verba­tim, is plain, by comparing the Texts. Whereof one saith, love covereth all sins, the other only a multitude of sins. But in the Septuagint, which is generally fol­lowed in quotations out of the Old Te­stament, in the New, a far greater diffe­rence is found, [...]. So it is in the Septuagint; not agreeing so much as in one word with St. Peters sup­posed quotation, [...]. The Hebrew Text indeed is something more agreeable to St. Peters words.

But then 2 ^ly. Suppose that the Apostle did allude unto the words of that Pro­verb (as is not improbable) it doth not therefore follow that he intended the same Sence, it being very usual with our Savi­our himself, and the Evangelists and A­postles, by way of accommodation, to [Page 98]make use of Texts and Sayings in the Old Testament, in a different Sence from that which did belong to them there. As in Mat. 2.15. and 23. 2 Cor. 8.15. and elsewhere frequently. And this Answer I take to be sufficient for this first Ob­jection against our Interpretation of St. Peters words.

2. Objection. But another main Obje­ction, and that which is most like to be insisted upon against this Interpretation, is, that it seems to favour the Popish Doctrines of Merit, Satisfaction and Justi­fication by Works, and to be repugnant to the Evangelical Doctrine of the most full, perfect, and sufficient Expiation, and Satisfaction for the sins of the whole World, made only by the Sacrifice of Christs death, and applied only by Faith. The covering and pardon of sin, is the Effect of Gods grace granted only upon the con­sideration of Christs death, upon condi­tion of a true Faith in him wrought by the Spirit of God through the hearing of the Gospel.

Answer. To this Objection I answer.

1. That although some Papists interpret­ing this Text as I do, may be found to [Page 99]alledge it among other Texts, for the con­firmation of some of the Doctrines men­tioned in the Objection; yet neither is this Sense vouched by all Interpreters of their Profession; nor can any of those Do­ctrines be further evinced, or confirmed from this Text, so understood, then it may be from other Texts before alledged for the Confirmation of the Doctrine, a­gainst which the Objection is made. Nor is the free grace of God, or the sufficien­cy of that Expiation, or Satisfaction which was made by the death of Christ, any more abated by this Doctrine, than it is by that which all the forementioned Texts import.

2. The words Merit and Satisfaction, are known to have been familiarly used, in reference to Good Works, by the most ancient of the Latin Fathers, and parti­cularly by St. Cyprian (one of the most Primitive) in a Catholick Orthodox Sense. Both the words are Innocent in the Sense of the Fathers, though they have been perverted by the Schoolmen.

And Justification by Works is certain­ly as true in St. James's Sence, as 'tis false in St. Pauls. The late Controver­sies [Page 100]that have been concerning these Points, do not so much respect the words, as the extravagant Sense, that hath been put upon them by the Schoolmen, who have intangled and corrupted a great part of Christian Doctrine, by their misinterpret­ing the Fathers: determining the simpli­city of their Popular Expressions, by their own Capricious and Litigious Conceits, into such Dogmatical Sense, as was never thought of by the Antients. But in the particular Controversies about Merit, Sa­tisfaction, and Justification by Works, there hath been so much of Logomachy, or word-bate, as might (in my opinion) be fairly compromised, or accorded by Ju­dicious Arbitratours, whose minds were free from all prejudice, but that against Contention and Division: and were more zealous for Unity and Concord, than for disputable and opinionative Truth. But for to undertake that task in this place would not be reasonable.

That all Pardon of sin is founded upon the Expiation, or Propitiation made by the Bloud of Christ, and granted, or obtained only by the Free Grace of God, is not de­nied by any Sect or Party of Christians, [Page 101]that I know of. Although some Diffe­rences have been about the Conditions of this Grant. For to say, that this Grace is granted without any Condition or Qualifi­cation of the Receiver, is, in my Judgment, to deny a great part of the Scriptures, as well of the New Testament, as of the Old, destructive as well of the New Co­venant, as of the Old: no more Antino­mian than Anti-evangelical.

Doubtless it is of Free Grace that God will pardon a sinner, upon any Condition, Nor is it possible for us to do any thing, sufficient to make Satisfaction for our sins, or to merit the Forgiveness of them, in ri­gor of Justice, because all that is in our Power to do, is no more then our Duty, if God requires it. And all that we do, is much less. And as the duty of Well do­ing in the utmost Extent, is a just Debt of Thankfulness at least, if not of Preceptive Obligation to Almighty God, to whom we owe our selves, and all that we have or can do. So the Punishment we are liable to for neglecting our Duty, or acting contra­ry thereunto in our Evil doings, is another Debt, by our Saviours account signified to us in that Form of Prayer which he hath [Page 102]taught us to use: Forgive us our Debts, as we forgive our Debtors, Mat. 6.12. But it is altogether unreasonable one Debt can be discharged by the Payment of another, especially when the Payment falls so much short of the old Debt, as it doth in any thing we do. Besides that upon a due ac­count Charity it self, and every Good Work that can be done by us; doth in­crease our debt to God, because it cannot be done without his Grace.

Nevertheless God of his Free Grace hath promised the Remission of sin, upon cer­tain Conditions declared in his Word, a­mongst which, this of Charity is one, that by a common Synechdoche of a Part for the Whole, includes all the rest. And whereas in the New Testament Faith in Christ is more commonly propounded, as the Condition of Justification, importing the Remission of sin, it is to be considered, that this Faith is so far from excluding Cha­rity, that it is expressly said to include it, by St. Paul himself, the supposed Author of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith without Works, Gal. 5.6. For in Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor Ʋncircumcision, but Faith which [Page 103]worketh by Love. [...], whether the word [...], be to be understood in a Passive sense, (as most commonly it is elsewhere in Scripture, and in other Books: and as it is here ren­dred by the Syriack Translator, and so meaning that Faith is actuated, perfected, and made effectual by Love) or in the A­ctive sense, as our English Translation gives it, signifying the Efficacy, Energy or Ope­ration of Faith only. The Meaning of the Apostle by the Addition of these Words, can be no other then to limit, and distin­guish the nature of that Faith, which is a­vailable to Justification, from an hypocri­tical, dead, and ineffectual Faith, which is altogether invalid, availing nothing at all to the Effect of Justification. The Active sense of the Word, as well as the Passive, serving to declare the true Nature and No­tion of a Justifying Faith to be Energeti­cal and Practical, i. e. producing such ef­fects of the Will, as are agreeable to the entire Object of it: that is, to the Au­thority of Christ, his Doctrine and Pre­cepts, as well as such as respect only the Effect of Redemption, or Expiation of sin by his Death. And such is the necessity of [Page 104]this Charity, by the Doctrine of the same Apostle, that he elsewhere saith, Though I have all Faith, so that I could remove Moun­tains, and have not Charity, it profiteth me nothing, 1 Cor. 13.3. Where by all Faith, undoubtedly is meant, all the Faith that can be had without Charity, and needs not to be restrained to the particular [...], or extraordinary Gift of the Faith of Miracles, whereof he speaks in the former Chapter ver. 12.

To this Purpose St. James Chap. 2.22. saith, Faith is made perfect by Works; not excluding any sort of Good Works, but specially treating of the works of Cha­rity, as appears by the Context, from verse the 13. to the 18. And whereas he saith, Faith is made perfect by Works, he speaks not only of a Gradual Perfection, or of the Consummation or Preservation of Faith, or of the Ornament, Demonstration, or signal evidence of Faith, as some would have it; but of such an essential and formal Perfe­ction, as is necessary to the nature of Truth, and sincerity of Faith, as appears by that repeated Sentence, both before and after these Words, ver. 17. Faith without Works is dead, and ver. 26. As the Body without [Page 105]the Spirit is dead; so Faith without Works is dead also. Whether by the Spirit he means the Breath (as some take it, because the word [...], Spiritus, sometime signi­fies no more) or rather the Soul, which is the most usual Sense of the word in Scrip­ture, the Meaning comes all to one, signi­fying, that an idle or fruitless Faith hath no more of Spiritual Life or Reality in it, than a Body can have without Breath, or without a Soul: and therefore is no more a true and unfeigned Faith, than a dead Car­cass is a human Body.

Indeed the true justifying, saving Faith in the practical Notion, which is the only true Notion of it, includes Charity, toge­ther with all other Good Works, as I have elsewhere largely shewed: So that if Faith be necessary to the Covering or Remission of sin, Charity is so too. But the common Answer to these, and all other Texts pro­duced to evince the Necessity of Charity and Good Works, to the Salvation of a sinner, is, that they prove only a necessity of Presence and Concomitancy, or at most a necessity of Consequence, not of Efficacy, that is, that this Necessity doth not respect the End or Effect of Faith, in the Justifi­cation [Page 106]or Salvation of the Believeer, but proceeds only from the common nature and principle of that Faith, which is an effect of the Spirit of God: the necessary Fruits whereof do consist in Love, Joy, Peace, Long-suffering, &c. which distinct Vertues, with their proper Works, do not contri­bute any thing to the Effect of our Justifi­cation, but are meer Concomitants, or at most but gratefull Effects of that Faith which justifieth us. Which useth to be illustrated by a Similitude borrowed from the natural and animal Life, wherein the particu­lar faculties of Seeing, or taking hold of a thing by the Touch, do necessarily imply such a common Principle of sensitive Life, as doth also comprehend the powers and fa­culties of Hearing, Smelling and Tasting, yet none of these Faculties, or any act of them do, or can contribute any thing effi­ciently to the effect of Seeing, Apprehend­ing, or laying hold of an Object: So the Grace of Charity, or Love to God, and Man, together with all those other Fruits of the Spirit, which are mentioned by the Apostle, and all the Effects and Works, which do proceed from them, are indeed necessary Concomitants of such a Faith, as [Page 107]justifies or saves a Man, but do contribute no more, nor have any more Efficacy to this effect of Justification and Salvation, than the distinct Faculties of other Senses, do to the effect of Seeing. This I take to be a true Account of their Sense, that assert the Doctrine of Justification, and Pardon of sin by Faith only, as that imports a habit, or act really distinct, though not separated from other Christian Vertues.

In opposition to this Opinion contradict­ing the Doctrine which I maintain to be the Sense of the Apostle in this Text, con­firmed, as hath been seen, by many others, I am engaged to prove that Charity, and Good Works are necessary to the Justifica­tion of a sinner, that is, to the Remission of his sin, not only by way of Concomi­tancy, or joint Presence with Faith, or con­sequent to it, but also by way of moral Effi­cacy as a Condition or Means to obtain that Effect.

This I hope will be sufficiently done by the following Arguments, this one po­stulate or conclusion (which I suppose will not be denied) being first granted me, viz. That if any thing else beside the habit or act of Faith, considered as really distinct [Page 108]from other Christian Vertues or Acts, be effectual or available to the Remission of sin, then Charity is, or may be so, in as much as that is one of the most Excellent of Christian Vertues, most agreeable to the Nature of God, and consequently most pleasing to him. So that if that be not available to this End, nothing else besides Faith, can be so. This Proposition being granted, I argue as followeth.

1. Argument. If it be certain from Scripture, and we be bound to believe, that nothing which can be done by us be­sides such a Faith, as is supposed to be really distinct (though not separate) from all Good Works, can be of any Efficacy towards the remission of our sins, then ought nothing else to be done by us to­wards that end, because every such other act done to this end, would by this sup­position be perfectly vain and unreason­able, and not so only, but also contrary to our obliged belief. And then to pray for the forgiveness of our sins, that being an act distinct from Faith, would be not only needless and useless, but unlawful; especially if it should be acted with any opinion, hope, or belief, that such a prayer [Page 109]could avail us any thing in order to this end, or that this end could any way be promoted by our Prayers. But this is di­rectly contrary to our Saviours Precept in that Form of Prayer, which he hath taught us to use, wherein we are directed to pray, that God will forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And contrary to the advice of St. Peter to Simon Magus, Acts 8.22. Re­pent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

Where also it is to be noted, that the Apostle adviseth him not only to pray for the forgiveness of his sin, but also to repent of it in order to the same end. The same advice is given by the same Apostle to the Jews in the first Sermon which he made unto them, after the reception of the Holy Ghost, Acts 2.37, 38. Ha­ving convinced them of their hainous sin in the murder of the Lord Jesus, and made them sensible of it: Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do. Then Peter said unto them, repent and [Page 110]be baptizid every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. Where 'tis observable, that whiles two o­ther things are prescribed by the Apostle to be done, in order to the remission of sin, viz. to repent, and to be baptized, no mention is made of Faith, other then is included in those words, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, which do indeed necessarily imply the act of Faith. But besides this Baptism, which is one thing required to be done for the remission of sins, Repentance also, which is another thing, is expressly required, as necessary to this end: not in that Text only, but in an hundred others of both Testaments, from whence it is that this remission of sin is mentioned as the signal effect of Repen­tance, Mark 1.4. Luke 3.3. John is said to have preached the Baptism of Repen­tance for the Remission of sin. And in the Conjunction of these two things, the Sum of the Gospel to be preached to all Nati­ons, is comprised by our Saviour in St. Luke, chap. 24.47. That Repentance and Remission of sin should be preached in his Name to all Nations. Hence also is the same called Repentance unto Life, Acts. 11.18. [Page 111]and Repentance to Salvation, 2 Cor. 7.9.

From which Texts it doth sufficiently appear, not only that Repentance is ne­cessary unto the Remission of sin, and to Life and Salvation, as a Condition, or Cau­sa sine quâ non, but that it is also effectu­al, and really available to these Ends: For to call that Repentance unto Life, and Re­pentance to Salvation, which contributes no­thing at all, nor hath any manner of Effi­cacy to these Ends, is an absurd Form of words. And if the Preposition [...], unto, doth not signifie some kind of Efficacy, or Qualification for these Ends, it signifies just nothing. But if it doth signifie any man­ner of Efficacy to this End, one of these Things must needs be true: either that Re­pentance is the same thing with that Faith, which abstracts from Works, as an Act re­ally distinct from them all, which is a plain Contradiction: or that something besides Faith, and really distinct from it, is effectu­al and available to the Remission of sins, which is the thing that was to be de­monstrated.

Thus I have named two Things besides Faith, which are generally necessary to Re­mission [Page 112]of sin, viz. Prayer and Repen­tance. Whereunto might be added the practice of Fasting, Mourning, Humilia­tion, and Confession of sin, as things fre­quently mentioned in Scripture, with pre­scription to their use, in order to this end. I forbear to cite the particular Texts, wherein these things are prescribed; be­cause they are all but appendages, or parts of the general duty of Repentance. Nor are these things necessary to this effect barely, and only by their antecedent pre­sence, as meet and convenient preparatives for this Grace of Pardon, but also by, and in respect of such a Moral Efficacy, and Prevalency, as they are justly presumed to have, by their declared acceptance with God, which is all the Efficacy that can be reasonably attributed to Faith it self. And if upon the stress of this Argument, it should be said that Faith in the practi­cal Sense, as a living energetical opera­tive habit, doth include Repentance, with all the proper fruits thereof, the whole Question is yielded. For then to say, that Faith is available for the remission, or covering of sin, is to say, that Repen­tance, Prayer, Charity, and Good Works [Page 113]are so too, which is all we contend for. It being far from our meaning to exclude Faith from any necessary concurrence to this effect of Charity, that is to say, that Charity without Faith can cover sin. For neither can Christian Charity be without Faith, nor if it could, would it be any wise effectual to this end. The only thing that we assert is, that Charity together with Faith, and as a proper, and most Excellent Fruit of it, is available to this end. And the summ of the Argument, which we have here urged to confirm this Assertion is this,

1. That if nothing but Faith can be a­vailable to this end, then ought nothing to be done in order to it, but believing. And Prayer, Repentance, Humiliation, and Confession of sin (notwithstanding that in Scripture they be all prescribed, as means to be used to this end) are not on­ly useless, or needless, but unlawfull to be practised with respect to this end. Or se­condly, that if any of these things be a­vailable to this purpose, so also is Chari­ty. This is our first Argument.

2. Argument. If Charity and Good Works of any sort be not available to­wards [Page 114]the obtainment of remission of sin, Eternal Life, and Salvation; then do all promises of these Benefits made to the use and exercise of these means, signifie no­thing, or at least they must needs lose all power and signification of Motives to a­ny of these Duties. For how can that be considered as a reasonable Motive to any act, which doth no way promote it. Where­as the General Design and end of all con­ditional Promises, is to encourage, per­swade, and move the Persons to whom they are made, to the performance of those Conditions and Acts which are recommend­ed by the respective Promises, upon the hope of obtaining the promised Benefits, by those means. But this hope can have no foundation, without the believing, that the performance of those Conditions will be some ways effectual to the obtain­ment of these Benefits. But if the perfor­mance of such Acts and Conditions must be believed to contribute nothing at all to the obtainment of these Benefits, the forementioned Faith in the Promises, which is the only foundation of the hope, is ut­terly destroyed. And by consequence the said Promises are deprived of all Vertue, [Page 115]or power of Motives, to the practices whereunto they are annexed.

3. Argument. All Precepts, Exhorta­tions, and Counsels (such as that in our Text) to the practice of Charity, or any other Christian Vertue, beside Faith, ur­ged by such Motives as are no ways pro­moted by the Acts whereunto we are ex­horted, are vain, and delusory. Were such Precepts and Exhortations delivered sim­ply and absolutely, as only declarative of our Duty, or designed only to move Men to their Duties, as Testimonies of Gra­titude or Thankfulness for those Benefits, which we receive only by Faith (as some late Divines would have them) they would indeed be reasonable upon that account. But when they are expressly urged, as in this Text, and many others they are, to move Men to the Practice of particular Duties, as means to obtain the proposed Benefits, what can they signifie, but a plain imposing upon us, or abusing our minds, and perverting our Faith, supposing that the doing of those things, whereto we are exhorted, can nothing avail us to those ends? What can such Exhortations signi­fie more then if a man should be perswa­ded [Page 116]to stretch forth his hands to behold the Glory of the Heavens, or to open his eyes to hear the sweet Melody of Musick.

But the force of these Arguments is by many late Divines thought to be suffi­ciently avoided, by alledging, that al­though it be true, that Faith is the only thing, that is effectual to Justification, or remission of sin, and that no other Act or Vertue can contribute any thing to this end, yet neither are the forementioned Promises, nor the Exhortations void, or useless in reference to this effect.

1. Because there is a Necessity of pre­sence, though not of efficacy, of those o­ther Acts and Vertues, which are men­tioned in the Promises and Exhortations. And so Charity amongst other things may be a causa sine quâ non, of Salvation and remission of sin, in respect of its necessary presence together with Faith.

2. Because the same things are necessary to the verification of Faith, i. e. to ma­nifest the Truth of it, though they have no concurrent efficacy with Faith, to the Justification or Salvation of the Believer.

3. Because the practice of these Ver­tues [Page 117]is necessary, or at least usefull for the assurance of a mans Justification, Par­don of sin, and Salvation, though it be no ways effectual to any of those ends, con­sidered in themselves. Heb. 6.10. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work, and labour of love, which ye have shewed towards his name, in that ye have mini­stred to the Saints, and do minister. And 2 Pet. 1.5, 10, 11. And besides all this giving all diligence, add to your faith ver­tue, and to vertue knowledge, and to know­ledge temperance, and to temperance patience, and to patience godliness, and to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kind­ness, charity, i. e. an universal Charity, extended to all men, as well as Christian Brethren. Wherefore ye rather give di­ligence to make your calling and election sure ( [...], as it is in some Greek Copies, and though these words are left out in our own, and other Tran­slations, because they are so in ordinary Greek Copies, yet the Sense of them is confessedly included in all readings) for so an entrance shall be given you abundantly, into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And 1 Joh. [Page 118]3.18, 19. My little children, let us not love in word, nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know, that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him; So 1 Jo. 3.14. We know that we have passed from death unto Life, be­cause we love the brethren. By these Texts, and many more of like Sense, it is evi­dent that Charity is usefull to procure a mans assurance of those Benefits, which are supposed to be obtained by Faith only.

Another verbal evasion of all the Ar­guments which are produced for the effe­ctual concurrence of Charity and Good Works to the attainment of the great Benefits of final Justification and Salva­tion, hath been vulgarly expressed by that trite saying of the Latin Father, Bernard. Bona opera sunt via ad regnum, non causa regnandi, Good Works are indeed the way to the kingdom of Heaven, but not the cause of reigning. Which words applied to the Doctrine by us grounded upon the words of the Apostle, must have this Sense, viz. That Charity is the way to obtain the covering, or non-imputation of sin, but no cause of it, i. e, a means, but not a cause; a very nice distinction, to be con­sidered further hereafter.

This I take to be a just account of the chief Answers, that have been made to the premised Arguments, from the Pro­mises and exhortations of Scripture, for the efficacy or validity of Charity and Good Works, unto the remission of sin, and the Salvation of a sinner.

Now in order to a sufficient reply to these Answers, I think it necessary in this place to say something by way of expli­cation of the Question (tending to the clearing of the true Sense, and meaning of the Doctrine) what is meant by that Efficacy, which any act, that can be done by men, may have towards the remission of their sins, their Justification and Sal­vation.

It is evident, that all these things are the proper and peculiar Acts and Effects of God himself, who is the agent of effi­cient cause of them all. And therefore 'tis impossible that any Humane Act should have any direct or immediate influence, or efficiency upon these Effects. Who can forgive sins, but God? And 'tis God that justifies, and saves actively. And there­fore all the Efficacy that can be in Hu­mane Acts towards these effects, can be no [Page 120]more than preparative or passive. And what can that signifie more, than that they are certain Dispositions and Qualifications of the Patient, or Subject to receive these Effects of Divine Grace. Nor can Faith it self have any other influence or efficacy upon these Effects, any more than Charity. Faith it self doth neither pardon our sin, or contribute any thing to that Divine Act, by which we are pardoned. Neither doth qualifie or save us, any otherwise then by making such a Change or Qualification in us, whereupon this Grace of Justification to Life, is freely given us of God.

But against this Explication of the Effi­cacy of Faith, to the Grace of Justificati­on, it hath been alledged, that Faith in Christ doth not justifie as an act or qualifi­cation found in us, but as it hath a peculiar Vertue, not common to Charity, or any other Act of ours; and that is of appre­hending and receiving Christ, or uniting us to him, and so making us Partakers of his Righteousness imputed to us, by means whereof we come to be Justified, our sins Covered, and our Souls saved.

Whereunto I answer. 1. By allowing an union of Believers with Christ the common [Page 121]Saviour, to be indeed the true ground and foundation of the Benefits which we receive by him. And that this Union is not barely Relative or Political, such as is betwixt a King, Lord or Husband, and their respec­tive Subjects, Servants and Wives. Nor only Pactional, imputed and founded upon the Promise or Covenant of the Gospel, to them that believe in him; but a true and real Union effected by the Medium of the Holy Spirit, communicated to them that believe, and are baptized into the Faith of Christ. 1 Cor. 12.13. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body: and 1 Cor. 6.17. He that is joyned unto the Lord is one Spirit, ver. 11. of the same Chapter, But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God. Rom. 8.12. If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, the same is none of his. This Spi­rit of Christ is ordinarily called the Spirit of God, abiding or dwelling in all true Be­lievers, whereby they are partakers of the Divine Nature, (as St. Peter speaketh) as Christ also was, 1 Cor. 3.16. 1 Cor. 8.19. 2 Pet. 1.4. though not in the same measure and manner. Such a real [Page 122]Union there is between Christ the Head; and all true Believers, Members of his Bo­dy, as there is between the head and members of a natural Body, partaking of one and the same natural Spirit. Nor do we deny but that Faith is the first Act that disposeth a Man to the Receipt of this Divine Spirit dwelling in him, whereby it may be said to effect, or procure our Union with Christ, whereby we partake, both of the Nature, and the Effects and Benefits of his Righ­teousness.

But the imputation of Christs Righteous­ness to us is no Scriptural Phrase, but dif­fers very much from that of St. Paul, as­serting not the Righteousness of Christ, but Faith (working by Charity) to be imputed for Righteousness to them that believe, Rom. 4.5, 24. But if it be the act or habit of Faith, which is imputed to us for Righteousness, according to the express literal Sense of the Apostles words, then 'tis not the Personal Righteousness of Christ, that is imputed to us; for our Faith is no part of his Righteousness. But be­cause the Phrase of Christs Righteousness imputed to us, hath been commonly used by Divines of very good Note, amongst [Page 123]Protestants, (though no man can be obli­ged to admit it in a strict Sense, it being not found in Scripture) yet I think, for Peace sake, it should not be absolutely re­jected, much less with any reflections of Reproach or Disparagement to them that have used it, but rather admitted in such a Candid Sense, as it may fairly bear. As if the Son of a Prince, or some other Person of Great Merit and Favour with him, should undertake to be Mediator for some Rebel, that had justly incurred the Displeasure of his Prince, and rendred himself obnoxious to the highest penalty of Law, should of his own Good Will, by the Appointment and Will of the Prince, act or suffer some­thing for, and on the behalf of the De­linquent, and thereby obtain, by the Grace of the Prince, a free Pardon for him, under some equitable Conditions required of the Delinquent. In this case the Merits, Act and Sufferings of such a Mediator might, in a reasonable Sense, be said to be impu­ted to the Redeemed Person. Such an In­terpretation of this Phrase of Christs Righ­teousness imputed to us, I think should not be quarrel'd, but may fairly agree with the Scripture phrases of Propitiation, Expiati­on, [Page 124]and Attonement of Christ made for us, and with the Discourse of the Apostle, Rom. 5. from the 15 Verse to the end of the Chapter. Other Senses there are of this Phrase insisted upon by some Divines, which cannot be maintained without gross, and absurd Consequences, as hath been shewed by some that have lately written sharply concerning this Point.

This Explication of the Question, what is meant by that Efficacy, which any act, that can be done by us, towards the Re­mission of our sins, or our Justification can have, being premised, and cleared from the most usual Objections against it; I proceed in my Reply to the fore-mentioned Answer to the Arguments, for the Confirmation of the Doctrine in hand, drawn from the Pro­mises and Exhortations of Scripture, as followeth.

To the First part of that Answer, al­ledging only the necessity of Presence of Charity and Good Works, together with Faith (in order to the obtainment of the Benefits propounded) as a sufficient Ac­count for the use of those Motives, contai­ned in the said Promises and Exhortations; I reply, by demanding whether the Cha­rity [Page 125]and Good Works, supposed to be ne­cessary, do concurr to the Qualification of the Person that is to receive these Benefits or not: If they do concurr, as any Part of the Qualification of the Person, for the Receipt of those Benefits, it cannot be de­nied by the Explication of the forementio­ned Question, but that they are as truly a­vailable to the Obtainment of those Bene­fits, as Faith, or any thing else can be. If they do not concurr, as any Part of Qua­lification for these Benefits, the bare neces­sity of their Presence, upon any other ac­count, can be no reasonable ground of Ex­hortations to such Actions, in order to the Advantages thereunto promised. Nor can those Advantages, or Benefits be any rea­sonable Motives to such Actions, whiles they are supposed to contribute nothing at all to the Obtainment of them. And con­sequently, the only design of propounding those Motives to such Actions, would be utterly frustrate. For all Exhortations, Counsels, or Advices, to any Act or Prac­tice, do include this general Supposition to common Understanding, that the things ad­vised, or exhorted to, are of some Use and Validity, to the End that is propounded, [Page 126]either by removing some Impediment, or by some kind of Causality or other; else the Advice is altogether vain, and a Man should be never the nearer his End by fol­lowing it.

And therefore it hath been said, that although Charity and Good Works, be in themselves of no Validity, or Efficacy to the Covering of sin, Justification, or Sal­vation of a sinner, nor do contribute any thing towards the Obtaining of these Be­nefits, yet they have the nature of a Causa sine quâ non, that is, of something, without which a thing is not to be effected or gained, but if that Something hath no manner of Causality at all in it, it cannot be called a Causa sine quâ non, without a real Contra­diction in the Terms. For to be a Cause, without which a thing cannot be, and yet to have no manner of Causality, in reference to the Effect, is to be a Cause and no Cause.

But suppose the design of the Holy Ghost in the forementioned Promises, and Ex­hortations had been (as we really suppose it was) to instruct men what they should do, or what things possible to be done by them, would be available to the ends [Page 127]propounded. I demand how such a De­sign could have been expressed, more sig­nificantly then it is by the Terms used in the Exhortations and Promises alledged. And as for the bare necessity of presence of Charity and Good Works, together with Faith in the Persons which are to be justified and saved, that's no more then is equally true of the faculties of Life, Sense, and Reason, there being a perfect necessity of the presence of all these things to the act of Faith, which is supposed to be the only thing that justifies a man. But would it therefore be reasonable to exhort men to take care to preserve these faculties in order to their Justification, or might the Promises of Pardon of Sin, Life, and Salvation be reasonably annexed to such a care of preserving these Faculties, up­on the bare account of their necessary presence, or concomitancy, with a justifi­ing Faith.

Now where it hath been said, that Cha­rity and Good Works are necessary to the verification of that Faith, by which we are justified, i. e. to declare and manifest the truth of it, but have otherwise no con­current Efficacy to the Justification of the [Page 128]Believer, and that is a sufficient account of the reasonableness of all Promises made to the habit and exercise of this Vertue, as also of the Exhortations before men­tioned. I answer, that if indeed these things be necessary to the verification of that Faith that justifies us, so as to constitute and make up the Truth and Validity thereof, and thereby to declare the Effi­cacy thereof, the Question is really yield­ed; And these things must be acknow­ledged to have a concurrent Efficacy to the forementioned Effect, which is all that is contended for.

But if by the verification of Faith no more be meant, then a bare manifestation of the truth of it, by the Signs and Fruits of it, that is the same thing with the for­mer allegation, concerning the necessity or usefulness of these things, for the Assurance of a mans Justification or Salvation. But whether this be the true intent, or only meaning of the Promises, and Exhortations made to these Practices, I appeal to the Judgment of any Unprejudiced Reader, that shall review, and consider the express Terms and Forms of Words used in them.

When we pray for the Forgiveness of [Page 129]our sins, must this be the only Meaning [...]r not that God will be pleased to forgive us, upon any consideration of our Prayers, but that he will give us an Assurance, that he hath forgiven us? I appeal to the Consci­ence of any of them, that make this Alle­gation (to serve an Hypothesis, which they have unwarily espoused) whether this hath been, or is their own Sense in their Pray­ers for the Pardon of their sin. Which is no other, then if a Criminal, petitioning a King for his Pardon, should thereby intend not to obtain it, but only to be assured that it was granted. When our Saviour promiseth, that if we will forgive Men their Trespasses, our Heavenly Father will also forgive us our Trespasses, is that his only Meaning, that our Forgiving others shall be to us a sign, and evidence that we are forgiven, but no Means to obtain that Forgiveness? When we are exhorted to Repentance for the Remission of our sins, which was the common Doctrine of the Prophets, of John Baptist, our Blessed Sa­our and his Apostles, and particularly of St. Peter in answer to the Question of the Jews, what they should do to be saved, Acts 2.30. was this their Meaning, not to [Page 130]teach Men to repent, to that end that they might be saved, and their sins be forgiven them, but that they might be assured that their sins were forgiven them? I desire any Indifferent Reader, that is not pertinaci­ously bent to maintain a Prejudice against all Appearance of Reason, to apply this Meaning to the Promises, Exhortations, and Assertions of Scripture, which have been before alledged to this Purpose, and then to judge, whether all, or any of them be to be interpreted to this Sence. And if they be, I demand why the same promises of Ju­stification, Salvation, &c. made to the act of Faith, may not, or should not admit of the same Interpretation (as some of the Antinomians have contended) viz. that Faith it self contributes nothing at all to any of these Effects or Benefits, that are thereunto promised, or is any Means or Condition of obtaining them, but only a sign or means to assure us of our Interest in them.

Lastly, I demand, whether any thing possible to be done by us, doth serve to qualifie us for the Reception of those Be­nefits, by the Grace of God, or be of any Validity, or moral Efficacy towards the Ob­tainment [Page 131]of these Ends? If not, then Faith can be of no more Efficacy to this purpose then Charity. But if any Act or Conditi­on, that is possible to be performed by us, be any ways effectual or available to these Ends, why may not Charity, (especially as a fruit and effect of Faith) be conceived to have a concurrent Efficacy with Faith, or subordinate to it, agreeable to the many promises of the same Benefits made to Charity and Good Works, as well as to Faith? And seeing that it is, and must be ever acknowledged, that it is only of the free Grace of God, that Faith is ac­cepted as any condition, qualification, or means of obtaining these Benefits; Seeing also, that Charity, in the proper nature of it, is the most Excellent, and most Di­vine Vertue, most conformable to the na­ture of God himself, and therefore said to be the greatest of the three Christian Gra­ces, 1 Cor. 13.13. Is it not very reason­able to believe that such a quality most Divine, expressing both the Nature and Image of God, and being also the Effect of his own free Grace, should be accepted as part of that disposition in us, that qua­lifies us for his Favour and Reconcilia­tion, [Page 132]merited only by the Expiatory Sa­crifice, and Obedience of his Son, always acknowledged by our Faith in him, re­nouncing all confidence in any thing that we can do, as acceptable upon any other account, then of his Meritorious Meciation?

Other reasons are given by Modern Di­vines of the Protestant Party, concerning the necessity of Charity and Good Works, exclusive of this we contend for; alledg­ing that these things are necessary necessi­tate praecepti, non medii, i. e. necessary parts of our Duty, in obedience to the Law, or Will of God, not necessary means of Salvation, or obtaining the Benefit of remission of our sins, necessary to be pra­ctised, in order to the pleasing of God, the Glorifying and Honouring of his Name, to express our Thankfulness to him for all his Benefits, especially for his Free Grace of Redemption and Justification, procured by the merits of Christ: As also necessary to adorn our Holy Profession, the Honour of Christ and his Gospel, to give Good Example, and avoid Scandal, &c. All which are without Exception to be acknowledged, for just Reasons of our Duty: But do fignifie nothing to [Page 133]the Question in hand, in as much as they do not severally, or jointly make any rea­sonable account, either of the promises of Pardon, Eternal Life, and Salvation, to the performances of these Duties, or of the Exhortations to the practice of them, urged by such Promises. These Reasons are indeed just Motives to the Duties of Piety and Charity, and urged as such, in other Texts of Scripture. But of a dif­ferent sort and nature from those which are propounded in the Promises and Ex­hortations alledged by us. These Reasons with others of like import (exclusive of that which is urged by us) alledged as the only account of the necessity of Good Works, do utterly destroy and make void the validity of the Motives, in the fore­mentioned Promises.

And here (with as little disparagement as may be to the Author) I think it law­full for me to mention the great dissatis­faction, not to say Scandal, which I long since took from the common outlandish Catechism set forth first by Zachary Ʋrsin, and afterward by David Paraeus, Anno D. 1623. who intitles the third part of his Book, wherein he undertakes to give an [Page 134]account of the necessity of Good Works, and all the practical part of Christian Re­ligion, de Gratitudine, of Gratitude or Thankfulness to God for our Deliverance from the misery of the Natural State, and our Liberty recovered by Christ, which are the titles of his two former parts. This General Title and Account of Good Works, doth plainly suppose a negation of any antecedent necessity of Conversion and Repentance (which are the two first things which he treats of under that Ti­tle of Thankfulness) unto the Effect of our Justification and Salvation; unless it be reasonable to say, that a man is obli­ged to be thankfull for a Benefit before he hath it, or to the end that he may re­ceive it. Conversion unto God, and Re­pentance by this mans Doctrine, must be looked upon as a thing not in it self ne­cessary to our Justification or Remission of sin, but as a Duty of Gratitude, for this Grace given unto us, either before, or without respect to our Conversion. And we are to repent, and turn to God, not that our sins may be forgiven, but be­cause they are so; not that we may be saved, but because we believe, and are [Page 135]confident that we shall be saved. So the whole practice of Christian Piety, Holiness and Righteousness before God, must proceed up­on an account of Thankfulness to him, for his free Grace that requires none of these things at our hands, as conditions of our Pardon or Reconciliation with his offended Majesty.

Not but that some other Ends and Rea­sons, and particularly those which we men­tioned before, are also named by the same Author, as part of the necessity of Good Works. But all are reduced unto the ge­neral account of Thankfulness, and exclu­sive of any Moral causality, or condition of Justification and Salvation. How well this Doctrine agrees with Natural Reli­gion, the Scriptures of the Old Testament, or even with the design of the Gospel; I must leave to be judged by indifferent Readers. Because I hold not my self ob­liged in this place to engage any further in the great Controversie, about Justifi­cation by Faith alone, or to take parti­cular notice of the Texts of St. Paul com­monly alledged, for the Solifidian Do­ctrine; which have been exactly considered by so many of our own Divines; and my own Sense of them elsewhere delivered in [Page 136]brief. Besides that the covering of sins attributed to Charity in the present Text, though it extends to the Effect of Justi­fication in the most Eminent Sense of the Phrase; yet is not by our Interpretation, limited to that signification, but extended (as hath been said) to the removal of punishments in this life, and to the abatement of them, both in this Life, and that which is to come, which are the Benefits that may be obtained by Charity, without any perfect Justification of a sinner.

Now if any Person that reads this Dis­course, having not been prepossessed with any Prejudice against this Doctrine, or doubt of the Truth of it, shall think that the Work is over-done, by the Allegation of so many Texts and Arguments for the Confirmation of it, and so much pains ta­ken in answering Objections against it, and shall therefore charge me with loading the Readers with a tedious Accumulation of su­perfluous Arguments, thereby abating the Perspicuity of the Matter, as Cicero speaks, upon occasion of his long Discourse, Perspicuitas enim argumenta­tione elevatur, —Remque meâ sententiâ minimè dubiam, argu­mentando dubiam facis. Tull. de Oratore Lib. 3. to prove the Existence of a Deity. I must [Page 137]answer, that this Objection, can only be made by him that is ignorant of the contrary Do­ctrine, commonly asserted and contended for, not only by Lutherans and Calvinists abroad, but by several of our English Divines (till of late years) going that way. And 2. Al­though the bad Consequences of that Do­ctrine have been strongly averted by the Authors thereof, in some of their Discour­ses, yet the Event and Effect thereof hath, to my own Knowledge, in a multitude of Persons, with whom I have had Occasion to converse, notoriously abated the exer­cise of Charity, and the Zeal or Consci­ence of Good Works, supposed by this Doctrine, to be neither absolutely necessa­ry, nor available to the Salvation of a Christian. Many Persons I have known, who upon this only Ground, have negle­cted and slighted the practice of Charity, not only in their Life time, but also at their Death, comforting themselves against all fear of Peril by this Neglect, from a mista­ken Notion, and Confidence of Justifica­tion by Faith alone, without Good Works.

The Sense of this dangerous Errour, was one thing that moved me to the Pains of this Plain Discourse. Having visited di­vers [Page 138]Persons in their Last sickness, earnest­ly moving them (according to the Injun­ction of our Church Liturgy in that Office) to Liberality towards the Poor, with little or no Success, upon a Misperswasion of the no Necessity, and as little Validity of such Works to the safety of their future State.

And though I have known Some, and do believe there are many of that Perswasi­on, that upon other Considerations, and better Principles, have been very Charita­ble and Forward to Good Works; yet I have also had a particular Opportunity of observ­ing, & Knowing something more than other Men, concerning the Neglect of this Duty, from the Place of my late Habitation for some Years, belonging to an Office of Re­gistry, kept for the Probate, and Custody of Wills and Testaments, made within the Jurisdiction of the Arch-deacon of Nor­folk: wherein I have observed this last Record and Testimony of Charity, which should have made up the Neglect and De­fects of that Duty before; to have been either wholly omitted, or very penuriously, and disproportionably expressed in many, and indeed most Wills of Considerable Estates.

But to take off all appearance of Scandal to our Religion, upon this Account, it hath been, or may be made Evident, upon a just Reckoning, that the Publick Good Works, and Donations of Protestants to pious Uses in this Nation, since the Refor­mation, have been more than Equal to any that ever were done by Papists, within the same Compass of Time, in any precedent Age: This personal Apology for the pre­sent Discourse, might perhaps have been spared; but was piously intended to the best Advantage, and greatest Concern of all Persons in the time of their Life, and at their Death. There being certainly no pos­sible Use to be made of Worldly Goods so Acceptable to God, or so Advantagious to the Owners thereof, both in their Lives, and at their Death, as that which I am la­bouring to promote from this Text.