Casuistical morning-exercises the fourth volume /

1. He was one (so far as we can judge) that had never formerly rejected Christ, never saw him before his Sufferings, never heard his Doctrine, never was a Witness of his Miracles which might convince him of the truth of it. He was one that had otherwise employed himself, than in attending on Christs Ministry, and might more likely have been found robbing on the Road, than worshipping in the Temple; or breaking up Houses, than hearing of Sermons; and therefore though he had sin enough in him for which God might have denied him Repentance, and nothing in him which might move the Lord to give it him; yet it is very probable this was the first of his being brought to the knowledge of a Saviour, and so he was not guilty of the great Gospel-sin of Unbelief, and refusing the offer of Christ and Salvation by him, which doth so often provoke the Lord to leave men to themselves, and deny them his Grace. If it be said, the same was the case of the other Thief; I grant it: But God being a Sovereign Agent, and his gifts most free, he might make use of his Prerogative in dispensing them, and so grant repentance to the one, and deny it to the other, admit their circumstances were every way the same. And why then may he not deny repentance to those now, that are (in some respect) worse than either, in that they have so many times resisted his Spirit, stood out against his Calls, and slighted the offers of his Grace made to them? and where is the Sinner that lives under the means without repentance, but as he hath daily repeated calls from God, so he daily rejects them, and thereby abundantly justifies the Lords refusing him that Grace at the last, which he did before not only never seriously seek, but wilfully reject: I should have more charitable thoughts, and better hopes of the veriest Varlets upon earth, that were never called till the last hour, than of those that are otherwise guilty of much less sin, but have abused and resisted greater Grace.

1. He was one (so far as we can judge) that had never formerly rejected Christ, never saw him before his Sufferings, never heard his Doctrin, never was a Witness of his Miracles which might convince him of the truth of it. He was one that had otherwise employed himself, than in attending on Christs Ministry, and might more likely have been found robbing on the Road, than worshiping in the Temple; or breaking up Houses, than hearing of Sermons; and therefore though he had sin enough in him for which God might have denied him Repentance, and nothing in him which might move the Lord to give it him; yet it is very probable this was the first of his being brought to the knowledge of a Saviour, and so he was not guilty of the great Gospel-sin of Unbelief, and refusing the offer of Christ and Salvation by him, which doth so often provoke the Lord to leave men to themselves, and deny them his Grace. If it be said, the same was the case of the other Thief; I grant it: But God being a Sovereign Agent, and his gifts most free, he might make use of his Prerogative in dispensing them, and so grant repentance to the one, and deny it to the other, admit their circumstances were every way the same. And why then may he not deny repentance to those now, that are (in some respect) worse than either, in that they have so many times resisted his Spirit, stood out against his Calls, and slighted the offers of his Grace made to them? and where is the Sinner that lives under the means without repentance, but as he hath daily repeated calls from God, so he daily rejects them, and thereby abundantly justifies the Lords refusing him that Grace at the last, which he did before not only never seriously seek, but wilfully reject: I should have more charitable thoughts, and better hopes of the veriest Varlets upon earth, that were never called till the last hour, than of those that are otherwise guilty of much less sin, but have abused and resisted greater Grace.