We are now to consider the petition as laid down by the evangelist Luke; Forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us: which is, for substance, the same with that in Matthew, as but now explained: Accordingly the particle FOR, is not causal, but demonstrative; and therefore we are not to understand it as though our forgiving others were the ground and reason of God’s forgiving us, since that would be to put it in the room of Christ’s righteousness; but the meaning is, that we are encouraged to hope that he will forgive us, from this demonstrative evidence; since he has given us that grace which inclines and disposes us to forgive others; from whence we have ground to conclude, that we shall obtain the blessing we pray for.
This leads us to consider the nature and extent of forgiveness, as exercised by us, and our obligation to perform this duty; and when this may be said to be an evidence of our obtaining forgiveness from God.
First, Concerning the nature and extent of forgiveness, as exercised by us; for the understanding of which, let it be premised,
[1.] That the injuries that are done us, are to be considered either as they contain an invasion upon, or denying us those rights which belong to us, agreeably to that station and condition in life, in which the providence of God has fixed us: these must be reckoned injuries, because they are detrimental to us, and acts of injustice; or, they may be farther considered, as crimes committed against God, inasmuch as they infer a violation of the law of nature, which is instamped with his authority; whereby the rights of every particular person are determined, and to deprive us of them, is a sin against God, in the same sense in which sins immediately committed against men, are said to be committed against him. And by this we may be farther led to consider,
[2.] That injuries are only to be forgiven by us, as they are against ourselves; whereas God alone can forgive them as they are against him; and the reason hereof is, because no one can dispense with that punishment which is due for the violation of a law, but the supreme authority. The precept that is to be obeyed, and the sanction that binds over the offender to suffer for his violation of it, must be established by the highest authority. And therefore, inasmuch as the creature cannot demand that obedience which is due to God alone; for the same reason he cannot remit that debt of punishment which belongs only to God to inflict. However, we are to desire, that God would pardon, rather than punish those that have injured us: And this is the only sense in which we may be said to forgive others those crimes that are committed against God, if this may be called forgiveness. But, so far as any injury respects ourselves, as being detrimental to us, it is our duty to forgive it, and not to exercise that private revenge which is inconsistent with the subject-matter of this petition.
[3.] So far as an injury, which more especially respects ourselves, contains in it a violation of human laws, whereby the offender has rendered himself obnoxious to a capital punishment; it does not belong to us, as private persons, to forgive the criminal, so as to obstruct the course of justice, since this is a matter that does not concern us, as not having the executive part of human laws in our power; and to pretend to this, would be not only to violate the laws of men, but to commit an offence against God, who has established the just rights of civil government; therefore, that forgiveness which we are obliged to exercise towards others, does not extend itself to this matter. Nor are we obliged, when we forgive those that have injured us, to be unconcerned about doing justice to ourselves, when it is possible, or at least easy, for us to have redress in the course of law or equity; especially if the damage we sustain hereby, be, in a very great degree, prejudicial to ourselves or families. And if it affects our good name in the world, the forgiving those reproaches that are cast upon us, is not inconsistent with our using endeavours to vindicate our own reputation; though it may be, this can hardly be done without exposing him that has done us the injury, to suffer that shame which he brought on himself thereby.
These things being premised, we proceed to consider, the nature and extent of forgiveness, as it is to be exercised by us, so far as the injury committed respects ourselves. This is opposed to our bearing the least degree of malice against the offender, or carrying our resentments too far, by magnifying lesser injuries, and meditating revenge: Nor ought we to be so partial in our own cause, as to deny, or altogether overlook those things that are, in other respects commendable in him, as though a crime committed against us, were altogether inconsistent with the least degree of virtue or goodness in him that has committed it. If he has done injustice to us, this does not excuse any act of injustice to his person or character in other instances, which have not an immediate relation to ourselves; which is to see things through a false medium, or to infer consequences that cannot fairly be deduced from any thing that he has done, how injurious soever it may have been to us.
Moreover, we are not to take occasion from the ill treatment we have met with, from any one, to endeavour to ruin him, as to his estate or character in the world; since that is not a proper expedient, either to do justice to ourselves, or bring him, who has done us the injury to repentance.
Here we may take occasion to enquire, how far a person that is injured by another, may demand satisfaction? and, whether it is our duty to forgive him, though it be neither in his power nor inclination to make it?
The answer that I would give to this, is; that the law of God and nature, does not prohibit us from demanding satisfaction in proportion to the injury received; since this is a debt we ought to claim, in justice to ourselves, and our character in the world: Nevertheless, it must be considered,