Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Chapter 7 · Section 2 (1 of 2)

Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel · Chapter 7 · Section 2 (1 of 2)

p. 44SECT II.

AND with reſpect to his Notion of the Goſpel, Let it be conſidered,

(1.) How the Goſpel (if it be nothing but an Abſolute Promiſe that requires nothing) can borrow Precepts from the Moral Law, and then employ them in its own Service. For mine own part I profeſs I neither do nor can underſtand how an Abſolute Promiſe borrows a Precept, and then employs it: As he gives us to underſtand towards the end of the 42. page. I underſtand well enough that Mr. Goodwin there inſinuates, and pag. 48. he expreſly aſſerts this of the Goſpels borrowing and employing the Laws Precepts. And if any other Body can underſtand how a meer Abſolute Promiſe doth this, much good may the Notion do them: But to me, it is altogether uſeleſs, becauſe it is unintelligible.

(2.) Conſider, That the Moral Natural Law is certainly moſt perfect in its kind, and obliges to the moſt perfect, i. e. ſinleſly perfect performance of the ſeveral Duties that belong to it, in that way which the Lord God intended it ſhould oblige to the performance of them. And it was needleſs to prove this againſt me, for I never denyed it, but alwayes believed it, and oft times openly profeſſed it; And if my Reverend Brother underſtands what and whom he writes againſt, he cannot but know that my R— Brethren and I made Publick Profeſſion of this to the World in the Printed Apology, page 200, and 201.

(3.) Conſider Thirdly, That we muſt diſtinguiſh between the Moral Natural Law, its Obligative Power, and its Actual Obligation. And it is not to be denyed, but that it hath its Obligative Power, even then when for want of a particular Object, or neceſſary Circumſtances, it doth not put forth its Power into Act, and lay its Actual Obligation on a certain Subject. For inſtance, In the ſtate of Innocency, The Law had in it an Obligative Power unto ſeveral things, which yet in that State it neither did nor could actually oblige our firſt Parents unto, for want of a proper Object; as to relieve the Poor when as yet there were none, and to Educate their Children Religiouſly, when as yet they had none.

(4.) Conſider Fourthly, That the Moral Law either obliges abſolutely and for the preſent, or upon ſuppoſition, and for the future, which diſtinction differs not much from the former. Thus in the State of Innocency, the Law obliged Man abſolutely, and for that preſent time, not to hate, but to love God: But p. 45it obliged him to love and relieve the Poor only for the future, when there ſhould be, and on ſuppoſition that there ſhould be Poor in the World.

(5) Conſider (Fifthly,) That the Moral Natural Law obliges to ſome Duties immediately, and by it ſelf; but to others only mediately, and by reaſon of ſome other thing intervening. Thus in the State of Innocency, by it ſelf immediately it obliged Man not to hate, but to love and reverence God: But it then obliged him not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit, only mediately, and by reaſon of the poſitive Law which forbad it under pain of Death. For it is certain and evident, That without that poſitive Law forbidding it, the Law of Nature by it ſelf immediately would never have made it more unlawful to eat of that, than of any other Fruit in the Garden of Eden. It was therefore that poſitive Law forbidding it, that firſt in order of Nature obliged Man not to eat of it, and then by means of that poſitive Law the Law of Nature alſo came in and obliged Man not to eat of it. The Law of Nature doth not Enact Divine Poſitive Laws for us; but when they are Enacted by God, and do oblige us by God's Authority Enacting them, it then obliges us to the obſervance of them. This it did before, and ſtill doth ſince the fall of our Firſt Parents. For the ſame reaſon holds with reſpect to all the poſitive Laws that ever God Enacted for Mankind.

(6.) Conſider, Sixthly, That God's Enacting ſome Poſitive Laws, after he had given the Moral Natural Law unto Man in its full perfection, doth not derogate any thing from the full perfection of the ſaid Moral Law, nor from the infinite Wiſdom of God the Soveraign Law-giver. And to ſay and write that for God to make any Poſitive New Law, after he hath given unto Man the Moral Natural Law, is inconſiſtent with the Moral Laws perfection, and with Gods Infinite Wiſdom, is in effect both to diſhonour Gods Law, and to Blaſpheme God's Majeſty. For it is a matter of Fact moſt certainly and evidently true, that after the firſt giving unto Man, and concreating with him and in him, the Moral Natural Law; God hath made and given to Man Poſitive Laws both before and ſince the Fall, and before and ſince the Coming of Chriſt. Now if the Enacting of any New Law doth by good conſequence infer the Imperfection of the Moral Natural Law together with the Imperfection of God, and the want of Wiſdom in God the Law-give…; then it follows alſo by good and neceſſary conſequence, that in truth the Moral Law is not perfect, nor is God Infinitely Wiſe, and ſo he is not God at all; becauſe he hath certainly. Enacted many poſitive New Laws, and theſe poſitive Now Laws argue (as is pretended) that his former Moral Natural Law was not perfect, nor himſelf Wiſe enough to give ſo perfect a Law at firſt, as ſhould anſwer all Emergent Caſes, and prevent the need of any New Law. By this conſideration it manifeſtly appears that ſome Men oppoſe the Goſpels being a New Law of Grace, upon ſuch a Principle, as by neceſſary conſequence …ns them into Blaſphemy and Atheiſme; and that their Argument againſt any New Poſitive Law, taken from the Perfection of the Moral Natural Law, and from the Infinite Wiſdom of God, cannot be good, becauſe it is againſt plain Matter of Fact, and attempts to prove that which cannot po…ibly be proved, to wit, That God hath never ſince the firſt Creation Enacted for Men any New Po… tive Law; which yet he hath certainly done, if there be any Truth in the Scriptures, either of the Old, or New Teſtament: Yea, this Argument bears ſo high, as to make a ſhew of proving that God cannot do what he hath certainly p. 46done, and if he hath done what he hath done, then he is not, what he is, and what he is ſaid to be, to wit. Infinitely Perfect and Wiſe.

(7.) Conſider Seventhly, That a Duty or Act of ours, which as to the Matter or Subſtance of it (ſo to ſpeak) is one and the ſame, may yet have ſeveral Habitudes and Relations, and may fall under ſeveral formal Notions and Conſiderations; and by reaſon of thoſe different Habitudes, and Notions, may ſo far differ from it ſelf, as to fall under Two different Laws, whereof the One is Moral Natural, and the other is Moral Poſitive: And under one formal No…ion and in one reſpect, it may be required of us by a Moral Natural Law; and under another Formal Notion, and in another reſpect, it may be required of us by a Moral Poſitive Law. For inſtance, By one and the ſame Faith conſidered materially, and as to the ſubſtance of it, (ſo to ſpeak), 1 Tim. 2.5.1 Tim 2:5we believe in God, and in the Mediator between God and Men, the Man Chriſt Jeſus, who is God alſo. Yet there being here Two different Objects, to wit, (1.) God conſidered ſimply as God. (2.) The Mediator between God and Men, Chriſt Jeſus, conſidered now as God Man; and the one being the Ultimate Terminative Object, and the other the Intermediate Object of our Faith, through which it is carryed unto God as its ultimately Terminative Object. (1 Pet. 3.18. John 14.1. 2 Cor. 3.4. and 1 Pet. 1.21.) I ſay there being here two ſuch different Objects, our Faith as converſant about theſe Two Objects, muſt needs have different Habitudes and Relations, and fall under different formal Notions and Conſiderations. At preſent I ſhall only inſtance in this, That according to our Proteſtant Divines. Faith as it relates to God ſimply conſidered, ſo it is a Moral Vertue, or, as others, a Theological Vertue; but as it relates to Chriſt the Mediator, it hath alſo the Notion of a Moral Inſtrument, or Inſtrumental Means, or Condition, whereby we are intereſted in Chriſt, or whereby we receive, apprehend, and apply Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs to our ſelves, and whereby we truſt in him, and in God through him, for Juſtification and Salvation on the account of his Righteouſneſs only. Now the ſame Faith materially conſidered, having ſuch different Objects, and different Habitudes to thoſe Objects, and in different reſpects falling under different formal Notions, it muſt needs by reaſon of them, and as veſted with them, differ formally from it ſelf, though it be materially the ſame Faith ſtill: And then as ſo differing formally from it ſelf, we may very eaſily conceive it to fall under different Laws. Faith in God ſimply conſidered, falls under the Command of the Moral Natural Law, as all confeſs. Faith in Chriſt the Mediator, as formally differing from Faith in God ſimply conſidered, falls under the Command of the Moral Poſitive Evangelical Law. So our Proteſtant Divines generally maintain againſt the Flacian Sectaries. Witneſs Melancthon, who in his Apology for the Auſburgh Confeſſion, ſays, (a)(a)Fides eſt Obedientia erga Evangelium. Quare fides rectè dicitur juſtitia. Nam Obedientia erga Evangelium imputatur pro juſtitia adeo ut obedientia erga legem tantùm propterea placeat, quia credimus nobis Deum gratis propitium eſſe propter Chriſtum; neque enim legi ſatisfacimus. Quanquam autem haec fides eſt in voluntate, eſt enim velle & accipere promiſſionem, tamen haec Obedientia erga Evangelium, non propter noſtram munditiem imputatur pro juſtitiâ, ſed quia accipit oblatam miſericordiam. Melancth. Apolog. pro Aug. Confeſs. p. 113. Edit. Argentor. 1580.Faith is Obedience to the Goſpel: p. 47Wherefore Faith is fitly called Righteouſneſs. For Obedience to the Goſpel is imputed for Righteouſneſs; ſo that Obedience to the Law therefore only pleaſeth, becauſe we believe that God is freely propitious to us for Chriſts ſake; for we do not ſatisfie the Law. But though this Faith be in the Will, for it is to will and to receive the Promiſe, yet this Obedience to the Goſpel is not imputed for Righteouſneſs becauſe of our purity, but becauſe it receives the Mercy offered. Thus Melancthon diſtinguiſhes and oppoſes to one another, Obedience to Law and Goſpel, and affirms Faith to be Obedience to the Goſpel as diſtinguiſhed from the Law.

And again ſome Pages after he ſayes, (b)(b)Idem ibid. p. 116. Evangelium eſt hoc ipſum mandatum quod jubet credere quod Deus velit ignoſcere & ſalvare propter Chriſtum; juxta illud, Non mifit Deus Filium ſuum, &c. quoties igitur de miſericordiâ dicitur, intelligendum eſt, fidem requiri.The Goſpel is that very Commandment which bids us believe that God will pardon and ſave for Chriſts ſake; according to that, God ſent not his Son into the World to condemn, &c therefore how often there is mention made of Mercy, we muſt underſtand that Faith is required

Again in his common places, he ſayes, (c)(c)Idem in loc com. cap. de Poeniten. p. 517. Mandatum aeternum & immutabile, ac longè ſupra Legem est, credere Chriſto.The Command to believe in Chriſt is eternal and unchangeable, and far above the Law. Melancthons meaning is plain, that the Command to believe in Chriſt, is not a Commandment of the Moral Natural Law, for it is far above that Law; but it is a Commandment of the poſitive Evangelical Law, which is not Natural but Supernatural.

Chemnitius. alſo in his common places not only confeſſes that the Goſpel is called a Law, (Iſa. 2.3. Mic. 4.2) and the Law of Faith (Rom. 3.27.), but (though he purpoſely ſets himſelf to pleaſe the rigid Lutherans) he likewiſe ſayes that, (d)(d)Affirmativa, de fiducia gratuitae miſericordiae propter Chriſtum, non eſt vox Legis, ſicut Paulus clare dicit, Gal. 3.12. Lex non eſt ex fide, &c. Chemnit. loc. com. p. 219.Gal 3:12The affirmative part, concerning the Faith, or confident trust of Free Mercy for Chriſts ſake is not the voice of the Law, as Paul clearly ſayes, Gal. 3.12. The law is not of faith. Obſerve here, that juſtifying Faith, in Chemnitius's Opinion, is not required by the Moral Natural Law, but by the Goſpel, and that becauſe Paul clearly ſaith, that the Law is not of Faith, Gal. 3.12. i. e. The Law requires not Faith to Juſtification. See our laſt Annotations (Pools) on Gal. 3.12. The Law ſaith nothing of Faith in the Mediatour, though Faith in God be commanded in the firſt Precept; yet Faith in Chriſt is not commanded in the Law, as that by which the Soul ſhall iive, &c.

Hemmingius a moderate Lutheran, and Diſciple of Melancthon, ſaith, (e)(e)Fidem, omnes unanimiter ad Evangelium referunt. Tract. de gratia ſalutari Edit. Hafniae 1591. loco. de poenitentia.All Divines unanimouſly refer Faith (in Chriſt) to the Goſpel. And he had reaſon to ſay ſo, for before the Flacians. I do not know that ever any Proteſtant Divine was of that Opinion that it is not the Goſpel, but the Moral Natural Law which requires Faith in Chriſt unto Juſtification and Salvation. I am ſure Luther was not of that mind; for in his Book of Chriſtian Liberty, a little before the paſſage which Mr. Goodwin hath quoted out of it, he brings in the very Goſpel (or God in and by the Goſpel) ſpeaking unto Men, and ſaying, p. 48(f)(f)En tibi, crede in Chriſtum, in quo promittuntur tibi gratia, Juſtitia, Pax, Libertas, & omnia, ſi credis, habebis, ſi non credis, carebis. Luther. de libert. Chriſt.Lo here for thee, believe in Chriſt, in whom are promiſed unto thee Grace Juſtice, Peace, Liberty and all: If thou believe, thou ſhalt have them; if thou believe not, thou ſhalt want them. Here it is obſervable, as was ſaid before, (1.) That Luther ſpeaks of the Goſpel as diſtinguiſhed from, and oppoſed to the Law. (2.) He ſays, That the Language of the Goſpel ſo conſidered, is crede in Chriſtum, &c. believe in Chriſt. And if that be not a Command, how ſhall we know that ever there was ſuch a Command in the World. (3.) Tho. Luther calls the Goſpel there, Promiſſa Dei, the Promiſes of God, yet it is moſt evident he did not think them to be all abſolute Promiſes; for he expreſly mentions a Conditional Promiſe, ſaying, Si credis, habebis, If thou believeſt, thou ſhalt have all thoſe benefits that are promiſed in and through Chriſt. (4.) That the Conditional Promiſe of the Goſpel, the promiſe of great Bleſſings and Benefits made to us on condition that we believe in Chriſt, doth carry in it a Goſpel Command to believe in Chriſt: Otherwiſe it is not imaginable how Luther could make the very Goſpel and the Promiſes of God, as oppoſed to the Law, to ſay unto Man, Crede in Chriſtum, Believe in Chriſt; for that is a Precept, if ever there was a Precept in the Word of God; and being a Precept, it muſt according to Luther, be implyed in the Conditional Promiſe of the Goſpel. Whence we may learn this uſeful Leſſon, that in every Conditional Promiſe of the Goſpel, there are two things to be conſidered by us. (1.) The Promiſe it ſelf of ſome gratuitous Benefit. (2.) The Goſpel Command to perform the condition upon which the Benefit is promiſed.

The truth of this Obſervation was well underſtood by the Learned Dr. Whitaker, and therefore he ſaith, (g)(g)Whitak. praelect. de Sacram. cap 4. Promiſſio gratiae conditionalis eſt, requirit enim fidem, &c.The Promiſe of Grace is Conditional, for it requires Faith, &c.

And Dr. Nowell, in his foreſaid Latine Catechiſm taught in the Grammar-Schools throughout England, ſpeaking of the Goſpel as diſtinct from the Law, he ſaith, (h)(h)Verae Religionis partes ſunt, Obedientia quam Lex imperat, & fides quam Evangelium requirit. A. Nowelli Chriſtianae Pietatis prima Inſtit. pag. 3. Edit. Cantab. 1626.The Goſpel requires Faith.

In like manner Sharpius tells us that the Goſpel as diſtinct from the Law requires Faith, and declares that the contrary Opinion which Mr. Goodwin has lately taken up, is the Error of the Flacians. (i)(i)Errant Flaciani qui in Evangelio nullum praeceptum eſſe volunt, cum manifeſte praecipiatur ut credamus & poenitentiam agamus; fides autem eſt tantùm ex Evangelio, ut & poenitentia quae foreign dicitur. Sharpii Curſ. Theolog. Sect. de Evangelio, pag. 692.The Flacians (ſaith he) err, who would have no Precept to be in the Goſpel, ſeeing it is manifeſtly commanded that we ſhould believe and repent: But Faith is only from the Goſpel, as is alſo that Repentance which in Greek is called, foreign.

With Sharpius agrees Dickſon on Rom. 3.27, 28. his words are theſe, [Argum. p. 4910. Becauſe by the Law of Faith, or the Covenant of Grace, which requires Faith to our Juſtification by the Righteouſneſs of another, Mans boaſting in himſelf is excluded, and not by the Law of Works, or the Covenant of Works, which exacts perfect Obedience, and affords boasting to Men in their inherent Righteouſneſs. Therefore (ſaith he) we conclude, that a Man is juſtified by Faith, without the Works of the Law.] Thus Dickſon.

Of the ſame Judgment was the late Reverend and Learned Mr. Pitcairn, Principal of the New Colledge, and Rector of the Univerſity of S. Andrews: For in his Harmony of the Evangeliſts, he writes thus, (k)(k)P…cairn. Harmon. Evang. p. 274. Quiſquis juſtificatur, per Legem Chriſti, hoo eſt, per Evangelicam Chriſti Legem fidem praeſcribentem, abſolvitur.Whoſoever is juſtified, he is abſolved by the Law of Chriſt, that is by the Evangelical Law of Chriſt, which preſcribes Faith. And as was obſerved before, the Aſſemblies Confeſſion of Faith, in the Seventh Chapter, of Gods Covenant with Man, Art. 3. ſaith expreſly, That the Lord in the Covenant of Grace, requires of Men Faith in Jeſus Chriſt, that they may be ſaved. I might bring many more Teſtimonies to this purpoſe, but theſe are ſufficient to ſhow that it hath been, and is the common belief of our Proteſtant Divines (except ſome raving bawling Flacians in Germany, and the Cocceians in Holland) that the Goſpel commands and requires us to believe in Jeſus Chriſt for Juſtification and Salvation.

The Caſe then is plainly thus, That the Moral Natural Law requires Faith in God, ſimply conſidered as God; and Jeſus Chriſt being God by Nature, One God with the Father and Spirit, it requires Faith in him alſo conſidered ſimply under that formal Notion as God: But the Law doth not by it ſelf immediately require Faith in Chriſt the Mediatour, as the inſtrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of him and his Righteouſneſs for Juſtification. It is the Goſpel-Covenant which firſt by it ſelf immediately conſtitutes and ordains Faith in the Mediatour Chriſt Jeſus, to be the inſtrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs for Juſtification and Salvation; and which likewiſe requires it of us as ſuch, and under that Notion. Now when Faith in the Mediatour is once by the poſitive Law of Grace or Goſpel-Covenant ordained to ſuch an uſe, and required of us for that purpoſe, then I acknowledge that the Moral Natural Law obliges us to obſerve the poſitive Evangelical Law of Grace which hath ordained Faith to ſuch an uſe, and required it in order to ſuch an end; and ſo mediante Lege Evangelicâ poſitivâ, by means of the poſitive Evangelical Law of Grace or new Covenant, the Natural Law, the Law of our Creation obliges us to believe in Chriſt the Mediatour, to receive him and his Righteouſneſs, as aforeſaid, and to truſt to be juſtified and ſaved by and for him and his Righteouſneſs only. So that juſtifying Faith in the Mediatour is required of us firſt directly and immediately by the Goſpel Covenant only; but ſecondarily, mediately and by conſequence, it is alſo required by the Moral Natural Law. This to me is very evident. For,

[1.] The Natural Moral Law cannot of it ſelf immediately oblige us to believe in Chriſt the Mediatour, unleſs he be otherwiſe diſcovered to us by Supernatural Revelation. This I think none will deny; for the Apoſtle ſaith, Rom. 10.14. How ſhall they believe on him of whom they have not heard? It is ſimply impoſſible for a Man to believe in Chriſt the Mediatour before he be revealed to him; and he cannot be revealed by the Natural Moral Law, p. 50without. Supernatural Revelation; therefore he cannot be obliged to believe in Chriſt the Mediatour by the Natural Moral Law immediately, without a Supernatural Revelation; becauſe that juſt and good Law cannot oblige a Man to a ſimple and abſolute impoſſibility. Man in his Innocency could not be obliged by a Natural Law to believe a Supernatural Object, without a Supernatural Revelation.

[2.] The Supernatural Revelation of Chriſt the Mediatour to us, doth of it ſelf immediately oblige us to believe. It doth not only diſcover Chriſt the Object, but it doth likewiſe per ſe immediatè, by it ſelf immediately oblige us to believe the Object revealed; ſo that all Natural Moral Law ſet aſide, and abſtracting from any ſuch Law, the Supernatural Revelation of Chriſt would by it ſelf immediately oblige us to believe: And that,

(1.) Becauſe it is Gods own Supernatural Teſtimony, which of it ſelf hath an immediate Authority over our Conſcience, and obliges us to believe with a Faith of aſſent. The true formal reaſon and objective moving cauſe of our obligation to believe a Myſterious Truth Supernaturally revealed to us, is the Divine Teſtimony it ſelf, or the Soveraign Authority of God Supernaturally revealing. If any Man ſay, No, it is not that, but it is only the Natural Moral Law which obliges us to believe the Supernatural Tenimony of God: I Anſwer, That ſuch a Man ſeems to be pecking towards the Socinians, and does but diſcover his ignorance of thoſe matters. John ſays, (1 John 5.10.) he that believeth not God hath made him a lyar, becauſe he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. See for this Eſſen. compend. dogmat. cap. 9. pag. 284. Theſ. 34. arg. 3.

(2.) The ſaid Supernatural Revelation of Chriſt the Mediatour, as God hath given it forth unto Man, carries in it, and with it, a poſitive Command to believe on Chriſt. This is ſo clear in Scripture, that a Man muſt be blind that doth not ſee it, if he do but read, underſtand and conſider. Let Deut. 18.15, 16, 17, 18, 19. be conſulted, and there we ſhall find a Supernatural Revelation of Chriſt the Mediatour, and a Prophetical Promiſe to ſend him into the World. The people were afraid to converſe immediately with God (after the dreadful appearance at the giving of the Law in Horeb), therefore they deſired that Moſes would be Mediatour between God and them. This motion and deſire of the people God approved of, v. 16, 17. and withal made them a promiſe by Moſes, that he would ſend them the true Mediatour Chriſt, whom Moſes in that did but typifie and adumbrate: And at the ſame time, by the ſame Moſes, God gave a Command to hearken unto Chriſt when he ſhould come, and backed his Command with a Threatning to puniſh them ſeverely in caſe they did not hearken unto him. Compare this with Acts 3.22, 23. and it will evidently appear that here we have a Supernatural Revelation of Chriſt the Mediatour, which contains in it a plain Command to hear him in all things; and that hearing him in all things, includes believing on him, (John 8.24. and 14.1.); and the Command is enforced with a dreadful Threatning againſt every Soul which will not hear him, and believe on him. Now doth not this Supernatural Revelation by vertue of the Command included in it, immediately oblige us, to believe on Chriſt for Juſtification and Salvation? Surely none but an Unbeliever can deny this. And it not only doth oblige us, but it would oblige us, ſuppoſe (that which is impoſſible) that there were no Natural Moral Law in the World. We have then a poſitive Law which immediately obliges our Conſcience to believe in Chriſt the Mediatour, p. 51beſides the Natural Moral Law. And thus was this matter underſtood above Twelve Hundred Years ago. Witneſs that of Lactantius; (l)(l)Ipſe Moſes per quem ſibi datam legem, dum pertinaciter tuentur (Judaei,) exciderunt a Deo, & Deum non Agnoverunt, praedixerat fore ut Propheta maximus mittatur a Deo, qui ſit ſupra Legem, qui voluntatem Dei ad homines perferat. In Deuteronomio ità ſcriptum reliquit, & dixit Dominus ad me: Prophetam excitabo eis de Fratribus corum, ſicut te, & dabo verbum meum in os ejus: Et loquetur ad cos, ea quae praecepero ei; & quiſquis non audierit ea quae loquetur Propheta ille in nomine meo, ego vindicabo in eum. Denunciavit, ſcilicet, Deus per ipſum legiferum, quòd Filium ſuum, id eſt, vivam praeſentemque legem miſſurus eſſet, & illam veterem per mortalem datam ſoluturus; ut Deus per eum qui eſſet aeternus, legem ſanciret aeternam. Lactant. Divin. Inſtit. lib. 4. Cap. 17.Moſes himſelf, by whom the Law was given, and which the Jews obſtinately defending, are fallen from God, and have loſt the knowledge of God; foretold that it ſhould come to paſs, that God would ſend a moſt Great Prophet, who ſhould be above the Law, and ſhould bring the Notice of God's Will to Men. In Deuteronomy he left it thus written, And the Lord ſaid unto me, I will raiſe them up a Prophet from among their Brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my Word in his Mouth, and he ſhall ſpeak unto them thoſe things which I ſhall command him: And whoſoever ſhall not hear thoſe things which that Prophet ſhall ſpeak in my Name, I will puniſh him for it. God declared even by the Law giver himſelf, that he would ſend his own Son, that is, a Living and Preſent Law, and would abrogate that Old Law, given by a Mortal Man; that he might by him who ſhould be Eternal, again Confirm and Ratifie the Eternal Law.

Thus he, and whoever is acquainted with the Writings of Lactantius, may (I think) eaſily perceive that by the Eternal Law, he meant the Everlaſting Goſpel or Covenant, and Law of Grace which the Eternal Chriſt hath Confirmed and Ratified by his Blood ſhedding and Death.

This may appear yet clearer to ſome Perſons from Matth. 17.5. And behold a Voice out of the Cloud which ſaid, This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleaſed, hear ye him. Where again, We have (1.) A Supernatural Revelation of Chriſt as the Son of God. (2.) We have a poſitive Command of God, to hear him, that is to believe on him, and obey him, as the word (hear) ſignifies, according to the Hebrew idiom. Now this Voice out of the Cloud was not the Voice of the Law of Nature, but of the Father as ſuch, ſpeaking by ſupernatural Revelation; nor was this a Command of the Law of Nature, but it was a poſitive Command of God, as the Authour of Grace, which poſitive Command recorded in Scripture, is to us Chriſtians a poſitive Law, whatever it be to Unbelievers; It is a poſitive Law which obliges us to Faith in Chriſt by the Evidence of Supernatural Revelation applying the Veracity and Authority of God to our Conſciences. Such it was to Melancthon, one of our firſt Reformers, who often hath recourſe to it as a Command of the Goſpel diſtinct from the Natural Moral Law. Particularly he hath recourſe to it twice in his Anſwer to the 22th. Article of the Bavarian Inquiſition. And as the foreſaid Supernatural Revelations carryed in them a Poſitive Command expreſly; ſo the firſt obſcurer Revelation of that kind, (that the Seed of the Woman, ſhould bruiſe the Serpents Head, Gen. 3.15.) implyed the like Poſitive Command to believe in Chriſt to come; though it be not ſo expreſs in the firſt Written Record as it is conveyed down to us. We have no ground to believe that God ſaid p. 52not one word more to our Firſt Parents after the Fall, than what we find expreſly written in the Third of Geneſis; And ſuppoſe he did not ſay one word more, as on the other hand no Man can prove that he did: Yet there is a Promiſe of Mercy to be ſhewed unto Fallen Man by means of the Seed of the Woman, as is confeſt. Now Melancthon has told us, as he was quoted before. That (m)(m)Quoties igitur de miſericordiâ dicitur, intelligendum eſt fidem requiri Melanct. Apol.og. pro Aug. Confeſſ. p. 116.As often as there is mention made of Mercy, (to wit, ſaving Mercy by Chriſt,) we must underſtand that Faith is required.

But I inſiſt not on that. It is ſufficient to our purpoſe, that we now have a Supernatural clear Revelation of Chriſt, See Acts 16.31.Acts 16:31with a clear expreſs poſitive Command to believe on him, and that diſtinct from the Natural Moral Law. And this expreſs poſitive Command, (Hear ye him, believe in the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and thou ſhalt be ſaved) is to us an Evangelical Law, which hath more Power over our Conſciences than Ten Thouſand ſuch little Sophiſmes ſet off with a Rhetorical Flouriſh of Words, as are offered us to prove, That we are not obliged to believe in Chriſt for Juſtification and Salvation, by the Goſpel Covenant or Law of Grace, but only by the Natural Moral Law.

Thirdly, As the Opinion under Conſideration, is not true, becauſe contrary to plain Scripture, ſo it is of worſe conſequence to Religion, than my Reverend Brother ſeems to be aware of; For if there be no Poſitive Law in the Goſpel, diſtinct from the Natural Law, which obliges us to Faith in Chriſt; becauſe if there were, then the Natural Moral Law would not be perfect, and preſcribe all Duty, nor would God be Infinitely Wiſe; it follows by the ſame reaſon that there is no poſitive Law at all, which obligeth us to any other Duty; and indeed by this Flacian Opinion he plainly overthrows all Poſitive Laws, and therewith all Inſtituted Worſhip. And he is miſtaken, if he think to prevent and remedy this, by reducing all to the Natural Moral Law. For,

(1.) If there be no Poſitive Law at all, then it can never be reduced to the Natural Moral Law. For a thing that is not at all, cannot be reduced to a thing that really is.

(2.) The Natural Moral Law would never oblige us to any the leaſt part of Poſitive Inſtituted Worſhip, if we were not firſt in order of Nature obliged to it by the poſitive Will of God inſtituting it, and by the Inſtitution it ſelf immediately obliging us to the obſervance of it. Once take away the Obligation that ariſes immediately from the poſitive Inſtitution, and the Law of Nature, the Moral Natural Law will never take hold of our Conſciences to oblige us thereunto. For it is by means of the Special Poſitive Law, that the General Natural Law obliges to ſuch and ſuch particular kind of things, which fall not under the Commands of the general Natural Law. Is it not very evident, that though Adam, before he ſinned had the Moral Natural Law in its full perfection, yet it would never have obliged his Conſcience to forbear Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, more than any other Fruit in the Garden of Eden; If to the General Natural Law, God had not ſuper-added a particular poſitive Law, forbidding him under pain of Death to eat of the Fruit of that Tree: So that it was this New Poſitive Law which firſt obliged him not to eat of it, and then by Vertue of that, The Moral Natural Law ſtrictly obliged him likewiſe not to eat of it. And this holds Univerſally with reſpect to every thing that depends on the Arbitrary Will of God to make it our Duty or not. It is his Poſitive Law, ſignifying his Will and p. 53Pleaſure, that firſt obliges us, and then by vertue thereof, God's General Natural Law obliges us alſo; and not otherwiſe. So that upon this abſurd Principle, if it ſhould prevail amongſt us, we muſt all turn Seventh day-Men and Quakers; for we ſhall never be able to prove by any, or all of the Ten Commandments, without a Poſitive Law expreſly or implicitly inſtituting them, and ſtill in force; That the Firſt Day of the Week is the Chriſtian Sabbath, That we ought to be Baptized with Water in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt; and to Eat and Drink the Bleſſed Bread and Wine in remembrance of Chriſt's Death till he come.

To this I ſhall ſubjoyn the Teſtimony of the Late Reverend and Learned Dr. Owen, and then paſs on. From Deut. 18. ver. 18, 19. he infers that Chriſt was to be a Law giver. His words are [ (n)(n)Dr. Owens 1ſt. Vol. on the Epiſt. to the Hebrews, exercitat. 17. pag. 224.The Prophet here foretold, was to be like unto him (Moſes) wherein he was peculiar and exempted from compariſon with all other Prophets, which were to build on his Foundation, without adding any thing to the Rule of Faith and Worſhip which he had Revealed, or changing any thing therein. In that is the Prophet here promiſed to be like unto him, that is he was to be a Law-giver to the Houſe of God, as our Apoſtle proves and declares, Chap. 3. ver. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. —Moſes was the great Law giver, by whom God revealed his Mind and Will, as to his whole Worſhip, whilſt the Church-State Inſtituted by him was to continue. Such a Prophet was the Meſſias to be, a Law-giver, ſo as to Aboliſh the Old, and to Inſtitute New Rites of Worſhip. —This raiſing up of a Prophet, like unto Moſes, declares, That the Whole Will of God, as to his Worſhip, and the Churches Obedience, was not yet Revealed. Had it ſo been, there would have been no need of a Prophet like unto Moſes, to lay New Foundations as he had done.] Thus the Doctor.

Now as I have diſtinguiſhed of Faith, ſo I diſtinguiſh of Repentance. As there is a Faith in God which moſt certainly is commanded by the Natural Moral Law it ſelf immediately; ſo there is a Repentance towards God, which is alſo Commanded by the Natural Moral Law it ſelf immediately. This I never denyed, but always believed, and in our Apology, pag. 200. we plainly enough profeſſed this our belief in theſe words, [Heathens who never heard, nor could hear of the Goſpel for want of an Objective Revelation of it, they living and dying without Repentance and Faith in the True God, under the guilt of Sins againſt the Law, and Light of Nature, will be Condemned by the Law, but not by the Goſpel, which they could not know, Rom 2.12.] Theſe words plainly ſhow, that our Judgment is, That Heathens are guilty of Sins againſt the Law and Light of Nature, in that they do not believe in the True God, nor repent of their Sins, although they have not the Goſpel, and ſo no Goſpel-Promiſe to aſſure them of Pardon; and that they ſhall be Condemned by the Law of Nature for their Unbelief and Impenitency againſt the Law of Nature, together with their other Sins againſt the ſame Law. And from this it appears, That a great part of my Reverend Brothers Seventh Chapter, is altogether Impertinent, and that I am not at all concerned in it. Mr. Goodwin here fights againſt a Man of Straw of his own making and ſetting up, and valiantly runs him down again, and I do not in the leaſt envy him the Glory of ſuch a Victory. But though the Natural Moral Law doth oblige all Mankind of ripe years to a Natural Legal Repentance, that is, (1.) To be heartily ſorry for having offended God their Creator and Preſerver, by breaking his Law which they are under, and outwardly p. 54alſo to expreſs the inward ſorrow of their Hearts. (2) To hate their Sin as a great Evil in it ſelf, and the procuring Cauſe of Evil unto Men. (3.) Not to act their Sin over again, but to abſtain from Sin, and to keep God's Natural Moral Law for the future: Yet there is another kind of Repentance which the Natural Moral Law doth not by it ſelf immediately oblige all Mankind unto in all parts of the World, and that is an Evangelical Repentance, which ariſeth from an apprehenſion and perſwaſion of God's Mercy in Chriſt to all ſuch as are truely Penitent, and to our ſelves, if we do, or ſhall truely Repent. This is a Repentance towards God conſidered not meerly as our Creator, Preſerver and Ruler; but as in Chriſt reconciling the World unto himſelf, and as Ruling Graciouſly and Mercifully by Chriſt. So that it hath a formal Object different from that of the other Natural Legal Repentance, and it hath likewiſe a different Habitude and Relation unto God, and is carryed out unto him after a different manner, which is ſufficient to give it another Form, and to make it formally to differ from the foreſaid Natural Legal Repentance: Moreover, it hath another Office and Uſe aſſigned to it, for it is conſtituted and Ordained by God through Chriſt to be a Condition Diſpoſitive of the Subject to be pardoned, or a means to prepare and qualifie us for Receiving the Pardon of our Sins by Faith in Chriſt's Blood, and for his Righteouſneſs only, apprehended, applyed, and truſted to by Faith. Now ſuch a Repentance as this, a True Evangelical Repentance, conſidered under this formal notion, as ariſing from the foreſaid perſwaſion of Gods Mercy in Chriſt to the truely Penitent; and as a Condition or Means to diſpoſe and prepare for pardon, and as having pardon enſured to it by Promiſe through Chriſt: I ſay Repentance of this kind, and conſidered under this Notion, is Commanded and Required by the Goſpel-Law or Covenant, firſtly, directly, and immediately; and then by the Natural Moral Law mediately, and by conſequence. As the Goſpel Commands us to believe that God is upon terms of Saving, Pardoning Mercy to the truely Penitent, ſo the Goſpel, or God by the Goſpel, makes True Repentance to be one of the Terms, to be a Condition or Means to diſpoſe and qualifie us for pardoning Mercy; and makes Pardon ſure to us by Promiſe through Chriſt upon our Repentance: As alſo, It is the Goſpel, and God by Goſpel, that requires the ſaid diſpoſitive Condition, that Commands us to Repent, that we may certainly obtain the Promiſed Pardon, through Faith in Chriſt's Blood.

That God by the Goſpel Commands us to Repent, in order to obtain the Pardon of our Sins, is as Clear as the Light at Noon, to all that are not blind through Unbelief. For doth not the Evangelical Prophet ſay, Iſai. 55.7. Let the Wicked forſake his Way, and the Ʋnrighteous Man his Thoughts, and let him Return unto the Lord, and he will have Mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly Pardon: Or, He will multiply to Pardon. It cannot be ſaid, That this is the Voice of the firſt Covenant and Law of Works. For that Covenant is ſo far from requiring Repentance as a means to obtain Pardon of Sin, that it doth not ſo much as admit of Repentance as any means to ſuch an end, as we ſhall hear by and by from Mr. Caryll. And if it be not the Voice of the Old Covenant and Law of Works, it muſt be the Voice of the New Covenant and Law of Grace; for there is no Medium, no Third that can have any place here. And it is obſervable, that here Repentance is required in the firſt place, and then Pardon is promiſed as a great favour, which ſhall follow after. p. 55For the Promiſe runs in the Future Tenſe, the Lord will have Mercy upon the wicked Man who hath truly repented, and our God will abundantly pardon him. He will pardon him all the Sins, whereof he hath truly repented, how many ſoever they have been.

And as John Baptiſt, our Lord himſelf and his Apoſtles began their Preaching of the Goſpel with the Preaching of Repentance, ſo when our Lord Chriſt after his Reſurrection enlarged the Apoſtles Commiſſion, and ſent them to preach the Goſpel to the Gentile World, he told them, that they muſt preach Repentance and Remiſſion of Sin; in his Name among all Nations, beginning at Jeruſalem, Luke 24.47. So that it was a part of their Commiſſion to preach the Goſpel, that they ſhould preach Repentance as a means to obtain Remiſſion of Sins through Faith in Chriſts name. And it is certain that they acted according to their Commiſſion. Peter led the way; and in his firſt Sermon after they were endued with Power from on high; he ſaid to the convinced humbled Jews, (who asked him and the reſt of the Apoſtles what they ſhould do?) That they ſhould repent and be baptized every one of them in the name of Jeſus Christ for the remiſſion of ſins, Acts 2.37, 38. Thoſe Jews were deeply convinced that they had broken the Law, and thereby fallen under its curſe, and deſtroyed their own Souls; ſo that it was not then time to preach the Old Law of Works to them; nor did Peter preach it then to them, but he preached the Goſpel-Covenant and New Law of Grace to them, ſaying as before mentioned, Repent, &c. for the remiſſion of ſins. And by that firſt Goſpel-Sermon he converted about Three Thouſand Souls. And as he began ſo he continued to do; for his next publick Sermon to the people was of the ſame ſtrain with the firſt; for after he and his Brethren had born their Teſtimony to Chriſts Reſurrection, and by his Reſurrection and the Miracle done in his Name had proved him to be indeed the true Chriſt whom God promiſed to ſend into the World for the Redemption of his People: And likewiſe after he had charged them with, and proved them guilty of the murder of Chriſt, and had ſhewed that by ignorantly murdering Jeſus of Nazareth, they had unwittingly fulfilled the many Propheſies which foretold the ſufferings of Chriſt for the Salvation of his People; he immediately commanded and exhorted them to repent and be converted, as the means to obtain the Pardon of their Sins, and Salvation of their Souls. Acts 3.19. Repent ye therefore and be converted that your ſins may be blotted out, when the times of refreſhing ſhall come from the preſence of the Lord. And here by the way we may take notice that the antient Syriack Interpreter renders this place thus; [Repent therefore and be converted, that your ſins may be blotted out, and that the times of refreſhing may come from the preſence of the Lord.] foreign. See Act. 15.17.Acts 15:17After the ſame manner it is rendred in the Tigurin Tranſlation. Irenaeus alſo, a very Antient Father and Martyr above Fourteen Hundred Years ago, thus quotes this Scripture; (o)(o)Poenitentiam igitur agite, & convertimini, uti deleantur peccata veſtra, & veniant vobis tempora refrigerii Domini. Iren. lib. 3. adverſus haereſes, cap. 12.[Repent therefore and be converted, that your ſins may be blotted out, and that the times of the Lords refreſhing may come unto you.] So Irenaeus. But I lay not the ſtreſs of my Argument on that Old Tranſlation; for our own Tranſlation is ſufficient to my purpoſe, ſince it plainly ſhews, That the Goſpel preſcribes Repentance unto Sinners, as a means to prepare and diſpoſe them for obtaining the Pardon of p. 56their Sins; which the Natural Moral Law by it ſelf immediately doth not do; but only requires a Natural Legal Repentance, ſuch as is before deſcribed, and that Men ſhould ſo ſin no more for time to come; but doth not ordain it to be a means, nor require it as a means to obtain pardon, nor yet enſure pardon to it through Chriſt, as ſuch a means.

And as Peter led the way in preaching the Goſpel, by preaching Repentance as a means to obtain pardon of Sin; ſo the other Apoſtles followed, according to the Commiſſion which they all received from the Lord himſelf. Paul (as was ſhewn in the Apology) was ſent to the Gentiles to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkneſs to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they might receive forgiveneſs of ſins, &c. Acts 26.17, 18. And he was faithful to the Lord who ſent him, and approved himſelf ſo to be, by teſtifying both to the Jews and alſo to the Greeks, Repentance towards God, and Faith toward our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; Acts 20.20, 21. And the end in order to which he preached up the uſe of theſe means of Faith and Repentance, was that people might receive forgiveneſs of Sins. And if that was not Goſpelpreaching, how can it be proved that ever there was ſuch a thing as Goſpelpreaching in the World; and that Paul was faithful to God and the Souls of Men in preaching the Goſpel; ſince Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and that too in order to pardon of Sin, to Juſtification and Salvation were the two great heads of Doctrine that he mainly inſiſted upon: as evidently appears from Acts 26.17, 18, 19, 20, &c. compared with Acts 20.20, 21. And that the other Apoſtles preached the ſame Goſpel, in the ſame way, and to the ſame end, it is needleſs to go about to prove it, ſince they had all one Commiſſion, and were all faithful in preaching according to their Commiſſion. Now as this was Goſpel in the days of the Apoſtles, ſo it hath been, and ſtill is, and ever will be Goſpel to the end of the World: For Chriſts Goſpel is an everlaſting Goſpel, and in all Ages hath been preſerved and continued in the Church, and hath been preached (as to the ſum and ſubſtance of it) by certain faithful Miniſters of Chriſt in all Ages. Lactantius of old gave this as a mark to know the true Church by: (o)(o)Sciendum eſt illam eſſe veram (Eccleſiam Catholicam) in quâ eſt confeſſio & poenitentia, quae peccata & vulnera quibus ſubjecta eſt imbecillitas carnis ſalubriter curat. Lactant Divin. Inſtit. lib. 4. cap. 30.[We muſt know (ſaith he) that that is the true Catholick Church, in which is Confeſſion and Repentance, which wholeſomely cures the ſins and wounds to which the weakneſs of the fleſh is ſubject.] Here is nothing for Popiſh Merits and Satisfactions, for his words ſignifie no more but this, that Confeſſion and Repentance is a wholeſome means uſed in the true Church according to the Goſpel, 1 John 1.9.1 John 1:9for obtaining Pardon of Sin by Faith in Chriſts Blood. Hence in the ſame Book he ſaith; (p)(p)Vitam nobis morte acquiſivit (Chriſtus), morte ſuperatâ; nulla igitur ſpes alia conſequendae immortalitatis Homini datur, niſi crediderit in eum, & illam crucem portandam, patiendam que ſuſceperit. Lactant. Divin. Inſtitut. lib. 4. cap. 19.[Chriſt by his Death hath purchaſed Life for us, having overcome Death; therefore Man hath no other ground of hope given him of obtaining Immortality, unleſs he believe in him, and take up and patiently bear that Croſs; to wit of Chriſt.]

p. 57Julius Firmicus alſo writeth thus; (q)(q)Miſericordia Dei dives eſt, libenter ignoſcit. Relictis nonaginta novem ovibus, amiſſam quaerit unam, & reverſo Pater prodigo Filio veſtem reddit & parat coenam. Nulla vos deſperare faciat criminum multitudo; Deus ſummus per Filium ſuum Jeſum Chriſtum Dominum noſtrum volentes liberat, & poenitentibus libenter ignoſcit, nec multa exigit ut ignoſcat. Fide tantùm & poenitentiâ poteſtis redimere, quicquid ſceleratis Diaboli perſuaſionibus perdidiſtis. Julius Firmicus Maternus lib. de errore profan. Relig. pag. 11. Edit. Oxon. 1678.[Gods Mercy is rich, he willingly forgives. Having left the ninety and nine ſheep, he ſeeks the one which was loſt. And the Father bestows a Garment upon, and prepares a Supper for the Prodigal Son when he returns. Let not any multitude of your Sins cauſe you to deſpair; the moſt high God by his Son Jeſus Chriſt our Lord delivers or redeems thoſe that are willing, and willingly forgives the penitent; nor doth he require of us many things that he may forgive. By Faith and Repentance only, ye may recover whatever ye have leſt by the wicked perſwaſions of the Devil. The word (redimere) is not here uſed by this Antient Authour in a ſtrict and proper, but in a large improper ſenſe, and ſignifies to recover, as I have tranſlated it: And ſo the word to ſave, is taken largely and improperly in Holy Scripture, when Men are ſaid by Chriſt or his Apoſtles, to ſave themſelves, Luke 7.50. Thy faith hath ſaved thee. Acts 2.40. Save your ſelves from this untoward generation. 1 Tim. 4.16. In doing this thou ſhalt both ſave thy ſelf, and them that hear thee. And that I have rightly Tranſlated the foreſaid word, uſed by Julius Firmicus Maternus, will evidently appear to any that ſhall be at the pains to read in the ſame Book, Page 61. Line 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, &c. And again, Page 65, 66. for by his own words there, firſt to the Heathens, and then to the Emperours, it doth plainly appear that he was ſound and orthodox in the point of our Redemption by the Obediential Sufferings of Chriſt God-Man, and Mediatour between God and Men. But though it be thus, that he maintained we are properly redeemed by Chriſt only, and that none could ever obtain Life but by the Merit of his Obedience and Death; yet it is withal moſt certain that he held not only Faith in Chriſt Jeſus, but alſo Repentance towards God, to be neceſſary, yea and antecedently neceſſary in order to the obtaining pardon of Sin: For theſe are his expreſs words; (r)(r)Quaere potius ſpem ſalutis; quaere exordium lucis; quaere quod te ſummo Deo aut commendet aut reddat: Et cum veram viam ſalutis inveneris, gaude, & tunc erectâ Sermonis libertate proclama foreign, cum ab his calamitatibus poſt poenitentiam tuam ſummi Dei fueris indulgentiâ liberatus. Ibid. pag. 6, 7.[Seek rather the hope of Salvation; ſeek the beginning or riſing of the Light; ſeek that which may either commend thee or restore thee to God; and when thou haſt found the true way of Salvation, rejoyce, and then with an uplifted or loud freedom or boldneſs of ſpeech, proclaim it, ſaying (as the Heathens uſed to do in the Worſhip of Iſis, when they had found the Body of Oſiris) [We have found it, rejoyce we together], when by the mercy of the most high God, thou ſhalt be delivered from theſe calamities after thy Repentance.] And as the Apoſtles and Fathers after them (as is ſhewn more largely in the Apology) taught that the Goſpel requires Evangelical Repentance in order to pardon of Sin; ſo did our firſt Reformers and Proteſtant Divines ſince the Reformation. As for our firſt Reformers abroad, let the Auguſtan Confeſſion, which they all ſubſcribed, bear witneſs what their Judgment in that matter was. I have ſpoken to this before, and ſhewed from the expreſs words of the Auguſtan Confeſſion quoted at large in the Apology, Pag. 88. That the Goſpel requires Repentance in order to pardon of Sin, and at the ſame time offers Remiſſion of Sins freely for Chriſts ſake, to all that are truly penitent. Melancthen who drew up that Confeſſion, and wrote an Apology for it, is ſo clear in the caſe, that it is matter of wonder to me, that any ſhould be ſo immodeſt as to deny ſo plain and certain a matter of fact. For after he had ſaid in his common p. 58places, That the Particle [gratis] freely, in Rom. 3.24. doth not exclude Faith, but excludes the condition of our own worthineſs, and transfers the cauſe of the benefit from us unto Chriſt; and moreover having ſaid that the Particle (freely) doth neither exclude our own Obedience, but only transfers the cauſe of the benefit from the worth of our Obedience unto Chriſt, that the benefit may be ſure: Finally having ſaid that the Goſpel preaches Repentance, but that our reconciliation may be iure, it teaches that our Sins are pardoned, and that we pleaſe God, not for the dignity or merit of our Repentance, or newneſs of Heart and Life, but for Chriſts ſake only; and that this conſolation is neceſſary to pious Conſciences. From the premiſſes he makes his inference in theſe words following; (s)(s)At que hinc judicari poteſt, quomodo haec conſentiant, quòd diximus Evangelium concionari de poenitentiâ, & tamen gratis promittere reconciliationem —Definit itaque Chriſtus Evangelium, Luc. ultimo plane ut artifex, cum jubet docere poenitentiam & remiſſionem peccatorum in nomine ſuo. Eſt igitur Evangelium praedicatio poenitentiae, & promiſſio quam ratio non tenet naturaliter, &c. Melancth. loc. com. loco de Evang pag. 398.[And hence it may be judged how theſe things agree, that we ſaid the Goſpel preaches concerning Repentance, and yet it freely promiſes Reconciliation. —Christ therefore in the laſt of Luke (chap. 24. ver. 47.) defines the Goſpel plainly (or altogether) as an Artiſt, when he commands to teach Repentance and Remiſſion of Sins in his Name. The Goſpel then is a preaching of Repentance and a Promiſe, which Reaſon doth not naturally attain unto, &c. Thus Melancthon; and I could quote more out of his Writings to this purpoſe: but this is enough. He who cannot ſee by this little, that Melancthon believed the Goſpel requires Repentance of us in order to pardon of Sin, ſeems to be like thoſe of whom Lactantius of old in the Seventh Book and Firſt Chapter of his Inſtitutions, ſaid that they will not believe our Doctrine, [Nec ſi Solem quidem ipſum geſtemus in manibus], No not though we carry before them even the Sun it ſelf in our hands; that is, though we bring them the cleareſt evidence imaginable: Matth. 11.19.Matt 11:19But however it be with ſuch perſons, yet Wiſdom is and will be juſtified of her Children.

As for Luther, ſince he approved and ſubſcribed the Ausburgh Confeſſion, we may from it take an eſtimate of his Judgment: And beſides that, Chemnicius in his common places, page 219, 220. ſhews out of Luthers firſt Diſputation againſt the Antinomians, That he alſo held that Repentance taken intirely in its eſſential perfection, is required by the Goſpel. I wiſh Luther had been ſomething more accurate in the handling of that matter; but as it is, it ſufficeth to ſhow that he was far from thinking that Evangelical Repentance is required by the Natural Moral Law only, and not at all by the Goſpel; and that on the contrary he believed that Evangelical Repentance as Evangelical, is from the Goſpel, and not from the Law.

And ſo the Lutherans generally (except the Flacians, if there be yet any of that Sect remaining in Germany) maintain that Evangelical Repentance as Evangelical is required by the Goſpel. And I wonder not at all to find them unanimous in this, ſo far as I am acquainted with their Writings; becauſe after Melancthon, they hold Faith to be an eſſential part, yea to be the eſſentiating form of Evangelical Repentance. I am not indeed of their mind in this; yet I think it is a truth, that though Faith be not the very eſſential form it ſelf of Evangelical Repentance, yet it contributes much towards the giving its ſpecifical form, and the making it truly Evangelical; and without Faith it would not be Evangelical.

Calvin and his Followers differ from the Lutherans in this, That they make not Faith to be an Eſſential part of Repentance, but hold them to be Two diſtinct Graces co-exiſtent and influential the one upon the other. And that Calvin believed as we do, That the Goſpel requires of us Evangelical Repentance in order to Pardon of Sin, I plainly proved from his Writings which are quoted in the Apology. p. 92, 93. If any ſhould object p. 59that Calvin on Rom. 10. ver. 8. writes thus (t)(t)Colligimus ſicut lex opera exiglt, Evangelium nihil aliud poſtulare, niſi ut fidem afferant homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam. Calvin. Comment. in Rom. 10.8.Rom 10:8[We gather, That as the Law requires Works (to wit, unto Juſtification,) ſo the Goſpel requires nothing, but that Men bring Faith to receive the Grace of God.] I Anſwer, That this makes altogether for us. For (1.) Here Calvin ſays expreſly, That the Goſpel requires Faith, then he did not believe it to be ſuch a Doctrine of Grace as requires nothing of us at all. (2.) Calvin here ſaith, That the Goſpel requires nothing but Faith to receive the Grace of God. And ſo we ſay the very ſame thing. For we have told the World in our Apology, That Faith is the only receptive Condition of Juſtification; that is, it is the only thing which the Goſpel requires as the Inſtrumental Means or Condition whereby we Apprehend, Receive, and Apply Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs to our own Souls for our Juſtification. As for Repentance it is not of that Nature, it is not naturally ſitted for, nor is it by God appointed and ordained to that uſe and Office in the matter of Juſtification; but it is only fitted for, and ordained unto this Uſe and Office to be the Means or Condition diſpoſitive of the ſubject (man) which is to be pardoned and Juſtifyed. And this Calvin does not here deny, and we have proved that elſewhere he affirms, and maintains it, as we do.

As for the Followers of Calvin, I might be large in ſhowing that generally they (except a few Cocceians) hold that the Goſpel-Covenant requires Evangelical Repentance in order to Pardon of Sin; but I will content my ſelf at preſent with a few clear irrefragable Teſtimonies. Having mentioned Zanchy and Sharpius before, I paſs them, and begin with Ʋrſin and Pareus, whoſe words are theſe, [It was ſaid in the definition of the Goſpel, and in the third difference between the Law and the Goſpel, that the Goſpel requireth both Faith and Repentance, or New Obedience, and ſo is the Preaching both of Remiſſion of Sins and of Repentance. Againſt this Flacian Sectaries keep a ſtir, and reaſon after this ſort. Obj. There is no Precept or Command belonging to the Goſpel, but to the Law: The Preaching of Repentance is a Precept or Commandment: Therefore the Preaching of Repentance belongeth not to the Goſpel, but to the Law. Anſwer, We deny the Major, if it be generally meant. For this Precept is proper unto the Goſpel, Zacharias Urſinus, his Sum of Chriſtian Religion Enlarged. By Pareus in Latine, and Tranſlated into Engliſh, and Printed at London. An 1645. pag. 131.that it commandeth us to believe it, to embrace the benefit of Chriſt, and now being juſtifyed to begin New Obedience, or that Righteouſneſs which the Law requireth of us. Repl. Yea, but the Law alſo willeth us to believe God: Therefore it is not proper unto the Goſpel to Command us to believe. Anſwer, Both the Law and the Goſpel commandeth Faith and Converſion to God, but diverſly, &c. Thus Ʋrſin and Pareus, tell us plainly what their Judgment was, and by Conſequence what the Judgment of the Old Calviniſts was in Germany; for this their large Catechiſme was generally received and Taught in Schools of the Reformed both in Germany and elſewhere, as in Scotland, &c.

Another Inſtance of this Nature we have in Wendelin, a zealous Calviniſt, who in his Syſtema majus. lib. 1. cap. 19. Theſ. 7. writeth thus. (u)(u)Mandatum amplectendi Mediatorem, cum ſide etiam conjungit reſipiſcentiam: Secundum illud Johannis Baptiſtae. Marc. 1.15. reſipiſcite & credite Evangelio. Sic ipſe Deus de Coelo mediatorem patefacit, & verâ fide amplecti jubet. Matth. 17.5. Hic eſt Filius ille meus dilectus, in quo acquieſco, ipſum audite. —Hanc reſipiſcentiam, quatenus Salutaris ad Deum converſio eſt, hoc eſt, Sanctificatio inchoata, vel continuata, ad Evangelium pertinere patet. Quod 4. Argumentis probat. M. Frid. Wendelin. Chriſt. Theolog. Syſtem. Maj. lib. 1. cap. 19. Theſ. 7. pag. 754, 755.Mark 1:15Matt 17:5[The Command to receive and embrace the Mediator, joins Repentance alſo with Faith, according to that of John the Baptiſt, Mark 1.15. Repent, and believe the Goſpel: So God himſelf from Heaven reveals the Mediator, and Commands to embrace him with a True Faith, Matth. 17.5. This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleaſed; Hear ye him. This Repentance, as it is a ſaving Converſion unto God, that is Sanctification begun or continued, evidently belongs to the Goſpel. Which he there p. 60proves by Four Arguments. The ſame Learned Authour a little before in the ſame Book, page 750, 751. by diſtinguiſhing the ſeveral Senſes in which the Word Goſpel is taken, anſwers all that Mr. Goodwin hath written in his whole Book; only he did not think that any Body (but a Flacian Sectary) would be ſo abſurd, as to ſay that the Goſpel ſtrictly and properly taken, is a Doctrine of Grace that requires nothing of us at all; and therefore he affirms that the Goſpel ſtrictly taken requires Faith, and that (Evangelium quocunque modo acceptum habet promiſſiones conditionales.) Take the Goſpel which way ſoever one will, it hath Conditional Promiſes. This is another of the Syſtems of Divinity that hath been uſed in the Schools of the Reformed, and even by the Presbyterians in Scotland.

But we will leave the Germans, and come to our own Countrey Men, and ſee what their Judgment hath been of this matter. And I will begin with Mr. Caryl, whoſe Judgment, I hope, will be ſomething regarded by the Brethren. He gives it plainly, and fully, on Job 42.6. laſt Vol. in Quarto, pag. 842, where that Evangelical Repentance as a means of obtaining Pardon and Life, is not required by the Law, but by the Goſpel, he proves, (1.) By Scripture, Matth. 3.2, 11. and 4.17. and Mark 6.12. Acts 2.38. Acts 20.21. (2.) He ſays, It is through the Goſpel only that Repentance is poſſible, and this appears two ways. (1.) Becauſe we have not a liberty to repent, or we are not admitted to repent but by the Goſpel; we find no place for Repentance in the Law ſtrictly taken, or as oppoſed to the Goſpel. The Law ſpeaks thus, Curſed is every one that continueth not, &c. Gal. 3.10. Where we ſee (1.) The Law requires Perſonal Obedience, every one muſt do for himſelf. (2.) The Law requires perpetual Obedience, (every one that continueth not doing) (3.) The Law requires Univerſal Obedience. (every one that continueth not in all things.) The Law doth not ſay, If a Man continue not to do all, let him repent; that admits no ſecond Thoughts, but claps the Curſe preſently upon the Offender. If Adam as ſoon as he had eaten of the forbidden Tree, had bewailed his Sin, and ſaid, I repent, no Favour could have been ſhewed him while under the Law, &c. Thus the Reverend Mr. Caryl, whereby it plainly appears that he believed the Law by it ſelf immediately doth not oblige us to Repentance as it is a means by God's Ordination, diſpoſing us to obtain Pardon of Sin, and acceptance with God through Faith in Chriſt: for he plainly ſays, That the Law doth not admit us to repent in order to ſuch an end: And then ſurely it doth not Command us to repent in order to ſuch an end. On the other hand he proves by Scripture, that the Goſpel Commands us to Repent in order to the foreſaid end. And therefore he is plainly on our ſide againſt my Reverend Brother.

So are the Reverend Authours of the Aſſemblyes Annotations. Annotation on Mark 1.15. "Repent ye.] Faith and Repentance (ſay they) are the ſum of the Goſpel.

The ſame Annotators, in their Annotation on Acts 17.30. But now he Commandeth all Men every where to repent] they ſay [now he cauſeth the Goſpel to be preached to all Nations to draw them from their horrible Sins: And now if they refuſe to do the known Will of their Maſter, they muſt expect more ſevere Judgments] Hence it is manifeſt that in the Judgment of thoſe Divines, the Command to repent in order to obtain Pardon of Sin, is a part of the Goſpel, otherwiſe their Annotation had been impertinent; yea, it had been a wreſting of Holy Scripture, and a perverting of the true meaning of the Text, which they deſigned to explain. But ſome may demand whether our Proteſtant Divines uſe to ſay that True Repentance is a Condition required of us as neceſſary, yea, and as antecedently neceſſary in order of Nature, to the obtaining Pardon of Sin? I Anſwer, Yea, they do uſe to ſay ſo, and ſome of them prove it too. Witneſs the ſame Aſſemblies Annotations on Mark 1. ver. 4. John did Preach the Baptiſm of Repentance for the Remiſſion of Sins. On theſe words they have this Note, [Repentance is not the Cauſe, but the Inſeparable Condition of Sins Remiſſion.] And on Acts 5.31. where Chriſt is ſaid to give Repentance, &c. their Note is [This Chriſt giveth p. 61by the Spirit of Regeneration, and hereunto is Remiſſion of Sins moſt certainly annexed] And Pool's Annotations on Chriſt's words, Matth. 9.13. but I am come to call Sinners to Repentance. They have this Note [but ſenſible Sinners to Repentance. Firſt to Repentance, then to the receiving Remiſſion of Sins, &c] Witneſs alſo (2.) Dr Rivet and Mr. Anthony Burgeſs both at once. For thus Burgeſs quotes Rivet with approbation. [We have other Orthodox Writers ſpeaking more conſonantly to Truth, denying that future Sins are forgiven, Burgeſſes's True Doctrine of Juſtification Aſſerted, &c. in 30. Lectures. pag. 244.before committed and repented of. When Grotius had objected that the Proteſtants Doctrine, was Peccata condonari antequam fiant, That Sins were forgiven before they were Committed; Rivet in his foreign pag. 467. replyeth, Imo id nos abſurdiſſimum credimus, &c. Yea, We think ſuch a Doctrine moſt abſurd, and the imputation of it to us moſt unjuſt; —Thoſe that know God hath Decreed from Eternity to pardon Sin upon the Condition of Repentance, thoſe that know God hath not decreed the End without the Means, will never aſcribe to themſelves Pardon of Sin, without theſe exerciſes of Repentance. Mr. Burgeſs goes on with Rivet, and ſaith, [Thus the ſame Authour in the ſame Book, pag. 533. Abſurdum eſt credere, &c. It is abſurd (ſaith he) to believe a Remiſſion of Sins which are not yet committed, for neither in the Decree of God is there an actual Remiſſion Decreed without Repentance preceding Remiſſion.

Again, The ſame Burgeſs in the ſame Book, pag. 270. gives us his own Judgment, by it ſelf in theſe following words, [There is in Scripture a two-fold Repentance, or Humiliation for Sin; the one antecedent, and going before Pardon, and this the Scripture requireth as a neceſſary Condition, without which Forgiveneſs of Sin cannot be obtained: Of this Repentance the Scripture for the moſt part ſpeaks, Ezek 18.30. Matth. 3.2. Mark 6.12. Luke 13.3. Acts 3.19. and generally in moſt places of Scripture, &c. By this now it appears that both Rivet and Burgeſs held that True Repentance is required as a Condition or Means antecedently in order of Nature neceſſary to the Pardon of Sin.

Our Third Witneſs is the Learned, Prudent, Pious and Peaceable Mr. Durham, who in his Commentary on the Revelation hath a large Diſcourſe concerning Repentance; where (1.) He diſtinguiſhes and ſhews what Repentance it is which he holds to be neceſſary to pardon of Sin. (2.) He proves it to be neceſſary, ſimply neceſſary, yea and antecedently neceſſary in order of Nature to the obtaining pardon of Sin. His Arguments are diſtributed into three Claſſes. Some of them prove its neceſſity, others prove its antecedency. All together ſtrongly prove that it's antecedently neceſſary in order of Nature to the obtaining of Pardon. This is to be ſeen in pag. 249, 250. (3.) He enquires whether Repentance may be called a Condition, as well as Faith? And Anſwers that it may not be called a Condition in the ſame Senſe, as Faith is called one. For Faith is the only Condition whereby we cloſe with the Covenant, and whereby we cloſe with, receive, and apply Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs as held forth to us in the Covenant-Promiſe. But then he ſays, That in a large Senſe it may be called, and it is a Condition neceſſary with Faith concomitantly in the ſame ſubject, to qualifie and diſpoſe it in a congruous ſuitable way to receive Pardon of Sin by Faith in Chriſt alone. This is to be ſeen in pag. 253, 254, 255, 256. And this is the ſame thing which we believe and have openly profeſſed to the World in our Apology: So that there is not an hairs breadth of difference between his judgment and mine, except it be in the wording of it. And this manifeſtly appears from our calling Repentance the Condition or Means which only qualifies and diſpoſes the Subject for receiving Pardon by Faith alone; whereas we call Faith the Inſtrumental Means or Condition, whereby we receive and apply the Object, to wit, the Promiſe, and Chriſt with his Righteouſneſs as held forth to us in the Promiſe for Juſtification and Salvation. This is ſufficient to ſhow that Mr. Durham is p. 62of the ſame Judgment with us as to this matter, and that therefore we juſtly bring him in to Witneſs for us. I would have quoted his own words, but they are ſo many, and would ſwell my Diſcourſe to ſuch a Bulk, that I chooſe rather to refer the Reader to the Book and Pages, where he will ſee (if he be in any doubt) that I have faithfully given his Senſe in few words.

Our Fourth Witneſs ſhall be the Famous Confeſſion of Faith, Compoſed by the moſt Learned of the Reformed Divines of Poland, Lithuania, and the Provinces thereon depending; together with Divines from Germany; and which they gave in at Torn in the Year 1645, unto the Lutheran and Popiſh Doctors, all Aſſembled there to Confer about Religion for ſeveral Moneths together. Their words are theſe, (x)(x)Non controvertitur hîc an ad remiſſionem peccatorum requiratur converſio mentis ad Deum, & interna peccatorum dum dolore deteſtatio; aſſerimuus enim talem poenitentiam, ut perpetuam conditionem, ad peccatorum remiſſionem requiſitam fuiſſe in utroque Teſtamento, qua peccator non quidem eam meretur (hoc enim efficit ſolum meritum & ſatisfactio Chriſti, cum eam nobis fide viva applicamus) ſed per eam praerequiſita conditio impletur, quâ aptus fit at Divinam miſericordiam conſequendam. Confeſſion. Doctrinae Eccleſiarum Reformatarum in Regno Poloniae maguo Ducatu Lithuaniae annexiſque Regni Provinciis in Colloquio Thorunienſi exhibit. D. 1. Septembris. A. D. 1645. Cap. 6. De Sacramentis, Sect. De Poenitentiâ.(1.) It is not Controverted here, whether the Converſion of the Mind to God, and the inward Deteſtation of Sins with Sorrow, be required unto the Remiſſion of Sins, for we aſſert that, as a perpetual Condition unto the Remiſſion of Sins, ſuch a Repentance was required under both Teſtaments, whereby a Sinner doth not indeed merit it (for the alone Merit and Satisfaction of Chriſt doth that, when we apply it to our ſelves by a lively Faith) but by it the pre-required Condition is performed whereby he is made fit and diſpoſed to obtain the Divine Mercy.]

Thus that Confeſſion of Faith, and thoſe many Learned Judicious Divines who drew it up, bear witneſs to the Truth with us, That Repentance is pre-required, and always was pre-required as a neceſſary Condition whereby a Sinner is qualified and made meet to receive the Pardon of his Sins by Faith in Chriſt's Blood. I could bring more Teſtimonies both from the Word of God, and the Writings of Holy, Sound, and Orthodox Miniſters of Chriſt, for the Confirmation and Elucidation of this Truth, but I have been too large already upon this Point, and therefore this may ſuper abundantly ſuffice to ſhow, That though the Natural Moral Law oblige all Mankind in all parts of the World to one ſort of Faith and Repentance; yet there is another ſort of them, there is an Evangelical Faith and Repentance, unto which the Evangelical Law of the New Covenant doth only by it ſelf immediately oblige us; And the Moral Natural Law obliges us to them but mediately only, and by conſequence, in as much as it obliges us to obſerve all God's Poſitive Laws which it pleaſeth him at any time to Enact for us.

Conſider (Eighthly,) That under the Goſpel God hath made ſincere Obedience to his Moral Natural Law, and to all his Poſitive Laws which are in Force and not Abrogated, one of the Articles of the New Covenant taken in its Latitude; He hath made our performance of ſuch ſincere Obedience to his Laws, a Condition neceſſary to qualifie and prepare us for obtaining full poſſeſſion of Eternal Life and Happineſs in Heavenly Glory, for the ſake of Chriſt and his Meritorious Righteouſneſs only.

(1.) For clearing of this, It is to be obſerved, that in the firſt federal Law of Works given and preſcribed unto Man before the Fall, there are Three things to be diſtinguiſhed. (1.) There is the preceptive part of it. (2.) The Minatory Sanction. (3.) The Promiſſory Sanction.

(1.) There is the Preceptive part, which obligeth to Duty, and except the Poſitive Precepts of Sanctiſying or keeping Holy to God the Seventh day preciſely in order from the Creation, and of not eating the Forbidden Fruit; All the reſt of the Preceptive part of that Law of Works is in force ſtill, and obliges Mankind to an Ever Sinleſs Obedience de futuro.

p. 63(2.) There is the Minatory Sanction, or Threatning which binds over Tranſgreſſors to ſuffer the Puniſhment threatned. And this is ſtill in force with reſpect to all Impenttent Unbelievers. They are all whil'ſt they continue in that State, under the Curſe of the firſt broken Law and Covenant; and are lyable to a further degree of the ſame Puniſhment for every Sin which they ſhall commit in this World. Yet by the Goſpel there is a Door of Hope, to get out of this State opened through Chriſt unto thoſe to whom God ſends it.

(3.) There is the Promiſſory Sanction, or the Promiſe of Life, unto thoſe who keep the Precepts without any Sin whatſoever. Now this is not in force ſince the fall, ſo as that any Man ſhould be obliged (ex intentione Dei) to believe or hope that he ſhall obtain Eternal Life by his keeping the Preceptive part of the firſt Covenant or Law of Works. This was briefly explained and proved in the Apology, pag. 200, 201. and it might be further confirmed, if it were needful. But it is not needful, becauſe to a Man who knows himſelf to be a Sinner, and underſtands the Nature of that firſt Law, (as every Man of common underſtanding may do,) it is ſelf-evident that that Law condemns him to Death for his Sin; and that it is ſimply impoſſible for him to be juſtified unto Life, by that very Law which every moment condemns him to death. And yet it muſt be confeſſed, that the firſt Law or Covenant of Works as fortiſied with its Promiſſory Sanction is repeated both in the Old and New Teſtament, where the Scripture ſaith to Sinful Man, Do this and live, Levit. 18.5. Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.12. But we muſt know that this was Occonomical, and Gods deſign in it was not to oblige any ſinful Man to ſeek or expect Life by his doing the Works of the firſt Law and Covenant, which Promiſed Life to Man only on condition that he ſo kept it, as never to ſin at all, nor by Sin to break it. But then you will ſay, What was Gods deſign in it? I anſwer, That ſo far as the Lord hath given me light to ſee into this matter, his deſign ſeems to have been (1.) By ſetting before us the form of the Firſt Covenant of Works, to recal to our minds what Man once was, and what he ſhould ſtill have been: That once he was without all Sin, and able to have continued ſo; and to have lived for ever, by keeping Covenant, with God. (2.) To convince us that now we are all in our Natural State, Dead Men by that very Law and Covenant, which would have ſecured Life to us, if we had perfectly kept it, but now brings us all under the guilt of Death, Temporal and Eternal Death, becauſe we have broken it.

(3.) To ſtir us up to confeſs our Sin and Miſery, and to put us upon ſearching, Whether God hath in Mercy provided any remedy againſt our Sin and Miſery. (4.) To make us willing to receive and uſe the Remedy, as ſoon as God diſcovers it to us. In a word, to make us deſpair of ever obtaining Life by the Works of that Law which condemns us to death for our ſins; and to make us flee for Refuge unto Chriſt our Help and Hope, as God offers him to us in the New Covenant or Law of Grace.

(2dly) It is to be obſerved, That as ſoon as any Man takes this courſe, aſſoon as any Man takes hold of the New Covenant of Grace, and heartily and ſincerely by Faith cloſes with, and receives Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs as offered and held forth in the ſaid New Covenant, he is inſtantly acquitted from the guilt of Death, he was under for breaking the Law, and hath a Right to Life given him only on the account of the Lord Redeemer Chriſt, and his Satisfactory, Meritorious Righteouſneſs received and applyed by Faith alone: And ſo he is juſtifyed by Faith without Works; For though Faith in Chriſt the Mediator be in it ſelf a Heart-work, yet it is not the Works of the Law, it is not any of thoſe Works which the Firſt Covenant or Law of Works did require to Juſtification. It is neither a Work which the Natural Moral Law by it ſelf immediately required, nor yet is it a Work in the Senſe of the Law of Works; for Works in the ſenſe of that Law and Covenant, they ſignifie that Obedience to the Law, whereby a Man in his own perſon fulſills the Righteouſneſs of the Law, and that for which a Man is juſtified. But Faith is not a Work in that Senſe, for as much as it is no part at all of that Obedience p. 64which ſulfills the Law, and for which a penitent Believer is juſtified. It is only Chriſts Obedience unto Death, even the Death of the Croſs, for which Believers are juſtified, and Faith is no part of it, but is the only inſtrumental means, or receptive applicative condition whereby we come to have intereſt in it, and to be juſtified by and for it alone.

(3.) It is to be obſerved, that though upon our firſt taking hold of Gods New Covenant and Law of Grace by Faith, we are for Chriſts ſake alone inſtantly acquitted from the guilt of Death, and receive a right to Life; yet God hath made it one of the Articles of the new Covenant, that according to our time and talents we muſt afterwards yield ſincere Obedience to his ſeveral Laws and Inſtitutions, both Moral Natural, and Poſitive, before we be admitted to full poſſeſſion of Eternal Life in Heavenly Glory. God doth not require this ſincere Obedience in order to our being firſt juſtified, but in order to our being at laſt glorified. And he requires it as a neceſſary condition to qualifie and prepare us for the full poſſeſſion of that Heavenly Glory which Chriſt hath purchaſed for us, and God for Chriſts ſake gives unto us.

Hence (4.) It is to be obſerved, That thus the Moral Natural Law it ſelf comes to be in the hand of Chriſt the Mediatour of the new Covenant or Law of Grace; and to belong to the Goſpel ſo far as that ſincere Obedience to it, together with all Gods poſitive Laws and Inſtitutions, is made an Article of the Goſpel Covenant, and a condition neceſſary to be performed by us before we enjoy the ultimate benefit promiſed in the ſaid Covenant.

(5.) It is to be obſerved, That we muſt diſtinguiſh carefully betwixt what the Moral Law, as to the matter of its Precepts, requires of Believers, and what it requires as coming under a new ferm; that is, plainly, as cloathed with a new ſanction, to wit, the ſanction of the new Covenant. In the firſt ſenſe, the Moral Law, as to the matter of its Precepts, doth ſtill require of all, even of Believers, a perfect ever ſinleſs Obedience de futuro; but there is this vaſt difference between the caſe of Believers and Unbelievers, that though for every the leaſt diſobedience it condemn the Unbeliever, yet doth it not, nor can it, condemn the true penirent Believer, who walks not after the Fleſh but the Spirit; becauſe the Apoſtle ſaith, There is no condemnation to them that are in Chriſt Jeſus, who walk not after the fleſh, but after the ſpirit, Rom. 8.1. ſuch are not under the Law (not under its condemmng power) but under Grace, Rom. 6.14. In the ſecond ſenſe, the Moral Law formally conſidered, as cloathed with the new Covenant form, that is, with the ſanction of the new Covenant; ſo it requires not of true penitent Believers an ever ſinleſs and moſt perfect perſonal perpetual Obedience, as a means or condition neceſſary to qualifie and prepare them for the poſſeſſion of Eternal Glory; but it requires of them, or God by it, as taken into the Goſpel, requires of them only ſincere Evangelical Obedience, perſeverance in true Faith and ſincere Holineſs, under that formal conſideration, as a means or condition neceſſary to the end aforeſaid. This I think I proved clearly both by Scripture and Reaſon in the Apology. And I need to ſay no more of that matter, till what I have there written be ſolidly anſwered; which I never expect to ſee done.

Yet before I paſs from this eighth Conſideration, I will ex ſuperabundanti confirm what is here aſſerted by ſome few Teſtimonies both Divine and Humane: But firſt I muſt deſire the Reader to turn to the 103 and 104 Pages of the Apology, and to read attentively, and rightly underſtand what I there quoted out of the Learned and Judicious Turretin, who ſhows that the New Covenant and Goſpel comprehends both the Promiſe of Juſtification, and the Promiſe of Glorification; and that it requires more in order to the obtaining of Glorification in Heaven, than to the obtaining of Juſtification on Earth. He ſhows alſo, that we ought to diſtinguiſh between the firſt cloſing with and entering into Covenant, and the keeping of the Covenant we are entred into. Faith enters us into the Covenant by receiving the promiſes; and Faith together with p. 65ſincere Obedience, as its fruit and effect, keeps the Covenant by retaining the Promiſes, and Evangelically fulfilling the Commands. Now the Goſpel-Covenant being made for, and propounded to us by God who is infinitely ſuperiour to us, and has a Soveraign Authority over us, it obliges us both to accept it as it is propounded to us, and to keep it as it is accepted by us, that we may obtain the ſeveral Bleſſings and Benefits promiſed in it to thoſe who firſt accept it, and afterwards keep it: It is true, the Lord promiſeth to enable his own people both to enter into Covenant, and alſo to abide in the Covenant and keep it to the end, but that no wiſe hinders his obliging them by the Covenant both to enter firſt into it, and after that to abide in it and keep it. This being premiſed, I prove that the Goſpel-Covenant is not without all Precepts, it is not ſuch a Doctrine of Grace as requires nothing of us at all, but it is a Doctrine of Grace that obliges us to do ſomething whereby we enter into Covenant, and to do yet more for the due keeping of Covenant with God. And,

Firſt, I prove by the Teſtimony of God in the Scriptures of Truth, Firſt Proof from Divine Teſtimony.that the Goſpel or New Covenant requires ſome Duties of us, not indeed that we may be juſtified and glorified for the ſake of thoſe Duties; but in order to other Goſpel ends and purpoſes. I begin with Gen. 17. in which Chapter we have an account of Gods renewing the Goſpel Covenant with Abraham, and inſtituting Circumciſion to be a Sign and Seal to confirm it to him and his Seed after him. Abraham was in Covenant with God before this time, therefore God did but now renew it with, and ratifie and confirm it to him; and the words which he uſed in the doing of this, are remarkable. I will cite the moſt material of them. And firſt in ver. the 7th, we have the words which contain and expreſs the ſum and ſubſtance of the Goſpel-Covenant on Gods part: And I will eſtabliſh my Covenant between me and thee, and thy ſeed after thee, in their generations, for an everlaſting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy ſeed after thee. This is the promiſſory part of the Covenant, that the Lord would be a God unto Abraham and to his Seed. There is much in this; it comprehends all Gods part of the Covenant, that is, all that he undertook to be unto, and to do for Abraham and his Seed. Secondly, in the 1, 9, 10. verſes, we have the words which contain and expreſs the ſum and ſubſtance of the Goſpel Covenant on the part of Abraham, who was already before this time in Covenant with God, ver. 1. I am God almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect, upright or ſincere. Here Faith is implyed, and ſincere Obedience expreſſed. Then again, ver. 9. God ſaid unto Abraham, Thou ſhalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy ſeed after thee, in their generations. And ver. 10. This is my Covenant which ye ſhall keep between me, and you, and thy ſeed after thee; Every man child among you ſhall be circumciſed. The meaning of the words, This is my Covenant, is, This is the ſign or token of my Covenant which ye ſhall keep, Every man child among you ſhall be circumciſed. This appears to be ſo, from the following 11th verſe, where Circumciſion is expreſly ſaid to be a token of the Covenant. Circumciſion then is here ſaid to be the Covenant by a Sacramental Form of Speech, becauſe it was a token or ſign of the Covenant. The act of circumciſing, and ſubmitting to be circumciſed, was indeed a part of the duty and condition of the Covenant, but the Circumciſion when it was done, or the permanent effect, was a token or ſign of the Covenant: So theſe three Verſes, the 1, 9, and 10. expreſs the Preceptive part of the Covenant, and ſhew what was thereby required of Abraham, to wit, that he being already in Covenant by Faith, ſhould walk before God, and be perfect or ſincere, that he ſhould keep Covenant with God, as his Seed alſo ſhould do after him; and that Circumciſion p. 66cumciſion being now inſtituted to be a token of the Covenant, he and his Seed ſhould be circumciſed. Now theſe things being ſo, let Conſcience (if we have any) ſay whether this Goſpel-Covenant was ſuch a Doctrine of Grace as required no Duty at all of Abraham; or rather, whether it was not a Doctrine of Grace which plainly required ſome Duty of him, even that he ſhould walk before Almighty God and be perfect or ſincere, that he ſhould keep Gods Covenant, and receive Circumciſion as a ſign and token of it? But now let any Man tell me plainly how this Goſpel-Covenant could be either kept or broken (as in this Chapter it is ſaid it might be, if it was nothing but Gods abſolute Promiſe without any Precept; or a Doctrine of Grace which requireth nothing at all to be done by Man? And to ſhow that this Scripture is thus underſtood by Proteſtant Divines, ſee the Dutch Annotations on Gen. 17.9. where you will find theſe formal expreſs words; [As for thee, or concerning thy part of the Covenant, after that God had given and paſt his Promiſes, he requireth likewiſe his Peoples Duty, as the ſecond compleating part of the Covenant.] See alſo to this purpoſe the Aſſemblies Annotations on Gen. 17.8. where they have theſe following words; [Yet this was but upon condition of the Peoples part of the Covenant, which is Faith and Obedience.]

In like manner Pools Annotations on Gen 17.9. have theſe very words following; [The agreement is mutual; my part was expreſſed before, now follows thy part, and the condition to which my Promiſe and Bleſſing is annexed]

The ſecond Divine Teſtimony to prove that the Goſpel-Covenant, or Law of Grace, requires ſome Daties of us, is Exod. 24.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. There we have an account how God made a Covenant with the People of Iſrael in the Wilderneſs, after they had received the Law of the Ten Commandments from the Lord appearing to them in terrible Majeſty on Mount Sinai, and pronouncing it with audible voice in the preſence of Six Hundred Thouſand People. In that 24th of Exodus we read, that when Moſes had received from the Lord the other Laws, to wit, the Ceremonial and Judicial;

(1.) He wrote them in a Book: God himſelf with his own hand, by his own immediate power, wrote the Law of the Ten Commandments on Two Tables of Stone, but for the other Laws Moſes wrote them in a Book, ver. 4. compared with Heb. 9.19.

(2.) He builded an Altar and Twelve Pillars; the Altar ſeems to have been a ſymbol of God in Chriſt, as one party in the Covenant; and the Twelve Pillars repreſented the Twelve Tribes of Iſrael, as the other party, ver. 4. ſo that here were the outward Signs and Symbols of a Covenant between God and the people of Iſrael.

(3.) He ordered certain perſons (ſuppoſed to be the firſt-born) to offer Sacrifices unto the Lord, ver. 3.

(4.) He divided the Blood of the ſacrificed Beaſts into two equal parts, and mixed it with a little Water, as appears from Heb. 9.19. whereby Chriſt was fitly repreſented, who came by Water and Blood, 1 John 5.6. and then having put it in Baſons, he ſprinkled one half of it on the Altar, ver. 6. to ſignifie that God was appeaſed and atoned by this Blood of the Sacri…ces, as it repreſented the Blood of Chriſt, or his Bloody Sacrifice, and alſo that Chriſt was to be ſanctitied with his own Blood, and conſecrated to the continual exerciſe of his Eternal Prieſthood in the holy place above, Heb. 9.12.

(5.) He took the Book of the Covenant (in which were written the Duties of the Covenant, to wit, in the Words and Laws of God, mentioned before, ver. 4.) and read it in the audience of the people; whereunto they conſented, and p. 67ſignifyed their conſent, by ſaying, All that the Lord hath ſaid will we do, and be obedient, ver. 7.

(Sixthly) He took the other half of the Blood, and ſprinkled it on the People (to ſignifie the Ratification of the Covenant on their parts. with the application of the Vertue of Chriſt's Blood to their Conſciences, and their obtaining Redemption, Juſtification, Acceſs unto. and acceptance with God through it alone.)

(Seventhly.) Whilſt he ſprinkled the Blood upon the People, he ſaid, Behold the Blood of the Covenant, (i e. whereby the Covenant is confirmed) which the Lord hath made with you, concerning all theſe words, ver. 8. compared with Heb. 9. ver. 20.

From the Premiſſes we learn Two things. (1.) That this was a Type and Figure of the Covenant of Grace Confirmed and Ratified by the Blood of Chriſt; It was a Type and Figure of the New Covenant in its Goſpel-Form of Adminiſtration; for this Covenant was Ratified and Confirmed by the Blood of the Sacrifices, as Repreſentative and Typical of the Blood of Chriſt, and of the New Teſtament in his Blood. So the Apoſtle inſtructs us in Heb. 9. ver. 18, 19, 20, &c. (2.) That this Typical Figurative Covenant had Precepts which required Duties of God's People. For Moſes took the Book of the Covenant, and read the Precepts to the People, Exod. 24.7. compared with Heb. 9.19. And when they had heard there read, they anſwered and ſaid, All that the Lord hath ſaid will we do, and be Obedient, Exod. 24.7. Moſes as God's Miniſter, in God's Name told them by reading the Precepts to them what God required of them by this Covenant; they on the other part by their Anſwer expreſſed their conſent, and promiſed to be Obedient. Whether they were all Spiritually ſincere or not, (and I think they were not) yet they were then Serious and Morally ſincere, and in ſo far as they were ſuch, they did nothing but what was their Duty in giving their foreſaid Conſent; and what Moſes acting as God's Miniſter who did not know their hearts approved of, and thereupon Ratified and Sealed the Covenant between God and them. Now hence I think we have a plain Proof that the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace or Goſpel hath Precepts which require Duties. For if the Typical Figurative Covenant had Precepts and required Duties, then the New Covenant in its Goſpel-Form of Adminiſtration, which was Typifyed and Figured by it; hath likewiſe Precepts, and requires Duties: For a Covenant that hath Precepts and requires Duties, doth not at all ſeem proper to Typify and Figure, a Covenant that hath no Precept, and requires no Duty. If my R. B. venture to deny that the foreſaid Covenant at Horeb, did Typifie the New Covenant in its Goſpel Form of Adminiſtration; he will find that he hath the Apoſtle againſt him, and alſo that he hath our own Confeſſion of Faith, Chap. 7. Art. 5, 6. and the Reformed Divines generally againſt him: Even the Marrow of Modern Divinity, a Book ſo much commended by Mr. Burroughs, and Mr. Caryl, &c and ſo much eſteemed by his good Friends, will be againſt him, as he may ſee, if he turn to the 54, 55, 56 &c. pages of that Book.

The Third Divine Teſtimony to prove that the Goſpel-Covenant or Law of Grace requires ſome Duties of us, is to be ſeen in Deut. 29. and 30. Chap. That the Covenant renewed with all Iſrael Old and Young, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. is really the Goſpel-Covenant, or Covenant of Grace in its Legal Form of Adminiſtration appears from hence, that it's ſaid to be a Covenant which God made with them, that they ſhould be his People, and that he would be their God, as he had ſaid and ſworn unto Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob. But it was the Goſpel-Covenant, or Covenant of Grace, that God made with Abraham, and confirmed with an Oath, That he would be the God of Abraham and his Seed, and that they ſhould p. 68be his People. This ſame Covenant in Type and Figure (as was ſhewed before) Moſes had engaged the People of Iſrael into, at Horeb; but they had broken it during their ſojourning in the Wilderneſs: Therefore by the Lords ſpecial Command he renewed it with them again in the Land of Moab. It is indeed ſaid, Deut. 29.1. to be made with the Children of Iſrael in the Land of Moab, beſide the Covenant made with them in Horeb. But the Learned and Pious Rutherford ſhews the Reaſon of that expreſſion, Rutherford's Covenant of Life opened. Part 1. Chap. 11. p.60.is (1.) Becauſe it was renewed again after their breach of it. —3. Becauſe there was ſome additions of Special Bleſſings, Curſings, and Ceremonial Commands, that were not in the formerly propoſed Covenant, yet it was the ſame in ſubſtance, &c. And as Pool in his Annotations on the place obſerves, the meaning of the words [Covenant made with the Children of Iſrael in the Land of Moab] is, That the Covenant was there renewed with them; as alſo the meaning of the words [beſides the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb], is, as if it had been ſaid, beſide that entring into, or ſtriking of Covenant. And then he adds for further clearing of the matter, [The Covenant was but one in ſubſtance, but various in the time and manner of its diſpenſation.]

The Dutch Annotations go the ſame way, and very clearly aſſign the reaſon of its being ſaid that the Covenant was made with Iſrael in the Land of Moab, beſide the Covenant made with them in Horeb; Their words are [It was indeed one and the ſame Covenant, but Renewed, Repeated and Publiſhed here in the Fields of Moab, unto many other Perſons, in another place, and in another manner, than at Mount Horeb, or Sinai] And with theſe agree the Aſſemblies Annotations on the place. Their words are [The ſame in ſubſtance, but not altogether the ſame, &c.]

I know very well that there are ſome Learned Men, who in this, differ from thoſe before-mentioned, and from Deut. 29. ver. 1. would prove that the Covenant a… Horeb was the Covenant of Works; and that this, in the Land of Moab, was the Goſpel-Covenant of Grace. I am not indeed altogether of their mind for I have already ſhewed, that the Covenant in Exod 24. which was made with Iſrael at Horeb, was not the Original Covenant of Works, but the Goſpel Covenant of Grace in Type and Figure; But though they and I differ in that, yet we both agree in this, which is the main thing, and ſufficient for my purpoſe. That the Covenant made with all Iſrael in the Land of Moab, was really the Goſpel Covenant of Grace. So the Learned Alſted ſaith, (y)(y)Foedus in terrâ Moabitarum, eſt Faedus Evangelii ſeu Fidei, quod & Redempvionis & gratiae appellatur. — Quod Deus (ibi) promulgavit ut Populo poneret ob oculos ingens illud beneficium, quo illud quod legi erat impoſſibile per Chriſtum reddidit poſſibile. Confer Deut. 29. & 30. Cap. cum Rom. 10.6, &c. Johan. Henric. Alſted, in Turri Babel deſtructâ, pag. 532.Deut 29Rom 10:6The Covenant in the Land of Moab, is the Covenant of the Goſpel, or Faith; which is alſo called the Covenant of Redemption and Grace —which God, there promulgated, that he might ſet before the Peoples Eyes, that great benefit, whereby that which was impoſſible to the Law, is made poſſible by Chriſt. Compare Deut. 29, and 30. Chapters with Rom. 10. ver. 6, &c.

Now if it be the Goſpel Covenant, or Covenant of Grace, then it is certa in and evident that the Goſpel-Covenant, or the Covenant of Grace, hath Precepts, and requires ſome Duties of us. For the Text ſaith, ver. 9. Keep the words of this Covenant, and do them. And ver. 10, 11, 12. Ye ſtand this day all of you before p. 69the Lord your God, —That thou ſhouldeſt enter into Covenant with the Lord the God, and into his Oath; &c. Theſe expreſs words of the Text plainly ſhow that this Covenant hath Precepts, and requires Dutyes. And that this Covenant which hath Precepts and requires Dutyes, is the Goſpel Covenant of Grace, is yet more manifeſt from Deut. 30. where Moſes ſpeaking ſtill of the ſame Covenant at the ſame time, he told the People, That though they ſhould break it by ſin, yet they might be received into Grace and Favour again, upon their ſincere Repentance, ver. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Rutherſord of the Covenant of Life, opened. Part 1. pag. 189.which proves that this could not be the Covenant of Works, becauſe as Rutherford well obſerves, [The Covenant of Works once broken, ceaſeth to be a Covenant of Life for ever, becauſe the Nature of it, is to admit of no Repentance at all]

(2) Moſes ſpeaking ſtill of the ſame Covenant, he ſays one of the Promiſes of it is, That the Lord will circumciſe the Heart of his People, and the heart of their Seed to love the Lord their God with all their Heart and Soul, that they may live, ver. 6. But ſo it is, That the Promiſe of Heart Circumciſion is certainly a Promiſe of the Goſpel Covenant of Grace. (3) Moſes ſpeaking ſtill of the ſame matter, and at the ſame time he ſaith as it is written in ver. 11, 12, 13, 14, This Commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in Heaven, that thou ſhould ſay, Who ſhall go up for us to Heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it. Neither is it beyond the Sea, that thou ſhouldeſt ſay, Who ſhall go over the Sea for us, and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy Mouth, and in thy Heart, that thou may'ſt do it. By which words he plainly teaches us, That the Covenant and Commandment of which he there writes, is neither impoſſible, nor hard to be underſtood; nor yet is it impoſſible nor hard to be kept and obſerved; but that through Grace circumciſing the heart to love God, it is both eaſie to be known, and alſo eaſie to be kept and obſerved. Now this cannot be truely ſaid of the Covenant of Works. For as Mr. Shepard of New England well obſerves [The Coudition of Works is impoſſible to be wrought in us by the Spirit] And let not any Man think this ſtrange and uncouth, to ſay, Theſes Sabbathae. pag 95.That the Spirit of Grace cannot now work in us the Condition of the firſt Covenant, the Covenant of Works; for the Condition and Duty of that Covenant was, That Man ſhould be without all Sin in Habit or Act, and that he ſhould be ſinleſly Holy in Heart and Life, and continue ſo to be. But that is now impoſſible, becauſe it implyes a Contradiction for any meer Man ſince Adam broke the firſt Covenant, and we in him, to be always without all Sin in Habit or Act, and to be always Sinleſly Holy in Heart and Life: For all Men are already guilty of Sin, and the People of Iſrael were all Sinners, and had broken the Covenant of Works before Moſes ſpoke, and when he ſpoke the foreſaid words unto them. And it implyes a contradiction, that by any Power whatſoever, a thing which hath been already, ſhould be made not to have been at all; or that a thing which exiſts at preſent, ſhould not exiſt at preſent whil'ſt it doth exiſt. It will ſignifie nothing here to ſay, That yet the Spirit can make us ſinleſly Holy de futuro, if he pleaſe; for though that be very true, (abſolutely ſpeaking, the Spirit can make a Man ſinleſly Holy in Heart and Life, for time to come; though he hath been a Sinner in times part; for that implyes no contradiction: And the Spirit of Grace hath de facto done the thing in and upon the Spirits of Juſt Men made perfect in Heaven,) yet it is nothing to the purpoſe here, becauſe that is not the Condition and Duty of the Covenant of Works, that Man ſhould ſin no more for the future; but its Condition and Duty is that Man ſhould p. 70never once ſin at all, either in time paſt, preſent, or to come. And aſſoon as he hath once ſinned, he hath ipſo facto ſo broken that Covenant, that from that very moment it ceaſes to be unto him a Covenant of Life for ever; as we heard before out of Rutherford, becauſe it admits of no Repentance with a Promiſe of Pardon and Life. The Condition then and Duty of the Covenant of Works being now ſimply impoſſible to ſinful Men, it cannot be ſaid with any colour of Truth, that it is eaſie to be performed through Grace; it cannot be ſaid of the Covenant of Works, as Moſes hath it, ver. 14. The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy Mouth and in thy Heart, that thou may'ſt do it: The quite contrary is true with reſpect to the Firſt Covenant, the Covenant of Works, the performing of its Duty and Condition, is ſo far off from ſinful Men, ſuch as the Iſraelites were, that it is impoſſible to be brought near unto them; till both ends of a real contradiction be made to meet in one; and the ſame thing be made to be and not to be at the ſame time, and in the ſame reſpect. And as it cannot be truely ſaid to be very nigh, ſo it cannot be truely ſaid to be in the Mouth and Heart of ſinful Men, that they may do it: That were to ſay, that it is in Mens Mouth and Heart to do that which implys a contradiction, and is impoſſible to be done. But on the other hand it may be truely ſaid of the Goſpel or New Covenant, and it's Duty and Condition that through Grace circumciſing the Heart to love God: The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy Mouth, and in thy Heart, that thou may'ſt do it. Thus the Bleſſed Apoſtle Paul underſtood this Paſſage, and quoted the Senſe and Subſtance, and partly the very words of Moſes, and applyed them unto, and affirmed them of the Goſpel-Covenant or Law of Grace, as diſtinct from, and oppoſite unto the Law and Covenant of Works; For in Rom. 10.5. The Apoſtle firſt ſhews out of Levit. 18.5. in what Form of words Moſes deſcribed the Law and Covenant of Works, and its Righteonſneſs; That the Man which doth thoſe things, ſhall live by them. Secondly, In vor. 6, 7. &c he doth himſelf out of Moſes, Deut. 30. ver. 11, 12, 13, 14. deſcribe and explain the nature of the Goſpel Covenant, and its Righteouſneſs; He calls it the Righteouſneſs of Faith, and ſhews how we obtain it by Chriſt's Purchaſing it for us, and giving it unto us; we receiving it by Faith, and ſhewing our Faith and Thankfulneſs for it, by confeſſing him who purchaſed it, which implyes a ſteadfaſt cleaving to the Lord with purpoſe of heart againſt all temptations to the contrary.