A Discourse of the Two Covenants, Summary

A Discourse of the Two Covenants · Summary

A Summary of the Two Covenants.

THIS following Diſcourſe of the two Covenants preached by that great Divine, Mr. William Strong, needs no Prologue to uſher it into the World.The Authors Character. The Author was indeed, as it is ſaid of Auguſtin, a Wonder of Nature for natural Parts, and a Miracle of Grace for deep inſight into the more profound Myſteries of the Goſpel: He had a Spirit capacious and prompt, ſublime and penetrant, profound and clear; a ſingular Sagacity to pry into the more difficult Texts of Scripture, an incomparable Dexterity to diſcover the Secrets of corrupt Nature, a Divine Sapience to explicate the Myſteries of Grace, and an exact Prudence to diſtribute Evangelic Doctrines, according to the capacity of his Auditors. Are not the Miniſters of Chriſt termed Stars in his right hand, Rev. 1.20?Rev. 1.20.Rev 1:20 And was not this our Author one of the firſt magnitude? O! what a glorious Star was he in the right hand of the Lord to reveal the reſplendent light of the Goſpel unto his Auditors? What lights and heats of Divine Grace did he communicate unto others? It's propheſied of our Lord, Hab. 3.4.Hab. 3.4.Hab 3:4 His brightneſs was as the light, he had horns [or rather beams] coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power. This brightneſs of Chriſts light muſt be underſtood of his Evangelic light, whereby he, as the Sun of Righteouſneſs, irradiates Evangelic Churches: and by the Horns, or rather Beams, (for ſo foreign here muſt ſignifie) coming out of his hand, we muſt underſtand, according to our Lords own interpretation, Rev. 1.20. Evangelic diſcoveries by the Miniſters of his Goſpel, thoſe Stars in his right hand, imployed by him for the irradiation and illumination of this inferior world: and O! what an hidden power is conveyed together with this light? And may we not conclude this our Author one of thoſe Stars, who diffuſed illuſtrious beams of Evangelic light from the right hand of Chriſt, where was the hiding of his power? And as he tranſcended the moſt of this Age in the Explication of Evangelic Verities, ſo in his Intelligence and Explication of the two Covenants he ſeems much to excel himſelf; this being the great ſtudy of his life, and that whereon his mind was moſtly intent: And I can here truly apply that obſervation of the Queen of Sheba, 1 King. 10.7.1 Kgs 10:7touching the wiſdom of Solomon, to this our intelligent Author. The Notices I received from his other Works gave me a great impreſſion of his Divine Wiſdom, but what mine eyes have ſeen, and my thoughts imbibed of his incomparable Intelligence from this his elaborate Diſcourſe of the two Covenants aſſures me, that not the half was told me, by his Works formerly publiſhed. He was indeed a Perſon intimely and familiarly acquainted with the deepeſt points in Theology; but yet as to theſe that relate to the Covenant of Grace, his Spirit ſeems to have been moſt deeply baptized and immerſed into them; which any judicious Reader may with facility perceive by a tranſient inſpection into any part of the following Diſcourſe.

Of what incomparable excellent Uſe this Diſcourſe may be for the diffuſing Evangelic Light and Truth no one can be ignorant,The excellent uſe of this Diſcourſe. who is acquainted with the mind and intendment either of the Law or Goſpel; or ſenſible of thoſe many dangerous errours, which have of late ſprung up from the ignorance of both: How many have taken away the uſe of the Law, thereby to advance, as they conceit, the Grace of the Goſpel? And have not too many on the other hand deſtroyed the Grace of the Goſpel, whiles they have endeavoured to exalt the letter of the Law as a Covenant? Both theſe extremes our judicious Author has accurately obviated and avoided: He has approved himſelf a good Advocate for the Law, as it is a rule and inſtrument ſubſervient to the Goſpel; but yet he gives the Goſpel the principal place and preeminence as it is ſaiths magna Charta: He has indeed exactly hit the difference between the two Covenants, which argues his deep inſight into both: and ſurely they that rightly underſtand the Idea or Notion of the two Covenants, attain thereby a clue of thread to lead them into the moſt intricate Myſteries of Evangelic Doctrines: as on the contrary thoſe who have not right ſentiments of the two Covenants, what heſitation and ſuſpenſion, if not errour and miſapprehenſion do they fall under in the moſt momentous points of Religion! Yea, doth not the rectitude not only of our Faith, but alſo of our Chriſtian practice and converſation principally depend on the due notices of the two Covenants? Are not theſe as the centre, wherein all the lines of Divine Grace and humane Duty meet? Are we not then greatly obliged to this our Author for his elaborate endeavours in this work? He demonſtrates, (1) That God never did nor will deal with mankind meerly in a way of Dominion, but alſo in a way of Covenant. (2) That both Covenants are made with men not immediately, but in and by ſome publick perſon. (3) That it is Ʋnion with either of theſe publick perſons that brings a man under their Covenant. (4) That it is impoſſible for any man to be under both Covenants; becauſe the terms and conditions of the one deſtroy the terms of the other. Theſe with ſome other weighty Truths relating to the two Covenants in general he doth diſtinctly and fully explicate and demonſtrate.

The Covenant of works and its curſe.Our Author begins his Diſcourſe with the Covenant of Works, and treats firſt of the Temporal Curſe that attends the breach thereof; and then of the Spiritual; of which more fully in the Contents: we ſhall only give ſome ſhort and particular Reflections on and Notions of this firſt Covenant. (1) The Covenant made with Adam was not particular with his perſon under a ſingle capacity, but with his nature as a common perſon or repreſentative Head, from whom all mankind were by natural generation to deſcend: and herein the Covenant made with Adam differs from that made with the Angels, which was particular and perſonal, they being all created at once, and exiſtent when their Covenant was made. Hence, (2) In this firſt Covenant made with Adam all his poſterity ſtand bound to God both naturally, by virtue of their being created in him, and voluntarily, by virtue of his ſtipulation. Whence, (3) Every ſon of Adam falls under both the duties and curſes of his Covenant: for as the duties, ſo the curſes of Adams Covenant ſeized, not meerly on Adams ſingle perſon, but on his nature, and ſo on all mankind, who are in him both legally and naturally. Thence, (4) No man can be freed from the curſe of the Law, that is not freed from it as a Covenant. There is ſince Adams Fall an eſſential and inſeparable connexion between the Curſe and Covenant: the Curſe naturally attends the Covenant; every ſon of Adam neceſſarily falls under the former as well as the latter.Mens natural deſire to be under the firſt Covenant. (5) All men naturally and ardently deſire to be under Adams Covenant. The natural blindneſs and pride of mens hearts ſtrongly impels them to build a Spiders houſe of their own, on which they may lean, as Job 8.14, 15. Are not all men by nature children of the bond-woman, and ſo poſſeſt with a ſpirit of bondage? Have they not a legal ſpirit anſwerable to the Covenant they are under? And doth not this legal ſpirit bring forth ſuitable fruits? Do not ſuch as are informed and acted by it perform all ſervices to God in the oldneſs of the letter, in a formal, ſervile, legal manner, without regard to Chriſt the Mediator? Yea is not this legal ſpirit, whereby thoſe under Adams Covenant are acted, full of enmity and oppoſition againſt Chriſt, his Righteouſneſs, and all the terms of his new Covenant? Doth not ſuch mens rejecting the terms and grace of the ſecond Covenant argue their ſtrong propenſions, yea vehement impulſes towards Adams Covenant? Are not all their ſpiritual Gifts, common Graces, legal Righteouſneſſes, as well as all their ſins imployed to oppoſe the Grace and Righteouſneſs of the ſecond Covenant? And if their conſciences be at any time awakened and their ſins ſet in order before them in all their bloody aggravations, yet what a difficult thing is it to bring them off from the old Covenant? What hard, black, ſcandalous thoughts of Chriſt are they filled with? How do their hearts ſink under unbelieving deſpondences, and baſe jealouſies of Chriſt? And doth not all this argue mens vehement deſires to be found under the firſt Covenant? (6) The more the glory of the ſecond Covenant is revealed to ſuch as are under the firſt, The rejection of the ſecond Covenant.the greater efforts, and more vehement oppoſition they put forth againſt it. The more mens natural reaſon is elevated by ſupernatural common illumination, the more ſtout-hearted they are againſt the terms of the new Covenant: all their moral righteouſneſſes ſerve only to ſet them farther off from the righteouſneſs of faith: their good deeds as well as their bad fortifie them againſt the embracement of the new Covenant, becauſe it would ſpoil them of their own righteouſneſſes, which they have wrought ſo hard for all their days, and ſubject them to the righteouſneſs of God. Do we not find all this greatly exemplified in the Phariſees and legal Jews, who having eſpouſed to themſelves the old Covenant rejected Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs? (7) For men thus electively to put themſelves under the firſt Covenant, and reject the grace of the ſecond, is a ſin of the firſt magnitude and deepeſt aggravations. Hath not the great God exalted the ſecond Covenant above the firſt? Is it not then an high injury againſt him, to bring down that Covenant God has exalted, and to exalt that which he has made null, above it? Is not Chriſt the Mediator of the new Covenant, the greateſt gift that ever God vouchſafed mankind?God juſtly leaves ſuch to the Covenant they deſire. Oh! then how injurious is it to God to reject ſo great a gift, and the grace offered by him? (8) It is therefore juſt with the righteous God to leave men to ſtand or fall by that Covenant under which they ſo ſtrongly deſire to be. Doth the holy and bleſſed God do the ſons of Adam any wrong in leaving them under his Covevant, unto which they have ſuch a ſtrong impulſe and deſire? If he hereby gives them but the deſire of their heart, what cauſe have they to complain againſt him? And will not his procedure at laſt day appear to be moſt juſt and rational in judging men according to the tenure of the firſt Covenant unto which they had ſo ſtrong a deſire? May not God juſtly lay to their charge every the leaſt ſin, and make them bear the burden of it, ſeeing they have put themſelves under a Covenant that admits not any Mediator? Whom have they to repreſent their perſons, to bear their ſins, to pay their debts, to endure their curſe, to perform their duties, ſeeing they reject the Mediator of the ſecond Covenant?

This leads to the ſecond general Head,The miſery of ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant. The deplorable and miſerable ſtate of ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant. (1) Is it not a deplorable caſe for men voluntarily to elect their own ruine? Was it ever known that men did contentedly, yea chearfully ſit down under a ſtate of moſt miſerable bondage, when full liberty was offered to them by a benign gracious Prince? Doth it not argue a ſpirit immerſed in the baſeſt ſervitude to take complacence in its chains and fetters? And yet is not this the very caſe of all ſuch as deſire to be under the firſt Covenant? (2) Is it not a miſerable thing for a man to be on the very brink of ruine, and yet not ſenſible of it, yea under a fond preſumption of a bleſſed ſtate? For a man to go as an Ox to the ſlaughter adorned with a garland made up of the fading flowers of his own righteouſneſſes, what folly and madneſs is this! And yet is not this the very caſe of all Phariſaic ſpirits, who live and die under the firſt Covenant? Is not a good conceit of a bad ſtate moſt dangerous and miſerable? To be alive in carnal preſumptions, ſelf-flattery, and ſelf-ſufficiency, and yet ſpiritually dead in Divine eſtimation, is it not the worſt of deaths? Are not ſuch next degree to falling into Hell, who fondly flatter themſelves, that they can ſtand longer and ſurer than others by their own forces, 1 Cor. 10.12? And are not ſuch as put themſelves under the firſt Covenant guilty of all theſe pieces of folly? (3) Is it not a ſad caſe for ſinners to put themſelves under a Covenant which neither gives or admits a Mediator? To have none to repreſent their perſons, but to be left ſtanding before the righteous holy God in their own names, bearing their own ſins, expecting to be juſtified by their own works, to pay their own debts, or to endure their own puniſhment, what greater miſery can there be? (4) To be under a Covenant that neither promiſes, nor gives, nor accepts of Repentance; but leaves men to live and die in their ſins, without the leaſt drop of the blood of Chriſt to waſh them away, what a ſad caſe is this? Muſt not ſuch expect, that as ſoon as they peep out of the grave, and lift up their traiterous heads, their own conſciences as alſo Divine Juſtice condemn and purſue them unto all eternity? (5) Is it not alſo a moſt wretched forlorn caſe for men to have their perſons hated, yea loathed by the God of all love and mercy, and thence their beſt ſervices rejected for the leaſt failings in them? And is not this the caſe of all ſuch as ſtand under the firſt Covenant? Doth this Covenant afford the leaſt reward to any ſervices that have the leaſt imperfection adherent to them? And can ſinners offer to God any ſuch perfect ſervices? Will it not thence hence neceſſarily follow, that ſuch as ſtand under this firſt Covenant have all their ſervices rejected, all their ſins imputed to them, their perſons hated, their bleſſings curſed, and all the curſes of the Law bound faſt on their conſciences, by the ſentence of the righteous God? What are all their ſeeming ſervices but real ſins? and what are all Gods rewards to them but real curſes, albeit ſeeming bleſſings? What can they expect for ſuch unſanctified ſervices but unſanctified rewards, which are indeed real curſes?

But to treat ſomewhat more diſtinctly of the miſery which attends ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant, we may conſider it under theſe two Heads, that both the Law and Goſpel,The Law to ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant the means of death. which are means of Life and Salvation to ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant, prove as to them means of Death and Condemnation. Firſt as to the Law, it proves the means of death and condemnation to ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant two ways: (1) In regard of its coactive Rigor. (2) As it irritates Sin.

1. The Law doth by its coactive Rigor work death and condemnation in ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant. Doth not the Law exact of ſuch perfect obedience,1. By its compulſion. but gives them no ſtrength to perform it? It's true, the Law requires obedience of thoſe who are under the ſecond Covenant alſo; but the promiſe gives what the Law requires: But of ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant perfect obedience is required, but no intern principle is engraffed; duty is required, but no love or delight therein conferred: Yea do not ſuch perform duty as godly men commit ſin? May they not ſay of ſin as Paul doth of duty, Rom. 7.15. What I would that I do not? And what Paul ſaith of Sin, may not ſuch ſay the ſame of Duty, What I hate that do I? The Law diſcovers ſin to thoſe that are under the firſt Covenant; but did it ever caſt out any one ſin diſcovered by it? Sin is ſometimes wounded by it; but did it ever kill any one ſin? Are not the hearts of ſuch like Ezechiels pot, in which the ſcum did ariſe, but then boyled in again? The Law drags ſuch to the Tribunal of God as a righteous Judge, but can they ever come to God as a Father? Is not this the priviledge of ſuch only as are under the ſecond Covenant? Laſtly, the Law drives ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant unto ſelf-condemnation, but can any thing but the Goſpel work Juſtification and Peace of Conſcience? So deadly and mortiferous is the Law to ſuch as are under its violent compulſion and coaction as it is a Covenant. And whence is it that the Law hath ſuch a compulſive power over ſuch as are under it as a Covenant? (1) Is it not from thoſe Principles of ſelf-love and legal fear implanted in the heart of man, whereby he is conſtrained to duty and reſtrained from ſin by the threats and terrors of the Law, which move Conſcience as extern weights move artificial Automata, or machines? O! what a great power has Conſcience over ſuch when acted and enflamed by the terrors of the Law! Doth not Paul, Rom. 7.1. aſſure us, foreign, that the Law doth Lord it over a man, ſo long as he continues under it as a Covenant? And how doth the Law as a Covenant Lord it over the man, but by ruling in the Authority and Sovereign Dominion of God, in and by which it will at laſt judge the man? And oh! with what rigor and compulſion doth it rule over his Conſcience, and thereby reſtrain him from ſin, and conſtrain him to duty! Again, (2) Doth not the Law receive much Authority and force from the Spirit of God ſetting it home on Conſcience, and thereby terrifying and wounding the ſinner? (3) Is there not alſo in all men under the firſt Covenant a ſinful Weight or Bent of Luſt, which makes the yoke of divine Precepts extreme irkſome and burdenſome to them? And doth not this adde much to the rigour and ſeverity of the Law? Doth not the Law of God lay the ſame rigorous reſtraint on the luſts of thoſe who are under it as a Covenant, which the Providence of God lays on the luſts of Diabolick ſpirits? And oh! what a miſerable caſe are ſuch in, who lye under this tyrannick compulſion of the Law as a Covenant! If their luſts rage within, but dare not vent themſelves, becauſe the Law holds a rod over Conſcience, how do they burn like fire in an Oven, and now and then flame forth in rebellious thoughts againſt God and his Law, wiſhing there were no Law! Or elſe, if luſts break forth into Act, how ſoon doth the Law bind over Conſcience unto wrath and condemnation! and oh! what ſtings and torments follow hereon! And is it not alſo a miſerable caſe for the ſinner to be compelled and forced by the Law to do thoſe good offices which he really hates? Would it not be a great torment to a Saint to be conſtrained to bow down and worſhip the Devil? and is it not as great miſery to a perſon under the firſt Covenant to be compelled by the Law to worſhip God, whom he hates, as much as an holy man hates the Devil? And is not this the genuine cauſe of all that hypocriſie which is lodged and deeply radicated in thoſe under the firſt Covenant, that all their omiſſions of ſin and performances of Duties proceed meerly from the violent tyrannick compulſion of the Law as a Covenant? And as the Law doth by its rigorous exaction more or leſs prevail on Conſcience, ſo their hypocriſie is more or leſs radicated and refined. Oh! how partial and inconſtant are ſuch in their abſtaining from ſin and performing Duties! How diſagreeable are thoſe good works they do to their Natures and Principles! and thence how little pleaſure and delight do they find in the doing of them! Yea the rigour and tyranny of the Law over ſuch moſt eminently appears in this, that in conſtraining and forcing men to duties, it is ſo far from giving ſtrength, that the more they perform duties, the leſs ſtrength they have to perform them; the more they hear, meditate, or pray, the leſs ſtrength they have to perform thoſe duties as they ought: So alſo for the Laws reſtraining ſuch from ſin, the more they are reſtrained, the ſtronger their luſts grow, and break forth with greater violence in the iſſue: Whereas one under the ſecond Covenant, the more the Law reſtrains his luſts the weaker they grow, and the more it conſtrains them to duty, the ſtronger they grow in the performance of them; becauſe together with the reſtraints and conſtraints of the Law there is conveyed a force and ſtrength by the Promiſe to abſtain from the ſin forbidden, and to perform the duty required. So much for the compulſion of the Law.

2. The Law works death by irritating ſin.2. To ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant the Law works Death and Condemnation, by its Irritation of ſin. The Law was in its firſt Inſtitution, and ſtill is to thoſe that are under the ſecond Covenant a ſanctified Inſtrument for the reſtraining and keeping under of ſin, but to thoſe that are under the firſt Covenant, it proves accidentally by reaſon of the violence of Luſt and Gods Curſe an occaſion of irritating and enraging ſin. It's true the Law as a Cryſtal glaſs diſcovers the ſoveraign holy pleaſure of God forbidding ſin; but doth not the luſtful bent of mens hearts affect ſin even becauſe forbidden? And the Law diſcovering unto ſuch the pravity and vitioſity of ſin, how do their hearts boil up with hatred againſt the Law, becauſe it ſtrikes at ſin, wherein they place their chiefeſt good? Again, when the Law comes to put a bridle and curb on their Luſts, are they not hereby like an untamed Colt the more enraged and furious? And is not this the genuine reaſon, why ſuch as live under the cleareſt and brighteſt promulgations of the Law, oft have their luſts boiled up to the higheſt pitch? Yea, is it not hence that the unpardonable ſin takes its firſt riſe, namely from the luſts of ſuch, who living under bright notices and diſcoveries of both Law and Goſpel, and receiving ſome taſtes of good things to come, at laſt continuing ſtill under the firſt Covenant have their luſts more irritated by the Law?

Moreover the Law condemning ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant for ſin, and thereby injecting ſparks of Hell-fire into their Conſciences, the fire-brands of dreadful terrors and deſpair, how are their luſts enflamed hereby! what revenge againſt God, what exceſs of riot are they hurried into hereby! Doth not alſo the righteous God by an inviſible ſecret Curſe ſuffer ſuch as deſire to be under the Law as a Covenant, to have their luſts irritated and exaſperated thereby? Laſtly, doth not the wiſe and holy God permit Satan ſo far to abuſe the Law, as thereby to draw men into ſin? And oh what a pleaſure is it to Satan to make uſe of that which is moſt de… …o God, thereby to draw men into ſin! And doth not this diſcover to us the miſerable … of ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant, that the Law of God, which is ſo excellent in its own nature, and of ſuch excellent uſe unto the Saints, ſhould be ſo much abuſed for the irritation of Luſt? It's true, the Law may ſometimes irritate ſin, even in ſuch as are under the New Covenant, yet it is not from any dominion it has over ſuch, neither doth this irritation ſo far prevail, as to bring forth fruit unto death, as it doth in thoſe under the firſt Covenant, who are under the complete dominion of the Law, unto whom it hath no other uſe but to exaſperate and improve their luſts.

And as the Law, ſo alſo the Goſpel, and all the means of Grace,To ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant, the Goſpel and all other Bleſſings prove Curſes. yea all the Providences of God, and comforts of this life prove ſnares and curſes to ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant. (1) What greater Jewel is there to be found or deſired among the Sons of men, than the Goſpel of Grace? Is not the heart and boſom of God hereby laid open unto ſinners? O! what ſweet attractives and cords of love are there in the Goſpel to draw the ſoul out of its miſerable and ſinful ſtate unto eternal Beatitude! And yet, lo! how is this rich odor of life turned into a peſtiferous odor of death, to ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant! Is not that which is in it ſelf the greateſt bleſſing made by ſuch the greateſt curſe? The ſame food that nouriſheth Believers unto eternal life, of what uſe is it to thoſe under the firſt Covenant, but to nouriſh their incurable diſeaſe of ſelf-ſufficience? Are not theſe mens luſts offended at the ſpirituality and ſimplicity of the Goſpel? What falſe Gloſſes and Comments do they put thereon! How is the Grace of the Goſpel by ſuch turned into wantonneſs! what controverſies to their luſts make about it! (2) So alſo for all Means of Grace, Providences and temporal bleſſings, which draw the hearts of Believers nearer to God, are not the hearts of thoſe under the firſt Covenant driven from God thereby? Do not all their Duties, though never ſo Evangelic center in Self? Is not this the great Idol unto which their hearts are chained? do not all the lines of their Devotion and Religion terminate in this center? Oh! what an ample field of Contemplation is this to expatiate in, were not our Meditations confined to the limits of a Summary!

The Second Part of the following Diſcourſe regards The Covenant of Grace, The Covenant of Grace explicated in,in the Explication whereof, our Author is more copious, diſtinct, and potent even to Admiration: The Heads diſcourſed of by him, and the method he makes uſe of in diſcourſing of them, may with facility be apprehended by the Table of Contents: that which I deſign in this Summary, is ſome ſhort Reflexions on ſuch Heads as are not directly or profeſſedly diſcuſſed by our Author. And, 1.1. Its differences from the firſt Covenant. We ſhall begin with the Differences between the firſt and ſecond Covenant. (1) In the firſt Covenant, God dealt with man in a way of ſoveraign Empire and Dominion, mixed with infinite Wiſdom, Juſtice, Benignity, and ſomewhat of Grace, though without the leaſt dram of Mercy; there was indeed ſomething of Grace in appointing the Reward, but nothing of Grace in the infallible conduct thereto: But now in the ſecond Covenant, the principal motive and Fountain that gave origine thereto was free Grace, and Bowels of warm tender Mercies: what was the foundation of this Covenant but the abſolute and ſoveraignly gracious pleaſure of God? Were there any Objective Ideas of good, any reaſons, grounds, or motives foreſeen by God, which moved him to give grace to Jacob rather than to Eſau? Did not Eſau and Jacob ſtand on equal ground as to Divine Election? Was not Eſau Jacobs brother, ſaith the Lord? Yet I loved Jacob and hated Eſau, Mal. 1.2, 3. It's true, the free Grace of God hath deep Reaſons in it ſelf, but yet no reaſons or motives without it ſelf to move or rule it in its egreſſes towards the creature. Yea, doth not the Grace of God find as much and as good reaſons in Eſau, as in Jacob, in Cain and Judas, as in Peter and Paul, in the worſt as in the beſt of Men by Nature? Yea, what more agreeable to the Methods and Deſigns of Grace, than this, to ſhew mercy to the vileſt of ſinners? How oft doth the free grace of God take hold of ſuch as are moſt graceleſs? and whence do all the Iſſues of grace in this Covenant flow, but from Gods tender bowels of mercy? Was it not by meer grace, that this Covenant of Grace fell from God? Yea, is not Chriſt himſelf as Mediator of this Covenant, an admirable inſtance and effect of Gods free Election and Grace? It's true, Chriſt as God falls not under an act of the divine Will, becauſe then he were not God, but yet as Mediator he doth: Was not his firſt Deſignation to office an act of ſoveraign grace? Did he not alſo become Incarnate by an act of free Grace? Is not the Hypoſtatic Union thence termed the Grace of Ʋnion? Do we not alſo find mention of the Grace of Ʋnction, whereby the Father qualified him for his Mediatory Office? Is not the Oyl of Gladneſs, wherewith he was anointed above his fellows, an Oyl of Grace alſo, or an infinite effuſion of the Spirit of Grace on his humane N…re? Were not likewiſe all the Merits of Chriſt the effect of free Grace? Whence h… his aſſiſtances for the doing and ſuffering his Fathers will, but from his Father, as Iſ… 42.4? And when Chriſt had obeyed and ſuffered to the full, was not God the Fathers Acceptance of all an act of free Grace? It's true, Chriſt paid a valuable price for all the mercies he purchaſed for ſinners; but yet whence comes it that all this ſhould be made over to us? what made way for the commutation of perſons, that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt ſhould become ours, and our ſins by Imputation become his? was not this all from free Grace? Has not Auguſtin, in his incomparable Tractate, Of the Predeſtination of Saints, excellently well demonſtrated this, that Chriſt the Mediator of the New Covenant fell under the free Election of God? Now if the Election of the Head and Prince of the Covenant, who is God Man, was an act of free Grace, then will it not neceſſarily follow, that all the Federates, Conditions, and Effects of this Covenant, can flow from no other fountain than the ſovereign Grace of God? (2) Another Difference between the firſt and ſecond Covenant may be taken from the generic Idea of both: what was the firſt Covenant, but a Covenant of Friendſhip between the Creator and the Creature, where neither part was at variance? but what is this ſecond Covenant, but a Covenant of Reconciliation between a ſin-revenging God and rebellious ſinners? (3) Do not alſo theſe two Covenants greatly differ in their Terms and Conditions? What is there to be found in the firſt Covenant, but conditional Promiſes to Grace? but are there not in this ſecond Covenant abſolute Promiſes of Grace? Was not the Righteouſneſs of the firſt Covenant to be in our ſelves, without the leaſt imputation from any other? but is not the Righteouſneſs of this ſecond Covenant to be found in Chriſt only, and ſo made ours by Imputation? Did not the firſt Covenant require perfect Obedience as a Condition antecedent to the acceptation of the perſon? But doth not this ſecond Covenant accept an imperfect evangelic Sincerity as a conſequent of the perſons being accepted? In the Covenant made with Adam, was not the Acceptation of his perſon grounded on the Acceptation of his works? but in this ſecond Covenant is not the perſon firſt accepted, and then the works for the perſons ſake? Is not this fully exemplified in the different acceptation of Cain and Abel, Gen. 4.4, &c. the former ſtanding on the firſt Covenant, and the latter on the ſecond? (4) To paſs by other Differences, as to the object, foundation, and duration, are not theſe two Covenants greatly different as to their effects? The firſt Covenant diſcovers what we are to do, but the ſecond enables us to do it: the firſt is a glaſs to diſcover our ſin and miſery, but the ſecond is a glaſs that diſcovers the remedy, as alſo applyes the ſame. Of what uſe is the firſt but to declare men guilty and curſed? but doth not the ſecond pronounce pardon and bleſſing? Was not the firſt given and continued to diſcover ſin? but is not the ſecond given to cover it? Doth not the firſt wound and terrifie? but doth not the ſecond heal, exhilarate and chear? Is not the firſt the Miniſtration of death, and a killing letter? but is not the ſecond the Miniſtration of the Spirit, and that which makes alive, 2 Cor. 3.6, 7? Why was the firſt given, but to check, reſtrain and humble the old man? but is it not the principal Intendment of the ſecond to conſerve and quicken the New man? Doth not the firſt accuſe and condemn? but doth not the ſecond excuſe and abſolve? In the firſt, Man is bound to God, but in the ſecond God is bound to man; the firſt generates bondage, but the ſecond Liberty: And is there not a ſpirit of bondage ſuitable to that ſtate in all ſuch as are under the firſt Covenant? but O! what a ſpirit of Liberty belongs to all ſuch as are under the ſecond Covenant! and what different effects attend theſe different ſpirits! Doth not the firſt Covenant make a legal ſpirit, upon any great diſcovery of God, to flie from him as an enemy? but how doth the ſecond Covenant cauſe an evangelic ſpirit, under all the great diſcoveries of God, to flie unto him! Yea doth not the legal ſervile ſpirit, who longs to be under the firſt Covenant, ſecretly wiſh there were no law to rebuke him, no hand of Juſtice to puniſh him? but doth not the Evangelic ſpirit, who hath by means of the ſecond Covenant the Law writ in his heart, delight therein as a Rule, though he hates to be under it as a Covenant? How ſour and diſguſtful are all divine ſervices to a legal ſpirit? but how ſweet and pleaſant are they to an evangelic ſpirit? Legal ſpirits give God much ſervice for Quantity, but how little for Quality, and Spirituality? But the Evangelic ſpirit gives peradventure not ſo much for Quantity, but yet much more for Quality and Perfection: Laſtly, the legal ſpirit makes all his good Offices matter of vain-glory and fuel for his pride; but the Evangelic ſpirit ſees cauſe to be humbled and ſelf-abaſed for his beſt ſervices. Such are the different ſpirits, effects, and fruits that grow out of thoſe two oppoſite roots the Old and the New Covenant, which greatly demonſtrate the boundleſs differences between the two Covenants.

2.2. The excellence of the ſecond covenant. Hence we may take juſt meaſures both comparative and abſolute of the incomparable excellences of the ſecond Covenant. The firſt Covenant informs us what we are by Nature, but the ſecond, what we are, or may be by Grace; The Law was given, that men might more ſtudiouſly ſeek after Grace, Lex data eſt ut Gratia quaereretur, Gratia data eſt ut Lex impleretur. Auguſt.but Grace is given that men might be enabled to fulfill the Law. And what is the ſupreme ingredient of the Covenant of Grace, but the free Grace of God? Is not this Covenant then the Believers Great Charter, by which he has a Law-right to all the Priviledges and Bleſſings of the Goſpel? Doth not this Covenant give us aſſurance, not only of Gods gracious and merciful Nature, but alſo of his good will towards ſinners? It's true, Gods Nature gives us full aſſurance, that what he has promiſed ſhall be performed; but what gives us aſſurance of the Promiſe, but the Covenant of Grace? Yea, what are all the Promiſes but ſo many lines of the Covenant concentring in Chriſt the Prince and Mediator thereof? Do not all the Promiſes ſpring from that mother-root, the Covenant of Grace in Chriſt? Yea, what is the New-creature, but a conformity to this New Covenant? Is there any condition that a Believer can fall into, but he may find ſome Promiſe in this Covenant to relieve him therein? Yea, is there any excellence in God or his creature, which is not made over for your uſe in and by this Covenant? Are not all Gods good things yours, and all your afflictive things Gods by this Covenant? May you not then lay the ſtreſs of all your cares and burdens on this Covenant? Are you Bondſlaves of the Law? will not this Covenant make you Freeholders, if you come unto it and embrace it? Is there any thing commanded in the Law, which this Covenant doth not enable to perform? The Law may fret and grind your ſpirits to powder, but what can melt them but this Covenant? The Law weighs Obedience by the Ballance, and if there be the leaſt grain wanting, doth it not reject all? But doth not this Covenant examine all by the Touch-ſtone, and accept what is ſincere, albeit imperfect? Art thou very unlike to God? and is this thy great burden? conſider then, has not this Covenant a transformative ſpirit to make thee like him? What is the ſcope of this Covenant, but to make God thine, and thee Gods? And doſt thou not hereby acquire an intereſt in all the bleſſings of God? Doth not this give thee the beſt aſſurance thou canſt deſire for any deſired or enjoyed Mercy? Doth the firſt Covenant ſtop thy mouth before God? and doth not this ſecond Covenant ſtop the mouth of the firſt? Are not the riches of free Grace laid up in Chriſt? and are not the riches of Chriſt laid up in the Covenant of Grace? Doth not the believing Soul by cleaving to this Covenant, grow out of it to the ſtature of a perfect man? Whence come all the hopes, comforts, and happineſs of the Saints, but from this Covenant, as 2 Sam. 23.5? O! what glorious Relations between God and Man ariſe from this Covenant! what an intereſt doth man acquire in God, as well as God in man by this Covenant! yea, are not the ſmalleſt mercies by this Covenant made exceeding great, and ſweet? O the infinite boundleſs Dimenſions, the inviſible Miracles, and wonders of free Grace lodged in the Covenant of Grace! Are there any banks or bottoms to this Ocean of free Grace? Can the ſins of the vileſt men ſink them beyond the depths thereof, could they by faith ſwim thereon? What wonders are here for Faith's Contemplation, Admiration, and Adoration! Are not theſe ways and methods of free Grace comprehended in the Covenant of Grace foreign, imperſcrutable, ſuch as all the wit and ſagacity of Men and Angels cannot prie into;Rom. 11.33.Rom 11:33 as alſo foreign, imperveſtigable, ſuch as leave no Veſtigia or foot ſteps for carnal Reaſon to trace out, as Rom. 11.33? Ought we not then with Paul, that great Miracle of Grace, to ſtand on the banks of this Ocean of free Grace expreſſed in this New Covenant, and crie out, foreign, O the Depths of the Riches both of the Wiſdom and Knowledge of God! So great and excellent are the Benefits of this Covenant!

3. Let us a little inquire into the Mediator and Prince of this Covenant,3. The Covenant of Grace made primarily with Chriſt. which alſo will give us a further Demonſtration of its excellence. The Apoſtle inſtructs us, Gal. 3.16. that Chriſt is the Seed, to whom the Promiſes or Covenant was primarily made: by ſeed, ſome underſtand Chriſt Perſonal, others, Chriſt Myſtical, but we may, with our Author,Gal. 3.16.Gal 3:16 very ſafely take in both ſenſes, underſtanding it primarily and principally of Chriſt Perſonal, who is the prime Federate, and thence of Chriſt Myſtic, Abraham and his believing ſeed, conſidered as members of Chriſt, with whom the Covenant was primarily made. Now this Covenant as made with Chriſt terminates on him under a two-fold reſpect: (1) In relation to his own Mediatory Office: (2) In relation to his Body the Church, as he is Head thereof. (1) As it regards Chriſts Mediatory Office, and his more compleat diſcharge thereof, ſo God the Father by donation and ſtipulation conſtituted him Mediator and Surety of this Covenant, gave him a promiſe of Aſſiſtence, Deliverance, Acceptance, Juſtification, Exaltation, and ſucceſs in the management of his Mediatory Kingdom: This part of the Covenant belongs ſolely to Chriſt, wherein his members have no ſhare, albeit much benefit thereby. (2) There is another part of this Covenant made with Chriſt primarily, which regards him as Head of his body myſtic: For look as the firſt Adam as a public perſon and repreſentative head received both a Covenant and Image to communicate to his poſterity, who were both legally and naturally in him; ſo alſo this our ſecond Adam received both a Covenant and Image for his ſeed to be imparted to them. Are not all the promiſes made primarily to him, and in him to his members? And if there be any promiſe to be fulfilled, muſt not thy ſoul look up to Chriſt and his worthineſs alone for its fulfilling? Is not the righteouſneſs of the Covenant laid up in him, and by virtue of union with him made ours? Is there any dram of the holy oil of Grace imparted to us, but what was firſt poured out on the ſacred head of this our High Prieſt? Do not alſo all the priviledges of the Covenant primarily belong to him, and to us only as in him? Haſt thou any duty to perform, and muſt thou not look up to Chriſt for ſtrength to perform it? Doth it not belong to him only to …ive ſupplies? Or haſt thou any ſervice to be accepted, and can it be accepted any other way than as perfumed with the Incenſe of his Merits? Are not all the ſons of the firſt Adam by ſin cut off from all communion with God the Fountain of all good? Can they then receive any good thing from him but by the hand of this Mediator? Doth God give the leaſt good to any ſinner immediately? Have ſinners any thing to do with God in a way of mercy immediately in themſelves? If we ſpeak a good word of prayer to God, or he ſpeak a good word of comfort to us, muſt it not be in and by the Angel of his preſence? Are not all debts paid in him? all duties performed by him? all bleſſings conveyed through him? Have we then any thing to do with or receive from God in a covenant way, but by this Mediator and union with him? Did not God from all Eternity give his Son as the foundation of this Covenant to the Elect, as alſo give them to him as a ſeed? And is not this the true import of their being elected in him? Is it not alſo hence ſaid, Tit. 1.2. That eternal life was promiſed to the elect before the world began? How could it be promiſed to them, but by this Covenant of Redemption with Chriſt their Head? Did not the Church, Chriſts myſtic body lie hid in him from Eternity, as Eve lay hid in Adam her head? Are not all Believers by the Covenant of Grace in Chriſt, as by nature we are all in the firſt Covenant? And is not Chriſt in every Believer as Adam in all his natural ſeed? How is the firſt Adam in us, but as the original cauſe of our nature and its moral vitioſity which cauſeth death? And is not Chriſt the ſecond Adam in all Believers as the original cauſe of their reſtauration and life? What is there good in man but what is firſt in Chriſt as the original Head of the Covenant and public Receiver? Wouldſt thou ſee Gods love and grace ſtreaming towards thy ſoul? Muſt thou not then firſt ſee it lodged in Chriſt as the Fountain of all? Doſt thou deſire to ſee all thy ſins wiped off? Muſt thou not then ſee them firſt wiped off from Chriſt thy Repreſentative? Wouldſt thou by a previſion of faith ſee thy ſelf in a glorified ſtate? O then by faith look on Chriſt the Head of the Covenant as glorified for thee. Alas! if thou look on thy ſelf in thy ſelf, growing out of thine own natural root, what art thou, but as a branch cut off from the Olive-root? But O! how comfortable and ſweet is it to ſee thy ſelf crucified, acquitted, and glorified in Chriſt the Head of the Covenant! Yea, doth he not only become a ſurety for us to God, but alſo a ſurety for God to us? And O! how much doth this engage ſinners to exalt this glorious Head and Mediator of the New Covenant! Was not this the grand deſign of God in making this Covenant, that his Son the Prince of it might be in every thing exalted? Why are all the promiſes of the Covenant diſpenſed firſt unto him, and all the duties of the Covenant required firſt of him, and of us in him, but that he may have the preeminence in all things, and a name above every name? That the Son of God and Lord of Glory ſhould by his own conſent, in the Covenant of Redemption between him and the Father, come under an act of Gods will, and undertake in the fulneſs of time to take upon him the form of a ſervant, to pay debts, who never owned any; that he that was Lord of the Law, ſhould be made under the Law; that all the Elect ſhould have their names tranſcribed out of the Fathers book of Election, into the Lambs book of life, Rev. 13.8. yea, have their names written in his heart from all Eternity, and thereby to have ſuch a bleſſed Being in him, ſo long before they had the leaſt Being in themſelves; what an eſſential obligation are they hereby brought under to exalt this glorious Head and Prince of their Covenant!

4. But let us diſcourſe a little of the Nature of this ſecond Covenant,4. The Nature of the Covenant as relating to Believers. as terminating more immediately on Believers. And here the Reader will excuſe me, if I ſtudiouſly avoid the controverſies of theſe times, and touch only on that which is more eſſential to Faith and Godlineſs. The Covenant of Grace as made with Believers has a twofold foreign, habitude or regard; the one externe, the other interne. (1)(1)As to its externe Dispenſation which isThe Covenant of Grace as to its externe Habitude and Diſpenſation admits ſome Variety, Generality, and Conditionality, which is not applicable to the interne ſpirit and mind thereof.[1][1]Various. It admits of ſome Variety. It has pleaſed the infinitely wiſe God, out of his rich mercy and condeſcendence to the condition of his people, in all Ages to ſuit the externe Diſpenſation of his ſecond Covenant to their infirm capacity, albeit as to the ſpirit and ſubſtance thereof it hath been ever the ſame. Thus in the firſt promulgation of it to Adam after his Fall, God expreſſed it by the ſeed of the woman, and its bruiſing the ſerpents head, &c. Gen. 3.15. which was a form moſt agreeable to their preſent ſtate introduced by the Serpents. ſubtility and craft. So in the ſecond promulgation of this Covenant unto Noah, after the Floud, Gen. 9.17. God expreſſed it by the Ark and Rain-bow, &c. as it's repeated, Eſa. 54.9. which were ſymbolic Images very appoſite and agreeable to their preſervation newly obtained. The like Variety God manifeſted in the repetition of this Covenant unto Abraham, Gen. 17.2. to 16. where God promulgates his Covenant, as to its externe Habitude, under the ſymbolic forms of multiplying his natural ſeed, the ſign of Circumciſion, &c. which were …ll lively figures, very much adapted to his preſent ſtate, he having no children. So again, when God renewed this Covenant with the Iſraelites after their coming out of Egypt, what variety doth he uſe? Is not the very Prologue to it, touching their deliverance out of the houſe of bondage, an illuſtrious Symbol to mind them of their miſerable ſtate by the firſt Covenant? What were all the Sacrifices but federal Symbols repreſenting to the life mans ſin and miſery under the firſt Covenant, and reconcilement to God by the ſecond? So alſo for the moral Precepts, with which this Moſaic Covenant was uſhered in, of what uſe and intendment were they, but to make way for the promulgation and advance of free Grace, as John Baptiſt made way for Chriſt? It's true, ſome of late from this variety have ſtarted a Notion of a threefold Covenant, one natural, another legal or Moſaic, and the third Evangelic: but this Notion was the figment of the old Origeniſtic Monks to eſtabliſh their Antichriſtian merits, as Melancthon, Chron. lib. 4. aſſures us. The true Idea of the Moſaic Covenant ſeems this; it was indeed, as to its interne spirit, mind, form and eſſence Evangelic, albeit as to its externe form and diſpenſation, it was mixed and compoſed of moral Precepts and ſymbolic Types or ſhadows: and O! how agreeable was this to the infantile ſtate of the Iſraelitic Church! Did not the wiſe God herein act like a curious Limner, who firſt gives an adumbration and dark ſhadow with a rude Pencil, and then adds lively colours to compleat his Picture? What were all the Types but Evangelic ſhadows, whereby the Grace of the ſecond Covenant became viſible and ſenſible?[2][2]Indifferent and general. The Covenant of Grace as to its externe foreign and diſpenſation, admits of ſome Generality and Ʋniverſality; it being expreſſed in general and ſometimes univerſal terms, as a mode or form moſt convenient and agreeable to humane Nature: For the wiſe God reſolved in the diſtribution of Divine Grace to ſuit the externe exhibition thereof to the indigent condition of humane nature: Grace doth not deſtroy but perfect nature, and therefore it is expreſſed and diſpenſed in a form or mode moſt adapted to humane nature, namely in propoſitions and invitations, indifferent, general, and ſometimes univerſal, thereby the more potently to allure elect Souls, and alſo, to cut off all pretext of excuſe from Unbelievers; as Joh. 3.16. Eſa. 55.1. Theſe general invitations are termed, Hoſ. 11.4. The cords of a man, i. e. moſt agreeable to humane nature. Hence[3][3]Conditional. this Covenant of Grace is, as to its externe mode, expreſſed frequently in terms hypothetic or conditional, which is alſo moſt congruous to humane nature, as Rev. 22.17. and doth not ſpeak the Covenant to be in it ſelf conditional, as in what follows.

(2) We deſcend now to the Covenant of Grace,2. The Nature of the Covenant as to its interne form or eſſence. as conſidered according to its interne foreign, Habitude and Diſpenſation, wherein its eſſential form, mode, or eſſence conſiſts. This interne form and diſpenſation of the Covenant we find deſcribed, Jer. 31.33, 34. But this ſhall be the covenant that I will make with the houſe of Iſrael, After thoſe days, ſaith the Lord, I will put my law into their inward parts, &c. In which verſes we find all the eſſential parts and benefits of this new Covenant, as to its interne reſpect, namely Union with God in Chriſt, Juſtification, Sanctification, Adoption, &c. And ſo we aver,[1][1]It is but one. That the Covenant of Grace is but one and the ſame: for notwithſtanding all that variety before-mentioned in the extern exhibition, both as to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Iſrael, and (we may add) David, yet the Covenant as to its intern ſpirit, mind, and eſſence admits not the leaſt variety, it flowing from the ſame fountain of free Grace, by the ſame Mediator, unto the ſame elect objects, and on the ſame terms. This Identity of the Covenant, both as to Jews and Gentiles, our Author demonſtrates from Rom. 11.16, 17. where by the Olive-tree, he underſtands the Church of God, and by the Root, Abraham as taken into Covenant, with whom the Covenant in ſome ſence began, and upon which both Jews and Gentiles grow. Hence,[2][2]It is particular. This Covenant is alſo as to its intern mind and form Particular. For all the Indefinition, Generality, and Ʋniverſality of this Covenant regards onelyonly its extern offer and diſpenſation, not the immanent Will of God, as if he had an univerſal love to or deſire of all mens Salvation. It's true, God really intends and decrees the offer ſhall be univerſal, or general, to all where the Goſpel comes, yet he doth not intend or decree, that all ſhall accept of this offer, or have real benefit by it. Whence,[3][3]Abſolute. This Covenant is as to its intern form or eſſence, Abſolute, not Conditional. This is evident, (1) From the very Notion given it, Matt. 26.28. and more particularly,Act. 3.25.Acts 3:25 Acts 3.25. foreign, where we have foreign, with its radix foreign, which notes, that it primarily imports a Teſtament, whereby men abſolutely diſpoſe of their goods. The ſame we find, Heb. 8.10. & 10.16. which the old Latin Verſion interprets to diſpoſe by Teſtament, and ſo with the LXX. foreign frequently occurs, as Gen. 21.27, 32. & 26.28. & 31.44. as elſewhere, and anſwers to foreign, to cut or ſtrike a Covenant. And thus among the ancient Grecians foreign is frequently uſed to ſignifie a diſpoſition of ſomewhat by Teſtament unto heirs, as Iſocrates and others; and what more abſolute than a Teſtament? Thence foreign whereby the Covenant of Grace is expreſſed in the Old Teſtament, as Gen. 9.9. and elſewhere, is alwayes rendred by the LXX. foreign, as in the New Teſtament, and never foreign, which properly ſignifies a conditional Covenant, depending on the mutual ſtipulation of both parties. (2) If the Covenant of Grace be conditional, either theſe Conditions are included in the Covenant, or not: if included, then it is as to its intern diſpenſation and mind, abſolute; if not included, then is this Covenant equally as hard, yea impoſſible to Sinners, as the Covenant of Works. (3) A condition in a Covenant ſtrictly taken denotes a moral Efficience, and has a cauſal influence upon what is conditionally promiſed; which deſtroys the freedom of Grace. (4) The principal difference between the Covenant of Works and of Grace lies in this, that the former was conditional, given to Grace received, but this is abſolute, giving Grace: The firſt Covenant ſuppoſed grace, but gave none; this ſecond gives all grace, but ſuppoſeth none as precedent to its gift. (5) Yet we deny not but that there are Conditions, and conditional Promiſes appendent to this ſecond Covenant; but they are ſuch as belong principally to the extern form of it, as before: or, if they belong to the ſubſtance of the Covenant, they are onelyonly conſequent, improper Conditions, abſolutely undertaken for by the Head of the Covenant, and effectually wrought by the Grace of the Covenant; not antecedent proper Conditions, ſuch as beſpeak the Covenant conditional.[4][4]Certain and immutable. Hence it follows, that the ſecond Covenant is moſt ſure and immutable, as to all the Heirs of ſalvation: He that is once in Covenant, is ever ſo: There is no way of ſecuring Promiſes and Covenants among men, but the God of all Grace hath aſſumed the ſame to aſſure us that his Covenant is moſt certain and inviolable. Doth a Promiſe confirmed by Sacrifices and Oaths make ſure a Covenant? and has not God confirmed his Covenant by all theſe, Pſal. 50.5. Lev. 2.13. Heb. 6.18? Is a Surety a Surety to make good Covenants? And has not God made this Covenant primarily with Chriſt our Surety, that ſo in him it might be firm to all his members? So much for the Nature of this Covenant.

An account of the Reviſe of this Diſcourſe.Having given this Summary of the two Covenants, we ſhall conclude this Proeme with ſome account of the endeavours we have put forth to render the following Diſcourſe more perfect and uſeful; which was penned as delivered in a popular way of Sermons, but I gave my ſelf the liberty of caſting it into this method of Books, Chapters, Sections and half-Sections, as that which to me ſeems moſt natural, proper, and adequate to its matter: For I have long thought it one of the moſt principal concerns in Method, to follow the conduct of Nature in ſuiting our Form to our Matter, and not our Matter to our Form, as the Schools are wont. The Additions I have made, which are not many, regard principally the Explication of ſome few Texts and Interpretation of Latin Sentences, for the uſe of vulgar Capacities. As for Diminutions, I have religiouſly avoided more than ſeemed neceſſary, to make the ſence and Contexture clear. And whereas I gave the Subſcribers a promiſe, to review the Copy, and take care that it be well done, what endeavours I have exerted, yea how many hours I have borrowed from my natural Refreſhments to make good this my word, is not meet for me to mention; only the Reader may judge ſomewhat hereof, if he conſider how many Imperfections muſt unavoidably attend ſuch Poſthumous Tranſcripts, and that out of Manuſcripts written in Characters; and I am apt to perſwade my ſelf, the Subſcribers, when they have conſidered the whole, will not think themſelves deceived in this particular, ſpecially if they compare this with other pieces of our Author, formerly publiſhed out of his own Notes. And I have herein endeavoured to fulfill that great Effate of our Lord, To do as I would be done unto, in the like caſe: I judge ſome guilty of much unkindneſs to their deceaſed Friends, as well as injuſtice to the World, in thruſting forth Poſthumous Works, without due emendation and correction. Whatever ſervice has been performed herein, is no more than what is required by and due to the Lord of the Harveſt from an unprofitable Servant,

Theophilus Gale.