a man hath broken the Law and therefore cannot be a direct and absolute precept of the Law I say a direct or absolute precept of the Law in its prime intention Repentance is not But a consequent hypothetical indirect precept it is of a second intention That is upon supposition a man hath once transgressed the Law he is implicitly bound by the same Law to repent as Repentance signifies a cessation from sin and a return to the duty of obedience Otherwise a man might be discharged from the obligation of the Law by breaking it Rom. 4. 1 Joh. 3. And then he that had sinned once could sin no more because where there is no Law there is no transgression But that Law that binds a man to perpetual obedience doth not only bind a man from sinning once but supposing that he hath done so it must needs oblige him to cease from continuing in his sin But properly and directly Repentance is a precept of the Gospel directed to the transgressors of the Law as a remedy for the breach of it and a condition of pardon not allowed by the Original Law And therefore it is not a precept only but a priviledg peculiar to the Gospel being a gracious dispensation and mitigation of the rigour of the Law Act. 11.18 God hath granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life That a sinner upon his repentance through Faith in a Mediator that hath expiated his sins should obtain remission of his sin and be discharged from the penalty of the Law is a new grant grace and priviledg of the second Covenant The difference therefore between the first and second Covenant lies not in the common sense of those general terms Do this and live as if the second Covenant required nothing at all to be done which is contrary to our Text and all those which have been alledged for the explication thereof but partly in the special signification of the Word this and partly in a gracious promise of Grace sufficient to enable a man to perform what ever is to be understood by that word this which cannot be so interpreted as to signifie the same thing in reference to both Covenants Because though something be required to be done as a Condition of the new Covenant as well as of the old yet not the same For something was required in the old which is not in the new and something is required in the new which was not in the old and something is required in both For instance The old Covenant indispensably required perfect innocence in an entire fulfilling the whole Law written in the heart of man or declared or to be declared by divine Revelations leaving no place for any such thing as Repentance to be admitted for a Remedy of Sin But this perfect Innocence is so far from being required in the new Covenant as the very Supposition of it prevents and destroyes the end and design of the New which imports a plain contradiction to such sinless innocence In as much as the new Covenant is nothing else but a Remedy provided by the grace of God for the want of such innocence Were it possible to perform the condition of the old Covenant the new could have no place because that supposeth a man a transgressor of the old And if now it were possible for any man to obey the whole Law without any new transgression yet he that is already a sinner Rom. 5.18 19. as all men are by the first transgression could not be saved by that Covenant because his being so renders him incapable of pleading performance of the Condition thereof This therefore is a main difference between the two Covenants The first exacts perfect Obedience and Innocence the second admits Repentance A second difference of these Covenants is in the first and principal Article of the new Covenant which is consigned upon the Condition of Faith in Jesus Christ as a Saviour to save us from our Sins Which also imports a plain Repugnance to the Condition of the first in as much as it implies a violation of it Faith in a Saviour to save us from our Sins could be no precept of the old Covenant because that doth neither declare nor admit any such Saviour These are two main things whereby the two Covenants are distinguished in their Conditions and it is not requisite in this place to name any more But with these Differences there is also something common to both and that is the general Obligation of Obedience to the Commandments according to the express words of our Saviour before alledged If thou wilt enter into Life keep the Commandments And this I take to be a duty of such necessity as could not be discharged or dispensed with by any positive Will or Covenant of God upon any Consideration whatsoever No not upon that of a most perfect satisfaction for the breach of the Law with an intire fulfilling of it by a Surety for and in the stead of the Transgressors I say that neither upon this nor any other Consideration the Duty of Obedience to the Moral Law of God could be discharged or dispensed with For these Reasons 1. Because such a discharge or dispensation is contrary to the Soveraignty of God which importeth an Authority to command all Creatures that are capable of receiving and obeying any commands This Authority being essential to the Divine Nature He cannot devest himself of by any positive Will no more than he can destroy his own Essence But to discharge a Creature capable of the duty of Obedience from all obligation thereunto were to put off that Authority because Where there is no obligation to obedience there can be no authority to command If therefore God should discharge a Creature of his duty of Obeying his Commands he should thereby quit his Soveraignty over that Creature which is altogether impossible 2. Because such a liberty granted to any part of mankind is contrary to the Justice and Holiness of God in as much as it implies a licence and toleration of the utmost wickedness that could be committed by them that had obtain'd this liberty For where there is no restraint put upon the wills of men by any binding law there must needs be the utmost of license 3. Because this Liberty is contrary to the nature of Man as he is a Reasonable Creature Because as he is reasonable he is capable of receiving Commands and Laws from his Creator and as he is a Creature he is naturally bound to be subject to them The relation of a Creature naturally importing such a debt of subjection to the Creator as can never be discharged 4. And lastly Because there are some Divine Laws which are in themselves indispensable to a reasonable Creature Such is that which is commonly called the Moral Law in the strictest sense signifying not all Precepts that concern the manners of men but the same thing with the Law of Nature and right Reason Which as it teacheth a distinction
of Good and Evil contained in the nature of some actions antecedent to any positive or express Law of God or man so doth it indispensably oblige to the practical observation thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is that effect of the Law written in the Heart Rom. 2.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be blotted out by any abrogation without blotting out the reason that is the nature of man That which is in it self Evil cannot without contradiction become indifferent or lawful But that which is not restrained or forbidden by any binding Law must needs be lawful Therefore the opinion of Libertines and Antinomians affirming Christians under the Gospel to be discharged from the duty of Obedience to any Law or Command of God as such is not only false and heretical but also impossible to be true in as much as it imports a repugnancy to the nature both of God and man and all distinction of Good and Evil and withall it evacuates all pardon of sin by concluding an impossibility of committing it For where no Law is there can be no Transgression I conclude therefore that the duty of Obedience to the Moral Law is common to both Covenants And that when Saint Paul saith We are not under the Law but under Grace Rom. 6.15 his meaning cannot be that we are not under any Obligation of the Law but that we are not under the rigorous Exaction of the Law requiring perfect obedience without affording either pardon for any Offences against it or any sufficient aid of Grace to perform it Christians by the Covenant of Grace which now they are under are delivered from that desperate state which the Law leaves them in that are under it being relieved by a double Grace first of pardon of Sin upon Repentance and secondly of ability through the assistance of God's Spirit to yield such obedience to the Law as will be accepted And so to the Objection of the burthen of that Obedience which by the premisses hath been asserted necessary to Salvation I answer That God's accepting by the new Covenant Repentance joyned with Faith in Christ instead of perfect Obedience required in the old is a sufficienu abatement of the intolerableness of the old yoke and as ample a dispensation as could be afforded to Sinners to qualifie them for salvation which will further appear upon these Considerations 1. That Repentance supposing men to be sinners admitted by the Covenant of Grace for the Condition of Salvation affords a remedy for Sin and a capacity of Life to them that by the old Covenant are absolutely excluded from all hopes thereof 2. That Reformation of life and future obedience which Repentance signifies is not the same which the Law exacts that is not absolute and perfect without any manner of defect Not the not-sinning at all but the not wilfully and presumptuously sinning and abiding therein impenitently after the receiving * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the knowledge or acknowledgment of the truth Heb. 10.26 A sincere desire and faithful indeavour of obedience is accepted for Repentance which may consist with some such things as the Law condemns as sins of ignorance not affected sins of Infirmity and surreption Imperfection in the performance of duty sincerely indeavoured with many frailties which a Christian labours under and against but cannot perfectly overcome Such things as these although as transgressions of the pure and perfect Law of God they have the nature of sin yet by the tenor of the new Covenant and through the mercy of God in Christ the Mediator thereof they shall not be imputed to the penitent sinner that by a true Faith layes hold upon that Mediator So that there be some sins which do not make void the effect and benefit of Repentance but are consistent with the truth of it and a regenerate state But because it is difficult to determine precisely and exclusively what they are it concerns every true penitent to take as much heed as he can of all sin and not to presume of any indulgence for the least that can be avoided by him And whiles it is said that some kinds of sin are consistent with such a Repentance as is available to salvation it is implyed that others are not so and such are all gross wilful and presumptuous sins But 3. Neither do such sins as these after a man hath once truly repented exclude a sinner from the benefit of the Gospel But are still capable of the same remedie which is allowed for all sorts of sin which a man is found guilty of before his first Conversion Although such sins do evacuate the benefit of his former repentance so far as to render him uncapable of expecting or claiming the Remission of them thereby suspending his pardon for the present till he hath renewed his repentance or repaired the breach of it Herein consists the abundance of Gospel-grace and the benefit of repentance that it is never out-dated not being restrained to one general pardon as the Novatians heretically taught nor limited to any number of Repetitions There is no sin at any time unpardonable under the Condition of Repentance For that against the Holy Ghost is supposed to be so upon this account only that it excludes that Grace by which a man should be inabled to repent These three things relating to the doctrine of Repentance duly considered I conceive to be sufficient to answer the Objection before suggested Especially if that be added which I take to be agreeable to the doctrine of the Gospel viz That whosoever imbraceth this second Covenant shall be sufficiently inabled by the grace thereof that is by the Spirit of Christ that helps him though not to keep the whole Law exactly and perfectly without sin yet to do all things which by that Covenant are required of him to work out his own salvation This sufficiency of Grace I take to be supposed in the Exhortation of my Text and confirmed by the Reason that follows after it For it is God that worketh in you to will and to do of his good pleasure Of which afterward Thus far we have proceeded towards the resolution of that great Question What is to be done by him that desires to work out his own salvation from the distinct Answer of our blessed Saviour and two of his Apostles to the same Question Believe in the Lord Jesus saith Saint Paul Repent saith St. Peter Keep the Commandments saith our Saviour These three Answers comprehending whatever is required of a Christian in order to his salvation might suffice for a complete Answer to that Question But considering the infinite weight and moment of the Question some further Enlargement of the Answer from 3. or 4. selected Texts is not to be counted superfluous And the first of these additional Texts shall be that of the Apostle St. Peter urging the same Exhortation with that in our Text in other words 2 Pet. 1.5 And besides this giving all diligence add
I doubt whether I should do it or not hath to me an appearance of a greater sin in the doing it than it can be in the omission that Reason is very sufficient to restrain me from the action and oblige me to the forbearance till I can be otherwise informed to the better satisfaction of my Conscience For 2 Thess 5.22 when we are commanded to abstain from all appearance of evil it is most reasonable to conclude that the appearance of the greatest Evil doth most strongly oblige my abstinence As for Example Suppose the action whereof I am in doubt hath an appearance of Idolatry as in the Corinthians case the eating things sacrificed to Idols had and as the worshipping a piece of bread or the invocation of Saints departed may justly have In such cases I say it is most reasonable to abstain from the action because it is most safe so to do because by the doing of this action I do at least suspect I may be guiltie of Idolatry which is a far greater sin than a bare omission of an Act of obedience to any humane authority can be The same resolution upon parity of reason is to be made where the omission upon due consideration may appear to be a greater sin than the performance of the action which seems to be the case of refusing obedience to authoritie causing disorder and having at least an appearance of Schism in matters of meer ceremony or circumstance in the publick worship of God upon a bare suspition of their want of allowance from God or being some way forbidden I say That the disobedience in this case if the action should prove not to be forbidden by God is a greater sin than the action would be in obedience to authority though it should prove to be forbidden whilst we have so much reason to doubt whether it be or no For it cannot with reason be conceived that the Transgression of a Divine Precept in a matter of circumstance so obscurely revealed as hath not been discover'd by the Catholick Church for many Ages nor yet is by the Rulers and most learned and pious Doctors and Pastors of the present Church can be so great a sin as is the transgression of so plain a Precept as that of obedience to authoriâ—ie especially when that disobedience produceth the effects of Disorder Schism Scandal with separation from the publick Worship of God and privation of the means of his Grace These things considered I say it is not reason able to think but that the sin of disobedience in case the thing should prove to be not forbidden as by this doubt is supposed possible is far greater than the doing of the act though it should prove to be forbidden And therefore in this case the action is to be done notwithstanding the doubt by way of caution against a greater sin It being a greater sin to disobey doubtingly than to obey doubtingly in such a matter But if for ought appears to me there is no such difference but that it may be as great a sin to omit thâ— action as to do it considering my doubt as well whether it be not commanded as whether it be not forbidden I am then to consider what other reasons may incline me either to the action or to the omission in respect of advantage or disadvantage to my self or other on either side As for Example Suppose on the on-side if I forbear the action I do not onely sin againâ— God upon one or both of the foremention'd accounts that is as doing that which is forbidden in it self 〈◊〉 forbidden to me because I doubt the lawfulness of it but I also deprive my self of many advantages which might have by the doing it and incur considerable damage in my Libertie Estate Reputation with otheâ— incommodations to my friends On the other side if do the action I do onely sin against God by acting doubtfully or it may be by transgressing some unknown command abstracted from that doubt which inconveniences are equally supposed in the forbearance But I avoid the forementioned disadvantages without incurring any other of equal concern In this case I say it will be perfectly unreasonable to chuse the more hazzardable resolution with rejection of the less And therefore the resolution will be as clear what is reasonable to be done in this case as is in any of the former with this onely difference That the practice under this duplicitie of doubt cannot be without a necessitie of sin What then can I or should I do more in this case than this commit my self to the Mercie of God with a cautionary profession of my desire to obey him And that if I could any way possibly avoid the hazzard of transgressing his Will I would do it notwithstanding any motives whatever respecting my self or mine own interest But because I cannot so do at this time for want of present means to understand his Will I act according to the general Rule and law of my Nature that is my reason as far as it will afford me any direction begging his pardon of my present ignorance and the inevitable effect thereof Against this resolution if it be objected as was before intimated that there can be no such necessitie of sinning against God Whilst every man is bound to depose his doubt and imbrace his Dutie I answer first That this destroyes the supposition of the Cose and therefore is no just Objection to the answer which is given upon the admission of it 2. That it is not true that there can be no such necessitie of sinning or that every man is bound immediately to depose his doubt though it be not in his power so to do For though God doth not put a man upon any such necessitie of sinning against himself yet a man may by his own fault and by his culpable ignorance bring himself into this streight But here it must needs be observed that the intire resolution is grounded upon that Principle That whatsoever is done doubtingly is a sin Which Principle I take up in this Discourse onely upon the account of its common reception grounded upon the words of the Apostle He that doubteth is damned if he eat And therefore the resolution that supposeth this Principle can be serviceable to such onely as receive it But whether this Maxime be universally true or can be inferr'd from the Apostles Words by the necessary sence of them and whether it ought to be extended to such actions as fall under the command of Authority and not rather to be restrained to such actions as the Apostle speaks of in that Chapter viz. such as are indifferent in themselves and wherein a man is sui juris not supposed to be under command of authority either way is a just Problem For the Apostle in the Discourse of that Chapter wherein he delivers that conclusion He that doubteth is damned if he eat c. speaketh onely of such actions wherein a man is sui juris at
of his own blood Is it reasonable to accept his Promises and refuse his Precepts Or would we have a pardon for all our sins past without the condition of Repentance that is with a licence or dispensation to continue in them still if we please Would we be happy but not holy Would we be Devils in this world and Angels in the next serve the Devill the professed enemy of God and our own Souls whiles we are here on Earth and yet expect to have communion with the most pure and holy God hereafter in Heaven Can we contrive a way How light and darkness righteousness and unrighteousness should have fellowship one with an other Would we have God to be reconciled to us in the free pardon of all our offences and we not reconciled to him but still be allowed to live in a course of rebellion against him Would we injoy his favour and love and not be bound to love him or would we be acknowledged to be true lovers of God without any respect to his commandments Would we injoy the grace of adoption the blessing of sons and the inheritance of the Kingdom with a despensation for the duty of filial obedience If these terms be so unreasonable as no man can have impudence enough to own the desire of them What objection can we have against any of the conditions of Salvation which consist in no harder matters than those which our own Reason is forced to acknowledg so just and indispensable that if we had been called to counsell about them and had had our negative vote in the passing of them or if we had been left to our selves to have set down our own terms for our Justification and Salvation we could never have set them lower than they are set in the Covenant of the Gospel The fourth Motive to the utmost of diligence to be used in this work is to be drawn from the difficultie of performing it If we have a design to work out a business of much difficulty is there not a great necessity we should attend it with proportionable diligence Most true it is in respect of the equity and reasonableness of this work above declared there is indeed nothing in it that is hard considered in it self which is enough to verifie the words of our Saviour My yoak is easie and my burthen is light Matth. 11.30 1 Joh. 5.3 as well as those of his Apostle His commandments are not grievous Christ's yoke is not like that of a cruel or hard Master nor his burthen like that of a tyrannical Lord His commandments are no harder than such as become the most gratious and mercifull Father so farre is he from requiring any thing of us which is either impossible or unreasonable Certainly it imports notorious repugnancy to the name and notion of the Gospel if not blasphemie of the Divine Goodness therein proclaimed to say or imagin that God should abuse mankind with pretences of such infinite grace and mercy promised under such conditions as we are in no capacity to perform as having neither any sufficiency thereunto of our selves nor any ground of expecting it from him who only is able to afford it If it be the Will and command of God as without doubt it is that every one to whom the promise of Salvation is made known by the Gospel should not only believe the general truth of it but also make particular application of it to his own comfort else how is it a Gospel or Glad tidings certainly that very command without any new promise implies a just warrant of confidence in him that gives it to supply us with a sufficiency of ability to perform the conditions of his promise if being willing to undertake them and sensible of our own insufficiency we shall sincerely seek this ability from him But to balk all matter of Dispute it is without controversie that such persons are as the proper objects of this exhortation that is such as have by the grace of God already begun this work have as sure promises of sufficient grace to go through withall as they have of the Reward of it being once finished Phil. 1.6 The promises before mentioned by way of interpretation of the words after my Text are indeed sufficient to secure us from any insuperable difficulty in this work But do not therefore inferr that there is none but rather the contrary Because if there were no difficulty we should need no such security for our assistance to overcome it But of the Difficulties which are to be expected and incountred in the pursuance of this work we are sufficiently advertised as well by Scripture as by our own sensible and continual Experience Strive to enter in at the straitgate Luk. 13.24 saith our Saviour For many I say unto you will seek he doth not say strive to enter in and shall not be able And in another Evangelist Strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life Mat. 7.14 and few there there be that find it In which words there are no less than three severall Intimations of the difficultie of entering into life eternal The first is in the word * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strive the second in the Epithets of the Gate and the Way Strait and Narrow the third in the paucity of them that enter and the ill success of many that seek so to do Few there be that find it and many shall seek to enter and shall not be able The word Strive in the Original is borrowed from the Olympick games wherein the parties contending for the victorie were stoutly opposed and therefore ingaged to put forth the utmost of their strength And with the same Allusion the Christian Course is by Saint Paul compared to three several kinds of those Games viz. 1. to Running 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. to Fighting or cuffing with the fist and 3. Wrestling 1 Cor 9.24.26 Know ye◠not that they that run in a Race run all but one obtaineth the Prize So run that ye may obtain I therefore so run 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as uncertainly So fight I not as one that beateth the air 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I keep under my body and bring it into subjection lest that by any means when I have preached to others I my self should be a Castaway And Ephes 6.12 For we wrestle not against flesh and bloud but against Principalities against Powers c. 1 Tim. 6.12 Fight the good fight of Faith Christianity is a Warfare and Fight against spirituall adversaries within and without Within against fleshly lusts which warre against the Soul 1 Pet. 2 11 Jam. 4.1 Without against Principalities and Powers against the Rulers of the darkness of this world against spirituall wickedness or wicked Spirits in high places Ephes 6.12 All this matter of Combate Strife Wrestling is supposed in that repeated promise of the heavenly Reward to him only that overcometh Rev.