in expediting the Arminian Controversies as you shall perceive after Some parts of Scripture do in severall respects belong to both these Wills such are some promises and threatnings conditionall which as they are predictions of what shall come to passe do belong to the will Purpose but as they are purposely delivered and annexed to the commands and prohibitions for incitement to Duty and restraint from Sin which was indeed the great end of God in them so they belong to the Will of Precept For the promise of Reward and the threatning of Punishment are reall parts of the Law or Covenant so of History All this is only a preparative to the opening more fully the nature of the Legislative Will and what falls under it For the Will of Purpose and what is under it I have no intention any further to handle THESIS III. First The Will of God concerning duty is expressed wholly in his written Laws Secondly Which Laws are promulgate and established by way of Covenant wherein the Lord engageth himselfe to reward those that performe its conditions and threateneth the penalty to the violaters thereof EXPLICATION 1. NOt but that much of Gods Will is also contained in the Law of Nature or may by the meere use of Reason be learned from Creatures and Providences But yet this is nothing against the Scriptures sufficiency and perfection For besides all the superadded Positives the Scripture also containes all that which we call the Law of Nature and it is there to be found more legible and discernable than in the best of our obscure deceitfull corrupted hearts 2. All perfect compulsive Laws have their penalty annexed or else they are but meerly directive but not usually any reward propounded to the obeyers It is sufficient that the Subject know his Soveraignes pleasure which he is bound to observe without any reward Meere Laws are enacted by Soveraignty Meere Covenants are entred by equalls or persons dis-engaged to each other in respect of the contents of the Covenants and therefore they require mutuall consent These therefore made by God are of a mixt nature neither meere Laws nor meere Covenants but both He hath enacted his Laws as our Soveraigne Lord whithout waiting for the Creatures consent and will punish the breakers whether they consent or no But as it is a Covenant there must be a restipulation from the Creature and God will not performe his conditions there expressed without the Covenanters consent engagement and performance of theirs Yet is it called frequently in Scripture a Covenant as it is offered by God before it be accepted and entered into by the Creature because the condescention is only on Gods part and in reason there should be no question of the Creatures consent it being so wholly and only to his advantage Gen. 9. 12 17. Exod. 34. 28. Deut. 29. 1. 2 Kings 23. 3 c. There are some generall obscure Threatnings annexed to the prohibitions in the Law of Nature that is Nature may discerne that God will punish the breakers of his Law but how or with what degree of punishment it cannot discern Also it may collect that God will be favourable and gratious to the Obedient but it neither knows truly the conditions nor the nature or greatnesse of the Reward nor Gods engagement thereto Therefore as it is in Nature it is a meer Law and not properly a Covenant Yea to Adam in his perfection the forme of the Covenant was known by superadded Revelation and not written naturally in his heart Whether the threatning and punishment do belong to it only as it is a Law or also as it is a Covenant is of no great moment seeing it is really mixt of both It is called in Scripture also the curse of the Covenant Deut. 29. 20. 21. THESIS IIII. THe first Covenant made with Adam did promise life upon condition of perfect obedience and threaten death upon the least disobedience EXPLICATION THe promise of life is not expressed but plainly implyed in the threatning of death That this life promised was onely the continuance of that state that Adam was then in in Paradice is the judgement of most Divines But what death it was that is there threatned is a Question of very great difficulty and some moment The same damnation that followeth the breach of the New Covenant it could not be no more then the life then enjoyed is the same with that which the New Covenant promiseth And I cannot yet assent to their judgement who think it was onely that death which consisteth in a meer separation of soule and body or also in the annihilation of both Adams separated soule must have enjoyed happinesse or endured misery For that our soules when separated are in one of these conditions and not annihilated or insensible I have proved by twenty Arguments from Scripture in another booke As Adams life in Paradise was no doubt incomparably beyond ours in happinesse so the death threatned in that Covenant was a more terrible death then our temporall death For though his losse by a temporall death would have bin greater then ours now yet hee would not have bin a Subject capable of privation if annihilated nor however capable of the sense of his losse A great losse troubleth a dead man no more then the smallest Therefore as the joy of Paradise would have bin a perpetuall joy so the sorrow and pain it is like would have bin perpetuall and wee perpetuated capable Subjects See Barlow exercit utrum melius sit miserum esse quam non esse I do not thinke that all the deliverance that Christs Death procured was onely from a temporall death or annihilarion or that the death which hee suffered was aequivalent to no more THESIS V. THis Covenant being soon by man violated the threatning must bee fulfulled and so the penalty suffered EXPLICATION WHether there were any flat necessity of mans suffering after the fall is doubted by many and denyed by Socinus Whether this necessity ariseth from Gods naturall Justice or his Ordinate viz. his Decree and the verity of the threatning is also with many of our own Divines a great dispute whether God might have pardoned sinne if he had not said the sinner shall die may be doubted of though I believe the affirmative yet I judge it a frivolous presumptuous question But the word of his threatning being once past methinks it should bee past question that hee cannot absolutely pardon without the apparent violation of his Truth or Wisdome Some think that it proceedeth from his Wisdome rather then his Justice that man must suffer see Mr. Io. Goodwin of justif part 2. pag. 34. but why should we separate what God hath conjoyned However whether Wisdome or justice or Truth or rather all these were the ground of it yet certaine it is that a necessity there was that the penalty should be inflicted or else the Son of God should not have made satisfaction nor sinners bear so much themselves THESIS VI
none in this life For even when we do perform the Condition yet still the Discharge remains conditional till we have quite finished our performance For it is not one instantaneous Act of beleeving which shall quite discharge us but a continued Faith No longer are we discharged then we are Beleevers And where the condition is not performed the Law is still in force and shall be executed upon the offender himself I speak nothing in all this of the directive use of the Moral Law to Beleevers But how far the Law is yet in force even as it is a Covenant of Works because an utter Repeal of it in this sence is so commonly but inconsiderately asserted That it is no further overthrown no not to Beleevers then is here explained I now come to prove THESIS XIII IF this were not so but that Christ had abrogated the first Covenant then it would follow 1. That no sin but that of Adam and final Vnbelief is so much as threatned with death or that death is explicitely that is by any Law due to it or deserved by it For what the Law in force doth not threaten that is not explicitely deserved or due by Law 2. It would follow That Christ dyed not to prevent or remove the wrath and curse so deserved or due to us for any but Adams sin nor to pardon our sins at all but only to prevent our desert of wrath and curse and consequently to prevent our need of pardon 3. It would follow That against eternal wrath at the day of Iudgment we must not plead the pardon of any sin but the first but our own non-desert of that wrath because of the repeal of that Law before the sin was committed All which consequences seem to me unsufferable which cannot be avoyded if the Law be repealed EXPLICATION WHen God the absolute Soveraign of the World shall but command though he expresly threaten no punishment to the disobedient yet implicitely it may be said to be due that is the offence in it self considered deserveth some punishment in the generall for the Law of Nature containeth some generall Threatenings as well as Precepts as I shewed before Whether this Dueness of punishment which I call implicite do arise from the nature of the offence only or also because of this generall threat in the Law of Nature I will not dispute But God dealeth with his Creature by way of legall government and keepeth not their deserved punishment from their knowledge no more then their duty it being almost as necessary to be known for our incitement as the Precept for our direction Gods laws are perfect laws fitted to the attainment of all their ends And by these laws doth he rule the world and according to them doth he dispose of his rewards and punishments So that we need not fear that which is not threatened And in this sence it is that I say That what no law in force doth threaten that sin doth not explicitely deserve Not so deserve as that we need to fear the suffering of it And upon this ground the three fore-mentioned consequences must needs follow For the new Covenant threateneth not Death to any sin but final unbelief or at least to no sin without final unbelief And therefore if the old Covenant be abrogated then no law threateneth it And consequently 1 Our Sin doth not deserve it in the sence expressed Nor Christ prevent the wrath deserved but only the desert of wrath 3. And therefore not properly doth he pardon any such sin as you will see after when I come to open the nature of pardon 4 We may plead our non deserving of death for our discharge at judgment 5. And further then Christ in satisfying did not bear the punishment due to any sin but Adams first For that which is not threatened to us was not executed on him This is a clear but an intolerable consequence 6. Scripture plainly teacheth That all men even the Elect are under the Law till they beleeve enter into the Covenant of the Gospel Therefore it is said Ioh. 3. 18. He that beleeveth not is condemned already And the wrath of God abideth on him ver 26. And we are said to beleeve for Remission of sins Acts 2. 38. Mark 1. 4. Luk. 24. 47. Act. 10. 43. 3. 19. Which shew that sin is not before remitted and consequently the Law not repealed but suspended and left to the dispose of the Redeemer Else how could the Redeemed be by nature the children of wrath Ehp. 2. 3. The circumcised are debters to the whole Law Gal. 5. 3 4. and Christ is become of none effect to them But they that are led by the Spirit are not under the law and against such there is no law Gal. 5. 18 23. The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin and so far under the Law no doubt that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve Gal. 3. 22. We are under the Law when Christ doth redeem us Gal. 4. 5. See also Iam. 2. 9 10. 1 Tim. 18. 1 Cor. 15. 56. Gal. 3. 19 20 21. Therefore our deliverance is conditionally from the curse of the Law viz. if we will obey the Gospel And this deliverance together with the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law is it which is so oft mentioned as a priviledge of beleevers and an effect of the blood of Christ which deliverance from the curse is yet more full when we perform form the Conditions of our freedom And then we are said to be dead to the Law Rom. 7. 4. And the Obligation to punishment dead as to us ver 6. But not the Law void or dead in it self 7 Lastly All the Scriptures and Arguments pag. 60. 61. which prove That afflictions are punishments do prove also that the Law is not repealed For no man can suffer for breaking a repealed Law nor by the threats of a repealed Law yet I know that this Covenant of Works continueth not to the same ends and uses as before nor is it so to be preached or used We must neither take that Covenant as a way to life as if now we must get salvation by our fulfilling its condition nor must we look on its curse as lying on us remedilesly THESIS XIV 1 THe Tenor of the new Covenant is this That Christ having made sufficient satisfaction to the Law Whosoever will repent and believe in him to the end shall be justified through that Satisfaction from all that the Law did charge upon them and be moreover advanced to far greater Priviledges and Glory then they fell from But whosoever fulfilleth not these conditions shall 2 have no more benefit from the blood of Christ then what they here received and abused but must answer the charge of the Law themselves and for their neglect of Christ must also suffer a far greater condemnation Or briefly Whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life but he that
so as Idolatry is that violation of the law of Nature which doth eminentér containe all the rest in it So is Unbeliefe in respect of the Law of Grace And as the formall Nature of Idolatry lyeth in disclayming God from being God or form being our God or from being our alone God Even so the formall nature of Unbeliefe lyeth in disclaiming Christ either from being a Redeemer and Lord or from being Our Redeemer and Lord or from being Our onely Redeemer and Lord. This being well considered will direct you truly and punctually where to find the very formall being and nature of Faith Not in beleeving the pardon of sin or the favour of God or our salvation nor in Affiance or recumbency though that be a most immediate product of it Nor in Assurance as Divines were wont to teach 80. yeares agoe Nor in Obedience or following of Christ as a guide to Heaven or as a Captaine or meere Patterne and Law-giver as the wretched Socinians teach But in the three Acts above mentioned 1. Taking Christ for a Redeemer and Lord which is by Assent 2. Taking him for our Redeemer Saviour and Lord which is by consent 3. Taking him for our onely Redeemer Saviour and Lord which is the Morall sincerity of the former And the essentiall differencing property of it Not whereby Faith is differenced from Love or joy c. But whereby that faith in Christ which is the Gospell condition is differenced from all other Faith in Christ. So that as Corpus Anima Rationale doe speake the whole essence of man Even so this Assent Consent and Preference of Christ before all others do speak the whole Essence of Faith For the common opinion that justifying Faith as justifying doth consist in any one single Act is a wretched mistake as I shall shew you further anon THESIS LXV SCripture doth not take the word Faith as strictly as a Philosopher would doe for any one single Act of the soul nor yet for various Acts of one onely Faculty But for a compleat entire Motion of the whole Soul to Christ its Object THESIS LXVI NEither is Christ in respect of any one part or work of his Office alone the Object of Iustifying Faith as such But Christ in his entire office considered in this Object viz. as he is Redeemer Lord and Saviour THESIS LXVII MVch lesse are any Promises or benefits of Christ the proper Object of justifying Faith as many Divines do mistakingly conceive THESIS LXVIII NOr is Christs person considered as such or for it self the object of this Faith But the person of Christ as cloathed with his Office and Authority is this Object EXPLICATION I Put all these together as ayming at one scope I shall now explain them distinctly To the 65. First that Faith is not taken for any one single Act I prove thus 1. If it were but one single Act I mean specifically not numerically then it could not according to the common opinion of Philosophers be the Act of the whole Soul But Faith must be the Act of the whole Soul or else part of the Soul would receive Christ and part would not and part of it would entertain him and part not Some think the soul is as the body which hath a hand to receive things in the name and for the use of the whole But it is not so Christ is not onely taken into the hand But as the blood and spirits which are received into every living part Though I intend not the comparison should reach to the manner of receiving Neither is the soul so divisible into parts as the body is and therefore hath not severall parts for severall offices 2. The most of our accurate studious Divines of late doe take Faith to be seated in both faculties Understanding and Will But if so according to the common Philosophie it cannot be any one single Act. Neither Secondly is it in various Acts of one single faculty For 1. It will in my judgement never be proved that the soul hath faculties which are really distinct from it self or from each other These Faculties are but the soul it self able to doe thus and thus from its naturall being Vide Scaliger Exercit. 107. Sect. 3. Understanding and Willing are its immediate Acts And perhaps those very Acts are more diversified or distinct in their objects then in themselves The souls apprehension of an objects as true we call Understanding in regard of its Metaphysicall Truth it is a simple apprehension as we receive this Truth upon the word of another it is Assent and Beliefe as this Object is considered as Good our motion toward it is called Willing if absent Desiring Hoping if present Complacency Joying when we Will a thing as Good any thing strongly and apprehend its Goodnesse any thing cleerely this we call Love c. But whether all these be really distinct kinds of Acts of the Soul is very doubtfull Much more whether they proceed from distinct Faculties As I am not of my Lord Brook's minde concerning the Unity of all things So neither would I unnecessarily admit of any division especially in so spirituall and perfect a piece as the Sould knowing how much of Perfection lyeth in Unity and remembring the Pythagorean curse of the Number Two because it was the first that durst depart from Unity frustra fit per plura c. 2. But if it were proved that the Souls Faculties are really distinct yet both these Faculties are capable of receiving Christ and Christ is an Object suited to both and then what doubt is it whether Faith be in both 1. For the Will no man will question it that it is capable of receiving Christ and Christ a suitable Object for it 2. And for the Understanding it doth as much incline to Truth as the Will to Goodness and as truely receive its Object under the notion of True as the Will doth receive its Object as Good If you would see it proved fully That Assent is an Essentiall part of justifying Faith read Dr. Downame of Iustification on that Subject and his Appendix to the Covenant of Grace in Answer to Mr. Pemble Where though his Argument will not reach their intended scope to prove that Assent is the onely proper Act of justifying Faith yet they do conclude that it is a reall part And he well confuteth his opposer though he do not well confirm that his own opinion 3. Consider further that Christ doth not treat of Faith in sensu Physico sed morali Politico not as a Naturall Philosopher but as a Law-giver to his Church Now in Politicks we doe not take the names of Actions in so narrow and strict a sense as in Physicks and Logicke If a Town doe agree to take or receive such a man for their Mayor or a Kingdome take or receive such a one as their King The words Take or Receive here doe not note any one single Act of soul or body alone but a
believeth not shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Mark 16. 16. Iohn 3. 15 16 17 18 36. 5. 24. 6. 35 40 47. 7. 38. 11. 25 26. 12. 46. Acts 10. 43. Rom. 3. 26. 4. 5. 5. 1. 10. 4. 10. 1 Iohn 5. 10. Mark 1. 15. 6. 12. Luke 13. 3. 5. 24. 47. Acts 5. 31. 11. 18. 20. 21. 2. 38. 3. 19. 8. 22. 26. 20. Rev. 2. 5 16. Heb 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 9. EXPLICATION 1 CHrists Satisfaction to the Law goes before the new Covenant though not in regard of its payment which was in the fulness of time yet in regard of the undertaking acceptance and efficacy There could be no treating on new terms till the old obligation were satisfied and suspended I account them not worth the confuting who tell us That Christ is the only party conditioned with and that the new Covenant as to us hath no conditions so Salt marsh c. The place they alledg for this assertion in that Ier. 31. 31 32 33. cited in Heb. 8. 8 9 10. which place containeth not the full Tenor of the whole new Covenant But either it is called the new Covenant because it expresseth the nature of the benefits of the new Covenant as they are offered on Gods part without mentioning mans conditions that being not pertinent to the business the prophet had in hand or else it speaketh only of what God will do for his elect in giving them the first Grace and enabling them to perform the conditions of the new Covenant and in that sence may be called a new Covenant also as I have shewed before pag. 7. 8. Though properly it be a prediction and belong only to Gods Will of Purpose and not to his legislative Will But those men erroneously think that nothing is a condition but what is to be performed by our own strength But if they will believe Scripture the places before alledged will prove that the new Covenant hath conditions on our part as well as the old 2 Some benefit from Christ the condemned did here receive as the delay of their condemnation and many more mercies though they turn them all into greater judgments But of this more when we treat of generall Redemption THESIS XV. THough Christ hath sufficiently satisfied the Law yet is it not his Will or the Will of the Father that any man should be justified or saved thereby who hath not some ground in himself of personall and particular right and claim thereto nor that any should be justified by the blood only as shed or offered except it be also received and applyed so that no man by the meer Satisfaction made is freed from the Law or curse of the first violated Covenant absolutely but conditionally only EXPLICATION I Have shewed before p. 57. 58. c. That Christ intended not to remove all our misery as soon as he dyed nor as soon as we believed I am now to shew That he doth not justifie by the shedding of his blood immediately without somewhat of man intervening to give him a legall title thereto All the Scriptures alledged pag. 79. prove this We are therefore said to be justified by faith Let all the Antinomians shew but one Scripture which speaks of Justification from eternity I know God hath decreed to justifie his people from eternity and so he hath to sanctifie them too but both of them are done in time Justification being no more an imminent act in God then Sanctification as I shall shew afterward The Blood of Christ then is sufficient in fuo genere but not in omni genere sufficient for its own work but not for every work There are severall other necessaries to justifie and save quibus positis which being supposed the Blood of Christ will be effectuall Not that it receives its efficacy from these nor that these do add any thing at all to its worth or value no more then the Cabinet to the Jewel or the applying hand to the medicine or the offenders-acceptation to the pardon of his Prince yet without this acceptation and application this blood will not be effectuall to justifie us For as Grotius Cum unusquisque actui ex suâ voluntate pendenti legem possit imponere sicut id quod pure debetur novari potest sub conditione ita etiam possunt is qui solvit pro alio is qui rei alterius pro alterâ solutionem admittit pacisci ut aut statim sequatur remissio aut in diem item aut pure aut sub conditione Fuit autem Christi satisfacientis dei satisfactione in admittentis hic animus ac voluntas hoc denique pactam foedus non ut deus statim ipso perpessionis Christi tempore paenas remitteret sed ut tum demum id fieret cum homo vera in Christum fide ad deum conversus supplex veniam precaretur accedente etiam Christi apud deum advocatione sive intercessione Non obstat hic ergo satisfactio quo minus sequi possit remissio satisfactio enim nonjam sustulerat debitum sed hoc egerat ut propter ipsam debitum aliquando tolleretur Grot. de satis cap. 6. So that as Austin he that made us without us will not save us without us He never maketh a relative change where he doth not also make a reall Gods Decree gives no man a legall title to the benefit decreed him seeing purpose and promise are so different A legall title we must have before we can be justified and there must be somewhat in our selves to prove that title or else all men should have equall right THESIS XVI THe obeying of a Law and persorming the conditions of a Covenant or satisfying for disobedience or non-performance is our Righteousness in reference to that Law and Covenant EXPLICATION IF we understand not what Righteousnes is we may dispute long enough about Justification to little purpose you must know therefore that Righteousness is no proper reall Being but a Modus Entis the Modification of a Being The subject of it is 1. An Action 2. Or a Person An Action is the primary subject and so the Disposition and the Person secondary as being therefore righteous because his disposition and actions are so Righteousness is the conformity of Dispositions and Actions and consequently the person to the Rule prescribed It is not a being distinct therefore from the Dispositions and Actions but their just and well being This finition is onely of the Creatures Righteousness God is the Primum Iustum and so the Rule of Righteousness to the Creature and hath no Rule but himself for the measuring of his Actions Yet his Essence is too far above us remote and unknown to be this Rule to the Creature therefore hath he given us his Laws which flow from his perfection and they are the immediate Rule of our Dispositions and Actions and so of our
proportion betwixt it and the reward 2 But in a larger fence as Promise is an Obligation and the thing promised is called Debt so the performers of the Condition are called Worthy and their performance Merit Though properly it is all of Grace and not of Debt 1 Rom. 4. 4 10. 5. 15 16 17. Hose 14. 4. Mat. 10. 8. Rom. 3. 24. 8 32. 1 Cor. 2. 12. Rev. 21. 6. 22. 18. Rom. 11. 6. Gal. 5. 4. Eph. 2. 5 7 8. Gen. 32. 10. 2 Mat. 10. 11 12 13 37. 22 8. Luk. 20. 35. 21. 36. 2 Thes. 1. 5. 11. Rev. 3. 4 c. EXPLICATION IN the strictest sence he is said to Merit who performeth somewhat of that worth in it self to another which bindeth that other in strict justice to requite him This work must not be due and so the performer not under the absolute soveraignty of another for else he is not in a capacity of thus Meriting It is naturall Justice which here bindeth to Reward All that we can merit at the hands of Gods naturall Justice is but these two things 1. The escape of punishment in that respect or consideration wherein our actions are not sinfull or the not punishing of us in a greater degree then sin deserves Though indeed it is questionable whether we are capable of suffering more 2. Our actions thus deserve the honour of acknowledgment of that good which is in them yea though the evil be more then the good As a merciful Thief that gives a poor man half his mony again when he hath robbed him as he deserveth a less degree of punishment so that good which was in his action deserveth an answerable acknowledgment and praise though he dye for the fact But this is a poor kinde of meriting and little to the honour or benefit of the party And is more properly called a less desert of punishment then a desert of reward 2. The second kind of Merit is that whereby a Governor for the promoting of the ends of Government is obliged to reward the Obedience of the Governed That when Disobedience is grown common the Obedience may be encouraged and a difference made Among men even Justice bindeth to such reward at least to afford the obedience the benefit of protection and freedom though he do no more then his duty But that is because no man hath an absolute soveraignty de jure over his subjects as God hath but is indebted to his subjects as well as they are to him If our obedience were perfect in respect of the Law of Works yet all the Obligation that would lie upon God to reward us any further then the foresaid forbearing to punish us and acknowledging our obedience would be but his own wisdom as he discerneth such a Reward would tend to the well-governing of the World working morally with voluntary agents agreeable to their natures And when we had done all we must say we are unprofitable servants we have done nothing but what was our duty Therefore this Obligation to reward from the wisdom of God as it is in his own brest known to himself alone so is it drawn from himself and not properly from the worth of our Works and therefore this is improperly called Merit 3. The third kinde of Meriting is sufficiently explained in the Position where the Obligation to reward is Gods ordinate Justice and the truth of his Promise and the worthiness lieth in our performance of the Conditions on our part This is improperly called Merit This kinde of Meriting is no diminution to the greatness or freeness of the gift or reward because it was a free and gracious Act of God to make our performance capable of that title and to engage himself in the foresaid promise to us and not for any gain that he expected by us or that our performance can bring him THESIS XXVII 1 AS it was possible for Adam to have fulfilled the Law of Works by that power which he received by nature 2 So is it possible for us to perform the Conditions of the new Covenant by the 3 Power which we receive from the Grace of Christ. EXPLICATION 1 THat it may be possible which is not future A thing is termed possible when there is nothing in the nature of the thing it self which may so hinder its production as to necessitate its non-futurity Though from extrinsecall Reasons the same non-futurity may be certain and in some respect necessary And all things considered the futurity of it may be termed impossible yet the thing it self be possible So it was possible for Adam to have stood And so if you should take the word possible absolutely and abstracted from the consideration of the strength of the Actor even the Commands of the Law are yet possible to be fulfilled But such a use of the word is here improper it being ordinarily spoken with relation to the strength of the Agent 2 But in the relative sence the Conditions of the new Covenant are possible to them that have the assistance of grace I intend not here to enter upon an Explication of the nature of that Grace which is necessary to this performance my purpose being chiefly to open those things wherein the relative change of our estates doth consist rather then the reall Whether then this Grace be Physicall or Morall Whether there be a Morall Suasion of the Spirit distinct from the Suasion of the Word and other outward means Whether that which is commonly called the Work of Conscience be also from such an internall suasory work of the Spirit How far this Grace is resistible Or whether all have sufficient Grace to beleeve either given or internally offered with multitudes of such questions I shall here pass by Referring you to those many Volumes that have already handled them All that I shall say of this shall be when I come to open the Nature of Faith See Parkers Theses before mentioned THESIS XXVIII THe Precepts of the Covenants as meer Precepts must be distinguished from the same Precepts considered as Conditions upon performance whereof we must live or dye for non performance THESIS XXIX AS all Precepts are delivered upon Covenant-terms or as belonging to one of the Covenants and not independently So have the same Precepts various ends and uses according to the tenor and ends of the distinct Covenants to which they do belong EXPLICATION THerefore it is one thing to ask whether the Covenant of Works be abolished and another thing whether the Morall Law be abolished Yet that no one Precept of either Morall or Ceremoniall Law was delivered without reference to one of the Covenants is very evident For if the breach of that Command be a sin and to be punished then either according to the rigorous threatening of the old Covenant or according to the way and justice of the new For the Law as it was delivered by Moses may be reduced in several respects to each of these Covenants and