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
grossest acts of moral impiety such as prophane swearing cursing and all kind of uncleanness riot and drunkenness may be professedly done to the Glory of Gods free grace is no more than hath been owned and asserted by our Ranters and Libertines Not to mention the horrid opinions and expressions of Gods being the cause of Sin by necessitating effectually and irresistibly moving and determining the wills of men to the worst of sins by an efficacious decree first ordaining the sin and then the eternal punishment thereof in hell torments and all to the glory of God in his absolute Dominion and Justice I hope the men who have held forth such expressions have not meant so ill as their words seem to signifie to common sense And therefore it is not my intention to parallel them to the forementioned ranks of profane mockers of God and his Glory Only I heartily wish such Teachers would sadly consider whether those Doctrines be like to produce any such glorious conceptions of God in the minds of other men as they pretend they do in theirs 4. But my Reprehension cannot without partiality determine in such a list of persons as I have hitherto described because it may most justly be extended to a better sort of Christians and indeed to the best which are to be found amongst us For doubtless We are all to blame in that we have so little regarded the Glory of God in the general course of our thoughts words and actions In that we have sought our selves and our own ends so much and Gods glory so little How few of us can say but that other ends have been more regarded by us than this How seldome and how slightly do we mind this end how little care have we to secure it or zeal to procure it Were this indeed our chief end we would be more careful of our waies we would not be so loose so carnal vain and worldly in our common Actions so negligent cold lazy and sleight in our Religious Actions Were the glory of God more pretious to us other ends would not be so much over-sought by us We have all cause to be humbled before the Lord for this general sin of neglecting his glory hath the Lord deserved so to be sleighted by us nay Which of us can say but he hath infinitely deserved we should have had all the zeal that is possible for his Glory Should he regard us and our welfare no more than we do him and his glory what would become of us With what face do we expect to appear before this glorious God whom we have so much sleighted How can we pretend we love him with all our hearts and all our might whiles we have no more Affection for that which we know to be his only Interest and that which is so infinitely dear to him is so little valued by us How can we expect to be eternally glorified by him and with him that regard his Glory no more than we have done Oh let us take the shame of this unkind and ingratefull neglect upon our selves And let me close the Application of this point with a pressed Exhortation of all that profess to love and fear the Lord from henceforth to be more mindful of this Rule in all their doings To which purpose considering the generality of indisposition thereunto which hath been already declared by way of Reprehension I cannot think it needless to re-inforce the Exhortation by some addition of Motives and Arguments to the reasons before alledged 1. As to know the end of his actions distinguisheth a man from a beast so to chuse and propose a good end distinguisheth a good man from a bad As men and reasonable creatures we are to have some end in all our doings and as godly men the glory of God ought to be our chief end to which all others are to be subordinate and therefore ought we not to have any end inconsistent with this Nothing so much dignifies an Action as the end of it and no end so worthy as this by which all actions are sanctified even the commonest actions while they are though remotely truly and sincerely designed to this end are hallowed and without it the most Religious action is profaned Herein consists the form essence and spirit of Religion properly so called Godliness both name and thingâ— is nothing else but a Religious affection to God expressed by such acts as are agreeable to his will and honour and done for this end because they are so he that counts or calls any thing Godliness which hath not this end that is which hath not God for its end doth not understand what he saith This also is true Holiness in the most distinct and proper notion which imports a separation from the world with a devoting of a thing to the sacred Majesty of God Look how much a man is sequestred from sin and from the world and devoted to God and his glory so much Holiness is there in him Holiness is commonly distinguished into inherent and relative but to speak strictly all holiness in a creature is relative importing a singular consignation unto God Not but that there is such an inherent quality as that which is called Holiness in all true Saints but because the reason of the name and the formality of the thing consists in the reference of this quality to God as the rule and end of it That kind of holiness in men which is commonly called inherent or practical consisting in dispositions habits or acts is such only in reference to God and his glory which is the object or end of them And therefore no such vertuous Habits or Acts as have not this reference principle and end have any thing of the nature of true holiness in them For this reason moral vertues and good actions of meer heathens amount not to the nature of holiness A relative holiness may be and is in Scripture attributed to other things both natural and artificiall but no creature is so truly capable thereof as Man because he is not only capable of being separated and consecrated to the service of God by a power or will Extrinsecal to himself as other things are but by a proper design dedication and devotion of his own Man by by nature is a Sacred Creature Ovid. Sanctius his annimal having a kind of natural Consecration to God from that image of the Creator which is stamped upon him in the Indowment of Reason Ratio res Dei Tertul. which the Father truly calls a Divine thing So Man may be called the Priest of the visible world out of all the Tribes of living Creatures elected qualified and appointed to celebrate the glory of God nor only for himself but as it were in the name of all the Creatures of this lower world This was his office and dignity according to the prime intention of his Creation But all mankind being now by original and personal sin profaned become unworthy of