THE Middle-Way  
In One paper of THE COVENANTS, LAW and GOSPEL.  
With Indifferency between the LEGALIST & ANTINOMIAN.  
By J. H.  Doing nothing by Partiality, 
LONDON, Printed for I, Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, 1674.   

OF The Covenants.  
IT is one reason of my sending out these sheets thus in single Papers, that I may have the opportunity myself of Reflection. If any thing be wanting I may supply it; where I am in the dark I may explain it, or call for Light; If I err, I may correct it, and put myself at ease still when I need, as to the whole. It is verily a foolish thing I count for any man to think that he can speak or write so, as what he hath once spoken or written cannot be mended. When we change our thoughts every day and week in our private Studies, what a vain resolution is it, that because we have Preached or Printed thus, the shutters must be drawn up presently, and no more Light be let, to come in upon us. For my part I declare, I will never Preach or Print upon such terms, but upon these: That I may be mistaken; That I may acknowledge it, if I be convinced. That I may therefore be controlled, and have leave to be indifferent to my own opinion, as to another's.  
Two Papers I have sent out already.  
The first (or that which in order should be first) is of Election and Redemption, wherein I observe some things to be misplaced at the Press, but so long as the things be put in, and my notion proposed, I am solicitous about nothing else. That God would have all to be saved, and therefore prepares that grace for all that is sufficient, which is his antccedent will: and that then he foresees who they be that will comply with that grace and and who not, and by his consequent will decrees the one to salvation, and the other to damnation, is that Doctrine in the main, that is the Rachel of the Schools. For the latter part whereof, I have given my thoughts in that paper: the former part requires a little further consideration. That the goodness of God is advanced towards all, I like well, and that they lay the blame on man only that he perishes, and that they are so careful against Pelagius, for therefore do they bring in a sufficient grace for all, because man shall be allowed him to do nothing that disposes him to conversion or justification by his own strength without grace; nevertheless whether this sufficient grace of theirs is to pass or not, is the question. There is the universal convourse of God with man in all his acts as the first cause, in whom we live and move and have our being: and there is that influx or assistance of his, we call Grace. It would be known in the first place, what is the difference between these. That assistance of God which goes to the acts of Nature, and the prefervation thereof, is the common concourse of his Providence, that assistance of his which goes to the production of acts above Nature, is called Grace. By Nature we mean corrupt Nature, and by acts above Nature we mean such acts as we should not do according to our natural inclination, if it were not for supernatural help, that is, some further operation or influence on us from God then that which goes only to our natural preservation. Grace then in short is that Divine assistance which Elevates Nature, and heals it. This Grace is twofold, the Divine motion, or habitual disposition; habitualis gratia, or divina motio; the infused habit, or Divine operation. It is said now in the Schools that there is this difference between infused habits, and acquired, that when the one do introduce only a facility to the action but presupposes the power, the other do bring the power itself, as without which we can do nothing. This is spoken I count very agreeably to the Scripture, which sets forth man in his natural state as dead in sin, and the work of Grace by regeneration and new life, with many the like expressions: nevertheless, as there must be some limits fixed for the right interpretation of such places which in effect must come to that which I have given in my first paper, (that there is indeed such an indisposition on all men through original corruption, as that there is no man ever does, did, or will repent, do his duty, and live, but it is, was, and must be through God's especial Grace, and yet are we to account for all that, that they have power, that they may if they will, that the covenant of grace requires not any thing which is impossible, for both these are to be held): So must I crave liberty to enter my different opinion. It was Pelagius his conceit (I have noted in one of my other papers) that grace served only to help the power, when St. Augustine proves that it inclines the will, and works in us the deed: my thoughts now lie partly between both, that the Posse or Power indeed is of Nature, and Grace or the operation of God is that which draws that power into the Will, or Act, that is makes us willing; This act of the Will lays an impression on the soul inclining it to the like acts; These acts iterated turns that inclination to an habit, that is Habitual grace, infused if you please, per modum acquisitorum. The agere, the act must presuppose the posse, the power, That's certain. If the habit than brought the power, the Divine motion, or preventing grace which goes before the habit, did nothing. You will say, There is a double power, a remote or next power. The remote power is of nature, but the next power is of grace, and sufficient grace gives to all a next power. Let me ask you then, whether there be any further grace after we have the next power, to make us willing, or to give us also the will and deed. If you grant it, you may make the most of your sufficient grace, I will not quarrel with you for it: But when the posse (the power) is of nature, and the Will and Deed is of that grace which is more than sufficient, I would feign know why nature and effectual grace alone should not serve the turn, and whether sufficient grace over and above these is not indeed more than needs? Here I stick where I left.  
The second paper is of justification, and of this I count there are two parts. The one is, a reconciliation of St. James and Paul, and so of faith and works in that point: which I must needs say, having lain in my thoughts (& the main notion in Paper by me) this 16 or 18 Years or upwards, I cannot but be very throughly satisfied with, and much the rather, when I see the same growing up in late Books; as particularly in those most judicious temperate Theses of Le Blanc, and Mr. Trumans' Great Propittation. The other is concerning the imputation of Christ's Righteousness, wherein I will confess, though in my judgement I am persuaded that what I have writ is the truth, and it is nothing but truth that made me write it: yet does my heart a little misgive me, that it were better to let pious men alone to such apprehensions as they have imbibed, though mingled with much darkness and some error, in such a point as this, where so much of their peace and life is bound up, then to offer them any unsettlement by clearer light, though I were able indeed to bring it to them. I may be allowed to be sorry if I offend any body, but I ought to have a care I stumble none, who are good men and live godly; Neither would I straighten my own soul. If there be any thing more therefore in the imputation of Christ's righteousness than I have expressed in that paper, which I know not, I do not part with my portion in it, I protest thus much, but will rather renounce all upon the conviction to cleave to it.  
That Christ's righteousness does justify us from the Law, and so from sin, and from condemnation, I do hold no less than others: but that Christ's righteousness does justify us by the Law, is an overgrown conception. It is certain, that no works of man be we never so holy, are able to stand before God in his disstrict judgement, that is, if he should deal with us according to the exact justice of the Law without showing us any mercy, which will be acknowledged by Protestants and Papists, who are ready to pray both with David, Enter not into judgement with thy servants O Lord, for in thy sight shall no flesh living be justified. If any Papist then shall think that man's righteousness is made so perfect by Christ's merits: or, any Protestant that Christ's righteousness itself is so made ours, as that we are justified by the Law, upon that account, they are both mistaken. This is the only true extremity on both sides: for it is not by the Law, but by Faith; by the Evangelical covenant, or by Grace that we are justified. We are not under the Law, says the the Apostle, but under grace. It is enough for a poor sinner to have a righteousness imputed to him without works, and that he is pardoned: but to have a righteonsness imputed to him with works, is more than we can sinned to be allowed him. Christ's righteousness is such, and to have that made ours in itself, or so, as that in God's reckoning we must be as righteous as he, I must needs say, it is not harder perhaps to believe that the bread is turned into Christ's body (where we have a text for it) in the Sacrament: then to believe such a conceit (for which we have no Scripture at all) in the matter of Justification. What then? Do I deny Imputation? No, but I explain it. It is by the righteousness of Christ, not inherent in us, our Divines will say Ordinarily, but imputed to us, that we are justified. And what if I thus interpret this for them, that is, not as if we had done in his person what Christ did, but by his righteousness made ours in the effects only? So the very Learned Bishop Forbs expressly, Hoc est, Quoad effectum & fructum (See Considerationes modestae. De justificatione, l. 2. c. 2.) I will use the same words as they use, but I am not bound to the same construction. Even as I will speak of man's insufficiency (I mentioned before) as other Divines do, and as the Scriptures do, that we can do nothing: but I will keep the due interpretation. I will say we can, and that we cannot, without loss of my liberty: for I must understand it with its right measures. I will say I can in confession of my sin, and acknowledging God just: I will say I cannot in the sense of my corruption, and the imploring his grace.  
Indeed a man can hardly consider the Doctrine of St. James never so little with that of Paul which is one part of my paper, but it will lead him to the other, which is to see that what our Protestants say ordinarily on this matter, does need a favourable exposition. It is a jejune thing, I count, to bring the great dispute that Paul hath with the Jews about justification to this result only, whether we are justified by Faith, or the proper Work or Fruits of it? It is but a little more satisfactory to bring it only to this, whether it be by the observation of Moses Law? For though this was the occasion of the dispute, and the Apostle therefore does show them how it was by the Promise, and so by Faith that Abraham and the Jews themselves had life, and not by the Law, which was but a Schoolmaster to lead them thereunto, or unto Christ: yet it is manifest, that he advances the point higher, while he tells them that by Works neither Jew nor Gemile could be justified, so that by works he must mean the observation of that Law of works which was common to both, and not Moses Law only: and the resolution of the dispute in both Apostles comes to this (as I have said) that it is by the performance of the covenant of Grace, and not of the ovenant of works, or Law of Moses, that a man is to look for life everlasting. I must add, Nor are they to be heard in a third place, who say, that the dispute between Paul and the Jews is neither of these, but whether we are justified by our own righteousness, or by the righteousness of Christ, and so resolve that it is not by any works which we do, even Faith itself as a work, but by the works Christ hath done for us, that is by the obedience of his life and death only. For though this be taught ordinarily by our Protestants, and is coincident with the first result, there is one thing I must say these Divines have not considered which I have offered them in my paper, that must bring them to another understanding. It is this, that the Apostle does indeed stand much upon the Righteousness of God in opposition to works, in the business of justification, but never opposes our works to the Righteousness of Christ: the Righteousness of Christ in their sense being truly a very contrary thing to the Righteousness of God in the sense of the Apostle. The righteousness of God according to the A ostle, if I may then describe it but as well as I can, and as the thing is, and a little more fully than I have in my former paper, is on God's part, his taking our human frailey or fall'n nature into that meet consideration, as not to deal with us in his district judgement which we cannot bear, but according to his Covenant of Mercy: the righteousness, sacrifice, atonement or satisfaction of Christ being supposed as the foundation upon which his Justice does stand good, notwithstanding this condescension: And consequently on Man's part, this righteousness is our imperfect duty performed in sincerity according to this new Law, and so for Christ's sake accepted to Salvation. In this sense am I apt to understand that everlasting Righteousness which is brought in, by the Messiah, or by his covenant, in Daniel: and in this sense do I construe that Title, The Lord our Righteousness. Only when I have said in my former paper, that it is not appropriated to the second Person, I desire not to be so taken, as if I supposed that by the Branih in the two Texts of Jeremy where we find it, Zcrubabble only was meant (though a total silence in the new Testament of so pertinent a quotation for Christ, if it were spoken of him, might well tempt Grotius to that interpretation) but that, the Divinity of Christ being thereby asserted, it is a Title that must belong to him as God, and not as Second person. For the Son is Lord, and the Father is Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord: and yet not three Lords, but one Lord, The Lord our Righteousness.  
There is the uncreated, absolute righteousness of God, which is the Divine essence itself, for as God is Truth in the abstract, so is he Righteousness: or the created, relative righteousness of God, that is his righteousness set forth in relation to us, which consists in his dealing with us as his Creatures according to our conditions. This relative righteousness than is double. The Righteousness or Justice of God according to the Covenant of works: and the righteousness or equity of God according to the Covenant of grace. The one I count to be that our Divines call his Strict: the other his Paternal Justice. When God made man at first and gave him the Law of his Creation, he was to deal with him according to this perfect Law, and it was but equal according to his perfect state, and this being the original righteousness (as I may say) of God in relation to us, there are none of us but do find some sense of it in our hearts, that makes us not so much only to fear, as to be afraid of him under that apprehension. But there is another righteousness than this, which was ever afoot in the world since the promise of the woman's seed, or else there were no man could have been Saved, though it be said to be now manifested (as brought in, in daniel's phrase) because the reason upon which it is founded, that is man's reconciliation to God by Christ, is revealed by the Gospel, and this is the righteousness of God opposed to works (or to his strict Justice which he was bound to exercise according to the Covenant of works) that is so magnified by the Apostle. And here now is a distinction to be used which I want Termes to express. For this righteousness of God must be considered with regard to himself, which is his dealing with us according to the Covenant of Faith for Christ's sake, when he might deal with us according to the Covenant of Nature if he would: and with regard to us, or to the condition upon which he does so mercifully deal with us. As the Love of God is taken in Scripture both for his Love towards us, and our Love of him: So is the Righteousness of God taken for both these, his dealing with us according to this covenant, and the condition on our part which he accepts. And hence is it, that when it is called the Righteousness of God in one place, it is called the Righteousness of Faith in another; and in a third, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith. Now when it is our faith, our repentance, our new obedience which is the Righteousness of God itself (taken— help me to two Terms) whereby we are justified in opposition to the works of the Law, which no man can perform to be justified by them: and our Divines by works will understand all good works, even this faith itself as a work (as was said), and our Evangelical obedience, insomuch as when there is no righteousness but what is without us can be opposed to these, it makes them by the Righteousness of God to understand the Righteousness of Christ who is God, and by faith the righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith, which are in good earnest conceptions so strained: it appears (if I may use those words in humility) how being ignorant of the Righteousness of God in the right notion, and going about to establish in a contrary vein to the Jews a righteousness which is not their own but another's, in the stead of that which it is not, they have not submitted to the truth, in this Doctrine of Justification.  
And here in now (farther) does appear the ground of reconciliation between the Papists and us upon the point. For when the one and the other (let their Books be consulted) do go on the supposition that it is by the Law (the Law of works) that we are justified, this Hypothesis being removed, the opposition on both sides falls to the ground. That no man can bring or plead any such righteousness of his own before God as answers the Law, the Protestant must needs be in the right, and consequently if it were by the Law that we must stand or fall at his Tribunal, there was a necessity for their bringing in the righteousness of Christ made ours by faith (as they do) to justify us: but when indeed it is not so, when it is not (I say) by the Law, but by the Covenant of Grace, or by the Gospel that we are to be judged, it is some wonder to me, this plain truth should be no better understood. That Gods judging a man to have performed the condition of the covenant of grace is the accounting or declaring him righteous; and that Gods accounting a man righteous is his justification. Let no man deceive you (says St. John) he that doth righteousness, is righteous. That righteousness which makes a man righteous and denominates him righteous, is that righteousness which makes God account him righteous. But this is the righteousness which he does. Note it, for it is express. And what righteousness is that? Why, Not the righteousness of works which no man does: but the righteousness of the Gospel, that is in the stile of the other Apostle, a righteousness without works (to wit, without the works of the Law, or perfect works, in the sense he says also God justifies the ungodly) so that it is by Grace, while it it by this Righteousness (which does and must lean on the merits of Christ no less than we say Faith itself does) that we are justified and saved.  
That the end of Christ's coming into the world, of our redemption, and the Covenant of Grace, was that we should be holy and righteous is said ordinarily by Divines according to the Scriptures, but the right and plain understanding or reason of what they say, is not so ordinary. He hath chosen up in Christ that we should be holy. He hath redeemed us from iniquity that we should be a peculiar People. We are his workmanship created unto good works in (or through) Christ Jesus. When God made man at first and gave him a Law, it was that he should live Holy. When righteousness then was the end of his Creation and the Law thereof, how is this said to be the end of his Redemption? I answer. Righteousness (or holiness as they are one) we must know, does lie in a conformity to the Law which God gives us. There is nothing else, and nothing less than this (the full performance of a Law given) that is Righteousness. Upon this account, as soon as man once fell and broke the Law of his creation, it was impossible he should be righteous any more, unless there were a new Law brought in, in the performance whereof he might attain to that again which he had lost. Now to this end was it, that Christ came and died, this was the very main business (I count) of his Redemption, even the procuring this new Law, or another Law with lower terms, which some men performing, they do thereby become righteous, and so have righteousness, according to that Law, imputed to them for remission, and life eternal. Here you see what that righteousness indeed is which Christ is said to bring in, and in what sense he hath brought it in, or how such Texts (as those before) do attribute our Holiness to him. The obedience of Christ's life and death, we know, was fulfilled on earth, and of this he himself hath once said, It is finished: But the righteousness he is said to bring in, is called an Everlasting righteousness. And what then can that be, but the righteousness of the Gospel, which upon the same account also is called the Everlasting Gospel? That is, because it is by this righteousness in opposition to that of the Law (or the righteousness of works) that all men from the beginning of the world to the end of it, (and so is it to be accounted ever of force) do obtain everlasting Salvation.  
I know the great difficulty of this Doctrine will lie on the point of remission. Our Divines do generally place justification in the remission of Sin; so do the Papists (with something else), and so have I myself after others. Nevertheless, as I remember St. Augustine in one place does find fault with this in Pelagius: so hath the perplexity of it of late lead me into the like thoughts. The truth is, Pardon of Sin is a benefit unto which the justified person is adjudged, as eternal life is: but remission of Sin must not be made the formal reason of justification. Our Divines may define justification to be an Act of Grace whereby God gives us Eternal Life (or a right to it,) as well as, an act of grace whereby he pardons our sins. That act, that very only act wherein the form of justification does lie, is Gods accounting or pronouncing a man righteous, and this is a forensical act, according to Law, the Law, or Covenant of grace; Which covenant promising Forgivencss and Life upon the performance of its Conditions, when a man hath performed them, he hath a right to those benefits, and when God does declare or account that a man hath performed them (which is all one as to judge him righteous), these benefits flow to him from that judgement (or are conferred on him by that act) as Effects of that cause, and consequently cannot be the very act itself, which is the cause of them.  
To forgive a man's sin, and declare him righteous are two things inconsistent one with another in the same respect, and therefore when God pronounces a man just, it is according to the Law of Faith, and when he pardons his Sin, it is in respect to the Law of works. And how then can two acts incompatable but in divers respects (cùm omne ens sit unum) be made to enter one and the same definition?  
It is true as all agree, that there are no works that man does, or can do, able to make God any amends for our offences, so that remission of sin must be attributed altogether to the merits of Christ in regard to the atonement made. But we must distinguish of Remission, Remission is either Conditional and Universal as it lies in the Covenant, and is the purchase of Christ: or Actual, as it lies in the application thereof to particular persons upon performance of the condition. When Divines do say we can do nothing ourselves for procuring reconciliation and remission, it is to be understood of Conditional universal remission. No mortal could do any thing toward the obtaining of that. God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself not imputing their trespasses. But as for remission Actual, that man must be blind who sees not that God does every where require us to repent, believe, confess our faults, forsake them, do good works, forgive others, that we may have pardon, and be saved. Conditional pardon now is antecedent to a man's justification, and contained in our redemption. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of Sins. Actual remission is subsequent to justification, for we must be supposed first to have performed the condition and be pronounced righteous, and then pardoned. When there is no remission then but what does either go before, or follow justification, it cannot be made the very act itself of our justification.  
There is one Text may be opposed. Even as David also described the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without works. Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven. It seems that the Righteousness which Paul speaks of without works in the one verse, is described by pardon in the other. This I myself have alleged, but upon farther consideration I answer. The man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, or the blessedness of that man, is described: but we may suppose, not the Righteousness without works. The scope of the Apostle is plainly to show us only, that it is not by works of the Law, or such works as would make the reward of debt and not of grace (as appears in the immediate verses before) which are perfect works, that a man is justified. And he proves it by this argument, because the man is blessed whose sins are forgiven; that is as much as to say, not he who is without sin, but he who hath sin and it is forgiven. The man who is blessed is justified. But the man who is blessed hath sin to be forgiven. Therefore the righteousness which a man hath, or is imputed to him, is not a righteousness according to the Law of works, but according to the Covenant of Grace. This I say is the scope of the place. God's imputing Righteousness to a person is indeed a phrase signifying Gods accounting him righteous or justifying him: and the Apostle Proves a man is justified without works, (that is perfect works) because he hath sin to be covered. I will yet repcate, The man to whom righteousness is imputed without works, is pardoned: but it follows not, that this Righteousness without works is pardon. To have righteousness imputed to a man without works, is all one as to have faith imputed to him for righteousness, so repentance or evangelical obedience, and that is not pardon, though these are never divided from the same subject. I will conclude therefore with that I have said once before, & will say it again at my parting with the point, that it is strange to me our Protestant Divines should be so offward to this clear Determination. To wit, God judges (and will judge) all men according to the Gospel; Those who perform the condition of it, he accounts or pronounces righteous; They whom he accounts righteous, are justified. I will add, That, the righteousness of Christ which is the meritorious cause of our justification without dispute on all hands (that is the impulsive procatartick cause,) which always comes under the Efficient, cannot for the same reason be the Formal, or Material cause of it. It is not the infusion of Righteousness with the Papist, which is our sanctification; nor the imputation of Christ's righteousness with the Protestant, which is not to be understood but in genere causae Efficientis; nor remission of Sin, with Protestant and Papist, which I have now been disproving: but the imputing to a person his performance of the new covenant for righteousness, or the accounting or pronouncing him righteous according to that covenant, is the form, formal Cause, or formal Reason of his justification.  
Do not think this strange, Justification (I will grant) virtually or Eminenter (as unum aggregatione) contains in it many things, and so remission among others (for we must find line to speak as Divines use): but Justification Formaliter (as unum simplex) I say, is only Gods pronouncing us Just (or sincere penitent believers), and remission is a benefit which in order of Nature does follow the performance of that condition.  
And so I proceed to my third Paper, Of the Covenants, Of the Law and Gospel.  
For the Doctrine of the Covenants. There is the Covenant of Works (say Divines): and the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of works (say they) was made with Adam in his integrity being that Law which is written in all men's hearts, and so requires perfection, and for the least transgression threatens Death. The Covenant of grace is made with man in his Estate fallen (or with Christ in his behalf), and requires only our Faith, repentance, and sincerity, unto Life, which being held forth under the Title of the Promise to Adam, Abraham, David, and all during the Law, was ratified by the death and blood of Christ the Redeemer under the Gospel, and so promulgated to the world, to continue still on force (and in that, as in one regard, called new) as long as that lasts. Behold the days come saith the Lord when I will make a new Covenant, not according to the Covenant I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt. Here is the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Old is that which God made with the Jews when Moses lead them in the wilderness. The New is that which we have under the Gospel. The old Covenant than is not the Covenant of works; for that was made with all in Adam, and as written in our hearts, must be eternally obligatory. But the old Covenant was made with the Jews in opposition to other Nations, and as peculiar to them is vanished, and binds not. Neither is it the Covenant of grace for the same reason, as also because the covenant of grace is the new covenant, but the New is not the Old. The Old and New covenants say Divines indeed ordinarily, are both the covenant of grace in opposition to that of works, the same in substance, but differing in the Administration. But this with me is not so easy to be received without the distinction of an A and The in the case. The Old covenant may be a covenant of grace, or covenant of works, or both, but not the covenant of works, or the covenant of grace. There are some plead it is a subservient covenant as Camero. Some that it is a mixed covenant as Ball. Some that it is a covenant of works as the Loyden Divines. The most of our own late Divines, do make it a covenant of grace. Whereof one voluminous Author denying the other three opinions, does yet say it was so dispensed as to tender life both upon the condition of Faith, and works. But if it proposed life on condition of perfect doing, it was a covenant of works: If on believing too, a Covenant mixed both of Works and Grace: And as perfect doing was urged only in tendency to believing, a Covenant-Subservient; and so all say true as to the main; and yet none so distinctly true, as to leave any enquiring man without confusion in what they say. There is one thing than I apprehend will serve much for the enodation of many difficulties in these matter, and that is to conceive aright what the Old Covenant is: And there is another like it to the same purpose, to know what kind of Covenant it was.  
As for the former, we have hitherto been seeing but what it is not only; now to understand what it is, Let us separate what Moses did deliver to the Israelites, from that which was before in promise to the Patriarches as single by itself, and this is the Old Covenant. Or, take that, and all that whatsoever, and in what manner soever, that was added to the Covenant of Grace, which Abraham and the Patriarches were under, and that abstracted therefrom, is I count, the Old Covenant. Let me yet speak more fully; Take Abraham before he was ninety years old, when he at first Believed, and that Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness, upon which he became the Father of the faithful, while as yet he was in his Uncircumcision (for the Law of Circumcision which was after given in peculiar reference to his natural Seed the Jews, in pursuance of the temporal Benediction, is to be reckoned as Preambulatory to the Law, and belonging to it), and when you have pared away Circumcision, and all that which Moses commanded the Jews afterwards, from Walk before me only, and be perfect; all this rest, this pared away from that, whatsoever it be, is I say, the Old Covenant, or the Law strictly taken. From this in the first place, we have light to distinguish between the Law taken strictly and largely: In regard whereof, we shall find the Apostles sometimes proving the Righteousness of Faith from the Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets; and another time setting the Law and Gospel at the widest distance and opposition. As the Law is taken comprehensively for the promise to Abraham, as well as the Covenant made with the Jews (that is for the whole state they stood in, who were under the Law, by virtue of the Covenant confirmed to their fore Fathers as by virtue of that given by Moses,) the Law and Gospel are confounded. As the Law is taken strictly or precisely for the Old Covenant, or the Law of Moses with Circumcision its appurtenance, that is for all that apart that was added to the promise before-going, and abstracted therefrom as I have said, so are they distinguished, and their differences to be owned and maintained. In the next place, we may understand from this, how the Jews were under both conditions of Believing and Doing: Of doing this and live; and of believing also that they might be saved. To wit, As the Covenant of Grace was delivered to their forefather's, and so on foot before, it must needs hold forth life to them on their Faith, as well as to Abraham their Progenitor, who received Circumcision as a seal of Righteousness thereby (or to come thereby), and not by the Law, which as yet was not given. And as the Law was added (as the Apostle speaks) to this Covenant or Promise, it did tie the Jews to a performance of it as a condition of living by it, in some sense, as neither the Patriarches before, nor we since are under; and in regard whereof that which is said by a reverend person, that the Old Testament-Spirit was a fearing Spirit, with the like expressions, are not without a truth in them, that desires more consideration than One of late does give them: Especially when the Apostle is so express that the Jews were under a Schoolmaster, and we are not under that Schoolmaster. That the Covenant from Sinai engendered to Bondage; but where the Spirit of the Lord is, or the New Testament is, there is Liberty. From this yet in the third place, we may enlarge our light further, to judge of that abrogation of the Law, or deliverance from it, which Christians have under the Gospel. A glorious thing (the Apostle counts it), that puts us directly into such an estate and condition as the Patriarches, and those holy men before Abraham were in, to live according to the light and liberty of their Consciences, that is according to the Law of Nature, which as it is in the hands of Christ, and not of Moses, to wit, as delivered from the Yoke of his Ceremonies, and the superstition of Idolaters, and administered with Grace and the Spirit, with Grace in God's acceptation of our sincerity instead of perfect obedience for the Redeemers sake, and with the Spirit in his assistance of us for the performance, is both the Universal Religion of Mankind, and the substance of that which is Christian unto this day. I should quote Eusebius, De praep. Evan. See his Ecc. Hist. l. 1. c. 5. From whence also, we see in the way, how the Covenant of Grace which Abraham and all those holy men which went before him, or that ever were, have had as well as we, is yet called the New Covenant; and that is, it is called New, as the lump is called a new lump by the Apostle to the Corinth's. That Church was leavened by the ill example of vicious Members, particularly of the incestuous person, they are therefore commanded to cast him out, and that they should not mingle themselves, or keep company with the seandalous, and in so doing, they should become, as it were, a new body, or lump, though they were still otherwise but the same Community. Purge out therefore the old Leaven, that you may be a new Lump. So is it with the Covenant, it was made by God with all mankind in Christ, ever since the beginning of the World, and confirmed to the Patriarches (it being impossible else that any should have been saved), and yet it is called a New Covenant in relation to us under the Gospel; because I say that, that which was added to it by Moses, to wit, all that which properly is the Old Covenant, is removed or purged away, as the Leaven in the Jews Feast, by Christ our Pass-over, who hath been Sacrificed, and made for us that expurgation. And if that which is done away was glorious, how much more that which remains? That which is done away, was the Ministration of death engraven in stone, and of the Letter that killeth: That which remaineth, is the Ministration of the New Testament, of the Spirit which giveth Life, and of Righteousness. That which remaineth, I pray note it, That cannot be said to remain which was not before extant. The Covenant of Grace with the Patriarches, and the New Covenant with us, being the very same, as I have said, but ours only called New, (or renewed) upon the abolishing of that which was superadded, as upon this remaining too itself, never to wax old and vanish.  
For the latter, what kind of Covenant I take this to be, I am now in order to tell you. The Old Covenant, as to me it seemeth, was a kind of Political Covenant made with the Nation of the Jews, as Prince's compacts are with their people, when they first set up Government. God promises them his Protection, that he would lead them to a fruitful Land; overcome all their Enemies, with the like blessings; and they promise him they will be ruled by him. To this purpose did God in sundry ways appear to them to Moses, to their Elders, to them all in the Clouds and Fire; and then causes a Tabernacle to be made for him, which was a Keeping house among them, where the Sacrifices and Offerings was his Provision, and the Priests his Servants that lived on him; and unto that Tabernacle and Ark, might they repair for Counsel and Judgement. This People then being peculiarly under a Theocracy, which Samuel in two places does expressly signify (at least until the time of Saul,) so that the Church and Commonwealth of the Jews were but one, according to the Apostle; it is no wonder if Religion be made their Laws, and so required of them, together with other political Ordinances and Statutes, for their happiness or public peace as a Nation. From hence is it, that though their Law is not to be judged the Covenant of Works, or the Covenant of Grace, either of the two themselves, yet may we expect that it should represent both the one and the other to them; because in the knowledge of both does the business of Religion, and the whole of it, virtually consist. In the delivery of the Moral Law, and that with Thunder and Lightning, and such Terror as we read of it, they had a representation of the Covenant of Nature, which quafaedus is doubtless in our fallen Estate a Ministration only of Wrath, or Law of sin and death. In their Ceremonial Offerings, and Priestly appointments, though there was a remembrance still of sin, and so matter of bondage and sear, yet had they types of Christ, of remedying Mercy, and the Glory to come. These Sacrifices were brought directly as Mulcts to their King, to deliver them from the danger of present punishment, being Redemptions of their lives, which else they should have forfeited by his Laws, and served, I have said, to the maintenance of his house, the Tabernacle and Temple which he was pleased to keep up among them: Nevertheless that does not hinder, but God Almighty might make use thereof, farther, for types and representations of other things, that is to say Spiritual, and so the Law be a Pedagogy under a temporal dispensation, leading many to Heaven. This is certain, that the Covenants of Nature & Grace being made with Mankind, are not matters of concernment only to the Jews, but to the whole world as well as to them for everlasting life and death; and it is not to be conceived, therefore, that either of them should receive any detriment by the Covenant made with that particular Nation. This, I say, that the Covenant confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the Promise of no effect. The Covenant of God in Christ, is the covenant of grace, and that we see afoot in the world before the Law, and before Abraham; for, when it was confirmed to Abraham, it must be in being before on necessity, and ever was since the Fall, or else none after could be saved. And if this be not disannuled, then cannot that, whatsoever it be, which is given by this covenant, come to the Jews by the Law. For as the Apostle argues, If there had been a Law given that could have given life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law; If the Law of Nature could be kept by man, there would be no need of a covenant of Grace by Christ: So do I argue, if Righteousness unto justification of life, was to come by the Law, the Promise, or Covenant of Grace, as soon as that was given, might be spared. But forasmuch as eternal life and justification does come only by the covenant of grace, it follows that the covenant made with the Jews, must needs be a covenant which concerned their outward state, or political welfare, as I have said; and that neither Salvation nor Condemnation, as to the life to come, was the primary intention, or the direct and proper effect of it.  
If Salvation, or Condemnation was the proper issue of the Law, then could neither any of those holy men as the Patriarches, nor any of the wicked world, who were before the Law, as the men of Sodom and Gomorah be condemned at the day of Judgement: For where no Law is, there is no Transgression, and so no Condemnation. And indeed, if this covenant was conceived any other than some such thing as I make it, how could it be, that the most substantial part, or body of the Jews Nation should be Sadduces in Christ's time? The Covenant of Nature is that which lays all the world guilty before God; so that He who believes not, is Condemned already; he is condemned by the Law of his Creation writ in his heart; he needs no outward Law to condemn him. Whatsoever things the Law saith, it saith to them who are under the Law: If there were no Curse, nor Death, but that which the Jews Law doth speak, than were there none but the Jew should suffer Condemnation. If a man on the contrary side does believe and repent, he needs no other Law than that of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, to set him free from this Law of Sin and Death. So long as he does not believe, he abides under that Wrath, and it is not for want of Faith as the cause of his Condemnation (to justify God in not giving all men that alike), but for want of it (N B,) as that which should be the remedy, that he perishes. Salvation then, and Condemnation which is Eternal, does proceed from the covenants of grace and works; and it is not to be imagined that God should deal otherwise with the Jews than with the rest of the world, as to the terms of a future life. I have set before you Life and Death, says Moses. And Cursed be he that continueth not in all the Law to do it. But what this Life and Death, these Blessings and Curses are, we see express in Deuteronomy, and in the fifth Commandment. The Laws which God did give the Jews, were about Religion, and about Civil matters. Religion concerned their Eternal, civil things their Temporal good. Yet whether they are commanded the observation of the one or the other, the sanction of both does lie in the threats and promises of Temporal blessings and judgements. Even as in the Laws of our Realm, Religion and the Service of God is required under a civil forfeiture, when it is the Gospel itself must threaten farther Vengeance to the Transgressor. In short, herein will lie the mystery and sum of all. The Law, as it was in the hand of Moses, and given to the peculiar Nation of the Jews, must be no other than a temporal covenant; yet did this temporal covenant contain in it patterns of things (as the Apostle speaks) in the Heavens. And as the ten Commandments particularly, written in stone, are a transcript of the Moral Law written by Nature in our hearts, I do take the Law to represent the covenant of works, and by virtue of that representation alone, or of that it represents, does it operate to future judgement, and is the ministration of condemnation. The Law indeed, taken at large, for all that is contained in the whole books of the Old Testament, may be supposed to hold forth whatsoever is in the covenant of works and grace: but the Law taken separately from both, as a third covenant, cannot hold forth any other than the external government of God with propriety over the Jews, and that consisting in these two things, to wit, a hard task of burdensome duties under the danger of temporal judgements, and a redress from them by Sacrifices; the one typifying our estate according to the Law of works; and the other, the grace which comes to us by Christ Jesus.  
What use may be made of this, I leave to minds which are searching. I am never out of my way I count, so long as I meet with any such. Only there is one in a late Book, who seems to fall a little too hard on a grave Preacher for making the dispensation of the Old Testament, in some Sermons of his, to be more terrible than ours under the New: For doing which he hath thus much the more reason indeed, if (as I say) that life and death which is Eternal, comes not from the Law, but from the Covenants of Works and Grace, which were before it, and cannot be made void by it. There is therefore the Believing Penitent Sinner, and the unbelieving and Impenitent. For the man that sins and reputes not, it is true that he hath no less reason to fear under the Gospel than under the Law; but rather the more, in regard that the threaten of the Law were directly, I take it only of temporal punishments, but the Gospel does manifestly threaten Eternal. Of how much sorer punishment (says the Scripture) worthy he is? But for the Penitent and Believing, the case is otherwise, and the Reprover should know it is in regard of such, that this difference is to be holden. It is true then, the Penitent Jew had the Promise to trust to as well as we, but yet he was still under the Law, and not we: and the Law itself did engender to bondage, as in the Scripture before quoted. He had the Promise as well as we, but he could not look unto it as well as we, he had a vail over him as we have not, that he could not steadfastly look unto the end of that which was abolished. This is most apparent that the Jews were in the dark as to their understanding of the covenant, and Christ that End, after another manner than we are, and the more they were in the dark, the more must they be in doubts and fears, and upon this foundation is this difference built ordinarily, I suppose, by the Understanding. Nevertheless, there is yet this one thing or two farther, that under the Law, there was recourse to be had still unto their Sacrifices, which were remembrances of sin, I said before, and consequently of terror and bondage, seeing if they failed, they had reason of fear in regard of temporal punishments, as much more than we, as they had to expect temporal blessings more than we upon their obedience, upon the account they were under a peculiar temral covenant. Add hereunto, These temporal things under that covenant were resemblances, patterns, and in some sense portendments of future. To what end then served the Law, says the Apostle, as you may likewise adjoin from this supposition? It was added because of Transgressions. The Law entered that the offence might abound. Again, By the Law comes the knowledge of sin; and though sin was in the world before, men were not apt to impute it to themselves without a Law. The Law then was for the bridling the Jews from sin, and through the conviction of sin upon the Conscience, and that temporal death they saw due to them in the Beasts that were slain in their behalves, they might be driven in the sense of their spiritual estates, to the remedying Law of Mercy upon Repentance which is the substance of the Promise which God had given to their Forefathers, and has established in the Gospel. For Christ was the end of the Law for Righteousness; and the Law was a Schoolmaster (says the Apostle) to drive us to Christ.   

Of the Law and Gospel.  
FOR this Theme, I shall have need to speak the less in regard of what hath been said already. That which I have to offer, I shall serve in by way of striking light at a passage or two in a Book which hath been intended in the Chapter before, but not named. I am sensible how many there are, who being taken with the Preaching of free grace, are too apt to disrelish other Preachers, who press more unto Duty; and I think that Writer does not therefore spend his pains without good cause about the consistency of good works with the Gospel and Justification. It is objected against such Divines, that they are but Legal Preachers, and that they impeach the grace of God by putting men so much on Doing. To the one his Answer is, They Preach not the Works of Moses Law, but the Works Christ enjoins: To the other he tells us, The Law and Gospel both put us upon doing, but not the same thing, nor with the same disposition, which he explains; The Gospel gives better rules of life, and power to do according to them, with a more willing and cheerful mind than the Law did. I will here under favour of this ingenious person, use a few words.  
For the first, I look not on this Answer so jejunely, as if the meaning of the Author was only that they preach not the Ceremonial Law; for who need be informed of that, or that the ceremonial Law does no longer oblige? But supposing the Moral Law itself coming under a double consideration, to wit, as delivered by Moses, and as it is in the hand of Christ; it is this indeed which is worth his enquiry, how the duties of the ten Commandments, or those good works which we, as well as the Jews are bound to perform, are obligatory in the one respect, and not in the other. Now should he have used these words, as some of our Divines do, and by the distinction intent only, we are not obliged to good works in the point of Justification, but out of gratitude to our Redeemer, or to that purpose, he must run straight into that praemunire which he strives to avoid, to wit, of Justification by Faith only. If he stick upon this, that the Law, as it was in the hand of Moses, was given for a temporal covenant, and not so as it is in the hand of Christ, I do not see what that does signify to the objection. This is that therefore which is to be said, and to be conceived therefore what he intends. By the works of the Law, understand we, that exact obedience which is required unto living by the Law, Do this and live. By the works Christ enjoins, let us understand that sincerity only in our obedience which God requires unto our living by Faith, or accepts though imperfect through Christ. Good works are not exacted now of any in the first sense, but good works are required of all in the second. That Preacher that should Preach obedience to the decalogue, as necessary to life in the former sense, were a legal Preacher indeed; but that Preacher that preaches obedience and good works in the second sense, is but a Preacher of the Gospel, and may not preach otherwise, as he tenders his Hearers Salvation. And behold, one came to Christ, and said, what shall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life? And he said to him, if thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments. The Commandments then, I say, may be considered as the matter of the covenant of works, or our Legal Righteousness: or as the matter of the covenant of grace, or our Evangelical Righteousness. In the former sense, if any man could perform them, he should merit Eternal Life, and be sure to have it; but there is no man can keep them as they are so required. In the latter sense, there is no man but must keep them (as to the prevalent interest of his will, which constitutes integrity), and does, that ever was, and is finally justified and saved.  
For the second, we have two or three things to be touched: In the first place, I do not believe (craving that Gentleman's pardon) that the Gospel gives any better, or any other rules of life, than what are contained in the Law. It is true that Christ hath instituted other Sacraments, but it is the Moral Law we call the rule of life, and that Christ came not to bring us the Systeme of any new Law, but to explain and establish the Law Moral (which the Jews, I count, and Gentiles both ever had, the one by the light of Nature, the other by Revelation also) is a truth something more considerable, as I take it, than that alone which our Divines contend for against the Sooinian in this matter. In the next place, when Divines make a difference between the Law and Gospel, as to the power of doing, that the Law commands to do, but the Gospel gives power to do; The Law commands the tale of Brick, but gives not Straw, and the like expressions: I doubt not, but they have some verity at the bottom, which should have nakedly been laid down, if he could, by this Bright person, For the delivery of things after others, by rote, without digestion, is the great fault which he finds so often in other men's Books. The Law and Gospel we know are liable to a divers acception. By the Law most properly, I think, we are to understand that Law which is written in the heart of man by Nature, in adam's and ours, the copy whereof, is the ten Commandments, called the Moral Law: and by the Gospel, the Law of Christ; That which he delivered, and his Apostles. The matter whereof in both, may be considered qua faedus, or qua regula, to use the terms of others. Qua regula, the things required in the Law moral, and the Gospel or Law of Christ, are the same: but qua faedus, the Law of Nature originally requires these things in perfection, to be accepted unto life; and the Law of Christ requires them in sincerity only, accepting them, though imperfect unto life, through his Mediation and Redemption. This is the only difference that concerns us here between the Law and the Gospel. The Law then and Gospel both being considered as the Doctrine of life, how does this Author speak, that the one gives power, and not the other? The rule shows what we are to do; the power to do, is not given by our being shown. That which therefore is to be understood by such terms, may come to this; that, that which the Law thus taken (that is the Law of our Creation, and qua faedus) does require of man, is not in our power to do, and consequently none can attain Salvation by it: but that which the Gospel requires, we have power to perform; and if we be not wanting to God's Grace, upon the performance we shall be saved. In the third place, when he says the Gospel enables us to do with a more willing and cheerful mind then the Law; if we understand this kind of speech, as those Divines do I think ordinarlly that use it, in such a sense, that Christ having done all our works for us, that Righteousness of his which was a most perfect conformity to the Law, being imputed, or accepted in our behalf for life, there are no good works now required of us to do, but only as the testification of our thankfulness, and belief of this, and therefore we perform all we do with gladness, joy, and love altogether, without bondage, fear, or doubt, it being not in order to our Justification, though we miscarry in the doing: I do apprehend this Learned Man would be one of the first to dislike such Teaching. Yet is there thus much here of truth also, That when the Law (so taken as before) does give us no heart at all to do that which through the flesh (as the Apostle speaks) is indeed impossible to any, the Gospel does give us encouragement to do, upon the account, that what it requires may be performed, and by that performance (through the assistance of God's Spirit) as the condition, Man is both justified and saved.  
I know well that St. Augustine does use the like expressions, and I think often, but he does explain his meaning, which comes to this; that when the Law of works commands us what is our duty, and threatens us if we do it not, the Law of Faith (he counts) directs us to God for his assistance, grace, or spirit, to do what he commands. I do not forget neither, that God hath promised his spirit, and so his grace for the performance of the New Covenant; and though it does not follow, that if Adam had stood, he should not therefore have given man his grace and spirit for performing the perfect obedience of the Old, as well as to us for the performing imperfect under the New, seeing that Father does speak of grace to Adam, as to us; and if we should ascribe the obedience he performed, during his Innocency to his own strength, and not to the adjutory of God's spirit altogether, he would not endure it: Yet if the Author, or those Divines of ours that speak as he does, will choose rather to make good what they say upon the contrary assertion, then can I tell how to understand with them. When God made Man at first, we know, he endued him with original righteousness. Let us suppose this righteousness alone, sufficient to him for the performing the Law, unto which he was made; so that before the fall, there was no need of that we call grace (which is properly such help of the spirit, as consists in the healing and relief of our fallen estate) to enable man to do that which he had strength to perform by nature, until he did voluntarily deflect from it. But when he was fallen, and lost that righteousness, which was his strength, then are we to conceive a need straight, both of a new Law, to be lowerd, brought down, or fitted to his weakness, that he may be able; and also of grace, that he may be made willing to perform it. And thus shall there be grace, the spirit, and the promise of it belonging to the Covenant of our Redeemer, when there was none, nor need of it, to belong to the covenant of our Creation. However, there is this I count most certain, and I would have it to be noted, that the spirit which is promised or given to man for his obedience to God, is promised and given only in respect to this Covenant, not for the performance of the Covenant of Nature, for than should Adam never have fall'n, nor we have had any need of a Redeemer.  
It is true, that there are some Divines are so much (with Austin) to have Adam's standing (supposing he had stood) to be of grace, that they will have man's original righteousness to be a work (or habit) supernatural, from which, when Adam fell, he returned, (as they would teach us) to his pure naturals, and so his Posterity are born. But this is a kind of Pelagianism, no ways to be received: For what indeed should be a Creatures Nature, if that be not, which it receives from its Creation? Besides, if man's original righteousness be not looked on as natural, how shall original sin, which consists in the loss of it, be defined by the depravation of our nature, according to the doctrine of the Church of England, as well as the Catechism of the Assembly? Neither is Dr. Taylor here to be heard, who cannot abide that, that (whatsoever he will call it) which we contract from Adam without any will of our own, should be held to be sin, or so much as damnable, though it should be granted him through Christ's redemption actually to damn no body. It may be the want of a plainer consideration, what the immediate benefit of Christ's redemption to the world, is, made that excellent person think this so grievous. It is not grievous, I hope, that God should give a Law to his Creature according to his nature; and that therefore having made man righteous, he should require of him to continue in that righteousness, and walk up according to it. It necessarily follows without any thing else, that this Law being made in Innocency, must condemn all mankind, in whom this righteousness and perfection is no longer to be found; so that by nature, or according to this Covenant of man's nature, we are, and must be all the Children of wrath, as the Apostle speaks. It would now be indeed a grievous thing if God should deal with any in that justice, as he might according to this Covenant; and therefore it hath pleased him according to a Righteousness of his declared in the Gospel, in opposition to the righteousness of this Covenant of works, to give us his Son; who by the work of his Mediation for mankind, should prepare a remedying Law, or universal conditional remission against that condemnation. As for Children then, if they are Baptised, we are to account they do perform this Covenant, or new Law, by the Faith of their Parents bringing them to Baptism. This is my Covenant you shall keep, every manchild shall be Circumcised. If they be not Baptised, we are yet to look on them as such who have not broken this new Law, or never refused and rejected their remedy; and so long as by the Redemption of Christ, they are delivered over with all the world from the Covenant of works, to the new Law to be judged, I will not be the man that shall condemn one Infant to Hell, or unto torments; although, if there be any that will make a difference of place, or state in the future life for Children, proportionable only to the difference there is between performing the condition, and not being guilty of any breach at all of it, I will not gainsay them, nor determine any thing in a matter so lubricous, and above what is written.  
To return, By the Law and the Gospel, it may be thought perhaps by some, that we are to understand the state of the Old and New Testament; and so must this Author mentioned be made to conceive that David, and the like holy men, had not the same spirit or power, or not so much, to enable them to observe God's precepts, as we have now, when he uses these expressions. That the spirit was given under the Gospel as to his miraculous gists in another measure, then under the Law. I believe; and that such Texts as the spirit was not yet given, because Christ was not yet lorified, and that, they had not yet heard that there was a Holy Ghost, with the like, may be happily so understood, I believe: But to think that the Spirit, as to sanctification of the heart, and inclining it to a ready service of God, was not given under the Old Testament as well as under the the New, is a conceit I will not fasten on any. To say it is given more to us now, than to David, Samuel, Jeremy, and such persons in respect to this end, will yet require explanation and proof, if that be intended wholly by these speeches.  
Before I pass, there is one passage of this apt Writer, I cannot but note with much approbation. It is Grace that accepts of our Repentance, and Obedience after we have sinned. This passage contains more in it, than the most are like to be ware of. The Scripture tells us in several Texts, that by Grace we are saved, & freely justified, and not by Works. By Works we are to understand the works of the Law, and that quâ faedas, as before; and no body is justified or saved by these works, they being above the ability of any to perform. By Grace, I will understand with him this accepting our sincere, though imperfect obedience for life through Christ, as if it were perfect righteousness. Not unto him that worketh, that is, unto him that hath not performed the works of the Law, which if they were perfect, he should live by them: but unto him that believeth on him that justifies the ungodly, that is, but is ungodly in reference to these works, or is one that his Conscience tells him, hath sinned, and does sin, or is imperfect, and falls short of these works, yet believes that God is gracious and merciful for all that, and will pardon these sins and failings, if he repent and walk sincerely, though imperfectly, his Father is imputed for Righteousness; his Faith, that is such a believing this, as produceth that repentance and sincere walking, is imputed to him for Righteousness; that is, is made to stand him in that stead as a perfect righteousness would do; so that through grace, or this gracious acceptance, he shall live by it. There are works (if I may still say over, what hath been somewhere also said before) that would make life to be of debt according to God's Covenant of Nature, if any could perform them, and so there are none justified or saved by works, for all have sinned and fall short (under this sense) of the glory of God: Or there are works that cannot be accepted or imputed unto life, but through grace; and so is it, that by grace only, or gratis, that the Scripture teaches us we are justified and saved. Nay, the acceptance of our imperfect, sincere obedience for righteousness, or that we should live by it, is that very grace itself that saves us. So well am I pleased with this Note from that Author.  
If this seem to savour too much of inculcation, you must pardon me. I do apprehend that the Doctrine of grace and justification, whereof I have been, and therefore am still the longer, hath been the occasion of several apprehensions in good men, that instead of being conducive to, have proved but hindrances of, true sober practical Godliness. There are two of these mentioned by the same understanding person.  
☞ The one is a conceit, that a Christian may not avoid sin, and do good, for fear of Hell, and to obtain Heaven, that is for the sake of Reward. This the Mentioner hath confuted with plain text, that it needs not a second hand: Only, that it may not needlessly disquiet any, I will advance this contrary truth; that whatsoever person, out of any principle, fear, or hope, or love, does, or shall in the prevalent intentions of his Soul, and endeavour as to the constant tenor of his life, prefer his Eternal Salvation before his Flesh-pleasing in this world, is surely in a good Estate, the Converted man, or the Godly man, that shall be saved. He that does Righteousness is born of God. I will suppose him a Christian, and one that acts according to the Sripture; but if he be a Heathen, and acts herein but fully up to his light, I dare not deny the same of him. And indeed, what is that pure love of God, out of which you will say alone, a man must act? If you love me, says Christ, who knows best, keep my Commandments. The love of God, and keeping his Commandments are the same. The commands of God are to be kept that we may inherit Eternal Life, Christ tells the Ruler in the Gospel express (I have noted before), and consequently we may love God to that end. If man could do any good to God, by his duties, or any hurt by his sins, than should I believe there was some other end of our duty, than man's Salvation. You may say, this appears selfish, or self-love only. I answer that, that man then, who does but love himself so as to seek the Salvation of his Soul above his flesh, this world, and any thing therein, is the man he should be in the sight of God. If you stick at it, consider, what is Salvation? A loving God, a delighting in him, a conformity to him. I love God in keeping his Commandments in this life, that I may be conformed to him, and have complacency in him to all Eternity. I will add, our Orthodox Divines say not (and be not to be so understood) that good works may not be done with respect to the reward; but with respect to the reward, as due to them ex condigno. For to expect that God should accept of what we do, in bearing with our failings, and rewarding us out of Grace; when we walk sincerely before him, is but to act our Faith on, or putting our trust in, his declared goodness, Christ's Merits, and the promises of the Gospel.  
The other Apprehension is, that a Christian must not live on his own Purse or Earnings. A pretty sound of something, which (as I suppose) does signify that which other Divines intent by Resting in Duties. There is therefore a resting in Duty, I may say, and a resting on God in Duty. I doubt not but a Christian is to trust to God for whatsoever he seeks of him upon the performance of his duty, when it were but presumption to do so without that performance. It is true, that no man, by any thing he can do (seeing when he hath done all, he is but an unprofitable Servant) can deserve or merit any thing from God's hand (and much less his saving Grace, which is most free) so as it may be properly said to be earned, as wages is due unto work, or to make his blessings of debt; yet is a Christian by his prayers, and the like duty, said to get, or obtain from God whasoever he hath from him; and as a man does live on his Estate which he gets, so may a Christian be said to live his spiritual life, upon the riches of God's grace which he gets by his duty. The want of trusting to duty therefore, in a right sense, is indeed, I doubt me, more reprovable in our Protestants ordinarily than their resting in duty. And I am seriously troubled very often, at what I have observed in some of our special practical Divines about this point of resting in duties (I will particularly name Mr. Shepherds sincere Convert,) which is enough to bring any man Religiously melancholy (for the more pious his Soul is in the case, the more liable it must be to such strokes) into desperation. I will, therefore, say thus much in zeal against that danger. Let a man be but careful of two things about resting in duty, and trouble himself henceforth no more, but about the doing of it. The first is, Let him take heed of making any duty a pillow to lay his head on to rest in sin. Thus it is dangerous indeed to rest in duty; and this may be either when a man thinks he may sin, and go on in it, because he Prays, gives Alms, or the like; as if that would bear him out: Or chief, when a man shall sit down short of sincere Conversion, by doing of some duty, that is by taking up in leaving some sins, and doing many things he did not before, he shall content himself, and not come up to that universal unreserved, giving up himself to Christ, as is required of him to that sincerity of life, which is the condition of Salvation. This is the most deadly, dangerous resting in duty that I will admonish every Soul of. And then for the second, I will say only, Let him be a Protestant, which I count he is, and I doubt not but his opinion alone against merit, and that he is justified through Christ, will secure him for the rest of this business. Provided though, he remembers still that humility, and the like qualification of Soul, when he hath done all he can do, is also his duty.  
And now after I have spoken of these Heads, if any be otherwise minded in whatsoever I have hitherto said, and are resolved to keep to that only which they count the soundest Calvinisme in them all, I will be so candid, as to lay down their doctrine for them, to the best advantage. God hath Elected some to Salvation. Christ died only for them. That which he hath Purchased by his Death, is not only the benefit conditionally, but Faith itself the condition. Faith is the persuasion of a man, that Christ hath died particularly for him, and so his sins are forgiven. This persuasion, or apprehension of Christ, makes Christ one's own, and so justifies instrumentally, without works, either Legal or Evangelical, and how, also to serve this turn, I have set down in my paper of Justification, page 15. No man can be ever, in good earnest, thus persuaded, but the Elect, for whom alone this Faith is purchased. When a Minister then declares the Gospel, and requires of all in God's name to Believe, to wit, to believe particularly that Christ hath died for their sins, as knowing not, for his part, who the Elect by name be, there is no fear of hurt unto any, seeing no person on earth shall be able to be persuaded hereof indeed (that persuasion, with Calvin and Luther, being true Faith), but the Elect only. Besides, as soon as this persuasion once is but wrought, it does so possess the Soul with love and gratitude to the Redeemer, that it constrains it to Christian duty; so that unfeigned Conversion, Self-denial, a Crucifixion with Christ to the world and the flesh, and the life of God, and that with perseverance to the end, do follow as naturally (to wit, according to the new Nature) as the Figtree brings forth Figgs, or the Olive, Olives, without all possibility of separation from it. This Doctrine, if any will so concatenate the parts, does seem to me to carry a kind of mysterious authority in it, that I find some awe for it at my heart, although really, I am convinced both of the danger of it, and also (excepting only in the first proposition) that it is untrue. So far am I from despising of those, against whom the spirit of that Author, in the book intimated, seems so much over-sharpened: when yet I do incline in my own sentiments to hang things together, much rather after his fashion, than theirs, who would look upon me as more Evangelical, in such a Determination.  
Deo Gloria mihi Condonatio. J. H.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 16. l. 21. for desires read deserves. p. 18. l. 7. for Clouds read Cloud.