pardon will be as early as the actuality of the sin and hence he speaketh as if all were actually forgiven already 3. Believers are alwaies under Justification unto life and therefore cannot at any time be actually under the obligation of the Law unto Eternal death It is nothing less than a sentence of death and condemnation a dreadful Curse that the Law denounceth against sinners Gen. 2. 17. Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all c. So that if Believers were one day or moment laid under the obligation of the Law by new acts of sin then so long they must be unjustified again there must be an intermission of their Justification For condemnation is opposed to and utterly inconsistent with present Justification Rom. 5. 16 18. Rom. 8. 33 34. Whereas it is expresly said Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus There is not a bare suspension of the Curse but they are differenced in respect of their state from others which are out of Christ after union with him yea after the fullest pardon yet every sin deserveth condemnation pardon doth not remove the desert of sin but the legal obligation which is to condemnation that is taken off vers 33 34. Joh. 5. 24. He that believeth hath everlasting Life and shall not come into condemnation By daily pardons there is a continuation of a persons Justification and some Faith he hath but although the new acts of Faith may not alwaies be put forth the same moment that he sinneth yet he is secured from condemnation even at first believing or passing from Death to Life The same might be evinced from the declared freedom from the Law and in Curse Rom. 6. 14. Gal. 3. 10 13. At many as are of the works of the Law are under the Curse this strongly implieth that others viz. Believers are not under the Curse so ver 13. And though materially the afflâ—ctions of the Elect before conversion be the same with others under the Curse yet the least Atome of that doth not formally light upon them For Jesus Christ underwent the whole of it on their behalf They were sententially by the Law under the Curse before believing but not executively then much less after being united to Jesus Christ 4. Believers are continually under the New Covenant and therefore the very instant wherein their sins are committed they are remitted or the persons are disobliged from the Law Curse and so actually pardoned For unto this there is requisite only interest in the satisfaction of Jesus Christ which they have in union with him and the Lords declaring their discharge thereupon and this is by the New Testament which was established by his blood for the remission of sins Matth. 26. 28. All pardoning mercy is treasured up there this is the very act of Pardon Believers are alwaies within the New Covenant and therefore have an actual right to the pardon of all sins not only past and present but also to come they have it beforehand in the Promise though not actually in possession they have a ground of claiming after pardons may urge the faithfulness of God in his promise for the affording of them also the instant wherein their sin is committed the New Testament declareth it remitted for that is a standing pardon ever speaking on this wise to all under it your sins and iniquities will I remember no more Jer. 31. 31 34. Heb 8. 12. so as they cannot be under the Laws obligation to punishment any more Believers are under the Promise of a New Heart and writing the Law there which assureth that they shall further repent believe c. Yet such spiritual frames may not immediately be afforded seeing these are gradually attained by a real change but remission of sin is a relative change made in an instant by the Promise upon all under it when they want it And here let it be observed that pardon or forgiveness of sin is a Divine grant by the Law of Grace the New Covenant that is his act of Oblivion Heb. 8. 12. Heb. 10. 16 17. Rom. 11. 27. On which account we read of the Law of Works and the Law of Faith Rom. 3. 27. and this latter in reference to Justification and remission of sin As present condemnation is by a Law even by the Divine Law of Works that passeth Sentence upon sinners the seed of the first Adam who are under it the very instant of their sining whether they be aware of it or not So answerably present Justification and remission of sin is by the Law of Grace the New Covenant that passeth a Sentence upon all the seed of Jesus Christ the second Adam who are under it the very instant of their sinning when often at the very time they do not discern it And as among men oâ—â— may have his offences pardoned by an Act of Oblivion which he is under though no accusation be drawn up against him to put his case upon tryal before a Judge that may come afterward thus it is not by a judicial Act by an Act of God as a Judge but as a Law-giver that he giveth present Justification and Pardons they are the Sentence of his Law the New Testament which Believers are alwaies under accusations from Satan or their own Consciences may come afterward and a tryal before the Judge in the great day The not understanding this hath run into many mistakes some asserting Justification to be from Eternity whereas they might easily understand that the Elect may yea must be under a Sentence of the Law of Works without the least execution of the Curse upon them by the Lord as a Judge till by coming under the Sentence of another Law even the New Testament they be discharged from it Others talk of pleading to a charge and upon a plea being discharged as their Justification whereas that is only the Sentence of one Law declaring a discharge from the Sentence or Curse of another Law upon their interest in the righteousness of Jesus Christ by union with him The Lord is not dealing as a Judge there often the Lord is mentioning Judgement as a future thing Paul reasoned of Judgement to come Act. 24. 25. Matth. 11. 22 24. and 12. 36. 2 Pet. 2. 9. Joh. 12. 47 48. The Word will judge you at the last day The present work of Jesus Christ is not to judge the World but to save it Now he cometh in a dispensation full of Grace with intreaties and beseechings that he may win over Souls to a subjection unto the Law of Faith which is a ministration of righteousness and Life exceedingly glorious 2 Cor. 3. But he will deal in another way when he cometh forth as a Judge then he will come cloathed with terrour and we must all appear before his judgement Seat 2 Cor. 5. 10. When the times of refreshing shall come then will their sins be blotted out Act. 3. 19. Not as if they wanted
of the Covenant with Abraham and his seed and proveth it on this wise Gal. 3. vers 15 16 17. This I say that the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disanul Where he argueth thus That which was made at Mount Sinai coming after could not disanul that with Abraham which was of a more antient date or long before it He speaketh not of the moral Law barely as a Rule of Life for so even before Abraham it was immortalities were ever sinful and exposed those that were guilty of them unto dreadful Judgements as Sadom and Gomorrah to fire and brimstone and the old World to a deluge of Water therefore he must speak of the Law considered as a Covenant given at Mount Sinai and thus it was not till four hundred and thirty years after that with Abraham so these must be two distinct Covenants of vastly different dates else the Apostles argument which is built upon their difference in respect of time is not cogent it is of no force if they be of the same date one as early as the other for the false Apostles among the Galatians might have said the Law as a Covenant was as early as Abraham for substance though not for form and administration this had been enough to elude his plea which was grounded upon the time of it especially seeing the Law was urged amongst the Galatians not meerly as to any circumstances in that new ministration but as to the substance of it the question then being Whether Justification and the eternal inheritance were by the works of the Law or by Grace and in a way of Faith The Apostle argueth that this federal transactiion at Sinai not having a being till Moses so long after that with Abraham hence it could not establish another way of life opposite to that viz. by works of the Law Also Deut. 5. vers 2 3. The Lord our God made a Covenant with us in Horeb the Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers but with us The Sinai Covenant is clearly intended here by that at Hâ—reb compare Deut. 4. vers 10 11 12 13. with Exod. 19. vers 1 8. 9. and this is expresly denied to be made with their Fathers the Sinai Covenant then was not made with the Patriarchs not made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob or with any that lived before the time of Moses they that were alive at that day are intimated to be the first with whom it was made it was not with our Fathers but with us even with us who are all of us here alive this day those then which before the times of Moses were dead had not this Covenant made with them and therefore it is distinct from that which was made with the Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob c. He doth not say the Lord made not this administration of it with our Fathers or he made it not in this form but the Lord stroke not this Covenant he denyeth the Covenant it self to be cut with them It is an adding to the word to put in as some do tantum as if the meaning were this not only with our Fathers but also with us This is to say it was made with the Fathers when the Holy Spirit expressly denieth it Such additions admitted else-where in Scripture would be found to be desperately dangerouâ— and here can by no means be allowed seeing the Apostle giveth it an after date Gal. 3. 17. 2. The better Covenant and that at Sinai are contradistinguished and so must be two distinct Covenants else the opposition were groundless Jer. 31. vers 31 32 I will make a New Covenant Not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers i. e. not according to the Sinai Covenant for that was it which was made when they were brought out of the Land of Egypt He doth not say I will set up a new administration of my Covenant though that had been true but a New Covenant there is a plain opposition between Covenant and Covenant and therefore the New and that at Sinai must be two distinct and not one and the same in different forms and the rather because this New Covenant is not opposed to the Covenant with Abraham and to that with David but only to that with Moses and Israel at Mâ—â—ent Sinai Let any instance be given of any thing that is found contradistinguished in such a manner as these are when only some modification and different respects of the same subject is intended to be signified thereby 3. The bitterness of the Covenant were not a sufficient evidence that the ministration of Jesus Christ is of greater excellency than the other if they were not two distinct Covenants The Apostle proveth that Jesus Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministry by this Medium Heb. 8. vers 6. By how much also he is a Mediatour of a better Covenant He doth not say Only a better administration but a better Covenant and much of the force of his Argument were lost if the Ministry of those Levitical Priests and also Christs were conversant about the same Covenant but if they be two then it is very foreible they ministred about one Covenant and Christ about another and a better and therefore his is the more excellent Ministry Besides it is taken from his being a Mediatour of that better Covenant which implieth that he was not then a Mediatour of that worse Sinai Covenant though of old typified therein which their Ministry related to Indeed it had been a slender proof of the excellency of his Ministry if the better Covenant were the same for substance with the worse seeing then that at Sinai must be still continuing and so Jesus Christ not only in his Type but in his own person must be Mediatour thereof Ministring therein which that Text doth not give the least countenance to but there and also else-where Christ is called the Mediator of the New Covenant in opposition to the Old Heb. 12. vers 18 19 20 24. Heb. 9. 15. Even in the satisfying the Old by his death And therefore they must be two distinct Covenants 4. The many Notes of distinction that are given of them argue that they are two Covenants they are not only called the Old and the New this possibly might be said of the same Subject as we say the Old and the New Moon and yet one and the same Moon but the first and the second Heb. 8. vers 7. If that first Covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second As Dr. C. saith That it should be affirmed of one and the same Covenant that this is the first Covenant and that is the second and yet those two should be but both one that is strange 5. They are successive the Second cometh in the place of the First and so they must two distinct Covenants Heb. 10. vers 9. He taketh away the First
short of all its blessings No I will not turn away from them to do them good but I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me If there were any danger of forfeiting and losing these it must be either on Gods part by his leaving of them or on their part by their departing from him and here the Lord hath undertaken to secure against both these and so the matter is out of Question it was not thus in the Old Covenant Indeed what the Lord hath absolutely promised yet he hath appointed means in order to the attaining of it internal as Faith and external as Ordinances and commands utmost attendance upon him ordinarily in the use thereof this is necessary as a duty and sin ariseth upon the neglect of it Thus the Lord is unalterably determined to vouchsafe a frame of obedience Ezek. 36. 25 to 30. Yet obedience is to be performed by us we are to be the Agents and we may sin about the means in the way to the injoyment of such mercy as is laid up in absolute promises Faith is to be exercised in these else what use are they of and we may be faulty in not attending to it 3. If there be any such condition of the New Covenant it were most like to be precious Faith but that is not A condition properly taken is influential into right if performed it giveth right to the benefit promised if not performed there is no right and therefore is a cause it giveth jus ad rem which a man may have and yet be forced after to Sue for possession If it be only in a Mode or accident it is thus as if a great Estate be granted upon paying a white Lilly if a person bringeth a yellow Lilly and not a white he hath no right all is null and void upon such a tickle point are they who stand upon such conditions for Eternal mercies Now Faith giveth no right Joh. 1. 12. To as many as received him gave he power to become the Sons of God even to them that believe on his Name Jesus Christ is offered in the free Promise of the Gospel Faith that consenteth or receiveth him and a right and title in him to the blessings of the Covenant it doth not give one The Father offereth righteousness in a way of gift Rom. 5. 17. Faith accepteth the offer receiveth Jesus Christ for righteousness and so conduceth to Justification Rom. 4. 3. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness i. e. it was reckoned a means unto righteousness so ver 5. Not that Faith it self was reckoned the least of that righteousness whereby we are justified but a means for the applying of Jesus Christ who is our righteousness The Covenant as to that priviledge of it Justification is not so absolute as to be without all means yet may be absolute without any condition properly so called As condemnation without any new act of receiving is the resultancy from the Law upon disobedience to all under the Covenant of Works so Justification is the resultancy of a Divine Promise upon the obedience of Jesus Christ to all those that are under the New Covenant That unbelievers are not justified by it is because they are not actually under it Not because they have not fulfilled the condition of it but because they are not interested in the obediential righteousness of Jesus Christ which is the condition of it Rom. 10. 10. The act of God in justifying is to be answered by the act of Faith consenting to the offer of the Gospel As the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ is enough to answer if the accusation be that we are sinners and deserve Eternal wrath so if the accusation be that we have no interest or portion in this satisfaction any thing that can evidence our interest in Christ is a sufficient plea to answer that be it Faith or other Graces they may be pleaded as evidences but not as titles as fruits and effects of a right given but not as causes and conditions fulfilled by us giving us that right It is a great mistake to think that there is no plea in this case but from the performance of a condition For an evidence may be from the effects as well as from causes even in civils a meer witness may carry it in such a charge when he can testifie I saw the person put into peaceable possession of such an Estate Besides if this charge he drawn up against those out of Christ many things may make it good if against those that are in Christ then who draweth this up Not God for he it is that justifieth and therefore he will not condemn Rom. 8. 33 34. if Satan or their own hearts then as gracious effects are enough to answer so by direct acts of Faith there ought to be a stedfast resisting and withstanding of Satan and he will flee from them 1 Pet. 5. 9. Jam. 4. 7. No necessity of pleading the performance of a condition to help against this 4. Our obedience though evangelical is no such condition of the New Covenant as there was of the Old unto Israel For the Lord hath undertaken that his people shall obey Ezek. 36. 25 to 30. I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my ways Heb. 8. 10. obedience is as absolutely promised as any other blessings in the New and therefore it cannot be the condition thereof The Apostle having asserted and largely proved Rom. 3. that justification is by faith not by the works of the Law he further cleareth it from the instances of Abraham and David Rom. 4. 3. Abraham believed c. and vers 4. Now to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt This strongly implieth that the reward must be reckoned of grace but of debt This strongly implieth that the reward must be reckoned of grace and not of debt the emphasis is upon this so as if it were otherwise the whole force of his argument were taken away and the stress is not upon the word reckoned yet if it were the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being applied to both must signifie a true judgement and just estimation as Rom. 8. 18. 9. 8. 1 Cor. 4. 1. for really and in true account the reward is of grace and it is as firmly asserted that if it were of works it were in the same account of debt Say some only meritorious works would make it so but let it be considered that works can be meritorious only one of these two ways either 1. By being of such value and worth as that in justice such a recompence is deserved by them yea though there were no contract that way and dare any say that any works of men even in innocency could thus merit at the hands of God is not all obedience due to God so as when we have done all we are unprofitable servants Luk. 17. 10.