but me doth likewise say Thou shall invocate no other but me because invocation is the most proper and the most publick acknowledgement and worship of God For Invocation is required by the first though it is regulated by the third commandement That enjoyns the object and internal affection this only enjoyns the manner and the external expression Therefore Call upon me in the day of trouble Psal. 50. 15. belonging to the affirmative Call not upon any besides me doth belong to the negative precept in the first Commandement since these two are contraries and contraria sunt sub eodem genere posita contraries must be ranked or reckoned under one and the same Head For in vain doth your Cardinal seek to excuse bad words in prayers from the good sense or meaning of him that prays non agitur de verbis sed de sensu verborum Bell. l. 1. de sanct Beat. c. 17. because as a right intention in our prayers is required by the first so also a right expression in our prayers is required by the third Commandement God requirlng us no less to honour his Name by right words and professions in the One then to honour his Nature by right intentions and affections in the other For as we may not honour God with our lips whiles our hearts are far from him So neither may we dishonour him with our lips whiles our hearts are near him For as the one makes us Hypocritical so the other makes us blasphemous worshippers As the one is directly against the internal so the other is directly against the external Act of Religion as the one is against the morality of the first so the other is against the morality of the third Commandement But of this I have spoken elsewhere of purpose to justifie the Religion established and professed amongst us for which so many Orthodox Divines have lately lost their livelyhoods by Protestants and pray they may not come to lose their lives by Papists because I was there bound to shew the irreligion that I found not only in Faction which hath no Liturgie but also in superstition which hath corrupt Liturgie Justif. of the Church of England cap. 3. sec. 3. there you might have seen more work made for you upon the grounds of conscience then you have here made for me only upon the grounds of contention Thither if you please you may go for more of this argument but before you go take this Question along with you not Where was this your Religion of praying to Saints before Luther but where is it now For it is not in any of Gods Commandements concerning Religion nay 't is plainly against them all 'T is against the first in having a false Object and false internal acts of Religion against the second in having a false external act or manner of Religion by way of adoration against the third in having a false external act or manner of Religion by way of invocation or of Praise and Profession As it is not according to Gods Commandements so it cannot be Piety or Religion as 't is against Gods Commandements so 't is moreover impiety and irreligion Therefore boast not any longer of the general profession and practice of this or any other corrupt part of your Religion which you cannot justifie in its substance For 't is a miserable Religion which is to be found only in its exercise according to the purport of the fourth and not also in its substance according to the purport of the three first Commandements A Religion in its Name not in its Nature in its solemnity not in its purity in its followers not in it self That is in one word A Religion not of Gods but of mans making 12. To such a Religion belongs â—…hat Prayer Maria mater gratiae mater misericordiae Tu nos ab hoste protege horâ mortis suscipe which yet your Cardinal boldly imputeth to the universal Church sic loquitur ecclesia universa lib. 1. de Sanct. Beat. cap. 19. though its language speak only the Church of Rome and its rythme speaks only the late and corrupt ages of that Church and its irreligion doth in truth speak no Church For that is no Church whereof Christ is not the Head And he is not the Head of that Church which prayeth to such as he did not pray And he did never pray to his Mother but only to his Father teaching us o say Our Father not Our Mother whâ—…ch art in Heaven We cannot say the words of this Prayer in his Communion we cannot obtain the blessing oâ—… it by his intercession therefore if we wâ—…l â—…e his Church we must put this prayer oâ—… of our meutâ—…es because we dare not put it into His We have no pattern 〈◊〉 sâ—…ch prayers in all the Book of God and 〈◊〉 we can find better Patterns then God hath given we are bound to â—…ollow those of his giving or we shall leave his 〈◊〉 â—…oly Communion and lose his Soâ—…s blessed â—…ntercession in our prayers â—…or as we are sure the eternal Son of God hath â—…ot taught us thus to pray so we may be assured he will not he cannot 〈◊〉 us in this Prayer Esto mihi in Deum Protectorem Psal. 31. 4. will not agree with this Tu nos ab hoste protegeâ—… In maÌ„us tuas coÌ„mendo spirituÌ„ meuÌ„ will not agree with this Et horâ mortis suscipe why should I leave the Communion of Gods eternal Son either in not saying the one or in saying the other For I may no more now venter to have Religion then I may hereafter hope to have a salvation out of his Communion And though it be more like a Heathen then a Christian to say If it be a question of words and of names and of your Law Acts 18. 15. for words are to be regulated in the exercise of Religion according to Gods Law by vertue of the third Commandement no less then thoughts by vertue of the first Gestures by vertue of the second and Deeds by vertue of the fourth yet is that saying very unfitly applyed in the defence of this Prayer For this is as formal an Invocation of the Blessed Virgin as if she were God Calling her the Mother of Grace and Mercy and praying her to protect us in our life and to receâ—…ve us at our death And who can say more then this to God putting but Father instead of Mother who can ask more then this of God This is in effect to say Mater de coels Dea instead of Pater de coelis Deus miserere nobis miseris peccatoribus O blessed Mother of God instead of O God the Father of Heaven have mercy upon us miserable sinners And we ought to say Libera nos Domine Good Lord deliver us not so much in regard of any other evil and mischief as in regard of such Letanies Therefore this Invocation of the Mother of God is faulty in Objecto cultus in modo colendi both in the object
in doing or in suffering because there is no proportion betwixt an infinite Justice and a finite satisfaction This considered may I not be as gross an Ebionite or Cherinthian by saying there is a necessity of penal satisfaction as if I say there is a necessity of legal observations for the expiation of sin do not both alike diminish and disparage the efficacy of Christs death Or may I think that the Church of Christ by using the power of the Keyes in retaining sins intends to retain where Christ remits to wiâ—… in the true Penitent to the undervaluing of Christs merit in purchasing remission of sins and Gods free grace and mercy in granting it and Gods holy Spirit in testifying it Therefore I must let the satisfaction enjoyned by the Church die with the Penitent and not be required of him after death unless I will suppose the Church both able and willing to bind where Christ hath loosed For if Christ loose not the sinner here I do not find upon what grounds to believe That he will loose him hereafter So that we see if satisfaction is to be made by the sinner All must go to Purgatory and for ought we can prove tarry there eternally And so Purgatory will in truth be Hell If satisfaction hath been made by Christ then none at all can justly go thither And so Purgatory will in truth be Nothing certain it is no other satisfaction was given for all the offences of the good Thief though he were not a Penitent till the hour of his death and with what colour of Truth can any Divine teach that God will not take this satisfaction and this alone for all other Penitents And yet this in Bellarmines acount is one of the two supporters of Purgatory the other is Venial sins which may also be shaken in good time In a word The Place the Time the Quality of Torment the manner of tormenting the Tormentor and the cause or end for which souls are said to be tormented in Purgatory are all uncertain and how can the torment it self be taken for a certainty For it is not any mans confidence can make that certain which is invested with so many intrinsecal doubts and ambiguities nor any mans arguments can make that credible which is not certain But besides the uncertainty wâ—… meet with in this temporary Tormentâ—… which will not suffer us to believe it wâ—… find it casts an uncertainty upon that eternal Torment which we confess our selveâ—… bound to believe For as you rightly sayâ—… Nothing is more certain amongst Christiaâ—… then what is de fide of Divine Faith So crave leave to inferr from that sayinâ—… Nothing is to be affirmed de fide of diviâ—… faith among Christians which is not ceâ—…tain unless we will labour to overthroâ—… the Certainty of the Christian faith Fâ—… to require men to believe an uncertaiâ—… equally with a certainty is to invite theâ—… to disbelieve a certainty since it is not possible they should have one and the same Divine Faith for uncertainties and for certainties And therefore to teach men to believe Purgatory which is uncertain is the ready way to make them not believe Hell which is most certain Nor is it to be wondered That Bellarmines certainties concerning this doctrine should be so much enfeebled by his own uncertainties concerning the same no more then it is to be wondered that the certainty of our Christian saith should depend not upon the wit of man but upon the word of God 7. For this doctrine of Purgatory is so far from being taught in the Word of God that if you should ask those Disciples who have been most and best instructed in the Word Have ye received the doctrine of Purgatory since ye believed They must answer you We have not so much as heard whether there be any Purgatory and yet the same men will plainly tell you They have heard there is an holy Ghost and have received him though your over-bold Peltanus would perswade the world That Purgatory is as expresly taught in the holy Scriptures as the Unity of God and yet that is a little more expresly taught then the Deity of the Holy Ghost though blessed be God the Scripture is very express in both these Doctrines But in the whole Book of God there is neither in words nor in sense neither explicitly nor implicitly any such thing as your Purgatory which we cannot say concerning any Article of the Christian Faith That the thing we are bound to believe is not so much as really or virtually named in all the Holy Bible For an sit is as truly a precognition in the object of faith as in the subject of any question by that Rule of the Apostle if reason will not serve How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher Rom. 10. 14. We cannot believe what we have heard we cannot hear any supernatural truth unless God preach it and if he hath been the Preacher we may find the doctrine in his written Word which the most zealous defenders of this your doctrine durst not assert in former times For a very eminent Schoolman of our own Couâ—…rey Iohannis Bachâ—…nus lib. 4. dist 45. quâ—…unica answers all the Texts that were in his daies commonly alledged out of the Bible to prove Purgatory which were then but three though since they have swelled into a far greater number The first Text was that of 2 Mac. 12. To which his answer is Libri Macchabaeorum non sunt de Canone Bibliae ut dicit Hieronymus The Books of the Macchabees are not of the Canon of the Bible as saith Saint Hierom Nor doth your Cardinals new subtilty invalidate this answer Dico librum Maccha non esse Canonicum apud Judaeos sed apud Christianos esse I say the Books of the Macchabees were not Canonical among the Jews but they are among the Christians For the Christian Church had the Canon of the Old Testament from the Church of the Jews who not daring to make themselves a Canon took that which God gave them and therefore left out the Macchabees because they were not in the Ark that is to say not in that Canon which God had given them Nor hath God given the Christian Church power and authority to make that or any other Book Canonical which himself hath not made so for the Text is plain which saith To them were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. Which words only shew a Trust of keeping not a power of making the Oracles of God either in Jew or Christian. The second Text then alledged to prove Purgatory was that of 1 Cor. 3. To which his answer is That the Apostle there speaketh of that fire which shall burn the world at the day of Judgement therefore that place will not prove such a a purging by fire as the Doctors suppose before the day of Judgement Benè probatur Purgatio ista conflagrationis in
though instancing onely in the shedding of his blood which was the chiefest act of his passive obedience whereby he merited for us the remission of sins The formal cause for Justification being an action and therefore an accident cannot properly have a material cause though you by your inherent righteousness do a little intrench upon this Rule of Logick I say the formal cause of Justification is expressed v. 25. to wit The remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God not excluding sins present and to come as if they were not also remitted but onely nameing sins past that we might not think Justification doth give us a liberty of future sininng The formal cause then of Justification is the remission of sins For God doth so far justify us or accept and account us for just and righteous as far as he doth pardon our sins and absolve and acquit us from condemnation for Christs righteousness Thus it was God be merciful to me a sinner which made the Publican go away justified St. Luke 18. 13 14. not his own merit but Gods mercy And this is that doctrine which St. Paul preacheth with a Notum sit omnibus et singulis Bâ—… it known unto you therefore men and brethren that through this man is preached unâ—…o you the forgiveness of sins And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses Acts 13. 38 39. If forgiveness of sins and justification be not one and the same how is this a good consequence Through Christ is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins and by him all that beleeve are justified For this cannot follow if to be forgiven and to be justified be not one and the same for then one thing is preached another performed one thing promised and another granted But if they be the same then we are sure this is good Divinity that the formal justice or righteousness for which God absolves us sinners in the judgement is not in and from our selves but in and from our Saviour as it is said By him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses whereas if our Justification were for any inherent righteousness whether Habitual or Actual it were not by him but by our selves nor to be gotten by believing but by doing nor could we be justified from all things at once and together but from one thing after another not in an instant but successively for so we get our inherent righteousness not by the grace and mercy of God casting all our sins upon our Saviour that he may forgive them all at once and together for active Justification which respects God absolving the sinners is a forgiveing of all sins at once and together for Christs sake though passive Justification which respects the sinner to be absolved is a forgiveing of sins so often as the sinner earnestly repenting doth by a lively Faith flee unto God the Son for his merit and to God the Father for his mercy In a word if our Justification were for any inherent righteousness whether habitual or actual we could not be justified by the grace and mercy of God casting all our sins upon our Saviour that he may forgive them all but by the Law of Moses casting us into a mould of righteousness that we may not commit any sin norstand in need of forgiveness And if this be so we may bid farewel iâ—… not 〈◊〉 to the whole Gospel of Christ which is thus briefly but fully summed up by St. Paul That God was in Christ reâ—…nciling the world unto himself so by a Potential though only true believers by an actual reconciliation not imputing their trespasses unto them 2 Cor. 5 19. No man can be reconciled to God who is not justified before God for all sinners are odious to God as his enâ—…mies not reconciled unto him as his frienâ—…s therefore God looks upon a maâ—… as no 〈◊〉 wâ—…ch canâ—…ot be as he is iâ—… himself but as he is in his Saviour when he is reconciled unto him and accordingly to be reconciled is to be justified that is to be accounted righteous for as the formal cause of our reconciliation consisteth in the remssion or not imputation of our sins not imputing their trespasseâ—… unto them so doth also the formal cause of our Justification for that is no other but an absolution from the guilt of sin For Justification is not a Physiâ—…al but a Moral action of God absolving the sinner for the merit of Christ even as Sanctification is not a Moral but a Physical Action of God cleansing and purging the sinner by the Spirit of Christ The one makes the sinner righteous but the other only accounts him righteous And therefore Justification and Sanctification are as improperly confounded as Moral and Physical or real Actions For Moral actions work a change only in regard of the mans relation as He that is adopted or acquitted is changed only in his relation that instead of being guilty he is made not guilty instead of beâ—…g a stranger he is made a Son But real or Physical actions do work a change also in regard of a mans person as He that is instructed or converted hath a real change wrought upon his understanding and his will and consequently is really changed in his person So that if to justifie be not meerly a moral action that is To account as just by acquitting from the condemnation of the Law as we say but be also a real action that is to make just by a conformity to the Law as you affirm then it must needs work a real change in the Patient making him righteous from unrighteous and from righteous more righteous and by consequent Justification will be one and the same thing with Sanctification and so it will follow that the whole Tenor of the Text hath hitherto misinformed us and doth still misguide us for therein these two are reckoned up as two several and distinct mercies of Almighty God towards our sinful souls and these wrought by several means God justifying us by the righteousness of his Son and sanctifying us by the power of his Holy Spirit And from this ill consequence will yet follow a much worse That Sanctification will be supposed to be nothing for it will have nothing left to do Justification having done its work before and if it have nothing to do it cannot be an Action and if it be not an action it must be nothing These Logical absurdities besides others that are Theological cannot well be avoided by those who make inherent righteousness the formal cause of our Justification And therefore though we separate not inherent and imputative righteousness which your insolent Dogmatist blasphemously calls Putative as if it were meerly fictâ—…tious when as in truth all our righteousness is so in respect of it I say though we separate not inherent and imputative righteousness
our Justification CAP. VII Of Christs New Testament or Covenant 1. DIvines are not to make new works much less new Divinity 2. Testament and Covenant though commonly used for the same thing may have their several considerations 3. The Latin Interpreter highly magnified whiles Beza is unworthily taxed yet He also promiscuously useth these two words though both are more delighted with the word Testament then Covenant 4. The Catholick Church prefereth Testament above Covenant in the Title of the holy Bible and the Sept. never use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Covenant but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Testament as it were by special providence because that word pointeth at the death of Christ and Gods free Grace and mercy towards mankind more then the word Covenant 5. No Christian may oppose or diminish Gods free Grace in Christ. 6. Ill quarreling with words which have Custom Conscience and Truth to justifie the use of them 7. No assertion concerning the new Covenant ought to be Authentical which is ambiguous because that is to put Salvation upon unknown if not upon impossible conditions 8. A definition of the New Covenant ought not to be such as may fit the Old Covenant 9. The Old and New Covenant put far asunder by God and not to be joyned together by man God will judge the world not by the Old but by the New Covenant 10. The Law as a Rule of Righteousnesse reinforced in the Gospel but as a Covenant of Life abolished by it 11. The Jews under the Law expected to be saved by the Gospel and whiles they covenanted obedience did hope for Salvation by Faith and Repentance 12. The Covenant of works pressed upon the Jews to make them more thirst after the Covenant of Grace 13. Christ the Mediator of a better Testament then Moses because the Covenant of Grace hath better promises and better conditions then the Covenant of works How these came to be called Two Covenants and how they differ one from the other not only in the administration but also in the expression 14. St. Paul disputes against the Law not materially in it self as the Rule of righteousnesse for so it is the end of the Gospel but formally in its use to the Jew as a Covenant of life for so it stood in opposition against the Gospel And thus far we may proceed without being Antinomians and must that we confound not the New with the Old Testament 15. The vast difference betwixt the Old and the New Testament as betwixt Agar and Sarah 16. The condition of the New Testament is not to be placed in Doing but in Believing For Doing as a condition of Life belongs to Moses his Covenant not to Christs Testament if it be taken properly that is for our Personal and not for our Virtual doing 17. The true definition of the New Testament admits obedience into its constitution but only Faith into its condition 18. The obligation of the New Testament not lessened by taking Faith for its condition and what Faith is required to fulfil the condition of the New Testament The seventh Exception IBidem sect 5. pag. 244. Having said Christ is called the Mediator of the New Testament Hebr. 9. 15. not the Mediator of the New Covenant as in other places you say also a little after I am afraid of the Covenant and flye to the Testament in the precedent Chapter Verse 6. your Old reads Mediator of a better Testament and in the margent Or Covenant your New reads better Covenant and in the margent or Testament This better is called ver 8 13. by your New The New Covenant by your Old The New Testament In the Original The same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in all these places which properly signifies Testament yet in all these places Mr. Beza constantly translates faederis Covenant Nay you your self are not afraid of the Covenant but fly to it For in your ejaculation 20. using St. Pauls words Heb. 12. you say I am desirous to come unto Mount Sion and to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant yet even there in the margent is or Testament And Mr. Beza contrary to his custome translates Testamenti Hence it appears that your own Translators use these two words indifferently to signifie but one and the same thing as meer synonyma insomuch as Mr. Beza above in the frontispiece writes novum faedus and a little beneath Novum Testamentum I cannot see then what comfort you can have out of those words Heb 9. 15. more then out of the rest For in very deed Christs New Testament is no other then a new conditional Covenant with us by which we are bound cooperating with his Grace to do very many things our selves docentes eos servare omnia quaecunque mandavi vobis Matth. 28. 20. for the obtaining of the promised inheritance wherein if we faile we shal never attain thereto For as your self say excellently well A covenant doth wholly depend upon mutual conditions which if either party fail the Covenant is broken and made of none effect The Answer 1. T Is unwarantable in Divines to make new work but t is unsufferable if not unpardonable in them to make new Divinity They make new work when they raise needless contentions and strifes about words They make new Divinity when they contend for those Things which God hath not taught or against those Things which God hath taught in his most holy Word This last and worst Age of the world hath been guilty of both and this your last exception may justly seem to come under the suspicion of the same Guilt For the first part of it makes new work by raising a needlesse contention about words Testament and Covenant which in common Scripture use are meer Synonyma signifying the same Thing And the latter part of it would faine make new Dâ—…vinity contending for such a new Covenant as is not whiles it labours to set up the Old instead of the New Covenant 2. But what though Testament and Covenant are promiscuously taken in their common use and have one and the same signification yet I hope in some peculiar respects they may have distinct notions and so come under several considerations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pâ—…esbyter and Bishop are promiscuously used in the New Testament will you therefore turn Presbyteâ—…ian and deny the distinct Office and Function of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are promiscuously used in the Monuments of the Church this being in the first Ephesin Council the inscription of Neâ—…orius his Epistle to Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Copie of the Epistle of Nestorius to Pope Cyril for Patriach will you therefore turn Protestant and deny the Supreme Jurisdiction now arrogantly challenged and as insolently exercised in the Papacy I hope though you cannot gainsay the promiscuous and common use yet you will still maintain the distinct and peculiar considerations of
Here the primum Praedicatum the first thing Preached is Repent for not doing and Believe in him that hath done it and you shall live There perfect obedience was not only the obligation of the persons Covenanting but also the condition of the Covenant here though it is still the obligation of the persons Covenanting for God hath not lost his right of cluiming nor Gods Law her power of requiring perfect obedience yet is it not the condition of the Covenant for the New Testament promiseth life upon true Faith which the Old Testament promised only upon full and perfect obedience and though it bids us obey as well as the Old yet it annexes not the conveyance of life upon our Obeying but upon our Believing requiring our obedience as a duty of Rightteousness but not making it the condition of life And whereas you say The New Testament is a conditional Covenant binding us to do very many things our selves for obtaining the promised inheritance I challenge you to name that one thing to which you dare annex your Fac vives Do this as you ought to do it and live upon doing of which so exactly and perfectly as Gods Law requires you dare be so hardy as to venture your soul or so easie as to hazard your Salvation I doubt not but you will be glad to admit of a mitigation and pray God to accept of your serious endeavour instead of your exact performance and of your true Repentance instead of your due Obedience and of your Saviours compleat doing it for you instead of your incompleat doing it for your self and then your Fac Vives will be but our Crede Vives your do this and live will be but our Believe in him that hath done it and live and you will become one of those Evangelical brethren whom your proud Justitiaries now so scoffe at or having broken the condition of the Covenant that is perfect Obedience you must be contented to lose the Promise of the Covenant that is eternal Salvation for your self have approved that saying which I think no Divine is able to disprove A Covenant doth wholly depend upon mutual conditions which if either party faâ—…l the Covenant is broken and made of none effect which was the reason assigned by me why I was afraâ—…d of the Covenant and did fly to the Testament because I found better Conditions in the Testament properly so called than in the Covenant and 't is something strange you should at the same time dislike my Doctrine about the Testament and yet approve the reason of it about the Covenant For my part I cannot but think it neerly concernes all Christian Divines as the Trustees of Gods Truth and of their neighbours souls least they should betray them both together not to clog Christs Covenant of Salvation with impossible conditions such as God hath not required and man cannot performe even with the conditions of impeccable righteousness and perfect obedience in and from themselves which have been fulfilled and are to be expected only in and from their Saviour For he that said to his Apostles Docentes eos servare omnia quaecunque mandavi vobis Mat. 28. 20. did likewise say to one of them and in him to all the rest Testificans Judaeis atque gentibus in Deum poenitentiam fidem in Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Act. 20. 21. He that said by St. Matthew Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded to make his people zealous of good works did also say by St. Luke testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ to make his people see their works were not so good but that they needed Faith and Repentance to make them better and therefore God though in Justice he required their most perfect obedience perfect in parts according to the Tenour of all his Commandements and perfect in degrees according to the rigour of them yet he was pleased in mercy to accept the will for the deed sincere obedience for perfect obedience the entire endeavour for the full performance and had accordingly in this Covenant of Grace annexed their Salvation not to the condition of their perfect obedience as in the Covenant of works but to the condition of their Faith in Christ who was made obedient to the death even the death of the Crosse to make an atonement for their disobedience Both the Covenants were made with Adam for all mankind the Covenant of Works before his fall the Covenant of Grace soon after it And though they were very neer joyned in time for Adam is generally thought not to have stood one full day in his innocency yet are they very farre separated in nature even as farre as Justice and Mercy in God or innocency and sin in man the one Covenant being to save the Righteous by the Rules of Justice the other being to save the sinner by the pleas of Mercy The Covenant renewed to the Jews by Moses was that of Works to keep them in bondage that they might gaspe and sigh and groan after their Redeemer The Covenant renewed to the Christians by our Saviour Christ is that of Grace to enstate them in libertie that they may see the Mercy and enjoy the Comfort of their Redemption What was of Grace or Mercy in the Covenant by Moses was not from Moses but from Christ Not from the Covenant but from the Testament and therefore that was properly called a Covenant because it gave life only upon the strict Rules of Justice But this is more properly called a Testament because it gives life upon the relaxation of those strict Rules of Justice and admits the condescensions and mitigations of mercy Each Covenant is Conditional promising everlasting life only to those who keep its Conditions Bur the Covenant of Works promiseth life upon the Condition of Doing accepting only of perfect Righteousness and Obedience The Covenant of Grace promiseth life upon the Condition of Believing accepting of Righteousness and Obedience if it be sincere though it be not perfect that is Accepting of Repentance for Obedience and of Faith for Righteousness So that the New Testament by Christ though it be a conditional Covenant as was the Old by Moses yet hath it not the same Condition with that as your words import but a Condition quite different from it sc. the Condition of Believing instead of doing For so it is said God having raised up his Son Jesus sent him to blesse you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities Act. 3. 26. In that our Jesus came to bless us by turning us from our iniquities 't is evident we must turn from our sins or we cannot have his blessing But in that 't is He that blesseth us 't is as evident our blessing depends not upon our Obedience but upon our Faith not upon our Own but upon His Righteousness Wherefore though we allow and affirme that all things