The Law of Works and the Law of Faith

ROM. 3. 27.

THe Apostle delivered in the words before most compendiously and fully the whole doctrine of justification in the¹ severall causes of it, from whence in this verse, he inferreth a conclusion against all boasting in a mans self; which he manageth by short interrogations, that so he might the more subdue that selfe confidence in us: Where is boasting? saith he. This is to be applyed universally both to Jew and Gentile; but especially to the Jew, who gloried most herein. and Chrysostome makes this the reason why Christ deferred so long, & put off his coming in the flesh, viz. that our humane pride might be debased: for if at first he had come unto us, men would not have found such an absolute necessity of a Saviour. The second Question is, by what Law boasting is excluded; and this is answered, first negatively, not by the Law of works. Secondly positively, by the law of faith.

The Apostle, by the law of works, meaneth the doctrine of works, prescribing them as the condition of our justification and salvation; and he saith works, in the plurall number, because one or two good works, though perfectly done (if that were possible) would not satisfie the Law for our acceptation, unlesse there were a continuall and universall practise of them, both for parts and degrees: and he cals the doctrine of faith, the law of faith, either because (as Chrysostome saith) he would sweeten and indeare the Gospel to the Jewes, by giving it a name which they loved; or, as Beza, he speaks here mimetically, according to the sense of the Jewes, as when John. 6. he calleth Faith a work, because the Jewes asked, What should they do? Now we have in the Scripture two lively comments upon both these parts of the Text. The Pharisee mentioning what he did, reckoning up his works, and never naming the grace of God, is a boaster by the Law of works, but the Publican, that looketh upon himselfe only as a sinner, and so judgeth himself, he excludeth all boasting by the law of faith.

The Papists they mean by works here in the Text, those² which go before faith, and they quote a good rule out of Gregory, though to a foul errour, Non per opera venitur ad fidem, sed per fidem ad opera: We do not come by works to faith, but by faith to Works. But this glosse of theirs corrupts the text, because the Apostle in this controversie instanceth in Abraham, shewing how he had not wherewith to glory in himself, and therefore by beleeving gave glory to God. If you ask why works do imply boasting, though we be enabled thereunto by the grace of God? The answer is ready, because we attribute justification to that work of grace within us, which yet is defective, that is, wholly to be given unto Christ. (Doctr)

The doctrine I shall pursue out of these words, is, That although the Law, given by God to the Israelites, was a Covenant of grace, yet in some sense the Law and Gospel do oppose and thwart one another, And this matter I undertake, because hereby the nature of the Gospel and the Law will be much discovered. It is an errour, saith Calvin lib. 2. Instit. cap. 9. in those who do never otherwise compare the Gospel with the Law, then the merit of works with the free imputation of righteousness: and (saith he) this Antithesis or opposition is not to be refused, because the Apostle doth many times make them contrary, meaning by the Law that rule of life, whereby God doth require of us, that which is his own, given us no ground of hope, unlesse in every respect we keep the Law; but, saith he, quum de totâ lege agitur, when he speaks of the Law more largely taken, he makes them to differ, only in respect of clearer manifestation: or, as, Pareus saith of the old and new Covenant, they³ differ not essentially, but, as we say, the old and new Moon.

Therefore, before I come to shew the exact opposition, take notice of two things as a foundation: first, that the Law and the Gospel may be compared one with another, either in respect of the grace God gave under the Old-Testament, & the New, and then they differ onely gradually; for they under the Law did enjoy grace and the Spirit of God, (though Socinians deny it) although indeed in respect of the Gospel, it may comparatively be said, no spirit, and, no grace; as when it is said, The holy Ghost was not yet given, because it was not so plentifully given: Or, secondly, the doctrine of the Law in the meere preceptive nature of it, may be compared with the doctrine of the Gospel, having the grace of God annexed unto it and going along with it. Now this is in some respects an unequall comparison; for if you take the doctrine or letter of the Gospel without the grace of God, that letter may be said to kill as well as the letter of the Law: only this is the reason, why we cannot say, The Spirit of God, or grace, or life is by the Law, because whatsoever spirituall good was vouchsafed to the Jewes, it is not of the Law, but of the grace of God, or the Gospel. Therefore, whensoever we compare Law and Gospel together, we must be sure to make the parallel equall, and to take them so oppositely, that we may not give the one more advantage, or lesse, then the nature of it doth crave and desire.

In the second place therefore, in this controversie, still remember to carry along with you the different use of the word⁴ [Law] as to this point; for if you take Law strictly, and yet make it a Covenant of grace, you confound the righteousnesse of works, and of faith together, as the Papists do: but if largely, then there may be an happy reconciliation.

For the better opening of this, consider, that as the word⁵ [Law] so the word [Gospel] may be taken largely, or strictly. We will not trouble you with the many significations of the word (or whether it be used any where of a sorrowfull message, as well as glad newes, as some say, in two places it is used, 1. Sam. 4. 17. 2 Sam. 1. 10. according to that rule of Mercers, Non infrequens esse, specialia verba interdum generaliter sumi.) It is enough to our purpose, that in the Scripture it is sometimes taken more largely, and sometimes more strictly: when it’s taken largely, it signifieth the whole doctrine, that the Apostles were to preach, Mar. 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every creature: & so Mar. 1. 1. The beginning of the Gospel, i. e. the doctrine & preaching of Christ. Or else it is taken most strictly, as when Luke 2. 10. Behold I bring you glad tydings, &c. In which strict sence it’s called the Gospel of peace, and of the grace of God: So that you see, the word [Law] is taken differently, largely and strictly; thus also is the word [Gospel.] Now it’s a great dispute, Whether the command of repentance belong unto the Gospel, or no? I finde the Lutherans, Antinomians, and Calvinists to speak differently: but of that, when we take the Law and Gospel in their most strict sense. Bellarmine bringeth it as an argument, that the Protestants do deny the necessity of good works, because they hold that the Gospel hath no precepts, or threatnings in it, lib. 4. de Justif. cap. 2. And he urgeth against them, that Cap. 1. ad Rom. where the wrath of God is said to be revealed from heaven in the Gospel; but (as is to be shewed) he there doth mistake the state of the controversie taking the word [Gospel] in a larger sense then they intended. Thus on the other side Islebius, the father of the Antinomians, he taught that repentance was not to be pressed from the Decalogue, but from the Gospel; & that, to preserve the purity of doctrine, we ought to resist all those who teach, the Gospel must not be preached but to those who are made contrite by the Law: whereas the right unfolding of the word [Gospel] would make up quickly those breaches.

The Law therefore and the Gospel admitting of such a different acception, I shall first shew the opposition between the Law and the Gospel taken in their large sense and then in the limited sense, And this is worth the while, because this is the foundation of all our comfort, if rightly understood. Now the Question in this larger sense is the same with the difference between the Old and New-Testament, or Covenant; wherein the Learned speak very differently, and, as to my apprehension, most confusedly. I shall not examine whether that be the reason of calling it Old and New, which Austin Chemnitius, and others urge, because it presseth the old man & condemneth that; whereas the new incourageth and comforteth new: I rather take it to be so called, because the old was to cease and vanish away, being before the other in time. Now in my method I will lay down the false differences, and then name the true.

The false differences are first of the Anabaptists and Socinians,⁶ who make all that lived under the Law to have nothing but temporall earthly blessings in their knowledge and affections. And for this they are very resolute, granting indeed that Christ and eternall things were promised in the Old Testament but they were not enjoyed by any till the New Testament, whereupon they say, that grace and salvation was not till Christ came. And the places which the Antinomians bring for beleevers under the New Testament, they take rigidly and universally, as if there had been no eternall life, nor nothing of the Spirit of God till Christ came. Hence they say, the Gospel began with Christ, and deny that the promise of a Christ, or Messias to come is ever called the Gospel, but the reall exhibition of him only. This is false; for, although this promise be sometimes called Act. 7. 17. Act. 13. 32. the promise made to the fathers, yet it is sometimes also called the Gospel, Rom. 1. 2. Rom. 10. 14, 15. And there are cleare places to confute this wicked errour, as the Apostle instancing in Abraham and David, for justification, and remission of sinnes, which were spirituall mercies; and that eternall life was not unknown to them, appeareth by our Saviours injunction, commanding them to search the Scriptures, for in them they hope for eternall life, John 11. 39. Thus also they had hope and knowledge of a resurrection, as appeareth, Act. 24. 14. therefore our Saviour proved the resurrection out of a speech of Gods to Moses. And howsoever Mercer (as I take it) thinke that exposition probable about Jobs profession of his knowledge [That his Redeemer liveth, and that he shall see him at the last day] which make his meaning to be of Jobs perswasion of his restitution unto outward peace and health again; yet there are some passages, in his expression, that seem plainly to hold out the contrary. Though therefore we grant that that state, was the state of children, and so carried by sensible objects very much; yet there was under these temporall good things, spiritual held forth. Hence the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. maketh the Jewes to have the same spirituall matter and benefit in their Sacraments⁷ which we partake of.

In the next place, let us consider the false difference of the Papists; and they have the Socinians also agreeing with them in some things.

First, they make this a great difference, that Christ, under the⁸ New Testament, hath added more perfect Laws, and sound counsells then were before, as, Wilfull poverty, Vowed chastity: and the Socinians, they labour to shew how Christ hath added to every precept of the Decalogue; and they begin with the first, that he hath added to it these things: 1. A command to prayer, whereas in the Old Testament, though Godly men did pray, yet (say they impudently) there was no command: and then Christ (say they) did not only command to pray, but gave a prescript form of prayer. The second thing added (say they) is to call upon Christ, as a Mediatour in our prayers, which they in the Old Testament did not. And thus they go on over all the Commandements, shewing what new things Christ hath added, Smal. refut. Thes. pag. 228. But I have already shewed that Christ never added any morall duty which was not commanded before.

The second difference of the Papists, is, to make the Law and⁹ the Gospel capable of no opposite considerarion, no not in any strict sense, but to hold both a Covenant of works, and that the Fathers under the Old Testament, and those under the New, were both justified by fulfilling the Law of God. And herein lyeth that grosse errour, whereby Christ and grace are evacuated. But the falshood of this shall be evinced (God willing) when we speak of the Law and Gospelstrictly, which the Papists, upon a dangerous errour, call the Old Law, and the New.¹⁰

Lastly, the Papists make a third difference, that under the Old Testament, the Fathers that dyed went not immediatly to heaven; therefore (say they) we do not say, Saint Jeremiah, or, Saint Isaiah, but after Christs death then a way was opened for them and us: Hence is that saying, Sanguis Christi, est clavis Paradisi, The blood of Christ, is the key of paradise: but this is sufficiently confuted in the Popish controversies.

I come therefore to the Antinomian difference, and there I¹¹ finde such an one, that I am confident was never heard of before in the world; It is in the Honey-comb of Justification, pag. 117. God (saith he) saw sin in the beleevers of the Old Testament, but not in these of the New; And his Reason is, because the glory of free Justification was not so much revealed, the vaile was not removed. What a weak reason is this? Did the lesse, or more revelation of free Justification make God justifie the lesse freely? It had been a good argument to prove that the people of God in the Old Testament did not know this doctrine so clearly as those in the New, but that God should see the more or lesse, because of this, is a strange Consequence. The places of Scripture which he brings, Zech. 13. 1. Dan. 9. 14. would make more to the purpose of a Socinian, (that there is no pardon of sin, and eternall life but under the Gospel) rather then for the Antinomian: and one of his places he brings, Jer. 5. ver. 20. maketh the contrary true; for there God promiseth pardon of sin, not to the beleevers under the Gospel but to that residue of the Jews which God would bring back from captivity, as the context evidently sheweth: so the place Heb. 10. 17. how grosly is it applyed unto the beleevers of the Gospel only? for, had not the Godly under the Old Testament the Law written in their hearts? and had they not the same cause to take away their sins (viz. Christs blood) as well as we under the Gospel?

His second reason is, God saw sin in them, because they were children, that had need of a rod; but he sees none in us, because full grown heirs. What a strange reason is this? for parents commonly see less sin in their children, while young, then when grown up: and their childishness doth more excuse them. And although children only have a rod for their faults, yet men grown up they have more terrible punishments. Hence the Apostle threatens beleevers that despise Christ, with punishment above those that despised Moses.

His third Reason is, because they under the Law were under a School-master, therfore he seeth sin in them, but none in us, being no longer under a School-master. But here is no solidity in this Reason: for first, the chiefest work of a School-master is to teach and guide; and so they are said to be under the Law as a School-master, that so they may be prepared for Christ: and thus it is a good argument to Christians under the Gospel, that their lives should be fuller of wisdome and grown graces, then the Jewes; because they are not under a School-master as children: As if one should say to a young man, that is taken from the Grammar school, and transplanted in the University, that he should take heed he doth not speak false Latine now, for he is not in a Grammar schoole now, but in an University. Thus you see, the chief notion of a School-master is to prepare and guide, his correcting is accidentall; yea, if we may believe Qintilian a master in this kinde, he is against the School-masters beating of boyes, as that which would make them of a servile disposition. But Solomon giveth better rules. Grant therefore that this is to be understood of knocks and blows which they had, what can we say under the Gospel, that we are children freed from the rod? Though we have not a Shoolmaster, yet we have a father to correct us. Heb. 12. 5, 6, 7, 8. Do we not in that place finde a plain contradiction of this doctrine? For the Apostle doth there alleadge a place of the Old Testament, to us now under the Gospel: And, certainly, afflictions are as necessary to the godly now, as fire to the drossy vessell and filing to the rusty iron. As the scourging and beating of the garment with a stick, beateth out the mothes and the dust; so do troubles and adversities corruptions from the children of God.

The fourth reason why God saw sin in them, war, Because they were not made perfect according to the conscience, Heb. 9. 13, 14. Who would not think that the author were some Papist, or Socinians? for if the text prove any thing to his purpose, it will evince that the godly then were made partakers of no more then a legall bodily cleansing. But as for the place, that is miserably arrested; for the Apostle, his intent is to shew, that the godly then could not obtain righteousness by any of those sacrifices, and therefore the good they enjoyed was from Christ the true sacrifice: so that unless he will deny Christs blood to be effectuall and operative in the Old Testament, this reason must fall to the ground. Other reasons he brings, which are to the same purpose, and therefore may easily be overthrown; as, that God saw no sin in them, because their preachers did not open the kingdome of heaven, but he seeth none in us, because the least of our Ministers do bring us, into this Kingdome. Every-one may see the weakness here; for it supposeth that God did not so fully pardon and forgive, because the doctrine of these things was not so clearly preached. If the Authors arguments had been, that Christ died not so fully for them, or that Christ his righteousness was not so fully imputed unto them, then there had been some probability. Thus you see this false difference also. I do not medle with that opinion, Of seeing sin in the beleevers, because it is not the proper place.

I find other differences between the Law and the Gospel, made by another Antinomian, and they are in a Sermon upon the two Covenants of grace, where the Authour, hauing truely asserted, that God did transact with the Jewes in a Covenant of¹² grace; yet he makes that Covenant, and this under the Gospel, to be two distinct Covenants: They are not (saith hee, pag. 45.) one and the same Covenant diversly administred, but they are two distinct Covenants: His arguments are, because they are called Old and New: But those names inforce no essentiall difference. The Commandment of love is called an old Commandment, and a new; yet it is the same for essence: so likewise the termes of a¹³ good, and better, do imply no more then a graduall difference in their excellency. But that which I shall especially animadvert upon, is, the differences he giveth between these two Covenants of grace so really distinguished, as he supposeth, and in this matter, the Authour speaketh much error in a few lines.

The first difference assigned by him is in respect of remission of sinnes; but he goeth on other grounds then the Hony-combe¹⁴ doth. They had not (saith he) a plenary remission of all sorts of sinnes: There were sacrifices for sinnes of ignorance, but notfor other sinnes that were done presumptuously: and if no sacrifices were admitted, then consequently no pardon obtained: but under the Gospel, Christs blood cleanseth from all sin, pag. 54. Now here is an heape of falshoods:

First, that all the legall sacrifices were only for sinnes of meer ignorance; (This is also an errour among Socinians) but Levit. 6. 2, 3. there is a sacrifice appointed for him that shall lye, and sweare falsly in detaining of his neighbours goods, and this could not be but a sinne of knowledge. This is also aboundantly confirmed in Levit. 16. where the feast of expiation and atonement is made for all the sinnes of the people, ver. 16. He shall make an atonement, because of the uncleaness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sinnes. So ver. 21. He shall confess over the live goat all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sinnes. Thus ver. 30. that ye may be cleane from all your sinnes before the Lord; & ver. 34. This shall be an atonement for the children of Israel once a yeare for all their sinns. Thus you see the Scripture speakes plainly for all their sinnes; yet the Antinomian speakes as boldly, as if nothing were true; that there were sacrifices for some sorts of sinnes only. So that you are wisely to judge of such books, and not beleeve every confident expression. It’s true the Apostle calls these sinnes […], Heb. 9. 7. we translate it errours; for the Apostle doth not meanesinnes, as appeareth Levit. 16. but therefore are all sinnes called, so because omnis malus ignorat: There being no sinne which doth not proceede from some errour in the practicall judgment? for although a man sin wilfully and advisedly, so that there is Nulla alia causa malitae nisi malitia, (as Austin speakes of some of his sinnes) yet there is even an errour in that mans conscience.

But in the second place, grant, that there were no legall sacrifices¹⁵ appointed for some sins, (as indeed particular sacrifices were commonly for sins, either of ignorance, or if wilfull, not of such an high and mortall guilt; particular (I say) for that feast of expiation was generall) yet there is no consequence in the world, that therefore there was no pardon to be sued out. How foolish then were David and Manasses, in suing out pardon for their blood-guiltiness, if there were no such thing allowed by God? How gross is this errour? If this doctrine were true, then most of those that are reckoned as godly in the Old Testament could have no pardon, because many of them did fall into such gross sins, for which there was no particular sacrifice appointed.

3. Again under the New Testament, is there not the sin¹⁶ against the holy Ghost for which no pardon is promised? Not indeed but that Christs bloud is sufficient to take away the guilt of it? and Gods mercy is able to pardon it, and to give repentance to those that have committed it; but he hath declared he will not.

But, saith the Author, under the Gospel it is said, the bloud of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. Now, if the Jews would have brought all their estates to have been admitted, to bring a sacrifice for such or such a sin, they could not have done it. I reply what and if they could bring no sacrifice, could they not therefore have pardon? Why then doth God proclaime himself to them, a God gracious, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin? Why doth he, Isa. 1. call upon Ierusalem to repent of her whoredoms, murders, saying, If their sins were as scarlet, they should be made as white as snow. This errour is such a dead fly, that it is enough to spoile the Authors whole box of ointment. Besides, was not that true ever since Adams fall, as well as under the Gospel [Christs blood cleansing from all sin] I cannot see how any but a Socinian will deny it.

4. Another difference that the Author makes about remission¹⁷ of sinnes to them, and us under the Gospel, is as strange, and false as the former: It is this, God did not give the grace of remission of sinnes to any under the old Covenant, but upon antecedent conditions; they were to be at cost for sacrifices. (How doth this agree with his former reason, if he mean it universaly?) They were to confess their sinnes to the Priests, yea, in some cases to fast: but now under the Gospel there is no antecedent doing of any thing to the participation of the Covenant. But in this difference also there is much absurd falshood, and contradiction to himselfe: Contradiction (I say) for he bringeth Ezech. 16. where God speaks to the Church, that while she was in her blood, he said to her, Live; therefore there was no antecedent condition. But what man of reason doth not see that God speaks there of the Church of the Iews, as appeareth through the whole Chapter? Therefore it makes strongly against the Author, that she had no preparations; so that other place, Isa. 65. 1. I am found of them that sought not for me; grant that it be a prophesie of the Gentiles, yet was it not also true of the Iews, before God called them? Did the Iews first seek God, or God them? How often doth God tell them, that the good he did to them, was for his own names sake, and not any thing in them?

Again, if these things were required as antecedent qualifications in them for the remission of sins, then all those arguments will hold true upon them, which they would fasten, as injuries to Christ and grace, upon us. If (say they) we must repent, and humble our selves, and so have pardon, this is to cast off Christ, this is to make an idoll of our owne righteousness, &c. It seemeth the Jews under the Old Testament might do all these things without blame: A Iew might say, My services, my sacrifices, my prayers will do something to the remission of my sinnes: but a Christian may not. The Author urgeth also that place, While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God: but doth not this hold true of the Iews? Did they first make themselves friends with God? What is this but to hold the doctrine of free-will and works in the time of the Law; and the doctrine of grace under the new only? As for faith, whether that be a condition or not, I shall not here meddle: only this is plain, it was required of them under the old Covenant, in the same maner, as it is of us now.

A third difference made as to remission of sinnes, is this: Their remission of sinnes was gradatim, successively, drops by drops. If a¹⁸ man had sinned, and offered sacrifice, then that sinne was pardoned; but this did not extend to future ignorance, that was not pardoned till a new sacrifice. Therefore the Apostle saith, there was a remembrance of sinne; but Christ by one sacrifice once offered, hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. To this I answer, 1. That this difference grew upon this supposition, as if the sacrifice offered did by it’s own vertue take away sinne. For, if we suppose (as we must) that Christ the true sacrifice was represented in every sacrifice, and all the vertue and benefit to come from Christs bloud, and not the bloud of the sacrifices, then could that take away all sinnes as well as some sinnes: unless the Author were a Socinian, denying the efficacy of Christs blood, at all, under the Old Testament, he can never expedite himselfe from this.

Again, this contradicts themselves; for the reason why they say, faith doth not justifie, but evidence and declare it only, is, because Gods love and free grace to justifie, is from all eternity, and therefore no sins past, or future, can hinder this. Now I ask, whether God did not justifie David, and the ungodly in those dayes from all eternity, (as they speak) and if he did, why should not all their sins be remitted fully once, as well as the sins of beleevers under the Gospel? Certainly, the Apostle brings David for an instance of justification and remission of sins, as well under the New Testament, which doth suppose that we are justified, and have our sins pardoned in the like manner.

In the mean while, let me set one Antinomian to overthrow another, for one of that way brings many arguments to prove that we are justified, and so have all our sins done away before we beleeve. Now, if all sins are done away, then there is no successive remission. Well then, you shall observe most of the arguments hold for the beleevers under the old Testament, as well as New; for they are elected as well as we, God laid their sins, upon Christ as well as ours: if God love us to day, and hate us to morrow, let Arminians heare and wonder why they should be blamed that say, We may love God to day, and hate him to morrow. Now all these reasons will fall foul upon this Antinomian whose errour I confute, and he much necessarily hold, that the godly had but halfe pardons, yea, that they were loved one day, and hated the next.

Again, consider that the place of the Apostle urged by him for his errour, viz. Christ offering himselfe once for all, to perfect those that are sanctified, is of a perpetuall truth ever since Adams fall: and it was as efficacious to those before his death, as after; therefore he is called a Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, although the Socinians would pervert and wrest that place.

Lastly, I deny that even under the Gospel that all sins are forgiven to the justified person at once. He is indeed put into a state of justification, whereby no condemnation will fall upon him, yet his sins are not forgiven before they are committed and repented of. And for this purpose we pray for the daily pardon of them, which is not to be understood of the meer declaration or assurance of the pardon, but for the pardon it self. But this shall be on purpose spoken to in the matter of Iustification. The forenamed Author hath some other differences, but they are confuted already for the substance of them.

Footnotes

1. The words opened. ↩

2. The Papists corruptly glosse upon this Text. ↩

3. The Law and the Gospel may be compared one with another in a double respect. ↩

4. The different use of the word [Law] carefully to be observed. ↩

5. What meant by Law taken largely and what strictly ↩

6. False differences between the Law and the Gospel: 1. Of Anabaptists, and Socinians, affirming, That they under the Law in the Old Testament enioyed only temporall blessings. ↩

7. 2. Of Papists.
   ↩
8. 1. That Christ hath added more perfect Laws under the New Testament.
   ↩
9. 2. That the Law and Gospel are capable of no oposite consideration.
   ↩
10. 3. That the Fathers that died under the Old Testament, went not immedatly to heaven.
    ↩
11. 3. Of Antinomians. That God saw sin in the beleevers of the Old Testament, not of the New.
    ↩
12. 2. That the Covenant God made with the Iews & this under the Gospel are two distinct Covenants.
    ↩
13. 3. That Plenary remission of sins under the Gospel, not so under the law, because no sacrifice save for sins of ignorance.
    ↩

14. Confut. 1. All Sacrifices were not only for sins of ignorance. ↩

15. 2. No legall sacrifice, therefore no remission of sin, in consequent.
    ↩
16. 3. The sin against the holy Ghost under the Gospel not cleansed by Christs bloud.
    ↩
17. 4. That under the old Covenant, God gave not remission of sins to any, but upon antecedent conditions; not so under the Gospel.
    ↩

18. 5 That remission of sinnes under the Law was successively and imperfect, under the Gospel at once and perfect. ↩