did not mean any such thing as his words clearly and necessarily import Mr. G quotes a Sentence out of the same Disputation Thes 25. Where he says (n) Evangelium hoc modo non incommodè definiri potest Doctrina Divina qua arcanum Dei foedus de gratuita salute per Christum hominibus in peccatum lapsis annunciatur cum electis inchoatur ac conservatur ad ipsorum salutem Dei Servatoris gloriam Gomar Oper. Part. 3. Disp 14. Thes 25. The Gospel may not unfitly be defined this way It is a Divine Doctrine whereby the secret Covenant of God concerning free Salvation by Christ is declared unto Men fallen into sin and is begun with the Elect and conserved or continued unto their Salvation and the Glory of God their Saviour But this will not do my R. Brothers Business For 1. Gomarus here doth not pretend accurately and fully to define the Gospel and therefore he only says it may not unfitly be defined this way And one may well enough express himself thus when he is to give only a general Description which is an imperfect definition of a thing 2. This Description of the Gospel goes before in the 25th Position Whereas the Testimony quoted out of him in the Apology comes after in the 30th Position in which Gomarus designedly explains himself and adds what he had before omitted in his description of the Gospel Thes 25. and expresly asserts the Gospel to be a Law and a Law of Grace and gives his Reasons for both 3. Here then Gomarus did not in the least contradict himself only in Thes 30. he explained and expressed what he had supposed and implyed and added what he had omitted in Thes 25. 4. Here also Mr. G should have considered Gomarus his 29. Position which I quoted at large in the Apology pag. 100 but shall not here repeat it for he cannot but have seen it since it is immediately before the 30th which he pretends to Answer These things being duely considered it is as clear as the Light that my R Brother dealt very disingenuously not to use a worse word when he thus concluded pag. 34. of his Discourse Therefore when Gomarus a little after calls the Gospel a Law he must necessarily understand the word Gospel as it signifies all the second part of the Bible not as it implyes only God's Covenant of Grace discovered to Man This is so far from being true de facto that it is impossible it should be true And my R.B. who hath read the place if he knows any thing cannot but know that it is false For it is most evident from Gomarus his words both as they are in his own Works and as they are cited in the Apology p. 27. and 100. That the Gospel he speaks of is not the Book of the New Testament but it is the very Covenant of Grace it self both discovered unto and made with Man and recorded in the Books both of the Old and New Testament It is the Covenant which hath a condition in it prescribed to us and required of us Yea It is the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 It is the Law which goes forth out of Sion as he proves from Isa 2.3 And that Mr. G himself hath acknowledged to be the very Gospel in its strict and proper Sense How to excuse my R. B. here from being guilty of a known falsincation I profess I know not But whatever be of that sure I am that Gomarus his own words cannot bear that sence which he would force upon them And I appeal to Schollars and Judicious honest Men to judge between us and determine which of us two gives the genuine true Sense of those words of Gomarus which I quoted in the Apology p. 27 and 100. Twelfthly Mr. G to back the foresaid Misinterpretation of Gomarus his Words concerning the Nature of the Gospel-Covenant brings the Testimony of the Heavenly Host of Holy Angels recorded in Luke 2. ver 13 14. but this doth not move me in the least from my steadfast belief of the Gospel Covenant its being a Law of Grace For from the Angels Doxology in Luke 2. neither Man nor Angel can ever prove by good consequence that the Covenant of the Gospel is not a Law of Grace The Angels not saying expresly that it is a Law of Grace proves nothing For it was no part of their Commission to say that it is or that it is not What they said is true indeed ay and it is true Gospel too as was acknowledged before in our first preliminary consideration But what then It doth not follow that therefore it is the whole Gospel and intire Covenant of Grace which God made with his Church through Christ the Mediator And if it be not the whole as it is not then what they said and what Gomarus and I after him say that the Gospel is a Law of Grace may both be true and so they certainly are But it seems Mr. G thinks that God is not at peace with him nor with me nor with any other Man nor bears any good Will to him or us if by the Gospel he require Faith and Repentance of us in order to the Pardon of our Sins by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ the Mediator of the Covenant And if that be really his settled Thought his Case is to be pityed and I heartily pray God for Christ's sake to pity him and to deliver him from an evil heart of Unbelief That he may through Grace come to the knowledge of the Truth and be perswaded that God's being at peace with him and bearing good Will to him is very well consistent with the Gospel-Covenant its requiring of him Faith and Repentance As for his descant upon the words of the Angels it is nothing but a flourish of Words and Rhetorick without Reason makes no Impression upon the Wise whatever Effect it may have upon others Now my R Brother his Premisses being false as I have shewed them to be his Conclusion as such must be of the same Nature And so it is not true as he pretends but really false that God from Heaven and some of the best Men whoever lived upon Earth do plainly tell us that the Gospel is no Law but a pure Act of Grace for they do not tell us any such thing And to the Lords People it is both It is both a Law and also a pure Act of Grace it is a Law of Grace As for what he says in page 35 of his Discourse that our Reformers were careful to distinguish the Gospel from a Law It is false in his Sense they were not careful to distinguish it from all kind of Law but from a certain kind of Law that is from the Law of Works This indeed they were careful to do and so are we too And as they would not so no more do we suffer Works under never so specious pretences to invade the Prerogative of Grace In fine what Mr.
I meant nothing but the new Covenant of Grace and only said that this Gospel-Covenant might be called a Law without just cause of offence to the Brethren because the Scriptures of Truth call it a Law Now if I did all this in the Apology Page 21 22 23 27. as I certainly did and God Angels and Men know it to be true then my Reverend Brother did not do well to go about to deceive the People and make them believe that I introduce a new Law of Works to be justified and saved by and for them and that my Arguments to prove it are all grounded upon the ambiguity of the word Law unexplained All which is utterly false I confess indeed what is true that though my purpose and design was not to prove but to explain and declare what we meant yet en passant on the by and to shew that our explication was agreeable to Scripture I dropped four passages of Scripture and referred to more in the Margent which do abundantly prove the thing they were quoted for But it is as clear as the Light at Noon-day that my Proof from the said four passages of Scripture in the Line and from the other referred to on the Margent is not in the least established upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law but upon the plain sense and meaning of the Scriptures there alledged Nor could an Argument from those Scriptures there quoted or referred to be grounded upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law because the word Law is not to be sound in any of them Let any Man read them all over and he shall find what I say to be true to wit that the word Law is not in any of them I acknowledge likewise that a few Lines after in the same 22th Page I quote three Scriptures where the word Law is but then it is again as clear as the Light that I quoted those three Scriptures to prove nothing but this That our Brethren should not dislike our calling the Gospel-Covenant a Law because the Scriptures of Truth call it so expresly And my R. Brother acknowledges now with me that it is so called in two of the places to wit Isa 42.4 and Rom. 3.27 and in several others which he hath quoted As for my other Argument from Humane Authority neither is that established on the ambiguity of the word Law but on the word it self its being found in the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines long before we were born From whence I clearly proved that the Word is not new but old And if the Testimonies of my Witnesses prove more as they really do even that the Gospel-Covenant was not onely of old called a Law but that it really is a Law of Grace which requires some Duty of us that was beside my design and purpose which was only to prove matter of fact as appears from the express words of the Apology pag. 24. lin 16 17 18 19 20 21. If any object that in the Preface and Index of the First Section of the Second Chapter it is said expresly that we have proved the Gospel to be a new law of Grace by the Word of God or Scripture and by the Testimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I Answer It is true it is said so But then consider that the said Preface and Index were Written and Printed after the Apology was Finished and Printed though in the Book they are both put before it as it is the custom to write Prefaces and Indexes last and yet place them first in Books Now when I wrote the Preface and Index taking a review of all that was said on that head in the Apology I found that my Quotations from Scripture and Doctors had proved more than I designed 1. I designed only to explain our meaning and by citing the four Scriptures in the Line and others in the Margent to show that our explication was agreeable to Scripture 2. By alledging the Testimonies of Antient and Modern Doctors of the Church I designed only to prove matter of fact to wit that new law of Grace was no new word but old This was what I designed in writing that part of the Apology But by looking it over after it was Printed I found that the Scriptures cited and referred to and the Testimonies of Doctors there alledged do really prove that the Gospel-Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediatour is a new Law of Grace which requires some Duties of us and which promises to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake only if we through Grace perform the said Duties And for this reason it was that in the Preface and Index I said that we had proved the Gospel in the sense there given to be a new Law of Grace both by Scripture and by the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines If any do further object That Humane Testimony can only prove matter of fact I answer It 's true Humane Testimony simply as such can solidly prove no more nor did I bring Humane Testimonies to prove any thing but that the Gospel Covenant was in their time called a New Law and a New Law of Grace and that they believed it to be such a Law which is nothing but matter of Fact Yet Men by giving Testimony to Matter of Fact may at the same time and in the same Testimony bring such Arguments from Scripture or Reason as shall likewise prove matter of right And this my Witnesses did especially Justin Martyr Cyprian Austin the Professors of Leyden Gomtrus Dr. Andrews and Dr. Twiss they both called the Gospel-Covenant a Law a New Law a New Law of Grace which proves the matter of fact and moreover in their Testimonies to the matter of Fact they alledged such places of Scripture or gave such reasons as do prove the matter of Right to wit That the Gospâ—l Covenant is a New Law of Grace and may and ought to be so accounted Now having first told the World how easily he could answer my Arguments and wipe off all my Citations upon a supposition which is of his own feigning and notoriously false as I have proved he next comes to answer my Arguments that is indeed my one Argument from Scripture for in effect there is no more but one and that one is there brought to confirm our Explication of the words Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace and to shew that what we mean by those words is consonant to the Scriptures of Truth as is evident from the 21. and 22. pag. of the Apology Well But be it Argument or Arguments he undertakes to give us a clear Answer to it and in order thereunto he proposes to do three things 1. To shew that the Gospel hath no Precepts or Commandments 2. That it hath no Threatnings 3. That it hath no Conditional Promises This is directly against the Professors of Leyden who in their Synopsis of purer Divinity say expresly as their words are quoted in the Apology
Sanctification begun or continued evidently belongs to the Gospel Which he there proves by Four Arguments The same Learned Authour a little before in the same Book page 750 751. by distinguishing the several Senses in which the Word Gospel is taken answers all that Mr. Goodwin hath written in his whole Book only he did not think that any Body but a Flacian Sectary would be so absurd as to say that the Gospel strictly and properly taken is a Doctrine of Grace that requires nothing of us at all and therefore he affirms that the Gospel strictly taken requires Faith and that Evangelium quocunque modo acceptum habet promissiones conditionales Take the Gospel which way soever one will it hath Conditional Promises This is another of the Systems of Divinity that hath been used in the Schools of the Reformed and even by the Presbyterians in Scotland But we will leave the Germans and come to our own Countrey Men and see what their Judgment hath been of this matter And I will begin with Mr. Caryl whose Judgment I hope will be something regarded by the Brethren He gives it plainly and fully on Job 42.6 last Vol. in Quarto pag. 842 where that Evangelical Repentance as a means of obtaining Pardon and Life is not required by the Law but by the Gospel he proves 1. By Scripture Matth. 3.2 11. and 4.17 and Mark 6.12 Acts 2.38 Acts 20.21 2. He says It is through the Gospel only that Repentance is possible and this appears two ways 1. Because we have not a liberty to repent or we are not admitted to repent but by the Gospel we find no place for Repentance in the Law strictly taken or as opposed to the Gospel The Law speaks thus Cursed is every one that continueth not c. Gal. 3.10 Where we see 1. The Law requires Personal Obedience every one must do for himself 2. The Law requires perpetual Obedience every one that continueth not doing 3. The Law requires Universal Obedience every one that continueth not in all things The Law doth not say If a Man continue not to do all let him repent that admits no second Thoughts but claps the Curse presently upon the Offender If Adam as soon as he had eaten of the forbidden Tree had bewailed his Sin and said I repent no Favour could have been shewed him while under the Law c. Thus the Reverend Mr. Caryl whereby it plainly appears that he believed the Law by it self immediately doth not oblige us to Repentance as it is a means by God's Ordination disposing us to obtain Pardon of Sin and acceptance with God through Faith in Christ for he plainly says That the Law doth not admit us to repent in order to such an end And then surely it doth not Command us to repent in order to such an end On the other hand he proves by Scripture that the Gospel Commands us to Repent in order to the foresaid end And therefore he is plainly on our side against my Reverend Brother So are the Reverend Authours of the Assemblyes Annotations Annotation on Mark 1.15 Repent ye Faith and Repentance say they are the sum of the Gospel The same Annotators in their Annotation on Acts 17.30 But now he Commandeth all Men every where to repent they say now he causeth the Gospel to be preached to all Nations to draw them from their horrible Sins And now if they refuse to do the known Will of their Master they must expect more severe Judgments Hence it is manifest that in the Judgment of those Divines the Command to repent in order to obtain Pardon of Sin is a part of the Gospel otherwise their Annotation had been impertinent yea it had been a wresting of Holy Scripture and a perverting of the true meaning of the Text which they designed to explain But some may demand whether our Protestant Divines use to say that True Repentance is a Condition required of us as necessary yea and as antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining Pardon of Sin I Answer Yea they do use to say so and some of them prove it too Witness the same Assemblies Annotations on Mark 1. ver 4. John did Preach the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins On these words they have this Note Repentance is not the Cause but the Inseparable Condition of Sins Remission And on Acts 5.31 where Christ is said to give Repentance c. their Note is This Christ giveth by the Spirit of Regeneration and hereunto is Remission of Sins most certainly annexed And Pool's Annotations on Christ's words Matth. 9.13 but I am come to call Sinners to Repentance They have this Note but sensible Sinners to Repentance First to Repentance then to the receiving Remission of Sins c Witness also 2. Dr Rivet and Mr. Anthony Burgess both at once For thus Burgess quotes Rivet with approbation We have other Orthodox Writers speaking more consonantly to Truth denying that future Sins are forgiven Burgesses's True Doctrine of Justification Asserted c. in 30. Lectures pag. 244. before committed and repented of When Grotius had objected that the Protestants Doctrine was Peccata condonari antequam fiant That Sins were forgiven before they were Committed Rivet in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 467. replyeth Imo id nos absurdissimum credimus c. Yea We think such a Doctrine most absurd and the imputation of it to us most unjust Those that know God hath Decreed from Eternity to pardon Sin upon the Condition of Repentance those that know God hath not decreed the End without the Means will never ascribe to themselves Pardon of Sin without these exercises of Repentance Mr. Burgess goes on with Rivet and saith Thus the same Authour in the same Book pag. 533. Absurdum est credere c. It is absurd saith he to believe a Remission of Sins which are not yet committed for neither in the Decree of God is there an actual Remission Decreed without Repentance preceding Remission Again The same Burgess in the same Book pag. 270. gives us his own Judgment by it self in these following words There is in Scripture a two-fold Repentance or Humiliation for Sin the one antecedent and going before Pardon and this the Scripture requireth as a necessary Condition without which Forgiveness of Sin cannot be obtained Of this Repentance the Scripture for the most part speaks Ezek 18.30 Matth. 3.2 Mark 6.12 Luke 13.3 Acts 3.19 and generally in most places of Scripture c. By this now it appears that both Rivet and Burgess held that True Repentance is required as a Condition or Means antecedently in order of Nature necessary to the Pardon of Sin Our Third Witness is the Learned Prudent Pious and Peaceable Mr. Durham who in his Commentary on the Revelation hath a large Discourse concerning Repentance where 1. He distinguishes and shews what Repentance it is which he holds to be necessary to pardon of Sin 2. He proves it to be
Homilies on Matthew can fairly or I think will deny it It is adviseable that we all consider well what we do either in affirming or denying plain matters of Fact My Sixth Witness is the Famous Augustin the great Defender of the Freeness of God's Grace in Mans Justification and Salvation against all Merit-Mongers who in one of his Epistles writes thus (p) Itaque ab Exordio generis humani quicunque in eum crediderunt eumque utcunque intellexerunt secundum ejus praecepta piè justè vixerunt quando libet ubilibet fuerint per eum procul dubio Salvi factisunt August Epist 49 Deo gratias Oper. Tom. 2. Therefore from the beginning of Mankind whosoever believed in Christ and did in some measure know him and lived Piously and Justly according to his Precepts whensoever and wheresoever they lived without all doubt they were saved by him Here Augustin speaks of Christ not simply as God but as Mediator of the Gospel-Covenant and so his Precepts which they who believed in him observed and were saved must be the Precepts of that Covenant of which he is the Mediator and Surety for they could not be formally the Precepts of the first Legal Covenant of Works And that this was Augustins mind doth yet more clearly appear by what he writes elsewhere (q) Cum verò etiam Evangelica praecepta homo praevaricatur velut quatriduanus mortuus putet Nec de illo tamen desperandum est propter ejus gratiam qui non lentè dixit sed magnâ voce clamavit Lazare veni forâs August Epist 89. Hilario Oper. Tom. 3. But when a Man prevaricates also against the Precepts of the Gospel he stinks like one who hath been four days dead yet must we not despair of him because of the Graco of Christ who cryed with a loud voice and said Lazarus come forth In these words as they refer to what went before he manifestly shows that in his judgment the Gospel hath its Precepts For he had spoken of the Law given to Adam in Paradice of the Natural Law of Reason in all Mankind and of the Law of Moses given to the People of Israel and then in the words here quoted he speaks of the Precepts of the Gospel as formally distinct from the Precepts of the former Laws And this is consentaneous to what he writes in his Book of Faith and Works (r) Hoc est Evangelizare Christum non tantùm dicere quae credenda funt de Christo sed etiam quae observanda ei qui accedit ad Compagem Corporis Christi August de Fide Operibus Cap. 9. Oper. Tom. 4. This saith he is to preach the Gospel of Christ not only to tell People what things are to be believed concerning Christ but also what things are to be observed and done by him who becomes a Member of and enters into Vnion and Communion with the Body of Christ My Seventh Witness is Jerome who at once testifyes that in his Judgment the Gospel hath both Precepts and Threatnings His words are (r) Quomodo Christus Jesus ex maledicto nos legis liberavit factus pro nobis maledictum Ita de maledicto quoque Evangelii quod statutum est super eos qui ejus praecepta non fecerint eruit nos Factus pro nobis ipse maledictum Hieronyinus lib. 2. Comment in Epist ad Gal. cap. 3. v. 13. As Christ Jesus redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for us So he hath also delivered us from the Curse of the Gospel which is decreed or oppointed for those who do not observe its Precepts Having been himself made a Curse for us Thus Jerome by which words it is most manifest that he holds that the Gospel as distinct from and opposite to the Law hath both its own proper Precepts and also it s own proper threatnings My Eighth and last Witness is Primasius a Learned Father of the Sixth Century and a Disciple of Augustins in Africa (r) Quaeritur utrum non sit maledictus qui Evangelica praecepta non servat Eos qui Evangelii praecepta contemnunt maledictos esse Salvator edocuit dicens discedite à me maledicti in ignem aeternum Primasius Uticensis Comment in Epist ad Gal. Cap. 3. v. 13. It is demanded whether he be not Cursed who heaps not the Precepts of the Gospel Even our Saviour himself hath taught that they are Cursed who despise the Precepts of the Gospel Saying Depart from me ye Cursed into Everlasting Fire Thus Primasius And he also speaks of the Gospel as distinct from the Law and yet affirms that the Gospel so considered hath Precepts and that they are Cursedwho despise its Precepts I might bring many others of the Ancients to Witness for us that the Gospel hath Precepts and is not a mere Absolute Promise which requires nothing of us at all But these shall suffice at present And so from the Ancient Doctors I pass to the Modern Divines who flourished since the Reformation Testimonies of Modern Divines And I shall begin with Theodore Bibliander Famous among the Reformed Divines in Swizzerland and one of the Authours or the Tigurin Translation of the Bible Thus then he writes (s) Theodor. Bibliand in Relatime Fideli ad omnium Ordinum Reipublicae Christianae Principes viros populumque Christ c. Basiliae An. 1545. pag. 185 186. Whatsoever Democracy Aristocracy or Monarchy is obedient to Christ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and is governed by his most Holy Laws shall justly be accounted a Christian Politie or Commonwealth but that which rejects the Laws of Christ whether it bear the Name of a Christian Polity or openly oppose the Name of Christ we shall account it to be Antichristian That Commonwealth shall be Christian and dear to God and therefore happy and blest whose Magistrates duely obey the Laws of Christ and whose People order their Lives according to the Prescript of the Christian Doctrine and with a ready mind obey the Magistrate not as serving Men but Christ in all things which are not contrary to the Laws of Christ And that he speaks of Christ not simply as God but as Mediatour between God and Man and Surety of the Gospel-Covenant and consequently that he speaks also of his Laws not meerly as Laws of God but Laws of the Lord Mediator and Surety of the Gospel-Covenant is evidentby what follows (t) Ibid. 196 197. Christ is the faithful Eliakim Esa 22. whom God the Father hath trusted with and on his Shoulder hath laid the Key of the House of David and hath fastned him in a sure place that he may be for a Glorious Throne to his Fathers House The same Christ is the Supreme Judge unto whom the Father hath given all Power and all Judgment so that he himself judges no Man Whose Law the Isles expected and have received what they expected Concerning whose Laws it will not be alien from
mostly of Spiritual and Eternal Blessings Thus Dr. Owen In which passages and others that I have cited out of his Writings he agrees with us exactly and asserts what we mean by the Gospels being a Law as the Scripture calls it 2. Mr. Clarkson in his Book of Sermons and Discourses on several Divine Subjects newly Printed 1696 and commended to the Reader by the Reverend Mr. How and Mr. Mead. In the Sermon on Luke 13.3 pag. 10. his observation is that Repentance is an Evangelical Duty a Gospel a new Covenant Duty This should not be questioned by those who either believe what the Gospel delivers or understand what it is to be Evangelical But since it is denyed let us prove it And then he proves it by twelve Arguments After this in p. 12 when he comes to the application of this Doctrine he says It reproves those who reject this Duty as Legal Certainly those who find not this in the Gospel have found another Gospel besides that which Christ and his Apostles preached But let them take heed least whilst they will go to Heaven in a way of their own that way prove a by path and lead to the gates of Death instead of the place of Joy No way but Christ will bring to Heaven and that has three stages Faith Repentance and Obedience He that will sit down at the end of the first and never enter upon the second will never reach Heaven Indeed he that walks not in all walks not in any he is deluded misled by an ignis fatuus a false fire and if the Lord do not undeceive him will fall into the bottomless pit And in p. 20. he says No Repentance no Pardon It is not the cause but it is the condition without which no remission Solomon would not ask pardon but upon this condition 2 Chro. 6.26 27. nor does the Lord answer him but upon the same terms chap. 7.14 In fine for understanding the matter he is there treating of he desires us to observe three Propositions 1. Prop. All Sins are pardoned upon the first act of Faith and Repentance But tho' all be then pardoned yet not all alike Therefore observe 2. Sins past and repented of are pardoned absolutely because the condition is present and where the condition is present that which was conditional becomes absolute 3. Future Sins or Sins unrepented of are but pardoned to a Believer conditionally because the condition of Pardon is not in being is future he has not yet repented for those Sins c. Thus the Reverend Learned and Pious Mr. Clarkson See what follows there immediately His meaning is That the wilful Sins which Believers fall into after Conversion tho' at first Conversion they were pardoned virtually and conditionally yet they are not pardoned formally and obsolutely they are not actually pardoned till the guilty Believer hath actually renewed his Faith and Repentance Now these two worthy Ministers of Christ Dr. Owen and Mr. Clarkson were no Amyraldians and since we agree with them in this Point and teach the same Doctrine which they taught before us Mr. Goodwin in his Preface did very impertinently mention the opposition made to Amyrald in France See the end of his Preface and it was not fair nor just to do it with a manifest design to make People believe that he dangerously erred in this Point and we with him For to hold the Gospel-Covenant to be a Law of Grace in the sense that we hold it so to be was none of Amyralds singular or erroneous Opinions for which he was taxed by his Adversaries beyond the Seas Nay this is so far from being one of his singular Opinions that it was common to his Adversaries with him And for ought I know to the contrary they and he were all of one mind in believing the Gospel-Covenant to be a Law of Grace as aforesaid Some of them I know were but whether they were all de facto agreed in this or not for I do not pretend to know them all yet this is certain that if it be a revealed Truth that the Gospel-Covenant is a Law a Law of Grace especially with respect to the Elect all Christians ought to agree to it and to receive it with Faith and Love notwithstanding all Objections to the contrary And now that it is a revealed Truth I think I have clearly proved in the following Remarks and Animadversions on Mr. Goodwins Book and have also Answered all his Objections against it That my Proofs and Answers are good solid and sufficient I am fully convinced and firmly perswaded in my own mind yet I desire no Man to believe it upon my bare word but advise all Men who are concerned and into whose hands my Book shall come to read consider and then judge of my Proofs and Answers and believe as they will answer to God according to the evidence which I have offered for the Truth which I have asserted in this matter I have purposely avoided imitating my Reverend Brothers declamatory way of Writing because it is not so good a way to clear up the Truth and to inform the Judgment as it is to engage the Affections to an Opinion or Party and whether with or without Judgment all is one to some whose design is only to make or strengthen a Party I sincerely protest that I do not write for such an end and therefore I use no such means I likewise remember that Justin Martyr in his Paraenetical Discourse to the Greeks pag. 32. saith that such a Rhetorical declamatory way of Writing is (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper unto those who design to cheat People of the Truth and to steal it away from them And John Picus Earl of Mirandula in an Epistle to Hermolaus Barbarus saith that (b) Si non desipit audiror a fucato Sermone quid sperat alìud quam insidias Tribus maximè persuadetur vitâ docentis veritate rei sobrietate Orationis Hermol Barbaro Epist 4. in Vol. Epist illust vir If an Hearer and so if a Reader be not a Fool what doth he expect but to be ensnared by a fair painted Speech But there are three things that are most fit and proper means whereby to move and perswade the Mind of Man 1. The good Life of the Teacher 2. The Truth of the thing taught 3. A sober plain unaffected way of Speech in Teaching This was the way the Lords Prophets and Apostles of old used to perswade Men to the Faith and Practice of Religion and so should we do after their Example Having renounced the hidden things of dishonesty not walking in craftiness 2 Cor. 4.2 nor handling the Word of God deceitfully we should by manifestation of the Truth commend our selves to every Mans Conscience in the sight of God This I have sincerely desired and endeavoured to do as in the presence of the Lord who sees me and will judge me I have laboured not to corrupt the Gospel nor suffer it
it in the places cited by me that is enough to my purpose 2 If by no more than a Doctrine he understand no more than an absolute Promise or no more than a mere speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires no Duty of us at all no not so much as to believe in Christ then I say that his Two Quotations out of Cyprian and Augustin do not prove that by the word Law they there meant no more than a Doctrine in that Sense For 1. By his own Confession Cyprian in his 63. Epistle of Goulartius his Edition calls our Saviours Instruction how to administer the Lords Supper an Evangelical Law but I hope he dare not say that our Saviours Instruction how to administer that Ordinance was nothing but an Absolute Promise or a mere Speculative Doctrine that obligeth Christians to no Duty Nay Cyprian himself as Quoted and Translated by Mr. Goodwin said that he was to send Epistles to his Brethren That the Evangelical Law and the declared Doctrine of our Lord might be observed and that the Brethren might not depart from what Christ had taught and practised This Evangelical Law then according to Blessed Cyprian is a Doctrine that was to be Observed and Practised according to Christs Institution and Example And consequently it was a positive Law that obliged to Duty 2. For Augustin if he tells us as Mr. G. says pag. 27. of his Discourse that by the word Law we may apprehend not merely a Statute but any other Doctrine because he styles not only the Five Books of Moses but the Prophets in whose Writings there are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel by that Name I answer That makes nothing against me For 1. When I called the Gospel a Law I never meant a mere Statute exclusive of Gracious Promises so far was I from such a meaning that I said expresly it is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace Apol. p. 22. That is it is that part which prescribes the Condition and graciously promises a Benefit for Christ's sake to the performer of the Condition Again I said expresly in page 33. that the Conditional Promise of Eternal Life to the Believer together with the prescription of the Condition of a Lively Faith is the very thing which Dr. Twiss and we after him call the Law according to which God proceeds c. 2 If the Prophets are styled by the Name of Law in whose Writings are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel together with Precepts obliging the Duty then may the Gospel it self without offence be termed a Law in which there are both Gracious Promises and Excellent Precepts Yet 3dly It is incumbent upon Mr. Goodwin to prove that in Augustin's Judgment or that in real Truth the Prophets are called by the Name of Law precisely because there are gracious Promises in them and not at all because there are many Excellent Divine Precepts in them Are there not Gracious Promises of the Gospel to be sound in the Five Books of Moses and yet I trow those Five Books are not called the Law precisely because of the Evangelical Promises that are in them and not because they contain the whole Sum of Legal Precepts given by Moses unto the People of Israel Augustin in his Fifteenth and last Book of the Trinity takes occasion from what he had said of Gods being called Love 1 John 4.16 to speak of the various acceptation of the word Law and says that sometimes it is taken more generally for all the Scriptures of the Old Testament or for the Prophets or Psalms and sometimes more specially and properly for the Law given at Sinai Now this doth not in the least militate against any thing I have said in the Apology For I can grant with Augustin that the word Law is sometimes used in a more general comprehensive Sense and at other times in a more special restrained Sense and yet consistently enough hold that the Gospel is called a Law in Scripture and that it is a Law of Grace Thus I have briefly shewed that this whole Chapter is Impertinent But though there be nothing in it to his purpose against me yet there is something in it to my purpose against him For page 26 27. of his Discourse he tells us That a Law is a Doctrine See also his Serm. on the Q. Death p. 7 8. which teacheth us what is best for us to do if we will be taught by the Counsel of those who are wiser than our selves And in this sense saith he I will easily grant the Gospel to be a Law for it is the instruction of God whose Wisdom is beyond all denyal infinitely superiour to ours to our perishing Souls c. Now if the Gospel be a Law in this sense then certainly it is a Practical Doctrine that obligeth us to Duty Doth not the Infinitely wise God his instructing us to believe in Christ for Justification oblige our Consciences to believe in him and hath it not the force and effect of a Law I bless God I own its obliging force and it is and I hope ever shall be a Law to me a Gracious Evangelical Law And I hope my R. Brother will in time do so likewise Since he saith that thrice Blessed is that Person whom Gods Enlightning Grace hath made so wise as to follow it Remarks on the Sixth Chapter SECTION I. Some Preliminary Considerations necessary for the right understanding of our Protestant Writers and the clear Answering of Mr. G 's Quotations from their Writings FOR the better clearing up of the matter in Controversie and scattering of the Mist which my R. Brother hath cast before Peoples Eyes in this Chapter it will be expedient to premise some things before I come to answer his Quotations from the Writings of Protestant Divines And First It is to be considered that the word Gospel signifying good or glad tydings it may be applyed to and affirmed of several parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As 1. God's Eternal Decree to save for Christ's sake a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind as revealed in the Scriptures of Truth is Gospel for it is good and glad tydings to the visible Church 2. The absolute Prophecy and Promise to send Christ into the World to redeem Man and to seek and save that which is lost is Gospel also for it is good and glad tydings The like I say of Christ's being actually come into the World 3. The Absolute Promise to take away the Heart of Stone and to give an Heart of Flesh to give the Redeemed Saving Faith and Repentance is Gospel also since it is good and glad Tydings Now we never said that the Gospel in any of these Three Senses is a Law commanding us to do any Duty or perform any Condition But 4. The word Gospel in a more large and comprehensive Sense is taken for the Intire Covenant of Grace which God hath made with his Church through the Mediator his Son
is a Doctrine which Declares and Proclaims that Salvation is to be had freely in Christ by Faith and by Faith only See Disc p. 32. All which is very true but nothing at all to the purpose For the Gospel doth that and more too It declares that Salvation is to be had freely in Christ by Faith alone because it is Faith alone which receives apprehends and applyes Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and Salvation This we hold as Zanchy did but withal Zanchy held and we after him do hold also That the Gospel requires of us Repentance towards God Faith in Jesus Christ and a studious Care to observe whatsoever Christ hath commanded To which add what Zanchy believed as well as we That the Gospel promiseth Grace to enable us to believe repent and obey the Gospel and when through Grace we do so it further promises us Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life for Christ's sake alone And nothing more is necessary to make the Gospel a Law of Grace according to our declared known sense of that word His Third Testimony out of Zanchy is yet more Impertinent to wit See Disc p. 33. That the Gospel is the joyful Preaching of that Eternal and Free Love of God this is Eternal Election towards us in his Beloved Son Christ For I would fain know what Mr. G can justly infer from this Sentence of Zanchy to his purpose against us This we grant to be true as was said in our first preliminary Consideration that the Revelation of Gods Eternal Decree to save through Christ a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind is Gospel because it is good and glad tydings to the Church But what then Dare Mr. G infer that because it is Gospel therefore no other thing is Gospel Then it seems by his Logick one may prove that one part of a thing is the whole thing and that the whole thing is but one part of it But I forbear to expose such weak arguing If therefore the Joyful Preaching of God's Free Election through Christ be not the whole but a part of the Gospel then though this part do not require Faith and Repentance yet another part of it may and really doth require them in the Judgment of Zanchy as was clearly proved in the Apology by his express formal words quoted out of his Book of Christian Religion 3d. Vol. of his Works p. 509. And since it comes in my way to make mention of this Book of the Learned Zanchy I will here give the World a further account of it and of his Faith out of it The Book is Entitled Jerom Zanchy his Faith concerning the Christian Religion It contains a full Confession of his Faith which he wrote in the Seventieth year of his Age and in his own Name and in the Name of his Family he Published it and Dedicated it to Count Vlysses Martinengus It is an Excellent Judicious Confession of Faith I have seen it in Quarto and Octavo and in Folio with his other Works and now I have it by me in Octavo Printed at Newstad 1585. with Annotations of his own Writing upon it for further clearing of matters in it I have diligently read it and having quoted some passages out of it in the Apology I will now quote some more out of it both to make Mr. G. ashamed if possible and so to bring him to Repenâ—ance for abusing the Authority of Zanchy to the deceiving of the People and also to confirm what I quoted out of him in the Apology Thus then Zanchy writes in Chap. 13. Pag. 101. Sect. 6. Edition in Octavo (i) Evangelium haec tria tantùm requirit primùm ut serio dolore c. Zanch de Relig. Christ Cap. 13. p. 101. Sect. 6. The Gospel requires only these three things First That being touched with a serious grief c. as quoted in the Apology p. 99. And in the next Page to wit 102. he adds (k) Ad tria autem omnia Christi mandata referuntur nimirum ut abnegatâ impietate saecularibus desideriis sobrie quoad nos juste quoad proximum piè quoad Deum vivamus in hoc saeculo expectantes bonam spem adventum Gloriae Magni Dei. Hanc credimus summam esse corum quae a nobis exigit Christus suâ Evangelicâ doctrinâ Eòque illos esse verè Evangelicos verèque Christianos qui in horum studium serio incumbunt Idem ibid. But all the Commands of Christ are referred to three to wit That having denyed or renounced Vngodliness and Worldly Lusts we should live soberly with respect to our selves justly with respect to our Neighbour and Godly with respect to God in this present World looking for the Blessed Hope and the Glorious Coming of the Great God This we believe to be the sum of those things which Christ requires of us by his Evangelical Doctrine And that therefore they are truely Evangelick and truely Christian who seriously apply themselves to the Study and practice of those things Again in pag. 103. sect 7. (l) Credimus non parvum discrimen esse inter Legem Evangelium 1. Quia Legis materia tantùm sunt mandata additis irrevocabilibus maledictionibus si vel minimâ in parte ea violentur Habet quidem promissiones non solùm terrenarum verùm etiam aeternarum benedictionum Sed omnes cum conditione perfectissimae obedientiae nullas autem gratuitas At verò Evangelium propriè felix ost nuncium Christum redemptorem peccata gratis remittentem servantem gratis etiam proponens Nihilque a nobis exigens ad salutem consequendam nisi veram in Christo fidem quae sine poenitentiâ sineque studio faciendae Divinae voluntatis i.e. Vivendi sobriè justè piè ut supra explicatum est esse non potest idem ibid. We believe that there is no small difference between the Law and the Gospel First Because the matter of the Law are only Commandments whereunto are added Irrevocable Curses if they be in the least part violated It hath indeed Promises also and that not only of Earthly but of Eternal Blessings But all with the Condition of most perfect Obedience but it hath no Gracious or Merciful Promises at all But now the Gospel is properly happy and glad Tydings proposing Christ the Redeemer as forgiving sins freely and as freely likewise saving Sinners and requiring nothing of us in order to the obtaining of Salvation but a true Faith in Christ which cannot be without Repentance and without an endeavour to do the Will of God that is to live Soberly Justly and Godly as was explained before Now here observe 1. That Zanchy saith That the Gospel taken in its proper sense requires Faith of us and obliges us to believe in Christ for Salvation 2. That though he say it requires nothing but Faith yet he doth no more contradict me than he doth contradict himself For as he saith so I say That it
Pardon of Sin by Faith in Christs Blood Hence in the same Book he saith (p) Vitam nobis morte acquisivit Christus morte superatâ nulla igitur spes alia consequendae immortalitatis Homini datur nisi crediderit in eum illam crucem portandam patiendamque susceperit Lactant. Divin Institut lib. 4. cap. 19. Christ by his Death hath purchased Life for us having overcome Death therefore Man hath no other ground of hope given him of obtaining Immortality unless he believe in him and take up and patiently bear that Cross to wit of Christ Julius Firmicus also writeth thus (q) Misericordia Dei dives est libenter ignoscit Relictis nonaginta novem ovibus amissam quaerit unam reverso Pater prodigo Filio vestem reddit parat coenam Nulla vos desperare faciat criminum multitudo Deus summus per Filium suum Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum volentes liberat poenitentibus libenter ignoscit nec multa exigit ut ignoscat Fide tantùm poenitentiâ potestis redimere quicquid sceleratis Diaboli persuasionibus perdidistis Julius Firmicus Maternus lib. de errore profan Relig. pag. 11. Edit Oxon. 1678. God 's Mercy is rich he willingly forgives Having left the ninety and nine sheep he seeks the one which was lost And the Father bestows a Garment upon and prepares a Supper for the Prodigal Son when he returns Let not any multitude of your Sins cause you to despair the most high God by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord delivers or redeems those that are willing and willingly forgives the penitent nor doth he require of us many things that he may forgive By Faith and Repentance only ye may recover whatever ye have lest by the wicked perswasions of the Devil The word redimere is not here used by this Antient Authour in a strict and proper but in a large improper sense and signifies to recover as I have translated it And so the word to save is taken largely and improperly in Holy Scripture when Men are said by Christ or his Apostles to save themselves Luke 7.50 Thy faith hath saved thee Acts 2.40 Save your selves from this untoward generation 1 Tim. 4.16 In doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee And that I have rightly Translated the foresaid word used by Julius Firmicus Maternus will evidently appear to any that shall be at the pains to read in the same Book Page 61. Line 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 c. And again Page 65 66. for by his own words there first to the Heathens and then to the Emperours it doth plainly appear that he was sound and orthodox in the point of our Redemption by the Obediential Sufferings of Christ God-Man and Mediatour between God and Men. But though it be thus that he maintained we are properly redeemed by Christ only and that none could ever obtain Life but by the Merit of his Obedience and Death yet it is withal most certain that he held not only Faith in Christ Jesus but also Repentance towards God to be necessary yea and antecedently necessary in order to the obtaining pardon of Sin For these are his express words (r) Quaere potius spem salutis quaere exordium lucis quaere quod te summo Deo aut commendet aut reddat Et cum veram viam salutis inveneris gaude tunc erectâ Sermonis libertate proclama 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum ab his calamitatibus post poenitentiam tuam summi Dei fueris indulgentiâ liberatus Ibid. pag. 6 7. Seek rather the hope of Salvation seek the beginning or rising of the Light seek that which may either commend thee or restore thee to God and when thou hast found the true way of Salvation rejoyce and then with an uplifted or loud freedom or boldness of speech proclaim it saying as the Heathens used to do in the Worship of Isis when they had found the Body of Osiris We have found it rejoyce we together when by the mercy of the most high God thou shalt be delivered from these calamities after thy Repentance And as the Apostles and Fathers after them as is shewn more largely in the Apology taught that the Gospel requires Evangelical Repentance in order to pardon of Sin so did our first Reformers and Protestant Divines since the Reformation As for our first Reformers abroad let the Augustan Confession which they all subscribed bear witness what their Judgment in that matter was I have spoken to this before and shewed from the express words of the Augustan Confession quoted at large in the Apology Pag. 88. That the Gospel requires Repentance in order to pardon of Sin and at the same time offers Remission of Sins freely for Christs sake to all that are truly penitent Melancthen who drew up that Confession and wrote an Apology for it is so clear in the case that it is matter of wonder to me that any should be so immodest as to deny so plain and certain a matter of fact For after he had said in his common places That the Particle gratis freely in Rom. 3.24 doth not exclude Faith but excludes the condition of our own worthiness and transfers the cause of the benefit from us unto Christ and moreover having said that the Particle freely doth neither exclude our own Obedience but only transfers the cause of the benefit from the worth of our Obedience unto Christ that the benefit may be sure Finally having said that the Gospel preaches Repentance but that our reconciliation may be iure it teaches that our Sins are pardoned and that we please God not for the dignity or merit of our Repentance or newness of Heart and Life but for Christs sake only and that this consolation is necessary to pious Consciences From the premisses he makes his inference in these words following (s) Atque hinc judicari potest quomodo haec consentiant quòd diximus Evangelium concionari de poenitentiâ tamen gratis promittere reconciliationem Definit itaque Christus Evangelium Luc. ultimo plane ut artifex cum jubet docere poenitentiam remissionem peccatorum in nomine suo Est igitur Evangelium praedicatio poenitentiae promissio quam ratio non tenet naturaliter c. Melancth loc com loco de Evang pag. 398. And hence it may be judged how these things agree that we said the Gospel preaches concerning Repentance and yet it freely promises Reconciliation Christ therefore in the last of Luke chap. 24. ver 47. defines the Gospel plainly or altogether as an Artist when he commands to teach Repentance and Remission of Sins in his Name The Gospel then is a preaching of Repentance and a Promise which Reason doth not naturally attain unto c. Thus Melancthon and I could quote more out of his Writings to this purpose but this is enough He who cannot see by this little that Melancthon believed the
necessary simply necessary yea and antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining pardon of Sin His Arguments are distributed into three Classes Some of them prove its necessity others prove its antecedency All together strongly prove that it 's antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining of Pardon This is to be seen in pag. 249 250. 3. He enquires whether Repentance may be called a Condition as well as Faith And Answers that it may not be called a Condition in the same Sense as Faith is called one For Faith is the only Condition whereby we close with the Covenant and whereby we close with receive and apply Christ and his Righteousness as held forth to us in the Covenant-Promise But then he says That in a large Sense it may be called and it is a Condition necessary with Faith concomitantly in the same subject to qualifie and dispose it in a congruous suitable way to receive Pardon of Sin by Faith in Christ alone This is to be seen in pag. 253 254 255 256. And this is the same thing which we believe and have openly professed to the World in our Apology So that there is not an hairs breadth of difference between his judgment and mine except it be in the wording of it And this manifestly appears from our calling Repentance the Condition or Means which only qualifies and disposes the Subject for receiving Pardon by Faith alone whereas we call Faith the Instrumental Means or Condition whereby we receive and apply the Object to wit the Promise and Christ with his Righteousness as held forth to us in the Promise for Justification and Salvation This is sufficient to show that Mr. Durham is of the same Judgment with us as to this matter and that therefore we justly bring him in to Witness for us I would have quoted his own words but they are so many and would swell my Discourse to such a Bulk that I choose rather to refer the Reader to the Book and Pages where he will see if he be in any doubt that I have faithfully given his Sense in few words Our Fourth Witness shall be the Famous Confession of Faith Composed by the most Learned of the Reformed Divines of Poland Lithuania and the Provinces thereon depending together with Divines from Germany and which they gave in at Torn in the Year 1645 unto the Lutheran and Popish Doctors all Assembled there to Confer about Religion for several Moneths together Their words are these (x) Non controvertitur hîc an ad remissionem peccatorum requiratur conversio mentis ad Deum interna peccatorum dum dolore detestatio asserimuus enim talem poenitentiam ut perpetuam conditionem ad peccatorum remissionem requisitam fuisse in utroque Testamento qua peccator non quidem eam meretur hoc enim efficit solum meritum satisfactio Christi cum eam nobis fide viva applicamus sed per eam praerequisita conditio impletur quâ aptus fit at Divinam misericordiam consequendam Confession Doctrinae Ecclesiarum Reformatarum in Regno Poloniae maguo Ducatu Lithuaniae annexisque Regni Provinciis in Colloquio Thoruniensi exhibit D. 1. Septembris A. D. 1645. Cap. 6. De Sacramentis Sect. De Poenitentiâ 1. It is not Controverted here whether the Conversion of the Mind to God and the inward Detestation of Sins with Sorrow be required unto the Remission of Sins for we assert that as a perpetual Condition unto the Remission of Sins such a Repentance was required under both Testaments whereby a Sinner doth not indeed merit it for the alone Merit and Satisfaction of Christ doth that when we apply it to our selves by a lively Faith but by it the pre-required Condition is performed whereby he is made fit and disposed to obtain the Divine Mercy Thus that Confession of Faith and those many Learned Judicious Divines who drew it up bear witness to the Truth with us That Repentance is pre-required and always was pre-required as a necessary Condition whereby a Sinner is qualified and made meet to receive the Pardon of his Sins by Faith in Christ's Blood I could bring more Testimonies both from the Word of God and the Writings of Holy Sound and Orthodox Ministers of Christ for the Confirmation and Elucidation of this Truth but I have been too large already upon this Point and therefore this may super abundantly suffice to show That though the Natural Moral Law oblige all Mankind in all parts of the World to one sort of Faith and Repentance yet there is another sort of them there is an Evangelical Faith and Repentance unto which the Evangelical Law of the New Covenant doth only by it self immediately oblige us And the Moral Natural Law obliges us to them but mediately only and by consequence in as much as it obliges us to observe all God's Positive Laws which it pleaseth him at any time to Enact for us Consider Eighthly That under the Gospel God hath made sincere Obedience to his Moral Natural Law and to all his Positive Laws which are in Force and not Abrogated one of the Articles of the New Covenant taken in its Latitude He hath made our performance of such sincere Obedience to his Laws a Condition necessary to qualifie and prepare us for obtaining full possession of Eternal Life and Happiness in Heavenly Glory for the sake of Christ and his Meritorious Righteousness only 1. For clearing of this It is to be observed that in the first federal Law of Works given and prescribed unto Man before the Fall there are Three things to be distinguished 1. There is the preceptive part of it 2. The Minatory Sanction 3. The Promissory Sanction 1. There is the Preceptive part which obligeth to Duty and except the Positive Precepts of Sanctisying or keeping Holy to God the Seventh day precisely in order from the Creation and of not eating the Forbidden Fruit All the rest of the Preceptive part of that Law of Works is in force still and obliges Mankind to an Ever Sinless Obedience de futuro 2. There is the Minatory Sanction or Threatning which binds over Transgressors to suffer the Punishment threatned And this is still in force with respect to all Impenttent Unbelievers They are all whil'st they continue in that State under the Curse of the first broken Law and Covenant and are lyable to a further degree of the same Punishment for every Sin which they shall commit in this World Yet by the Gospel there is a Door of Hope to get out of this State opened through Christ unto those to whom God sends it 3. There is the Promissory Sanction or the Promise of Life unto those who keep the Precepts without any Sin whatsoever Now this is not in force since the fall so as that any Man should be obliged ex intentione Dei to believe or hope that he shall obtain Eternal Life by his keeping the Preceptive part of the first Covenant or
indisciplinatis condignam tradens Legem liberis autem side justificatis congruentia dans Praecepta Filiis adaperiens suam haereditatem Iren. advers haeres lib 4. c. 21. The Lord is the Master of the Family who rules all his Fathers house giving indeed to the Servants and those who are yet undisciplined a Law fit for them but to them who are free and justified by Faith he gives suitable Precepts and to the Children makes known their Inheritance Here Irenaeus distinguishes between the unconverted and the Law they are under on the one hand and the converted justified and adopted and the Precepts they are under on the other And gives to understand that the unconverted are yet under the Law of Works which rigorously exacts Duty and Service of them and condemns them for every Sin they commit but that the converted justified and adopted are not under the rigorous exaction and condemning power of the Law of Works but they are under the Law of Grace they are actually in a Covenant of Reconciliation with God which doth indeed prescribe Duty to them but not to be justified by and for their Duties of Obedience for they are justified by Faith in Christ but to be the way for them to walk in and the means to qualifie and prepare them for the possession of the Inheritance which by their Justification and Adoption they have a right unto and which in the way of holy Obedience to the Preceptive part of the Covenant he assures them of by the Promises of the Gospel That this is his meaning appears from his words aforesaid and from what follows in the same Chapter concerning the two Covenants Or his words may refer to the Jews and their Law on the one hand and to the Christians with their New Law of Grace on the other Again in another Chapter of the same Book he writes thus (f) Consummatae Vitae Praecepta in utroque Testamento cum sunt eadem eundem ostenderunt Deum qui particularia quidem Pracepta apta utrisque Proeceptis sed eminentiora summa sine quibus salvari non potest in utroque eadem suasit Iren. advers haereses lib. 4. cap. 22. Seeing the Precepts of a perfect Life are the same in both Testaments they show that the same God is the Author of both the Testaments who hath indeed prescribed particular Precepts suitable to both the Covenants but the more eminent and principal Precepts without which a Man cannot be saved are the same in both Testaments or Covenants Here are several things to be observed for understanding this passage of Irenaeus which though in the Translation which we have it be not elegantly expressed yet it bears a good and useful sense 1. Then observe That according to Irenaeus the Precepts of the Moral Natural Law are common to both Covenants the Old and the New 2. That he calls the two Testaments or Covenants Precepts and therefore I translate particularia praecepta apta utrisque Praeceptis particular Precepts suitable to both the Covenants and to translate them otherwise would render them unintelligible Now there can be no Reason given why he calls the two Covenants Precepts but because they both have Precepts and require Duties 3. Observe that he sayes God prescribed particular Precepts suitable to both Covenants and these can be no other than Gods positive Laws which pertained to the Legal Administration of the Covenant and are now abrogated and the positive institutions of the Gospel which pertain to the Evangelical Administration of the Covenant and are now in force Observe 4. that according to him without the observance of the more eminent and principal Precepts that is the Precepts of Faith and Repentance and of the Moral Natural Law a Man cannot be saved 〈◊〉 Which is true of Men at age for according to their Time and Talents after their Conversion and Justification it is necessary that they perform sincere Obedience to the Moral Law in order to their obtaining possession of Eternal Salvation For without holiness no man shall see the Lord Heb. 12.14 Hence in another Chapter of the same Book he says (g) Non indigebat Deus dilectione Hominis deerat autem Homini Gloria Dei quam nullo modo poterat percipere nisi per eam obsequentiam quae est erga Deum Idem ibid. lib. 4. cap. 31. God needed not Mans love but Man wanted the Glory which is from God which he could no way attain unto but by that Obedience which is towards God He means that Man cannot obtain Eternal Glory in Heaven but by Obedience Evangelical not as the procuring meriting cause of Glory but only as the means to be used on our part and the condition to be performed by us to qualifie us for Glory to be given us according to promise freely for Christs sake and as a testimony of our gratitude to God in Christ for our Redemption and Salvation See lib. 3. c. 20. This is manifest from what he writes in the 28th Chapter of the same 4th Book and in the 47th Chapter where he says expresly that the (h) Mors Domini est Salvatio eorum qui credunt in eum Iren. lib. 4. cap. 47. Lords Death is the Salvation of those that believe in him and yet both there and elsewhere he maintains that we are obliged to observe the Precepts of Christ in the Gospel in order to our obtaining Life and Salvation Yea in the 27th Chapter of that Book he says that now under the Gospel Covenant (i) Necesse fuit superextendi decreta libertatis augeri subjectionem quae est erg◠regem ut non retrorsus quis renitens indignus appareat ei qui se liberaverit Iren. l. 4. c. 27. It was necessary that the Decrees or Statutes of Liberty i. e. which appertain to the Doctrine of Grace and Redemption should be superextended i. e. should be enlarged above what they were before and that the subjection which is to the King should be increased that Man by resisting and drawing baok may not be found unworthy of and unthankful to him who redeemed him In a word Irenaeus goes further in this matter of the Gospels having Precepts that require Duty than I am willing to follow him so certain it is that he held that the Gospel hath Precepts which require Duties and that it is not a meer absolute promise or bare narrative that requires nothing of us at all I do not think that in Irenoeus time there can any be found that were of this absurd Opinion except the vile Gnosticks whose practice was very agreeable to such a Principle that the Gospel requires no Duty and for the Law it can do a Man no hurt if he be once a true Believer how loosely soever he live as Libertines think My third Witness is Cyprian who says (k) Vt de co ad vitalia Praecepta instrui possent discerent quae docerent per Orbem vsro
Son Authority to execut Judgment because he is the Son of Man On which place the assemblies Annotations have this note Authority to execute Judgment is Supream power to Govern and Administer all things Because he is the Son of Man That is Not only as he is God but also as he is Man that all Men may see their Judge Rev. 1.7 And on the same John 5.27 The Dutch Annotators say as followeth And hath given him power to execute Judgment also i. e. To Govern all things with power of Life and Death and especially at the last day Mat. 28.18 Rom. 14.9 Rev. 1.18 Because he is the Son of Man that is Because he having assumed the humane nature into the unity of his person is appointed by God for a Judge and Mediator and shall also as Man execute the same office Dan. 7.13 John 17.2 Acts 10.42 and 17.31 The last English Annotations 2d volume have the like note on John 5.27 But especially Mr. Hutcheson in his exposition on John 5.27 Is full and clear His words are these †Hutcheson on John pag. 76. on the 27th verse of the 5th Chapter Christ declareth that not only as God he hath a Fountain of Life equally with the Father but That he hath Authority given him from the Father to execute or do Judgment even because he is the Son of Man By executing or doing Judgment of which v. 22. We are to understand a Dominion and Government over all things and particularly the power of Life and Death to Condemn or absolve Which will be especially verified in the Judgment of the last day of which he speaketh v. 28.29 And Christ saith Authority is given him to do this Because he is the Son of Man or as he is the Son of Man Whereby we are not to understand his humane nature simply considered but his office and his humane nature as united in one person with the Godhead that because he is God-Man the Mediator of sinners and took on our nature for that end therefore he hath all power committed to him as Mediator for the good of the Church the Exercise whereof he fully entred upon after his resurrection Mat. 28.18 Rom. 14.9 Rev. 1.18 Pril 2.8 9 10 11. And he is the visible Actor and Judge in these Administrations which could be done by none but him who is God also and particularly in the last day wherein he shall be Judge in visible Shape Acts 10.42 and 17.31 Ibid. Doctrin 3. Mr. Hutcheson saith that Christ hath a donative Kingdom as Mediator God-Man for the good of his Church c. And Doct. 6. He saith that Christ in the work of Redemption and Administration of all things for the elect's behoofe is the Father's Commissioner and hath a delegated Authority c. And a little after in the same place he saith That as the Son of Man and Mediator this Authority is given to Christ as to a delegate Thus Hutcheson By all which you may easily see that Christ knows very well That the office of a Judge belongs to the Mediator And truly it is matter of wonder to me that ever a Sober Man should have Printed and Published to the world That Christ knew that the office of a Judge did not belong to a Mediator And yet not content with this Mr. G. 2dly Asserts that Christ hath disowned the office of a Judge as not belonging to a Mediator I seriously profess it grieves me to find such things in the Ingenious Mr. Goodwins book and tho he hath made himself my adversary without any just cause given by me that I know of yet I am not willing to Animadvert on this assertion of his so severely as the nature of the thing deserves I shall only tell my Reverend Brother 1. That here he asserts that whch he can never prove and I advise him as his friend not to attempt the proof of it for by so doing he will but make the matter worse and some of the Lovers and Honourers of our Lord Christ may be ready to appear against Mr. G. in this cause of Christ and to maintain the negative that Christ never disowned the office of a Judge as that which did not belong to a Mediator I hope Mr. G. will never be so impertinent as to alledg for proof of his assertion that in Luk. 12.14 Christ said Man Who made me a Judge or a divider over you For that relates wholly to another matter and the meaning is that Christ was not called to the office of a civil Judge Mediator or Arbitrator between the two Brothers who differed about the dividing of the Inheritance And yet I do not know any place of Scripture that seems to be so much for his purpose if he can but make people believe that the Meer sound of the words is the sure and best means to find out the true meaning of a Text. 2. I think it may not be amiss to tell my Reverend brother That the most vile Sect of the old Gnosticks the Disciples of Valentinus were all for Christ's being a Saviour but would not have him to be a Lord For if he be once admitted to be a Lord and King he may prove to be a Judge too and to have power both to threaten and also Judge and Condemn unbelievers and wicked livers such as the old Gnosticks were And that is a dangerous business to such as them Hence as the Ancient father Ireneus tells us * Salvatorem dicunt nec enim Dominum eum Nominare volunt c. Iren. adversus haereses Lob. 1. Cap. 1. They say that Christ the Saviour for they will not call him Lord did nothing in publick for the space of thirty years They thought belike that it did not belong to the office of a Saviour to be a Lord or a Judge therefore they would not have him called Lord but Saviour For that sweet word Saviour in their Judgment Savoured of nothing but free grace to ill livers Whereas the word Lord or Judge Savours of power to command obedience and Authority to threaten and punish the disobedient which very thing made the word it self so unsavoury to them that they were not willing to pronounce it with their lips But I am sure Mr. G. should know and I hope he doth know better things The Reverend Dr. Owen in the Prolegomena to the 1 volume of his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us a great and useful truth That Christ is our Saviour as he is our great Prophet Priest and King and that he carries on the Work of our Salvation in executing the three several parts of his Mediatorial Office to wit of Prophet Priest and King and all sober Divines that I know are of that mind and some of them too give very hard Words unto and pass a severe censure upon such Men as are for dividing of Christ and for receiving him and his Doctrine by halves Witness Bibliander in that book which I mentioned
in the Barbarous Nations which are most invincibly ignorant of Christ and are under no obligation to Believe in him because the Gospel-Law or Covenant of Grace which can only be known by Supernatural Revelation is not at all Revealed and made known to them but they are guilty of gross Idolatry and other enormous Sins against the Light and Law of Nature for which they are justly Condemned Rom. 2.12 And this shews that my R. Brothers second amazing absurdity doth not concern me for whether it do or do not naturally spring from God's speaking generally to all Men without exception and saying Believe in Christ and you shall Live It doth not touch me and the Cause which I maintain for these two plain Reasons First Because I do utterly deny the Antecedent from which it is said naturally to spring I deny that God by the Gospel speaks generally to all the Men in the World without exception of the most barbarous Nations and Commands them all to Believe in Christ with a Promise of Life if they do Believe in him Secondly For the consequent which is said to spring naturally from the said Antecedent I disown it also to wit That God contrary to his Wisdom and Goodness promises Pardon to all Men upon the impossible condition of Believing in Christ by their meer Natural Powers I am so far from saying this that on the contrary I say there may be many Millions of Men in the World who cannot Believe in Christ by their meer Natural Powers to whom God doth not Promise Pardon of Sin upon the impossible condition of Believing in Christ by their meer Natural Powers And hence it plainly appears that by my Principle I am under no obligation either on the one hand to join with my R. Brother in denying that the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace hath any Conditional Promises or on the other hand to joyn with the Arminians in affirming that there is an universal sufficient Grace i. e. as Mr. G. expresses it That all Men have sufficient means afforded them to Believe in Christ and that God gives help enough to enable them to Believe if they will and whenever themselves please I thank God I can by my Principle walk safely in the middle way between these two Extreams and not incidere in Scyllam cupiens virare Charybdin And I think it had become Mr. G. to have been more modest than to have past such a Censure upon our most able and judicious Divines who have maintained that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises as that they could not defend the Truth against the Arminians but upon their Principle that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises they ought all to have turned Arminians For this is in effect to say That Whitaker Ames Twiss our British Divines of the Synod of Dort Rutherford Rivet Spanhem Turretin Isaac Junius Triglandius Pool and innumerable more who held that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises were all blind and did not see the mischievous Consequence of their opinions which Consequence if they had followed they themselves must all have turned Arminians and therefore neither did nor could rightly confute the Arminian errors but young Mr. Goodwin is the Man that is above them all inlightned to see that the Gospel hath no conditional promises and by that means he is qualified to be our Champion against those Hereticks who were too hard for the Synod of Dort for Ames Twiss Rutherford Spanhem Durham c. Because these old weak Men were fond of one Arminian opinion to wit that the Gospel hath conditional promises which hath an inseperable Connexion with the whole Arminian System Disc pag. 58. Obj. 3. Thirdly he argues thus against the Gospel's having conditional promises The Scriptures urged by my Reverend Brother do not signify that God passed his word to all Men by a new Law established amongst them that if they obey it and believe and repent they shall assuredly be saved For God always speaks the purposes of his mind and none of his words contradict his heart but he never decreed either absolutely or conditionally that all Men should be Eternally saved I Answer that my R. Brother's objection as here set down in his own express words doth not at all reach me nor make against the truth which I defend For I never said that God hath passed his word to all Men by a new Law established amongst them that if they obey it and believe and repent they shall assuredly be saved I am so far from saying this that in effect I have plainly said the contrary in the Apol. pag. 200. l. 21.22 23 24 25. There my express formal words are that there are Heathens who never heard nor could hear of the Gospel for want of an objective Revelation of it Now by these words I certainly meant and do still mean to signify to the world that God hath not passed his word to all Men even to the most Barbarous Nations by a new Law of Grace i. e. by the Gospel established among them That if they obey the Gospel and believe in Christ they shall assuredly be saved This objection then I might dismiss as impertinent and not militating against me who am not such an Vniversalist as Mr. G. would make people believe that I am tho I have declared the contrary and any body would think that I should know mine own mind better than another Man especially Man who knows not my principles but by my book unless he suffers himself to be imposed upon by believing the false reports of his good Friend I hope that for the future my R. B. will be so just as to take the measure of my principles from my Printed Books and not from the reports of the Accuser But it may be my R. brother will say that tho I be no such an Universalist yet it is certain that I hold that the Gospel hath conditional promises and that the conditional promises are to the whole visible Church even to the non-elect to whom the Gospel is Preached To which I say again that it is true and most certain that such is my Judgment and I am not singular in it for as I shewed in the Apology it is the Common Doctrine of the reformed Churches and Divines Mr. Rutherford saith If the former sense be intended as how can it be denied The word of the Covenant is Preached to you an offer of Christ is made in the Preached Gospel to you * Covenant of Life opened part 1. Chap. 13. pag. 87.88 Then it cannot be denied but the promise is to all the Reprobate in the visible Church whether they believe or not for Christ is Preached and promises of the Covenant are Preached to Simon Magus to Judas and all the Hypocrites who stumble at the word to all the Pharisees as is clear Mat. 13.20 21 22 23. Act. 13.44 45 46. Act. 18.5 6. Mat. 21.43 1 Pet. 2.7 8. And again a little after in the same book pag. 90.
the Scriptures of truth represents himself the quite contrary way saying that he is so far from not putting forth his finger that he stretches out his hand to such Men Prov. 1.24 Yea that he not only stretches out one hand but that he stretches out both hands to them As it is written Rom. 10.21 To Israel he saith All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gain-saying People See also Mat. 25. v. 14.15 26 27 28 29. Luk. 19. v. 12.13 22 23. c. 2. As God thus represents himself so doth Calvin and those Divines called Calvinists Witness 1. The words of Calvin on John 12.47 Where to the question our ergo damnare eos Christus non vult Wherefore then will not Christ Condemn them He Answers * Nempe hic deposita ad tempus judicis persona quo plus animi omnes habeant ad resipiscentiam salutem promiscue omnibus offert et brachia sua ad omnes amplexandos ostendit Calvin Johan 12.47 That Christ having here for a time put off the person of a Judge that all Men might be the more encouraged to repentance he offers salvation promiscuously to all and shews his Arms stretched out to Embrace all Witness also his words to this purpose in his Book against Pighius †Quam ob rem sic intelligi necesse est illud Ezekielis 18.23 and 33.11 nolle deum mortem morientis sed ut revertatur et vivat sicut et Agustinus multis locis differuit nihil deum omittere quod ad reducendos in salutis viam homines pertineat si modo sani ferent quod autem non redeant vocati ipsis non aliud quam pravitatis propriae morbum obstare Vult ergo Deus morientem vivere sicut ejus voluntatem nobis aestimare fas est omnibas scilicet adminiculis hominem ipsum adjuvando ne quid sibi obstitisse quam propriam culpam causari queat Manet tamen interea Deo arcanum suum consilium quo hunc praeterit illum eligit de quo ne curiosius vestiget qui non vult opprimi a gloria Hoc si caperet Pighius falsum illud de aequali gratiae dispensatione Principium non ita mordicus teneret Calvin contra Pigh lib. 5. de lib. arb Pag. 165. edit ult Amstel 1667. Wherefore that of Ezek. 18.23 and 33.11 God wills not the Death or hath not pleasure in the Death of him that dieth but that he return and Live must of necessity be so understood as Austin also hath discoursed in many places that God omits to do nothing which might serve to reduce Men into the way of salvation if they were in a right and sound Disposition of mind But that they do not return when they are called no other thing hinders them but the disease of their own depravedness God therefore wills that he who dies should live as it is lawful for us to Judge of his will to wit by assisting or furthering the Man with all helps that he may not be able to alledge for his excuse that any thing but his own fault or sin did hinder him Yet at the same time God's secret Counsel whereby he passeth by this Man and chooseth that remains unchangeable After which secret Counsel of God let no Man curiously search who will not be over-whelmed with the Glory If Pighius understood this he would not so stiffly hold that false Principle concerning the equal dispensation of Grace A most excellent passage of the judicious Calvin which being compared with the former shews his Judgment to have been that God promiseth salvation to all in the visible Church upon condition of Faith and Repentance and that he doth not leave them to perform the condition by their meer natural powers without any help at all but that he doth so far adjuvare omnibus adminiculis assist and further them with all helps that they cannot truly say that any thing but their own sin did hinder them from performing the said condition And as Calvin did thus represent God much otherwise than Mr. G. doth so have his followers done they have given a more lovely representation of the infinitely good and righteous holy God than he here doth Witness 2dly Isaac Junius who by order of his Superiors wrote an Answer to Episcopius his Apol. for the Remonstrants but died before he had finished it His words are * An quis nostrum dixit co quo Apologista detorquet seâ—su neminem posse plus boni facere quam facit nec plus mali omittere quam omittit Absit ab omni pio tancruda sententia Britanni bona laudata pars Synodi Nationalis in suo judicio ad Art 3. Thesi haeterodoxa quarta expresse rejiciunt hanc Positionem Hominâ—m non posse plus boni facere quam facit nec plus mali omittere quam omittit Falsa sunt haec inquiunt absurda sive de homine irregenito animali intelligantur five etiam de renato gratia sanctificante suffulto Isaacus Juâ—â—s in Antapologia five animadvers in 16. Priora Cap Apologiae Remonstr Pag. 16. Did any of us say in that wrested sense of the Apologist that no Man can do more good than he doth nor omit more Evil than he omits Let such a crude opinion be far from every pious Man The Brittish Divines who were a good and laudable part of the national Synod of Dort in their Judgment upon the third Article and 4th Heterodox position expressly reject this position that a Man cannot do more good than he doth nor omit more Evil than he omits These assertions say they are false and absurd whethey they be understood of an unregenerate and natural Man or of a Man that is regenerate and indued with sanctifying Grace Again the same Author afterwards in the same book saith †Quis nostrum asseruit vocatos non-electes excludi a morte Christi nulla propria ant vincibili sua culpa item vocatos non-electos non tantum excludi Câ—elo praecipitari in aeternos tartari cruciatus nulla propria vincibili eorum culpa sed praeterea crudelitâ—â— illudi mandatis Evangelicis Nugae ipsae mox allatâ—e definitiones reprobationis satis superâ— que purgant nostrum dogma docent nihil hujusmodi sequi ex insitis nostri dogmatisâ— sed revera Coelum inferis misceri ab iis qui statuunt gratiam quam dispensat Deus secundum propositum esse omnibus ex aequo communem Idem ibid. Pag. 194. Which of us hath asserted that the called non-elect are excluded from the benefit of Christ's Death for no proper or vincible fault of their ownâ— Likewise that the called non-elect are not only shut out of Heaven and cast down into the Eternal torments of Hell for no proper fault of their own which they could overcome or free themselves from but moreover that they are cruelly mocked by the Commands of the Gospel with the
well pleased hear ye him And if there be not a precept obliging to duty there never was a precept either in Law or Gospel With what conscience then Mr. G. who knew this could endeavour to make the world believe that Cyprian by New-Law meant nothing but a Doctrine of Grace that requires no duty of Men at all I know not let him look to that But this I know that if I my self should put such a sense upon the foresaid words of Cyprian I should by so doing not only put away a good Conscience but I should also put off all sense of shame All the excuse that I can make for my Reverend brother is that it may be he was in too much haste and did not take time to consider and weigh Cyprian's proofs particularly his proof from Mat. 17.5 That the Gospel is a Law which hath not only promise but precept 3. I Answer that Cyprian says that the Gospel is a New-Yoke and proves it by Psal 2. v. 1.2 3. and Mat. 11.28 29 30. But Christ's Yoke signifies not only the promises to be believed but also the precepts of the Gospel to be obeyed as was shewed before And therefore Cyprian held the Gospel-Law and Covenant to be a Doctrine of Grace which hath both promises to be believed and also precepts to be obeyed But Mr. G. objects that by Cyprian's words as I my self have quoted them it is evident that he meant not that the Gospel is a Law which requires any duty at all For he says That it is another Administration and that by it the old Yoke should be made null and void Ans A wonderful profound Argument this is to prove that in Cyprian's Judgment the Gospel is not a Law of Grace that hath any precept because it is an Administration or a Disposition as the word in Cyprian is lib. 1. ad Quirinum cap. 11. And as it is cited Apol. pag. 25. But I pray Sir why may there not be an Administration or Disposition of a Precept as well as of a promise And why may there not be an Administration or Disposition both of precept and promise Was there not plainly both precept and promise in the Law of Moses And yet it is written Acts 7.53 That the People of Israel received the Law by the Disposition of Angels but did not keep it But says Mr. G. according to Cyprian by the New-Law of Grace the old intollerable Yoke of Ceremonial legal observances was removed Ergo it hath no precent obliging to duty Wonderful acuteness But however I will venture to deny the Consequence and put Mr. G. to prove it For I want Faith to believe whatever he saith meerly because he saith it And here I cannot believe him because with blessed Cyprian I believe God the Father himself saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him So much for vindication of the Citations out of Cyprian In the 3d place he comes to Holy Augustin Disc p. 65. And says that I force him to be a Witness for the Gospel-Covenant's being a New-Law Ans Dear Sir by your own imprudent meddling with things that you seem not to have throughly studied nor to understand you force me contrary to my inclination often to contradict you and to tell you that it is not true which you say And in this place particularly I am forced by you to tell you that it is most untrue that I force the words of Holy Augustin For I cited him to prove that the words New-Law were not new words but of Ancient usage in the Christian-Church above 12 hundred years ago And the Testimony which I quoted out of his book of Grace and free will Chap. 18. Doth as clearly prove this as ever matter of Fact was or can be proved by humane Testimony For he expressly calls the Gospel a New-Law and he proves it to be a New-Law of Grace And moreover he testifies more than I cited him for I cited him only to testify that the Gospel was in old times called a New-Law and he over and above testifies that it is a New-Law by which precepts are given unto Men. This his words testify without the least force or violence offered to them But it is Mr. G. who would force Augustin's words to make them say what he never meant yea to make him deny what he expressly affirms First he forces Augustins words to make them say what he never meant For whereas Augustin says that precepts are given unto Men by the New-Law he would force him to say only that precepts are given in the books of the New Testament Disc p. 66. l. 1. 2 3. That this is a force put on his words seems very evident by this that Augustin by the New-Law did not mean the books of the New Testament in which one may find both the Old and New-Law But he certainly meant the Gospel it self or the New-Covenant of Grace in its Christian constitution or form of Administration just as by the Old-Law he did not mean only the books of the Old Testament in which according to him the Old-Law was openly revealed and the New-Law or Gospel lay hidden and vailed but he meant by the Old-Law the Old-Covenant or the Covenant in its old constitution and legal form of Administration 2. He forces Augustine's words to make him deny what he expressly affirms For holy Augustin expressly affirms that even the Old-Law had promises His words quoted by me Apol. pag. 25. Are that The Grace which is come in the New-Law was promised in the Old-Law But Mr. Goodwin in his discourse p. 65. l. 31. 32 33. Forces him to deny that the Old-Law had any promises for saith he That great light of his Age makes the difference between the New and Old-Law to be that the Old-Law consisted wholly in precepts and commands c. Now he that holds that the Old-Law consisted wholly in precepts and commands doth ipso facto hold that the Old-Law had no promise By this I know assuredly that Mr. G. doth not understand the Principles of Augustin and writes of he knows not well what As to what he says at the end of the Paragraph of his having rescued Rom. 3.27 From it s perverted meaning I need say no more than I have said before for the clearing of that Text. I leave it to the intelligent Reader to Judge between him and me and to Determine according to evidence which of us hath perverted that Text. He that dare pervert the meaning of God's holy word I wonder not tho he endeavour to pervert tho shamefully enough every humane word and Testimony that is brought against him 4thly Mr. G. excepts against the Testomony of Salvian as not making for me because saith he it proves no more than that the Christian-Law or the Doctrine of Grace was dishonoured by some Mens abusing it to Licentiousness I Answer that Salvian's Testimony proves all that it was brought for and that was
only to prove that in the 5th Century the Gospel-Covenant was called a Law the Christian-Law This Mr. G. doth not deny but insinuates that by Christian-Law Salvian meant nothing but a Doctrine of Grace which hath no precepts and requires no duty of us at all But if my R. B. once read over all Salvian and understand what he reads I hope he will never be so shameless as to deny plain matter of fact For if I be put to it I shall if the Lord will prove by his express words that he called the Gospel not only the Christian-Law but the New-Law and that it is a New-Law which hath precepts that oblige to duty Thus I have justified my citations out of the four Fathers Justin Martyr Cyprian Augustin and Salvian and have confirmed and strengthened their Testimonies by shewing that they prove what they were cited for and more too Now we must see what exceptions Mr. G. brings against my Modern Witnesses And 1. He excepts against Bradwardin because he was a Papist I Answer behold here the Justice and fair dealing of those Men with whom we have to do They bring Bradwardin to witness for them against us and then he is a good witness tho he be a Papist But when we bring him to witness for us against them then he is no good witness and his Testimony signifies nothing because he is a Papist The truth is we had not mentioned Bradwardin in this cause if he had not been first publickly Summoned by Mr. G's good Friend our Accuser to witness against us And if they will confess that they did foolishly in first mentioning him against us they shall hear no more of him from us as a witness against them For I declare I do not at all value his Testimony meerly as it is his Testimony And I think that in the Apol. I have shewed sufficient reason why no true Christian should value his Testimony meerly because it is his Testimony And that with a non obstante notwithstanding that high esteem which Mr. G. saith he hath obtained among Men. And yet because it is in my Judgment unlawful to belye either the Pope or Devil I must forbear saying either that Bradwardin asserted works done by Grace to be strictly and properly meritorious or that with incomparable strength and closeness of reason he refuted the Pelagian Heresies in all Points till Mr. Goodwin hath clearly proved both these matters of Fact for I have some reason to doubt whether they be both true and as to one of them I gave one reason of my doubting in the Apology p. 164. and another in p. 133. 2dly He endeavours to elude the Testimony of the Professors of Leyden by saying That they only mean that the Gospel in a large and improper sense may be termed a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatings in the Books of the New Testament Answ Ah poor Writing I would I had wherewithal to cover thy Nakedness but that is out of my power for the Leyden Professors give no such Reason why the Gospel may be termed a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatnings in the Books of the New Testament But they say expressly as cited in the Apology p. 27. that the Gospel is sometimes called a Law because it also hath its Own Commandments and its Own Promises and Threatnings Mark ye 1. They do not say it may be improperly called a Law but that it is called a Law 2. They do not say that it is called a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatnings in the Books of the New Testament but because it also hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings that is plainly That as the old Covenant of Works had its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings so also the Gospel or New Covenant of Grace hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings 3dly As the Promises of the Gospel are its own so are the Commandments and Threatnings of it its own but the Promises are its own because they properly belong to it then also are the Commandments and Threatnings its own for the same reason because they properly belong to it For the worthy and Learned Professors make no difference but say that Commandments Promises and Threatnings are all its own Now this is the very true reason why I according to Scripture call the Gospel a Law As for what Mr. G. Disc p. 67. cites out of Polyander there it makes nothing against what he says here in the passage now under consideration but at the most shews that Gospel is a word of various signification which I have freely granted and fully spoken to before And as Polyander renounced the Popish Socinian and Arminian opinion concerning the New Law so do I and my Brethren renounce the self-same Opinion And yet in the sence of the Orthodox Ancient and Modern Divines we believe the Gospel to be a New Law of Grace and which is the same thing in other words a New Covenant of Grace which hath Commands Promises and Threatnings of its own 3dly He endeavours to put by the Testimony of Gomarus by saying That he understood the Gospel in its larger acceptation when he called it a Law in the place cited by me and pretends to have made this out in the 34th Page of his Discourse to which he refers his Reader Answ In my Remarks and Animadversions on his Sixth Chapter I have clearly and fully refuted that part of his Discourse and shewed how grosly he abuses Gomarus by wresting his words to an absurd sense which they are no ways capable of to wit that there the word Gospel is not taken by Gomarus for God's Covenant of Grace only but for all the second part of the Bible that is all the Books of the New Testament I proved from Gomarus his own words that by the word Gospel he neither did nor could understand there all the Books of the New Testament but that really he there understood by the Gospel the very Covenant of Grace it self both discover'd to and made with Man and recorded in the Books both of Old and New Testament and likewise that there he called the same Covenant of Grace God's Law because of the duty required in it and the condition prescribed by it To which I shall only add now that in the Apology p. 100. I cited the 29th Position which Gomarus lays down next before the 30th that here is under consideration and in that 29th Position he saith That the Gospel is called God's Covenant because it promulgates the mutual Obligation of God and Men concerning the giving them Eternal Life upon their performing a certain Condition and that it is called the Covenant concerning free Salvation by Christ because God in the Gospel of mere Grace publishes and offereth unto all Men whatsoever on condition of true Faith not only Christ and perfect Righteousness in him for Reconciliation and Eternal Life but also he
of the Church after the Apostles do expresly call the Gospel-Covenant by the Name of the New Law 3. Because many or our Reformed Divines since the Reformation have called the Gospel a New Law The Synod of Dort did so call it with Approbation as I have read in the Acts of the Synod See Act. Synod Dordrect part 2. p. 104. and Part 3. p. 124. and 139. and 208. That excellent Person Mr. Hugh Binning called the Gospel a New Law in his Sinners Sanctuary on Rom. 8.2 p. 72. And Mr. Durham expresly called it The Law of Grace Durham on the Revelation First Edit p. 259. For these Reasons I hold it very lawful to call the Gospel a New Law And yet if my Reverend Brother please I will agree with him upon the termes and with the proviso's aforesaid to lay aside the word New and will content my self with calling the Gospel a Law and a Law of Grace But if he will not agree to the Termes and Conditions before-mentioned then be it known to all Men whom it may concern that it is no fault of mine that we are not agreed as to this matter for I have offer'd to deny my self the use of my just liberty for Peace sake and more I cannot do with a good Conscience and therefore through Grace will not do it The Scriptures of truth often call the Gospel a Law and I have proved from Scripture that it is a Law of Grace therefore I believe it to be a Law and a Law of Grace a Law of Grace that hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Treatnings and as I believe so I Speak and Write I impose on no Man's Conscience and I hope no Protestant will seek to impose upon mine I will not deny my inward beliefe of the Gospel's being a New Covenant or Law of Grace but intend through Grace to live and die in the profession of that Faith But as for the use of the words New Law simply and without any addition of something that may explain their meaning I am content on the termes aforesaid to forbear it as Beza desired But if my R. Brother do not agree to the Termes mentâ—oned then I am at liberty and will endeavour to use my liberty as Prudence and Charity shall direct in calling or not calling the Gospel a New Law for though I can forbear calling it by that Name yet I cannot believe nor say that it is unlawful so to call it I shall Conclude with the Testimony of Tertullian who in his Book of Prescription against Hereticks tells us That in his Time i. e. near Fifteen hundred years ago and before the Roman Anti-Christ was born It was a part of the Rule of Faith or Creed universally believed by all Orthodox Christians That Christ Preached the New Law and Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven whereby Tertullian meant the New Covenant of Grace as that which requires Duty and prescribes Conditions unto Men and promises Blessings and Benefits for Christ's sake unto those who through the Grace of the Spirit perform the Duties and Conditions prescribed whereof the main and principal is Faith in Christ This is evident by what he Writes in his Book against the Jews Chap. 1. p. 122. and Chap. 2. p. 125. and Chap. 6. p. 131. And in his Fourth and Fifth Books against Marcion c. Lib. 5. c. 3. His words in his Book of Prescription against Hereticks are as followeth * Regula est autem fidei ut jam hinc quid defendamus profiteamur illa scilicet qua creditur unum omnino Deum esse nec alium praeter mundi conditorem qui universa ex nihilo produxerit per Verbum suum primo omnium emissum id verbum Filius ejus appellatum in nomine dei varie visum Patriarchis in Prophetis semper auditum postremò delatum ex Spiritu Dei et virtute in Virginem Mariam carnem factum in utero ejus et ex ea natum hominem et esse Jesum Christum exinde praedicasse novam legem et novam promissionem regni coelorum virtutes fecisse fixum Cruci tertia die resurrexisse in caeles ereptum sedisse ad dextram patris misisse vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti qui credentes agat venturum cum claritate ad sumendos Sanctos in vitae aeternae et promissorum coelestium fructum et ad prophanos judicandos igni perpetuo facta utriusque partis resuscitatione cum carnis restitutione Haec regulâ— a Christo ut probabitur instituta nulla habet a pud nos quaestiones nisi quas Haereses inferunâ— et quae Haereticos faciunt Tertull. lib. de praescript Adversus Haereticos p. 100. Edit Basil 1550. But the Rule of Faith that we may now hereby profess what we defend is that to wit whereby we believe that there is but one God and that he is no other than the Creator of the World who produced all things of nothing by his WORD who first before all Creatures proceeded from him or was begotten by him that that WORD called His Son variously appeared to the Patriachs in God's Name was always heard in the Prophets and at last by the Spirit and Power of God came upon the Virgin Mary was made Flesh in her Womb and of her was Born a Man and is Jesus Christ That afterwards he Preached the New Law and New Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven wrought Miracles was Crucified Rose again from the Dead the third Day and being taken up into Heaven sits at the Right-hand of God That he sent the Vicarious Power of the Holy Spirit who might Influence and Guide those who Believe That he will come again in Glory to take up the Saints into the Possession or Enjoyment of Eternal Life and of the Heavenly Blessedness promised and to Judge and Condemn the Prophane unto Eternal Fire after he hath Raised up both Parties to wit the Just and the Unjust having restored their Flesh or Bodies to them This Rule being Instituted by Christ as shall be proved it admits of no Controversies amongst us Christians but those which Heresies Introduce and which make Men Hereticks FINIS
And it is observable that here Repentance is required in the first place and then Pardon is promised as a great favour which shall follow after For the Promise runs in the Future Tense the Lord will have Mercy upon the wicked Man who hath truly repented and our God will abundantly pardon him He will pardon him all the Sins whereof he hath truly repented how many soever they have been And as John Baptist our Lord himself and his Apostles began their Preaching of the Gospel with the Preaching of Repentance so when our Lord Christ after his Resurrection enlarged the Apostles Commission and sent them to preach the Gospel to the Gentile World he told them that they must preach Repentance and Remission of Sin in his Name among all Nations beginning at Jerusalem Luke 24.47 So that it was a part of their Commission to preach the Gospel that they should preach Repentance as a means to obtain Remission of Sins through Faith in Christs name And it is certain that they acted according to their Commission Peter led the way and in his first Sermon after they were endued with Power from on high he said to the convinced humbled Jews who asked him and the rest of the Apostles what they should do That they should repent and be baptized every one of them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins Acts 2.37 38. Those Jews were deeply convinced that they had broken the Law and thereby fallen under its curse and destroyed their own Souls so that it was not then time to preach the Old Law of Works to them nor did Peter preach it then to them but he preached the Gospel-Covenant and New Law of Grace to them saying as before mentioned Repent c. for the remission of sins And by that first Gospel-Sermon he converted about Three Thousand Souls And as he began so he continued to do for his next publick Sermon to the people was of the same strain with the first for after he and his Brethren had born their Testimony to Christs Resurrection and by his Resurrection and the Miracle done in his Name had proved him to be indeed the true Christ whom God promised to send into the World for the Redemption of his People And likewise after he had charged them with and proved them guilty of the murder of Christ and had shewed that by ignorantly murdering Jesus of Nazareth they had unwittingly fulfilled the many Prophesies which foretold the sufferings of Christ for the Salvation of his People he immediately commanded and exhorted them to repent and be converted as the means to obtain the Pardon of their Sins and Salvation of their Souls Acts 3.19 Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And here by the way we may take notice that the antient Syriack Interpreter renders this place thus Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out and that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Act. 15.17 After the same manner it is rendred in the Tigurin Translation Irenaeus also a very Antient Father and Martyr above Fourteen Hundred Years ago thus quotes this Scripture (o) Poenitentiam igitur agite convertimini uti deleantur peccata vestra veniant vobis tempora refrigerii Domini Iren. lib. 3. adversus haereses cap. 12. Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out and that the times of the Lords refreshing may come unto you So Irenaeus But I lay not the stress of my Argument on that Old Translation for our own Translation is sufficient to my purpose since it plainly shews That the Gospel prescribes Repentance unto Sinners as a means to prepare and dispose them for obtaining the Pardon of their Sins which the Natural Moral Law by it self immediately doth not do but only requires a Natural Legal Repentance such as is before described and that Men should so sin no more for time to come but doth not ordain it to be a means nor require it as a means to obtain pardon nor yet ensure pardon to it through Christ as such a means And as Peter led the way in preaching the Gospel by preaching Repentance as a means to obtain pardon of Sin so the other Apostles followed according to the Commission which they all received from the Lord himself Paul as was shewn in the Apology was sent to the Gentiles to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God that they might receive forgiveness of sins c. Acts 26.17 18. And he was faithful to the Lord who sent him and approved himself so to be by testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks Repentance towards God and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ Acts 20.20 21. And the end in order to which he preached up the use of these means of Faith and Repentance was that people might receive forgiveness of Sins And if that was not Gospel-preaching how can it be proved that ever there was such a thing as Gospel-preaching in the World and that Paul was faithful to God and the Souls of Men in preaching the Gospel since Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ and that too in order to pardon of Sin to Justification and Salvation were the two great heads of Doctrine that he mainly insisted upon as evidently appears from Acts 26.17 18 19 20 c. compared with Acts 20.20 21. And that the other Apostles preached the same Gospel in the same way and to the same end it is needless to go about to prove it since they had all one Commission and were all faithful in preaching according to their Commission Now as this was Gospel in the days of the Apostles so it hath been and still is and ever will be Gospel to the end of the World For Christs Gospel is an everlasting Gospel and in all Ages hath been preserved and continued in the Church and hath been preached as to the sum and substance of it by certain faithful Ministers of Christ in all Ages Lactantius of old gave this as a mark to know the true Church by (o) Sciendum est illam esse veram Ecclesiam Catholicam in quâ est confessio poenitentia quae peccata vulnera quibus subjecta est imbecillitas carnis salubriter curat Lactant Divin Instit lib. 4. cap. 30. We must know saith he that that is the true Catholick Church in which is Confession and Repentance which wholesomely cures the sins and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is subject Here is nothing for Popish Merits and Satisfactions for his words signifie no more but this that Confession and Repentance is a wholesome means used in the true Church according to the Gospel 1 John 1.9 for obtaining
brethren had asserted a notorious falsehood in matter of fact in saying that New-Law of Grace was a New-word of an old but ill meaning To convince him of falsehood in this matter of fact as I expressly declare in pag. 24. lin 16.17 18 19. c. Was what I mainly intended in quoting Justin Martyr with others who expressly mention the words New-Law and New-Law of Grace in a good sense and meaning long before we were born And I am sure the words I cited out of Justin with the words of my other Witnesses do clearly and effectually prove what I alledged them for And if my Reverend brother be willing to be Judged as he says he is by any of the Subscribers after they have read the place whether he did not say true that Justin was not pertinently alledged in the Apology I now tell him plainly that he will certainly be Condemned by them as to this matter for assuredly several of the Subscribers have read the place in Justin and do Judge that it was cited very pertinently to the before-mentioned purpose And Mr. C. himself doth not deny but confess that Justin called the Gospel a New-Law for the Covenant in its Christian constitution is the Gospel and he confesses that that was the thing which Justin called a New-Law But Mr. C. Obj. 1. Justin says that this New-Law is posterior to Moses his Law but the Apologist's New-Law has been ever since the Fall of Adam Ans 1. What he calls the Apologist's New-Law is not the Apologist's it is not a Law of the Apologists own invention but it is the Lords own New-Law or Covenant of Grace This brother by this passage brings to my mind what I cited before out of Mr. Bradshaw on the 2d Thessal his words are When the Gospel requireth any thing at your hands which shall any ways cross your corrupt desires you are presently offended and incensed against us that are the poor Ministers thereof as if it were our own Gospel and the Law of our own will which we propound unto you But know you this whosoever you are that it is Christ Jesus our Saviour that in our persons you are offended withal c. See the rest before 2. I Answer it is not true that according to the Apology this New-Law or Covenant of Grace as we Christians have it and we have it in its Christian constitution hath been ever since the Fall of Adam The Apology saith no such thing but the quite contrary For there in the Apology I distinguish and say that this Law of Grace or Gospel-Covenant is both New and Old in different respects and I affirm expressly in so many formal words that the Law of Grace As we Christians have it is called new because we have the newest and clearest and last edition of it pag. 22. lin 48.49 And again in pag. 23. lin 5.6 That it will continue in its newest and excellentest form unto the end of the world Whence it manifestly appears that the Apology doth not say that the New Law of Grace in its last and clearest edition and in its newest and excellentest form of Administration as we Christians have it and as it is to continue unto the end of world Has ever been since the Fall of Adam and that it was before the Law of Moses On the contrary any Man who is not blind may see that we hold with Justin that the New-Law thus considered is indeed the New-Gospel-Covenant in its Christian constitution and that it is Posterior to the Law of Moses and preferable to it But now tho in this respect the Evangelical-Law of Grace as we have it in its last and excellentest form of Administration be newer than the Law of Moses yet 1. It follo vs not by any true Logick that therefore it is a new device of the Apologists Nor 2. Doth it follow that the substance of the same New-Law or Covenant of Grace hath not been in the Church ever since the first promise of Grace made to our first parents after the fall as in the Apology pag. 23. l. 1.2 3. I asserted it to have been and so to have been old in that respect tho it be also New in respect of the form of Administration In which Christans have had it since Christs time and will continue to have it till his second coming again I hope Mr. C. will not deny but that the essence and substance of the Gospel-Covenant hath always since the Fall of Adam had a being in the Church of God tho it hath been under several forms of Administration and we have it now under its last newest and excellentest form and therefore as such it hath been usually called the New-Law by Christian Writers even by the purest and ancientest of them since the Apostles If my R. B. think that the Gospel-Covenant as to the substance of it hath not been always in the Church since the Fall of Adam tho in respect of its Christian form of Administration it be posterior to the Law of Moses let him speak out and see what will be the issue Obj. 2. But Justin says Mr. C. calls Christ the New-Law therefore he took not Law in a strict sense Ans Indeed it is true that when Justin called Christ the New-Law he did not speak in a strict and proper sense but in a figurative and metonymical sense as was shewed before But what then I beseech you will any sober Man say that because Justin sometimes wrote figuratively therefore he always did so and never at all properly Or that because he wrote figuratively When he said Christ is the New-Law therefore he wrote figuratively when he said not that Christ is the New-Law but said expressly as he is truly quoted in the Apol. pag. 24. That Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the New-Law-giver Obj. 3. But Justin says Mr. C. calls this Law a Testament 8 times in that page and 97 Times in that Dialogue and seldom I think not above 4 times a Law without the explicatory word Testament added Ans 1. I do not know certainly how often Justin calls the Gospel a Testament and how seldom a Law throughout that whole Dialogue for I have not had time nor indeed thought it worth the while to take the Poll but this I am sure of that Mr. C. is out in his reckoning for Justin doth not in that Page 228 call this Law Eight times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament Justin hath the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Testament or Covenant but Seven times in that Page And as for the Translator he hath the Latin nown Testamentum Testament not Eight times only but Nine times But the Translator was not Justin himself but Johannes Langus Here then we find that Mr. C. is certainly out in his Reckoning and if he hath mistaken in Numbering how often the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Testament or Covenant is to be found in one single Page What reason have we to
believe that he is not much more mistaken in numbering how often it is to be found throughout the whole Book He that mistakes in reckoning Eight sure is not to be trusted in reckoning 97 nay since he puts the 8 into the 97 to make up his full number he must be mistaken in that number 97 as he is in the number 8. And for ought I know he may be much more mistaken in the making up of his whole number but it is not worth the while to insist upon this any longer And then for the other how seldom Justin calls the Gospel a Law whether more than four times I will not insist upon that neither though therein he is mistaken also But I Answer 2. That suppose it were true which he saith as it is not true nay suppose Justin had called the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament not only Ninety seven times but Ninety seven hundred times and had but twice called it a new-Law yet that would make nothing against us but would make for us and would fully answer the main end for which we cited the Testimony of Justin which was to prove against our Accuser that New-Law is not a new Word of an old ill meaning For here we see that above Fifteen hundred years agoe Justin used the word and called it a New-Law in a good sense and our other Witnesses add that it is of Grace a Law of Grace which was the thing to be proved 3. Ans What doth Mr. C. mean by saying That Justin calls it so often a Testament and but seldom a Law without the Explicatory word Testament added Would he make simple people believe that Justin Martyr wrote in English and used the English word Testament so often I hope he did not design any such thing VVhy what then is the Mystery VVhy thus it is Justin wrote in Greek and the word he so often used is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now it seems Mr. C. would make the VVorld believe that the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signifies a Testament an absolute Testament or Promise without any Condition but that it never signifies a Covenant a Conditional Covenant or Promise of a benefit to them that shall perform the Condition prescribed in the Covenant But be it known to all whom it may concern that if this was his design it was no good one For the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signifie a Testament in his sense but it really signifies both a Testament and a Covenant and therefore to obviate such Cavilling in the Apology p. 24. l. 37 38. In Translating the First Testimony out of Justin Martyr I did twice render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Testament or Covenant whereby the VVorld may see I used no little Tricks of Art but down-right Honesty in Citing and Translating Justin whereas it seems my Reverend Brother would have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Translated Testament only and not Covenant at all and this makes some suspect that there may be Persons in the VVorld who care as little for the word Covenant as for the word Law and it may be would be glad if people were brought to believe that New-Covenant of Grace is a new word of an ill-meaning as well as New Law of Grace But I demand of Mr. C. whether it was not a Covenant a Conditional Covenant which God made with Israel in the day when he took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt If he grant that it was as I think it will not be denyed and if any should deny it it might be easily proved then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Conditional Covenant and not an absolute Testament only For in Heb. 8. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word that is used by the Apostle to signifie that Mosaical Covenant And then in v. 10. the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and no other is used also to signifie the New and Better Covenant in its last Edition which God hath made with the Gospel-Church through Christ Incarnat In like manner the same Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berith is used in Jeremich 31. v. 32. to signifie the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant And in v. 31 33. it is used to signifie the said new and better Covenant in its last and most excellent form of Administration But so it is that the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant was a Conditional Covenant otherwise how did the people break it Jer. 31. v. 32. therefore both the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a Conditional Covenant a Covenant which prescribes a duty and condition and promises a benefit to them who perform the prescribed Condition And consequently from the bare signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it can no more be proved that the Gospel-Covenant is an absolute Testament without any Condition than it can be proved from the bare signification of the same word that the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant was an absolute Testament without any condition for the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both the Covenants Now then if the said Mosaical Covenant was a Conditional Covenant to the Israelites though it be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies both a Covenant and a Testament VVhy may not the Evangelical New Covenant be a Conditional Covenant or Law of Grace to us Christians though it be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies both a Covenant and a Testament And since such is the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am willing to be informed by my Reverend Brother how Justin Martyr can reasonably be thought to have added the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Testament as Explicatory of the word Law to Trypho the Jew and to teach him that by Law he meant nothing but an absolute Testament whenas by what I have said it plainly appears that Justin and Trypho both believed That both the words Hebrew and Greek signified a conditional Covenant which is the same thing with a Federal-Law And that Justin believed this is evident both by his quoting Jer. 31. v. 31 32. in that very Page against the Jew and also by his using the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the same thing For as he is Quoted in the Apology p. 24. he sayes that all Men whosoever they be that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God must now keep this Covenant or Testament which is of the greatest Authority of all If all Men must keep it under the penalty of not obtaining possession of the Inheritance of God because it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most excellent and of the greatest Authority of all then it is plain that it is a Law which prescribes some Duty to Christians so that their obtaining of the Promised Benefit is suspended till they through Grace perform the