with the Father and Spirit it requires Faith in him also considered simply under that formal Notion as God But the Law doth not by it self immediately require Faith in Christ the Mediatour as the instrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of him and his Righteousness for Justification It is the Gospel-Covenant which first by it self immediately constitutes and ordains Faith in the Mediatour Christ Jesus to be the instrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and Salvation and which likewise requires it of us as such and under that Notion Now when Faith in the Mediatour is once by the positive Law of Grace or Gospel-Covenant ordained to such an use and required of us for that purpose then I acknowledge that the Moral Natural Law obliges us to observe the positive Evangelical Law of Grace which hath ordained Faith to such an use and required it in order to such an end and so mediante Lege Evangelicâ positivâ by means of the positive Evangelical Law of Grace or new Covenant the Natural Law the Law of our Creation obliges us to believe in Christ the Mediatour to receive him and his Righteousness as aforesaid and to trust to be justified and saved by and for him and his Righteousness only So that justifying Faith in the Mediatour is required of us first directly and immediately by the Gospel Covenant only but secondarily mediately and by consequence it is also required by the Moral Natural Law This to me is very evident For 1. The Natural Moral Law cannot of it self immediately oblige us to believe in Christ the Mediatour unless he be otherwise discovered to us by Supernatural Revelation This I think none will deny for the Apostle saith Rom. 10.14 How shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard It is simply impossible for a Man to believe in Christ the Mediatour before he be revealed to him and he cannot be revealed by the Natural Moral Law without Supernatural Revelation therefore he cannot be obliged to believe in Christ the Mediatour by the Natural Moral Law immediately without a Supernatural Revelation because that just and good Law cannot oblige a Man to a simple and absolute impossibility Man in his Innocency could not be obliged by a Natural Law to believe a Supernatural Object without a Supernatural Revelation 2. The Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour to us doth of it self immediately oblige us to believe It doth not only discover Christ the Object but it doth likewise per se immediatè by it self immediately oblige us to believe the Object revealed so that all Natural Moral Law set aside and abstracting from any such Law the Supernatural Revelation of Christ would by it self immediately oblige us to believe And that 1. Because it is Gods own Supernatural Testimony which of it self hath an immediate Authority over our Conscience and obliges us to believe with a Faith of assent The true formal reason and objective moving cause of our obligation to believe a Mysterious Truth Supernaturally revealed to us is the Divine Testimony it self or the Soveraign Authority of God Supernaturally revealing If any Man say No it is not that but it is only the Natural Moral Law which obliges us to believe the Supernatural Tenimony of God I Answer That such a Man seems to be pecking towards the Socinians and does but discover his ignorance of those matters John says 1 John 5.10 he that believeth not God hath made him a lyar because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son See for this Essen compend dogmat cap. 9. pag. 284. Thes 34. arg 3. 2. The said Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour as God hath given it forth unto Man carries in it and with it a positive Command to believe on Christ This is so clear in Scripture that a Man must be blind that doth not see it if he do but read understand and consider Let Deut. 18.15 16 17 18 19. be consulted and there we shall find a Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour and a Prophetical Promise to send him into the World The people were afraid to converse immediately with God after the dreadful appearance at the giving of the Law in Horeb therefore they desired that Moses would be Mediatour between God and them This motion and desire of the people God approved of v. 16 17. and withal made them a promise by Moses that he would send them the true Mediatour Christ whom Moses in that did but typifie and adumbrate And at the same time by the same Moses God gave a Command to hearken unto Christ when he should come and backed his Command with a Threatning to punish them severely in case they did not hearken unto him Compare this with Acts 3.22 23. and it will evidently appear that here we have a Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour which contains in it a plain Command to hear him in all things and that hearing him in all things includes believing on him John 8.24 and 14.1 and the Command is enforced with a dreadful Threatning against every Soul which will not hear him and believe on him Now doth not this Supernatural Revelation by vertue of the Command included in it immediately oblige us to believe on Christ for Justification and Salvation Surely none but an Unbeliever can deny this And it not only doth oblige us but it would oblige us suppose that which is impossible that there were no Natural Moral Law in the World We have then a positive Law which immediately obliges our Conscience to believe in Christ the Mediatour besides the Natural Moral Law And thus was this matter understood above Twelve Hundred Years ago Witness that of Lactantius (l) Ipse Moses per quem sibi datam legem dum pertinaciter tuentur Judaei exciderunt a Deo Deum non Agnoverunt praedixerat fore ut Propheta maximus mittatur a Deo qui sit supra Legem qui voluntatem Dei ad homines perferat In Deuteronomio ità scriptum reliquit dixit Dominus ad me Prophetam excitabo eis de Fratribus corum sicut te dabo verbum meum in os ejus Et loquetur ad cos ea quae praecepero ei quisquis non audierit ea quae loquetur Propheta ille in nomine meo ego vindicabo in eum Denunciavit scilicet Deus per ipsum legiferum quòd Filium suum id est vivam praesentemque legem missurus esset illam veterem per mortalem datam soluturus ut Deus per eum qui esset aeternus legem sanciret aeternam Lactant. Divin Instit lib. 4. Cap. 17. Moses himself by whom the Law was given and which the Jews obstinately defending are fallen from God and have lost the knowledge of God foretold that it should come to pass that God would send a most Great Prophet who should be above the Law and should bring the Notice
the same Christ being God and all the difference is only made by that which is the Circumstance tho a deplorable one of our own persons This is another great mistake for the object of faith in God before the fall is not altogether the same with the object of Justifying faith in Christ the Mediator since the fall And the object not being the same the Act of faith is not the same but is different in proportion to the difference of the object Moreover as the objective cause so the efficient cause is different for the Medicinal Grace of Christ which is the efficient cause of Justifying faith since the fall is of a different nature from that Grace of God as the Author of innocent nature thereby Man was enabled to believe in God before the * See Rutherford's Covenant of Life opened p. 49. lin 16 17. fall And seeing Justifying faith in Christ since the fall hath both a different efficient cause and a different object together with a different habitude unto its object it seems to be specifically distinct from the faith which Adam had in God before the fall For the different specification of Acts ariseth from the difference of the efficient cause and object of the said Acts and from the different way of their being conversant about their respective Objects It is not a meer different Circumstance of our Case since the Fall that causeth the difference of our Justifying Faith now from the Faith of Adam then before the Fall But it is 1. The Difference of the Efficient Cause or of that spiritual influence of Grace which causeth our Justifying Faith in Christ the Redeemer 2. It is the difference of the Object which is not now God formally and simply considered as God the Creator and Preserver and Ruler of innocent Nature but nextly and immediately it is Christ considered as God-Man and Mediator between God and Men and ultimatly it is God Justifying penitent believers by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ 3. It is the difference of our Faith its Habitude and Relation from such a different Cause to such a different Object These Three differences are sufficient to make a different faith but it doth by no Logick follow from hence that every difference of Circumstance in the same state of lapsed Nature since the first Apostacy would make our Faith in Christ to be of a different Nature and Kind Now our Justifying Faith being thus different from the Faith of Adam before the Fall it may very well and it really doth fall under a different positive Precept such as that Acts 16.31 And yet I never denied but that the first Commandment of the moral natural Law doth also require this Faith but it doth not require it after the same manner as the positive Precept of the Gospel requires it 4. Fourthly Whereas from page 48 to 54. he endeavours to prove That because the natural Moral Law obliges all men to a natural Legal Repentance therefore it doth also of it self immediately oblige them to an Evangelical Repentance and that this it doth so as that there is no Positive Precept of the Gospel which requires of Christians and obliges them unto the said Evangelical Repentance In all his Discourse there he grosly mistakes in drawing his Consequence which doth not come naturally but is forcibly drawn against the clear Evidence of Scripture as I have proved before And therefore I utterly deny his Consequence and affirm on the contrary That over and besides the moral natural Law there are Evangelical Precepts belonging to the New Covenant or Law of Grace which requires of us an Evangelical Repentance considered under this formal Notion as arising from the perswasion of Gods Mercy in Christ to the truly penitent and as a means to prepare and dispose us for pardon and as having pardon ensured to it by Promise through Christ To such a Repentance thus considered the moral natural Law doth not by it self immediately oblige us and yet it was never denied by us but that mediately it doth oblige us to it in as much as it obliges us to obey the Positive Precepts of the Gospel which require such a Repentance of men to whom the Gospel is Preached 5. Fifthly Whereas he says in page 51. That the moral natural Law not only urgeth the unregenerate to Repentance but also moveth them to build their hopes of Life upon it That is a very gross and dangerous mistake For it is a great sin for unregenerate men or indeed any men whatsoever to build their hopes of life upon their Repentance surely then the holy Law of God doth not move them to it otherwise it should move them to sin which is false and borders upon Blasphemy The Truth is The Law of God doth not move men to any such Thing it rather moves sinners to despair of ever obtaining life by and for their Repentance or any thing they do or can do And since as Mr. G. says p. 51. The Gospel instructs us to put our whole and entire confidence in Christ and his Righteousness alone Where the Light of the Gospel iâ— superadded to that of the Law there the Law is a School-Master to bring men to Christ and Objectively moves them not to seek nor hope for Justification and Salvation on the Account of any thing done by Themselves but rather to seek and hope for life and salvation only in Christ and on the alone account of his Righteousness and Death Thus I have refuted his first grand Assertion which he takes so much pains to prove in his Seventh Chapter That the Gospel hath no precepts and requires no obedience I have shew'd that it hath precepts and requires duty and obedience of all those unto whom it is Preached and have answered his objections against the truth revealed in the sacred Scriptures and believed by the faithful Orthodox Ministers and People of the Lord in all the Ages of the Church SECT IV. His second assertion is that the Gospel hath no threatnings This I have refuted before in my remarks on his sixth Chap. but as I said there I must make some further Animadversions on it here in its proper place For the clearing up of the truth in this matter consider then that the Gospel-Govenant hath some threatnings against the unbelievers and unregenerate to whom it is preached and other threatnings against regenerate believers First the Gospel-Covenant hath some threatnings against unregenerate unbelievers to whom the Gospel is Preached and the design and use of such threatnings is to bring Men off from their unbelief and to move them to believe in Christ and to give themselves up to him in Covenant that by him they may be saved both from the punishment threatned in the Law and Covenant of works and also from that further degree of punishment threatned in the Gospel against all that neglect and refuse to accept and make use of the Soveraign and saving remedy provided by God and offered in
sinless obedience had and was to have had in the first old Covenant and Law of works c. Let any honest understanding Man read what follows there in several pages together with our Arguments from Scripture and Reason and he will see it as clear as the light that we deny the condition of the Gospel-Covenant to be a legal condition onely in the sense that works were a condition in the legal Covenant and that yet notwithstanding that and in good consistency with our selves we hold it to be a federal legal condition in another sense For we all along maintain it to be a condition of the New Covenant and Law of Grace and so to be federal and legal that is Graciously and Evangelically federal and legal And in consequence of this we hold and have proved that the Lord by his conditional promises hath suspended his giving of the promised subsequent benefits till by his Grace the condition be performed And that brother by denying this suspension not only contradicts us but in effect denies that there are really any conditional promises in the Gospel and contradicts all those Scriptures whereby we have proved that it is God's positive will declared in his word to suspend his giving of the subsequent blessings promised till the condition required be by Grace performed And all the reason he gives for his so doing is that suspension doth always suppose and imply the event to be uncertain and that where there is a suspension of giving the promised benefit Till the condition required be performed there the performing of the condition hath an obliging influence upon God and gives us a title of right to the benefit promised Which is a wild assertion and a meer begging of the question It is that which he neither hath proved nor can solidly prove to Eternity For why may it not be certainly determined as to the event that such a promised benefit shall be infallibly given to such a person upon such a condition and yet that the actual giving of it shall be suspended till he have by grace both freely and certainly performed the condition so that he shall have it then and not before This not only may be but de facto it is so with respect to all God's elect And then tho they most certainly receive the benefit assoon as through Grace they perform the condition yet it doth by no true Logick follow that their performing the condition required gives them the right to receive the benefit promised for the Lord Christ purchased for them both the benefit and the right to it and possession of it and God for Christs sake alone gives it them assoon as the condition is performed In fine that brother pag. 45. Saith The performing of the duty is the effect of the Grace of God's Spirit and effects bear not the Name of conditions Answer This objection is borrowed from Episcopius the Arminian and it was Answered in the Apol. See there pag. 46.49 and 66.67 Where the world was told that the Grace of God whereby we believe is so far from hindering our Actual Faith from being the condition that on the contrary it conduceth much to make it tho not simply the condition yet The gracious Evangelical condition of the Covenant We shew'd also in the same place that God's grace doth not effect and produce our Actual Faith without the free Concurrence of our own faculties Now you shall see how Episcopius the Arminian urged this Argument and how Triglandius the Zealou Calvinist Answered it * Conditio ait Episcopius non est conditio quae ab eo qui eam praescribit in eo cui praescribitur efficitur et hoc me negare dico inquit Triglandius merus effectus prescribentis non potest esse conditio praescripta nedum praestita inquit Episcopius Resp Trigl fides et obedientia non sunt merus effectus dei praescribentis fidem et obedientiam nam non deus credit et obedit sed ipse homo Est itaque non solus deus causa fidei et obedientiae sed et ipse homo Deus causa prima et efficiens principalis a quo homo id habet ut credat obediat deo quod alias nec posset nec vellet homo ut causa 2da et subordinata ut pote qui credit et obedit virtute gratia dei Trigland ubi supra Cap. 18. pag. 276. A condition saith Episcopius is not a condition which is effected by him who prescribes it in the person to whom it is prescribed And quoth Triglandius I say that I deny that But saith Episcopius again the meer effect of the prescriber cannot be the condition prescribed much less the condition performed Triglandius Answers Faith and Obedience are not meer effects of God prescribing Faith and Obedience For God doth not believe and obey but Man himself Therefore God alone is not the cause of Faith and Obedience but Man himself is also the cause God is the first and principal efficient cause from whom Man hath that Power whereby he believes and obeys which otherwise he neither could nor would do But Man is the second and subordinate cause to wit who believes and obeys by the strength and Grace of God Thus Triglandius Answered the Arminian Champion By which Answer it appears that Faith is not so an effect of God's Grace as that it cannot be a condition of God's Covenant as by the help of God's Grace it is freely effected by us And therefore Mr. Durham on the Rev. pag. 242. Saith that Faith is the condition of the Covenant of Grace properly which can be said of no other Grace or Work And if this be true then it is false that there is no proper condition of the Covenant at all Mr. Durham we see held that Faith is properly the condition of the Covenant in such a sense as no other thing is And we agree with him therein As he also agrees with us that in another sound sense true Repentance and sincere obedience are conditions of the same Covenant of Grace Of the same Judgment was the very Learned and Judicious Rivet Witness what he writes in one of his 13 Disputations †Com promissiones Evangelii habeant perpetuo annexam conditionem fidei quod adversarii negare non possunt item poenitentiae et gratitudinis quae in reprobis non reperiuntur sequitur ad eos non pertinere redemptionis efficaciam Conditionem illam hae Scripturae probant c. Andr. Rivet Disput 6 de redemptione Thes 22. Since saith Rivet the promises of the Gospel have the condition of Faith perpetually Annexed to them which the Adversaries cannot deny as also the condition of Repentance and Gratitude which are not found in the reprobate it follows that the efficacy of redemption doth not belong to them These following Scriptures prove that condition c. Thus Rivet there and afterwards in his Animadversions on Grotius his notes on Cassander's consultation To
Grounds and Motives that it is accompanyed with a Fear of the contraryes being true and that it 's possible for him to be deceived For these are the Natural Properties of an Opinion 1. It is founded upon a probable ground and motive 2. It is accompanyed with a fear of the contraries being true 3. Ei potest subesse falsom though it be true yet it is but contingently true and so it might have been false or may yet be falfe for any thing that can be certainly known to the contrary from the probable Motive and Ground on which it is founded And then the consequence of this would be that God is not infinitely Wise Ommscient and Infallible And so upon Mr. G 's own Principle of Gods being an Opinator as well as upon the Arminians Principle God might possibly be surprized if not at the Arrival of new Colonies in Heaven as his Expression is in p. 1. of the Epistle to the Reader yet at many things which are done here upon Earth But I hope my R. Brother meant well though his kind love to definitions hath dazled his sight and caused him to embrace a Phantosme instead of his Beloved I mean caused him to take that for a definition of Gods Law which is no definition at all no not a good description of it I insist not therefore on this but supposing his thoughts to have been sound I shall only advise him Linguam corrigere to mend his Words and not to be so fond of definitions for the future And so I return to Clemens concerning whom I say 1. That he doth not say that a true and good Opinion of a thing is the definition of Gods Law nor doth he there so much as say that it is a definition of Mans Law or that it is a definition at all 2. What he said of a Law in the general he did not apply to the Gospel nor is it applicable to the Gospel of Christ If Mr. G will needs be applying it let him apply it to some other Gospel if he knows of any other but he shall never have my consent to apply it unto Christ's Gospel and thereby to make the Gospel an Opinion 3. I advise my Reverend Brother to read but two or three lines further there in Clemens Alexandrinus and he will find that he affirms a Law in the judgment of some (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alexand. Strom. Lib. 1. pag. 256 257. op Lugd. Batav 1616. to be right reason or a right word commanding things which ought to be done and forbidding things which ought not to be done And from thence he concludes that it was rightly and congruously said that the Law was given by Moses to be the rule of Just and Vnjust Thus Clemens And I am content that this be applyed unto the preceptive part of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace to wit that it commands some things to be done and forbids others and that it is a Rule of Just and Unjust But I cannot comprehend how from any thing here in Clemens M. G. can prove with any colour of reason that the said Clemens was of his Opinion That the Gospel is such a Law and Doctrine of Grace as hath no Precept and requires nothing of us at all I need say no more in answer to his Impertinent Chapter but that in his Conclusion he harps upon the same string again and as before abusively calls the Evangelical Law according to our sense of it a new Law of Works for as hath been said It is no Law of Works new or old according to the Scripture use of the Words Law of Works but it is really a New Law of Grace And so in direct opposition to my Reverend Brother I conclude that according to Scripture This New Law of Grace is the Everlasting Gospel and by the Testimonies of the Fathers cited in the Apology and others which I have ready to produce it appears that this Name Law and New Law whereby the Gospel is called is venerable for Age. For that the Gospel-Covenant is a New Law of Grace it is a Doctrine which was well known and believed in the first Ages of Christ's Church and which had its Original before the Birth of Antichrist and I am very well assured will continue in Christ's Church after the Period of that Man of Sin Remarks on the Fifth Chapter THIS Chapter is one intire Impertinency grounded upon the before-mentioned Mistake That I framed an Argument from the sound of the Word Law to prove the Gospel to be a Real Law that obliges to Duty For 1. All that I argued from the Gospels being called a Law in Scripture was that the Brethren should not be offended with us for calling it by that Name since the Lord himself in Scripture had so called it 2. From its being called a Law both by the Fathers and Orthodox Protestant Divines I argued that it is not a new word of an old but ill meaning And in both respects my arguing was close and consequential But for its being a Law that prescribes to us and obliges us to some Duties in order to Gospel-ends and purposes That I said plainly enough See Apol. p. 22.33 depends on the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace for I affirmed it to be the conditional part of the Covenant and I proved the Covenant to be Conditional with respect to its subsequent Blessings and Benefits So that this Controversie whether the Gospel be a Law of Grace or not resolves it self into the question Whether the Covenant of Grace be Conditional and whether it requires of us any Duty with respect to its subsequent Blessing and Benefits And my Reverend Brother will never do any thing to purpose against me in this Controversie unless he solidly and effectually prove what is impossible to be proved That the Covenant of Grace is not at all Conditional and that it doth not require any Duty of us at all in the foresaid respect And if he do that he doth his Work indeed but till that be done he doth nothing to any purpose and all his labour is lost And particularly his Labour is lost in quoting Roman Authours to wit Isodore Paulus Merula Brisonius Juvenal Ovid Cicero Papinian and Justinian to prove that the word Lex Law hath various significations For this is proving what was not at all denyed in the Apology nor was any other thing concluded from the bare Word its being found in Scripture and in Ancient Authours but that we may use the Word without just cause of offence and that it is not a New Word of an old but ill meaning To as little purpose doth he quote Cyprian and Augustin to shew that by the word Law they frequently mean no more than a Doctrine For 1. Suppose it were true that frequently they mean no more than a Doctrine in my Reverend Brothers Sense yet if they do sometimes mean more by it and particularly If they mean more by
pag. 27. that the Gospel is sometimes called a Law because it also hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings It is also against Gomarus who as he is quoted in the same page 27 saith expresly That the Gospel is called the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 and the Law of God by way of Excellency Isa 2.3 from the prescription or appointment of the Condition and Duty contained in it But let it be against them or against all Mortals yet if he did well and solidly prove these three things mentioned I should confess he doth his work effectually were it not for this one thing on which the stress of his Cause lyes and which he begs but proves not nor can prove to wit That the Gospel Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator and that adequately or intirely considered in all its Articles is nothing but an Absolute Promise or a Bundle of Absolute Promises which require nothing of us at all For take the Gospel in this narrow Sense and I declare that I believe as firmly as he can do that it hath neither Precept nor Threatning nor Conditional Promise properly and essentially belonging to it But now I must again tell my Reverend Brother as I told him before That that is not the sense wherein I take it when I say it is a Law of Grace and I have shewed in the Apology that it ought not to be so taken nor is it so taken by our Protestant Divines when the word Gospel is used to signifie the whole Covenant of Grace which God hath made with us through Christ the Mediator Thus in few words it may appear that the main strength of his Cause lyes in the ambiguity of the word Gospel which certainly signifies more things than one and particularly it signifies more things than such a Doctrine of Grace as according to his fancy requires nothing of us at all And 1. First He asserts page 42. That the Precepts which the Gospel employs are not any parts of it self but are borrowed from the Law and then gives his goodly reasons for his assertion Before I give particular Answers to his reasons I will in the following Section premise some things that may give some light to help People to see on whose side the Truth lyes SECT II. AND with respect to his Notion of the Gospel Let it be considered 1. How the Gospel if it be nothing but an Absolute Promise that requires nothing can borrow Precepts from the Moral Law and then employ them in its own Service For mine own part I profess I neither do nor can understand how an Absolute Promise borrows a Precept and then employs it As he gives us to understand towards the end of the 42. page I understand well enough that Mr. Goodwin there insinuates and pag. 48. he expresly asserts this of the Gospels borrowing and employing the Laws Precepts And if any other Body can understand how a meer Absolute Promise doth this much good may the Notion do them But to me it is altogether useless because it is unintelligible 2. Consider That the Moral Natural Law is certainly most perfect in its kind and obliges to the most perfect i. e. sinlesly perfect performance of the several Duties that belong to it in that way which the Lord God intended it should oblige to the performance of them And it was needless to prove this against me for I never denyed it but alwayes believed it and oft times openly professed it And if my Reverend Brother understands what and whom he writes against he cannot but know that my R Brethren and I made Publick Profession of this to the World in the Printed Apology page 200 and 201. 3. Consider Thirdly That we must distinguish between the Moral Natural Law it s Obligative Power and its Actual Obligation And it is not to be denyed but that it hath its Obligative Power even then when for want of a particular Object or necessary Circumstances it doth not put forth its Power into Act and lay its Actual Obligation on a certain Subject For instance In the state of Innocency The Law had in it an Obligative Power unto several things which yet in that State it neither did nor could actually oblige our first Parents unto for want of a proper Object as to relieve the Poor when as yet there were none and to Educate their Children Religiously when as yet they had none 4. Consider Fourthly That the Moral Law either obliges absolutely and for the present or upon supposition and for the future which distinction differs not much from the former Thus in the State of Innocency the Law obliged Man absolutely and for that present time not to hate but to love God But it obliged him to love and relieve the Poor only for the future when there should be and on supposition that there should be Poor in the World 5 Consider Fifthly That the Moral Natural Law obliges to some Duties immediately and by it self but to others only mediately and by reason of some other thing intervening Thus in the State of Innocency by it self immediately it obliged Man not to hate but to love and reverence God But it then obliged him not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit only mediately and by reason of the positive Law which forbad it under pain of Death For it is certain and evident That without that positive Law forbidding it the Law of Nature by it self immediately would never have made it more unlawful to eat of that than of any other Fruit in the Garden of Eden It was therefore that positive Law forbidding it that first in order of Nature obliged Man not to eat of it and then by means of that positive Law the Law of Nature also came in and obliged Man not to eat of it The Law of Nature doth not Enact Divine Positive Laws for us but when they are Enacted by God and do oblige us by God's Authority Enacting them it then obliges us to the observance of them This it did before and still doth since the fall of our First Parents For the same reason holds with respect to all the positive Laws that ever God Enacted for Mankind 6. Consider Sixthly That God's Enacting some Positive Laws after he had given the Moral Natural Law unto Man in its full perfection doth not derogate any thing from the full perfection of the said Moral Law nor from the infinite Wisdom of God the Soveraign Law-giver And to say and write that for God to make any Positive New Law after he hath given unto Man the Moral Natural Law is inconsistent with the Moral Laws perfection and with Gods Infinite Wisdom is in effect both to dishonour Gods Law and to Blaspheme God's Majesty For it is a matter of Fact most certainly and evidently true that after the first giving unto Man and concreating with him and in him the Moral Natural Law God hath made and given to Man Positive Laws both before
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
at Evangelium non modo auxilium nobis promittit sed quantum ad renatos pertinet hanc etiam dulcissimam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adhibet quod sicut persona gratis recipitur propter Christum sic Obedientia inchoata quanquam imperfecta contaminata placeat in reconciliatis fide propter Mediatorem Haec doctrina Evangelii nisi addatur Praeceptis legalibus quae repetuntur enarrantur atque etiam sanciuntur necessario immutabiliter in Concionibus Evangelicis erit doctrina bonorum operum non modo manca mu ila sed etiam iâ—utilis c. Quart par objectionum resp Theolog. quae sunt collectae ex scriptis Melanct. opera Christoph Pezelii Edit Neapoli Nem. An. 1582. p. 167 168. The Law of it self knows nothing either of the merit or efficacy of the Son of God and of the benefits of the Holy Spirit which by Christ is poured out into the hearts of Believers Nothing therefore doth it expresly teach of the help by which and of the way how good works are wrought in us Moreover the Law doth always and immutably require perfect Obedience of all without discrimination regenerate and unregenerate and of it self immutably damns all that have not that perfect Obedience But the Gospel not only promiseth us help but as for the regenerate with respect to them it mitigates the severity of the Law with this sweet temper and moderation that as the person is freely received into favour for Christs sake so the begun Obedience though imperfect and polluted yet is pleasing to God in persons reconciled through Faith for the Mediators sake This Doctrine of the Gospel unless it be added to the Legal Precepts which are both repeated and preached and also are brought under a sanction and confirmed necessarily and immutably in Gospel Sermons the doctrine of good Works will not only be lame and maimed but it will also be unprofitable c. Thus Pezelius shews the difference between the Law Precepts as fortified with the sanction of the first Law of Works and the same Precepts as they are brought under a new sanction and have put on a new form in the Gospel In this last sense the Precepts of the Moral Law belong to the New Covenant and are Precepts of the Gospel Yea the same Pezelius in the same Book hath demonstrated at large against the Flacians that over and beside the Precepts of the Moral Law which are now Evangelized the Gospel hath some Precepts which are proper to it self and require Evangelical Faith and Repentance which the Moral Law by it self immediately doth not require at all Some of his words are (z) At nihil cum hoc somnio commune habet dicere in Evangelio mandatum peculiare esse non patefactum in lege viz. de side in Christum cum qua pugnat incredulitas in Filium Mediatorem In lege fidei i.e. doctrinâ Evangelii non tantùm est promissio gratuita misericordiae Dei propter Filium Mediatorem sed etiam mandatum quod praecipit ut agnoscamus Mediatorem credamus illi promissioni Hoc praeceptum toto genere differt a praeceptis legalibus quae concionantur de Morali Obedientiâ Ac ut Puerile esset ex eo quod Lex Promissiones habet inferre quia Evangelium a lege differat non esse ullam Promissionem assignandam Evangelio sic ingens stupor est sic argumentari Lex habet Mandata ergo nullum peculiare Mandatum assignandum est Evangelio ne videatur introduci Lex nova seu Lex Evangelica c. Idem in codem libro pag. 152 153. But it hath nothing common with this Popish dream concerning a new Law in their sense to say that in the Gospel there is a peculiar Precept not revealed in the Law to wit concerning Faith in Christ to which is repugnant not believing in the Son the Mediator In the Law of Faith that is in the Doctrine of the Gospel there is not only a gracious promise of the mercy of God for the sake of the Son the Mediator but there is a Precept which commands us to acknowledge the Mediator and believe that promise This Precept in its whole kind differs from the Legal Precepts which preach of Moral Obedience And as it would be Childish from this that the Law hath Promises to infer that since the Law differs from the Gospel therefore there is no Promise to be assigned to the Gospel so it is great stupidity to argue thus The Law hath Precepts therefore no peculiar Precept is to be assigned unto the Gospel lest a new Law or an Evangelical Law should seem to be introduced c. See what follows there especially consult what he writes in Pag. 100 101 102 109 110 111 112 113 114 126 127 128 129 135 136 149 150 151. And in Pag. 82 83 84 85 86 87 where he invincibly proves against Flacius that the Gospel hath Precepts that besides the Precepts which in respect of the matter of them are common both to the Law of Works and Gospel of Grace there are Precepts which by themselves immdiately require Evangelical Faith and Repentance and that these Precepts are proper and peculiar to the Gospel Thus we see that the Opinion which is lately brought in amongst us that the Gospel hath no Precepts which require Duty and that there are no Sins against the Gospel is nothing but the old Errour of Flacius and his Party which they broached in opposition to the Learned Pious and Prudent Melancthon and which was confuted and exploded by the Reformed above an hundred years ago My 5th Withess is Henry Bullinger who tho he be suborned to be a false Witness against me yet is he a true Witness that is as much for me in this Cause as my heart can desire For thus he writes on those words of the Apostle Heb. 8.8 for finding fault with them he saith Behold the days come c. * Quod vero hunc attinet locum Testamentum hoc foedus illud Dei pactum est quo Deus voluntatem suam erga nos testatus est prorsusque nobiscum certis convenit conditionibus Coeterum cas conditiones patribus nostris Abrahae imprimis sic praescripsit Ero Deus tuus illa rerum omnisufficientia ero inquam Deus tuus seminis tui post te in fempiternum Tu vero ambula coram me esto integer haec scederis sive pacti conditiones sunt Henr. Bullinger Comment in Epist ad Hebraeos cap. 8. v. 8. pag. 533. edit Tigur 1582. As to what concerns this place The Testament is the Covenant and that compact of God whereby God hath testified his Will towards us and hath fully agreed with us upon certain conditions and those conditions he hath thus prescribed unto our Fathers and in the first place unto Abraham saying I will be thy God that All-sufficieucy of all things I say I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed after
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.
promises Annexed to them These are all fictions of the Remonstrants The newly mentioned Definitions of Reprobation do sufficiently and more than sufficiently clear our Doctrine and teach that no such thing doth follow from any thing in our Doctrine But that in truth Heaven and Hell are confounded by those who hold that the Grace which God dispenses according to his purpose is equally common to all And some pages before Junius had said * Non negamus vocatis gratiam offerri ut saepius conferri communiter sed negamus iis conferri eam gratiam quae potenter toâ—it omne impedimentum hominem infallibiliter Christo inserit Consequenter ex insitis sui ostendit nostra sententia meritoriam causam condemnationis in iis qui tenebras preferunt luci Evangelicae Id. ibid. P. 188. We deny not but that Grace is offered to the called non-elect and often common grace is given them but we deny that that grace is given them which powerfully takes away all impediment and infallibly unites Man unto Christ Consequently our Doctrine from its own intrinsecal principles shews that the Meritorious cause of Condemnation is in those who prefer Darkness before the light of the Gospel Thus that Learned Man represented God as one that by his grace gives some help even to the non-elect in the visible Church and utterly denies that God cruelly mocks them by his Commands or conditional promises †Nemo diâ—it aeternam salutem paucioribus serio promitti quam foris offerri quibus offertur â—s serio promittitur si praestent conditiones pactas conventaâ— i. e. si resipiscant credant Evangelio Id. ibid. Pag. 17. No Man saith quoth Junius that Eternal salvation is seriously promised to fewer than it is outwardly offered unto To whom it is offered to them it is seriously promised if they perform the conditions required by the Covenant that is if they repent and believe the Gospel The other Person appointed by publick Authority to Answer Episcopius his Apology was Triglandius who wrote a large Answer to the whole of it In which Answer he saith * Deus secundum hunc Magistrum desinet esse Author omnis boni praesertim spiritualis fi homini praescribat conditiones fidei obedientiae vel fi author sit omnis istius boni non licebit ipsi tales conditiones homini praescibere ita incompatibilia sunt Magistro huic Deum esse authorem omnis boni spiritualis in homine Dominum Lommiâ— ut creaturae rationalis cui posset conditiones fidei obedientiae praescriberâ— Quâ—nam quaeso magis inculcat sacra Scriptura quam haec duo c. Trigland Examin Apolog. Remonstr Cap. 18. Pag. 277. God according to this Master Episcopius shall cease to be Author of all especially of Spiritual Good if he prescribe unto Man the Conditiâ—ns of Faith and Obedience or if he be the Author of all that Good it shall not be lawful for him to prescribe unto Man such Conditions So inconsistent in the Opinion of this Master Episcopius are these things for God to be both the Author of all Spiritual Good in Man and also to be Lord of Man as a Rational Creature unto whom he can prescribe the Conditions of Faith and Obedience But I pray saith Triglandius What things are they which Holy Scripture doth more inculcate than these two c. The same Author afterwards in the same Book Chap. 30. p. 416. saith That Episcopius ought to have considered aliam esse rationem coecitatis moralis aliam mere Physicae that Moral Blindness is of a different nature from meerly Physical Blindness For in Moral Blindness there is an aversion from Light for it delights in darkness and hates light John 3.20 It gives it self out for the most sharp sight and obtrudes its own Folly for the highest Wisdom Hence he who labours under it doth not desire sight to be restored to him so far is he from it that he most vehemently hates the Man who endeavours ' to bring him to a participation of the light and for this cause he cannot be delivered from his Blindness and therefore Christ said unto the blind Pharisees John 9.41 If ye were Blind ye should have no Sin but now ye say we see therefore your Sin remaineth But they who labour under a meer Natural Blindness deplore and bewail their Blindness and desire if it could be to be delivered from it Thus Triglandius shows the difference between Moral and Natural Blindness and there he shews also how such Men might be Cured of this Moral Blindness that it is their own fault that they are not Cured and that there is no right arguing from Natural Blindness which is involuntary and inculpable to excuse Moral Blindness which is voluntary and sinful Again in the following Chap. 31. p. 421 422. he grants that unto the Non-Elect and called in the visible Church there is given Grace in some respect sufficient †Anon hic gratia sufficiens quid ergo causae quod non omnes convertantur credant Nihil dico praeter fastum arrogantiam humanam quâ—e non perâ—… subâ—gi c. Id. ibid. Cap. 31. Pag. 421. Is there not here sufficient Grace saith Triglandius What is the cause then that all are not Converted and do not Believe There is no cause I say quoth Triglandius besides Man's Pride and Arrogance which doth not suffer it self to be subdued c. and then Episcopius having objected That no Man in his wits would say that sufficient Grace is given to a Man bound in Chains for his Sin to go out of Prison because the Prison Doors are opened and he is again and again exhorted with Prayers and Tears to go out so long as the Chains wherewith he is bound are not taken off him Triglandius Answers the Objection in these words following * Resp 1. Male comparantur externa illa cum interniâ— violenta cum voluntariis ingrata horrenda cum gratis delectabilibus 2. Constrictus ille agnosceret quidem grato animo apertionem carceris sed conquereretur se adhuc numellis pedicis alligatum esse peteretque obnixe ea solvi sed qui vocationem rejiciunt agnoscere nolunt captivitatem servitutem suam imo nihil illis fit aegrius quam ut moneantur eam agnoscere arroganter enim multa sibi persuadent praetenduntque de Libertate sua Quis sanus dixerit tales esse solvendos vel oportere eos solvi aut alias injuriam eis fieri si non solvantur 3. Arrogantia pravitate malorum affectuum suorum servitio suoâ—hi dâ—lectantur atque haec ipsâ— praecipua causa est ut jam dictum ob quam non Liberantur 4. Agnoscant istam suam miseriam captivitatem servitutem ac petant submisse Liberationem Liberabuntur absque dubio Vid. Psal 116. 142. Isa 55.1 2 3. 61. v. 1 2 3. 66. 2. Mat. 11.28 c. Id. ibid. Cap. 31.
from that Text to please my Reverend Brother yet the other Texts do abundantly answer my whole design and prove that the Gospel is expresly called 〈◊〉 Law in Scripture 3. And therefore it is not true which he says in the 3d place That Isa 42.4 is not effectual to prove my Assertion for my Assertion there is That the Scripture expresly calls the Gospel a law which it really doth in that very place as Mr. G. himself confesseth in Page 63. and I desire no more to prove my Assertion which only was concerning the word Law its being there used of the Gospel but not at all concerning what sense it is used in I meddled not with the sense of the word Law there and then and all that I shall do now shall be to desire the Reader to take the sense not from me but from Mr. Pool in these words The 〈◊〉 shall wait for his Law i. e. shall gladly receive his Doctriue Pool's Annotations on Isa 42.4 and Commands from time to time Mr. G. seems to be afraid that the receiving of Commands from Christ will undo men but Mr. Pool thought that the converted Isles would gladly receive Christ's Doctrine and Commands And it seems the Apostle John thought so too and therefore said 1 John 5.3 That his Commandments are not grievous 4. There is one Text more to wit Luke 19.27 which he says I urged to prove That the Gospel is a new Law with Promises and Threatnings But that is another mistake for I did not urge it to prove that but I quoted it to prove That Christ will account them his Enemies and punish them as such who do not like his Gospel because it is a Law of Grace which obligeth men to duty with a promise of blessing to the performers and with a threatning of misery and punishment to the neglecters refusers and despisers This is as clear as the light to any that reads and understands the Apology Pag. 22 line 19 20 21 22 23. As for Rom. 11.26 which he quotes I have spoken to it before and shewed how he wrests that Scripture Lastly For his wondering at my saying That the Law or Covenant of Grace is both new and old in different respects I regard it not if he had not been resolved to cavil at my words and to wrest them from their genuine obvious sense he would have found in them no cause of wondering Let any man of common Sense and Honesty read the Apology Page 22. at the end and Page 23. at the beginning and then let him judge whether there be any thing in that part of it but words of Truth and Soberness So much for answer to the first part of his Eighth Chapter concerning Texts of Scripture SECT II. In the second part of his Eighth Chapter he pretends to answer the Testimonies of Fathers and Protestant Divines which I alledged in the Apology to prove that new law of grace are not new words of an old ill meaning To all that he writes on this Head one general answer might suffice to wit That he impertinently gives his own sense of their words whereas that was not the Original Question In what sense the Fathers and Protestant Divines have heretofore called the Gospel a law a law of grace aed sometimes a new law but whether they did ever so call it all whether they did ever use those words or whether they did not use them and so whether the words be old or but new and of an old ill meaning This was the State of the controversie as manifestly appears by the Apology Page 24. line 15 16 17 c. And Mr. G. is so far from denying this matter of Fact that he plainly confesses it and moreover brings some other Testimonies to prove That the Gospel was called a Law by the Ancients and by some modern Writers as we have seen before Now this was all that I designed to prove by the Humane Testimonies which I cited in the Apology I might therefore stop here since my Testimonies remain in full force with respect to the matter of Fact for the Proof whereof they were alledged by me But since Mr. G. hath endeavoured to pervert the sense of my witnesses I will ex super abundanti consider what he hath said to wrest their words from their genuin sense And I begin with Justin Martyr Mr. G. first confesseth that Justin called the Gospel a Law and if he had been so ingenuous to confess likewise that he called it a New-law as he certainly did and as I proved by his express words then he had confessed also That I did very pertinently quote Justin and that his Testimony clearly proved the matter of fact for the proof whereof it was alledged to wit That new law is not a new word of an old ill meaning but it seems we must not expect that Mr. G. will be so ingenuous as to confess the whole Truth Secondly He saith That by law Justin meant no more than a new Doctrine of Grace to wit a Doctrine that requires no Duty of us at all And this he pretends to prove by the Design which Justin had in answering Trypho the Jew whereunto I answer That Justin did not mean by calling the Gospel a new law that it is no more but a Doctriue of grace more excellent than the Jewish law and its ceremonies which requires no duty of us at all Nor doth any such thing appear by the words and Design of Justin Now to clear this I will shew the True Occasion of Justin's mentioning the new law or Covenant and his real design in so doing which my R. B. hath not faithfully done The True Occasion then was this Trypho the Jew in the foregoing Page 227. had confessed that there were Precepts in the Gospel so great and wonderful that he doubted whether it was possible for any man to keep them but withal he affirmed That he did wonder also that the Christians who made so great profession of being of the True Religion and of excelling all other men and yet kept not the law of Moses observed not the Solemn Feasts and Sabbaths were not circumcised and moreover trusted in a crucified man did nevertheless hope to obtain any mercy from God since they did not keep his law Hast thou not read said Trypho That the man who was not circumcised the Eighth Day should be cut off from his People and that this was ordained alike with respect to Strangers and those who were bought with money This Covenant saith the Jew you Christians despise and regard not the Precepts of it and yet ye would perswade your selves That you know God though you do none of those things which they do that fear God If thou hast any thing to say in thine own defence against these things and canst shew what ground you have to hope for mercy from God tho you do not keep his Law we shall most willingly hear thee Thus argued the Jew And hence