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.
was awake and in the free exercise of his Reason How then it comes to be in this Reverend Brothers Book and that in the very stating of the Controversie I do not understand But sure I am that I nor any of my Reverend Brethren that I know do not hold the Gospel to be a Law in that sense We do with all our hearts joyn with Mr. Goodwin in denying that the Precepts of the Gospel are Conditions of obtaining its Blessings What we say is That God hath made the performing of the Duties required by the Precepts of the Gospel Law to be the Condition of obtaining its Subsequent Blessings and that not for the sake of the performance or of the Duties performed but for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness according to the promise Thirdly In stating the Controversie he denies that the Gospel Law of Grace or Covenant of Grace has any Sanction either promissory of Life and Happiness unto those who perform the condition or minatory of punishment to those who neglect it Now here I must differ from him and affirm what he denyes But 1. I affirm it with this difference between the promissory and minatory Sanction That the Gospel primarily and principally promiseth its subsequent Blessings and Benefits to those who perform its Condition and doth but secondarily threaten Punishments against those who neglect to perform it designing thereby to restrain Men from the sin of not performing the Condition and to bind them over to punishment only on supposition that they do not performe the condition 2. I affirm that though the Gospel promise Life and Happiness unto those who perform its Condition yet it doth not promise it precisely for the performance sake but only for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness as it threatens punishment unto those who neglect to perform the Condition and that for the very neglect of performing it Heb. 2.3 Ephes 5.6 Col. 3.6 Some I am afraid will be apt to think that Mr. Goodwins stumbling on the Threshold at his first setting out and mistating the Controversie is a bad Omen for him Then in passing from his First to his Second Chapter he promises first to shew that it was little to my purpose to catch eagerly at the Word law whereever I could meet with it in the Scripture or in the Writings of Men. Answ By this it is plain he did not consider nor understand what my purpose was For it is as clear as the light at Noon day that my purpose was to shew that the Accuser of the Brethren who charged us with Novelty in calling the Gospel Covenant a new Law of Grace was grosly mistaken and that in confidently affirming against us that New Law of Grace is a New Word but of an Old and Ill meaning he bore false Witness against his Brethren and asserted a notorious falsehood in matter of Fact This was my purpose and design as manifestly appears from the Apology p. 24. And it being so I appeal to all Men of common sense and reason if they have but common honesty also whether it was not very much to my purpose to prove by Scripture and by Testimonies of Ancient Orthodox Christians and Modern Protestant Divines that Law and New Law of Grace applyed to and affirmed of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace were not new words of an old and ill meaning And yet I needed not eagerly to catch at the word Law for it occurs so frequently in Ancient Writings that a Man who reads them cannot avoid meeting with it it offers it self to him almost at every turn And now Mr. G. joyns with us against our Accuser and doth further prove him to have been grosly mistaken by shewing that New Law of Grace is not a new word but of an old ill meaning On the contrary he demonstrates it to be an old word but pretends that now amongst us it hath a new and ill meaning By this the People may see if they will but open their Eyes how well the Testimonies of our two Brethren against us do agree The first saith that New Law of Grace is a New Word of an old but ill meaning The Second who comes to defend him and enforce his Charge against us saith that New Law of Grace is an Old Word of a New but Ill meaning But it seems however contrary to one another their Testimonies are yet they must be both believed to be true against us For neither of these Brethren will confess that they were miâ—taken and have done us wrong No they are both in the right tho' the one say That New Law of Grace is a New word of an old meaning and the other saith That it is an Old Word of a new meaning But it may be some will reply That they both agree at least that it is a word of an ill-meaning Answ True But 1. For all that agreement they yet refute one another For the first Accuser saith that the old meaning is ill but Reverend Mr. Goodwin maintains that the old meaning of the Word is good and pretends that the new only is ill 2. If these two Brethren do not agree about the word it self whether it be old or new but the one saith it is new and the other saith it is old and therefore one of them must needs be mistaken we have more reason to believe that they are mistaken about the meaning of the word and in saying that is a word of an ill meaning because it is much more difficult to know what is the true or false right or wrong meaning of a word then to know the word it self whether it be lately invented or hath been of very ancient usage in the Christian Church Remarks on the Second Chapter IN this Chapter he discourseth of the various signification of the word Law and affirms that the word Law in the Old Testament used for the Gospel signifies no more than a Doctrine To which I Answer 1. That I freely grant and never yet denyed that the word Law is capable of a various meaning nor did I in the Apology from the bare sound of the Word abstractly considered so much as seem to argue for one particular determinate Sense exclusive of all others I only say p. 22. that our Brethren should not dislike our calling the Gospel-Covenant a Law because the Scriptures of Truth call it so expresly And this Mr. Goodwin doth now confess to be true Likewise p. 24. from the Apostles calling it the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 and saying that it is of Faith that it might be by Grace Rom. 4.16 I argue that he hath in effect and by implication called it the Law of Grace And that therefore we are no Innovators in calling it so after him 2. Mr. G. can never prove that because the word Law is of a various signification and sometimes signifies a Doctrine that therefore when it is used for the Gospel it signifies nothing but a Speculative Doctrine or Narrative
Divines of the Westminster Assembly follow Calvin for thus they write in their Annotations on John 12.48 The word that I have spoken The Doctrine of Christ the Gospel which the Wicked now so securely Contemn shall once rise in Judgment against them and Condemn them See Mark 16.16 John 3.18 by so much the more heavily by how much greater means of Salvation they have neglected And Hutcheson follows the Assembly Men for thus he writes on John 12. ver 48. Doctr. 7. Albeit in the day of Judgment Wicked Men will be called to account for all their Sins against the Law yet their Contempt of the Gospel will be their saddest ditty For he that rejecteth me the word that I have spoken shall judge him That is The word of the Gospel Many other places of Holy Scripture evince this Truth that even the Gospel hath its Threatnings But I forbear to add any more in this place because I must speak to this matter again in my Animadversions on his next Chapter Thirdly and Lastly What Mr. G saith in pag. 40. that in Psal 19.8 9. and Rom 3 27. the Gospel is called a Law and what he there alledgeth to prove that it is so called not because it is a Doctrine of Works but a Doctrine of pure Grace doth really prove no more than that it is not a Law of Works by and for which a Man is justified and saved but only that it is a Law of Grace as I hold it to be Yet from its being only a Doctrine and Law of Grace to infer that it requires no Duty of us at all is plainly contrary to the words and meaning both of holy David and Paul For even in that 19th Psaâ—m the Law of the Lord. which Mr. Goodwin affirms to be the Gospel is by David expresly said to be the Commandment of the Lord. ver 8. And dare Mr. Goodwin say That the Commandment of the Lord doth not command any thing at all See Disc p. 9.10 nor lay any obligation to Duty upon his Conscience If he dare say so he is such a Man as it is not fit for me to have any thing more to do with but I ought to leave him to dispute that matter with the Lord God himself And as for blessed Paul did not he say to the Goaler Acts 16.31 Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believe is of the Imperative Mood and therefore I hope it will not be denyed but that here is a command to believe on Christ Now I demand whether this was not pure Gospel If it was as I hope no Christian will deny and I am sure Mr. Goodwins Friend the accuser of the Brethren and informer Mr. Trail cannot honestly and fairly deny then I demand further Whether the Gospel doth not require and command Faith in Christ And if the Gospel require and command Faith in Christ then the Law of Faith which by Mr. Goodwins own confession signifies the Doctrine of the Gospel is a Law of Grace that requires and commands Duty to wit the Duty of Faith and not such a Doctrine of Grace as requires nothing at all That it is a Doctrine of Grace I never denyed in all my Life but this consequence I do utterly deny that because the Law of Faith is a Doctrine of Grace therefore it doth not require nor command Faith in Christ in order to Justification And I am not alone in this There are many others of good esteem in the Church for Orthodoxy who grant with me That Law of Faith signifies a Doctrine and yet maintain as I do that that same Doctrine prescribes and commands Faith in order to Justification At present I give three instances of this As 1 The Dutch Annotations on Rom 3.27 By the Law of Faith that is the prescript or the doctrine of Faith c By which words they declare that the Law of Faith is at once a Doctrine of Faith and a Prescript of Faith And who is so weak as not to know that for the Gospel to proscribe Faith to us is all one as to require and command it 2. The Assemblies Annotations on Rom. 3.27 Law of Faith that is the Precept or Doctrine of Faith which according to the Hebrew manner of speaking is called a Law Isa 2.3 or by that new order or Covenant of God which doth strip Man of all Worth and Righteousness of his own and cloath him by Grace with that of Christ 3. The last Annotations commonly called by the name of Pool on Rom. 3.27 Nay but by the law of faith i. e. The Gospel law which requires faith by which the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us and attained by us c. Thus the Reverend and Learned Authors of the several Annotations aforesaid do all acknowledge the Law of Faith to be a Doctrine of Faith and yet maintain that it prescribes commands and requires Faith in Christ in order to Justification By this we may see that these Protestant Divines wanted Mr. G. to tutour them and to teach them that a Doctrine of Grace hath no Precept and requires no Duty But because we shall hereafter meet again with this Logick That the Gospel is a Doctrine of Grace therefore it hath no Precept of its own and requires no Duty I will say no more of it here but pass to the next Chapter Animadversions on the Seventh Chapter SECTION I. 1. THis Chapter begins with a manifest Falshood to wit That my Arguments and Citations are all established meerly upon the ambiguities of the word Law The contradictory of that false Proposition is true That not one of my Arguments and Citations is established meerly upon the ambiguities of the word Law 2. He insinuates that I endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a Rule of Duty fortified with a sanction because we find it to be named a Law both in the Scriptures and Humane Writings This Assertion is as false as the former and the contrary is rather true that I endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a Law See Dr. Owen on Heb. 8.6 pag. 221. because I find it is in effect said to be a Rule of Duty fortified with a Sanction both in the Scriptures and Humane Writings And yet even this of the Gospels being said to be a Rule of Duty fortified with a Sanction must be rightly understood for I never said wrote nor thought that the Gospel is a Rule of Duty by and for which Duty we are justified and saved Or that it is fortified with a Sanction promising Justification or Salvation for the performance of our Duty I hold the contradictory of this to be true to wit The Gospel is not a Rule of Duty in such a sense nor fortified with such a Sanction The preceptive part of the Gospel-Covenant is indeed a Rule of Duty but in order to quite other ends than to be justified or saved for the sake of that Duty performed It is also
threatnings For as this is the voice of the Gospel He that believes and is Baptized shall be saved so the Antithesis or contrary proposition immediately added doth likewise pertain to the Gospel He that believeth not shall be damned The like Antitheses are also in these sayings He that believeth in the Son bath eternal Life he that believeth not the Son shall not see Life but the wrath of God abideth on him In like manner He that believeth on the Son is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already It is not to be doubted but that these are the most proper voices or words of the Gospel and yet they not only contain most sweet Promises concerning the Grace and Favour of God and Righteousness before God and concerning Eternal Life to all that by Faith embrace the Mediator revealed in the Gospel But they likewise contain most severe Threatnings reproving and condemning this sin which is a disbelieving the Son of God the Mediator and leaving under this eternal Condemnation all that believe not in his Son Thus Pezelius who there also shews that Flacius did abuse the Authority of Luther and wrest his words to make People believe that the Gospel hath no Threatnings of its own but that it only borrows the Threatnings of the Law as Mr. G. says after his Master Flacius 2. 2dly The whole Synod of Dort and that is the Delegates from all the best reformed Churches bear witness to this Truth That the Gospel hath its own Threatnings as is to be seen in their 14th Canon concerning the fifth head of Doctrine to wit Perseverance * Quemadmodum autem Deo placuit opus hoc suum gratiae per praedicationem Evangelii in nobis inchoare ita per ejusdem auditum lectionem meditationem adhortationes minas promissa nec non per usum Sacramentorum illud conservat continuat perficit Act. Synod Dordrac Part. 1. Pag. 313. But as it pleased God to begin in us this work of Grace by the Preaching of the Gospel so he preserves continues and perfects it by the hearing reading and meditating by the Exhortations Threatnings and Promises of the same Gospel and also by the use of the Sacraments These are the words of the foresaid 14th Canon which was subscribed by the whole Synod without exception Now this is such a Testimony for the Truth which I defend that the Gospel hath its own Threatnings as I think should be of more weight with true Protestants than the Testimony of that erroneous Person Flacius Illyricus and the few Disciples that he may have in the world at this day 3. 3dly The Reverend and Learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations bear Testimony to this Truth witness their Annotation on Rom. 2.6 Who shall recompence every Man according to his works This say they may well be applyed also to the recompencing according to the promises and threatnings of the Gospel c. This is a most clear irrefragable Testimony for in these words compared with what goes before concerning recompencing even Heathens according to the promises and threatnings of the Law they plainly acknowledge that the Gospel as distinct from and as opposed to the Law hath its own promises and threatnings According to which Christians shall be Recompenced 4. 4thly The Learned and Judicious Pool in his Annotations on Deut. 29. doth in a Remarkable instance bear witness to this truth for he saith that the wicked person of whom it is there written v. 19. That when he heareth the words of the curse he blesses himself in his heart saying I shall have peace tho I walk in the Imagination of my heart to add Drunkenness to Thirst Was one of those who think that the Gospel hath no threatnings See Pool's Annotation on the 21 verse of the 29th of Deutronomy where upon these words The Lord shall separate him to evil According to all the curses of the Covenant he says expresly that He to wit the Lord Intimates that the Covenant of grace which God made with them hath not only blessings belonging to it as this foolish person imagined but curses also to the Transgressors of it Here Mr. Pool says That that foolish person imagined that the Covenant of Grace had only blessings belonging to it and this is in effect the same thing as if he had said that the foolish Man imagined that the Covenant of Grace had only promises oâ— blessings but no threatnings of curses belonging to it 5. 5thly The Judicious Hutcheson in his exposition on John's Gospel gives express Testimony to this truth Witness those formal words of his on the 47. verse of the 12th Chapter of John's Gospel p. 256. Albeit the Gospel be glad tydings of joy and contain Cordials and remedies against all curses and threatnings of the Law yet it contains also threatnings against despisers as terrible as any threatning of the Law These words do so plainly shew that he believed the Gospel hath threatnings of its own distinct from the threatnings of the Law that I need not say any thing to prove that to be their meaning For it is self-evident that they have that meaning and can have no other 6. 6thly Mr. Rutherford is again express in his Covenant of Life opened for the same truth that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath threatnings Witness his own formal words Part 1. Page 92. As the Commands and Threatnings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real Obligation upon such as are only externally in Covenant either to obey or suffer so the promise of the Covenant imposes an Engagement and Obligation upon such to believe the Promise Now if there are Threatnings of the Covenent of Grace then are there Threatnings of the Gospel also For the Gospel and the Covenant of Grace is all one See in the Second Volume of Pool's Annotations the Note on Heb. 12.29 together with the Explication of 2 Thes 1.8 9. 7. 7thly And lastly the Reverend and Learned Dr. Owen above all others doth fully and clearly give Testimony unto this truth that the Gospel hath its own proper threatnings distinct from the threatnings of the Law his words are as follows As the sum of all promises to wit of the Gospel is enwrapped in these words he that believeth shall be saved * Dr. Owen on Heb. 4 v. 1 2. Pag. 180. Vol. 2. Mark 16.16 So that of all these threatnings i. e. the sum of all these threatnings of the Gospel is in those that follow he that believeth not shall be damned And a like summary of Gospel-promises and threatnings we have John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting Life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see Life but the wrath of God abideth on him And threatnings of this nature are frequently scattered up and down in the New Testament See Rom. 2.8 9. 2 Thes 1.6 7 8 9 10. 1 Pet. 4.17 18. And these threatnings may be so far called Evangelical in as much as
cujus testes sunt scripturae cur fieri hoc vel illus Deus velit quo modo velit ne Angelicae quidem mentes in solidum capiunt Calvin 〈◊〉 pons ad Calumnias Nebulonis de occulta Dei Providentia pag. 641. I often in my Writings put Men in mind that nothing here is better than a learned Ignorance because they rave like Mad-Men who adventure or take upon them to be more wise and to know more than is meet Now thou seest how that Will of God to which the Scriptures bear Testimony is certainly known to me and yet the same Will is secret and hid from me because the understanding of the very Angels doth not fully know and comprehend why God Wills this or that to be and how he Wills it By which Words Calvin gives us to understand that if we would act like reasonable Men we should firmly Believe whatever God hath in the Scriptures Revealed to be although we do not understand the way and manner of his willing it to be But now if you say doth it appear indeed that God hath Revealed in the Scriptures that he hath made Conditional Promises to all in the visible Church I answer Yes It doth appear very plainly as hath been shewed already For 1. To all in the visible Church who hear the Gospel Preached the Conditional Promises are general without exception witness Mark 16.15 16. Acts 2.21 Rev. 22.17 and John 6.40 These Conditional Promises could not be more generally and universally expressed and therefore they belong to all Men that hear them upon the same condition of Faith and Calling upon the Name of the Lord. Accordingly the Church of England in her 17th Article which we have all subscribed saith that as a Remedy against the Abuse of the Doctrine of Predestination and to prevent Desperation We must receive God's Promises in such Wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture 2. The Holy Spirit in the Sacred Scripture applies the general Conditional Promise to every one in particular and says Rom. 10.9 If thou shalt confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy Heart that God hath raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved This every one who hears the Gospel Preached is bound to Believe and therefore he is bound to apply it Conditionally to himself and to say in his Heart if I then shall so confess and Believe I shall be Saved And if he do not do this he in effect gives the Spirit of God the Lye whence it necessarily follows that God hath promised Salvation Conditionally unto all that hear the Gospel whoever they be whether they be Elect or Non-Elect 3. Cain was one of the Non-Elect and God certainly knew him to be such yet God made a Conditional Promise of Acceptance unto him The Lord God with his own Blessed Mouth immediately said unto Cain in particular If thou dost well Shalt thou not be accepted Gen. 4.7 That Interrogation Shalt thou not be accepted is equivalent to an Affirmation and it is as if the Lord had said Cain Thou shalt certainly be accepted if thou dost well See Onkelo's Chaldee Paraphrase with P. Fagius's Notes on Gen. 4.7 4. The Command to Believe on Christ belongs without exception to all in the visible Church unto whom the Gospel is Preached therefore the Conditional Promise of Pardon and Salvation which is annexed to the Command belongs likewise unto all without exception Because the Conditional Promise is therefore annexed to the Command that by the said Promise all may be induced to Obey the Command 5. The Conditional Threatning Joh. 8.24 annexed to the Command belongs to all without exception therefore so doth the Conditional Promise because there is the like reason for the one as for the other If the Conditional Threatning belong to all to deter them from Unbelief the Conditional Promise belongs unto all to persuade them unto Faith Thus doth it plainly appear to be Revealed in the Scriptures of Truth that God hath made Conditional Promises to all in the visible Church And therefore we ought to believe it although we do not clearly know God's modus volendi his way of willing one thing upon condition of another thing 3. Thirdly I answer That however formidable this Objection may be in some Men's Apprehensions yet to me it appears to be a Sophism which is capable of an easie and fair Solution And in order to the solving of it I distinguish between God's Will considered absolutely and entitatively in it self and as it were subjectively and considered respectively and terminatively unto the things Willed or considered objectively Now when we consider God's Will the first way when we consider God's Will absolutely in it self and if we may so say as it is subjectively in God or rather as it is God It is freely confessed that it is not Conditional that it doth not depend on any thing nor hang in suspence at all For God's Will so considered is not distinct from his Nature but is really himself And it is most certain that God is not Conditional that he is not Dependent on any thing nor doth he at all hang in suspence as if he were doubtful what to do But if we consider the respect which God's Will hath unto the things Willed and its termination upon the things Willed as also if we consider the object of God's Will or the things Willed as one part of the intire object or one of the things Willed hath a relation unto the other so God's Will may very well be denominated Conditional that is God's Will which in it self and as it is subjectively in God or rather to speak properly and strictly the same with God is most absolute independent and determinate may be said to be respectively terminatively and objectively Conditional For this is no more but to say that the respect of God's Will unto and it's termination upon the things Willed is Conditional or that the object as it hath respect unto God's Will and as it is the term of God's Will is Conditional And this may very well be and yet God's Will in it self is not Conditional but most absolute and independent For the respect of God's Will unto and the termination of his Will upon its object and the object as respecting and terminating God's Will are really distinct from his Will God's Will remains the same absolute and independent in it self though it be many several ways related to and terminated upon its objects and though several Denominations be given unto it upon that account Let this distinction be applied unto the Objection and the Sophistry of it presently appears For 1. from God's promising Salvation unto any Elect or Non-Elect upon condition of Faith it follows indeed that God's promissory Will is Conditional to give them Pardon and Salvation if they Believe and so perform the Condition But pray consider How is it Conditional Is it conditionally in it self subjectively or rather
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.
entitatively considered so as to be dependent and hang in suspence No such matter nor doth any such thing follow from God's making Conditional Promises It is only Conditional respectively terminatively and objectively and that is all which follows from God's making Conditional Promises and willing the things promised Conditionally The Lord our God with an absolute independent Will doth Will that if Men truly Believe and Repent they shall be Pardoned and Saved whosoever they be but not Pardoned and Saved if they do not Believe and Repent 2. We apply the same distinction to the minor or second Proposition of the Objection and grant that there cannot be a Conditional Will in God that is a Will in it self and subjectively or entitatively Conditional and so as to be in it self dependent and to hang in suspence But then we utterly deny that the Will of God which is absolute independent and determinate it it self cannot be respectively terminatively and objectively Conditional in the Sence before explained This distinction was approved and used by Dr. Ames as I shewed in the Apology p. 105 106. and by our Brittish Divines in the Synod of Dort as from their Collegiate Suffrage I proved in the Apology p. 114. So did Dr. Twiss approve it witness what he writes against Corvinus His words are * Neque enim negamus decreta Dei quoad res volitas dici posse conditionata quatenus scilicet neque vita aeterna nisi sub conditione fidei conferenda sit c. In Corvin Defens Arminii contra Tilen p. 355. For neither do we deny but that the Decrees of God may be called Conditional in respect of the things Willed to wit as neither eternal Life is to be given but upon Condition of Faith c. The like he hath in his English Books both against Hoard and other Arminians and also against Mr. Cotton And as this distinction is approved by those great Divines so is it by all other Learned Men that I know who rightly understand these Matters See Ainsworth's Censure upon the Anabaptists Dialogue c. p. 10. where he saith God 's Will always lays no such necessity seeing he Willeth some things Conditionally which are not effected unless the Condition be observed as he would a Sinner's Life not Death Conditionally if he return to God he would the destruction of Niniveh but Conditionally except they Repented other things God Willeth absolutely and those must needs come to pass For none resist or hinder his absolute Will Isa 46.10 11. Job 23.13 Psal 33.10 11. So much sufficeth for Answer to the fourth grand Objection Object 5. p. 58. Fifthly Mr. G. objects That if the Conditional Promise be to all in the visible Church that if they Believe they shall be Saved then by the same rule we must say That the Conditional Threatning is to all that if they Believe not they shall be Eternally Damned I Answer And what Absurdity is in this that all in the visible Church who do not yet Believe are Threatned with Eternal Damnation if they live and die in Unbelief For understand the Conditional Threatning in the same Sence as I have shewed the Conditional Promise ought to be understood and it is a certain Truth That as the Conditional Promise is to all in the same Sence the Conditional Threatning is to all in general and to every one in particular John 3.36 and 8.24 Mark 16.15 16. But Mr. Goodwin says no The Conditional Threatning is not to all nor yet to any if they do not Believe And I pray why so To this he says That the Reason why none are Threatned with Death if they do not Believe is because the Threatning is not denounced against Men for not Believing in Christ but for not perfectly obeying the Law of Works as he hath proved before VVhereunto I reply that I have also answered him before and have proved the contrary And here I must advise him to take better heed what he writes for the future and not to contradict the Scripture in express terms The Holy Scripture saith John 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed Mr. G. saith No it is not so But he that Believeth not is Condemned because he hath not perfectly obeyed the Law of VVorks Now choose you Whether you will Believe the Scripture contradicting him or Believe him contradicting the Scripture Obj. 6. Sixthly Out of what he writes in Pag. 57. this Argument may be formed against God's making Conditional Promises to the Non-Elect in the visible Church If God promise them Pardon on Condition that they Believe by their meer Natural Powers deprived as they are without his All-Conquering Grace he acts in a way Repugnant to his Wisdom and Goodness for he knows it to be impossible for them to Believe by their meer Natural Powers without his All-Conquering Grace and to Promise them Pardon upon such a Condition as he knows to be impossible for them to perform would be an illuding and mocking of them * Mr. G's Discourse p. 57. As if a Man should offer Food to a wretch who hath not a Limb whole starving in a Dungeon on condition that he would come up and receive it and yet should refuse to put forth a Finger to give him the least lift in such a case that merciless Man would but mock and make a sport of the Misery of the poor wretch â—ust so if God should Promise Pardon to the Non-Elect in the visible Church on Condition that they Believe by their meer Natural Powers which they cannot do and should withall refuse to put forth his Finger to help them he should but mock them and make a sport of their Misery which to do is repugnant to his Wisdom and Goodness And therefore God by the Gospel makes no Conditional Promise to the non-elect in the visible Church I Answer this objection shews that Mr. Goodwin is better at declairning than at fair arguing and close reasoning and seems to intimate him to be of the Man's mind who said flectere si nequeo superos Acheronta movebo For this Argument if it may be called an Argument is fetched from Hell and borrowed from the Devil that is from the Arminians who if Mr. G. have not wronged them in his Epistle to the Reader must needs be Incarnate Devils For he says Their opinions tear the Volume of Gods word to pieces and un-God God himself They pull him out of his Throne and strike the Scepter out of his Hands and snatch the Crown from his Head This is certainly more than all the Devils in Hell can do but if Mr. Goodwin say true and do not slander the Arminians they have done it they have un-Godded God himself And yet for all this he goes down to that Arminian Hell to borrow an Argument from those worst of Devils to defend and secure the Wisdom and Goodness of the God of Heaven from being impeached by the Calvinian Doctrine of conditional
promises in the Gospel-Covenant But now let me ask this R. B. a few questions as 1. Is it not now every whit as impossible if not more impossible for the non-elect in the visible Church to keep the Law of works most perfectly as to believe in Christ sincerely 2. Doth not Mr. G. himself hold that notwithstanding the said impossibility God now requires of them perfect obedience to the Law of works under pain of Eternal Death and Misery 3. Doth he not hold also that God by the Law and Covenant of works doth promise them Life and Happiness upon condition that they most perfectly obey that Law and keep that Covenant of Works This I take to be his Judgment from what he writes in Chap. 7. pag. 56. Compared with what he quotes with approbation out of Melancton in Chap. 6. pag. 29.30 Concerning the promises of the Law as contra-distinguished from the gracious promises of the Gospel Now if this be so that according to Mr. G. Godpromiseth to the non-elect by the Law and Covenant of works Mat. 19.17 Rom. 10.5 That they shall have Not indeed pardon of sin and salvation properly so called but Life and Happiness on condition that they most perfectly keep the Law and Covenant of works I say if this be Mr. G' s. Judgment I demand 4. Whether it be not as evidently repugnant to the wisdom and Goodness of God and as plainly a mocking of those wretched Men to promise them Eternal Life and Happiness by the Covenant of works upon the impossible condition that they most perfectly fulfill the Law of works As it is to promise them pardon and salvation by the Gospel or Covenant of Grace on the impossible condition of believing in Christ So that my R. B. his Argument militates against himself and he is as much bound to Answer it as we are Unless he deny the conditional promises of the Law as he doth those of the Gospel and when once I know that he doth deny both I shall cease from retorting his own Argument upon him and shall take another way of dealing with him In the mean time this may serve for the first Answer 2. I Answer that this Arminian objection was sufficiently answered in the Apology out of the writings of the professors of Leyden of Dr. Owen of the Synod of Dort and of Dr. Twiss For there it was shewed 1. That as for the non-elect to whom the Gospel is Preached in the visible Church God doth not require them to believe in Christ by their meer natural powers without any help without his putting forth so much as his finger to help them For together with the Gospel-Command to believe they receive more Common-Grace more light and power from the Lord than they make a good use of and as Dr. Owen says Apol. pag. 23. and pag. 114.115 where real Conversion is not attained It is always from the Interposition of an Act of Wilfulness and Stubbornness in those enlightened and convicted They do not sincerely improve what they have received and faint not meerly for want of strength to preceed but by a free Act of their own wills they refuse the grace which is further tendred unto them in the Gospel 2. There it was shewed out of the Writings of Dr. Twiss where he Answers this same objection which Mr. G. hath borrowed from the Arminians that as for the non-elect in the visible Church their inability to believe in Christ according to the Gospel is not a meer physical impotency but it is a Moral impotency Jer. 6.10 Which hath its immediate Foundation in and its next rise from their own wills so that if they earnestly would believe then they could believe but they cannot believe because they will not Whereas the inability of the poor wretch of whom Mr. G. speaks and to whom he compares the unconverted is not at all a Moral impotency but it is a meer Physical natural impotency There is nothing in the Man 's own will that causes him to refuse wilfully to come up out of the Dungeon in which he is a starving but that which hinders him from coming up is the natural weakness of his Limbs which are all supposed to be broke so that the poor wounded Man cannot come up out of the Dungeon to receive the Food that is offered him suppose he were never so earnestly willing and desirous to do it Now Dr. Twiss shews that there is a vast difference between these two impotencies between impotency Moral and impotency meerly Physical that impotency Moral is highly culpable and deserves to be punished because it is willful and affected whereas impotency meerly Physical is not culpable at all but is wholly excuseable and that therefore it is a shameful thing in the Arminians to confound these two impotencies to wit Moral and Natural impotency as if there were no difference See for this the Apol. 109.110 Where the express formal words of Dr. Twiss are quoted at large If then Mr. G. have a mind to dispute against this Distinction I desire it may be remembred that he disputes not so much against me as against Dr. Twiss and in the Doctors Judgment he doth a thing which will have a shameful issue to confound impotency Moral with impotency natural as he plainly doth 3. I Answer that what Mr. G. supposes to strengthen his Arminian Objection is manifestly false to wit that God always Commands the non-elect in the visible Church to believe by their Meer natural powers without any help since he will not so much as put forth his finger to help them I say this is false because 1. It is contrary to Scripture which saith that Gods Spirit shall not always strive with such Men Gen. 6.3 According to our Translation and that plainly implies that for a time God's Spirit doth strive with them and I suppose it will not be said that God's Spirit strives with them to hinder them but rather to help them So in Prov. 1.23 The wisdom of God saith to such Men turn ye at my reproof Behold I will pour out my Spirit unto you and I will make known my words unto you Here is not only a Command to turn unto God but a promise also of some help to enable them to turn And then it follows immediately in the 24. verse because I have called and ye refused I have stretched out my hand and no Man regarded c. In which words the Lord himself saith that he stretches out his hand to such Men but Master Goodwin saith that the Lord will not so much as put out his finger to help them for he compares the Lord in this matter to a merciless Man who offers food to a poor wretch starving in a Dungeon with all his Limbs broken on condition that he â—ome up and receive it and yet he refuses to put forth a finger to give him the least list Thus Mr. G. represents God to the world upon the Principles of the Calvinists whereas God in