all reject as false and absurd and as reflecting on God's Moral Law as if it had been imperfect before Whereas in truth Gods Moral Natural Law was alwayes most perfect in its kind and obliged to all Moral Natural Duties even unto the highest degree of sinless perfection And therefore what Christ did with respect to the said Moral Law was to fulfil it most perfectly in his Life to explain it by his Doctrine to clear up the true and full meaning of it and to vindicate it from the false glosses of the Pharisaical Jews to suffer and satisfie God's Justice for his Peoples breach of it And to impose it explained as aforesaid on his own Disciples and Followers as the Rule and Law of their Moral Natural Allegiance and Obedience unto God But then for mere Positive Laws as before his Incarnation he had given some such unto his Church so after his Incarnation the old Positive Laws being abrogated he gave unto his Church some new positive Laws such as those that relate to the Two Sacraments the first day of the Week as the Christian Sabbath and the Order and Discipline that is to be observed in his Church under the New Testament And though it is freely granted by us that when such Positive Laws are once enacted by our Lords Royal Authority the Moral Natural Law it self doth oblige us to obey them yet we are first in order of Nature obliged to give Obedience to them by the Institution of them and by the Soveraign Authority which doth institute and enact them And the Law of Nature by it self immediately would never make them Laws nor oblige us to do the things which are the subject matter of them if they were not first made Laws by a new exertion of the Lords Legislative Power which doth by those positive Laws themselves first and immediately oblige us to obey them Seventhly Consider that we ought to distinguish between a Laws being Old or New Quoad ipsam rei materiam substantiam aut quoad rei modum circumstantiam in regard of matter and substance or in regard of manner and circumstance Thus the Moral Command to love the Brethren is both Old and New in different respects It 's Old in respect of the matter and substance and yet it is New in respect of that special manner of loving the Brethren as Christ loved us Witness John 13.34 and 1 John 2.7 8. So likewise the Positive Command to believe in the Messias is both Old and New in respect of different Circumstances of time It is old even as old as the first Promise after the fall Gen 3.15 as it had respect unto Christ to come But it is new as it hath respect unto Christ already come and Crucified Dead and Buried Risen from the Dead Ascended into Heaven and there most highly dignifyed and glorifyed For no Man under the Old Testament was obliged or could be obliged to believe in Christ under this consideration But now we are all to whom the Gospel is Preached ind sp nsably obliged thus to believe on him In like manner though the positive Command to believe in the Messiah be as old as the first promise Gen. 3.15 yet the Command to believe that the Man Jesus of Nazareth is the true Messiah is new and could not be so old Eighthly Consider that we should distinguish between a Law that hath only Legal Promises without any promise of Mercy and Grace in it at all and a Law that hath all Merciful and Gracious Promises belonging to it and those many great and precious Now the first Covenant of Works is a Law that hath only Legal Promises without any Promise of Mercy or of renewing and pardoning Grace in it at all It is a Law that required personal perpetual and ever-sinless Obedience and promised Life to Man on Condition of such Obedience and for such Obedience only would have Justifyed him and therefore it is called the Law of Works But the Covenant of Grace is a Law that hath all merciful and gracious Promises belonging to it and those many great and precious and therefore it is rightly called the Law of Grace And with respect to the Elect who are the most proper subjects of it as a Law of Grace its predominant is Grace Grace runs through it all and appears in all the parts of it 1. There is Grace in the mandatory part of it in that part of it which prescribes its Condition in that legal ever finless perfection is not rigidly insisted on but Evangelical sincerity in the performance of it is required as a Condition which also is accepted through Christ and the sinful defect thereof together with all other sin is freely forgiven for Christ's sake 2. There is Grace Rich and Glorious Grace in the promissory part of it in that it promises to the Elect special Effectual Victorious Grace to cause them freely yet certainly perform the condition in Gospel sincerity And in that when they through Grace perform the Condition it further promises them most Gracious Benefits and Glorious Blessings and all through and for Christ and his Righteousness 3. There is Grace also in the very minatory Sanction for the design of the Threatning is not to bring on Men the Punishment threatned but to curb the Flesh in them and to restrain them from those Sins which their own corrupt Nature inclines them unto and which the Devil and the World tempt them unto So that the very threatning is useful to them and it is a Mercy to them even to such as the believing Romans that they are under that conditional threatning Rom. 8.13 if ye live after the Flesh ye shall dye And since Grace doth thus appear in all the parts of it See Heb. 12.25 it is very fitly called the Law of Grace yea I do not refuse to joyn heartily with my R. Brother in calling it a Doctrine of Grace but withal I must declare that I do not at all like it the worse nor is it unto me the less gracious because it prescribes unto me something to be done by me through my Lords Grace But I like it the better for that since it doth not in the least detract from the Grace of it Now if the Premisses be duely considered and if the foresaid distinctions be rightly applyed as there may be occasion it will be easie thereby to Answer all his Testimonies from Reformed Protestant Divines SECT II. His first set of Testimonies Examined and Answered FOR his first set of Testimonies to prove from our Protestant Divines definition or Description of the Gospel that they believed it to be a pure Doctrine of Grace 1. I Answer thereunto in general that if that be all they prove I profess sincerely in a true and sound Sense to believe the same thing to wit that the Gospel is a pure Doctrine of Grace as I have said and explained it before From whence it doth not follow by any good consequence that it
own additional Threatning in the sense aforesaid seems very evident to me 1. Because the conditional promise of the Gospel being made to the Believer exclusively to him and to no other John 3.16 17. John 8.24 it cannot but virtually imply that the Unbeliever shall not have the benefit promised and that is a Threatning 2. Because the Scripture is express in the case for over and besides the Threatning for formerly breaking the Law the Gospel threatens for not sincerely repenting and believing the Gospel John 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already And why so Why certainly not only because he hath not perfectly kept the Law of Works but likewise as it follows immediately because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God And then in ver 19. our Saviour saith this is the Condemnation that Light is come into the World and Men loved Darkness rather than Light because their deeds were evil See also for this the Commission it self which our Blessed Lord gave to his Apostles and in them to all his Gospel-Ministers who succeed them in preaching the Gospel Mark 16.15 16. Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned From which words it appears 1. That it is the primary design of the Gospel that Men to whom it is Preached should believe and be Baptized and that if they do so they should be saved according to the true import of the Conditional Promise But 2. If they neglect or refuse to believe and by believing to use the Saving Remedy offered them in the Gospel against the Curse and Condemnation of the Law they shall be damned And this is the secondary design of the Gospel to threaten Men with Condemnation if they believe not that the threatning may be a means to deter them from the Sin of Unbelief and to preserve them from being damned According to this Gospel Men to whom it hath been Preached will be judged at the last day As it is written Rom. 2.16 God shall judge the Secrets of Men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel Now in judging Men who have lived under the Preaching of the Gospel the Lord will justifie the true Penitent Believer and condemn the Unbeliever and that according to the Gospel whence it follows by good consequence that the Gospel hath Threatnings as well as Promises and that as the Believer shall then be justified according to the Promises so the Unbeliever shall be Condemned according to the Threatnings of the Gospel But if the Gospel have neither Precept nor Threatning nor Conditional Promise as Mr. Goodwin affirms that it hath not I do not see how any Unbeliever could be judged and condemned according to the Gospel It cannot with any colour of reason be said that he may be judged according to the absolute Promise of the Gospel For the Absolute Promise of the Gospel was never made to such an Unbeliever as lives and dyes in Unbelief My R. B. will not admit that ever there was any Conditional Promise of the Gospel made to such an Unbeliever and if not a Conditional Promise much less was there ever an Absolute Gospel-Promise made to him If it be objected That though the Believer cannot be both Judged and Justifyed by the Law yet the Unbeliever may be both Judged and Condemned by the Law I answer It is true Every Unbeliever is Judged and Condemned by the Law that he was under and Transgressed But besides that it is true That some Vnbelievers are likewise Judged and Condemned by the Gospel and according to the Gospel And therefore we said in the Apology pag 200. That professed Christians who live and dye in Impenitence and Unbelief will be doubly condemned both by Law and Gospel By the Law for breaking it And by the Gospel for not believing in Christ and not using and applying by Faith the Remedy offered them in the Gospel against the Condemnation of the Law The same saith the Reverend Learned and Judicious Hutcheson on John on the 18th verse of the Third of John these are his words Christ goeth on to Clear and Illustrate the Certainty of the Salvation of Believers in him by shewing on the contrary the Condemnation of Unbelievers whom he declareth to be under a double Condemnation one by the Law and another by the Gospel And a little after albeit the Sentence of the Law be sufficient to Condemn Mankind and will Condemn all them who have not heard of Christ yet under the Gospel Unbelief and not receiving of Christ is the great Condemning Sin for as no Sin will condemn the Man who fleeth to Christ the Remedy so when the Remedy is not Embraced the Sentence of the Law is Ratified in the Gospel and Court of Mercy For he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed The Sentence is declared Just and confirmed by a new Sentence since he will not take help And thus Unbelief is the great unpardonable Sin Mark 16.16 Whereas other Sins that against the Holy Ghost excepted because it is joyned with final Impenitence would be pardoned if Men would believe And on ver 19. Doct. 5. Where Christ offering himself in the Gospel is not received in Love but contemned it bringeth sadder Condemnation than the breaking of the Law as being a sinning against the Remedy and that with an high hand an undervaluing of him and doing of what they can to make void his pains For this is the Condemnation that Light hath come c. Thus Mr. Hutcheson on John 3.18 19. agrees with us That Unbelievers shall be Judged and condemned by the Gospel And it is something strange that a Minister of the Gospel should be at this day so far under the power of Unbelief as to doubt of or deny this since Christ himself saith expresly John 12.48 That the word which he hath spoken shall judge the Unbeliever in the last day And from the Context it appears that the said Word which shall judge the Unbeliever is the Word of the Gospel For it is the Word which Christ Preached and which the Unbeliever received not And I think that is the Word of the Gospel Nor am I singular in so thinking For Calvin was of the same mind as is evident from what he writes in his Commentary on John 12.48 Non potuit magis splendido elogio extolli Evangelii authoritas quà m dum illi judicii potestas defertur conscendet quidem ipse Christus Tribunal sed sententiam ex verbo quod nunc praedicatur laturum se asserit That is The Authority of the Gospel could not be more highly praised nor a more glorious Elogy given unto it than in ascribing to it the Power of judging Men. Christ himself shall indeed ascend the Judgment Seat but he affirms that he will pass the Sentence according to the Word which is now Preached The
also the meaning of the words besides the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb is as if it had been said beside that entring into or striking of Covenant And then he adds for further clearing of the matter The Covenant was but one in substance but various in the time and manner of its dispensation The Dutch Annotations go the same way and very clearly assign the reason of its being said that the Covenant was made with Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant made with them in Horeb Their words are It was indeed one and the same Covenant but Renewed Repeated and Published here in the Fields of Moab unto many other Persons in another place and in another manner than at Mount Horeb or Sinai And with these agree the Assemblies Annotations on the place Their words are The same in substance but not altogether the same c. I know very well that there are some Learned Men who in this differ from those before-mentioned and from Deut. 29. ver 1. would prove that the Covenant a◠Horeb was the Covenant of Works and that this in the Land of Moab was the Gospel-Covenant of Grace I am not indeed altogether of their mind for I have already shewed that the Covenant in Exod 24. which was made with Israel at Horeb was not the Original Covenant of Works but the Gospel Covenant of Grace in Type and Figure But though they and I differ in that yet we both agree in this which is the main thing and sufficient for my purpose That the Covenant made with all Israel in the Land of Moab was really the Gospel Covenant of Grace So the Learned Alsted saith (y) Foedus in terrâ Moabitarum est Faedus Evangelii seu Fidei quod Redempvionis gratiae appellatur Quod Deus ibi promulgavit ut Populo poneret ob oculos ingens illud beneficium quo illud quod legi erat impossibile per Christum reddidit possibile Confer Deut. 29. 30. Cap. cum Rom. 10.6 c. Johan Henric. Alsted in Turri Babel destructâ pag. 532. The Covenant in the Land of Moab is the Covenant of the Gospel or Faith which is also called the Covenant of Redemption and Grace which God there promulgated that he might set before the Peoples Eyes that great benefit whereby that which was impossible to the Law is made possible by Christ Compare Deut. 29 and 30. Chapters with Rom. 10. ver 6 c. Now if it be the Gospel Covenant or Covenant of Grace then it is certa in and evident that the Gospel-Covenant or the Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires some Duties of us For the Text saith ver 9. Keep the words of this Covenant and do them And ver 10 11 12. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord the God and into his Oath c. These express words of the Text plainly show that this Covenant hath Precepts and requires Dutyes And that this Covenant which hath Precepts and requires Dutyes is the Gospel Covenant of Grace is yet more manifest from Deut. 30. where Moses speaking still of the same Covenant at the same time he told the People That though they should break it by sin yet they might be received into Grace and Favour again upon their sincere Repentance ver 1 2 3 4 5. Ruthersord of the Covenant of Life opened Part 1. pag. 189. which proves that this could not be the Covenant of Works because as Rutherford well observes The Covenant of Works once broken ceaseth to be a Covenant of Life for ever because the Nature of it is to admit of no Repentance at all 2 Moses speaking still of the same Covenant he says one of the Promises of it is That the Lord will circumcise the Heart of his People and the heart of their Seed to love the Lord their God with all their Heart and Soul that they may live ver 6. But so it is That the Promise of Heart Circumcision is certainly a Promise of the Gospel Covenant of Grace 3 Moses speaking still of the same matter and at the same time he saith as it is written in ver 11 12 13 14 This Commandment which I command thee this day it is not hidden from thee neither is it far off It is not in Heaven that thou should say Who shall go up for us to Heaven and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it Neither is it beyond the Sea that thou shouldest say Who shall go over the Sea for us and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it But the word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it By which words he plainly teaches us That the Covenant and Commandment of which he there writes is neither impossible nor hard to be understood nor yet is it impossible nor hard to be kept and observed but that through Grace circumcising the heart to love God it is both easie to be known and also easie to be kept and observed Now this cannot be truely said of the Covenant of Works For as Mr. Shepard of New England well observes The Coudition of Works is impossible to be wrought in us by the Spirit And let not any Man think this strange and uncouth to say Theses Sabbathae pag 95. That the Spirit of Grace cannot now work in us the Condition of the first Covenant the Covenant of Works for the Condition and Duty of that Covenant was That Man should be without all Sin in Habit or Act and that he should be sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life and continue so to be But that is now impossible because it implyes a Contradiction for any meer Man since Adam broke the first Covenant and we in him to be always without all Sin in Habit or Act and to be always Sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life For all Men are already guilty of Sin and the People of Israel were all Sinners and had broken the Covenant of Works before Moses spoke and when he spoke the foresaid words unto them And it implyes a contradiction that by any Power whatsoever a thing which hath been already should be made not to have been at all or that a thing which exists at present should not exist at present whil'st it doth exist It will signifie nothing here to say That yet the Spirit can make us sinlesly Holy de futuro if he please for though that be very true absolutely speaking the Spirit can make a Man sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life for time to come though he hath been a Sinner in times part for that implyes no contradiction And the Spirit of Grace hath de facto done the thing in and upon the Spirits of Just Men made perfect in Heaven yet it is nothing to the purpose here because that is not the Condition and Duty of the Covenant
Discipuli non Magistro sed Deo monente diffusi Praecepta in salutem dare c Cyprian lib. de Idolorum vanitate Edit Oxon cum Minutii Felicis Octavio An. 1678. That Christ appeared and made himself known to his Apostles after his Resurrection and stay'd with them Forty days that they might be instructed by him and learn of him Vital Precepts which they might teach and that the Disciples being dispersed throughout the World by the order not of a meer Master but of God they gave forth Precepts unto Men for their Salvation Thus Cyprian Now by those Vital Precepts of which he speaks which lead Men to Salvation cannot be meant the Precepts of the Old Law and Covenant of Works as such for they are not Vital but rather Mortal to Sinful Men It is indeed through Mens own fault that they are not Vital but Mortal to them but however yet it is true that they are Mortal and not Vital They are a killing Letter 2 Cor. 3.6 They must then be the Precepts of the Gospel and Law of Grace which though for the most part they are materially the same with yet they formally differ from the Precepts of the Old Covenant and Law of Works for as they are the Precepts of the New Covenant and Law of Grace they come under a New Form and Sanction and become Vital and Saving both by the Ordination of God in Christ and also by the Grace of the Spirit promised in the New Law or Covenant of Grace My Fourth Witness is Ambrose who on the 119. Psal ver 156. saith (l) Evangelium non solum fidei Doctrina sed etiam est morum Magisterium speculum justae conversationis Amb. Serm. 20. in Ps 118. alias 119. Edit Paris 1614. Col. 1068. The Gospel is not only a Doctrine of Faith but it is also an Authoritative Instruction or Law of Manners and a glass of just Conversation And again in the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans chap 3. ver last he or Hil. Diac. writes thus (m) Et quia lege Moysi cessante meliora praecepta daturus erat Deus Jeremiah Propheta cecinit dicens ecce dies venient dicit Dominus consummabo Domini Israel c. His utique qui venientem Christum ex promissione receperunt c. Idem Ambros vel potius Hil. Diaconus Comment in Epist ad Rom. ad versum ult cap. 3. And because the Law of Moses ceasing God was to give better Precepts Jeremiah the Prophet sung saying Behold the days shall come saith the Lord that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel c. that is with those who received Christ when he came according to promise Now these better Precepts which Ambrose or Hilary saith God was to give when the Levitical Law was to be Abrogated were no other in his Opinion than the Precepts of the New Covenant and Law of Grace as manifestly appears by his proving his Assertion out of Jerem. 31.31 where the Lord foretold his making of a New Covenant with the House of Israel c. And that Authour might well call them better Precepts both in respect of their perspicuity as more fully and clearly explained by Christ and also in respect of their Efficacy as accompanyed with a greater measure of the Grace of the Holy Spirit Jer. 31.33 with Heb. 8.9 10. He might likewise so call them with respect to the positive Institutions of the Gospel My Fifth Witness is Chrysostom who saith that (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Homil. 1. in Cap. 1. Matth. ex Edit Commel An. 1617. One of the Capital Fundamental Points of our Religion in which our Life consists and which comprehend the Sum of our Preaching is that Christ gave to his Church saving Precepts He is discoursing there of the Harmony of the Four Evangelists and after what he had said of that matter he subjoyns a Request that we would diligently consider and observe that in the Capital Points of our Christian Religion wherein the Life of our Souls consists and which comprehend the Sum of Ministers Preaching there is not the least disagreement amongst the four Evangelists And then to the question Which are those Capital Essential Points of our Religion He Answers That they are these following to wit That God was Incarnate that he wrought Miracles that he was Crucified that he was Buryed that he rose again from the Dead that he ascended into Heaven that he will judge the World that he gave Saving Precepts that he did not introduce a Law contrary to the Old Testament That he is the Son that he is the only begotten Son that he is the true genuine Son that he is of the same Essence with the Father and as many points as there are of the like nature and then he asserts that in all these Points there is the greatest Harmony and Agreement of the Four Evangelists By this we see that Chrysostom held it to be a Capital Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion that Christ hath given Saving Precepts to his Church and consequently that the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts For the Precepts of the First Old Covenant and Law of Works as such cannot now be saving to Sinners such as all Men are therefore the Precepts which are now saving to Mens Souls must be the Precepts of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace which as we Christians have it is not contrary to it self as it obtained in the Church before the coming of Christ for it always had Saving Precepts and as we heard before out of Ireneus the Principal Precepts were the same under the Old Legal which they are now under the New Evangelical Administration of the Covenant of Life And yet we must not think that the Precepts of the Gospel are saving because we are Justifyed by and for Obedience to them for as Chrysostom observes on Rom. 3.27 28. The Lord Justifies Men (o) Chrysost Homil. 7. in Cap. 3. Epist ad Romanos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not at all needing Works but requiring Faith only The Lords Gospel-Precept then requires Faith and only Faith as the Instrumental means or Receptive Applicative Condition of our Justification But our observance of the other Gospel-Precepts is required to other Gospel-ends and purposes and the Precepts themselves are Saving as they are taken into the Gospel Covenant and as Sincere Obedience to them through Grace prepares and disposes us for the full enjoyment of Eternal Life and Glory according to the Promises of the Gospel I might be large in demonstrating that Chrysostom is for Gospel Precepts and a New Law of Grace which hath both Precepts and Promises And indeed he sometimes carryes the matter further than I can approve of But however he is Orthodox in the thing under present consideration that the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace hath Saving Precepts This is so certain and evident that no sincere honest Man who reads and understands but his
what Grotius had written that prima remissio unde caeterae ortum habent nullam in nobis requirit conditionem The first Remission of sin from which the rest flow requires no condition in us he Answers thus * Ad primam remissionem peccatorum non requiri conditionem Verum non est quia non remittitur peccatum adulto nisi poenitententi et credenti Andr. Rivet Animadvers in notas H. Grotii in Cass p. 38. lin 9.10.11 edit in 8◠It is not true that no condition is required in order to obtaining the first Remission of Sins for Sin is not remitted to a grown person unless he repent and believe And when Grotius in his Animadversions again on Rivet had explained himself and told him that by the first Remission or Reconciliation to which no condition is required he meant nothing but the means of Grace which make way for Repentance and Remission Such as are mentioned Act. 2. Rivet replies †Multi sunt quibus via illa ad poenitentiam proponitur qui eam non ingrediuntur collatio loci Actor 2. nos docet nullam remissionem peccati obtineri nisi peccatores compuncti sunt corde v. 37. quibus ita dispositis annunciatur remissio peccatorum quae non fit sine proevia illa conditione quam Deus efficit per gratiam suam in ijs quibus vult peccata remittere conferantur loci-Nam etsi sine ulla conditione proevia in homine deus curet annunciari peccatoribus remissionem peccatorum non tamen eam confert actu nisi per poenitentiam haec quae sunt verissima satis intellexi et exposui suo loco quancum potui perspicue c. Andr. Rivet Exam. Animadversionum H. Grotii pag. 22. There are many to whom that way to Repentance is proposed who do not enter into it The comparing of that place Act. 2. Teaches us that no Remission of Sin is obtained unless Sinners be pricked in their heart v. 37. Vnto whom being so disposed Remission of sins is Preached which Remission is not granted to them without that previons or antecedent condition which God by his Grace works in those whose sins he will remit or pardon Let the places be compared For altho without any previous condition in Man God causeth Remission of sins to be Preached unto Sinners yet he doth not Actually confer or give that Remission but by Repentance or upon condition of Repentance These things which are most true I understood well enough and in its own place I explained as clearly as I could c. Thus the great Rivet confuted Grotius but of late we have got another way of confuting him For there are some who indeavour silently to confute Rivet the most judicious and successful confuter of Grotius and then they give out to the people that they have confuted Grotius Now from the premises it appears that all which that person hath said against conditions in the Gospel-Covenant is light as vanity and that whereas it is pretended that there are no conditional promises in the Gospel-Covenant because there are no conditions in it the Contradictory thereunto is really true That there are conditions in the Gospel-Covenant because there are conditional promises in it as was Demonstrated in the Apol. and as hath been generally believed by the reformed Churches unto this day And tho Mr. Goodwin stiffly deny that there are any conditional promises in the Gospel-Covenant yet I do not see how that is consistent with his concession in pag. 55. towards the end that mercy and pardon is offered by the Lord to unbelievers as a pardon is offered to a Rebel by his Prince but they reject the mercy and refuse to accept of the pardon offered them in the Gospel And that aggravates their guilt and brings upon them a greater punishment For as an unbeliever cannot be said to reject the mercy and refuse to accept the pardon which was never so much as once offered to him by the Lord So it cannot be proved that ever mercy and pardon was offered to the unbeliever without the conditional promise of the Gospel If mercy and pardon be at all offered it must be by the Gospel for the Law offers no such thing to any And if it be offered by the Gospel only I demand how it is offered by the Gospel and by what part of the Gospel Either it is by the Revelation or precept or threatning or promise of the Gospel But 1. It is not offered by the meer Revelation of the Gospel For according to Mr. G. the Revelation of the Gospel is only a Revelation of Mercy and Pardon to the elect but a Revelation of Mercy and Pardon to the elect only cannot be an offer of mercy and pardon to the nonelect Besides that the meer Revelation of the Gospel is common to the Church and to the Angels Eph. 3.10 1 Pet. 1.12 But tho the Gospel be revealed to the Angels yet it doth not by its Revelation make any offer of Mercy and Pardon to them So that the meer Supernatural Revelation of the Gospel is no offer of Mercy and Pardon to the non-elect in the visible Church 2. It is not offered by the meer precept of the Gospel For according to Mr. G. the Gospel hath no precept of its own And tho it had a precept yet that precept would only require some duty of them but by it self could never offer any such benefit as Mercy and Pardon unto them 3. It is not offered by the threatning of the Gospel for according to him the Gospel hath no threatning and if it had a meer threatning alone without a promise is no means of offering Mercy and Pardon to a Man It remains therefore in the 4th place that since Mercy and Pardon is offered to the non-elect unbeliever it must be by the promise of the Gospel But it cannot be by the absolute promise for the absolute promise is not made to the non-elect unbeliever besides that the absolute promise is always fulfilled and so the non-elect should be certainly pardoned and saved And since it is so evident that it cannot be by the absolute promise it must of necessity be by the conditional promise that Mercy and Pardon is offered to non-elect unbelievers in the visible Church And consequently the Gospel hath a conditional promise for without a conditional promise it is unaccountable how Mercy and Pardon can be either offered to or rejected by those unbelievers Thus we have fully and clearly Answered the objections against the Gospel's having conditional promises and have shewed that the denial of them is inconsistent with the Gospel-offer of Mercy and Pardon made to unbelievers in the visible Church I should now pass to the next Chapter but that I must first briefly consider Mr. G's way of Interpreting the places of Scripture which seem to contain conditional promises so as to show that they contain no such thing And the way not to leave one conditional promise in all
it was that Justin took occasion to mention the new law and Covenant in his Answer to the foresaid Discourse of the Jew which Answer he thus begins There never was O Trypho nor ever will be another God besides him who created the whole world and we have no other God than you none but that same God who brought your fathers out of Egypt Nor do we trust in any other for there is no other but in him in whom you trust also to wit the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And we trust in him and hope to be saved not by Moses nor by the Law to wit of Moses But I have read O Trypho that there should be a latter or after-Law and a Testament or Covenant c. As these words and what follows them are cited in the Apol. p. 24. This New-Law or Covenant Justin saith all Men must keep That would be saved Then alluding to Isa 42.6 He saith Christ was given to be this Eternal and latter-Law unto us and a sure Covenant after which there is neither Law nor precept nor Commandment How that passage of Justin is to be understood I have shewed before Then he proves out of Isaiah and Jeremiah that Christ was to come and that through him God would make this New and last Law or Covenant with his Church consisting Jews and Gentiles And since God was to do thus he concludes from the conversion of the Gentiles from Idols to Faith in the crucified Jesus and from their Holiness of Life and perseverance in Faith and Holiness to the Death that the Messias was already come and that this was the New-Law and Covenant which the Christians lived under and according to the terms whereof they hoped to be saved through Christ believed on For saith Justin we are the true Spiritual Israel the spiritual progeny of Jacob and Isaac and Abraham who in his uncircumcision by Faith obtained a good Testimony from God and was blessed and called the Father of many Nations even we who are brought near unto God by this crucified Christ This he confirms from Isaiah 55. v. 3.4 5. Then tells them this very Law ye Jews disgrace and vilify his New and Holy Covenant where he manifestly distinguishes the Covenant from the Lord himself neither do ye to this day receive it nor repent of your evil deeds The Legislator is come and present and you see him not The poor receive the Gospel and the blind see but you do not understand Then he tells them that they needed another Spiritual Circumcision and Sabbath and Unleavened bread and washing That God was not like them pleased with those external Rites and Ceremonies but that now by the New Law and Covenant he called them to true Evangelical Repentance and Faith in the Blood of Christ which alone can wash away sin and expiat the guilt of it To prove this he cites those Scriptures mentioned by Mr. G. he stops not there but goes on and tells the Jews that their External Rites Washings and Sacrifices were but Types and Shadows of the inward Spiritual Washing and Purification of Gods People by the Blood Spirit and word of Christ Wherefore he exhorts Trypho and his Company to Faith and Repentance according to the Tenour of the New-Covenant And that he doth in the words of Isaiah Chap. 55. from v. 3. To the end Now this was not the old Law and Covenant of works but the New Law or Covenant of Grace which Justin in the words of Isaiah Preached to these Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 231. This is that very thing which this New Law-giver Judges fit and meet to require of you From the premisses it is manifest that Justin did not think the New-Law or Covenant to be a Doctrine of Grace in such a sense as to require nothing of us at all for there and through the whole Dialogue he shews that Faith and Repentance and Evangelical obedience are required by the Gospel-Law and Covenant and says expressly that this Covenant all Men must keep that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God Thus he Answered the Jew's objection and shewed that Christians had ground to hope for Mercy and Salvation tho they kept not the old Sinaitical Covenant because they had received from God a New-Law and Covenant of Grace which they kept and keeping it they were sure to obtain the pardon of their Sins and salvation of their Souls through the Blood and Death of Christ the Mediator and surety of that New and better Covenant That this is the true sense of Justin is evident by what I quoted out of him before in my remarks on Mr. G' s. 7th Chapter by what I have here related concerning the Jew's Objection and his Answer to it which was the true occasion of his mentioning the New Law and Covenant And by what he writes in pag. 243. 263 323 327. I might now pass from Justin to a vindication of the Testimonies of Cyprian from the exceptions made against them by Mr. G. if another Reverend Brother in his niblings at our Apol. had not pretended to prove in his Book on Rom. 4. That I impertinently quoted Justin Martyr His words in pag. 35. Are these I shall saith Mr. C. only instance his first citation out of Justin Martyr and I am willing to be Judged by any of the Subscribers that will take the pains to read it if Justin intends any thing more than the recommending the Christian Constitution and proving it preferable to the Mosaical for he says This new law is posterior to Moses his Law but the Apologists new law has been ever since the Fall of Adam Thus Mr. C. whose Arguments are to be considered before I pass any further I answer then thus That Justin intended the recommending of the Christian Constitution of the Covenant af Grace and proving it preferable to the Mosaical was never denied by me tho I deny that he intended no more than the recommending of it in Mr. C. his sense for I did and do most firmly believe That that was part of his Design and the other part of it was to prove against the Jew That the New Law or Covenant of Grace was now to be kept as it is in its Christian Constitution and that the keeping of it as such was sufficient to the obtaining of salvation and that the keeping of it in its Mosaical Constitution or form of Administration was not now necessary as Trypho pretended But then good Sir consider that in prosecution of that design he expressly calls the Christian constitution of it as such a New-Law and Covenant of the greatest or most excellent Authority of all which all Men now must keep whosoever they be that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God Now I appeal to all Men of Common sense and reason if withal they have but common honesty whether this citation was not very pertinent to my purpose which was to prove that the accuser of the