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
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
kind But tho we be agreed in this yet we do differ and shall differ about the Consequence for I do utterly deny that it follows by any good and necessary Consequence that God would not be infinitely wise and unchangeable and his Moral Law perfect in its kind if the Gospel have any precepts and if God have ever given to Man any new positive Law since he first created him with the Moral natural Law written in his heart And it is not without good reason that I deny Mr. Goodwins Consequence as utterly false and blasphemous For 1 according to his own Principle Gods making unto Man a new promise doth not impeach his infinite wisdom and absolute unchangeableness for in pag. 49. He saith that Repentance is a duty to which Man was tyed before any New Covenant of Grace was made and before God had revealed any thoughts of favour to him or any purposes of grace in that first promise of the Seed of the Woman breaking the Serpents head In these words he plainly acknowledges that when God first created Man and gave him the Moral Law he had not then made him any promise of Gospel grace and mercy but the first promise of that nature was made to Man after the fall And yet I do not think that Mr. Goodwin dare say that Gods making that New promise to Man did impeach his wisdom as defective or infer any change in his nature or will And if a new promise did not then I say that no more did a new precept impeach Gods wisdom as defective or infer any change in his nature or will For there is nothing can be said against a new precept as inconsistent with the infinity of Gods wisdom and his unchangeableness but the like may be said against a new promise And if I durst give my self leave to prat boldly and blasphemously against a new Gospel promise I have no more to do but to take what Mr. G. says against a New Gospel Precept and with the varying of a few words apply it to a New Gospel-Promise and I thereby prove That it 's not consistent with the Wisdom and Immutability of God to make a New Gospel-Promise just as he proves That it is inconsistent with his Wisdom and Unchangeableness to give a New Gospel-Precept For my part I dare not imitate Mr. G. in his way of Reasoning here but there want not Infidels too many who by his way of disproving a New Gospel Precept will endeavour to disprove a New Gospel-Promise and will not stick to say after the Example of my R. B. That for God to make a New Gospel-Promise after the first Legal Covenant of Works and the Legal Promise implied in it would argue That his Wisdom was deficient as not knowing at first all that was good for man and necessary to be promised to him and believed by him c. 2. God gave a new precept to Man before the fall which was really different from the Moral natural Law For instance the Command not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge c. Gen. 2.17 was such a precept This is so clear that Mr. G. has in effect confessed it pag. 47. For there he saith that the Moral natural Law regarded the Act of eating the fatal Fruit as a thing indifferent and that indeed it was a thing indifferent before the prohibition To wit by the new precept which came after the Moral natural Law and therefore must needs be really distinct from it There he confesses 1. That the Moral natural Law did not at first and by it self immediately forbid the Act of eating the foresaid Fruit. 2. That therefore it remained still a thing indifferent to eat or not to eat of that Fruit till the new precept was given 3. That it was the new precept Gen. 2.17 Which first by it self immediately prohibited the eating of it and obliged Man not to eat it and that without this it would have still remainded indifferent notwithstanding any thing that the Moral natural Law did or could say Now if before the fall God gave Man a new positive precept which first obliged him to a certain duty and forbad the Commission of the contrary sin and if this new positive precept requiring duty and forbidding Sin was then very well consistent both with the wisdom and unchangeableness of God and also with the perfection of his Moral natural Law tho it and the Moral natural Law were two things really distinct I say if it was so then before the fall I put my R. Brother to prove that after the fall it was inconsistent with Gods infinite wisdom and immutability and with the perfection of his moral Law to give unto man any New Gospel-Precept which should oblige him to Duty whereunto the moral natural Law did not by it self immediately oblige him before If Mr. G. continue to affirm this he must prove it for I utterly deny that God's giving a new Gospel Precept is inconsistent with his VVisdom and Immutability and with the perfection of his Moral natural Law and I am perswaded that he can never prove that inconsistency no more then he can prove it inconsistent with Gods wisdom and immutability and with his Moral Laws perfection to give unto Adam before the Fall the new positive Precept of not Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledg after he had written the said Moral Natural Law in his heart at his first Creation If he say as in effect he doth That the moral natural Law obliged Adam not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge because it commanded him to obey God in whatever he should require And so God's requiring Adam by a New positive Precept to abstain from eating the said Fruit is well consistent with his wisdom and with his moral Laws Perfection I answer That my R. B. may see if he will open his Eyes that this makes against him and for me For 1. He must and he doth grant That the abstaining from eating of that Fruit was first required by a new positive Precept in Order of Nature before the moral natural Law commanded any such Abstinence so that it commanded the said Abstinence only mediately and by consequence after that it was first immediately commanded by the New positive Precept superadded to the Law of Nature 2. He knows well enough that it is our professed belief that in like manner tho the Moral Natural Law the general Law of our Creation doth Command us to obey God in whatever he requires of us by any new Special Gospel Precept yet doth God first in order of Nature require our obedience to the Gospel by the New Gospel-Precept immediately and then by means of that special new Gospel-Precept the general Law of our Creation comes to take hold of our Conscience with respect thereunto and obliges us to obey God therein So that here are two Precepts that oblige us to the same thing but in different ways First There is the
all the Nations from Peru to Japan on condition they Obey the Command of the Gospel and Believe and Repent I Answer That consequence is false No such thing doth follow from the aforesaid Antecedent unless God Promulgate the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace to all those People and Nations without exception as he hath Promulgated it to us in these parts of the World For the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace being a positive Constitution of God and having the force of a positive Law not knowable by the meer Light of Nature it doth not oblige any Man to Believe it and to be Subject and Obedient unto it unless it be sufficiently Promulgated to him Either then prove that the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace which are the same is sufficiently Promulgated to all the before-mentioned People and Nations or else you must let go that consequence as utterly inconsequent This you seem to be sensible of and therefore you undertake to prove that God hath Promulgated the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace to all Men in the world without exception a bold undertaking Now let us hear the proof why thus it is If God in giving his Moral Law to all reasonable Creatures said universally to Angels and Men do this and you shall live by the same rule if the Gospel is a New Law God speaks generally to all Men Believe and you shall live Here is my R. Brother's Argument but I heartily wish for his own Credit he had suppressed it and never suffered it to see the light For I think such a ridiculous weak Argument is not to be met with in any learned Author and to make the weakness of it appear I Answer 1. That his Supposition from whence he infers his Position is not true if it be understood of the Moral-Natural-Law only materially considered before God put it into the form of a Covenant by adding to it the conditional Promise If ye do this ye shall live In that case by giving unto Man the Precepts of the Moral Natural Law without the Promise of Life God had said unto him Do this which those Precepts require but he had not said unto him Thou shalt live if thou do this My R. Brother may remember that he himself in Pag. 50. affirms That Adam as soon as he had Existence was presently bound to Obey God in all that he would Command him though he had made no Promise to him of any Reward And if Adam was bound to obey God in all that he would Command him then cerrainly he was bound to obey him in all that he did Command him though he had made no Promise to him of any Reward But I hope Mr. G. will not say that Adam was bound also to believe actually that he should live for any determinate time without a conditional Promise of Life to him if he continued in his Obedience For if God would he might have Annihilated Adam again even after he had been perfectly Obedient for a time and before he had committed any the least Sin I say God might have done this by his Absolute Soveraignty if he had not engaged himself not to do it by the Promise of Life to Adam For God's giving of Life with the Precepts of the Natural Law to Adam did not of it self without the Promise of Life necessarily oblige him not to Annihilate him Before and without the Promise of Life God by his Absolute Power and Soveraign Free-Will might have Annihilated or not Annihilated Adam And therefore in giving the Moral Law to Adam without the Premise of Life God did not say to him Do this and thou shalt live He said indeed to him Do this but he did not thereby say to him Thou shalt live if thou do this And without God's saying to him by Promise Thou shalt live if thou do this Adam could have no Infallible Assurance that God would not use his Power and Soveraign Free-Will in Annihilating him He could not by all that God had done for him in Creating him and Concreating in him the Principles and Precepts of the Law of Nature have any Infallible Assurance that he would continue to him the happy Life he had given him and that he would afterwards prefer him to a better that is to an Heavenly and Eternal Life The doing of this depended on God's Free-Will and therefore Adam's Assurance that it should be done depended upon the Revelation of God's Will and the Promise of God to Man That if he never Sinned he should never Die but live happily sorever And this was not only possible but it seems to have been so De facto For in Creating Man after his own Image God gave him the Principles and Precepts of the Moral Law but it can never be proved that God gave him the Promise of Life till some time after that he said unto him as it is written Gen. 2.16 17. In the day that thou catest thereof thou shalt surely die In which words the contrary promise is implied But 2dly If Mr. G. say That by God's giving unto man the moral Law he means God's giving him the moral Law formally as a Covenant with its federal Sanction of Threatning and Promise then indeed I grant That by giving unto Adam the moral Law as a federal Law God said unto him Do this and thou shalt live but if thou do it not thou shalt die But then tho God said this to Adam by giving him that federal Law yet it is not so clear that he saith the same thing at this day to all Adam's Posterity even to the most barbarous Heathens by giving unto them the moral natural Law I do grant That together with the humane Nature God gives the first Principles and Precepts of the moral natural Law unto all mankind that have the use of Reason even to the most Barbarous Heathens yea that he gives also the Principles of the Natural Law to their Infants I say he gives them in Power but not in Act but that God gives unto every one of the most barbarous Nations the same promise which he gave at first unto Adam and that he says unto every one of them Do this and thou shalt live Keep the Precepts of the Law of Nature and thou shalt live Eternally Let him prove this at his leisure It will not suffice to say that God virtually and constructively made the said promise to every one of them as they were seminally and federally in Adam for tho that be very true and we know it by the written word or we should never have known it in an ordinary way yet it is nothing to our present purpose For now all the question is about the truth of Mr. G's words which suppose that God in giving his Moral Law to all reasonable Creatures said Universally to Men do this and you shall Live Now did God ever say this Universally to all mankind even to the most Barbarous Nations And doth he say so at this day And