requiring no Faith nor Practice in order to obtaining pardon of Sin and Eternal Life through and for the alone Righteousness of Christ 3. What he alledges out of Schindler and Cocceiut their Lexicons to prove that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah which is rendred Law signifies any instruction given us not only by the Precepts but the Promises of God is wholly impertinent and makes nothing against me For in my Judgment the New Law of Grace is instructive both by Precept and Promise Hence I say in the Apology p. 22. that it is a Covenant-Law which makes rich offers of Grace of Justifying and Glorifying Grace c. And again a little after that this Law of Grace is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace it is that part of the Covenant of Grace which respects the way of God's dispensing to us the subsequent Blessings and Benefits of the Covenant such as pardon of Sin and Eternal Salvation Briefly As it is a Law of Grace to us it is that part of the Covenant which prescribes to us the Condition to be performed through Grace on our part and which promises us Pardon and Life for Christ's sake alone when we through Grace perform the Condition and therefore it must needs be very instructive both by Precept and Promise 4. What Mr. G. often says that the Gospels being called a Law signifies no more but that it is a Doctrine I utterly deny it in his sense of the word Doctrine nor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah its being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Horah prove any such thing Buxtorf who understood the Hebrew as well as any Man in these latter Ages tells us in his Lexicon pag. 337. that the whole word of God is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law quod nos de Dei voluntate erga nos nostro officio erga Deum proximum nostrum doceat erudiat Because it instructs us and teaches us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Thus Buxtorf Now if the whole Word of God be called a Law for that reason then the Gospel Covenant which is a principal part of the word of God is called a Law for the same reason to wit because it teacheth us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Accordingly it is freely granted that the Gospel Govenant is a Doctrine and a Doctrine of Grace but withal it is to be alwayes remembred that it is a Doctrine which not only promises gracious Benefits and Blessings on Gods part but also requires a Condition to be performed and terms to be complyed with through Grace on our part Hence the Evangelical Prophet Isa 2.3 saith he the Lord will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths And proves what he had said by this reason for out of Sion shall go forth the Law c. Mr. G. confesses that by Law here is meant the Gospel and then it follows that the Gospel is a Doctrine which reacheth us the Lords ways not only the ways wherein he walks with us but also the ways and paths wherein we walk with him Mr G would have the wayes which the Lord teacheth his People by the Gospel to be only the ways which the Lord himself walks in He would have them to denote only the order which God hath constituted for himself to observe in justifying Sinners But certainly that Interpretation is too short for the ways which God hath prescribed unto us to walk in are called Gods ways in Scripture Gen. 18.19 and he is also said to teach them his People Psal 86.11 and 119. ver 32 33 c. John 6.45 and particularly he teacheth us that it is our Duty to believe in Christ for Justification and Salvation And as Christ is the way unto the Father so Faith is the way unto Christ This the Gospel Law the Law of Faith teacheth us this Faith it prescribes to us and requires of us Acts 16.31 and consequently the Gospel in being said to be a Law it is said to be such a Doctrine as teacheth us the way we are to walk in such a Doctrine as prescribes to us some Means to be used and Condition to be performed by us brough Grace that we may through Christ his Righteousness and Intercession obtain the promised Blessings of Justification and Glorification And this my Reverend Brother sometimes hath Light to discern and Freedom to confess in part as in pag. 15. where he says That according to the usual Language of Gods word to walk in Gods ways is to observe his orders and appointments the expression here may denote no more than that they would punctually keep to the way of Salvation marked out by him and seek to be justifyed no otherwise than by Christ's Blood and Righteousness as the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes Thus he Now 1. Concerning this seeking to be justifyed by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only which the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes I demand of Mr. Goodwin whether it be something or nothing If he say that it is nothing Then 1. The Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes to us seeking that is it prescribes nothing And that is an odd way of prescribing to prescribe and yet to prescribe nothing 2 It is as odd a way of seeking for to seek by doing nothing But if to avoid this absurdity he say that seeking is something then I affirm that that something must be some Work or Act of the Soul And if so then we have what we desire to wit that the Gospel is a Law For he says that the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes seeking and seeking is some Work or Act therefore the Gospel prescribes some Work or Act. And what it prescribes to us unto that it obliges us and so by necessary consequence it is a Law that obliges us to Work and Act and by that means to seek Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only 2ly It is further to be observed That the seeking which the Gospel Law prescribes is very comprehensive as the word seeking is used in the Scriptures of Truth It is a word that signifies the diligent use of the Means which the Lord hath appointed for obtaining the thing sought But so it is that as is proved in the Apology the Lord hath appointed Faith and Repentance to be means to be used on our part for obtaining Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only Repentance is the means or condition dispositive of the Subject Man that he may be pardoned and justified by Faith in Christ's Blood and Righteousness only And Faith is the only means instrumental or Condition receptive and applicative of the object Christ and his Righteousness by and for which Object alone Man is justified and pardoned And therefore the Gospel-Law by prescribing the foresaid seeking which signifies the diligent use of all appointed means
of Works that Man should sin no more for the future but its Condition and Duty is that Man should never once sin at all either in time past present or to come And assoon as he hath once sinned he hath ipso facto so broken that Covenant that from that very moment it ceases to be unto him a Covenant of Life for ever as we heard before out of Rutherford because it admits of no Repentance with a Promise of Pardon and Life The Condition then and Duty of the Covenant of Works being now simply impossible to sinful Men it cannot be said with any colour of Truth that it is easie to be performed through Grace it cannot be said of the Covenant of Works as Moses hath it ver 14. The word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it The quite contrary is true with respect to the First Covenant the Covenant of Works the performing of its Duty and Condition is so far off from sinful Men such as the Israelites were that it is impossible to be brought near unto them till both ends of a real contradiction be made to meet in one and the same thing be made to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect And as it cannot be truely said to be very nigh so it cannot be truely said to be in the Mouth and Heart of sinful Men that they may do it That were to say that it is in Mens Mouth and Heart to do that which implys a contradiction and is impossible to be done But on the other hand it may be truely said of the Gospel or New Covenant and it's Duty and Condition that through Grace circumcising the Heart to love God The word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it Thus the Blessed Apostle Paul understood this Passage and quoted the Sense and Substance and partly the very words of Moses and applyed them unto and affirmed them of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace as distinct from and opposite unto the Law and Covenant of Works For in Rom. 10.5 The Apostle first shews out of Levit. 18.5 in what Form of words Moses described the Law and Covenant of Works and its Righteonsness That the Man which doth those things shall live by them Secondly In vor 6 7. c he doth himself out of Moses Deut. 30. ver 11 12 13 14. describe and explain the nature of the Gospel Covenant and its Righteousness He calls it the Righteousness of Faith and shews how we obtain it by Christ's Purchasing it for us and giving it unto us we receiving it by Faith and shewing our Faith and Thankfulness for it by confessing him who purchased it which implyes a steadfast cleaving to the Lord with purpose of heart against all temptations to the contrary For these Reasons I do believe that the Covenant in Deut. 29. and 30. Chapter is not the First Covenant or Law of Works but the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace And consequently that the Gospel Covenant hath Precepts and requires Duty And this is no New Opinion of my inventing but is the real Truth as I have proved from the words of Moses and a Truth also now commonly received by the Orthodox I know that there are some Learned Men of a different Judgment the Arminians are of that sort and particularly Episcopius as appears from his Paraphrase and Observations on Rom 10. ver 5 6 8. which Exposition of his seems to be founded upon that Opinion of theirs That the Covenant of which Moses speaks there or elsewhere in the Books of the Law did not promise Eternal Life but only a Temporal Prosperous Life in the Land of Canaan to them who sincerely indeavoured to keep the Laws given them by Moses See Mat. 19.16 17. Joh. 5.39 which I think is contrary to Gal. 3.11 12. for the Life which the Apostle denyes to be possible to be obtained by the Law because all Men have broken it seems to be of the same kind with that Life which he affirms to be obtained by Faith But it is Spiritual and Eternal Life which is obtained by Faith therefore it is Spiritual and Eternal Life likewise which he denyes to be obtainable by the Works of the Law And the reason why it was not so obtainable was because no Man did or could keep the Law so as not to fall under its curse even such a curse as Christ redeems from Gal. 3.10 and 13. compared The Apostle sayes ver 21. If there had been a law given which could have given life verily righteousness should have been by the law He doth not any where say that the Law could not give Eternal Life because it had no promise of Eternal Life But elsewhere to wit in Rom. 8.3 he assigns the true reason why the Law of Works could not give life Eternal Life even becauseâ— it was weak through the flesh It was the Sin of Man that disabled the Law of Works that it could not give that Eternal Life which after the Fall it promised only oeconomically that is it proposed and set Eternal Life before Mens Eyes in a form of words which before the Fall was really promissory of Eternal Life upon a possible condition but after the Fall did but serve to remind us what Man once was and what he should still have been what he might have done and what he might have attained unto by doing but that having broken that Covenant we are all lyable to Eternal Death and can never obtain Eternal Life by it and therefore that it behoves us to seek Eternal Life and Salvation by Christ only upon the terms of the Gospel and New Law or Covenant of Grace as was more fully explained before This only I briefly hint on the by I hope the R. Brother with whom I have to do will not flee from me into the Arminian Camp and from thence come out against me clad with their Goliaâ—s Armour for it will not well become Mr. Goodwin though he could dexterously serve himself with it which yet is very questionable But let him do in that matter as best pleaseth him I am resolved to abide where I am in the Camp of the Orthodox and thence I oppose the Authority and Reasons of Fr. Junius in his Parallels Second Book and Sixteenth Parallel where he explains Rom. 10.5 6 7 8. by comparing it with Leviticus the 18th and Deuteronomy the 30th Of the same Judgment with Junius is the Learned Professour of Saumur Stephanus de Brais as appears by his Paraphrase and Notes at the end of his Paraphrase on the Epistle to the Romans pag. 336 337. Rutherford was also of that mind as is evident by these his words This Covenant to wit of Grace hath the promise of a circumcised heart Deut. 30.6 and of the word of faith that is near in the mouth and of the Righteousness of Faith clearly differenced
salvation and effectually called It is no more or Then certainly it is not of works That is of the Merits or Dignity of their works Otherwise Namely if it were of works only or of grace and works together grace is no more grace Namely for as much as grace excludes all debt Merit or worthyness and cannot consist therewith For grace is no wise grace if it be not every way grace Rom. 4.4 And if it be of works it is no more grace Namely but a deserved reward i. e. then their Election and Calling was not done of grace Otherwise the work is no more work That is no work of Merit Thus they excellently well expound that 6 verse of Rom. 11. And refer it to the Election mentioned in the 5 verse so as not to exclude but rather include the reserving of an Elected remnant of Jews and their effectual calling to Faith in Christ After the same manner doth Mr. Mayo explain the same words In the 2d Vol. of Pool's Annotations on Rom. 11.6 He writes thus The Apostle takes occasion here to shew that Election and Vocation is only by grace and not by works And here he delivers a truth which the Jews of old either could not or would not understand i. e. that there is no mixing of the Merit of good works and the free grace of God But one of these doth exclude and destroy the nature of the other For if Election and calling were c. Let the Reader consult the whole Passage It is too large for me to Transcribe but it is so well done that I do most heartily approve of it Now this being the true genuine sense of that place of Sctipture let Mr. Goodwin prove if he can that because Election from Eternity and Effectual calling in time is of grace and is not of Merit of works either foreseen before Election or really wrought before effectual calling Therefore the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath no conditional promises and doth require no duty no not Faith in Christ nor no obedience or work of obedience at all I am sure that no Man living can prove that Consequence by one solid Argument It may be my R. B. will be more moved with the words of the Learned Ainsworth then with mine and therefore I will cite him a passage out of a Writing of that Learned Author His words are * H. Ainsworth's censure upon the Anabaptists Dialogue c. pag. 20. No Scripture telleth that our Election to Life dependeth on this Condition of our Faith and Obedience Faith and Obedience are the effects not the cause of our Election and are Conditions following Election not going before it as it is written Acts 13.48 Here Ainsworth acknowledges that tho Faith and obedience be not the cause but the effects of Election yet that hinders not their being conditions And I add that tho they are effects not only of election but of effectual Vocation yet they are Conditions with respect to the subsequent blessings of the Covenant And if they be Conditions then there are Conditional Promises in the Gospel-Covenant and it requires of us some Duties and Works of Obedience and though this be most true yet doth it not follow from hence by any true Logick That the Gospel will be only the superannuated Law of Works revived with some abatements of its required Duties Prove this Consequence if you can I put you to it but take heed that you do not lay your self further open and discover your own weakness in the doing of it Sir if you had only to do with me it may be you might easily run me down for I acknowledge my self to be nothing and am ready to lay my self at the Feet of all my R. Brethren not excluding my present Antagonist But I must tell you That the Lord's Truth and commonly received Doctrine of the Reformed Churhes will not so easily be run down There is one thing more in his 56th Pag. that needs correction and that is what he saith of God's conditional Promises being made to Men upon such and such a condition I humbly conceive this is a mistake One Man indeed may make a promise to another Man upon a condition so as to suspend the very making of the promise upon the condition and if the other Man do not accept or perform the condition the promise is not made to him at all but I think it is otherwise between God and Man God is infinitely Superiour to us and he absolutely makes his conditional Promises to us without asking our consent I say that God's making of the conditional Promise is absolute but the Promise made is conditional and God prescribes the Condition to us and Commands us to perform it But then God performs the said Promise conditionally that is He suspends his own Transient Act of giving us the Benefit promised conditionally till we through Grace have performed the Condition And if the Condition be never performed by us God never gives the Benefit promised unto us This is no new Notion of mine I have not so good an Opinion of my own Abilities as to venture upon new Notions in Divinity It is enough for me and I hope I shall through Grace be thankful to God for it if he be pleased to enable me to contend as I ought to do for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints Jude v. 3. This Notion I say is none of mine but it is the Learned and Pious Rutherford's as is to be seen in his Book of the Covenant of Life opened Part I. P. 91 92. Nor is it true that the Promise is made to the Aged upon condition of Believing The Promise is made to them absolutely whether they Believe or not But the Blessing of the Promise and Covenant of Grace is given and bestowed only conditionally if they Believe The Promise is absolutely made It is called conditional from the thing conditionally given Thus Rutherford And accordingly whenever I say That God hath promised a Benefit to Men upon a Condition I desire it may be thus understood For I mean no more than that God hath made to Men a conditional Promise that he prescribes to them the Condition and will give them the Benefit promised if they perform the Condition prescribed and not till then But I do not mean that God conditionally makes the Promise to Men so as to suspend his making of it till they perform the Condition And it may be my R. B. meant no more than this and if so we are agreed as to this matter But further Object 2. He argues against the Gospel's having any Conditional Promises thus P. 57. If the Gospel be a New Law or Covenant of Grace that hath Conditional Promises so it should be expressed or it doth not concern me at all it will follow that God in the Promulgation of this New-Law or Covenant of Grace offers Life universally to all Men to Tartars Negroes and the Savages in America to
priority is enough for that pag. 33. To which I Answer 1. That I never wrote nor thought that the condition of the Gospel-Covenant is not in our power in any sense but only that it is not in our meer natural power with which it is very well consistent that it be in our Supernatural Power which we receive from the Spirit of God and with his assistance freely use in performing the said condition of the Covenant For the truth of this I appeal to the common sense and reason of all honest Men who will be at the pains to read and consider what they will find Written in the Apol. pag. 36. Last Paragraph and pag. 47. at the end And pag. 48. from l. 1. to l. 13. and pag. 49. from l. 9. to 20. and pag. 50. Where by the Testimonies of Augustin and Bradwardin I expresly shew that the performing of the condition is in our power through the grace of God and that we have a subordinate Dominion and Power over our own Act. And Lastly in pag. 67. I shew from Dr. Twiss that we not only have Supernatural Power from God to produce the Act which is the condition but that at the same time when we produce it we have a Power a natural Power not to produce it Whence I conclude that it is a gracious Evangelical condition freely performed by us See our confession of Faith Chap. 10. Act. 1. Now let any Judge by this whether I do absolutely deny the condition to be in our Power Nay tho I deny it in one sense to be in our Power yet in another sense I do most clearly affirm it to be in our power As for the condition it s not being uncertain nor Meritorious it is true I did and do maintain that it is not uncertain with respect to God and the event nor is it in the least truly and properly Meritorious but I deny the Consequence that therefore it is not properly a condition Evangelical And whereas in the 4th place he says that I deny it to be a legal condition it is true I have denied and shall deny it to be a Legal condition in the sense explained at large from the end of pag. 37. to 41. It is not so a legal condition as to have the same place and Office in the New-Covenant and Law of Grace which perfect and personal sinless obedience was to have had in the first Old Covenant and Law of works c. But to infer from hence that because I deny it to be a legal condition in this sense therefore I deny it to be a legal condition in all and every sense whatsoever is a poor fallacious way of arguing And how can this R. B. seriously think that I should ever deny it to be a legal condition in any sense at all when as he knows that I do all along call it the condition of the Covenant and Law of Grace If then I believe it to be the condition of the Covenant of Grace I cannot chuse but believe it to be a federal condition and so if I believe it to be the condition of the Law of Grace I cannot chuse but in some sense believe it to be a legal condition But you may say in what sense do I believe it to be a legal condition Why I Answer look in what sense the Gospel-Covenant is a Law in the same sense Faith for instance is the legal condition of it and so I believe it to be Now we do not say that the Gospel-Covenant is meerly and simply a Law but that it is a Law of Grace properly a Law of Grace And therefore faith is not a condition meerly and simply legal as the condition of the old Law of works was but it is a condition graciously legal because it is the condition of the Law of Grace and we are effectually enabled to perform it by the God of all Grace This that Brother might have easily perceived by our words to be our meaning if he had sought the Truth sincerely when he read our Apology But tho he stile himself a seeker p. 103. Yet it appears too evident by his Parenthesis p. 33. l. 29.30 31. That he sought some other thing than the truth for there he brings me in saying That the Gospel is a Law and that this Law is the condition of the Covenant or Gospel and yet it is not a legal condition But where do I say so That the Law is the condition of the Covenant I defy any Man living to find those words or any words of the like import in all the Apol. I leave it to others whom it may become to write after this manner The Gospel or the Covenant is a Law and that Law is the condition of the Covenant And so the same thing is the condition of it self For shame give over such little tricke and have regard to truth and honesty But now was there nothing in the Apoâ— that gave occasion to fasten upon us such a notorious falsehood I Answer I profess sincerely that there is nothing in it all from beginning to end that could give any just occasion or so much as a colourable pretence to charge me with holding that the Gospel is a Law or Covenant and that that Law is the condition of the Covenant We have said indeed in the explication of our sense of the Law of Grace pag. 22. l. 35.36 That this Law of Grace is the conditional part of the Covenant of Grace But to be the conditional part of the Covenant is quite another thing than the condition of the Covenant for the conditional part of the Covenant is that which Prescribes and Commands the condition and which promises a blessing and benefit to the person who performs it And therefore must be quite another thing than the condition it self Here then some body has discovered his ignorance and writes he knows not what or if not that He has discovered somewhat worse and that which I forbear to call by its proper Name Because he might say that it is bitter Language to tell him his fault in plain terms It is sweet unto some Men publickly to mis-represent their brethren to the People for such ends as they know best but it is bitter to them for to find themselves publickly reproved for it We desire all whom it may concern to learn to understand our Apol. before they take upon them to dispute against it and censure it And they may easily understand it if they will for it is purposely written in a plain stile that all may know what our Judgment is concerning the nature of the New-Covenant See pag. 68. from lin 16. to 21. Where we briefly and plainly distinguish between the absolute and conditional part of it and shew what the one and the other is as we had also done so largely before that none can mistake our meaning unless they have very weak heads or which is worse wilfully shut their Eyes that they
mostly of Spiritual and Eternal Blessings Thus Dr. Owen In which passages and others that I have cited out of his Writings he agrees with us exactly and asserts what we mean by the Gospels being a Law as the Scripture calls it 2. Mr. Clarkson in his Book of Sermons and Discourses on several Divine Subjects newly Printed 1696 and commended to the Reader by the Reverend Mr. How and Mr. Mead. In the Sermon on Luke 13.3 pag. 10. his observation is that Repentance is an Evangelical Duty a Gospel a new Covenant Duty This should not be questioned by those who either believe what the Gospel delivers or understand what it is to be Evangelical But since it is denyed let us prove it And then he proves it by twelve Arguments After this in p. 12 when he comes to the application of this Doctrine he says It reproves those who reject this Duty as Legal Certainly those who find not this in the Gospel have found another Gospel besides that which Christ and his Apostles preached But let them take heed least whilst they will go to Heaven in a way of their own that way prove a by path and lead to the gates of Death instead of the place of Joy No way but Christ will bring to Heaven and that has three stages Faith Repentance and Obedience He that will sit down at the end of the first and never enter upon the second will never reach Heaven Indeed he that walks not in all walks not in any he is deluded misled by an ignis fatuus a false fire and if the Lord do not undeceive him will fall into the bottomless pit And in p. 20. he says No Repentance no Pardon It is not the cause but it is the condition without which no remission Solomon would not ask pardon but upon this condition 2 Chro. 6.26 27. nor does the Lord answer him but upon the same terms chap. 7.14 In fine for understanding the matter he is there treating of he desires us to observe three Propositions 1. Prop. All Sins are pardoned upon the first act of Faith and Repentance But tho' all be then pardoned yet not all alike Therefore observe 2. Sins past and repented of are pardoned absolutely because the condition is present and where the condition is present that which was conditional becomes absolute 3. Future Sins or Sins unrepented of are but pardoned to a Believer conditionally because the condition of Pardon is not in being is future he has not yet repented for those Sins c. Thus the Reverend Learned and Pious Mr. Clarkson See what follows there immediately His meaning is That the wilful Sins which Believers fall into after Conversion tho' at first Conversion they were pardoned virtually and conditionally yet they are not pardoned formally and obsolutely they are not actually pardoned till the guilty Believer hath actually renewed his Faith and Repentance Now these two worthy Ministers of Christ Dr. Owen and Mr. Clarkson were no Amyraldians and since we agree with them in this Point and teach the same Doctrine which they taught before us Mr. Goodwin in his Preface did very impertinently mention the opposition made to Amyrald in France See the end of his Preface and it was not fair nor just to do it with a manifest design to make People believe that he dangerously erred in this Point and we with him For to hold the Gospel-Covenant to be a Law of Grace in the sense that we hold it so to be was none of Amyralds singular or erroneous Opinions for which he was taxed by his Adversaries beyond the Seas Nay this is so far from being one of his singular Opinions that it was common to his Adversaries with him And for ought I know to the contrary they and he were all of one mind in believing the Gospel-Covenant to be a Law of Grace as aforesaid Some of them I know were but whether they were all de facto agreed in this or not for I do not pretend to know them all yet this is certain that if it be a revealed Truth that the Gospel-Covenant is a Law a Law of Grace especially with respect to the Elect all Christians ought to agree to it and to receive it with Faith and Love notwithstanding all Objections to the contrary And now that it is a revealed Truth I think I have clearly proved in the following Remarks and Animadversions on Mr. Goodwins Book and have also Answered all his Objections against it That my Proofs and Answers are good solid and sufficient I am fully convinced and firmly perswaded in my own mind yet I desire no Man to believe it upon my bare word but advise all Men who are concerned and into whose hands my Book shall come to read consider and then judge of my Proofs and Answers and believe as they will answer to God according to the evidence which I have offered for the Truth which I have asserted in this matter I have purposely avoided imitating my Reverend Brothers declamatory way of Writing because it is not so good a way to clear up the Truth and to inform the Judgment as it is to engage the Affections to an Opinion or Party and whether with or without Judgment all is one to some whose design is only to make or strengthen a Party I sincerely protest that I do not write for such an end and therefore I use no such means I likewise remember that Justin Martyr in his Paraenetical Discourse to the Greeks pag. 32. saith that such a Rhetorical declamatory way of Writing is (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper unto those who design to cheat People of the Truth and to steal it away from them And John Picus Earl of Mirandula in an Epistle to Hermolaus Barbarus saith that (b) Si non desipit audiror a fucato Sermone quid sperat alìud quam insidias Tribus maximè persuadetur vitâ docentis veritate rei sobrietate Orationis Hermol Barbaro Epist 4. in Vol. Epist illust vir If an Hearer and so if a Reader be not a Fool what doth he expect but to be ensnared by a fair painted Speech But there are three things that are most fit and proper means whereby to move and perswade the Mind of Man 1. The good Life of the Teacher 2. The Truth of the thing taught 3. A sober plain unaffected way of Speech in Teaching This was the way the Lords Prophets and Apostles of old used to perswade Men to the Faith and Practice of Religion and so should we do after their Example Having renounced the hidden things of dishonesty not walking in craftiness 2 Cor. 4.2 nor handling the Word of God deceitfully we should by manifestation of the Truth commend our selves to every Mans Conscience in the sight of God This I have sincerely desired and endeavoured to do as in the presence of the Lord who sees me and will judge me I have laboured not to corrupt the Gospel nor suffer it
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
I concluded but with no certainty from the Gospels being called a Law in the New Testament that it is a Rule of Works c. It is utterly false that I concluded or endeavoured to conclude that from the Gospels being called a Law He cannot to Etornity prove this from any Words of mine in the Apology All that I concluded from the Gospels being called a Law either in the New or Old Testament was that our Brethren should not be offended with us for calling the Gospel a Law since the Scripture calls it by that name Apol. p 22. Next Against some Body who from the Etymology of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law had inferred that by it is signifyed a Rule of Duty enacted with a Sanction of Penalty or Recompence he says That he knows no great weight can be laid on Arguments drawn from an Etymology And if he knows this why did he against his knowledge lay great weight on the Etymology of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah and in his second Chapter from the Derivation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Horah which signifies he teacheth conclude with confidence that Torah Law when used for the Gospel signifies nothing but a Doctrine which requires no Duty of us at all 2 Why doth he here again in his Third Chapter p. 17. conclude that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the Gospel is named by it signifies no more but such a Doctrine as aforesaid because the Septuagint render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as most fitting to express such a sense Is not this Argument grounded upon the Etymology of Torah and consequently it is grounded upon an uncertainty by his own Confession But it seems that same way of arguing which is of no force against our Brethren must be esteemed to be of great force against us because so is the Will and Pleasure of this Reverend Brother All the rest of this Chapter is taken up in giving the World an account of his Sense of Gal. 2.19 which he had from Luther and I do not doubt to make it appear before we have done that as Luther held the Gospel to be a Law so he held that the Gospel-Law requires of us Faith in Christ and Evangelical Repentance And I am sure that both Jerome and Primasius Two Ancient Fathers who in their Commentaries on Gal. 2 19. did that way interpret the words of Paul I through the Law am dead to the Law as if he had said I through the Evangelical Law am dead to the Old Law I say I am sure that both of them by the Evangelical Law understood such a Gospel-Law as hath not only Promises but also hath its own Precepts and Threatnings as manifeâ—â—ly appears by what they write in their Commentaries on Gal. 3.13 And having briefly hinted this That Jerome Primasius and Luther who all Three go one way and there think to have found the Evangelical Law yet did not by the Evangelical Law understand a mere Speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires nothing at all neither Faith nor Repentance I might very well pass over Mr. G's fine flourish upon the Words of the Apostle as not worth my taking any further notice of had not he dropped several gross falsehoods in giving his Sense of that Text. As 1. That the Error of the Galathians against which Paul wrote was that they held the Gospel to be a New Law Disc p. 18. in the same Sense that we hold it so to be This I say is a gross falsehood for it is manifest that those Galathians were Judaizing Christians whose Error was That Men cannot be Justifyed and Saved unless over and besides their believing in Christ and repenting of their Sins they be Circumcised and keep the Law of Moses See Acts 15.1 compared with Gal. 2.4 Gal. 4. ver 9 10 21. and 5 ver 1.2 3 4 5 6. If then those Erroneous Galathians had any true and right Notion at all of Justification by Christ's Imputed Righteousness yet it is plain They thought that Christ's Imputed Righteousness received by Faith was not alone sufficient for Juâ—tification but thaâ— Men muâ—â— joyn to it their own Mosaical Ceremonial and Moral Righteousness as a part of their Justifying Righteousness before God Now can our Reverend Brother with a good Conscience say that I or any of my Brethren are for such a way of Justification by the Righteousness of Moses his Law joyned with the Imputed Righteousness of Christ as that by and for which we are Justified and Live 2. In Page 19 20 21 he all along insinuates plainly That we hold we are Justifyed in part by our own Works done in obedience to the New Gospel Law and that the defect of Christ's Righteousness is made up by the super-addition of our own Righteousness to his so that we are Justifyed before Gods Tribunal not only by Christ's Imputed Righteousness but also in part by and for our own Works and Righteousness This is another falsehood so gross that I wonder my Reverend Brother should ever be guilty of it if he hath read and understood our Apology pag 38 39 40 45 80 89 90 91 193 196 200 201. This Opinion which he would father upon us we have in our Apology rejected and do now here again reject it with abhorrency And therefore it any do hereafter persist to charge us with this Error which we abhor let them look to it that they do not force us in our own just defence to proclaim them to the World to be Men possess'st with a caluminating lying Spirit But I hope I shall never be forced upon the doing of that which is so much against my Christian temper which inclines me rather to conceal and cover the Failings of Brethren than to discover them and proclaim them to the World I do sincerely desire and through Grace shall endeavour if it be possible and as much as lyeth in me to live peaceably with all Men Rom. 12.18 And to live lovingly too with my Reverend Brethren giving them all due respect and being ever ready to serve them in the Lord. Remarks on the Fourth Chapter IN this Chapter at the very beginning he mistakes my purpose and design in appealing to the Fathers in this Controversie which was not by them as Judges to prove any matter of right as he pretends but only by them as Witnesses to prove matter of Fact to wit That they called the Gospel a Law in a good sense See Apol. p. 24. and that therefore it is no new word of an Old but Ill meaning as our Accuser had affirmed it to be and doth Mr. G. refute this No he is so far from refuting it that he confirms the Truth of what I said and with me proves the Accuser of the Brethren to have asserted a notorious falshood in matter of Fact in the face of a Learned Age. Then he quotes
it in the places cited by me that is enough to my purpose 2 If by no more than a Doctrine he understand no more than an absolute Promise or no more than a mere speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires no Duty of us at all no not so much as to believe in Christ then I say that his Two Quotations out of Cyprian and Augustin do not prove that by the word Law they there meant no more than a Doctrine in that Sense For 1. By his own Confession Cyprian in his 63. Epistle of Goulartius his Edition calls our Saviours Instruction how to administer the Lords Supper an Evangelical Law but I hope he dare not say that our Saviours Instruction how to administer that Ordinance was nothing but an Absolute Promise or a mere Speculative Doctrine that obligeth Christians to no Duty Nay Cyprian himself as Quoted and Translated by Mr. Goodwin said that he was to send Epistles to his Brethren That the Evangelical Law and the declared Doctrine of our Lord might be observed and that the Brethren might not depart from what Christ had taught and practised This Evangelical Law then according to Blessed Cyprian is a Doctrine that was to be Observed and Practised according to Christs Institution and Example And consequently it was a positive Law that obliged to Duty 2. For Augustin if he tells us as Mr. G. says pag. 27. of his Discourse that by the word Law we may apprehend not merely a Statute but any other Doctrine because he styles not only the Five Books of Moses but the Prophets in whose Writings there are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel by that Name I answer That makes nothing against me For 1. When I called the Gospel a Law I never meant a mere Statute exclusive of Gracious Promises so far was I from such a meaning that I said expresly it is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace Apol. p. 22. That is it is that part which prescribes the Condition and graciously promises a Benefit for Christ's sake to the performer of the Condition Again I said expresly in page 33. that the Conditional Promise of Eternal Life to the Believer together with the prescription of the Condition of a Lively Faith is the very thing which Dr. Twiss and we after him call the Law according to which God proceeds c. 2 If the Prophets are styled by the Name of Law in whose Writings are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel together with Precepts obliging the Duty then may the Gospel it self without offence be termed a Law in which there are both Gracious Promises and Excellent Precepts Yet 3dly It is incumbent upon Mr. Goodwin to prove that in Augustin's Judgment or that in real Truth the Prophets are called by the Name of Law precisely because there are gracious Promises in them and not at all because there are many Excellent Divine Precepts in them Are there not Gracious Promises of the Gospel to be sound in the Five Books of Moses and yet I trow those Five Books are not called the Law precisely because of the Evangelical Promises that are in them and not because they contain the whole Sum of Legal Precepts given by Moses unto the People of Israel Augustin in his Fifteenth and last Book of the Trinity takes occasion from what he had said of Gods being called Love 1 John 4.16 to speak of the various acceptation of the word Law and says that sometimes it is taken more generally for all the Scriptures of the Old Testament or for the Prophets or Psalms and sometimes more specially and properly for the Law given at Sinai Now this doth not in the least militate against any thing I have said in the Apology For I can grant with Augustin that the word Law is sometimes used in a more general comprehensive Sense and at other times in a more special restrained Sense and yet consistently enough hold that the Gospel is called a Law in Scripture and that it is a Law of Grace Thus I have briefly shewed that this whole Chapter is Impertinent But though there be nothing in it to his purpose against me yet there is something in it to my purpose against him For page 26 27. of his Discourse he tells us That a Law is a Doctrine See also his Serm. on the Q. Death p. 7 8. which teacheth us what is best for us to do if we will be taught by the Counsel of those who are wiser than our selves And in this sense saith he I will easily grant the Gospel to be a Law for it is the instruction of God whose Wisdom is beyond all denyal infinitely superiour to ours to our perishing Souls c. Now if the Gospel be a Law in this sense then certainly it is a Practical Doctrine that obligeth us to Duty Doth not the Infinitely wise God his instructing us to believe in Christ for Justification oblige our Consciences to believe in him and hath it not the force and effect of a Law I bless God I own its obliging force and it is and I hope ever shall be a Law to me a Gracious Evangelical Law And I hope my R. Brother will in time do so likewise Since he saith that thrice Blessed is that Person whom Gods Enlightning Grace hath made so wise as to follow it Remarks on the Sixth Chapter SECTION I. Some Preliminary Considerations necessary for the right understanding of our Protestant Writers and the clear Answering of Mr. G 's Quotations from their Writings FOR the better clearing up of the matter in Controversie and scattering of the Mist which my R. Brother hath cast before Peoples Eyes in this Chapter it will be expedient to premise some things before I come to answer his Quotations from the Writings of Protestant Divines And First It is to be considered that the word Gospel signifying good or glad tydings it may be applyed to and affirmed of several parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As 1. God's Eternal Decree to save for Christ's sake a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind as revealed in the Scriptures of Truth is Gospel for it is good and glad tydings to the visible Church 2. The absolute Prophecy and Promise to send Christ into the World to redeem Man and to seek and save that which is lost is Gospel also for it is good and glad tydings The like I say of Christ's being actually come into the World 3. The Absolute Promise to take away the Heart of Stone and to give an Heart of Flesh to give the Redeemed Saving Faith and Repentance is Gospel also since it is good and glad Tydings Now we never said that the Gospel in any of these Three Senses is a Law commanding us to do any Duty or perform any Condition But 4. The word Gospel in a more large and comprehensive Sense is taken for the Intire Covenant of Grace which God hath made with his Church through the Mediator his Son
Promises of God belong to the New Testament yea are the New Testament Yet it is observable that 1. He doth not say that all the Promises of God belong to the New Testament 2. He doth not say that the Promises are the whole of the New Testament I freely grant that the Evangelical Promises are the New Testament that is They are the New Testament in part And they are a Principal part of it too But what then Ergo they are the whole New Testament I utterly deny that consequence and I know Mr. G. cannot prove it to Eternity nor doth Luther affirm it So far was Luther from affirming it there That in the same place a little before the words quoted by Mr. Goodwin he says expresly as followeth (e) Hic altera pars Scripturae adest promissa Dei quae annunciant gloriam Dei dicunt Si vis legem implere non concupiscere sicut Lex exigit En tibi crede in Christum in quo promittuntur tibi gratia justititia pax Libertas omnia si credis habebis si non credis carebis Lutherus de libertate Christ ubi citatur a D.G. Here is the other part of the Scripture the Promises of God which declare the Glory of God And say If thou wilt fulfil the Law and not Covet as the Law requires Behold here for thee believe in Christ in whom are promised unto thee Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all things if thou believe thou shalt have them if thou believe not thou shalt want them Thus Luther In which Testimony of his we have these things observable 1. That the part of Gods Word which here he speaks of is that which contains the Promises of Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all and so it is the Gospel 2. This part of God's word that is the Gospel saith unto Man Crede in Christum Believe in Christ Now that is certainly a Precept or Command if there be any such thing as a Precept or Command in the whole Word of God 3. This part of God's Word that is the Gospel saith Si credis habebis if thou believest thou shalt have them to wit Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all Now that is as certainly a conditional Promise 4. This part of Gods Word that is the Gospel saith Si non credis carebis If thou do not believe thou shalt want them that is thou shalt want Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all And is not this a Conditional Threatning Mr. Goodwin may with as much Truth and Modesty deny that it is Light at Noon day as to deny that this is a Conditional Threatning to wit if a Man to whom the Gospel is Preached do not believe he shall want Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all Here then we see clearly by the words of Luther That the Gospel hath both Precept Promise and Threatning which is the same thing that I believe and from whence I conclude it to be a Law of Grace And that the Gospel is not without all Precepts is evident by many other Passages in Luthers little Treatise of Christian Liberty I Instance only in one at present and it is not far from the beginning of that small Tract His words are So (f) Sic Christus Johan 6.29 Cum Judaei interregarent quid facerent ut operaxentur opera Dei operum multitudine quâ illos videbat turgere repulsâ unum eis praescribit dicens Hoc est opus Dei ut credatis in eum quem misit ille hunc enim Pater signavit Deus Lutherus ubi supra Christ in John 6.29 When the Jews asked what they should do that they might work the works of God having rejected the multitude of Works with the Opinion whereof he saw them swoln or puft up he prescribes them one saying This is the Work of God that ye believe in him whom he hath sent for him hath God the Father Sealed But you may say How did Luther come to say that the Promises are the Gospel if the Gospel hath Precepts as well as Promises I Answer Luther said so because in his Judgment the Gospel hath not only absolute but Conditional Promises and the conditional promise of God in the Gospel alwayes implyes a Precept which prescribes the Condition Besides That the Promises absolute and conditional are the principal part of the Gospel and he might well enough give it its Denomination from the principal part especially when at the same time he so expressed his Sense as to shew that he intended not to exclude all Precepts and Threatnings from belonging to the Gospel Covenant Thus the Learned and Pious Rutherford Rutherford's Covenant of Life opened Part 1. Chap. 26. p. 21.5 The Covenant of Grace saith he Though it want not Precepts especially it is his Command that we believe in the Son of God yet stands most by Promises and this Covenant gets the Name of a Promise or the Promise Acts 2.39 Rom. 9.8 compared with Acts 3.25 Gen. 12.3 This may suffice for answer to what my R Brother quotes out of that small Tract of Luther concerning Christian Liberty which though Mr. Goodwin doth most highly commend and praise yet I hope he would not have us to practice the Liberty there allowed in its full latitude For assuredly that little Book if we should follow its advice would set us beyond Canterbury and teach us how we might be the Popes Humble Servants without any danger to our Souls provided we be as we most certainly are fully perswaded in our own minds that our Obedience to the almost Infinite Commands of the Pope and his Bishops is not necessary to our Justification and Salvation That this is true there needs no plainer proof than that which Luther there gives us in the following words (g) Si quis ergo hanc Scientiam haberet facile se posset gerere citra periculum in infinitis illis mandatis praeceptis Papae Episcoporum Monasteriorum Ecclesiarum Principum Magistratuum quae aliqui Stulti Pastores sic urgent quasi ad Justitiam salutem sint necessaria appellantes praecepta Eoclesiae cum sint nihil minus Christianus Liber sic dicet ego jejimabo orabo hoc hoc faciam quod per homines mandatumest non quod mihi illo sit opus ad justitiam aut salutem sed quod in hoc morem geram papae Episcopo Communitati illi illi magistratui aut proximo ad exemplum faciam c. Lutherus ibid. de libertate Christ ultra medium non procul a fine Videat etiam Eruditus Lector Lutheri Expositionem Verborum Apostoli 2. ad Phil. v. 6 7 8. sibi caveat ibid. paulo supra If then any Man had this knowledge he might easily behave himself so as to avoid danger in those infinite Mandates and Precepts of the Pope Bishops Monasteries Churches Princes and Magistrates which some foolish Pastors so urge and press as if they were necessary to
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
I meant nothing but the new Covenant of Grace and only said that this Gospel-Covenant might be called a Law without just cause of offence to the Brethren because the Scriptures of Truth call it a Law Now if I did all this in the Apology Page 21 22 23 27. as I certainly did and God Angels and Men know it to be true then my Reverend Brother did not do well to go about to deceive the People and make them believe that I introduce a new Law of Works to be justified and saved by and for them and that my Arguments to prove it are all grounded upon the ambiguity of the word Law unexplained All which is utterly false I confess indeed what is true that though my purpose and design was not to prove but to explain and declare what we meant yet en passant on the by and to shew that our explication was agreeable to Scripture I dropped four passages of Scripture and referred to more in the Margent which do abundantly prove the thing they were quoted for But it is as clear as the Light at Noon-day that my Proof from the said four passages of Scripture in the Line and from the other referred to on the Margent is not in the least established upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law but upon the plain sense and meaning of the Scriptures there alledged Nor could an Argument from those Scriptures there quoted or referred to be grounded upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law because the word Law is not to be sound in any of them Let any Man read them all over and he shall find what I say to be true to wit that the word Law is not in any of them I acknowledge likewise that a few Lines after in the same 22th Page I quote three Scriptures where the word Law is but then it is again as clear as the Light that I quoted those three Scriptures to prove nothing but this That our Brethren should not dislike our calling the Gospel-Covenant a Law because the Scriptures of Truth call it so expresly And my R. Brother acknowledges now with me that it is so called in two of the places to wit Isa 42.4 and Rom. 3.27 and in several others which he hath quoted As for my other Argument from Humane Authority neither is that established on the ambiguity of the word Law but on the word it self its being found in the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines long before we were born From whence I clearly proved that the Word is not new but old And if the Testimonies of my Witnesses prove more as they really do even that the Gospel-Covenant was not onely of old called a Law but that it really is a Law of Grace which requires some Duty of us that was beside my design and purpose which was only to prove matter of fact as appears from the express words of the Apology pag. 24. lin 16 17 18 19 20 21. If any object that in the Preface and Index of the First Section of the Second Chapter it is said expresly that we have proved the Gospel to be a new law of Grace by the Word of God or Scripture and by the Testimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I Answer It is true it is said so But then consider that the said Preface and Index were Written and Printed after the Apology was Finished and Printed though in the Book they are both put before it as it is the custom to write Prefaces and Indexes last and yet place them first in Books Now when I wrote the Preface and Index taking a review of all that was said on that head in the Apology I found that my Quotations from Scripture and Doctors had proved more than I designed 1. I designed only to explain our meaning and by citing the four Scriptures in the Line and others in the Margent to show that our explication was agreeable to Scripture 2. By alledging the Testimonies of Antient and Modern Doctors of the Church I designed only to prove matter of fact to wit that new law of Grace was no new word but old This was what I designed in writing that part of the Apology But by looking it over after it was Printed I found that the Scriptures cited and referred to and the Testimonies of Doctors there alledged do really prove that the Gospel-Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediatour is a new Law of Grace which requires some Duties of us and which promises to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake only if we through Grace perform the said Duties And for this reason it was that in the Preface and Index I said that we had proved the Gospel in the sense there given to be a new Law of Grace both by Scripture and by the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines If any do further object That Humane Testimony can only prove matter of fact I answer It 's true Humane Testimony simply as such can solidly prove no more nor did I bring Humane Testimonies to prove any thing but that the Gospel Covenant was in their time called a New Law and a New Law of Grace and that they believed it to be such a Law which is nothing but matter of Fact Yet Men by giving Testimony to Matter of Fact may at the same time and in the same Testimony bring such Arguments from Scripture or Reason as shall likewise prove matter of right And this my Witnesses did especially Justin Martyr Cyprian Austin the Professors of Leyden Gomtrus Dr. Andrews and Dr. Twiss they both called the Gospel-Covenant a Law a New Law a New Law of Grace which proves the matter of fact and moreover in their Testimonies to the matter of Fact they alledged such places of Scripture or gave such reasons as do prove the matter of Right to wit That the Gospâ—l Covenant is a New Law of Grace and may and ought to be so accounted Now having first told the World how easily he could answer my Arguments and wipe off all my Citations upon a supposition which is of his own feigning and notoriously false as I have proved he next comes to answer my Arguments that is indeed my one Argument from Scripture for in effect there is no more but one and that one is there brought to confirm our Explication of the words Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace and to shew that what we mean by those words is consonant to the Scriptures of Truth as is evident from the 21. and 22. pag. of the Apology Well But be it Argument or Arguments he undertakes to give us a clear Answer to it and in order thereunto he proposes to do three things 1. To shew that the Gospel hath no Precepts or Commandments 2. That it hath no Threatnings 3. That it hath no Conditional Promises This is directly against the Professors of Leyden who in their Synopsis of purer Divinity say expresly as their words are quoted in the Apology
necessary simply necessary yea and antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining pardon of Sin His Arguments are distributed into three Classes Some of them prove its necessity others prove its antecedency All together strongly prove that it 's antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining of Pardon This is to be seen in pag. 249 250. 3. He enquires whether Repentance may be called a Condition as well as Faith And Answers that it may not be called a Condition in the same Sense as Faith is called one For Faith is the only Condition whereby we close with the Covenant and whereby we close with receive and apply Christ and his Righteousness as held forth to us in the Covenant-Promise But then he says That in a large Sense it may be called and it is a Condition necessary with Faith concomitantly in the same subject to qualifie and dispose it in a congruous suitable way to receive Pardon of Sin by Faith in Christ alone This is to be seen in pag. 253 254 255 256. And this is the same thing which we believe and have openly professed to the World in our Apology So that there is not an hairs breadth of difference between his judgment and mine except it be in the wording of it And this manifestly appears from our calling Repentance the Condition or Means which only qualifies and disposes the Subject for receiving Pardon by Faith alone whereas we call Faith the Instrumental Means or Condition whereby we receive and apply the Object to wit the Promise and Christ with his Righteousness as held forth to us in the Promise for Justification and Salvation This is sufficient to show that Mr. Durham is of the same Judgment with us as to this matter and that therefore we justly bring him in to Witness for us I would have quoted his own words but they are so many and would swell my Discourse to such a Bulk that I choose rather to refer the Reader to the Book and Pages where he will see if he be in any doubt that I have faithfully given his Sense in few words Our Fourth Witness shall be the Famous Confession of Faith Composed by the most Learned of the Reformed Divines of Poland Lithuania and the Provinces thereon depending together with Divines from Germany and which they gave in at Torn in the Year 1645 unto the Lutheran and Popish Doctors all Assembled there to Confer about Religion for several Moneths together Their words are these (x) Non controvertitur hîc an ad remissionem peccatorum requiratur conversio mentis ad Deum interna peccatorum dum dolore detestatio asserimuus enim talem poenitentiam ut perpetuam conditionem ad peccatorum remissionem requisitam fuisse in utroque Testamento qua peccator non quidem eam meretur hoc enim efficit solum meritum satisfactio Christi cum eam nobis fide viva applicamus sed per eam praerequisita conditio impletur quâ aptus fit at Divinam misericordiam consequendam Confession Doctrinae Ecclesiarum Reformatarum in Regno Poloniae maguo Ducatu Lithuaniae annexisque Regni Provinciis in Colloquio Thoruniensi exhibit D. 1. Septembris A. D. 1645. Cap. 6. De Sacramentis Sect. De Poenitentiâ 1. It is not Controverted here whether the Conversion of the Mind to God and the inward Detestation of Sins with Sorrow be required unto the Remission of Sins for we assert that as a perpetual Condition unto the Remission of Sins such a Repentance was required under both Testaments whereby a Sinner doth not indeed merit it for the alone Merit and Satisfaction of Christ doth that when we apply it to our selves by a lively Faith but by it the pre-required Condition is performed whereby he is made fit and disposed to obtain the Divine Mercy Thus that Confession of Faith and those many Learned Judicious Divines who drew it up bear witness to the Truth with us That Repentance is pre-required and always was pre-required as a necessary Condition whereby a Sinner is qualified and made meet to receive the Pardon of his Sins by Faith in Christ's Blood I could bring more Testimonies both from the Word of God and the Writings of Holy Sound and Orthodox Ministers of Christ for the Confirmation and Elucidation of this Truth but I have been too large already upon this Point and therefore this may super abundantly suffice to show That though the Natural Moral Law oblige all Mankind in all parts of the World to one sort of Faith and Repentance yet there is another sort of them there is an Evangelical Faith and Repentance unto which the Evangelical Law of the New Covenant doth only by it self immediately oblige us And the Moral Natural Law obliges us to them but mediately only and by consequence in as much as it obliges us to observe all God's Positive Laws which it pleaseth him at any time to Enact for us Consider Eighthly That under the Gospel God hath made sincere Obedience to his Moral Natural Law and to all his Positive Laws which are in Force and not Abrogated one of the Articles of the New Covenant taken in its Latitude He hath made our performance of such sincere Obedience to his Laws a Condition necessary to qualifie and prepare us for obtaining full possession of Eternal Life and Happiness in Heavenly Glory for the sake of Christ and his Meritorious Righteousness only 1. For clearing of this It is to be observed that in the first federal Law of Works given and prescribed unto Man before the Fall there are Three things to be distinguished 1. There is the preceptive part of it 2. The Minatory Sanction 3. The Promissory Sanction 1. There is the Preceptive part which obligeth to Duty and except the Positive Precepts of Sanctisying or keeping Holy to God the Seventh day precisely in order from the Creation and of not eating the Forbidden Fruit All the rest of the Preceptive part of that Law of Works is in force still and obliges Mankind to an Ever Sinless Obedience de futuro 2. There is the Minatory Sanction or Threatning which binds over Transgressors to suffer the Punishment threatned And this is still in force with respect to all Impenttent Unbelievers They are all whil'st they continue in that State under the Curse of the first broken Law and Covenant and are lyable to a further degree of the same Punishment for every Sin which they shall commit in this World Yet by the Gospel there is a Door of Hope to get out of this State opened through Christ unto those to whom God sends it 3. There is the Promissory Sanction or the Promise of Life unto those who keep the Precepts without any Sin whatsoever Now this is not in force since the fall so as that any Man should be obliged ex intentione Dei to believe or hope that he shall obtain Eternal Life by his keeping the Preceptive part of the first Covenant or
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
G's Confirmation or Illustration of his fourth objection by a comparison taken from An Earthly Physitian who threatens his patient with Death if he do not take the prescribed Physick And yet the threatning is no part of the medicine nor doth the Physitian design to murder his patient by the said threatning It is like all the rest of no force at all against the Gospel's having threatnings of its own For the just Consequence can be no other but this That just so tho the Gospel threaten an unbeliever with Eternal Death if he do not by a true Faith receive Christ and his Righteousness offered to him in the new Covenant or Law of Grace yet the threatning is no part of Christ and his Righteousness which is to be received as the spiritual Physick of the Soul nor doth the Gospel design by the said threatning to damn the unbeliever but rather it designs to take him off from his unbelief and to induce him thereby to believe in Christ and by believing to receive and apply the Spiritual Physick offered him to preserve his Soul from Eternal Death This now is the just Consequence and it is so far from militating against my principle that it rather makes for it and is an Illustration of it For these two things I willingly grant 1. That tho the Gospel Covenant do threaten an unbeliever with Eternal Death and the threatning is a secondary subservient part of the said Gospel-Covenant yet the threatning is no part of the Spiritual Physick it self to wit of Christ and his Righteousness revealed and offered in the Gospel-Covenant to be received by faith that by the Spiritual Physick so received the Soul may be saved from Eternal Death 2. I grant that the Gospel doth not design by its threatning to damn the Soul of the unbeliever but rather it designs to preserve him from Damnation by taking him off from his unbelief and by perswading him to believe in Christ that through him he may have Eternal Life And here I desire it may be remembred That I do not speak of the design of any person but of the design of the Gospel-threatning and I say that the designed use of it is not to damn the unbeliever but rather to bring him off from his unbelief and so to preserve him from Damnation According to that of Paul 2. Cor. 5.11 Knowing the terror of the Lord we perswade Men. And that of Jude Others save with fear pulling them out of the fire Judes Epistle v. 23. And this way of endeavouring to save Souls by Gosper-threatnings was according to the Commission for Preaching the Gospel which the Apostles received from Christ As was shewed before from Mark 16.15 16. I conclude this with the words of the Judicious Mr. Hutcheson * Hutcheson on John 3. v. 17. pag. 39.40 Christ did nothing at his first coming to procure Condemnation to any but on the contrary he offered Salvation to lost Man tho accident ally by reason of Man's Corruption and not making use of him his coming did heighten Mens Condemnation as John 3. v. 18.19 And again in Doctr. 6. he saith Albeit Christ may be eventually for the falling of many and his coming will afford sad matter of ditty against them yet all the blame of this lyeth upon themselves who stumble at the Rock they should build themselves upon who reject their own mercy by offer and by opposition thereunto do harden and blind themselves so much also do these words teach being understood of the nature of his work and carriage as is above explained SECT V. His Third assertion is p. 42.56 That the Gospel hath no conditional promises He grants that the Gospel hath promises which look like conditional promises but denies that they are really conditional and affirms that they are only Declarations of the Connexion of the blessings of Grace p. 42. His discourse he calls his poor Writing p. 59. Which is very true for a poor Writing it appears to be and in this part of it especially it seems to be both poor and blind yet the Author of it may be rich and sharp-sighted tho the discourse be poor and blind and if he be so indeed the more he is to be blamed for writing on this subject in such a poor and blind manner For he knows well enough that many Sound and Learned Divines have solidly proved the Conditionality of some promises of the Gospel and that generally they profess to believe their conditionality Many instances of this were given in the Apology And I do not think that Mr. G. will be so immodest or will have so little regard to Truth and honesty as to deny so plain a matter of fact I could add very many more witnesses of this matter of fact unto those produced in the Apology but I shall only Name one in this place and that is the â—ell-known Mr. Th. Shepherd of New England who says in these formal express words For any to think the Gospel requires no Conditions is a sudden Dream against a hundred of Scriptures which contain conditional yet Evangelical promises and against the Judgment of the most Judicious of our Divines * Shepherd's Theses Sabbaticae p. 78. And as to what Mr. Goodwin saith here That the Gospel promises which seem to be conditional are only Declarations of the Connexion of the blessings of Grace I Answer that it was clearly proved in The Apology p. 45 50 57 58 59. That the Gospel hath Promises really conditional and being conditional there must be a Connexion and they must declare that Connexion between the Condition and the Subsequent Blessings of Grace promised on Condition but then it is and must be a Conditional Connexion such as I shewed it to be by Scripture and Reason And in page 114. I shewed this to have been the Judgment of the Synod of Dort and set that whole matter in a clear Light which I received from the Collegiate Suffrage of the British Divines in that Synod And so long as I have Scripture and Reason with the most Judicious of our Divines even the Synod of Dort for the Truth that I defend I do not in the least fear any hurt that Mr. G's poor writing as he calls it can do to our Just and Righteous Cause which in the Lord's Strength I stand for and through Grace am resolved so to do But though his writing can do no hurt to me nor to the Truth of God which I defend yet it may do hurt to the Souls of poor ignorant people and therefore for their sakes I will briefly answer his Objections against the Gospel's having any Conditional Promises And Obj 1. First He argues thus p. 56. If any promises of the Gospel were conditional they would not differ in kind but only in degree from the promises of the Law for both would be made to obedience with this only difference that the promises of the Law are made to obedience in the highest degree of
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
doth he say it so clearly as that they can understand that promise of Life and are bound to believe it without a Supernatural Revelation Let my Reverend Brother prove this and I am satisfied as to that matter But 2. I Answer that his position which he infers from the foresaid supposition to wit that ergo God in giving the Gospel Law to some Men speaks generally to all Men without exception of the most Barbarous Heathens believe and you shall Live Is not only notoriously false as considered absolutely in it self but likewise if it be considered relatively as having respect unto and as inferred from the said supposition it is so visibly Inconsequential and Illogical that I admire my R. Brother did not perceive it For what Man of any competent measure of Learning is so void of reason as deliberately to think and say that because the Moral Law which as to its principles and precepts is natural and by nature's light known to all even to the Heathens Rom. 2.14 15. Is sufficiently promulgated to all mankind even to the most Barbarous Nations Therefore by parity of reason the positive Gospel-Law of Grace Believe in Christ Crucified and thou shalt Live Which is supernatural and cannot possibly be known but by Supernatural Revelation Rom. 10.14 Is likewise sufficiently promulgated to all mankind without exception even to the most Barbarous Nations who have not and who never had that Supernatural Revelation by which alone it can be known For my part I cannot but think that that Man is forsaken of common sense and reason who deliberately and seriously thinks and says that there is a parity of reason between the promulgation of the foresaid two Laws of nature and of Grace and that because the one to wit the Law of nature is and must be sufficiently promulgated to all Men without exception therefore the other to wit the Supernatural Law of Grace is and must be likewise sufflciently promulgated to all Men without exception even to the most Barbarous Nations who never had the foresaid Supernatural Revelation by which alone it can be known And since it is palpably evident that there is no parity of reason between the two cases and that there is no Consequential arguing from the Universal promulgation of the natural Law to prove the Universal promulgation of the Supernatural Law of Grace Mr. G. may be ashamed to assirm that the Two amazing absurdities which he mentions will naturally Spring from hence For it is plainly ridiculous to say as he doth that they both naturally Spring from his foresaid Argument or that they naturally Spring from God's speaking generally to all Men believe and you shall Live Now that this may clearly appear I will set down my R. Brother's own words pag. 57. l. 9.10 c. From this saith he two amazing absurdities will naturally Spring the one is that God should by this his new Law promise pardon and Life on condition they believe on his Son to people who never heard that there is such a thing as the Christian Religion in the world nor such a person as Christ and to whose Ears not so much as the sound of his Name ever arrived These are his own express words and in them is contained the first amazing absurdity And I ingenuously confess with my mouth what I believe in my heart that what he speaks of is an amazing absurdity to wit that God should promise pardon and life on condition of Faith in Christ to people who never heard of Christ at all i. e. To whom Christ was never supernaturally revealed at all But with all I must say that I am amazed to find Mr. G. affirming that the said amazing absurdity doth naturally Spring from this That God by the Gospel or Law of Grace speaks generally to all Men believe and you shall live And if he will prove what he here affirms he will amaze me yet more The thing then he hath to prove is that which he affirms to wit That from God's speaking generally upon supposition that he doth speak generally by the Gospel-new-Law to all Men believe and you shall live There will naturally Spring this Consequence that God by the said Gospel-new-Law promises life on condition of believing in Christ to people who never heard of Christ and Christian Religion That is in fewer words but of the same sense and meaning From God's speaking generally by the Gospel to all Men in the world concerning Faith in Christ and Life through him it follows naturally that God doth not by the Gospel speak generally to all Men in the world concerning Faith in Christ and Life through him I do my R. B. no wrong by fixing upon him a consequence of my feigning I do abhor to do such a thing assuredly it is not of my feigning but it was framed in his own head and is Printed with his Name prefixed to it I appeal to his own words for the truth of this Now if this be not an amazing absurdity let him prove the truth of the Consequence And then we shall be all amazed at his Acumen as of one who can Conjure quià libet ex quolibet and Demonstrate by a natural Consequence that because God hath generally promulgated the Gospel to all Men therefore he hath not generally promulgated the Cospel to all Men. But Reverend Sir I hope upon second thoughts you will see how you run your self into the Briers by misrepresenting the truth and by indeavouring to render it odious to your ignorant followers And I wish you may be so ingenuous as to confess for the undeceiving of the people that our Principles are not such as some take them to be and that no such absurdity as is pretended doth naturally Spring from them For my part I never said nor thought that God by the Gospel Speaks generally to all Men without exception believe and you shall live I published the contrary to the world in that very book which this brother now writes against See Apol. pag. 200. But if I were of that Opinion I should from it infer the quite contrary to that which you infer and should say Now from this Opinion if it be true there will naturally spring this other Truth that all Men generally without exception have heard the Gospel and that there is such a Person as Christ and such a Religion as that called Christian In short you know well enough that in my Judgment God hath not Promulgated the Gospel to all Men in the World even to the most barbarous Nations by speaking universally to them all and saying that if they do all Believe in Christ they shall be saved And that therefore many are invincibly and inculpably ignorant of Christ and of the Gospel because God hath no ways Revealed Christ and his Gospel to them unto this day nor doth he either by Precept Command them or by Promise Encourage them to Believe in Christ This is commonly called a Negative Infidelity which is no Sin
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.
it may be Mr. G. will say that tho these were Protestants yet they were not right Protestants For the word right seems to be put in on purpose that he may have an evasion when pressed with the Authority and Testimony of Protestant Divines who are for our Interpretatation and against his But if he should say that the Divines I have named are not right Protestants yet I hope he will not say that Beza was not a right Protestant since he himself appeals to Beza p. 60. And therefore to Beza we will go who in his large Annotations on Rom. 3.27 Writes thus * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per quam legem i. e. qua Doctrina sicut interdum Hebraeis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah in genere est doctrina quae aliquid praescribit qua ratione Evangelium vocat legem fidei i. e. doctrinam quae salutem proponit sub conditione si credideris quam et ipsam deus dat nobis ut praestare possimus oppositam doctrinae quae justitiam et salutem proponit cum conditione si omnia feceris quam unus Christus in sese pro nobis et implere potuit et implevit c. Beza in Rom. 3. v. 27. By what law that is by what Doctrine As sometimes among the Jews the word Torah Law signifies in general a Doctrine which prescribes any thing Accordingly the Apostle calls the Gospel the aw of Faith i. e. a Doctrine which proposes salvation on condition if thou believest which very condition God also gives us power to perform and this is opposed to the Doctrine to wit of the Law which proposes Righteousness and Salvation with the condition if thou shalt do all which Christ alone â—n himself could and did perform for us Thus Beza In whose words the world may see plainly That 1. He says the word Law among the Jews signifies indeed a Doctrine but a Doctrine that prescribes something 2. That the Law of works is a Doctrine that prescribes works of perfect obedience as the condition of life 3. That the Law of Faith or Gospel is a Doctrine which prescribes Faith as the condition and which proposes salvation upon condition of believing 4. That the condition of the Law of Works none but Christ hath performed or could performed 5. That God gives us power to perform the condition of the Gospel or the condition which the Law of Faith requires to justification And that in Beza's Judgment the Law and Doctrine of Faith obâ—igeth us to believe in order to Justification is evident also by what follows where he saith that it doth flagitare require Faith of us and Faith only as that whereby we apprehend and receive the Righteousness which Christ hath purchased for us and freely gives unto us for our Justification And altho he hold that the Law of Faith obligeth us to believe in Christ for Justification yet he shews how it excludes all boasting Now this is the very sense which we give of the Law of Faith that it is such a Doctrine of Grace as hath the force of a Law â—nd obliges us to believe and proposes and promises to us the great blessing of free Justification by Christs imputed Righteousness upon condition if we believe which condition God gives us power to perform This being as clear as the light with what Conscience did my Reverend brother tell the world in Print that Beza was for him against us and that Beza gives the same sense of Rom. 3.27 Which he gives And of this he gives no other reason but this that Beza calls the Law of Faith a Doctrine which can be no Argument of his denying that the Law of Faith commands Faith because in the very same place he calls The Law of works a Doctrine likewise And yet it is confest by all that the Law of works commands works Here again the poverty of Mr. G's discourse appears and not only that but its nakedness too in so much that it wants a covering to hide its shame and by this I hope Mens eyes will be oppened to see what credit is to be given to him who thus shamefully abuseth Beza by clipping his Tongue and not suffering him to speak the truth but fathering upon him an opinion which is most evidently contrary unto his words 2. Here likewise I desire it may be observed that in the old Geneva Translation of our English Bibles which is of an hundred years standing at least there is this short note on Rom. 3.27 By what Doctrine Now the Doctrine of works hath this condition joyned with it if thou dost and the Doctrine of Faith hath this condition if thou believest Altho then of old our forefathers by Law of Faith understood a Doctrine of Faith yet they held it to be such a Doctrine as prescribes the duty and requires the condition of believing and that makes it to be an Evangelical Law just as we hold it to be What he talks in pag. 60.61 62. Of all the Popish Commentators on Rom. 3.27 And of Estins the Jesuit c. Is nothing but ad populum phalerae and is partly impertinent and partly ridiculous 2. Secondly He saith That Gal. 6.2 refuses to serve my design But I answer It 's plain from the Apology page 22. line 16 17. that my whole design in quoting Gal. 6.2 was to show that the Scripture calls the Gospel-covenant a Law and so it may be called there notwithstanding of what Mr. G. says to the contrary For though the words Law of Christ do not import the whole of the Gospel-covenant yet they import a part of it to wit the preceptive part For certainly he that loves his Neighbour as Christ loved him doth believe in Christ with a Faith working by love and he that so believes in Christ doth certainly fullfil the Condition of the Gospel-Govenant and by Consequence he that loves his Neighbours as Christ loved him doth fulfill the condition of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace which is the Law of Christ As to what Mr. G. objects That Estins on the place affirms that Christ is given to men as a Legislator whom they may obey I answer That Dr. Owen affirms the same thing as is evident by his express formal words quoted before in the Remarks on the 7th Chapter It is true he doth not there prove Christ to be a Legislator from Gal. 6.2 but that is no matter he affirms that he is a Legislator and then he hath an Evangelical law And this being a Truth I for my part do like it never the worse because an Adversary believes it I wish our Adversaries both Papists and Arminians did with us receive not only that but all other Truths If Mr. G. say that the word Gospel or Gospel-Covenant is not expressed in Gal. 6.2 I answer Nor did I say that it is But there is expresly the word Law and I thought that sufficient to the purpose for which I quoted that Text. And though I should pass
from that Text to please my Reverend Brother yet the other Texts do abundantly answer my whole design and prove that the Gospel is expresly called 〈◊〉 Law in Scripture 3. And therefore it is not true which he says in the 3d place That Isa 42.4 is not effectual to prove my Assertion for my Assertion there is That the Scripture expresly calls the Gospel a law which it really doth in that very place as Mr. G. himself confesseth in Page 63. and I desire no more to prove my Assertion which only was concerning the word Law its being there used of the Gospel but not at all concerning what sense it is used in I meddled not with the sense of the word Law there and then and all that I shall do now shall be to desire the Reader to take the sense not from me but from Mr. Pool in these words The 〈◊〉 shall wait for his Law i. e. shall gladly receive his Doctriue Pool's Annotations on Isa 42.4 and Commands from time to time Mr. G. seems to be afraid that the receiving of Commands from Christ will undo men but Mr. Pool thought that the converted Isles would gladly receive Christ's Doctrine and Commands And it seems the Apostle John thought so too and therefore said 1 John 5.3 That his Commandments are not grievous 4. There is one Text more to wit Luke 19.27 which he says I urged to prove That the Gospel is a new Law with Promises and Threatnings But that is another mistake for I did not urge it to prove that but I quoted it to prove That Christ will account them his Enemies and punish them as such who do not like his Gospel because it is a Law of Grace which obligeth men to duty with a promise of blessing to the performers and with a threatning of misery and punishment to the neglecters refusers and despisers This is as clear as the light to any that reads and understands the Apology Pag. 22 line 19 20 21 22 23. As for Rom. 11.26 which he quotes I have spoken to it before and shewed how he wrests that Scripture Lastly For his wondering at my saying That the Law or Covenant of Grace is both new and old in different respects I regard it not if he had not been resolved to cavil at my words and to wrest them from their genuine obvious sense he would have found in them no cause of wondering Let any man of common Sense and Honesty read the Apology Page 22. at the end and Page 23. at the beginning and then let him judge whether there be any thing in that part of it but words of Truth and Soberness So much for answer to the first part of his Eighth Chapter concerning Texts of Scripture SECT II. In the second part of his Eighth Chapter he pretends to answer the Testimonies of Fathers and Protestant Divines which I alledged in the Apology to prove that new law of grace are not new words of an old ill meaning To all that he writes on this Head one general answer might suffice to wit That he impertinently gives his own sense of their words whereas that was not the Original Question In what sense the Fathers and Protestant Divines have heretofore called the Gospel a law a law of grace aed sometimes a new law but whether they did ever so call it all whether they did ever use those words or whether they did not use them and so whether the words be old or but new and of an old ill meaning This was the State of the controversie as manifestly appears by the Apology Page 24. line 15 16 17 c. And Mr. G. is so far from denying this matter of Fact that he plainly confesses it and moreover brings some other Testimonies to prove That the Gospel was called a Law by the Ancients and by some modern Writers as we have seen before Now this was all that I designed to prove by the Humane Testimonies which I cited in the Apology I might therefore stop here since my Testimonies remain in full force with respect to the matter of Fact for the Proof whereof they were alledged by me But since Mr. G. hath endeavoured to pervert the sense of my witnesses I will ex super abundanti consider what he hath said to wrest their words from their genuin sense And I begin with Justin Martyr Mr. G. first confesseth that Justin called the Gospel a Law and if he had been so ingenuous to confess likewise that he called it a New-law as he certainly did and as I proved by his express words then he had confessed also That I did very pertinently quote Justin and that his Testimony clearly proved the matter of fact for the proof whereof it was alledged to wit That new law is not a new word of an old ill meaning but it seems we must not expect that Mr. G. will be so ingenuous as to confess the whole Truth Secondly He saith That by law Justin meant no more than a new Doctrine of Grace to wit a Doctrine that requires no Duty of us at all And this he pretends to prove by the Design which Justin had in answering Trypho the Jew whereunto I answer That Justin did not mean by calling the Gospel a new law that it is no more but a Doctriue of grace more excellent than the Jewish law and its ceremonies which requires no duty of us at all Nor doth any such thing appear by the words and Design of Justin Now to clear this I will shew the True Occasion of Justin's mentioning the new law or Covenant and his real design in so doing which my R. B. hath not faithfully done The True Occasion then was this Trypho the Jew in the foregoing Page 227. had confessed that there were Precepts in the Gospel so great and wonderful that he doubted whether it was possible for any man to keep them but withal he affirmed That he did wonder also that the Christians who made so great profession of being of the True Religion and of excelling all other men and yet kept not the law of Moses observed not the Solemn Feasts and Sabbaths were not circumcised and moreover trusted in a crucified man did nevertheless hope to obtain any mercy from God since they did not keep his law Hast thou not read said Trypho That the man who was not circumcised the Eighth Day should be cut off from his People and that this was ordained alike with respect to Strangers and those who were bought with money This Covenant saith the Jew you Christians despise and regard not the Precepts of it and yet ye would perswade your selves That you know God though you do none of those things which they do that fear God If thou hast any thing to say in thine own defence against these things and canst shew what ground you have to hope for mercy from God tho you do not keep his Law we shall most willingly hear thee Thus argued the Jew And hence