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, our Saviour, Jesus Christ. In which Sense it comprehends the Absolute and Conditional Promises, toge­ther with the prescription of the Condition, to the performers of which, the Conditio­nal Promises were made on the account of Christ and his Righteousness. Now it is in this sense that we say the Gospel taken for the Covenant of Grace, is a Law of Grace; It is a Law, as it prescribes the Condition, and obliges us to compliance therewith, and it is a Law of Grace, as it promises to penitent Believers most gracious Be­nefits and Blessings; and likewise as it promises to the Elect, Special, Effectual, and Victorious Grace, whereby they do most freely, and yet most certainly, Believe and Repent. And that in this sense, the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace, as to be also a Law of Grace, that requires something to be done by us through Grace, is evi­dent from the Assemblies Confession of Faith, Chap. 7. Art. 3. where it says ex­presly, ‘That in the Covenant of Grace, the Lord freely offered unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them Faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained to Life, his Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe.’ And no less evident it is from the larger Catechisme, where to the question, ‘How is the Grace of God mani­fested in the Second Covenant? It answers, That the Grace of God is mani­fested in the Second Covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to Sin­ners a Mediator, and Life and Salvation by him, and requiring Faith as the Con­dition to Interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit, &c.’

Likewise the Confession of Faith, Chap. 3. Art. 8. saith, ‘That the Doctrine of Predestination affords matter of Praise, Reverence and Admiration of God, and of Humility, Diligence and abundant Consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.’ Accordingly the Lord himself in the Scriptures of Truth, assures us that Unbelievers and Wicked Men, to whom the Word is Preached, do not obey the Gospel, and that they shall be Damned for not obeying it. In Rom. 10.16. the Apostle proves their disobedience to the Gospel from their Unbelief, as the Effect from the Cause. See also 2 Thess. 1.7, 8, 9. 1 Pet. 4.17. from all which it is evident, that the Gospel in the sense aforesaid is a Law of Grace, to the People of God: And I hope my R— Brother will not be such an Unbeliever as to refuse its being a Law of Grace to him also.

Secondly, It is to be considered that there is a difference to be put between an accurate perfect Definition of a thing, which doth indeed contain whatever is essen­tial to the thing defined; and a Popular Description of a thing, which yet in a large Sense may be called a definition, but then it is acknowledged to be (definitio imper­fecta, & oratorum propria) An imperfect definition, and such as is proper for Ora­tors to make use of; and accordingly my R— Brother, pag. 28. lin. 8. hath these [Page 15]numerical words as signifying the same thing [ when they professedly define or describe the Gospel.] Now it is not necessary that a popular definition or description, should alwayes contain every thing that is essential unto that which is so defined or described.

Thirdly, It is to be considered that the Gospel taken in a limited restrained sense, for one part of supernatural Revealed Religion, may be, and indeed ought to be defined or described one way; but taken in a more large comprehensive Sense for another, or more parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion; As for instance, For the Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator, it may be, and indeed ought to be defined or described another way; so that what is not Essen­tial to it, taken in a limited restrained Sense, yet may be, and is Essential to it, taken in a more large and comprehensive Sense.

Fourthly, It is to be well considered, and carefully remembred that when our first Reformers deny the Gospel to be a Law (as they frequently do.) It is in the Popish, Socinian, or Arminian Sense; and it is mostly in the Popish Sense; for it was with the Papists for the most part, that they had to do, when they denyed the Gospel to be a Law. For instance, Mr. Fox in his Book against the Papists (de Christo gratis Justificante) denyes the Gospel to be a Law in their sense, as we also do; and yet (as was shewed in the Apology, pag. 96.128.) he maintain'd that Faith is the proper Condition of Justification, and that Evangelical Repentance is a Condition preparatory and dispositive of the Subject to be justified, which is sufficient to show, That though he denyed the Gospel to be a Law in the Popish Sense, yet he did in effect hold it to be a Law of Grace in our Sense.

Fifthly, It is to be considered hat there is a vast difference between a Law of Works and a Law of Grace. For according to the Scriptural Sense of the word, a Law of Works, is a Law, the observance and keeping of which, is a mans Justi­fying Righteousness, it is the Righteousness by and for which he is Justifyed at the Bar of Gods governing Justice. But a Law of Grace is not such, our Obedience to the Law of Grace, is not our Justifying Righteousness at the Bar of Gods Justice, either in part, or in whole. It is only either (1.) That whereby we are disposed for being Justifyed by Faith in Christ and his Righteousness only, such as is Evangeli­cal Repentance. Or, (2.) It is that whereby we receive, apply, and trust to Christ and his Righteousness, by and for which alone, we are Justifyed at the Bar of God's Justice, such as is true Faith only. Or. (3.) It is that whereby we are qualified and disposed for the actual possession of that Eternal Glory and Happyness, which we received a Right unto before in our Justification, and which imme­diately after this Life is given to us in the full possession (as to the Soul) for the sake of Christ's Meritorious Righteousness only, such as is sincere Evangelical Obedience. Now though we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace which obliges us to Faith, Repentance, and sincere Obedience, as means in order to the ends aforesaid; yet we utterly deny that it is a Law of Works, nor doth it fol­low from our Principles.

Sixthly, It is to be considered, that we ought to distinguish between the Moral Natural Law, and meer positive Laws. Now it is granted by us all, That the Lord after his Incarnation, did not give unto his People a New Moral Natural Law, nor did he perfect and fill up the defects of the Old Moral Natural Law, neither did he enlarge the obligation of it, so as to make it oblige People to some Moral Natural Duties, which it obliged no Body unto under the Old Testament. In this sense, Papists, Socinians, and Arminians, hold Christ to have been a New Law giver; but this Opinion we all reject as false and absurd, and as reflecting on God's Moral Law, as if it had been imperfect before. Whereas in truth Gods Moral Natural Law was alwayes most perfect in its kind, and obliged to all [Page 16]Moral Natural Duties, even unto the highest degree of sinless perfection. And therefore what Christ did with respect to the said Moral Law, was to fulfil it most perfectly in his Life, to explain it by his Doctrine, to clear up the true and full meaning of it, and to vindicate it from the false glosses of the Pharisaical Jews; to suffer and satisfie God's Justice for his Peoples breach of it: And to im­pose it, explained as aforesaid, on his own Disciples and Followers, as the Rule and Law of their Moral Natural Allegiance and Obedience unto God.

But then for mere Positive Laws, as before his Incarnation he had given some such unto his Church, so after his Incarnation, (the old Positive Laws being ab­rogated) he gave unto his Church some new positive Laws, such as those that relate to the Two Sacraments, the first day of the Week as the Christian Sabbath, and the Order and Discipline that is to be observed in his Church under the New Testament. And though it is freely granted by us, that when such Positive Laws are once enacted by our Lords Royal Authority, the Moral Natural Law it self doth oblige us to obey them; yet we are first in order of Nature obliged to give Obedience to them by the Institution of them, and by the Soveraign Authority which doth institute and enact them: And the Law of Nature by it self imme­diately would never make them Laws, nor oblige us to do the things which are the sub­ject matter of them; if they were not first made Laws by a new exertion of the Lords Legislative Power, which doth by those positive Laws themselves, first and immediately oblige us to obey them.

Seventhly, Consider that we ought to distinguish between a Laws being Old, or New, Quoad ipsam rei materiam & substantiam, aut quoad rei modum & circumstan­tiam) in regard of matter and substance, or in regard of manner and circumstance. Thus the Moral Command to love the Brethren, is both Old and New in different respects. It's Old in respect of the matter and substance; and yet it is New in respect of that special manner of loving the Brethren, as Christ loved us. Witness John 13.34. and 1 John 2.7, 8. So likewise the Positive Command to believe in the Messias, is both Old and New in respect of different Circumstances of time. It is old, even as old as the first Promise after the fall. Gen 3.15. as it had respect unto Christ to come: But it is new as it hath respect unto Christ al­ready come, and Crucified, Dead and Buried, Risen from the Dead, Ascended in­to Heaven, and there most highly dignifyed and glorifyed. For no Man under the Old Testament was obliged, or could be obliged to believe in Christ under this consideration. But now we are all, to whom the Gospel is Preached, ind sp n­sably obliged thus to believe on him. In like manner though the positive Com­mand to believe in the Messiah, be as old as the first promise, Gen. 3.15. yet the Command to believe that the Man Jesus of Nazareth is the true Messiah, is new, and could not be so old.

Eighthly, Consider that we should distinguish between a Law that hath only Legal Promises, without any promise of Mercy and Grace in it at all; and a Law that hath all Merciful and Gracious Promises belonging to it, and those many great and precious. Now the first Covenant of Works is a Law that hath only Legal Promises, without any Promise of Mercy, or of renewing and pardoning Grace in it at all; It is a Law that required personal, perpetual and ever-sinless Obedience; and promised Life to Man on Condition of such Obedience, and for such Obedience only would have Justifyed him; and therefore it is called the Law of Works. But the Covenant of Grace is a Law that hath all merciful and gracious Promises belonging to it, and those many, great, and precious; and therefore it is rightly called the Law of Grace. And with respect to the Elect who are the most proper subjects of it as a Law of Grace, its predominant is Grace. Grace [Page 17]runs through it all, and appears in all the parts of it. (1.) There is Grace in the mandatory part of it, in that part of it which prescribes its Condition; in that legal, ever finless perfection is not rigidly insisted on; but Evangelical sin­cerity in the performance of it is required as a Condition; which also is ac­cepted through Christ, and the sinful defect thereof, together with all other sin, is freely forgiven for Christ's sake. (2.) There is Grace, Rich and Glo­rious Grace in the promissory part of it, in that it promises to the Elect special Effectual Victorious Grace to cause them freely, yet certainly perform the con­dition in Gospel sincerity; And in that when they through Grace perform the Condition, it further promises them most Gracious Benefits and Glorious Bles­sings, and all through and for Christ and his Righteousness. (3.) There is Grace also in the very minatory Sanction, for the design of the Threatning, is not to bring on Men the Punishment threatned; but to curb the Flesh in them, and to restrain them from those Sins, which their own corrupt Nature in­clines them unto, and which the Devil and the World tempt them unto. So that the very threatning is useful to them, and it is a Mercy to them, even to such as the believing Romans, that they are under that conditional threat­ning. Rom. 8.13. if ye live after the Flesh, ye shall dye. And since Grace doth thus appear in all the parts of it, See Heb. 12.25. it is very fitly called the Law of Grace; yea I do not refuse to joyn heartily with my R. Brother in calling it a Doctrine of Grace; but withal I must declare that I do not at all like it the worse, nor is it unto me the less gracious, because it prescribes unto me, something to be done by me through my Lords Grace: But I like it the better for that, since it doth not in the least detract from the Grace of it. Now if the Premisses be duely considered, and if the foresaid distinctions be rightly applyed as there may be occasion, it will be easie thereby to Answer all his Testimonies from Reformed, Protestant Divines.

SECT II. His first set of Testimonies Examined and Answered.

FOR his first set of Testimonies to prove from our Protestant Divines de­finition or Description of the Gospel, that they believed it to be a pure Doctrine of Grace; (1.) I Answer thereunto in general, that if that be all they prove, I profess sincerely in a true and sound Sense to believe the same thing, to wit, that the Gospel is a pure Doctrine of Grace, as I have said and explained it before. From whence it doth not follow by any good conse­quence, that it is not also a Law of Grace which requires of us Faith and Re­pentance, and sincere Obedience. See Tit. 2.11, 12. (2.) I come to particular Testimonies which I shall briefly examine, and give them particular Answers. And,

(1st.) Whereas my R. Brother gives the Sum of the Gospel in the words of the Augustan Confession, to be this, That God not for our merits, but on the ac­count [Page 18]of Christ, justifyes those who believe that they are received into favour for Christ's sake. I Answer,

(1.) That this is so far from beng a perfect definition, that it is no accurate Description of the Gospel. For here is no mention of the promise to give a New Heart, and to work Faith and Repentance in the Elect, which is an essen­tial part of the Gospel. Witness Ezek 36.26, 27. John 6.45. Acts 5.31. Heb. 8.10. Nor is here any mention of the promise of Eternal Life, which is another Essential part of the Gospel. 1 John 2.25.

(2.) I Answer, That to take this Testimony barely as it is cited by Mr. Goodwin, it must be rightly understood, otherwise it will be found to contradict our own Confession of Faith, Chap. 18. Art. 3. where it is expresly denyed that assurance doth so belong to the essence of Faith, &c. Yea, I fear it will be found to contradict Melancthon himself who was the Principal Composer of that Augustan Con­fession. For in his Common places he so defines justifying Faith, as to make such assurance to be but the immediate consequent effect of it; whereas he places the essence of it in a firm certain assent to the general Promise, a Cordial recei­ving of Christ, and trusting in him for Justification according to the Promise. His own words are, ^(d) Let this then be the definition. [Faith is to assent unto the whole word of God proposed unto us, and particularly to the promise of Reconciliation or Justification freely given for the sake of Christ the Mediator. And it is a Trust in the Mercy of God promised for Christ the Mediators sake. For trust is a motion in the Will, necessarily answering unto assent. Faith also is a Vertue apprehending and applying the Promises, and quieting hearts.] Here we see Melancthon held the Faith by which we are Justifyed to be an actual, and not meerly an habitual or seminal Faith, and he judiciously as­cribes three acts to it, (as also doth our own Confession of Faith,) wherein he comprehends the whole Nature of Actual Faith. (1.) An Act whereby we assent unto the whole Word of God, especially to the Gospel-promise of free Justification through Christ. (2.) An Act whereby we receive and apply the Promise, and God's Mercy through Christ therein. (3) An Act whereby we trust to the Promise, and to Gods Mercy through Christ therein. And then the effect of all, is, that thereby it quiets our hearts. Whence I infer that to make this definition of Faith consistent with the Augustan Confession, by [ the believing (aforesaid) that they are received into favour for Christ's sake] must be un­derstood a believing that there is no other way to be received into favour, but for Christ's sake; and therefore that Christ is to be received and trusted in only, for that end. Without this favourable interpretation, that Aushurgh Con­fession as cited by my R. Brother, will be found to contradict our own Con­fession of Faith, which is more exact and perfect: And even to contradict Melancthon himself, who was the first Compiler of the said Ausburgh Con­fession.

(3.) If my R. Brother had duely considered what in the Apology, pag. 88, 89. I quoted at large out of the 20th. Article of that Ausburgh Confession, which [Page 19]was certainly subscribed both by Luther and Calvin, and I think by most of our first Reformers beyond the Seas; he might have been ashamed to have quoted that Confession against me in this Controversie. For there it says expresly, (1.) That the Gospel requires Repentance, (2.) That the Promise of Grace is Ʋniversal, as the preaching of Repentance is Universal. And (3.) That the Gospel Commands all to believe and receive the benefit of Christ, &c. Now here my Reverend Brothers whole Book, is confuted by the Augustan Con­fession.

(2.) In the second place he quotes Melancthons Apology for the said Confes­sion, and makes him describe the Gospel to be properly the promise of pardon of sins, and of Justification on Christs account. To which I answer that this is a very lame, imperfect description of the Gospel. It is indeed properly a part, but it is far from being the whole of the Gospel. The promise of taking away the heart of Stone, and giving an heart of Flesh, with the gift of Faith and Repen­tance, and the Promises of other things also, are proper parts of the Gospel.

(3.) In the third place, he quotes Luthers little Treatise of Christian Liberty, Disc. p. 29. and tells us that there Luther divides the whole Word of God into two parts, to wit, into Precepts and Pro­mises; and the Precepts he entitles purely to the Law; but defines the Gospel to be the other part of Gods word, and so to be only a complete Systeme of Gracious Promi­ses. And then he cites the express words of Luther, which are as followeth, [ Therefore the Promises of God belong to the New Testament, yes, and are the New Testament.] I Answer,

1. That if Luther (as Mr. G. saith) did there divide the whole word of God in­to two parts, to wit, Precepts and Promises; and entitled all the Precepts purely to the Law; and referred all Promises to the Gospel; then it is as clear as the Light at Noon day, that he was mistaken, and that his division of the whole Word of God into those two parts, was very lame and defective, for in the word of God, besides Precepts and Promises, there are (1.) Histories. (2.) Prophecies. (3.) Mysterious Doctrines. (4.) Threatnings, which as such are neither Precepts nor Promises. (5.) Besides Evangelical Promises, there are in the Word of God, meer Legal Promises which must belong to the Law, and cannot properly belong to the Gospel. And my R. Brother doth himself in the same page 29. cite Melancthon distinguishing between gratuitous Promises, or Promises of Grace; and Promises that are not gratuitous or of Grace. Now if there be in the Word of God, Promises that are not of Grace, surely they must belong to the Law, and not to the Gospel, if (as Mr. G. holds) the Gospel be no­thing but a pure Doctrine, and meer Promise or Promises of Grace. (2dly.) I An­swer, That though Luther doth indeed say that the 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) 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) 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 [Page 21]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) 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 Justification and Salvation, cal­ling them the Precepts of the Church, when they are nothing less. For a free Chri­stian will say thus; I will fast, I will Pray, I will do this and that, which is Com­manded by Men, not that I need to do it for Justification or Salvation, but that in doing it I may obey the Pope, the Bishop, such a Community, and such a Magistrate, or that I may give my Neighbour a good Example, &c. Thus Luther. Now whe­ther my R— Brother have any occasion for this Doctrine, he knows best him­self; it may be of some use to him the next time he Travels to Rome. But for my self, I declare I have no occasion for it, nor do I ever intend to make use of it. Mr Goodwin did well to tell the World that Luther wrote that Book before he had declared War against the Pope; but then he might have been more sparing in his Praises of it, and in urging Luther's Testimony therein, against me and my Reverend Brethren; since he was but newly crept out of the Mona­stery, and had received but a small measure of Light, when he wrote that Treatise: And yet what is quoted out of it against me, doth not advantage my R. Brother, nor yet prejudice me, and the Cause which I defend. Though Luther was not without his failings (as no Man is, more or less,) yet he was really a great and good Man, and I heartily bless God for the good that was in him and done by him, and his testimony shall be alwayes respectfully recei­ved by me, so far as I find it consonant to the Scriptures of Truth, and to the Established Doctrine of our own better Reformed Church.

(4.) In the fourth place Mr G. quotes the Excellent Melancthon again, but to no purpose; for I assent to all that Melancthon there writes. Set aside the glosses of Mr. G—, and Melancthons own words do not prejudice my Cause at all. And elsewhere Melancthon is clearly for me, and holds, as I do, That the Gospel properly taken, requires of us Faith and Repentance, and promises Grace to ena­ble us to believe and repent, &c. And I desire no more to prove the Gospel to be [Page 22] a Law of Grace in our sense of the word. This I shall (if the Lord will) clear­ly prove from Melancthons own words, in my Animadversions on Mr. G—'s Seventh Chapter; and then it will plainly appear that he doth but abuse Melancthon and the People too, in thus indeavouring to make them believe, that Melancthon was of his absurd Opinion.

(5.) His next Witness against me is the famous Calvin, but I fear no harm from him; for I take him to be an honester Man than to contradict himself in Witness-bearing: And I am sure he hath already borne Witness for us in the Apology, and declared that he believed (as we do) that the Gospel-Covenant is Conditional, and requires of Men both Faith and Repentance in order to the Pardon of their Sins and Salvation of their Souls, (See Apol. pag. 51.92, 93, 94;) which is sufficient to prove that he held the Gospel to be a Law of Grace, as we do. And in the place which my R. Brother refers to, and in the words which he quotes, there is nothing but what is well consistent with what I most truely and faithfully cited both out of his Institutions and Commentaries. And indeed what is here quoted by Mr. G. is very impertinently alledged against me. For I do sincerely confess that to invest Christ with a new Legislative Po­wer, and to dignifie the Gospel with the title of a New Law, in the Popish Sense of the Word, is indeed a mere fiction, and that those who go the Popish way, have feigned Christ to be the Maker of an Evangelical Law, which should have supplyed the defect even of the Moral Law given unto Israel by the hand of Moses. But notwithstanding this, it is as clear as the Light, That Calvin did not be­lieve the Gospel-Covenant to be nothing but a bundle of mere absolute Promi­ses of Grace: For besides what was quoted in the Apology, Calvin in his Com­mentary on the Third of Jonah, saith as followeth. ^(h) [As often as God propo­seth or promiseth Pardon to Sinners, together with the Proposal or Promise, this Con­dition is added, that they repent; yet it doth not follow that Repentance is the cause of obtaining the Grace of Pardon; for God offers himself freely, nor is he induced thereunto by any other thing than his own liberality: But because he will not have Men to abuse his Indulgence, and readiness to forgive; therefore he joyns that Law to his Promise, to wit, that Sinners repent of their former ill Life, and be changed to the better]. Thus Calvin. And this Repentance he affirms to be a part of the Sumof the Gospel. Instit. Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Sect. 19. as was shewed in the Apo­logy, pag. 95. Therefore my R—B—doth but abuse Calvin, and wrest his words to a Sense he never meant, notwithstanding the Commendation which he gives of him.

(6.) Beza is brought to Witness against us, but to as little purpose; for I demonstrated from Beza his own express words in the Apology that he believed there is a Conditional Gospel-Covenant; that Faith in Christ is the only recep­tive applicative Condition; and yet that true Repentance is required as indi­spensably necessary in grown Persons, in order to pardon of Sin. And here I must rectifie what I said in the Apology, pag. 95. That it may be, and it would seem that Beza had some peculiar conceit, That all Repentance of what kind soever, [Page 23]is properly from the Law, and but improperly from the Gospel, because he said in his 20th. Epistle, That Contrition did not proporly proceed from the Gospel. Now I confess that in so understanding Beza there, I mistook his true meaning to my own disadvantage; and my mistake arose from the word Contrition, by which Beza meant nothing but what the Papists ordinarily call by the name of Attri­tio, and that is a Legal Repentance, which as Beza rightly observed, proceeds not properly from the Gospel, but from the Law. But I thought that by the word Contrition, he had meant what we commonly call Contrition from Psal. 51.17. and which is a true Evangelical Repentance enjoyned by the Gospel. But since I have learned from his other Writings that by the word Contrition he meant not an Evangelical, but a Legal Repentance, when in the latter part of that Epi­stle he said that Contrition is not properly from the Gospel, but from the Law; and by thus rightly understanding Beza, (that first he spoke of an Evangelical Re­pentance, and afterwards of a Legal) I reconcile him to his Elder Brother Calvin, and confirm my Argument from his said 20th. Epistle; and so recover the ad­vantage which I seemed to have lost by mistaking his sense of the word Contri­tion. This is the only mistake that (after many serious repeated thoughts) I can find that I committed in citing and explaining the words of Authours, and I did not do it (as many do) to make the Authour seem to speak for me; but rather to make him seem to be in that against me. By which the World may see my Honesty and Ingenuity in citing Authours. But this on the by. I return to what my Reverend Brother cites out of Beza against me.

His (1st.) Testimony out of Beza's Book concerning the Punishing of He­reticks, That the Sum of the Gospel (which is the Power of God to Salvation unto every Believer) is this, Disc. p. 30, 31. that it teacheth us to lay hold on Christ, as made to us of God, Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctifica­tion and Redemption, I own to be true, and to make for me rather than for Mr. G— For (1.) Here it is plainly enough expressed, that the Gospel requires Faith of us, as that by which we apprehend and lay hold on Christ: And elsewhere (as was shewed in the Apology) Beza saith expresly, That Faith is the Condition, and I also have several times said expresly that in my Judgment, Faith is the only Condition, i. e. the only receptive applicative Condition of the Gospel-Covenant, and of Christ and his Righteousness as held forth to us in the said Covenant. (2.) Though in this short Sum of the Gospel, Beza do not expresly mention Evangelical Repentance, yet he doth not exclude it, but rather includes and implyes it, in that he says that Christ is made Wisdom and Sanctification unto his People, which he is partly in requiring Repentance as a means necessary in order to pardon of Sin; and partly in giving them Grace, and inclining their hearts to repent. Luke 24.47. Acts 5.31. and 11.18. And elsewhere as in his 20th Epistle Beza expresly asserts and proves that Evange­lical Repentance is required in the Gospel, as antecedently in order of Nature necessary to pardon of Sin.

Beza's second Testimony quoted out of his Antithesis (Papatus & Christia­nismi) of the Papacy and Christianity, makes nothing against me; for I joyn with Beza in rejecting that Popish Opinion concerning the Evangelical Doctrine ( nihil aliud esse quam legem quandam perfectiorem Mosaicâ,) that it is nothing else, but a certain Law more perfect than that of Moses.

The Third Testimony out of his Book of Predestination against Castellio, is most impertinently alledged against me. For I never thought otherwise than that in the Law strictly taken for the Covenant of Works (as Beza takes it) there is no [Page 24]mention of Gods gracious Purposes to save us by Christ the Redeemer; and therefore that the Declaration of that Gracious Will of God, belongs to the Gospel; and to Beza's Words, I add that it belongs only to the Gospel.

(7.) H. Bullinger is next brought as a Witness against me. I Answer, That I admit what Bullinger saith, as cited by my Reverend Brother to be a true de­finition or description of the Gospel, but I deny it to be an accurate perfect de­finition, because it doth not express all the Essential parts of the Gospel. For instance, it doth not express the promise of taking away the Heart of Stone, and giving an Heart of Flesh, and writing the Law in the Heart. etc. Which is an Essential of the Gospel Covenant adequately considered, I grant Bullinger supposes and implyes it, but supposing and implying in a definition, all the Essen­tials of the thing defined, is not sufficient to make it an accurate full definition. Otherwise, if a Man in defining a thing, express but one of its Essentials, he might be said to have accurately and fully defined it, because the other Essentials are supposed and implyed in that one, they being all inseparably connected in the thing defined. And yet all Men of any measure of Learning know that it is very absurd to say, that a thing is accurately and perfectly defined, by mentio­ning only one of its Essential Parts. I do not say this to reflect upon Bullinger at all, (that be far from me.) But to shew that by that which he called a defini­tion of the Gospel, he did not mean an accurate perfect definition of it in respect of all its Essential parts, but a description of it in respect of some of its Essential parts, Disc. p 32. in which the rest are supposed and implyed. And even in this passage of his Sermon under consideration, it is plainly implyed that the Gospel-Covenant is conditional, and that Faith is the condition of it. And in another passage of the same Sermon, he says, That God hath proposed Christ a Propitiation, to wit, that he might be our reconciliation, for whose sake being pacified towards us, he adopts us to he the Children of God. (Ve­rùm non aliâ ratione quàm per sidem in ejus Sanguinem, id est, Si credamus, &c.) But no other way, or upon no other terms, than by Faith in his Blood, that is, if we believe, &c. And in his Commentary on Heb. 8. he expresly affirms the Covenant of Grace to be Conditional: As shall be shown by his own express words, in my Remarks on the following Chapter. And I wish Mr. G— would seriously consider what the same Bullinger writes at large in his Commentary on 1 Tim. 2.4. By what I have read of that Learned and Holy Mans Writings, I am sure that his Judgment in this matter, and my Reverend Brothers do not agree, and that he wrongs him, in labouring to draw him to his Party.

(8.) Next the Learned H. Zanchius is suborned to bear Witness against us. I confess that Zanchy well deserves the high Commendation which Mr. G. gives him, but I am heartily sorry that my R. B. should so abuse that Worthy Di­vine, as to indeavour to make him contradict himself in Witness-bearing. For if ever our Reverend Brother read and considered our Apology, which he writes against, he cannot but know that we appealed to Zanchy in pag. 99. and from his own express formal words, proved that there are [Tria Evangelii capita, quae a nobis exiguntur, ut praestemus, poenitentia in Deum, &c.] Three Heads or Principal parts of the Gospel, which we are required to do, Repentance to­wards God, Faith in Jesus Christ, and a Studious care to observe whatsoever Christ hath Commanded. Now these being Zanchy's own express words, it was very ill done by my Reverend Brother, to endeavour to make the World believe that this same Zanchy held, That the Gospel requires nothing of us at all? And this he endeavours to do, by alledging Three Short Sentences out of his [Page 25]Miscellanies, whereof the first Two only say, That the Gospel is a Doctrine which Declares and Proclaims that Salvation is to be had freely in Christ by Faith, and by Faith only. See Disc. p. 32. All which is very true, but nothing at all to the purpose. For the Gospel doth that, and more too. It declares that Salvation is to be had freely in Christ by Faith alone; because it is Faith alone which receives, apprehends, and applyes Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and Salvation. This we hold, as Zanchy did; but withal, Zanchy held, and we after him do hold also, That the Gospel requires of us Repentance towards God, Faith in Jesus Christ, and a studious Care to observe whatsoever Christ hath commanded; To which add what Zanchy believed as well as we, That the Gospel promiseth Grace to enable us to believe, repent, and obey the Gospel, and when through Grace we do so, it further promises us Par­don of Sin and Eternal Life for Christ's sake alone: And nothing more is necessary to make the Gospel a Law of Grace, according to our declared known sense of that word. His Third Testimony out of Zanchy is yet more Im­pertinent, to wit, See Disc. p. 33. That the Gospel is the joyful Preaching of that Eternal and Free Love of God (this is Eternal Election) to­wards us in his Beloved Son Christ. For I would fain know what Mr. G— can justly infer from this Sentence of Zanchy to his purpose against us? This we grant to be true (as was said in our first preliminary Consideration) that the Revelation of Gods Eternal Decree, to save through Christ a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind, is Gospel; because it is good and glad tydings to the Church. But what then? Dare Mr. G—infer that because it is Gospel, there­fore no other thing is Gospel? Then it seems by his Logick, one may prove that one part of a thing, is the whole thing; and that the whole thing, is but one part of it. But I forbear to expose such weak arguing. If therefore the Joyful Preaching of God's Free Election through Christ be not the whole, but a part of the Gospel, then though this part, do not require Faith and Repentance, yet another part of it may, and really doth require them in the Judgment of Zanchy; as was clearly proved in the Apology by his express formal words, quoted out of his Book of Christian Religion, 3d. Vol. of his Works, p. 509.

And since it comes in my way to make mention of this Book of the Learned Zanchy, I will here give the World a further account of it, and of his Faith out of it. The Book is Entitled, Jerom Zanchy his Faith concerning the Chri­stian Religion. It contains a full Confession of his Faith which he wrote in the Seventieth year of his Age, and in his own Name, and in the Name of his Family, he Published it, and Dedicated it to Count Ʋlysses Martinengus It is an Excellent, Judicious Confession of Faith. I have seen it in Quarto and Octavo, and in Folio, with his other Works; and now I have it by me in Octavo, Prin­ted at Newstad. 1585. with Annotations of his own Writing upon it, for fur­ther clearing of matters in it. I have diligently read it, and having quoted some passages out of it in the Apology, I will now quote some more out of it, both to make Mr. G. ashamed (if possible) and so to bring him to Repen­ [...]ance for abusing the Authority of Zanchy to the deceiving of the People, and also to confirm what I quoted out of him in the Apology. Thus then Zanchy writes in Chap. 13. Pag. 101. Sect. 6. Edition in Octavo. ⁽ⁱ⁾ The Gospel requires only these three things, First, That being touched with a serious grief &c.] as quo­ted [Page 26]in the Apology, p. 99. And in the next Page, to wit, 102. he adds, ^(k) [But all the Commands of Christ are referred to three, to wit, That having denyed or re­nounced Ʋngodliness and Worldly Lusts, we should live soberly, (with respect to our selves,) justly (with respect to our Neighbour) and Godly (with respect to God) in this present World; looking for the Blessed Hope, and the Glorious Coming of the Great God. This we believe to be the sum of those things which Christ requires of us by his Evangelical Doctrine: And that therefore they are truely Evangelick, and truely Chri­stian, who seriously apply themselves to the Study and practice of those things.]

Again in pag. 103. sect. 7. ^(l) [ We believe that there is no small difference be­tween the Law and the Gospel. First, Because the matter of the Law are only Com­mandments, whereunto are added Irrevocable Curses, if they be in the least part violated. It hath indeed Promises also, and that not only of Earthly, but of Eternal Blessings: But all with the Condition of most perfect Obedience, but it hath no Gra­cious or Merciful Promises at all. But now the Gospel is properly happy, and glad Tydings proposing Christ the Redeemer, as forgiving sins freely, and as freely likewise saving Sinners, and requiring nothing of us in order to the obtaining of Salva­tion, but a true Faith in Christ, which cannot be without Repentance, and without an endeavour to do the Will of God, that is, to live Soberly, Justly, and Godly, as was explained before.] Now here observe, (1.) That Zanchy saith, That the Gospel taken in its proper sense, requires Faith of us, and obliges us to believe in Christ for Salvation.

(2.) That though he say it requires nothing but Faith, yet he doth no more contradict me, than he doth contradict himself. For as he saith, so I say, That it requires nothing but Faith; as that by which we apprehend, receive, and apply Christ and his Righteousness to our selves for Justification and Salvation, Yet

(3.) He here saith, That True Faith in Christ cannot be without Repentance, and Evangelical Obedience: And before in the same Book, pag. 100. Sect. 5. He had said that the Gospel requires of us, not only Faith in Jesus Christ, but likewise Repentance towards God, and an Endeavour to observe all that Christ hath Commanded. See this fully and clearly proved by his own express words cited in the Apology, p. 98, 99. All this, with much more that I could cite out of Zanchy, plainly shews, That according to him the Gospel is a Law (not of Works, but) of Grace, which obligeth us to do several things in order to our obtaining Justification and Salvation by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ: [Page 27]And so that Zanchy is really for us, and not against us, as Mr. G—falsely pre­tends. By this Instance amongst others; it may appear what credit is to be given unto his Citations of Authours.

Ninthly, He appeals to Nine Reformed Divines, whom he refers to, with­out quoting their words, and pretends that they all earnestly main­tained, that the Gospel in the peculiar Nature of it, Disc. p. 33. is no other than a Systeme of Promises. Answ. (1.) What doth Mr. G— mean by the Gospel in the peculiar Nature of it? If he mean nothing but a bundle of Ab­solute Promises, which require no Duty of us at all, I do freely grant, that the Gospel taken in that restrained and limited Sense, is no other than a Systeme of Promises, and those Promises absolute too. And that this is Mr. G—'s meaning appears by his whole Book. But if he shall say that by the Gospel in the peculiar Nature of it; he means the intire Covenant of Grace in its Evangelical Christian Form of Administration, Then I deny that the Gospel in that sense is no other than a Systeme of Promises so as to have no Precepts of its own at all. Answ. 2. If any of the Nine Authours referred to, do any where say, That the Gospel in its peculiar Nature, i. e. taken for the intire Covenant of Grace, is no other than a Systeme of Promises, It is like that by Systeme of Promises, they mean a Systeme of Promises which are partly Absolute, and partly Conditional; and then in the Conditional Promises, they imply and include the Precepts and Threatnings. For (1.) The Conditional Promise of God to Man, implyes Gods Precept, obliging. Man to perform the Condition. (2.) The Word of God which promises to Man a benefit only, if he perform a certain Condition; doth necessarily imply the Threatning of not having the said benefit, if he do not perform the Condition. And in this sense it is possible that some of our Or­thodox Divines have sometimes said that the Gospel is no other than a Systeme of Promises, and yet they meant that the Conditional Promises do imply and include both Precepts and Threatnings. Answ. 3. Though I have not all those Nine Authours by me at present, and so cannot now examine the several passages referred to, yet I am sure Mr. G—doth wrong to several of them, in in giving out, that they are of his Opinion; for by what I remember to have read in them, and have quoted out of them in the Apology, and in my Re­marks on the 7th. Chapter, I know, as certainly, that what Mr. Goodwin saith of them is false in his sense, as I know it to be true, that ever there were such Men and such Books in the World. And particularly I know what he says to be false with respect to Pareus, Rivet, Gerard, Walleus, &c. I say it is false that they earnestly maintained, That the Gospel taken for the intire Covenant of Grace is a System of meer absolute Promises, which hath neither Conditional Promise nor Precept.

Tenthly, He brings Dr. Whitaker against Duraeus, to witness against us, That the Gospel is nothing but a Declaration and Narrative of Grace, that requires nothing to be done by us. Answ. 1. Dr. Whitaker is there defending what Luther had written, And though it is well known and confest by Lutherans themselves, that Luther was not alwayes so cautious and exact in expressing his sense of things, as other Divines use to be; yet Whitaker thought, that what he had written, was capable of a good Sence, to wit, That since according to Luther, the word Gospel signified nothing else, but the Preaching and Publishing of the Grace and Mercy of God, merited and purchased for us by Christ's Death; The Apostle Paul might be accounted the best Evangelist, and his Epistles with John's Gospel, might be preferred before the Gosels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; because Paul did most of all Preach and Publish the Grace and Mercy of [Page 28]God through Christ; both by Word and Writ. And therefore Whitaker under­took the defence of Luther in this matter, First against Campian, and afterwards against Duroeus, Now Luthers definition of the Gospel, (on which he founded his Argument which the Jesuits found fault with, affirming that he had cast a Bone among the Four Evangelists, and had preferred Paul's Epistles before the Three first Evangelists) seems plainly to be taken from the signification of the Original Word, For Gospel, or, good Tydings; and so it is rather (definitio nominis quàm rei) a definition of the word [Gospel], than of the intire thing sig­nifyed by the word. Or admitting it to be a definition of the thing, yet it is but an imperfect definition, commonly called a Description, which doth not ne­cessarily contain all the Essentials of the thing defined, or rather described. And this way of defining, that is, describing things, being ordinarily allowed to Orators as such; Dr. Whitaker being a great Orator, and using his Rhetorick very much, (as his Adversaries also did) though in Controversial Writings, he might well think it allowable to defend in Luther, and likewise in his own Wri­tings, to use, such a definition or description of the Gospel: And yet not intend to tell the World (as Mr. Goodwin would have it) That in his Judgment the Gospel is a Declaration, of Grace and Mercy, in such a sence, as to exclude all Duty, and to require nothing of us at all; no, not so much as Faith in Christ. That this could not be either Luther or Whitakers meaning in so defining or de­scribing the Gospel, is hence evident, That they both maintain the Gospel to be a Declaration of God's Mercy and Grace purchased by Christ, in that sense, wherein Paul in his Epistles asserted it to be a Declaration of God's Mercy and Grace purchased by Christ; But as I shall clearly prove in my Remarks on the next Chapter, Paul in his Epistles never asserted the Gospel to be a Declara­tion of God's Mercy and Grace purchased by Christ in such a sense as excludes all Duty, and requires nothing at all, no, not so much as Faith in Christ. Answ. 2. It is most manifestly false, that Dr. Whitaker held the Gospel to be such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace, as requires no Duty at all, not so much as Faith in Christ. For in his Answer to Campians Reasons Translated into English by Richard Stock, and Printed at London, 1606. In Pages 252, 253. he writes thus [ Now you (Campian) add, The Decalogue belongeth not to Chri­stians. God doth not care for our Works. Touching the Deca­logue and Works, Gal. 3.10. Deut. 27.26. this Answer I Whitaker make you briefly. In the Law, the Old Covenant is contained, Do this and live; Cur­sed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are writ­ten in the Book of the Law to do them. The Law promiseth Life to them which obey the Law in all things. They that offend in anything, to them it threatneth Death and Damnation; an hard Condition, and which no Man can ever satisfie: Christ doth propose to us another Condition, much easier; Believe, and thou shalt be saved. Mark 16.16. By this New Covenant, the Old is abroga­ted; so as whosoever believeth the Gospel, is freed from the Condition of the Law. For they that believe, are not under the Law, but under Grace, ( Rom. 6.14. and Gal. 5.18.) What needs many words? Christians are deli­vered from the Curse of the Law, but not from the Obedience of it.] Thus Whitaker. Whereby it is plain that he believed a Conditional Gospel, and that it requires of us the performance of its Conditoon, in order to our being freed from the Condition, and delivered from the Curse of the Law. And here it may not be amiss to let the World know, that under Queen Elizabeth, whilst Dr. Whitaker was Regius Professor in Cambridge, there was one Dr. Peter Baro, a Frenchman, who was for some time Margarets Professor; and having Preached, and afterwards Printed a Latine Sermon on Rom. 3.28. And having therein affirmed (as Mr. Goodwin doth) That Men are obliged to believe in Christ [Page 29]by the Moral Law, and not by the Gospel (as his Words were interpreted), he was thereupon, and on the account of some other prelections also, supposed to be an Innovator, and he fell under suspicion of inclining to those Doctrines af­terwards called Arminian, and for that reason under the displeasure of Dr. Whitaker, who was a strict Calvinist: Whereupon he resigned his place, and removed to London. But they did not leave him so: For there was a Book written against his Latine Sermon aforesaid, by E. H. one of Dr. Whitakers Party, and Printed in the Year 1592. wherein the Anonymous Authour treats him very rudely, much at the rate. as some of late have treated their Brethren amongst us. But that which is to my purpose, is, That the Zealous E. H. in his little Book (which I have) de fide, ejus (que) ortu & naturâ, maintains against Baro, That Justifying Faith is not Commanded by the Old Moral Law, but by the New Law of Grace, to wit, the Gospel. To one of Baro's Arguments he answers thus, ^(m) [O miserable and blind consequence! As if forsooth. God had not from the beginning, given another Law (besides that most perfect Law of the Ten Commandments,) no less perfect than it, to wit, the Law of the Promise and Life, whereby he Commanded his People to believe in him, and to repose all their Trust and Confidence in him.] And after he had, in pag. 52, 53, 54. discoursed at large of this Law of Promise and Life, and had both shewed it to be distinct from the Law of the Ten Commandments; and called it the Law of Grace, he adds these words, [Ecce tibi, Baro, Legem, quâ fides praecipitur] Behold here, Baro, Thou hast a Law, (a Law of Grace) whereby Faith is Commanded.] Now by these words of E. H. one of Dr. Whitakers Party, and by the Doctors own words, it plainly appears, That he, and the other Orthodox Divines of Cambridge under Q. Elizabeth, were so far from thinking that the Gospel was nothing, but such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace, as requires nothing of us, no not Faith in Christ, (as Mr. G. would make the World believe) that they ra­ther, some of them at least (as for instance, Mr. Perkins, and this E. H.) went the quite contrary way, and held that Faith in Christ, is Commanded only by the Gospel-Covenant. And Baro who (as was thought) held (as my Reverend Bro­ther doth) that it is Commanded only by the Natural Moral Law, was cryed down as an Innovator, and unsound Divine, and at last constrained to resign his place, and leave the University. To all this I shall add, That Dr. Nowel Dean of Pauls, (who was Dr. Whitaker's Uncle, and Prolocutor in the Convo­cation, 1562. Where the Articles of Religion, which we have subscribed, were Ratified and Confirmed,) wrote a Latine Catechisme, which by Publick Order was commonly taught in the Grammar-Schools throughout England; And in that Catechisme its expresly affirmed that (Evangeli­um requirit sidem) The Gospel requires Faith. Christ. Piet. prima institutio ad usum Scholarum Latine Scripta. Cantab. 1626. pag. 3. Now this was the Catechisme which in all probability Whitaker Learned when he was a Boy at School, and it is not very likely that when he was afterwards Regius Professor in Cambridge, he had so far forgotten his Catechisme, as to Publish to the World in Print, That the Gospel is such a Narrative, and Declaration of Grace as requires no duty at all, not so much as Faith in Christ.

Eleventhly, Mr. G— suborns Gomarus to bear false Witness against me; but certainly of all Men in the World, Gomarus was the unfittest to be brought in [Page 30]to Witness against me; because as was shewed from his own formal express words quoted in the Apology, pag. 27. he hath spoken my Sence so clearly, that after I had set down his Words and Reasons why the Gospel is called the Law of Grace, yea, the Law of God [...]; I immediately added, these words, [ And truly this was excellently said by Gomarus; No Man (we think) can give a better account, why the Gospel is called the Law of Grace] Whence it manifestly ap­pears, that I hold the Gospel to be a Law of Grace, no otherwise than as Gomarus held it to be such, before I was born. And then Gomarus his own express words shew, Gom. Oper. Part. 3. Disp. 14. Thes. 30. that he held the Gospel to be a Law, from the prescription, or appointment of the Condition, and Duty contained in it; and to be a Law of Grace, because of the Benefit promised in it: Both which he proved by Scripture-Testimonies. Now to make People believe that Gomarus did not mean any such thing, as his words clearly and necessarily import, Mr. G—. quotes a Sen­tence out of the same Disputation, Thes. 25. Where he says, ⁽ⁿ⁾ [The Gospel may, not unfitly, be defined this way. It is a Divine Doctrine, whereby, the secret Cove­nant of God, concerning free Salvation by Christ, is declared unto Men fallen into sin; and is begun with the Elect, and conserved or continued, unto their Salvation, and the Glory of God their Saviour.] But this will not do my R. Brothers Business. For (1.) Gomarus here doth not pretend accurately and fully to define the Gospel, and therefore he only says, [it may, not unfitly, be defined this way.] And one may well enough express himself thus, when he is to give only a general Descrip­tion (which is an imperfect definition) of a thing. (2.) This Description of the Gospel goes before in the 25th, Position; Whereas the Testimony quoted out of him in the Apology, comes after in the 30th. Position, in which, Gomarus de­signedly explains himself, and adds what he had before omitted in his description of the Gospel, Thes. 25. and expresly asserts the Gospel to be a Law, and a Law of Grace, and gives his Reasons for both. (3.) Here then Gomarus did not in the least contradict himself; only in Thes. 30. he explained and expressed what he had supposed and implyed, and added what he had omitted in Thes. 25. (4.) Here also Mr. G—should have considered Gomarus, his 29. Position, which I quoted at large in the Apology, pag. 100; but shall not here repeat it, for he cannot but have seen it, since it is immediately before the 30th, which he pretends to Answer. These things being duely considered, it is as clear as the Light, that my R— Brother dealt very disingenuously (not to use a worse word) when he thus concluded pag. 34. of his Discourse [ Therefore when Gomarus a little after, calls the Gospel a Law, he must necessarily understand, the word Gospel, as it signifies all the second part of the Bible, not as it implyes only God's Covenant of Grace discovered to Man] This is so far from being true de facto, that it is impossible it should be true: And my R.B. who hath read the place, if he knows any thing, cannot but know that it is false. For it is most evident from Gomarus his words, both as they are in his own Works, and as they are cited in the Apology, p. 27. and 100. That the Gospel he speaks of, is not the Book of the New Testament, but it is the very Covenant of Grace it self, both discovered unto, and made with Man, and recorded in the [Page 31]Books, both of the Old and New Testament. It is the Covenant which hath a condition in it prescribed to us, and required of us. Yea, It is, the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27. It is the Law which goes forth out of Sion, as he proves from Isa. 2.3. And that Mr. G— himself hath acknowledged to be the very Gospel in its strict and proper Sense. How to excuse my R. B. here from being guilty of a known falsincation, I profess I know not. But whatever be of that, sure I am that Gomarus his own words, cannot bear that sence which he would force upon them: And I appeal to Schollars and Judicious honest Men, to judge be­tween us, and determine which of us two, gives the genuine true Sense of those words of Gomarus, which I quoted in the Apology, p. 27, and 100.

Twelfthly, Mr. G— to back the foresaid Misinterpretation of Gomarus his Words concerning the Nature of the Gospel-Covenant, brings the Testimony of the Heavenly Host of Holy Angels, recorded in Luke 2. ver. 13, 14. but this doth not move me in the least from my steadfast belief of the Gospel Covenant, its being a Law of Grace. For from the Angels Doxology in Luke 2. neither Man nor Angel can ever prove by good consequence, that the Covenant of the Gospel, is not a Law of Grace. The Angels not saying expresly that it is a Law of Grace, proves nothing. For it was no part of their Commission, to say that it is, or that it is not. What they said, is true indeed, ay, and it is true Gospel too; as was acknowledged before in our first preliminary conside­ration. But what then? It doth not follow that therefore it is the whole Gospel, and intire Covenant of Grace, which God made with his Church, through Christ the Mediator. And if it be not the whole, as it is not, then what they said, and what Gomarus and I after him say, that the Gospel is a Law of Grace, may both be true, and so they certainly are. But it seems Mr. G—thinks that God is not at peace with him (nor with me, nor with any other Man) nor bears any good Will to him, (or us), if by the Gospel, he require Faith and Repentance of us in order to the Pardon of our Sins by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ the Mediator of the Covenant. And if that be really his settled Thought, his Case is to be pityed; and I heartily pray God for Christ's sake, to pity him, and to deliver him from an evil heart of Unbelief: That he may through Grace come to the knowledge of the Truth, and be perswaded that God's being at peace with him, and bearing good Will to him, is very well consistent with the Gospel-Covenant its requiring of him Faith and Repentance. As for his de­scant upon the words of the Angels, it is nothing but a flourish of Words; and Rhetorick without Reason, makes no Impression upon the Wise, what­ever Effect it may have upon others. Now my R— Brother, his Premisses being false, as I have shewed them to be; his Conclusion as such must be of the same Nature. And so it is not true, as he pretends, but really false, that God from Heaven, and some of the best Men whoever lived upon Earth, do plainly tell us, that the Gospel is no Law, but a pure Act of Grace; for they do not tell us any such thing. And to the Lords People, it is both. It is both a Law, and also, a pure Act of Grace; it is a Law of Grace. As for what he says, in page 35 of his Discourse, that our Reformers were careful to distinguish the Gospel from a Law; It is false in his Sense; they were not careful to distinguish it from all kind of Law, but from a certain kind of Law, that is, from the Law of Works. This indeed they were care­ful to do, and so are we too; And as they would not, so no more do we suffer Works under never so specious pretences, to invade the Prerogative of Grace. In fine, what Mr. G—quotes there out of Chemnitius and Beza, concer­ning [Page 32]the Papists confounding Law and Gospel, its being the occasion of many pernicious Errors in the Church; is impertinently alledged against us; for we are so far from confounding the Law and the Gospel, as Papists do, that on the contrary we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace only; but not at all to be a Law of Works in the Scriptural, or Popish sense of that word. And in our Apology, we plainly sta­ted the difference between the Law and Gospel, and the Righteousness of the one and the other; in so much, that whoever reads, understands, believes, and observes what we there wrote on that subject, is so far out of danger of the Popish Errors in the matter of Justification and Salvation, that it is plainly im­possible for him to embrace any of them, without first renouncing some of those great Truths, which we have plainly there laid down in vindicating our selves from the Calumnies of the Informer, and of the Accuser of the Brethren. So much in Answer to his first set of Testimonies, relating to the definition or de­scription of the Gospel.

SECT. III. His Second Set of Testimonies Examined and Answered.

HIS next set of Testimonies of Reformed Divines, is to prove, (as he says, pag. 36.) by their express words, that when they call the Gospel a Law, they in­tend no more by it, but a pure Doctrine of Grace. To which I Answer,

(1. In general, That in a sound sense, I grant the Gospel Law, is no other than a pure Doctrine of Grace, as was said before. But in his sense, I deny that they held the Gospel-Law to be nothing but a pure Doctrine of Grace, so as not to re­quire any thing of us, no, not so much as Faith in Christ. I shewed the contrary before from their own express words in the 20th. Article of the Augustan Con­fession, which Luther and Calvin both subscribed.

Secondly, I give a particular Answer to the several Testimonies which Mr. G. alledges. And (1.) As for the Testimonies of Luther quoted out of his Com­mentaries on Gal. 2. and Isai. 2. His First Testimony, as to the first part of it, concerns us not at all, for we abhor that Opinion of Justitiaries as much as ever Luther did; and we declare it to be Blasphemy to think, say, or write that the Gospel is no other than a Book which contains new Laws concerning Works, as the Turks Dream of their Alcoran. (2.) As to the Second part of his first Testimony, [That the Gospel is a Preaching concerning Christ, that he for­gives Sins, gives Grace, Justifies and saves Sinners,] It is very true; but is not the whole Truth; for over and besides that, it is also a Preaching concerning Christ, that requires Faith in Christ: According to the Augustan Confession, and according to what we before heard from Luther himself in his little Book of Christian Liberty, and which is far more, according to the Scriptures of Truth.

(3.) As to the third part of his Testimony [That the Precepts found in the Gos­pel, are not the Gospel, but Expositions of the Law, and Appendixes of the Gospel.] It is to be rightly understood. As (1) They are not the whole Gospel. [Page 33]Nor (2.) Are they the principal part of the Gospel, from which it chiefly hath its Denomination: For the Promises are that part. (3.) It is confest that there are indeed Precepts found written somewhere in the Books of the New Testa­ment, which are no part of the Gospel Covenant in its last and best form of Administration; but they belong to the first Law of Works, or to the Typical Legal Form of Administring the Covenant of Grace; yet there are other Pre­cepts, for instance, that which Commands Faith in Christ as the Instrumental means of receiving and applying Christ and his Righteousness for Justification; and this Precept even in Luthers Judgment (as we have proved) belongs to the Gospel: And it is indeed one Article of the Gospel-Covenant, that we believe in Christ, Acts 16.31. Rom. 10.8, 9, 10.

The Second Testimony from Luthers Commentary on Isai. 2. is imperti­nently alledged, and proves nothing but what we firmly believe, that the Gospel is not a Law or Doctrine of Works for Justification, but a Law or Doctrine of Faith, even a new Doctrine (as Luthers expression is,) or Law of Grace.

(2.) In the second place, he brings a Testimony of Calvin out of his Commen­tary on Isai 2.3. which as Mr. G— alledges it, is impertinent. For it proves nothing against us. We grant also to our R— Brother, that the way of arguing he mentions in Pag. 38. would be impertinent. And I assure him, it is not my way of arguing, to conclude from the Gospels being named a Law, that it is a Doctrine of Works For I do not believe that it is a Doctrine (or Law) of Works at all, in the Scripture sense of that word. i. e. a Doctrine of Works, by and for which Justification and Salvation are to be sought after.

(3.) Thirdly for the Testimony out of Musculus on Isai. 2. I admit it as not being in the least against me. And it is notorious that he was for the condi­tionality of the Covenant, as we are.

(4.) Nor Fourthly doth Gualters Testimony make against me in the least, if it be not wrested by a false gloss put on his words, as if he had said, That the Law of Faith, doth not require Faith: But he doth not say so in the words quoted by Mr. G—.

(5.) The Passage quoted out of Ʋrsin on Isai. 2.3. makes rather for us, than against us, and therefore it was impertinently alledged. And it is well known that Ʋrsin was not against, but for Conditions in the Gospel-Covenant: And in my Remarks on the next Chapter, I shall prove by his own express formal words that he believed as we do, that the Gospel hath Precepts of its own which require of us Faith and Repentance.

(6.) Nor doth the Passage cited out of Chemnitius his Common Places contra­dict my Principles, but it rather confirms them. And I am well assured that he held Justifying Faith to be Commanded and required by the Gospel. See his common places in Folio. pag. 219.

(7.) And lastly, For Wittichius his Testimony, the first part of it, doth not so much as seem to be against me, for it contains my Principle exprest to my mind. I do heartily agree with him that no Works of ours, neither Repentance, nor yet Faith, are, or can be, the cause of our Justification, as perfect personal Works were to have been the cause and ground of Adam's Justification by the first Covenant and Law of Works, if he had never broken it. But for the se­cond part of his Testimony, if he intends thereby to deny that either Faith or Repentance are required as antecedently in order of Nature necessary unto Justi­fication [Page 34]by and for the alone-Righteousness of Christ: Then I do reject that part of his Testimony as unsound and contrary to Holy Scripture, and to the Judgment of our more Orthodox Divines. But I suppose Wittichius means on­ly that saving Faith and Repentance are not required as antecedently necessary in order of time, but that we are justifyed assoon as we believe and repent: And so I agree with him Or it may be, he meant that Faith is not (necessarium justifica­tionis praerequisitum, ut simpliciter opus) a necessary praerequisite unto Justifica­tion, considered simply as a work And so I likewise agree with him. For though Faith be really an inward Heart work. and though it be pre required as necessary unto Justification; yet it is neither praerequired nor required unto Justification, simply and precisely as a work and under that formal consideration: But only as the receptive applicative Condition, or as the Instrumental means appointed by God for receiving, applying, and trusting Christ and his Righteousness alone unto Justification. Thus I have examined and answered Mr. G— 's second set of Testimonies, and shewed that not one of them rightly understood, makes against me.

What he writes in the close of this Sixth Chapter, hath in effect, and upon the matter, Diso. p. 41. been answered before. And (1.) It is not true that we confound the Notions of things which are entire­ly distinct in their Natures and Idea's. For if one take the Gospel in his sense for a bundle of meer absolute promises of what God in Christ will do, without re­quiring any thing at all to be done by us; we freely grant that it is no Law at all to us in any proper sense. But now the World knows very well, or may know by our Apology, that that is not the thing, which we mean by the Gospel, when we affirm it to be a Law of Grace. But in truth, the thing which we have declared we mean by the Gospel, when we affirm it to be a Law of Grace, is no other but the Covenant of Grace made with us through Christ; which compre­hends not only Absolute, but Conditional Promises also, and which prescribes to us the performance of the Condition, and tells us, we must through Grace perform it, or we shall not have the benefits promised. In this true, proper, comprehensive sense, the Gospel is indeed a Law to us, a Law of Grace, but not a Law of Works. For, as hath been said, though it require Duties of us, which are indeed Works, yet the Gospel Covenant doth not require them of us, under that formal Notion, as Works to be justifyed and glorifyed by and for them. But (1.) It requires Evangelical Repentance, (not as a Work to be Justified by and for, either in whole, or in part, but) as a Condition in the Subject or Person to be Justifyed, necessary to dispose and qualifie him for Justification by and for Christ's Righteousness only. (2.) It requires true Faith in Christ, not as a work to be justified for it in whole or in part; but as the only condition or instrumen­tal means whereby we apprehend, receive, apply, and trust to Christ and his Righte­onsness, as the only Righteousness whereby, and for which alone we are justifyed at the Bar of Gods Justice. (3) It requires Obedience (flowing from Faith,) Obedi­ence I say to the whole revealed Will of God, not simply as Obedience, or Works for which we are glorifyed, but as Evangelically sincere, and growing up to per­fection, as a testimony of our thankfulness for our Redemption and Justification, as a means of glorifying God, of Crediting our Holy Religion, of Edifying our Neighbour, and of evidencing the sincerity of our Faith, and finally, as a Con­dition necessary by the Constitution of God, to prepare and qualifie us for obtain­ing Possession of Eternal Glory for the alone meritorious Righteousness of Christ our Lord and Saviour. So that the Gospel thus requiring these things, is not a [Page 35]Law of Works, but of Grace; especially considering that it is by Grace that we do these things required, and that the Grace whereby we do them, is promised in the Gospel; and by the Spirit given according to the promise: And that when through Grace we have done them, then God of his rich Mercy and Free Grace gives us for Christs sake the blessings and benefits promised to those who do the Duties required.

Secondly, As to what my Reverend Brother saith, That the Gospel hath no minatory sanction, that no Threatning doth properly belong to it. I answer,

1. That if one take the Gospel, as he doth, for a bundle of meer absolute Promises, then it is very true, that in that sense it hath no minatory sanction, no threatning doth properly belong to it; and for my part I declare that I never said, nor thought (nor could deliberately think) that a Threatning was any part of it, either properly or improperly, as taken in that too narrow limited sense, for meer absolute Promises of what God in Christ will do for us, without requiring any thing to be done by us. But,

2. Take the Gospel in that sense, in which I take it for the intire Gospel-Covenant which God hath not only declared to, but made with his Church through the Mediator Jesus Christ, then my Answer is, That though the Gospel taken oven in this comprehensive sense, for the whole of the new Co­venant of Grace made with us through Christ, should have no Threatning properly belonging to it, yet that would not hinder it from being a Law of Grace. For it is properly enough a Law of Grace to us. (1.) As it prescribes to us its condition to be performed by us. (2.) As it promises Grace to enable us to perform its condition. (3.) As it promises to us great and gratuitous benefits upon our performing its condition through Grace.

3. I answer, That over and besides the Threatning of the first Covenant and Law of Works, (which Mr. G. fancies that the Gospel promise doth bor­row and employ in its own service), the Gospel-Covenant hath (as plainly appears to me) its own additional Threatning; which I think is thus to be understood, that though a Threatning doth not belong to the Gospel-Covenant as a Gospel-Covenant, primarily and principally; yet it belongs to it secondarily and less principally, to wit, as it is a Covenant made with Sinners to restrain them from Sin, and to bring them unto Faith and Repentance. The primary design of the Gospel-Covenant is indeed to promise gratuitous benefits to Sin­ners complying with its terms required; and it is but its secondary design to threaten punishment in case of non-complyance: And then further, even this threatning of punishment in respect of its primary design, is not to bring the punishment on the Sinner, but it is to restrain from Sin, and so preserve from Punishment: And that the Punishment threatned is actually inflicted upon any who are called and commanded to comply with the terms of the Covenant, but do not; it comes to pass through their unbelief and impenitence, as it were by accident in respect of the primary design of the Evangelical-Covenant as such. And that this is true, to wit, That the Gospel-Covenant hath its own additio­nal Threatning, in the sense aforesaid, seems very evident to me. (1.) Be­cause the conditional promise of the Gospel being made to the Believer ex­clusively, to him and to no other, ( John 3.16, 17.) John 8.24. it cannot but virtually imply that the Unbeliever shall not have the be­nefit promised, and that is a Threatning. (2.) Because the Scripture is express in the case, for over and besides the Threatning for formerly [Page 36]breaking the Law; the Gospel threatens for not sincerely repenting and believing the Gospel. John 3.18. He that believeth not is condemned already. And why so? Why certainly, not only, because he hath not perfectly kept the Law of Works, but likewise, as it follows immediately, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. And then in ver. 19. our Saviour saith this is the Condemnation, that Light is come into the World, and Men loved Darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil. See also for this, the Commission it self which our Blessed Lord gave to his Apostles, and in them to all his Gospel-Ministers who succeed them in preaching the Gospel. Mark 16.15, 16. Go ye into all the World, and preach the Gospel to every Crea­ture. He that believeth and is Baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. From which words it appears,

(1.) That it is the primary design of the Gospel, that Men to whom it is Preached should believe, and be Baptized, and that if they do so, they should be saved; according to the true import of the Conditional Promise. But (2.) If they neglect or refuse to believe, and by believing to use the Saving Remedy offered them in the Gospel, against the Curse and Condemnation of the Law, they shall be damned. And this is the secondary design of the Gos­pel to threaten Men with Condemnation if they believe not, that the threat­ning may be a means to deter them from the Sin of Unbelief, and to preserve them from being damned. According to this Gospel, Men to whom it hath been Preached, will be judged at the last day. As it is written, Rom. 2.16. God shall judge the Secrets of Men by Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel. Now in judging Men who have lived under the Preaching of the Gospel, the Lord will justifie the true Penitent Believer, and condemn the Unbeliever, and that according to the Gospel; whence it follows by good consequence that the Gospel hath Threatnings, as well as Promises, and that as the Believer shall then be justified according to the Promises, so the Unbeliever shall be Condemned ac­cording to the Threatnings of the Gospel. But if the Gospel have neither Pre­cept nor Threatning, nor Conditional Promise, (as Mr. Goodwin affirms that it hath not.) I do not see how any Unbeliever could be judged and condemned according to the Gospel. It cannot with any colour of reason be said that he may be judged according to the absolute Promise of the Gospel. For the Absolute Promise of the Gospel was never made to such an Unbeliever as lives and dyes in Unbelief. My R. B. will not admit that ever there was any Conditional Promise of the Gospel, made to such an Unbeliever; and if not a Conditional Promise, much less was there ever an Absolute Gospel-Promise made to him. If it be objected, That though the Believer cannot be both Judged and Justifyed by the Law, yet the Unbeliever may be both Judged and Condemned by the Law. I answer, It is true, Every Unbeliever is Judg­ed and Condemned by the Law that he was under, and Transgressed; But besides that, it is true, That some Ʋnbelievers are likewise Judged and Condemned by the Gospel, and according to the Gospel. And therefore we said in the Apology, pag 200. That professed Christians who live and dye in Impenitence and Un­belief, will be doubly condemned both by Law, and Gospel. By the Law, for breaking it. And by the Gospel for not believing in Christ, and not using and applying by Faith, the Remedy offered them in the Gospel, against the Con­demnation of the Law. The same saith the Reverend, Learned and Judicious Hutcheson on John; on the 18th. verse of the Third of John, these are his words, [Page 37] ‘[Christ goeth on to Clear and Illustrate the Certainty of the Salvation of Be­lievers in him, by shewing on the contrary the Condemnation of Unbelie­vers, whom he declareth to be under a double Condemnation, one by the Law, and another by the Gospel] And a little after [albeit the Sentence of the Law be sufficient to Condemn Mankind, and will Condemn all them who have not heard of Christ; yet under the Gospel, Unbelief, and not recei­ving of Christ, is the great Condemning Sin; for as no Sin will condemn the Man, who fleeth to Christ the Remedy, so when the Remedy is not Embra­ced, the Sentence of the Law is Ratified in the Gospel and Court of Mercy: For he that believeth not, is condemned already because he hath not believed. The Sentence is declared Just. and confirmed by a new Sentence, since he will not take help. And thus Unbelief is the great unpardonable Sin, Mark 16.16. Whereas other Sins (that against the Holy Ghost, excepted, because it is joyned with final Impenitence) would be pardoned, if Men would be­lieve.]’

And on ver. 19. Doct. 5. ‘[Where Christ offering himself in the Gospel, is not received in Love, but contemned, it bringeth sadder Condemnation than the breaking of the Law, as being a sinning against the Remedy, and that with an high hand; an undervaluing of him, and doing of what they can, to make void his pains. For this is the Condemnation, that Light hath come, &c.]’ Thus Mr. Hutcheson on John 3.18, 19. agrees with us, That Unbelievers shall be Judged and condemned by the Gospel And it is something strange that a Minister of the Gospel should be at this day so far under the po­wer of Unbelief, as to doubt of, or deny this, since Christ himself saith expresly John 12.48. That the word which he hath spoken, shall judge the Unbeliever in the last day. And from the Context, it appears, that the said Word which shall judge the Unbeliever, is the Word of the Gospel. For it is the Word which Christ Preached, and which the Unbeliever received not: And I think that is the Word of the Gospel. Nor am I singular in so thinking: For Calvin was of the same mind, as is evident from what he writes in his Commentary on John 12.48. Non potuit magis splendido elogio extolli Evangelii authoritas, quàm dum illi judicii potestas defertur; conscendet quidem ipse Christus Tribunal, sed sen­tentiam ex verbo quod nunc praedicatur, laturum se asserit. That is, The Autho­rity of the Gospel could not be more highly praised, nor a more glorious Elo­gy given unto it, than in ascribing to it the Power of judging Men. Christ him­self shall indeed ascend the Judgment Seat, but he affirms that he will pass the Sentence according to the Word which is now Preached. The 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. [Page 38]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 Psa [...]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 [Page 39]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.

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 fortified with a Sanction, but with a San­ction that promiseth Justification and Salvation, not for the Duties sake, but for Christs sake only.

Now both his Propositions being false, no wonder that the inference he draws from them be ridiculous, insignificant, and of no force at all against me; for I do freely grant that it is a fallacious way of reasoning to argue from the meer ambiguity of a word that hath several significations But that was not, nor is it my way of arguing. And this being the case, as I have truly represented it, and as manifestly appears from the Apology it self; the ridiculous demonstration, (to wit, a Law is a Law, the Gospel is a Law, there­fore the Gospel is a Law). I say this ridiculous demonstration, which Mr. Goodwin in pag 41. would lay at my door, returns home to himself, and calls him its true Father; and justly it may, for assuredly it is a Bratt of his own brain and breeding; and for that reason he seems to be very fond of it, calling it a pretty way of arguing and saying, without doubt it is unanswerable. And yet if we look upon this pretty little rogue, as the Image of his Brain that begat it, and if we strip the Baby of its identick dress, or fools coat, it is very easily answered. For being formed according to the tenour of his Discourse con­cerning the various significations of the word Law, it amounts to no more than this; A meer nominal Law that requires nothing, is a real proper Law that requires something; but the Gospel is a meer nominal Law that requires nothing, therefore the Gospel is a real proper Law that requires something. The Proposition is that which (I suppose) he would father upon me, but I justly disown it as none of mine; and so I do by the other identical Proposition [a Law is a Law]: Let this Brother prove, if he can, by any good consequence, that there is any such thing expressed or implyed in any part of the Apology. I am so well assured that there is no such thing there, that I defy him, or any Man, to prove the affirmative that there it is. And by and by we shall find himself clearing me of that imputation, and blaming me for proving the Gospel to be a Law, because it hath Precepts requiring Duty, fortified with a sanction of Promises and Threatnings: Which is a demonstration that either this Brother asserts that which he knows to be false, or else that he contradicts himself, and writes he knows not what.

The Proposition then, or Major, is the birth of his own Brain, and whe­ther it was begotten against his Conscience, as Bastards use to be, let him look to it; I assert nothing pro, or con, in that matter.

As for the Assumption or second Proposition, he will not, he cannot deny it to be his own, (to wit. That the Gospel is a Law, a meer nominal Law, which requires no Duty of us at all), for it is the great thing he contends for with all his Might throughout his Book. Now it appearing thus, that the Argument is his own, much good may it do him and his Cause, which the World may know to be a very good one, by this token, that it is supported by such pretty honest Devices.

And thus the pretty unanswerable Argument is easily answered, when stript of its Identical dress. For both Propositions are false. The Major Pro­position is self evidently false, when stript of its Identical dress: And if he will not suffer his Baby to be stript of its Fools coat, my Answer is, That it is his own, and he may do with his own what he pleases. The Minor I have proved to be false, and shall further prove it to be false, before we have done. And therefore though the conclusion as to the matter concluded be very true, (according to the Logick Rule, ex falsis verum), yet it is not therefore formally true, as it is concluded, and because it is concluded and inferred from such [Page 41]false premisses. But he pretends in pag. 42. to have provided a proper re­medy against this malady of arguing from the ambiguity of a word of va­rious signification, by clearing the sense of the word Law, which he says, he has largely done. But cui bono, to what good purpose was all that waste of Time, Paper and Ink? since it doth not reach me at all; for I defy him to shew me, where, in the Apology, I did ever so much as once endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a proper Law, from the meer sound of the word Law, which is of a various signification. But though I did not so argue, yet my R. B. hath assumed to himself the liberty of arguing from the ambiguity of the word Gospel, almost throughout his whole Discourse, to prove that the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace, as to require no Duty of us at all. Turpe est igitur doctori, quum culpa redarguit ipsum. I think it had been more to the purpose, to have cleared the sense of the ambiguous word Gospel, so as to have shewed that in Holy Scripture, or the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines, it is never taken for the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ the Mediator, including the conditional part of it, but always and every where for a meer absolute Promise or Promises, which require no Duty of us at all. If my Reverend Brother had done this, he had done his work, and had answe­red me effectually, and had made me his Proselite too. But I do not blame him for not doing this, because it is plainly impossible to be done.

But what if my purpose and design in the First Section of the Second Chapter of the Apology (which he pretends to answer) was not so much to argue and prove the Gospel to be a Law: As,

(1.) To instruct our Accuser who seemed not to know our Principles, and to let him know what we really mean by a new Law of Grace.

(2) To rebuke him for saying ignorantly, that new Law of Grace was a new word of an old but ill meaning, and to prove by Testimonies of credible Wit­nesses Antient and Modern, that new Law of Grace was no new word of an old, but ill meaning; but that he in saying so, against us the Subscribers, was a false Witness against his Brethren? And to show that this was my purpose and design, there needs no more but to read the Apology, Page 20, 21, 22, 24.

(3.) Further: What if for the Instruction and Information of our Accuser, I told him and the World plainly, (1.) That God most freely made the Cove­nant, and enacted the Law of Grace with us through Jesus Christ. (2.) That God by this Law of Grace both obliges and encourages us to certain Duties; and also by the Promises of it obliges himself to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake, if we perform the Duties prescribed, and comply with the terms injoyned. (3.) What if I plainly declared, that by new Law of Grace, 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 [Page 42]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 [Page 43]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 Gosp [...]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, pag. 27.) that the Gos­pel is sometimes called a Law, because it also hath its own Commandments, and its own Promises and Threatnings.

It is also against Gomarus, who, as he is quoted in the same page 27, saith expresly, That the Gospel is called the Law of Faith, ( Rom. 3.27.) and the Law of God by way of Excellency, ( Isa. 2.3.) from the prescription or ap­pointment of the Condition, and Duty contained in it. But let it be against them, or against all Mortals, yet if he did well and solidly prove these three things mentioned, I should confess he doth his work effectually; were it not for this one thing, (on which the stress of his Cause lyes, and) which he begs, but proves not, nor can prove; to wit, That the Gospel Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator, and that adequately or intirely considered in all its Articles, is nothing but an Absolute Promise, or a Bundle of Absolute Promises which require nothing of us at all. For take the Gospel in this narrow Sense, and I declare that I believe as firmly as he can do, that it hath neither Precept, nor Threatning, nor Conditional Promise properly and essentially belonging to it. But now I must again tell my Reverend Brother, as I told him before, That that is not the sense wherein I take it, when I say it is a Law of Grace, and I have shewed in the Apology, that it ought not to be so taken, nor is it so taken by our Protestant Divines, when the word Gospel, is used to signifie the whole Co­venant [Page 44]of Grace, which God hath made with us through Christ the Mediator. Thus in few words it may appear, that the main strength of his Cause lyes in the ambiguity of the word Gospel, which certainly signifies more things than one, and particularly, it signifies more things than such a Doctrine of Grace, as (according to his fancy) requires nothing of us at all. And,

(1.) First, He asserts page 42. That the Precepts which the Gospel employs, are not any parts of it self, but are borrowed from the Law, and then gives his goodly reasons for his assertion. Before I give particular Answers to his rea­sons, I will in the following Section premise some things that may give some light to help People to see on whose side the Truth lyes.

SECT II.

AND with respect to his Notion of the Gospel, Let it be considered,

(1.) How the Gospel (if it be nothing but an Absolute Promise that requires nothing) can borrow Precepts from the Moral Law, and then employ them in its own Service. For mine own part I profess I neither do nor can understand how an Absolute Promise borrows a Precept, and then employs it: As he gives us to understand towards the end of the 42. page. I understand well enough that Mr. Goodwin there insinuates, and pag. 48. he expresly asserts this of the Gospels borrowing and employing the Laws Precepts. And if any other Body can understand how a meer Absolute Promise doth this, much good may the Notion do them: But to me, it is altogether useless, because it is unintelligible.

(2.) Consider, That the Moral Natural Law is certainly most perfect in its kind, and obliges to the most perfect, i. e. sinlesly perfect performance of the several Duties that belong to it, in that way which the Lord God intended it should oblige to the performance of them. And it was needless to prove this against me, for I never denyed it, but alwayes believed it, and oft times openly professed it; And if my Reverend Brother understands what and whom he writes against, he cannot but know that my R— Brethren and I made Publick Profession of this to the World in the Printed Apology, page 200, and 201.

(3.) Consider Thirdly, That we must distinguish between the Moral Natural Law, its Obligative Power, and its Actual Obligation. And it is not to be de­nyed, but that it hath its Obligative Power, even then when for want of a particular Object, or necessary Circumstances, it doth not put forth its Power into Act, and lay its Actual Obligation on a certain Subject. For instance, In the state of Innocency, The Law had in it an Obligative Power unto several things, which yet in that State it neither did nor could actually oblige our first Parents unto, for want of a proper Object; as to relieve the Poor when as yet there were none, and to Educate their Children Religiously, when as yet they had none.

(4.) Consider Fourthly, That the Moral Law either obliges absolutely and for the present, or upon supposition, and for the future, which distinction differs not much from the former. Thus in the State of Innocency, the Law obliged Man absolutely, and for that present time, not to hate, but to love God: But [Page 45]it obliged him to love and relieve the Poor only for the future, when there should be, and on supposition that there should be Poor in the World.

(5) Consider (Fifthly,) That the Moral Natural Law obliges to some Du­ties immediately, and by it self; but to others only mediately, and by reason of some other thing intervening. Thus in the State of Innocency, by it self immediately it obliged Man not to hate, but to love and reverence God: But it then obliged him not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit, only mediately, and by reason of the positive Law which forbad it under pain of Death. For it is certain and evident, That without that positive Law forbidding it, the Law of Nature by it self immediately would never have made it more unlawful to eat of that, than of any other Fruit in the Garden of Eden. It was therefore that positive Law forbidding it, that first in order of Nature obliged Man not to eat of it, and then by means of that positive Law the Law of Nature also came in and obliged Man not to eat of it. The Law of Nature doth not Enact Di­vine Positive Laws for us; but when they are Enacted by God, and do oblige us by God's Authority Enacting them, it then obliges us to the observance of them. This it did before, and still doth since the fall of our First Parents. For the same reason holds with respect to all the positive Laws that ever God Enacted for Mankind.

(6.) Consider, Sixthly, That God's Enacting some Positive Laws, after he had given the Moral Natural Law unto Man in its full perfection, doth not derogate any thing from the full perfection of the said Moral Law, nor from the infinite Wisdom of God the Soveraign Law-giver. And to say and write that for God to make any Positive New Law, after he hath given unto Man the Moral Natural Law, is inconsistent with the Moral Laws perfection, and with Gods Infinite Wisdom, is in effect both to dishonour Gods Law, and to Blaspheme God's Majesty. For it is a matter of Fact most certainly and evi­dently true, that after the first giving unto Man, and concreating with him and in him, the Moral Natural Law; God hath made and given to Man Positive Laws both before and since the Fall, and before and since the Coming of Christ. Now if the Enacting of any New Law doth by good consequence infer the Imperfection of the Moral Natural Law together with the Imperfe­ction of God, and the want of Wisdom in God the Law-give [...]; then it fol­lows also by good and necessary consequence, that in truth the Moral Law is not perfect, nor is God Infinitely Wise, and so he is not God at all; because he hath certainly. Enacted many positive New Laws, and these positive Now Laws argue (as is pretended) that his former Moral Natural Law was not perfect, nor himself Wise enough to give so perfect a Law at first, as should answer all Emergent Cases, and prevent the need of any New Law. By this consideration it manifestly appears that some Men oppose the Gospels being a New Law of Grace, upon such a Principle, as by necessary consequence [...]ns them into Blasphemy and Atheisme; and that their Argument against any New Positive Law, taken from the Perfection of the Moral Natural Law, and from the Infinite Wisdom of God, cannot be good, because it is against plain Matter of Fact, and attempts to prove that which cannot po [...]ibly be proved, to wit, That God hath never since the first Creation Enacted for Men any New Po [...] ­tive Law; which yet he hath certainly done, if there be any Truth in the Scriptures, either of the Old, or New Testament: Yea, this Argument bears so high, as to make a shew of proving that God cannot do what he hath cer­tainly [Page 46]done, and if he hath done what he hath done, then he is not, what he is, and what he is said to be, to wit. Infinitely Perfect and Wise.

(7.) Consider Seventhly, That a Duty or Act of ours, which as to the Mat­ter or Substance of it (so to speak) is one and the same, may yet have several Habitudes and Relations, and may fall under several formal Notions and Con­siderations; and by reason of those different Habitudes, and Notions, may so far differ from it self, as to fall under Two different Laws, whereof the One is Moral Natural, and the other is Moral Positive: And under one formal No [...]ion and in one respect, it may be required of us by a Moral Natural Law; and under another Formal Notion, and in another respect, it may be required of us by a Moral Positive Law. For instance, By one and the same Faith considered materially, and as to the substance of it, (so to speak), 1 Tim. 2.5. we believe in God, and in the Mediator be­tween God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus, who is God al­so. Yet there being here Two different Objects, to wit, (1.) God considered simply as God. (2.) The Mediator between God and Men, Christ Jesus, con­sidered now as God Man; and the one being the Ultimate Terminative Ob­ject, and the other the Intermediate Object of our Faith, through which it is carryed unto God as its ultimately Terminative Object. (1 Pet. 3.18. John 14.1. 2 Cor. 3.4. and 1 Pet. 1.21.) I say there being here two such diffe­rent Objects, our Faith as conversant about these Two Objects, must needs have different Habitudes and Relations, and fall under different formal No­tions and Considerations. At present I shall only instance in this, That accor­ding to our Protestant Divines. Faith as it relates to God simply considered, so it is a Moral Vertue, or, as others, a Theological Vertue; but as it relates to Christ the Mediator, it hath also the Notion of a Moral Instrument, or In­strumental Means, or Condition, whereby we are interested in Christ, or whereby we receive, apprehend, and apply Christ and his Righteousness to our selves, and whereby we trust in him, and in God through him, for Justifi­cation and Salvation on the account of his Righteousness only. Now the same Faith materially considered, having such different Objects, and different Habi­tudes to those Objects, and in different respects falling under different formal Notions, it must needs by reason of them, and as vested with them, differ formally from it self, though it be materially the same Faith still: And then as so differing formally from it self, we may very easily conceive it to fall un­der different Laws. Faith in God simply considered, falls under the Command of the Moral Natural Law, as all confess. Faith in Christ the Mediator, as for­mally differing from Faith in God simply considered, falls under the Command of the Moral Positive Evangelical Law. So our Protestant Divines generally maintain against the Flacian Sectaries. Witness Melancthon, who in his Apology for the Ausburgh Confession, says, ^(a) Faith is Obedience to the Gospel: [Page 47]Wherefore Faith is fitly called Righteousness. For Obedience to the Gospel is imputed for Righteousness; so that Obedience to the Law therefore only pleaseth, because we believe that God is freely propitious to us for Christs sake; for we do not satisfie the Law. But though this Faith be in the Will, for it is to will and to receive the Promise, yet this Obedience to the Gospel is not imputed for Righteousness because of our purity, but because it receives the Mercy offered. Thus Melancthon distingui­shes and opposes to one another, Obedience to Law and Gospel, and affirms Faith to be Obedience to the Gospel as distinguished from the Law.

And again some Pages after he sayes, ^(b) The Gospel is that very Commandment which bids us believe that God will pardon and save for Christs sake; according to that, God sent not his Son into the World to condemn, &c therefore how often there is mention made of Mercy, we must understand that Faith is required

Again in his common places, he sayes, ^(c) The Command to believe in Christ is eternal and unchangeable, and far above the Law. Melancthons meaning is plain, that the Command to believe in Christ, is not a Commandment of the Moral Natural Law, for it is far above that Law; but it is a Commandment of the positive Evangelical Law, which is not Natural but Supernatural.

Chemnitius. also in his common places not only confesses that the Gospel is called a Law, ( Isa. 2.3. Mic. 4.2) and the Law of Faith ( Rom. 3.27.), but (though he purposely sets himself to please the rigid Lutherans) he likewise sayes that, ^(d) The affirmative part, concerning the Faith, or confident trust of Free Mercy for Christs sake is not the voice of the Law, as Paul clearly sayes, Gal. 3.12. The law is not of faith. Observe here, that justifying Faith, in Chemni­tius's Opinion, is not required by the Moral Natural Law, but by the Gospel, and that because Paul clearly saith, that the Law is not of Faith, Gal. 3.12. i. e. The Law requires not Faith to Justification. See our last Annotations ( Pools) on Gal. 3.12. The Law saith nothing of Faith in the Mediatour, though Faith in God be commanded in the first Precept; yet Faith in Christ is not com­manded in the Law, as that by which the Soul shall iive, &c.

Hemmingius a moderate Lutheran, and Disciple of Melancthon, saith, ^(e) All Divines unanimously refer Faith (in Christ) to the Gospel. And he had reason to say so, for before the Flacians. I do not know that ever any Protestant Divine was of that Opinion that it is not the Gospel, but the Moral Natural Law which requires Faith in Christ unto Justification and Salvation. I am sure Luther was not of that mind; for in his Book of Christian Liberty, a little before the passage which Mr. Goodwin hath quoted out of it, he brings in the very Gospel (or God in and by the Gospel) speaking unto Men, and saying, [Page 48] ^(f) Lo here for thee, believe in Christ, in whom are promised unto thee Grace Justice, Peace, Liberty and all: If thou believe, thou shalt have them; if thou believe not, thou shalt want them. Here it is observable, as was said before, (1.) That Luther speaks of the Gospel as distinguished from, and opposed to the Law. (2.) He says, That the Language of the Gospel so considered, is crede in Christum, &c. believe in Christ. And if that be not a Command, how shall we know that ever there was such a Command in the World. (3.) Tho. Luther calls the Gospel there, Promissa Dei, the Promises of God, yet it is most evident he did not think them to be all absolute Promises; for he ex­presly mentions a Conditional Promise, saying, Si credis, habebis, If thou be­lievest, thou shalt have all those benefits that are promised in and through Christ. (4.) That the Conditional Promise of the Gospel, the promise of great Blessings and Benefits made to us on condition that we believe in Christ, doth carry in it a Gospel Command to believe in Christ: Otherwise it is not ima­ginable how Luther could make the very Gospel and the Promises of God, as opposed to the Law, to say unto Man, Crede in Christum, Believe in Christ; for that is a Precept, if ever there was a Precept in the Word of God; and being a Precept, it must according to Luther, be implyed in the Conditional Promise of the Gospel. Whence we may learn this useful Lesson, that in every Conditional Promise of the Gospel, there are two things to be consi­dered by us. (1.) The Promise it self of some gratuitous Benefit. (2.) The Gospel Command to perform the condition upon which the Benefit is pro­mised.

The truth of this Observation was well understood by the Learned Dr. Whitaker, and therefore he saith, ^(g) The Promise of Grace is Conditional, for it requires Faith, &c.

And Dr. Nowell, in his foresaid Latine Catechism taught in the Grammar-Schools throughout England, speaking of the Gospel as distinct from the Law, he saith, ^(h) The Gospel requires Faith.

In like manner Sharpius tells us that the Gospel as distinct from the Law requires Faith, and declares that the contrary Opinion which Mr. Goodwin has lately taken up, is the Error of the Flacians. ⁽ⁱ⁾ The Flacians (saith he) err, who would have no Precept to be in the Gospel, seeing it is manifestly commanded that we should believe and repent: But Faith is only from the Gospel, as is also that Repentance which in Greek is called, [...].

With Sharpius agrees Dickson on Rom. 3.27, 28. his words are these, [Argum. [Page 49]10. Because by the Law of Faith, or the Covenant of Grace, which requires Faith to our Justification by the Righteousness of another, Mans boasting in himself is ex­cluded, and not by the Law of Works, or the Covenant of Works, which exacts per­fect Obedience, and affords boasting to Men in their inherent Righteousness. There­fore (saith he) we conclude, that a Man is justified by Faith, without the Works of the Law.] Thus Dickson.

Of the same Judgment was the late Reverend and Learned Mr. Pitcairn, Principal of the New Colledge, and Rector of the University of S. Andrews: For in his Harmony of the Evangelists, he writes thus, ^(k) Whosoever is justified, he is absolved by the Law of Christ, that is by the Evangelical Law of Christ, which prescribes Faith. And as was observed before, the Assemblies Confession of Faith, in the Seventh Chapter, of Gods Covenant with Man, Art. 3. saith expresly, That the Lord in the Covenant of Grace, requires of Men Faith in Jesus Christ, that they may be saved. I might bring many more Testimonies to this pur­pose, but these are sufficient to show that it hath been, and is the common be­lief of our Protestant Divines (except some raving bawling Flacians in Germany, and the Cocceians in Holland) that the Gospel commands and requires us to believe in Jesus Christ for Justification and Salvation.

The Case then is plainly thus, That the Moral Natural Law requires Faith in God, simply considered as God; and Jesus Christ being God by Nature, One God with the Father and Spirit, it requires Faith in him also considered simply under that formal Notion as God: But the Law doth not by it self immediately require Faith in Christ the Mediatour, as the instrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of him and his Righteousness for Justi­fication. It is the Gospel-Covenant which first by it self immediately consti­tutes and ordains Faith in the Mediatour Christ Jesus, to be the instrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and Salvation; and which likewise requires it of us as such, and under that Notion. Now when Faith in the Mediatour is once by the positive Law of Grace or Gospel-Covenant ordained to such an use, and re­quired of us for that purpose, then I acknowledge that the Moral Natural Law obliges us to observe the positive Evangelical Law of Grace which hath ordained Faith to such an use, and required it in order to such an end; and so mediante Lege Evangelicâ positivâ, by means of the positive Evangelical Law of Grace or new Covenant, the Natural Law, the Law of our Creation ob­liges us to believe in Christ the Mediatour, to receive him and his Righteous­ness, as aforesaid, and to trust to be justified and saved by and for him and his Righteousness only. So that justifying Faith in the Mediatour is required of us first directly and immediately by the Gospel Covenant only; but seconda­rily, mediately and by consequence, it is also required by the Moral Natural Law. This to me is very evident. For,

[1.] The Natural Moral Law cannot of it self immediately oblige us to believe in Christ the Mediatour, unless he be otherwise discovered to us by Supernatural Revelation. This I think none will deny; for the Apostle saith, Rom. 10.14. How shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard? It is simply impossible for a Man to believe in Christ the Mediatour before he be revealed to him; and he cannot be revealed by the Natural Moral Law, [Page 50]without. Supernatural Revelation; therefore he cannot be obliged to believe in Christ the Mediatour by the Natural Moral Law immediately, without a Supernatural Revelation; because that just and good Law cannot oblige a Man to a simple and absolute impossibility. Man in his Innocency could not be obliged by a Natural Law to believe a Supernatural Object, without a Supernatural Revelation.

[2.] The Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour to us, doth of it self immediately oblige us to believe. It doth not only discover Christ the Object, but it doth likewise per se immediatè, by it self immediately oblige us to believe the Object revealed; so that all Natural Moral Law set aside, and abstracting from any such Law, the Supernatural Revelation of Christ would by it self immediately oblige us to believe: And that,

(1.) Because it is Gods own Supernatural Testimony, which of it self hath an immediate Authority over our Conscience, and obliges us to believe with a Faith of assent. The true formal reason and objective moving cause of our obligation to believe a Mysterious Truth Supernaturally revealed to us, is the Divine Testimony it self, or the Soveraign Authority of God Supernaturally revealing. If any Man say, No, it is not that, but it is only the Natural Moral Law which obliges us to believe the Supernatural Tenimony of God: I Answer, That such a Man seems to be pecking towards the Socinians, and does but discover his ignorance of those matters. John says, (1 John 5.10.) he that believeth not God hath made him a lyar, because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. See for this Essen. compend. dogmat. cap. 9. pag. 284. Thes. 34. arg. 3.

(2.) The said Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour, as God hath given it forth unto Man, carries in it, and with it, a positive Command to believe on Christ. This is so clear in Scripture, that a Man must be blind that doth not see it, if he do but read, understand and consider. Let Deut. 18.15, 16, 17, 18, 19. be consulted, and there we shall find a Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour, and a Prophetical Promise to send him into the World. The people were afraid to converse immediately with God (after the dreadful appearance at the giving of the Law in Horeb), therefore they desired that Moses would be Mediatour between God and them. This motion and desire of the people God approved of, v. 16, 17. and withal made them a promise by Moses, that he would send them the true Mediatour Christ, whom Moses in that did but typifie and adumbrate: And at the same time, by the same Moses, God gave a Command to hearken unto Christ when he should come, and backed his Command with a Threatning to punish them severely in case they did not hearken unto him. Compare this with Acts 3.22, 23. and it will evidently appear that here we have a Supernatural Revela­tion of Christ the Mediatour, which contains in it a plain Command to hear him in all things; and that hearing him in all things, includes believing on him, ( John 8.24. and 14.1.); and the Command is enforced with a dreadful Threatning against every Soul which will not hear him, and believe on him. Now doth not this Supernatural Revelation by vertue of the Command in­cluded in it, immediately oblige us, to believe on Christ for Justification and Salvation? Surely none but an Unbeliever can deny this. And it not only doth oblige us, but it would oblige us, suppose (that which is impossible) that there were no Natural Moral Law in the World. We have then a positive Law which immediately obliges our Conscience to believe in Christ the Me­diatour, [Page 51]besides the Natural Moral Law. And thus was this matter understood above Twelve Hundred Years ago. Witness that of Lactantius; ^(l) Moses himself, by whom the Law was given, and which the Jews obstinately defending, are fallen from God, and have lost the knowledge of God; foretold that it should come to pass, that God would send a most Great Prophet, who should be above the Law, and should bring the Notice of God's Will to Men. In Deuteronomy he left it thus written, And the Lord said unto me, I will raise them up a Prophet from among their Brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my Word in his Mouth, and he shall speak unto them those things which I shall command him: And whosoever shall not hear those things which that Prophet shall speak in my Name, I will punish him for it. God declared even by the Law giver himself, that he would send his own Son, that is, a Living and Present Law, and would abrogate that Old Law, given by a Mortal Man; that he might by him who should be Eternal, again Confirm and Ratifie the Eternal Law.

Thus he, and whoever is acquainted with the Writings of Lactantius, may (I think) easily perceive that by the Eternal Law, he meant the Everlasting Gospel or Covenant, and Law of Grace which the Eternal Christ hath Confir­med and Ratified by his Blood shedding and Death.

This may appear yet clearer to some Persons from Matth. 17.5. And behold a Voice out of the Cloud which said, This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him. Where again, We have (1.) A Supernatural Revelation of Christ as the Son of God. (2.) We have a positive Command of God, to hear him, that is to believe on him, and obey him, as the word ( hear) signifies, according to the Hebrew idiom. Now this Voice out of the Cloud was not the Voice of the Law of Nature, but of the Father as such, speaking by super­natural Revelation; nor was this a Command of the Law of Nature, but it was a positive Command of God, as the Authour of Grace, which positive Com­mand recorded in Scripture, is to us Christians a positive Law, whatever it be to Unbelievers; It is a positive Law which obliges us to Faith in Christ by the Evidence of Supernatural Revelation applying the Veracity and Authority of God to our Consciences. Such it was to Melancthon, one of our first Reformers, who often hath recourse to it as a Command of the Gospel distinct from the Natural Moral Law. Particularly he hath recourse to it twice in his Answer to the 22th. Article of the Bavarian Inquisition. And as the foresaid Super­natural Revelations carryed in them a Positive Command expresly; so the first obscurer Revelation of that kind, (that the Seed of the Woman, should bruise the Serpents Head, Gen. 3.15.) implyed the like Positive Command to be­lieve in Christ to come; though it be not so express in the first Written Re­cord as it is conveyed down to us. We have no ground to believe that God said [Page 52]not one word more to our First Parents after the Fall, than what we find ex­presly written in the Third of Genesis; And suppose he did not say one word more, as on the other hand no Man can prove that he did: Yet there is a Pro­mise of Mercy to be shewed unto Fallen Man by means of the Seed of the Woman, as is confest. Now Melancthon has told us, as he was quoted be­fore. That ^(m) As often as there is mention made of Mercy, (to wit, saving Mercy by Christ,) we must understand that Faith is required.

But I insist not on that. It is sufficient to our purpose, that we now have a Supernatural clear Revelation of Christ, See Acts 16.31. with a clear express positive Command to believe on him, and that distinct from the Natural Moral Law. And this express po­sitive Command, (Hear ye him, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved) is to us an Evangelical Law, which hath more Power over our Con­sciences than Ten Thousand such little Sophismes set off with a Rhetorical Flou­rish of Words, as are offered us to prove, That we are not obliged to believe in Christ for Justification and Salvation, by the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace, but only by the Natural Moral Law.

Thirdly, As the Opinion under Consideration, is not true, because contrary to plain Scripture, so it is of worse consequence to Religion, than my Reverend Brother seems to be aware of; For if there be no Positive Law in the Gospel, distinct from the Natural Law, which obliges us to Faith in Christ; because if there were, then the Natural Moral Law would not be perfect, and prescribe all Duty, nor would God be Infinitely Wise; it follows by the same reason that there is no positive Law at all, which obligeth us to any other Du­ty; and indeed by this Flacian Opinion he plainly overthrows all Positive Laws, and therewith all Instituted Worship. And he is mistaken, if he think to prevent and remedy this, by reducing all to the Natural Moral Law. For,

(1.) If there be no Positive Law at all, then it can never be reduced to the Natural Moral Law. For a thing that is not at all, cannot be reduced to a thing that really is.

(2.) The Natural Moral Law would never oblige us to any the least part of Positive Instituted Worship, if we were not first in order of Nature obliged to it by the positive Will of God instituting it, and by the Institution it self im­mediately obliging us to the observance of it. Once take away the Obliga­tion that arises immediately from the positive Institution, and the Law of Na­ture, the Moral Natural Law will never take hold of our Consciences to oblige us thereunto. For it is by means of the Special Positive Law, that the General Natural Law obliges to such and such particular kind of things, which fall not under the Commands of the general Natural Law. Is it not very evident, that though Adam, before he sinned had the Moral Natural Law in its full perfection, yet it would never have obliged his Conscience to forbear Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, more than any other Fruit in the Garden of Eden; If to the General Natural Law, God had not super-added a particular positive Law, forbidding him under pain of Death to eat of the Fruit of that Tree: So that it was this New Positive Law which first obliged him not to eat of it, and then by Vertue of that, The Moral Natu­ral Law strictly obliged him likewise not to eat of it. And this holds Uni­versally with respect to every thing that depends on the Arbitrary Will of God to make it our Duty or not. It is his Positive Law, signifying his Will and [Page 53]Pleasure, that first obliges us, and then by vertue thereof, God's General Na­tural Law obliges us also; and not otherwise. So that upon this absurd Prin­ciple, if it should prevail amongst us, we must all turn Seventh day-Men and Quakers; for we shall never be able to prove by any, or all of the Ten Com­mandments, without a Positive Law expresly or implicitly instituting them, and still in force; That the First Day of the Week is the Christian Sabbath, That we ought to be Baptized with Water in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to Eat and Drink the Blessed Bread and Wine in remembrance of Christ's Death till he come.

To this I shall subjoyn the Testimony of the Late Reverend and Learned Dr. Owen, and then pass on. From Deut. 18. ver. 18, 19. he infers that Christ was to be a Law giver. His words are [ ⁽ⁿ⁾ ‘The Prophet here foretold, was to be like unto him (Moses) wherein he was peculiar and exempted from com­parison with all other Prophets, which were to build on his Foundation, without adding any thing to the Rule of Faith and Worship which he had Revealed, or changing any thing therein. In that is the Prophet here pro­mised to be like unto him, that is he was to be a Law-giver to the House of God, as our Apostle proves and declares, Chap. 3. ver. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. — Moses was the great Law giver, by whom God revealed his Mind and Will, as to his whole Worship, whilst the Church-State Instituted by him was to conti­nue. Such a Prophet was the Messias to be, a Law-giver, so as to Abolish the Old, and to Institute New Rites of Worship. —This raising up of a Prophet, like unto Moses, declares, That the Whole Will of God, as to his Worship, and the Churches Obedience, was not yet Revealed. Had it so been, there would have been no need of a Prophet like unto Moses, to lay New Foundations as he had done.]’ Thus the Doctor.

Now as I have distinguished of Faith, so I distinguish of Repentance. As there is a Faith in God which most certainly is commanded by the Natural Moral Law it self immediately; so there is a Repentance towards God, which is also Comman­ded by the Natural Moral Law it self immediately. This I never denyed, but al­ways believed, and in our Apology, pag. 200. we plainly enough professed this our belief in these words, ‘[Heathens who never heard, nor could hear of the Gospel for want of an Objective Revelation of it, they living and dying with­out Repentance and Faith in the True God, under the guilt of Sins against the Law, and Light of Nature, will be Condemned by the Law, but not by the Gospel, which they could not know, Rom 2.12.]’ These words plainly show, that our Judg­ment is, That Heathens are guilty of Sins against the Law and Light of Na­ture, in that they do not believe in the True God, nor repent of their Sins, although they have not the Gospel, and so no Gospel-Promise to assure them of Pardon; and that they shall be Condemned by the Law of Nature for their Unbelief and Impenitency against the Law of Nature, together with their other Sins against the same Law. And from this it appears, That a great part of my Reverend Brothers Seventh Chapter, is altogether Impertinent, and that I am not at all concerned in it. Mr. Goodwin here fights against a Man of Straw of his own making and setting up, and valiantly runs him down again, and I do not in the least envy him the Glory of such a Victory. But though the Natu­ral Moral Law doth oblige all Mankind of ripe years to a Natural Legal Re­pentance, that is, (1.) To be heartily sorry for having offended God their Creator and Preserver, by breaking his Law which they are under, and out­wardly [Page 54]also to express the inward sorrow of their Hearts. (2) To hate their Sin as a great Evil in it self, and the procuring Cause of Evil unto Men. (3.) Not to act their Sin over again, but to abstain from Sin, and to keep God's Natural Moral Law for the future: Yet there is another kind of Repentance which the Natural Moral Law doth not by it self immediately oblige all Mankind unto in all parts of the World, and that is an Evangelical Repen­tance, which ariseth from an apprehension and perswasion of God's Mercy in Christ to all such as are truely Penitent, and to our selves, if we do, or shall truely Repent. This is a Repentance towards God considered not meerly as our Creator, Preserver and Ruler; but as in Christ reconciling the World un­to himself, and as Ruling Graciously and Mercifully by Christ. So that it hath a formal Object different from that of the other Natural Legal Repen­tance, and it hath likewise a different Habitude and Relation unto God, and is carryed out unto him after a different manner, which is sufficient to give it ano­ther Form, and to make it formally to differ from the foresaid Natural Legal Repentance: Moreover, it hath another Office and Use assigned to it, for it is constituted and Ordained by God through Christ to be a Condition Dispositive of the Subject to be pardoned, or a means to prepare and qualifie us for Re­ceiving the Pardon of our Sins by Faith in Christ's Blood, and for his Righte­ousness only, apprehended, applyed, and trusted to by Faith. Now such a Repentance as this, a True Evangelical Repentance, considered under this for­mal notion, as arising from the foresaid perswasion of Gods Mercy in Christ to the truely Penitent; and as a Condition or Means to dispose and prepare for pardon, and as having pardon ensured to it by Promise through Christ: I say Repentance of this kind, and considered under this Notion, is Commanded and Required by the Gospel-Law or Covenant, firstly, directly, and imme­diately; and then by the Natural Moral Law mediately, and by consequence. As the Gospel Commands us to believe that God is upon terms of Saving, Par­doning Mercy to the truely Penitent, so the Gospel, or God by the Gospel, makes True Repentance to be one of the Terms, to be a Condition or Means to dispose and qualifie us for pardoning Mercy; and makes Pardon sure to us by Promise through Christ upon our Repentance: As also, It is the Gos­pel, and God by Gospel, that requires the said dispositive Condition, that Com­mands us to Repent, that we may certainly obtain the Promised Pardon, through Faith in Christ's Blood.

That God by the Gospel Commands us to Repent, in order to obtain the Pardon of our Sins, is as Clear as the Light at Noon, to all that are not blind through Unbelief. For doth not the Evangelical Prophet say, Isai. 55.7. Let the Wicked forsake his Way, and the Ʋnrighteous Man his Thoughts, and let him Return unto the Lord, and he will have Mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly Pardon: Or, He will multiply to Pardon. It cannot be said, That this is the Voice of the first Covenant and Law of Works. For that Co­venant is so far from requiring Repentance as a means to obtain Pardon of Sin, that it doth not so much as admit of Repentance as any means to such an end, as we shall hear by and by from Mr. Caryll. And if it be not the Voice of the Old Covenant and Law of Works, it must be the Voice of the New Cove­nant and Law of Grace; for there is no Medium, no Third that can have any place here. And it is observable, that here Repentance is required in the first place, and then Pardon is promised as a great favour, which shall follow after. [Page 55]For the Promise runs in the Future Tense, the Lord will have Mercy upon the wicked Man who hath truly repented, and our God will abundantly pardon him. He will pardon him all the Sins, whereof he hath truly repented, how many soever they have been.

And as John Baptist, our Lord himself and his Apostles began their Preach­ing of the Gospel with the Preaching of Repentance, so when our Lord Christ after his Resurrection enlarged the Apostles Commission, and sent them to preach the Gospel to the Gentile World, he told them, that they must preach Repentance and Remission of Sin; in his Name among all Nations, begin­ning at Jerusalem, Luke 24.47. So that it was a part of their Commission to preach the Gospel, that they should preach Repentance as a means to obtain Remission of Sins through Faith in Christs name. And it is certain that they acted according to their Commission. Peter led the way; and in his first Sermon after they were endued with Power from on high; he said to the convinced humbled Jews, (who asked him and the rest of the Apostles what they should do?) That they should repent and be baptized every one of them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, Acts 2.37, 38. Those Jews were deeply convinced that they had broken the Law, and thereby fallen under its curse, and destroyed their own Souls; so that it was not then time to preach the Old Law of Works to them; nor did Peter preach it then to them, but he preached the Gospel-Covenant and New Law of Grace to them, saying as before mentioned, Repent, &c. for the remission of sins. And by that first Gospel-Sermon he converted about Three Thousand Souls. And as he began so he continued to do; for his next publick Sermon to the people was of the same strain with the first; for after he and his Brethren had born their Te­stimony to Christs Resurrection, and by his Resurrection and the Miracle done in his Name had proved him to be indeed the true Christ whom God promised to send into the World for the Redemption of his People: And like­wise after he had charged them with, and proved them guilty of the murder of Christ, and had shewed that by ignorantly murdering Jesus of Nazareth, they had unwittingly fulfilled the many Prophesies which foretold the sufferings of Christ for the Salvation of his People; he immediately commanded and exhorted them to repent and be converted, as the means to obtain the Pardon of their Sins, and Salvation of their Souls. Acts 3.19. Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And here by the way we may take notice that the antient Syriack Interpreter renders this place thus; [ Repent there­fore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, and that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.] [...]. See Act. 15.17. After the same manner it is rendred in the Tigurin Transla­tion. Irenaeus also, a very Antient Father and Martyr above Fourteen Hundred Years ago, thus quotes this Scripture; ^(o) [Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, and that the times of the Lords refreshing may come unto you.] So Irenaeus. But I lay not the stress of my Ar­gument on that Old Translation; for our own Translation is sufficient to my purpose, since it plainly shews, That the Gospel prescribes Repentance unto Sinners, as a means to prepare and dispose them for obtaining the Pardon of [Page 56]their Sins; which the Natural Moral Law by it self immediately doth not do; but only requires a Natural Legal Repentance, such as is before descri­bed, and that Men should so sin no more for time to come; but doth not or­dain it to be a means, nor require it as a means to obtain pardon, nor yet ensure pardon to it through Christ, as such a means.

And as Peter led the way in preaching the Gospel, by preaching Repentance as a means to obtain pardon of Sin; so the other Apostles followed, accord­ing to the Commission which they all received from the Lord himself. Paul (as was shewn in the Apology) was sent to the Gentiles to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they might receive forgiveness of sins, &c. Acts 26.17, 18. And he was faithful to the Lord who sent him, and approved himself so to be, by testify­ing both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, Repentance towards God, and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ; Acts 20.20, 21. And the end in order to which he preached up the use of these means of Faith and Repentance, was that people might receive forgiveness of Sins. And if that was not Gospel­preaching, how can it be proved that ever there was such a thing as Gospel­preaching in the World; and that Paul was faithful to God and the Souls of Men in preaching the Gospel; since Repentance towards God, and Faith to­wards our Lord Jesus Christ, and that too in order to pardon of Sin, to Justi­fication and Salvation were the two great heads of Doctrine that he mainly insisted upon: as evidently appears from Acts 26.17, 18, 19, 20, &c. com­pared with Acts 20.20, 21. And that the other Apostles preached the same Gospel, in the same way, and to the same end, it is needless to go about to prove it, since they had all one Commission, and were all faithful in preach­ing according to their Commission. Now as this was Gospel in the days of the Apostles, so it hath been, and still is, and ever will be Gospel to the end of the World: For Christs Gospel is an everlasting Gospel, and in all Ages hath been preserved and continued in the Church, and hath been preached (as to the sum and substance of it) by certain faithful Ministers of Christ in all Ages. Lactantius of old gave this as a mark to know the true Church by: ^(o) [ We must know (saith he) that that is the true Catholick Church, in which is Confession and Repentance, which wholesomely cures the sins and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is subject.] Here is nothing for Popish Merits and Satis­factions, for his words signifie no more but this, that Confession and Repen­tance is a wholesome means used in the true Church according to the Gospel, 1 John 1.9. for obtaining Pardon of Sin by Faith in Christs Blood. Hence in the same Book he saith; ^(p) [ Christ by his Death hath purchased Life for us, having overcome Death; therefore Man hath no other ground of hope given him of obtaining Immortality, unless he believe in him, and take up and patiently bear that Cross; to wit of Christ.]

Julius Firmicus also writeth thus; ^(q) [ Gods Mercy is rich, he willingly forgives. Ha­ving left the ninety and nine sheep, he seeks the one which was lost. And the Father bestows a Garment upon, and prepares a Supper for the Prodigal Son when he returns. Let not any multitude of your Sins cause you to despair; the most high God by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord delivers or redeems those that are willing, and willingly forgives the penitent; nor doth he require of us many things that he may forgive. By Faith and Repentance only, ye may recover whatever ye have lest by the wicked perswasions of the Devil. The word (redimere) is not here used by this Antient Authour in a strict and proper, but in a large impro­per sense, and signifies to recover, as I have translated it: And so the word to save, is taken largely and improperly in Holy Scripture, when Men are said by Christ or his Apostles, to save themselves, Luke 7.50. Thy faith hath saved thee. Acts 2.40. Save your selves from this untoward generation. 1 Tim. 4.16. In doing this thou shalt both save thy self, and them that hear thee. And that I have rightly Translated the foresaid word, used by Julius Firmicus Maternus, will evidently appear to any that shall be at the pains to read in the same Book, Page 61. Line 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, &c. And again, Page 65, 66. for by his own words there, first to the Heathens, and then to the Emperours, it doth plainly appear that he was sound and orthodox in the point of our Redemption by the Obediential Sufferings of Christ God-Man, and Mediatour between God and Men. But though it be thus, that he maintained we are properly redeemed by Christ only, and that none could ever obtain Life but by the Merit of his Obedience and Death; yet it is withal most certain that he held not only Faith in Christ Jesus, but also Repentance towards God, to be necessary, yea and an­tecedently necessary in order to the obtaining pardon of Sin: For these are his express words; ^(r) [ Seek rather the hope of Salvation; seek the beginning or rising of the Light; seek that which may either commend thee or restore thee to God; and when thou hast found the true way of Salvation, rejoyce, and then with an uplifted or loud freedom or boldness of speech, proclaim it, saying (as the Heathens used to do in the Worship of Isis, when they had found the Body of Osiris) [We have found it, rejoyce we together], when by the mercy of the most high God, thou shalt be delivered from these calamities after thy Repentance.] And as the Apostles and Fathers after them (as is shewn more largely in the Apology) taught that the Gospel requires Evangelical Repentance in order to pardon of Sin; so did our first Reformers and Protestant Divines since the Reformation. As for our first Reformers abroad, let the Augustan Confession, which they all subscribed, bear witness what their Judgment in that matter was. I have spoken to this before, and shewed from the express words of the Augustan Confession quoted at large in the Apo­logy, Pag. 88. That the Gospel requires Repentance in order to pardon of Sin, and at the same time offers Remission of Sins freely for Christs sake, to all that are truly pe­nitent. Melancthen who drew up that Confession, and wrote an Apology for it, is so clear in the case, that it is matter of wonder to me, that any should be so immodest as to deny so plain and certain a matter of fact. For after he had said in his common [Page 58]places, That the Particle [gratis] freely, in Rom. 3.24. doth not exclude Faith, but excludes the condition of our own worthiness, and transfers the cause of the benefit from us unto Christ; and moreover having said that the Particle (freely) doth neither exclude our own Obedience, but only transfers the cause of the benefit from the worth of our Obedience unto Christ, that the benefit may be sure: Finally having said that the Gospel preaches Repentance, but that our reconciliation may be iure, it teaches that our Sins are pardoned, and that we please God, not for the dignity or merit of our Repentance, or newness of Heart and Life, but for Christs sake only; and that this consolation is necessary to pious Consciences. From the premisses he makes his inference in these words following; ^(s) [ And hence it may be judged how these things agree, that we said the Gospel preaches concerning Repentance, and yet it freely promises Re­conciliation. —Christ therefore in the last of Luke (chap. 24. ver. 47.) defines the Gospel plainly (or altogether) as an Artist, when he commands to teach Repentance and Re­mission of Sins in his Name. The Gospel then is a preaching of Repentance and a Promise, which Reason doth not naturally attain unto, &c. Thus Melancthon; and I could quote more out of his Writings to this purpose: but this is enough. He who cannot see by this little, that Melancthon believed the Gospel requires Repentance of us in order to pardon of Sin, seems to be like those of whom Lactantius of old in the Seventh Book and First Chapter of his Institutions, said that they will not believe our Doctrine, [Nec si Solem quidem ipsum gestemus in manibus], No not though we carry before them even the Sun it self in our hands; that is, though we bring them the clearest evi­dence imaginable: Matth. 11.19. But however it be with such persons, yet Wisdom is and will be justified of her Children.

As for Luther, since he approved and subscribed the Ausburgh Confession, we may from it take an estimate of his Judgment: And besides that, Chemnicius in his common places, page 219, 220. shews out of Luthers first Disputation against the Antinomians, That he also held that Repentance taken intirely in its essential perfection, is required by the Gospel. I wish Luther had been something more accurate in the handling of that matter; but as it is, it sufficeth to show that he was far from thinking that Evan­gelical Repentance is required by the Natural Moral Law only, and not at all by the Gospel; and that on the contrary he believed that Evangelical Repentance as Evange­lical, is from the Gospel, and not from the Law.

And so the Lutherans generally (except the Flacians, if there be yet any of that Sect remaining in Germany) maintain that Evangelical Repentance as Evangelical is required by the Gospel. And I wonder not at all to find them unanimous in this, so far as I am acquainted with their Writings; because after Melancthon, they hold Faith to be an essential part, yea to be the essentiating form of Evangelical Repentance. I am not indeed of their mind in this; yet I think it is a truth, that though Faith be not the very essential form it self of Evangelical Repentance, yet it contributes much towards the giving its specifical form, and the making it truly Evangelical; and without Faith it would not be Evangelical.

Calvin and his Followers differ from the Lutherans in this, That they make not Faith to be an Essential part of Repentance, but hold them to be Two distinct Graces co-exi­stent and influential the one upon the other. And that Calvin believed as we do, That the Gospel requires of us Evangelical Repentance in order to Pardon of Sin, I plainly pro­ved from his Writings which are quoted in the Apology. p. 92, 93. If any should object [Page 59]that Calvin on Rom. 10. ver. 8. writes thus ^(t) [ We gather, That as the Law requires Works (to wit, unto Justification,) so the Gospel requires nothing, but that Men bring Faith to re­ceive the Grace of God.] I Answer, That this makes altogether for us. For (1.) Here Calvin says expresly, That the Gospel requires Faith, then he did not believe it to be such a Doctrine of Grace as requires nothing of us at all. (2.) Calvin here saith, That the Gospel requires nothing but Faith to receive the Grace of God. And so we say the very same thing. For we have told the World in our Apology, That Faith is the only receptive Condition of Justification; that is, it is the only thing which the Gospel re­quires as the Instrumental Means or Condition whereby we Apprehend, Receive, and Apply Christ and his Righteousness to our own Souls for our Justification. As for Re­pentance it is not of that Nature, it is not naturally sitted for, nor is it by God appointed and ordained to that use and Office in the matter of Justification; but it is only fitted for, and ordained unto this Use and Office to be the Means or Condition dispositive of the subject (man) which is to be pardoned and Justifyed. And this Calvin does not here deny, and we have proved that elsewhere he affirms, and maintains it, as we do.

As for the Followers of Calvin, I might be large in showing that generally they (ex­cept a few Cocceians) hold that the Gospel-Covenant requires Evangelical Repentance in order to Pardon of Sin; but I will content my self at present with a few clear irre­fragable Testimonies. Having mentioned Zanchy and Sharpius before, I pass them, and begin with Ʋrsin and Pareus, whose words are these, [ It was said in the definition of the Gospel, and in the third difference between the Law and the Gospel, that the Gospel requireth both Faith and Repentance, or New Obedience, and so is the Preaching both of Remission of Sins and of Repentance. Against this Flacian Sectaries keep a stir, and reason after this sort. Obj. There is no Precept or Command belonging to the Gospel, but to the Law: The Preaching of Repentance is a Precept or Commandment: Therefore the Preaching of Repentance belongeth not to the Gospel, but to the Law. Answer, We deny the Major, if it be generally meant. For this Precept is proper unto the Gospel, Zacharias Ursinus, his Sum of Christian Religion Enlarged. By Pareus in Latine, and Translated into English, and Printed at London. An 1645. pag. 131. that it commandeth us to believe it, to embrace the benefit of Christ, and now being justifyed to begin New Obedience, or that Righteousness which the Law requireth of us. Repl. Yea, but the Law also willeth us to believe God: Therefore it is not proper unto the Gospel to Com­mand us to believe. Answer, Both the Law and the Gospel comman­deth Faith and Conversion to God, but diversly, &c. Thus Ʋrsin and Pareus, tell us plainly what their Judgment was, and by Con­sequence what the Judgment of the Old Calvinists was in Germany; for this their large Catechisme was generally received and Taught in Schools of the Reformed both in Germany and elsewhere, as in Scotland, &c.

Another Instance of this Nature we have in Wendelin, a zealous Calvinist, who in his Systema majus. lib. 1. cap. 19. Thes. 7. writeth thus. ^(u) [ The Command to receive and em­brace the Mediator, joins Repentance also with Faith, according to that of John the Baptist, Mark 1.15. Repent, and believe the Gospel: So God himself from Heaven reveals the Media­tor, and Commands to embrace him with a True Faith, Matth. 17.5. This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; Hear ye him. This Repentance, as it is a saving Conversion unto God, that is Sanctification begun or continued, evidently belongs to the Gospel. Which he there [Page 60]proves by Four Arguments. The same Learned Authour a little before in the same Book, page 750, 751. by distinguishing the several Senses in which the Word Gospel is taken, answers all that Mr. Goodwin hath written in his whole Book; only he did not think that any Body (but a Flacian Sectary) would be so absurd, as to say that the Gospel strictly and properly taken, is a Doctrine of Grace that requires nothing of us at all; and there­fore he affirms that the Gospel strictly taken requires Faith, and that (Evangelium quocun­que modo acceptum habet promissiones conditionales.) Take the Gospel which way soever one will, it hath Conditional Promises. This is another of the Systems of Divinity that hath been used in the Schools of the Reformed, and even by the Presbyterians in Scot­land.

But we will leave the Germans, and come to our own Countrey Men, and see what their Judgment hath been of this matter. And I will begin with Mr. Caryl, whose Judgment, I hope, will be something regarded by the Brethren. He gives it plainly, and fully, on Job 42.6. last Vol. in Quarto, pag. 842, where that Evangelical Repen­tance as a means of obtaining Pardon and Life, is not required by the Law, but by the Gospel, he proves, (1.) ‘By Scripture, Matth. 3.2, 11. and 4.17. and Mark 6.12. Acts 2.38. Acts 20.21. (2.) He says, It is through the Gospel only that Repen­tance is possible, and this appears two ways. (1.) Because we have not a liberty to repent, or we are not admitted to repent but by the Gospel; we find no place for Re­pentance in the Law strictly taken, or as opposed to the Gospel. The Law speaks thus, Cursed is every one that continueth not, &c. Gal. 3.10. Where we see (1.) The Law re­quires Personal Obedience, every one must do for himself. (2.) The Law requires perpetual Obedience, (every one that continueth not doing) (3.) The Law requires Universal Obedience. (every one that continueth not in all things.) The Law doth not say, If a Man continue not to do all, let him repent; that admits no second Thoughts, but claps the Curse presently upon the Offender. If Adam as soon as he had eaten of the forbidden Tree, had bewailed his Sin, and said, I repent, no Favour could have been shewed him while under the Law, &c.’ Thus the Reverend Mr. Caryl, whereby it plainly appears that he believed the Law by it self immediately doth not oblige us to Repentance as it is a means by God's Ordination, disposing us to obtain Pardon of Sin, and acceptance with God through Faith in Christ: for he plainly says, That the Law doth not admit us to repent in order to such an end: And then surely it doth not Command us to repent in order to such an end. On the other hand he proves by Scripture, that the Gospel Commands us to Repent in order to the foresaid end. And therefore he is plain­ly on our side against my Reverend Brother.

So are the Reverend Authours of the Assemblyes Annotations. Annotation on Mark 1.15. "Repent ye.] Faith and Repentance (say they) are the sum of the Gospel.

The same Annotators, in their Annotation on Acts 17.30. But now he Commandeth all Men every where to repent] they say [now he causeth the Gospel to be preached to all Nations to draw them from their horrible Sins: And now if they refuse to do the known Will of their Master, they must expect more severe Judgments] Hence it is manifest that in the Judgment of those Divines, the Command to repent in order to ob­tain Pardon of Sin, is a part of the Gospel, otherwise their Annotation had been imper­tinent; yea, it had been a wresting of Holy Scripture, and a perverting of the true meaning of the Text, which they designed to explain. But some may demand whether our Protestant Divines use to say that True Repentance is a Condition required of us as necessary, yea, and as antecedently necessary in order of Nature, to the obtaining Par­don of Sin? I Answer, Yea, they do use to say so, and some of them prove it too. Wit­ness the same Assemblies Annotations on Mark 1. ver. 4. John did Preach the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins. On these words they have this Note, ‘[Re­pentance is not the Cause, but the Inseparable Condition of Sins Remission.]’ And on Acts 5.31. where Christ is said to give Repentance, &c. their Note is ‘[ This Christ gi­veth [Page 61]by the Spirit of Regeneration, and hereunto is Remission of Sins most certainly annexed]’ And Pool's Annotations on Christ's words, Matth. 9.13. ‘ but I am come to call Sinners to Repentance.’ They have this Note ‘[ but sensible Sinners to Repentance. First to Repen­tance, then to the receiving Remission of Sins, &c]’ Witness also (2.) Dr Rivet and Mr. Anthony Burgess both at once. For thus Burgess quotes Rivet with approbation. ‘[We have other Orthodox Writers speaking more consonantly to Truth, denying that future Sins are forgiven, Burgesses's True Do­ctrine of Justifica­tion Asserted, &c. in 30. Lectures. pag. 244. before committed and repented of. When Grotius had objected that the Protestants Doctrine, was Peccata condonari antequam fiant, That Sins were forgiven before they were Committed; Rivet in his [...] pag. 467. replyeth, Imo id nos absurdissimum credimus, &c. Yea, We think such a Doctrine most absurd, and the imputation of it to us most unjust; —Those that know God hath Decreed from Eternity to par­don Sin upon the Condition of Repentance, those that know God hath not decreed the End without the Means, will never ascribe to themselves Pardon of Sin, without these exercises of Repentance.’ Mr. Burgess goes on with Rivet, and saith, ‘[Thus the same Authour in the same Book, pag. 533. Absurdum est credere, &c. It is absurd (saith he) to believe a Remission of Sins which are not yet committed, for neither in the Decree of God is there an actual Remission Decreed without Repentance preceding Re­mission.’

Again, The same Burgess in the same Book, pag. 270. gives us his own Judgment, by it self in these following words, ‘[There is in Scripture a two-fold Repentance, or Humiliation for Sin; the one antecedent, and going before Pardon, and this the Scripture requireth as a necessary Condition, without which Forgiveness of Sin cannot be obtain­ed: Of this Repentance the Scripture for the most part speaks, Ezek 18.30. Matth. 3.2. Mark 6.12. Luke 13.3. Acts 3.19. and generally in most places of Scripture, &c.’ By this now it appears that both Rivet and Burgess held that True Repentance is requi­red as a Condition or Means antecedently in order of Nature necessary to the Pardon of Sin.

Our Third Witness is the Learned, Prudent, Pious and Peaceable Mr. Durham, who in his Commentary on the Revelation hath a large Discourse concerning Repentance; where (1.) He distinguishes and shews what Repentance it is which he holds to be necessary to pardon of Sin. (2.) He proves it to be 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 [Page 62]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) (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 Law of Works. This was briefly explained and proved in the Apology, pag. 200, 201. and it might be further confirmed, if it were needful. But it is not needful, because to a Man who knows himself to be a Sinner, and understands the Nature of that first Law, (as every Man of common understanding may do,) it is self-evident that that Law condemns him to Death for his Sin; and that it is simply impossible for him to be justified unto Life, by that very Law which every moment condemns him to death. And yet it must be confessed, that the first Law or Covenant of Works as fortisied with its Promissory Sanction is repeated both in the Old and New Testament, where the Scripture saith to Sinful Man, Do this and live, Levit. 18.5. Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.12. But we must know that this was Occonomical, and Gods design in it was not to oblige any sinful Man to seek or expect Life by his doing the Works of the first Law and Covenant, which Promised Life to Man only on condition that he so kept it, as never to sin at all, nor by Sin to break it. But then you will say, What was Gods design in it? I answer, That so far as the Lord hath given me light to see into this matter, his design seems to have been (1.) By setting before us the form of the First Covenant of Works, to recal to our minds what Man once was, and what he should still have been: That once he was without all Sin, and able to have continued so; and to have lived for ever, by keeping Covenant, with God. (2.) To convince us that now we are all in our Natural State, Dead Men by that very Law and Covenant, which would have secured Life to us, if we had perfect­ly kept it, but now brings us all under the guilt of Death, Temporal and Eternal Death, because we have broken it.

(3.) To stir us up to confess our Sin and Misery, and to put us upon searching, Whe­ther God hath in Mercy provided any remedy against our Sin and Misery. (4.) To make us willing to receive and use the Remedy, as soon as God discovers it to us. In a word, to make us despair of ever obtaining Life by the Works of that Law which condemns us to death for our sins; and to make us flee for Refuge unto Christ our Help and Hope, as God offers him to us in the New Covenant or Law of Grace.

(2dly) It is to be observed, That as soon as any Man takes this course, assoon as any Man takes hold of the New Covenant of Grace, and heartily and sincerely by Faith closes with, and receives Christ and his Righteousness as offered and held forth in the said New Covenant, he is instantly acquitted from the guilt of Death, he was under for breaking the Law, and hath a Right to Life given him only on the account of the Lord Redeemer Christ, and his Satisfactory, Meritorious Righteousness received and applyed by Faith alone: And so he is justifyed by Faith without Works; For though Faith in Christ the Mediator be in it self a Heart-work, yet it is not the Works of the Law, it is not any of those Works which the First Covenant or Law of Works did require to Justifica­tion. It is neither a Work which the Natural Moral Law by it self immediately required, nor yet is it a Work in the Sense of the Law of Works; for Works in the sense of that Law and Covenant, they signifie that Obedience to the Law, whereby a Man in his own person fulsills the Righteousness of the Law, and that for which a Man is justified. But Faith is not a Work in that Sense, for as much as it is no part at all of that Obedience [Page 64]which sulfills the Law, and for which a penitent Believer is justified. It is only Christs Obedience unto Death, even the Death of the Cross, for which Believers are justified, and Faith is no part of it, but is the only instrumental means, or receptive applicative condition whereby we come to have interest in it, and to be justified by and for it alone.

(3.) It is to be observed, that though upon our first taking hold of Gods New Co­venant and Law of Grace by Faith, we are for Christs sake alone instantly acquitted from the guilt of Death, and receive a right to Life; yet God hath made it one of the Articles of the new Covenant, that according to our time and talents we must after­wards yield sincere Obedience to his several Laws and Institutions, both Moral Na­tural, and Positive, before we be admitted to full possession of Eternal Life in Heavenly Glory. God doth not require this sincere Obedience in order to our being first justi­fied, but in order to our being at last glorified. And he requires it as a necessary con­dition to qualifie and prepare us for the full possession of that Heavenly Glory which Christ hath purchased for us, and God for Christs sake gives unto us.

Hence (4.) It is to be observed, That thus the Moral Natural Law it self comes to be in the hand of Christ the Mediatour of the new Covenant or Law of Grace; and to belong to the Gospel so far as that sincere Obedience to it, together with all Gods positive Laws and Institutions, is made an Article of the Gospel Covenant, and a con­dition necessary to be performed by us before we enjoy the ultimate benefit promised in the said Covenant.

(5.) It is to be observed, That we must distinguish carefully betwixt what the Moral Law, as to the matter of its Precepts, requires of Believers, and what it requires as coming under a new ferm; that is, plainly, as cloathed with a new sanction, to wit, the sanction of the new Covenant. In the first sense, the Moral Law, as to the matter of its Precepts, doth still require of all, even of Believers, a perfect ever sinless Obe­dience de futuro; but there is this vast difference between the case of Believers and Unbelievers, that though for every the least disobedience it condemn the Unbeliever, yet doth it not, nor can it, condemn the true penirent Believer, who walks not after the Flesh but the Spirit; because the Apostle saith, There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit, Rom. 8.1. such are not under the Law (not under its condemmng power) but under Grace, Rom. 6.14. In the second sense, the Moral Law formally considered, as cloathed with the new Cove­nant form, that is, with the sanction of the new Covenant; so it requires not of true penitent Believers an ever sinless and most perfect personal perpetual Obedience, as a means or condition necessary to qualifie and prepare them for the possession of Eternal Glory; but it requires of them, or God by it, as taken into the Gospel, requires of them only sincere Evangelical Obedience, perseverance in true Faith and sincere Holi­ness, under that formal consideration, as a means or condition necessary to the end aforesaid. This I think I proved clearly both by Scripture and Reason in the Apology. And I need to say no more of that matter, till what I have there written be solidly answered; which I never expect to see done.

Yet before I pass from this eighth Consideration, I will ex superabundanti confirm what is here asserted by some few Testimonies both Divine and Humane: But first I must desire the Reader to turn to the 103 and 104 Pages of the Apology, and to read attentively, and rightly understand what I there quoted out of the Learned and Judi­cious Turretin, who shows that the New Covenant and Gospel comprehends both the Promise of Justification, and the Promise of Glorification; and that it requires more in order to the obtaining of Glorification in Heaven, than to the obtaining of Justifi­cation on Earth. He shows also, that we ought to distinguish between the first closing with and entering into Covenant, and the keeping of the Covenant we are entred into. Faith enters us into the Covenant by receiving the promises; and Faith together with [Page 65]sincere Obedience, as its fruit and effect, keeps the Covenant by retaining the Promises, and Evangelically fulfilling the Commands. Now the Gospel-Cove­nant being made for, and propounded to us by God who is infinitely superiour to us, and has a Soveraign Authority over us, it obliges us both to accept it as it is propounded to us, and to keep it as it is accepted by us, that we may obtain the several Blessings and Benefits promised in it to those who first accept it, and afterwards keep it: It is true, the Lord promiseth to enable his own people both to enter into Covenant, and also to abide in the Covenant and keep it to the end, but that no wise hinders his obliging them by the Covenant both to enter first into it, and after that to abide in it and keep it. This being premised, I prove that the Gospel-Covenant is not without all Precepts, it is not such a Doctrine of Grace as requires nothing of us at all, but it is a Doctrine of Grace that obliges us to do something whereby we enter into Covenant, and to do yet more for the due keeping of Covenant with God. And,

First, I prove by the Testimony of God in the Scriptures of Truth, First Proof from Divine Testimony. that the Gospel or New Covenant requires some Du­ties of us, not indeed that we may be justified and glorified for the sake of those Duties; but in order to other Gospel ends and purposes. I begin with Gen. 17. in which Chapter we have an account of Gods renewing the Gospel Covenant with Abraham, and instituting Circum­cision to be a Sign and Seal to confirm it to him and his Seed after him. Abraham was in Covenant with God before this time, therefore God did but now renew it with, and ratifie and confirm it to him; and the words which he used in the doing of this, are remarkable. I will cite the most material of them. And first in ver. the 7th, we have the words which contain and express the sum and sub­stance of the Gospel-Covenant on Gods part: And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. This is the promissory part of the Covenant, that the Lord would be a God unto Abraham and to his Seed. There is much in this; it comprehends all Gods part of the Covenant, that is, all that he undertook to be unto, and to do for Abraham and his Seed. Secondly, in the 1, 9, 10. verses, we have the words which contain and express the sum and substance of the Gospel Covenant on the part of Abraham, who was already before this time in Covenant with God, ver. 1. I am God almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect, upright or sincere. Here Faith is implyed, and sincere Obedience expressed. Then again, ver. 9. God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee, in their generations. And ver. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me, and you, and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. The meaning of the words, This is my Covenant, is, This is the sign or token of my Covenant which ye shall keep, Every man child among you shall be circumcised. This appears to be so, from the following 11th verse, where Circumcision is expresly said to be a token of the Covenant. Circumcision then is here said to be the Covenant by a Sacramental Form of Speech, because it was a token or sign of the Covenant. The act of circumcising, and submitting to be circumcised, was indeed a part of the duty and condition of the Covenant, but the Circumcision when it was done, or the permanent effect, was a token or sign of the Covenant: So these three Verses, the 1, 9, and 10. express the Preceptive part of the Covenant, and shew what was thereby required of Abraham, to wit, that he being already in Cove­nant by Faith, should walk before God, and be perfect or sincere, that he should keep Covenant with God, as his Seed also should do after him; and that Cir­cumcision [Page 66]cumcision being now instituted to be a token of the Covenant, he and his Seed should be circumcised. Now these things being so, let Conscience (if we have any) say whether this Gospel-Covenant was such a Doctrine of Grace as requi­red no Duty at all of Abraham; or rather, whether it was not a Doctrine of Grace which plainly required some Duty of him, even that he should walk be­fore Almighty God and be perfect or sincere, that he should keep Gods Cove­nant, and receive Circumcision as a sign and token of it? But now let any Man tell me plainly how this Gospel-Covenant could be either kept or broken (as in this Chapter it is said it might be, if it was nothing but Gods absolute Promise without any Precept; or a Doctrine of Grace which requireth nothing at all to be done by Man? And to show that this Scripture is thus understood by Prote­stant Divines, see the Dutch Annotations on Gen. 17.9. where you will find these formal express words; ‘[As for thee, or concerning thy part of the Covenant, after that God had given and past his Promises, he requireth likewise his Peo­ples Duty, as the second compleating part of the Covenant.]’ See also to this purpose the Assemblies Annotations on Gen. 17.8. where they have these following words; ‘[Yet this was but upon condition of the Peoples part of the Covenant, which is Faith and Obedience.]’

In like manner Pools Annotations on Gen 17.9. have these very words follow­ing; ‘[The agreement is mutual; my part was expressed before, now follows thy part, and the condition to which my Promise and Blessing is annexed]’

The second Divine Testimony to prove that the Gospel-Covenant, or Law of Grace, requires some Daties of us, is Exod. 24.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. There we have an account how God made a Covenant with the People of Israel in the Wilderness, after they had received the Law of the Ten Commandments from the Lord ap­pearing to them in terrible Majesty on Mount Sinai, and pronouncing it with audible voice in the presence of Six Hundred Thousand People. In that 24th of Exodus we read, that when Moses had received from the Lord the other Laws, to wit, the Ceremonial and Judicial;

(1.) He wrote them in a Book: God himself with his own hand, by his own immediate power, wrote the Law of the Ten Commandments on Two Tables of Stone, but for the other Laws Moses wrote them in a Book, ver. 4. compared with Heb. 9.19.

(2.) He builded an Altar and Twelve Pillars; the Altar seems to have been a symbol of God in Christ, as one party in the Covenant; and the Twelve Pillars represented the Twelve Tribes of Israel, as the other party, ver. 4. so that here were the outward Signs and Symbols of a Covenant between God and the people of Israel.

(3.) He ordered certain persons (supposed to be the first-born) to offer Sacrifices unto the Lord, ver. 3.

(4.) He divided the Blood of the sacrificed Beasts into two equal parts, and mixed it with a little Water, as appears from Heb. 9.19. whereby Christ was fitly represented, who came by Water and Blood, 1 John 5.6. and then having put it in Basons, he sprinkled one half of it on the Altar, ver. 6. to signifie that God was appeased and atoned by this Blood of the Sacri [...]ces, as it represented the Blood of Christ, or his Bloody Sacrifice, and also that Christ was to be san­ctitied with his own Blood, and consecrated to the continual exercise of his Eter­nal Priesthood in the holy place above, Heb. 9.12.

(5.) He took the Book of the Covenant (in which were written the Duties of the Covenant, to wit, in the Words and Laws of God, mentioned before, ver. 4.) and read it in the audience of the people; whereunto they consented, and [Page 67]signifyed their consent, by saying, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obe­dient, ver. 7.

(Sixthly) He took the other half of the Blood, and sprinkled it on the People (to signifie the Ratification of the Covenant on their parts. with the application of the Vertue of Christ's Blood to their Consciences, and their obtaining Redemp­tion, Justification, Access unto. and acceptance with God through it alone.)

(Seventhly.) Whilst he sprinkled the Blood upon the People, he said, Behold the Blood of the Covenant, ( i e. whereby the Covenant is confirmed) which the Lord hath made with you, concerning all these words, ver. 8. compared with Heb. 9. ver. 20.

From the Premisses we learn Two things. (1.) That this was a Type and Fi­gure of the Covenant of Grace Confirmed and Ratified by the Blood of Christ; It was a Type and Figure of the New Covenant in its Gospel-Form of Admini­stration; for this Covenant was Ratified and Confirmed by the Blood of the Sa­crifices, as Representative and Typical of the Blood of Christ, and of the New Testament in his Blood. So the Apostle instructs us in Heb. 9. ver. 18, 19, 20, &c. (2.) That this Typical Figurative Covenant had Precepts which required Duties of God's People. For Moses took the Book of the Covenant, and read the Precepts to the People, Exod. 24.7. compared with Heb. 9.19. And when they had heard there read, they answered and said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be Obedient, Exod. 24.7. Moses as God's Minister, in God's Name told them by rea­ding the Precepts to them what God required of them by this Covenant; they on the other part by their Answer expressed their consent, and promised to be Obe­dient. Whether they were all Spiritually sincere or not, (and I think they were not) yet they were then Serious and Morally sincere, and in so far as they were such, they did nothing but what was their Duty in giving their foresaid Consent; and what Moses acting as God's Minister who did not know their hearts approved of, and thereupon Ratified and Sealed the Covenant between God and them. Now hence I think we have a plain Proof that the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace or Gospel hath Precepts which require Duties. For if the Typical Figura­tive Covenant had Precepts and required Duties, then the New Covenant in its Gospel-Form of Administration, which was Typifyed and Figured by it; hath likewise Precepts, and requires Duties: For a Covenant that hath Precepts and requires Duties, doth not at all seem proper to Typify and Figure, a Covenant that hath no Precept, and requires no Duty. If my R. B. venture to deny that the foresaid Covenant at Horeb, did Typifie the New Covenant in its Gospel Form of Administration; he will find that he hath the Apostle against him, and also that he hath our own Confession of Faith, Chap. 7. Art. 5, 6. and the Reformed Divines generally against him: Even the Marrow of Modern Divinity, a Book so much commended by Mr. Burroughs, and Mr. Caryl, &c and so much esteemed by his good Friends, will be against him, as he may see, if he turn to the 54, 55, 56 &c. pages of that Book.

The Third Divine Testimony to prove that the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace requires some Duties of us, is to be seen in Deut. 29. and 30. Chap. That the Covenant renewed with all Israel Old and Young, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. is really the Gospel-Covenant, or Covenant of Grace in its Legal Form of Admini­stration appears from hence, that it's said to be a Covenant which God made with them, that they should be his People, and that he would be their God, as he had said and sworn unto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But it was the Gospel-Covenant, or Covenant of Grace, that God made with Abraham, and confirmed with an Oath, That he would be the God of Abraham and his Seed, and that they should [Page 68]be his People. This same Covenant in Type and Figure (as was shewed before) Moses had engaged the People of Israel into, at Horeb; but they had broken it du­ring their sojourning in the Wilderness: Therefore by the Lords special Command he renewed it with them again in the Land of Moab. It is indeed said, Deut. 29.1. to be made with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab, beside the Covenant made with them in Horeb. But the Learned and Pious Rutherford shews the Reason of that expression, Rutherford 's Co­venant of Life opened. Part 1. Chap. 11. p.60. is (1.) Because it was renewed again after their breach of it. —3. Because there was some additions of Special Blessings, Cursings, and Ceremonial Commands, that were not in the formerly proposed Covenant, yet it was the same in sub­stance, &c. And as Pool in his Annotations on the place observes, the meaning of the words [ Covenant made with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab] is, That the Covenant was there renewed with them; as also the meaning of the words [besides the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb], is, as if it had been said, beside that entring into, or striking of Covenant. And then he adds for further clearing of the matter, [The Covenant was but one in substance, but various in the time and manner of its dispensation.]

The Dutch Annotations go the same way, and very clearly assign the reason of its being said that the Covenant was made with Israel in the Land of Moab, beside the Covenant made with them in Horeb; Their words are [ It was indeed one and the same Covenant, but Renewed, Repeated and Published here in the Fields of Moab, unto many other Persons, in another place, and in another manner, than at Mount Ho­reb, or Sinai] And with these agree the Assemblies Annotations on the place. Their words are [ The same in substance, but not altogether the same, &c.]

I know very well that there are some Learned Men, who in this, differ from those before-mentioned, and from Deut. 29. ver. 1. would prove that the Cove­nant a [...] Horeb was the Covenant of Works; and that this, in the Land of Moab, was the Gospel-Covenant of Grace. I am not indeed altogether of their mind for I have already shewed, that the Covenant in Exod 24. which was made with Israel at Horeb, was not the Original Covenant of Works, but the Gospel Covenant of Grace in Type and Figure; But though they and I differ in that, yet we both agree in this, which is the main thing, and sufficient for my purpose. That the Covenant made with all Israel in the Land of Moab, was really the Gospel Cove­nant of Grace. So the Learned Alsted saith, ^(y) The Covenant in the Land of Moab, is the Covenant of the Gospel, or Faith; which is also called the Covenant of Redemp­tion and Grace —which God, there promulgated, that he might set before the Peoples Eyes, that great benefit, whereby that which was impossible to the Law, is made possible by Christ. Compare Deut. 29, and 30. Chapters with Rom. 10. ver. 6, &c.

Now if it be the Gospel Covenant, or Covenant of Grace, then it is certa in and evident that the Gospel-Covenant, or the Covenant of Grace, hath Precepts, and requires some Duties of us. For the Text saith, ver. 9. Keep the words of this Covenant, and do them. And ver. 10, 11, 12. Ye stand this day all of you before [Page 69]the Lord your God, —That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord the God, and into his Oath; &c. These express words of the Text plainly show that this Covenant hath Precepts, and requires Dutyes. And that this Covenant which hath Precepts and requires Dutyes, is the Gospel Covenant of Grace, is yet more manifest from Deut. 30. where Moses speaking still of the same Covenant at the same time, he told the People, That though they should break it by sin, yet they might be received into Grace and Favour again, upon their sincere Repentance, ver. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Ruthersord of the Covenant of Life, opened. Part 1. pag. 189. which proves that this could not be the Covenant of Works, because as Rutherford well observes, [The Covenant of Works once broken, ceaseth to be a Covenant of Life for ever, because the Nature of it, is to admit of no Repentance at all]

(2) Moses speaking still of the same Covenant, he says one of the Promises of it is, That the Lord will circumcise the Heart of his People, and the heart of their Seed to love the Lord their God with all their Heart and Soul, that they may live, ver. 6. But so it is, That the Promise of Heart Circumcision is certainly a Pro­mise of the Gospel Covenant of Grace. (3) Moses speaking still of the same matter, and at the same time he saith as it is written in ver. 11, 12, 13, 14, This Commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in Heaven, that thou should say, Who shall go up for us to Heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it. Neither is it beyond the Sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the Sea for us, and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy Mouth, and in thy Heart, that thou may'st do it. By which words he plainly teaches us, That the Co­venant and Commandment of which he there writes, is neither impossible, nor hard to be understood; nor yet is it impossible nor hard to be kept and observed; but that through Grace circumcising the heart to love God, it is both easie to be known, and also easie to be kept and observed. Now this cannot be truely said of the Covenant of Works. For as Mr. Shepard of New Eng­land well observes [The Coudition of Works is impossible to be wrought in us by the Spirit] And let not any Man think this strange and uncouth, to say, Theses Sabba­thae. pag 95. That the Spirit of Grace cannot now work in us the Condition of the first Covenant, the Covenant of Works; for the Condition and Duty of that Covenant was, That Man should be without all Sin in Habit or Act, and that he should be sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life, and continue so to be. But that is now impossible, because it implyes a Contradiction for any meer Man since Adam broke the first Covenant, and we in him, to be al­ways without all Sin in Habit or Act, and to be always Sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life: For all Men are already guilty of Sin, and the People of Israel were all Sinners, and had broken the Covenant of Works before Moses spoke, and when he spoke the foresaid words unto them. And it implyes a contradiction, that by any Power whatsoever, a thing which hath been already, should be made not to have been at all; or that a thing which exists at present, should not exist at present whil'st it doth exist. It will signifie nothing here to say, That yet the Spi­rit can make us sinlesly Holy de futuro, if he please; for though that be very true, (absolutely speaking, the Spirit can make a Man sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life, for time to come; though he hath been a Sinner in times part; for that implyes no contradiction: And the Spirit of Grace hath de facto done the thing in and upon the Spirits of Just Men made perfect in Heaven,) yet it is nothing to the purpose here, because that is not the Condition and Duty of the Covenant of Works, that Man should sin no more for the future; but its Condition and Duty is that Man should [Page 70]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 [Page 71]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 because [...] 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 Golia [...]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 from the Righteousness of the Law by doing; for so Paul, Covenant of Life open­ed, Part. 1. pag. 61. Rom. 10.5, 6, 7. &c. ex­pounds Moses, Deut. 30 11, 12, 13, 14.] Thus Rutherford. I might bring many others agreeing with these; but I shall content my self with a sew: As,

Friedlibius, who though a Lutheran, yet in Answer to an Objection of Bellar­mins from Deut 30.11, 12, sayes, ^(z) [Moses speaks not of the Doctrine of the Law, but of the Gospel, Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. which by the Grace of God may be easily obeyed in this Life]

And in like manner the New England Elders, by the Covenant in Deut [...] 29. and [Page 72]30. chap. understood the Gospel or Covenant of Grace. For thus they write; The Synod of Elders and Messengers of the Churches in Massachu­se [...]s Colony, &c. in their Propositions concerning the Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches; Printed at Cambridge in New-England, 1662. pa. 4. [ They that according to Scripture are Mem­bers of the visible Church, they are in Covenant: For it is the Covenant that constituteth the Church, Duet. 29.12, 13. They must enter into Covenant that they might be established the People or Church of God] Whence I observe that the Synod believed that the Covenant mentioned in Deut. 29.12, 13. was the Covenant of Grace, as then in its Legal Administration. Again, ‘[ That confederation (say they) i e Covenanting explicit or implicit (the latter preser­veth the essence of confederation, the former is Duty, and most desirable) is necessary to make a Member of the visible Church, Ibid. pa. 5, 6. appears (1.) Because the Church is constituted by Covenant; for there is between Christ and the Church the mutual engagement and relation of King and Sabjects, Hus­band and Spouse; this cannot be but by Covenant (internal if you speak of the invisible Church, external of the visible). A Church is a company that can say, God is our God, and we are his People; this is from the Covenant between God and them, Deut. 29.12, 13. Ezek. 16.8. (2) The Church of the Old Testament was the Church of God by Covenant, Gen. 17. Deut. 29. and was reformed still by renewing of the Covenant, 2 Chron. 15.12. and 23.16. and 34.31, 32. Neh. 9. 38. Now the Churches of the Gentiles un­der the New Testament stand upon the same Basis or Root with the Church of the Old Testament, and therefore are constituted by Covenant as that was, Rom. 11.17, 18. Eph. 2.11, 12, 19. and 3.6. Heb. 8.10.]’ Again, [Deut. 30.6. The Grace signified by Circumcision, is (say they) there promi­sed to Parents and Children, Ibid. pag. 8. importing the Covenant to both, with Cir­cumcision sealed, Gen 17. and that is a Gospel Promise, as the Apostle citing part of that Context, as the voice of the Gospel, shews Rom. 10.6, 8. compared with Deut. 30.11, 14. and it reacheth to the Jews in the latter days, ver. 1, 5.]

This last clause reminds me of the words of Paulus Fagius, one of our Refor­mers, who sayes, ^(a) [ It is diligently to be observed, that by the consent of the Jews, that 30th Chapter of Deuteronomy belongs to the Ringdom of Christ: Whence also Rabbi Bechai saith that here is a promise that under the Reign of the Messiah, all that are of the Covenant shall be circumcised in heart, quoting to that purpose the second Chapter of Joel.]

I shall shut up this with the Annotation of Mr. Pool on Deut. 30.11. For this commandment which I command thee, &c. ‘[He doth not here speak of the Law simply, or as it is in it self, but as it is mollified and accompanied with the Grace of the Gospel, whereby God circumciseth Mens Hearts to do this, as is expressed, ver. 6. The meaning is, that although the practice of Gods Law strictly and severely, be now far from us and above our strength, yet consider­ing the advantage of Gospel Grace, whereby God enables us in some measure to our Duty, and accepts of our sincere indeavours instead of perfection, and imputes Christs perfect Righteousness to us that believe, now it is near and [Page 73]easie to us. And so this place well agrees with Rom. 10.6, &c. where S. Paul expounds or applys this place to the Righteousness of Faith, by which alone the Law is such as it is here described.]’ Thus Pool, with whom agrees the An­notation on Rom. 10. ver. 6, 7, 8, 9. in the Second Vol. of Pool's Annotations From all which it plainly appears to me, that Moses in Deut. 30. speaks not of the Old Covenant of Works, but of the Gospel, or New Covenant of Grace; and what he says of the Law, is to be understood of the Law, as taken into the Gospel, and as sincere Obedience to the Law, is made a Duty and Condition of the Gospel Co­venant of Grace. And thus I have proved by a Third Divine Testimony, that the Gospel-Covenant, or Law of Grace, hath Precepts, and requires of us some Duty. I might also prove this, from the 19. and 119. Psalms, which Mr. Goodwin acknowledges to contain a Description of the Gospel, under the Name of the Law of the Lord. For if that be true, it is clear as the Light, that the Gospel hath Precepts, and requires Duty. See his Discourse, pag. 8, 9, 10. Let any Man of ordinary Sense and Reason but read those Two Psalms, and I appeal to his own Conscience, whether he doth not there meet with Precepts requiring Duty. Mr. Goodwin I am sure did there meet with Precepts, even where the Gospel, in his Judgment, is described: Witness his Dis­course, pag. 9. lin. 39, 40, 41. And he that will say that he cannot see Precepts there, may as well say, That he cannot see the Wood for Trees, Indeed such a Man may say any thing, nor is any thing he says to be regarded, because he saith it; for he must have lost his Senses.

A Fourth Divine Testimony for this Truth out of the Old Testament, we may find in Micah the 6. ver. 8. even as it was Expounded by the late Reverend Mr. Danson, who before he took his leave, taught my R — Brother that whole­som Lesson which he hath learned exactly, that the Gospel hath no Precepts, and that there are no sins against the Gospel. Consider we then, what the Prophet Micah saith, ver. 8. He hath shewed thee, O Man, what is good, and what doth the Lord re­quire of thee, but to do Justly and to love Mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God. And now let us hear what Mr. Danson saith upon this. Danson's Synop­sis of Quake­risme. p. 49. His Words are these, ‘[Because God designs to take away glorying in Justi­fication, Faith in God through the Messias is called a walking humbly with God, Micah 6.8. That it does relate to the Law of Faith, and but only by consequence, (if at all), not directly to the Law of Providence, or submission to afflictions, I am induced to believe upon these two grounds. (1.) Because otherwise God returns no Answer (which he seems plainly to design) to the Query, what the Lord will be pleased with, or what satisfaction shall be given him for Israels Sin, which is the Sum of the Questions, ver. 7. Will the Lord be pleased, &c. But understanding it thus, there is a plain Answer, viz. I do not expect any Righteousness of thy Gift, but of thy Acceptance, or thus, I shall not be pleased with any Righteousness which thou bringest, unless it be what I have first bestowed on thee by Faith. (2.) The Pride of Mans Heart, makes him as loath to accept of a Righteousness freely offered him, as to accept of the Punishment of his Iniquity justly infli­cted. It makes him as loath to part with the Priviledges he had in the Old Covenant, as he that hath set up for himself sometime, is to turn an Appren­tice: And therefore it is as true an Act of Humility, to accept of Gods Righ­teousness, as of Chastisements for Sin.]’ Thus he. In which words he plainly acknowledges and endeavours to prove that the Prophet Micah preached not the Law of Works, but the Gospel of Grace to the Israelites, who desired to be in­formed by what means they might obtain God's favour. And particularly this [Page 74]is the Voice of the Gospel and Law of Faith, The Lord requires thee to walk humbly with thy God. And surely that is a Precept requiring a Duty, if ever there was a Precept in the World. Now if one part of the Prophets answer, be the Gospel of Grace; who that is afraid to wrest God's word to his own destruction, dare say, the other part of it, is the Law of Works? Since the whole answer to the Que­stion, is short, and both parts of it, pronounced with one breath. By what certain mark may we know which part is Law, and which is Gospel, if both be not Gospel? Nay, if one part of the Answer direct them to the Law of Works and Old Covenant of Works, that by complying with its Terms, they may find Grace and Favour with God; Doth not the Prophet seem to seduce them from the only righ [...] way and means of obtaining God's Grace and Favour, to wit, by Faith in the Messias his Righteousness; and to teach them to trust in, and not part with the Priviledges they had in the Old Covenant of Works; and to seek Peace and Reconciliation with God, in part at least, by their own Works of Righteousness, or by complying with the Terms of the Law of Works? If the Prophets answer to their question. What they should do to be Reconciled unto God? Tell them, that they must comply with the Terms both of the Law of Works, and of the Gospel of Grace: He doth in effect teach them to seek for Justification and Reconciliation both by the Old Legal, and by the New Gospel-Covenant; that is, both by their own Righteousness, and also by anothers Righteousness, to wit, Christ's. And then who could well blame them, if they took his Advice, and followed his Direction which he gave them in the Name of the Lord? For avoi­ding of this inconvenience, I for my part do think that if part, then the whole Answer of the Prophet, in ver. 8. was Gospel, and that he did but tell them what the Lord required of them by the Gospel-Covenant to be done on their part, that they might obtain Justification and Salvation; to wit, first, (though it be last mentioned) that by Faith they should walk humbly with their God, for obtaining Justification and Reconcilation. (2.) That from a Principle of Faith they should do justly, and love Mercy, that they might declare their Thankfulness to God for his Grace and Favour to them through Christ, and also that they might be fitted, qualified, and prepared to receive more Grace, even the Grace of Eternal Life and Salvation for the only Satisfactory Meritorious Righteousness and Sacri­fice of the Messias. Thus I have proved by Divine Testimony out of the Old Testament. That the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace in its old way of Admi­nistration had Precepts belonging to it, and required Duty of the Confederate People of God. But it may be, some will say, That though that be true, yet the case is altered, and now the Gospel-Covenant in its Evangelical form of Admini­stration, hath not one Precept, and requires no Duty at all. My Answer is, (1.) That that cannot be; for though the Gospel-Covenant hath changed and put off its accidental Form of Administration; yet it retains still, and can never change its Essential Form, and that is, that it requires Faith in Christ in order to Justifica­tion, and sincere Obedience to all God's Commandments (which are in force, and not Abrogated) in order to Glorification, and Consummate Salvation (2) I Answer, That it's Clear as the Light from the New Testament, That the Gospel or Covenant of Grace now at this day hath Precepts, and requires Duty of Chri­stians, which is the thing that I am next to prove by Divine Testimony taken out of the Scriptures of the New Testament. And I begin with Matth. 11. v. 28, 29.30. Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Testimonies out the New Testa­ment. Take my Yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your Souls. For my Yoke easie, and my Burden is light. In which words there is not only [Page 75]a Command that all Distressed Souls believe, and by Faith come unto Christ the Son, unto whom the Father hath delivered all things; and an Encouraging Promise of Rest to all that come, to all that sincerely believe in Christ. But (2.) There is a Command laid upon Believers, to take upon them Christ's Yoke, and to learn Meekness and Humility of him; and what else is the meaning of that, but that the Lord will have Believers to obey his Precepts and imitate his Example? By Christ's Yoke and Burden cannot be meant any thing, but what includes his Precepts and Commandments. Now Christ's Precepts which are called his Yoke and his Burden, cannot possibly be the Precepts of the Law and Covenant of Works as such, that is, Precepts requiring Perpetual, Personal, Sinless Obedience, as the Indispensable Means and Condition of Life and Happy­ness. For (1.) Christ here speaks not simply as God, but as the Son of God In­carnate, and as the Mediator between God and Men, the Mediator of the New Covenant; and as such under that formal Consideration, he lays upon no Man the Yoke and Burden of Personal, Perpetual, Sinless Obedience to the Precepts of the Old Law and Covenant of Works, as the indispensably necessary Means and Condition of Life and Happyness. (2) The Yoke and Burden of Personal, per­petually Sinless Obedience to the Law of Works as the Condition of Life, is so far from being Light and Easie, that ever since the Fall of Man, it hath been intollerably heavy and impossible to be born by any of the ordinary Sons of Adam, by any meer Man. (3.) Christ here promises to all that come unto him, and take his Easie Yoke and Light Burden upon them, that he will give them Rest, even Rest to their Souls; which promise ( amongst other things which it singifies) doubt­less implyes, That he will give their Souls Rest and Ease from the most heavy galling Yoke and insupportable Burden of Personal and ever-sinless Obedience to the Precepts of the Law of Works, as the Condition of Life. Christ here promises unto Believers Rest and Ease from the Condemning Power, and Rigorous Exaction of the Law of Works; and therefore he speaks not here of that Foederal Law and its Precepts, as such; but of the Gospel and its Precepts. His Easie Yoke and Light Burden, are the Precepts of the Gospel-Covenant; that is, the Precepts of the Moral Law, as stript of their Old Covenant Legal Form, and taken into the Gospel or New Covenant, and cloathed with its New Gospel Form; the Precepts of the Moral Law thus Evangelized together with the few positive Institutions and Ordinances of the Gospel, are Christ's Yoke and Burden; and a light Burden and easie Yoke they certainly are to True Believers. and sincere Lovers of the Lord Jesus: They are so light and easie through Grace, that the Saints love them, and delight in them. As David said, Psal. 119.35. make me to go in the Path of thy Commandments; for therein do I delight. And ver. 47. I will deligh: my self in thy Commandments, which I have loved. The Gospel then hath Precepts and Christ by the Gospel-Covenant Commands Believers to take upon them his Easie Yoke and Light Burden, and to all that do so, he promises Rest, even Rest to their Souls. When Salvian of old had quoted this Text, he immediately subjoy­ned these words. ^(b) The Lord then doth not call us to labour, but to Refreshment for [Page 76]what doth he require of us, what doth be Command to be done unto him or for him, but only Faith alone, Chastity, Humility, Sobriety, Mercy, Sanctity: All which do not bur­den, but beautifie and adorn us. And not only that, but they so much adorn the present Life, that they may the more Adorn the Life to come. O how good is the Lord, how gra­cious, how incstemably merciful! Who to this end now in this present Life gives unto us the gifts of Religion, that hereafter in the Life to come, he may reward in us these very gifts which now he confers upon us.] Thus that Ancient Father. Whereby it plainly appears that it was his Judgment that this Scripture speaks of the Precepts of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace, and not of the Precepts of the Law or Covenant of Works, as such.

And the Assemblies Annotations on Matth. 11.29. Take my Yoke upon you] obeying my Commandments. And on ver. 30. my Yoke is easie] that which I com­mand you, is good for you and easie. In like manner the Dutch Annotations, on Matth. 11.29. Take my Yoke upon you. [that is, My Doctrine consisting as well in Commands as Promises. See them on ver. 30. where they say that Christ's Burden is Light, because Christ makes it Light. Rom. 8.26. 1 John 5.3, 4. and that it is said to be Light, in opposition to the Importable Yoke of the Law, Acts. 15.10 &c. And our last English Annotations on Matth. 11.29. Take my Yoke upon you, [ Our Lord by this Precept lets us know, there can be no True Faith, without Obedience to the Com­mands of Christ. —And the rest in the Text is not promised to either of them severally, but to both joyntly]

A Second Testimony to prove this, is that of our Saviour, John 13.17. If ye know these things, happy are ye if you do them. In which words Christ Preached not the Law of Works, but the Gospel of Grace to his Disciples: For the Promise of Happyness is not made to Believers and sinful Mens doing the Law of Works, but to their Evangelical Obedience unto the Precepts of the Gospel or New Covenant. For, (1.) Consider Christ here speaks to sinful Men, though Believers. (2.) He requires of them, the doing of those things which he had taught them by his own Example As Love, Humility, Mutual Serviceableness. For here is a Condi­tional Promise, and in every Conditional Promise of God to Men, there is im­plyed a Precept to perform the Condition.

(3.) He promises them Happiness if they do these things, although they were not without all Sin; which shews plainly, that it is not a Legal, but a Gospel Promise. It is a Gospel-Promise implying a Precept that requires Duty, and ex­presly signifying the Lord's Will to give the Reward of happiness to them who per­form the Duty.

The like Promise we have before in John 8.51. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a Man keep my saying, He shall never see Death. This is not a Legal Promise, like that of the First Covenant of Works, Repeated Occonemocally after the fall, [ If thou keep the Law, thou shalt live;] But it is a Gospel Promise which being Con­ditional, doth plainly imply a Precept requiring the Condition and Duty of keeping Christ's saying; upon which it is expresly promised, that a Man shall never see Death, that is, shall never be punished with Eternal Death. Indeed the Conditional Form of Words in which the Old Covenant of Works is repea­ted and proposed to Sinful Men after the Fall, being Oeconomical in the Sense before explained, it doth not imply a Precept of God intentionally obliging Men now to have no Sin at all, as the Duty and Condition of that Cove­nant; for they were Sinners already before that repetition of the form of the Old Covenant; and what hath been, implyes now a contradiction not to have been; and the Infinitely Wise, Just and Good God, never Commands any Man to do a thing which is impossible to be done by any power whatsoever, which is even im­possible to be done by the help of his Spirit and Grace. But the Conditional Pro­mise [Page 77]of our Saviour in John 8.51. is of another Nature; it is not merely oeco­nomical, but real and intentional, really requiring the condition, and obliging Men to keep his saying, and intentionally promising unto all who do or shall keep his saying, that they shall never see Death. This plainly appears from the double asseveration wherewith our Saviour spoke the foresaid Promise, saying, Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man keep my saying, be shall never see doath. Whence I conclude that the Gospel is not without all Precepts; for here is imply­ed a Precept to keep Christs saying.

A Third Tellimony we have in Rom. 10.8, 9, 10. ‘That is the Word of Faith which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy Heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved; for with the Heart Man believeth unto Righteousness, and with the Mouth confession is made unto Salvation.’ Observe here,

(1) That by the Word of Faith is meant the Gospel; which according to the Dutch Annotations on the place, is so called, because by it we are exhorted and brought to Faith.

(2.) Observe that besides Faith in the Heart, which is required unto Righte­ousness and Justification, there is here required Confession with the Mouth as ne­cessary to the obtaining of consummate Salvation. And by Confession with the Mouth, is meant an outward Profession of the inward Faith of the Heart, and living suirable to our holy Profession. Hence Mr. Ma [...]o in the last English Anno­tatiens on Rom. 10.9. saith, [ There are but these two things which the Gospel princi­pally requires in order to our Salvation. The one is the Confession of Christ with our Mouths, and that in spight of all Persecution and Danger, to own him for our Lord, and for our Jesus; and to declare that we are and will be ruled and saved by him, and by him only. The other is to believe in our Hearts that God hath raisod him from the Dead] Whence I conclude again, that the Gospel is not without all Precepts; for it hath besides the Precept of believing on Christ with the Heart, another Principal Precept of confessing him with the Mouth, that is, of living suitably to our Faith

A Fourth Testimony to prove that the Gospel hath Precepts, we have in those places of the New Testament, where some are commended for their obeying and being subject to the Gospel; and others are blamed and threatned for their disobeying the Gospel.

(1.) We find that some are commended for obeying the Gospel and being sub­ject to it. Thus the believing Romans are commended for obeying the Gospel; Rom. 6.17. God be thanked that ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. This form of Doctrine is the Gospel, as the Dutch Anno­tation on the place tells us, saying expresly that the Gospel is a Doctrine of Godli­ness and Righteousiness. And Paul gave God thanks for this, that the believing Romans had from the Heart obeyed it: Which they could never have done, if the Gospel Doctrine had had no Precept requiring their Obedience. For (speak­ing of a Doctrine) Precept and Obedience are relative, one to another; so that take away the Precept of a Doctrine, and you take away the possibility of Obe­dience to that Doctrine which hath no Precept. On the other hand, if we once grant that there is such a thing as Obedience to the Doctrine of the Gospel, we must by consequence grant also that the Doctrine of the Gospel hath some Pre­cept which requires that Obedience, otherwise it can be no Obedience to that Doctrine. Again in 2 Cor. 9.13. we read that the Saints glorified God for the believing Corinthians their professed subjection unto the Gospel of Christ. Now it is unconceivable how they could be subject to the Gospel, if it had no pre­ceptive, [Page 78]commanding Authority over their Consciences. For Subjection is rela­tive unto and presupposes a superiour commanding Authority in that whereunto there is Subjection. This common sense teaches us. But so it is that the Corin­thians were subject to the Gospel; and therefore the Gospel is not without all Precepts, but it had a preceptive commanding Authority over them, to which they were subject.

(2.) We find that others are blamed and threatned for not obeying the Gospel. Rom. 10.16. They have not all obeyed the gospel. 1 Pet. 4.17. What shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God? And 2 Thess. 1.7, 8. The Lord shall take vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. But now according to the principle of the Flacian Sectaries, that the Gospel hath no Precept, there could be no such thing as disobedience to the Gos­pel: For where there is no Gospel Law or Precept, there can be no Transgression against the Gospel. This one of the Brethren who was for that way, plainly saw, and granting the consequence, declared it to the World in Print, Dansons Confer. p. 18. that he and his Party knew no Sins against the Gospel. And indeed if the Gospel had no Precept, there could be no Sin against it. But the Apostles, Paul and Peter, tell us expresly, that there is such a thing as not obeying the Gospel; and that persons who obey it not, shall be severely punished for their disobedience. And if so, then surely their disobeying the Gospel is a Sin against the Gospel; whence it follows by necessary consequence that the Gospel hath some Precept, which was to be demonstrated. And if it be said, that the Moral Law commands Obedience to the Gospel; I answer, be it so, that is so far from weakening that it rather strengthens the Argument: For if it command Obedience to the Gospel, then it commands Obedience to the Precept of the Gospel; for without the Gospels having some Precept, there might indeed be Obedience to the Law in other things; but there could be no Obedience to the Gospel at all, nor could there be Obedience to the Law in that matter, be­cause upon that false supposition, the Law should command a Chimerical impos­sibility; which is absurd to affirm of the Just Law of the infinitely Wise God. Therefore from the Moral Law, its obliging us to obey the Gospel, it necessarily follows that the Gospel hath some Precept to be obeyed.

A Fifth Testimony we have in Tit. 2.11, 12. where it is written that, The grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared unto all men, teaching us that de­nying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. In this Scripture we are to observe two things: (1.) What is meant by the Grace of God which bringeth Salvation, and which hath appeared unto all Men, or which bringeth Salvation unto all Men, and hath appeared? And it is generally confessed to be objective Grace, or the doctrine of Grace, that is, the Gospel. (2.) What is this Grace, this Doctrine of Grace, of Gospel, said to do? And that the express words of the 12 verse, tell us plainly to be this, that it teacheth us, That d [...]nying ungodliness and worldly lucts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present World. Now if the Gospel teach us, that we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, then it hath some Precept which makes it our Duty so to live: For to teach us that we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, is plainly to lay an obligation on our Conscience, and to make it our Duty so to live: especially considering that this Gospel is the Gospel of God, and it is God who is infinitely superiour to us, and hath a soveraign authority over us, who by the Gospel teacheth us that we should live soberly, righteously and godly. Gods teaching us that we should do a thing, certainly obliges to do it; and therefore Gods teaching us by the Gospel, that we should live soberly, righte­ously [Page 79]and godly, obliges us by the Gospel so to live; and consequently the Gospel hath some Precept whereby God obligeth us to live soberly, righteously and godly in this present World.

Thus the Learned Divines who were Authorized by their Superiours in Holland to write the Dutch Annotations on the Bible, understood this Scripture, as appears from their Annotation on Tit. 1.1. The truth which is according to godliness, [ That is, which is such that it must not only be known, but also by exercising of true Godliness be put in practice, and which prescribes and requires true Godliness, and stirs up and brings men thereunto. 1 Tim 6 3.] compared with Annotation on Tit. 2.11. The grace of God which bringeth salvation; that is, say they, [ The Doctrine of the Grace of god shewn us by Christ, and contained in the Gospel.] And then in their Annota­tion on the 12th Verse, they tell us, [ That the said Doctrine of Grace instructeth us that we should live soberly, in respect of our selves, and justly, in respect of our Neigh­bour, and godly in respect of God. And if any yet doubt whether those Learned Annotators held that the Gospel hath Precepts obliging us to Duty, let such read their Annotation on Rom. 10.6. where they expresly mention the Command of Faith, as a Command of the Gospel, contradistinguished from the Commands of the Law. And again a little after, they say, ‘[If Moses said this of the Command­ments of the Law, much more may the same be said of the Promises and Com­mands of the Gospel, which are not only easie to be understood, as the Law is, but also are easie to observe by the power of Gods Spirit, &c.]’ See also the last (called Pools) Annotations on Tit. 2.11, 12. where they tell us, ‘That by the Grace of God, which brings Salvation, is meant the Gospel of our Lord Jesus, and that where it cometh, it directs all Men their Duties in their several stations, and teaches us that we should live with respect to our selves, in a just government of our Affections and Passions; and with respect to others, giving to every one their due; and with respect to God, piously discharging the Duties, and paying the homage we owe unto him, so long as we live in this World, where we have Temptations to the contrary.’ Now if the Gospel, as it is a Doctrine of Grace, direct us to our several Duties, and teach us that we should live as aforesaid, then undoubtedly it hath Precepts as well as Promises; for without some Precepts it cannot direct our Duties, and teach us that we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present World. I hope the R. Brother, with whom I have to do, will not flee to the Popish distinction between Precepts and Coun­sels, and then say, that the Gospel teacheth us that we should live, as is said, not by Precept but by Counsel: For he hath himself stopt that passage into the Popish Camp, by what he hath published to the World in his Sermon on the Death of the Late Queen, where he thus writes; [ The greatness of God gives Authority to his Counsel. Mr. Goodwins Ser­mon on the Death of the Queen, pa. 7, 8. We readily hearken to those who are above us; and every word which they speak carries a weight in it, and is forcibly impressed on our minds. If a Friend advi­seth us to what we apprehend may be an advantage, we chearfully receive and follow his Counsel; but the direction of a Superiour is a Command, and adds the obligation of Duty to the consideration of our own benefit. God then who is the greatest above all, may very well guide all by his Counsel; and it is not more a Duty than a Priviledge, to observe the measures of his conduct. Thus he. And by this he hath left no room for the distinction between the Lords Advioe and Counsel on the one hand, and his Precept and Command on the other. So that if the Lords Gospel direct and teach us our Duty by Advice and Counsel, it doth it also by Precept and Command; since the Lords Advice and Counsel ought to be unto us a Precept and Command.

The Sixth and last Testimony out of the New Testament, which I shall alledge to this purpose at present, is in Rev. 14.6, 7. where it is written, ‘[I saw another Angel fly in the midst of Heaven having the Everlasting Gospel to preach unto them who dwell on the Earth, —saying with a loud voice, fear God and give glory to him, —and worship him that made Heaven and Earth, and the Sea, and the Fountains of Waters.]’ This Scripture I quoted in the Apology, on the Margent pag. 23. but the Answerer passed it over; but for all that it stands still in the Bible, as a Witness against those who say that the Gospel hath no Precept: For it is evident from the words of the Text, that the Moral Law, the First Commandment of it, and by consequence the other Command­ments of the Moral Law are taken into the Gospel, so as that sincere Evangelical Obedience to them is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant, or Law of Grace, with respect to the obtaining possession of Salvation consummate in Hea­venly Glory: For the First Commandment of the Moral Law, obliges us to fear God and give glory to him; and to worship him who made the World; if then this first Command be not taken into the Gospel-Covenant, and sincere Obe­dience to it made one Article thereof, none could preach the Everlasting Gospel to the Inhabitants of the Earth; by saying, Fear God and give glory to him, and worship him that made the heavens and the earth, &c. But so it is that the Angel was represented in the Vision to John, preaching the Everlasting Gospel, and saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him, &c. Therefore that Command to fear God, and give glory to him, &c. is taken into the Gospel, so as that sincere Obedience to it is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant: And then the Gospel is preached in part, by saying, Fear God, and give glory to him, &c. This is the plain obvious sense of the words, and they must be violently wrested, to put another sense upon them. The Dutch Annotators therefore faith­fully gave the meaning of the words, when in their Annotation on Rev. 14.7. they said in these words, [ This is the first part of the Gospels voice, whereby the wor­shippers of the Beast are warned and exhorted to honour, fear and serve God only in Christ.]

I might cite many other passages out of the New Testament and Old too, to prove that the Gospel hath Precepts, and requires Duty of us; but these are suf­ficient: And I am perswaded that every sincere lover and seeker of Truth, will or may easily find by the Divine Testimonies aforesaid, taken out of the New Testament, that the Gospe-Covenant in its new and most Evangelical form of administration, is not a meer absolute promise without any Precept, but that as it hath Promises so it hath Precepts belonging to it, which require Duties of us, and of all to whom it is preached. Thus having finished my first Proof from Divine Testimony, I pass to my second Proof from Humane Testimony. And before I proceed any further, I desire it may be remembered that I do not argue from Humane Testimony, to confirm and strengthen my Argument from Divine Testimony, or to prove any other thing than matter of fact; to wit, that I and my Reverend Brethren are not Innovators, nor singular in our interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and in our belief that according to the Scripture, the Gospel hath Precepts which require Duty; since long before we were born, other Holy Men and Eminent Ministers of Christ, and bright shining Lights in Christs Church, have interpreted the Scripture as to this matter, just as we do; and have believed according to Scripture, what we believe at this day, That the Gospel hath Precepts, and doth oblige us to Duties. This being premised to prevent misunderstanding of us, I come to produce my Humane Witnesses which I divide into two ranks or classes. The (1.) of Antient Doctors of the Church. [Page 81]The (2) of Modern Divines. And I begin with Antient Fathers and Doctors of the Church; Testimonies of Anti­ent Fathers. and because I would be brief I shall cite but few and yet I shall bring as many of them as may suffice to prove the matter of fact in question.

My first Witness is Justin Martyr, who in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, calls the New Testament or Covenant, (as we Christians have it in its last, and excellentest form of administration), ^(c) [...], a Commandment, whereby he plainly declares that he believed the New Covenant hath Precepts, and that it is not a meer absolute Promise which requireth nothing of us at all. Again, after­wards in the same Dialogue, he calls the New Testament or Gospel-Covenant, ^(c) [...]. a Mandate or Precept, for the same Reason because it hath Precepts that require Duty. And then two pages after, he saith, that we are called, and we are the true Children of God, ^(c) who keep the Commandments of Christ. I sup­pose it will be objected that Justin Martyr in pag. 351. sayes, that Christ is the Testament or Covenant of God. And in pag. 228. he sayes, That Christ is given the eternal and last Law unto us, and the sure Testament or Covenant, after which there is neither Law, nor Precept, nor Commandment. I answer, It is true he doth say so; but then it is as true, that his speech is not and cannot be proper, but figu­rative. It is only by a Figure of Speech that Justin calls Christ by the name of Covenant or Testament, and therein he doth but follow the Prophet Isaiah, Justin ibid. p. 351. and also quotes the 42.6. and 49.8. of Isaiah, where it is written, I the Lord will give thee (Christ) for a Covenant of the people. Look then how the words of Isaiah are to be under­stood, and the same way are the words of Justin to be understood. Now for understanding the words of Isaiah, let them who please consult the Dutch Anno­tations on Isa. 42.6. And I will give thee for a covenant of the people; [ that is, for a Mediatour of the Covenant, &c.] And Pools Annotations on Isa. 42.6. I will give thee for a covenant of the people, [ To be the Angel of the Covenant, as Christ is called, Mal. 3.1. or the Mediatour in and by whom my Covenant of Grace is made and confirmed with mankind.]

And the same Pool on Isa. 49.8. sayes, that to be given for a Covenant of the people, is, To be the Mediatour and Surety of that Covenant which is made between God and them; as Christ is called, Heb. 7.22. and 8.6. to renew and confirm the Covenant which the Messiah is said to do, (Dan. 9.27.) by his own Blood, by which God and Men are reconciled and united one to another; and therefore he may well be called the Covenant, by a known Metonymy, which is very usual in such cases.] Thus the Learned Pool. And by this we may learn how to understand Justin, when he calls Christ the New Law and Covenant, to wit, that by a Metonymy he calls him the New Law and Covenant, because he is the Mediatour and Surety of it, he is the Ratifier and Confirmer of it, he is the Angel or Messenger of it. He is not the Covenant then in propriety of speech, that is a figment as ridiculous and con­tradictious as Transubstantiation, but he is the Covenant by a Figure called Meto­nymy: And that Justin so meant is plain; because when he speaks properly without a Figure, he calls Christ ^(c) the New Lawgiver, as was shewed in the Apo­logy, pag. 24. and calls the Covenant his Law and Covenant; and so manifestly distinguishes the Law and Covenant from him. It is therefore the New Covenant it self which Justin properly calls the New Law, the Mandate, the Precept, and says that ^(d) after the said Covenant, there is no Law nor Precept, nor Commandment. By which words he gives us plainly to understand that the Gospel-Covenant or [Page 82]Testament is the last Law, Precept and Commandment, after which God gives no other to the Sons of Men. Much more I could alledge out of Justin Martyr, to prove that he believed that the New Covenant or Law of Grace, hath Precepts and requires Duties: But that may be done another time, as I see occasion. At present I need not desire any more of my first Witness.

My second Witness is Irenaeus, who saith, ^(e) [The Lord is the Master of the Fa­mily, who rules all his Fathers house, giving indeed to the Servants, and those who are yet undisciplined, a Law fit for them; but to them who are free and justified by Faith, he gives suitable Precepts, and to the Children makes known their Inheritance.] Here Irenaeus distinguishes between the unconverted and the Law they are under on the one hand; and the converted, justified and adopted, and the Precepts they are un­der on the other: And gives to understand that the unconverted are yet under the Law of Works, which rigorously exacts Duty and Service of them, and condemns them for every Sin they commit; but that the converted, justified and adopted, are not under the rigorous exaction and condemning power of the Law of Works, but they are under the Law of Grace, they are actually in a Covenant of Reconcilia­tion with God, which doth indeed prescribe Duty to them, but not to be justified by and for their Duties of Obedience, (for they are justified by Faith in Christ,) but to be the way for them to walk in, and the means to qualifie and prepare them for the possession of the Inheritance which by their Justification and Adoption they have a right unto, and which in the way of holy Obedience to the Precep­tive part of the Covenant, he assures them of by the Promises of the Gospel. That this is his meaning appears from his words aforesaid, and from what follows in the same Chapter concerning the two Covenants. Or his words may refer to the Jews and their Law on the one hand, and to the Christians with their New Law of Grace on the other. Again in another Chapter of the same Book, he writes thus; ^(f) [Seeing the Precepts of a perfect Life are the same in both Testa­ments, they show that the same God [is the Author of both the Testaments], who hath indeed prescribed particular Precepts, suitable to both the Covenants; but the more emi­nent and principal Precepts without which a Man cannot be saved are the same in both Testaments or Covenants] Here are several things to be observed for understand­ing this passage of Irenaeus, which though in the Translation which we have, it be not elegantly expressed, yet it bears a good and useful sense. (1.) Then observe, That according to Irenaeus, the Precepts of the Moral Natural Law are common to both Covenants, the Old and the New. (2.) That he calls the two Testa­ments or Covenants, Precepts, and therefore I translate, [particularia praecepta apta utrisque Praeceptis] particular Precepts suitable to both the Covenants; and to tran­slate them otherwise would render them unintelligible. Now there can be no Reason given why he calls the two Covenants, Precepts, but because they both have Precepts and require Duties. (3.) Observe that he sayes, God prescribed particular Precepts suitable to both Covenants, and these can be no other than Gods positive Laws which pertained to the Legal Administration of the Covenant, and are now abrogated; and the positive institutions of the Gospel, which per­tain to the Evangelical Administration of the Covenant, and are now in force. Observe (4.) that according to him, without the observance of the more eminent and principal Precepts, that is, the Precepts of Faith and Repentance, and of the [Page 83]Moral Natural Law, a Man cannot be saved [...], Which is true of Men at age; for according to their Time and Talents, after their Conversion and Justification, it is necessary that they perform sincere Obedience to the Moral Law in order to their obtaining possession of Eternal Salvation: For without holiness no man shall see the Lord, Heb. 12.14. Hence in another Chapter of the same Book, he says, ^(g) [God needed not Mans love, but Man wanted the Glory which is from God, which he could no way attain unto, but by that Obedience which is towards God.] He means that Man cannot obtain Eternal Glory in Heaven, but by Obedience Evangeli­cal, not as the procuring meriting cause of Glory, but only as the means to be used on our part, and the condition to be performed by us, to qualifie us for Glory, to be given us according to promise freely for Christs sake; and as a testimony of our gratitude to God in Christ for our Redemption and Salvation. See lib. 3. c. 20. This is manifest from what he writes in the 28th Chapter of the same 4th Book; and in the 47th Chapter, where he says expresly that the ^(h) Lords Death is the Salvation of those that be­lieve in him; and yet both there and elsewhere he maintains that we are obliged to observe the Precepts of Christ in the Gospel in order to our obtaining Life and Salvation. Yea in the 27th Chapter of that Book he says that now under the Gospel Covenant, ⁽ⁱ⁾ [ It was necessary that the Decrees or Statutes of Liberty, ( i. e. which appertain to the Doctrine of Grace and Redemption), should be superex­tended, ( i. e. should be enlarged above what they were before) and that the sub­jection which is to the King should be increased, that Man by resisting and drawing baok may not be found unworthy of, and unthankful to him who redeemed him] In a word, Irenaeus goes further in this matter of the Gospels having Precepts that require Duty, than I am willing to follow him; so certain it is, that he held that the Gos­pel hath Precepts which require Duties; and that it is not a meer absolute promise, or bare narrative that requires nothing of us at all. I do not think that in Irenoeus time there can any be found that were of this absurd Opinion, except the vile Gnosticks, whose practice was very agreeable to such a Principle, that the Gospel requires no Duty; and for the Law, it can do a Man no hurt, if he be once a true Believer, how loosely soever he live, as Libertines think.

My third Witness is Cyprian, who says, ^(k) [ That Christ appeared, and made him­self known to his Apostles after his Resurrection, and stay'd with them Forty days, that they might be instructed by him, and learn of him Vital Precepts which they might teach —and that the Disciples being dispersed throughout the World, by the order not of a [meer] Master, but of God, they gave forth Precepts unto Men for their Salvation: Thus Cyprian Now by those Vital Precepts (of which he speaks,) which lead Men to Sal­vation, cannot be meant the Precepts of the Old Law and Covenant of Works, as such, for they are not Vital, but rather Mortal to Sinful Men: It is indeed through Mens own fault, that they are not Vital, but Mortal to them; but however, yet it is true that they are Mortal and not Vital: They are a killing Letter, 2 Cor. 3.6. They must then be the Precepts of the Gospel and Law of Grace; which though for the most part, they are materially the same with, yet they formally differ from the Precepts of the Old Covenant and Law of Works; for as they are the [Page 84]Precepts of the New Covenant and Law of Grace, they come under a New Form and Sanction, and become Vital and Saving both by the Ordination of God in Christ, and also by the Grace of the Spirit promised in the New Law or Covenant of Grace.

My Fourth Witness is Ambrose, who on the 119. Psal. ver. 156. saith, ^(l) [The Gos­pel is not only a Doctrine of Faith, but it is also an Authoritative Instruction or Law of Manners, and a glass of just Conversation.] And again, in the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans chap 3. ver. last, he, or Hil. Diac. writes thus, ^(m) And because the Law of Moses ceasing, God was to give better Precepts, Jeremiah the Prophet sung, saying, Be­hold the days shall come, saith the Lord, that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel, &c. that is with those who received Christ when he came, according to promise. Now these better Precepts which Ambrose or Hilary saith God was to give, when the Levitical Law was to be Abrogated, were no other in his Opinion, than the Precepts of the New Covenant and Law of Grace, as manifestly appears by his proving his Assertion, out of Jerem. 31.31. where the Lord foretold his making of a New Covenant with the House of Israel, &c. And that Authour might well call them better Precepts, both in respect of their perspicuity, as more fully and clearly explained by Christ, and also in respect of their Efficacy, as accompanyed with a greater measure of the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Jer. 31.33. with Heb. 8.9, 10. He might likewise so call them with respect to the positive Institutions of the Gospel.

My Fifth Witness is Chrysostom, who saith that ⁽ⁿ⁾ [One of the Capital Fundamen­tal Points of our Religion, in which our Life consists, and which comprehend the Sum of our Preaching, —is that Christ gave to his Church saving Precepts] ‘He is discour­sing there of the Harmony of the Four Evangelists, and after what he had said of that matter, he subjoyns a Request, that we would diligently consider and ob­serve that in the Capital Points of our Christian Religion, wherein the Life of our Souls consists, and which comprehend the Sum of Ministers Preaching, there is not the least disagreement amongst the four Evangelists: And then to the que­stion, Which are those Capital, Essential Points of our Religion? He Answers, That they are these following; to wit, That God was Incarnate, that he wrought Miracles, that he was Crucified, that he was Buryed, that he rose again from the Dead, that he ascended into Heaven, that he will judge the World, that he gave Saving Precepts, that he did not introduce a Law contrary to the Old Testa­ment, That he is the Son, that he is the only begotten Son, that he is the true genuine Son, that he is of the same Essence with the Father, and as many points as there are of the like nature; and then he asserts that in all these Points there is the greatest Harmony and Agreement of the Four Evangelists.’ By this we see that Chrysostom held it to be a Capital Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion that Christ hath given Saving Precepts to his Church, and consequently that the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts. For the Precepts of the First Old Covenant and Law of Works as such, cannot now be saving to Sinners, such as all Men are; therefore the Precepts which are now saving to Mens Souls must be the Precepts of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace, which as we Christians have it, is not contrary to it self [Page 85]as it obtained in the Church, before the coming of Christ; for it always had Saving Pre­cepts, and as we heard before out of Ireneus, the Principal Precepts were the same under the Old Legal which they are now under the New Evangelical Administration of the Covenant of Life: And yet we must not think that the Precepts of the Gospel are sa­ving, because we are Justifyed by and for Obedience to them, for as Chrysostom observes, on Rom. 3.27, 28. The Lord Justifies Men; ^(o) not at all needing Works, but requiring Faith only. The Lords Gospel-Precept then requires Faith, and only Faith as the Instru­mental means or Receptive Applicative Condition of our Justification; But our observa­nce of the other Gospel-Precepts is required to other Gospel-ends and purposes; and the Precepts themselves are Saving as they are taken into the Gospel Covenant, and as Sin­cere Obedience to them through Grace, prepares and disposes us for the full enjoyment of Eternal Life and Glory according to the Promises of the Gospel. I might be large in demonstrating that Chrysostom is for Gospel Precepts, and a New Law of Grace which hath both Precepts and Promises: And indeed he sometimes carryes the matter further, than I can approve of But however, he is Orthodox in the thing under present conside­ration, that the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace hath Saving Precepts: This is so cer­tain and evident, that no sincere honest Man, who reads and understands but his Homi­lies on Matthew, can fairly, or I think, will deny it. It is adviseable that we all consider well what we do, either in affirming or denying plain matters of Fact.

My Sixth Witness is the Famous Augustin, the great Defender of the Freeness of God's Grace in Mans Justification and Salvation, against all Merit-Mongers, who in one of his Epistles writes thus, ^(p) Therefore from the beginning of Mankind whosoever believed in Christ, and did in some measure know him, and lived Piously and Justly according to his Precepts, when­soever, and wheresoever they lived, without all doubt they were saved by him. Here Augustin speaks of Christ not simply as God, but as Mediator of the Gospel-Covenant, and so his Precepts which they who believed in him, observed and were saved, must be the Pre­cepts of that Covenant of which he is the Mediator and Surety; for they could not be formally the Precepts of the first Legal Covenant of Works. And that this was Augustins mind doth yet more clearly appear by what he writes elsewhere. ^(q) But when a Man pre­varicates also against the Precepts of the Gospel, he stinks like one who hath been four days dead; yet must we not despair of him, because of the Graco of Christ, who cryed with a loud voice, and said, Lazarus come forth.] In these words as they refer to what went before, he manifestly shows that in his judgment, the Gospel hath its Precepts. For he had spoken of the Law given to Adam in Paradice, of the Natural Law of Reason in all Mankind, and of the Law of Moses given to the People of Israel; and then in the words here quoted, he speaks of the Precepts of the Gospel as formally distinct from the Precepts of the former Laws. And this is consentaneous to what he writes in his Book of Faith and Works. ^(r) [ This (saith he) is to preach the Gospel of Christ, not only to tell People what things are to be believed concerning Christ; but also what things are to be observed and done by him who becomes a Member of, and enters into Ʋnion and Communion with the Body of Christ.

My Seventh Witness is Jerome, who at once testifyes that in his Judgment the Gospel hath [Page 86] both Precepts and Threatnings. His words are ^(r) As Christ Jesus redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us. So he hath also delivered us from the Curse of the Gospel, which is decreed or oppointed for those, who do not observe its Precepts: Having been himself made a Curse for us.] Thus Jerome, by which words, it is most manifest that he holds that the Gospel as distinct from, and opposite to the Law, hath both its own proper Precepts, and also its own proper threatnings.

My Eighth and last Witness is Primasius, a Learned Father, of the Sixth Century, and a Disciple of Augustins in Africa. [ ^(r) It is demanded whether he be not Cursed, who heaps not the Precepts of the Gospel? Even our Saviour himself hath taught that they are Cursed who despise the Precepts of the Gospel. Saying, Depart from me ye Cursed into Everlasting Fire.] Thus Primasius. And he also speaks of the Gospel as distinct from the Law, and yet affirms that the Gospel so considered hath Precepts, and that they are Cursedwho despise its Precepts. I might bring ma­ny others of the Ancients to Witness for us that the Gospel hath Precepts, and is not a mere Absolute Promise, which requires nothing of us at all: But these shall suffice at present. And so from the Ancient Doctors, I pass to the Modern Divines, who flourished since the Reformation. Testimonies of Mo­dern Divines. And I shall begin with Theodore Bibliander, Famous among the Reformed Divines in Swizzerland, and one of the Authours or the Tigurin Translation of the Bible. Thus then he writes, [ ^(s) Whatsoever Democracy, Aristocracy, or Monarchy is obedient to Christ the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and is governed by his most Holy Laws, shall justly be accounted a Christian Politie or Commonwealth, but that which rejects the Laws of Christ, whether it bear the Name of a Christian Polity, or openly op­pose the Name of Christ, we shall account it to be Antichristian That Commonwealth shall be Chri­stian, and dear to God, and therefore happy and blest whose Magistrates duely obey the Laws of Christ, and whose People order their Lives according to the Prescript of the Christian Doctrine, and with a ready mind obey the Magistrate, not as serving Men but Christ, in all things which are not contrary to the Laws of Christ. And that he speaks of Christ not simply as God, but as Mediatour between God and Man, and Surety of the Gospel-Covenant, and consequently that he speaks also of his Laws, not meerly as Laws of God, but Laws of the Lord Mediator, and Surety of the Gos­pel-Covenant is evidentby what follows. ^(t) Christ is the faithful Eliakim, (Esa. 22.) whom God the Father hath trusted with, and on his Shoulder hath laid, the Key of the House of David, and hath fastned him in a sure place, that he may be for a Glorious Throne to his Fathers House. The same Christ is the Supreme Judge, unto whom the Father hath given all Power and all Judgment, so that he himself judges no Man. Whose Law the Isles expected, and have received what they expected. Con­cerning whose Laws it will not be alien from our purpose, to transcribe here some things out of the Ninth Book of a Work of Theodoret, which he Entitled, Concerning the curing of the Affections [and Prejudices] of the Greeks or Heathens. For thus that most Learned Bishop writes— [ Those our Fisher­men and Publicans, and that our Tent-Maker brought the Gospel-Law into all Nations, &c.] By this and more which he hath there to this purpose, it is most evident, that Bibliander there speaks of Christ not simply as God, but as Mediatorial King and Judge, and as such a King and Judge, giving and executing Laws; which could be no other but the Laws of the New Covenant or Gospel; and so Theodoret calls them.

My Second Witness is the Famous and Learned Zach. Ursin's Sum of Christian Reli­gion in English, Printed at Lon­don, An. 1645 pag. 2. ibid. pag. 126. ib. p. 125, 127. Ʋrsinus mentioned before. His words are, ‘[The Law promiseth Life with Condition of per­fect Obedience, the Gospel promiseth the same Life on condition of our sted­sast Faith in Christ, and the inchoation or beginning of New Obedience unto God.]’ Again, [ The Old and New Covenant, ( i.e. the same Covenant of Grace in its Old and New manner of Administration) agree in this, that in both, God requires of Men Faith and Obedience. Walk before me, and be thou perfect, Gen. 17.1. And repent and believe the Gospel, Mark 1.15.] And again They differ (7.) In their Bond or manner of Binding; The Old Covenant bound them to the [Page 87](sincere) Obedience of the whole Mosaical Law, Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil: The New bindeth us only to the Moral, or Spiritual Law, and to the use of the Sacraments. And a little after he saith, [The New Testament or Covenant is for the most part, taken for the Gespel.] This is one of the Resormed Divines whom Mr. Goodwin quotes against me: But let any Man read and con­sider what I have quoted here out of Ʋrsin, and what follows in pag. 131. of which I quoted some part before; and I dare refer it to his own Conscience (if he have any) whether Ʋrsin be of that Opinion, that the Gospel hath no Precepts, but is a meer Absolute Promise, or Narra­tive which requires no Duty of us at all? Nay I appeal to the Conscience of my Brethren, whe­ther Ʋrsin was not so far from being of that Opinion, that on the contrary he says, it was the Opinion of the Flacian Sectaries which he zealously refutes, as is manifest from what I cited out of him before, and from what he says more, ibid. p. 131. in the same place.

My Third Witness is Polanus, who writes thus, [ ^(u) The Covenant of Grace is that, wherein God promiseth to us, that he will be our God freely for Christ's sake: And we again are obliged to be his People. The Heads or Articles of it, are two: One on Gods part, the other on our part. On God's part it is a Free Promise, whereby God promiseth to us to be our God, &c. The other Head or Article of the Covenant it is an Obligation on our part, whereby God hath bound us to himself to be his People. To be the People of God, is to walk before God with Integrity, Gen. 17.1. Or to live under the Eyes of God, as becometh good Children, which is done by a lively Faith in God and observance of his Law.] Thus Polanus, whereby it manifestly appears that he believed, as we do, that the Go­spel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts, and requires Duty.

My fourth Witness is Melancthon, who long before Polanus, taught this Doctrine, that the Moral Law is so grafted into the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace, that sincere Obedience to it is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant. His words are, ^(x) [ As in many parts of nature there are proposed admirable images, or representations of great things; so there is a won­derful friendship in nature, and as it were a mutual Covenant between the Olive and Vinetrees For if the Vine be grafted into the Olivetree, it not only remains safe and lives, but it also receives new strength, and brings forth both Grapes and Olives, or Grapes which have the savour and taste both of Grapes and Olives. It is an illustrious or clear image and representation. The Doctrine of the Law being ingrafted in o the Olivetree, that is into the Gospel, it becomes milder: For so it is that then Obedience is begun, and pleaseth God, when it is ingrafted into the Gospel. Thus Melancthon shews by an elegant similitude how the Moral Law is taken into the Gospel-Covenant, whereby it is otherwise modified than it was, as it pertained to the first Covenant of Works, and comes under a new form and sanction; by which means our Obedience to the Moral Law, is ac­cepted as pleasing to God through Christ, if it be sincere tho' it be imperfect. Let those who have the Book see what Christopher Pezelius saith upon this. I will quote a few of his words; ^(y) [The Law of it self knows nothing either of the merit, or efficacy of the Son of God, and of the benefits of the Holy Spirit, which by Christ is poured out into the hearts of Believers. Nothing there­fore doth it expresly teach of the help by which, and of the way how good works are wrought in us. Moreover the Law doth always and immutably require perfect Obedience of all without discriminati­on, regenerate and unregenerate, and [of it self] immutably damns all that have not that perfect Obedience. But the Gospel not only promiseth us help, but as for the regenerate, with respect to them, [Page 88]it mitigates the severity of the Law with this sweet temper and moderation, that as the person is freely received into favour for Christs sake, so the begun Obedience, though imperfect and polluted, yet is pleasing to God in persons reconciled through Faith, for the Mediators sake. This Doctrine of the Gospel, unless it be added to the Legal Precepts, which are both repeated, and preached, and also are brought under a sanction, and confirmed, necessarily and immutably in Gospel Sermons, the doctrine of good Works, will not only be lame and maimed, but it will also be unprofitable, &c.] Thus Pezelius shews the difference between the Law Precepts as fortified with the sanction of the first Law of Works, and the same Precepts as they are brought under a new sanction, and have put on a new form in the Gospel: In this last sense the Precepts of the Moral Law be­long to the New Covenant, and are Precepts of the Gospel. Yea the same Pezelius in the same Book hath demonstrated at large against the Flacians, that over and beside the Precepts of the Moral Law which are now Evangelized, the Gospel hath some Precepts which are proper to it self, and require Evangelical Faith and Repentance, which the Moral Law by it self immediately doth not require at all. Some of his words are, ^(z) [ But it hath no­thing common with this Popish dream [concerning a new Law in their sense], to say that in the Gospel there is a peculiar Precept, not revealed in the Law, to wit, concerning Faith in Christ, to which is repugnant not believing in the Son the Mediator. —In the Law of Faith, that is, in the Doctrine of the Gospel, there is not only a gracious promise of the mercy of God for the sake of the Son the Mediator, but there is a Precept which commands us to acknowledge the Mediator, and believe that promise. This Precept in its whole kind differs from the Legal Precepts which preach of Moral Obedience. And as it would be Childish, from this, that the Law hath Promises, to infer that since the Law differs from the Gospel, therefore there is no Promise to be assigned to the Gospel; so it is great stupidity to argue thus: The Law hath Precepts, therefore no peculiar Precept is to be assigned unto the Gospel, lest a new Law, or an Evangelical Law, should seem to be introduced, &c.] See what follows there; especially consult what he writes in Pag. 100, 101, 102, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 126, 127, 128, 129, 135, 136, 149, 150, 151. And in Pag. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, where he invincibly proves against Flacius, that the Gospel hath Precepts; that besides the Precepts, which in respect of the matter of them, are common both to the Law of Works and Gospel of Grace, there are Precepts which by themselves immdiately require Evangelical Faith and Repentance, and that these Precepts are proper and peculiar to the Gospel. Thus we see, that the Opinion which is lately brought in amongst us, that the Gospel hath no Precepts which require Duty, and that there are no Sins against the Gospel, is nothing but the old Errour of Flacius and his Party, which they broached in opposition to the Learned, Pious and Prudent Melancthon; and which was confuted and exploded by the Reformed above an hundred years ago.

My 5th Withess is Henry Bullinger, who, tho he be suborned to be a false Witness against me, yet is he a true Witness, that is, as much for me in this Cause as my heart can desire. For thus he writes on those words of the Apostle, Heb. 8.8. for finding fault with them; he saith, Behold the days come, &c.

^* As to what concerns this place, The Testament is the Covenant, and that compact of God, whereby God hath testified his Will towards us, and hath fully agreed with us upon certain conditions; and those conditions he hath thus prescribed unto our Fathers, and in the first place, unto Abraham, saying, I will be thy God, that All-sufficieucy of all things; I say I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed after thee, for ever. And as for thee, do thou walk before me, and be thou perfect or sincere. And these are the Conditions of the Covenant or Agreement.

By this also we see, that above 100 years ago our Doctrine was maintained by the Reformed in Switzerland, to wit, That the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts which prescribe to us Conditions, and require Duties of us. Now what shall one think or say of those men who in Print boldly contradict this plain matter of Fact, and some of them are not ashamed to say, that Christ hath helped them to write such falshoods. I am almost weary in transcribing Testimonies against such unchristian asserting of Falshoods in matter of Fact: and therefore, lest I should quite tire both my self and the Reader, I will bring but a few more, tho I could bring very many.

My 6th Witness then shall be that holy and faithful Minister of Christ, Mr. Shep­hard of New England, whose words are, ^† ‘[The Gospel under which believers now are, requires no doing (say they), for doing is proper to the Law, the Law promiseth life, and requireth conditions, but the Gospel (say they) promiseth to work the condition, but requires none; and therefore a believer is now whol­ly free from all Law.’ But (says Mr. Shephard) the Gospel and Law are taken two ways. (1.) Largely, the Law for the whole Doctrine contained in the Old Testa­ment, and the Gospel for the whole Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles contained in the New Testament. (2.) Strictly, the Law pro lege Operum ( as Chamier distin­guisheth), and the Gospel pro lege fidei. i.e. For the Law of Faith: The Law of works strictly taken is that Law which reveals the Favour of God, and Eternal Life, up­on condition of doing, or of perfect Obedience. The Law of Faith strictly taken, is that Doctrine which reveals remission of sins, and reconciliation with God by Christ's Righ­teousness only apprehended by Faith. Now the Gospel in this latter Sense, excludes all works, and requires no doing in point of Justification and Remission of sins before God, but only believing: But take the Gospel largely, for the whole Doctrine of Gods Love and Free Grace, and so the Gospel requires doing; for as it is an Act of God's free Grace to justifie a man without calling for any works thereunto, so it is an Act of the same free grace, to require works of a person justified, and that such poor sinners should stand before the Son of God on his Throne, to minister unto him, and serve him in righteousness and holiness all the days of our lives, Tit. 2:14. And for any to think that the Gospel requires no conditions, is a sudden Dream against hundreds of Scrip­tures, which contain conditional yet Evangelical Promises, and against the Judgment [Page 90]of the most Judicious of our Divines, &c.] Thus Mr. Shephard; where it is obser­vable, (1.) That according to him, the Gospel even strictly taken, as it respects Justification only, requires the Duty and Condition of believing. And therein I agree with him, that it requires Faith, and only Faith, as that whereby we appre­hend Christ's Righteousness; for to do that, is the Office of Faith alone, and of no other Grace or Duty. (2.) It is observable, that according to him, the Gos­pel taken largely (not for all the books of the New Testament, but) for the whole Doctrine of God's Love and free Grace, so it requires doing of Justified Persons, and it requires not only the Duty of believing, but it also requires that we serve God in righteousness and holiness all the days of our lives. This is plain, and so plain, that I hope no honest man, who fears God, and loves truth, will ever dare to deny it: For my own part, I must profess to the world, that I am perswaded it is my Duty to lose my life, rather than impudently deny so plain a matter of Fact. (3.) It is to be observed, that tho Mr. Shephard do not here mention Re­pentance in order to remission of sins, yet afterwards in p. 94. of the same book, he doth expresly mention it, as well as Faith, tho it have not the same use and office which Faith hath in Justification. His words are, [ Is not this preaching of the Gospel the iustrument and means of working that Faith in us, which the Lord re­quires of us in the Gospel? And must not Jesus Christ use the means for the end? were not those 3000 brought unto Chrïst by Faith, by Peter 's promise of remission of sins, upon, their Repentance? Were not many filled with the Holy-Ghost when they heard this Gospel thus preached upon condition of believing? Acts 10.43, &c.] This was written against one W.C. Whether the Spirit of that person hath possessed any o­thers in our day, I will not say, let them who are concerned look to that. This Testimony of Mr. Shephard, I conclude with what he says in p. 79. [ As do and live hath been accounted good Law, or the Covenant of Works, so believe and live, hath been in former times accounted good Gospel, or the Covenant of Grace, until now, of late, this wild Age hath found out new Gospels that Paul and the Apostles did never dream of.

Now observe here, that in this [believe and live] which Mr. Shephard says in former times used to be accounted good Gospel, there is, (1.) A Precept, Be­lieve; for it is a Verb of the Imperative Mood, which commands and requires the Duty of believing. (2.) There is a Promise to those who obey the Precept and per­form the Duty through Grace, That through Christ they shall live. But Mr. Good­win will have the Gospel to be an Absolute Promise, without any Precept at all. Therefore this is no good Gospel in his Account. Whether then he be one of those who have found a New Gospel that Paul and the Apostles did never dteam of, let him look to that. I hope, if he see his mistake, he will rectisie it. Nullus pudor ad meliora transire.

My 7th Witness is the Edinburgh Catechism, published for the use of the Col­ledg and Schools in that City, in the year 1627.

In the Section concerning Christ's Office, the words of the Catechism are these: ^* For what end was Christ made a King? Ans. That he might enact a Royal Law for us, to be the Rule of our Faith and Life, Jam. 2.8. and 4.12. Rom. 3.27. Mat. 28.20. that he might bow and incline our hearts to observe his Law, Heb. 10.16. Acts 16.14. that he might invincibly protect and defend us, (Deut. 33.29. Ps. 119.114.) [Page 91] that he might provide for the happiness of, and might bountifully reward us his Sub­jects, (2 Tim. 4.8. Joh. 10, 28.) and that he might destroy all his Ensmies, being brought down and made his Footstool, (Ps. 110.1.)?

And afterwards, in the Section concerning the Covenant of God, there are these Questions and Answers.

^* [Q. What is promised to us in the Covenant of Grace? Ans. Remission of Sins, a new Righteousness, and Eternal Life.

Q. Ʋnder what condition is that promise made to us? Ans. Ʋnder the condition of Faith, and Obedience of Faith, John 3.16. and 13.17. Gal. 6.16. Rom. 1.5.] Thus the Edenburgh-Catechism, written for the use of the Colledg and Schools there, by Mr. John Adamson, Principal, who was afterwards a Member of the General Assembly at Glasgow, in the year 1638. if I be not misinform'd; and his Name I saw at St. Andrews, in the List of the Names of the Members of that Synod. But that which is material is this, That the Catechism saith, Christ was made a King, that he might give us a Royal Law, to be the Rule of our Faith and Life? This in such a way he could not do as Mediatorial King, unless the Gos­pel-Covenant, whereof he is Mediator, had Precepts, and required Duty. But that the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts, and requires Duty, according to that Catechism, is evident from this, That it asserts the subsequent Blessings of the Covenant of Grace, are promised to us under the condition of Faith, and the Obe­dience of Faith, and proves its assertion by John 3.16. and 13 17. Gal. 6.16. and Rom. 1.5.

My 8th Witness is the Famous Mr. Durham before mentioned. His words in p. 238. are, [ The Covenant of Grace (saith he) is compared to free Adoption, or a man's entitling of a Stranger to his Inheritance, upon condition of his receiving that, and to marri­age betwixt Man and Wife (which is frequent in Scripture), not because the Cove­nant of Grace requireth not holiness and works, but because it doth not require them actually to precede a Person's Title to all the priviledges covenanted, and doth freely entitle him to the same, upon his entry therein, as a Wife is entitled to what is the Husband's, upon her Marriage with him, altho afterwards she be to perform the du­ties of that Relation, rather as Duties called for by it, than as Conditions of it. Hence we may call the Covenant of Works a Servile Covenant, and the Covenant of Grace a Filial or Conjugal Covenant; and therefore, altho holy Duties be required in both, yet there is difference, and the one is of Works, and the other of Grace.] Thus that learned and good man. Where it is as clear as the Sun, that he was for the Gos­pel-Covenant its having Precepts, and requiring Duty.

My 9th Witness is the Learned and Holy Mr. Rutherford, who speaks fully to the Point under consideration: For thus he writes, [ Faith in God, and the Mo­ral Law (that is, Obedience to the moral Law) in an Evangelick way are comman­ded in the Covenant of Grace; and also some Duties touching the Seals are therein contained.

Again, Ibid. p. 92. As the Commands and Threatnings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation, upon such as are only externaly in Covenant, either to obey or suffer, so the Promise of the Covenant imposes an ingagement and obli­gation upon such to believe the Promise.

Again, ibid. p. 154. Law-Obedience (says he) doth much differ from Gospel Obedience, as Law-Commands from Gospel-Commands.

Again, Ibid. p. 189. Obj. Does not the Law Command the Sinner offending God, to mourn, and be humbled and confess? Ans. It doth: ‘But it injoyns not Repentance as a way of Life, with a Promise of Life to the Repenter— Nor does the Law, as a Covenant of Works, command Justifying Faith and Reliance upon God-Redeemer or Immanuel; but rather as the Law of Na­ture, or as the Law of Thankfulness to a Ransoming, Redeeming God, the Law doth this; tho in a special Covenant way, the Gospel Commands Faith in Christ.’

Again, ibid. p. 191. This I grant (which I desire the Reader carefully to ob­serve) the Law and the Covenant of Grace do not one and the same way Command Faith, and forbid unbelief. I speak now of the Covenant of Works, and of the Covenant of Grace, as they are two Covenants specifically and formally different.

Again he puts the Question. ib. p. 192. 103. Whether doth the Lord Mediator, as Mediator, command the same good Works in the Covenant of Grace, which are Com­manded in the Covenant of Works?

And then Answers, According to tht matter of the thing Command­ed, quoad rem mandatam, He Commands the same, and charges upon all and every one the Moral Duty, even as Mediator; but simply they are not the same, Quoad modum mandandi. It shall not be needful to dispute whether they be Commands differing in Nature; for not only doth the Mediator Command Obe­dience upon his interposed Authority as Law-giver, and Creator, but also as Lord Redeemer upon the Motive of Gospel-Constraining-Love; in which notion he calls Love the keeping of his Commandments (if they Love him, John 14.) the New Commandment of Love.

Finally, ib. p. 198, 199. he says, The Obedience of Faith, or Gospel-Obedience hath less of the Nature of Obedience, than that of Adam, or of the Elect Angels, or that of Christ. It's true, we are called Obedient Children, and they are called the Commandments of Christ, and Christ hath taken the Moral Law, and made use of it in an Evangelick way; yet we are more (as it were) patients [...]in obey­ing Gospel-Commands, not that we are meer patients, as Libertines Teach, for Grace makes us Willing; but we have both Supernatural Habits, and influence of Grace Furnished to us from the Grace of Christ, who hath Merited both to us, and so in Gospel Obedience, we offer more of the Lords own, and less of our own, because he both Commands, and gives us grace to Obey.

By all this and more that I could quote out of Mr. Rutherford's Writings, it's manifest that he believed as we do, that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts, and requires Duty, and that it is not a meer absolute promise that requires no duty or us at all.

My 10th Witness is the late Reverend and Learned Doctor Owen, whose memory I honour, tho it be said that I bestowed some Disadvantageous re­marks upon him; but it is not true, for to tell the World that he retracted what he had before confidently Written, when it pleased the Lord to give him further Light, as he apprehended; is so far from being to his disadvan­tage, that it is on the contrary very much for his Honour; and plainly shews that tho he was a fallible man (as we all are) yet he was in that, an humble Man, and a sincere lover of Truth: And I wish Mr. G. may follow his Ex­ample, for assuredly it will be more for his Reputation and Honour, than ob­stinately to persist in the Flacian Error, which some (it seems) have drawn him into. And since he professeth to have so great an esteem for Dr. Owen, I [Page 93]desire him, and all that are concerned, to consider what I shall Cite out of the Doctor's Vindication of the Gospel, in his Answer to Biddle's Socinian Cate­chism. His words are, Take the word [Law] strictly, in reference to a Cove­nant end, that he who performs it, shall be Justified by his performance there­of; so we may say, ^* he (to wit, Christ) gave the Law Originally as God, but as Mediator, he gave no such Law, or no Law in that Sense, but revealed fully and clearly our Justification with God upon another account.

Again, [ If they (the Socinians) shall say, That Christ may be said to reveal the Ten Commandments, because he promulged them a-new, with new Motives, Rea­sons and Encouragements; I hope he will give us leave to say also, That what he calls a New Commandment, is not so termed in respect of the matter of it, but its new Enforcement by Christ. We grant ^† Christ revealed that Law by Moses, with its New Covenant-Ends, as he was the great Prophet of his Church, by his Spirit, from the Foundation of the World? but this Smalcius denies.]

Again, [ That there are Precepts and Promises attending the New Covenant, is granted; but that it consists in any addition of Precepts to the Mosaical Law, car­ried on in the same Tenour with it, with other Promises, is a Figment directly destructive of the whole Gospel, and the Mediation of the Son of God, ibid. page 393. And in the next page he says, [ That Moses was a Mediator of a Covenant of Works, properly and formally so called; and that the Church of the Jews lived under a Covenant of Works, is a no less pernicious Figment than the Former. The Covenant of Works was, Do this and live; On perfect Obedi­ence you shall have Life. Mercy and Pardon of Sins, were utter stran­gers to that Covenant; and therefore by it, the Holy Ghost tells us, That no man could be saved, The Church of old had, The Promises of Christ, (Rom. 9.5. Gen. 3.15. and 12.3.) were Justified by Faith, Ger. 15.6. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Obtained Mercy for their Sins, and were Justified in the Lord, Isa. 42.24. Had the Spirit for Conversion, Regeneration, and Sanctifica­tion, Ezek. 11.9. and 36.26. expected and obtained Salvation by Jesus Christ: Things as remote from the Covenant of Works as the East from the West. It's true, the Administration of the Covenant of Grace, which they lived under, was dark, legal and low, in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto, since the coming of Christ in the flesh; but the Covenant wherein they walked with God, and that wherein we find acceptance, is the same; and the Justificati­on of Abraham their Father, the pattern of ours, Rom. 4.4, 5. And afterwards in the same book, chap. 33. p. 652. the Doctor says, [N. 3. Nor doth Biddle inform us what he intends by keeping the Commands of God, Whether an ex­act, perfect, and every way compleat keeping of them up to the highest Degree of all things, in all things; circumstances and concernments of them: Or whether the keeping of them in an universal sincerity, accepted before God, according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace, be intended. Ner, 4. What Commandments they are which he chiefly respects, and under what consideration; Whether all the Commandments of the Law of God, as such; Or whether the Gospel-Gommands of Faith and Love, which the places (1 John 5.3. and Mat. 11.30.) from whence he answers, do respect.

And in the following page Doctorr Owen's 5th Answer is, [ That to keep the Commandments of God, not as the Tenour of the Covenant of Works nor in an absolute perfection of Obedience and Correspondency to the Law, but sincerely and [Page 94]uprightly unto acceptation, according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace, and the Obedience it requires, through the assistance of the Spirit and Grace of God, is not only a thing possible, but easy, pleasant and delightful. Thus we say, That a person regenerate, by the assistance of the Spirit and Grace of God, may keep the Commandments of God, in yielding to him in answer to them, that sincere Obedience which in Jesus Christ, according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace is required: Yea, it is to him an easy and pleasant thing so to do. This is sufficient to show that Dr. Owen was far from thinking that the Gospel Covenant hath no precepts, but is a meer absolute promise or Doctrine of Grace that requires nothing of us at all. He says, the quite contrary as appears by his words, to wit that it hath precepts, as well as promises, and that it requires of us sin­cere obedience, in order to our obtaining possession of Eternal salvation in Heavenly Glory. I could bring many more, very many worthy and Ortho­dox, Modern Divines, to bear Testimony to the point under consideration, that the Gospel hath precepts and requires Duties, but these are enough; at present therefore I shall forbear mentioning any more, except the late Reve­rend and Ingenious Mr. Gilbert, who in his short discourse concerning the guilt of sin, and pardon of it, &c. In the second page grants expresly that there are both Gospel-precepts, and Gospel-sins, and tells us. (1.) That Gospel precepts, are mainly the same for substance with those of the Law, but not ex­acting their observance with the same Rigour, Namely for Justification. And I add, nor yet for salvation. (2.) That Gospel-sins are the Transgression of such Gospel-precepts. Thus I have proved both by many clear Testimonies of God, and also of good Men Ancient and Modern, that the Gospel-Covenant is not without all precepts, it is not such a Doctrine of grace, as requires nothing of us at all; but it is a Doctrine of Grace that obliges us to Duty, and re­quires of us sincere obedience to its Evangelical precepts, in an Evangelical way, for our due keeping of Covenant with God in Christ, and in order to our obtaining the Consummate Life and happiness through Christ promised in the Covenant.

Now from the foresaid Considerations, and Testimonies of God and good Men, it will not be difficult to gather a short and clear answer to my Reve­rend Brother's Reasons and Arguments which he brings to prove that the Gospel is such a Doctrine of Grace as hath no precepts, and requires no duty at all.

SECT. III.

And first he argues from the nature and use of precepts. They are design­ed (says he) pag. 42. As the Rule of our Actions, they instruct us what to do; they draw the lines of our Duty, and set the limits of our obedience. But all this is the proper office of the Moral Law, which it compleatly discharges, with­out any asistance. I Answer. (1.) It is not true, that the Moral natural Law without the assistance of any positive Law, doth by it self immediately instruct us in, and oblige us to all the particulars of our Duty. For as at the first Creation when the Moral natural Law, was perfectly and clearly written in Man's heart, it did not by it self immediately in the first instant after his Creation, oblige him not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, till God had given him another positive Law and Precept not to Eat of it, and then by means of the positive Law, the Moral natural Law obliged him not to eat of it; So now the same Moral Law would never by it self immediate­ly oblige us to several duties, if there were not a positive Law and Precept [Page 95]of Christ which did first make them to be duties, and oblige us to the doing of them. Of this sort is Baptism with water in the Name of Father, Son and Holy-Ghost. The Moral, Natural Law would never by it self immediately oblige men to be so Baptized, if the Lord Christ, as King and Head of his Church, had not by a new Act of his Royal Authority made a positive Law, and given a positive Precept, obliging men to be baptized as aforesaid; which being done, the moral natural Law doth also oblige us to be baptized, but it is only mediately, and by consequence. It is mediante lege positiva, sed non perse, im­mediate. So it is the Gospel-Law, or Covenant of Grace, which by it self imme­diately obliges us to Justifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance in the Sense before-mentioned and proved; and then the moral natural Law does also medi­ately, and by necessary consequence oblige us to the same Duties.

(2.) I answer, That since the making of the Gospel-Covenant with fallen man, the moral natural Law hath so belonged to it, that the requiring sincere Obedience to the moral Law, hath been one Article of the Gospel-Covenant. The said moral Law then not only as separated from the Gospel covenant, but even as included in it, (in the sense before explained) doth instruct us what to do, draw the Lines of our Duty, and set the limits of our Obedience upon Gospel-grounds, and to Gospel-ends and purposes, as hath been fully and clear­ly proved by Testimonies of God and Men. See Tit. 2.11, 12.— If he now Object and say that this proves that the Precepts are no parts of the Gospel, but borrowed from the Law. I answer, It proves no such thing; and what he talks of borrowing Precepts from the Law, is false and unintelligible; For I demand, who it is that borrows Precepts from the Law? Either it must be the Gospel, or God: But it can be neither. And (1.) It is not the Gospel that borrows Precepts from the Law, for borrowing is a Personal Act, but the Gos­pel is no Person, therefore it cannot Borrow. Again, the Gospel, according to this Brother, is nothing but an Absolute Promise, or bundle of Absolute Pro­mises; let him then prove, if he can, that an absolute Promise borrows a Pre­cept; and shew how it doth so borrow; for we neither do, nor can believe it upon his bare word. (2.) It is not God who borrows Precepts from the Law. For (1.) He that borrows a thing, doth want and need that thing, before he bor­row it, and he borrows it to supply his want. But God never wanted and needed the precepts of the Law. (2.) (The thing which one borrows, is not his own before he borrows it, but belongs to another Person; but the Law and its Pre­cepts were always Gods own, and therefore he could never borrow the Precepts of the Law from another, to whom they belonged. The Truth is, God is the Author and Owner both of the Law, and of the Gospel; and he first made the Law, and Subjected man unto it, and obliged him to keep it perfectly; but Man having transgressed it, God made the Gospel-Covenant, and propos­ed it to Man, and therein offered him a Remedy against the Sin and Misery he had brought on himself and his Posterity, by the breach of the Law: He commanded Man also, by Faith, to accept of the Remedy offered in the Gospel-Covenant, and for the future, to perform sincere obedience to the Law which he had formerly Transgressed. Here is no borrowing Precepts from the Law, but after the Law was broken, and thereby Man Ruined, God of his Sove­raign Free-grace so made, and Proposed to Man the Gospel-covenant (or which is the same, the New Law of Grace) as thereby, (1.) To oblige him to believe in Christ, and by Faith to receive the Remedy offered: And (2.) For the future to give sincere Obedience to the Moral Law, in order to his ob­taining full possession of the Happiness purchased by Christ the Mediator, and [Page 96]promised in the Gospel-covenant, whereof Christ is Mediator. And thus it was that the Moral Law came to belong to the Gospel, not by the Gospel's, nor by God's borrowing the precepts of the Law (which to imagine is Ridiculous) but by God's making sincere obedience to his own Moral Law, to be one of the Terms of his Gospel Covenant; and by his so framing the Gospel-Co­venant as by it to require of Man, sincere obedience to the Moral Law. Ac­cording to that, Gen. 17.1. I am the Almighty God, walk before me, and be thou perfect, upright or sincere. And Tit. 2.11, 12. The Grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared unto all Men; teaching us, that denying ungodliness and worldly Lusts, we should live Soberly, Righteously, and Godlily in this present world: Looking for that blessed hope, &c.

Obj. 2. Secondly, my R. B. indeavours to prove that the Gospel can have no precepts, because if it had any precepts, God would not be infinitely wise and unchangeable, and his Moral natural Law, which he first gave to Man at his Creation would not be perfect. This Consequence he labours to prove in pag. 43. And I freely grant that the Gospel could have no precepts, if from its having precepts, it did follow by good and necessary Consequence that God would not (on that supposition) be infinitely wise and absolutely unchange­able, and that his Moral natural Law would not be perfect. For certainly God is infinitely wise and absolutely unchangeable, this is as sure and evi­dent, as it is that there is a God at all. It is certain also, and I have always believed it, and here before asserted it, that the Moral natural Law is most perfect in its kind, and obliges to the most perfect, i. e. sinlessly perfect per­formance of the several duties which belong to it, In that way which the Lord God intended, It should oblige to the performance of them. If my R. B. be­lieve this as firmly as I do, then we are agreed as to this matter of the infi­nite wisdom, and unchangeableness of God, and the perfection of his Moral natural Law in its kind. But tho we be agreed in this, yet we do differ, and shall differ about the Consequence; for I do utterly deny that it follows by any good and necessary Consequence, that God would not be infinitely wise and unchangeable, and his Moral Law perfect in its kind; if the Gospel have any precepts, and if God have ever given to Man any new positive Law, since he first created him with the Moral natural Law written in his heart. And it is not without good reason, that I deny Mr. Goodwins Consequence as utterly false and blasphemous. For (1) according to his own Principle, Gods making unto Man a new promise, doth not impeach his infinite wisdom and absolute unchangeableness; for in pag. 49. He saith, that Repentance is a duty to which Man was tyed before any New Covenant of Grace was made; and before God had revealed any thoughts of favour to him, or any purposes of grace in that first promise of the Seed of the Woman, breaking the Serpents head. In these words he plainly acknowledges that when God first created Man, and gave him the Moral Law, he had not then made him any promise of Gospel grace and mercy; but the first promise of that nature, was made to Man after the fall: And yet I do not think that Mr. Goodwin dare say, that Gods mak­ing that New promise to Man, did impeach his wisdom as defective, or infer any change in his nature or will. And if a new promise did not, then I say that no more did a new precept impeach Gods wisdom as defective, or infer any change in his nature or will. For there is nothing can be said against a new precept as inconsistent with the infinity of Gods wisdom, and his unchange­ableness, but the like may be said against a new promise: And if I durst give my self leave to prat boldly and blasphemously against a new Gospel pro­mise, [Page 97]I have no more to do but to take what Mr. G. says against a New Gospel Precept, and with the varying of a few words, apply it to a New Gospel-Pro­mise; and I thereby prove, That it's not consistent with the Wisdom and Im­mutability of God, to make a New Gospel-Promise, just as he proves, That it is inconsistent with his Wisdom and Unchangeableness to give a New Gospel-Pre­cept. For my part, I dare not imitate Mr. G. in his way of Reasoning here; but there want not Infidels, too many, who by his way of disproving a New Gospel Precept, will endeavour to disprove a New Gospel-Promise, and will not stick to say, after the Example of my R. B. That for God to make a New Gospel-Promise, after the first Legal Covenant of Works, and the Legal Promise implied in it, would argue, That his Wisdom was deficient, as not knowing at first all that was good for man, and necessary to be promised to him, and believed by him, &c. (2.) God gave a new precept to Man before the fall, which was really diffe­rent from the Moral natural Law. For instance, the Command not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, &c. Gen. 2.17. was such a precept. This is so clear that Mr. G. has in effect confessed it, pag. 47. For there he saith that the Moral natural Law regarded the Act of eating the fatal Fruit, as a thing indifferent; and that indeed it was a thing indifferent, before the prohibition; To wit, by the new precept which came after the Moral natural Law, and there­fore must needs be really distinct from it. There he confesses, (1.) That the Moral natural Law did not at first, and by it self immediately forbid the Act of eating the foresaid Fruit. (2.) That therefore it remained still a thing in­different to eat, or not to eat of that Fruit, till the new precept was given. (3.) That it was the new precept, Gen. 2.17. Which first, by it self, immedi­ately prohibited the eating of it, and obliged Man not to eat it; and that with­out this, it would have still remainded indifferent, notwithstanding any thing that the Moral natural Law did or could say. Now if before the fall, God gave Man a new positive precept, which first obliged him to a certain duty, and forbad the Commission of the contrary sin; and if this new positive precept, requiring duty and forbidding Sin, was then very well consistent both with the wisdom and unchangeableness of God, and also with the perfection of his Moral natural Law; tho it and the Moral natural Law were two things real­ly distinct: I say, if it was so then before the fall, I put my R. Brother to prove that after the fall, it was inconsistent with Gods infinite wisdom and immutability, and with the perfection of his moral Law, to give unto man a­ny New Gospel-Precept, which should oblige him to Duty, whereunto the mo­ral natural Law did not, by it self immediately oblige him before. If Mr. G. continue to affirm this, he must prove it; for I utterly deny that God's giv­ing a new Gospel Precept, is inconsistent with his VVisdom and Immutabili­ty, and with the perfection of his Moral natural Law: and I am perswaded that he can never prove that inconsistency, no more then he can prove it inconsistent with Gods wisdom and immutability and with his Moral Laws perfection, to give unto Adam before the Fall, the new positive Precept of not Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledg, after he had written the said Moral Natural Law in his heart, at his first Creation. If he say, as in effect he doth, That the moral natural Law obliged A­dam not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, because it commanded him to obey God in whatever he should require. And so God's requiring Adam by a New positive Precept, to abstain from eating the said Fruit, is well consistent with his wisdom, and with his moral Laws Perfection. I answer, That my R. B. may see, if he will open his Eyes, that this makes against him, and for me. For,

(1.) He must, and he doth grant, That the abstaining from eating of that Fruit, was first required by a new positive Precept, in Order of Nature, before [Page 98]the moral natural Law commanded any such Abstinence; so that it comman­ded the said Abstinence only mediately, and by consequence, after that it was first immediately commanded by the New positive Precept, superadded to the Law of Nature. (2.) He knows well enough, that it is our professed belief that in like manner, tho the Moral Natural Law, the general Law of our Creation, doth Command us to obey God in whatever he requires of us by any new Special Gospel Precept; yet doth God first in order of Nature require our obedience to the Gospel by the New Gospel-Precept immediately; and then by means of that special new Gospel-Precept, the general Law of our Creation comes to take hold of our Conscience with respect thereunto, and obliges us to obey God therein: So that here are two Precepts that oblige us to the same thing, but in different ways: First, There is the special New-Gospel-Precept, which by it self, immediately obliges us to such a special Act of Gospel Obedience. Second­ly, There is the general old Law of our Creation, or the Natural Precept which obliges us to yeild obedience unto the special New Gospel-Precept; and so it is with respect to all the new positive Laws which ever God gave unto his Peo­ple, either under the Old or New Testament. The Law of nature did not, and could not enact those new Laws for the Church; But after that God had once enacted them by a new Exertion of his Legislative Authority, then the natural Law, the general Law of Creation, obliged the Church and People of God to the Observance of those new and special positive Laws. (3.) The rea­son why I deny, that the giving of new positive Gospel-Precepts unto man, af­ter the first giving of the natural Law to him, doth any way impeach the infi­nite wisdom and immutability of God; It is, because it was not for want of foresight of what man would afterwards need, and what his sad Circumstances would require, that ever God gave him any new Gospel-Precept (or Promise,) as Mr. G. would insinuate: But on the contrary, it was, because God by his infi­nite wisdom did foresee that Man would after the fall want, and his sad Cir­cumstances would need both new Gospel promises and precepts; and because he had unchangeably purposed from Eternity to give him after the fall, such Gospel promises and precepts, as would be suitable to his sad Circumstances, and through the Grace of the Holy Spirit, would be an excellent useful means to recover him out of that sad state of sin and misery, into which he had plunged himself by his own folly and wickedness. (4.) The reason why I deny Mr. G's. Consequence, that the giving unto Man any new Gospel precept, would impeach the wisdom and unchangeableness of God, is because that his way of Arguing against any new Gospel Precept, is upon the matter the very same way that the infidels of old, Disputed against the truth of the Christi­an Religion, and endeavoured to prove that either God could not be infinitely wise and unchangeable; or if he was such, that then the Christian Religion could not possibly be of God, because there are new precepts in the Gospel, and a new way of worshipping God prescribed by the Christian Religion, different in several particulars, from that which was before prescribed by God himself, both before and under the Law of Moses. That thus the Infidels disputed against the truth of the Christian Religion, is evident by what is to be seen in Marcellinus, his Epistle to Augustin, and by Augustin's answer to it; and it is to be noted that ^* Austin in his Answer, neither did, nor could truly deny that ever God gave any new precepts to his People. So far was he from that way of Answering the Infidels, that on the contrary he confessed [Page 99]that God had indeed at different times, given to his Church new precepts different from former precepts; but with all he shewed, that this did no ways impeach either the wisdom, or immutability of God. His excellent and Learned answer begins thus. ^* God who knows much better than Man, what precepts are suitable to every time, hath given other precepts which might be fit and proper for this time, to wit, of the Gospel.

The same is evident, also by what Austin in his Epistle to Deogratias, writes in answer to an objection made by an Heathen against the Christian Religion; where he shews that the Gospel and true Religion, hath been always the same in substance, tho at different times God hath given some different precepts, and prescribed different ways of worship unto his Church. In that answer of his to the Heathen, these words are Remarkable. But (says ^† Austin) as to what is to be done, and when every thing is to be done, that pertains or conduces unto one and the same salvation of Faithful and Godly men, let us ascribe Counsel unto God, and take obedience to our selves. i. e. Let us leave it to God to Determine that matter by his wise Counsel; and let us know that it is our duty to obey his orders and to observe his precepts; as he gives them out unto us. And with­out going upon this ground with the Learned and Holy Austin, we shall never be able to give a solid satisfactory answer, to the foresaid objection of Infi­dels against the truth of our Christian Religion. And there is no cause at all to fear, that our granting now different precepts, to have been given to the Church at different times, will any wise impeach the wisdom and unchangea­bleness of God: Because as the Ancient Author of the Questions and An­swers to the Greeks, (which are amongst the works of Justin Martyr) ^* says ex­cellently well in another (what is applicable to this) case. ‘[God will restore the Creation, and bring it into a better state by renewing it,—that he may purge it from all that absurdity which hath befallen it, through the slug­gishness of rational beings.’ Not that by judicious Consideration and looking further into things, he doth afterwards find out that which is better than what he did at first; but because long before, and even before the Creation of the World, he had decreed to do it. For it is not possible that afterwards any thing can be added either to the knowledge or power of God, which he had not before. So much for Answer to his Second main objection.

(3.) His 3d Objection is in pag. 44. where he argues thus. Christ obeyed the Law, and therein fulfilled all Righteousness, therefore the Law was per­fect, since it was the rule of the most perfect obedience that ever was, and which excelled that of Angels. Answ. Whom doth this Brother dispute a­gainst here? For my part, I do not know any of us that opposeth this. I am sure if he understands the Apology which he writes against, he cannot but [Page 100]know that it is not denied but affirmed there, that the Law is perfect, and re­quires most perfect sinlessly perfect obedience, and that under pain of Death Eternal. See pag. 200. 201. of the Apology.

(4.) His 4th objection is, Ibid. pag. 44. That if the Law be perfect, then it wants no precepts, but it enjoyns every duty under the severest penalties. I An­swer, that as the Law is most perfect in its kind, so indeed it wants not any one precept that belongs to it. But because it wants not one precept that belongs to it, will Common sense suffer a Man to infer that therefore it hath in it all pre­cepts, that do not belong to it. Mr. G. speaks here of the Law that Christ was under, and of the Law as it was, when Christ was under it in his State of Humiliation. Now I will name one pre­cept which the Law that Christ obeyed and fulfilled, had not then in it, and that was the precept recorded in Gen. 2.17. Of not eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Our blessed Lord most perfectly obeyed the Law that he was under. And yet he did not obey that particular precept of not eating the said Fruit. If it be said, that he did not disobey that precept, there­fore he obeyed it. I deny the Consequence; obeying and disobeying are not Contradictories, but contraries, and there is a medium or mean between them: And the mean was this, that our Lord Christ did neither obey nor disobey that precept, of not eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge: Because as it may be, there was no such Tree or Fruit then in the World, so it is certain there was then no such precept forbidding Christ, or any Man else to eat of the Fruit of that Tree; it was at first but a Temporary precept, and its obligation had ceased, and was utterly gone, long before the Son of God was made of a woman, made under the Law, Gal. 4.4. Now where such a precept doth not at all oblige, there is no place either for obedience or diso­bedience to the said precept. I grant it to be a most certain truth that our Lord Christ suffered Death, the penalty threatned against Man for disobeying that, and the other precepts; but it doth not at all follow from thence, that Christ either obeyed or disobeyed that positive Temporary precept. He most perfectly obeyed every precept of any Law that he was under, and so fulfilled all Righteousness: His Obedience also was equivalent, yea in respect of its worth arising from the infinite Dignity of his Person, it was more than equiva­lent to all the Obedience which Mankind should have performed to that and all other precepts; and yet for all that, it doth not follow that Christ in humane nature obeyed that precept, which was not then in rerum natura, so as to o­blige any Man to obedience. The perfect Law then which Christ most per­fectly obeyed, wanted the foresaid precept, and yet it was perfect, because it had all the precepts that belonged to it, and wanted only that which did not belong to it. Further, since my R. B. Speaks here of the Moral Law, it is free­ly granted and always was believed by me that it wants none of its own pre­cepts, and that by its own precepts it enjoyns every duty, In that way which God intended it should enjoyn every duty. Those duties which fall under its precepts without any supernatural Revelation intervening, and without any positive precept superadded to the Law of Nature, it enjoyns and Commands by it self immediately: But there are other duties which do not fall under its pre­cepts, without a supernatural Revelation, and also without some positive precepts superadded to the Law of Nature; and such duties, it doth not en­joyn and Command by it self immediately; but only mediately and by means of the said positive precepts, which do first in order of nature enjoyn and command the said duties; and then the Moral Law enjoyns also and com­mands [Page 101]the same duties, by obliging us to obey the positive precepts which first in order of nature, require and enjoyn them. Thus, as hath been shewed, the Moral natural Law enjoyns and commands Faith in Christ, the Mediator, for Justification by his Righteousness only; and Evangelical Repentance as a means to dispose and quality us for obtaining the pardon of our sins through Faith in Christs blood. It doth not by it self immediately, require such Faith and Repentance of all, without exception, that are under it: For then it would have required them also of Christ, who was made under the Law, Gal. 4.4. It would have obliged the Mediator Christ Jesus, to have believed in Christ for Justification; and to have repented Evangelically for obtaining the pardon of his sins, through Faith in his own Blood: Which is absurd and blasphemous to assert: But it (ro wit the Moral Law) requires Faith and Re­pentance of all that are under it, mediately only, by means of the positive precepts of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace, as hath been before explained and proved. But now so it is that the positive precepts of the Gospel or Co­venant of Grace, which require Faith in Christ the Mediator for Justification, and Evangelical Repentance as a means to dispose and prepare us, for obtain­ing pardon of sin; were not given unto Christ himself, to oblige him there­by to believe in himself for Justification, and Evangelically to repent for par­don of sin. And therefore the natural Moral Law which he was under, and perfectly obeyed, did not oblige him unto Justifying Faith, and Evangelical Repentance, as duties incumbent upon him, and to be performed by him in his own person. Thus we give (upon our principles) a clear account how our Lord Christ perfectly obeyed the Law, and yet was under no obligation at all to believe in himself for Justification, nor to repent for pardon of sin; whereas it seems Mr. G. on his Principles, must either hold that Christ so believed in himself and repented; or else that he transgressed the perfect Law of God, by not so believing and repenting: Neither of which can be granted without the greatest absurdity Imaginable. If he should here say, That I my self have gran­ted that the moral natural Law obliges all that are under it to a Legal Repentance. But Christ himself was under it; and then it will follow, That he was obliged to a Legal Repentance; which is as bad as to hold, That he was obliged to an Evangelical Repentance. I could easily answer him, That he quite mistakes the matter. I never said, That the Law of Nature doth absolutely and actually ob­lige all that are under it to a Legal Repentance; but only that it so obliges all man­kind that are sinners, and upon supposition that they be sinners. But now, our most holy Lord Jesus was no sinner, nor is it possible that he could be a sinner; There­fore he neither was, nor could possibly be obliged to a Legal Repentance of his sins. My R. B. will not own himself to be an Antinomian, and therefore I do not say that he holds with some of that Sect, that Christ believed for us with a Justifying faith, and repented for us, with an Evangelical Repentance, in that he perfectly kept the Moral Law, which by it self immediately requires such Faith and Repentance of all that are under it: Only I desire him to guard against that Consequence; and look well to it that it be not the natural off-spring of his beloved Opinion. If any man should be so weak as to question, How we can obtain pardon of the sinful Defects of our Justifying Faith, and Evangelical Repentance, if Christ did not so believe and repent for us? I answer very easily, That we obtain pardon of the sinful Defects of our Faith and Repentance, in conside­ration of Christs meritorious and satisfactory Obedience unto death, even the death of the Cross.

His 5th Objection is, ibid. p. 44. That the Moral Law, by its first Precept, commands us to believe in God, but Christ is God. This Argument he seems to lay great stress on, and yet it may be easily answered. For making this appear, we must distin­guish between what the first Precept of the Moral Law, by it self immediately, commands us to do, and what it commands us to do only by vertue of a super­natural Revelation intervening, and by means of a positive Gospel-Precept, super­added to the Law of Nature. This Distinction applied, clears the Matter, and answers the Argument; Thus: The first Precept of the Moral Law, by it self im­mediately commands us to believe in God only. The major Proposition, in this sense, is true, but then the minor Proposition is false. It is false, That Christ is God on­ly; For he is not only God, but Man also. He is God-Man, and Mediator between God and Men, 1 Tim. 2.5. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus. And then the Conclusion is false, taken (as it ought to be) in the same sense, in which the Major proposition is true. It is false that the first Precept of the Moral Law by it self immediately, with­out the Intervention of a Supernatural Revelation, and the superadition of a posi­tive Gospel precept, Commands us to believe in Christ the Mediator, for Justifi­cation by his Righteousness imputed to us. It is one thing to believe in God considered simply as God, and only God; and it is another thing to believe in Christ for Justification, considered not simply as God, or only as God; but considered as God-Man and Mediator between God and Men. The first Com­mand by it self immediately requires faith in God, simply considered as God, and only God, and Christ being really and truly God, I have granted and do grant, that the first Commandment by it self immediately doth require faith in him, considered only as God; which yet is not a Justifying faith as such. But then Christ being not only God, but Man also; he being God-Man, and Media­tor between God and Men, I deny that the first Commandment by it self imme­diately requires faith in him, as such▪ i. e. as God-Man for Justification; and I affirm that its only mediately, that it requires Justifying faith in him as God-Man. So that as I have often said it is the supernatural Revelation with the positive precept of the Gospel-Covenant, that immediately and first in order of nature obliges us to believe with a Justifying faith in Christ, God-Man, and Mediator between God and Men. According to that, Exod. 23.20, 21. Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provo [...]e him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my Name is in him. See Deut. 18.15.18, 19. and Mat. 17.5. Behold a voice out of the Cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. In these Scriptures we have both a supernatural Revelation of the Eternal word and Son of God, Designed to be Mediator, and Actually mediating be­tween God and Men; and also a positive Gospel precept to believe in him; and it is by means of the said Supernatural revelation and positive precept, that the first Commandment of the Moral natural Law obliges us to believe in Christ the Mediator with a Justifying faith: And the granting that the Moral Law doth thus require faith in Christ the Mediator, in as much as it o­bliges us to believe all supernatural Revelations which God makes known un­to us, and to obey all positive Commands which he at any time lays upon us; is so far from making against the Gospels having any positive precepts belong­ing to it; that on the contrary it plainly makes for the Gospels having such precepts, since it is by means of such precepts, or precept that the Moral na­tural Law doth oblige Men to believe in Christ with a Justifying faith. And [Page 103]the same I have said and do still say, of Evangelical Repentance, as a means of qualifying and disposing Sinners for obtaining the pardon of their sins by Faith in Christ. And here I may stop, and need not to go one step further, in answering what he further Writes in his Seventh Chapter, to prove that the Moral Natural Law commands Faith and Repentance: for what I have said already, doth sufficiently answer whatever in it doth really militate against me. Most of it is altogether impertinent, as where he strenuously proves what is not denyed, but was plainly owned and asserted in the Apology, that the Moral Natural Law requires Faith in God, and a legal Repentance, of all the sinful Race of Mankind, that have the use of their Reason, and can dis­cern between Good and Evil, The rest of it contains a meer non sequitur, and is nothing but a drawing of consequences violently against the hair, as that because the Moral Natural Law, of it self, requires a Legal Faith and trust in God, and a Legal Repentance for Sin; therefore it so requires a Ju­stifying Faith in Christ the Mediator, and an Evangelical Repentance for par­don of sin; which doth not at all follow, as I have shewed and proved at large, and have no obligation on me to do it over again. I am sensible that my following him to lay open his Impertinences and Inconsequent Reason­ings, hath already necessitated me to repeat too often the same things. I must therefore restrain my self from pursuing him any further as I have done, and endeavour to come unto a speedy close of what is necessary to be said on this Head, concerning the Precepts that belong to the Gospel or Covenant of Grace: And, in order to this, there is no more needful to be done, but that (1.) I desire the Reader carefully to attend unto a few things, which will be useful to preserve him from being imposed upon. (2.) That I put my R. B. in mind of some of his Mistakes.

First then, I desire the Reader, that he may not be imposed upon, to attend carefully to these few things. (1.) Whereas Mr. G. perpetually Talks of a New Law, and industriously labours to make People believe, that I hold the Gospel to be a New Law of Duties, by and for which we are to be Justified and Saved: I declare that this is a gross mistake (to say no worse of it) for I do not say that the Gospel is simply a New Law, but with this mollifying re­striction, that it is a Law of Grace, or a New Law of Grace: So I say often in the Apology. And the reason of my saying so, is, because the Gospel consists mostly in Promises, though it be not without, but partly consist in Precepts also. This I have shewed in the Apology, that there are not only Promises in the Gospel to those who observe its Precepts, but that there are in it Promises of Grace to his People, to fit them for, and to assist them in the observance of its Precepts; and therefore it is fitly called not simply a Law, but a Law of Grace: So I call it, and believe it to be, and so it was called and believed to be, by other Orthodox Divines before I was born. But though I believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace, that requires Duties to be performed by the Grace of the Spirit, and accepted through the Mediation of Christ; yet I ne­ver said, nor believed, that it is a Law which requires Duties, by and for which we are Justified and Saved. So far am I from saying or believing any such thing, that I have published the contrary to the World in several parts of the Apology; and particularly in Page 38, 39, 40.54. Indeed, it is my professed belief, that Faith it self is not any the least part of that Righteous­ness by and for which we are Justified before God.

(2.) The Second thing to be carefully attended unto, is, that by the Gospel, or Law of Grace, I do not understand the Books of the New Testament; but [Page 104]the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ, as it is Record­ed in the Scriptures both of Old and New Testament.

(3.) The Third thing to be attended unto, is, that I always acknowledged that the First Commandment of the Moral Law obligeth to believe all the Su­pernatural Revelations, and obey all the Positive Precepts of the Gospel; from which Principle it is so far from following, that the Gospel hath no Precepts of its own, that on the contrary it plainly follows, that it hath Pre­cepts of its own, otherwise the Moral Natural Law would never oblige us to obey them.

(4.) The Fourth thing to be attended unto, is, That since the Gospel, or Covenant and Law of Grace hath Precepts of its own; those Precepts must of themselves immediately oblige us to the performance of certain Duties, and by means of them the Natural Moral Law obliges us to the same Duties, tho not to be Justified and Saved for the sake of those Duties, but in order to other Gospel ends and purposes. If these Four things be carefully attended unto, they will preserve People, through the Blessing of God, from being imposed upon by the false Representation which Mr. G. gives of our Doctrine; which Wrong I freely forgive him, and heartily pray God both to give him Repentance and Forgiveness.

(2.) The Second and last thing I am here to do, is to shew my Reverend Brother some more of his Mistakes, in this part of his Seventh Chapter, con­cerning the Precepts of the Gospel.

(1.) And First, whereas he says in Page 44. That the obedience of a Belie­ver is not called Evangelical, because it is obedience to the Gospel, but because of the Principles of Faith and Love from which it flows, and in respect of the Evan­gelical Motives which animate and encourage it. This I take to be a mistake, if he excludes the Gospel Covenants, requiring such Obedience, from being one of the said Motives; and my reason is, because the Gospel's requiring it, in or­der to Gospel-ends and purposes, is the principal reason wherefore we call it E­vangelical Obedience. For it is the Gospel that of it self, directly and im­mediately, requires us to obey the Moral Law in such an Evangelical way, to wit, sincerely, with a renewed heart, from Principles of Faith in, and Love to Christ the Mediator, and God, as our Redeemer and Saviour by Christ. And further, as the Authority and Veracity of God revealing Truths to be believ­ed, is the formal reason of our Faith, which makes and denominates it a Di­vine Faith; so the Authority and Will of God commanding Duties to be done, is the formal reason of our obedience, which gives it the Denomination of Di­vine Obedience, or obedience to God. And if this be true of obedience to God in general, that it is called a Divine legal obedience, because it is obedience to God's Authority and Will, Commanding it by his Law, then by Parity of Reason; it is true of that special sort of obedience, to wit, Evangelical Obe­dience, that it is called Evangelical, because it is obedience to Gods Authority and Will, Commanding and requiring it by his Gospel. It were very strange, if the Formal Reason of Obedience did contribute nothing to the giving it its Name, as well as its Nature.

(2.) Secondly, Whereas in Page 45. he says, That in John 14.1. Christ himself told his Disciples, that they should act faith on him, because they were ob­liged to it by the same Command which required them to believe in God. This is another Mistake, and the mistake is the grosser for this Reason, because by this mistake, Mr. G. imposes upon our Saviour, and makes him to say, that which he did not say, nor is it implyed in, nor necessarily consequent from [Page 105]his words. Our Lord Christ doth not say, Believe in me, because ye are ob­liged to it by the same Command which requires you to believe in God. This is Mr. G's Fancy, or Fiction, which he should not have Fathered upon Christ: Who saith no such thing in John 14.1. But only saith there, let not your heart be troubled, Ye believe in God, believe also in me. Or as the words might be rendred ye believe in God, and ye believe in me. Now I appeal both to common sense, and to common honesty, and natural Conscience, whether to say, ye believe in God, believe also in me, be all one and the same thing, as to say, ye should believe on me, because ye are obliged to believe on me, by the same command (and by no other) which requires you to believe in God. For suppose the Disciples had been obliged to believe in Christ, by another Command, or both by the same and also by another Command, yet Christ might well have u­sed the same words, and have said, ye believe in God, believe also in me. I do therefore put Mr. G. to prove, that because our Lord Christ said, ye believe in God, believe also in me. Therefore he told his Disciples, that they should be­lieve on him, not because they were obliged to it by any positive precept of the Gospel, but only because they were obliged to it, by the same Command of the Moral natural Law, which required them to believe in God. Mr G. must not dictate to us his own fancies, but must prove to us the foresaid Con­sequence if he would have us to believe what he there says: For he ought not to think that we will believe it upon his bare word.

(3.) Thirdly, whereas he says, in p. 47. That the act and object of faith (to wit, faith in God before the fall, and faith in Christ after the fall) Is the same, (Christ being God) and all the difference is only made by that which is the Circum­stance (tho a deplorable one) of our own persons. This is another great mistake, for the object of faith in God before the fall, is not altogether the same, with the object of Justifying faith in Christ the Mediator, since the fall. And the object not being the same, the Act of faith is not the same, but is different in proportion to the difference of the object. Moreover as the objective cause, so the efficient cause is different; for the Medicinal Grace of Christ, which is the efficient cause of Justifying faith since the fall, is of a different nature from that Grace of God, as the Author of innocent nature, thereby Man was enabled to believe in God before the ^* fall. And seeing Justifying faith in Christ, since the fall, hath both a different efficient cause, and a different object together with a different habitude unto its object; it seems to be specifically distinct from the faith which Adam had in God before the fall: For the different specification of Acts ariseth from the difference of the efficient cause, and object of the said Acts, and from the different way of their being conversant about their respective Objects. It is not a meer different Circumstance of our Case since the Fall, that causeth the difference of our Justifying Faith now, from the Faith of Adam then, before the Fall: But it is, (1.) The Difference of the Efficient Cause, or of that spiritual influence of Grace which causeth our Justifying Faith in Christ the Redeem­er. (2.) It is the difference of the Object, which is not now God formally and simply considered as God the Creator and Preserver and Ruler of innocent Nature; but nextly and immediately it is Christ considered as God-Man, and Mediator between God and Men, and ultimatly, it is God Justifying penitent believers by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ.

(3.) It is the difference of our Faith, its Habitude and Relation from such a different Cause to such a different Object. These Three differences are suffici­ent [Page 106]to make a different faith; but it doth by no Logick follow from hence, that every difference of Circumstance, in the same state of lapsed Nature, since the first Apostacy, would make our Faith in Christ to be of a different Nature and Kind. Now our Justifying Faith being thus different from the Faith of Adam before the Fall, it may very well, and it really doth fall under a different posi­tive Precept, such as that, Acts 16.31. And yet I never denied but that the first Commandment of the moral natural Law, doth also require this Faith, but it doth not require it after the same manner, as the positive Precept of the Gos­pel requires it.

(4.) Fourthly, Whereas from page 48, to 54. he endeavours to prove, That be­cause the natural Moral Law obliges all men to a natural Legal Repentance, there­fore it doth also of it self immediately oblige them to an Evangelical Repentance; and that this it doth so as that there is no Positive Precept of the Gospel which re­quires of Christians, and obliges them unto the said Evangelical Repentance. In all his Discourse there, he grosly mistakes in drawing his Consequence, which doth not come naturally, but is forcibly drawn against the clear Evidence of Scrip­ture, as I have proved before; And therefore I utterly deny his Consequence; and affirm on the contrary, That over and besides the moral natural Law, there are Evangelical Precepts belonging to the New Covenant, or Law of Grace, which re­quires of us an Evangelical Repentance, considered under this formal Notion, as arising from the perswasion of Gods Mercy in Christ to the truly penitent, and as a means to prepare and dispose us for pardon, and as having pardon ensured to it by Promise through Christ. To such a Repentance thus considered, the moral natural Law doth not by it self immediately oblige us; and yet it was never denied by us, but that mediately it doth oblige us to it, in as much as it obliges us to obey the Positive Precepts of the Gospel, which require such a Repentance of men to whom the Gospel is Preached.

(5.) Fifthly, Whereas he says in page 51. That the moral natural Law, not only urgeth the unregenerate to Repentance, but also moveth them to build their hopes of Life upon it. That is a very gross and dangerous mistake. For it is a great sin for unregenerate men (or indeed any men whatsoever) to build their hopes of life upon their Repentance; surely then the holy Law of God doth not move them to it, otherwise it should move them to sin; which is false, and borders upon Blasphemy. The Truth is, The Law of God doth not move men to any such Thing, it rather moves sinners to despair of ever obtaining life by and for their Repentance, or any thing they do, or can do: And since, as Mr. G. says, p. 51. The Gospel instructs us to put our whole and entire confidence in Christ and his Righteousness alone]. Where the Light of the Gospel i [...] superadded to that of the Law, there the Law is a School-Master to bring men to Christ; and Objectively moves them not to seek nor hope for Justification and Salvation on the Account of any thing done by Themselves; but rather to seek and hope for life and salva­tion only in Christ, and on the alone account of his Righteousness and Death.

Thus I have refuted his first grand Assertion, which he takes so much pains to prove in his Seventh Chapter, That the Gospel hath no precepts, and requires no obedience. I have shew'd that it hath precepts, and requires duty and obedience of all those unto whom it is Preached, and have answered his ob­jections against the truth revealed in the sacred Scriptures, and believed by the faithful Orthodox Ministers, and People of the Lord in all the Ages of the Church.

SECT. IV.

His second assertion is, that the Gospel hath no threatnings. This I have refuted before in my remarks on his sixth Chap. but as I said there, I must make some further Animadversions on it here, in its proper place. For the clearing up of the truth in this matter, consider then, that the Gospel-Go­venant hath some threatnings against the unbelievers, and unregenerate, to whom it is preached, and other threatnings against regenerate believers. First, the Gospel-Covenant hath some threatnings against unregenerate unbelievers, to whom the Gospel is Preached, and the design and use of such threatnings, is to bring Men off from their unbelief, and to move them to believe in Christ, and to give themselves up to him in Covenant, that by him they may be sa­ved both from the punishment threatned in the Law and Covenant of works, and also from that further degree of punishment, threatned in the Gospel a­gainst all that neglect and refuse to accept and make use of the Soveraign, and saving remedy provided by God and offered in the New Covenant, or Law of Grace. This I proved sufficiently before, from John 3.18, 19. and Mark 16.15, 16. compared with Rom. 2.16. and John. 12.48. To which Places may be added Mat. 11.21, 22, 23, 24. and Mat. 21.43, 44. and others. Secondly, The Gospel-Covenant hath Threatnings against Regenerate Believers, That in case they should not persevere to the end, in faith and holiness, but should totally and fi­nally fall away, they should be most severely punished for their Apostacy. For the clearing of this, I will briefly do these Two Things: (1.) Show that there really are threatnings against regenerate believers, in case they should Aposta­tize. (2.) That those threatnings belong to the Gospel. And (1.) That there are such threatnings, appears from John 15.6. If a Man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and Men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. Here is a threatning against those who are in Christ, that if they abide not in him, they shall be burned. The like conditional threatning we have against the believing Romans, who were belo­ved of God, and called to be Saints. Rom. 8.13. If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. And Rom. 11. v. 20, 21, 22. Thou standest by faith, be not high mind­ed, but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lost he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: — Towards thee, goodness, If thou continue in his goodness: Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. So we have recorded in the Scripture, a most terrible threat­ning against the believing Hebrews if they should totally and finally Aposta­tize; and that we might be sure that the threatning is not only against hy­pocritical Professors of the Christian Religion, but that it is also against Regene­rate Believers, upon supposition of their Apostacy, the Apostle Paul includes himself in the number of those against whom he denounceth the Threatning; as it is written, Heb. 10.26, 27. If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledg of the Truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of Judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. See also to this Purpose, Heb. 10.38. of which we spake in the Apology, p. 55. And take notice of what Mr. Dickson observes on Heb. 2.3. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation, The Apostle (saith Dickson) Joyneth himself with them in the Threatning. And again, on Heb. 12.25. much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from Heaven. [Page 108] He Joyneth himself ^* (saith Mr. Dickson) in the same danger with the People, if he should turn away, or refuse. Then (saith he) Preachers should do well to lay the edg of their threatnings to their own Hearts, and to Enroll themselves amongst the threatned, &c. From these places of Scripture, and others that might be alledged to the same purpose, it manifestly appears that there are threatnings against Regenerate Believers, if they fall away. Now, in the second Place, That the said Threatnings do not belong only to the Law of Works, but that they are truly Threatnings that belong to the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace, may thus appear. Regenerate Believers are not under the Law, Rom. 6.14. They are not under the Threatning, Condemning Power of the Law of Works. They are not only causally, but actually Redeemed from the Law's Curse: Therefore the Threatnings wherewith they are conditionally Threat­ned, are not Threatnings that belong to the Law of Works, as such; but they are Threatnings that belong to the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace, under which Believers are. I grant indeed, That (1.) True Regenerate Believers are not absolutely under those Threatnings, and that they are not bound to believe that those Threatnings shall be Executed upon them. Nay, (2.) on the contrary, if they know themselves to be true Regenerate Be­lievers, and that none such shall ever totally and finally fall away from Christ? I grant that they ought to believe that the said threatnings shall ne­ver be executed upon them. Yet for all that, it is evident by the Scriptures before mentioned, that true regenerate believers are conditionally under the said threatnings, and are bound to believe that they would be executed and fulfilled upon them, if they should totally and finally fall away. And our God in great wisdom and mercy hath thus ordered his Covenant, that the be­lief of the foresaid conditional threatnings, may be a means to preserve his own people from Apostacy, and to make them persevere in faith and holiness to the end. According to that Jerem. 32.40. I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Compared with Rom. 11.20, 21, 22. And Heb. 4.1. and 12.28, 29. And 1 Pet. 1.5. Who are kept by the Power of God through faith unto salvation.

Mr. G. doth, or may know that this is no new singular opinion of mine, that the Gospel hath its own threatnings, for as I shewed in the Apology p. 27. the Learned Professors of Leyden were of the same Judgment before me. And so was Mr. Rutherford, as appears by what I quoted out of him, there in p. 63. And Monsieur Turretin, as was shewed there also, in p. 103. Where­unto I now add other Testimonies as (1.) The learned and diligent Pezelius writing against Flacius above an hundred years ago, gave Testimony to this truth, that the Gospel hath its own threatnings. ^† There [Page 109]are (saith Pezelius) Testimonies of Gods word, known to all the Godly; which shew that it is rightly said, that the Gospel hath most severe 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.

^* [ 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 [Page 110]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 o [...] 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. ^* 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 they are proper to the Gospel, and distinct from all the threatnings of the Law. The Law knows no more of Gospel-threatnings, than of Gospel-promises. The threatnings of the Law lye against sinners for sins Committed; the threatnings of the Gospel are against Sinners, for refusing the remedy provided and tendred unto them. They are superadded unto those of the Law, and in them doth the Gospel, when rejected become Death unto Death, (2 Cor. 2.16.) By the addition of that punishment contained in its threatnings, unto that which was contained in the threatnings of the Law.]’ Thus Dr. Owen, let any [Page 111]that desire further satisfaction in this matter, read there, what goes before and follows after this which I have here quoted; and they may find it in that large discourse of the Learned Doctor. I could bring more witnesses to give Testimony unto this truth, that the Gospel hath its own proper threatnings, and to shew that it is no new notion of mine, no singular opinion of my in­venting; but I need no more: These are sufficient to shew that it was the common faith of Christ's Church, before I was born, that it is so at this day, and I trust, it will be so, after I am dead, and gathered to my Fathers.

Having thus established the truth, in the next place we must consider what Mr. G. objects aginst it; and for the proof of his Negative, that the Gospel hath no threatnings.

Obj. 1. He first cites John 3.17. p. 54. For God sent not his Son into the World to Condemn the World; but that the world through him might be saved. Ve­ry true, what then? Why then saith Mr. G. What could Christ have said more to assure us, that in the Declaration of the Gospel he did not threaten Death, but promise salvation to Sinners, whom the Law menaced, and who were Condemned by its sentence. Answer, here is a piece of Confidence, that I do not remem­ber, I have ever met with the like. Doth this brother think that he can draw Men to his opinion, by confident talk and big words, without so much as a shadow of right reason! For in this Argument there is not the least appear­ance of reason. Christ tells us, that God sent not his Son into the world to Con­demn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. Therefore he could have said no more to assure us, that the Gospel hath no threatnings, or that in the Declaration of the Gospel, he did not threaten Death, but promise life to Sin­ners. This Consequence is such as Mr. G. may be fond of, as being like e­nough to his way of reasoning in other parts of his discourse; but I do not think that any Scholar who knows the rules of right reasoning will ever ad­mire it, or be convinced by it. For my part, I must say, that I have not known a Learned Man to have reasoned so loosely and incoherently in a seri­ous matter, of such importance as this. If one should seriously reason thus in the Schools of Cambridge or Oxford, &c. I doubt not but he would be l [...]ed at. And if he be not serious, but only writes thus to shew his wit, (which I cannot prove, and therefore will not affirm) I am sorry that I should have any thing to do with him. But supposing that he is himself mistaken, and did not meerly design to act a part, and right or wrong to draw away Dis­ciples after him; I owe him that service of Love, as to show him his mistake, and direct him into the way of truth, which is that we all profess to Love and seek after: And it is no hard matter to do that, for in order thereunto there is no more needful but to tell Mr. G. that if our Lord Christ had said, That God sent not his Son into the world, to threaten the world with death in any sense, but only to make an absolute promise of Life to the world; Then he had said a great deal more, (than he doth in John 3.17.) To assure us that the Gos­pel hath no threatnings, or that in the Declaration of the Gospel, he did not threaten Death, but promise Life to Sinners. For so, the thing had been un­deniably evident, to wit, that the Gospel is nothing but an absolute promise, and that it hath neither threatning nor conditional promise. Whereas ha­ving said no more in John 3.17. But that God sent not his Son into the world to Condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved: We can have no assurance at all from those words, that the Gospel hath no threatnings. For the Gospel's having Conditional threatnings, that if Men do not believe and repent, they shall be Condemned, is so far from being inconsistent with [Page 112]Christ's not coming to Condemn, but to save the world; that on the contrary the said conditional threatnings are one means to secure the world from Con­demnation, and to bring them unto salvation. It seems Mr. Goodwin thinks, that if once the Gospel threaten an unbeliever, by saying to him, if thou do not believe in Christ thou wilt be Condemned; the Man is undone for ever, he is Irrecoverably lost, and cannot possibly be saved: But that is a very gross mistake, and such a Consequence is so far from being true; that on the con­trary such a conditional threatning may through the Grace of God, be an use­ful means to fetch the Man off from his unbelief, and to bring him unto faith in Christ, and through faith unto salvation. Hence Mr. Hutcheson on John 12.47. Saith p. 256. that not only rich promises, and gracious offers, but even sharp threatnings are a means appointed of God, to stir up Men to embrace the Gospel. And this is not only true of the sharp threatnings of the Law, but it is true also of the threatnings of the Gospel. Hence Julius Firmicus many hundred years ago said, ^* [The mercy of God makes hast to correct, or reclaim erring Men by frequent threatnings.] And our Saviour no doubt was of this mind when he gave Commission to his Apostles, and bids them go into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature, saying, Mar. 16.15, 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be Damned.

2. 2dly, p. 54. He objects that John 12.47. Our Saviour saith, if any Man hear my words and believe not, I Judge him not: For I came not to Judge the world, but to save the world. And from these words, he infers, That Christ doth not threaten, much less Judge and Condemn an unbeliever. I An­swer, that Mr. G. here draws two inferences from Christ's words John 12.47. (1.) That he doth not threaten an unbeliever now, because he did not come to Judge, but to save the world then. (2.) That he doth much less Judge and Condemn an unbeliever now, because he did not come to Judge, but to save the world then. Now neither of these inferences, would come freely and naturally from Christ's words, if Mr. G. did not draw them both by force and violence. And first, it doth not follow by any rule of right reasoning. Christ did not then come to Judge, but to save the world. Therefore he doth not threaten an unbe­liever. For both are very well consistent, and he might do both. He might both come then, not to Judge but to save the world; and he might likewise threaten an unbeliever, and he may at this day threaten such a person: His Judged, (that is, Damned) but saved, as was shewed before. Nor secondly, doth it follow by any true Logick. Christ did not then in his State of Hu­miliation come to Judge, but to save the world. Therefore now in his State of Glorious Exaltation he doth not Judge, and Condemn an unbeliever. For if it be an unbeliever that lives and dies in unbelief; either he is not Judged and Condemned at all (which I hope Mr. G. will not say, unless he renounce his Creed and abjure the Christian faith) or if he be Judged and Condmned, he is Judged and Condemned by Christ. For it is written John 5.22. That the father Judgeth no Man, but hath Committed all Judgment to the Son. I conceive the grounds of Mr. G's. mistake are these two. (1.) His not distin­guishing between the threatning of Condemnation, and the Condemnation it self threatned. (2.) His not distinguishing on the one hand, between Christ's first coming in a State of Humiliation, to Preach the everlasting Covenant, [Page 113]or Law of Grace, and to ratify and confirm it by his Death, and also to pur­chase for his People the salvation promised in the said Covenant or Law of Grace: And on the other, his ordination to be the Judge of quick and dead ( Acts 10.42.) Together with his second glorious coming to Judge the world at the last day, according to the Gospel. ( Acts 17.31. Rom. 2.16). For if he had duly considered how distinct these things are, the one from the other; he might easily have seen that his consequence is non-consequent. There is no consequential and true reasoning from the denial of the Condemnation threatned, to the denial of the threatning it self. Nor is there any Conse­quential and true Reasoning from the denial of Christs Judging and Condem­ning the world, then at his first coming in a State of Humiliation; to the de­nial of his Judging and Condemning of an unbeliever, now immediately after his Death, and hereafter at the general resurrection. For, as hath been said, Christ doth both. He did not first come to Condemn, but to save the world. And yet he both then threatned and now still threatens unbelievers. He did not first come to Judge, but to save the world. And yet he doth now both Judge and Condemn the Soul of an impenitent unbeliever, immediately after Death, and will further both Judge and Condemn him Soul and Body, after the Resurrection. Children that have learned their Catechism, do in part know these things. See the assemblies Annotations on John 3. v. 17. And on John 12.47. And Pool's Annotations 2d volume, on John 12.47. ^* But if Christ's words in John 12.47. Will not prove that he doth not threaten nor Judge, and Condemn an unbeliever; Mr. G. undertakes to prove it by words of his own, therefore he says, [Christ knew that salvation of Sinners was the work which he came into the world to perform, and that the office of a Judge did not belong to a Mediator, he accordingly disowns it.] This is the third Argu­ment which he brings to strengthen and confirm the second. And when it is put in form, it is thus.

Obj. 3. Christ is a Mediator, and the Saviour of the world; therefore Christ is not the Judge of the world, nor doth he threaten to Condemn an unbeliever. And because he knew that the Consequence would be denied, as most false and impious, and contrary to a fundamental Article of the Christian Religion. He labours to prove it. But how doth he prove it? Why, his way of prov­ing it is extraordinary and perculiar to himself. For in order to prove, that because Christ is a Saviour and Mediator, therefore he is not the Judge of the world, no, not of an unbeliever in the world, he asserts two things. (1.) That Christ knew that the office of a Judge, did not belong to a Mediator. (2.) That Christ disowned the office of Judge, as not belonging to a Mediator. (1.) Mr. Good­win affirms, that Christ knew that the office of a Judge did not belong to a Me­diator. Now Reverend Sir, if I dare be so bold, let me ask you, how do you know that Christ knew this. Surely, if you know this, (which is a secret un­known to other Men), it must be by Christ's telling you that he knows it. I demand then, where and how did Christ tell you this secret? Hath he told you it in any part of the Holy Scriptures of the old or New Testament? If so, be pleased to do me the favour to tell me the Chapter and Verse, that I may likewise know it. For tho I have read the Bible, yet seriously I profess not to have met with any one passage in it, which discovers to me that secret. That Christ knew, that the office of a Judge did not belong to him, because he is a Mediator. Or will you say, that Christ hath not told you this secret, by [Page 114]Scripture but by an immediate Revelation, without Scripture? If you give me this answer, I reply. (1.) That you must prove that you have such an im­mediate Revelation from Christ; for I cannot believe you in this matter up­on your bare word. (2.) If you had it by immediate Revelation only, I hope you will not be offended with me, tho I do not believe it, till it be immedi­ately revealed to me also. (3.) Christ hath been so far from telling you either mediately or immediately, by an outward and written, or by an inward and unwritten Revelation that he knows that the office of a Judge, did not belong to him, since he is Mediator; That he has plainly enough told you the contrary (if you had eyes to see and a heart to believe it); for thus it is written, and they are the express formal words of Christ himself, in John 5.22. The fa­ther Judgeth no Man, but hath committed all Judgment to the Son. Now the Son is certainly Mediator. Therefore the Father hath committed all Judg­ment to the Mediator. And since the Father hath committed all Judgment to the Son, and Mediator, surely the office of a Judge belongs to the Mediator, by ver­tue of the Father's Commission. And this Christ knows to be true, and hath told it plainly unto us by his Evangelist John. And if you would have it told you yet more plainly, be pleased to read and consider the 27 verse of the same 5th Chapter of John. Where Christ says, That the Father hath given the Son Authority to execut Judgment, because he is the Son of Man. On which place the assemblies Annotations have this note. Authority to execute Judgment is [Supream power to Govern and Administer all things]. Because he is the Son of Man. That is [ Not only as he is God, but also as he is Man, that all Men may see their Judge. Rev. 1.7.] And on the same, John 5.27. The Dutch Anno­tators say, as followeth. And hath given him power to execute Judgment al­so, [i. e. To Govern all things with power of Life and Death, and especially at the last day, Mat. 28.18. Rom. 14.9. Rev. 1.18.] Because he is the Son of Man [that is, Because he having assumed the humane nature into the unity of his person, is appointed by God for a Judge and Mediator, and shall also as Man ex­ecute the same office. Dan. 7.13. John 17.2. Acts 10.42. and 17.31.] The last English Annotations, 2d volume have the like note on John 5.27. But especially Mr. Hutcheson in his exposition on John 5.27. Is full and clear. His words are these ^† [Christ declareth, that not only as God, he hath a Foun­tain of Life, equally with the Father; but That he hath Authority given him from the Father, to execute or do Judgment, even because he is the Son of Man. By executing or doing Judgment, of which. v. 22. We are to understand a Domini­on and Government over all things, and particularly the power of Life and Death, to Condemn, or absolve. Which will be especially verified in the Judgment of the last day, of which he speaketh, v. 28.29. And Christ saith, Authority is given him to do this, Because he is the Son of Man, or as he is the Son of Man. Whereby we are not to understand his humane nature simply consider­ed, but his office and his humane nature, as united in one person with the God­head, that because he is God-Man, the Mediator of sinners, and took on our nature for that end, therefore he hath all power committed to him as Media­tor, for the good of the Church; the Exercise whereof he fully entred upon after his resurrection. Mat. 28.18. Rom. 14.9. Rev. 1.18. Pril. 2.8, 9, 10, 11.— And he is the visible Actor and Judge in these Administrations, which could be done by none but him who is God also, and particularly in the last day, wherein he shall be Judge in visible Shape, Acts 10.42. and 17.31.

Ibid. Doctrin. 3. Mr. Hutcheson saith that Christ hath a donative Kingdom, as Mediator, God-Man, for the good of his Church, &c. And Doct. (6.) He saith, that Christ in the work of Redemption, and Administration of all things, for the elect's behoofe; is the Father's Commissioner, and hath a delegated Authority, &c. And a little after in the same place he saith, That as the Son of Man and Me­diator, this Authority is given to Christ, as to a delegate. Thus Hutcheson. By all which you may easily see that Christ knows very well, That the office of a Judge belongs to the Mediator. And truly it is matter of wonder to me that e­ver a Sober Man should have Printed and Published to the world, That Christ knew that the office of a Judge did not belong to a Mediator. And yet not content with this, Mr. G.

2dly, Asserts that Christ hath disowned the office of a Judge, as not belonging to a Mediator. I seriously profess, it grieves me to find such things in the In­genious Mr. Goodwins book, and tho he hath made himself my adversary, without any just cause given by me, that I know of; yet I am not willing, to Animadvert on this assertion of his, so severely as the nature of the thing de­serves. I shall only tell my Reverend Brother. (1.) That here he asserts that whch he can never prove, and I advise him as his friend not to attempt the proof of it; for by so doing he will but make the matter worse; and some of the Lovers and Honourers of our Lord Christ, may be ready to appear a­gainst Mr. G. in this cause of Christ, and to maintain the negative that Christ never disowned the office of a Judge, as that which did not belong to a Mediator. I hope Mr. G. will never be so impertinent as to alledg for proof of his asser­tion, that in Luk. 12.14. Christ said, Man, Who made me a Judge, or a divid­er over you? For that relates wholly to another matter, and the meaning is that, Christ was not called to the office of a civil Judge, Mediator, or Arbitra­tor, between the two Brothers who differed about the dividing of the Inhe­ritance: And yet I do not know any place of Scripture, that seems to be so much for his purpose, if he can but make people believe that the Meer sound of the words, is the sure and best means to find out the true meaning of a Text. (2.) I think it may not be amiss to tell my Reverend brother, That the most vile Sect of the old Gnosticks, the Disciples of Valentinus, were all for Christ's being a Saviour; but would not have him to be a Lord: For if he be once admitted to be a Lord and King, he may prove to be a Judge too, and to have power both to threaten, and also Judge and Condemn unbelievers and wicked li­vers, such as the old Gnosticks were: And that is a dangerous business to such as them. Hence, as the Ancient father Ireneus tells us. ^* They say, that Christ, the Saviour, (for they will not call him Lord) did nothing in publick, for the space of thirty years.] They thought belike that it did not belong to the office of a Saviour to be a Lord or a Judge; therefore they would not have him called, Lord, but Saviour: For that sweet word Saviour, in their Judgment Savoured of nothing but free grace to ill livers: Whereas the word Lord or Judge, Sa­vours of power to command obedience, and Authority to threaten and punish the disobedient, which very thing made the word it self so unsavoury to them, that they were not willing to pronounce it with their lips. But I am sure, Mr. G. should know and I hope he doth know better things. The Reverend Dr. Owen, in the Prolegomena to the (1) volume of his Commentary on the Epi­stle to the Hebrews, tells us a great and useful truth, That Christ is our Sa­viour, [Page 116]as he is our great Prophet, Priest and King, and that he carries on the Work of our Salvation, in executing the three several parts of his Mediatorial Office, to wit, of Prophet, Priest and King; and all sober Divines, that I know, are of that mind; and some of them too, give very hard Words unto, and pass a severe censure upon such Men, as are for dividing of Christ and for re­ceiving him and his Doctrine by halves. Witness Bibliander in that book which I mentioned before, where he thus writes. ^† And all these things are so contained, and joyned and connected together by an undissoluble Knot, in the one Person of Christ, the only Mediator between God and Men, that whosoever endea­vours to take one of them from Christ, he endeavours to Destroy Christ; which to be a most certain mark of the Spirit of Antichrist, the Apostle John, and beloved Disciple of the Lord, teaches us in his first general Epistle: And of this Crime of Antichristianism, and of the highest Sacriledg, are guilty all Authors or inven­ters of Heresies, and their obstinate Followers, who by an ungodly Schism do prin­cipally indeavour to divide Christ, which can no way be done. Thus the Learn­ed and pious Bibliander. I hope therefore my Reverend brother will joyn with us, and for the future acknowledge that the office of a Lord and Judge too, doth belong to Christ the Mediator, and that eo nomine because he is Me­diator and as he is Mediator. For as the Dutch Annotators have it on, 1 Cor. 15.25. He must Reign as King. [That is, Accomplish his Kingly office as Me­diator, &c.] In short, as I hope we shall, so I wish we may all agree in that of Salvian, an Ancient and Zealous writer of the fifth century.

^* We so say, that Mankind will be Judged by Christ, as that yet we believe al­so, that God now at present doth rule and dispence all things, as he things reasonable or sit; and let us so affirm, that Christ will Judge at the Day of Judgment, which is to come hereafter; as notwithstanding, to teach also, that he hath always judged in this world. For whilst God doth always govern, he doth always Judge also; be­cause the very Governing Act it self (of God, and so of Christ the Mediatorial King), is Judgment. Thus Salvian. And I think this may suffice for Answer to Mr. G's Third Objection.

4. Obj. Lastly, He appeals to the express words of Christ himself, in John 3.18. He that believeth not, is condemned already, because he hath, not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. And says, page 55. He is confident we will have regard to these words.

Answer. Indeed his Confidence in this, is well grounded; for we really have, (as we ought) a very great regard to these, and all the other words of our most [Page 117]blessed and glorious Lord, and they have a Commanding power over us, to in­duce us to receive them with faith and love. But what then, must we there­fore have regard to Mr. G's. Consequence which he draws from them by force and violence? That doth not at all follow. And for my own part, I declare that I reject his Consequence, which is that the Gospel, or Covenant, and Law of Grace hath no threanings, since he that believeth not, is Condemned al­ready; Because he hath not believed in the Name of the only-begotten Son of God. And whereas he says, that the unbeliever is already Condemned by the old Law of works, and therefore there is no need, that he be Condemned again by the Gospel and a new Law of Grace. I Answer that a Man who lives under the Preaching of the Gospel, and yet remains still in unbelief, is already Con­demned both by Law and Gospel, by the old Covenant and also by the New, so long as he continues in his unbelief, as I shewed before. And it doth not become us to say unto God, that he needs not to do the same thing twice, when we know that he hath twice done it; especially when we may plainly see that tho the same person be twice over Condemned, yet it is in different respects and for two different causes. First he is Condemned by the old Law of works, for not keeping it perfectly and personally, so as never to break it ei­ther by original or actual sin. And thus all Unbelievers in the world are con­demned, even Heathens, that never heard the joyful sound of the Gospel, and never had a Gospel-Offer of Mercy, upon the Terms of the New Covenant, and Law of Grace.

Secondly, He is condemned also by the Gospel, or New Covenant, & Law of Grace, for not accepting the Gospel-Offer of Mercy, for not receiving and ap­plying to himself the Remedy tendred to him in the Gospel-Covenant, or Law of Grace. Here this Unbeliever is guilty of a sin which the foresaid Heathens, who have only the Law of Nature, are not guilty of; he is guilty of a sin which is directly and immediately against the saving Remedy mercifully pro­vided and offered him in the Gospel; and therefore there is sufficient Reason for condemning him again by the Gospel-Covenant, I say, for condemning him to a greater Degree of Punishment, than that of meer Heathens, who are guilty only of sins against the Law of Nature, but are guilty of no sin against the Gospel of Christ; are not at all guilty of any sin in neglecting or refusing to receive Christ by Faith, and the Salvation offered through him in the Gos­pel-Covenant. Our Saviour says in this very Text, That the Unbeliever, who is guilty of Positive Unbelief against the Gospel, is condemned already, not on­ly and meerly because he hath broken God's natural moral Law, but because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. And then (as it were to obviate Mr. G's Objection, he adds immediately, This is the Condem­nation that light is come into the world, and Men loved Darkness rather than Light, Because their deeds were Evil. See what was quoted before, in the remarks on Mr. G's. sixth Chapter, out of Mr. Hutcheson's Exposition, on John 3. v. 18.19.

As for Mr. 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 [Page 118]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 ^* 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 [Page 119]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 [...]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.] ^* 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 sinless perfection; whereas the promises of the Gospel are made to obedience in a lower degree of per­fection, that is, to obedience which is sincere, tho it be not sinlessly perfect. And, the consequence of this would be, that the Covenant of Grace would be a Co­venant of works contrary to Rom. 11.6.

I Answer, that this R. brother like a Sophister, jumbles together and con­founds, things that should be separated and spoken unto distinctly. To wit, the conditional promises of Justification and Pardon of sin; And the conditional pro­mises of Glorification and Consummate salvation. Of the first sort of these pro­mises, Evangelical Faith and Repentance are the Condition: And of the se­cond sort, sincere obedience Evangelical flowing from faith, with perseverance therein to the end, is the condition. Now (1) for the condition of the pro­mise of Justification, to wit Evangelical Faith and Repentance, they are not at all required in any degree by the old Law, strictly taken for the Covenant of works, nay, the old Covenant or Law of works, as such, is so far from re­quiring them, that it doth not admit them, but of its own nature it Rigorous­ly insists upon, and demands a sinlessly perfect, perpetual obedience to all its precepts, and a personal Righteousness absolutely compleat, in all parts and in all degrees, without the least sinful defect. This and this only is the obedi­ence which the old Covenant of works requires, as its condition: And upon this condition, and for this obedience and personal Righteousness alone, it pro­mised [Page 120]to Men (not pardon of sin, but) Justification and Life Eternal. By this it plainly appears that the conditions of the promises of the old Covenant of works, and of the new Covenant of Grace, with respect to Justification, differ not meerly in degree, but they differ in kind. (2.) Tho the precepts of the Moral natural Law, considered as stript of their old Covenant form, Do re­quire Evangelical Faith and Repentance, as they require us to believe and o­bey the precepts of the New and Gospel-Covenant: Yet this they do only mediately and consequentially: For it is the New and Gospel-Covenant it self, which doth immediately and directly, by its own precepts, require of us Evan­gelical Faith and Repentance, in order to Justification and Pardon of sin. (3.) Tho the New and Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace, doth require of us both Evangelical Faith and Repentance, as necessary, in order to Justificati­on and Pardon of Sin; Yet it is with this difference; that it requires Faith as most properly the condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification; but it requires Evangelical Repentance, only as a Condition.

The Reason of this difference, I assigned in the Apology, thus: Faith is most properly the Condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification, because it is that condition or Instrumental means whereby we receive, apply and trust the object (Christ and his Righteousness) by, and for which only we are Justifi­ed and Pardoned; but Evangelical Repentance is most fitly called a Condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification or Pardon of sin, because it is a con­dition (not receptive of the Object, Christ, as Faith is, but) d [...]spositive of the Subject, man, so necessary in order to his being Justified or Pardoned, that the Lord Suspends the Pardoning of Man's Sins, till he hath, through Grace, sin­cerely Repented of them. Isa. 55.7. And this is exactly agreeable to the Judgment of Mr. Durham, as I shewed before; and likewise to the Judgment of Mr. Hutcheson on John 3.18. Doctrine 4. His words are, pag. 40. (Albeit, such as flee to Christ, and expect not to be Condemned, ought to study Holiness, without which no man shall see God; yet the Condition required for reversing the Sentence, and Absolving the Self-condemned Sinner, is only Faith put in Exercise, as laying hold on Christ's Righteousness, which alone can Answer the Law, and endureth constantly; whereas our Holyness is imperfect and variable like the Moon; therefore it is, he that believeth on him, or, hath Faith in Exercise, not in the Ha­bit only, that is not Condemned). (4.) Hence it follows that tho Justifying Faith be required by a Precept of the Gospel-Covenant (as our Confession of Faith, Chap. 7. Art. 3. saith expresly, That it requires Faith) and tho by Conse­quence, Justifying Faith is an Act of Obedience to that Gospel-Precept which requires it; yet it doth not follow, that therefore we are Justified by it, consi­dered simply as an Act of Obedience: For if so, then (since a quatenus ad om­ne valet consequentia) we should be a-like Justified by any other Act of Obedi­ence, which is false. But, as Mr. Hutcheson said, Faith, above all other gracious Acts, having an aptitude for that use, and being only appointed by God to that Of­fice, justifies us, or we are justified by it alone, as laying hold on Christ and his Righ­teousness, and as trusting in Christ and his Righteousness, which alone can answer the Law, and Justice of God. 5.) And hence appears one Essential specifical Difference between the Old Law, or Covenant of Works, and New Covenant of Grace, that tho (as Essenius saith, Compend. Dogm. Cap. 11. pag. 428. Thes. 12.) Obedience be required in them both; yet in the Old Covenant of Works, Man's own Personal Obedience was required, not only as the Conditi­on of his Justification, but as the only Righteousness, by and for which he could be justified, according to that Covenant. Whereas, in the New Covenant of [Page 121]Grace, there is a Mediator, by and for whose Mediatorial Righteousness alone we are justified; and not one Act of our own Personal Obedience is required, as that Righteousness, or any par of that Righteousness by and for which we are Justified and Pardoned. Neither [...]aith nor Repentance are required by the Precepts of the Gospel, as any part of that Obedience and Righteousness by and for which we are Justified: but Repentance is only required as a Condition or Means to dispose and prepare the Subject, Man, who is to be justified: And Faith is required as the Condition, or Instrumental Means to receive, apply and trust the Object, to wit, Christ and his Righteousness, by and for which alone we are justified. Now this alone (though there are many other Respects in which they differ) is abundantly sufficient to shew, That there is more than a gradu­al, even a specifical difference between the Two Covenants aforesaid, with re­spect to Justification. Their Conditions differ in kind, and so doth the Righte­ousness for which the two Covenants do respectively justifie such Persons as come up to, and comply with their Terms and Conditions.

Secondly, As for the Condition of the New Covenant-Promise, of Glorifica­tion and Consummate Salvation, to wit, sincere Eaangelical Obedience, tho materially considered, it is partly the same with, yet it is also partly different from that Legal Obedience which was required as the Condition of the Old Law and Covenant of works; for there are some Positive Precepts which now be­long to the New and Gospel-Covenant, or Law of Grace, that did not at all exist of Old, and so could not then belong to the Old Law, or Covenant of Works. Therefore since the Gospel-Covenant, or Law of Grace, hath now some Positive Precepts different from the Precepts of the first Old Covenant, and Law of Works, it follows necessarily, That the Obedience required by the Precepts of the Gospel, must be partly also different from the Obedience requi­red by the first Covenant, and Old Law of Works. But now, if we consider the Obediences required by the said Two Covenants, as the Two Conditions of their respective Covenants, so they differ formally in Kind, and not meerly in Degree; for they proceed from different Principles, they have different formal Motives, and serve to different ends and purposes. The most perfect legal obedience re­quired as the Condition of the first Covenant and Law of works, was The ve­ry Righteousness by and for which Man was to have been justified and to have lived by that Covenant, if he had kept it: But now the sincere Evangelical obedience required as a Condition, on our part, of the new Covenant pro­mise of Glorification and Consummate salvation, is not any the least part of that meritorious Righteousness, for which alone we obtain possession of Eternal Glory and Consummate salvation. And as for the promises themselves of the two Covenants, they also are specifically different, because they have different impulsive and moving causes of their first making, and are performed for different and formal fundamental Rea­sons. In the Covenant of Works it was indeed of God's free goodness and gra­cious condescention, that he promised a Reward to our first Parents, on conditi­on of perfect Obedience. But in the Second, and New Covenant of Grace, it is of his Rich Mercy in Christ, that he promised us Eternal Life and Glory, on condition of our sincere Evangelical Obedience, and Perseverance in Faith and Holiness to the End. So that they have different impulsive Causes of their first making; And being so made, they are at last performed for different formal Mo­tives and Reasons. If the first Covenant of Works had been kept, the Promise of [...]e would have been performed and made good to man for his own personal Obedience, as his Righteousness, his only Righteousness in the sight of God. But now the Gospel, or New Covenant-Promise of Eternal Life and Glory, is per­formed [Page 122]and made good to the People of God, not for their own personal sincere Obedience, but only for the most perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to them. So that as the impulsive causes of making, in like manner the formal Motives and Fundamental reasons of performing the said several promises of the two Co­venants, do greatly differ, and therefore the promises themselves differ in kind. Now it is in Christ that all the promises of God, are yea, and it is in Christ that they are Amen; unto the Glory of God. 2 Cor. 1.20. Thus I have Answer­ed his first Argument at large. And hence it manifestly appears, that his Consequence is inconsequent and will not hold, to wit, that upon our princi­ple the Covenant of grace, would be a Covenant of works, for I have shew­ed that the two Covenants differ specifically and in kind, and that tho both require obedience and works, yet they are much different from one another, and in order to far different ends and purposes. The works required by the first and old Covenant, were legal works that were to be the only Righteousness, by and for which Man was to be justified and to live, but the works required by the second, new and Gospel-Covenant, are Evangelical works which are no part of the Righteousness by and for which, we are justified and pardoned, saved and glorified. Thus it is manifest, that we do not absurdly confound the two Covenants of Law and Gospel, but he draws silly Consequences from our Principles which he seems not to understand, and builds Castles in the Air, which tumble down for want of a solid Foundation. And the worst of it is, that he wrests the Holy Scripture which ought carefully to be avoided, as that which may be the occasion of some other's destruction, if not of our own. The place of Scripture which he wrests both in p. 56. and 63. Is that in Rom. 14.6. Where to make it serve his purpose, he supposes (1.) That in the words. [Then is it no more of works] by the relative [it] must necessarily be meant the Covenant of Grace. (2.) He supposes, that by the said words [then is it no more of works] must needs be meant, Then the Covenant of grace requires no sort of obedience, nor any kind of works in order to any Gospel end and purpose. (3.) He supposes that the works there excluded by the Apostle, are not only me­ritorious works, but any sort of Commanded duties, tho no way Meritorious nor conceived so to be. And then from the words of St. Paul thus perverted, he infers his Conclusion, that it would be a flat Contradiction to Rom. 11.16. If the Covenant of Grace had any conditional promises, and if it required any duty, and obedience, or any sort of work at all. I freely grant that this Con­sequence is good from the foresaid three suppositions. But I utterly deny all the three suppositions, and I know my R. B. cannot prove them to Eternity. If he thinks he can, let him try his Skill; for I put him to it. But withal, I ad­vise him to take heed what he doth; God will not be mocked; nor suffer his word to be abused without controll. If he shall say that he doth not suppose the three things aforesaid. I Answer that he doth and must suppose them, or else he grossly abuses the words of the Apostle, by wresting and wringing out of them a sense that was never in them. For understand the Apostle's words, as he meant them, and they make nothing for his purpose at all, nor will they bear the inference that he deduces from them. To make this appear, consider. (1.) That the thing which the Apostle assirms there to be of Grace, and denies to be of works, is not the Covenant of Grace (of which he doth not there speak), but it is either the Election, or the reserving of the Remnant, of which he speaks in the foregoing verse. (2) Consider that by saying it is of grace and not of works, he means that grace, and not works, was the impulsive, moving cause of the said Election, or of the rescrving of a Remnant at that [Page 123]time: But he doth not at all mean that, because the Covenant is of Grace, therefore it requires no works, no obedience, nor duties at all. (3.) Consider that the works whish he excludes are only Meritorious works, because they are such works, as are utterly inconsistent with and Destructive of Grace. Now my Judgment is, that the Particle [it] in our Translation of v. 6. Refers to the word [Election] in v. 5. And then the sense, is, as the Dutch Annotators on Rom. 11.6. Give it us, thus. [And if it be by grace, [Namely, that those are Elected to 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 ^* [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 [Page 124]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 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 [Page 125]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 [Page 126]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 [Page 127]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 quiàlibet 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, [Page 128]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 [Page 129]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 Ʋniversalist 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 [Page 130]be denied)? The word of the Covenant is Preached to you, an offer of Christ is made in the Preached Gospel to you. ^* 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. he saith that [promises are as properly made to professors within the visible Church, Act. 2.39. As Commands, and threatnings, exhortations, invitations, and Gospel-requests are made to them. But tho the Anabaptists ignorantly confound the promise and the thing promised; the Covenant, and Benefits Covenanted: The promise is to you, and so are the commands and threatnings, whether ye believe or not, &c.] And pag. 94. of the same book, his formal express words are as followeth. [It is not inconvenient that the reprobate in the visible Church, be so under the Covenant of Grace, as some promises are made to them, and some mer­cies promised to them conditionally, and some reserved special promises of a new beart, and of perseverance belong not to them. For all the promises belong not the same way, to the parties visibly, and externally, and to the parties internally and personally in Covenant with God. So the Lord promiseth Life and Forgiveness shall be given to these who are Externally in the Covenant, providing they believe, but the Lord promiseth not a new heart and grace to believe, to these that are on­ly Externally in Covenant. And he promiseth both to the Elect.] Thus Mr. Ru­therford. Zanchy whom my R. brother doth highly Commend, was certain­ly of the same Judgment, witness his own express words. ^† [ I Answer, (saith Zanchy) that God calls even the Reprobate, and Commands them to come unto him, and promises them salvation, if they will believe in Christ, it is manifest. For he calls all by the word, promises unto all Eternal Life, provided that they will believe in Christ and this is his conditional will.—It is manifest also that the re­probates are not mocked, nor deluded, when they are called by the Lord, &c.] I should never have done, if I should quote all our Protestant Divines, who are of this Judgment, I must therefore forbear to cite any more of them at pre­sent, and refer to the Apology, especially in pag. 114.

Having thus frankly and faithfully declared my Judgment in this matter, and shewed it not to be singular; I will now for the further clearing up of the truth, personate my R. brother, and for him argue against my self, and then Answer the Arguments. Obj. God did not decree to save all Men, even the non-elect in the visible Church, therefore he doth not promise salvation to any upon condition of Faith in Christ. The reason of the Consequence is, because every conditional promise of God's word, presupposes an answerable decree and purpose of God's will, for God always speaks the purposes of his mind, and none of his words contradict his heart. I Answer, (1.) By deny­ing the Consequence, for tho God did not decree to save all even the non-elect in the visible Church, yet he promiseth to save some, even all the elect in the [Page 131]visible Church, on condition of Faith in Christ: For he hath decreed to save them all, he hath absolutely decreed their salvation on condition of Faith in Christ. The decree of their salvation is absolute in respect of God decreeing. but the object of the decree is conditional in respect of the salvation decreed, That is, God by his absolute will hath made faith the condition of their sal­vation, and hath suspended the giving of salvation unto them upon the condi­tion of their believing, or till they perform the condition of believing in Christ. (2.) I Answer, by denying the Consequence also with respect to the non-elect, for tho God did not decree to save the non-elect in the visible Church, as he decreed to save the elect; yet he promiseth to save the non­elect in the visible Church, conditionally, that is, provided that they believe in Christ, as they are commanded to do. And to the reason of the Conse­quence, that every conditional promise of God's word presupposeth an An­swerable decree of God's will, because none of God's words contradict his will. I Answer that in this case, the decree of God's will which Answers the condi­tional promise to the non-elect, is not a decree of Gods will to save the non­elect, as he hath decreed to save the elect; but it is the decree to make the conditional promise of salvation to the non-elect in the visible Church. What­ever God doth in time, that he decreed to do from Eternity. But in time he promiseth salvation conditionally to the non-elect in the visible Church; there­fore from Eternity he decreed to promise them salvation on condition that they believe in Christ. We must distinguish between God's decretory will strictly so called as it hath respect to the infallible salvation of the elect; and his pro­missory will, as it hath respect to the conditional promise of salvation to all, elect and non-elect in the visible Church, constituting a conditional connecti­on between salvation as the benefit promised, and faith in Christ as the con­dition required of all. Now to apply this distinction, every conditional pro­mise of God's word, doth not necessarily presuppose the foresaid decretory will, but it sufficeth unto the verification of the conditional promise of salvation, as such; that there be in God the foresaid promissory will, constituting a con­ditional connexion between salvation, as the benefit promised, and Faith in Christ, as the condition required. The conditional promise it self, is not pro­perly God's will, but it is a sign of his promissory will. And it is certain that the promise of God's word, is a true sign of his will, but in this case, it is not a true sign of his foresaid decretory will; therefore it must be a true sign of his promissory will, and it gives us an infallible assurance, that there is a conditional connexion between salvation as the benefit promised, and Faith in Christ as the condition required of all, so that whosoever performeth the con­dition, he shall have the benefit promised, whosoever believeth in Christ, shall certainly be saved. And therefore it may be truly said to such an one as Cain, if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? Gen. 4.7. And the Spirit by the word saith to every Man in the visible Church, that reads and understands the 10th of the Romans, if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Je­sus, and shalt believe in thy heart, that God hath raised him from the Dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom. 10.9. (3.) Thirdly, Mr. G. must admit of this An­swer as good and satisfactory, or he must find out a better; for the objection is certainly sophistical, and he is as much concerned to Answer it, as I am. And I doubt not to make him confess that it is so, that it is a meer Sophism, or else to make him eat his own words. For mark, I pray, that in his discourse of the Gospel, he says, pag. 57. lin. 6.7, 8. (1.) That God in giving his Moral Law to all reasonable Creatures, said universally to Men, do this, and you shall [Page 132]Live. (2.) He must own that, do this, and you shall live, or, if you do this you shall live, is a conditional promise of the Law, or Covenant of works, be­cause a little before in the same book and Chapter, he says, pag. 56. lin. 18.19. That [The promises of the Law were made to Men, on condition that its precepts were obeyed,] These are his own express words. From which two passages it manifestly appears, that according to his Judgment God's Law or Covenant of works, had a conditional promise of Life. Life was promised in the Law and Covenant of works, to Adam and all his posterity on conditi­on that they personally, perpetually and perfectly kept its precepts. This is Mr. G' s own Doctrine which he hath published to the world. Now let his Argument against conditional promises of the Gospel, be applied to the con­ditional promises of the Law, and it will as strongly and effectually disprove all conditional promises of the Law, which he owns; as it will disprove all conditsonal promises of the Gospel, which he denies. Thus then I form the Argument and turn it against Mr. Goodwin himself, and the conditional promi­ses of the Law, which he maintains. (God did not, either absolutely or con­ditionally decree to give Life, Eternal Life to Adam, or any of his posterity, by the Law, and Covenant of works, or on condition of keeping the Law and Covenant of works; for if he had so decreed it, he would have taken effectual care that Adam and his posterity should never have died, but should have had Eternal Life on that condition, and by keeping that Law and Cove­nant of works; since the intents of his mind and will always obtain infalli­bly their desir'd effect. Therefore God never promised Life to Adam and his posterity on condition of their keeping the Law and Covenant of works. The reason of the Consequence is, because God always speaks the purposes of his mind, and none of his words contradict his heart: Or (which is the same thing) because every conditional promise of God's word, presupposes an an­swerable decree and purpose of God's will. Here is his own Argument turned against himself, and thereby the conditional promise of the Law, which he maintains; is as strongly and effectually disproved, as is the conditional promise of the Gospel, which we defend. It is plain then that since his Ar­gument militates as strongly against himself, as against us, he is as much con­cerned to Answer it, as we are. And if he can Answer it, as it militates a­gainst himself, he can by the same means Answer it as it militates against us. One Answer will serve us both. If therefore he do not like our Answer, let him find out a better. And it will serve our turn as well as his. I hope this may be a means to open his eyes and to convince him that his Argument a­gainst the conditional promises of the Gospel, is a putid Sophism. For it is a certain evidence that an Argument is Sophistical and proves nothing; when if it prove any thing, it proves too much; even more than we would have it to prove, or than we can with a safe Conscience admit.

This may suffice for an Answer to the foresaid objection. But for clearing the truth and for our edification, I will urge an other Argument which seems to have more strength than the former.

Obj. 4. I will suppose then, that some ingenious brother may demand, if this be true that God hath promised in the Gospel, pardon and salvation un­to the non [...]elect who hear the glad tydings of the Gospel, upon condition of Faith and Repentance; will it not hence clearly follow, that there is a condi­tional will in God, that God's will depends on something without it self, in the Creature, and that it hangs in suspence untill the condition be performed, or not performed. The reason of the Consequence is because every conditi­onal [Page 133]Promise signifies and testifies that the Promiser doth will and purpose to give the Benefit promised, if the Condition required be performed; otherwise the Promise would be false, deceitful, and delusive, which the Promise of the God of Truth cannot possibly be. But there cannot be a Conditional Will in God, nor can his Will depend upon any thing, nor hang in suspence at all; Therefore it seems God cannot make any conditional Promise unto the Non-Elect, who hear the glad Tidings of the Gospel, that they shall be Pardoned and Saved if they Believe and Repent. This is the Argument, whereunto I Answer, (1.) That whoever looks narrowly into this Argument, may easily and plainly see, that it must needs be Sophistical and Fallacious, because (as was said before) either it proves nothing, or it proves too muth, to wit, that God could not, in the first Covenant or Law of Works, promise the continu­ance of Life unto Adam (and in him to his Posterity) in the State of Inno­cency, upon Condition of Personal, perfect, and ever Sinless Obedience. But that is certainly false; and contrary to the Judgment of all Divines, even of Mr. G. himself, for they all hold, as well as I, that the first Covenant was Conditional, and that God, before the Fall, promised unto Adam Immunity from Death, and Eternal Life, on condition of perfect and ever Sinless Obe­dience. We are then all alike concerned to answer the aforesaid Sophism taken from the Inconditionality and Independen [...]y of God's Will. (2.) I Answer, That it is great weakness, and a degree of Infidelity, to disbelieve and deny that which God hath clearly Revealed in his Holy Word, because do not clearly perceive the way and manner, how God Wills one thing to be, upon condition of another thing's being. What though we should never know the way and manner, how God conditionally Wills the things which he hath Conditionally Promised? Is it a wise course (think ye) to disbelieve and deny the Being of Conditional Promises, and God's willing the things Pro­mised conditionally, (both which he hath clearly Revealed) because he hath not Revealed, and therefore we do not know the way and manner of his willing things conditionally? It were easily to prove, that to disbelieve and deny things clearly Revealed, because we do not clearly understand God's (modus volendi) way and manner of willing, which is not Revealed, is the ready way to make all the world turn Infidels or Deists: To prevent which, let us all follow the Wise Counsel of Calvin, which he gives in these following Words. [ ^* I often in my Writings put Men in mind, that nothing here is better than a learned Ig­norance; because they rave like Mad-Men, who adventure, or take upon them to be more wise, and to know more than is meet: Now thou seest how that Will of God, to which the Scriptures bear Testimony, is certainly known to me; and yet the same Will is secret and hid from me; because the understanding of the very Angels doth not fully know and comprehend, why God Wills this or that to be, and how he Wills it.] By which Words Calvin gives us to understand, that if we would act like reasonable Men, we should firmly Believe whatever God hath in the Scriptures Revealed to be, although we do not understand the way and manner of his willing it to be. But now if you say, doth it appear in­deed, that God hath Revealed in the Scriptures, that he hath made Condi­tional Promises to all in the visible Church? I answer, Yes, It doth appear [Page 134]very plainly, as hath been shewed already. For, (1.) To all in the visible Church, who hear the Gospel Preached, the Conditional Promises are general without exception; witness, Mark 16.15, 16. Acts 2.21. Rev. 22.17. and John 6.40. These Conditional Promises could not be more generally and universally expressed, and therefore they belong to all Men that hear them, upon the same condition of Faith, and Calling upon the Name of the Lord. Accordingly, the Church of England in her 17th Article, (which we have all subscribed) saith, that as a Remedy against the Abuse of the Doctrine of Predestination, and to prevent Desperation, We must receive God's Pro­mises in such Wise, as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture.

(2.) The Holy Spirit, in the Sacred Scripture, applies the general Conditio­nal Promise, to every one in particular, and says, Rom. 10.9. If thou shalt confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy Heart, that God hath raised him from the Dead, thou shalt be saved. This every one who hears the Gospel Preached is bound to Believe, and therefore he is bound to apply it Conditionally to himself, and to say in his Heart, if I then shall so confess and Believe, I shall be Saved: And if he do not do this, he in effect gives the Spirit of God the Lye; whence it necessarily follows, that God hath pro­mised Salvation Conditionally unto all that hear the Gospel, whoever they be, whether they be Elect, or Non-Elect.

(3.) Cain was one of the Non-Elect, and God certainly knew him to be such; yet God made a Conditional Promise of Acceptance unto him. The Lord God with his own Blessed Mouth, immediately said unto Cain in parti­cular, If thou dost well, Shalt thou not be accepted? Gen. 4.7. That Interro­gation, Shalt thou not be accepted? is equivalent to an Affirmation, and it is, as if the Lord had said, Cain, Thou shalt certainly be accepted, if thou dost well. See Onkelo's Chaldee Paraphrase, with P. Fagius's Notes on Gen. 4.7.

(4.) The Command to Believe on Christ, belongs without exception to all in the visible Church, unto whom the Gospel is Preached; therefore the Conditional Promise of Pardon and Salvation, which is annexed to the Com­mand, belongs likewise unto all without exception: Because the Condi­tional Promise is therefore annexed to the Command, that by the said Pro­mise, all may be induced to Obey the Command.

(5.) The Conditional Threatning ( Joh. 8.24.) annexed to the Command, belongs to all without exception; therefore so doth the Conditional Promise; because there is the like reason for the one, as for the other. If the Condi­tional Threatning belong to all, to deter them from Unbelief; the Conditio­nal Promise belongs unto all, to persuade them unto Faith. Thus doth it plainly appear to be Revealed in the Scriptures of Truth, that God hath made Conditional Promises to all in the visible Church. And therefore we ought to believe it, although we do not clearly know God's (modus volendi,) his way of willing one thing upon condition of another thing.

(3.) Thirdly, I answer, That however formidable this Objection may be in some Men's Apprehensions, yet to me it appears to be a Sophism, which is capable of an easie and fair Solution: And in order to the solving of it, I di­stinguish between God's Will considered absolutely, and entitatively in it self, and as it were subjectively; and considered respectively, and terminatively unto the things Willed, or considered objectively. Now when we consider God's Will the first way, when we consider God's Will absolutely in it self, and (if we may so say) as it is subjectively in God, or rather as it is God: It is freely confessed, that it is not Conditional, that it doth not depend on [Page 135]any thing, nor hang in suspence at all. For God's Will so considered, is not distinct from his Nature, but is really himself: And it is most certain, that God is not Conditional, that he is not Dependent on any thing, nor doth he at all hang in suspence, as if he were doubtful what to do. But if we consi­der the respect which God's Will hath unto the things Willed, and its termi­nation upon the things Willed; as also if we consider the object of God's Will, or the things Willed, as one part of the intire object, or one of the things Willed, hath a relation unto the other; so God's Will may very well be denominated Conditional, that is, God's Will, which in it self, and as it is subjectively in God, (or rather to speak properly and strictly the same with God) is most absolute, independent, and determinate; may be said to be respectively, ter­minatively, and objectively Conditional: For this is no more but to say, that the respect of God's Will unto, and it's termination upon the things Willed, is Conditional; or that the object as it hath respect unto God's Will, and as it is the term of God's Will, is Conditional. And this may very well be, and yet God's Will in it self is not Conditional, but most absolute and indepen­dent. For the respect of God's Will unto, and the termination of his Will upon its object; and the object as respecting and terminating God's Will, are really distinct from his Will. God's Will remains the same, absolute and in­dependent in it self, though it be many several ways related to, and termina­ted upon its objects; and though several Denominations be given unto it up­on that account. Let this distinction be applied unto the Objection, and the Sophistry of it presently appears. For (1.) from God's promising Salvation unto any Elect or Non-Elect, upon condition of Faith, it follows indeed, that God's promissory Will is Conditional, to give them Pardon and Salvati­on, if they Believe, and so perform the Condition: But pray consider, How is it Conditional? Is it conditionally in it self subjectively, or rather entitative­ly considered, so as to be dependent and hang in suspence? No such matter, nor doth any such thing follow from God's making Conditional Promises. It is only Conditional, respectively, terminatively, and objectively; and that is all which follows from God's making Conditional Promises, and willing the things promised Conditionally. The Lord our God, with an absolute in­dependent Will, doth Will, that if Men truly Believe and Repent, they shall be Pardoned and Saved, whosoever they be; but not Pardoned and Saved if they do not Believe and Repent. (2.) We apply the same distinction to the minor or second Proposition of the Objection, and grant that there cannot be a Conditional Will in God, that is, a Will in it self and subjectively, or enti­tatively Conditional, and so as to be in it self dependent, and to hang in sus­pence: But then we utterly deny that the Will of God, which is absolute, independent, and determinate it it self, cannot be respectively, terminatively, and objectively Conditional in the Sence before explained. This distinction was approved and used by Dr. Ames, (as I shewed in the Apology, p. 105, 106.) and by our Brittish Divines in the Synod of Dort, as from their Collegiate Suf­frage, I proved in the Apology, p. 114. So did Dr. Twiss approve it; witness what he writes against Corvinus. His words are, [ ^* For neither do we deny but that the Decrees of God may be called Conditional, in respect of the things Willed; to wit, as neither eternal Life is to be given but upon Condition of Faith, &c.] [Page 136]The like he hath in his English Books, both against Hoard and other Armi­nians, and also against Mr. Cotton. And as this distinction is approved by those great Divines, so is it by all other Learned Men, that I know, who rightly understand these Matters. See Ainsworth's Censure upon the Anabaptists Dialogue, &c. p. 10. where he saith, [ God's Will always lays no such necessity; seeing he Willeth some things Conditionally, which are not effected unless the Condition be observed: as he would a Sinner's Life, not Death, Conditionally if he return to God, he would the destruction of Niniveh; but Conditionally, except they Repen­ted; other things God Willeth absolutely, and those must needs come to pass: For none resist, or hinder his absolute Will, Isa. 46.10, 11. Job. 23.13. Psal. 33.10, 11.] So much sufficeth for Answer to the fourth grand Objection

Object. 5. p. 58. Fifthly, Mr. G. objects, That if the Conditional Promise be to all in the visible Church, that if they Believe they shall be Saved, then by the same rule we must say, That the Conditional Threatning is to all, that if they Believe not, they shall be Eternally Damned. I Answer. And what Absurdity is in this, that all in the visible Church, who do not yet Believe, are Threatned with Eternal Damnation, if they live and die in Unbelief. For understand the Conditional Threatning in the same Sence as I have shewed the Conditional Promise ought to be understood; and it is a certain Truth, That as the Conditional Promise is to all, in the same Sence the Conditional Threatning is to all in general, and to every one in particular, John 3.36. and 8.24. Mark 16.15, 16. But Mr. Goodwin says no, The Conditional Threatning is not to all, nor yet to any, if they do not Believe: And I pray, why so? To this he says, That the Reason why none are Threatned with Death if they do not Believe, is, because the Threatning is not denounced a­gainst Men for not Believing in Christ, but for not perfectly obeying the Law of Works, as he hath proved before. VVhereunto I reply, that I have also answered him before, and have proved the contrary. And here I must advise him to take better heed what he writes for the future, and not to contradict the Scripture in express terms. The Holy Scripture saith, John 3.18. He that believeth not, is condemned already, because he hath not believed. Mr. G. saith, No, it is not so, But he that Believeth not, is Condemned, because he hath not perfectly obeyed the Law of VVorks. Now choose you, Whether you will Believe the Scripture contradicting him, or Believe him contradicting the Scripture.

Obj. 6. Sixthly, Out of what he writes in Pag. 57. this Argument may be formed against God's making Conditional Promises to the Non-Elect in the visible Church. If God promise them Pardon, on Condition that they Be­lieve by their meer Natural Powers, deprived as they are, without his All-Conquering Grace, he acts in a way Repugnant to his Wisdom and Good­ness; for he knows it to be impossible for them to Believe by their meer Natural Powers, without his All-Conquering Grace; and to Promise them Par­don upon such a Condition, as he knows to be impossible for them to per­form, would be an illuding and mocking of them. ^* As if a Man should offer Food to a wretch who hath not a Limb whole, starving in a Dungeon, on condition that he would come up and receive it, and yet should refuse to put forth a Finger to give him the least lift; in such a case, that merciless Man would but mock and make a sport of the Misery of the poor wretch: [...]ust so, if God should Promise Pardon to the Non-Elect in the visible Church, [Page 137]on Condition that they Believe by their meer Natural Powers, which they cannot do; and should withall refuse to put forth his Finger to help them; he should but mock them, and make a sport of their Misery, which to do, is repugnant to his Wisdom and Goodness: And therefore God by the Gospel makes no Conditional Promise to the non-elect in the visible Church. I An­swer, this objection shews that Mr. Goodwin is better at declairning, than at fair arguing and close reasoning; and seems to intimate him to be of the Man's mind who said flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo. For this Argument (if it may be called an Argument) is fetched from Hell, and bor­rowed from the Devil, that is, from the Arminians who (if Mr. G. have not wronged them in his Epistle to the Reader) must needs be Incarnate Devils. For he says ( Their opinions tear the Volume of Gods word to pieces, and un-God God himself: They pull him out of his Throne, and strike the Scepter out of his Hands, and snatch the Crown from his Head. This is certainly more than all the Devils in Hell can do; but if Mr. Goodwin say true and do not slander the Arminians, they have done it; they have un-Godded God himself. And yet for all this, he goes down to that Arminian Hell, to borrow an Argument from those worst of Devils to defend and secure the Wisdom and Goodness of the God of Heaven, from being impeached by the Calvinian Doctrine of conditional promises in the Gospel-Covenant. But now let me ask this R. B. a few questions as (1.) Is it not now every whit as impossible (if not more impossible) for the non-elect in the visible Church to keep the Law of works most perfectly, as to believe in Christ sincerely? (2.) Doth not Mr. G. him­self hold that notwithstanding the said impossibility, God now requires of them perfect obedience to the Law of works, under pain of Eternal Death and Misery? (3.) Doth he not hold also that God by the Law and Covenant of works doth promise them Life and Happiness upon condition that they most perfectly obey that Law and keep that Covenant of Works. This I take to be his Judgment from what he writes in Chap. 7. pag. 56. Com­pared with what he quotes with approbation out of Melancton in Chap. 6. pag. 29.30. Concerning the promises of the Law, as contra-distinguished from the gracious promises of the Gospel. Now if this be so, that according to Mr. G. Godpromiseth to the non-elect by the Law and Covenant of works, ( Mat. 19.17. Rom. 10.5.) That they shall have, (Not indeed pardon of sin and salvation properly so called, but) Life and Happiness on condition, that they most perfectly keep the Law and Covenant of works. I say if this be Mr. G' s. Judgment, I demand. (4.) Whether it be not as evidently repugnant to the wisdom and Goodness of God, and as plainly a mocking of those wretched Men to pro­mise them Eternal Life and Happiness by the Covenant of works upon the impossible condition that they most perfectly fulfill the Law of works; As it is to promise them pardon and salvation by the Gospel or Covenant of Grace, on the impossible condition of believing in Christ. So that my R. B. his Ar­gument militates against himself and he is as much bound to Answer it, as we are: Unless he deny the conditional promises of the Law, as he doth those of the Gospel; and when once I know that he doth deny both, I shall cease from retorting his own Argument upon him; and shall take another way of deal­ing with him. In the mean time this may serve for the first Answer. (2.) I Answer, that this Arminian objection was sufficiently answered in the Apolo­gy out of the writings of the professors of Leyden, of Dr. Owen, of the Synod of Dort, and of Dr. Twiss. For there it was shewed. (1.) That as for the non-elect to whom the Gospel is Preached in the visible Church, God doth not [Page 138]require them to believe in Christ by their meer natural powers, without any help; without his putting forth so much as his finger to help them: For to­gether with the Gospel-Command to believe they receive more Common-Grace, more light and power from the Lord, than they make a good use of; and as Dr. Owen says, ( Apol. pag. 23. and pag. 114.115.) where real Conversion is not attained, It is always from the Interposition of an Act of Wilfulness and Stubborn­ness, in those enlightened and convicted. They do not sincerely improve what they have received, and faint not meerly for want of strength to preceed, but by a free Act of their own wills, they refuse the grace which is further tendred unto them in the Gospel. (2.) There it was shewed out of the Writings of Dr. Twiss where he Answers this same objection which Mr. G. hath borrowed from the Arminians, that as for the non-elect in the visible Church, their inability to believe in Christ according to the Gospel, is not a meer physical impotency, but it is a Mo­ral impotency, Jer. 6.10. Which hath its immediate Foundation in and its next rise from their own wills; so that if they earnestly would believe, then they could believe; but they cannot believe because they will not. Whereas the inability of the poor wretch of whom Mr. G. speaks, and to whom he compares the unconverted, is not at all a Moral impotency, but it is a meer Physical natural impotency. There is nothing in the Man's own will that causes him to refuse wilfully to come up out of the Dungeon, in which he is a starv­ing, but that which hinders him from coming up, is the natural weakness of his Limbs which are all supposed to be broke; so that the poor wounded Man cannot come up out of the Dungeon to receive the Food that is offered him, suppose he were never so earnestly willing and desirous to do it. Now Dr. Twiss shews that there is a vast difference between these two impotencies, between im­potency Moral, and impotency meerly Physical; that impotency Moral is high­ly culpable and deserves to be punished, because it is willful and affected; whereas impotency meerly Physical is not culpable at all, but is wholly ex­cuseable; and that therefore it is a shameful thing in the Arminians to con­found these two impotencies, to wit Moral and Natural impotency, as if there were no difference. See for this the Apol. 109.110. Where the express for­mal words of Dr. Twiss are quoted at large. If then Mr. G. have a mind to dispute against this Distinction, I desire it may be remembred that he dis­putes not so much against me, as against Dr. Twiss, and in the Doctors Judg­ment, he doth a thing which will have a shameful issue, to confound impo­tency Moral with impotency natural, as he plainly doth.

(3.) I Answer that what Mr. G. supposes to strengthen his Arminian Objecti­on is manifestly false; to wit that God always Commands the non-elect in the visible Church to believe by their Meer natural powers without any help, since he will not so much as put forth his finger to help them. I say this is false, be­cause (1.) It is contrary to Scripture, which saith, that Gods Spirit shall not always strive with such Men, Gen. 6.3. According to our Translation, and that plainly implies that for a time God's Spirit doth strive with them; and I suppose it will not be said that God's Spirit strives with them to hinder them, but rather to help them. So in Prov. 1.23. The wisdom of God saith to such Men, turn ye at my reproof: Behold I will pour out my Spirit unto you, and I will make known my words unto you. Here is not only a Command to turn unto God, but a promise also of some help to enable them to turn. And then it follows immediately in the 24. verse, because I have called, and ye re­fused, I have stretched out my hand, and no Man regarded, &c. In which words the Lord himself saith, that he stretches out his hand to such Men; but [Page 139]Master Goodwin saith that the Lord will not so much as put out his finger to help them; for he compares the Lord in this matter, to a merciless Man who offers food to a poor wretch starving in a Dungeon with all his Limbs broken, on condition that he [...]ome up and receive it, and yet he refuses to put forth a finger to give him the least list. Thus Mr. G. represents God to the world upon the Principles of the Calvinists whereas God in the Scriptures of truth represents himself the quite contrary way, saying that he is so far from not putting forth his finger, that he stretches out his hand to such Men, Prov. 1.24. Yea that he not only stretches out one hand, but that he stretches out both hands to them. As it is written, Rom. 10.21. To Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gain-saying People, See also Mat. 25. v. 14.15, 26, 27, 28, 29. Luk. 19. v. 12.13, 22, 23. &c. (2.) As God thus represents himself, so doth Calvin and those Divines called Calvinists. Witness (1.) The words of Calvin on John 12.47. Where to the question (our ergo damnare eos Christus non vult?) Wherefore then will not Christ Condemn them? He Answers, [ ^* That Christ having here for a time put off the person of a Judge; that all Men might be the more encouraged to repentance, he offers salvation promiscuously to all, and shews his Arms stretched out to Embrace all. Witness also his words, to this purpose, in his Book against Pighius, ^† Wherefore that of Ezek. 18.23. and 33.11. God wills not the Death, or hath not pleasure in the Death of him that dieth, but that he return and Live; must of necessity be so understood ( as Austin also hath dis­coursed in many places) that God omits to do nothing which might serve to reduce Men into the way of salvation, if they were in a right and sound Disposition of mind: But that they do not return when they are called, no other thing hinders them, but the disease of their own depravedness. God therefore wills that he who dies should live (as it is lawful for us, to Judge of his will) to wit, by assisting, or furthering the Man with all helps; that he may not be able to alledge for his excuse, that any thing but his own fault or sin, did hinder him. Yet at the same time, God's secret Counsel whereby he passeth by this Man, and choos­eth that, remains unchangeable. After which secret Counsel of God, let no Man curiously search, who will not be over-whelmed with the Glory. If Pighius under­stood this, he would not so stiffly hold that false Principle concerning the equal dispensation of Grace.] A most excellent passage of the judicious Calvin, which being compared with the former, shews his Judgment to have been that God promiseth salvation to all in the visible Church upon condition of Faith and Repentance, and that he doth not leave them to perform the condition by their meer natural powers, without any help at all; but that he doth so far [Page 140] (adjuvare omnibus adminiculis) assist and further them with all helps, that they cannot truly say that any thing but their own sin did hinder them from per­forming the said condition. And as Calvin did thus represent God, much other­wise than Mr. G. doth, so have his followers done; they have given a more lovely representation of the infinitely good and righteous, holy God than he here doth. Witness (2dly) ( Isaac Junius who by order of his Superiors wrote an Answer to Episcopius his Apol. for the Remonstrants, but died before he had finished it. His words are, [ ^* Did any of us say (in that wrested sense of the Apologist) that no Man can do more good than he doth, nor omit more Evil than he omits? Let such a crude opinion be far from every pious Man. The Brittish Divines, who were a good and laudable part of the national Synod of Dort, in their Judgment upon the third Article, and 4th Heterodox position, expressly re­ject this position, that a Man cannot do more good than he doth, nor omit, more Evil than he omits. These assertions (say they) are false and absurd, whethey they be understood of an unregenerate and natural Man, or of a Man that is regene­rate and indued with sanctifying Grace.] Again the same Author afterwards in the same book saith, [ ^† Which of us hath asserted that the called non-elect are ex­cluded from the benefit of Christ's Death for no proper or vincible fault of their own [...] Likewise that the called non-elect are not only shut out of Heaven and cast down into the Eternal torments of Hell, for no proper fault of their own which they could overcome, or free themselves from; but moreover that they are cruelly moc­ked by the Commands of the Gospel [with the promises Annexed to them], These are all fictions of the Remonstrants. The newly mentioned Definitions of Reprobation do sufficiently, and more than sufficiently clear our Doctrine, and teach that no such thing doth follow from any thing in our Doctrine: But that in truth Heaven and Hell are confounded by those who hold, that the Grace which God dispenses according to his purpose is equally common to all.] And some pages before, Junius had said, [ ^* We deny not but that Grace is offered to the called non­elect, and often common grace is given them; but we deny that that grace is given them, which powerfully takes away all impediment, and infallibly unites Man un­to Christ. Consequently our Doctrine, from its own intrinsecal principles shews, that the Meritorious cause of Condemnation is in those who prefer Darkness, before the [Page 141]light of the Gospel.] Thus that Learned Man represented God as one that by his grace, gives some help even to the non-elect in the visible Church; and utterly denies that God cruelly mocks them by his Commands or condition­al promises. ^† No Man saith (quoth Junius) that Eternal salvation is seriously promised to fewer than it is outwardly offered unto. To whom it is offered to them it is seriously promised, if they perform the conditions required by the Covenant, that is, if they repent and believe the Gospel.]

The other Person appointed by publick Authority to Answer Episcopius his Apology, was Triglandius, who wrote a large Answer to the whole of it: In which Answer he saith, ^* God according to this Master (Episcopius) shall cease to be Author of all, especially of Spiritual Good, if he prescribe unto Man the Conditi [...]ns of Faith and Obedience; or if he be the Author of all that Good, it shall not be lawful for him, to prescribe unto Man such Conditions: So inconsistent in the Opinion of this Master (Episcopius) are these things, for God to be both the Author of all Spiritual Good in Man, and also to be Lord of Man as a Rational Creature, unto whom he can prescribe the Conditions of Faith and Obedience: But I pray, (saith Triglandius) What things are they which Holy Scripture doth more inculcate, than these two? &c. The same Author afterwards in the same Book, Chap. 30. p. 416. saith, That Episcopius ought to have considered, (aliam esse rationem coecitatis moralis, aliam mere Physicae) ‘that Moral Blindness is of a different nature, from meerly Physical Blindness: For in Moral Blindness there is an aversion from Light; for it delights in darkness and hates light, John 3.20. It gives it self out for the most sharp sight, and obtrudes its own Folly for the highest Wisdom. Hence he who labours under it, doth not desire sight to be restored to him, so far is he from it, that he most vehe­mently hates the Man who endeavours' to bring him to a participation of the light; and for this cause he cannot be delivered from his Blindness; and therefore Christ said unto the blind Pharisees, John 9.41. If ye were Blind, ye should have no Sin; but now ye say, we see; therefore your Sin remaineth: But they who labour under a meer Natural Blindness, deplore and bewail their Blindness, and desire, if it could be, to be delivered from it.’Thus Triglandius shows the difference between Moral and Natural Blindness; and there he shews also how such Men might be Cured of this Moral Blindness, that it is their own fault that they are not Cured; and that there is no right arguing from Natural Blindness, which is involuntary and inculpable, to ex­cuse Moral Blindness, which is voluntary and sinful. Again, in the following Chap. 31. p. 421, 422. he grants, that unto the Non-Elect, and called in the visible Church, there is given Grace in some respect sufficient. [ ^† Is there not [Page 142]here sufficient Grace? (saith Triglandius) What is the cause then that all are not Converted, and do not Believe? There is no cause, I say, quoth Triglandius) besides Man's Pride and Arrogance, which doth not suffer it self to be subdued, &c. and then Episcopius having objected, ‘That no Man in his wits would say, that sufficient Grace is given to a Man bound in Chains for his Sin) to go out of Prison; because the Prison Doors are opened, and he is again and again exhorted with Prayers and Tears to go out; so long as the Chains where­with he is bound are not taken off him.’ Triglandius Answers the Objection in these words following.

^* Ans. 1. Those external, violent, unpleasant, and abhorred things, are not rightly compared with things that are internal, voluntary, pleasant and delectable. 2. That Manbound with Chains, would indeed thankfully acknowledge the favour of opening to him the Prison Doors; but would complain that he is still bound in Chains and Fetters, and would earnestly pray that they might be loosed; whereas they who reject God's call, will not acknowledge their Bondage and Slavery; yea, no­thing vexes them more, than that they are admonished and advised to acknowledge it: For they arrogantly persuade themselves, and pretend many things concerning their own Liberty and Free Will. What Man of sound Judgment would say, that such Persons are to be loosed, or that it behoveth them to be loosed, or otherwise there is wrong done them if they be not loosed. 3. These Men delight in their Pride, and the pravity of their evil Affections, and in their Servitude; and (as was said) this is the chief cause why they are not delivered and set at Liberty. 4. Let them acknowledge this their Misery, Captivity and Bondage, and humbly beg Deliverance, and without doubt they shall be delivered and set at liberty. See Psal. 116. & 142. Isaiah 55.1, 2, 3. & 61. v. 1, 2, 3. and 66.2. Matth. 11.28, &c.] Thus Triglandius, whom no Man ever suspected of favouring the Arminians. My last witness in this matter, is, the learned and acute Dr. Ames, who writes thus against the Ar­minians: [ ^† Some Benefits, saving in their kind, are given by Christ unto all that are called. 4. Salvation it self, as it is offered unto them, and is held forth on that condition, that they shall not be deprived of it, but for their own Sin, hath so much of the nature of a Benefit with respect to them, as is sufficient to prove them guilty of Ingratitude. Again in the same Book: [ ^* This also is to be added, [Page 143]that unto many of that People such Grace was given that they performed some Obedience, and had power to have performed more; and that none of the very Rebels did so far obey as he was able; or sought more Power from God, or was sorry for the want of it.] And again a little after he writes thus; [ ^* They might have received some Grace that they might have a power to obey, without Grace absolutely and immediately sufficient unto the Act of Obedience.] Again he says, [ ^† All th [...]se have not Power or Grace absolutely and immediately sufficient to Con­version, who have power to come nearer to Conversion than yet they have done.] In fine, Dr. Ames answers the Argument in which the Arminians seem to tri­umph, that if God did put forth such an insuperable power in Man's Con­version, that he could not choose but be then Converted, it would follow that no more could be Converted, than are actually or shall be actually converted. 2. That no Man could be Converted one minute sooner, than he is Converted. I say, Dr. Ames Answers this Arminian Argument by denying the consequence; and on the contrary, he affirms, that in a sound Sence it may be said, it is possible that more be Converted, and some so [...]ner: For there is both a Passive Power in Men to be Converted, and an Active Power in God to Convert them, according to that, Rom. 11.23. God is able to graft them in again. He gives also another Reason of it, because some may have Grace, which enables them, and gives them power to do a thing, and yet that grace may not cause them certainly and actually to do it. This is to be seen in the same Book, p. 326. And I have thus long insisted upon this, and thus largely quoted these Authors, that the World may see that in Answering the Armi­nians, our Divines do not use to deny that there are Conditional Promises, nor do they deny that God gives any help to the called Non-Elect, to enable them to perform the Condition, but affirm, that God gives them more Power and Ability than they make good use of; and that if they are not Converted and Saved, they ought to blame themselves for it, and not God. Ill Men are too much inclined of themselves, and tempted by the Devil, to lay the blame of their going on still in their Trespasses, upon God; they needed not Mr. G's help to teach them this Lesson; and therefore he had done better to have spared his pains, and to have forborn that irreverent Comparison in Pag. 57. l. 26, 27, 28, 29. As for the objected Absurdities he talks of, I have shewed that we may very well avoid them upon the Principles of Calvin, and his Followers; and have no need of the absurd Principles, either of the Remon­strants, or of Mr. G. and the Flacians; nor do we think that one absurdity is a proper means to secure us from another. We know the common saying is true, Dato uno absurdo, mille sequuntur, if one absurdity be granted, a thousand more may follow, and therefore we desire and endeavour to avoid all, by adhering to the true Christian Doctrine, the everlasting Gospel, ( Rev. 14.7.) as it is recorded in the Holy Scriptures, and commonly professed by the re­formed Churches.

Obj. 7. Seventhly, It may be argued thus, that if the Gospel-Covenant have no condition, then it hath no conditional promise; but it hath no con­dition. And this one endeavours to prove from my concessions in the Apolo­gy, [Page 144]that the condition of it. (1.) Is not in our power. Nor (2.) Ʋncertain, nor (3.) Meritorious. Nor (4.) Legal, (tho the Gospel be a Law, and this Law is the condition of the Covenant.) Therefore (saith he) it is not a condition properly, but it must be such in a Logical sense, And a necessary Connexion is enough for that, or in a Physical sense, and 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 its 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. [Page 145]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 Apo [...]. 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 may throw dirt at us in the Dark.

His inference then fails, that if faith, for instance, be not a condition in a Law-sense, it must be only in a Logical, or Physical sense, and so it will not be a proper condition. For (1.) Why may not some Logical condition be a pro­per condition? (2.) Tho Faith be not a condition in one Law-sense, yet it is a condition in another Law-sense. It is not a condition in the sense of the old Law of works, but it is a condition in the Sense of the New Evangelical Law of Grace. And from hence it appears, that what he says of Logical and Phy­sical Connexion in these propositions (if a Man be reasonable, he is capable of Learning, &c. And if Wood be laid to the fire it will burn) is wholly imper­tinent to the present purpose. For in these propositions, the necessity of the Connexion between the Subjects and the Predicates, arises from the very na­ture of the thing; but in this conditional promise [ If thou sincerely believest, [Page 146]thou shalt be Justified and Pardoned]. The necessary truth of the Connexion Doth not arise meerly from the nature of the things, but from the Lord's free and gracious will, and positive Law-Constitution, Revealed in the Gospel. Rom. 10.8 9. And so Faith is neither A meer Logical nor Physical condition, but it is a Moral Legal condition in a very safe and proper sense; It is not Legal, in the sense of the Law of works, but it is Legal in the sense of the Law of Grace: And so it is a gracious Evangelical condition.

What he talks, p. 33. l. ult. and p. 34. Of the orderliness of the Covenant, and of the necessary consequence of Justification and Glory upon the duties of Faith and Repentance, doth not one jot help him to break the force of our Arguments, and to shew, That the Covenant is not conditional, and that the giving of the benefit is not suspended till the Condition be performed. For we shewed in the Apology, that the Covenant hath indeed an Order in it, be­tween the Duty and the Subsequent Benefit; but that, That Order is a Condi­tional Order constituted by the positive will of God, revealed in the Gospel; and that it is God's positive will to suspend his giving of the benefit; for instance, pardon of sin, till we through his grace freely perform the duty of actual Faith: So that we shall not be actually pardoned, till we (being adult) have actually believed, and then we shall be pardoned, but not before. This we proved, and our Arguments remain unanswered, and we know they can never be solidly answered. We need no more Arguments to prove the Conditiona­lity of the Covenant, in the sense that we hold it to be conditional; tho we are not without other Arguments; and could tell him (what it is like he knows well enough) in what books, written by Orthodox Divines, he may find a great many more Arguments to this purpose. To tell people confident­ly, That, because it is a Testament, it can have no Condition, is to deceive them; For it may very well be a Testament, and yet have a gracious Evan­gelical Condition. A man can make his own Testament, so as to prescribe pro­per conditions in it, and sometimes doth so; surely then the Lord could pre­scribe a Condition in his Testament, and he hath done it: But as he is a gracious Testator, so the Condition prescribed in his Testament is gracious too. It seems to be the fundamental mistake of some brethren, to think that the Gospel of Christ is a Testament so absolute, as not to partake of the nature of a proper Covenant; whereas in truth the Gospel partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament, and also of a conditional Covenant. And this it may very well do in different respects. In respect of the absolute promises, it par­takes of the nature of an absolute Testament; and, in respect of the conditi­onal promises, it partakes of the nature of a conditional Covenant. And then the absolute promise of Grace to perform the condition, makes the con­ditional promises Eventually sure to all the elect. And thus the Covenant, is a Covenant of Grace indeed, a Covenant well ordered in all things and sure, 2 Sam. 23.5. But saith that R. B. pag. 33. By condition, they mean not a condition properly in a Law or federal sense, as we use the word in bargains between Man and Man. Answer. What then, doth it follow that because we use not the word condition properly in the sense of a humane Law, or Covenant, therefore it cannot be a proper condition, in another Law-sense, to wit, in the sense of a Divine Law of Grace? This consequence we deny, and so doth Mr. Fox and Mr. Durham; and it lies on that brother to prove it, for we do not take his word for a proof. Again in pag. 34. He says, That the conditional Particle (If) used in Testaments, doth not suspend, but demonstrate and design the thing promised. (Others would say, but demonstrate and describe the Le­gatees), [Page 147]and some certain time and manner of Conveyance. From whence he would infer that there are no conditional promises in the Gospel. I Answer. (1.) Suppose that were true of humane Testaments, which are purely Testa­ments, and do no ways partake of the nature of a conditional Covenant; it doth not follow that it must be true also, in the Divine Testament of the Gos­pel, which partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament, and also of a conditional Covenant. (2.) It is not universally true of humane Testaments, for I can make my Testament so as to suspend the giving of certain Legacies to persons named in it, upon their performing of some condition; so that if they perform the condition, they shall have the Legacies, but not till then: And if they never perform the condition, they shall never have the Legacies. But that brother objects further, that if the Author of the Apol. by suspensi­on, understand a legal suspension, it is the same with a Legal conditi­on, which he has denied before; for conditio est dispositionis suspen­sio ex eventu incerto ei opposito, and has an obliging influence on the promiser, and confers a title of right to the benefit promised. Answer. And we have shewed that this brother doth foully wrest the words of the Apol. to a sense quite different from that true sense, which we professedly and expresly give of the word legal condition. See in pag. 37.38. &c. The expli­cation which we give of it at large on purpose to prevent Mens misunderstand­ing of us, as this Man doth. The explication begins thus, [ Which that our meaning (to wit, of a not Legal but Evangelical condition) may be under­stood by all, we explain thus, we do not believe that our faith Repentance and sin­cere obedience, which are conditions of Justification and Glorification, according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace, have the same place and office, in this New Covenant and Law of Grace, which most perfect and sinless obedience, had and was to have had in the first old Covenant and Law of works, &c.] Let any honest understanding Man, read what follows there in several pages, together with our Arguments from Scripture and Reason, and he will see it as clear as the light, that we deny the condition of the Gospel-Covenant, to be a legal condition, onely in the sense that works were a condition in the legal Cove­nant; and that yet notwithstanding that, and in good consistency with our selves, we hold it to be a federal legal condition in another sense. For we all along maintain it to be a condition of the New Covenant and Law of Grace, and so to be federal and legal, that is, Graciously and Evangelically federal and legal. And in consequence of this, we hold and have proved that the Lord, by his conditional promises, hath suspended his giving of the promised subsequent benefits, till by his Grace the condition be performed. And that brother by denying this suspension, not only contradicts us, but in effect de­nies that there are really any conditional promises in the Gospel, and contra­dicts all those Scriptures, whereby we have proved that it is God's positive will declared in his word, to suspend his giving of the subsequent blessings promised, till the condition required, be, by Grace performed. And all the reason he gives for his so doing, is that suspension doth always suppose and im­ply the event to be uncertain, and that where there is a suspension of giving the promised benefit, Till the condition required be performed, there the performing of the condition, hath an obliging influence upon God, and gives us a title of right to the benefit promised. Which is a wild assertion and a meer begging of the question. It is that which he neither hath proved, nor can solidly prove to Eternity. For why may it not be certainly determined, as to the event, that such a promised benefit shall be infallibly given to such a person upon such a condition, and yet that the actual giving of it shall be suspended, till he [Page 148]have by grace both freely and certainly performed the condition; so that he shall have it then and not before? This not only may be, but de facto it is so, with respect to all God's elect. And then tho they most certainly receive the benefit, assoon as through Grace they perform the condition; yet it doth by no true Logick follow, that their performing the condition required, gives them the right to receive the benefit promised; for the Lord Christ purchased for them both the benefit, and the right to it, and possession of it; and God for Christs sake alone, gives it them assoon as the condition is performed. In fine, that brother pag. 45. Saith, The performing of the duty, is the effect of the Grace of God's Spirit, and effects bear not the Name of conditions. Answer. This objection is borrowed from Episcopius the Arminian, and it was Answered in the Apol. See there pag. 46.49. and 66.67. Where the world was told that the Grace of God whereby we believe, is so far from hindering our Actual Faith from being the condition, that on the contrary it conduceth much to make it (tho not simply the condition, yet) The gracious Evangelical condi­tion of the Covenant. We shew'd also in the same place that God's grace doth not effect and produce our Actual Faith, without the free Concurrence of our own faculties. Now you shall see how Episcopius the Arminian urged this Argument, and how Triglandius the Zealou, Calvinist Answered it.

[ ^* A condition (saith Episcopius) is not a condition, which is effected by him who prescribes it, in the person to whom it is prescribed. And, quoth Triglandius, I say that I deny that. But ( saith Episcopius again) the meer effect of the pre­scriber cannot be the condition prescribed, much less the condition performed. Triglandius Answers, Faith and Obedience are not meer effects of God prescrib­ing Faith and Obedience. For God doth not believe and obey, but Man himself. Therefore God alone is not the cause of Faith and Obedience, but Man himself is also the cause. God is the first and principal efficient cause, from whom Man hath that Power, whereby he believes and obeys which otherwise he neither could nor would do. But Man is the second and subordinate cause, to wit who believes and obeys, by the strength and Grace of God.] Thus Triglandius Answered the Ar­minian Champion. By which Answer it appears that Faith is not so an effect of God's Grace, as that it cannot be a condition of God's Covenant, as by the help of God's Grace it is freely effected by us. And therefore Mr. Durham on the Rev. pag. 242. Saith that Faith is the condition of the Covenant of Grace properly, which can be said of no other Grace or Work. And if this be true, then it is false, that there is no proper condition of the Covenant at all. Mr. Durham we see held that Faith is properly the condition of the Covenant, in such a sense, as no other thing is: And we agree with him therein. As he also agrees with us, that in another sound sense, true Repentance and sincere obedience are conditions of the same Covenant of Grace.

Of the same Judgment was the very Learned and Judicious Rivet. Wit­ness [Page 149]what he writes in one of his 13 Disputations. [ ^† Since (saith Rivet) the promises of the Gospel have the condition of Faith perpetually Annexed to them, which the Adversaries cannot deny; as also the condition of Repentance and Gra­titude, which are not found in the reprobate; it follows that the efficacy of re­demption doth not belong to them. These following Scriptures prove that conditi­on, &c. Thus Rivet there, and afterwards in his Animadversions on Grotius, his notes on Cassander's consultation; To what Grotius had written that (pri­ma remissio unde caeterae ortum habent, nullam in nobis requirit conditionem) The first Remission of sin, from which the rest flow, requires no condition in us, he Answers thus, [ ^* It is not true that no condition is required, in order to obtain­ing the first Remission of Sins, for Sin is not remitted to a grown person, unless he repent and believe.] And when Grotius in his Animadversions again, on Rivet, had explained himself and told him, that by the first Remission or Reconciliation, to which no condition is required, he meant nothing but the means of Grace, which make way for Repentance and Remission. Such as are mentioned Act. 2. Rivet replies. [ ^† There are many, to whom that way to Repentance is proposed, who do not enter into it. The comparing of that place, Act. 2. Teaches us that no Remission of Sin is obtained, unless Sinners be pricked in their heart. v. 37. Ʋn­to whom being so disposed, Remission of sins is Preached, which Remission is not granted to them without that previons or antecedent condition, which God by his Grace works in those, whose sins he will remit or pardon. Let the places be com­pared. For altho without any previous condition in Man, God causeth Remission of sins to be Preached unto Sinners, yet he doth not Actually confer or give that Remission, but by Repentance, or upon condition of Repentance. These things which are most true, I understood well enough, and in its own place, I explained, as clearly as I could, &c.] Thus the great Rivet confuted Grotius, but of late, we have got another way of confuting him. For there are some who indea­vour silently to confute Rivet, (the most judicious and successful confuter of Grotius,) and then they give out to the people, that they have confuted Gro­tius. Now from the premises it appears, that all which that person hath said against conditions in the Gospel-Covenant, is light as vanity; and that where­as it is pretended that there are no conditional promises in the Gospel-Cove­nant, because there are no conditions in it; the Contradictory thereunto is really true, That there are conditions in the Gospel-Covenant, because there are conditional promises in it; as was Demonstrated in the Apol. and as hath been generally believed by the reformed Churches unto this day. And tho [Page 150]Mr. Goodwin stiffly deny that there are any conditional promises in the Gos­pel-Covenant; yet I do not see how that is consistent with his concession (in pag. 55. towards the end) that ‘mercy and pardon is offered by the Lord to unbelievers, as a pardon is offered to a Rebel by his Prince; but they reject the mercy, and refuse to accept of the pardon offered them in the Gospel: And that aggravates their guilt, and brings upon them a greater punishment.’ For as an unbeliever cannot be said to reject the mercy and refuse to accept the pardon, which was never so much as once offered to him by the Lord: So it cannot be proved that ever mercy and pardon was offered to the unbeliever, without the conditional promise of the Gospel. If mercy and pardon be at all offered, it must be by the Gospel, for the Law offers no such thing to any: And if it be offered by the Gospel only, I demand how it is offered by the Gospel, and by what part of the Gospel? Either it is by the Revelation, or precept, or threatning or promise of the Gospel. But (1.) It is not offered by the meer Revelation of the Gospel. For according to Mr. G. the Revelation of the Gospel, is only a Revelation of Mercy and Pardon to the elect, but a Revelation of Mercy and Pardon to the elect only, cannot be an offer of mercy and pardon to the nonelect. Besides that the meer Revelation of the Gospel is common to the Church and to the Angels ( Eph. 3.10. 1 Pet. 1.12.) But tho the Gospel be revealed to the Angels, yet it doth not by its Revelation make any offer of Mercy and Pardon to them. So that the meer Supernatural Revelation of the Gospel, is no offer of Mercy and Pardon to the non-elect in the visible Church. (2.) It is not offered by the meer precept of the Gospel. For ac­cording to Mr. G. the Gospel hath no precept of its own. And tho it had a precept, yet that precept would only require some duty of them, but by it self could never offer any such benefit as Mercy and Pardon unto them. (3.) It is not offered by the threatning of the Gospel, for according to him, the Gospel hath no threatning; and if it had, a meer threatning alone, without a promise, is no means of offering Mercy and Pardon to a Man. It remains therefore in the 4th place, that since Mercy and Pardon is offered to the non­elect unbeliever, it must be by the promise of the Gospel. But it cannot be by the absolute promise, for the absolute promise is not made to the non-elect unbeliever; besides that the absolute promise is always fulfilled, and so the non-elect should be certainly pardoned and saved. And since it is so evident that it cannot be by the absolute promise, it must of necessity be by the condi­tional promise, that Mercy and Pardon is offered to non-elect unbelievers in the visible Church: And consequently the Gospel hath a conditional promise, for without a conditional promise, it is unaccountable how Mercy and Par­don can be either offered to, or rejected by those unbelievers. Thus we have fully and clearly Answered the objections, against the Gospel's having conditi­onal promises, and have shewed that the denial of them is inconsistent with the Gospel-offer of Mercy and Pardon, made to unbelievers in the visible Church. I should now pass to the next Chapter, but that I must first briefly consider Mr. G's way of Interpreting the places of Scripture, which seem to contain conditional promises; so as to show that they contain no such thing. And the way not to leave one conditional promise in all the Scriptures, which are generally thought to contain conditional promises, such as Mark 16.16. Act. 10.43. Luk. 13.5. Rom. 10.9. &c. He saith, Dis. pag. 58. Is to assert that the import of them is no more but this, that there is an unchangeable Connexion between the blessings of the Gospel, that Faith Repentance and Holiness are indissolubly fastened, with Pardon, Justification and Eternal Life in the same [Page 151]person; or that God justifies and saves no Man of ripe years, but whom at his own due appointed time, he makes a believer, brings him to Repentance and Sanc­tifies his Nature. To which I Answer, (1.) That here indeed part of the truth is granted, but not the whole truth; and with the truth which is grant­ed, there is intermixed this great falsehood, that all such Scriptures import no more, than the foresaid unchangeable Connexion between the blessings of the Gospel. For they do really import more. (1.) They import that the Con­nexion is not only indissoluble, but that it is also conditional. For instance, that of the Apostle Rom. 10.9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the Dead, thou shalt be saved, imports manifestly that the Connexion between Faith and Salvation, is not only indissoluble, but that it is likewise conditional. As was clearly proved in the Apol. pag. 50.57, 58, 59. (2.) Such places of Scripture not only import an indissoluble unchangeable Connexion between the blessings of the Gospel; but they moreover import such a Connexion be­tween the duties of the Gospel and the blessings of it: Between its antecedent duties and subsequent blessings. For instance Faith is not only a blessing of the Gospel; but it is also a commanded duty of the Gospel. As it is written, Act. 16.31. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Here Faith is commanded as a necessary duty, which is to be performed by us antecedent­ly to our obtaining of salvation; and our obtaining of salvation is suspended till we perform that duty, so as that if we perform it, we shall be saved, Rom. 10.9. Act. 16.31. But if we perform it not, we shall not be saved. John 3.36. And John 8.24. And the Lord having thus Commanded Faith in the Gos­pel, and promised us salvation upon our believing and suspended his giving us salvation untill we through grace have performed the Commanded duty of Faith, there wants nothing to make our actual Faith to be a condition, and the Connexion between the Duty of Faith, and the blessing of salvation, to be a conditional Connexion. (2dly) Tho I do not say that Mr. G. is an Autinomi­an, by his principle; yet I must say, that what he asserts to be the full im­port and meaning of the foresaid Scriptures, doth not seem sufficient to se­cure Men from real Antinomianism, because a Man may possibly assert all this, which he here asserts, and yet may not only be like an Antinomian, but may be a most real Antinomian. To make this appear, Consider (1.) That it is possible and implies no contradiction, For a Man to be so Drunk with error, as to perswade himself that Faith, Repentance, and Holiness are indeed blessings which God gives to Men, but that they are no duties required of Men. Mr. Goodwin would make him believe that they are no duties required by the Gos­pel; and he may by the help of the Devil make himself believe, that as they are not duties required by the Gospel, so they are no duties required of him by the Law; and he may ground his false perswasion upon a false Interpre­tation of Rom. 6.14. Ye are not under the Law but under Grace. Consi­der (2.) That the Man is certainly a most real Antinomian, if he be once of this perswasion that he is not bound either by Law or Gospel to believe in Christ, to repent of his Sins, and to lead a Holy Life, but that without Transgressing any precept of the Law (under which, he fancies he is not, be­ing elected and justified from Eternity) he may be an impenitent unbeliever and an unholy liver: And as for the Gospel Mr. Goodwin hath taught him that it hath no precept, and requires no duty of him at all. I hope my R. B. will not deny but that such a Man is not only like to the Antinomian Mon­ster, but that he really is an Antinomian Monster. Consider (3.) That this [Page 152] Antinomian in consistency with his Antinomian Principle, may assert this which Mr. G. saith is the full import of all the foresaid Scriptures, which most Divines affirm, but Mr. Goodwin denies to contain any conditional promises. For (1.) It is the opinion of this Antinomian that as salvation is a blessing of the Gos­pel, so Faith, Repentance and Holiness are blessings of the Gospel, which God gives to the elect, tho they be no duties which he requires. (2.) This Antinomi­an may believe that tho Faith, Repentance and Holiness be no duties requir­ed; yet being blessings of the Gospel Which God gives to his elect, he justifies and saves no Man, but whom at his own due appointed time, he makes a believer, brings him to Repentance, and sanctifies his nature. (3.) Upon this, the Antino­mian may assert that there is an unchangeable Connexion between Faith, Repen­tance, Holyness and Salvation as blessings of the Gospel; and that Faith, Re­pentance and Holyness are indissolubly fasten'd with Pardon, Justification and Eternal Life, in the same person. All this the Man may assert and yet be an Antinomian still, for he may still hold that, Faith, Repentance and Holi­ness are blessings but no duties, and that he is not obliged to them either by Law or Gospel.

From all which it appears not to be necessarily true, which Mr. G. saith to wit, that whosoever asserts this (Connexion of blessings), Is no Antinomian, nor so much as like to such an execrable Monster. For I have shewed plainly that a Man may assert this, and yet, be a most real Antinomian and hold that he is obliged to no duty either by Law or Gospel. But saith Mr. Goodain, What! Is Holyness the condition of obtaining the beatifical vision? No, tho it doth naturally dispose the Soul, and make it meet for, and capable of, this blissful enjoyment. I Answer, and is that so strange and wonderful a thing, to hear of Holyness its being called a condition required on our part, in order to our obtaining Eternal Life which consists in the beatifical vision? Is not such a manner of speech ordinary among our Protestant Divines? But I di­stinguish. Holyness is not a Meritorious condition of the beatifical vision, of our right to it, or of the obtaining of it, and yet it is a dispositive condition required of us in order to our obtaining the beatifical vision, for the alone Meritorious Righteousness of Christ. Ay, but says Mr. G. Holyness naturally disposes the Soul, and makes it meet for that Blissful Enjoyment. Answer, and as it disposes the Soul for that blessedness, from the very nature of the thing, so doth it likewise dispose the Soul for it, by the free constitution of God, who hath promised that blessedness to Holy Souls; and were it not for God's promise in Christ, the holyest Soul on Earth could have no infallible as­surance of obtaining so great blessedness. For notwithstanding that natural disposition, arising from our Holyness, God by his Soveraign Dominion might annihilate us, if he had not obliged himself by promise in Christ, to admit all Holy Souls to the Eternal Enjoyment of so great Happiness. I hope my R. B. will not deny but that true Mortification is at least a part of that Holy­ness, without which none shall see the Lord, Heb. 12.14. And yet it hath a conditional Connexion with the blessing of Eternal Life. As is clear from Rom. 8.13. If ye live after the flesh, ye shall dye: But if ye through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the Body, ye shall Live. Hence Dr. Ames, writing against Cardinal Bellarmine, (who from Rom. 8.13. Argued that Mortification is a condition required of us, in order to our obtaining Eternal Life? He Answered him with a quis negat? Which of us Protestants denieth that?

^* Mortification then (saith Bellarmine) is a condition, in order to Life. Who (saith Dr. Ames) denies that? Dr. Ames, it seems, knew no Divine in the re­formed Churches, who then denied Mortification to be a condition required of us in order to our obtaining Eternal Life; but since that time Mr. Goodwin is come into the world, and being a Man of another Spirit, he doth stoutly de­ny it. The Arguments on which he grounds his confident denial of conditi­onal promises, I have Examined, and Answered. And I refer it to those who shall be at the pains to compare his Arguments with my Answers, to Judge whether there be one good solid Argument amongst them all. And now I shall conclude my Animadversions on his seventh Chapter, with a part of Mr. William Bradshaw's exposition of the 8th verse of the first Chapter, of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. This Bradshaw was a Learned Man, and old Puritan, and faithful Minister of Christ. Several books on several subjects he published in his life time: But this exposition on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was published after his Death, by the Learned Gataker in the year 1620. And on the 8th verse of the 1 Chap. in pag. 49.50, 51. &c. He writes thus. ‘The second sort of persons, that Christ will come in flaming fire to be avenged of, are such as obey not the Gospel. i. e. Such as will not accept of those conditions of salvation that are offered in the Gospel. In the Gospel everlasting salvation is offered to all Sinners, that will believe in Christ, forsake their sins, and yeild obedience to the ordinances of Jesus Christ, set down in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles; when therefore God shall out of his word, convince our consciences that we are Sinners, and have of­fended his Majesty by our sins, and when God shall offer to be reconciled unto us, to pardon and forgive our Sins, to save our Souls from Hell, yea to bestow everlasting happiness in Heaven upon us, if so be we will for­sake our sins, acknowledge Christ Jesus, for our Lord and Redeemer, and be subject to his Discipline; when God shall send, to this end, his Ministers Messengers and Ambassadors, to offer unto us these conditions, yea to intreat and beseech the acceptance of this Grace, and yet we wil not accept of them, we will not have Christ Jesus to Reign and Ru [...]e over us, we will not (what­soever follow upon it) forsake such and such sins, but whether God will save or not save us, we are resolved upon our own courses, and if we may not be saved without any such conditions, we will not be beholding to God for our salvation, but will put it to the Adventure, either to have it upon what conditions we our selves please or go without it: This is to disobey the Gos­pel, and to trample the blood of the New Testament under our feet. This is directly to sin against Christ Jesus; and therefore such of us can expect no other doom from Christ at that day, but fearful vengeance. For upon whom should he avenge himself, if not upon them, which cannot content themselves to have sinned against God, and so to have provoked him, but despise the means of his grace and favour when they are offered, purposing still to continue in their sins, whatsoever come of it. This is the fearful sin of many that live in the Church of God, and profess themselves Christians, yea and that look to be saved by the blood of Christ, who notwithstanding live and delight (and so purpose to do) in such sins, as they know are for­bidden in the Gospel: They can be content, yea they look for that salvation by Christ, which is promised in the Gospel, and that the Covenant on Christ's [Page 154]part should be performed unto them; but they are resolved not to keep any Covenant on their own part. And those for the most part that most disobey the Gospel, and that shew most contempt to the Ministery and Dispensation thereof, and are the greatest enemies that may be to the principal ordinance thereof, do most presume of that salvation therein which is offered. But let us know that it is not a naked profession of the Gospel, or a bare belief that can pacify the wrath of this Judge in that day, but it must be such a pro­fession and belief, as manifesteth it self in obedience unto the Gospel. If it were possible for a Man (as it is not) truely to profess, and unfeignedly believe the Gospel, without obeying it, yet that shall not save him, He must obey it also. The Gospel containeth not matter of Knowledge and Faith only, but of practice also: And so many as desire to be free from the venge­ance and fury of this Judge, had need in that regard to be acquainted with the Gospel and all the ordinances thereof: (For how can they obey that which they know not?) And they had need with all diligence and care to be Conversant in the reading and hearing of the Writings of the Evange­lists and Apostles, of Moses and the Prophets, for, they are they, which testify of this Gospel, and in them is fully and most clearly declared, what manner of obedience is to be performed thereunto.—This Gospel is here called the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Ghrist. It is not (beloved) our own Gos­pel which we Preach unto you, and call you unto the obedience thereof: but it is the Gospel of our Lord, and our Saviour, and That which we must submit and subject our selves unto, if we look for salvation from him. When the Gospel requireth any thing at your hands, which shall any ways cross your corrupt desires, you are presently offended and incensed against us, that are the poor Ministers thereof, As if it were our own Gospel, and the Law of our own will, Which we propound unto you. But know you this, whosoe­ver you are, That it is Christ Jesus our Saviour, that in our persons you are of­fended with all, and against whom you Rebel, In despising that Gospel we teach unto you: Know you also that in your obedience and subjection to that Gospel, which we Preach unto you, you are not subject and obedient unto us, but (except you be reprobates) unto your own Lord and Saviour, who re­quireth onely this obedience at your hands, tying the everlasting salvation of your Souls and the Merits of his passion thereunto. To conclude this point then, seeing that Christ will come in flaming fire, to be avenged of them that shall not obey his Gospel, let the terror of that fire, make us run through water and fire, rather than disobey the same.’ Thus Bradshaw that Learned and Faithful Minister of Christ. I wish that Mr. Goodwin and I, may both of us believe and Live and Preach, according to the import of that Text of Paul, and this exposition of it by Mr. Bradshaw; then shall we ac­knowledge the Gospel to be a Covenant or Law of Grace, which hath pre­cepts, threatnings, and conditional promises: Which is the thing that I have proved, and defended against the objections of some Brethren, who tho they deny the Gospel to be a Law of Grace, yet, I hope do not live in disobedi­ence to its precepts; for tho the principles of many in the visible Church are better than their practice, yet I must Charitably believe that the practice of these Brethren is better than their Principle.

SECT. I.

IN the Contents of his eight Chapter, he says in a Parenthesis, that in the Apology I urged some Texts of Scripture, As expresly giving the Name of a New Law to the Gospel. This is a notorious falsehood, And I challenge and defy him to shew any passage in the whole Apol. from beginning to end, In which I say, that any one Text of Scripture doth expresly give the Name of New Law to the Gospel. I knew very well that there is not one Text of Scripture, which doth expresly give the Name of New Law to the Gospel, and therefore I never urged one Text to that purpose. I said indeed in pag. 22. lin. 16.17. That the Scriptures expressly call the Gospel-Covenant of Grace, a Law, but never said nor thought that the Scriptures do expressly call it a New-Law. What I said of the Gospel's being called a New-Law, was this, that our Brethren should not be displeased with us, because we call the Gospel a New-Law, since they know (if it be not their own fault), ( Apol. p. 22. l. 41.42, 43, 44.) That we call it, the New-Law, in no other sense, than as we call the Covenant of Grace, the New-Covenant. From which words it is evident that I do not call the Gospel a New-Law, because I think the Scripture calls it so, expresly; (for I did not think any such thing) but because I take the Gospel-Law for the Covenant of Grace; which is expressly called the New-Covenant. And I think that without offence, we may call the Gos­pel-Law, by the Name of a New-Law, in the same and in no other sense, than as we call the Covenant of Grace, the New-Covenant. For since in our Judgment, the Gospel-Law, and the Gospel-Covenant, are the same thing, and the Gospel-Covenant is expressly called the New-Covenant; what just cause of offence can there be in calling the Gospel-Law, the New-Law, in the same sense that we call the Gospel-Covenant the New-Covenant. And we are the more con­firmed in this, by finding that the most Ancient Fathers held the New-Law and the New-Covenant, to be one and the same thing: And they therefore called the Gospel-Law a New-Law, because they found that the Scripture ex­pressly calls the Gospel-Covenant, a New-Covenant. No Man can fairly and honestly deny this, who reads and understands the Writings of Justin Martyr, Ireneus, Tertullian and Cyprian, &c. Who do all call the Gospel in its last, fullest and clearest edition since the coming of Christ, the New-Covenant, and [Page 156] the New-Law, as by two Names of the same Signification. Yea, it seems there was an old tradition even amongst the Jews, that in the time of the Messias, the Lord would make a New-Covenant with his People, that is, a New-Law. I say, it seems there was such a tradition amongst the Jews, if we may believe what Paulus Fagius quotes out of their Writers. For after he had cited their exposition of Canticles the 2d Chap. v. 10.11, 12. Referring it to the time of the Messias; he adds their descant on the words of the 12th verse [...] which we render [the time of the singing of Birds is come,] but they render, [the time of pruning is come] The words are. [ ^* For the time is come that Israel should be redeemed. The time is come, that the foreskin should be out off. Concerning which it is written in Deut. 30. And the Lord thy God shall cir­cumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy Seed, to Love the Lord thy God. And the Law shall be changed into newness, and Israel shall be renewed. As it is said in Jerem. 31. And I will make with the House of Israel, and with the House of Judah a New-Covenant. That is, a Now-Law. Thus far the tradition.] And it had been well if they had never had a worse tradition. My design in this is only to shew that since (1.) The Scripture doth expressly call the Gospel a Law, as is now confessed. (2.) Since the Gospel-Law is the Gospel-Covenant, made with the Church through Christ. (3.) Since the Gospel-Covenant, is ex­pressly called the New-Covenant in Scripture. It follows in the (4th) place by good Consequence, that without any just cause of offence, we may very well call the Gospel-Covenant, the New-Law in the same sense that we find it called in Scripture the New-Covenant; even altho it be Not in Scripture ex­presly called the New-Law, As it is expressly called the New-Covenant. I de­sire that this may be remembered; and withal that all the Clamour Mr. G. after C. and D. makes against the Gospel's being a New-Law, is in truth a­gainst the Gospel's being a New-Covenant that hath any precept obliging us to any Duty, with conditional promises and threatnings. For as we have de­clared often, we mean by the Gospel's being a New-Law, that it is a New-Covenant which by its preceptive part obliges us to certain duties, with pro­mises to encourage us to the performance of them, and threatnings to restrain us from the neglect of them. And principally we mean by its being a New-Law, that it is a New-Covenant with precept and promise; and that the threatning is but the secondary less principal part, which is subservient to the principal. This being premised, let us see how he Answers the Texts of Scrip­ture urged by me in the Apol. And (1st) he begins with Rom. 3.27. And says in the Contents of the Chapter, That he hath recovered it to its right sense. Now who that reads this would not think, that in the Apol. I had interpre­ted this place of Scripture, and had put a wrong sense upon it, since writing against me he saith, that he hath recovered it to its right sense. And yet in this controversy about the Gospel's being a Law, or not a Law, I did not at all interpret that place of Scripture, nor give any sense of it, right or wrong. It is true, I quoted it twice to wit, in p. 22. and 24. But all that I said of it was that from Rom. 3.27. It appears that the Gospel is Called a Law, its cal­led [Page 157]the Law of Faith expresly. Was this to interpret i [...] and to put a wrong sense on it, from which Mr. Goodwin must recover it: Doth not he himself acknowledge this to be true? Has not he confessed and brought Texts of Scripture to prove that the Gospel is called a Law, and doth he not here con­fess with me that the Gospel is called the Law of Faith, in Rom. 3.27? How is it possible then that he should recover it to its right sense from which I had wrested it; Since I did not give any sense of it, but only quoted it to shew that in the Holy Scripture, the Gospel-Covenant is called a Law, the Law of Faith; and that the brethren ought not to be displeased with us, for cal­ling the Gospel a Law, because the Holy Scripture expressly calls it a Law and the Law of Faith. Rom. 3.27. Here (Disc. p. 59.) it is where he calls his book, a poor Writing; and if this Chapter together with the rest, do not prove it to be poor and blind and naked, I am much mistaken. But because I am a fallible Man, and liable to mistake, as other Men are; I will now affirm no such thing of his discourse; but will hear and consider what he saith for re­covering Scripture to its Right sense, from which I did not wrest it first then p. 59. he says that by the words [Law of Faith.] In Rom. 3.27. The Apostle means no more than that Doctrine of Grace which declares a believing Sinner to be Justified by the Righteousness of Christ, which by Faith he receiveth. But now what if a body should deny that the Apostle means no more, and should affirm that he also means that the Law of Faith is a Doctrine of Grace which requires Faith, as the receptive condition, or instrumental means of Justification by the Mediator's Righteousness? Might he not prove what he had affirmed, by an Argument taken from this Text, where the Law of Faith is expressly opposed to the Law of works [where is boasting then? It is excluded by what Law? Of works? Nay, but by the Law of Faith.] Thus, the Law of works is the L [...] or Doctrine which requires works that we may be justified by the Righteous­ness of our own works, which doth not exclude boasting. Therefore the Law of Faith, is the Law or Doctrine which requires Faith, that we may be Justified only by and for Christ the Mediators Righteousness, which doth ex­clude boasting. And further might not a Man for this Interpretation alledge the Testimony of our Confession of Faith, (which, Chap. 7. Act. 3. Saith, [that the Lord in the Covenant of Grace (i. e. the Law of Faith) freely offers unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them Faith in him, that they may be saved.] But Mr. G. opposes two things to this. (1.) He saith this Interpretation doth not exclude boasting. (2.) It is contrary to the Judgment of all the right Protestants who have commented on the Epistle to the Romans. First he saith, p. 59. that this Interpretation Doth not exclude boast­ing, but rather greatly promotes it: For why should not a Man Glory in his Faith, if it be an Act of obedience to this New-Law, i. e. this Evangelical Law of Faith, which by its statute makes his Justification to depend on this his performance? I Answer, I do not know the tempers of all Men, nor of Mr. G. it may be for ought I know, that he or some other of like temper, doth really think that he might justly boast of and Glory in his Faith, if the Evangelical Law or New-Covenant did require Faith of him in order to his being justified by and for Christ's Mediatorial Righteousness. But I would ask such a Man a few questions. And (1.) What is a Man's believing that he may be justified? Gal. 2.16. Is that believing a doing nothing, or a doing something? I hope, Sir, you will not say, that it is a doing nothing. For if it were a doing nothing, then Paul's meaning in Gal. 2.16. Would be this, [we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be Justified by the Faith of Christ, that is, We have done nothing in Jesus Christ, that we might be Justified by doing nothing of Jesus Christ.] [Page 158]Which if it be not an abominable wresting of the Apostles words, and a turn­ing them into non-sense; let all Men Judge that have the sober use of their reason. But if you say, that believing in Christ, is a doing something. I ask again, is that doing something, the doing of some good thing, or some evil thing? I hope, you dare not say that it is a doing of some evil thing: And therefore you must say that it is a doing of some good thing. And then I ask again, is that good thing required and Commanded by any Law of God? or is it not at all commanded? If you say that it is not at all Commanded (nor forbidden) by any Law of God. Then I say (1.) That it is not Moral­ly good, but of an indifferent middle nature between Moral good and evil. For what is not at all Commanded nor forbidden, is perfectly indifferent and nei­ther Morally good nor evil. (2.) Then it follows necessarily that you are not at all bound to believe, and that you do not sin, tho you never believe in Christ. (3.) Then it follows that to be justified by Faith, is to be justified by doing a thing indifferent. (4.) Then it follows that justifying Faith is of a contradictious nature, for it is good and not good. It is good, as is now sup­posed, and it is not good, because it is not commanded by any Law of God. But if you choose the other Member of the disjunction, and say that Faith in order to Justification is required and commanded by some Law of God; then since that Law of God is not his positive Evangelical Law of the New-Co-venant, (for that you have now denied it to be, for fear of promoting boasting) it remains that it must needs be the Moral natural Law only, which requires and commands Faith in Christ as indispensably necessary to Justification in persons of riper years But now, Sir, by your own Argument, p. 59. I prove that the Moral-natural-Law doth not require and command Faith as indispensably necessary, to receive Christ's Righteous­ness for Justification. For if a Man's justifying Faith were An Act of Obedience to God's Moral-natural-Law, boasting would not be excluded, But rather a great occasion would be given to promote it. For Why should not a Man Glory in his Faith, if it be an Act of Obedience to the Moral-natural-Law, which hath made it indispensably necessary to receive Christ's Righteousness for Justification. He may then plead that he hath done what was required; and so he may as well claim pardon and a right to life, on the account of having done all that this Moral-natural-Law hath under the Gospel made necessary to his receiving Christ's Righteousness for his Justification: As Adam, if he had conti­nued in his Primitive State, might have formed a Plea of his Right to life; for having discharged all that Duty which the Law of Works commanded and proposed, as the condition of his being eternally blessed. Thus Mr. Goodwin is caught in his own Net, and he is held in it so fast, that upon his Principles laid down in his Discourse, he can never get out of it. Mr. C. indeed strives to avoid this by maintaining, That we are justified by the Habit of Faith, and not by any Act of Faith required of us, and done by us; and though by this he contradicts the Apostle ( Rom. 4.24. and 10.9, 10. Gal. 2.16.) and Confes­sion of Faith, and Catechism, and all Protestant Divines that I know; yet that is nothing, so long as it serves a Turn. But for Mr. G. I am apt to think he will not take that course to extricate himself; for he hath strenuously as­serted in his Discourse of the Gospel, That Justifying Faith is a Duty comman­ded by the moral law (and so did Mr. C. before him): and here in this very Chapter under consideration, he affirms, That Justifying Faith receives Christ's Righteousness for Justification. But the Habit of Faith is it self received, and doth not by it self, without the Act, receive any thing at all.

But it may be some will say, Though this be a sufficient Answer to your brother Mr. G. yet what if an Enemy to our Religion should assault us with the same Argument, how would you answer it? To such I say,

(1.) That he would be a very contemptible Enemy that should use such a Poor Argument against our Religion. (2.) I would tell him, That though our Faith in Christ be an Act of Obedience to the law of Faith, yet we ought not to boast of it, and that for this very reason (amongst others), because it is an Act of Obedience and Duty, Luke 17.9, 10. Doth he thank that Servant, be­cause he did the things which were commanded him to do? I trow not. (Saith our Saviour) So likewise ye, when ye shall have done, &c. (3.) I would tell him, That we ought not to be proud, and to boast of our Faith, because it is by the special discriminating Grace of God that we are enabled to believe, and that we actually believe in Christ for Justification, 1 Cor. 4.7. Who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? and if thou didst receive it, why dost thouglory, as if thou didst not receive it? (4.) I would tell him, That though our Justifying Faith be really an Act of Obedience to the Evangelical Law of Faith, yet we cannot glory that we are justified by it, as it is an Act of Obedience. For it is not true, That we are Justified by it under that formal consideration, as it is an Act of Obedience; but we are Justified by it as it is gra­ciously appointed by God to be the Condition of the New-Covenant, or to be the Receptive Applicative Condition, and Instrumental Means whereby we em­brace Christ and his Righteousness, and trust to be justified and saved by him, and for his righteousness only. (5.) I would tell him, That tho our Faith in Christ be an Act of Obedience to the law of Faith, yet we cannot plead, That we should be justified for our Faith, and our Obedience therein to the law of Faith; as Adam (if he had persevered in his Innoceccy) might have pleaded, That he should have been justified for his perfect Obedience to the law, and Covenant of VVorks; because Adam's Personal Perfect Obedience to the law of VVorks was to have been his intire justifying Righteousness, for which he should have been justified and lived: whereas our Faith and Obedience therein to the law of Faith, is not any the least part of that justifying righteousness for which we are pardoned, and have a right to eternal life; but it is only the special Conditi­on, or Mean appointed by God, whereby we receive and trust to the Mediator's Righteousness, as that by and for which alone we are Justified and Saved. And by this it plainly appears, That though Faith be required by the law of Faith, yet that same law of Faith excludes boasting. But,

in the 2d place, Mr. G. saith, This Interpretation is contrary to the Judg­ment of all the right Protestants who have Commented on the Epistle to the Romans. I Answer, That I have shewed before, that this is the very Interpre­tation of Rom. 3.27. Given by the Authors of the Dutch Annotations, and of the assemblie's Annotations, and by Mr. Mayo in the second Volume of Pool's Annotations. And with them agrees Mr. Dickson, whose words on Rom. 3. v. 27.28. Arg. 10. Are as followeth, [ Because by the Law of Faith or Covenant of Grace, which requires Faith to our Justification by the Righteousness of another, Man's boasting in himself is excluded, &c. And the learned Stepha­nus De-Brais in his Paraphrastical Analysis of the Epistle to the Romans, on Rom. 3. v. 27. Having shewed that the Law of works doth not exclude boasting, He adds. [ ^* There remains therefore, the Gospel-Law, crying, believe [Page 160]and thou shalt be saved, which may be the rule of our Justification, &c. I could add many to these; but 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.

^* 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 [...]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 ob [...]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 [...]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 [Page 161]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 ¹¹⁷ [Page 162]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 [Page 163]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 it was, that Justin took occasion to mention the new law and Covenant. in his Answer to the foresaid Discourse of the Jew; which Answer he thus begins:

‘There never was, O Trypho! nor ever will be another God, besides him who created the whole world; and we have no other God than you, none but that same God who brought your fathers out of Egypt: Nor do we trust in any other (for there is no other), but in him, in whom you trust also, to wit, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And we trust in him, and hope to be saved, not by Moses, nor by the Law, to wit, of Moses. But I have read, O Trypho, that there should be a latter or after-Law, and a Te­stament or Covenant, &c.’ As these words and what follows them, are cited in the Apol. p. 24. ‘ This New-Law or Covenant, Justin saith, all Men must keep, That would be saved.’ Then alluding to Isa. 42.6. He saith, Christ was given to be this Eternal and latter-Law unto us, and a sure Covenant, af­ter which there is neither Law, nor precept, nor Commandment. (How that passage of Justin, is to be understood, I have shewed before): Then he proves out of Isaiah and Jeremiah that Christ was to come, and that through him God would make this New and last Law, or Covenant with his Church consisting

Jews and Gentiles. And since God was to do thus, he concludes from the conversion of the Gentiles from Idols to Faith in the crucified Jesus; and from their Holiness of Life, and perseverance in Faith and Holiness to the Death that the Messias was already come, and that this was the New-Law and Co­venant which the Christians lived under, and according to the terms whereof they hoped to be saved through Christ believed on. For, saith Justin, we are [Page 164]the true Spiritual Israel, the spiritual progeny of Jacob and Isaac and Abra­ham (who in his uncircumcision, by Faith obtained a good Testimony from God, and was blessed and called the Father of many Nations) even we who are brought near unto God by this crucified Christ. This he confirms from Isaiah 55. v. 3.4, 5. ‘Then tells them, this very Law, ye (Jews) disgrace, and vilify his New and Holy Covenant (where he manifestly distinguishes the Covenant from the Lord himself) neither do ye to this day receive it, nor repent of your evil deeds. The Legislator is come and present, and you see him not.’ The poor receive the Gospel, and the blind see, but you do not understand. Then he tells them that they needed another Spiritual Circumcision, and Sabbath and Unleavened bread and washing: That God was not like them, pleased with those external Rites and Ceremonies, but that now by the New Law and Covenant, he called them to true Evangelical Repentance, and Faith in the Blood of Christ, which alone can wash away sin and expiat the guilt of it. To prove this he cites those Scriptures menti­oned by Mr. G. he stops not there, but goes on and tells the Jews that their External Rites, Washings and Sacrifices, were but Types and Shadows of the inward Spiritual Washing and Purification of Gods People by the Blood, Spi­rit and word of Christ. Wherefore he exhorts Trypho, and his Company to ‘Faith and Repentance according to the Tenour of the New-Covenant:’ And that he doth in the words of Isaiah Chap. 55. from v. 3. To the end. Now this was not the old Law and Covenant of works; but the New Law or Covenant of Grace, which Justin in the words of Isaiah Preached to these Jews. [ [...].] pag. 231. This is that very thing, which this New Law-giver Judges fit and meet to require of you. From the premisses it is manifest, that Justin did not think the New-Law or Covenant, to be a Doctrine of Grace in such a sense as to require no­thing of us at all; for there, and through the whole Dialogue, he shews that Faith and Repentance, and Evangelical obedience are required by the Gos­pel-Law and Covenant, and says expressly that this Covenant all Men must keep that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God. Thus he An­swered the Jew's objection, and shewed that Christians had ground to hope for Mercy and Salvation, tho they kept not the old Sinaitical Covenant because they had received from God a New-Law and Covenant of Grace which they kept, and keeping it they were sure to obtain the pardon of their Sins, and salvation of their Souls, through the Blood and Death of Christ the Mediator and surety of that New and better Covenant. That this is the true sense of Justin is evident by what I quoted out of him before in my remarks on Mr. G' s. 7th Chapter; by what I have here related concerning the Jew's Objection, and his Answer to it, which was the true occasion of his mentioning the New Law and Covenant; And by what he writes in pag. 243. 263, 323, 327. I might now pass from Justin to a vindication of the Testimonies of Cyprian from the exceptions made against them by Mr. G. if another Reverend Brother in his niblings at our Apol. had not pretended to prove in his Book on Rom. 4. That I impertinently quoted Justin Martyr. His words in pag. 35. Are these ‘[I shall (saith Mr. C.) on­ly instance his first citation out of Justin Martyr, and I am willing to be Judged by any of the Subscribers that will take the pains to read it, if Ju­stin intends any thing more, than the recommending the Christian Constituti­on, and proving it preferable to the Mosaical; for he says, This new law is [Page 165]posterior to Moses his Law; but the Apologists new law has been ever since the Fall of Adam.’ Thus Mr. C. whose Arguments are to be considered before I pass any further.

I answer then thus, That Justin intended the recommending of the Christi­an Constitution of the Covenant af Grace, and proving it preferable to the Mosaical, was never denied by me, (tho I deny that he intended no more than the recommending of it in Mr. C. his sense;) for I did and do most firmly be­lieve, That that was part of his Design; and the other part of it was to prove against the Jew, That the New Law, or Covenant of Grace, was now to be kept, as it is in its Christian Constitution; and that the keeping of it as such, was sufficient to the obtaining of salvation; and that the keeping of it in its Mosa­ical Constitution, or form of Administration was not now necessary as Try­pho pretended. But then, good Sir, consider that in prosecution of that design, he expressly calls the Christian constitution of it as such a New-Law and Covenant of the greatest or most excellent Authority of all, which all Men now must keep, whosoever they be, that would obtain pos­session of the Inheritance of God. Now I appeal to all Men of Common sense and reason, if withal they have but common honesty, whether this citation was not very pertinent to my purpose, which was to prove that the accuser of the brethren had asserted a notorious falsehood, in matter of fact, in saying that New-Law of Grace was a New-word of an old but ill meaning. To convince him of falsehood in this matter of fact (as I ex­pressly declare in pag. 24. lin. 16.17, 18, 19. &c.) Was what I mainly intended in quoting Justin Martyr with others, who expressly mention the words, New-Law and New-Law of Grace, in a good sense and meaning, long before we were born. And I am sure the words I cited out of Justin with the words of my other Witnesses, do clearly and effectually prove what I alledged them for. And if my Reverend brother, be willing to be Judged (as he says he is) by any of the Subscribers after they have read the place, whether he did not say true, that Justin was not pertinently alledged in the Apology; I now tell him plainly, that he will certainly be Condemned by them as to this matter; for assuredly several of the Subscribers have read the place in Ju­stin, and do Judge that it was cited very pertinently to the before-men­tioned purpose. And Mr. C. himself doth not deny, but confess that Justin called the Gospel a New-Law, for the Covenant in its Christian constitution is the Gospel, and he confesses that that was the thing which Justin called a New-Law. But Mr. C.

Obj. (1.) Justin says that this New-Law is posterior to Moses his Law; but the Apologist's New-Law has been ever since the Fall of Adam.

Ans. 1. What he calls the Apologist's New-Law, is not the Apologist's, it is not a Law of the Apologists own invention, but it is the Lords own New-Law, or Covenant of Grace. This brother by this passage, brings to my mind what I cited before out of Mr. Bradshaw on the 2d Thessal. his words are, [ When the Gospel re­quireth any thing at your hands, which shall any ways cross your corrupt desires, you are presently offended and incensed against us, that are the poor Ministers thereof, as if it were our own Gospel, and the Law of our own will, which we propound unto you. But know you this, whosoever you are, that it is Christ Jesus our Saviour, that in our persons, you are offended withal, &c.] See the rest, before. (2.) I Answer, it is not true that according to the Apology, this New-Law or Covenant of Grace as we Christians have it (and we have it in its Christian constitution) hath been ever since the Fall of Adam. The Apology saith no such thing, but the quite [Page 166]contrary. For there in the Apology, I distinguish and say, that this Law of Grace, or Gospel-Covenant, is both New and Old in different respects, and I affirm expressly in so many formal words, that the Law of Grace, As we Christians have it, is called new, because we have the newest and clearest, and last edition of it. pag. 22. lin. 48.49. And again in pag. 23. lin. 5.6. That it will continue in its newest and excellentest form unto the end of the world. Whence it manifestly appears, that the Apology doth not say that the New Law of Grace in its last and clearest edition, and in its newest and excellentest form of Administrati­on, as we Christians have it, and as it is to continue unto the end of world; Has ever been since the Fall of Adam, and that it was before the Law of Moses: On the contrary any Man who is not blind may see that we hold with Justin, that the New-Law thus considered, is indeed the New-Gospel-Covenant in its Chri­stian constitution, and that it is Posterior to the Law of Moses, and preferable to it. But now tho in this respect the Evangelical-Law of Grace ( as we have it, in its last and excellentest form of Administration) be newer than the Law of Moses, yet (1.) It follo vs not by any true Logick, that therefore it is a new device of the Apologists. Nor (2.) Doth it follow that the substance of the same New-Law or Covenant of Grace, hath not been in the Church ever since the first promise of Grace made to our first parents after the fall; as in the Apology pag. 23. l. 1.2, 3. I asserted it to have been; and so to have been old in that respect; tho it be also New in respect of the form of Administration, In which Christans have had it since Christs time, and will continue to have it till his second coming again. I hope Mr. C. will not deny but that the es­sence and substance of the Gospel-Covenant, hath always since the Fall of Adam, had a being in the Church of God, tho it hath been under several forms of Administration, and we have it now under its last, newest and ex­cellentest form, and therefore as such it hath been usually called the New-Law by Christian Writers, even by the purest and ancientest of them since the Apostles. If my R. B. think that the Gospel-Covenant as to the substance of it, hath not been always in the Church since the Fall of Adam, tho in respect of its Christian form of Administration it be posterior to the Law of Moses, let him speak out, and see what will be the issue.

Obj. 2. But Justin (says Mr. C.) calls Christ the New-Law, therefore he took not, Law, in a strict sense.

Ans. Indeed it is true that when Justin called Christ the New-Law he did not speak in a strict and proper sense, but in a figurative and metonymical sense, as was shewed before. But what then, I beseech you? will any sober Man say that because Justin sometimes wrote figuratively, therefore he always did so, and ne­ver at all properly? Or that because he wrote figuratively, When he said, Christ is the New-Law, therefore he wrote figuratively when he said not, that Christ is the New-Law, but said expressly (as he is truly quoted in the Apol. pag. 24. That Christ is [ [...],] the New-Law-giver.

Obj. 3. But Justin (says Mr. C.) calls this Law a Testament, 8 times in that page, and 97 Times in that Dialogue, and seldom, I think not above 4 times a Law (without the explicatory word Testament, added.)

Ans. (1.) I do not know certainly how often Justin calls the Gospel, a Testa­ment, and how seldom a Law, throughout that whole Dialogue; for I have not had time, nor indeed thought it worth the while to take the Poll: but this I am sure of, that Mr. C. is out in his reckoning, for Justin doth not, in that Page 228, call this Law Eight times [ [...]] a Testament; Justin hath the Noun, [...], Testament, or Covenant, but Seven times in that Page And as for [Page 167]the Translator, he hath the Latin nown Testamentum, Testament, not Eight times only, but Nine times. But the Translator was not Justin himself, but Jo­hannes Langus. Here then we find that Mr. C. is certainly out in his Reckon­ing: and if he hath mistaken in Numbering how often the word ( [...]) Testament, or Covenant is to be found in one single Page, What reason have we to believe that he is not much more mistaken in numbering how often it is to be found throughout the whole Book? He that mistakes in reckoning Eight, sure is not to be trusted in reckoning 97; nay, since he puts the 8 into the 97, to make up his full number, he must be mistaken in that number 97, as he is in the number 8. And, for ought I know, he may be much more mistaken in the making up of his whole number: but it is not worth the while to insist upon this any longer. And then for the other, how seldom Ju­stin calls the Gospel a Law, whether more than four times, I will not insist up­on that neither, though therein he is mistaken also.

But I Answer (2.) That suppose it were true which he saith (as it is not true) nay, suppose Justin had called the Gospel ( [...]) a Testament, not only Ninety seven times, but Ninety seven hundred times; and had but twice called it a new-Law; yet that would make nothing against us, but would make for us, and would fully answer the main end for which we cited the Testimony of Justin, which was to prove against our Accuser, that New-Law is not a new Word of an old ill meaning. For here we see, that above Fif­teen hundred years agoe, Justin used the word, and called it a New-Law in a good sense; and our other Witnesses add, that it is of Grace, a Law of Grace, which was the thing to be proved.

(3.) Ans. What doth Mr. C. mean, by saying, That Justin calls it so of­ten a Testament, and but seldom a Law, without the Explicatory word (Te­stament) added? Would he make simple people believe that Justin Martyr wrote in English, and used the English word Testament so often? I hope he did not design any such thing. VVhy what then is the Mystery? VVhy thus it is; Justin wrote in Greek, and the word he so often used is [...]. Now it seems Mr. C. would make the VVorld believe, that the Noun [...] always signifies a Testament, an absolute Testament, or Promise, without any Condition; but that it never signifies a Covenant, a Conditional Covenant, or Promise of a benefit to them that shall perform the Condition prescribed in the Covenant. But be it known to all whom it may concern, that if this was his design, it was no good one: For the Greek word ( [...]) doth not always signifie a Testament in his sense, but it really signifies both a Testa­ment and a Covenant: and therefore to obviate such Cavilling, in the Apology, p. 24. l. 37, 38. In Translating the First Testimony out of Justin Martyr, I did twice render the word. ( [...]) Testament, or Covenant; whereby the VVorld may see I used no little Tricks of Art, but down-right Honesty in Citing and Translating Justin; whereas, it seems, my Reverend Brother would have the word, [...], to be Translated Testament only, and not Covenant at all, and this makes some suspect, that there may be Persons in the VVorld, who care as little for the word Covenant, as for the word Law; and, it may be, would be glad, if people were brought to believe that [New-Covenant of Grace] is a new word of an ill-meaning, as well as New Law of Grace. But I demand of Mr. C. whether it was not a Covenant, a Conditional Covenant, which God made with Israel, in the day when he took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt? If he grant that it was, as I think it will [Page 168]not be denyed, and if any should deny it, it might be easily proved: then [...] signifies a Conditional Covenant, and not an absolute Testament on­ly. For in Heb. 8. v. 9. [...] is the word that is used by the Apostle, to signifie that Mosaical Covenant. And then in v. 10. the same word [...] and no other, is used also to signifie the New and Better Covenant in its last E­dition, which God hath made with the Gospel-Church through Christ Incar­nat. In like manner the same Hebrew word [...], Berith, is used in Je­remich 31. v. 32. to signifie the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant. And in v. 31, 33. it is used to signifie the said new and better Covenant in its last and most excel­lent form of Administration. But so it is, that the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant, was a Conditional Covenant (otherwise how did the people break it, Jer. 31. v. 32.) therefore both the Greek word [...], and the Hebrew [...], sig­nifie a Conditional Covenant, a Covenant which prescribes a duty and condition, and promises a benefit to them who perform the prescribed Condition: And con­sequently from the bare signification of the word [...], it can no more be proved that the Gospel-Covenant is an absolute Testament without any Con­dition, than it can be proved from the bare signification of the same word, that the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant was an absolute Testament, without any conditi­on: for the same word [...] signifies both the Covenants. Now then if the said Mosaical Covenant was a Conditional Covenant to the Israelites, though it be called [...], which signifies both a Covenant and a Testa­ment; VVhy may not the Evangelical New Covenant be a Conditional Co­venant (or Law of Grace) to us Christians, though it be called [...], which signifies both a Covenant and a Testament. And since such is the sig­nification of the word [...], I am willing to be informed by my Reverend Brother, how Justin Martyr can reasonably be thought to have added the word [...] (or Testament) as Explicatory of the word Law, to Trypho the Jew; and to teach him, that by Law he meant nothing but an absolute Testament; whenas by what I have said it plainly appears, that Justin and Trypho both believed, That both the words Hebrew and Greek signified a con­ditional Covenant, which is the same thing with a Federal-Law. And that Justin believed this, is evident both by his quoting Jer. 31. v. 31, 32. in that very Page against the Jew, and also by his using the words [...] and [...], to signifie the same thing. For as he is Quoted in the Apology, p. 24. he sayes, that all Men, whosoever they be, that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God, must now keep this Covenant or Testament, which is of the greatest Authority of all. If all Men must keep it under the penalty of not obtaining possession of the Inheritance of God, because it is ( [...]) the most excellent, and of the greatest Authority of all; then it is plain, that it is a Law which prescribes some Duty to Christians, so that their obtaining of the Promised Benefit is suspended, till they through Grace, perform the said duty. From all which I may safely conclude that Justin be­lieved the Christian constitution of the Gospel, to be not only a New Testa­ment, but a New-Covenant also, and a New-Law of Grace; and this he af­firmed that all Men might know it to be, [...], by the powerful Grace of God which followed or Accompanied it. By what hath been said it may evidently appear not only to the Subscribers, but to all [Page 169]other intelligent Readers, that Justin Martyr was very pertinently cited in the Apology, and that both the R. brethrens exceptions against his Testimony are of no force at all, and have but given me, an occasion to set the truth in a clearer light.

As for Mr. C. His wishing that I had not attempted to prove the New-Law out of the Fathers, since Daille who was better acquainted with them, says it is in vain to make them Judges in many of the controversies between us and the Papists, and yet the late question concerning the New-Law is a more nice point.

I Answer, that I freely confess my self to be nothing, if compared with the great Daille, in that or any other part of Learning; yet I have a desire to Learn of Daille, and he teaches me, that tho we are not to make them Judg­es in the controversies between us and the Papists, yet we may make very good use of them; as he instances in his Treatise of the right use of the Fa­thers, English Translation. pag. 183. 184, 185, 186, 187. And at the end of pag. 187. He saith, [There sometimes arise such troublesome Spirits, as will needs broach Doctrines, devised of their own heads, which are not at all grounded upon any principle of the Christian Religion; I say therefore that the Authority of the Ancients may very properly and seasonably be made use of, against the impudence of these Men: By shewing that the Fathers were utterly ignorant of any such fancies, as these Men propose to the world, and if this can be proved, we ought then certainly, to conclude that no such Doctrine was ever Preached to mankind either by our Saviour Christ, or by his Apostles. For what probability is there that those. Holy Doctors of former ages, from whose hands Christianity hath been derived down to us, should be ignorant of any of those things which had been re­vealed and recommended by our Saviour, as important and necessary to salvation?] Thus Daille.

(2.) I Answer that my R. brother quite mistakes the matter, for the Apo­logy did not alledge those Fathers As Judges in matter of right, but as witnes­ses in matter of fact. So it is expressly declared pag. 24. Of the Apology in those following words [to prove this, it being matter of fact, there needs no more but to shew from the Testimony of credible Witnesses who lived many hun­dred years ago, that the words (to wit, New-Law of Grace) are not new, but were used in the Christian Church in a good sense and meaning, long before we were born.] This was the thing for the proof whereof we alledged the Testi­mony of those few Ancient Fathers. And we are still perswaded upon good grounds, that they speak home to the point in question, and do prove the ac­cuser to have asserted a notorious falsehood in matter of fact, in saying con­fidently in Print that New Law of Grace, is a new word of an old but ill meaning.

(3.) Ans. We think it was very seasonable and highly incumbent upon us, to bring forth the Testimonies of Fathers and other Orthodox Divines, who lived and died in the true Faith long before we had a being, when we were publickly accused in Print either through ignorance or malice, both of using new words, and of Preaching a New and Heretical Gospel; and thereby, if possible, to convince our Brethren, that they were quite out, and that we were no such persons as they proclaimed us to be, that we used no other words, nor Preached any other Doctrine, than what had been used and Preached by Ancient Fathers, and Modern Orthodox Divines, who lived and died in the true Faith of Christ, many years before us, without being sus­pected or accused of Preaching a New-Gospel. And so much for Vin­dication of the pertinency of the Citations out of Justin Martyr.

In the next place, Mr. Goodwin undertakes to shew that my citations out of Cyprian are not to the purpose. For (1.) Tho (saith he) Cyprian in his 11th Epistle Speaks frequently of the Law of the Gospel, yet he thereby means only that due Discipline, which ought to be observed in all the Churches of Christ. I An­swer, it is true that Cyprian there by the Law of the Gospel, means Christ's Law of Discipline instituted in the Gospel; but then it is as true that the said Law of Discipline is a part of the Gospel-Law; for it is an adjunct or Appen­dix of the Gospel-Covenant, or Law of Grace, in its Christian constitution, or form of Administration. Hence Dr. Ames saith, that Holy Discipline instituted by Christ, is a part of the Gospel. His words are, ^* But as it is a part of the King­dom of Christ, so also in the same respect it is a part of the Gospel, therefore they who reject Discipline, do neither receive the whole Kingdom of Christ, nor the whole Gospel.] Thus Dr. Ames, and the late Reverend Mr. Gale, who was Mr. Goodwin's Master, saith in his Idea Theologiae, Chap. 8. Sect. 3. pag. 175. That by the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, is meant the Gospel-Laws which Christ hath given to his Church, &c.

(2.) His exception against my other Citations out of Cyprian's first book to Quirinus, (where, in his 10th and 13th Chapters, he expressly calls the Gospel a New-Law and a New-Yoke) Is that he meant no more by the New-Law, than what Justin Martyr did; that is, a New-Doctrine and Institution of Grace.

Ans. (1.) Here Mr. G. confesses that by New-Law Cyprian meant as much as Justin Martyr and no more. But I have clearly proved from Justin Martyr's own words, that by New-Law, he meant the New-Covenant-Law which hath precepts, as well as promises, and by its precepts obliges us to duty. Therefore Cyprian by New-Law, meant the New-Covenant-Law which hath precepts, as well as promises, and by its precepts obliges us to duty. (2.) I Answer that this is as clear as the light at noon, from those three Texts of Holy Scripture whereby Cyprian proves that a New-Law of Grace was to be given. For two of them to wit, Isa. 2.3. and Mic. 4.2. expressly call the Gospel a Law, as Mr. Goodwin himself confesseth; and the 3d Text to wit Mat. 17.5. Contains in it one of the principal precepts of the Evangelical New-Law of Grace. For the words are, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him. And if there be not a precept obliging to duty, there never was a precept either in Law or Gospel. With what conscience then, Mr. G. (who knew this) could endeavour to make the world believe, that Cyprian by New-Law, meant no­thing but a Doctrine of Grace that requires no duty of Men at all; I know not, let him look to that: But this I know, that if I my self should put such a sense upon the foresaid words of Cyprian, I should by so doing not on­ly put away a good Conscience, but I should also put off all sense of shame. All the excuse that I can make for my Reverend brother is, that (it may be) he was in too much haste, and did not take time to consider and weigh Cy­prian's proofs, particularly his proof from Mat. 17.5. That the Gospel is a Law which hath not only promise but precept. (3.) I Answer that Cyprian says, that the Gospel is a New-Yoke, and proves it by Psal. 2. v. 1.2, 3. and Mat. 11.28, 29, 30. But Christ's Yoke signifies not only the promises to be believed, but also the precepts of the Gospel to be obeyed; as was shewed before. And there­fore Cyprian held the Gospel-Law and Covenant to be a Doctrine of Grace which hath both promises to be believed and also precepts to be obeyed. But Mr. G. [Page 171]objects that by Cyprian's words as I my self have quoted them, it is evident that he meant not that the Gospel is a Law which requires any duty at all. For he says, That it is another Administration, and that by it, the old Yoke should be made null and void.

Ans. A wonderful profound Argument this is, to prove that in Cyprian's Judgment the Gospel is not a Law of Grace that hath any precept, because it is an Administration, or a Disposition, as the word in Cyprian is, ( lib. 1. ad Qui­rinum cap. 11.) And as it is cited, Apol. pag. 25. But I pray Sir, why may there not be an Administration or Disposition of a Precept, as well as of a promise? And why may there not be an Administration, or Disposition both of pre­cept and promise? Was there not plainly both precept and promise in the Law of Moses? And yet it is written Acts 7.53. That the People of Israel received the Law by the Disposition of Angels, but did not keep it. But says Mr. G. according to Cyprian by the New-Law of Grace, the old intollerable Yoke of Ceremonial legal observances was removed. Ergo, it hath no precent oblig­ing to duty. Wonderful acuteness! But however I will venture to deny the Consequence, and put Mr. G. to prove it: For I want Faith to believe what­ever he saith, meerly because he saith it. And here I cannot believe him, be­cause with blessed Cyprian I believe God the Father himself saying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. So much for vindica­tion of the Citations out of Cyprian.

In the 3d place he comes to Holy Augustin, Disc. p. 65. And says, that I force him to be a Witness, for the Gospel-Covenant's being a New-Law.

Ans. Dear Sir, by your own imprudent meddling with things that you seem not to have throughly studied nor to understand, you force me contrary to my inclination, often to contradict you, and to tell you that it is not true which you say: And in this place particularly I am forced by you, to tell you that it is most untrue, that I force the words of Holy Augustin. For I cited him to prove that the words New-Law were not new words, but of Ancient usage in the Christian-Church above 12 hundred years ago: And the Testimo­ny which I quoted out of his book of Grace and free will. Chap. 18. Doth as clearly prove this, as ever matter of Fact was or can be proved by humane Testimony: For he expressly calls the Gospel a New-Law, and he proves it to be a New-Law of Grace. And moreover, he testifies more than I cited him for. I cited him only to testify that the Gospel was in old times called a New-Law, and he over and above testifies that it is a New-Law, by which precepts are given unto Men. This his words testify without the least force or vio­lence offered to them. But it is Mr. G. who would force Augustin's words to make them say what he never meant, yea, to make him deny, what he ex­pressly affirms. First, he forces Augustins words to make them say, what he never meant. For whereas Augustin says, that precepts are given unto Men by the New-Law, he would force him to say only that precepts are given in the books of the New Testament. Disc. p. 66. l. 1. 2, 3. That this is a force put on his words, seems very evident by this, that Augustin by the New-Law did not mean the books of the New Testament, in which one may find both the Old and New-Law: But he certainly meant the Gospel it self, or the New-Cove­nant of Grace in its Christian constitution, or form of Administration; just as by the Old-Law, he did not mean only the books of the Old Testament, in which according to him, the Old-Law was openly revealed, and the New-Law or Gospel lay hidden and vailed; but he meant by the Old-Law, the Old-Co­venant, or the Covenant in its old constitution and legal form of Admini­stration.

(2.) He forces Augustine's words to make him deny, what he expressly af­firms. For holy Augustin expressly affirms that even the Old-Law had pro­mises. His words quoted by me, ( Apol. pag. 25.) Are that ‘The Grace which is come in the New-Law, was promised in the Old-Law.’ But Mr. Good­win, in his discourse p. 65. l. 31. 32, 33. Forces him to deny that the Old-Law had any promises; for saith he [That great light of his Age makes the differ­ence between the New and Old-Law to be, that the Old-Law consisted wholly in precepts and commands, &c.] Now he that holds that the Old-Law consist­ed wholly in precepts and commands, doth ipso facto hold that the Old-Law had no promise. By this I know assuredly that Mr. G. doth not understand the Principles of Augustin, and writes of he knows not well what. As to what he says at the end of the Paragraph, of his having rescued Rom. 3.27. From its perverted meaning; I need say no more than I have said before for the clearing of that Text. I leave it to the intelligent Reader to Judge between him and me, and to Determine according to evidence, which of us hath per­verted that Text. He that dare pervert the meaning of God's holy word, I wonder not tho he endeavour to pervert (tho shamefully enough) every hu­mane word and Testimony that is brought against him.

(4thly, Mr. G. excepts against the Testomony of Salvian as not making for me, because (saith he) it proves no more than that the Christian-Law, or the Doctrine of Grace, was dishonoured by some Mens abusing it to Licenti­ousness. I Answer, that Salvian's Testimony proves all, that it was brought for, and that was only to prove that in the 5th Century, the Gospel-Cove­nant was called a Law, the Christian-Law. This Mr. G. doth not deny, but insinuates that by Christian-Law Salvian meant nothing but a Doctrine of Grace, which hath no precepts and requires no duty of us at all. But if my R. B. once read over all Salvian and understand what he reads, I hope he will never be so shameless as to deny plain matter of fact. For if I be put to it, I shall (if the Lord will) prove by his express words, that he called the Gos­pel not only the Christian-Law, but the New-Law, and that it is a New-Law which hath precepts that oblige to duty. Thus I have justified my citations out of the four Fathers, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Augustin and Salvian, and have confirmed and strengthened their Testimonies, by shewing that they prove what they were cited for, and more too. Now we must see what ex­ceptions Mr. G. brings against my Modern Witnesses.

And (1.) He excepts against Bradwardin because he was a Papist. I An­swer, behold here the Justice, and fair dealing of those Men with whom we have to do! They bring Bradwardin to witness for them against us; and then he is a good witness, tho he be a Papist. But when we bring him to witness for us against them, then he is no good witness, and his Testimony signifies no­thing because he is a Papist. The truth is, we had not mentioned Bradwardin in this cause, if he had not been first publickly Summoned by Mr. G's good Friend our Accuser, to witness against us. And if they will confess that they did foolishly in first mentioning him against us; they shall hear no more of him from us, as a witness against them. For I declare I do not at all value his Testimony meerly as it is his Testimony: And I think that in the Apol. I have shewed sufficient reason why no true Christian should value his Testimony, meerly because it is his Testimony: And that (with a non obstante) notwith­standing that high esteem, which Mr. G. saith he hath obtained among Men. And yet because it is in my Judgment unlawful to belye either the Pope or Devil; I must forbear saying either that Bradwardin asserted works, done by Grace to [Page]be strictly and properly meritorious, or that with incomparable strength, and closeness of reason, he refuted the Pelagian Heresies in all Points; till Mr. Good­win hath clearly proved both these matters of Fact; for I have some reason to doubt whether they be both true; and as to one of them, I gave one reason of my doubting, in the Apology, p. 164. and another in p. 133.

(2dly,) He endeavours to elude the Testimony of the Professors of Leyden, by saying, That they only mean that the Gospel in a large and improper sense, may be termed a Law, because there are Precepts, Commands, and Threatings in the Books of the New Testament.

Answ. Ah poor Writing, I would I had wherewithal to cover thy Nakedness; but that is out of my power: for the Leyden Professors give no such Reason why the Gospel may be termed a Law, because there are Precepts, Commands and Threatnings in the Books of the New Testament: But they say expressly (as cited in the Apology, p. 27.) that the Gospel is sometimes called a Law, be­cause it also hath its Own Commandments, and its Own Promises and Threat­nings. Mark ye (1.) They do not say, it may be improperly called a Law, but that it is called a Law. (2.) They do not say, that it is called a Law, be­cause there are Precepts, Commands, and Threatnings in the Books of the New Testament, but because it also hath its own Commandments, and its own Pro­mises and Threatnings; that is plainly, That as the old Covenant of Works had its own Commandments, and its own Promises and Threatnings; so also the Gospel, or New Covenant of Grace, hath its own Commandments, and its own Promises and Threatnings.

(3dly,) As the Promises of the Gospel are its own, so are the Command­ments and Threatnings of it its own; but the Promises are its own, because they properly belong to it; then also are the Commandments and Threat­nings its own, for the same reason, because they properly belong to it. For the worthy and Learned Professors make no difference, but say, that Com­mandments, Promises and Threatnings are all its own. Now this is the very true reason, why I, according to Scripture, call the Gospel a Law. As for what Mr. G. Disc. p. 67. cites out of Polyander there, it makes nothing against what he says here, in the passage now under consideration: but at the most shews, that Gospel is a word of various signification; which I have freely granted, and fully spoken to before. And as Polyander renounced the Popish, Socinian and Arminian opinion concerning the New Law; so do I and my Brethren re­nounce the self-same Opinion. And yet in the sence of the Orthodox, An­cient and Modern Divines, we believe the Gospel to be a New Law of Grace, and which is the same thing in other words, a New Covenant of Grace, which hath Commands, Promises, and Threatnings of its own.

(3dly,) He endeavours to put by the Testimony of Gomarus, by saying, That he understood the Gospel in its larger acceptation, when he called it a Law in the place cited by me, and pretends to have made this out in the 34th Page of his Discourse, to which he refers his Reader.

Answ. In my Remarks and Animadversions on his Sixth Chapter, I have clearly and fully refuted that part of his Discourse, and shewed how grosly he abuses Gomarus, by wresting his words to an absurd sense, which they are no ways capable of, to wit, that there the word Gospel is not taken by Gomarus for God's Covenant of Grace only, but for all the second part of the Bible, that is, all the Books of the New Testament. I proved from Gomarus his own words, that by the word [Gospel] he neither did nor could understand there, all the Books of the New Testament; but that really he there understood [Page 174]by the Gospel, the very Covenant of Grace it self, both discover'd to, and made with Man, and recorded in the Books both of Old and New Testament; and like­wise that there he called the same Covenant of Grace, God's Law, because of the duty required in it, and the condition prescribed by it. To which I shall only add now, that in the Apology, p. 100. I cited the 29th Position, which Gomarus lays down next before the 30th that here is under consideration; and in that 29th Position he saith ‘That the Gospel is called God's Cove­nant, because it promulgates the mutual Obligation of God and Men, con­cerning the giving them Eternal Life, upon their performing a certain Con­dition: and that it is called the Covenant, concerning free Salvation by Christ, because God, in the Gospel, of mere Grace, publishes, and offereth unto all Men whatsoever, on condition of true Faith, not only Christ, and perfect Righteousness in him for Reconciliation and Eternal Life; but also he pro­miseth unto his Elect, and perfecteth in them, the prescribed Condition of Faith and Repentance.]’ These are Gomarus his own words truly Tran­slated, which, together with his 30th Position, that next follows in order, do sufficiently refute Mr, G' s Gloss, and may make him Blush for so grosly abusing that Great Man, and most Zealous Anti-Arminian.

(Fourthly,) Mr. G. having passed over the Testimony of Dr. Andrews the learned Bishop of Winchester, comes, in the last place, to Dr. Twiss, and pre­tends, by a short Answer, to take off his Testimony, and to shew, that it is nothing to the purpose: And his short Answer is, That all which can be con­cluded from the words of Dr, Twiss, is only this, That God hath appointed a set and stated order in our Salvation, according to which He proceeds.

I reply, That this Answer is short indeed; and that is no fault at all: but the fault of it is, that it is most false, as doth most evidently appear by Dr. Twiss his own express and formal words, quoted at large in the Apology. I appeal to any Man of common sense, that can read and understand English, if withall he be a Man of Common Honesty and Ingenuity, whether (1.) Dr. Twiss doth not say, that in the very Gospel there is a Positive Law, according to which God proceeds in his dealings with Men. (2.) That the said positive law is not only a Law to God himself, but that it is a positive law to us, appoint­ing unto us a set and stated order of walking, and prescribing a condition to be performed by us through Grace, that we may obtain Salvation for the sake of Christ, and his Righteousness only. (3.) That the said order is, by necessa­ry consequence, a conditional order with respect to us, and that it is required of us to observe the Conditional Order, and to perform the condition, in order to obtain the blessing and benefit promised conditionally in the Gospel. These three things are so evident by the words of Dr, Twiss, that it is needless to use further reasoning to make them more evident; and therefore I shall for­bear doing it at present; and only refer the matter to the judgment of every understanding conscientious Reader, who shall be at the pains to peruse my Citations out of Twiss. Thus I have clearly vindicated all the Citations that Mr. Goodwin hath excepted against, and endeavoured to elude; and have shew­ed that they stand in full force, and do very pertinently prove the matter, for the proof whereof they were brought in the Apology: and that his Excepti­ons are so poor and mean, yea false and foul, that he had done more prudent­ly, and had better consulted his own credit and reputation, as an Ingenuous Man, and a Schollar, if he had done by all my Witnesses, as he did by Dr. An­drews, passed them all over, and said nothing to them at all.

But before he make an end of his Eighth Chapter, he undertakes in P. 68. [Page 175]to instruct Ministers how to deal with a poor dying Sinner; and (1.) when a Minister comes to visit a Sinner on his Death-bed, that hath lived in Lewdness to that time of his Sickness; Mr. G. would not have him to advise and exhort, and in the Lord's Name to command and beseech such a sinner to do any thing in order to his obtaining Salvation through the Mercy of the Father, the Me­ritorious Righteousness of the Son, and the Grace of the Spirit; no, though the Minister know that the Man hath lived to that day in Unbelief and Im­penitence, and in the practice of all manner of wickedness; yet he must have a care that he do not exhort him to Faith in Christ, and Repentance towards God: he must not tell him that Faith and Repentance are both duties indis­pensably necessary to Salvation, and required of him by the Gospel-Covenant; and therefore that if now he do not believe in Christ with all his heart, and if now he do not repent unfeignedly of all his sins, and pray to God through Christ for Grace to enable him so to do, he will be undone for ever: But that on the other hand, if he now cry to God mightily for Grace to help him in time of need, and through Grace now at last believe and repent, and turn to the Lord in heart and affection; his many and great sins shall be pardoned, and his Soul shall be sa­ved through Christ, according to the Tenour of the New Covenant, or law of Grace. This must not the Minister do, because this would fright the wicked man and make him think, that the Minister were sending him to Hell. Well, but what must the Minister do then? why that Mr. G. tells us in the second place, and the sum of his Advice you may take, thus: ‘Poor Sinner, by the Covenant of life and salvation, God requires neither Faith nor Repentance of thee, he re­quires no Duty of thee at all by the Gospel, for that is all Promise, absolute Promise: but if God hath Decreed to save thee, he hath Blessings in store for thee, and all Blessings of the Covenant are inseparably linked together, and thou shalt have one and all of them: never trouble thy head then about Be­lieving in Christ, and Repenting of thy Sins, for these are Duties which the Gospel requires not of thee. But look thou on Faith and Repentance as Blessings given, not as Duties required by the Gospel; and laying thy hand on thy heart, if thou findest the Blessings of Faith and Repentance there, then all is well, and thou mayest be assured of thy Interest in all other blessings.’ This, it seems, is his way of visiting the Sick, and thus he would Instruct other Ministers to Visit them; and if we may believe himself, he hath, by this, suffici­ently answered that part of our Apology in Page 32, 33. which relates to this matter. But whether this be a sufficient Answer, I am content, without ad­ding one word more of Reply, to refer it unto the Judgment of the Intelligent and Godly Reader.