Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Chapter 6 – Chapter 7

Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel · Chapter 6 – Chapter 7

p. 13Remarks on the Sixth Chapter.

SECTION I. Some Preliminary Conſiderations neceſſary for the right underſtanding of our Proteſtant Writers, and the clear Anſwering of Mr. G—'s Quotations from their Writings.

FOR the better clearing up of the matter in Controverſie, and ſcattering of the Miſt which my R. Brother hath caſt before Peoples Eyes in this Chapter, it will be expedient to premiſe ſome things before I come to anſwer his Quotations from the Writings of Proteſtant Divines. And,

p. 14Firſt, 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 p. 15numerical 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 p. 16Moral 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 p. 17runs 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.Heb 12:25it 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 p. 18of 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)(d)Sit igitur haec definitio. Fides eſt aſſentiri univerſo verbo Dei nobis propoſito, & quidem promiſſioni gratuitae reconciliationis donatae propter Chriſtum mediatorem; Eſtque fiducia miſericordiae, Dei promiſſae propter Chriſtum Mediatorem, nam fiducia eſt motus in voluntate, neceſſario reſpondens aſſenſioni. Eſtque fides virtus apprehendens & applicans promiſſiones & quietans corda. Melanct. in loc. Commun. loco de vocabulo fidei.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 p. 19was 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.

p. 20[ (e)(e)Hic altera pars Scripturae adeſt: promiſſa Dei quae annunciant gloriam Dei. & dicunt: Si vis legem implere, non concupiſcere; ſicut Lex exigit. En tibi, crede in Chriſtum, in quo promittuntur tibi gratia, juſtititia, pax, Libertas, & omnia, ſi credis habebis; ſi non credis, carebis. Lutherus de libertate Chriſt ubi citatur a D.G.Here is the other part of the Scripture; the Promiſes of God, which declare the Glory of God: And ſay, If thou wilt fulfil the Law, and not Covet, as the Law requires. Behold here for thee, believe in Chriſt, in whom are promiſed unto thee Grace, Righteouſneſs, Peace, Liberty, and all things, if thou believe thou ſhalt have them; if thou believe not, thou ſhalt want them] Thus Luther. In which Teſtimony of his, we have theſe things obſervable. (1.) That the part of Gods Word, which here he ſpeaks of, is that which contains the Promiſes of Grace, Righteouſneſs, Peace, Liberty and all; and ſo it is the Goſpel. (2.) This part of God's word, that is, the Goſpel, ſaith unto Man, Crede in Chriſtum, Believe in Chriſt. Now that is certainly a Precept or Command, if there be any ſuch thing as a Precept or Command in the whole Word of God. (3.) This part of God's Word, that is, the Goſpel, ſaith, Si credis habebis, if thou believeſt, thou ſhalt have them, to wit, Grace, Righteouſneſs, Peace, Liberty and all. Now that is as certainly a conditional Promiſe. (4.) This part of Gods Word, that is, the Goſpel ſaith, Si non credis, carebis, If thou do not believe, thou ſhalt want them, that is, thou ſhalt want Grace, Righteouſneſs, Peace, Liberty and all. And is not this a Conditional Threatning? Mr. Goodwin may with as much Truth and Modeſty deny that it is Light at Noon day, as to deny that this is a Conditional Threatning, to wit, if a Man to whom the Goſpel is Preached do not believe, he ſhall want Grace, Righteouſneſs, Peace, Liberty, and all. Here then we ſee clearly by the words of Luther, That the Goſpel hath both Precept, Promiſe and Threatning, which is the ſame thing that I believe, and from whence I conclude it to be a Law of Grace. And that the Goſpel is not without all Precepts, is evident by many other Paſſages in Luthers little Treatiſe of Chriſtian Liberty. I Inſtance only in one at preſent, and it is not far from the beginning of that ſmall Tract. His words are [So (f)(f)Sic Chriſtus Johan. 6.29. Cum Judaei interregarent, quid facerent ut operaxentur opera Dei, operum multitudine, quâ illos videbat turgere, repulſâ, unum eis praeſcribit, dicens; Hoc eſt opus Dei, ut credatis in eum quem miſit ille, hunc enim Pater ſignavit Deus. Lutherus, ubi ſupra.Chriſt in John 6.29. When the Jews aſked what they ſhould do, that they might work the works of God, having rejected the multitude of Works, with the Opinion whereof, he ſaw them ſwoln or puft up, he preſcribes them one, ſaying, This is the Work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath ſent, for him hath God the Father Sealed.] But you may ſay, How did Luther come to ſay that the Promiſes are the Goſpel, if the Goſpel hath Precepts as well as Promiſes? I Anſwer, Luther ſaid ſo, becauſe in his Judgment, the Goſpel hath not only abſolute, but Conditional Promiſes; and the conditional promiſe of God in the Goſpel, alwayes implyes a Precept which preſcribes the Condition. Beſides, That the Promiſes abſolute and conditional are the principal part of the Goſpel, and he might well enough give it its Denomination from the principal part; eſpecially when at the ſame time he ſo expreſſed his Senſe, as to ſhew that he intended not to exclude all Precepts and Threatnings from belonging to the Goſpel Covenant. Thus the Learned and Pious Rutherford. Rutherford's Covenant of Life opened. Part 1. Chap. 26. p. 21.5.[The Covenant of Grace (ſaith he) Though it want not Precepts, eſpecially it is his Command that we believe in the Son of God, yet ſtands moſt by Promiſes, and this Covenant gets the Name of a Promiſe, or the Promiſe. Acts 2.39. Rom. 9.8. compared with Acts 3.25. Gen. 12.3.] This may p. 21ſuffice 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)(g)Si quis ergo hanc Scientiam haberet, facile ſe poſſet gerere citra periculum, in infinitis illis mandatis & praeceptis Papae, Epiſcoporum, Monaſteriorum, Eccleſiarum, Principum & Magiſtratuum, quae aliqui Stulti Paſtores ſic urgent, quaſi ad Juſtitiam & ſalutem ſint neceſſaria, appellantes praecepta Eocleſiae, cum ſint nihil minus. Chriſtianus Liber ſic dicet; ego jejimabo, orabo, hoc & hoc faciam, quod, per homines mandatumeſt, non quod mihi illo ſit opus ad juſtitiam aut ſalutem, ſed quod in hoc morem geram papae, Epiſcopo, Communitati illi, & illi magiſtratui aut proximo ad exemplum, faciam, &c. Lutherus ibid. de libertate Chriſt. ultra medium, & non procul a fine. Videat etiam Eruditus Lector. Lutheri Expoſitionem Verborum Apoſtoli 2. ad Phil. v. 6, 7, 8. & ſibi caveat. ibid. paulo ſupra.If then any Man had this knowledge, he might eaſily behave himſelf ſo as to avoid danger in thoſe infinite Mandates and Precepts of the Pope, Biſhops, Monaſteries, Churches, Princes, and Magiſtrates, which ſome fooliſh Paſtors ſo urge and preſs, as if they were neceſſary to 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 p. 22a 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)(h)Quoties veniam proponit Deus peccatoribus, ſimul additur haec conditio ut reſipiſcant, nec tamen ſequitur poenitentiam eſſe cauſam impetrandae gratiae, gratis enim ſe Deus offert, neque aliunde inducitur, quàm ſuâ liberalitate, ſed quia non vult homines abuti ſuâ indulgentia & facilitate, ideo legem illam apponit, ut ſcilicet, poeniteat ipſos vitae prioris, & in melius mutentur. Calvin. Comment. in 3 Cap. Jonae.[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, p. 23is 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 p. 24mention 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 p. 25Miſcellanies, 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)(i)Evangelium haec tria tantùm requirit, primùm ut ſerio dolore, &c. Zanch, de Relig. Chriſt. Cap. 13. p. 101. Sect. 6.The Goſpel requires only theſe three things, Firſt, That being touched with a ſerious grief &c.] as quoted p. 26in the Apology, p. 99. And in the next Page, to wit, 102. he adds, (k)(k)Ad tria autem, omnia Chriſti mandata referuntur; nimirum ut abnegatâ impietate, & ſaecularibus deſideriis, ſobrie (quoad nos), juſte (quoad proximum) & piè (quoad Deum) vivamus in hoc ſaeculo, expectantes bonam ſpem, & adventum Gloriae Magni Dei. Hanc credimus ſummam eſſe corum quae a nobis. exigit Chriſtus ſuâ Evangelicâ doctrinâ: Eòque illos eſſe verè Evangelicos, verèque Christianos qui in horum ſtudium ſerio incumbunt. Idem ibid.[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)(l)Credimus non parvum diſcrimen eſſe inter Legem & Evangelium. (1.) Quia Legis materia tantùm ſunt mandata, additis irrevocabilibus maledictionibus, ſi vel minimâ in parte ea violentur. Habet quidem & promiſſiones non ſolùm terrenarum, verùm etiam aeternarum benedictionum: Sed omnes cum conditione perfectiſſimae obedientiae, nullas autem gratuitas. At verò Evangelium propriè felix oſt nuncium, Christum redemptorem peccata gratis remittentem, & ſervantem gratis etiam, proponens: Nihilque a nobis exigens ad ſalutem conſequendam niſi veram in Christo fidem, quae ſine poenitentiâ, ſineque ſtudio faciendae Divinae voluntatis. (i.e.) Vivendi ſobriè, justè & piè, ut ſupra explicatum est, eſſe non potest. idem ibid.[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: p. 27And 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 p. 28God 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.Gal 3:10Deut 27:26this 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.Mark 16:16By 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 p. 29by 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)(m)O miſeram & caecam conſequentiam! Quaſi verò non aliam jam inde ab initio temporum, praeter hanc perfectiſſimam Decalogi, nec minus perfectam, promiſſionis, ſcilicet & vitae legem tulerit, quâ populum ſuum in ſe credere, ſibique omnem fidem habere juſſerit, E. H. De fide ejuſque ortu & naturâ, Pag. 44, 45. Lond. 1592.[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 p. 30to 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 foreign; 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)(n)Evangelium hoc modo non incommodè definiri poteſt, Doctrina Divina, qua arcanum Dei foedus, de gratuita ſalute per Chriſtum hominibus in peccatum lapſis, annunciatur; & cum electis inchoatur ac conſervatur, ad ipſorum ſalutem, & Dei Servatoris gloriam; Gomar. Oper. Part. 3. Diſp. 14. Theſ. 25.[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 p. 31Books, 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 p. 32the 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. p. 33Nor (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 p. 34by 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 p. 35Law 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.John 8:24it 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 p. 36breaking 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, p. 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. p. 38But 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. foreign, 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 p. 39us, &c.] Thus the Reverend and Learned Authors of the ſeveral Annotations aforeſaid, do all acknowledge the Law of Faith, to be a Doctrine of Faith, and yet maintain that it preſcribes, commands and requires Faith in Chriſt in order to Juſtification. By this we may ſee that theſe Proteſtant Divines wanted Mr. G. to tutour them, and to teach them that a Doctrine of Grace hath no Precept, and requires no Duty. But becauſe we ſhall hereafter meet again with this Logick. That the Goſpel is a Doctrine of Grace, therefore it hath no Precept of its own, and requires no Duty. I will ſay no more of it here, but paſs to the next Chapter.

Animadverſions on the Seventh Chapter.