Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Chapter 7 · Section 5

Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel · Chapter 7 · Section 5

p. 118SECT. V.

His Third aſſertion is, p. 42.56. That the Goſpel hath no conditional promiſes. He grants that the Goſpel hath promiſes which look like conditional promiſes; but denies that they are really conditional, and affirms that they are only Declarations of the Connexion of the bleſſings of Grace, p. 42. His diſcourſe he calls his poor Writing. p. 59. Which is very true, for a poor Writing it appears to be, and in this part of it eſpecially, it ſeems to be both poor and blind; yet the Author of it may be rich and ſharp-ſighted, tho the diſcourſe be poor and blind; and if he be ſo indeed, the more he is to be blamed for writing on this ſubject, in ſuch a poor and blind manner. For he knows well enough that many Sound and Learned Divines, have ſolidly proved the Conditionality of ſome promiſes of the Goſpel; and that generally they profeſs to believe their conditionality. Many inſtances of this were p. 119given in the Apology. And I do not think that Mr. G. will be ſo immodeſt, or will have ſo little regard to Truth and honeſty, as to deny ſo plain a matter of fact. I could add very many more witneſſes of this matter of fact, unto thoſe produced in the Apology; but I ſhall only Name one in this place, and that is the …ell-known Mr. Th. Shepherd of New England, who ſays, in theſe formal expreſs words, [For any to think the Goſpel requires no Conditions, is a ſudden Dream againſt a hundred of Scriptures, which contain conditional, yet Evangelical promiſes, and against the Judgment of the moſt Judicious of our Divines.] **Shepherd's Theſes Sabbaticae, p. 78.And as to what Mr. Goodwin ſaith here, That the Goſpel promiſes which ſeem to be conditional are only Declarations of the Connexion of the bleſſings of Grace; I Anſwer, that it was clearly proved in The Apology, p. 45, 50, 57, 58, 59. That the Goſpel hath Promiſes really conditional; and being conditional, there muſt be a Connexion, and they muſt declare that Connexion between the Condition and the Subſequent Bleſſings of Grace promiſed on Condition; but then it is, and muſt be a Conditional Connexion, ſuch as I ſhewed it to be by Scripture and Reaſon; And in page 114. I ſhewed this to have been the Judgment of the Synod of Dort, and ſet that whole matter in a clear Light, which I received from the Collegiate Suffrage of the Britiſh Divines in that Synod: And ſo long as I have Scripture and Reaſon, with the moſt Judicious of our Divines, even the Synod of Dort, for the Truth that I defend, I do not in the leaſt fear any hurt that Mr. G's poor writing (as he calls it) can do to our Juſt and Righteous Cauſe, which, in the Lord's Strength, I ſtand for, and, through Grace, am reſolved ſo to do. But though his writing can do no hurt to me, nor to the Truth of God, which I defend, yet it may do hurt to the Souls of poor ignorant people, and therefore, for their ſakes, I will briefly anſwer his Objections againſt the Goſpel's having any Conditional Promiſes. And,

Obj, 1. Firſt, He argues thus, p. 56. If any promiſes of the Goſpel were conditional, they would not differ in kind, but only in degree from the promiſes of the Law; for both would be made to obedience, with this only difference that the promiſes of the Law are made to obedience in the higheſt degree of ſinleſs perfection; whereas the promiſes of the Goſpel are made to obedience in a lower degree of perfection, that is, to obedience which is ſincere, tho it be not ſinleſsly perfect. And, the conſequence of this would be, that the Covenant of Grace would be a Covenant of works contrary to Rom. 11.6.

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

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

Secondly, As for the Condition of the New Covenant-Promiſe, of Glorification and Conſummate Salvation, to wit, ſincere Eaangelical Obedience, tho materially conſidered, it is partly the ſame with, yet it is alſo partly different from that Legal Obedience which was required as the Condition of the Old Law and Covenant of works; for there are ſome Poſitive Precepts which now belong to the New and Goſpel-Covenant, or Law of Grace, that did not at all exiſt of Old, and ſo could not then belong to the Old Law, or Covenant of Works. Therefore ſince the Goſpel-Covenant, or Law of Grace, hath now ſome Poſitive Precepts different from the Precepts of the firſt Old Covenant, and Law of Works, it follows neceſſarily, That the Obedience required by the Precepts of the Goſpel, muſt be partly alſo different from the Obedience required by the firſt Covenant, and Old Law of Works. But now, if we conſider the Obediences required by the ſaid Two Covenants, as the Two Conditions of their reſpective Covenants, ſo they differ formally in Kind, and not meerly in Degree; for they proceed from different Principles, they have different formal Motives, and ſerve to different ends and purpoſes. The moſt perfect legal obedience required as the Condition of the firſt Covenant and Law of works, was The very Righteouſneſs by and for which Man was to have been juſtified and to have lived by that Covenant, if he had kept it: But now the ſincere Evangelical obedience required as a Condition, on our part, of the new Covenant promiſe of Glorification and Conſummate ſalvation, is not any the leaſt part of that meritorious Righteouſneſs, for which alone we obtain poſſeſſion of Eternal Glory and Conſummate ſalvation. And as for the promiſes themſelves of the two Covenants, they alſo are ſpecifically different, becauſe they have different impulſive and moving cauſes of their firſt making, and are performed for different and formal fundamental Reaſons. In the Covenant of Works it was indeed of God's free goodneſs and gracious condeſcention, that he promiſed a Reward to our firſt Parents, on condition of perfect Obedience. But in the Second, and New Covenant of Grace, it is of his Rich Mercy in Christ, that he promiſed us Eternal Life and Glory, on condition of our ſincere Evangelical Obedience, and Perſeverance in Faith and Holineſs to the End. So that they have different impulſive Cauſes of their firſt making; And being ſo made, they are at laſt performed for different formal Motives and Reaſons. If the firſt Covenant of Works had been kept, the Promiſe of …e would have been performed and made good to man for his own perſonal Obedience, as his Righteouſneſs, his only Righteouſneſs in the ſight of God. But now the Goſpel, or New Covenant-Promiſe of Eternal Life and Glory, is performed p. 122and made good to the People of God, not for their own perſonal ſincere Obedience, but only for the moſt perfect Righteouſneſs of Chriſt imputed to them. So that as the impulſive cauſes of making, in like manner the formal Motives and Fundamental reaſons of performing the ſaid ſeveral promiſes of the two Covenants, do greatly differ, and therefore the promiſes themſelves differ in kind. Now it is in Chriſt that all the promiſes of God, are yea, and it is in Chriſt that they are Amen; unto the Glory of God. 2 Cor. 1.20. Thus I have Anſwered his firſt Argument at large. And hence it manifeſtly appears, that his Conſequence is inconſequent and will not hold, to wit, that upon our principle the Covenant of grace, would be a Covenant of works, for I have ſhewed that the two Covenants differ ſpecifically and in kind, and that tho both require obedience and works, yet they are much different from one another, and in order to far different ends and purpoſes. The works required by the firſt and old Covenant, were legal works that were to be the only Righteouſneſs, by and for which Man was to be juſtified and to live, but the works required by the ſecond, new and Goſpel-Covenant, are Evangelical works which are no part of the Righteouſneſs by and for which, we are juſtified and pardoned, ſaved and glorified. Thus it is manifeſt, that we do not abſurdly confound the two Covenants of Law and Goſpel, but he draws ſilly Conſequences from our Principles which he ſeems not to underſtand, and builds Caſtles in the Air, which tumble down for want of a ſolid Foundation. And the worſt of it is, that he wreſts the Holy Scripture which ought carefully to be avoided, as that which may be the occaſion of ſome other's deſtruction, if not of our own. The place of Scripture which he wreſts both in p. 56. and 63. Is that in Rom. 14.6. Where to make it ſerve his purpoſe, he ſuppoſes (1.) That in the words. [Then is it no more of works] by the relative [it] muſt neceſſarily be meant the Covenant of Grace. (2.) He ſuppoſes, that by the ſaid words [then is it no more of works] muſt needs be meant, Then the Covenant of grace requires no ſort of obedience, nor any kind of works in order to any Goſpel end and purpoſe. (3.) He ſuppoſes that the works there excluded by the Apoſtle, are not only meritorious works, but any ſort of Commanded duties, tho no way Meritorious nor conceived ſo to be. And then from the words of St. Paul thus perverted, he infers his Concluſion, that it would be a flat Contradiction to Rom. 11.16. If the Covenant of Grace had any conditional promiſes, and if it required any duty, and obedience, or any ſort of work at all. I freely grant that this Conſequence is good from the foreſaid three ſuppoſitions. But I utterly deny all the three ſuppoſitions, and I know my R. B. cannot prove them to Eternity. If he thinks he can, let him try his Skill; for I put him to it. But withal, I adviſe him to take heed what he doth; God will not be mocked; nor ſuffer his word to be abuſed without controll. If he ſhall ſay that he doth not ſuppoſe the three things aforeſaid. I Anſwer that he doth and muſt ſuppoſe them, or elſe he groſsly abuſes the words of the Apoſtle, by wreſting and wringing out of them a ſenſe that was never in them. For underſtand the Apoſtle's words, as he meant them, and they make nothing for his purpoſe at all, nor will they bear the inference that he deduces from them. To make this appear, conſider. (1.) That the thing which the Apoſtle aſſirms there to be of Grace, and denies to be of works, is not the Covenant of Grace (of which he doth not there ſpeak), but it is either the Election, or the reſerving of the Remnant, of which he ſpeaks in the foregoing verſe. (2) Conſider that by ſaying it is of grace and not of works, he means that grace, and not works, was the impulſive, moving cauſe of the ſaid Election, or of the reſcrving of a Remnant at that p. 123time: But he doth not at all mean that, becauſe the Covenant is of Grace, therefore it requires no works, no obedience, nor duties at all. (3.) Conſider that the works whish he excludes are only Meritorious works, becauſe they are ſuch works, as are utterly inconſiſtent with and Deſtructive of Grace. Now my Judgment is, that the Particle [it] in our Tranſlation of v. 6. Refers to the word [Election] in v. 5. And then the ſenſe, is, as the Dutch Annotators on Rom. 11.6. Give it us, thus. [And if it be by grace, [Namely, that thoſe are Elected to ſalvation, and effectually called], It is no more [or, Then certainly it is not] of works [That is, of the Merits or Dignity of their works.] Otherwiſe [Namely, if it were of works only, or, of grace and works together] grace is no more grace [Namely, for as much as grace excludes all debt, Merit or worthyneſs, and cannot conſiſt therewith: For grace is no wiſe grace, if it be not every way grace, Rom. 4.4.] And if it be of works, it is no more grace: [Namely, but a deſerved reward, i. e. then their Election and Calling was not done of grace.] Otherwiſe the work is no more work. [That is no work, of Merit]. Thus they excellently well expound that 6 verſe of Rom. 11. And refer it to the Election mentioned in the 5 verſe, ſo as not to exclude, but rather include the reſerving of an Elected remnant of Jews, and their effectual calling to Faith in Chriſt. After the ſame manner doth Mr. Mayo explain the ſame words. In the 2d Vol. of Pool's Annotations, on Rom. 11.6. He writes thus. [The Apoſtle takes occaſion here, to ſhew that Election and Vocation is only by grace and not by works.—And here he delivers a truth, which the Jews of old, either could not, or would not underſtand, i. e. that there is no mixing of the Merit of good works, and the free grace of God: But one of theſe doth exclude and deſtroy the nature of the other: For if Election and calling were, &c.] Let the Reader conſult the whole Paſſage. It is too large for me to Tranſcribe, but it is ſo well done, that I do moſt heartily approve of it. Now this being the true genuine ſenſe of that place of Sctipture, let Mr. Goodwin prove (if he can) that becauſe Election from Eternity, and Effectual calling in time is of grace and is not of Merit of works, either foreſeen before Election, or really wrought before effectual calling: Therefore the Goſpel or Covenant of Grace hath no conditional promiſes, and doth require no duty (no, not Faith in Chriſt) nor no obedience, or work of obedience at all. I am ſure, that no Man living can prove that Conſequence by one ſolid Argument. It may be, my R. B. will be more moved with the words of the Learned Ainſworth, then with mine; and therefore I will cite him a paſſage out of a Writing of that Learned Author. His words are **H. Ainſworth's cenſure upon the Anabaptiſts Dialogue, &c. pag. 20.[No Scripture telleth that our Election to Life dependeth on this Condition of our Faith and Obedience. Faith and Obedience are the effects (not the cauſe) of our Election, and are Conditions following Election, not going before it; as it is written Acts 13.48.] Here Ainſworth acknowledges that tho Faith and obedience be not the cauſe, but the effects of Election, yet that hinders not their being conditions. And I add that tho they are effects not only of election but of effectual Vocation, yet they are Conditions, with reſpect to the ſubſequent bleſſings of the Covenant. And if they be Conditions, then there are Conditional Promiſes in the Goſpel-Covenant; and it requires of us ſome Duties, and Works of Obedience; and though this be moſt true, yet doth it not follow from hence, by any true Logick, That the Goſpel will be only the ſuperannuated Law of Works revived, with ſome abatements of its required Duties. Prove this Conſequence p. 124if you can, I put you to it; but take heed that you do not lay your ſelf further open, and diſcover your own weakneſs in the doing of it. Sir, if you had only to do with me, it may be you might eaſily run me down; for I acknowledge my ſelf to be nothing, and am ready to lay my ſelf at the Feet of all my R. Brethren, not excluding my preſent Antagoniſt: But I muſt tell you, That the Lord's Truth, and commonly received Doctrine of the Reformed Churhes will not ſo eaſily be run down.

There is one thing more in his 56th Pag. that needs correction, and that is, what he ſaith of God's conditional Promiſes being made to Men, upon ſuch and ſuch a condition, I humbly conceive this is a miſtake: One Man indeed may make a promiſe to another Man, upon a condition, ſo as to ſuſpend the very making of the promiſe upon the condition, and if the other Man do not accept or perform the condition, the promiſe is not made to him at all; but I think it is otherwiſe between God and Man. God is infinitely Superiour to us, and he abſolutely makes his conditional Promiſes to us, without asking our conſent. I ſay, that God's making of the conditional Promiſe is abſolute, but the Promiſe made is conditional; and God preſcribes the Condition to us, and Commands us to perform it: But then God performs the ſaid Promiſe conditionally, that is, He ſuſpends his own Tranſient Act of giving us the Benefit promiſed conditionally, till we, through Grace, have performed the Condition; And if the Condition be never performed by us, God never gives the Benefit promiſed unto us. This is no new Notion of mine, I have not ſo good an Opinion of my own Abilities, as to venture upon new Notions in Divinity: It is enough for me, and I hope I ſhall, through Grace, be thankful to God for it, if he be pleaſed to enable me to contend, as I ought to do, for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints, Jude, v. 3. This Notion, I ſay, is none of mine, but it is the Learned and Pious Rutherford's, as is to be ſeen in his Book of the Covenant of Life opened, Part I. P. 91, 92. [Nor is it true, that the Promiſe is made to the Aged, upon condition of Believing: The Promiſe is made to them abſolutely, whether they Believe or not: But the Bleſſing of the Promiſe and Covenant of Grace is given and beſtowed only conditionally, if they Believe. The Promiſe is abſolutely made: It is called conditional from the thing conditionally given.] Thus Rutherford. And accordingly, whenever I ſay, That God hath promiſed a Benefit to Men upon a Condition, I deſire it may be thus underſtood. For I mean no more, than that God hath made to Men a conditional Promiſe, that he preſcribes to them the Condition, and will give them the Benefit promiſed if they perform the Condition preſcribed, and not till then: But I do not mean, that God conditionally makes the Promiſe to Men, ſo as to ſuſpend his making of it, till they perform the Condition: And it may be, my R. B. meant no more than this; and if ſo, we are agreed as to this matter: But further;

Object. 2. He argues againſt the Goſpel's having any Conditional Promiſes, thus, P. 57. If the Goſpel be a New Law, [or, Covenant] of Grace, that hath Conditional Promiſes, (ſo it ſhould be expreſſed, or it doth not concern me at all) it will follow, that God in the Promulgation of this New-Law, or Covenant of Grace, offers Life univerſally to all Men; to Tartars, Negroes, and the Savages in America; to all the Nations from Peru to Japan, on condition they Obey the Command of the Goſpel, and Believe and Repent. I Anſwer, That conſequence is falſe; No ſuch thing doth follow from the aforeſaid Antecedent, unleſs God Promulgate the Goſpel-Covenant, or Law of Grace, to all thoſe People and Nations without exception, as he hath Promulgated it to us in theſe p. 125parts of the World. For the Goſpel Covenant, or Law of Grace, being a poſitive Conſtitution of God, and having the force of a poſitive Law, not knowable by the meer Light of Nature, it doth not oblige any Man to Believe it, and to be Subject and Obedient unto it, unleſs it be ſufficiently Promulgated to him. Either then prove, that the Goſpel-Covenant, or Law of Grace, (which are the ſame) is ſufficiently Promulgated to all the before-mentioned People and Nations, or elſe you muſt let go that conſequence as utterly inconſequent. This you ſeem to be ſenſible of, and therefore you undertake to prove, that God hath Promulgated the Goſpel-Covenant or Law of Grace to all Men in the world, without exception; a bold undertaking! Now let us hear the proof; why thus it is: If God in giving his Moral Law to all reaſonable Creatures, ſaid univerſally to Angels and Men, [do this, and you ſhall live] by the ſame rule, if the Goſpel is a New Law, God ſpeaks generally to all Men, [Believe and you ſhall live.] Here is my R. Brother's Argument, but I heartily wiſh for his own Credit. he had ſuppreſſed it, and never ſuffered it to ſee the light: For I think, ſuch a ridiculous weak Argument is not to be met with in any learned Author; and to make the weakneſs of it appear, I Anſwer, (1.) That his Suppoſition from whence he infers his Poſition, is not true, if it be underſtood of the Moral-Natural-Law only, materially conſidered, before God put it into the form of a Covenant, by adding to it the conditional Promiſe, If ye do this, ye ſhall live. In that caſe, by giving unto Man the Precepts of the Moral Natural Law, without the Promiſe of Life. God had ſaid unto him, [Do this, which thoſe Precepts require;] but he had not ſaid unto him, [Thou ſhalt live if thou do this.] My R. Brother may remember, that he himſelf, in Pag. 50. affirms, That Adam, as ſoon as he had Exiſtence, was preſently bound to Obey God in all that he would Command him, though he had made no Promiſe to him of any Reward: And if Adam was bound to obey God in all that he would Command him, then cerrainly he was bound to obey him in all that he did Command him, though he had made no Promiſe to him of any Reward. But I hope Mr. G. will not ſay, that Adam was bound alſo to believe actually that he ſhould live for any determinate time, without a conditional Promiſe of Life to him, if he continued in his Obedience. For if God would, he might have Annihilated Adam again, even after he had been perfectly Obedient for a time, and before he had committed any the leaſt Sin. I ſay, God might have done this by his Abſolute Soveraignty, if he had not engaged himſelf not to do it, by the Promiſe of Life to Adam. For God's giving of Life, with the Precepts of the Natural Law to Adam, did not of it ſelf without the Promiſe of Life, neceſſarily oblige him not to Annihilate him: Before and without the Promiſe of Life, God by his Abſolute Power and Soveraign Free-Will, might have Annihilated or not Annihilated Adam. And therefore in giving the Moral Law to Adam, without the Premiſe of Life, God did not ſay to him, [Do this and thou ſhalt live:] He ſaid indeed to him, [Do this,] but he did not thereby ſay to him, [Thou ſhalt live if thou do this.] And without God's ſaying to him by Promiſe, [Thou ſhalt live if thou do this.] Adam could have no Infallible Aſſurance that God would not uſe his Power and Soveraign Free-Will in Annihilating him: He could not by all that God had done for him, (in Creating him, and Concreating in him, the Principles and Precepts of the Law of Nature) have any Infallible Aſſurance that he would continue to him the happy Life he had given him and that he would afterwards prefer him to a better, that is, to an Heavenly and Eternal Life. The doing of this depended on God's Free-Will, and therefore Adam's Aſſurance p. 126that it ſhould be done, depended upon the Revelation of God's Will, and the Promiſe of God to Man, That if he never Sinned, he ſhould never Die, but live happily ſorever. And this was not only poſſible, but it ſeems to have been ſo De facto: For in Creating Man after his own Image, God gave him the Principles and Precepts of the Moral Law; but it can never be proved, that God gave him the Promiſe of Life, till ſome time after that he ſaid unto him, as it is written, Gen. 2.16, 17. In the day that thou cateſt thereof, thou ſhalt ſurely die, In which words, the contrary promiſe is implied. But,

(2dly,) If Mr. G. ſay, That by God's giving unto man the moral Law, he means, God's giving him the moral Law formally, as a Covenant with its federal Sanction of Threatning and Promiſe; then indeed I grant, That by giving unto Adam the moral Law as a federal Law, God ſaid unto him, [Do this, and thou ſhalt live; but if thou do it not, thou ſhalt die.] But then, tho God ſaid this to Adam, by giving him that federal Law, yet it is not ſo clear, that he ſaith the ſame thing at this day to all Adam's Poſterity, even to the moſt barbarous Heathens, by giving unto them the moral natural Law. I do grant, That together with the humane Nature, God gives the firſt Principles and Precepts of the moral natural Law unto all mankind that have the uſe of Reaſon, even to the moſt Barbarous Heathens; yea, that he gives alſo the Principles of the Natural Law to their Infants: I ſay, he gives them in Power, but not in Act: but that God gives unto every one of the moſt barbarous Nations the ſame promiſe which he gave at firſt unto Adam, and that he ſays unto every one of them, [Do this, and thou ſhalt live.] Keep the Precepts of the Law of Nature, and thou ſhalt live Eternally: Let him prove this at his leiſure. It will not ſuffice to ſay that God virtually and conſtructively made the ſaid promiſe to every one of them, as they were ſeminally and federally in Adam; for tho that be very true, and we know it by the written word, or we ſhould never have known it in an ordinary way; yet it is nothing to our preſent purpoſe. For now all the queſtion is about the truth of Mr. G's. words which ſuppoſe, that God in giving his Moral Law to all reaſonable Creatures, ſaid Univerſally to Men [do this, and you ſhall Live.] Now did God ever ſay this Univerſally to all mankind, even to the moſt Barbarous Nations? And doth he ſay ſo at this day? And doth he ſay it ſo clearly, as that they can underſtand that promiſe of Life, and are bound to believe it without a Supernatural Revelation? Let my Reverend Brother prove this, and I am ſatisfied, as to that matter. But (2.) I Anſwer, that his poſition which he infers from the foreſaid ſuppoſition, (to wit that, ergo, God in giving the Goſpel Law to ſome Men] ſpeaks generally to all Men, [without exception of the moſt Barbarous Heathens], believe and you ſhall Live;) Is not only notoriouſly falſe as conſidered abſolutely in it ſelf; but likewiſe if it be conſidered relatively, as having reſpect unto and as inferred from the ſaid ſuppoſition, it is ſo viſibly Inconſequential and Illogical, that I admire my R. Brother did not perceive it. For what Man of any competent meaſure of Learning, is ſo void of reaſon as deliberately to think and ſay that becauſe the Moral Law (which as to its principles and precepts is natural, and by nature's light known to all, even to the Heathens, Rom. 2.14, 15.) Is ſufficiently promulgated to all mankind even to the moſt Barbarous Nations; Therefore by parity of reaſon, the poſitive Goſpel-Law of Grace [Believe in Chriſt Crucified, and thou ſhalt Live,] Which is ſupernatural, and cannot poſſibly be known but by Supernatural Revelation (Rom. 10.14.) Is likewiſe ſufficiently promulgated to all mankind without exception, even to the moſt Barbarous Nations, who have not, and who never had that Supernatural p. 127Revelation by which alone it can be known? For my part I cannot but think that that Man is forſaken of common ſenſe and reaſon, who deliberately and ſeriouſly thinks and ſays that there is a parity of reaſon between the promulgation of the foreſaid two Laws of nature, and of Grace, and that becauſe the one to wit, the Law of nature, is and muſt be ſufficiently promulgated to all Men, without exception; therefore the other, to wit, the Supernatural Law of Grace, is and muſt be likewiſe ſufflciently promulgated to all Men without exception, even to the moſt Barbarous Nations who never had the foreſaid Supernatural Revelation by which alone it can be known. And ſince it is palpably evident, that there is no parity of reaſon between the two caſes, and that there is no Conſequential arguing from the Univerſal promulgation of the natural Law, to prove the Univerſal promulgation of the Supernatural Law of Grace; Mr. G. may be aſhamed, to aſſirm that the Two amazing abſurdities which he mentions, will naturally Spring from hence. For it is plainly ridiculous to ſay (as he doth) that they both naturally Spring from his foreſaid Argument, or that they naturally Spring from God's ſpeaking generally to all Men [believe and you ſhall Live]. Now that this may clearly appear, I will ſet down my R. Brother's own words, pag. 57. l. 9.10, &c. [From this (ſaith he) two amazing abſurdities will naturally Spring; the one is, that God ſhould by this his new Law promiſe pardon and Life, on condition they believe on his Son, to people who never heard that there is ſuch a thing as the Chriſtian Religion in the world, nor ſuch a perſon as Christ, and to whoſe Ears not ſo much as the ſound of his Name, ever arrived.] Theſe are his own expreſs words, and in them is contained the firſt amazing abſurdity. And I ingenuouſly confeſs with my mouth, what I believe in my heart, that what he ſpeaks of, is an amazing abſurdity, to wit, that God ſhould promiſe pardon and life, on condition of Faith in Chriſt, to people who never heard of Chriſt at all, i. e. To whom Chriſt was never ſupernaturally revealed at all. But with all I muſt ſay that I am amazed to find Mr. G. affirming that the ſaid amazing abſurdity doth naturally Spring from this, That God by the Goſpel or Law of Grace, ſpeaks generally to all Men believe and you ſhall live. And if he will prove what he here affirms, he will amaze me yet more; The thing then he hath to prove is that which he affirms, to wit, That from God's ſpeaking generally (upon ſuppoſition that he doth ſpeak generally) by the Goſpel-new-Law to all Men, [believe and you ſhall live.] There will naturally Spring, this Conſequence, that God by the ſaid Goſpel-new-Law, promiſes life on condition of believing in Chriſt, to people who never heard of Chriſt and Christian Religion. That is, in fewer words but of the ſame ſenſe and meaning, From God's ſpeaking generally by the Goſpel to all Men in the world, concerning Faith in Chriſt, and Life through him; it follows naturally that God doth not by the Goſpel ſpeak generally to all Men in the world concerning Faith in Chriſt and Life through him. I do my R. B. no wrong by fixing upon him a conſequence of my feigning. I do abhor to do ſuch a thing, aſſuredly it is not of my feigning, but it was framed in his own head, and is Printed with his Name prefixed to it. I appeal to his own words for the truth of this. Now if this be not an amazing abſurdity, let him prove the truth of the Conſequence: And then we ſhall be all amazed at his Acumen, as of one who can Conjure quiàlibet ex quolibet, and Demonſtrate by a natural Conſequence that becauſe God hath generally promulgated the Goſpel to all Men, therefore he hath not generally promulgated the Coſpel to all Men. But Reverend Sir, I hope, upon ſecond thoughts you will ſee how you run your ſelf into the Briers, by miſrepreſenting the truth, and by indeavouring, p. 128to render it odious to your ignorant followers: And I wiſh you may be ſo ingenuous as to confeſs (for the undeceiving of the people) that our Principles are not ſuch as ſome take them to be, and that no ſuch abſurdity as is pretended, doth naturally Spring from them. For my part I never ſaid nor thought that God, by the Goſpel, Speaks generally to all Men without exception, believe and you ſhall live; I publiſhed the contrary to the world in that very book, which this brother now writes againſt. See Apol. pag. 200. But if I were of that Opinion, I ſhould from it infer the quite contrary to that which you infer, and ſhould ſay. [Now from this Opinion (if it be true) there will naturally ſpring this other Truth, that all Men generally without exception, have heard the Goſpel, and that there is ſuch a Perſon as Chriſt, and ſuch a Religion as that called Chriſtian.] In ſhort you know well enough that in my Judgment, God hath not Promulgated the Goſpel to all Men in the World, even to the most barbarous Nations, by ſpeaking univerſally to them all, and ſaying, that if they do all Believe in Christ they ſhall be ſaved. And that therefore many are invincibly and inculpably ignorant of Chriſt, and of the Goſpel, becauſe God hath no ways Revealed Chriſt and his Goſpel to them unto this day; nor doth he either by Precept Command them, or by Promiſe Encourage them, to Believe in Chriſt. This is commonly called a Negative Infidelity, which is no Sin in the Barbarous Nations, which are moſt invincibly ignorant of Chriſt, and are under no obligation to Believe in him, becauſe the Goſpel-Law or Covenant of Grace, which can only be known by Supernatural Revelation, is not at all Revealed and made known to them; but they are guilty of groſs Idolatry, and other enormous Sins againſt the Light and Law of Nature, for which they are juſtly Condemned, Rom. 2.12.

And this ſhews that my R. Brothers ſecond amazing abſurdity, doth not concern me; for whether it do, or do not naturally ſpring from God's ſpeaking generally to all Men, without exception, and ſaying, Believe in Chriſt and you ſhall Live; It doth not touch me, and the Cauſe which I maintain, for theſe two plain Reaſons. Firſt, Becauſe I do utterly deny the Antecedent, from which it is ſaid naturally to ſpring. I deny that God by the Goſpel ſpeaks generally to all the Men in the World without exception of the moſt barbarous Nations, and Commands them all to Believe in Chriſt, with a Promiſe of Life, if they do Believe in him. Secondly, For the conſequent, which is ſaid to ſpring naturally from the ſaid Antecedent, I diſown it alſo, to wit, That God contrary to his Wiſdom and Goodneſs promiſes Pardon to all Men, upon the impoſſible condition of Believing in Chriſt by their meer Natural Powers. I am ſo far from ſaying this, that on the contrary, I ſay there may be many Millions of Men in the World, who cannot Believe in Chriſt by their meer Natural Powers, to whom God doth not Promiſe Pardon of Sin upon the impoſſible condition of Believing in Chriſt by their meer Natural Powers. And hence it plainly appears, that by my Principle I am under no obligation, either on the one hand to join with my R. Brother in denying that the Goſpel Covenant, or Law of Grace, hath any Conditional Promiſes; or on the other hand to joyn with the Arminians, in affirming that there is an univerſal ſufficient Grace, i. e. as Mr. G. expreſſes it, That all Men have ſufficient means afforded them to Believe in Chriſt, and that God gives help enough to enable them to Believe if they will, and whenever themſelves pleaſe. I thank God, I can by my Principle walk ſafely in the middle way between theſe two Extreams, and not incidere in Scyllam, cupiens virare Charybdin. And I think it had become Mr. G. to have been more modeſt than to have paſt ſuch a Cenſure upon p. 129our moſt able and judicious Divines, who have maintained that the Goſpel hath Conditional Promiſes, as that they could not defend the Truth againſt the Arminians; but upon their Principle, that the Goſpel hath Conditional Promiſes, they ought all to have turned Arminians. For this is in effect, to ſay, That Whitaker, Ames, Twiſs, our Britiſh Divines of the Synod of Dort, Rutherford, Rivet, Spanhem, Turretin, Iſaac Junius, Triglandius, Pool, and innumerable more, who held, that the Goſpel hath Conditional Promiſes; were all blind and did not ſee the miſchievous Conſequence of their opinions; which Conſequence if they had followed, they themſelves muſt all have turned Arminians; and therefore neither did nor could rightly confute the Arminian errors; but young Mr. Goodwin is the Man that is above them all inlightned to ſee that the Goſpel hath no conditional promiſes, and by that means he is qualified to be our Champion againſt thoſe Hereticks who were too hard for the Synod of Dort, for Ames, Twiſs, Rutherford, Spanhem, Durham, &c. Becauſe theſe old weak Men were fond of one Arminian opinion (to wit, that the Goſpel hath conditional promiſes) which hath an inſeperable Connexion with the whole Arminian Syſtem.

Diſc. pag. 58. Obj. 3. Thirdly, he argues thus againſt the Goſpel's having conditional promiſes. The Scriptures urged by my Reverend Brother, do not ſignify that God paſſed his word to all Men, by a new Law establiſhed amongſt them, that if they obey it, and believe and repent, they ſhall aſſuredly be ſaved: For God always ſpeaks the purpoſes of his mind and none of his words contradict his heart, but he never decreed, either abſolutely or conditionally, that all Men ſhould be Eternally ſaved. I Anſwer, that my R. Brother's objection as here ſet down in his own expreſs words, doth not at all reach me, nor make againſt the truth which I defend. For I never ſaid that God hath paſſed his word to all Men, by a new Law eſtabliſhed amongst them, that if they obey it, and believe and repent, they ſhall aſſuredly be ſaved. I am ſo far from ſaying this, that in effect I have plainly ſaid the contrary in the Apol. pag. 200. l. 21.22, 23, 24, 25. There my expreſs formal words are that there are Heathens who never heard, nor could hear of the Goſpel for want of an objective Revelation of it. Now by theſe words I certainly meant, and do ſtill mean to ſignify to the world, that God hath not paſſed his word to all Men, even to the moſt Barbarous Nations, by a new Law of Grace, i. e. by the Goſpel eſtabliſhed among them, That if they obey the Goſpel and believe in Chriſt, they ſhall aſſuredly be ſaved. This objection then I might diſmiſs as impertinent and not militating againſt me, who am not ſuch an Ʋniverſaliſt as Mr. G. would make people believe that I am, tho I have declared the contrary; and any body would think that I ſhould know mine own mind better than another Man, eſpecially Man who knows not my principles but by my book; unleſs he ſuffers himſelf to be impoſed upon by believing the falſe reports of his good Friend. I hope that for the future my R. B. will be ſo juſt, as to take the meaſure of my principles from my Printed Books, and not from the reports of the Accuſer. But it may be, my R. brother will ſay that tho I be no ſuch an Univerſaliſt, yet it is certain that I hold that the Goſpel hath conditional promiſes, and that the conditional promiſes are to the whole viſible Church, even to the non-elect to whom the Goſpel is Preached. To which I ſay again, that it is true and moſt certain that ſuch is my Judgment, and I am not ſingular in it, for as I ſhewed in the Apology, it is the Common Doctrine of the reformed Churches and Divines. Mr. Rutherford ſaith, [If the former ſenſe be intended (as how can it p. 130be denied)? The word of the Covenant is Preached to you, an offer of Chriſt is made in the Preached Goſpel to you. **Covenant of Life opened. part. 1. Chap. 13. pag. 87.88.Then it cannot be denied, but the promiſe is to all the Reprobate in the viſible Church, whether they believe or not, for Christ is Preached, and promiſes of the Covenant are Preached to Simon Magus, to Judas and all the Hypocrites who ſtumble at the word, to all the Phariſees, as is clear, Mat. 13.20, 21, 22, 23. Act. 13.44, 45, 46. Act. 18.5, 6. Mat. 21.43. 1 Pet. 2.7, 8.] And again, a little after in the ſame book, pag. 90. he ſaith that [promiſes are as properly made to profeſſors within the viſible Church, Act. 2.39. As Commands, and threatnings, exhortations, invitations, and Goſpel-requests are made to them. But tho the Anabaptiſts ignorantly confound the promiſe and the thing promiſed; the Covenant, and Benefits Covenanted: The promiſe is to you, and ſo are the commands and threatnings, whether ye believe or not, &c.] And pag. 94. of the ſame book, his formal expreſs words are as followeth. [It is not inconvenient that the reprobate in the viſible Church, be ſo under the Covenant of Grace, as ſome promiſes are made to them, and ſome mercies promiſed to them conditionally, and ſome reſerved ſpecial promiſes of a new beart, and of perſeverance belong not to them. For all the promiſes belong not the ſame way, to the parties viſibly, and externally, and to the parties internally and perſonally in Covenant with God. So the Lord promiſeth Life and Forgiveneſs ſhall be given to theſe who are Externally in the Covenant, providing they believe, but the Lord promiſeth not a new heart and grace to believe, to theſe that are only Externally in Covenant. And he promiſeth both to the Elect.] Thus Mr. Rutherford. Zanchy whom my R. brother doth highly Commend, was certainly of the ſame Judgment, witneſs his own expreſs words. ††Reſpondeo deum vocare etiam reprobos, et mandare ut ad ſe veniant, Salutemque illis promittere, ſi velint in Chriſtum credere, manifeſtum eſt, omnes enim vocat per verbum, et omnibus vitam promittit aeternam, modo in Chriſtum velint credere atque haec eſt voluntas conditionalis.—reprobos vero non illudi, cum a domino vocantur, manifeſtum tiam oſt, &c. Zanch. depulſ. calumn. de predeſt. not. 16. T. 7. pag. 254.[I Anſwer, (ſaith Zanchy) that God calls even the Reprobate, and Commands them to come unto him, and promiſes them ſalvation, if they will believe in Christ, it is manifeſt. For he calls all by the word, promiſes unto all Eternal Life, provided that they will believe in Christ and this is his conditional will.—It is manifeſt alſo that the reprobates are not mocked, nor deluded, when they are called by the Lord, &c.] I ſhould never have done, if I ſhould quote all our Proteſtant Divines, who are of this Judgment, I muſt therefore forbear to cite any more of them at preſent, and refer to the Apology, eſpecially in pag. 114.

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

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

Obj. 4. I will ſuppoſe then, that ſome ingenious brother may demand, if this be true that God hath promiſed in the Goſpel, pardon and ſalvation unto the non…elect who hear the glad tydings of the Goſpel, upon condition of Faith and Repentance; will it not hence clearly follow, that there is a conditional will in God, that God's will depends on ſomething without it ſelf, in the Creature, and that it hangs in ſuſpence untill the condition be performed, or not performed. The reaſon of the Conſequence is becauſe every conditional p. 133Promiſe ſignifies and teſtifies that the Promiſer doth will and purpoſe to give the Benefit promiſed, if the Condition required be performed; otherwiſe the Promiſe would be falſe, deceitful, and deluſive, which the Promiſe of the God of Truth cannot poſſibly be. But there cannot be a Conditional Will in God, nor can his Will depend upon any thing, nor hang in ſuſpence at all; Therefore it ſeems God cannot make any conditional Promiſe unto the Non-Elect, who hear the glad Tidings of the Goſpel, that they ſhall be Pardoned and Saved if they Believe and Repent. This is the Argument, whereunto I Anſwer, (1.) That whoever looks narrowly into this Argument, may eaſily and plainly ſee, that it muſt needs be Sophiſtical and Fallacious, becauſe (as was ſaid before) either it proves nothing, or it proves too muth, to wit, that God could not, in the firſt Covenant or Law of Works, promiſe the continuance of Life unto Adam (and in him to his Poſterity) in the State of Innocency, upon Condition of Perſonal, perfect, and ever Sinleſs Obedience. But that is certainly falſe; and contrary to the Judgment of all Divines, even of Mr. G. himſelf, for they all hold, as well as I, that the firſt Covenant was Conditional, and that God, before the Fall, promiſed unto Adam Immunity from Death, and Eternal Life, on condition of perfect and ever Sinleſs Obedience. We are then all alike concerned to anſwer the aforeſaid Sophiſm taken from the Inconditionality and Independen…y of God's Will. (2.) I Anſwer, That it is great weakneſs, and a degree of Infidelity, to disbelieve and deny that which God hath clearly Revealed in his Holy Word, becauſe do not clearly perceive the way and manner, how God Wills one thing to be, upon condition of another thing's being. What though we ſhould never know the way and manner, how God conditionally Wills the things which he hath Conditionally Promiſed? Is it a wiſe courſe (think ye) to disbelieve and deny the Being of Conditional Promiſes, and God's willing the things Promiſed conditionally, (both which he hath clearly Revealed) becauſe he hath not Revealed, and therefore we do not know the way and manner of his willing things conditionally? It were eaſily to prove, that to disbelieve and deny things clearly Revealed, becauſe we do not clearly underſtand God's (modus volendi) way and manner of willing, which is not Revealed, is the ready way to make all the world turn Infidels or Deiſts: To prevent which, let us all follow the Wiſe Counſel of Calvin, which he gives in theſe following Words. [ **Saepe in ſcriptis meis admoneo nihil hic melius eſſe docta ignorantia; quia Phreneticorum inſtar delirant, qui plus ſibi permittunt ſapere quam parſit. Jam vides ut mihi certa ſit illa Dei voluntas, cujus teſtes ſunt ſcripturae; cur fieri hoc vel illus Deus velit, & quo modo velit, ne Angelicae quidem mentes in ſolidum capiunt. Calvin. … ponſ. ad Calumnias Nebulonis de occulta Dei Providentia, pag. 641.I often in my Writings put Men in mind, that nothing here is better than a learned Ignorance; becauſe they rave like Mad-Men, who adventure, or take upon them to be more wiſe, and to know more than is meet: Now thou ſeeſt how that Will of God, to which the Scriptures bear Teſtimony, is certainly known to me; and yet the ſame Will is ſecret and hid from me; becauſe the underſtanding of the very Angels doth not fully know and comprehend, why God Wills this or that to be, and how he Wills it.] By which Words Calvin gives us to underſtand, that if we would act like reaſonable Men, we ſhould firmly Believe whatever God hath in the Scriptures Revealed to be, although we do not underſtand the way and manner of his willing it to be. But now if you ſay, doth it appear indeed, that God hath Revealed in the Scriptures, that he hath made Conditional Promiſes to all in the viſible Church? I anſwer, Yes, It doth appear p. 134very plainly, as hath been ſhewed already. For, (1.) To all in the viſible Church, who hear the Goſpel Preached, the Conditional Promiſes are general without exception; witneſs, Mark 16.15, 16. Acts 2.21. Rev. 22.17. and John 6.40. Theſe Conditional Promiſes could not be more generally and univerſally expreſſed, and therefore they belong to all Men that hear them, upon the ſame condition of Faith, and Calling upon the Name of the Lord. Accordingly, the Church of England in her 17th Article, (which we have all ſubſcribed) ſaith, that as a Remedy againſt the Abuſe of the Doctrine of Predeſtination, and to prevent Deſperation, We muſt receive God's Promiſes in ſuch Wiſe, as they be generally ſet forth in Holy Scripture.

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

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

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

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

(3.) Thirdly, I anſwer, That however formidable this Objection may be in ſome Men's Apprehenſions, yet to me it appears to be a Sophiſm, which is capable of an eaſie and fair Solution: And in order to the ſolving of it, I diſtinguiſh between God's Will conſidered abſolutely, and entitatively in it ſelf, and as it were ſubjectively; and conſidered reſpectively, and terminatively unto the things Willed, or conſidered objectively. Now when we conſider God's Will the firſt way, when we conſider God's Will abſolutely in it ſelf, and (if we may ſo ſay) as it is ſubjectively in God, or rather as it is God: It is freely confeſſed, that it is not Conditional, that it doth not depend on p. 135any thing, nor hang in ſuſpence at all. For God's Will ſo conſidered, is not diſtinct from his Nature, but is really himſelf: And it is most certain, that God is not Conditional, that he is not Dependent on any thing, nor doth he at all hang in ſuſpence, as if he were doubtful what to do. But if we conſider the reſpect which God's Will hath unto the things Willed, and its termination upon the things Willed; as alſo if we conſider the object of God's Will, or the things Willed, as one part of the intire object, or one of the things Willed, hath a relation unto the other; ſo God's Will may very well be denominated Conditional, that is, God's Will, which in it ſelf, and as it is ſubjectively in God, (or rather to ſpeak properly and ſtrictly the ſame with God) is moſt abſolute, independent, and determinate; may be ſaid to be reſpectively, terminatively, and objectively Conditional: For this is no more but to ſay, that the reſpect of God's Will unto, and it's termination upon the things Willed, is Conditional; or that the object as it hath reſpect unto God's Will, and as it is the term of God's Will, is Conditional. And this may very well be, and yet God's Will in it ſelf is not Conditional, but moſt abſolute and independent. For the reſpect of God's Will unto, and the termination of his Will upon its object; and the object as reſpecting and terminating God's Will, are really diſtinct from his Will. God's Will remains the ſame, abſolute and independent in it ſelf, though it be many ſeveral ways related to, and terminated upon its objects; and though ſeveral Denominations be given unto it upon that account. Let this diſtinction be applied unto the Objection, and the Sophiſtry of it preſently appears. For (1.) from God's promiſing Salvation unto any Elect or Non-Elect, upon condition of Faith, it follows indeed, that God's promiſſory Will is Conditional, to give them Pardon and Salvation, if they Believe, and ſo perform the Condition: But pray conſider, How is it Conditional? Is it conditionally in it ſelf ſubjectively, or rather entitatively conſidered, ſo as to be dependent and hang in ſuſpence? No ſuch matter, nor doth any ſuch thing follow from God's making Conditional Promiſes. It is only Conditional, reſpectively, terminatively, and objectively; and that is all which follows from God's making Conditional Promiſes, and willing the things promiſed Conditionally. The Lord our God, with an abſolute independent Will, doth Will, that if Men truly Believe and Repent, they ſhall be Pardoned and Saved, whoſoever they be; but not Pardoned and Saved if they do not Believe and Repent. (2.) We apply the ſame diſtinction to the minor or ſecond Propoſition of the Objection, and grant that there cannot be a Conditional Will in God, that is, a Will in it ſelf and ſubjectively, or entitatively Conditional, and ſo as to be in it ſelf dependent, and to hang in ſuſpence: But then we utterly deny that the Will of God, which is abſolute, independent, and determinate it it ſelf, cannot be reſpectively, terminatively, and objectively Conditional in the Sence before explained. This diſtinction was approved and uſed by Dr. Ames, (as I ſhewed in the Apology, p. 105, 106.) and by our Brittiſh Divines in the Synod of Dort, as from their Collegiate Suffrage, I proved in the Apology, p. 114. So did Dr. Twiſs approve it; witneſs what he writes againſt Corvinus. His words are, [ **Neque enim negamus decreta Dei quoad res volitas dici poſſe conditionata: quatenus ſcilicet, neque vita aeterna niſi ſub conditione fidei conferenda ſit, &c. In Corvin. Defenſ. Arminii contra Tilen, p. 355.For neither do we deny but that the Decrees of God may be called Conditional, in reſpect of the things Willed; to wit, as neither eternal Life is to be given but upon Condition of Faith, &c.] p. 136The like he hath in his Engliſh Books, both againſt Hoard and other Arminians, and alſo againſt Mr. Cotton. And as this diſtinction is approved by thoſe great Divines, ſo is it by all other Learned Men, that I know, who rightly underſtand theſe Matters. See Ainſworth's Cenſure upon the Anabaptiſts Dialogue, &c. p. 10. where he ſaith, [God's Will always lays no ſuch neceſſity; ſeeing he Willeth ſome things Conditionally, which are not effected unleſs the Condition be obſerved: as he would a Sinner's Life, not Death, Conditionally if he return to God, he would the deſtruction of Niniveh; but Conditionally, except they Repented; other things God Willeth abſolutely, and thoſe muſt needs come to paſs: For none reſiſt, or hinder his abſolute Will, Iſa. 46.10, 11. Job. 23.13. Pſal. 33.10, 11.] So much ſufficeth for Anſwer to the fourth grand Objection

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

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

(3.) I Anſwer that what Mr. G. ſuppoſes to ſtrengthen his Arminian Objection is manifeſtly falſe; to wit that God always Commands the non-elect in the viſible Church to believe by their Meer natural powers without any help, ſince he will not ſo much as put forth his finger to help them. I ſay this is falſe, becauſe (1.) It is contrary to Scripture, which ſaith, that Gods Spirit ſhall not always ſtrive with ſuch Men, Gen. 6.3. According to our Tranſlation, and that plainly implies that for a time God's Spirit doth ſtrive with them; and I ſuppoſe it will not be ſaid that God's Spirit ſtrives with them to hinder them, but rather to help them. So in Prov. 1.23. The wiſdom of God ſaith to ſuch Men, turn ye at my reproof: Behold I will pour out my Spirit unto you, and I will make known my words unto you. Here is not only a Command to turn unto God, but a promiſe alſo of ſome help to enable them to turn. And then it follows immediately in the 24. verſe, becauſe I have called, and ye refuſed, I have ſtretched out my hand, and no Man regarded, &c. In which words the Lord himſelf ſaith, that he ſtretches out his hand to ſuch Men; but p. 139Maſter Goodwin ſaith that the Lord will not ſo much as put out his finger to help them; for he compares the Lord in this matter, to a mercileſs Man who offers food to a poor wretch ſtarving in a Dungeon with all his Limbs broken, on condition that he …ome up and receive it, and yet he refuſes to put forth a finger to give him the leaſt liſt. Thus Mr. G. repreſents God to the world upon the Principles of the Calviniſts whereas God in the Scriptures of truth repreſents himſelf the quite contrary way, ſaying that he is ſo far from not putting forth his finger, that he ſtretches out his hand to ſuch Men, Prov. 1.24. Yea that he not only ſtretches out one hand, but that he ſtretches out both hands to them. As it is written, Rom. 10.21. To Iſrael he ſaith, All day long I have ſtretched forth my hands unto a diſobedient and gain-ſaying People, See alſo Mat. 25. v. 14.15, 26, 27, 28, 29. Luk. 19. v. 12.13, 22, 23. &c. (2.) As God thus repreſents himſelf, ſo doth Calvin and thoſe Divines called Calvinists. Witneſs (1.) The words of Calvin on John 12.47. Where to the queſtion (our ergo damnare eos Chriſtus non vult?) Wherefore then will not Chriſt Condemn them? He Anſwers, [ **Nempe hic depoſita ad tempus judicis perſona, quo plus animi omnes habeant ad reſipiſcentiam, ſalutem promiſcue omnibus offert, et brachia ſua ad omnes amplexandos oſtendit. Calvin Johan. 12.47.That Chriſt having here for a time put off the perſon of a Judge; that all Men might be the more encouraged to repentance, he offers ſalvation promiſcuouſly to all, and ſhews his Arms stretched out to Embrace all. Witneſs alſo his words, to this purpoſe, in his Book againſt Pighius, ††Quam ob rem ſic intelligi neceſſe eſt, illud Ezekielis 18.23. and 33.11. nolle deum mortem morientis, ſed ut revertatur et vivat, ſicut et Aguſtinus multis locis differuit, nihil deum omittere, quod ad reducendos in ſalutis viam homines pertineat ſi modo ſani ferent: quod autem non redeant vocati, ipſis non aliud quam pravitatis propriae morbum obſtare. Vult ergo Deus morientem vivere, ſicut, ejus voluntatem nobis aeſtimare fas eſt, omnibas ſcilicet adminiculis hominem ipſum adjuvando: ne quid ſibi obſtitiſſe, quam propriam culpam cauſari queat. Manet tamen interea Deo arcanum ſuum conſilium, quo hunc praeterit, illum eligit: de quo ne curioſius veſtiget, qui non vult opprimi a gloria. Hoc ſi caperet Pighius, falſum illud de aequali gratiae diſpenſatione Principium, non ita mordicus teneret. Calvin. contra Pigh. lib. 5. de lib. arb. Pag. 165. edit. ult. Amſtel. 1667.Wherefore that of Ezek. 18.23. and 33.11. God wills not the Death, or hath not pleaſure in the Death of him that dieth, but that he return and Live; muſt of neceſſity be ſo understood (as Auſtin alſo hath diſcourſed in many places) that God omits to do nothing which might ſerve to reduce Men into the way of ſalvation, if they were in a right and ſound Diſpoſition of mind: But that they do not return when they are called, no other thing hinders them, but the diſeaſe of their own depravedneſs. God therefore wills that he who dies ſhould live (as it is lawful for us, to Judge of his will) to wit, by aſſiſting, or furthering the Man with all helps; that he may not be able to alledge for his excuſe, that any thing but his own fault or ſin, did hinder him. Yet at the ſame time, God's ſecret Counſel whereby he paſſeth by this Man, and chooſeth that, remains unchangeable. After which ſecret Counſel of God, let no Man curiouſly ſearch, who will not be over-whelmed with the Glory. If Pighius underſtood this, he would not ſo ſtiffly hold that falſe Principle concerning the equal diſpenſation of Grace.] A moſt excellent paſſage of the judicious Calvin, which being compared with the former, ſhews his Judgment to have been that God promiſeth ſalvation to all in the viſible Church upon condition of Faith and Repentance, and that he doth not leave them to perform the condition by their meer natural powers, without any help at all; but that he doth ſo far p. 140(adjuvare omnibus adminiculis) aſſiſt and further them with all helps, that they cannot truly ſay that any thing but their own ſin did hinder them from performing the ſaid condition. And as Calvin did thus repreſent God, much otherwiſe than Mr. G. doth, ſo have his followers done; they have given a more lovely repreſentation of the infinitely good and righteous, holy God than he here doth. Witneſs (2dly) (Iſaac Junius who by order of his Superiors wrote an Anſwer to Epiſcopius his Apol. for the Remonſtrants, but died before he had finiſhed it. His words are, [ **An quis noſtrum dixit (co quo Apologiſta detorquet ſe…ſu) neminem poſſe plus boni facere quam facit, nec plus mali omittere, quam omittit? Abſit ab omni pio tancruda ſententia. Britanni, bona & laudata pars Synodi Nationalis, in ſuo judicio ad Art. 3. Theſi haeterodoxa quarta, expreſſe rejiciunt hanc Poſitionem: Homin…m non poſſe plus boni facere, quam facit, nec plus mali omittere quam omittit. Falſa ſunt haec, inquiunt, & abſurda, ſive de homine irregenito & animali intelligantur, five etiam de renato & gratia ſanctificante ſuffulto. Iſaacus Ju…s in Antapologia, five animadverſ. in 16. Priora Cap Apologiae Remonſtr. Pag. 16.Did any of us ſay (in that wreſted ſenſe of the Apologiſt) that no Man can do more good than he doth, nor omit more Evil than he omits? Let ſuch a crude opinion be far from every pious Man. The Brittiſh Divines, who were a good and laudable part of the national Synod of Dort, in their Judgment upon the third Article, and 4th Heterodox poſition, expreſsly reject this poſition, that a Man cannot do more good than he doth, nor omit, more Evil than he omits. Theſe aſſertions (ſay they) are falſe and abſurd, whethey they be underſtood of an unregenerate and natural Man, or of a Man that is regenerate and indued with ſanctifying Grace.] Again the ſame Author afterwards in the ſame book ſaith, [ ††Quis noſtrum aſſeruit vocatos non-electes excludi a morte Chriſti nulla propria ant vincibili ſua culpa? item vocatos non-electos non tantum excludi C…elo, & praecipitari in aeternos tartari cruciatus nulla propria vincibili eorum culpa, ſed praeterea crudelit… illudi mandatis Evangelicis. Nugae: ipſae mox allat…e definitiones reprobationis ſatis ſuper… que purgant noſtrum dogma, & docent nihil hujuſmodi ſequi ex inſitis noſtri dogmatis… ſed revera Coelum inferis miſceri ab iis qui ſtatuunt gratiam quam diſpenſat Deus ſecundum propoſitum, eſſe omnibus ex aequo communem. Idem ibid. Pag. 194.Which of us hath aſſerted that the called non-elect are excluded from the benefit of Chriſt's Death for no proper or vincible fault of their own… Likewiſe that the called non-elect are not only ſhut out of Heaven and caſt down into the Eternal torments of Hell, for no proper fault of their own which they could overcome, or free themſelves from; but moreover that they are cruelly mocked by the Commands of the Goſpel [with the promiſes Annexed to them], Theſe are all fictions of the Remonſtrants. The newly mentioned Definitions of Reprobation do ſufficiently, and more than ſufficiently clear our Doctrine, and teach that no ſuch thing doth follow from any thing in our Doctrine: But that in truth Heaven and Hell are confounded by thoſe who hold, that the Grace which God diſpenſes according to his purpoſe is equally common to all.] And ſome pages before, Junius had ſaid, [ **Non negamus vocatis gratiam offerri, & ut ſaepius conferri communiter, ſed negamus iis conferri eam gratiam quae potenter to…it omne impedimentum, & hominem infallibiliter Chriſto inſerit. Conſequenter ex inſitis ſui oſtendit noſtra ſententia meritoriam cauſam condemnationis in iis, qui tenebras preferunt luci Evangelicae. Id. ibid. P. 188.We deny not but that Grace is offered to the called nonelect, and often common grace is given them; but we deny that that grace is given them, which powerfully takes away all impediment, and infallibly unites Man unto Chriſt. Conſequently our Doctrine, from its own intrinſecal principles ſhews, that the Meritorious cauſe of Condemnation is in thoſe who prefer Darkneſs, before the p. 141light of the Goſpel.] Thus that Learned Man repreſented God as one that by his grace, gives ſome help even to the non-elect in the viſible Church; and utterly denies that God cruelly mocks them by his Commands or conditional promiſes. ††Nemo di…it aeternam ſalutem paucioribus ſerio promitti, quam foris offerri: quibus offertur …s ſerio promittitur ſi praeſtent conditiones pactas & conventa… i. e. ſi reſipiſcant & credant Evangelio. Id. ibid. Pag. 17.No Man ſaith (quoth Junius) that Eternal ſalvation is ſeriouſly promiſed to fewer than it is outwardly offered unto. To whom it is offered to them it is ſeriouſly promiſed, if they perform the conditions required by the Covenant, that is, if they repent and believe the Goſpel.]

The other Perſon appointed by publick Authority to Anſwer Epiſcopius his Apology, was Triglandius, who wrote a large Anſwer to the whole of it: In which Anſwer he ſaith, **Deus ſecundum hunc Magiſtrum deſinet eſſe Author omnis boni, praeſertim ſpiritualis, fi homini praeſcribat conditiones fidei & obedientiae: vel fi author ſit omnis iſtius boni, non licebit ipſi tales conditiones homini praeſcibere: ita incompatibilia ſunt Magiſtro huic, Deum eſſe & authorem omnis boni ſpiritualis in homine, & Dominum Lommi… ut creaturae rationalis, cui poſſet conditiones fidei & obedientiae praeſcriber…. Qu…nam, quaeſo, magis inculcat ſacra Scriptura, quam haec duo, &c. Trigland. Examin. Apolog. Remonſtr. Cap. 18. Pag. 277.God according to this Maſter (Epiſcopius) ſhall ceaſe to be Author of all, eſpecially of Spiritual Good, if he preſcribe unto Man the Conditi…ns of Faith and Obedience; or if he be the Author of all that Good, it ſhall not be lawful for him, to preſcribe unto Man ſuch Conditions: So inconſiſtent in the Opinion of this Master (Epiſcopius) are theſe things, for God to be both the Author of all Spiritual Good in Man, and alſo to be Lord of Man as a Rational Creature, unto whom he can preſcribe the Conditions of Faith and Obedience: But I pray, (ſaith Triglandius) What things are they which Holy Scripture doth more inculcate, than theſe two? &c. The ſame Author afterwards in the ſame Book, Chap. 30. p. 416. ſaith, That Epiſcopius ought to have conſidered, (aliam eſſe rationem coecitatis moralis, aliam mere Phyſicae) that Moral Blindneſs is of a different nature, from meerly Phyſical Blindneſs: For in Moral Blindneſs there is an averſion from Light; for it delights in darkneſs and hates light, John 3.20. It gives it ſelf out for the moſt ſharp ſight, and obtrudes its own Folly for the higheſt Wiſdom. Hence he who labours under it, doth not deſire ſight to be reſtored to him, ſo far is he from it, that he moſt vehemently hates the Man who endeavours' to bring him to a participation of the light; and for this cauſe he cannot be delivered from his Blindneſs; and therefore Chriſt ſaid unto the blind Phariſees, John 9.41. If ye were Blind, ye ſhould have no Sin; but now ye ſay, we ſee; therefore your Sin remaineth: But they who labour under a meer Natural Blindneſs, deplore and bewail their Blindneſs, and deſire, if it could be, to be delivered from it. Thus Triglandius ſhows the difference between Moral and Natural Blindneſs; and there he ſhews alſo how ſuch Men might be Cured of this Moral Blindneſs, that it is their own fault that they are not Cured; and that there is no right arguing from Natural Blindneſs, which is involuntary and inculpable, to excuſe Moral Blindneſs, which is voluntary and ſinful. Again, in the following Chap. 31. p. 421, 422. he grants, that unto the Non-Elect, and called in the viſible Church, there is given Grace in ſome reſpect ſufficient. [ ††Anon hic gratia ſufficiens? quid ergo cauſae. quod non omnes convertantur & credant? Nihil (dico) praeter faſtum & arrogantiam humanam qu…e non per… ſub…gi, &c. Id. ibid. Cap. 31. Pag. 421.Is there not p. 142here ſufficient Grace? (ſaith Triglandius) What is the cauſe then that all are not Converted, and do not Believe? There is no cauſe, I ſay, quoth Triglandius) beſides Man's Pride and Arrogance, which doth not ſuffer it ſelf to be ſubdued, &c. and then Epiſcopius having objected, That no Man in his wits would ſay, that ſufficient Grace is given to a Man bound in Chains for his Sin) to go out of Priſon; becauſe the Priſon Doors are opened, and he is again and again exhorted with Prayers and Tears to go out; ſo long as the Chains wherewith he is bound are not taken off him. Triglandius Anſwers the Objection in theſe words following.

**Reſp. 1. Male comparantur externa illa cum interni…, violenta cum voluntariis, ingrata & horrenda cum gratis & delectabilibus. (2.) Conſtrictus ille agnoſceret quidem grato animo apertionem carceris, ſed conquereretur ſe adhuc numellis & pedicis alligatum eſſe, peteretque obnixe ea ſolvi: ſed qui vocationem rejiciunt, agnoſcere nolunt captivitatem & ſervitutem ſuam; imo nihil illis fit aegrius quam ut moneantur eam agnoſcere; arroganter enim multa ſibi perſuadent praetenduntque de Libertate ſua. Quis ſanus dixerit tales eſſe ſolvendos, vel oportere eos ſolvi, aut alias injuriam eis fieri, ſi non ſolvantur? (3.) Arrogantia, pravitate malorum affectuum ſuorum, ſervitio ſuo…hi d…lectantur; atque haec ipſ… praecipua cauſa eſt (ut jam dictum) ob quam non Liberantur. 4. Agnoſcant iſtam ſuam miſeriam, captivitatem, ſervitutem, ac petant ſubmiſſe Liberationem, & Liberabuntur, abſque dubio. Vid. Pſal. 116. & 142. Iſa. 55.1, 2, 3. & 61. v. 1, 2, 3. & 66. 2. Mat. 11.28, &c. Id. ibid. Cap. 31. Pag. 422.Ps 116Isa 55:1Isa 55:2Isa 55:3Isa 61:1Isa 61:2Isa 61:3Isa 66:2Matt 11:28Anſ. 1. Thoſe external, violent, unpleaſant, and abhorred things, are not rightly compared with things that are internal, voluntary, pleaſant and delectable. 2. That Manbound with Chains, would indeed thankfully acknowledge the favour of opening to him the Priſon Doors; but would complain that he is ſtill bound in Chains and Fetters, and would earnestly pray that they might be looſed; whereas they who reject God's call, will not acknowledge their Bondage and Slavery; yea, nothing vexes them more, than that they are admoniſhed and adviſed to acknowledge it: For they arrogantly perſuade themſelves, and pretend many things concerning their own Liberty and Free Will. What Man of ſound Judgment would ſay, that ſuch Perſons are to be looſed, or that it behoveth them to be looſed, or otherwiſe there is wrong done them if they be not looſed. 3. Theſe Men delight in their Pride, and the pravity of their evil Affections, and in their Servitude; and (as was ſaid) this is the chief cauſe why they are not delivered and ſet at Liberty. 4. Let them acknowledge this their Miſery, Captivity and Bondage, and humbly beg Deliverance, and without doubt they ſhall be delivered and ſet at liberty. See Pſal. 116. & 142. Iſaiah 55.1, 2, 3. & 61. v. 1, 2, 3. and 66.2. Matth. 11.28, &c.] Thus Triglandius, whom no Man ever ſuſpected of favouring the Arminians. My laſt witneſs in this matter, is, the learned and acute Dr. Ames, who writes thus againſt the Arminians: [ ††Beneficia quaedam in ſuo genere ſalutaria in omnes vocatos conferuntur a Chriſto. (4.) Salus ipſa quatenus offertur ipſis, & ea Lege exhibetur ut ea non priventur, niſi propria ſua culpa, tantum habet ex ratione beneficii reſpectu ipſorum, quantum ſufficit ad ingratitudinem eorum arguendam. Ameſ. in Anti-Synodal. ſcriptis editis Amſtel. An. 1633. Pag. 221, 222. N. 8. Refut. 3.Some Benefits, ſaving in their kind, are given by Chriſt unto all that are called. 4. Salvation it ſelf, as it is offered unto them, and is held forth on that condition, that they ſhall not be deprived of it, but for their own Sin, hath ſo much of the nature of a Benefit with reſpect to them, as is ſufficient to prove them guilty of Ingratitude. Again in the ſame Book: [ **Accedit etiam illud, quod multis ex hoc Populo collata fuit illa gratia, ut obedientiam aliquam praeſtierint, & majorem praeſtare potuerint; neque quenquam ipſorum rebellium, in tantum obediviſſe, in quantum potuit obedire, vel majorem potentiam quaeſiviſſe, aut defectum ejus doluiſſe. Idem ibid. in animadverſ. ſuper Art. 3, & 4. cap. 3. de vinea Domini Jſai. 5. Theſ. 4. Pag 280. Refut. 3.Isa 5This alſo is to be added, p. 143that unto many of that People ſuch Grace was given that they performed ſome Obedience, and had power to have performed more; and that none of the very Rebels did ſo far obey as he was able; or ſought more Power from God, or was ſorry for the want of it.] And again a little after he writes thus; [ **Potuerunt iſti gratiam aliquam accepiſſe ut poſſent obedire, ſine gratia abſolate & immediate ſufficiente ad obedientiam praeſtandam. Ibid. Pag. 283.They might have received ſome Grace that they might have a power to obey, without Grace abſolutely and immediately ſufficient unto the Act of Obedience.] Again he ſays, [ ††Omnes illi potentiam aut gratiam non habent abſolute ac immediate ſufficientem ad converſionem qui poſſunt propius accedere ad converſionem quam adhuc acceſſerunt. Ib. Cap. 4. P. 301.All th…ſe have not Power or Grace abſolutely and immediately ſufficient to Converſion, who have power to come nearer to Converſion than yet they have done.] In fine, Dr. Ames anſwers the Argument in which the Arminians ſeem to triumph, that if God did put forth ſuch an inſuperable power in Man's Converſion, that he could not chooſe but be then Converted, it would follow that no more could be Converted, than are actually or ſhall be actually converted. 2. That no Man could be Converted one minute ſooner, than he is Converted. I ſay, Dr. Ames Anſwers this Arminian Argument by denying the conſequence; and on the contrary, he affirms, that in a ſound Sence it may be ſaid, it is poſſible that more be Converted, and ſome ſo…ner: For there is both a Paſſive Power in Men to be Converted, and an Active Power in God to Convert them, according to that, Rom. 11.23. God is able to graft them in again. He gives alſo another Reaſon of it, becauſe ſome may have Grace, which enables them, and gives them power to do a thing, and yet that grace may not cauſe them certainly and actually to do it. This is to be ſeen in the ſame Book, p. 326. And I have thus long inſiſted upon this, and thus largely quoted theſe Authors, that the World may ſee that in Anſwering the Arminians, our Divines do not uſe to deny that there are Conditional Promiſes, nor do they deny that God gives any help to the called Non-Elect, to enable them to perform the Condition, but affirm, that God gives them more Power and Ability than they make good uſe of; and that if they are not Converted and Saved, they ought to blame themſelves for it, and not God. Ill Men are too much inclined of themſelves, and tempted by the Devil, to lay the blame of their going on ſtill in their Treſpaſſes, upon God; they needed not Mr. G's help to teach them this Leſſon; and therefore he had done better to have ſpared his pains, and to have forborn that irreverent Compariſon in Pag. 57. l. 26, 27, 28, 29. As for the objected Abſurdities he talks of, I have ſhewed that we may very well avoid them upon the Principles of Calvin, and his Followers; and have no need of the abſurd Principles, either of the Remonſtrants, or of Mr. G. and the Flacians; nor do we think that one abſurdity is a proper means to ſecure us from another. We know the common ſaying is true, Dato uno abſurdo, mille ſequuntur, if one abſurdity be granted, a thouſand more may follow, and therefore we deſire and endeavour to avoid all, by adhering to the true Chriſtian Doctrine, the everlaſting Goſpel, (Rev. 14.7.) as it is recorded in the Holy Scriptures, and commonly profeſſed by the reformed Churches.

Obj. 7. Seventhly, It may be argued thus, that if the Goſpel-Covenant have no condition, then it hath no conditional promiſe; but it hath no condition. And this one endeavours to prove from my conceſſions in the Apology, p. 144that the condition of it. (1.) Is not in our power. Nor (2.) Ʋncertain, nor (3.) Meritorious. Nor (4.) Legal, (tho the Goſpel be a Law, and this Law is the condition of the Covenant.) Therefore (ſaith he) it is not a condition properly, but it muſt be ſuch in a Logical ſenſe, And a neceſſary Connexion is enough for that, or in a Phyſical ſenſe, and priority is enough for that. pag. 33. To which I Anſwer. (1.) That I never wrote, nor thought that the condition of the Goſpel-Covenant is not in our power in any ſenſe, but only that it is not in our meer natural power; with which it is very well conſiſtent that it be in our Supernatural Power, which we receive from the Spirit of God, and with his aſſiſtance freely uſe in performing the ſaid condition of the Covenant. For the truth of this, I appeal to the common ſenſe and reaſon of all honeſt Men, who will be at the pains to read and conſider what they will find Written in the Apol. pag. 36. Laſt Paragraph, and pag. 47. at the end. And pag. 48. from l. 1. to l. 13. and pag. 49. from l. 9. to 20. and pag. 50. Where by the Teſtimonies of Auguſtin and Bradwardin, I expreſly ſhew that the performing of the condition is in our power through the grace of God, and that we have a ſubordinate Dominion and Power over our own Act. And Laſtly, in pag. 67. I ſhew from Dr. Twiſs that we not only have Supernatural Power from God to produce the Act which is the condition; but that at the ſame time when we produce it, we have a Power, a natural Power not to produce it. Whence I conclude that it is a gracious Evangelical condition freely performed by us. See our confeſſion of Faith Chap. 10. Act. 1. Now let any Judge by this, whether I do abſolutely deny the condition to be in our Power? Nay, tho I deny it in one ſenſe to be in our Power, yet in another ſenſe, I do moſt clearly affirm it to be in our power.

As for the condition its not being uncertain, nor Meritorious, it is true I did and do maintain that it is not uncertain with reſpect to God and the event, nor is it in the leaſt truly and properly Meritorious; but I deny the Conſequence, that therefore it is not properly a condition Evangelical. And whereas in the 4th place, he ſays that I deny it to be a legal condition, it is true, I have denied and ſhall deny it to be a Legal condition, in the ſenſe explained at large from the end of pag. 37. to 41. It is not ſo a legal condition, as to have the ſame place and Office in the New-Covenant and Law of Grace, which perfect and perſonal ſinleſs obedience was to have had in the firſt Old Covenant and Law of works, &c. But to infer from hence, that becauſe I deny it to be a legal condition in this ſenſe, therefore I deny it to be a legal condition in all and every ſenſe whatſoever, is a poor fallacious way of arguing. And how can this R. B. ſeriouſly think that I ſhould ever deny it to be a legal condition in any ſenſe at all, when as he knows that I do all along call it the condition of the Covenant and Law of Grace. If then I believe it to be the condition of the Covenant of Grace, I cannot chuſe but believe it to be a federal condition; and ſo if I believe it to be the condition of the Law of Grace, I cannot chuſe but in ſome ſenſe believe it to be a legal condition. But you may ſay in what ſenſe do I believe it to be a legal condition? Why I Anſwer, look in what ſenſe the Goſpel-Covenant is a Law, in the ſame ſenſe, Faith, for inſtance, is the legal condition of it, and ſo I believe it to be. Now we do not ſay that the Goſpel-Covenant is meerly and ſimply a Law, but that it is a Law of Grace, properly a Law of Grace. And therefore faith is not a condition meerly and ſimply legal, as the condition of the old Law of works was; but it is a condition graciouſly legal, becauſe it is the condition of the Law of Grace, and we are effectually enabled to perform it by the God of all Grace. p. 145This that Brother might have eaſily perceived by our words to be our meaning, if he had ſought the Truth ſincerely, when he read our Apology. But tho he ſtile himſelf a ſeeker, p. 103. Yet it appears too evident by his Parentheſis p. 33. l. 29.30, 31. That he ſought ſome other thing than the truth, for there he brings me in ſaying That the Goſpel is a Law, and that this Law is the condition of the Covenant, or Goſpel, and yet it is not a legal condition. But where do I ſay ſo, That the Law is the condition of the Covenant. I defy any Man living to find thoſe words, or any words of the like import in all the Apol. I leave it to others whom it may become, to write after this manner, The Goſpel or the Covenant is a Law, and that Law is the condition of the Covenant. And ſo the ſame thing is the condition of it ſelf. For ſhame, give over ſuch little tricke, and have regard to truth and honesty. But now was there nothing in the Apo…. that gave occaſion to faſten upon us ſuch a notorious falſehood? I Anſwer, I profeſs ſincerely that there is nothing in it all from beginning to end, that could give any juſt occaſion, or ſo much as a colourable pretence to charge me with holding that the Goſpel is a Law or Covenant, and that that Law is the condition of the Covenant. We have ſaid indeed in the explication of our ſenſe of the Law of Grace. pag. 22. l. 35.36. That this Law of Grace, is the conditional part of the Covenant of Grace. But to be the conditional part of the Covenant, is quite another thing, than the condition of the Covenant; for the conditional part of the Covenant, is that which Preſcribes and Commands the condition, and which promiſes a bleſſing and benefit to the perſon who performs it: And therefore muſt be quite another thing than the condition it ſelf. Here then ſome body has diſcovered his ignorance, and writes he knows not what; or if not that: He has diſcovered ſomewhat worſe, and that which I forbear to call by its proper Name: Becauſe he might ſay, that it is bitter Language, to tell him his fault in plain terms. It is ſweet unto ſome Men publickly to miſ-repreſent their brethren to the People, for ſuch ends as they know beſt; but, it is bitter to them, for to find themſelves publickly reproved for it. We deſire all whom it may concern, to learn to underſtand our Apol. before they take upon them to diſpute againſt it and cenſure it. And they may eaſily underſtand it, if they will, for it is purpoſely written in a plain ſtile, that all may know what our Judgment is concerning the nature of the New-Covenant. See pag. 68. from lin. 16. to 21. Where we briefly and plainly diſtinguiſh between the abſolute and conditional part of it, and ſhew what the one, and the other is; as we had alſo done ſo largely before, that none can miſtake our meaning, unleſs they have very weak heads, or, which is worſe, wilfully ſhut their Eyes, that they may throw dirt at us in the Dark.

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

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

[ **Conditio (ait Epiſcopius) non eſt conditio, quae ab eo qui eam praeſcribit, in eo cui praeſcribitur, efficitur et hoc me negare dico (inquit Triglandius) merus effectus preſcribentis, non poteſt eſſe conditio praeſcripta, nedum praeſtita (inquit Epiſcopius) Reſp. Trigl. fides et obedientia non ſunt merus effectus dei praeſcribentis fidem et obedientiam, nam non deus credit et obedit, ſed ipſe homo. Eſt itaque non ſolus deus cauſa fidei et obedientiae, ſed et ipſe homo. Deus cauſa prima et efficiens principalis, a quo homo id habet, ut credat & obediat deo, quod alias nec poſſet nec vellet: homo ut cauſa 2da et ſubordinata, ut pote qui credit et obedit virtute & gratia dei Trigland, ubi ſupra Cap. 18. pag. 276.A condition (ſaith Epiſcopius) is not a condition, which is effected by him who preſcribes it, in the perſon to whom it is preſcribed. And, quoth Triglandius, I ſay that I deny that. But (ſaith Epiſcopius again) the meer effect of the preſcriber cannot be the condition preſcribed, much leſs the condition performed. Triglandius Anſwers, Faith and Obedience are not meer effects of God preſcribing Faith and Obedience. For God doth not believe and obey, but Man himſelf. Therefore God alone is not the cauſe of Faith and Obedience, but Man himſelf is alſo the cauſe. God is the firſt and principal efficient cauſe, from whom Man hath that Power, whereby he believes and obeys which otherwiſe he neither could nor would do. But Man is the ſecond and ſubordinate cauſe, to wit who believes and obeys, by the ſtrength and Grace of God.] Thus Triglandius Anſwered the Arminian Champion. By which Anſwer it appears that Faith is not ſo an effect of God's Grace, as that it cannot be a condition of God's Covenant, as by the help of God's Grace it is freely effected by us. And therefore Mr. Durham on the Rev. pag. 242. Saith that Faith is the condition of the Covenant of Grace properly, which can be ſaid of no other Grace or Work. And if this be true, then it is falſe, that there is no proper condition of the Covenant at all. Mr. Durham we ſee held that Faith is properly the condition of the Covenant, in ſuch a ſenſe, as no other thing is: And we agree with him therein. As he alſo agrees with us, that in another ſound ſenſe, true Repentance and ſincere obedience are conditions of the ſame Covenant of Grace.

Of the ſame Judgment was the very Learned and Judicious Rivet. Witneſs p. 149what he writes in one of his 13 Diſputations. [ ††Com promiſſiones Evangelii habeant perpetuo annexam conditionem fidei, quod adverſarii negare non poſſunt; item poenitentiae et gratitudinis, quae in reprobis non reperiuntur; ſequitur ad eos non pertinere redemptionis efficaciam: Conditionem illam hae Scripturae probant, &c. Andr. Rivet Diſput. 6 de redemptione, Theſ 22.Since (ſaith Rivet) the promiſes of the Goſpel have the condition of Faith perpetually Annexed to them, which the Adverſaries cannot deny; as alſo the condition of Repentance and Gratitude, which are not found in the reprobate; it follows that the efficacy of redemption doth not belong to them. Theſe following Scriptures prove that condition, &c. Thus Rivet there, and afterwards in his Animadverſions on Grotius, his notes on Caſſander's conſultation; To what Grotius had written that (prima remiſſio unde caeterae ortum habent, nullam in nobis requirit conditionem) The first Remiſſion of ſin, from which the reſt flow, requires no condition in us, he Anſwers thus, [ **Ad primam remiſſionem peccatorum, non requiri conditionem, Verum non eſt, quia non remittitur peccatum adulto, niſi poenitententi et credenti Andr. Rivet Animadverſ. in notas H. Grotii in Caſſ. p. 38. lin. 9.10.11. edit. in 8….It is not true that no condition is required, in order to obtaining the first Remiſſion of Sins, for Sin is not remitted to a grown perſon, unleſs he repent and believe.] And when Grotius in his Animadverſions again, on Rivet, had explained himſelf and told him, that by the firſt Remiſſion or Reconciliation, to which no condition is required, he meant nothing but the means of Grace, which make way for Repentance and Remiſſion. Such as are mentioned Act. 2. Rivet replies. [ ††Multi ſunt quibus via illa ad poenitentiam proponitur, qui eam non ingrediuntur. collatio loci, Actor. 2. nos docet, nullam remiſſionem peccati obtineri, niſi peccatores compuncti ſunt corde, v. 37. quibus ita diſpoſitis annunciatur remiſſio peccatorum, quae non fit ſine proevia illa conditione, quam Deus efficit per gratiam ſuam, in ijs quibus vult peccata remittere, conferantur loci-Nam etſi ſine ulla conditione proevia in homine, deus curet annunciari peccatoribus remiſſionem peccatorum, non tamen eam confert actu, niſi per poenitentiam. haec quae ſunt veriſſima, ſatis intellexi, et expoſui ſuo loco, quancum potui perſpicue, &c. Andr. Rivet Exam. Animadverſionum H. Grotii pag. 22.There are many, to whom that way to Repentance is propoſed, who do not enter into it. The comparing of that place, Act. 2. Teaches us that no Remiſſion of Sin is obtained, unleſs Sinners be pricked in their heart. v. 37. Ʋnto whom being ſo diſpoſed, Remiſſion of ſins is Preached, which Remiſſion is not granted to them without that previons or antecedent condition, which God by his Grace works in thoſe, whoſe ſins he will remit or pardon. Let the places be compared. For altho without any previous condition in Man, God cauſeth Remiſſion of ſins to be Preached unto Sinners, yet he doth not Actually confer or give that Remiſſion, but by Repentance, or upon condition of Repentance. Theſe things which are moſt true, I underſtood well enough, and in its own place, I explained, as clearly as I could, &c.] Thus the great Rivet confuted Grotius, but of late, we have got another way of confuting him. For there are ſome who indeavour ſilently to confute Rivet, (the moſt judicious and ſucceſsful confuter of Grotius,) and then they give out to the people, that they have confuted Grotius. Now from the premiſes it appears, that all which that perſon hath ſaid againſt conditions in the Goſpel-Covenant, is light as vanity; and that whereas it is pretended that there are no conditional promiſes in the Goſpel-Covenant, becauſe there are no conditions in it; the Contradictory thereunto is really true, That there are conditions in the Goſpel-Covenant, becauſe there are conditional promiſes in it; as was Demonſtrated in the Apol. and as hath been generally believed by the reformed Churches unto this day. And tho p. 150Mr. Goodwin ſtiffly deny that there are any conditional promiſes in the Goſpel-Covenant; yet I do not ſee how that is conſiſtent with his conceſſion (in pag. 55. towards the end) that mercy and pardon is offered by the Lord to unbelievers, as a pardon is offered to a Rebel by his Prince; but they reject the mercy, and refuſe to accept of the pardon offered them in the Goſpel: And that aggravates their guilt, and brings upon them a greater puniſhment. For as an unbeliever cannot be ſaid to reject the mercy and refuſe to accept the pardon, which was never ſo much as once offered to him by the Lord: So it cannot be proved that ever mercy and pardon was offered to the unbeliever, without the conditional promiſe of the Goſpel. If mercy and pardon be at all offered, it muſt be by the Goſpel, for the Law offers no ſuch thing to any: And if it be offered by the Goſpel only, I demand how it is offered by the Goſpel, and by what part of the Goſpel? Either it is by the Revelation, or precept, or threatning or promiſe of the Goſpel. But (1.) It is not offered by the meer Revelation of the Goſpel. For according to Mr. G. the Revelation of the Goſpel, is only a Revelation of Mercy and Pardon to the elect, but a Revelation of Mercy and Pardon to the elect only, cannot be an offer of mercy and pardon to the nonelect. Beſides that the meer Revelation of the Goſpel is common to the Church and to the Angels (Eph. 3.10. 1 Pet. 1.12.) But tho the Goſpel be revealed to the Angels, yet it doth not by its Revelation make any offer of Mercy and Pardon to them. So that the meer Supernatural Revelation of the Goſpel, is no offer of Mercy and Pardon to the non-elect in the viſible Church. (2.) It is not offered by the meer precept of the Goſpel. For according to Mr. G. the Goſpel hath no precept of its own. And tho it had a precept, yet that precept would only require ſome duty of them, but by it ſelf could never offer any ſuch benefit as Mercy and Pardon unto them. (3.) It is not offered by the threatning of the Goſpel, for according to him, the Goſpel hath no threatning; and if it had, a meer threatning alone, without a promiſe, is no means of offering Mercy and Pardon to a Man. It remains therefore in the 4th place, that ſince Mercy and Pardon is offered to the nonelect unbeliever, it muſt be by the promiſe of the Goſpel. But it cannot be by the abſolute promiſe, for the abſolute promiſe is not made to the non-elect unbeliever; beſides that the abſolute promiſe is always fulfilled, and ſo the non-elect ſhould be certainly pardoned and ſaved. And ſince it is ſo evident that it cannot be by the abſolute promiſe, it muſt of neceſſity be by the conditional promiſe, that Mercy and Pardon is offered to non-elect unbelievers in the viſible Church: And conſequently the Goſpel hath a conditional promiſe, for without a conditional promiſe, it is unaccountable how Mercy and Pardon can be either offered to, or rejected by thoſe unbelievers. Thus we have fully and clearly Anſwered the objections, againſt the Goſpel's having conditional promiſes, and have ſhewed that the denial of them is inconſiſtent with the Goſpel-offer of Mercy and Pardon, made to unbelievers in the viſible Church. I ſhould now paſs to the next Chapter, but that I muſt firſt briefly conſider Mr. G's way of Interpreting the places of Scripture, which ſeem to contain conditional promiſes; ſo as to ſhow that they contain no ſuch thing. And the way not to leave one conditional promiſe in all the Scriptures, which are generally thought to contain conditional promiſes, ſuch as Mark 16.16. Act. 10.43. Luk. 13.5. Rom. 10.9. &c. He ſaith, Diſ. pag. 58. Is to aſſert that the import of them is no more but this, that there is an unchangeable Connexion between the bleſſings of the Goſpel, that Faith Repentance and Holineſs are indiſſolubly faſtened, with Pardon, Juſtification and Eternal Life in the ſame p. 151perſon; or that God juſtifies and ſaves no Man of ripe years, but whom at his own due appointed time, he makes a believer, brings him to Repentance and Sanctifies his Nature. To which I Anſwer, (1.) That here indeed part of the truth is granted, but not the whole truth; and with the truth which is granted, there is intermixed this great falſehood, that all ſuch Scriptures import no more, than the foreſaid unchangeable Connexion between the bleſſings of the Goſpel. For they do really import more. (1.) They import that the Connexion is not only indiſſoluble, but that it is alſo conditional. For inſtance, that of the Apoſtle Rom. 10.9. If thou ſhalt confeſs with thy mouth the Lord Jeſus, and ſhalt believe in thy heart that God hath raiſed him from the Dead, thou ſhalt be ſaved, imports manifeſtly that the Connexion between Faith and Salvation, is not only indiſſoluble, but that it is likewiſe conditional. As was clearly proved in the Apol. pag. 50.57, 58, 59. (2.) Such places of Scripture not only import an indiſſoluble unchangeable Connexion between the bleſſings of the Goſpel; but they moreover import ſuch a Connexion between the duties of the Goſpel and the bleſſings of it: Between its antecedent duties and ſubſequent bleſſings. For inſtance Faith is not only a bleſſing of the Goſpel; but it is alſo a commanded duty of the Goſpel. As it is written, Act. 16.31. Believe on the Lord Jeſus Chriſt and thou ſhalt be ſaved. Here Faith is commanded as a neceſſary duty, which is to be performed by us antecedently to our obtaining of ſalvation; and our obtaining of ſalvation is ſuſpended till we perform that duty, ſo as that if we perform it, we ſhall be ſaved, Rom. 10.9. Act. 16.31. But if we perform it not, we ſhall not be ſaved. John 3.36. And John 8.24. And the Lord having thus Commanded Faith in the Goſpel, and promiſed us ſalvation upon our believing and ſuſpended his giving us ſalvation untill we through grace have performed the Commanded duty of Faith, there wants nothing to make our actual Faith to be a condition, and the Connexion between the Duty of Faith, and the bleſſing of ſalvation, to be a conditional Connexion. (2dly) Tho I do not ſay that Mr. G. is an Autinomian, by his principle; yet I muſt ſay, that what he aſſerts to be the full import and meaning of the foreſaid Scriptures, doth not ſeem ſufficient to ſecure Men from real Antinomianiſm, becauſe a Man may poſſibly aſſert all this, which he here aſſerts, and yet may not only be like an Antinomian, but may be a moſt real Antinomian. To make this appear, Conſider (1.) That it is poſſible and implies no contradiction, For a Man to be ſo Drunk with error, as to perſwade himſelf that Faith, Repentance, and Holineſs are indeed bleſſings which God gives to Men, but that they are no duties required of Men. Mr. Goodwin would make him believe that they are no duties required by the Goſpel; and he may by the help of the Devil make himſelf believe, that as they are not duties required by the Goſpel, ſo they are no duties required of him by the Law; and he may ground his falſe perſwaſion upon a falſe Interpretation of Rom. 6.14. Ye are not under the Law but under Grace. Conſider (2.) That the Man is certainly a moſt real Antinomian, if he be once of this perſwaſion that he is not bound either by Law or Goſpel to believe in Chriſt, to repent of his Sins, and to lead a Holy Life, but that without Tranſgreſſing any precept of the Law (under which, he fancies he is not, being elected and juſtified from Eternity) he may be an impenitent unbeliever and an unholy liver: And as for the Goſpel Mr. Goodwin hath taught him that it hath no precept, and requires no duty of him at all. I hope my R. B. will not deny but that ſuch a Man is not only like to the Antinomian Monſter, but that he really is an Antinomian Monſter. Conſider (3.) That this p. 152Antinomian in conſiſtency with his Antinomian Principle, may aſſert this which Mr. G. ſaith is the full import of all the foreſaid Scriptures, which moſt Divines affirm, but Mr. Goodwin denies to contain any conditional promiſes. For (1.) It is the opinion of this Antinomian that as ſalvation is a bleſſing of the Goſpel, ſo Faith, Repentance and Holineſs are bleſſings of the Goſpel, which God gives to the elect, tho they be no duties which he requires. (2.) This Antinomian may believe that tho Faith, Repentance and Holineſs be no duties required; yet being bleſſings of the Goſpel Which God gives to his elect, he juſtifies and ſaves no Man, but whom at his own due appointed time, he makes a believer, brings him to Repentance, and ſanctifies his nature. (3.) Upon this, the Antinomian may aſſert that there is an unchangeable Connexion between Faith, Repentance, Holyneſs and Salvation as bleſſings of the Goſpel; and that Faith, Repentance and Holyneſs are indiſſolubly faſten'd with Pardon, Juſtification and Eternal Life, in the ſame perſon. All this the Man may aſſert and yet be an Antinomian ſtill, for he may ſtill hold that, Faith, Repentance and Holineſs are bleſſings but no duties, and that he is not obliged to them either by Law or Goſpel.

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

p. 153**Mortificatio igitur eſt conditio ad vitam quis negat? Ames: Bellar. enervat. Tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 6. de neceſſitate operum ad ſalutem. ad object. ex Rom. 8.13.Rom 8:13Mortification then (ſaith Bellarmine) is a condition, in order to Life. Who (ſaith Dr. Ames) denies that? Dr. Ames, it ſeems, knew no Divine in the reformed Churches, who then denied Mortification to be a condition required of us in order to our obtaining Eternal Life; but ſince that time Mr. Goodwin is come into the world, and being a Man of another Spirit, he doth ſtoutly deny it. The Arguments on which he grounds his confident denial of conditional promiſes, I have Examined, and Anſwered. And I refer it to thoſe who ſhall be at the pains to compare his Arguments with my Anſwers, to Judge whether there be one good ſolid Argument amongſt them all. And now I ſhall conclude my Animadverſions on his ſeventh Chapter, with a part of Mr. William Bradſhaw's expoſition of the 8th verſe of the firſt Chapter, of the Second Epiſtle to the Theſſalonians. This Bradſhaw was a Learned Man, and old Puritan, and faithful Miniſter of Chriſt. Several books on ſeveral ſubjects he publiſhed in his life time: But this expoſition on the Second Epiſtle to the Theſſalonians was publiſhed after his Death, by the Learned Gataker in the year 1620. And on the 8th verſe of the 1 Chap. in pag. 49.50, 51. &c. He writes thus. The ſecond ſort of perſons, that Chriſt will come in flaming fire to be avenged of, are ſuch as obey not the Goſpel. i. e. Such as will not accept of thoſe conditions of ſalvation that are offered in the Goſpel. In the Goſpel everlaſting ſalvation is offered to all Sinners, that will believe in Chriſt, forſake their ſins, and yeild obedience to the ordinances of Jeſus Chriſt, ſet down in the writings of the Prophets and Apoſtles; when therefore God ſhall out of his word, convince our conſciences that we are Sinners, and have offended his Majeſty by our ſins, and when God ſhall offer to be reconciled unto us, to pardon and forgive our Sins, to ſave our Souls from Hell, yea to beſtow everlaſting happineſs in Heaven upon us, if ſo be we will forſake our ſins, acknowledge Chriſt Jeſus, for our Lord and Redeemer, and be ſubject to his Diſcipline; when God ſhall ſend, to this end, his Miniſters Meſſengers and Ambaſſadors, to offer unto us theſe conditions, yea to intreat and beſeech the acceptance of this Grace, and yet we wil not accept of them, we will not have Chriſt Jeſus to Reign and Ru…e over us, we will not (whatſoever follow upon it) forſake ſuch and ſuch ſins, but whether God will ſave or not ſave us, we are reſolved upon our own courſes, and if we may not be ſaved without any ſuch conditions, we will not be beholding to God for our ſalvation, but will put it to the Adventure, either to have it upon what conditions we our ſelves pleaſe or go without it: This is to diſobey the Goſpel, and to trample the blood of the New Teſtament under our feet. This is directly to ſin againſt Chriſt Jeſus; and therefore ſuch of us can expect no other doom from Chriſt at that day, but fearful vengeance. For upon whom ſhould he avenge himſelf, if not upon them, which cannot content themſelves to have ſinned againſt God, and ſo to have provoked him, but deſpiſe the means of his grace and favour when they are offered, purpoſing ſtill to continue in their ſins, whatſoever come of it. This is the fearful ſin of many that live in the Church of God, and profeſs themſelves Chriſtians, yea and that look to be ſaved by the blood of Chriſt, who notwithſtanding live and delight (and ſo purpoſe to do) in ſuch ſins, as they know are forbidden in the Goſpel: They can be content, yea they look for that ſalvation by Chriſt, which is promiſed in the Goſpel, and that the Covenant on Chriſt's p. 154part ſhould be performed unto them; but they are reſolved not to keep any Covenant on their own part. And thoſe for the moſt part that moſt diſobey the Goſpel, and that ſhew moſt contempt to the Miniſtery and Diſpenſation thereof, and are the greateſt enemies that may be to the principal ordinance thereof, do moſt preſume of that ſalvation therein which is offered. But let us know that it is not a naked profeſſion of the Goſpel, or a bare belief that can pacify the wrath of this Judge in that day, but it muſt be ſuch a profeſſion and belief, as manifeſteth it ſelf in obedience unto the Goſpel. If it were poſſible for a Man (as it is not) truely to profeſs, and unfeignedly believe the Goſpel, without obeying it, yet that ſhall not ſave him, He muſt obey it alſo. The Goſpel containeth not matter of Knowledge and Faith only, but of practice alſo: And ſo many as deſire to be free from the vengeance and fury of this Judge, had need in that regard to be acquainted with the Goſpel and all the ordinances thereof: (For how can they obey that which they know not?) And they had need with all diligence and care to be Converſant in the reading and hearing of the Writings of the Evangeliſts and Apoſtles, of Moſes and the Prophets, for, they are they, which teſtify of this Goſpel, and in them is fully and moſt clearly declared, what manner of obedience is to be performed thereunto.—This Goſpel is here called the Goſpel of our Lord Jeſus Ghriſt. It is not (beloved) our own Goſpel which we Preach unto you, and call you unto the obedience thereof: but it is the Goſpel of our Lord, and our Saviour, and That which we muſt ſubmit and ſubject our ſelves unto, if we look for ſalvation from him. When the Goſpel requireth any thing at your hands, which ſhall any ways croſs your corrupt deſires, you are preſently offended and incenſed againſt us, that are the poor Miniſters thereof, As if it were our own Goſpel, and the Law of our own will, Which we propound unto you. But know you this, whoſoever you are, That it is Chriſt Jeſus our Saviour, that in our perſons you are offended with all, and againſt whom you Rebel, In deſpiſing that Goſpel we teach unto you: Know you alſo that in your obedience and ſubjection to that Goſpel, which we Preach unto you, you are not ſubject and obedient unto us, but (except you be reprobates) unto your own Lord and Saviour, who requireth onelyonly this obedience at your hands, tying the everlaſting ſalvation of your Souls and the Merits of his paſſion thereunto. To conclude this point then, ſeeing that Chriſt will come in flaming fire, to be avenged of them that ſhall not obey his Goſpel, let the terror of that fire, make us run through water and fire, rather than diſobey the ſame. Thus Bradſhaw that Learned and Faithful Miniſter of Chriſt. I wiſh that Mr. Goodwin and I, may both of us believe and Live and Preach, according to the import of that Text of Paul, and this expoſition of it by Mr. Bradſhaw; then ſhall we acknowledge the Goſpel to be a Covenant or Law of Grace, which hath precepts, threatnings, and conditional promiſes: Which is the thing that I have proved, and defended againſt the objections of ſome Brethren, who tho they deny the Goſpel to be a Law of Grace, yet, I hope do not live in diſobedience to its precepts; for tho the principles of many in the viſible Church are better than their practice, yet I muſt Charitably believe that the practice of theſe Brethren is better than their Principle.