Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Chapter 8

Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel · Chapter 8

p. 155Remarks and Animadverſions on his 8th Chapter.

The eight Chapter of his Diſcourſe is divided into two parts. In the (1ſt) he pretends to Anſwer the Texts of Scripture urged by me in the Apology. And in the 2d to Anſwer the Teſtimonies of Fathers and Proteſtant Writers. And accordingly I ſhall aſſign two Sections to my reply.

SECT. I.

IN the Contents of his eight Chapter, he ſays in a Parentheſis, that in the Apology I urged ſome Texts of Scripture, As expreſly giving the Name of a New Law to the Goſpel. This is a notorious falſehood, And I challenge and defy him to ſhew any paſſage in the whole Apol. from beginning to end, In which I ſay, that any one Text of Scripture doth expreſly give the Name of New Law to the Goſpel. I knew very well that there is not one Text of Scripture, which doth expreſly give the Name of New Law to the Goſpel, and therefore I never urged one Text to that purpoſe. I ſaid indeed in pag. 22. lin. 16.17. That the Scriptures expreſsly call the Goſpel-Covenant of Grace, a Law, but never ſaid nor thought that the Scriptures do expreſsly call it a New-Law. What I ſaid of the Goſpel's being called a New-Law, was this, that our Brethren ſhould not be diſpleaſed with us, becauſe we call the Goſpel a New-Law, ſince they know (if it be not their own fault), (Apol. p. 22. l. 41.42, 43, 44.) That we call it, the New-Law, in no other ſenſe, than as we call the Covenant of Grace, the New-Covenant. From which words it is evident that I do not call the Goſpel a New-Law, becauſe I think the Scripture calls it ſo, expreſly; (for I did not think any ſuch thing) but becauſe I take the Goſpel-Law for the Covenant of Grace; which is expreſsly called the New-Covenant. And I think that without offence, we may call the Goſpel-Law, by the Name of a New-Law, in the ſame and in no other ſenſe, than as we call the Covenant of Grace, the New-Covenant. For ſince in our Judgment, the Goſpel-Law, and the Goſpel-Covenant, are the ſame thing, and the Goſpel-Covenant is expreſsly called the New-Covenant; what juſt cauſe of offence can there be in calling the Goſpel-Law, the New-Law, in the ſame ſenſe that we call the Goſpel-Covenant the New-Covenant. And we are the more confirmed in this, by finding that the moſt Ancient Fathers held the New-Law and the New-Covenant, to be one and the ſame thing: And they therefore called the Goſpel-Law a New-Law, becauſe they found that the Scripture expreſsly calls the Goſpel-Covenant, a New-Covenant. No Man can fairly and honeſtly deny this, who reads and underſtands the Writings of Juſtin Martyr, Ireneus, Tertullian and Cyprian, &c. Who do all call the Goſpel in its laſt, fulleſt and cleareſt edition ſince the coming of Chriſt, the New-Covenant, and p. 156the New-Law, as by two Names of the ſame Signification. Yea, it ſeems there was an old tradition even amongſt the Jews, that in the time of the Meſſias, the Lord would make a New-Covenant with his People, that is, a New-Law. I ſay, it ſeems there was ſuch a tradition amongſt the Jews, if we may believe what Paulus Fagius quotes out of their Writers. For after he had cited their expoſition of Canticles the 2d Chap. v. 10.11, 12. Referring it to the time of the Meſſias; he adds their deſcant on the words of the 12th verſe foreign which we render [the time of the ſinging of Birds is come,] but they render, [the time of pruning is come] The words are. [ **Advenit enim tempus ut redimatur Iſrael. Advenit tempus ut amputetur praeputium de quo dictum eſt Deut. 30. Chap. &c. foreign et circumcidet dominus deus tuus cor tuum, et cor ſeminis ad diligendum dominum deum tuum. et lex convertetur ad novitatem, et renovabitur Iſrael. Sicut dictum eſt Hierem. 31. et ſcindam cum domo Iſrael, et cum domo Juda pactum novum. hactenus Traditio. Paul. Fagius in Annot, in Caput. 10. v. 16. Paraphraſcos chald: Onkeli in Deuteronomium.Deut 30For the time is come that Iſrael ſhould be redeemed. The time is come, that the foreskin ſhould be out off. Concerning which it is written in Deut. 30. And the Lord thy God ſhall circumciſe thy heart, and the heart of thy Seed, to Love the Lord thy God. And the Law ſhall be changed into newneſs, and Iſrael ſhall be renewed. As it is ſaid in Jerem. 31. And I will make with the Houſe of Iſrael, and with the Houſe of Judah a New-Covenant. That is, a Now-Law. Thus far the tradition.] And it had been well if they had never had a worſe tradition. My deſign in this is only to ſhew that ſince (1.) The Scripture doth expreſsly call the Goſpel a Law, as is now confeſſed. (2.) Since the Goſpel-Law is the Goſpel-Covenant, made with the Church through Chriſt. (3.) Since the Goſpel-Covenant, is expreſsly called the New-Covenant in Scripture. It follows in the (4th) place by good Conſequence, that without any juſt cauſe of offence, we may very well call the Goſpel-Covenant, the New-Law in the ſame ſenſe that we find it called in Scripture the New-Covenant; even altho it be Not in Scripture expreſly called the New-Law, As it is expreſsly called the New-Covenant. I deſire that this may be remembered; and withal that all the Clamour Mr. G. after C. and D. makes againſt the Goſpel's being a New-Law, is in truth againſt the Goſpel's being a New-Covenant that hath any precept obliging us to any Duty, with conditional promiſes and threatnings. For as we have declared often, we mean by the Goſpel's being a New-Law, that it is a New-Covenant which by its preceptive part obliges us to certain duties, with promiſes to encourage us to the performance of them, and threatnings to reſtrain us from the neglect of them. And principally we mean by its being a New-Law, that it is a New-Covenant with precept and promiſe; and that the threatning is but the ſecondary leſs principal part, which is ſubſervient to the principal. This being premiſed, let us ſee how he Anſwers the Texts of Scripture urged by me in the Apol. And (1ſt) he begins with Rom. 3.27. And ſays in the Contents of the Chapter, That he hath recovered it to its right ſenſe. Now who that reads this would not think, that in the Apol. I had interpreted this place of Scripture, and had put a wrong ſenſe upon it, ſince writing againſt me he ſaith, that he hath recovered it to its right ſenſe. And yet in this controverſy about the Goſpel's being a Law, or not a Law, I did not at all interpret that place of Scripture, nor give any ſenſe of it, right or wrong. It is true, I quoted it twice to wit, in p. 22. and 24. But all that I ſaid of it was that from Rom. 3.27. It appears that the Goſpel is Called a Law, its called p. 157the Law of Faith expreſly. Was this to interpret i… and to put a wrong ſenſe on it, from which Mr. Goodwin muſt recover it: Doth not he himſelf acknowledge this to be true? Has not he confeſſed and brought Texts of Scripture to prove that the Goſpel is called a Law, and doth he not here confeſs with me that the Goſpel is called the Law of Faith, in Rom. 3.27? How is it poſſible then that he ſhould recover it to its right ſenſe from which I had wreſted it; Since I did not give any ſenſe of it, but only quoted it to ſhew that in the Holy Scripture, the Goſpel-Covenant is called a Law, the Law of Faith; and that the brethren ought not to be diſpleaſed with us, for calling the Goſpel a Law, becauſe the Holy Scripture expreſsly calls it a Law and the Law of Faith. Rom. 3.27. Here (Diſc. p. 59.) it is where he calls his book, a poor Writing; and if this Chapter together with the reſt, do not prove it to be poor and blind and naked, I am much miſtaken. But becauſe I am a fallible Man, and liable to miſtake, as other Men are; I will now affirm no ſuch thing of his diſcourſe; but will hear and conſider what he ſaith for recovering Scripture to its Right ſenſe, from which I did not wreſt it firſt then p. 59. he ſays that by the words [Law of Faith.] In Rom. 3.27. The Apoſtle means no more than that Doctrine of Grace which declares a believing Sinner to be Juſtified by the Righteouſneſs of Christ, which by Faith he receiveth. But now what if a body ſhould deny that the Apoſtle means no more, and ſhould affirm that he alſo means that the Law of Faith is a Doctrine of Grace which requires Faith, as the receptive condition, or inſtrumental means of Juſtification by the Mediator's Righteouſneſs? Might he not prove what he had affirmed, by an Argument taken from this Text, where the Law of Faith is expreſsly oppoſed to the Law of works [where is boaſting then? It is excluded by what Law? Of works? Nay, but by the Law of Faith.] Thus, the Law of works is the L… or Doctrine which requires works that we may be juſtified by the Righteouſneſs of our own works, which doth not exclude boaſting. Therefore the Law of Faith, is the Law or Doctrine which requires Faith, that we may be Juſtified only by and for Chriſt the Mediators Righteouſneſs, which doth exclude boaſting. And further might not a Man for this Interpretation alledge the Teſtimony of our Confeſſion of Faith, (which, Chap. 7. Act. 3. Saith, [that the Lord in the Covenant of Grace (i. e. the Law of Faith) freely offers unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jeſus Chriſt, requiring of them Faith in him, that they may be ſaved.] But Mr. G. oppoſes two things to this. (1.) He ſaith this Interpretation doth not exclude boaſting. (2.) It is contrary to the Judgment of all the right Proteſtants who have commented on the Epiſtle to the Romans. Firſt he ſaith, p. 59. that this Interpretation Doth not exclude boaſting, but rather greatly promotes it: For why ſhould not a Man Glory in his Faith, if it be an Act of obedience to this New-Law, i. e. this Evangelical Law of Faith, which by its ſtatute makes his Juſtification to depend on this his performance? I Anſwer, I do not know the tempers of all Men, nor of Mr. G. it may be for ought I know, that he or ſome other of like temper, doth really think that he might juſtly boaſt of and Glory in his Faith, if the Evangelical Law or New-Covenant did require Faith of him in order to his being juſtified by and for Chriſt's Mediatorial Righteouſneſs. But I would ask ſuch a Man a few queſtions. And (1.) What is a Man's believing that he may be juſtified? Gal. 2.16. Is that believing a doing nothing, or a doing ſomething? I hope, Sir, you will not ſay, that it is a doing nothing. For if it were a doing nothing, then Paul's meaning in Gal. 2.16. Would be this, [we have believed in Jeſus Chriſt, that we might be Juſtified by the Faith of Chriſt, that is, We have done nothing in Jeſus Christ, that we might be Juſtified by doing nothing of Jeſus Chriſt.] p. 158Which if it be not an abominable wreſting of the Apoſtles words, and a turning them into non-ſenſe; let all Men Judge that have the ſober uſe of their reaſon. But if you ſay, that believing in Chriſt, is a doing ſomething. I ask again, is that doing ſomething, the doing of ſome good thing, or ſome evil thing? I hope, you dare not ſay that it is a doing of ſome evil thing: And therefore you muſt ſay that it is a doing of ſome good thing. And then I ask again, is that good thing required and Commanded by any Law of God? or is it not at all commanded? If you ſay that it is not at all Commanded (nor forbidden) by any Law of God. Then I ſay (1.) That it is not Morally good, but of an indifferent middle nature between Moral good and evil. For what is not at all Commanded nor forbidden, is perfectly indifferent and neither Morally good nor evil. (2.) Then it follows neceſſarily that you are not at all bound to believe, and that you do not ſin, tho you never believe in Chriſt. (3.) Then it follows that to be juſtified by Faith, is to be juſtified by doing a thing indifferent. (4.) Then it follows that juſtifying Faith is of a contradictious nature, for it is good and not good. It is good, as is now ſuppoſed, and it is not good, becauſe it is not commanded by any Law of God. But if you chooſe the other Member of the disjunction, and ſay that Faith in order to Juſtification is required and commanded by ſome Law of God; then ſince that Law of God is not his poſitive Evangelical Law of the New-Co-venant, (for that you have now denied it to be, for fear of promoting boaſting) it remains that it muſt needs be the Moral natural Law only, which requires and commands Faith in Chriſt as indiſpenſably neceſſary to Juſtification in perſons of riper years But now, Sir, by your own Argument, p. 59. I prove that the Moral-natural-Law doth not require and command Faith as indiſpenſably neceſſary, to receive Chriſt's Righteouſneſs for Juſtification. For if a Man's juſtifying Faith were An Act of Obedience to God's Moral-natural-Law, boasting would not be excluded, But rather a great occaſion would be given to promote it. For Why ſhould not a Man Glory in his Faith, if it be an Act of Obedience to the Moral-natural-Law, which hath made it indiſpenſably neceſſary to receive Chriſt's Righteouſneſs for Juſtification. He may then plead that he hath done what was required; and ſo he may as well claim pardon and a right to life, on the account of having done all that this Moral-natural-Law hath under the Goſpel made neceſſary to his receiving Chriſt's Righteouſneſs for his Juſtification: As Adam, if he had continued in his Primitive State, might have formed a Plea of his Right to life; for having diſcharged all that Duty which the Law of Works commanded and propoſed, as the condition of his being eternally bleſſed. Thus Mr. Goodwin is caught in his own Net, and he is held in it ſo faſt, that upon his Principles laid down in his Diſcourſe, he can never get out of it. Mr. C. indeed ſtrives to avoid this by maintaining, That we are juſtified by the Habit of Faith, and not by any Act of Faith required of us, and done by us; and though by this he contradicts the Apoſtle (Rom. 4.24. and 10.9, 10. Gal. 2.16.) and Confeſſion of Faith, and Catechiſm, and all Proteſtant Divines that I know; yet that is nothing, ſo long as it ſerves a Turn. But for Mr. G. I am apt to think he will not take that courſe to extricate himſelf; for he hath ſtrenuouſly aſſerted in his Diſcourſe of the Goſpel, That Juſtifying Faith is a Duty commanded by the moral law (and ſo did Mr. C. before him): and here in this very Chapter under conſideration, he affirms, That Juſtifying Faith receives Chriſt's Righteouſneſs for Juſtification. But the Habit of Faith is it ſelf received, and doth not by it ſelf, without the Act, receive any thing at all.

p. 159But it may be ſome will ſay, Though this be a ſufficient Anſwer to your brother Mr. G. yet what if an Enemy to our Religion ſhould aſſault us with the ſame Argument, how would you anſwer it? To ſuch I ſay,

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

in the 2d place, Mr. G. ſaith, This Interpretation is contrary to the Judgment of all the right Proteſtants who have Commented on the Epiſtle to the Romans. I Anſwer, That I have ſhewed before, that this is the very Interpretation of Rom. 3.27. Given by the Authors of the Dutch Annotations, and of the aſſemblie's Annotations, and by Mr. Mayo in the ſecond Volume of Pool's Annotations. And with them agrees Mr. Dickſon, whoſe words on Rom. 3. v. 27.28. Arg. 10. Are as followeth, [Becauſe by the Law of Faith or Covenant of Grace, which requires Faith to our Juſtification by the Righteouſneſs of another, Man's boaſting in himſelf is excluded, &c. And the learned Stephanus De-Brais in his Paraphraſtical Analyſis of the Epiſtle to the Romans, on Rom. 3. v. 27. Having ſhewed that the Law of works doth not exclude boaſting, He adds. [ **Reſtat ergo lex Evangelica clamans, Crede et Salvaberis, quae Juſtificationis noſtrae norma fit, &c. Scphan. De-Brais, Epiſt. ad Romanos Analys. Cap. 3. p. 58.There remains therefore, the Goſpel-Law, crying, believe p. 160and thou ſhalt be ſaved, which may be the rule of our Juſtification, &c. I could add many to theſe; but it may be Mr. G. will ſay, that tho theſe were Proteſtants, yet they were not right Proteſtants For the word, right, ſeems to be put in on purpoſe, that he may have an evaſion, when preſſed with the Authority and Teſtimony of Proteſtant Divines, who are for our Interpretatation and againſt his. But if he ſhould ſay that the Divines I have named are not right Proteſtants; yet I hope he will not ſay, that Beza was not a right Proteſtant, ſince he himſelf appeals to Beza. p. 60. And therefore to Beza we will go, who in his large Annotations on Rom. 3.27. Writes thus.

**foreign, per quam legem? i. e. qua Doctrina? ſicut interdum Hebraeis, foreign Torah in genere eſt doctrina quae aliquid praeſcribit, qua ratione Evangelium vocat legem fidei i. e. doctrinam quae ſalutem proponit ſub conditione, ſi credideris, quam et ipſam deus dat nobis ut praeſtare poſſimus, oppoſitam doctrinae quae juſtitiam et ſalutem proponit cum conditione, ſi omnia feceris, quam unus Chriſtus in ſeſe pro nobis, et implere potuit et implevit, &c. Beza in Rom. 3. v. 27.Rom 3:27By what law, that is, by what Doctrine? As ſometimes among the Jews, the word Torah, Law, ſignifies in general, a Doctrine which preſcribes any thing: Accordingly the Apoſtle calls the Goſpel, the aw of Faith, i. e. a Doctrine which propoſes ſalvation, on condition, if thou believeſt, which very condition God alſo gives us power to perform; and this is oppoſed to the Doctrine, (to wit of the Law which propoſes Righteouſneſs and Salvation with the condition, if thou ſhalt do all, which Chriſt alone …n himſelf could and did perform for us.] Thus Beza. In whoſe words, the world may ſee plainly. That (1.) He ſays the word Law among the Jews ſignifies indeed a Doctrine, but a Doctrine that preſcribes ſomething (2.) That the Law of works is a Doctrine that preſcribes works, of perfect obedience as the condition of life. (3.) That the Law of Faith or Goſpel, is a Doctrine which preſcribes Faith as the condition, and which propoſes ſalvation upon condition of believing. (4.) That the condition of the Law of Works, none but Chriſt hath performed or could performed (5.) That God gives us power to perform the condition of the Goſpel, or the condition which the Law of Faith requires to juſtification. And that in Beza's Judgment the Law and Doctrine of Faith ob…igeth us to believe in order to Juſtification, is evident alſo by what follows; where he ſaith that it doth (flagitare) require Faith of us, and Faith only as that whereby we apprehend and receive the Righteouſneſs which Chriſt hath purchaſed for us, and freely gives unto us for our Juſtification. And altho he hold that the Law of Faith, obligeth us to believe in Chriſt for Juſtification, yet he ſhews how it excludes all boaſting. Now this is the very ſenſe which we give of the Law of Faith, that it is ſuch a Doctrine of Grace as hath the force of a Law …nd obliges us to believe, and propoſes and promiſes to us, the great bleſſing of free Juſtification by Chriſts imputed Righteouſneſs upon condition, if we believe; which condition God gives us power to perform. This being as clear as the light, with what Conſcience did my Reverend brother tell the world in Print that Beza was for him againſt us, and that Beza gives the ſame ſenſe of Rom. 3.27. Which he gives. And of this he gives no other reaſon, but this, that Beza calls the Law of Faith a Doctrine which can be no Argument of his denying that the Law of Faith commands Faith, becauſe in the very ſame place he calls The Law of works a Doctrine, likewiſe: And yet it is confeſt by all, that the Law of works commands works. Here again the poverty of Mr. G's. diſcourſe appears, and not only p. 161that, but its nakedneſs too; in ſo much that it wants a covering to hide its ſhame and by this I hope Mens eyes will be oppened to ſee what credit is to be given to him, who thus ſhamefully abuſeth Beza by clipping his Tongue, and not ſuffering him to ſpeak the truth; but fathering upon him an opinion which is moſt evidently contrary unto his words. 2. Here likewiſe I deſire it may be obſerved that in the old Geneva Tranſlation of our Engliſh Bibles, which is of an hundred years ſtanding at leaſt, there is this ſhort note on Rom. 3.27. [By what Doctrine? Now the Doctrine of works hath this condition joyned with it, if thou doſt; and the Doctrine of Faith, hath this condition, if thou believeſt.] Altho then of old, our forefathers by Law of Faith, underſtood a Doctrine of Faith, yet they held it to be ſuch a Doctrine, as preſcribes the duty and requires the condition of believing; and that makes it to be an Evangelical Law juſt as we hold it to be.

What he talks in pag. 60.61, 62. Of all the Popiſh Commentators on Rom. 3.27. And of Eſtins the Jeſuit, &c. Is nothing but ad populum phalerae, and is partly impertinent, and partly ridiculous.

(2.) Secondly, He ſaith, That Gal. 6.2. refuſes to ſerve my deſign. But I anſwer, It's plain from the Apology, page 22. line 16, 17. that my whole deſign in quoting Gal. 6.2. was to ſhow, that the Scripture calls the Goſpel-covenant a Law; and ſo it may be called there, notwithſtanding of what Mr. G. ſays to the contrary. For though the words Law of Chriſt, do not import the whole of the Goſpel-covenant, yet they import a part of it, to wit, the preceptive part. For certainly he that loves his Neighbour, as Chriſt loved him, doth believe in Chriſt with a Faith working by love; and he that ſo believes in Chriſt, doth certainly fullfil the Condition of the Goſpel-Govenant, and by Conſequence he that loves his Neighbours as Chriſt loved him doth, fulfill the condition of the Goſpel-Covenant, or Law of Grace, which is the Law of Chriſt. As to what Mr. G. objects, That Eſtins on the place affirms, that Chriſt is given to men as a Legiſlator, whom they may obey. I anſwer; That Dr. Owen affirms the ſame thing, as is evident by his expreſs formal words quoted before in the Remarks on the 7th Chapter. It is true, he doth not there prove Chriſt to be a Legiſlator, from Gal. 6.2. but that is no matter; he affirms that he is a Legiſlator, and then he hath an Evangelical law. And this being a Truth, I, for my part, do like it never the worſe, becauſe an Adverſary believes it. I wiſh our Adverſaries, both Papiſts and Arminians, did with us receive not only that, but all other Truths. If Mr. G. ſay, that the word Goſpel, or Goſpel-Covenant, is not expreſſed in Gal. 6.2. I anſwer. Nor did I ſay that it is: But there is expreſly the word Law, and I thought that ſufficient to the purpoſe, for which I quoted that Text. And though I ſhould paſs from that Text, to pleaſe my Reverend Brother, yet the other Texts do abundantly anſwer my whole deſign, and prove, that the Goſpel is expreſly called … Law, in Scripture.

(3.) And therefore it is not true which he ſays in the 3d place, That Iſa. 42.4. is not effectual to prove my Aſſertion; for my Aſſertion there, is, That the Scripture expreſly calls the Goſpel a law, which it really doth in that very place, as Mr. G. himſelf confeſſeth in Page 63. and I deſire no more to prove my Aſſertion, which only was concerning the word Law, its being there uſed of the Goſpel; but not at all concerning what ſenſe it is uſed in. I meddled not with the ſenſe of the word Law, there and then, and all that I ſhall do now, ſhall be to deſire the Reader to take the ſenſe not from me, but from Mr. Pool, in theſe words The … ſhall wait for his Law; i. e. ſhall gladly receive his Doctriue p. 162Pool's Annotations on Iſa. 42.4.Isa 42:4and Commands from time to time.] Mr. G. ſeems to be afraid that the receiving of Commands from Chriſt will undo men: but Mr. Pool thought that the converted Iſles would gladly receive Chriſt's Doctrine and Commands. And it ſeems the Apoſtle John thought ſo too, and therefore ſaid, 1 John 5.3. That his Commandments are not grievous.

(4.) There is one Text more, to wit, Luke 19.27. which, he ſays, I urged to prove, That the Goſpel is a new Law with Promiſes and Threatnings. But that is another miſtake; for I did not urge it to prove that, but I quoted it to prove, That Chriſt will account them his Enemies, and puniſh them as ſuch, who do not like his Goſpel, becauſe it is a Law of Grace which obligeth men to duty, with a promiſe of bleſſing to the performers, and with a threatning of miſery and puniſhment to the neglecters, refuſers and deſpiſers. This is as clear as the light to any that reads and underſtands the Apology, Pag. 22 line 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.

As for, Rom. 11.26. which he quotes, I have ſpoken to it before, and ſhewed how he wreſts that Scripture.

Laſtly, For his wondering at my ſaying, That the Law (or Covenant) of Grace, is both new and old in different reſpects; I regard it not, if he had not been reſolved to cavil at my words, and to wreſt them from their genuine obvious ſenſe, he would have found in them no cauſe of wondering. Let any man of common Senſe and Honeſty read the Apology, Page 22. at the end, and Page 23. at the beginning, and then let him judge whether there be any thing in that part of it, but words of Truth and Soberneſs. So much for anſwer to the firſt part of his Eighth Chapter, concerning Texts of Scripture.

SECT. II.

In the ſecond part of his Eighth Chapter, he pretends to anſwer the Teſtimonies of Fathers and Proteſtant Divines, which I alledged in the Apology, to prove that new law of grace, are not new words of an old ill meaning. To all that he writes on this Head, one general anſwer might ſuffice, to wit, That he impertinently gives his own ſenſe of their words; whereas that was not the Original Queſtion, In what ſenſe the Fathers and Proteſtant Divines have heretofore called the Goſpel, a law, a law of grace; aed ſometimes a new law; but whether they did ever ſo call it all? whether they did ever uſe thoſe words, or whether they did not uſe them; and ſo whether the words be old, or but new, and of an old ill meaning? This was the State of the controverſie, as manifeſtly appears by the Apology, Page 24. line 15, 16, 17, &c. And Mr. G. is ſo far from denying this matter of Fact, that he plainly confeſſes it, and moreover brings ſome other Teſtimonies to prove, That the Goſpel was called a Law by the Ancients, and by ſome modern Writers, as we have ſeen before. Now this was all that I deſigned to prove by the Humane Teſtimonies which I cited in the Apology. I might therefore ſtop here, ſince my Teſtimonies remain in full force with reſpect to the matter of Fact, for the Proof whereof they were alledged by me. But ſince Mr. G. hath endeavoured to pervert the ſenſe of my witneſſes, I will, ex ſuper abundanti, conſider what he hath ſaid to wreſt their words from their genuin ſenſe. And I begin with Justin Martyr. Mr. G. firſt confeſſeth that Juſtin called the Goſpel a Law, and if he had been ſo ingenuous to confeſs likewiſe that he called it a New-law, as he certainly did, and as I proved by his expreſs words, then he had confeſſed alſo, That I did very pertinently quote Juſtin, and that his Teſtimony clearly proved the matter of fact, for the proof whereof it was alledged, to wit, That new law is not a new word of an old ill meaning: but p. 163it ſeems we muſt not expect that Mr. G. will be ſo ingenuous as to confeſs the whole Truth.

Secondly, He ſaith, That by law, Juſtin meant no more than a new Doctrine of Grace, to wit, a Doctrine that requires no Duty of us at all: And this he pretends to prove by the Deſign which Juſtin had in anſwering Trypho the Jew: whereunto I anſwer, That Justin did not mean, by calling the Goſpel a new law, that it is no more but a Doctriue of grace, more excellent than the Jewiſh law and its ceremonies, which requires no duty of us at all: Nor doth any ſuch thing appear by the words and Deſign of Juſtin. Now to clear this, I will ſhew the True Occaſion of Juſtin's mentioning the new law, or Covenant, and his real deſign in ſo doing, which my R. B. hath not faithfully done. The True Occaſion then was this, Trypho, the Jew, in the foregoing Page, 227. had confeſſed that there were Precepts in the Goſpel, ſo great and wonderful, that he doubted whether it was poſſible for any man to keep them; but withal he affirmed, That he did wonder alſo, that the Chriſtians, who made ſo great profeſſion of being of the True Religion, and of excelling all other men, and yet kept not the law of Moſes, obſerved not the Solemn Feaſts and Sabbaths, were not circumciſed, and moreover, truſted in a crucified man; did nevertheleſs hope to obtain any mercy from God, ſince they did not keep his law. Haſt thou not read (ſaid Trypho) That the man who was not circumciſed the Eighth Day, ſhould be cut off from his People, and that this was ordained alike, with reſpect to Strangers, and thoſe who were bought with money. This Covenant (ſaith the Jew) you Chriſtians deſpiſe, and regard not the Precepts of it; and yet ye would perſwade your ſelves. That you know God, though you do none of thoſe things which they do that fear God. If thou haſt any thing to ſay in thine own defence againſt theſe things, and canſt ſhew what ground you have to hope for mercy from God, tho you do not keep his Law; we ſhall moſt willingly hear thee. Thus argued the Jew. And hence it was, that Juſtin took occaſion to mention the new law and Covenant. in his Anſwer to the foreſaid Diſcourſe of the Jew; which Anſwer he thus begins:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 170In the next place, Mr. Goodwin undertakes to ſhew that my citations out of Cyprian are not to the purpoſe. For (1.) Tho (ſaith he) Cyprian in his 11th Epiſtle Speaks frequently of the Law of the Goſpel, yet he thereby means only that due Diſcipline, which ought to be obſerved in all the Churches of Chriſt. I Anſwer, it is true that Cyprian there by the Law of the Goſpel, means Chriſt's Law of Diſcipline inſtituted in the Goſpel; but then it is as true that the ſaid Law of Diſcipline is a part of the Goſpel-Law; for it is an adjunct or Appendix of the Goſpel-Covenant, or Law of Grace, in its Chriſtian conſtitution, or form of Adminiſtration. Hence Dr. Ames ſaith, that Holy Diſcipline inſtituted by Chriſt, is a part of the Goſpel. His words are, **Sicut autem eſt pars regni Chriſti, ſic etiam eadem ratione eſt pars evangelii—neque igitur totum chriſti regnum, neque totum evangelium recipiunt, qui rejiciunt diſciplinam, Ames. Medul. Theolog. lib. 1. Chap. 37. Theſ. 12.But as it is a part of the Kingdom of Chriſt, ſo alſo in the ſame reſpect it is a part of the Goſpel, therefore they who reject Diſcipline, do neither receive the whole Kingdom of Chriſt, nor the whole Goſpel.] Thus Dr. Ames, and the late Reverend Mr. Gale, who was Mr. Goodwin's Maſter, ſaith in his Idea Theologiae, Chap. 8. Sect. 3. pag. 175. That by the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, is meant the Goſpel-Laws which Chriſt hath given to his Church, &c.

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

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

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

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

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

p. 172(2.) He forces Auguſtine's words to make him deny, what he expreſsly affirms. For holy Auguſtin expreſsly affirms that even the Old-Law had promiſes. His words quoted by me, (Apol. pag. 25.) Are that The Grace which is come in the New-Law, was promiſed in the Old-Law. But Mr. Goodwin, in his diſcourſe p. 65. l. 31. 32, 33. Forces him to deny that the Old-Law had any promiſes; for ſaith he [That great light of his Age makes the difference between the New and Old-Law to be, that the Old-Law conſiſted wholly in precepts and commands, &c.] Now he that holds that the Old-Law conſiſted wholly in precepts and commands, doth ipſo facto hold that the Old-Law had no promiſe. By this I know aſſuredly that Mr. G. doth not underſtand the Principles of Auguſtin, and writes of he knows not well what. As to what he ſays at the end of the Paragraph, of his having reſcued Rom. 3.27. From its perverted meaning; I need ſay no more than I have ſaid before for the clearing of that Text. I leave it to the intelligent Reader to Judge between him and me, and to Determine according to evidence, which of us hath perverted that Text. He that dare pervert the meaning of God's holy word, I wonder not tho he endeavour to pervert (tho ſhamefully enough) every humane word and Teſtimony that is brought againſt him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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