our Saviour Jesus Christ In which Sense it comprehends the Absolute and Conditional Promises together with the prescription of the Condition to the performers of which the Conditional Promises were made on the account of Christ and his Righteousness Now it is in this sense that we say the Gospel taken for the Covenant of Grace is a Law of Grace It is a Law as it prescribes the Condition and obliges us to compliance therewith and it is a Law of Grace as it promises to penitent Believers most gracious Benefits and Blessings and likewise as it promises to the Elect Special Effectual and Victorious Grace whereby they do most freely and yet most certainly Believe and Repent And that in this sense the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace as to be also a Law of Grace that requires something to be done by us through Grace is evident from the Assemblies Confession of Faith Chap. 7. Art 3. where it says expresly That in the Covenant of Grace the Lord freely offered unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ requiring of them Faith in him that they may be saved and promising to give unto all those that are ordained to Life his Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe And no less evident it is from the larger Catechisme where to the question How is the Grace of God manifested in the Second Covenant It answers That the Grace of God is manifested in the Second Covenant in that he freely provideth and offereth to Sinners a Mediator and Life and Salvation by him and requiring Faith as the Condition to Interest them in him promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit c. Likewise the Confession of Faith Chap. 3. Art 8. saith That the Doctrine of Predestination affords matter of Praise Reverence and Admiration of God and of Humility Diligence and abundant Consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel Accordingly the Lord himself in the Scriptures of Truth assures us that Unbelievers and Wicked Men to whom the Word is Preached do not obey the Gospel and that they shall be Damned for not obeying it In Rom. 10.16 the Apostle proves their disobedience to the Gospel from their Unbelief as the Effect from the Cause See also 2 Thess 1.7 8 9. 1 Pet. 4.17 from all which it is evident that the Gospel in the sense aforesaid is a Law of Grace to the People of God And I hope my R Brother will not be such an Unbeliever as to refuse its being a Law of Grace to him also Secondly It is to be considered that there is a difference to be put between an accurate perfect Definition of a thing which doth indeed contain whatever is essential to the thing defined and a Popular Description of a thing which yet in a large Sense may be called a definition but then it is acknowledged to be definitio imperfecta oratorum propria An imperfect definition and such as is proper for Orators to make use of and accordingly my R Brother pag. 28. lin 8. hath these numerical words as signifying the same thing when they professedly define or describe the Gospel Now it is not necessary that a popular definition or description should alwayes contain every thing that is essential unto that which is so defined or described Thirdly It is to be considered that the Gospel taken in a limited restrained sense for one part of supernatural Revealed Religion may be and indeed ought to be defined or described one way but taken in a more large comprehensive Sense for another or more parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As for instance For the Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator it may be and indeed ought to be defined or described another way so that what is not Essential to it taken in a limited restrained Sense yet may be and is Essential to it taken in a more large and comprehensive Sense Fourthly It is to be well considered and carefully remembred that when our first Reformers deny the Gospel to be a Law as they frequently do It is in the Popish Socinian or Arminian Sense and it is mostly in the Popish Sense for it was with the Papists for the most part that they had to do when they denyed the Gospel to be a Law For instance Mr. Fox in his Book against the Papists de Christo gratis Justificante denyes the Gospel to be a Law in their sense as we also do and yet as was shewed in the Apology pag. 96.128 he maintain'd that Faith is the proper Condition of Justification and that Evangelical Repentance is a Condition preparatory and dispositive of the Subject to be justified which is sufficient to show That though he denyed the Gospel to be a Law in the Popish Sense yet he did in effect hold it to be a Law of Grace in our Sense Fifthly It is to be considered hat there is a vast difference between a Law of Works and a Law of Grace For according to the Scriptural Sense of the word a Law of Works is a Law the observance and keeping of which is a mans Justifying Righteousness it is the Righteousness by and for which he is Justifyed at the Bar of Gods governing Justice But a Law of Grace is not such our Obedience to the Law of Grace is not our Justifying Righteousness at the Bar of Gods Justice either in part or in whole It is only either 1. That whereby we are disposed for being Justifyed by Faith in Christ and his Righteousness only such as is Evangelical Repentance Or 2. It is that whereby we receive apply and trust to Christ and his Righteousness by and for which alone we are Justifyed at the Bar of God's Justice such as is true Faith only Or. 3. It is that whereby we are qualified and disposed for the actual possession of that Eternal Glory and Happyness which we received a Right unto before in our Justification and which immediately after this Life is given to us in the full possession as to the Soul for the sake of Christ's Meritorious Righteousness only such as is sincere Evangelical Obedience Now though we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace which obliges us to Faith Repentance and sincere Obedience as means in order to the ends aforesaid yet we utterly deny that it is a Law of Works nor doth it follow from our Principles Sixthly It is to be considered that we ought to distinguish between the Moral Natural Law and meer positive Laws Now it is granted by us all That the Lord after his Incarnation did not give unto his People a New Moral Natural Law nor did he perfect and fill up the defects of the Old Moral Natural Law neither did he enlarge the obligation of it so as to make it oblige People to some Moral Natural Duties which it obliged no Body unto under the Old Testament In this sense Papists Socinians and Arminians hold Christ to have been a New Law giver but this Opinion we
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 to Men not pardon of sin but Justification and Life Eternal By this it plainly appears that the conditions of the promises of the old Covenant of works and of the new Covenant of Grace with respect to Justification differ not meerly in degree but they differ in kind 2. Tho the precepts of the Moral natural Law considered as stript of their old Covenant form Do require Evangelical Faith and Repentance as they require us to believe and obey the precepts of the New and Gospel-Covenant Yet this they do only mediately and consequentially For it is the New and Gospel-Covenant it self which doth immediately and directly by its own precepts require of us Evangelical Faith and Repentance in order to Justification and Pardon of sin 3. Tho the New and Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace doth require of us both Evangelical Faith and Repentance as necessary in order to Justification and Pardon of Sin Yet it is with this difference that it requires Faith as most properly the condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification but it requires Evangelical Repentance only as a Condition The Reason of this difference I assigned in the Apology thus Faith is most properly the Condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification because it is that condition or Instrumental means whereby we receive apply and trust the object Christ and his Righteousness by and for which only we are Justified and Pardoned but Evangelical Repentance is most fitly called a Condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification or Pardon of sin because it is a condition not receptive of the Object Christ as Faith is but dâ—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 Grace there is a Mediator by and for whose Mediatorial Righteousness alone we are justified and not one Act of our own Personal Obedience is required as that Righteousness or any par of that Righteousness by and for which we are Justified and Pardoned Neither â—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
all reject as false and absurd and as reflecting on God's Moral Law as if it had been imperfect before Whereas in truth Gods Moral Natural Law was alwayes most perfect in its kind and obliged to all Moral Natural Duties even unto the highest degree of sinless perfection And therefore what Christ did with respect to the said Moral Law was to fulfil it most perfectly in his Life to explain it by his Doctrine to clear up the true and full meaning of it and to vindicate it from the false glosses of the Pharisaical Jews to suffer and satisfie God's Justice for his Peoples breach of it And to impose it explained as aforesaid on his own Disciples and Followers as the Rule and Law of their Moral Natural Allegiance and Obedience unto God But then for mere Positive Laws as before his Incarnation he had given some such unto his Church so after his Incarnation the old Positive Laws being abrogated he gave unto his Church some new positive Laws such as those that relate to the Two Sacraments the first day of the Week as the Christian Sabbath and the Order and Discipline that is to be observed in his Church under the New Testament And though it is freely granted by us that when such Positive Laws are once enacted by our Lords Royal Authority the Moral Natural Law it self doth oblige us to obey them yet we are first in order of Nature obliged to give Obedience to them by the Institution of them and by the Soveraign Authority which doth institute and enact them And the Law of Nature by it self immediately would never make them Laws nor oblige us to do the things which are the subject matter of them if they were not first made Laws by a new exertion of the Lords Legislative Power which doth by those positive Laws themselves first and immediately oblige us to obey them Seventhly Consider that we ought to distinguish between a Laws being Old or New Quoad ipsam rei materiam substantiam aut quoad rei modum circumstantiam in regard of matter and substance or in regard of manner and circumstance Thus the Moral Command to love the Brethren is both Old and New in different respects It 's Old in respect of the matter and substance and yet it is New in respect of that special manner of loving the Brethren as Christ loved us Witness John 13.34 and 1 John 2.7 8. So likewise the Positive Command to believe in the Messias is both Old and New in respect of different Circumstances of time It is old even as old as the first Promise after the fall Gen 3.15 as it had respect unto Christ to come But it is new as it hath respect unto Christ already come and Crucified Dead and Buried Risen from the Dead Ascended into Heaven and there most highly dignifyed and glorifyed For no Man under the Old Testament was obliged or could be obliged to believe in Christ under this consideration But now we are all to whom the Gospel is Preached ind sp nsably obliged thus to believe on him In like manner though the positive Command to believe in the Messiah be as old as the first promise Gen. 3.15 yet the Command to believe that the Man Jesus of Nazareth is the true Messiah is new and could not be so old Eighthly Consider that we should distinguish between a Law that hath only Legal Promises without any promise of Mercy and Grace in it at all and a Law that hath all Merciful and Gracious Promises belonging to it and those many great and precious Now the first Covenant of Works is a Law that hath only Legal Promises without any Promise of Mercy or of renewing and pardoning Grace in it at all It is a Law that required personal perpetual and ever-sinless Obedience and promised Life to Man on Condition of such Obedience and for such Obedience only would have Justifyed him and therefore it is called the Law of Works But the Covenant of Grace is a Law that hath all merciful and gracious Promises belonging to it and those many great and precious and therefore it is rightly called the Law of Grace And with respect to the Elect who are the most proper subjects of it as a Law of Grace its predominant is Grace Grace runs through it all and appears in all the parts of it 1. There is Grace in the mandatory part of it in that part of it which prescribes its Condition in that legal ever finless perfection is not rigidly insisted on but Evangelical sincerity in the performance of it is required as a Condition which also is accepted through Christ and the sinful defect thereof together with all other sin is freely forgiven for Christ's sake 2. There is Grace Rich and Glorious Grace in the promissory part of it in that it promises to the Elect special Effectual Victorious Grace to cause them freely yet certainly perform the condition in Gospel sincerity And in that when they through Grace perform the Condition it further promises them most Gracious Benefits and Glorious Blessings and all through and for Christ and his Righteousness 3. There is Grace also in the very minatory Sanction for the design of the Threatning is not to bring on Men the Punishment threatned but to curb the Flesh in them and to restrain them from those Sins which their own corrupt Nature inclines them unto and which the Devil and the World tempt them unto So that the very threatning is useful to them and it is a Mercy to them even to such as the believing Romans that they are under that conditional threatning Rom. 8.13 if ye live after the Flesh ye shall dye And since Grace doth thus appear in all the parts of it See Heb. 12.25 it is very fitly called the Law of Grace yea I do not refuse to joyn heartily with my R. Brother in calling it a Doctrine of Grace but withal I must declare that I do not at all like it the worse nor is it unto me the less gracious because it prescribes unto me something to be done by me through my Lords Grace But I like it the better for that since it doth not in the least detract from the Grace of it Now if the Premisses be duely considered and if the foresaid distinctions be rightly applyed as there may be occasion it will be easie thereby to Answer all his Testimonies from Reformed Protestant Divines SECT II. His first set of Testimonies Examined and Answered FOR his first set of Testimonies to prove from our Protestant Divines definition or Description of the Gospel that they believed it to be a pure Doctrine of Grace 1. I Answer thereunto in general that if that be all they prove I profess sincerely in a true and sound Sense to believe the same thing to wit that the Gospel is a pure Doctrine of Grace as I have said and explained it before From whence it doth not follow by any good consequence that it
Chemnitius also in his common places not only confesses that the Gospel is called a Law Isa 2.3 Mic. 4.2 and the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 but though he purposely sets himself to please the rigid Lutherans he likewise sayes that (d) Affirmativa de fiducia gratuitae misericordiae propter Christum non est vox Legis sicut Paulus clare dicit Gal. 3.12 Lex non est ex fide c. Chemnit loc com p. 219. The affirmative part concerning the Faith or confident trust of Free Mercy for Christs sake is not the voice of the Law as Paul clearly sayes Gal. 3.12 The law is not of faith Observe here that justifying Faith in Chemnitius's Opinion is not required by the Moral Natural Law but by the Gospel and that because Paul clearly saith that the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3.12 i. e. The Law requires not Faith to Justification See our last Annotations Pools on Gal. 3.12 The Law saith nothing of Faith in the Mediatour though Faith in God be commanded in the first Precept yet Faith in Christ is not commanded in the Law as that by which the Soul shall iive c. Hemmingius a moderate Lutheran and Disciple of Melancthon saith (e) Fidem omnes unanimiter ad Evangelium referunt Tract de gratia salutari Edit Hafniae 1591. loco de poenitentia All Divines unanimously refer Faith in Christ to the Gospel And he had reason to say so for before the Flacians I do not know that ever any Protestant Divine was of that Opinion that it is not the Gospel but the Moral Natural Law which requires Faith in Christ unto Justification and Salvation I am sure Luther was not of that mind for in his Book of Christian Liberty a little before the passage which Mr. Goodwin hath quoted out of it he brings in the very Gospel or God in and by the Gospel speaking unto Men and saying (f) En tibi crede in Christum in quo promittuntur tibi gratia Justitia Pax Libertas omnia si credis habebis si non credis carebis Luther de libert Christ Lo here for thee believe in Christ in whom are promised unto thee Grace Justice Peace Liberty and all If thou believe thou shalt have them if thou believe not thou shalt want them Here it is observable as was said before 1. That Luther speaks of the Gospel as distinguished from and opposed to the Law 2. He says That the Language of the Gospel so considered is crede in Christum c. believe in Christ And if that be not a Command how shall we know that ever there was such a Command in the World 3. Tho. Luther calls the Gospel there Promissa Dei the Promises of God yet it is most evident he did not think them to be all absolute Promises for he expresly mentions a Conditional Promise saying Si credis habebis If thou believest thou shalt have all those benefits that are promised in and through Christ 4. That the Conditional Promise of the Gospel the promise of great Blessings and Benefits made to us on condition that we believe in Christ doth carry in it a Gospel Command to believe in Christ Otherwise it is not imaginable how Luther could make the very Gospel and the Promises of God as opposed to the Law to say unto Man Crede in Christum Believe in Christ for that is a Precept if ever there was a Precept in the Word of God and being a Precept it must according to Luther be implyed in the Conditional Promise of the Gospel Whence we may learn this useful Lesson that in every Conditional Promise of the Gospel there are two things to be considered by us 1. The Promise it self of some gratuitous Benefit 2. The Gospel Command to perform the condition upon which the Benefit is promised The truth of this Observation was well understood by the Learned Dr. Whitaker and therefore he saith (g) Whitak praelect de Sacram. cap 4. Promissio gratiae conditionalis est requirit enim fidem c. The Promise of Grace is Conditional for it requires Faith c. And Dr. Nowell in his foresaid Latine Catechism taught in the Grammar-Schools throughout England speaking of the Gospel as distinct from the Law he saith (h) Verae Religionis partes sunt Obedientia quam Lex imperat fides quam Evangelium requirit A. Nowelli Christianae Pietatis prima Instit pag. 3. Edit Cantab. 1626. The Gospel requires Faith In like manner Sharpius tells us that the Gospel as distinct from the Law requires Faith and declares that the contrary Opinion which Mr. Goodwin has lately taken up is the Error of the Flacians (i) Errant Flaciani qui in Evangelio nullum praeceptum esse volunt cum manifeste praecipiatur ut credamus poenitentiam agamus fides autem est tantùm ex Evangelio ut poenitentia quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur Sharpii Curs Theolog. Sect. de Evangelio pag. 692. The Flacians saith he err who would have no Precept to be in the Gospel seeing it is manifestly commanded that we should believe and repent But Faith is only from the Gospel as is also that Repentance which in Greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 With Sharpius agrees Dickson on Rom. 3.27 28. his words are these Argum. 10. Because by the Law of Faith or the Covenant of Grace which requires Faith to our Justification by the Righteousness of another Mans boasting in himself is excluded and not by the Law of Works or the Covenant of Works which exacts perfect Obedience and affords boasting to Men in their inherent Righteousness Therefore saith he we conclude that a Man is justified by Faith without the Works of the Law Thus Dickson Of the same Judgment was the late Reverend and Learned Mr. Pitcairn Principal of the New Colledge and Rector of the University of S. Andrews For in his Harmony of the Evangelists he writes thus (k) Pâ—â—cairn Harmon Evang. p. 274. Quisquis justificatur per Legem Christi hoo est per Evangelicam Christi Legem fidem praescribentem absolvitur Whosoever is justified he is absolved by the Law of Christ that is by the Evangelical Law of Christ which prescribes Faith And as was observed before the Assemblies Confession of Faith in the Seventh Chapter of Gods Covenant with Man Art 3. saith expresly That the Lord in the Covenant of Grace requires of Men Faith in Jesus Christ that they may be saved I might bring many more Testimonies to this purpose but these are sufficient to show that it hath been and is the common belief of our Protestant Divines except some raving bawling Flacians in Germany and the Cocceians in Holland that the Gospel commands and requires us to believe in Jesus Christ for Justification and Salvation The Case then is plainly thus That the Moral Natural Law requires Faith in God simply considered as God and Jesus Christ being God by Nature One God
promised ought to perform his Promise in point of faithfulness which is comprehended in universal Justice but he is not always bound so to do in regard of particular Justice Nor is this the necessary effect of a Promise that he who hath performed the condition annexed to the Promise may be said to have right to demand the thing Promised as a reward due to him on the account of Justice For what if I should promise a poor Man that I will give him an Alms if he will come and call on me at my House surely that Promise will not make it cease to be an Alms nor will it by reason of that Promise become an act of particular Justice or a Retribution of a Reward as of due debt Thus Essenius Answered that Argument of Bellarmin for the Merit of Works and Mr. G's Argument being in effect the very same there needâ— no other Answer to be given unto it And before he had so publickly made use of this poor Popish Argument he should have consider'd the import of the Fifth Article of the 16th Chapter of our own Confession of Faith where it is said expresly that We cannot by our best works Merit Pardon of Sin or Eternal Life at the hand of God by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the Glory to come and the infinite distance that is between us and God whom by them we can neither profit nor satisfie for the debt of our former sins but when we have done all we can we have done but our duty and are unprofitable servants and because as they are good they proceed from his Spirit and as they are wrought by us they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they cannot endure the Severity of God's Judgment If my R. Brother had consider'd understood and believed this part of the Confession of Faith he would never have taken it for granted that Merit is nothing but the dueness of a reward to some work done For our Confession of Faith teaches us that many things are necessary to make a work Meritorious besides the Reward 's being due to it 1. It is necessary that there be a proportion between the work done and the blessing or reward promised 2. That there be not an infinite distance between Man the Worker and God the Rewarder 3. That the Work done be profitable unto God for whom it is done 4. That before our Works can Merit the pardon of Sin they must be able to satisfie God's Justice for the Debt of Sin 5. That our Works be not due to God by vertue of his Command requiring them 6. That the Works be our own done by our own strength 7. That they be most perfect and done as well as they ought to be These are the Conditions necessary to make a work Meritorious of pardon of sin and Eternal Life And if these things be so What deserves Mr. G's Question What is Merit but when the reward is due to some work done but to be hissed at And yet for his information that he may hereafter know my Principles better than he seems to do I tell him that in my Judgment to speak strictly the Reward is not due to the VVork nor to the VVorker for the VVork's sake and yet I hold the Reward to be due But to whom and for whom I Answer The Reward to wit of Eternal Life it is due to the Penitent Believer in whose heart Christ dwells by Faith and it is due to him by the Promise of God who is faithful and cannot lie and it is due to him for the sake of Christ who as he hath satisfied the Justice of God for all our sins so he hath Merited for us all the Blessings and Benefits of the New Covenant from first to last Now this being my Hypothesis founded upon the VVord of God and agreeable to our Confession of Faith as I have fully and clearly proved in the foresaid Remarks on my Reverend Brother's Discourse of the Gospel I refer it to all Men of Understanding Sobriety and Conscience to Judge whether this be true which he sayes That the Merit of VVorks is really included in my Hypothesis At last being conscious to himself that he can never prove that our Principle agrees with the Popish Arminian and Socinian Doctrines as he had asserted in the Contents of his 9th Chapter he gives over his Accusing us Falsly and concludes with Counsel and Advice to forbear such Phrases and Modes of Speech as by the Enemies of the Gospel are made use of to very ill purposes and that is to lay aside the use of the words New Law VVhereunto I Answer That I am very willing to be Counselled and Advised by those that are wiser than my self and though I remember something of the Fox in the Apologue yet I will agree with my Reverend Brother that for my own part I will forbear calling the Gospel-Covenant absolutely and simply a New Law without any Explicatory addition provided 1. That he and his Friend for whom he VVrites will confess the Truth of that which I have proved to wit that it is a Notorious Falshood in matter of Fact that New Law of Grace is a New VVord of an old Ill-meaning Provided 2. That as I shall not use the Adjective New when I call the Gospel Covenant a Law or a Law of Grace so he will himself use the word Law and call the Gospel by that Name as the Scripture doth and not be offended with us for calling it a Law and a Law of Grace and for believing with Mr. Pool on Isa 2.3 that it is frequently called a Law because it hath the Nature and Power of a Law c. and with the Professors of Leyden that it is sometimes called a Law because it hath also its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings Provided also that he will with us believe the Gospel to be a Law in the same sense as the Professors of Leyden and Mr. Pool held it to be a Law 3. Provided that my agreeing not to use the Adjective New when I call the Gospel a Law and a Law of Grace shall not be construed to such a sense as if I thereby signified that I account it unlawful to call the Gospel a New Law for I do not so account it but on the contrary I hold it very lawful to call the Gospel a New Law in the same sense we call it a New Covenant The Reasons why I hold it lawful to call the Gospel a New Law are these 1. Because tho the Phrase be not wholly and Verbatim found in Scripture yet it is not contrary to Scripture yea the one halfe of it the Noâ—n Substantive Law is expresly in Scripture and the other halfe is agreeable to Scripture as joined to to the word Law and is expresly in Scripture as joyned with the equivalent word COVENANT 2. Because the Ancient Fathers in the best and purest times