Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
scripture_n article_n holy_a salvation_n 2,633 5 7.5054 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A49184 Remarks on the R. Mr. Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel proving that the Gospel-covenant is a law of grace, answering his objections to the contrary, and rescuing the texts of Holy Scripture, and many passages of ecclesiastical writers both ancient and modern, from the false glosses which he forces upon them / by William Lorimer ... Lorimer, William, d. 1721. 1696 (1696) Wing L3074; ESTC R22582 263,974 188

There are 5 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

cujus testes sunt scripturae cur fieri hoc vel illus Deus velit quo modo velit ne Angelicae quidem mentes in solidum capiunt Calvin 〈◊〉 pons ad Calumnias Nebulonis de occulta Dei Providentia pag. 641. I often in my Writings put Men in mind that nothing here is better than a learned Ignorance because they rave like Mad-Men who adventure or take upon them to be more wise and to know more than is meet Now thou seest how that Will of God to which the Scriptures bear Testimony is certainly known to me and yet the same Will is secret and hid from me because the understanding of the very Angels doth not fully know and comprehend why God Wills this or that to be and how he Wills it By which Words Calvin gives us to understand that if we would act like reasonable Men we should firmly Believe whatever God hath in the Scriptures Revealed to be although we do not understand the way and manner of his willing it to be But now if you say doth it appear indeed that God hath Revealed in the Scriptures that he hath made Conditional Promises to all in the visible Church I answer Yes It doth appear very plainly as hath been shewed already For 1. To all in the visible Church who hear the Gospel Preached the Conditional Promises are general without exception witness Mark 16.15 16. Acts 2.21 Rev. 22.17 and John 6.40 These Conditional Promises could not be more generally and universally expressed and therefore they belong to all Men that hear them upon the same condition of Faith and Calling upon the Name of the Lord. Accordingly the Church of England in her 17th Article which we have all subscribed saith that as a Remedy against the Abuse of the Doctrine of Predestination and to prevent Desperation We must receive God's Promises in such Wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture 2. The Holy Spirit in the Sacred Scripture applies the general Conditional Promise to every one in particular and says Rom. 10.9 If thou shalt confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy Heart that God hath raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved This every one who hears the Gospel Preached is bound to Believe and therefore he is bound to apply it Conditionally to himself and to say in his Heart if I then shall so confess and Believe I shall be Saved And if he do not do this he in effect gives the Spirit of God the Lye whence it necessarily follows that God hath promised Salvation Conditionally unto all that hear the Gospel whoever they be whether they be Elect or Non-Elect 3. Cain was one of the Non-Elect and God certainly knew him to be such yet God made a Conditional Promise of Acceptance unto him The Lord God with his own Blessed Mouth immediately said unto Cain in particular If thou dost well Shalt thou not be accepted Gen. 4.7 That Interrogation Shalt thou not be accepted is equivalent to an Affirmation and it is as if the Lord had said Cain Thou shalt certainly be accepted if thou dost well See Onkelo's Chaldee Paraphrase with P. Fagius's Notes on Gen. 4.7 4. The Command to Believe on Christ belongs without exception to all in the visible Church unto whom the Gospel is Preached therefore the Conditional Promise of Pardon and Salvation which is annexed to the Command belongs likewise unto all without exception Because the Conditional Promise is therefore annexed to the Command that by the said Promise all may be induced to Obey the Command 5. The Conditional Threatning Joh. 8.24 annexed to the Command belongs to all without exception therefore so doth the Conditional Promise because there is the like reason for the one as for the other If the Conditional Threatning belong to all to deter them from Unbelief the Conditional Promise belongs unto all to persuade them unto Faith Thus doth it plainly appear to be Revealed in the Scriptures of Truth that God hath made Conditional Promises to all in the visible Church And therefore we ought to believe it although we do not clearly know God's modus volendi his way of willing one thing upon condition of another thing 3. Thirdly I answer That however formidable this Objection may be in some Men's Apprehensions yet to me it appears to be a Sophism which is capable of an easie and fair Solution And in order to the solving of it I distinguish between God's Will considered absolutely and entitatively in it self and as it were subjectively and considered respectively and terminatively unto the things Willed or considered objectively Now when we consider God's Will the first way when we consider God's Will absolutely in it self and if we may so say as it is subjectively in God or rather as it is God It is freely confessed that it is not Conditional that it doth not depend on any thing nor hang in suspence at all For God's Will so considered is not distinct from his Nature but is really himself And it is most certain that God is not Conditional that he is not Dependent on any thing nor doth he at all hang in suspence as if he were doubtful what to do But if we consider the respect which God's Will hath unto the things Willed and its termination upon the things Willed as also if we consider the object of God's Will or the things Willed as one part of the intire object or one of the things Willed hath a relation unto the other so God's Will may very well be denominated Conditional that is God's Will which in it self and as it is subjectively in God or rather to speak properly and strictly the same with God is most absolute independent and determinate may be said to be respectively terminatively and objectively Conditional For this is no more but to say that the respect of God's Will unto and it's termination upon the things Willed is Conditional or that the object as it hath respect unto God's Will and as it is the term of God's Will is Conditional And this may very well be and yet God's Will in it self is not Conditional but most absolute and independent For the respect of God's Will unto and the termination of his Will upon its object and the object as respecting and terminating God's Will are really distinct from his Will God's Will remains the same absolute and independent in it self though it be many several ways related to and terminated upon its objects and though several Denominations be given unto it upon that account Let this distinction be applied unto the Objection and the Sophistry of it presently appears For 1. from God's promising Salvation unto any Elect or Non-Elect upon condition of Faith it follows indeed that God's promissory Will is Conditional to give them Pardon and Salvation if they Believe and so perform the Condition But pray consider How is it Conditional Is it conditionally in it self subjectively or rather
requiring no Faith nor Practice in order to obtaining pardon of Sin and Eternal Life through and for the alone Righteousness of Christ 3. What he alledges out of Schindler and Cocceiut their Lexicons to prove that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah which is rendred Law signifies any instruction given us not only by the Precepts but the Promises of God is wholly impertinent and makes nothing against me For in my Judgment the New Law of Grace is instructive both by Precept and Promise Hence I say in the Apology p. 22. that it is a Covenant-Law which makes rich offers of Grace of Justifying and Glorifying Grace c. And again a little after that this Law of Grace is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace it is that part of the Covenant of Grace which respects the way of God's dispensing to us the subsequent Blessings and Benefits of the Covenant such as pardon of Sin and Eternal Salvation Briefly As it is a Law of Grace to us it is that part of the Covenant which prescribes to us the Condition to be performed through Grace on our part and which promises us Pardon and Life for Christ's sake alone when we through Grace perform the Condition and therefore it must needs be very instructive both by Precept and Promise 4. What Mr. G. often says that the Gospels being called a Law signifies no more but that it is a Doctrine I utterly deny it in his sense of the word Doctrine nor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah its being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Horah prove any such thing Buxtorf who understood the Hebrew as well as any Man in these latter Ages tells us in his Lexicon pag. 337. that the whole word of God is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law quod nos de Dei voluntate erga nos nostro officio erga Deum proximum nostrum doceat erudiat Because it instructs us and teaches us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Thus Buxtorf Now if the whole Word of God be called a Law for that reason then the Gospel Covenant which is a principal part of the word of God is called a Law for the same reason to wit because it teacheth us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Accordingly it is freely granted that the Gospel Govenant is a Doctrine and a Doctrine of Grace but withal it is to be alwayes remembred that it is a Doctrine which not only promises gracious Benefits and Blessings on Gods part but also requires a Condition to be performed and terms to be complyed with through Grace on our part Hence the Evangelical Prophet Isa 2.3 saith he the Lord will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths And proves what he had said by this reason for out of Sion shall go forth the Law c. Mr. G. confesses that by Law here is meant the Gospel and then it follows that the Gospel is a Doctrine which reacheth us the Lords ways not only the ways wherein he walks with us but also the ways and paths wherein we walk with him Mr G would have the wayes which the Lord teacheth his People by the Gospel to be only the ways which the Lord himself walks in He would have them to denote only the order which God hath constituted for himself to observe in justifying Sinners But certainly that Interpretation is too short for the ways which God hath prescribed unto us to walk in are called Gods ways in Scripture Gen. 18.19 and he is also said to teach them his People Psal 86.11 and 119. ver 32 33 c. John 6.45 and particularly he teacheth us that it is our Duty to believe in Christ for Justification and Salvation And as Christ is the way unto the Father so Faith is the way unto Christ This the Gospel Law the Law of Faith teacheth us this Faith it prescribes to us and requires of us Acts 16.31 and consequently the Gospel in being said to be a Law it is said to be such a Doctrine as teacheth us the way we are to walk in such a Doctrine as prescribes to us some Means to be used and Condition to be performed by us brough Grace that we may through Christ his Righteousness and Intercession obtain the promised Blessings of Justification and Glorification And this my Reverend Brother sometimes hath Light to discern and Freedom to confess in part as in pag. 15. where he says That according to the usual Language of Gods word to walk in Gods ways is to observe his orders and appointments the expression here may denote no more than that they would punctually keep to the way of Salvation marked out by him and seek to be justifyed no otherwise than by Christ's Blood and Righteousness as the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes Thus he Now 1. Concerning this seeking to be justifyed by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only which the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes I demand of Mr. Goodwin whether it be something or nothing If he say that it is nothing Then 1. The Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes to us seeking that is it prescribes nothing And that is an odd way of prescribing to prescribe and yet to prescribe nothing 2 It is as odd a way of seeking for to seek by doing nothing But if to avoid this absurdity he say that seeking is something then I affirm that that something must be some Work or Act of the Soul And if so then we have what we desire to wit that the Gospel is a Law For he says that the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes seeking and seeking is some Work or Act therefore the Gospel prescribes some Work or Act. And what it prescribes to us unto that it obliges us and so by necessary consequence it is a Law that obliges us to Work and Act and by that means to seek Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only 2ly It is further to be observed That the seeking which the Gospel Law prescribes is very comprehensive as the word seeking is used in the Scriptures of Truth It is a word that signifies the diligent use of the Means which the Lord hath appointed for obtaining the thing sought But so it is that as is proved in the Apology the Lord hath appointed Faith and Repentance to be means to be used on our part for obtaining Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only Repentance is the means or condition dispositive of the Subject Man that he may be pardoned and justified by Faith in Christ's Blood and Righteousness only And Faith is the only means instrumental or Condition receptive and applicative of the object Christ and his Righteousness by and for which Object alone Man is justified and pardoned And therefore the Gospel-Law by prescribing the foresaid seeking which signifies the diligent use of all appointed means
G quotes there out of Chemnitius and Beza concerning the Papists confounding Law and Gospel its being the occasion of many pernicious Errors in the Church is impertinently alledged against us for we are so far from confounding the Law and the Gospel as Papists do that on the contrary we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace only but not at all to be a Law of Works in the Scriptural or Popish sense of that word And in our Apology we plainly stated the difference between the Law and Gospel and the Righteousness of the one and the other in so much that whoever reads understands believes and observes what we there wrote on that subject is so far out of danger of the Popish Errors in the matter of Justification and Salvation that it is plainly impossible for him to embrace any of them without first renouncing some of those great Truths which we have plainly there laid down in vindicating our selves from the Calumnies of the Informer and of the Accuser of the Brethren So much in Answer to his first set of Testimonies relating to the definition or description of the Gospel SECT III. His Second Set of Testimonies Examined and Answered HIS next set of Testimonies of Reformed Divines is to prove as he says pag. 36. by their express words that when they call the Gospel a Law they intend no more by it but a pure Doctrine of Grace To which I Answer 1. In general That in a sound sense I grant the Gospel Law is no other than a pure Doctrine of Grace as was said before But in his sense I deny that they held the Gospel-Law to be nothing but a pure Doctrine of Grace so as not to require any thing of us no not so much as Faith in Christ I shewed the contrary before from their own express words in the 20th Article of the Augustan Confession which Luther and Calvin both subscribed Secondly I give a particular Answer to the several Testimonies which Mr. G. alledges And 1. As for the Testimonies of Luther quoted out of his Commentaries on Gal. 2. and Isai 2. His First Testimony as to the first part of it concerns us not at all for we abhor that Opinion of Justitiaries as much as ever Luther did and we declare it to be Blasphemy to think say or write that the Gospel is no other than a Book which contains new Laws concerning Works as the Turks Dream of their Alcoran 2. As to the Second part of his first Testimony That the Gospel is a Preaching concerning Christ that he forgives Sins gives Grace Justifies and saves Sinners It is very true but is not the whole Truth for over and besides that it is also a Preaching concerning Christ that requires Faith in Christ According to the Augustan Confession and according to what we before heard from Luther himself in his little Book of Christian Liberty and which is far more according to the Scriptures of Truth 3. As to the third part of his Testimony That the Precepts found in the Gospel are not the Gospel but Expositions of the Law and Appendixes of the Gospel It is to be rightly understood As 1 They are not the whole Gospel Nor 2. Are they the principal part of the Gospel from which it chiefly hath its Denomination For the Promises are that part 3. It is confest that there are indeed Precepts found written somewhere in the Books of the New Testament which are no part of the Gospel Covenant in its last and best form of Administration but they belong to the first Law of Works or to the Typical Legal Form of Administring the Covenant of Grace yet there are other Precepts for instance that which Commands Faith in Christ as the Instrumental means of receiving and applying Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and this Precept even in Luthers Judgment as we have proved belongs to the Gospel And it is indeed one Article of the Gospel-Covenant that we believe in Christ Acts 16.31 Rom. 10.8 9 10. The Second Testimony from Luthers Commentary on Isai 2. is impertinently alledged and proves nothing but what we firmly believe that the Gospel is not a Law or Doctrine of Works for Justification but a Law or Doctrine of Faith even a new Doctrine as Luthers expression is or Law of Grace 2. In the second place he brings a Testimony of Calvin out of his Commentary on Isai 2.3 which as Mr. G alledges it is impertinent For it proves nothing against us We grant also to our R Brother that the way of arguing he mentions in Pag. 38. would be impertinent And I assure him it is not my way of arguing to conclude from the Gospels being named a Law that it is a Doctrine of Works For I do not believe that it is a Doctrine or Law of Works at all in the Scripture sense of that word i. e. a Doctrine of Works by and for which Justification and Salvation are to be sought after 3. Thirdly for the Testimony out of Musculus on Isai 2. I admit it as not being in the least against me And it is notorious that he was for the conditionality of the Covenant as we are 4. Nor Fourthly doth Gualters Testimony make against me in the least if it be not wrested by a false gloss put on his words as if he had said That the Law of Faith doth not require Faith But he doth not say so in the words quoted by Mr. G 5. The Passage quoted out of Vrsin on Isai 2.3 makes rather for us than against us and therefore it was impertinently alledged And it is well known that Vrsin was not against but for Conditions in the Gospel-Covenant And in my Remarks on the next Chapter I shall prove by his own express formal words that he believed as we do that the Gospel hath Precepts of its own which require of us Faith and Repentance 6. Nor doth the Passage cited out of Chemnitius his Common Places contradict my Principles but it rather confirms them And I am well assured that he held Justifying Faith to be Commanded and required by the Gospel See his common places in Folio pag. 219. 7. And lastly For Wittichius his Testimony the first part of it doth not so much as seem to be against me for it contains my Principle exprest to my mind I do heartily agree with him that no Works of ours neither Repentance nor yet Faith are or can be the cause of our Justification as perfect personal Works were to have been the cause and ground of Adam's Justification by the first Covenant and Law of Works if he had never broken it But for the second part of his Testimony if he intends thereby to deny that either Faith or Repentance are required as antecedently in order of Nature necessary unto Justification by and for the alone-Righteousness of Christ Then I do reject that part of his Testimony as unsound and contrary to Holy Scripture and to the Judgment of our more
is impossible to be done by any power whatsoever which is even impossible to be done by the help of his Spirit and Grace But the Conditional Promise of our Saviour in John 8.51 is of another Nature it is not merely oeconomical but real and intentional really requiring the condition and obliging Men to keep his saying and intentionally promising unto all who do or shall keep his saying that they shall never see Death This plainly appears from the double asseveration wherewith our Saviour spoke the foresaid Promise saying Verily verily I say unto you if a man keep my saying be shall never see doath Whence I conclude that the Gospel is not without all Precepts for here is implyed a Precept to keep Christs saying A Third Tellimony we have in Rom. 10.8 9 10. That is the Word of Faith which we preach that if thou shalt confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy Heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved for with the Heart Man believeth unto Righteousness and with the Mouth confession is made unto Salvation Observe here 1 That by the Word of Faith is meant the Gospel which according to the Dutch Annotations on the place is so called because by it we are exhorted and brought to Faith 2. Observe that besides Faith in the Heart which is required unto Righteousness and Justification there is here required Confession with the Mouth as necessary to the obtaining of consummate Salvation And by Confession with the Mouth is meant an outward Profession of the inward Faith of the Heart and living suirable to our holy Profession Hence Mr. Ma●o in the last English Annotatiens on Rom. 10.9 saith There are but these two things which the Gospel principally requires in order to our Salvation The one is the Confession of Christ with our Mouths and that in spight of all Persecution and Danger to own him for our Lord and for our Jesus and to declare that we are and will be ruled and saved by him and by him only The other is to believe in our Hearts that God hath raisod him from the Dead Whence I conclude again that the Gospel is not without all Precepts for it hath besides the Precept of believing on Christ with the Heart another Principal Precept of confessing him with the Mouth that is of living suitably to our Faith A Fourth Testimony to prove that the Gospel hath Precepts we have in those places of the New Testament where some are commended for their obeying and being subject to the Gospel and others are blamed and threatned for their disobeying the Gospel 1. We find that some are commended for obeying the Gospel and being subject to it Thus the believing Romans are commended for obeying the Gospel Rom. 6.17 God be thanked that ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you This form of Doctrine is the Gospel as the Dutch Annotation on the place tells us saying expresly that the Gospel is a Doctrine of Godliness and Righteousiness And Paul gave God thanks for this that the believing Romans had from the Heart obeyed it Which they could never have done if the Gospel Doctrine had had no Precept requiring their Obedience For speaking of a Doctrine Precept and Obedience are relative one to another so that take away the Precept of a Doctrine and you take away the possibility of Obedience to that Doctrine which hath no Precept On the other hand if we once grant that there is such a thing as Obedience to the Doctrine of the Gospel we must by consequence grant also that the Doctrine of the Gospel hath some Precept which requires that Obedience otherwise it can be no Obedience to that Doctrine Again in 2 Cor. 9.13 we read that the Saints glorified God for the believing Corinthians their professed subjection unto the Gospel of Christ Now it is unconceivable how they could be subject to the Gospel if it had no preceptive commanding Authority over their Consciences For Subjection is relative unto and presupposes a superiour commanding Authority in that whereunto there is Subjection This common sense teaches us But so it is that the Corinthians were subject to the Gospel and therefore the Gospel is not without all Precepts but it had a preceptive commanding Authority over them to which they were subject 2. We find that others are blamed and threatned for not obeying the Gospel Rom. 10.16 They have not all obeyed the gospel 1 Pet. 4.17 What shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God And 2 Thess 1.7 8. The Lord shall take vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ But now according to the principle of the Flacian Sectaries that the Gospel hath no Precept there could be no such thing as disobedience to the Gospel For where there is no Gospel Law or Precept there can be no Transgression against the Gospel This one of the Brethren who was for that way plainly saw and granting the consequence declared it to the World in Print Dansons Confer p. 18. that he and his Party knew no Sins against the Gospel And indeed if the Gospel had no Precept there could be no Sin against it But the Apostles Paul and Peter tell us expresly that there is such a thing as not obeying the Gospel and that persons who obey it not shall be severely punished for their disobedience And if so then surely their disobeying the Gospel is a Sin against the Gospel whence it follows by necessary consequence that the Gospel hath some Precept which was to be demonstrated And if it be said that the Moral Law commands Obedience to the Gospel I answer be it so that is so far from weakening that it rather strengthens the Argument For if it command Obedience to the Gospel then it commands Obedience to the Precept of the Gospel for without the Gospels having some Precept there might indeed be Obedience to the Law in other things but there could be no Obedience to the Gospel at all nor could there be Obedience to the Law in that matter because upon that false supposition the Law should command a Chimerical impossibility which is absurd to affirm of the Just Law of the infinitely Wise God Therefore from the Moral Law its obliging us to obey the Gospel it necessarily follows that the Gospel hath some Precept to be obeyed A Fifth Testimony we have in Tit. 2.11 12. where it is written that The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present world In this Scripture we are to observe two things 1. What is meant by the Grace of God which bringeth Salvation and which hath appeared unto all Men or which bringeth Salvation unto all Men and hath appeared And it is generally confessed to be objective Grace
the Scriptures which are generally thought to contain conditional promises such as Mark 16.16 Act. 10.43 Luk. 13.5 Rom. 10.9 c. He saith Dis pag. 58. Is to assert that the import of them is no more but this that there is an unchangeable Connexion between the blessings of the Gospel that Faith Repentance and Holiness are indissolubly fastened with Pardon Justification and Eternal Life in the same person or that God justifies and saves no Man of ripe years but whom at his own due appointed time he makes a believer brings him to Repentance and Sanctifies his Nature To which I Answer 1. That here indeed part of the truth is granted but not the whole truth and with the truth which is granted there is intermixed this great falsehood that all such Scriptures import no more than the foresaid unchangeable Connexion between the blessings of the Gospel For they do really import more 1. They import that the Connexion is not only indissoluble but that it is also conditional For instance that of the Apostle Rom. 10.9 If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved imports manifestly that the Connexion between Faith and Salvation is not only indissoluble but that it is likewise conditional As was clearly proved in the Apol. pag. 50.57 58 59. 2. Such places of Scripture not only import an indissoluble unchangeable Connexion between the blessings of the Gospel but they moreover import such a Connexion between the duties of the Gospel and the blessings of it Between its antecedent duties and subsequent blessings For instance Faith is not only a blessing of the Gospel but it is also a commanded duty of the Gospel As it is written Act. 16.31 Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved Here Faith is commanded as a necessary duty which is to be performed by us antecedently to our obtaining of salvation and our obtaining of salvation is suspended till we perform that duty so as that if we perform it we shall be saved Rom. 10.9 Act. 16.31 But if we perform it not we shall not be saved John 3.36 And John 8.24 And the Lord having thus Commanded Faith in the Gospel and promised us salvation upon our believing and suspended his giving us salvation untill we through grace have performed the Commanded duty of Faith there wants nothing to make our actual Faith to be a condition and the Connexion between the Duty of Faith and the blessing of salvation to be a conditional Connexion 2dly Tho I do not say that Mr. G. is an Autinomian by his principle yet I must say that what he asserts to be the full import and meaning of the foresaid Scriptures doth not seem sufficient to secure Men from real Antinomianism because a Man may possibly assert all this which he here asserts and yet may not only be like an Antinomian but may be a most real Antinomian To make this appear Consider 1. That it is possible and implies no contradiction For a Man to be so Drunk with error as to perswade himself that Faith Repentance and Holiness are indeed blessings which God gives to Men but that they are no duties required of Men. Mr. Goodwin would make him believe that they are no duties required by the Gospel and he may by the help of the Devil make himself believe that as they are not duties required by the Gospel so they are no duties required of him by the Law and he may ground his false perswasion upon a false Interpretation of Rom. 6.14 Ye are not under the Law but under Grace Consider 2. That the Man is certainly a most real Antinomian if he be once of this perswasion that he is not bound either by Law or Gospel to believe in Christ to repent of his Sins and to lead a Holy Life but that without Transgressing any precept of the Law under which he fancies he is not being elected and justified from Eternity he may be an impenitent unbeliever and an unholy liver And as for the Gospel Mr. Goodwin hath taught him that it hath no precept and requires no duty of him at all I hope my R. B. will not deny but that such a Man is not only like to the Antinomian Monster but that he really is an Antinomian Monster Consider 3. That this Antinomian in consistency with his Antinomian Principle may assert this which Mr. G. saith is the full import of all the foresaid Scriptures which most Divines affirm but Mr. Goodwin denies to contain any conditional promises For 1. It is the opinion of this Antinomian that as salvation is a blessing of the Gospel so Faith Repentance and Holiness are blessings of the Gospel which God gives to the elect tho they be no duties which he requires 2. This Antinomian may believe that tho Faith Repentance and Holiness be no duties required yet being blessings of the Gospel Which God gives to his elect he justifies and saves no Man but whom at his own due appointed time he makes a believer brings him to Repentance and sanctifies his nature 3. Upon this the Antinomian may assert that there is an unchangeable Connexion between Faith Repentance Holyness and Salvation as blessings of the Gospel and that Faith Repentance and Holyness are indissolubly fasten'd with Pardon Justification and Eternal Life in the same person All this the Man may assert and yet be an Antinomian still for he may still hold that Faith Repentance and Holiness are blessings but no duties and that he is not obliged to them either by Law or Gospel From all which it appears not to be necessarily true which Mr. G. saith to wit that whosoever asserts this Connexion of blessings Is no Antinomian nor so much as like to such an execrable Monster For I have shewed plainly that a Man may assert this and yet be a most real Antinomian and hold that he is obliged to no duty either by Law or Gospel But saith Mr. Goodain What! Is Holyness the condition of obtaining the beatifical vision No tho it doth naturally dispose the Soul and make it meet for and capable of this blissful enjoyment I Answer and is that so strange and wonderful a thing to hear of Holyness its being called a condition required on our part in order to our obtaining Eternal Life which consists in the beatifical vision Is not such a manner of speech ordinary among our Protestant Divines But I distinguish Holyness is not a Meritorious condition of the beatifical vision of our right to it or of the obtaining of it and yet it is a dispositive condition required of us in order to our obtaining the beatifical vision for the alone Meritorious Righteousness of Christ Ay but says Mr. G. Holyness naturally disposes the Soul and makes it meet for that Blissful Enjoyment Answer and as it disposes the Soul for that blessedness from the very nature of the thing