is because the Gospel consists mostly in Promises though it be not without but partly consist in Precepts also This I have shewed in the Apology that there are not only Promises in the Gospel to those who observe its Precepts but that there are in it Promises of Grace to his People to fit them for and to assist them in the observance of its Precepts and therefore it is fitly called not simply a Law but a Law of Grace So I call it and believe it to be and so it was called and believed to be by other Orthodox Divines before I was born But though I believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace that requires Duties to be performed by the Grace of the Spirit and accepted through the Mediation of Christ yet I never said nor believed that it is a Law which requires Duties by and for which we are Justified and Saved So far am I from saying or believing any such thing that I have published the contrary to the World in several parts of the Apology and particularly in Page 38 39 40.54 Indeed it is my professed belief that Faith it self is not any the least part of that Righteousness by and for which we are Justified before God 2. The Second thing to be carefully attended unto is that by the Gospel or Law of Grace I do not understand the Books of the New Testament but the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ as it is Recorded in the Scriptures both of Old and New Testament 3. The Third thing to be attended unto is that I always acknowledged that the First Commandment of the Moral Law obligeth to believe all the Supernatural Revelations and obey all the Positive Precepts of the Gospel from which Principle it is so far from following that the Gospel hath no Precepts of its own that on the contrary it plainly follows that it hath Precepts of its own otherwise the Moral Natural Law would never oblige us to obey them 4. The Fourth thing to be attended unto is That since the Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace hath Precepts of its own those Precepts must of themselves immediately oblige us to the performance of certain Duties and by means of them the Natural Moral Law obliges us to the same Duties tho not to be Justified and Saved for the sake of those Duties but in order to other Gospel ends and purposes If these Four things be carefully attended unto they will preserve People through the Blessing of God from being imposed upon by the false Representation which Mr. G. gives of our Doctrine which Wrong I freely forgive him and heartily pray God both to give him Repentance and Forgiveness 2. The Second and last thing I am here to do is to shew my Reverend Brother some more of his Mistakes in this part of his Seventh Chapter concerning the Precepts of the Gospel 1. And First whereas he says in Page 44. That the obedience of a Believer is not called Evangelical because it is obedience to the Gospel but because of the Principles of Faith and Love from which it flows and in respect of the Evangelical Motives which animate and encourage it This I take to be a mistake if he excludes the Gospel Covenants requiring such Obedience from being one of the said Motives and my reason is because the Gospel's requiring it in order to Gospel-ends and purposes is the principal reason wherefore we call it Evangelical Obedience For it is the Gospel that of it self directly and immediately requires us to obey the Moral Law in such an Evangelical way to wit sincerely with a renewed heart from Principles of Faith in and Love to Christ the Mediator and God as our Redeemer and Saviour by Christ And further as the Authority and Veracity of God revealing Truths to be believed is the formal reason of our Faith which makes and denominates it a Divine Faith so the Authority and Will of God commanding Duties to be done is the formal reason of our obedience which gives it the Denomination of Divine Obedience or obedience to God And if this be true of obedience to God in general that it is called a Divine legal obedience because it is obedience to God's Authority and Will Commanding it by his Law then by Parity of Reason it is true of that special sort of obedience to wit Evangelical Obedience that it is called Evangelical because it is obedience to Gods Authority and Will Commanding and requiring it by his Gospel It were very strange if the Formal Reason of Obedience did contribute nothing to the giving it its Name as well as its Nature 2. Secondly Whereas in Page 45. he says That in John 14.1 Christ himself told his Disciples that they should act faith on him because they were obliged to it by the same Command which required them to believe in God This is another Mistake and the mistake is the grosser for this Reason because by this mistake Mr. G. imposes upon our Saviour and makes him to say that which he did not say nor is it implyed in nor necessarily consequent from his words Our Lord Christ doth not say Believe in me because ye are obliged to it by the same Command which requires you to believe in God This is Mr. G's Fancy or Fiction which he should not have Fathered upon Christ Who saith no such thing in John 14.1 But only saith there let not your heart be troubled Ye believe in God believe also in me Or as the words might be rendred ye believe in God and ye believe in me Now I appeal both to common sense and to common honesty and natural Conscience whether to say ye believe in God believe also in me be all one and the same thing as to say ye should believe on me because ye are obliged to believe on me by the same command and by no other which requires you to believe in God For suppose the Disciples had been obliged to believe in Christ by another Command or both by the same and also by another Command yet Christ might well have used the same words and have said ye believe in God believe also in me I do therefore put Mr. G. to prove that because our Lord Christ said ye believe in God believe also in me Therefore he told his Disciples that they should believe on him not because they were obliged to it by any positive precept of the Gospel but only because they were obliged to it by the same Command of the Moral natural Law which required them to believe in God Mr G. must not dictate to us his own fancies but must prove to us the foresaid Consequence if he would have us to believe what he there says For he ought not to think that we will believe it upon his bare word 3. Thirdly whereas he says in p. 47. That the act and object of faith to wit faith in God before the fall and faith in Christ after the fall Is
it in the places cited by me that is enough to my purpose 2 If by no more than a Doctrine he understand no more than an absolute Promise or no more than a mere speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires no Duty of us at all no not so much as to believe in Christ then I say that his Two Quotations out of Cyprian and Augustin do not prove that by the word Law they there meant no more than a Doctrine in that Sense For 1. By his own Confession Cyprian in his 63. Epistle of Goulartius his Edition calls our Saviours Instruction how to administer the Lords Supper an Evangelical Law but I hope he dare not say that our Saviours Instruction how to administer that Ordinance was nothing but an Absolute Promise or a mere Speculative Doctrine that obligeth Christians to no Duty Nay Cyprian himself as Quoted and Translated by Mr. Goodwin said that he was to send Epistles to his Brethren That the Evangelical Law and the declared Doctrine of our Lord might be observed and that the Brethren might not depart from what Christ had taught and practised This Evangelical Law then according to Blessed Cyprian is a Doctrine that was to be Observed and Practised according to Christs Institution and Example And consequently it was a positive Law that obliged to Duty 2. For Augustin if he tells us as Mr. G. says pag. 27. of his Discourse that by the word Law we may apprehend not merely a Statute but any other Doctrine because he styles not only the Five Books of Moses but the Prophets in whose Writings there are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel by that Name I answer That makes nothing against me For 1. When I called the Gospel a Law I never meant a mere Statute exclusive of Gracious Promises so far was I from such a meaning that I said expresly it is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace Apol. p. 22. That is it is that part which prescribes the Condition and graciously promises a Benefit for Christ's sake to the performer of the Condition Again I said expresly in page 33. that the Conditional Promise of Eternal Life to the Believer together with the prescription of the Condition of a Lively Faith is the very thing which Dr. Twiss and we after him call the Law according to which God proceeds c. 2 If the Prophets are styled by the Name of Law in whose Writings are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel together with Precepts obliging the Duty then may the Gospel it self without offence be termed a Law in which there are both Gracious Promises and Excellent Precepts Yet 3dly It is incumbent upon Mr. Goodwin to prove that in Augustin's Judgment or that in real Truth the Prophets are called by the Name of Law precisely because there are gracious Promises in them and not at all because there are many Excellent Divine Precepts in them Are there not Gracious Promises of the Gospel to be sound in the Five Books of Moses and yet I trow those Five Books are not called the Law precisely because of the Evangelical Promises that are in them and not because they contain the whole Sum of Legal Precepts given by Moses unto the People of Israel Augustin in his Fifteenth and last Book of the Trinity takes occasion from what he had said of Gods being called Love 1 John 4.16 to speak of the various acceptation of the word Law and says that sometimes it is taken more generally for all the Scriptures of the Old Testament or for the Prophets or Psalms and sometimes more specially and properly for the Law given at Sinai Now this doth not in the least militate against any thing I have said in the Apology For I can grant with Augustin that the word Law is sometimes used in a more general comprehensive Sense and at other times in a more special restrained Sense and yet consistently enough hold that the Gospel is called a Law in Scripture and that it is a Law of Grace Thus I have briefly shewed that this whole Chapter is Impertinent But though there be nothing in it to his purpose against me yet there is something in it to my purpose against him For page 26 27. of his Discourse he tells us That a Law is a Doctrine See also his Serm. on the Q. Death p. 7 8. which teacheth us what is best for us to do if we will be taught by the Counsel of those who are wiser than our selves And in this sense saith he I will easily grant the Gospel to be a Law for it is the instruction of God whose Wisdom is beyond all denyal infinitely superiour to ours to our perishing Souls c. Now if the Gospel be a Law in this sense then certainly it is a Practical Doctrine that obligeth us to Duty Doth not the Infinitely wise God his instructing us to believe in Christ for Justification oblige our Consciences to believe in him and hath it not the force and effect of a Law I bless God I own its obliging force and it is and I hope ever shall be a Law to me a Gracious Evangelical Law And I hope my R. Brother will in time do so likewise Since he saith that thrice Blessed is that Person whom Gods Enlightning Grace hath made so wise as to follow it Remarks on the Sixth Chapter SECTION I. Some Preliminary Considerations necessary for the right understanding of our Protestant Writers and the clear Answering of Mr. G 's Quotations from their Writings FOR the better clearing up of the matter in Controversie and scattering of the Mist which my R. Brother hath cast before Peoples Eyes in this Chapter it will be expedient to premise some things before I come to answer his Quotations from the Writings of Protestant Divines And First It is to be considered that the word Gospel signifying good or glad tydings it may be applyed to and affirmed of several parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As 1. God's Eternal Decree to save for Christ's sake a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind as revealed in the Scriptures of Truth is Gospel for it is good and glad tydings to the visible Church 2. The absolute Prophecy and Promise to send Christ into the World to redeem Man and to seek and save that which is lost is Gospel also for it is good and glad tydings The like I say of Christ's being actually come into the World 3. The Absolute Promise to take away the Heart of Stone and to give an Heart of Flesh to give the Redeemed Saving Faith and Repentance is Gospel also since it is good and glad Tydings Now we never said that the Gospel in any of these Three Senses is a Law commanding us to do any Duty or perform any Condition But 4. The word Gospel in a more large and comprehensive Sense is taken for the Intire Covenant of Grace which God hath made with his Church through the Mediator his Son
did not mean any such thing as his words clearly and necessarily import Mr. G quotes a Sentence out of the same Disputation Thes 25. Where he says (n) Evangelium hoc modo non incommodè definiri potest Doctrina Divina qua arcanum Dei foedus de gratuita salute per Christum hominibus in peccatum lapsis annunciatur cum electis inchoatur ac conservatur ad ipsorum salutem Dei Servatoris gloriam Gomar Oper. Part. 3. Disp 14. Thes 25. The Gospel may not unfitly be defined this way It is a Divine Doctrine whereby the secret Covenant of God concerning free Salvation by Christ is declared unto Men fallen into sin and is begun with the Elect and conserved or continued unto their Salvation and the Glory of God their Saviour But this will not do my R. Brothers Business For 1. Gomarus here doth not pretend accurately and fully to define the Gospel and therefore he only says it may not unfitly be defined this way And one may well enough express himself thus when he is to give only a general Description which is an imperfect definition of a thing 2. This Description of the Gospel goes before in the 25th Position Whereas the Testimony quoted out of him in the Apology comes after in the 30th Position in which Gomarus designedly explains himself and adds what he had before omitted in his description of the Gospel Thes 25. and expresly asserts the Gospel to be a Law and a Law of Grace and gives his Reasons for both 3. Here then Gomarus did not in the least contradict himself only in Thes 30. he explained and expressed what he had supposed and implyed and added what he had omitted in Thes 25. 4. Here also Mr. G should have considered Gomarus his 29. Position which I quoted at large in the Apology pag. 100 but shall not here repeat it for he cannot but have seen it since it is immediately before the 30th which he pretends to Answer These things being duely considered it is as clear as the Light that my R Brother dealt very disingenuously not to use a worse word when he thus concluded pag. 34. of his Discourse Therefore when Gomarus a little after calls the Gospel a Law he must necessarily understand the word Gospel as it signifies all the second part of the Bible not as it implyes only God's Covenant of Grace discovered to Man This is so far from being true de facto that it is impossible it should be true And my R.B. who hath read the place if he knows any thing cannot but know that it is false For it is most evident from Gomarus his words both as they are in his own Works and as they are cited in the Apology p. 27. and 100. That the Gospel he speaks of is not the Book of the New Testament but it is the very Covenant of Grace it self both discovered unto and made with Man and recorded in the Books both of the Old and New Testament It is the Covenant which hath a condition in it prescribed to us and required of us Yea It is the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 It is the Law which goes forth out of Sion as he proves from Isa 2.3 And that Mr. G himself hath acknowledged to be the very Gospel in its strict and proper Sense How to excuse my R. B. here from being guilty of a known falsincation I profess I know not But whatever be of that sure I am that Gomarus his own words cannot bear that sence which he would force upon them And I appeal to Schollars and Judicious honest Men to judge between us and determine which of us two gives the genuine true Sense of those words of Gomarus which I quoted in the Apology p. 27 and 100. Twelfthly Mr. G to back the foresaid Misinterpretation of Gomarus his Words concerning the Nature of the Gospel-Covenant brings the Testimony of the Heavenly Host of Holy Angels recorded in Luke 2. ver 13 14. but this doth not move me in the least from my steadfast belief of the Gospel Covenant its being a Law of Grace For from the Angels Doxology in Luke 2. neither Man nor Angel can ever prove by good consequence that the Covenant of the Gospel is not a Law of Grace The Angels not saying expresly that it is a Law of Grace proves nothing For it was no part of their Commission to say that it is or that it is not What they said is true indeed ay and it is true Gospel too as was acknowledged before in our first preliminary consideration But what then It doth not follow that therefore it is the whole Gospel and intire Covenant of Grace which God made with his Church through Christ the Mediator And if it be not the whole as it is not then what they said and what Gomarus and I after him say that the Gospel is a Law of Grace may both be true and so they certainly are But it seems Mr. G thinks that God is not at peace with him nor with me nor with any other Man nor bears any good Will to him or us if by the Gospel he require Faith and Repentance of us in order to the Pardon of our Sins by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ the Mediator of the Covenant And if that be really his settled Thought his Case is to be pityed and I heartily pray God for Christ's sake to pity him and to deliver him from an evil heart of Unbelief That he may through Grace come to the knowledge of the Truth and be perswaded that God's being at peace with him and bearing good Will to him is very well consistent with the Gospel-Covenant its requiring of him Faith and Repentance As for his descant upon the words of the Angels it is nothing but a flourish of Words and Rhetorick without Reason makes no Impression upon the Wise whatever Effect it may have upon others Now my R Brother his Premisses being false as I have shewed them to be his Conclusion as such must be of the same Nature And so it is not true as he pretends but really false that God from Heaven and some of the best Men whoever lived upon Earth do plainly tell us that the Gospel is no Law but a pure Act of Grace for they do not tell us any such thing And to the Lords People it is both It is both a Law and also a pure Act of Grace it is a Law of Grace As for what he says in page 35 of his Discourse that our Reformers were careful to distinguish the Gospel from a Law It is false in his Sense they were not careful to distinguish it from all kind of Law but from a certain kind of Law that is from the Law of Works This indeed they were careful to do and so are we too And as they would not so no more do we suffer Works under never so specious pretences to invade the Prerogative of Grace In fine what Mr.
I meant nothing but the new Covenant of Grace and only said that this Gospel-Covenant might be called a Law without just cause of offence to the Brethren because the Scriptures of Truth call it a Law Now if I did all this in the Apology Page 21 22 23 27. as I certainly did and God Angels and Men know it to be true then my Reverend Brother did not do well to go about to deceive the People and make them believe that I introduce a new Law of Works to be justified and saved by and for them and that my Arguments to prove it are all grounded upon the ambiguity of the word Law unexplained All which is utterly false I confess indeed what is true that though my purpose and design was not to prove but to explain and declare what we meant yet en passant on the by and to shew that our explication was agreeable to Scripture I dropped four passages of Scripture and referred to more in the Margent which do abundantly prove the thing they were quoted for But it is as clear as the Light at Noon-day that my Proof from the said four passages of Scripture in the Line and from the other referred to on the Margent is not in the least established upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law but upon the plain sense and meaning of the Scriptures there alledged Nor could an Argument from those Scriptures there quoted or referred to be grounded upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law because the word Law is not to be sound in any of them Let any Man read them all over and he shall find what I say to be true to wit that the word Law is not in any of them I acknowledge likewise that a few Lines after in the same 22th Page I quote three Scriptures where the word Law is but then it is again as clear as the Light that I quoted those three Scriptures to prove nothing but this That our Brethren should not dislike our calling the Gospel-Covenant a Law because the Scriptures of Truth call it so expresly And my R. Brother acknowledges now with me that it is so called in two of the places to wit Isa 42.4 and Rom. 3.27 and in several others which he hath quoted As for my other Argument from Humane Authority neither is that established on the ambiguity of the word Law but on the word it self its being found in the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines long before we were born From whence I clearly proved that the Word is not new but old And if the Testimonies of my Witnesses prove more as they really do even that the Gospel-Covenant was not onely of old called a Law but that it really is a Law of Grace which requires some Duty of us that was beside my design and purpose which was only to prove matter of fact as appears from the express words of the Apology pag. 24. lin 16 17 18 19 20 21. If any object that in the Preface and Index of the First Section of the Second Chapter it is said expresly that we have proved the Gospel to be a new law of Grace by the Word of God or Scripture and by the Testimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I Answer It is true it is said so But then consider that the said Preface and Index were Written and Printed after the Apology was Finished and Printed though in the Book they are both put before it as it is the custom to write Prefaces and Indexes last and yet place them first in Books Now when I wrote the Preface and Index taking a review of all that was said on that head in the Apology I found that my Quotations from Scripture and Doctors had proved more than I designed 1. I designed only to explain our meaning and by citing the four Scriptures in the Line and others in the Margent to show that our explication was agreeable to Scripture 2. By alledging the Testimonies of Antient and Modern Doctors of the Church I designed only to prove matter of fact to wit that new law of Grace was no new word but old This was what I designed in writing that part of the Apology But by looking it over after it was Printed I found that the Scriptures cited and referred to and the Testimonies of Doctors there alledged do really prove that the Gospel-Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediatour is a new Law of Grace which requires some Duties of us and which promises to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake only if we through Grace perform the said Duties And for this reason it was that in the Preface and Index I said that we had proved the Gospel in the sense there given to be a new Law of Grace both by Scripture and by the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines If any do further object That Humane Testimony can only prove matter of fact I answer It 's true Humane Testimony simply as such can solidly prove no more nor did I bring Humane Testimonies to prove any thing but that the Gospel Covenant was in their time called a New Law and a New Law of Grace and that they believed it to be such a Law which is nothing but matter of Fact Yet Men by giving Testimony to Matter of Fact may at the same time and in the same Testimony bring such Arguments from Scripture or Reason as shall likewise prove matter of right And this my Witnesses did especially Justin Martyr Cyprian Austin the Professors of Leyden Gomtrus Dr. Andrews and Dr. Twiss they both called the Gospel-Covenant a Law a New Law a New Law of Grace which proves the matter of fact and moreover in their Testimonies to the matter of Fact they alledged such places of Scripture or gave such reasons as do prove the matter of Right to wit That the Gospâ—l Covenant is a New Law of Grace and may and ought to be so accounted Now having first told the World how easily he could answer my Arguments and wipe off all my Citations upon a supposition which is of his own feigning and notoriously false as I have proved he next comes to answer my Arguments that is indeed my one Argument from Scripture for in effect there is no more but one and that one is there brought to confirm our Explication of the words Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace and to shew that what we mean by those words is consonant to the Scriptures of Truth as is evident from the 21. and 22. pag. of the Apology Well But be it Argument or Arguments he undertakes to give us a clear Answer to it and in order thereunto he proposes to do three things 1. To shew that the Gospel hath no Precepts or Commandments 2. That it hath no Threatnings 3. That it hath no Conditional Promises This is directly against the Professors of Leyden who in their Synopsis of purer Divinity say expresly as their words are quoted in the Apology
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. objects 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 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 it s 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 by 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
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
we have an account how God made a Covenant with the People of Israel in the Wilderness after they had received the Law of the Ten Commandments from the Lord appearing to them in terrible Majesty on Mount Sinai and pronouncing it with audible voice in the presence of Six Hundred Thousand People In that 24th of Exodus we read that when Moses had received from the Lord the other Laws to wit the Ceremonial and Judicial 1. He wrote them in a Book God himself with his own hand by his own immediate power wrote the Law of the Ten Commandments on Two Tables of Stone but for the other Laws Moses wrote them in a Book ver 4. compared with Heb. 9.19 2. He builded an Altar and Twelve Pillars the Altar seems to have been a symbol of God in Christ as one party in the Covenant and the Twelve Pillars represented the Twelve Tribes of Israel as the other party ver 4. so that here were the outward Signs and Symbols of a Covenant between God and the people of Israel 3. He ordered certain persons supposed to be the first-born to offer Sacrifices unto the Lord ver 3. 4. He divided the Blood of the sacrificed Beasts into two equal parts and mixed it with a little Water as appears from Heb. 9.19 whereby Christ was fitly represented who came by Water and Blood 1 John 5.6 and then having put it in Basons he sprinkled one half of it on the Altar ver 6. to signifie that God was appeased and atoned by this Blood of the Sacriâ—ces as it represented the Blood of Christ or his Bloody Sacrifice and also that Christ was to be sanctitied with his own Blood and consecrated to the continual exercise of his Eternal Priesthood in the holy place above Heb. 9.12 5. He took the Book of the Covenant in which were written the Duties of the Covenant to wit in the Words and Laws of God mentioned before ver 4. and read it in the audience of the people whereunto they consented and signifyed their consent by saying All that the Lord hath said will we do and be obedient ver 7. Sixthly He took the other half of the Blood and sprinkled it on the People to signifie the Ratification of the Covenant on their parts with the application of the Vertue of Christ's Blood to their Consciences and their obtaining Redemption Justification Access unto and acceptance with God through it alone Seventhly Whilst he sprinkled the Blood upon the People he said Behold the Blood of the Covenant i e. whereby the Covenant is confirmed which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words ver 8. compared with Heb. 9. ver 20. From the Premisses we learn Two things 1. That this was a Type and Figure of the Covenant of Grace Confirmed and Ratified by the Blood of Christ It was a Type and Figure of the New Covenant in its Gospel-Form of Administration for this Covenant was Ratified and Confirmed by the Blood of the Sacrifices as Representative and Typical of the Blood of Christ and of the New Testament in his Blood So the Apostle instructs us in Heb. 9. ver 18 19 20 c. 2. That this Typical Figurative Covenant had Precepts which required Duties of God's People For Moses took the Book of the Covenant and read the Precepts to the People Exod. 24.7 compared with Heb. 9.19 And when they had heard there read they answered and said All that the Lord hath said will we do and be Obedient Exod. 24.7 Moses as God's Minister in God's Name told them by reading the Precepts to them what God required of them by this Covenant they on the other part by their Answer expressed their consent and promised to be Obedient Whether they were all Spiritually sincere or not and I think they were not yet they were then Serious and Morally sincere and in so far as they were such they did nothing but what was their Duty in giving their foresaid Consent and what Moses acting as God's Minister who did not know their hearts approved of and thereupon Ratified and Sealed the Covenant between God and them Now hence I think we have a plain Proof that the New Covenant the Covenant of Grace or Gospel hath Precepts which require Duties For if the Typical Figurative Covenant had Precepts and required Duties then the New Covenant in its Gospel-Form of Administration which was Typifyed and Figured by it hath likewise Precepts and requires Duties For a Covenant that hath Precepts and requires Duties doth not at all seem proper to Typify and Figure a Covenant that hath no Precept and requires no Duty If my R. B. venture to deny that the foresaid Covenant at Horeb did Typifie the New Covenant in its Gospel Form of Administration he will find that he hath the Apostle against him and also that he hath our own Confession of Faith Chap. 7. Art 5 6. and the Reformed Divines generally against him Even the Marrow of Modern Divinity a Book so much commended by Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Caryl c and so much esteemed by his good Friends will be against him as he may see if he turn to the 54 55 56 c. pages of that Book The Third Divine Testimony to prove that the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace requires some Duties of us is to be seen in Deut. 29. and 30. Chap. That the Covenant renewed with all Israel Old and Young Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14. is really the Gospel-Covenant or Covenant of Grace in its Legal Form of Administration appears from hence that it 's said to be a Covenant which God made with them that they should be his People and that he would be their God as he had said and sworn unto Abraham Isaac and Jacob. But it was the Gospel-Covenant or Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham and confirmed with an Oath That he would be the God of Abraham and his Seed and that they should be his People This same Covenant in Type and Figure as was shewed before Moses had engaged the People of Israel into at Horeb but they had broken it during their sojourning in the Wilderness Therefore by the Lords special Command he renewed it with them again in the Land of Moab It is indeed said Deut. 29.1 to be made with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant made with them in Horeb. But the Learned and Pious Rutherford shews the Reason of that expression Rutherford 's Covenant of Life opened Part 1. Chap. 11. p. 60 is 1. Because it was renewed again after their breach of it 3. Because there was some additions of Special Blessings Cursings and Ceremonial Commands that were not in the formerly proposed Covenant yet it was the same in substance c. And as Pool in his Annotations on the place observes the meaning of the words Covenant made with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab is That the Covenant was there renewed with them as
indisciplinatis condignam tradens Legem liberis autem side justificatis congruentia dans Praecepta Filiis adaperiens suam haereditatem Iren. advers haeres lib 4. c. 21. The Lord is the Master of the Family who rules all his Fathers house giving indeed to the Servants and those who are yet undisciplined a Law fit for them but to them who are free and justified by Faith he gives suitable Precepts and to the Children makes known their Inheritance Here Irenaeus distinguishes between the unconverted and the Law they are under on the one hand and the converted justified and adopted and the Precepts they are under on the other And gives to understand that the unconverted are yet under the Law of Works which rigorously exacts Duty and Service of them and condemns them for every Sin they commit but that the converted justified and adopted are not under the rigorous exaction and condemning power of the Law of Works but they are under the Law of Grace they are actually in a Covenant of Reconciliation with God which doth indeed prescribe Duty to them but not to be justified by and for their Duties of Obedience for they are justified by Faith in Christ but to be the way for them to walk in and the means to qualifie and prepare them for the possession of the Inheritance which by their Justification and Adoption they have a right unto and which in the way of holy Obedience to the Preceptive part of the Covenant he assures them of by the Promises of the Gospel That this is his meaning appears from his words aforesaid and from what follows in the same Chapter concerning the two Covenants Or his words may refer to the Jews and their Law on the one hand and to the Christians with their New Law of Grace on the other Again in another Chapter of the same Book he writes thus (f) Consummatae Vitae Praecepta in utroque Testamento cum sunt eadem eundem ostenderunt Deum qui particularia quidem Pracepta apta utrisque Proeceptis sed eminentiora summa sine quibus salvari non potest in utroque eadem suasit Iren. advers haereses lib. 4. cap. 22. Seeing the Precepts of a perfect Life are the same in both Testaments they show that the same God is the Author of both the Testaments who hath indeed prescribed particular Precepts suitable to both the Covenants but the more eminent and principal Precepts without which a Man cannot be saved are the same in both Testaments or Covenants Here are several things to be observed for understanding this passage of Irenaeus which though in the Translation which we have it be not elegantly expressed yet it bears a good and useful sense 1. Then observe That according to Irenaeus the Precepts of the Moral Natural Law are common to both Covenants the Old and the New 2. That he calls the two Testaments or Covenants Precepts and therefore I translate particularia praecepta apta utrisque Praeceptis particular Precepts suitable to both the Covenants and to translate them otherwise would render them unintelligible Now there can be no Reason given why he calls the two Covenants Precepts but because they both have Precepts and require Duties 3. Observe that he sayes God prescribed particular Precepts suitable to both Covenants and these can be no other than Gods positive Laws which pertained to the Legal Administration of the Covenant and are now abrogated and the positive institutions of the Gospel which pertain to the Evangelical Administration of the Covenant and are now in force Observe 4. that according to him without the observance of the more eminent and principal Precepts that is the Precepts of Faith and Repentance and of the Moral Natural Law a Man cannot be saved 〈◊〉 Which is true of Men at age for according to their Time and Talents after their Conversion and Justification it is necessary that they perform sincere Obedience to the Moral Law in order to their obtaining possession of Eternal Salvation For without holiness no man shall see the Lord Heb. 12.14 Hence in another Chapter of the same Book he says (g) Non indigebat Deus dilectione Hominis deerat autem Homini Gloria Dei quam nullo modo poterat percipere nisi per eam obsequentiam quae est erga Deum Idem ibid. lib. 4. cap. 31. God needed not Mans love but Man wanted the Glory which is from God which he could no way attain unto but by that Obedience which is towards God He means that Man cannot obtain Eternal Glory in Heaven but by Obedience Evangelical not as the procuring meriting cause of Glory but only as the means to be used on our part and the condition to be performed by us to qualifie us for Glory to be given us according to promise freely for Christs sake and as a testimony of our gratitude to God in Christ for our Redemption and Salvation See lib. 3. c. 20. This is manifest from what he writes in the 28th Chapter of the same 4th Book and in the 47th Chapter where he says expresly that the (h) Mors Domini est Salvatio eorum qui credunt in eum Iren. lib. 4. cap. 47. Lords Death is the Salvation of those that believe in him and yet both there and elsewhere he maintains that we are obliged to observe the Precepts of Christ in the Gospel in order to our obtaining Life and Salvation Yea in the 27th Chapter of that Book he says that now under the Gospel Covenant (i) Necesse fuit superextendi decreta libertatis augeri subjectionem quae est erg◠regem ut non retrorsus quis renitens indignus appareat ei qui se liberaverit Iren. l. 4. c. 27. It was necessary that the Decrees or Statutes of Liberty i. e. which appertain to the Doctrine of Grace and Redemption should be superextended i. e. should be enlarged above what they were before and that the subjection which is to the King should be increased that Man by resisting and drawing baok may not be found unworthy of and unthankful to him who redeemed him In a word Irenaeus goes further in this matter of the Gospels having Precepts that require Duty than I am willing to follow him so certain it is that he held that the Gospel hath Precepts which require Duties and that it is not a meer absolute promise or bare narrative that requires nothing of us at all I do not think that in Irenoeus time there can any be found that were of this absurd Opinion except the vile Gnosticks whose practice was very agreeable to such a Principle that the Gospel requires no Duty and for the Law it can do a Man no hurt if he be once a true Believer how loosely soever he live as Libertines think My third Witness is Cyprian who says (k) Vt de co ad vitalia Praecepta instrui possent discerent quae docerent per Orbem vsro
our purpose to transcribe here some things out of the Ninth Book of a Work of Theodoret which he Entitled Concerning the curing of the Affections and Prejudices of the Greeks or Heathens For thus that most Learned Bishop writes Those our Fishermen and Publicans and that our Tent-Maker brought the Gospel-Law into all Nations c. By this and more which he hath there to this purpose it is most evident that Bibliander there speaks of Christ not simply as God but as Mediatorial King and Judge and as such a King and Judge giving and executing Laws which could be no other but the Laws of the New Covenant or Gospel and so Theodoret calls them My Second Witness is the Famous and Learned Zach. Ursin's Sum of Christian Religion in English Printed at London An. 1645 pag. 2. ibid. pag. 126. ib. p. 125 127. Vrsinus mentioned before His words are The Law promiseth Life with Condition of perfect Obedience the Gospel promiseth the same Life on condition of our stedsast Faith in Christ and the inchoation or beginning of New Obedience unto God Again The Old and New Covenant i.e. the same Covenant of Grace in its Old and New manner of Administration agree in this that in both God requires of Men Faith and Obedience Walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17.1 And repent and believe the Gospel Mark 1.15 And again They differ 7. In their Bond or manner of Binding The Old Covenant bound them to the sincere Obedience of the whole Mosaical Law Moral Ceremonial and Civil The New bindeth us only to the Moral or Spiritual Law and to the use of the Sacraments And a little after he saith The New Testament or Covenant is for the most part taken for the Gespel This is one of the Resormed Divines whom Mr. Goodwin quotes against me But let any Man read and consider what I have quoted here out of Vrsin and what follows in pag. 131. of which I quoted some part before and I dare refer it to his own Conscience if he have any whether Vrsin be of that Opinion that the Gospel hath no Precepts but is a meer Absolute Promise or Narrative which requires no Duty of us at all Nay I appeal to the Conscience of my Brethren whether Vrsin was not so far from being of that Opinion that on the contrary he says it was the Opinion of the Flacian Sectaries which he zealously refutes as is manifest from what I cited out of him before and from what he says more ibid. p. 131. in the same place My Third Witness is Polanus who writes thus (u) Foedus gratiae est in quo Deus nobis promittit se fore Deum nostrum gratis propter Christum Nos vero vicissim obligati sumus ut Dei popul 〈◊〉 simus 20. Capita sive Articuli ejus duo sunt unum ex parte Dei Alterum ex nostra parte 21. Ex parte Dei est gratuita promissio qua Deus nobis pollicetur se Deum nostrum sore c. 28. Alterum caput foederis est ex nostra parte obligatio qua Deus nos sibi obstrinxit ut ipsi populus simus 29. Dei populum esse est ambulare coram Deo cum integritate Gen 17.1 seu vivere sub oculis Dei ut bonos liberos decet 30. Quod fit viva in Deum side obedientiâ legis c. Amand. Polan Syllog Thes Theolog. contra Bellarm. Part. 2. De Foedere inter Deum homines Thes 19 20 21 28 29 30. pag. 174 175 176. The Covenant of Grace is that wherein God promiseth to us that he will be our God freely for Christ's sake And we again are obliged to be his People The Heads or Articles of it are two One on Gods part the other on our part On God's part it is a Free Promise whereby God promiseth to us to be our God c. The other Head or Article of the Covenant it is an Obligation on our part whereby God hath bound us to himself to be his People To be the People of God is to walk before God with Integrity Gen. 17.1 Or to live under the Eyes of God as becometh good Children which is done by a lively Faith in God and observance of his Law Thus Polanus whereby it manifestly appears that he believed as we do that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duty My fourth Witness is Melancthon who long before Polanus taught this Doctrine that the Moral Law is so grafted into the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace that sincere Obedience to it is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant His words are (x) Vt in multis Naturae partibus admirandae imagines magnarum reium sunt propositae Sic mirifica est amiciria in naturâ quasi mutuum â—edus inter oleam vitem Non solum incolumis manet vitis si inseratur oleae sed etiam novas 〈◊〉 accipir tum uvas tum olivas gignit seu uvas pariter uvarum olivarum japore â—referenâ—es Imago illustris est Oleae id est Evangelio insita Legis doctrina fit mitior Sic enin demum â—choatur obedientia placet Deo cum Evangelio insita est Phil. Melanct. in orat de sympath â—om 4. declam 210. As in many parts of nature there are proposed admirable images or representations of great things so there is a wonderful friendship in nature and as it were a mutual Covenant between the Olive and Vinetrees For if the Vine be grafted into the Olivetree it not only remains safe and lives but it also receives new strength and brings forth both Grapes and Olives or Grapes which have the savour and taste both of Grapes and Olives It is an illustrious or clear image and representation The Doctrine of the Law being ingrafted in o the Olivetree that is into the Gospel it becomes milder For so it is that then Obedience is begun and pleaseth God when it is ingrafted into the Gospel Thus Melancthon shews by an elegant similitude how the Moral Law is taken into the Gospel-Covenant whereby it is otherwise modified than it was as it pertained to the first Covenant of Works and comes under a new form and sanction by which means our Obedience to the Moral Law is accepted as pleasing to God through Christ if it be sincere tho' it be imperfect Let those who have the Book see what Christopher Pezelius saith upon this I will quote a few of his words (y) Lex per se nihil novit vel de merito vel de efficaciâ Filii Dei de beneficiis Spiritus sancti qui essunditur in corda credentium per Christum Nihil igitur expresse docet de Auxilio quomodo fiant in nobis bona opera Deinde semper immutabiliter Lex requirit integram Obedientiam ab omnibus sine discrimine renatis non renatis damnat immutabiliter non habentes integram obedientiam
at Evangelium non modo auxilium nobis promittit sed quantum ad renatos pertinet hanc etiam dulcissimam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adhibet quod sicut persona gratis recipitur propter Christum sic Obedientia inchoata quanquam imperfecta contaminata placeat in reconciliatis fide propter Mediatorem Haec doctrina Evangelii nisi addatur Praeceptis legalibus quae repetuntur enarrantur atque etiam sanciuntur necessario immutabiliter in Concionibus Evangelicis erit doctrina bonorum operum non modo manca mu ila sed etiam iâ—utilis c. Quart par objectionum resp Theolog. quae sunt collectae ex scriptis Melanct. opera Christoph Pezelii Edit Neapoli Nem. An. 1582. p. 167 168. The Law of it self knows nothing either of the merit or efficacy of the Son of God and of the benefits of the Holy Spirit which by Christ is poured out into the hearts of Believers Nothing therefore doth it expresly teach of the help by which and of the way how good works are wrought in us Moreover the Law doth always and immutably require perfect Obedience of all without discrimination regenerate and unregenerate and of it self immutably damns all that have not that perfect Obedience But the Gospel not only promiseth us help but as for the regenerate with respect to them it mitigates the severity of the Law with this sweet temper and moderation that as the person is freely received into favour for Christs sake so the begun Obedience though imperfect and polluted yet is pleasing to God in persons reconciled through Faith for the Mediators sake This Doctrine of the Gospel unless it be added to the Legal Precepts which are both repeated and preached and also are brought under a sanction and confirmed necessarily and immutably in Gospel Sermons the doctrine of good Works will not only be lame and maimed but it will also be unprofitable c. Thus Pezelius shews the difference between the Law Precepts as fortified with the sanction of the first Law of Works and the same Precepts as they are brought under a new sanction and have put on a new form in the Gospel In this last sense the Precepts of the Moral Law belong to the New Covenant and are Precepts of the Gospel Yea the same Pezelius in the same Book hath demonstrated at large against the Flacians that over and beside the Precepts of the Moral Law which are now Evangelized the Gospel hath some Precepts which are proper to it self and require Evangelical Faith and Repentance which the Moral Law by it self immediately doth not require at all Some of his words are (z) At nihil cum hoc somnio commune habet dicere in Evangelio mandatum peculiare esse non patefactum in lege viz. de side in Christum cum qua pugnat incredulitas in Filium Mediatorem In lege fidei i.e. doctrinâ Evangelii non tantùm est promissio gratuita misericordiae Dei propter Filium Mediatorem sed etiam mandatum quod praecipit ut agnoscamus Mediatorem credamus illi promissioni Hoc praeceptum toto genere differt a praeceptis legalibus quae concionantur de Morali Obedientiâ Ac ut Puerile esset ex eo quod Lex Promissiones habet inferre quia Evangelium a lege differat non esse ullam Promissionem assignandam Evangelio sic ingens stupor est sic argumentari Lex habet Mandata ergo nullum peculiare Mandatum assignandum est Evangelio ne videatur introduci Lex nova seu Lex Evangelica c. Idem in codem libro pag. 152 153. But it hath nothing common with this Popish dream concerning a new Law in their sense to say that in the Gospel there is a peculiar Precept not revealed in the Law to wit concerning Faith in Christ to which is repugnant not believing in the Son the Mediator In the Law of Faith that is in the Doctrine of the Gospel there is not only a gracious promise of the mercy of God for the sake of the Son the Mediator but there is a Precept which commands us to acknowledge the Mediator and believe that promise This Precept in its whole kind differs from the Legal Precepts which preach of Moral Obedience And as it would be Childish from this that the Law hath Promises to infer that since the Law differs from the Gospel therefore there is no Promise to be assigned to the Gospel so it is great stupidity to argue thus The Law hath Precepts therefore no peculiar Precept is to be assigned unto the Gospel lest a new Law or an Evangelical Law should seem to be introduced c. See what follows there especially consult what he writes in Pag. 100 101 102 109 110 111 112 113 114 126 127 128 129 135 136 149 150 151. And in Pag. 82 83 84 85 86 87 where he invincibly proves against Flacius that the Gospel hath Precepts that besides the Precepts which in respect of the matter of them are common both to the Law of Works and Gospel of Grace there are Precepts which by themselves immdiately require Evangelical Faith and Repentance and that these Precepts are proper and peculiar to the Gospel Thus we see that the Opinion which is lately brought in amongst us that the Gospel hath no Precepts which require Duty and that there are no Sins against the Gospel is nothing but the old Errour of Flacius and his Party which they broached in opposition to the Learned Pious and Prudent Melancthon and which was confuted and exploded by the Reformed above an hundred years ago My 5th Withess is Henry Bullinger who tho he be suborned to be a false Witness against me yet is he a true Witness that is as much for me in this Cause as my heart can desire For thus he writes on those words of the Apostle Heb. 8.8 for finding fault with them he saith Behold the days come c. * Quod vero hunc attinet locum Testamentum hoc foedus illud Dei pactum est quo Deus voluntatem suam erga nos testatus est prorsusque nobiscum certis convenit conditionibus Coeterum cas conditiones patribus nostris Abrahae imprimis sic praescripsit Ero Deus tuus illa rerum omnisufficientia ero inquam Deus tuus seminis tui post te in fempiternum Tu vero ambula coram me esto integer haec scederis sive pacti conditiones sunt Henr. Bullinger Comment in Epist ad Hebraeos cap. 8. v. 8. pag. 533. edit Tigur 1582. As to what concerns this place The Testament is the Covenant and that compact of God whereby God hath testified his Will towards us and hath fully agreed with us upon certain conditions and those conditions he hath thus prescribed unto our Fathers and in the first place unto Abraham saying I will be thy God that All-sufficieucy of all things I say I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed after
thee for ever And as for thee do thou walk before me and be thou perfect or sincere And these are the Conditions of the Covenant or Agreement By this also we see that above 100 years ago our Doctrine was maintained by the Reformed in Switzerland to wit That the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts which prescribe to us Conditions and require Duties of us Now what shall one think or say of those men who in Print boldly contradict this plain matter of Fact and some of them are not ashamed to say that Christ hath helped them to write such falshoods I am almost weary in transcribing Testimonies against such unchristian asserting of Falshoods in matter of Fact and therefore lest I should quite tire both my self and the Reader I will bring but a few more tho I could bring very many My 6th Witness then shall be that holy and faithful Minister of Christ Mr. Shephard of New England whose words are †Mr. Shephard's Theses Sabbaticae Thes 110. pag. 78. edit Lond. 1649. The Gospel under which believers now are requires no doing say they for doing is proper to the Law the Law promiseth life and requireth conditions but the Gospel say they promiseth to work the condition but requires none and therefore a believer is now wholly free from all Law But says Mr. Shephard the Gospel and Law are taken two ways 1. Largely the Law for the whole Doctrine contained in the Old Testament and the Gospel for the whole Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles contained in the New Testament 2. Strictly the Law pro lege Operum as Chamier distinguisheth and the Gospel pro lege fidei i.e. For the Law of Faith The Law of works strictly taken is that Law which reveals the Favour of God and Eternal Life upon condition of doing or of perfect Obedience The Law of Faith strictly taken is that Doctrine which reveals remission of sins and reconciliation with God by Christ's Righteousness only apprehended by Faith Now the Gospel in this latter Sense excludes all works and requires no doing in point of Justification and Remission of sins before God but only believing But take the Gospel largely for the whole Doctrine of Gods Love and Free Grace and so the Gospel requires doing for as it is an Act of God's free Grace to justifie a man without calling for any works thereunto so it is an Act of the same free grace to require works of a person justified and that such poor sinners should stand before the Son of God on his Throne to minister unto him and serve him in righteousness and holiness all the days of our lives Tit. 2 14. And for any to think that the Gospel requires no conditions is a sudden Dream against hundreds of Scriptures which contain conditional yet Evangelical Promises and against the Judgment of the most Judicious of our Divines c. Thus Mr. Shephard where it is observable 1. That according to him the Gospel even strictly taken as it respects Justification only requires the Duty and Condition of believing And therein I agree with him that it requires Faith and only Faith as that whereby we apprehend Christ's Righteousness for to do that is the Office of Faith alone and of no other Grace or Duty 2. It is observable that according to him the Gospel taken largely not for all the books of the New Testament but for the whole Doctrine of God's Love and free Grace so it requires doing of Justified Persons and it requires not only the Duty of believing but it also requires that we serve God in righteousness and holiness all the days of our lives This is plain and so plain that I hope no honest man who fears God and loves truth will ever dare to deny it For my own part I must profess to the world that I am perswaded it is my Duty to lose my life rather than impudently deny so plain a matter of Fact 3. It is to be observed that tho Mr. Shephard do not here mention Repentance in order to remission of sins yet afterwards in p. 94. of the same book he doth expresly mention it as well as Faith tho it have not the same use and office which Faith hath in Justification His words are Is not this preaching of the Gospel the iustrument and means of working that Faith in us which the Lord requires of us in the Gospel And must not Jesus Christ use the means for the end were not those 3000 brought unto Chrïst by Faith by Peter 's promise of remission of sins upon their Repentance Were not many filled with the Holy-Ghost when they heard this Gospel thus preached upon condition of believing Acts 10.43 c. This was written against one W.C. Whether the Spirit of that person hath possessed any others in our day I will not say let them who are concerned look to that This Testimony of Mr. Shephard I conclude with what he says in p. 79. As do and live hath been accounted good Law or the Covenant of Works so believe and live hath been in former times accounted good Gospel or the Covenant of Grace until now of late this wild Age hath found out new Gospels that Paul and the Apostles did never dream of Now observe here that in this believe and live which Mr. Shephard says in former times used to be accounted good Gospel there is 1. A Precept Believe for it is a Verb of the Imperative Mood which commands and requires the Duty of believing 2. There is a Promise to those who obey the Precept and perform the Duty through Grace That through Christ they shall live But Mr. Goodwin will have the Gospel to be an Absolute Promise without any Precept at all Therefore this is no good Gospel in his Account Whether then he be one of those who have found a New Gospel that Paul and the Apostles did never dteam of let him look to that I hope if he see his mistake he will rectisie it Nullus pudor ad meliora transire My 7th Witness is the Edinburgh Catechism published for the use of the Colledg and Schools in that City in the year 1627. In the Section concerning Christ's Office the words of the Catechism are these * Q. In quem finem constitutus est Rex R. Ut ferret nobis Legem Regiam fidei vitae regulam Jac. 2.8 4.12 Rom. 3 27. Mat. 28.20 ut corda nostra in Legis suae obsequium flecteret Heb. 10.16 Act. 16.14 c. Method Relig. Chrift Catechet in usum Academ Jac. Regis Schol. Edinburgensium a Joanne Adamsono Acad. moderatore primario Edinb A. 1627. For what end was Christ made a King Ans That he might enact a Royal Law for us to be the Rule of our Faith and Life Jam. 2.8 and 4.12 Rom. 3.27 Mat. 28.20 that he might bow and incline our hearts to observe his Law Heb. 10.16 Acts 16.14 that he might invincibly protect and defend us Deut. 33.29 Ps 119.114
may throw dirt at us in the Dark His inference then fails that if faith for instance be not a condition in a Law-sense it must be only in a Logical or Physical sense and so it will not be a proper condition For 1. Why may not some Logical condition be a proper condition 2. Tho Faith be not a condition in one Law-sense yet it is a condition in another Law-sense It is not a condition in the sense of the old Law of works but it is a condition in the Sense of the New Evangelical Law of Grace And from hence it appears that what he says of Logical and Physical Connexion in these propositions if a Man be reasonable he is capable of Learning c. And if Wood be laid to the fire it will burn is wholly impertinent to the present purpose For in these propositions the necessity of the Connexion between the Subjects and the Predicates arises from the very nature of the thing but in this conditional promise If thou sincerely believest thou shalt be Justified and Pardoned The necessary truth of the Connexion Doth not arise meerly from the nature of the things but from the Lord 's free and gracious will and positive Law-Constitution Revealed in the Gospel Rom. 10.8 9. And so Faith is neither A meer Logical nor Physical condition but it is a Moral Legal condition in a very safe and proper sense It is not Legal in the sense of the Law of works but it is Legal in the sense of the Law of Grace And so it is a gracious Evangelical condition What he talks p. 33. l. ult and p. 34. Of the orderliness of the Covenant and of the necessary consequence of Justification and Glory upon the duties of Faith and Repentance doth not one jot help him to break the force of our Arguments and to shew That the Covenant is not conditional and that the giving of the benefit is not suspended till the Condition be performed For we shewed in the Apology that the Covenant hath indeed an Order in it between the Duty and the Subsequent Benefit but that That Order is a Conditional Order constituted by the positive will of God revealed in the Gospel and that it is God's positive will to suspend his giving of the benefit for instance pardon of sin till we through his grace freely perform the duty of actual Faith So that we shall not be actually pardoned till we being adult have actually believed and then we shall be pardoned but not before This we proved and our Arguments remain unanswered and we know they can never be solidly answered We need no more Arguments to prove the Conditionality of the Covenant in the sense that we hold it to be conditional tho we are not without other Arguments and could tell him what it is like he knows well enough in what books written by Orthodox Divines he may find a great many more Arguments to this purpose To tell people confidently That because it is a Testament it can have no Condition is to deceive them For it may very well be a Testament and yet have a gracious Evangelical Condition A man can make his own Testament so as to prescribe proper conditions in it and sometimes doth so surely then the Lord could prescribe a Condition in his Testament and he hath done it But as he is a gracious Testator so the Condition prescribed in his Testament is gracious too It seems to be the fundamental mistake of some brethren to think that the Gospel of Christ is a Testament so absolute as not to partake of the nature of a proper Covenant whereas in truth the Gospel partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant And this it may very well do in different respects In respect of the absolute promises it partakes of the nature of an absolute Testament and in respect of the conditional promises it partakes of the nature of a conditional Covenant And then the absolute promise of Grace to perform the condition makes the conditional promises Eventually sure to all the elect And thus the Covenant is a Covenant of Grace indeed a Covenant well ordered in all things and sure 2 Sam. 23.5 But saith that R. B. pag. 33. By condition they mean not a condition properly in a Law or federal sense as we use the word in bargains between Man and Man Answer What then doth it follow that because we use not the word condition properly in the sense of a humane Law or Covenant therefore it cannot be a proper condition in another Law-sense to wit in the sense of a Divine Law of Grace This consequence we deny and so doth Mr. Fox and Mr. Durham and it lies on that brother to prove it for we do not take his word for a proof Again in pag. 34. He says That the conditional Particle If used in Testaments doth not suspend but demonstrate and design the thing promised Others would say but demonstrate and describe the Legatees and some certain time and manner of Conveyance From whence he would infer that there are no conditional promises in the Gospel I Answer 1. Suppose that were true of humane Testaments which are purely Testaments and do no ways partake of the nature of a conditional Covenant it doth not follow that it must be true also in the Divine Testament of the Gospel which partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant 2. It is not universally true of humane Testaments for I can make my Testament so as to suspend the giving of certain Legacies to persons named in it upon their performing of some condition so that if they perform the condition they shall have the Legacies but not till then And if they never perform the condition they shall never have the Legacies But that brother objects further that if the Author of the Apol. by suspension understand a legal suspension it is the same with a Legal condition which he has denied before for conditio est dispositionis suspensio ex eventu incerto ei opposito and has an obliging influence on the promiser and confers a title of right to the benefit promised Answer And we have shewed that this brother doth foully wrest the words of the Apol. to a sense quite different from that true sense which we professedly and expresly give of the word legal condition See in pag. 37.38 c. The explication which we give of it at large on purpose to prevent Mens misunderstanding of us as this Man doth The explication begins thus Which that our meaning to wit of a not Legal but Evangelical condition may be understood by all we explain thus we do not believe that our faith Repentance and sincere obedience which are conditions of Justification and Glorification according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace have the same place and office in this New Covenant and Law of Grace which most perfect and
of the Church after the Apostles do expresly call the Gospel-Covenant by the Name of the New Law 3. Because many or our Reformed Divines since the Reformation have called the Gospel a New Law The Synod of Dort did so call it with Approbation as I have read in the Acts of the Synod See Act. Synod Dordrect part 2. p. 104. and Part 3. p. 124. and 139. and 208. That excellent Person Mr. Hugh Binning called the Gospel a New Law in his Sinners Sanctuary on Rom. 8.2 p. 72. And Mr. Durham expresly called it The Law of Grace Durham on the Revelation First Edit p. 259. For these Reasons I hold it very lawful to call the Gospel a New Law And yet if my Reverend Brother please I will agree with him upon the termes and with the proviso's aforesaid to lay aside the word New and will content my self with calling the Gospel a Law and a Law of Grace But if he will not agree to the Termes and Conditions before-mentioned then be it known to all Men whom it may concern that it is no fault of mine that we are not agreed as to this matter for I have offer'd to deny my self the use of my just liberty for Peace sake and more I cannot do with a good Conscience and therefore through Grace will not do it The Scriptures of truth often call the Gospel a Law and I have proved from Scripture that it is a Law of Grace therefore I believe it to be a Law and a Law of Grace a Law of Grace that hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Treatnings and as I believe so I Speak and Write I impose on no Man's Conscience and I hope no Protestant will seek to impose upon mine I will not deny my inward beliefe of the Gospel's being a New Covenant or Law of Grace but intend through Grace to live and die in the profession of that Faith But as for the use of the words New Law simply and without any addition of something that may explain their meaning I am content on the termes aforesaid to forbear it as Beza desired But if my R. Brother do not agree to the Termes mentâ—oned then I am at liberty and will endeavour to use my liberty as Prudence and Charity shall direct in calling or not calling the Gospel a New Law for though I can forbear calling it by that Name yet I cannot believe nor say that it is unlawful so to call it I shall Conclude with the Testimony of Tertullian who in his Book of Prescription against Hereticks tells us That in his Time i. e. near Fifteen hundred years ago and before the Roman Anti-Christ was born It was a part of the Rule of Faith or Creed universally believed by all Orthodox Christians That Christ Preached the New Law and Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven whereby Tertullian meant the New Covenant of Grace as that which requires Duty and prescribes Conditions unto Men and promises Blessings and Benefits for Christ's sake unto those who through the Grace of the Spirit perform the Duties and Conditions prescribed whereof the main and principal is Faith in Christ This is evident by what he Writes in his Book against the Jews Chap. 1. p. 122. and Chap. 2. p. 125. and Chap. 6. p. 131. And in his Fourth and Fifth Books against Marcion c. Lib. 5. c. 3. His words in his Book of Prescription against Hereticks are as followeth * Regula est autem fidei ut jam hinc quid defendamus profiteamur illa scilicet qua creditur unum omnino Deum esse nec alium praeter mundi conditorem qui universa ex nihilo produxerit per Verbum suum primo omnium emissum id verbum Filius ejus appellatum in nomine dei varie visum Patriarchis in Prophetis semper auditum postremò delatum ex Spiritu Dei et virtute in Virginem Mariam carnem factum in utero ejus et ex ea natum hominem et esse Jesum Christum exinde praedicasse novam legem et novam promissionem regni coelorum virtutes fecisse fixum Cruci tertia die resurrexisse in caeles ereptum sedisse ad dextram patris misisse vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti qui credentes agat venturum cum claritate ad sumendos Sanctos in vitae aeternae et promissorum coelestium fructum et ad prophanos judicandos igni perpetuo facta utriusque partis resuscitatione cum carnis restitutione Haec regulâ— a Christo ut probabitur instituta nulla habet a pud nos quaestiones nisi quas Haereses inferunâ— et quae Haereticos faciunt Tertull. lib. de praescript Adversus Haereticos p. 100. Edit Basil 1550. But the Rule of Faith that we may now hereby profess what we defend is that to wit whereby we believe that there is but one God and that he is no other than the Creator of the World who produced all things of nothing by his WORD who first before all Creatures proceeded from him or was begotten by him that that WORD called His Son variously appeared to the Patriachs in God's Name was always heard in the Prophets and at last by the Spirit and Power of God came upon the Virgin Mary was made Flesh in her Womb and of her was Born a Man and is Jesus Christ That afterwards he Preached the New Law and New Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven wrought Miracles was Crucified Rose again from the Dead the third Day and being taken up into Heaven sits at the Right-hand of God That he sent the Vicarious Power of the Holy Spirit who might Influence and Guide those who Believe That he will come again in Glory to take up the Saints into the Possession or Enjoyment of Eternal Life and of the Heavenly Blessedness promised and to Judge and Condemn the Prophane unto Eternal Fire after he hath Raised up both Parties to wit the Just and the Unjust having restored their Flesh or Bodies to them This Rule being Instituted by Christ as shall be proved it admits of no Controversies amongst us Christians but those which Heresies Introduce and which make Men Hereticks FINIS