to the end before mentioned it prescribes the exercise of Faith and Repentance And so the Gospel is a Law in a very true and good sense and that sense the same which we affirmed it to be in our Apology Whence it appears that my Reverend Brother has here yielded the cause and is come over to our Camp and if he would be consistent with himself here might be an end of the Controversie about the Gospels being a Law with respect to Justification For assuredly we mean no more than that it prescribes seeking by Faith and Repentance and chiefly by Faith as aforesaid And this is the commonly received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as I proved in the Apology and shall yet further prove it if need be But he objects up and down his book that if the Gospel Covenant did prescribe or require any work or works whatsoever and did oblige us to any Duty then it would be another Law of Works and we should still be justified by Works I Answer By denying the Consequence Indeed it is true That if the Gospel require a Work or Duty it requires a Work or Duty for that is an Identical Proposition and no reasonable Man hath so little Wit as to deny the Truth of it But it is utterly false that if the Gospel require any Works then it is another Law of Works in the Scripture-Sense of the Word For by Law of Works the Scripture always means such a Law or Covenant of Works as would justifie a Man by and for his Works if he had them as he ought to have had them But though the Gospel require of us some works yet it is no Law of Works for it doth not require any Works that we may be justifyed either in whole or in part by and for those Works as such Nor are we for them in the least justityed at the Bar of God They are not any of them the least part of that Rigateousness by and for which we are justifyed This we have declared and explained to fully and clearly in our Apology that we cannot but wonder that any Christian that is endued with Common Honesty and hath read and understood our said Apology should persist in accusing us of holding Justification by Works or in asserting confidently that it follows by good consequence from our Principles That consequence my Reverend Brother can never prove For though Repentance be a Work yet is it not according to our Principles required by the Evangelical Law as a Work to Justifie us or as a Work for which we are to be justifyed in the least degree but only as a means or condition in the Subject Man to dispose and prepare him for Justification by Faith only in Christ's Blood and Righteousness And again Though Faith be a Work in it self yet doth not the Evangelical Law require it as a Work to be a part of that Righteousness by and for which we are justifyed but it requires Faith only as the Instrumental Means or Condition by which we receive and apply to our selves and also trust to Christ and his satisfactory meritorius Righteousness as that by and for which alone we are Justifyed before Gods Tribunal Let Mr. G. try when he will he shall find it impossible to prove from my Principles as I have here truely and sincerely set them down that the Gospel would be another Law of Works and that we would be Justifyed by Works if the Gospel required Faith and Repentance as aforesaid I might with more appearance of reason prove from my R. B. Principle That if Faith be required only by the Natural Moral Law and if we be Justifyed by Faith as we certainly are and if Faith be a Work as in its own Nature it certainly is then we are justifyed by a Work of the Natural Moral Law and so are in tantum justifyed by the Law of Works and look how he can answer this Argument drawn from his Principle with as much facility if not more shall I answer his Sophisme drawn from my Principle That the Gospel is a Law of Grace I need say no more to answer all he brings in his Second Chapter but to declare that as he says pag. 12. That all but Papists Socinians and Arminians harmoniously agree in explaining such places as call the Gospel a Law after such a manner as may not give the least colour to the Opinion of the Gospels being a Law in the sense of the three mentioned Parties so I do entirely agree with them in that manner of explaining them and do with them utterly reject the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense of the Gospels being a New Law But then it follows not that the Gospel is no New Law in any Sense because it is not one in the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense Our Authour in pag. 10. says the Gospel is called a Law but no otherwise than as it is a comfortable instruction to poor convinced Sinners what riches of Mercy there are in store and as it teacheth them how they may trust and hope in the God of all Grace But this is not true in his Exclusive Sense for besides that it is a Law as it teacheth how such Sinners should ex officio in point of Duty trustand hope in the God of all Grace through Jesus Christ In fine Though in pag. 14. he mincingly say That the word Judge in Micah 4.3 may very well import no more than that Christ will judge what course of Salvation is best for us to take that he will determine the case and it is better for us to acquiesce in the Decision of his Vnerring Judgment which cannot be deceived nor will ever mislead us than to pursue our own mistaken apprehensions which bewilder us continually Yet even this will sufficiently evince that the Supernatural Gospel-Revelation of that Judgment and Determination of Christ our Lord and Saviour is a Law to us for as soon as it comes to our knowledge it doth of it self immediately oblige us to acquiesce in his Judgment and Determination and to take that course for Salvation which he hath judged best for us to take So that let Mr. G. shuffle never so much he will never be able to avoid his being obliged by the Doctrine of the Gospel immediately to believe in Christ Matth. 17.5 and to take that course which he hath prescribed in order to Salvation Acts 16.31 I shall conclude my Animadversions on this Second Chapter with the Judgment of the Learned and Judicious Mr. Pool who was neither Papist Socinian nor Arminian as it is expressed in his Annotation on Isa 2.3 Out of Zion shall go forth the Law The New Law the Doctrine of the Gospel which is frequently called a Law because it hath the Nature and Power of a Law obliging us no less to the Belief and Practice of it than the Old Law did Remarks on the Third Chapter IN the beginning of this Chapter he doth me a manifest wrong in saying That
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
with the Father and Spirit it requires Faith in him also considered simply under that formal Notion as God But the Law doth not by it self immediately require Faith in Christ the Mediatour as the instrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of him and his Righteousness for Justification It is the Gospel-Covenant which first by it self immediately constitutes and ordains Faith in the Mediatour Christ Jesus to be the instrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and Salvation and which likewise requires it of us as such and under that Notion Now when Faith in the Mediatour is once by the positive Law of Grace or Gospel-Covenant ordained to such an use and required of us for that purpose then I acknowledge that the Moral Natural Law obliges us to observe the positive Evangelical Law of Grace which hath ordained Faith to such an use and required it in order to such an end and so mediante Lege Evangelicâ positivâ by means of the positive Evangelical Law of Grace or new Covenant the Natural Law the Law of our Creation obliges us to believe in Christ the Mediatour to receive him and his Righteousness as aforesaid and to trust to be justified and saved by and for him and his Righteousness only So that justifying Faith in the Mediatour is required of us first directly and immediately by the Gospel Covenant only but secondarily mediately and by consequence it is also required by the Moral Natural Law This to me is very evident For 1. The Natural Moral Law cannot of it self immediately oblige us to believe in Christ the Mediatour unless he be otherwise discovered to us by Supernatural Revelation This I think none will deny for the Apostle saith Rom. 10.14 How shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard It is simply impossible for a Man to believe in Christ the Mediatour before he be revealed to him and he cannot be revealed by the Natural Moral Law without Supernatural Revelation therefore he cannot be obliged to believe in Christ the Mediatour by the Natural Moral Law immediately without a Supernatural Revelation because that just and good Law cannot oblige a Man to a simple and absolute impossibility Man in his Innocency could not be obliged by a Natural Law to believe a Supernatural Object without a Supernatural Revelation 2. The Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour to us doth of it self immediately oblige us to believe It doth not only discover Christ the Object but it doth likewise per se immediatè by it self immediately oblige us to believe the Object revealed so that all Natural Moral Law set aside and abstracting from any such Law the Supernatural Revelation of Christ would by it self immediately oblige us to believe And that 1. Because it is Gods own Supernatural Testimony which of it self hath an immediate Authority over our Conscience and obliges us to believe with a Faith of assent The true formal reason and objective moving cause of our obligation to believe a Mysterious Truth Supernaturally revealed to us is the Divine Testimony it self or the Soveraign Authority of God Supernaturally revealing If any Man say No it is not that but it is only the Natural Moral Law which obliges us to believe the Supernatural Tenimony of God I Answer That such a Man seems to be pecking towards the Socinians and does but discover his ignorance of those matters John says 1 John 5.10 he that believeth not God hath made him a lyar because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son See for this Essen compend dogmat cap. 9. pag. 284. Thes 34. arg 3. 2. The said Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour as God hath given it forth unto Man carries in it and with it a positive Command to believe on Christ This is so clear in Scripture that a Man must be blind that doth not see it if he do but read understand and consider Let Deut. 18.15 16 17 18 19. be consulted and there we shall find a Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour and a Prophetical Promise to send him into the World The people were afraid to converse immediately with God after the dreadful appearance at the giving of the Law in Horeb therefore they desired that Moses would be Mediatour between God and them This motion and desire of the people God approved of v. 16 17. and withal made them a promise by Moses that he would send them the true Mediatour Christ whom Moses in that did but typifie and adumbrate And at the same time by the same Moses God gave a Command to hearken unto Christ when he should come and backed his Command with a Threatning to punish them severely in case they did not hearken unto him Compare this with Acts 3.22 23. and it will evidently appear that here we have a Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour which contains in it a plain Command to hear him in all things and that hearing him in all things includes believing on him John 8.24 and 14.1 and the Command is enforced with a dreadful Threatning against every Soul which will not hear him and believe on him Now doth not this Supernatural Revelation by vertue of the Command included in it immediately oblige us to believe on Christ for Justification and Salvation Surely none but an Unbeliever can deny this And it not only doth oblige us but it would oblige us suppose that which is impossible that there were no Natural Moral Law in the World We have then a positive Law which immediately obliges our Conscience to believe in Christ the Mediatour besides the Natural Moral Law And thus was this matter understood above Twelve Hundred Years ago Witness that of Lactantius (l) Ipse Moses per quem sibi datam legem dum pertinaciter tuentur Judaei exciderunt a Deo Deum non Agnoverunt praedixerat fore ut Propheta maximus mittatur a Deo qui sit supra Legem qui voluntatem Dei ad homines perferat In Deuteronomio ità scriptum reliquit dixit Dominus ad me Prophetam excitabo eis de Fratribus corum sicut te dabo verbum meum in os ejus Et loquetur ad cos ea quae praecepero ei quisquis non audierit ea quae loquetur Propheta ille in nomine meo ego vindicabo in eum Denunciavit scilicet Deus per ipsum legiferum quòd Filium suum id est vivam praesentemque legem missurus esset illam veterem per mortalem datam soluturus ut Deus per eum qui esset aeternus legem sanciret aeternam Lactant. Divin Instit lib. 4. Cap. 17. Moses himself by whom the Law was given and which the Jews obstinately defending are fallen from God and have lost the knowledge of God foretold that it should come to pass that God would send a most Great Prophet who should be above the Law and should bring the Notice
the same Christ being God and all the difference is only made by that which is the Circumstance tho a deplorable one of our own persons This is another great mistake for the object of faith in God before the fall is not altogether the same with the object of Justifying faith in Christ the Mediator since the fall And the object not being the same the Act of faith is not the same but is different in proportion to the difference of the object Moreover as the objective cause so the efficient cause is different for the Medicinal Grace of Christ which is the efficient cause of Justifying faith since the fall is of a different nature from that Grace of God as the Author of innocent nature thereby Man was enabled to believe in God before the * See Rutherford's Covenant of Life opened p. 49. lin 16 17. fall And seeing Justifying faith in Christ since the fall hath both a different efficient cause and a different object together with a different habitude unto its object it seems to be specifically distinct from the faith which Adam had in God before the fall For the different specification of Acts ariseth from the difference of the efficient cause and object of the said Acts and from the different way of their being conversant about their respective Objects It is not a meer different Circumstance of our Case since the Fall that causeth the difference of our Justifying Faith now from the Faith of Adam then before the Fall But it is 1. The Difference of the Efficient Cause or of that spiritual influence of Grace which causeth our Justifying Faith in Christ the Redeemer 2. It is the difference of the Object which is not now God formally and simply considered as God the Creator and Preserver and Ruler of innocent Nature but nextly and immediately it is Christ considered as God-Man and Mediator between God and Men and ultimatly it is God Justifying penitent believers by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ 3. It is the difference of our Faith its Habitude and Relation from such a different Cause to such a different Object These Three differences are sufficient to make a different faith but it doth by no Logick follow from hence that every difference of Circumstance in the same state of lapsed Nature since the first Apostacy would make our Faith in Christ to be of a different Nature and Kind Now our Justifying Faith being thus different from the Faith of Adam before the Fall it may very well and it really doth fall under a different positive Precept such as that Acts 16.31 And yet I never denied but that the first Commandment of the moral natural Law doth also require this Faith but it doth not require it after the same manner as the positive Precept of the Gospel requires it 4. Fourthly Whereas from page 48 to 54. he endeavours to prove That because the natural Moral Law obliges all men to a natural Legal Repentance therefore it doth also of it self immediately oblige them to an Evangelical Repentance and that this it doth so as that there is no Positive Precept of the Gospel which requires of Christians and obliges them unto the said Evangelical Repentance In all his Discourse there he grosly mistakes in drawing his Consequence which doth not come naturally but is forcibly drawn against the clear Evidence of Scripture as I have proved before And therefore I utterly deny his Consequence and affirm on the contrary That over and besides the moral natural Law there are Evangelical Precepts belonging to the New Covenant or Law of Grace which requires of us an Evangelical Repentance considered under this formal Notion as arising from the perswasion of Gods Mercy in Christ to the truly penitent and as a means to prepare and dispose us for pardon and as having pardon ensured to it by Promise through Christ To such a Repentance thus considered the moral natural Law doth not by it self immediately oblige us and yet it was never denied by us but that mediately it doth oblige us to it in as much as it obliges us to obey the Positive Precepts of the Gospel which require such a Repentance of men to whom the Gospel is Preached 5. Fifthly Whereas he says in page 51. That the moral natural Law not only urgeth the unregenerate to Repentance but also moveth them to build their hopes of Life upon it That is a very gross and dangerous mistake For it is a great sin for unregenerate men or indeed any men whatsoever to build their hopes of life upon their Repentance surely then the holy Law of God doth not move them to it otherwise it should move them to sin which is false and borders upon Blasphemy The Truth is The Law of God doth not move men to any such Thing it rather moves sinners to despair of ever obtaining life by and for their Repentance or any thing they do or can do And since as Mr. G. says p. 51. The Gospel instructs us to put our whole and entire confidence in Christ and his Righteousness alone Where the Light of the Gospel iâ— superadded to that of the Law there the Law is a School-Master to bring men to Christ and Objectively moves them not to seek nor hope for Justification and Salvation on the Account of any thing done by Themselves but rather to seek and hope for life and salvation only in Christ and on the alone account of his Righteousness and Death Thus I have refuted his first grand Assertion which he takes so much pains to prove in his Seventh Chapter That the Gospel hath no precepts and requires no obedience I have shew'd that it hath precepts and requires duty and obedience of all those unto whom it is Preached and have answered his objections against the truth revealed in the sacred Scriptures and believed by the faithful Orthodox Ministers and People of the Lord in all the Ages of the Church SECT IV. His second assertion is that the Gospel hath no threatnings This I have refuted before in my remarks on his sixth Chap. but as I said there I must make some further Animadversions on it here in its proper place For the clearing up of the truth in this matter consider then that the Gospel-Govenant hath some threatnings against the unbelievers and unregenerate to whom it is preached and other threatnings against regenerate believers First the Gospel-Covenant hath some threatnings against unregenerate unbelievers to whom the Gospel is Preached and the design and use of such threatnings is to bring Men off from their unbelief and to move them to believe in Christ and to give themselves up to him in Covenant that by him they may be saved both from the punishment threatned in the Law and Covenant of works and also from that further degree of punishment threatned in the Gospel against all that neglect and refuse to accept and make use of the Soveraign and saving remedy provided by God and offered in
sinless obedience had and was to have had in the first old Covenant and Law of works c. Let any honest understanding Man read what follows there in several pages together with our Arguments from Scripture and Reason and he will see it as clear as the light that we deny the condition of the Gospel-Covenant to be a legal condition onely in the sense that works were a condition in the legal Covenant and that yet notwithstanding that and in good consistency with our selves we hold it to be a federal legal condition in another sense For we all along maintain it to be a condition of the New Covenant and Law of Grace and so to be federal and legal that is Graciously and Evangelically federal and legal And in consequence of this we hold and have proved that the Lord by his conditional promises hath suspended his giving of the promised subsequent benefits till by his Grace the condition be performed And that brother by denying this suspension not only contradicts us but in effect denies that there are really any conditional promises in the Gospel and contradicts all those Scriptures whereby we have proved that it is God's positive will declared in his word to suspend his giving of the subsequent blessings promised till the condition required be by Grace performed And all the reason he gives for his so doing is that suspension doth always suppose and imply the event to be uncertain and that where there is a suspension of giving the promised benefit Till the condition required be performed there the performing of the condition hath an obliging influence upon God and gives us a title of right to the benefit promised Which is a wild assertion and a meer begging of the question It is that which he neither hath proved nor can solidly prove to Eternity For why may it not be certainly determined as to the event that such a promised benefit shall be infallibly given to such a person upon such a condition and yet that the actual giving of it shall be suspended till he have by grace both freely and certainly performed the condition so that he shall have it then and not before This not only may be but de facto it is so with respect to all God's elect And then tho they most certainly receive the benefit assoon as through Grace they perform the condition yet it doth by no true Logick follow that their performing the condition required gives them the right to receive the benefit promised for the Lord Christ purchased for them both the benefit and the right to it and possession of it and God for Christs sake alone gives it them assoon as the condition is performed In fine that brother pag. 45. Saith The performing of the duty is the effect of the Grace of God's Spirit and effects bear not the Name of conditions Answer This objection is borrowed from Episcopius the Arminian and it was Answered in the Apol. See there pag. 46.49 and 66.67 Where the world was told that the Grace of God whereby we believe is so far from hindering our Actual Faith from being the condition that on the contrary it conduceth much to make it tho not simply the condition yet The gracious Evangelical condition of the Covenant We shew'd also in the same place that God's grace doth not effect and produce our Actual Faith without the free Concurrence of our own faculties Now you shall see how Episcopius the Arminian urged this Argument and how Triglandius the Zealou Calvinist Answered it * Conditio ait Episcopius non est conditio quae ab eo qui eam praescribit in eo cui praescribitur efficitur et hoc me negare dico inquit Triglandius merus effectus prescribentis non potest esse conditio praescripta nedum praestita inquit Episcopius Resp Trigl fides et obedientia non sunt merus effectus dei praescribentis fidem et obedientiam nam non deus credit et obedit sed ipse homo Est itaque non solus deus causa fidei et obedientiae sed et ipse homo Deus causa prima et efficiens principalis a quo homo id habet ut credat obediat deo quod alias nec posset nec vellet homo ut causa 2da et subordinata ut pote qui credit et obedit virtute gratia dei Trigland ubi supra Cap. 18. pag. 276. A condition saith Episcopius is not a condition which is effected by him who prescribes it in the person to whom it is prescribed And quoth Triglandius I say that I deny that But saith Episcopius again the meer effect of the prescriber cannot be the condition prescribed much less the condition performed Triglandius Answers Faith and Obedience are not meer effects of God prescribing Faith and Obedience For God doth not believe and obey but Man himself Therefore God alone is not the cause of Faith and Obedience but Man himself is also the cause God is the first and principal efficient cause from whom Man hath that Power whereby he believes and obeys which otherwise he neither could nor would do But Man is the second and subordinate cause to wit who believes and obeys by the strength and Grace of God Thus Triglandius Answered the Arminian Champion By which Answer it appears that Faith is not so an effect of God's Grace as that it cannot be a condition of God's Covenant as by the help of God's Grace it is freely effected by us And therefore Mr. Durham on the Rev. pag. 242. Saith that Faith is the condition of the Covenant of Grace properly which can be said of no other Grace or Work And if this be true then it is false that there is no proper condition of the Covenant at all Mr. Durham we see held that Faith is properly the condition of the Covenant in such a sense as no other thing is And we agree with him therein As he also agrees with us that in another sound sense true Repentance and sincere obedience are conditions of the same Covenant of Grace Of the same Judgment was the very Learned and Judicious Rivet Witness what he writes in one of his 13 Disputations †Com promissiones Evangelii habeant perpetuo annexam conditionem fidei quod adversarii negare non possunt item poenitentiae et gratitudinis quae in reprobis non reperiuntur sequitur ad eos non pertinere redemptionis efficaciam Conditionem illam hae Scripturae probant c. Andr. Rivet Disput 6 de redemptione Thes 22. Since saith Rivet the promises of the Gospel have the condition of Faith perpetually Annexed to them which the Adversaries cannot deny as also the condition of Repentance and Gratitude which are not found in the reprobate it follows that the efficacy of redemption doth not belong to them These following Scriptures prove that condition c. Thus Rivet there and afterwards in his Animadversions on Grotius his notes on Cassander's consultation To
in the Barbarous Nations which are most invincibly ignorant of Christ and are under no obligation to Believe in him because the Gospel-Law or Covenant of Grace which can only be known by Supernatural Revelation is not at all Revealed and made known to them but they are guilty of gross Idolatry and other enormous Sins against the Light and Law of Nature for which they are justly Condemned Rom. 2.12 And this shews that my R. Brothers second amazing absurdity doth not concern me for whether it do or do not naturally spring from God's speaking generally to all Men without exception and saying Believe in Christ and you shall Live It doth not touch me and the Cause which I maintain for these two plain Reasons First Because I do utterly deny the Antecedent from which it is said naturally to spring I deny that God by the Gospel speaks generally to all the Men in the World without exception of the most barbarous Nations and Commands them all to Believe in Christ with a Promise of Life if they do Believe in him Secondly For the consequent which is said to spring naturally from the said Antecedent I disown it also to wit That God contrary to his Wisdom and Goodness promises Pardon to all Men upon the impossible condition of Believing in Christ by their meer Natural Powers I am so far from saying this that on the contrary I say there may be many Millions of Men in the World who cannot Believe in Christ by their meer Natural Powers to whom God doth not Promise Pardon of Sin upon the impossible condition of Believing in Christ by their meer Natural Powers And hence it plainly appears that by my Principle I am under no obligation either on the one hand to join with my R. Brother in denying that the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace hath any Conditional Promises or on the other hand to joyn with the Arminians in affirming that there is an universal sufficient Grace i. e. as Mr. G. expresses it That all Men have sufficient means afforded them to Believe in Christ and that God gives help enough to enable them to Believe if they will and whenever themselves please I thank God I can by my Principle walk safely in the middle way between these two Extreams and not incidere in Scyllam cupiens virare Charybdin And I think it had become Mr. G. to have been more modest than to have past such a Censure upon our most able and judicious Divines who have maintained that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises as that they could not defend the Truth against the Arminians but upon their Principle that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises they ought all to have turned Arminians For this is in effect to say That Whitaker Ames Twiss our British Divines of the Synod of Dort Rutherford Rivet Spanhem Turretin Isaac Junius Triglandius Pool and innumerable more who held that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises were all blind and did not see the mischievous Consequence of their opinions which Consequence if they had followed they themselves must all have turned Arminians and therefore neither did nor could rightly confute the Arminian errors but young Mr. Goodwin is the Man that is above them all inlightned to see that the Gospel hath no conditional promises and by that means he is qualified to be our Champion against those Hereticks who were too hard for the Synod of Dort for Ames Twiss Rutherford Spanhem Durham c. Because these old weak Men were fond of one Arminian opinion to wit that the Gospel hath conditional promises which hath an inseperable Connexion with the whole Arminian System Disc pag. 58. Obj. 3. Thirdly he argues thus against the Gospel's having conditional promises The Scriptures urged by my Reverend Brother do not signify that God passed his word to all Men by a new Law established amongst them that if they obey it and believe and repent they shall assuredly be saved For God always speaks the purposes of his mind and none of his words contradict his heart but he never decreed either absolutely or conditionally that all Men should be Eternally saved I Answer that my R. Brother's objection as here set down in his own express words doth not at all reach me nor make against the truth which I defend For I never said that God hath passed his word to all Men by a new Law established amongst them that if they obey it and believe and repent they shall assuredly be saved I am so far from saying this that in effect I have plainly said the contrary in the Apol. pag. 200. l. 21.22 23 24 25. There my express formal words are that there are Heathens who never heard nor could hear of the Gospel for want of an objective Revelation of it Now by these words I certainly meant and do still mean to signify to the world that God hath not passed his word to all Men even to the most Barbarous Nations by a new Law of Grace i. e. by the Gospel established among them That if they obey the Gospel and believe in Christ they shall assuredly be saved This objection then I might dismiss as impertinent and not militating against me who am not such an Vniversalist as Mr. G. would make people believe that I am tho I have declared the contrary and any body would think that I should know mine own mind better than another Man especially Man who knows not my principles but by my book unless he suffers himself to be imposed upon by believing the false reports of his good Friend I hope that for the future my R. B. will be so just as to take the measure of my principles from my Printed Books and not from the reports of the Accuser But it may be my R. brother will say that tho I be no such an Universalist yet it is certain that I hold that the Gospel hath conditional promises and that the conditional promises are to the whole visible Church even to the non-elect to whom the Gospel is Preached To which I say again that it is true and most certain that such is my Judgment and I am not singular in it for as I shewed in the Apology it is the Common Doctrine of the reformed Churches and Divines Mr. Rutherford saith If the former sense be intended as how can it be denied The word of the Covenant is Preached to you an offer of Christ is made in the Preached Gospel to you * Covenant of Life opened part 1. Chap. 13. pag. 87.88 Then it cannot be denied but the promise is to all the Reprobate in the visible Church whether they believe or not for Christ is Preached and promises of the Covenant are Preached to Simon Magus to Judas and all the Hypocrites who stumble at the word to all the Pharisees as is clear Mat. 13.20 21 22 23. Act. 13.44 45 46. Act. 18.5 6. Mat. 21.43 1 Pet. 2.7 8. And again a little after in the same book pag. 90.
promises Annexed to them These are all fictions of the Remonstrants The newly mentioned Definitions of Reprobation do sufficiently and more than sufficiently clear our Doctrine and teach that no such thing doth follow from any thing in our Doctrine But that in truth Heaven and Hell are confounded by those who hold that the Grace which God dispenses according to his purpose is equally common to all And some pages before Junius had said * Non negamus vocatis gratiam offerri ut saepius conferri communiter sed negamus iis conferri eam gratiam quae potenter toâ—it omne impedimentum hominem infallibiliter Christo inserit Consequenter ex insitis sui ostendit nostra sententia meritoriam causam condemnationis in iis qui tenebras preferunt luci Evangelicae Id. ibid. P. 188. We deny not but that Grace is offered to the called non-elect and often common grace is given them but we deny that that grace is given them which powerfully takes away all impediment and infallibly unites Man unto Christ Consequently our Doctrine from its own intrinsecal principles shews that the Meritorious cause of Condemnation is in those who prefer Darkness before the light of the Gospel Thus that Learned Man represented God as one that by his grace gives some help even to the non-elect in the visible Church and utterly denies that God cruelly mocks them by his Commands or conditional promises †Nemo diâ—it aeternam salutem paucioribus serio promitti quam foris offerri quibus offertur â—s serio promittitur si praestent conditiones pactas conventaâ— i. e. si resipiscant credant Evangelio Id. ibid. Pag. 17. No Man saith quoth Junius that Eternal salvation is seriously promised to fewer than it is outwardly offered unto To whom it is offered to them it is seriously promised if they perform the conditions required by the Covenant that is if they repent and believe the Gospel The other Person appointed by publick Authority to Answer Episcopius his Apology was Triglandius who wrote a large Answer to the whole of it In which Answer he saith * Deus secundum hunc Magistrum desinet esse Author omnis boni praesertim spiritualis fi homini praescribat conditiones fidei obedientiae vel fi author sit omnis istius boni non licebit ipsi tales conditiones homini praescibere ita incompatibilia sunt Magistro huic Deum esse authorem omnis boni spiritualis in homine Dominum Lommiâ— ut creaturae rationalis cui posset conditiones fidei obedientiae praescriberâ— Quâ—nam quaeso magis inculcat sacra Scriptura quam haec duo c. Trigland Examin Apolog. Remonstr Cap. 18. Pag. 277. God according to this Master Episcopius shall cease to be Author of all especially of Spiritual Good if he prescribe unto Man the Conditiâ—ns of Faith and Obedience or if he be the Author of all that Good it shall not be lawful for him to prescribe unto Man such Conditions So inconsistent in the Opinion of this Master Episcopius are these things for God to be both the Author of all Spiritual Good in Man and also to be Lord of Man as a Rational Creature unto whom he can prescribe the Conditions of Faith and Obedience But I pray saith Triglandius What things are they which Holy Scripture doth more inculcate than these two c. The same Author afterwards in the same Book Chap. 30. p. 416. saith That Episcopius ought to have considered aliam esse rationem coecitatis moralis aliam mere Physicae that Moral Blindness is of a different nature from meerly Physical Blindness For in Moral Blindness there is an aversion from Light for it delights in darkness and hates light John 3.20 It gives it self out for the most sharp sight and obtrudes its own Folly for the highest Wisdom Hence he who labours under it doth not desire sight to be restored to him so far is he from it that he most vehemently hates the Man who endeavours ' to bring him to a participation of the light and for this cause he cannot be delivered from his Blindness and therefore Christ said unto the blind Pharisees John 9.41 If ye were Blind ye should have no Sin but now ye say we see therefore your Sin remaineth But they who labour under a meer Natural Blindness deplore and bewail their Blindness and desire if it could be to be delivered from it Thus Triglandius shows the difference between Moral and Natural Blindness and there he shews also how such Men might be Cured of this Moral Blindness that it is their own fault that they are not Cured and that there is no right arguing from Natural Blindness which is involuntary and inculpable to excuse Moral Blindness which is voluntary and sinful Again in the following Chap. 31. p. 421 422. he grants that unto the Non-Elect and called in the visible Church there is given Grace in some respect sufficient †Anon hic gratia sufficiens quid ergo causae quod non omnes convertantur credant Nihil dico praeter fastum arrogantiam humanam quâ—e non perâ—… subâ—gi c. Id. ibid. Cap. 31. Pag. 421. Is there not here sufficient Grace saith Triglandius What is the cause then that all are not Converted and do not Believe There is no cause I say quoth Triglandius besides Man's Pride and Arrogance which doth not suffer it self to be subdued c. and then Episcopius having objected That no Man in his wits would say that sufficient Grace is given to a Man bound in Chains for his Sin to go out of Prison because the Prison Doors are opened and he is again and again exhorted with Prayers and Tears to go out so long as the Chains wherewith he is bound are not taken off him Triglandius Answers the Objection in these words following * Resp 1. Male comparantur externa illa cum interniâ— violenta cum voluntariis ingrata horrenda cum gratis delectabilibus 2. Constrictus ille agnosceret quidem grato animo apertionem carceris sed conquereretur se adhuc numellis pedicis alligatum esse peteretque obnixe ea solvi sed qui vocationem rejiciunt agnoscere nolunt captivitatem servitutem suam imo nihil illis fit aegrius quam ut moneantur eam agnoscere arroganter enim multa sibi persuadent praetenduntque de Libertate sua Quis sanus dixerit tales esse solvendos vel oportere eos solvi aut alias injuriam eis fieri si non solvantur 3. Arrogantia pravitate malorum affectuum suorum servitio suoâ—hi dâ—lectantur atque haec ipsâ— praecipua causa est ut jam dictum ob quam non Liberantur 4. Agnoscant istam suam miseriam captivitatem servitutem ac petant submisse Liberationem Liberabuntur absque dubio Vid. Psal 116. 142. Isa 55.1 2 3. 61. v. 1 2 3. 66. 2. Mat. 11.28 c. Id. ibid. Cap. 31.