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
Old and so could not then belong to the Old Law or Covenant of Works Therefore since the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace hath now some Positive Precepts different from the Precepts of the first Old Covenant and Law of Works it follows necessarily That the Obedience required by the Precepts of the Gospel must be partly also different from the Obedience required by the first Covenant and Old Law of Works But now if we consider the Obediences required by the said Two Covenants as the Two Conditions of their respective Covenants so they differ formally in Kind and not meerly in Degree for they proceed from different Principles they have different formal Motives and serve to different ends and purposes The most perfect legal obedience required as the Condition of the first Covenant and Law of works was The very Righteousness by and for which Man was to have been justified and to have lived by that Covenant if he had kept it But now the sincere Evangelical obedience required as a Condition on our part of the new Covenant promise of Glorification and Consummate salvation is not any the least part of that meritorious Righteousness for which alone we obtain possession of Eternal Glory and Consummate salvation And as for the promises themselves of the two Covenants they also are specifically different because they have different impulsive and moving causes of their first making and are performed for different and formal fundamental Reasons In the Covenant of Works it was indeed of God's free goodness and gracious condescention that he promised a Reward to our first Parents on condition of perfect Obedience But in the Second and New Covenant of Grace it is of his Rich Mercy in Christ that he promised us Eternal Life and Glory on condition of our sincere Evangelical Obedience and Perseverance in Faith and Holiness to the End So that they have different impulsive Causes of their first making And being so made they are at last performed for different formal Motives and Reasons If the first Covenant of Works had been kept the Promise of â—â—â—e would have been performed and made good to man for his own personal Obedience as his Righteousness his only Righteousness in the sight of God But now the Gospel or New Covenant-Promise of Eternal Life and Glory is performed and made good to the People of God not for their own personal sincere Obedience but only for the most perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to them So that as the impulsive causes of making in like manner the formal Motives and Fundamental reasons of performing the said several promises of the two Covenants do greatly differ and therefore the promises themselves differ in kind Now it is in Christ that all the promises of God are yea and it is in Christ that they are Amen unto the Glory of God 2 Cor. 1.20 Thus I have Answered his first Argument at large And hence it manifestly appears that his Consequence is inconsequent and will not hold to wit that upon our principle the Covenant of grace would be a Covenant of works for I have shewed that the two Covenants differ specifically and in kind and that tho both require obedience and works yet they are much different from one another and in order to far different ends and purposes The works required by the first and old Covenant were legal works that were to be the only Righteousness by and for which Man was to be justified and to live but the works required by the second new and Gospel-Covenant are Evangelical works which are no part of the Righteousness by and for which we are justified and pardoned saved and glorified Thus it is manifest that we do not absurdly confound the two Covenants of Law and Gospel but he draws silly Consequences from our Principles which he seems not to understand and builds Castles in the Air which tumble down for want of a solid Foundation And the worst of it is that he wrests the Holy Scripture which ought carefully to be avoided as that which may be the occasion of some other's destruction if not of our own The place of Scripture which he wrests both in p. 56. and 63. Is that in Rom. 14.6 Where to make it serve his purpose he supposes 1. That in the words Then is it no more of works by the relative it must necessarily be meant the Covenant of Grace 2. He supposes that by the said words then is it no more of works must needs be meant Then the Covenant of grace requires no sort of obedience nor any kind of works in order to any Gospel end and purpose 3. He supposes that the works there excluded by the Apostle are not only meritorious works but any sort of Commanded duties tho no way Meritorious nor conceived so to be And then from the words of St. Paul thus perverted he infers his Conclusion that it would be a flat Contradiction to Rom. 11.16 If the Covenant of Grace had any conditional promises and if it required any duty and obedience or any sort of work at all I freely grant that this Consequence is good from the foresaid three suppositions But I utterly deny all the three suppositions and I know my R. B. cannot prove them to Eternity If he thinks he can let him try his Skill for I put him to it But withal I advise him to take heed what he doth God will not be mocked nor suffer his word to be abused without controll If he shall say that he doth not suppose the three things aforesaid I Answer that he doth and must suppose them or else he grossly abuses the words of the Apostle by wresting and wringing out of them a sense that was never in them For understand the Apostle's words as he meant them and they make nothing for his purpose at all nor will they bear the inference that he deduces from them To make this appear consider 1. That the thing which the Apostle assirms there to be of Grace and denies to be of works is not the Covenant of Grace of which he doth not there speak but it is either the Election or the reserving of the Remnant of which he speaks in the foregoing verse 2 Consider that by saying it is of grace and not of works he means that grace and not works was the impulsive moving cause of the said Election or of the rescrving of a Remnant at that time But he doth not at all mean that because the Covenant is of Grace therefore it requires no works no obedience nor duties at all 3. Consider that the works whish he excludes are only Meritorious works because they are such works as are utterly inconsistent with and Destructive of Grace Now my Judgment is that the Particle it in our Translation of v. 6. Refers to the word Election in v. 5. And then the sense is as the Dutch Annotators on Rom. 11.6 Give it us thus And if it be by grace Namely that those are Elected to
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
Pardon of Sin by Faith in Christs Blood Hence in the same Book he saith (p) Vitam nobis morte acquisivit Christus morte superatâ nulla igitur spes alia consequendae immortalitatis Homini datur nisi crediderit in eum illam crucem portandam patiendamque susceperit Lactant. Divin Institut lib. 4. cap. 19. Christ by his Death hath purchased Life for us having overcome Death therefore Man hath no other ground of hope given him of obtaining Immortality unless he believe in him and take up and patiently bear that Cross to wit of Christ Julius Firmicus also writeth thus (q) Misericordia Dei dives est libenter ignoscit Relictis nonaginta novem ovibus amissam quaerit unam reverso Pater prodigo Filio vestem reddit parat coenam Nulla vos desperare faciat criminum multitudo Deus summus per Filium suum Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum volentes liberat poenitentibus libenter ignoscit nec multa exigit ut ignoscat Fide tantùm poenitentiâ potestis redimere quicquid sceleratis Diaboli persuasionibus perdidistis Julius Firmicus Maternus lib. de errore profan Relig. pag. 11. Edit Oxon. 1678. God 's Mercy is rich he willingly forgives Having left the ninety and nine sheep he seeks the one which was lost And the Father bestows a Garment upon and prepares a Supper for the Prodigal Son when he returns Let not any multitude of your Sins cause you to despair the most high God by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord delivers or redeems those that are willing and willingly forgives the penitent nor doth he require of us many things that he may forgive By Faith and Repentance only ye may recover whatever ye have lest by the wicked perswasions of the Devil The word redimere is not here used by this Antient Authour in a strict and proper but in a large improper sense and signifies to recover as I have translated it And so the word to save is taken largely and improperly in Holy Scripture when Men are said by Christ or his Apostles to save themselves Luke 7.50 Thy faith hath saved thee Acts 2.40 Save your selves from this untoward generation 1 Tim. 4.16 In doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee And that I have rightly Translated the foresaid word used by Julius Firmicus Maternus will evidently appear to any that shall be at the pains to read in the same Book Page 61. Line 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 c. And again Page 65 66. for by his own words there first to the Heathens and then to the Emperours it doth plainly appear that he was sound and orthodox in the point of our Redemption by the Obediential Sufferings of Christ God-Man and Mediatour between God and Men. But though it be thus that he maintained we are properly redeemed by Christ only and that none could ever obtain Life but by the Merit of his Obedience and Death yet it is withal most certain that he held not only Faith in Christ Jesus but also Repentance towards God to be necessary yea and antecedently necessary in order to the obtaining pardon of Sin For these are his express words (r) Quaere potius spem salutis quaere exordium lucis quaere quod te summo Deo aut commendet aut reddat Et cum veram viam salutis inveneris gaude tunc erectâ Sermonis libertate proclama 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum ab his calamitatibus post poenitentiam tuam summi Dei fueris indulgentiâ liberatus Ibid. pag. 6 7. Seek rather the hope of Salvation seek the beginning or rising of the Light seek that which may either commend thee or restore thee to God and when thou hast found the true way of Salvation rejoyce and then with an uplifted or loud freedom or boldness of speech proclaim it saying as the Heathens used to do in the Worship of Isis when they had found the Body of Osiris We have found it rejoyce we together when by the mercy of the most high God thou shalt be delivered from these calamities after thy Repentance And as the Apostles and Fathers after them as is shewn more largely in the Apology taught that the Gospel requires Evangelical Repentance in order to pardon of Sin so did our first Reformers and Protestant Divines since the Reformation As for our first Reformers abroad let the Augustan Confession which they all subscribed bear witness what their Judgment in that matter was I have spoken to this before and shewed from the express words of the Augustan Confession quoted at large in the Apology Pag. 88. That the Gospel requires Repentance in order to pardon of Sin and at the same time offers Remission of Sins freely for Christs sake to all that are truly penitent Melancthen who drew up that Confession and wrote an Apology for it is so clear in the case that it is matter of wonder to me that any should be so immodest as to deny so plain and certain a matter of fact For after he had said in his common places That the Particle gratis freely in Rom. 3.24 doth not exclude Faith but excludes the condition of our own worthiness and transfers the cause of the benefit from us unto Christ and moreover having said that the Particle freely doth neither exclude our own Obedience but only transfers the cause of the benefit from the worth of our Obedience unto Christ that the benefit may be sure Finally having said that the Gospel preaches Repentance but that our reconciliation may be iure it teaches that our Sins are pardoned and that we please God not for the dignity or merit of our Repentance or newness of Heart and Life but for Christs sake only and that this consolation is necessary to pious Consciences From the premisses he makes his inference in these words following (s) Atque hinc judicari potest quomodo haec consentiant quòd diximus Evangelium concionari de poenitentiâ tamen gratis promittere reconciliationem Definit itaque Christus Evangelium Luc. ultimo plane ut artifex cum jubet docere poenitentiam remissionem peccatorum in nomine suo Est igitur Evangelium praedicatio poenitentiae promissio quam ratio non tenet naturaliter c. Melancth loc com loco de Evang pag. 398. And hence it may be judged how these things agree that we said the Gospel preaches concerning Repentance and yet it freely promises Reconciliation Christ therefore in the last of Luke chap. 24. ver 47. defines the Gospel plainly or altogether as an Artist when he commands to teach Repentance and Remission of Sins in his Name The Gospel then is a preaching of Repentance and a Promise which Reason doth not naturally attain unto c. Thus Melancthon and I could quote more out of his Writings to this purpose but this is enough He who cannot see by this little that Melancthon believed the
salvation and effectually called It is no more or Then certainly it is not of works That is of the Merits or Dignity of their works Otherwise Namely if it were of works only or of grace and works together grace is no more grace Namely for as much as grace excludes all debt Merit or worthyness and cannot consist therewith For grace is no wise grace if it be not every way grace Rom. 4.4 And if it be of works it is no more grace Namely but a deserved reward i. e. then their Election and Calling was not done of grace Otherwise the work is no more work That is no work of Merit Thus they excellently well expound that 6 verse of Rom. 11. And refer it to the Election mentioned in the 5 verse so as not to exclude but rather include the reserving of an Elected remnant of Jews and their effectual calling to Faith in Christ After the same manner doth Mr. Mayo explain the same words In the 2d Vol. of Pool's Annotations on Rom. 11.6 He writes thus The Apostle takes occasion here to shew that Election and Vocation is only by grace and not by works And here he delivers a truth which the Jews of old either could not or would not understand i. e. that there is no mixing of the Merit of good works and the free grace of God But one of these doth exclude and destroy the nature of the other For if Election and calling were c. Let the Reader consult the whole Passage It is too large for me to Transcribe but it is so well done that I do most heartily approve of it Now this being the true genuine sense of that place of Sctipture let Mr. Goodwin prove if he can that because Election from Eternity and Effectual calling in time is of grace and is not of Merit of works either foreseen before Election or really wrought before effectual calling Therefore the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath no conditional promises and doth require no duty no not Faith in Christ nor no obedience or work of obedience at all I am sure that no Man living can prove that Consequence by one solid Argument It may be my R. B. will be more moved with the words of the Learned Ainsworth then with mine and therefore I will cite him a passage out of a Writing of that Learned Author His words are * H. Ainsworth's censure upon the Anabaptists Dialogue c. pag. 20. No Scripture telleth that our Election to Life dependeth on this Condition of our Faith and Obedience Faith and Obedience are the effects not the cause of our Election and are Conditions following Election not going before it as it is written Acts 13.48 Here Ainsworth acknowledges that tho Faith and obedience be not the cause but the effects of Election yet that hinders not their being conditions And I add that tho they are effects not only of election but of effectual Vocation yet they are Conditions with respect to the subsequent blessings of the Covenant And if they be Conditions then there are Conditional Promises in the Gospel-Covenant and it requires of us some Duties and Works of Obedience and though this be most true yet doth it not follow from hence by any true Logick That the Gospel will be only the superannuated Law of Works revived with some abatements of its required Duties Prove this Consequence if you can I put you to it but take heed that you do not lay your self further open and discover your own weakness in the doing of it Sir if you had only to do with me it may be you might easily run me down for I acknowledge my self to be nothing and am ready to lay my self at the Feet of all my R. Brethren not excluding my present Antagonist But I must tell you That the Lord's Truth and commonly received Doctrine of the Reformed Churhes will not so easily be run down There is one thing more in his 56th Pag. that needs correction and that is what he saith of God's conditional Promises being made to Men upon such and such a condition I humbly conceive this is a mistake One Man indeed may make a promise to another Man upon a condition so as to suspend the very making of the promise upon the condition and if the other Man do not accept or perform the condition the promise is not made to him at all but I think it is otherwise between God and Man God is infinitely Superiour to us and he absolutely makes his conditional Promises to us without asking our consent I say that God's making of the conditional Promise is absolute but the Promise made is conditional and God prescribes the Condition to us and Commands us to perform it But then God performs the said Promise conditionally that is He suspends his own Transient Act of giving us the Benefit promised conditionally till we through Grace have performed the Condition And if the Condition be never performed by us God never gives the Benefit promised unto us This is no new Notion of mine I have not so good an Opinion of my own Abilities as to venture upon new Notions in Divinity It is enough for me and I hope I shall through Grace be thankful to God for it if he be pleased to enable me to contend as I ought to do for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints Jude v. 3. This Notion I say is none of mine but it is the Learned and Pious Rutherford's as is to be seen in his Book of the Covenant of Life opened Part I. P. 91 92. Nor is it true that the Promise is made to the Aged upon condition of Believing The Promise is made to them absolutely whether they Believe or not But the Blessing of the Promise and Covenant of Grace is given and bestowed only conditionally if they Believe The Promise is absolutely made It is called conditional from the thing conditionally given Thus Rutherford And accordingly whenever I say That God hath promised a Benefit to Men upon a Condition I desire it may be thus understood For I mean no more than that God hath made to Men a conditional Promise that he prescribes to them the Condition and will give them the Benefit promised if they perform the Condition prescribed and not till then But I do not mean that God conditionally makes the Promise to Men so as to suspend his making of it till they perform the Condition And it may be my R. B. meant no more than this and if so we are agreed as to this matter But further Object 2. He argues against the Gospel's having any Conditional Promises thus P. 57. If the Gospel be a New Law or Covenant of Grace that hath Conditional Promises so it should be expressed or it doth not concern me at all it will follow that God in the Promulgation of this New-Law or Covenant of Grace offers Life universally to all Men to Tartars Negroes and the Savages in America to
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