REMARKS ON THE R. Mr. GOODWINS Discourse of the Gospel PROVING That the Gospel-Covenant is a Law of Grace Answering his Objections to the contrary and rescuing the Texts of Holy Scripture and many Passages of Ecclesiastical Writers both Ancient and Modern from the False Glosses which he forces upon them By WILLIAM LORIMER Minister of the Gospel It was said in the definition of the Gospel That the Gospel requireth both Faith and Repentance or New Obedience Against this the FLACCIAN SECTARIES keep a stir c. Zach. Vrsins Sum of Christian Religion English Translation pag. 131. London 1645. Si conversus fueris ingemueris salvus eris In hoc testimonio conditionali Deus praecepto utitur promisso Dicens quippe si conversus fueris c. ostendit ex conversionis conditione promissionem salutis omnino pendere c. Dicit igitur Dominus si hoc feceris hoc habebis Si parueris praecepto potieris beneficio Fulgent lib. 1. de peceat Remissione cap. 11. LONDON Printed for Iohn Lawrence at the Angel in the Poultry 1696. ERRATA PAge 2. line 39. read not pr 3. l. 7. r. that it is p. 5. l. 30. r. Righteousness p. 7. l. 46. r. that men must p. 10. l. 23. r. falsum p. 10 l. 49. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 11. l. 9. r. to this p. 48. l. 1. r. l0 p. 62 l. 49. for at r. ad p. 85. l. 48. r. Tom. 2. p. 87. l. 30. r. into p. 88. l. 45. r. mutila p. 99. l. 45. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 48. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for thereby r. whereby p. 112 l. 17. r. bid p. 113. l. 34. for perculiar r. peculiar p. 119. l. 26. for hus r. thus p. 130. l. ult r. etiam p. 133. l. 23. r. we do not and l. 49. after Scripturae r. occulta autem sit eadem quia p. 136. l. 49. for ust r. just p. 139. at the end for canno r. adjuvare p. 142. l. 33. r. internis l. 46. r. ipsis p. 148. l. 43. r. efficitur Et hoc me negare dico inquit Triglandius p. 159. l. 43. r. Law p. 162. l. 32. r. at all p. 163. l. 46. r. of Jews ibid. l. 50. r. whereof p. 166. l. 42. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 176. l. 12. for hold r. held What other Errata may be in regard of a Letter or wrong Pointing the Courteous Reader is desired to mend them The Preface to the READER THOSE who have attentively read our Apology and have seen how fully and clearly we vindicated our selves from the Calumnies wherewith the R. B. our Accuser had Aspersed us in his Letter of Information may possibly wonder to find the Reverend Mr. Goodwin coming in to the Accusers assistance and undertaking to make good the same Charge against us that we are Corrupters of the Old and Preachers of a New Gospel to the great danger of Peoples Souls See the Preface to his Discourse of the true Nature of the Gospel and Chap. 4. Pag. 25. Lin. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. and Chap. 9. Pag. 74. Lin. 11 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 32 33. But if they duly consider Mr. Goodwins Principles they may cease wondering for he professes to believe that the Gospel-Covenant is no Law of Grace that is that it hath neither Precept nor Conditional Promise nor Threatning of its own at all And so that it reâ—uires no Duty at all not so much as Faith in Christ and consequently that there are no Sins against the Gospel The holding of this Opinion he judges to be of high importance to the Salvation of his own Soul See Epistle to the Reader pag. 1. lin 15 16. for it seems he is afraid that if the Gospel have any Precept of its own and require any Duty or threaten any Sinner then be is undone and that if * See his Disc p. 54. Christ as Mediatour be Judge then he shall be condemned Now it is no matter of wonder at all that a Man of such Principles doth accuse us and make a Clamour against us as dangerous persons for indeed we do believe that the Gospel-Covenant which God hath made with his Church through the Mediatour Jesus Christ is a Law of Grace which hath not only Absolute Promises but hath also Precepts Conditional Promises and Threatnings of its own That it requires some Duties and that those who neglect to perform such Duties are guilty of Sins not only against the Moral Law but against the Gospel also We do likewise believe that the Office of a Judge doth belong to a Mediator and that Christ is both Mediator and Judge and that as Judge he will condemn some yea many impenitent Vnbelievers for Sins against the Gospel So that here is a contradictory opposition between the Gospel which we stand for the defence of with a resolution through Grace so to do * See Mark 8.36 37 38. and the Gospel that Mr. Goodwin would obtrude upon the World which we think is so far from being the true Gospel of Christ that it is the Error of Flacius Illyricus which was condemned and exploded by Famous Orthodox Divines of the Reformed Church long before we were born And I hope the Reverend Mr Trail will yet join with us in condemning that Error of the Flacians as no part of Christs Gospel but a very gross and dangerous Mistake especially as improved by Mr. Goodwin But whether he will do so or not I am sure the late Reverend and Learned Dr. Owen and his worthy successor Mr. Clarkson were of the same Faith with us and are on our side in this matter For 1. Dr. Owen in his 3d Volume on the Hebrews pa. 220. li. 4 5 6. says that The first Promise Gen. 3.15 had in it the nature of a Covenant grounded on a Promise of Grace and requiring Obedience in all that received the Promise And pag. 221. on Heb. 8.6 It to wit the new Covenant is now so brought in as to become the entire Rule of the Churches Faith Obedience and Worship in all things This is the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 established say we but it is reduced into a fixed state of a Law or Ordinance c. Again p 222. Every Covenant saith the Dr. that is proposed unto Men and accepted by them requires somewhat to be performed on their part otherwise it is no Covenant Again in pag. 22â— I Dr. Owen do not say the Covenant of Grace is Absolute without Conditions if by Conditions we intend the Duties of Obedience which God requires of us in and by vertue of that Covenant And then from pag. 235 c. the Dr. in many particulars assigning the difference between the Old Sinai Covenant as such and the New Gospel-Covenant when he gives the fifth difference he says That the New Covenant hath for its Precepts the Decalogue with some positive Laws and for its Promises they are
all reject as false and absurd and as reflecting on God's Moral Law as if it had been imperfect before Whereas in truth Gods Moral Natural Law was alwayes most perfect in its kind and obliged to all Moral Natural Duties even unto the highest degree of sinless perfection And therefore what Christ did with respect to the said Moral Law was to fulfil it most perfectly in his Life to explain it by his Doctrine to clear up the true and full meaning of it and to vindicate it from the false glosses of the Pharisaical Jews to suffer and satisfie God's Justice for his Peoples breach of it And to impose it explained as aforesaid on his own Disciples and Followers as the Rule and Law of their Moral Natural Allegiance and Obedience unto God But then for mere Positive Laws as before his Incarnation he had given some such unto his Church so after his Incarnation the old Positive Laws being abrogated he gave unto his Church some new positive Laws such as those that relate to the Two Sacraments the first day of the Week as the Christian Sabbath and the Order and Discipline that is to be observed in his Church under the New Testament And though it is freely granted by us that when such Positive Laws are once enacted by our Lords Royal Authority the Moral Natural Law it self doth oblige us to obey them yet we are first in order of Nature obliged to give Obedience to them by the Institution of them and by the Soveraign Authority which doth institute and enact them And the Law of Nature by it self immediately would never make them Laws nor oblige us to do the things which are the subject matter of them if they were not first made Laws by a new exertion of the Lords Legislative Power which doth by those positive Laws themselves first and immediately oblige us to obey them Seventhly Consider that we ought to distinguish between a Laws being Old or New Quoad ipsam rei materiam substantiam aut quoad rei modum circumstantiam in regard of matter and substance or in regard of manner and circumstance Thus the Moral Command to love the Brethren is both Old and New in different respects It 's Old in respect of the matter and substance and yet it is New in respect of that special manner of loving the Brethren as Christ loved us Witness John 13.34 and 1 John 2.7 8. So likewise the Positive Command to believe in the Messias is both Old and New in respect of different Circumstances of time It is old even as old as the first Promise after the fall Gen 3.15 as it had respect unto Christ to come But it is new as it hath respect unto Christ already come and Crucified Dead and Buried Risen from the Dead Ascended into Heaven and there most highly dignifyed and glorifyed For no Man under the Old Testament was obliged or could be obliged to believe in Christ under this consideration But now we are all to whom the Gospel is Preached ind sp nsably obliged thus to believe on him In like manner though the positive Command to believe in the Messiah be as old as the first promise Gen. 3.15 yet the Command to believe that the Man Jesus of Nazareth is the true Messiah is new and could not be so old Eighthly Consider that we should distinguish between a Law that hath only Legal Promises without any promise of Mercy and Grace in it at all and a Law that hath all Merciful and Gracious Promises belonging to it and those many great and precious Now the first Covenant of Works is a Law that hath only Legal Promises without any Promise of Mercy or of renewing and pardoning Grace in it at all It is a Law that required personal perpetual and ever-sinless Obedience and promised Life to Man on Condition of such Obedience and for such Obedience only would have Justifyed him and therefore it is called the Law of Works But the Covenant of Grace is a Law that hath all merciful and gracious Promises belonging to it and those many great and precious and therefore it is rightly called the Law of Grace And with respect to the Elect who are the most proper subjects of it as a Law of Grace its predominant is Grace Grace runs through it all and appears in all the parts of it 1. There is Grace in the mandatory part of it in that part of it which prescribes its Condition in that legal ever finless perfection is not rigidly insisted on but Evangelical sincerity in the performance of it is required as a Condition which also is accepted through Christ and the sinful defect thereof together with all other sin is freely forgiven for Christ's sake 2. There is Grace Rich and Glorious Grace in the promissory part of it in that it promises to the Elect special Effectual Victorious Grace to cause them freely yet certainly perform the condition in Gospel sincerity And in that when they through Grace perform the Condition it further promises them most Gracious Benefits and Glorious Blessings and all through and for Christ and his Righteousness 3. There is Grace also in the very minatory Sanction for the design of the Threatning is not to bring on Men the Punishment threatned but to curb the Flesh in them and to restrain them from those Sins which their own corrupt Nature inclines them unto and which the Devil and the World tempt them unto So that the very threatning is useful to them and it is a Mercy to them even to such as the believing Romans that they are under that conditional threatning Rom. 8.13 if ye live after the Flesh ye shall dye And since Grace doth thus appear in all the parts of it See Heb. 12.25 it is very fitly called the Law of Grace yea I do not refuse to joyn heartily with my R. Brother in calling it a Doctrine of Grace but withal I must declare that I do not at all like it the worse nor is it unto me the less gracious because it prescribes unto me something to be done by me through my Lords Grace But I like it the better for that since it doth not in the least detract from the Grace of it Now if the Premisses be duely considered and if the foresaid distinctions be rightly applyed as there may be occasion it will be easie thereby to Answer all his Testimonies from Reformed Protestant Divines SECT II. His first set of Testimonies Examined and Answered FOR his first set of Testimonies to prove from our Protestant Divines definition or Description of the Gospel that they believed it to be a pure Doctrine of Grace 1. I Answer thereunto in general that if that be all they prove I profess sincerely in a true and sound Sense to believe the same thing to wit that the Gospel is a pure Doctrine of Grace as I have said and explained it before From whence it doth not follow by any good consequence that it
of God's Will to Men. In Deuteronomy he left it thus written And the Lord said unto me I will raise them up a Prophet from among their Brethren like unto thee and I will put my Word in his Mouth and he shall speak unto them those things which I shall command him And whosoever shall not hear those things which that Prophet shall speak in my Name I will punish him for it God declared even by the Law giver himself that he would send his own Son that is a Living and Present Law and would abrogate that Old Law given by a Mortal Man that he might by him who should be Eternal again Confirm and Ratifie the Eternal Law Thus he and whoever is acquainted with the Writings of Lactantius may I think easily perceive that by the Eternal Law he meant the Everlasting Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace which the Eternal Christ hath Confirmed and Ratified by his Blood shedding and Death This may appear yet clearer to some Persons from Matth. 17.5 And behold a Voice out of the Cloud which said This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him Where again We have 1. A Supernatural Revelation of Christ as the Son of God 2. We have a positive Command of God to hear him that is to believe on him and obey him as the word hear signifies according to the Hebrew idiom Now this Voice out of the Cloud was not the Voice of the Law of Nature but of the Father as such speaking by supernatural Revelation nor was this a Command of the Law of Nature but it was a positive Command of God as the Authour of Grace which positive Command recorded in Scripture is to us Christians a positive Law whatever it be to Unbelievers It is a positive Law which obliges us to Faith in Christ by the Evidence of Supernatural Revelation applying the Veracity and Authority of God to our Consciences Such it was to Melancthon one of our first Reformers who often hath recourse to it as a Command of the Gospel distinct from the Natural Moral Law Particularly he hath recourse to it twice in his Answer to the 22th Article of the Bavarian Inquisition And as the foresaid Supernatural Revelations carryed in them a Positive Command expresly so the first obscurer Revelation of that kind that the Seed of the Woman should bruise the Serpents Head Gen. 3.15 implyed the like Positive Command to believe in Christ to come though it be not so express in the first Written Record as it is conveyed down to us We have no ground to believe that God said not one word more to our First Parents after the Fall than what we find expresly written in the Third of Genesis And suppose he did not say one word more as on the other hand no Man can prove that he did Yet there is a Promise of Mercy to be shewed unto Fallen Man by means of the Seed of the Woman as is confest Now Melancthon has told us as he was quoted before That (m) Quoties igitur de misericordiâ dicitur intelligendum est fidem requiri Melanct. Apol. og pro Aug. Confess p. 116. As often as there is mention made of Mercy to wit saving Mercy by Christ we must understand that Faith is required But I insist not on that It is sufficient to our purpose that we now have a Supernatural clear Revelation of Christ See Acts 16.31 with a clear express positive Command to believe on him and that distinct from the Natural Moral Law And this express positive Command Hear ye him believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved is to us an Evangelical Law which hath more Power over our Consciences than Ten Thousand such little Sophismes set off with a Rhetorical Flourish of Words as are offered us to prove That we are not obliged to believe in Christ for Justification and Salvation by the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace but only by the Natural Moral Law Thirdly As the Opinion under Consideration is not true because contrary to plain Scripture so it is of worse consequence to Religion than my Reverend Brother seems to be aware of For if there be no Positive Law in the Gospel distinct from the Natural Law which obliges us to Faith in Christ because if there were then the Natural Moral Law would not be perfect and prescribe all Duty nor would God be Infinitely Wise it follows by the same reason that there is no positive Law at all which obligeth us to any other Duty and indeed by this Flacian Opinion he plainly overthrows all Positive Laws and therewith all Instituted Worship And he is mistaken if he think to prevent and remedy this by reducing all to the Natural Moral Law For 1. If there be no Positive Law at all then it can never be reduced to the Natural Moral Law For a thing that is not at all cannot be reduced to a thing that really is 2. The Natural Moral Law would never oblige us to any the least part of Positive Instituted Worship if we were not first in order of Nature obliged to it by the positive Will of God instituting it and by the Institution it self immediately obliging us to the observance of it Once take away the Obligation that arises immediately from the positive Institution and the Law of Nature the Moral Natural Law will never take hold of our Consciences to oblige us thereunto For it is by means of the Special Positive Law that the General Natural Law obliges to such and such particular kind of things which fall not under the Commands of the general Natural Law Is it not very evident that though Adam before he sinned had the Moral Natural Law in its full perfection yet it would never have obliged his Conscience to forbear Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil more than any other Fruit in the Garden of Eden If to the General Natural Law God had not super-added a particular positive Law forbidding him under pain of Death to eat of the Fruit of that Tree So that it was this New Positive Law which first obliged him not to eat of it and then by Vertue of that The Moral Natural Law strictly obliged him likewise not to eat of it And this holds Universally with respect to every thing that depends on the Arbitrary Will of God to make it our Duty or not It is his Positive Law signifying his Will and Pleasure that first obliges us and then by vertue thereof God's General Natural Law obliges us also and not otherwise So that upon this absurd Principle if it should prevail amongst us we must all turn Seventh day-Men and Quakers for we shall never be able to prove by any or all of the Ten Commandments without a Positive Law expresly or implicitly instituting them and still in force That the First Day of the Week is the Christian Sabbath That we ought to be Baptized
our purpose to transcribe here some things out of the Ninth Book of a Work of Theodoret which he Entitled Concerning the curing of the Affections and Prejudices of the Greeks or Heathens For thus that most Learned Bishop writes Those our Fishermen and Publicans and that our Tent-Maker brought the Gospel-Law into all Nations c. By this and more which he hath there to this purpose it is most evident that Bibliander there speaks of Christ not simply as God but as Mediatorial King and Judge and as such a King and Judge giving and executing Laws which could be no other but the Laws of the New Covenant or Gospel and so Theodoret calls them My Second Witness is the Famous and Learned Zach. Ursin's Sum of Christian Religion in English Printed at London An. 1645 pag. 2. ibid. pag. 126. ib. p. 125 127. Vrsinus mentioned before His words are The Law promiseth Life with Condition of perfect Obedience the Gospel promiseth the same Life on condition of our stedsast Faith in Christ and the inchoation or beginning of New Obedience unto God Again The Old and New Covenant i.e. the same Covenant of Grace in its Old and New manner of Administration agree in this that in both God requires of Men Faith and Obedience Walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17.1 And repent and believe the Gospel Mark 1.15 And again They differ 7. In their Bond or manner of Binding The Old Covenant bound them to the sincere Obedience of the whole Mosaical Law Moral Ceremonial and Civil The New bindeth us only to the Moral or Spiritual Law and to the use of the Sacraments And a little after he saith The New Testament or Covenant is for the most part taken for the Gespel This is one of the Resormed Divines whom Mr. Goodwin quotes against me But let any Man read and consider what I have quoted here out of Vrsin and what follows in pag. 131. of which I quoted some part before and I dare refer it to his own Conscience if he have any whether Vrsin be of that Opinion that the Gospel hath no Precepts but is a meer Absolute Promise or Narrative which requires no Duty of us at all Nay I appeal to the Conscience of my Brethren whether Vrsin was not so far from being of that Opinion that on the contrary he says it was the Opinion of the Flacian Sectaries which he zealously refutes as is manifest from what I cited out of him before and from what he says more ibid. p. 131. in the same place My Third Witness is Polanus who writes thus (u) Foedus gratiae est in quo Deus nobis promittit se fore Deum nostrum gratis propter Christum Nos vero vicissim obligati sumus ut Dei popul 〈◊〉 simus 20. Capita sive Articuli ejus duo sunt unum ex parte Dei Alterum ex nostra parte 21. Ex parte Dei est gratuita promissio qua Deus nobis pollicetur se Deum nostrum sore c. 28. Alterum caput foederis est ex nostra parte obligatio qua Deus nos sibi obstrinxit ut ipsi populus simus 29. Dei populum esse est ambulare coram Deo cum integritate Gen 17.1 seu vivere sub oculis Dei ut bonos liberos decet 30. Quod fit viva in Deum side obedientiâ legis c. Amand. Polan Syllog Thes Theolog. contra Bellarm. Part. 2. De Foedere inter Deum homines Thes 19 20 21 28 29 30. pag. 174 175 176. The Covenant of Grace is that wherein God promiseth to us that he will be our God freely for Christ's sake And we again are obliged to be his People The Heads or Articles of it are two One on Gods part the other on our part On God's part it is a Free Promise whereby God promiseth to us to be our God c. The other Head or Article of the Covenant it is an Obligation on our part whereby God hath bound us to himself to be his People To be the People of God is to walk before God with Integrity Gen. 17.1 Or to live under the Eyes of God as becometh good Children which is done by a lively Faith in God and observance of his Law Thus Polanus whereby it manifestly appears that he believed as we do that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duty My fourth Witness is Melancthon who long before Polanus taught this Doctrine that the Moral Law is so grafted into the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace that sincere Obedience to it is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant His words are (x) Vt in multis Naturae partibus admirandae imagines magnarum reium sunt propositae Sic mirifica est amiciria in naturâ quasi mutuum â—edus inter oleam vitem Non solum incolumis manet vitis si inseratur oleae sed etiam novas 〈◊〉 accipir tum uvas tum olivas gignit seu uvas pariter uvarum olivarum japore â—referenâ—es Imago illustris est Oleae id est Evangelio insita Legis doctrina fit mitior Sic enin demum â—choatur obedientia placet Deo cum Evangelio insita est Phil. Melanct. in orat de sympath â—om 4. declam 210. As in many parts of nature there are proposed admirable images or representations of great things so there is a wonderful friendship in nature and as it were a mutual Covenant between the Olive and Vinetrees For if the Vine be grafted into the Olivetree it not only remains safe and lives but it also receives new strength and brings forth both Grapes and Olives or Grapes which have the savour and taste both of Grapes and Olives It is an illustrious or clear image and representation The Doctrine of the Law being ingrafted in o the Olivetree that is into the Gospel it becomes milder For so it is that then Obedience is begun and pleaseth God when it is ingrafted into the Gospel Thus Melancthon shews by an elegant similitude how the Moral Law is taken into the Gospel-Covenant whereby it is otherwise modified than it was as it pertained to the first Covenant of Works and comes under a new form and sanction by which means our Obedience to the Moral Law is accepted as pleasing to God through Christ if it be sincere tho' it be imperfect Let those who have the Book see what Christopher Pezelius saith upon this I will quote a few of his words (y) Lex per se nihil novit vel de merito vel de efficaciâ Filii Dei de beneficiis Spiritus sancti qui essunditur in corda credentium per Christum Nihil igitur expresse docet de Auxilio quomodo fiant in nobis bona opera Deinde semper immutabiliter Lex requirit integram Obedientiam ab omnibus sine discrimine renatis non renatis damnat immutabiliter non habentes integram obedientiam
that he might provide for the happiness of and might bountifully reward us his Subjects 2 Tim. 4.8 Joh. 10 28. and that he might destroy all his Ensmies being brought down and made his Footstool Ps 110.1 And afterwards in the Section concerning the Covenant of God there are these Questions and Answers * Q. Quid nobis promissum est in scedere gratiae R. Remissio peccatorum nova Justitia vita aeterna Q. Qua conditione haec facta nobis est promissio R Sub conditione fidei obedientiae ex fide Q. What is promised to us in the Covenant of Grace Ans Remission of Sins a new Righteousness and Eternal Life Q. Vnder what condition is that promise made to us Ans Vnder the condition of Faith and Obedience of Faith John 3.16 and 13.17 Gal. 6.16 Rom. 1.5 Thus the Edenburgh-Catechism written for the use of the Colledg and Schools there by Mr. John Adamson Principal who was afterwards a Member of the General Assembly at Glasgow in the year 1638. if I be not misinform'd and his Name I saw at St. Andrews in the List of the Names of the Members of that Synod But that which is material is this That the Catechism saith Christ was made a King that he might give us a Royal Law to be the Rule of our Faith and Life This in such a way he could not do as Mediatorial King unless the Gospel-Covenant whereof he is Mediator had Precepts and required Duty But that the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts and requires Duty according to that Catechism is evident from this That it asserts the subsequent Blessings of the Covenant of Grace are promised to us under the condition of Faith and the Obedience of Faith and proves its assertion by John 3.16 and 13 17. Gal. 6.16 and Rom. 1.5 My 8th Witness is the Famous Mr. Durham before mentioned His words in p. 238. are The Covenant of Grace saith he is compared to free Adoption or a man's entitling of a Stranger to his Inheritance upon condition of his receiving that and to marriage betwixt Man and Wife which is frequent in Scripture not because the Covenant of Grace requireth not holiness and works but because it doth not require them actually to precede a Person 's Title to all the priviledges covenanted and doth freely entitle him to the same upon his entry therein as a Wife is entitled to what is the Husband 's upon her Marriage with him altho afterwards she be to perform the duties of that Relation rather as Duties called for by it than as Conditions of it Hence we may call the Covenant of Works a Servile Covenant and the Covenant of Grace a Filial or Conjugal Covenant and therefore altho holy Duties be required in both yet there is difference and the one is of Works and the other of Grace Thus that learned and good man Where it is as clear as the Sun that he was for the Gospel-Covenant its having Precepts and requiring Duty My 9th Witness is the Learned and Holy Mr. Rutherford who speaks fully to the Point under consideration For thus he writes Faith in God and the Moral Law that is Obedience to the moral Law in an Evangelick way are commanded in the Covenant of Grace and also some Duties touching the Seals are therein contained Again Ibid. p. 92. As the Commands and Threatnings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation upon such as are only externaly in Covenant either to obey or suffer so the Promise of the Covenant imposes an ingagement and obligation upon such to believe the Promise †Rutherford's Treatise of the Coveuant of Grace ed. Edinb An. 1655. p. 20. Again ibid. p. 154. Law-Obedience says he doth much differ from Gospel Obedience as Law-Commands from Gospel-Commands Again Ibid. p. 189. Obj. Does not the Law Command the Sinner offending God to mourn and be humbled and confess Ans It doth But it injoyns not Repentance as a way of Life with a Promise of Life to the Repenter Nor does the Law as a Covenant of Works command Justifying Faith and Reliance upon God-Redeemer or Immanuel but rather as the Law of Nature or as the Law of Thankfulness to a Ransoming Redeeming God the Law doth this tho in a special Covenant way the Gospel Commands Faith in Christ. Again ibid. p. 191. This I grant which I desire the Reader carefully to observe the Law and the Covenant of Grace do not one and the same way Command Faith and forbid unbelief I speak now of the Covenant of Works and of the Covenant of Grace as they are two Covenants specifically and formally different Again he puts the Question ib. p. 192. 103. Whether doth the Lord Mediator as Mediator command the same good Works in the Covenant of Grace which are Commanded in the Covenant of Works And then Answers According to tht matter of the thing Commanded quoad rem mandatam He Commands the same and charges upon all and every one the Moral Duty even as Mediator but simply they are not the same Quoad modum mandandi It shall not be needful to dispute whether they be Commands differing in Nature for not only doth the Mediator Command Obedience upon his interposed Authority as Law-giver and Creator but also as Lord Redeemer upon the Motive of Gospel-Constraining-Love in which notion he calls Love the keeping of his Commandments if they Love him John 14. the New Commandment of Love Finally ib. p. 198 199. he says The Obedience of Faith or Gospel-Obedience hath less of the Nature of Obedience than that of Adam or of the Elect Angels or that of Christ It 's true we are called Obedient Children and they are called the Commandments of Christ and Christ hath taken the Moral Law and made use of it in an Evangelick way yet we are more as it were patients â—in obeying Gospel-Commands not that we are meer patients as Libertines Teach for Grace makes us Willing but we have both Supernatural Habits and influence of Grace Furnished to us from the Grace of Christ who hath Merited both to us and so in Gospel Obedience we offer more of the Lords own and less of our own because he both Commands and gives us grace to Obey By all this and more that I could quote out of Mr. Rutherford's Writings it 's manifest that he believed as we do that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duty and that it is not a meer absolute promise that requires no duty or us at all My 10th Witness is the late Reverend and Learned Doctor Owen whose memory I honour tho it be said that I bestowed some Disadvantageous remarks upon him but it is not true for to tell the World that he retracted what he had before confidently Written when it pleased the Lord to give him further Light as he apprehended is so far from being to his disadvantage that it is on the contrary very much for his Honour and plainly shews
of our obedience But all this is the proper office of the Moral Law which it compleatly discharges without any asistance I Answer 1. It is not true that the Moral natural Law without the assistance of any positive Law doth by it self immediately instruct us in and oblige us to all the particulars of our Duty For as at the first Creation when the Moral natural Law was perfectly and clearly written in Man's heart it did not by it self immediately in the first instant after his Creation oblige him not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge till God had given him another positive Law and Precept not to Eat of it and then by means of the positive Law the Moral natural Law obliged him not to eat of it So now the same Moral Law would never by it self immediately oblige us to several duties if there were not a positive Law and Precept of Christ which did first make them to be duties and oblige us to the doing of them Of this sort is Baptism with water in the Name of Father Son and Holy-Ghost The Moral Natural Law would never by it self immediately oblige men to be so Baptized if the Lord Christ as King and Head of his Church had not by a new Act of his Royal Authority made a positive Law and given a positive Precept obliging men to be baptized as aforesaid which being done the moral natural Law doth also oblige us to be baptized but it is only mediately and by consequence It is mediante lege positiva sed non perse immediate So it is the Gospel-Law or Covenant of Grace which by it self immediately obliges us to Justifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance in the Sense before-mentioned and proved and then the moral natural Law does also mediately and by necessary consequence oblige us to the same Duties 2. I answer That since the making of the Gospel-Covenant with fallen man the moral natural Law hath so belonged to it that the requiring sincere Obedience to the moral Law hath been one Article of the Gospel-Covenant The said moral Law then not only as separated from the Gospel covenant but even as included in it in the sense before explained doth instruct us what to do draw the Lines of our Duty and set the limits of our Obedience upon Gospel-grounds and to Gospel-ends and purposes as hath been fully and clearly proved by Testimonies of God and Men. See Tit. 2.11 12. If he now Object and say that this proves that the Precepts are no parts of the Gospel but borrowed from the Law I answer It proves no such thing and what he talks of borrowing Precepts from the Law is false and unintelligible For I demand who it is that borrows Precepts from the Law Either it must be the Gospel or God But it can be neither And 1. It is not the Gospel that borrows Precepts from the Law for borrowing is a Personal Act but the Gospel is no Person therefore it cannot Borrow Again the Gospel according to this Brother is nothing but an Absolute Promise or bundle of Absolute Promises let him then prove if he can that an absolute Promise borrows a Precept and shew how it doth so borrow for we neither do nor can believe it upon his bare word 2. It is not God who borrows Precepts from the Law For 1. He that borrows a thing doth want and need that thing before he borrow it and he borrows it to supply his want But God never wanted and needed the precepts of the Law 2. The thing which one borrows is not his own before he borrows it but belongs to another Person but the Law and its Precepts were always Gods own and therefore he could never borrow the Precepts of the Law from another to whom they belonged The Truth is God is the Author and Owner both of the Law and of the Gospel and he first made the Law and Subjected man unto it and obliged him to keep it perfectly but Man having transgressed it God made the Gospel-Covenant and proposed it to Man and therein offered him a Remedy against the Sin and Misery he had brought on himself and his Posterity by the breach of the Law He commanded Man also by Faith to accept of the Remedy offered in the Gospel-Covenant and for the future to perform sincere obedience to the Law which he had formerly Transgressed Here is no borrowing Precepts from the Law but after the Law was broken and thereby Man Ruined God of his Soveraign Free-grace so made and Proposed to Man the Gospel-covenant or which is the same the New Law of Grace as thereby 1. To oblige him to believe in Christ and by Faith to receive the Remedy offered And 2. For the future to give sincere Obedience to the Moral Law in order to his obtaining full possession of the Happiness purchased by Christ the Mediator and promised in the Gospel-covenant whereof Christ is Mediator And thus it was that the Moral Law came to belong to the Gospel not by the Gospel's nor by God's borrowing the precepts of the Law which to imagine is Ridiculous but by God's making sincere obedience to his own Moral Law to be one of the Terms of his Gospel Covenant and by his so framing the Gospel-Covenant as by it to require of Man sincere obedience to the Moral Law According to that Gen. 17.1 I am the Almighty God walk before me and be thou perfect upright or sincere And Tit. 2.11 12. The Grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all Men teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly Lusts we should live Soberly Righteously and Godlily in this present world Looking for that blessed hope c. Obj. 2. Secondly my R. B. indeavours to prove that the Gospel can have no precepts because if it had any precepts God would not be infinitely wise and unchangeable and his Moral natural Law which he first gave to Man at his Creation would not be perfect This Consequence he labours to prove in pag. 43. And I freely grant that the Gospel could have no precepts if from its having precepts it did follow by good and necessary Consequence that God would not on that supposition be infinitely wise and absolutely unchangeable and that his Moral natural Law would not be perfect For certainly God is infinitely wise and absolutely unchangeable this is as sure and evident as it is that there is a God at all It is certain also and I have always believed it and here before asserted it that the Moral natural Law is most perfect in its kind and obliges to the most perfect i. e. sinlessly perfect performance of the several duties which belong to it In that way which the Lord God intended It should oblige to the performance of them If my R. B. believe this as firmly as I do then we are agreed as to this matter of the infinite wisdom and unchangeableness of God and the perfection of his Moral natural Law in its
kind But tho we be agreed in this yet we do differ and shall differ about the Consequence for I do utterly deny that it follows by any good and necessary Consequence that God would not be infinitely wise and unchangeable and his Moral Law perfect in its kind if the Gospel have any precepts and if God have ever given to Man any new positive Law since he first created him with the Moral natural Law written in his heart And it is not without good reason that I deny Mr. Goodwins Consequence as utterly false and blasphemous For 1 according to his own Principle Gods making unto Man a new promise doth not impeach his infinite wisdom and absolute unchangeableness for in pag. 49. He saith that Repentance is a duty to which Man was tyed before any New Covenant of Grace was made and before God had revealed any thoughts of favour to him or any purposes of grace in that first promise of the Seed of the Woman breaking the Serpents head In these words he plainly acknowledges that when God first created Man and gave him the Moral Law he had not then made him any promise of Gospel grace and mercy but the first promise of that nature was made to Man after the fall And yet I do not think that Mr. Goodwin dare say that Gods making that New promise to Man did impeach his wisdom as defective or infer any change in his nature or will And if a new promise did not then I say that no more did a new precept impeach Gods wisdom as defective or infer any change in his nature or will For there is nothing can be said against a new precept as inconsistent with the infinity of Gods wisdom and his unchangeableness but the like may be said against a new promise And if I durst give my self leave to prat boldly and blasphemously against a new Gospel promise I have no more to do but to take what Mr. G. says against a New Gospel Precept and with the varying of a few words apply it to a New Gospel-Promise and I thereby prove That it 's not consistent with the Wisdom and Immutability of God to make a New Gospel-Promise just as he proves That it is inconsistent with his Wisdom and Unchangeableness to give a New Gospel-Precept For my part I dare not imitate Mr. G. in his way of Reasoning here but there want not Infidels too many who by his way of disproving a New Gospel Precept will endeavour to disprove a New Gospel-Promise and will not stick to say after the Example of my R. B. That for God to make a New Gospel-Promise after the first Legal Covenant of Works and the Legal Promise implied in it would argue That his Wisdom was deficient as not knowing at first all that was good for man and necessary to be promised to him and believed by him c. 2. God gave a new precept to Man before the fall which was really different from the Moral natural Law For instance the Command not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge c. Gen. 2.17 was such a precept This is so clear that Mr. G. has in effect confessed it pag. 47. For there he saith that the Moral natural Law regarded the Act of eating the fatal Fruit as a thing indifferent and that indeed it was a thing indifferent before the prohibition To wit by the new precept which came after the Moral natural Law and therefore must needs be really distinct from it There he confesses 1. That the Moral natural Law did not at first and by it self immediately forbid the Act of eating the foresaid Fruit. 2. That therefore it remained still a thing indifferent to eat or not to eat of that Fruit till the new precept was given 3. That it was the new precept Gen. 2.17 Which first by it self immediately prohibited the eating of it and obliged Man not to eat it and that without this it would have still remainded indifferent notwithstanding any thing that the Moral natural Law did or could say Now if before the fall God gave Man a new positive precept which first obliged him to a certain duty and forbad the Commission of the contrary sin and if this new positive precept requiring duty and forbidding Sin was then very well consistent both with the wisdom and unchangeableness of God and also with the perfection of his Moral natural Law tho it and the Moral natural Law were two things really distinct I say if it was so then before the fall I put my R. Brother to prove that after the fall it was inconsistent with Gods infinite wisdom and immutability and with the perfection of his moral Law to give unto man any New Gospel-Precept which should oblige him to Duty whereunto the moral natural Law did not by it self immediately oblige him before If Mr. G. continue to affirm this he must prove it for I utterly deny that God's giving a new Gospel Precept is inconsistent with his VVisdom and Immutability and with the perfection of his Moral natural Law and I am perswaded that he can never prove that inconsistency no more then he can prove it inconsistent with Gods wisdom and immutability and with his Moral Laws perfection to give unto Adam before the Fall the new positive Precept of not Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledg after he had written the said Moral Natural Law in his heart at his first Creation If he say as in effect he doth That the moral natural Law obliged Adam not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge because it commanded him to obey God in whatever he should require And so God's requiring Adam by a New positive Precept to abstain from eating the said Fruit is well consistent with his wisdom and with his moral Laws Perfection I answer That my R. B. may see if he will open his Eyes that this makes against him and for me For 1. He must and he doth grant That the abstaining from eating of that Fruit was first required by a new positive Precept in Order of Nature before the moral natural Law commanded any such Abstinence so that it commanded the said Abstinence only mediately and by consequence after that it was first immediately commanded by the New positive Precept superadded to the Law of Nature 2. He knows well enough that it is our professed belief that in like manner tho the Moral Natural Law the general Law of our Creation doth Command us to obey God in whatever he requires of us by any new Special Gospel Precept yet doth God first in order of Nature require our obedience to the Gospel by the New Gospel-Precept immediately and then by means of that special new Gospel-Precept the general Law of our Creation comes to take hold of our Conscience with respect thereunto and obliges us to obey God therein So that here are two Precepts that oblige us to the same thing but in different ways First There is the
one precept that belongs to it will Common sense suffer a Man to infer that therefore it hath in it all precepts that do not belong to it Mr. G. speaks here of the Law that Christ was under and of the Law as it was when Christ was under it in his State of Humiliation Now I will name one precept which the Law that Christ obeyed and fulfilled had not then in it and that was the precept recorded in Gen. 2.17 Of not eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge Our blessed Lord most perfectly obeyed the Law that he was under And yet he did not obey that particular precept of not eating the said Fruit. If it be said that he did not disobey that precept therefore he obeyed it I deny the Consequence obeying and disobeying are not Contradictories but contraries and there is a medium or mean between them And the mean was this that our Lord Christ did neither obey nor disobey that precept of not eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge Because as it may be there was no such Tree or Fruit then in the World so it is certain there was then no such precept forbidding Christ or any Man else to eat of the Fruit of that Tree it was at first but a Temporary precept and its obligation had ceased and was utterly gone long before the Son of God was made of a woman made under the Law Gal. 4.4 Now where such a precept doth not at all oblige there is no place either for obedience or disobedience to the said precept I grant it to be a most certain truth that our Lord Christ suffered Death the penalty threatned against Man for disobeying that and the other precepts but it doth not at all follow from thence that Christ either obeyed or disobeyed that positive Temporary precept He most perfectly obeyed every precept of any Law that he was under and so fulfilled all Righteousness His Obedience also was equivalent yea in respect of its worth arising from the infinite Dignity of his Person it was more than equivalent to all the Obedience which Mankind should have performed to that and all other precepts and yet for all that it doth not follow that Christ in humane nature obeyed that precept which was not then in rerum natura so as to oblige any Man to obedience The perfect Law then which Christ most perfectly obeyed wanted the foresaid precept and yet it was perfect because it had all the precepts that belonged to it and wanted only that which did not belong to it Further since my R. B. Speaks here of the Moral Law it is freely granted and always was believed by me that it wants none of its own precepts and that by its own precepts it enjoyns every duty In that way which God intended it should enjoyn every duty Those duties which fall under its precepts without any supernatural Revelation intervening and without any positive precept superadded to the Law of Nature it enjoyns and Commands by it self immediately But there are other duties which do not fall under its precepts without a supernatural Revelation and also without some positive precepts superadded to the Law of Nature and such duties it doth not enjoyn and Command by it self immediately but only mediately and by means of the said positive precepts which do first in order of nature enjoyn and command the said duties and then the Moral Law enjoyns also and commands the same duties by obliging us to obey the positive precepts which first in order of nature require and enjoyn them Thus as hath been shewed the Moral natural Law enjoyns and commands Faith in Christ the Mediator for Justification by his Righteousness only and Evangelical Repentance as a means to dispose and quality us for obtaining the pardon of our sins through Faith in Christs blood It doth not by it self immediately require such Faith and Repentance of all without exception that are under it For then it would have required them also of Christ who was made under the Law Gal. 4.4 It would have obliged the Mediator Christ Jesus to have believed in Christ for Justification and to have repented Evangelically for obtaining the pardon of his sins through Faith in his own Blood Which is absurd and blasphemous to assert But it ro wit the Moral Law requires Faith and Repentance of all that are under it mediately only by means of the positive precepts of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace as hath been before explained and proved But now so it is that the positive precepts of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace which require Faith in Christ the Mediator for Justification and Evangelical Repentance as a means to dispose and prepare us for obtaining pardon of sin were not given unto Christ himself to oblige him thereby to believe in himself for Justification and Evangelically to repent for pardon of sin And therefore the natural Moral Law which he was under and perfectly obeyed did not oblige him unto Justifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance as duties incumbent upon him and to be performed by him in his own person Thus we give upon our principles a clear account how our Lord Christ perfectly obeyed the Law and yet was under no obligation at all to believe in himself for Justification nor to repent for pardon of sin whereas it seems Mr. G. on his Principles must either hold that Christ so believed in himself and repented or else that he transgressed the perfect Law of God by not so believing and repenting Neither of which can be granted without the greatest absurdity Imaginable If he should here say That I my self have granted that the moral natural Law obliges all that are under it to a Legal Repentance But Christ himself was under it and then it will follow That he was obliged to a Legal Repentance which is as bad as to hold That he was obliged to an Evangelical Repentance I could easily answer him That he quite mistakes the matter I never said That the Law of Nature doth absolutely and actually oblige all that are under it to a Legal Repentance but only that it so obliges all mankind that are sinners and upon supposition that they be sinners But now our most holy Lord Jesus was no sinner nor is it possible that he could be a sinner Therefore he neither was nor could possibly be obliged to a Legal Repentance of his sins My R. B. will not own himself to be an Antinomian and therefore I do not say that he holds with some of that Sect that Christ believed for us with a Justifying faith and repented for us with an Evangelical Repentance in that he perfectly kept the Moral Law which by it self immediately requires such Faith and Repentance of all that are under it Only I desire him to guard against that Consequence and look well to it that it be not the natural off-spring of his beloved Opinion If any man should be so weak as to question How we can
is because the Gospel consists mostly in Promises though it be not without but partly consist in Precepts also This I have shewed in the Apology that there are not only Promises in the Gospel to those who observe its Precepts but that there are in it Promises of Grace to his People to fit them for and to assist them in the observance of its Precepts and therefore it is fitly called not simply a Law but a Law of Grace So I call it and believe it to be and so it was called and believed to be by other Orthodox Divines before I was born But though I believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace that requires Duties to be performed by the Grace of the Spirit and accepted through the Mediation of Christ yet I never said nor believed that it is a Law which requires Duties by and for which we are Justified and Saved So far am I from saying or believing any such thing that I have published the contrary to the World in several parts of the Apology and particularly in Page 38 39 40.54 Indeed it is my professed belief that Faith it self is not any the least part of that Righteousness by and for which we are Justified before God 2. The Second thing to be carefully attended unto is that by the Gospel or Law of Grace I do not understand the Books of the New Testament but the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ as it is Recorded in the Scriptures both of Old and New Testament 3. The Third thing to be attended unto is that I always acknowledged that the First Commandment of the Moral Law obligeth to believe all the Supernatural Revelations and obey all the Positive Precepts of the Gospel from which Principle it is so far from following that the Gospel hath no Precepts of its own that on the contrary it plainly follows that it hath Precepts of its own otherwise the Moral Natural Law would never oblige us to obey them 4. The Fourth thing to be attended unto is That since the Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace hath Precepts of its own those Precepts must of themselves immediately oblige us to the performance of certain Duties and by means of them the Natural Moral Law obliges us to the same Duties tho not to be Justified and Saved for the sake of those Duties but in order to other Gospel ends and purposes If these Four things be carefully attended unto they will preserve People through the Blessing of God from being imposed upon by the false Representation which Mr. G. gives of our Doctrine which Wrong I freely forgive him and heartily pray God both to give him Repentance and Forgiveness 2. The Second and last thing I am here to do is to shew my Reverend Brother some more of his Mistakes in this part of his Seventh Chapter concerning the Precepts of the Gospel 1. And First whereas he says in Page 44. That the obedience of a Believer is not called Evangelical because it is obedience to the Gospel but because of the Principles of Faith and Love from which it flows and in respect of the Evangelical Motives which animate and encourage it This I take to be a mistake if he excludes the Gospel Covenants requiring such Obedience from being one of the said Motives and my reason is because the Gospel's requiring it in order to Gospel-ends and purposes is the principal reason wherefore we call it Evangelical Obedience For it is the Gospel that of it self directly and immediately requires us to obey the Moral Law in such an Evangelical way to wit sincerely with a renewed heart from Principles of Faith in and Love to Christ the Mediator and God as our Redeemer and Saviour by Christ And further as the Authority and Veracity of God revealing Truths to be believed is the formal reason of our Faith which makes and denominates it a Divine Faith so the Authority and Will of God commanding Duties to be done is the formal reason of our obedience which gives it the Denomination of Divine Obedience or obedience to God And if this be true of obedience to God in general that it is called a Divine legal obedience because it is obedience to God's Authority and Will Commanding it by his Law then by Parity of Reason it is true of that special sort of obedience to wit Evangelical Obedience that it is called Evangelical because it is obedience to Gods Authority and Will Commanding and requiring it by his Gospel It were very strange if the Formal Reason of Obedience did contribute nothing to the giving it its Name as well as its Nature 2. Secondly Whereas in Page 45. he says That in John 14.1 Christ himself told his Disciples that they should act faith on him because they were obliged to it by the same Command which required them to believe in God This is another Mistake and the mistake is the grosser for this Reason because by this mistake Mr. G. imposes upon our Saviour and makes him to say that which he did not say nor is it implyed in nor necessarily consequent from his words Our Lord Christ doth not say Believe in me because ye are obliged to it by the same Command which requires you to believe in God This is Mr. G's Fancy or Fiction which he should not have Fathered upon Christ Who saith no such thing in John 14.1 But only saith there let not your heart be troubled Ye believe in God believe also in me Or as the words might be rendred ye believe in God and ye believe in me Now I appeal both to common sense and to common honesty and natural Conscience whether to say ye believe in God believe also in me be all one and the same thing as to say ye should believe on me because ye are obliged to believe on me by the same command and by no other which requires you to believe in God For suppose the Disciples had been obliged to believe in Christ by another Command or both by the same and also by another Command yet Christ might well have used the same words and have said ye believe in God believe also in me I do therefore put Mr. G. to prove that because our Lord Christ said ye believe in God believe also in me Therefore he told his Disciples that they should believe on him not because they were obliged to it by any positive precept of the Gospel but only because they were obliged to it by the same Command of the Moral natural Law which required them to believe in God Mr G. must not dictate to us his own fancies but must prove to us the foresaid Consequence if he would have us to believe what he there says For he ought not to think that we will believe it upon his bare word 3. Thirdly whereas he says in p. 47. That the act and object of faith to wit faith in God before the fall and faith in Christ after the fall Is
is to be justified by doing a thing indifferent 4. Then it follows that justifying Faith is of a contradictious nature for it is good and not good It is good as is now supposed and it is not good because it is not commanded by any Law of God But if you choose the other Member of the disjunction and say that Faith in order to Justification is required and commanded by some Law of God then since that Law of God is not his positive Evangelical Law of the New-Co-venant for that you have now denied it to be for fear of promoting boasting it remains that it must needs be the Moral natural Law only which requires and commands Faith in Christ as indispensably necessary to Justification in persons of riper years But now Sir by your own Argument p. 59. I prove that the Moral-natural-Law doth not require and command Faith as indispensably necessary to receive Christ's Righteousness for Justification For if a Man's justifying Faith were An Act of Obedience to God's Moral-natural-Law boasting would not be excluded But rather a great occasion would be given to promote it For Why should not a Man Glory in his Faith if it be an Act of Obedience to the Moral-natural-Law which hath made it indispensably necessary to receive Christ's Righteousness for Justification He may then plead that he hath done what was required and so he may as well claim pardon and a right to life on the account of having done all that this Moral-natural-Law hath under the Gospel made necessary to his receiving Christ's Righteousness for his Justification As Adam if he had continued in his Primitive State might have formed a Plea of his Right to life for having discharged all that Duty which the Law of Works commanded and proposed as the condition of his being eternally blessed Thus Mr. Goodwin is caught in his own Net and he is held in it so fast that upon his Principles laid down in his Discourse he can never get out of it Mr. C. indeed strives to avoid this by maintaining That we are justified by the Habit of Faith and not by any Act of Faith required of us and done by us and though by this he contradicts the Apostle Rom. 4.24 and 10.9 10. Gal. 2.16 and Confession of Faith and Catechism and all Protestant Divines that I know yet that is nothing so long as it serves a Turn But for Mr. G. I am apt to think he will not take that course to extricate himself for he hath strenuously asserted in his Discourse of the Gospel That Justifying Faith is a Duty commanded by the moral law and so did Mr. C. before him and here in this very Chapter under consideration he affirms That Justifying Faith receives Christ's Righteousness for Justification But the Habit of Faith is it self received and doth not by it self without the Act receive any thing at all But it may be some will say Though this be a sufficient Answer to your brother Mr. G. yet what if an Enemy to our Religion should assault us with the same Argument how would you answer it To such I say 1. That he would be a very contemptible Enemy that should use such a Poor Argument against our Religion 2. I would tell him That though our Faith in Christ be an Act of Obedience to the law of Faith yet we ought not to boast of it and that for this very reason amongst others because it is an Act of Obedience and Duty Luke 17.9 10. Doth he thank that Servant because he did the things which were commanded him to do I trow not Saith our Saviour So likewise ye when ye shall have done c. 3. I would tell him That we ought not to be proud and to boast of our Faith because it is by the special discriminating Grace of God that we are enabled to believe and that we actually believe in Christ for Justification 1 Cor. 4.7 Who maketh thee to differ and what hast thou that thou didst not receive and if thou didst receive it why dost thouglory as if thou didst not receive it 4. I would tell him That though our Justifying Faith be really an Act of Obedience to the Evangelical Law of Faith yet we cannot glory that we are justified by it as it is an Act of Obedience For it is not true That we are Justified by it under that formal consideration as it is an Act of Obedience but we are Justified by it as it is graciously appointed by God to be the Condition of the New-Covenant or to be the Receptive Applicative Condition and Instrumental Means whereby we embrace Christ and his Righteousness and trust to be justified and saved by him and for his righteousness only 5. I would tell him That tho our Faith in Christ be an Act of Obedience to the law of Faith yet we cannot plead That we should be justified for our Faith and our Obedience therein to the law of Faith as Adam if he had persevered in his Innoceccy might have pleaded That he should have been justified for his perfect Obedience to the law and Covenant of VVorks because Adam's Personal Perfect Obedience to the law of VVorks was to have been his intire justifying Righteousness for which he should have been justified and lived whereas our Faith and Obedience therein to the law of Faith is not any the least part of that justifying righteousness for which we are pardoned and have a right to eternal life but it is only the special Condition or Mean appointed by God whereby we receive and trust to the Mediator's Righteousness as that by and for which alone we are Justified and Saved And by this it plainly appears That though Faith be required by the law of Faith yet that same law of Faith excludes boasting But in the 2d place Mr. G. saith This Interpretation is contrary to the Judgment of all the right Protestants who have Commented on the Epistle to the Romans I Answer That I have shewed before that this is the very Interpretation of Rom. 3.27 Given by the Authors of the Dutch Annotations and of the assemblie's Annotations and by Mr. Mayo in the second Volume of Pool's Annotations And with them agrees Mr. Dickson whose words on Rom. 3. v. 27.28 Arg. 10. Are as followeth Because by the Law of Faith or Covenant of Grace which requires Faith to our Justification by the Righteousness of another Man's boasting in himself is excluded c. And the learned Stephanus De-Brais in his Paraphrastical Analysis of the Epistle to the Romans on Rom. 3. v. 27. Having shewed that the Law of works doth not exclude boasting He adds * Restat ergo lex Evangelica clamans Crede et Salvaberis quae Justificationis nostrae norma fit c. Scphan De-Brais Epist ad Romanos Analys Cap. 3. p. 58. There remains therefore the Gospel-Law crying believe and thou shalt be saved which may be the rule of our Justification c. I could add many to these but
our Saviour Jesus Christ In which Sense it comprehends the Absolute and Conditional Promises together with the prescription of the Condition to the performers of which the Conditional Promises were made on the account of Christ and his Righteousness Now it is in this sense that we say the Gospel taken for the Covenant of Grace is a Law of Grace It is a Law as it prescribes the Condition and obliges us to compliance therewith and it is a Law of Grace as it promises to penitent Believers most gracious Benefits and Blessings and likewise as it promises to the Elect Special Effectual and Victorious Grace whereby they do most freely and yet most certainly Believe and Repent And that in this sense the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace as to be also a Law of Grace that requires something to be done by us through Grace is evident from the Assemblies Confession of Faith Chap. 7. Art 3. where it says expresly That in the Covenant of Grace the Lord freely offered unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ requiring of them Faith in him that they may be saved and promising to give unto all those that are ordained to Life his Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe And no less evident it is from the larger Catechisme where to the question How is the Grace of God manifested in the Second Covenant It answers That the Grace of God is manifested in the Second Covenant in that he freely provideth and offereth to Sinners a Mediator and Life and Salvation by him and requiring Faith as the Condition to Interest them in him promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit c. Likewise the Confession of Faith Chap. 3. Art 8. saith That the Doctrine of Predestination affords matter of Praise Reverence and Admiration of God and of Humility Diligence and abundant Consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel Accordingly the Lord himself in the Scriptures of Truth assures us that Unbelievers and Wicked Men to whom the Word is Preached do not obey the Gospel and that they shall be Damned for not obeying it In Rom. 10.16 the Apostle proves their disobedience to the Gospel from their Unbelief as the Effect from the Cause See also 2 Thess 1.7 8 9. 1 Pet. 4.17 from all which it is evident that the Gospel in the sense aforesaid is a Law of Grace to the People of God And I hope my R Brother will not be such an Unbeliever as to refuse its being a Law of Grace to him also Secondly It is to be considered that there is a difference to be put between an accurate perfect Definition of a thing which doth indeed contain whatever is essential to the thing defined and a Popular Description of a thing which yet in a large Sense may be called a definition but then it is acknowledged to be definitio imperfecta oratorum propria An imperfect definition and such as is proper for Orators to make use of and accordingly my R Brother pag. 28. lin 8. hath these numerical words as signifying the same thing when they professedly define or describe the Gospel Now it is not necessary that a popular definition or description should alwayes contain every thing that is essential unto that which is so defined or described Thirdly It is to be considered that the Gospel taken in a limited restrained sense for one part of supernatural Revealed Religion may be and indeed ought to be defined or described one way but taken in a more large comprehensive Sense for another or more parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As for instance For the Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator it may be and indeed ought to be defined or described another way so that what is not Essential to it taken in a limited restrained Sense yet may be and is Essential to it taken in a more large and comprehensive Sense Fourthly It is to be well considered and carefully remembred that when our first Reformers deny the Gospel to be a Law as they frequently do It is in the Popish Socinian or Arminian Sense and it is mostly in the Popish Sense for it was with the Papists for the most part that they had to do when they denyed the Gospel to be a Law For instance Mr. Fox in his Book against the Papists de Christo gratis Justificante denyes the Gospel to be a Law in their sense as we also do and yet as was shewed in the Apology pag. 96.128 he maintain'd that Faith is the proper Condition of Justification and that Evangelical Repentance is a Condition preparatory and dispositive of the Subject to be justified which is sufficient to show That though he denyed the Gospel to be a Law in the Popish Sense yet he did in effect hold it to be a Law of Grace in our Sense Fifthly It is to be considered hat there is a vast difference between a Law of Works and a Law of Grace For according to the Scriptural Sense of the word a Law of Works is a Law the observance and keeping of which is a mans Justifying Righteousness it is the Righteousness by and for which he is Justifyed at the Bar of Gods governing Justice But a Law of Grace is not such our Obedience to the Law of Grace is not our Justifying Righteousness at the Bar of Gods Justice either in part or in whole It is only either 1. That whereby we are disposed for being Justifyed by Faith in Christ and his Righteousness only such as is Evangelical Repentance Or 2. It is that whereby we receive apply and trust to Christ and his Righteousness by and for which alone we are Justifyed at the Bar of God's Justice such as is true Faith only Or. 3. It is that whereby we are qualified and disposed for the actual possession of that Eternal Glory and Happyness which we received a Right unto before in our Justification and which immediately after this Life is given to us in the full possession as to the Soul for the sake of Christ's Meritorious Righteousness only such as is sincere Evangelical Obedience Now though we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace which obliges us to Faith Repentance and sincere Obedience as means in order to the ends aforesaid yet we utterly deny that it is a Law of Works nor doth it follow from our Principles Sixthly It is to be considered that we ought to distinguish between the Moral Natural Law and meer positive Laws Now it is granted by us all That the Lord after his Incarnation did not give unto his People a New Moral Natural Law nor did he perfect and fill up the defects of the Old Moral Natural Law neither did he enlarge the obligation of it so as to make it oblige People to some Moral Natural Duties which it obliged no Body unto under the Old Testament In this sense Papists Socinians and Arminians hold Christ to have been a New Law giver but this Opinion we
that tho he was a fallible man as we all are yet he was in that an humble Man and a sincere lover of Truth And I wish Mr. G. may follow his Example for assuredly it will be more for his Reputation and Honour than obstinately to persist in the Flacian Error which some it seems have drawn him into And since he professeth to have so great an esteem for Dr. Owen I desire him and all that are concerned to consider what I shall Cite out of the Doctor 's Vindication of the Gospel in his Answer to Biddle's Socinian Catechism His words are Take the word Law strictly in reference to a Covenant end that he who performs it shall be Justified by his performance thereof so we may say * Dr. Owen 's Answer to Biddle 's Catechism pag. 384. he to wit Christ gave the Law Originally as God but as Mediator he gave no such Law or no Law in that Sense but revealed fully and clearly our Justification with God upon another account Again If they the Socinians shall say That Christ may be said to reveal the Ten Commandments because he promulged them a-new with new Motives Reasons and Encouragements I hope he will give us leave to say also That what he calls a New Commandment is not so termed in respect of the matter of it but its new Enforcement by Christ We grant †Ibid. p. 3â—8 Christ revealed that Law by Moses with its New Covenant-Ends as he was the great Prophet of his Church by his Spirit from the Foundation of the World but this Smalcius denies Again That there are Precepts and Promises attending the New Covenant is granted but that it consists in any addition of Precepts to the Mosaical Law carried on in the same Tenour with it with other Promises is a Figment directly destructive of the whole Gospel and the Mediation of the Son of God ibid. page 393. And in the next page he says That Moses was a Mediator of a Covenant of Works properly and formally so called and that the Church of the Jews lived under a Covenant of Works is a no less pernicious Figment than the Former The Covenant of Works was Do this and live On perfect Obedience you shall have Life Mercy and Pardon of Sins were utter strangers to that Covenant and therefore by it the Holy Ghost tells us That no man could be saved The Church of old had The Promises of Christ Rom. 9.5 Gen. 3.15 and 12.3 were Justified by Faith Ger. 15.6 Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Obtained Mercy for their Sins and were Justified in the Lord Isa 42.24 Had the Spirit for Conversion Regeneration and Sanctification Ezek. 11.9 and 36.26 expected and obtained Salvation by Jesus Christ Things as remote from the Covenant of Works as the East from the West It 's true the Administration of the Covenant of Grace which they lived under was dark legal and low in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh but the Covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find acceptance is the same and the Justification of Abraham their Father the pattern of ours Rom. 4.4 5. And afterwards in the same book chap. 33. p. 652. the Doctor says N. 3. Nor doth Biddle inform us what he intends by keeping the Commands of God Whether an exact perfect and every way compleat keeping of them up to the highest Degree of all things in all things circumstances and concernments of them Or whether the keeping of them in an universal sincerity accepted before God according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace be intended Ner 4. What Commandments they are which he chiefly respects and under what consideration Whether all the Commandments of the Law of God as such Or whether the Gospel-Gommands of Faith and Love which the places 1 John 5.3 and Mat. 11.30 from whence he answers do respect And in the following page Doctorr Owen's 5th Answer is That to keep the Commandments of God not as the Tenour of the Covenant of Works nor in an absolute perfection of Obedience and Correspondency to the Law but sincerely and uprightly unto acceptation according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace and the Obedience it requires through the assistance of the Spirit and Grace of God is not only a thing possible but easy pleasant and delightful Thus we say That a person regenerate by the assistance of the Spirit and Grace of God may keep the Commandments of God in yielding to him in answer to them that sincere Obedience which in Jesus Christ according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace is required Yea it is to him an easy and pleasant thing so to do This is sufficient to show that Dr. Owen was far from thinking that the Gospel Covenant hath no precepts but is a meer absolute promise or Doctrine of Grace that requires nothing of us at all He says the quite contrary as appears by his words to wit that it hath precepts as well as promises and that it requires of us sincere obedience in order to our obtaining possession of Eternal salvation in Heavenly Glory I could bring many more very many worthy and Orthodox Modern Divines to bear Testimony to the point under consideration that the Gospel hath precepts and requires Duties but these are enough at present therefore I shall forbear mentioning any more except the late Reverend and Ingenious Mr. Gilbert who in his short discourse concerning the guilt of sin and pardon of it c. In the second page grants expresly that there are both Gospel-precepts and Gospel-sins and tells us 1. That Gospel precepts are mainly the same for substance with those of the Law but not exacting their observance with the same Rigour Namely for Justification And I add nor yet for salvation 2. That Gospel-sins are the Transgression of such Gospel-precepts Thus I have proved both by many clear Testimonies of God and also of good Men Ancient and Modern that the Gospel-Covenant is not without all precepts it is not such a Doctrine of grace as requires nothing of us at all but it is a Doctrine of Grace that obliges us to Duty and requires of us sincere obedience to its Evangelical precepts in an Evangelical way for our due keeping of Covenant with God in Christ and in order to our obtaining the Consummate Life and happiness through Christ promised in the Covenant Now from the foresaid Considerations and Testimonies of God and good Men it will not be difficult to gather a short and clear answer to my Reverend Brother's Reasons and Arguments which he brings to prove that the Gospel is such a Doctrine of Grace as hath no precepts and requires no duty at all SECT III. And first he argues from the nature and use of precepts They are designed says he pag. 42. As the Rule of our Actions they instruct us what to do they draw the lines of our Duty and set the limits