from the Righteousness of the Law by doing for so Paul Covenant of Life opened Part. 1. pag. 61. Rom. 10.5 6 7. c. expounds Moses Deut. 30 11 12 13 14. Thus Rutherford I might bring many others agreeing with these but I shall content my self with a sew As Friedlibius who though a Lutheran yet in Answer to an Objection of Bellarmins from Deut 30.11 12 sayes (z) Loquitur Moses non de doctrinâ Legis sed Evangelii Rom. 10.6 7 8. cui per gratiam Divinam in hâc vitâ facilè obedientia praestari potest P. H. Friedlib Theolog. exegeticae Tom. 1. in vet T. edit 2. An. 1660. p. 301 302. Moses speaks not of the Doctrine of the Law but of the Gospel Rom. 10.6 7 8. which by the Grace of God may be easily obeyed in this Life And in like manner the New England Elders by the Covenant in Deutâ— 29. and 30. chap. understood the Gospel or Covenant of Grace For thus they write The Synod of Elders and Messengers of the Churches in Massachuseâ—s Colony c. in their Propositions concerning the Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches Printed at Cambridge in New-England 1662. pa. 4. They that according to Scripture are Members of the visible Church they are in Covenant For it is the Covenant that constituteth the Church Duet 29.12 13. They must enter into Covenant that they might be established the People or Church of God Whence I observe that the Synod believed that the Covenant mentioned in Deut. 29.12 13. was the Covenant of Grace as then in its Legal Administration Again That confederation say they i e Covenanting explicit or implicit the latter preserveth the essence of confederation the former is Duty and most desirable is necessary to make a Member of the visible Church Ibid. pa. 5 6. appears 1. Because the Church is constituted by Covenant for there is between Christ and the Church the mutual engagement and relation of King and Sabjects Husband and Spouse this cannot be but by Covenant internal if you speak of the invisible Church external of the visible A Church is a company that can say God is our God and we are his People this is from the Covenant between God and them Deut. 29.12 13. Ezek. 16.8 2 The Church of the Old Testament was the Church of God by Covenant Gen. 17. Deut. 29. and was reformed still by renewing of the Covenant 2 Chron. 15.12 and 23.16 and 34.31 32. Neh. 9. 38. Now the Churches of the Gentiles under the New Testament stand upon the same Basis or Root with the Church of the Old Testament and therefore are constituted by Covenant as that was Rom. 11.17 18. Eph. 2.11 12 19. and 3.6 Heb. 8.10 Again Deut. 30.6 The Grace signified by Circumcision is say they there promised to Parents and Children Ibid. pag. 8. importing the Covenant to both with Circumcision sealed Gen 17. and that is a Gospel Promise as the Apostle citing part of that Context as the voice of the Gospel shews Rom. 10.6 8. compared with Deut. 30.11 14. and it reacheth to the Jews in the latter days ver 1 5. This last clause reminds me of the words of Paulus Fagius one of our Reformers who sayes (a) Diligenter observandum est ex consensu Hebraeorum caput hoc ad Regnum Christi pertinere Vnde etiam Bechai dicit hoc loco promissionem esse quod rege Messiab omnibus qui de foedere sunt circumcisio cordis contingat citans Joelem cap. 2. Paulus Fagius in Annot. ad onkeli paraphrasin Chald. cap. 30. Deut. It is diligently to be observed that by the consent of the Jews that 30th Chapter of Deuteronomy belongs to the Ringdom of Christ Whence also Rabbi Bechai saith that here is a promise that under the Reign of the Messiah all that are of the Covenant shall be circumcised in heart quoting to that purpose the second Chapter of Joel I shall shut up this with the Annotation of Mr. Pool on Deut. 30.11 For this commandment which I command thee c. He doth not here speak of the Law simply or as it is in it self but as it is mollified and accompanied with the Grace of the Gospel whereby God circumciseth Mens Hearts to do this as is expressed ver 6. The meaning is that although the practice of Gods Law strictly and severely be now far from us and above our strength yet considering the advantage of Gospel Grace whereby God enables us in some measure to our Duty and accepts of our sincere indeavours instead of perfection and imputes Christs perfect Righteousness to us that believe now it is near and easie to us And so this place well agrees with Rom. 10.6 c. where S. Paul expounds or applys this place to the Righteousness of Faith by which alone the Law is such as it is here described Thus Pool with whom agrees the Annotation on Rom. 10. ver 6 7 8 9. in the Second Vol. of Pool's Annotations From all which it plainly appears to me that Moses in Deut. 30. speaks not of the Old Covenant of Works but of the Gospel or New Covenant of Grace and what he says of the Law is to be understood of the Law as taken into the Gospel and as sincere Obedience to the Law is made a Duty and Condition of the Gospel Covenant of Grace And thus I have proved by a Third Divine Testimony that the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace hath Precepts and requires of us some Duty I might also prove this from the 19. and 119. Psalms which Mr. Goodwin acknowledges to contain a Description of the Gospel under the Name of the Law of the Lord. For if that be true it is clear as the Light that the Gospel hath Precepts and requires Duty See his Discourse pag. 8 9 10. Let any Man of ordinary Sense and Reason but read those Two Psalms and I appeal to his own Conscience whether he doth not there meet with Precepts requiring Duty Mr. Goodwin I am sure did there meet with Precepts even where the Gospel in his Judgment is described Witness his Discourse pag. 9. lin 39 40 41. And he that will say that he cannot see Precepts there may as well say That he cannot see the Wood for Trees Indeed such a Man may say any thing nor is any thing he says to be regarded because he saith it for he must have lost his Senses A Fourth Divine Testimony for this Truth out of the Old Testament we may find in Micah the 6. ver 8. even as it was Expounded by the late Reverend Mr. Danson who before he took his leave taught my R Brother that wholesom Lesson which he hath learned exactly that the Gospel hath no Precepts and that there are no sins against the Gospel Consider we then what the Prophet Micah saith ver 8. He hath shewed thee O Man what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do Justly and
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
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
Grounds and Motives that it is accompanyed with a Fear of the contraryes being true and that it 's possible for him to be deceived For these are the Natural Properties of an Opinion 1. It is founded upon a probable ground and motive 2. It is accompanyed with a fear of the contraries being true 3. Ei potest subesse falsom though it be true yet it is but contingently true and so it might have been false or may yet be falfe for any thing that can be certainly known to the contrary from the probable Motive and Ground on which it is founded And then the consequence of this would be that God is not infinitely Wise Ommscient and Infallible And so upon Mr. G 's own Principle of Gods being an Opinator as well as upon the Arminians Principle God might possibly be surprized if not at the Arrival of new Colonies in Heaven as his Expression is in p. 1. of the Epistle to the Reader yet at many things which are done here upon Earth But I hope my R. Brother meant well though his kind love to definitions hath dazled his sight and caused him to embrace a Phantosme instead of his Beloved I mean caused him to take that for a definition of Gods Law which is no definition at all no not a good description of it I insist not therefore on this but supposing his thoughts to have been sound I shall only advise him Linguam corrigere to mend his Words and not to be so fond of definitions for the future And so I return to Clemens concerning whom I say 1. That he doth not say that a true and good Opinion of a thing is the definition of Gods Law nor doth he there so much as say that it is a definition of Mans Law or that it is a definition at all 2. What he said of a Law in the general he did not apply to the Gospel nor is it applicable to the Gospel of Christ If Mr. G will needs be applying it let him apply it to some other Gospel if he knows of any other but he shall never have my consent to apply it unto Christ's Gospel and thereby to make the Gospel an Opinion 3. I advise my Reverend Brother to read but two or three lines further there in Clemens Alexandrinus and he will find that he affirms a Law in the judgment of some (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alexand. Strom. Lib. 1. pag. 256 257. op Lugd. Batav 1616. to be right reason or a right word commanding things which ought to be done and forbidding things which ought not to be done And from thence he concludes that it was rightly and congruously said that the Law was given by Moses to be the rule of Just and Vnjust Thus Clemens And I am content that this be applyed unto the preceptive part of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace to wit that it commands some things to be done and forbids others and that it is a Rule of Just and Unjust But I cannot comprehend how from any thing here in Clemens M. G. can prove with any colour of reason that the said Clemens was of his Opinion That the Gospel is such a Law and Doctrine of Grace as hath no Precept and requires nothing of us at all I need say no more in answer to his Impertinent Chapter but that in his Conclusion he harps upon the same string again and as before abusively calls the Evangelical Law according to our sense of it a new Law of Works for as hath been said It is no Law of Works new or old according to the Scripture use of the Words Law of Works but it is really a New Law of Grace And so in direct opposition to my Reverend Brother I conclude that according to Scripture This New Law of Grace is the Everlasting Gospel and by the Testimonies of the Fathers cited in the Apology and others which I have ready to produce it appears that this Name Law and New Law whereby the Gospel is called is venerable for Age. For that the Gospel-Covenant is a New Law of Grace it is a Doctrine which was well known and believed in the first Ages of Christ's Church and which had its Original before the Birth of Antichrist and I am very well assured will continue in Christ's Church after the Period of that Man of Sin Remarks on the Fifth Chapter THIS Chapter is one intire Impertinency grounded upon the before-mentioned Mistake That I framed an Argument from the sound of the Word Law to prove the Gospel to be a Real Law that obliges to Duty For 1. All that I argued from the Gospels being called a Law in Scripture was that the Brethren should not be offended with us for calling it by that Name since the Lord himself in Scripture had so called it 2. From its being called a Law both by the Fathers and Orthodox Protestant Divines I argued that it is not a new word of an old but ill meaning And in both respects my arguing was close and consequential But for its being a Law that prescribes to us and obliges us to some Duties in order to Gospel-ends and purposes That I said plainly enough See Apol. p. 22.33 depends on the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace for I affirmed it to be the conditional part of the Covenant and I proved the Covenant to be Conditional with respect to its subsequent Blessings and Benefits So that this Controversie whether the Gospel be a Law of Grace or not resolves it self into the question Whether the Covenant of Grace be Conditional and whether it requires of us any Duty with respect to its subsequent Blessing and Benefits And my Reverend Brother will never do any thing to purpose against me in this Controversie unless he solidly and effectually prove what is impossible to be proved That the Covenant of Grace is not at all Conditional and that it doth not require any Duty of us at all in the foresaid respect And if he do that he doth his Work indeed but till that be done he doth nothing to any purpose and all his labour is lost And particularly his Labour is lost in quoting Roman Authours to wit Isodore Paulus Merula Brisonius Juvenal Ovid Cicero Papinian and Justinian to prove that the word Lex Law hath various significations For this is proving what was not at all denyed in the Apology nor was any other thing concluded from the bare Word its being found in Scripture and in Ancient Authours but that we may use the Word without just cause of offence and that it is not a New Word of an old but ill meaning To as little purpose doth he quote Cyprian and Augustin to shew that by the word Law they frequently mean no more than a Doctrine For 1. Suppose it were true that frequently they mean no more than a Doctrine in my Reverend Brothers Sense yet if they do sometimes mean more by it and particularly If they mean more by
fortified with a Sanction but with a Sanction that promiseth Justification and Salvation not for the Duties sake but for Christs sake only Now both his Propositions being false no wonder that the inference he draws from them be ridiculous insignificant and of no force at all against me for I do freely grant that it is a fallacious way of reasoning to argue from the meer ambiguity of a word that hath several significations But that was not nor is it my way of arguing And this being the case as I have truly represented it and as manifestly appears from the Apology it self the ridiculous demonstration to wit a Law is a Law the Gospel is a Law therefore the Gospel is a Law I say this ridiculous demonstration which Mr. Goodwin in pag 41. would lay at my door returns home to himself and calls him its true Father and justly it may for assuredly it is a Bratt of his own brain and breeding and for that reason he seems to be very fond of it calling it a pretty way of arguing and saying without doubt it is unanswerable And yet if we look upon this pretty little rogue as the Image of his Brain that begat it and if we strip the Baby of its identick dress or fools coat it is very easily answered For being formed according to the tenour of his Discourse concerning the various significations of the word Law it amounts to no more than this A meer nominal Law that requires nothing is a real proper Law that requires something but the Gospel is a meer nominal Law that requires nothing therefore the Gospel is a real proper Law that requires something The Proposition is that which I suppose he would father upon me but I justly disown it as none of mine and so I do by the other identical Proposition a Law is a Law Let this Brother prove if he can by any good consequence that there is any such thing expressed or implyed in any part of the Apology I am so well assured that there is no such thing there that I defy him or any Man to prove the affirmative that there it is And by and by we shall find himself clearing me of that imputation and blaming me for proving the Gospel to be a Law because it hath Precepts requiring Duty fortified with a sanction of Promises and Threatnings Which is a demonstration that either this Brother asserts that which he knows to be false or else that he contradicts himself and writes he knows not what The Proposition then or Major is the birth of his own Brain and whether it was begotten against his Conscience as Bastards use to be let him look to it I assert nothing pro or con in that matter As for the Assumption or second Proposition he will not he cannot deny it to be his own to wit That the Gospel is a Law a meer nominal Law which requires no Duty of us at all for it is the great thing he contends for with all his Might throughout his Book Now it appearing thus that the Argument is his own much good may it do him and his Cause which the World may know to be a very good one by this token that it is supported by such pretty honest Devices And thus the pretty unanswerable Argument is easily answered when stript of its Identical dress For both Propositions are false The Major Proposition is self evidently false when stript of its Identical dress And if he will not suffer his Baby to be stript of its Fools coat my Answer is That it is his own and he may do with his own what he pleases The Minor I have proved to be false and shall further prove it to be false before we have done And therefore though the conclusion as to the matter concluded be very true according to the Logick Rule ex falsis verum yet it is not therefore formally true as it is concluded and because it is concluded and inferred from such false premisses But he pretends in pag. 42. to have provided a proper remedy against this malady of arguing from the ambiguity of a word of various signification by clearing the sense of the word Law which he says he has largely done But cui bono to what good purpose was all that waste of Time Paper and Ink since it doth not reach me at all for I defy him to shew me where in the Apology I did ever so much as once endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a proper Law from the meer sound of the word Law which is of a various signification But though I did not so argue yet my R. B. hath assumed to himself the liberty of arguing from the ambiguity of the word Gospel almost throughout his whole Discourse to prove that the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace as to require no Duty of us at all Turpe est igitur doctori quum culpa redarguit ipsum I think it had been more to the purpose to have cleared the sense of the ambiguous word Gospel so as to have shewed that in Holy Scripture or the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines it is never taken for the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ the Mediator including the conditional part of it but always and every where for a meer absolute Promise or Promises which require no Duty of us at all If my Reverend Brother had done this he had done his work and had answered me effectually and had made me his Proselite too But I do not blame him for not doing this because it is plainly impossible to be done But what if my purpose and design in the First Section of the Second Chapter of the Apology which he pretends to answer was not so much to argue and prove the Gospel to be a Law As 1. To instruct our Accuser who seemed not to know our Principles and to let him know what we really mean by a new Law of Grace 2 To rebuke him for saying ignorantly that new Law of Grace was a new word of an old but ill meaning and to prove by Testimonies of credible Witnesses Antient and Modern that new Law of Grace was no new word of an old but ill meaning but that he in saying so against us the Subscribers was a false Witness against his Brethren And to show that this was my purpose and design there needs no more but to read the Apology Page 20 21 22 24. 3. Further What if for the Instruction and Information of our Accuser I told him and the World plainly 1. That God most freely made the Covenant and enacted the Law of Grace with us through Jesus Christ 2. That God by this Law of Grace both obliges and encourages us to certain Duties and also by the Promises of it obliges himself to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake if we perform the Duties prescribed and comply with the terms injoyned 3. What if I plainly declared that by new Law of Grace
I meant nothing but the new Covenant of Grace and only said that this Gospel-Covenant might be called a Law without just cause of offence to the Brethren because the Scriptures of Truth call it a Law Now if I did all this in the Apology Page 21 22 23 27. as I certainly did and God Angels and Men know it to be true then my Reverend Brother did not do well to go about to deceive the People and make them believe that I introduce a new Law of Works to be justified and saved by and for them and that my Arguments to prove it are all grounded upon the ambiguity of the word Law unexplained All which is utterly false I confess indeed what is true that though my purpose and design was not to prove but to explain and declare what we meant yet en passant on the by and to shew that our explication was agreeable to Scripture I dropped four passages of Scripture and referred to more in the Margent which do abundantly prove the thing they were quoted for But it is as clear as the Light at Noon-day that my Proof from the said four passages of Scripture in the Line and from the other referred to on the Margent is not in the least established upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law but upon the plain sense and meaning of the Scriptures there alledged Nor could an Argument from those Scriptures there quoted or referred to be grounded upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law because the word Law is not to be sound in any of them Let any Man read them all over and he shall find what I say to be true to wit that the word Law is not in any of them I acknowledge likewise that a few Lines after in the same 22th Page I quote three Scriptures where the word Law is but then it is again as clear as the Light that I quoted those three Scriptures to prove nothing but this That our Brethren should not dislike our calling the Gospel-Covenant a Law because the Scriptures of Truth call it so expresly And my R. Brother acknowledges now with me that it is so called in two of the places to wit Isa 42.4 and Rom. 3.27 and in several others which he hath quoted As for my other Argument from Humane Authority neither is that established on the ambiguity of the word Law but on the word it self its being found in the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines long before we were born From whence I clearly proved that the Word is not new but old And if the Testimonies of my Witnesses prove more as they really do even that the Gospel-Covenant was not onely of old called a Law but that it really is a Law of Grace which requires some Duty of us that was beside my design and purpose which was only to prove matter of fact as appears from the express words of the Apology pag. 24. lin 16 17 18 19 20 21. If any object that in the Preface and Index of the First Section of the Second Chapter it is said expresly that we have proved the Gospel to be a new law of Grace by the Word of God or Scripture and by the Testimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I Answer It is true it is said so But then consider that the said Preface and Index were Written and Printed after the Apology was Finished and Printed though in the Book they are both put before it as it is the custom to write Prefaces and Indexes last and yet place them first in Books Now when I wrote the Preface and Index taking a review of all that was said on that head in the Apology I found that my Quotations from Scripture and Doctors had proved more than I designed 1. I designed only to explain our meaning and by citing the four Scriptures in the Line and others in the Margent to show that our explication was agreeable to Scripture 2. By alledging the Testimonies of Antient and Modern Doctors of the Church I designed only to prove matter of fact to wit that new law of Grace was no new word but old This was what I designed in writing that part of the Apology But by looking it over after it was Printed I found that the Scriptures cited and referred to and the Testimonies of Doctors there alledged do really prove that the Gospel-Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediatour is a new Law of Grace which requires some Duties of us and which promises to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake only if we through Grace perform the said Duties And for this reason it was that in the Preface and Index I said that we had proved the Gospel in the sense there given to be a new Law of Grace both by Scripture and by the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines If any do further object That Humane Testimony can only prove matter of fact I answer It 's true Humane Testimony simply as such can solidly prove no more nor did I bring Humane Testimonies to prove any thing but that the Gospel Covenant was in their time called a New Law and a New Law of Grace and that they believed it to be such a Law which is nothing but matter of Fact Yet Men by giving Testimony to Matter of Fact may at the same time and in the same Testimony bring such Arguments from Scripture or Reason as shall likewise prove matter of right And this my Witnesses did especially Justin Martyr Cyprian Austin the Professors of Leyden Gomtrus Dr. Andrews and Dr. Twiss they both called the Gospel-Covenant a Law a New Law a New Law of Grace which proves the matter of fact and moreover in their Testimonies to the matter of Fact they alledged such places of Scripture or gave such reasons as do prove the matter of Right to wit That the Gospâ—l Covenant is a New Law of Grace and may and ought to be so accounted Now having first told the World how easily he could answer my Arguments and wipe off all my Citations upon a supposition which is of his own feigning and notoriously false as I have proved he next comes to answer my Arguments that is indeed my one Argument from Scripture for in effect there is no more but one and that one is there brought to confirm our Explication of the words Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace and to shew that what we mean by those words is consonant to the Scriptures of Truth as is evident from the 21. and 22. pag. of the Apology Well But be it Argument or Arguments he undertakes to give us a clear Answer to it and in order thereunto he proposes to do three things 1. To shew that the Gospel hath no Precepts or Commandments 2. That it hath no Threatnings 3. That it hath no Conditional Promises This is directly against the Professors of Leyden who in their Synopsis of purer Divinity say expresly as their words are quoted in the Apology
it is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant And then the Gospel is preached in part by saying Fear God and give glory to him c. This is the plain obvious sense of the words and they must be violently wrested to put another sense upon them The Dutch Annotators therefore faithfully gave the meaning of the words when in their Annotation on Rev. 14.7 they said in these words This is the first part of the Gospels voice whereby the worshippers of the Beast are warned and exhorted to honour fear and serve God only in Christ I might cite many other passages out of the New Testament and Old too to prove that the Gospel hath Precepts and requires Duty of us but these are sufficient And I am perswaded that every sincere lover and seeker of Truth will or may easily find by the Divine Testimonies aforesaid taken out of the New Testament that the Gospe-Covenant in its new and most Evangelical form of administration is not a meer absolute promise without any Precept but that as it hath Promises so it hath Precepts belonging to it which require Duties of us and of all to whom it is preached Thus having finished my first Proof from Divine Testimony I pass to my second Proof from Humane Testimony And before I proceed any further I desire it may be remembered that I do not argue from Humane Testimony to confirm and strengthen my Argument from Divine Testimony or to prove any other thing than matter of fact to wit that I and my Reverend Brethren are not Innovators nor singular in our interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and in our belief that according to the Scripture the Gospel hath Precepts which require Duty since long before we were born other Holy Men and Eminent Ministers of Christ and bright shining Lights in Christs Church have interpreted the Scripture as to this matter just as we do and have believed according to Scripture what we believe at this day That the Gospel hath Precepts and doth oblige us to Duties This being premised to prevent misunderstanding of us I come to produce my Humane Witnesses which I divide into two ranks or classes The 1. of Antient Doctors of the Church The 2 of Modern Divines And I begin with Antient Fathers and Doctors of the Church Testimonies of Antient Fathers and because I would be brief I shall cite but few and yet I shall bring as many of them as may suffice to prove the matter of fact in question My first Witness is Justin Martyr who in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew calls the New Testament or Covenant as we Christians have it in its last and excellentest form of administration (c) Justin Martyr Dialog cum Tryphone Edit Paris 1633. p. 292. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Commandment whereby he plainly declares that he believed the New Covenant hath Precepts and that it is not a meer absolute Promise which requireth nothing of us at all Again afterwards in the same Dialogue he calls the New Testament or Gospel-Covenant (c) Justin Martyr ibid. p. 351. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mandate or Precept for the same Reason because it hath Precepts that require Duty And then two pages after he saith that we are called and we are the true Children of God (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who keep the Commandments of Christ I suppose it will be objected that Justin Martyr in pag. 351. sayes that Christ is the Testament or Covenant of God And in pag. 228. he sayes That Christ is given the eternal and last Law unto us and the sure Testament or Covenant after which there is neither Law nor Precept nor Commandment I answer It is true he doth say so but then it is as true that his speech is not and cannot be proper but figurative It is only by a Figure of Speech that Justin calls Christ by the name of Covenant or Testament and therein he doth but follow the Prophet Isaiah Justin ibid. p. 351. and also quotes the 42.6 and 49.8 of Isaiah where it is written I the Lord will give thee Christ for a Covenant of the people Look then how the words of Isaiah are to be understood and the same way are the words of Justin to be understood Now for understanding the words of Isaiah let them who please consult the Dutch Annotations on Isa 42.6 And I will give thee for a covenant of the people that is for a Mediatour of the Covenant c. And Pools Annotations on Isa 42.6 I will give thee for a covenant of the people To be the Angel of the Covenant as Christ is called Mal. 3.1 or the Mediatour in and by whom my Covenant of Grace is made and confirmed with mankind And the same Pool on Isa 49.8 sayes that to be given for a Covenant of the people is To be the Mediatour and Surety of that Covenant which is made between God and them as Christ is called Heb. 7.22 and 8.6 to renew and confirm the Covenant which the Messiah is said to do Dan. 9.27 by his own Blood by which God and Men are reconciled and united one to another and therefore he may well be called the Covenant by a known Metonymy which is very usual in such cases Thus the Learned Pool And by this we may learn how to understand Justin when he calls Christ the New Law and Covenant to wit that by a Metonymy he calls him the New Law and Covenant because he is the Mediatour and Surety of it he is the Ratifier and Confirmer of it he is the Angel or Messenger of it He is not the Covenant then in propriety of speech that is a figment as ridiculous and contradictious as Transubstantiation but he is the Covenant by a Figure called Metonymy And that Justin so meant is plain because when he speaks properly without a Figure he calls Christ (c) Justin ibid pag. 229 231. passim the New Lawgiver as was shewed in the Apology pag. 24. and calls the Covenant his Law and Covenant and so manifestly distinguishes the Law and Covenant from him It is therefore the New Covenant it self which Justin properly calls the New Law the Mandate the Precept and says that (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Mart. ibid. pag. 228. after the said Covenant there is no Law nor Precept nor Commandment By which words he gives us plainly to understand that the Gospel-Covenant or Testament is the last Law Precept and Commandment after which God gives no other to the Sons of Men. Much more I could alledge out of Justin Martyr to prove that he believed that the New Covenant or Law of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duties But that may be done another time as I see occasion At present I need not desire any more of my first Witness My second Witness is Irenaeus who saith (e) Pater familias Dominus est qui universae domni Paternae dominatur servis quidem adhuc
what Grotius had written that prima remissio unde caeterae ortum habent nullam in nobis requirit conditionem The first Remission of sin from which the rest flow requires no condition in us he Answers thus * Ad primam remissionem peccatorum non requiri conditionem Verum non est quia non remittitur peccatum adulto nisi poenitententi et credenti Andr. Rivet Animadvers in notas H. Grotii in Cass p. 38. lin 9.10.11 edit in 8◠It is not true that no condition is required in order to obtaining the first Remission of Sins for Sin is not remitted to a grown person unless he repent and believe And when Grotius in his Animadversions again on Rivet had explained himself and told him that by the first Remission or Reconciliation to which no condition is required he meant nothing but the means of Grace which make way for Repentance and Remission Such as are mentioned Act. 2. Rivet replies †Multi sunt quibus via illa ad poenitentiam proponitur qui eam non ingrediuntur collatio loci Actor 2. nos docet nullam remissionem peccati obtineri nisi peccatores compuncti sunt corde v. 37. quibus ita dispositis annunciatur remissio peccatorum quae non fit sine proevia illa conditione quam Deus efficit per gratiam suam in ijs quibus vult peccata remittere conferantur loci-Nam etsi sine ulla conditione proevia in homine deus curet annunciari peccatoribus remissionem peccatorum non tamen eam confert actu nisi per poenitentiam haec quae sunt verissima satis intellexi et exposui suo loco quancum potui perspicue c. Andr. Rivet Exam. Animadversionum H. Grotii pag. 22. There are many to whom that way to Repentance is proposed who do not enter into it The comparing of that place Act. 2. Teaches us that no Remission of Sin is obtained unless Sinners be pricked in their heart v. 37. Vnto whom being so disposed Remission of sins is Preached which Remission is not granted to them without that previons or antecedent condition which God by his Grace works in those whose sins he will remit or pardon Let the places be compared For altho without any previous condition in Man God causeth Remission of sins to be Preached unto Sinners yet he doth not Actually confer or give that Remission but by Repentance or upon condition of Repentance These things which are most true I understood well enough and in its own place I explained as clearly as I could c. Thus the great Rivet confuted Grotius but of late we have got another way of confuting him For there are some who indeavour silently to confute Rivet the most judicious and successful confuter of Grotius and then they give out to the people that they have confuted Grotius Now from the premises it appears that all which that person hath said against conditions in the Gospel-Covenant is light as vanity and that whereas it is pretended that there are no conditional promises in the Gospel-Covenant because there are no conditions in it the Contradictory thereunto is really true That there are conditions in the Gospel-Covenant because there are conditional promises in it as was Demonstrated in the Apol. and as hath been generally believed by the reformed Churches unto this day And tho Mr. Goodwin stiffly deny that there are any conditional promises in the Gospel-Covenant yet I do not see how that is consistent with his concession in pag. 55. towards the end that mercy and pardon is offered by the Lord to unbelievers as a pardon is offered to a Rebel by his Prince but they reject the mercy and refuse to accept of the pardon offered them in the Gospel And that aggravates their guilt and brings upon them a greater punishment For as an unbeliever cannot be said to reject the mercy and refuse to accept the pardon which was never so much as once offered to him by the Lord So it cannot be proved that ever mercy and pardon was offered to the unbeliever without the conditional promise of the Gospel If mercy and pardon be at all offered it must be by the Gospel for the Law offers no such thing to any And if it be offered by the Gospel only I demand how it is offered by the Gospel and by what part of the Gospel Either it is by the Revelation or precept or threatning or promise of the Gospel But 1. It is not offered by the meer Revelation of the Gospel For according to Mr. G. the Revelation of the Gospel is only a Revelation of Mercy and Pardon to the elect but a Revelation of Mercy and Pardon to the elect only cannot be an offer of mercy and pardon to the nonelect Besides that the meer Revelation of the Gospel is common to the Church and to the Angels Eph. 3.10 1 Pet. 1.12 But tho the Gospel be revealed to the Angels yet it doth not by its Revelation make any offer of Mercy and Pardon to them So that the meer Supernatural Revelation of the Gospel is no offer of Mercy and Pardon to the non-elect in the visible Church 2. It is not offered by the meer precept of the Gospel For according to Mr. G. the Gospel hath no precept of its own And tho it had a precept yet that precept would only require some duty of them but by it self could never offer any such benefit as Mercy and Pardon unto them 3. It is not offered by the threatning of the Gospel for according to him the Gospel hath no threatning and if it had a meer threatning alone without a promise is no means of offering Mercy and Pardon to a Man It remains therefore in the 4th place that since Mercy and Pardon is offered to the non-elect unbeliever it must be by the promise of the Gospel But it cannot be by the absolute promise for the absolute promise is not made to the non-elect unbeliever besides that the absolute promise is always fulfilled and so the non-elect should be certainly pardoned and saved And since it is so evident that it cannot be by the absolute promise it must of necessity be by the conditional promise that Mercy and Pardon is offered to non-elect unbelievers in the visible Church And consequently the Gospel hath a conditional promise for without a conditional promise it is unaccountable how Mercy and Pardon can be either offered to or rejected by those unbelievers Thus we have fully and clearly Answered the objections against the Gospel's having conditional promises and have shewed that the denial of them is inconsistent with the Gospel-offer of Mercy and Pardon made to unbelievers in the visible Church I should now pass to the next Chapter but that I must first briefly consider Mr. G's way of Interpreting the places of Scripture which seem to contain conditional promises so as to show that they contain no such thing And the way not to leave one conditional promise in all