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 Massachuseâs 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-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-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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã l. 48. r. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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-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 reâuires 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-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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
was awake and in the free exercise of his Reason How then it comes to be in this Reverend Brothers Book and that in the very stating of the Controversie I do not understand But sure I am that I nor any of my Reverend Brethren that I know do not hold the Gospel to be a Law in that sense We do with all our hearts joyn with Mr. Goodwin in denying that the Precepts of the Gospel are Conditions of obtaining its Blessings What we say is That God hath made the performing of the Duties required by the Precepts of the Gospel Law to be the Condition of obtaining its Subsequent Blessings and that not for the sake of the performance or of the Duties performed but for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness according to the promise Thirdly In stating the Controversie he denies that the Gospel Law of Grace or Covenant of Grace has any Sanction either promissory of Life and Happiness unto those who perform the condition or minatory of punishment to those who neglect it Now here I must differ from him and affirm what he denyes But 1. I affirm it with this difference between the promissory and minatory Sanction That the Gospel primarily and principally promiseth its subsequent Blessings and Benefits to those who perform its Condition and doth but secondarily threaten Punishments against those who neglect to perform it designing thereby to restrain Men from the sin of not performing the Condition and to bind them over to punishment only on supposition that they do not performe the condition 2. I affirm that though the Gospel promise Life and Happiness unto those who perform its Condition yet it doth not promise it precisely for the performance sake but only for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness as it threatens punishment unto those who neglect to perform the Condition and that for the very neglect of performing it Heb. 2.3 Ephes 5.6 Col. 3.6 Some I am afraid will be apt to think that Mr. Goodwins stumbling on the Threshold at his first setting out and mistating the Controversie is a bad Omen for him Then in passing from his First to his Second Chapter he promises first to shew that it was little to my purpose to catch eagerly at the Word law whereever I could meet with it in the Scripture or in the Writings of Men. Answ By this it is plain he did not consider nor understand what my purpose was For it is as clear as the light at Noon day that my purpose was to shew that the Accuser of the Brethren who charged us with Novelty in calling the Gospel Covenant a new Law of Grace was grosly mistaken and that in confidently affirming against us that New Law of Grace is a New Word but of an Old and Ill meaning he bore false Witness against his Brethren and asserted a notorious falsehood in matter of Fact This was my purpose and design as manifestly appears from the Apology p. 24. And it being so I appeal to all Men of common sense and reason if they have but common honesty also whether it was not very much to my purpose to prove by Scripture and by Testimonies of Ancient Orthodox Christians and Modern Protestant Divines that Law and New Law of Grace applyed to and affirmed of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace were not new words of an old and ill meaning And yet I needed not eagerly to catch at the word Law for it occurs so frequently in Ancient Writings that a Man who reads them cannot avoid meeting with it it offers it self to him almost at every turn And now Mr. G. joyns with us against our Accuser and doth further prove him to have been grosly mistaken by shewing that New Law of Grace is not a new word but of an old ill meaning On the contrary he demonstrates it to be an old word but pretends that now amongst us it hath a new and ill meaning By this the People may see if they will but open their Eyes how well the Testimonies of our two Brethren against us do agree The first saith that New Law of Grace is a New Word of an old but ill meaning The Second who comes to defend him and enforce his Charge against us saith that New Law of Grace is an Old Word of a New but Ill meaning But it seems however contrary to one another their Testimonies are yet they must be both believed to be true against us For neither of these Brethren will confess that they were miâtaken and have done us wrong No they are both in the right tho' the one say That New Law of Grace is a New word of an old meaning and the other saith That it is an Old Word of a new meaning But it may be some will reply That they both agree at least that it is a word of an ill-meaning Answ True But 1. For all that agreement they yet refute one another For the first Accuser saith that the old meaning is ill but Reverend Mr. Goodwin maintains that the old meaning of the Word is good and pretends that the new only is ill 2. If these two Brethren do not agree about the word it self whether it be old or new but the one saith it is new and the other saith it is old and therefore one of them must needs be mistaken we have more reason to believe that they are mistaken about the meaning of the word and in saying that is a word of an ill meaning because it is much more difficult to know what is the true or false right or wrong meaning of a word then to know the word it self whether it be lately invented or hath been of very ancient usage in the Christian Church Remarks on the Second Chapter IN this Chapter he discourseth of the various signification of the word Law and affirms that the word Law in the Old Testament used for the Gospel signifies no more than a Doctrine To which I Answer 1. That I freely grant and never yet denyed that the word Law is capable of a various meaning nor did I in the Apology from the bare sound of the Word abstractly considered so much as seem to argue for one particular determinate Sense exclusive of all others I only say p. 22. that our Brethren should not dislike our calling the gospel-Gospel-Covenant a Law because the Scriptures of Truth call it so expresly And this Mr. Goodwin doth now confess to be true Likewise p. 24. from the Apostles calling it the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 and saying that it is of Faith that it might be by Grace Rom. 4.16 I argue that he hath in effect and by implication called it the Law of Grace And that therefore we are no Innovators in calling it so after him 2. Mr. G. can never prove that because the word Law is of a various signification and sometimes signifies a Doctrine that therefore when it is used for the Gospel it signifies nothing but a Speculative Doctrine or Narrative
requiring no Faith nor Practice in order to obtaining pardon of Sin and Eternal Life through and for the alone Righteousness of Christ 3. What he alledges out of Schindler and Cocceiut their Lexicons to prove that the Hebrew word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Torah which is rendred Law signifies any instruction given us not only by the Precepts but the Promises of God is wholly impertinent and makes nothing against me For in my Judgment the New Law of Grace is instructive both by Precept and Promise Hence I say in the Apology p. 22. that it is a Covenant-Law which makes rich offers of Grace of Justifying and Glorifying Grace c. And again a little after that this Law of Grace is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace it is that part of the Covenant of Grace which respects the way of God's dispensing to us the subsequent Blessings and Benefits of the Covenant such as pardon of Sin and Eternal Salvation Briefly As it is a Law of Grace to us it is that part of the Covenant which prescribes to us the Condition to be performed through Grace on our part and which promises us Pardon and Life for Christ's sake alone when we through Grace perform the Condition and therefore it must needs be very instructive both by Precept and Promise 4. What Mr. G. often says that the Gospels being called a Law signifies no more but that it is a Doctrine I utterly deny it in his sense of the word Doctrine nor doth ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Torah its being derived from ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Horah prove any such thing Buxtorf who understood the Hebrew as well as any Man in these latter Ages tells us in his Lexicon pag. 337. that the whole word of God is called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a Law quod nos de Dei voluntate erga nos nostro officio erga Deum proximum nostrum doceat erudiat Because it instructs us and teaches us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Thus Buxtorf Now if the whole Word of God be called a Law for that reason then the Gospel Covenant which is a principal part of the word of God is called a Law for the same reason to wit because it teacheth us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Accordingly it is freely granted that the Gospel Govenant is a Doctrine and a Doctrine of Grace but withal it is to be alwayes remembred that it is a Doctrine which not only promises gracious Benefits and Blessings on Gods part but also requires a Condition to be performed and terms to be complyed with through Grace on our part Hence the Evangelical Prophet Isa 2.3 saith he the Lord will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths And proves what he had said by this reason for out of Sion shall go forth the Law c. Mr. G. confesses that by Law here is meant the Gospel and then it follows that the Gospel is a Doctrine which reacheth us the Lords ways not only the ways wherein he walks with us but also the ways and paths wherein we walk with him Mr G would have the wayes which the Lord teacheth his People by the Gospel to be only the ways which the Lord himself walks in He would have them to denote only the order which God hath constituted for himself to observe in justifying Sinners But certainly that Interpretation is too short for the ways which God hath prescribed unto us to walk in are called Gods ways in Scripture Gen. 18.19 and he is also said to teach them his People Psal 86.11 and 119. ver 32 33 c. John 6.45 and particularly he teacheth us that it is our Duty to believe in Christ for Justification and Salvation And as Christ is the way unto the Father so Faith is the way unto Christ This the Gospel Law the Law of Faith teacheth us this Faith it prescribes to us and requires of us Acts 16.31 and consequently the Gospel in being said to be a Law it is said to be such a Doctrine as teacheth us the way we are to walk in such a Doctrine as prescribes to us some Means to be used and Condition to be performed by us brough Grace that we may through Christ his Righteousness and Intercession obtain the promised Blessings of Justification and Glorification And this my Reverend Brother sometimes hath Light to discern and Freedom to confess in part as in pag. 15. where he says That according to the usual Language of Gods word to walk in Gods ways is to observe his orders and appointments the expression here may denote no more than that they would punctually keep to the way of Salvation marked out by him and seek to be justifyed no otherwise than by Christ's Blood and Righteousness as the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes Thus he Now 1. Concerning this seeking to be justifyed by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only which the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes I demand of Mr. Goodwin whether it be something or nothing If he say that it is nothing Then 1. The Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes to us seeking that is it prescribes nothing And that is an odd way of prescribing to prescribe and yet to prescribe nothing 2 It is as odd a way of seeking for to seek by doing nothing But if to avoid this absurdity he say that seeking is something then I affirm that that something must be some Work or Act of the Soul And if so then we have what we desire to wit that the Gospel is a Law For he says that the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes seeking and seeking is some Work or Act therefore the Gospel prescribes some Work or Act. And what it prescribes to us unto that it obliges us and so by necessary consequence it is a Law that obliges us to Work and Act and by that means to seek Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only 2ly It is further to be observed That the seeking which the Gospel Law prescribes is very comprehensive as the word seeking is used in the Scriptures of Truth It is a word that signifies the diligent use of the Means which the Lord hath appointed for obtaining the thing sought But so it is that as is proved in the Apology the Lord hath appointed Faith and Repentance to be means to be used on our part for obtaining Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only Repentance is the means or condition dispositive of the Subject Man that he may be pardoned and justified by Faith in Christ's Blood and Righteousness only And Faith is the only means instrumental or Condition receptive and applicative of the object Christ and his Righteousness by and for which Object alone Man is justified and pardoned And therefore the Gospel-Law by prescribing the foresaid seeking which signifies the diligent use of all appointed means
it in the places cited by me that is enough to my purpose 2 If by no more than a Doctrine he understand no more than an absolute Promise or no more than a mere speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires no Duty of us at all no not so much as to believe in Christ then I say that his Two Quotations out of Cyprian and Augustin do not prove that by the word Law they there meant no more than a Doctrine in that Sense For 1. By his own Confession Cyprian in his 63. Epistle of Goulartius his Edition calls our Saviours Instruction how to administer the Lords Supper an Evangelical Law but I hope he dare not say that our Saviours Instruction how to administer that Ordinance was nothing but an Absolute Promise or a mere Speculative Doctrine that obligeth Christians to no Duty Nay Cyprian himself as Quoted and Translated by Mr. Goodwin said that he was to send Epistles to his Brethren That the Evangelical Law and the declared Doctrine of our Lord might be observed and that the Brethren might not depart from what Christ had taught and practised This Evangelical Law then according to Blessed Cyprian is a Doctrine that was to be Observed and Practised according to Christs Institution and Example And consequently it was a positive Law that obliged to Duty 2. For Augustin if he tells us as Mr. G. says pag. 27. of his Discourse that by the word Law we may apprehend not merely a Statute but any other Doctrine because he styles not only the Five Books of Moses but the Prophets in whose Writings there are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel by that Name I answer That makes nothing against me For 1. When I called the Gospel a Law I never meant a mere Statute exclusive of Gracious Promises so far was I from such a meaning that I said expresly it is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace Apol. p. 22. That is it is that part which prescribes the Condition and graciously promises a Benefit for Christ's sake to the performer of the Condition Again I said expresly in page 33. that the Conditional Promise of Eternal Life to the Believer together with the prescription of the Condition of a Lively Faith is the very thing which Dr. Twiss and we after him call the Law according to which God proceeds c. 2 If the Prophets are styled by the Name of Law in whose Writings are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel together with Precepts obliging the Duty then may the Gospel it self without offence be termed a Law in which there are both Gracious Promises and Excellent Precepts Yet 3dly It is incumbent upon Mr. Goodwin to prove that in Augustin's Judgment or that in real Truth the Prophets are called by the Name of Law precisely because there are gracious Promises in them and not at all because there are many Excellent Divine Precepts in them Are there not Gracious Promises of the Gospel to be sound in the Five Books of Moses and yet I trow those Five Books are not called the Law precisely because of the Evangelical Promises that are in them and not because they contain the whole Sum of Legal Precepts given by Moses unto the People of Israel Augustin in his Fifteenth and last Book of the Trinity takes occasion from what he had said of Gods being called Love 1 John 4.16 to speak of the various acceptation of the word Law and says that sometimes it is taken more generally for all the Scriptures of the Old Testament or for the Prophets or Psalms and sometimes more specially and properly for the Law given at Sinai Now this doth not in the least militate against any thing I have said in the Apology For I can grant with Augustin that the word Law is sometimes used in a more general comprehensive Sense and at other times in a more special restrained Sense and yet consistently enough hold that the Gospel is called a Law in Scripture and that it is a Law of Grace Thus I have briefly shewed that this whole Chapter is Impertinent But though there be nothing in it to his purpose against me yet there is something in it to my purpose against him For page 26 27. of his Discourse he tells us That a Law is a Doctrine See also his Serm. on the Q. Death p. 7 8. which teacheth us what is best for us to do if we will be taught by the Counsel of those who are wiser than our selves And in this sense saith he I will easily grant the Gospel to be a Law for it is the instruction of God whose Wisdom is beyond all denyal infinitely superiour to ours to our perishing Souls c. Now if the Gospel be a Law in this sense then certainly it is a Practical Doctrine that obligeth us to Duty Doth not the Infinitely wise God his instructing us to believe in Christ for Justification oblige our Consciences to believe in him and hath it not the force and effect of a Law I bless God I own its obliging force and it is and I hope ever shall be a Law to me a Gracious Evangelical Law And I hope my R. Brother will in time do so likewise Since he saith that thrice Blessed is that Person whom Gods Enlightning Grace hath made so wise as to follow it Remarks on the Sixth Chapter SECTION I. Some Preliminary Considerations necessary for the right understanding of our Protestant Writers and the clear Answering of Mr. G 's Quotations from their Writings FOR the better clearing up of the matter in Controversie and scattering of the Mist which my R. Brother hath cast before Peoples Eyes in this Chapter it will be expedient to premise some things before I come to answer his Quotations from the Writings of Protestant Divines And First It is to be considered that the word Gospel signifying good or glad tydings it may be applyed to and affirmed of several parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As 1. God's Eternal Decree to save for Christ's sake a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind as revealed in the Scriptures of Truth is Gospel for it is good and glad tydings to the visible Church 2. The absolute Prophecy and Promise to send Christ into the World to redeem Man and to seek and save that which is lost is Gospel also for it is good and glad tydings The like I say of Christ's being actually come into the World 3. The Absolute Promise to take away the Heart of Stone and to give an Heart of Flesh to give the Redeemed Saving Faith and Repentance is Gospel also since it is good and glad Tydings Now we never said that the Gospel in any of these Three Senses is a Law commanding us to do any Duty or perform any Condition But 4. The word Gospel in a more large and comprehensive Sense is taken for the Intire Covenant of Grace which God hath made with his Church through the Mediator his Son
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
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
Justification and Salvation calling them the Precepts of the Church when they are nothing less For a free Christian will say thus I will fast I will Pray I will do this and that which is Commanded by Men not that I need to do it for Justification or Salvation but that in doing it I may obey the Pope the Bishop such a Community and such a Magistrate or that I may give my Neighbour a good Example c. Thus Luther Now whether my R Brother have any occasion for this Doctrine he knows best himself it may be of some use to him the next time he Travels to Rome But for my self I declare I have no occasion for it nor do I ever intend to make use of it Mr Goodwin did well to tell the World that Luther wrote that Book before he had declared War against the Pope but then he might have been more sparing in his Praises of it and in urging Luther's Testimony therein against me and my Reverend Brethren since he was but newly crept out of the Monastery and had received but a small measure of Light when he wrote that Treatise And yet what is quoted out of it against me doth not advantage my R. Brother nor yet prejudice me and the Cause which I defend Though Luther was not without his failings as no Man is more or less yet he was really a great and good Man and I heartily bless God for the good that was in him and done by him and his testimony shall be alwayes respectfully received by me so far as I find it consonant to the Scriptures of Truth and to the Established Doctrine of our own better Reformed Church 4. In the fourth place Mr G. quotes the Excellent Melancthon again but to no purpose for I assent to all that Melancthon there writes Set aside the glosses of Mr. G and Melancthons own words do not prejudice my Cause at all And elsewhere Melancthon is clearly for me and holds as I do That the Gospel properly taken requires of us Faith and Repentance and promises Grace to enable us to believe and repent c. And I desire no more to prove the Gospel to be a Law of Grace in our sense of the word This I shall if the Lord will clearly prove from Melancthons own words in my Animadversions on Mr. G 's Seventh Chapter and then it will plainly appear that he doth but abuse Melancthon and the People too in thus indeavouring to make them believe that Melancthon was of his absurd Opinion 5. His next Witness against me is the famous Calvin but I fear no harm from him for I take him to be an honester Man than to contradict himself in Witness-bearing And I am sure he hath already borne Witness for us in the Apology and declared that he believed as we do that the gospel-Gospel-Covenant is Conditional and requires of Men both Faith and Repentance in order to the Pardon of their Sins and Salvation of their Souls See Apol. pag. 51.92 93 94 which is sufficient to prove that he held the Gospel to be a Law of Grace as we do And in the place which my R. Brother refers to and in the words which he quotes there is nothing but what is well consistent with what I most truely and faithfully cited both out of his Institutions and Commentaries And indeed what is here quoted by Mr. G. is very impertinently alledged against me For I do sincerely confess that to invest Christ with a new Legislative Power and to dignifie the Gospel with the title of a New Law in the Popish Sense of the Word is indeed a mere fiction and that those who go the Popish way have feigned Christ to be the Maker of an Evangelical Law which should have supplyed the defect even of the Moral Law given unto Israel by the hand of Moses But notwithstanding this it is as clear as the Light That Calvin did not believe the gospel-Gospel-Covenant to be nothing but a bundle of mere absolute Promises of Grace For besides what was quoted in the Apology Calvin in his Commentary on the Third of Jonah saith as followeth (h) Quoties veniam proponit Deus peccatoribus simul additur haec conditio ut resipiscant nec tamen sequitur poenitentiam esse causam impetrandae gratiae gratis enim se Deus offert neque aliunde inducitur quà m suâ liberalitate sed quia non vult homines abuti suâ indulgentia facilitate ideo legem illam apponit ut scilicet poeniteat ipsos vitae prioris in melius mutentur Calvin Comment in 3 Cap. Jonae As often as God proposeth or promiseth Pardon to Sinners together with the Proposal or Promise this Condition is added that they repent yet it doth not follow that Repentance is the cause of obtaining the Grace of Pardon for God offers himself freely nor is he induced thereunto by any other thing than his own liberality But because he will not have Men to abuse his Indulgence and readiness to forgive therefore he joyns that Law to his Promise to wit that Sinners repent of their former ill Life and be changed to the better Thus Calvin And this Repentance he affirms to be a part of the Sumof the Gospel Instit Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Sect. 19. as was shewed in the Apology pag. 95. Therefore my R B doth but abuse Calvin and wrest his words to a Sense he never meant notwithstanding the Commendation which he gives of him 6. Beza is brought to Witness against us but to as little purpose for I demonstrated from Beza his own express words in the Apology that he believed there is a Conditional Gospel-Covenant that Faith in Christ is the only receptive applicative Condition and yet that true Repentance is required as indispensably necessary in grown Persons in order to pardon of Sin And here I must rectifie what I said in the Apology pag. 95. That it may be and it would seem that Beza had some peculiar conceit That all Repentance of what kind soever is properly from the Law and but improperly from the Gospel because he said in his 20th Epistle That Contrition did not proporly proceed from the Gospel Now I confess that in so understanding Beza there I mistook his true meaning to my own disadvantage and my mistake arose from the word Contrition by which Beza meant nothing but what the Papists ordinarily call by the name of Attritio and that is a Legal Repentance which as Beza rightly observed proceeds not properly from the Gospel but from the Law But I thought that by the word Contrition he had meant what we commonly call Contrition from Psal 51.17 and which is a true Evangelical Repentance enjoyned by the Gospel But since I have learned from his other Writings that by the word Contrition he meant not an Evangelical but a Legal Repentance when in the latter part of that Epistle he said that Contrition is not properly from the Gospel but from the Law and by
requires nothing but Faith as that by which we apprehend receive and apply Christ and his Righteousness to our selves for Justification and Salvation Yet 3. He here saith That True Faith in Christ cannot be without Repentance and Evangelical Obedience And before in the same Book pag. 100. Sect. 5. He had said that the Gospel requires of us not only Faith in Jesus Christ but likewise Repentance towards God and an Endeavour to observe all that Christ hath Commanded See this fully and clearly proved by his own express words cited in the Apology p. 98 99. All this with much more that I could cite out of Zanchy plainly shews That according to him the Gospel is a Law not of Works but of Grace which obligeth us to do several things in order to our obtaining Justification and Salvation by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ And so that Zanchy is really for us and not against us as Mr. G falsely pretends By this Instance amongst others it may appear what credit is to be given unto his Citations of Authours Ninthly He appeals to Nine Reformed Divines whom he refers to without quoting their words and pretends that they all earnestly maintained that the Gospel in the peculiar Nature of it Disc p. 33. is no other than a Systeme of Promises Answ 1. What doth Mr. G mean by the Gospel in the peculiar Nature of it If he mean nothing but a bundle of Absolute Promises which require no Duty of us at all I do freely grant that the Gospel taken in that restrained and limited Sense is no other than a Systeme of Promises and those Promises absolute too And that this is Mr. G 's meaning appears by his whole Book But if he shall say that by the Gospel in the peculiar Nature of it he means the intire Covenant of Grace in its Evangelical Christian Form of Administration Then I deny that the Gospel in that sense is no other than a Systeme of Promises so as to have no Precepts of its own at all Answ 2. If any of the Nine Authours referred to do any where say That the Gospel in its peculiar Nature i. e. taken for the intire Covenant of Grace is no other than a Systeme of Promises It is like that by Systeme of Promises they mean a Systeme of Promises which are partly Absolute and partly Conditional and then in the Conditional Promises they imply and include the Precepts and Threatnings For 1. The Conditional Promise of God to Man implyes Gods Precept obliging Man to perform the Condition 2. The Word of God which promises to Man a benefit only if he perform a certain Condition doth necessarily imply the Threatning of not having the said benefit if he do not perform the Condition And in this sense it is possible that some of our Orthodox Divines have sometimes said that the Gospel is no other than a Systeme of Promises and yet they meant that the Conditional Promises do imply and include both Precepts and Threatnings Answ 3. Though I have not all those Nine Authours by me at present and so cannot now examine the several passages referred to yet I am sure Mr. G doth wrong to several of them in in giving out that they are of his Opinion for by what I remember to have read in them and have quoted out of them in the Apology and in my Remarks on the 7th Chapter I know as certainly that what Mr. Goodwin saith of them is false in his sense as I know it to be true that ever there were such Men and such Books in the World And particularly I know what he says to be false with respect to Pareus Rivet Gerard Walleus c. I say it is false that they earnestly maintained That the Gospel taken for the intire Covenant of Grace is a System of meer absolute Promises which hath neither Conditional Promise nor Precept Tenthly He brings Dr. Whitaker against Duraeus to witness against us That the Gospel is nothing but a Declaration and Narrative of Grace that requires nothing to be done by us Answ 1. Dr. Whitaker is there defending what Luther had written And though it is well known and confest by Lutherans themselves that Luther was not alwayes so cautious and exact in expressing his sense of things as other Divines use to be yet Whitaker thought that what he had written was capable of a good Sence to wit That since according to Luther the word Gospel signified nothing else but the Preaching and Publishing of the Grace and Mercy of God merited and purchased for us by Christ's Death The Apostle Paul might be accounted the best Evangelist and his Epistles with John's Gospel might be preferred before the Gosels of Matthew Mark and Luke because Paul did most of all Preach and Publish the Grace and Mercy of God through Christ both by Word and Writ And therefore Whitaker undertook the defence of Luther in this matter First against Campian and afterwards against Duroeus Now Luthers definition of the Gospel on which he founded his Argument which the Jesuits found fault with affirming that he had cast a Bone among the Four Evangelists and had preferred Paul's Epistles before the Three first Evangelists seems plainly to be taken from the signification of the Original Word For Gospel or good Tydings and so it is rather definitio nominis quà m rei a definition of the word Gospel than of the intire thing signifyed by the word Or admitting it to be a definition of the thing yet it is but an imperfect definition commonly called a Description which doth not necessarily contain all the Essentials of the thing defined or rather described And this way of defining that is describing things being ordinarily allowed to Orators as such Dr. Whitaker being a great Orator and using his Rhetorick very much as his Adversaries also did though in Controversial Writings he might well think it allowable to defend in Luther and likewise in his own Writings to use such a definition or description of the Gospel And yet not intend to tell the World as Mr. Goodwin would have it That in his Judgment the Gospel is a Declaration of Grace and Mercy in such a sence as to exclude all Duty and to require nothing of us at all no not so much as Faith in Christ That this could not be either Luther or Whitakers meaning in so defining or describing the Gospel is hence evident That they both maintain the Gospel to be a Declaration of God's Mercy and Grace purchased by Christ in that sense wherein Paul in his Epistles asserted it to be a Declaration of God's Mercy and Grace purchased by Christ But as I shall clearly prove in my Remarks on the next Chapter Paul in his Epistles never asserted the Gospel to be a Declaration of God's Mercy and Grace purchased by Christ in such a sense as excludes all Duty and requires nothing at all no not so much as Faith in Christ Answ 2. It is most
Orthodox Divines But I suppose Wittichius means only that saving Faith and Repentance are not required as antecedently necessary in order of time but that we are justifyed assoon as we believe and repent And so I agree with him Or it may be he meant that Faith is not necessarium justificationis praerequisitum ut simpliciter opus a necessary praerequisite unto Justification considered simply as a work And so I likewise agree with him For though Faith be really an inward Heart work and though it be pre required as necessary unto Justification yet it is neither praerequired nor required unto Justification simply and precisely as a work and under that formal consideration But only as the receptive applicative Condition or as the Instrumental means appointed by God for receiving applying and trusting Christ and his Righteousness alone unto Justification Thus I have examined and answered Mr. G 's second set of Testimonies and shewed that not one of them rightly understood makes against me What he writes in the close of this Sixth Chapter hath in effect and upon the matter Diso p. 41. been answered before And 1. It is not true that we confound the Notions of things which are entirely distinct in their Natures and Idea's For if one take the Gospel in his sense for a bundle of meer absolute promises of what God in Christ will do without requiring any thing at all to be done by us we freely grant that it is no Law at all to us in any proper sense But now the World knows very well or may know by our Apology that that is not the thing which we mean by the Gospel when we affirm it to be a Law of Grace But in truth the thing which we have declared we mean by the Gospel when we affirm it to be a Law of Grace is no other but the Covenant of Grace made with us through Christ which comprehends not only Absolute but Conditional Promises also and which prescribes to us the performance of the Condition and tells us we must through Grace perform it or we shall not have the benefits promised In this true proper comprehensive sense the Gospel is indeed a Law to us a Law of Grace but not a Law of Works For as hath been said though it require Duties of us which are indeed Works yet the Gospel Covenant doth not require them of us under that formal Notion as Works to be justifyed and glorifyed by and for them But 1. It requires Evangelical Repentance not as a Work to be Justified by and for either in whole or in part but as a Condition in the Subject or Person to be Justifyed necessary to dispose and qualifie him for Justification by and for Christ's Righteousness only 2. It requires true Faith in Christ not as a work to be justified for it in whole or in part but as the only condition or instrumental means whereby we apprehend receive apply and trust to Christ and his Righteonsness as the only Righteousness whereby and for which alone we are justifyed at the Bar of Gods Justice 3 It requires Obedience flowing from Faith Obedience I say to the whole revealed Will of God not simply as Obedience or Works for which we are glorifyed but as Evangelically sincere and growing up to perfection as a testimony of our thankfulness for our Redemption and Justification as a means of glorifying God of Crediting our Holy Religion of Edifying our Neighbour and of evidencing the sincerity of our Faith and finally as a Condition necessary by the Constitution of God to prepare and qualifie us for obtaining Possession of Eternal Glory for the alone meritorious Righteousness of Christ our Lord and Saviour So that the Gospel thus requiring these things is not a Law of Works but of Grace especially considering that it is by Grace that we do these things required and that the Grace whereby we do them is promised in the Gospel and by the Spirit given according to the promise And that when through Grace we have done them then God of his rich Mercy and Free Grace gives us for Christs sake the blessings and benefits promised to those who do the Duties required Secondly As to what my Reverend Brother saith That the Gospel hath no minatory sanction that no Threatning doth properly belong to it I answer 1. That if one take the Gospel as he doth for a bundle of meer absolute Promises then it is very true that in that sense it hath no minatory sanction no threatning doth properly belong to it and for my part I declare that I never said nor thought nor could deliberately think that a Threatning was any part of it either properly or improperly as taken in that too narrow limited sense for meer absolute Promises of what God in Christ will do for us without requiring any thing to be done by us But 2. Take the Gospel in that sense in which I take it for the intire gospel-Gospel-Covenant which God hath not only declared to but made with his Church through the Mediator Jesus Christ then my Answer is That though the Gospel taken oven in this comprehensive sense for the whole of the new Covenant of Grace made with us through Christ should have no Threatning properly belonging to it yet that would not hinder it from being a Law of Grace For it is properly enough a Law of Grace to us 1. As it prescribes to us its condition to be performed by us 2. As it promises Grace to enable us to perform its condition 3. As it promises to us great and gratuitous benefits upon our performing its condition through Grace 3. I answer That over and besides the Threatning of the first Covenant and Law of Works which Mr. G. fancies that the Gospel promise doth borrow and employ in its own service the Gospel-Covenant hath as plainly appears to me its own additional Threatning which I think is thus to be understood that though a Threatning doth not belong to the Gospel-Covenant as a Gospel-Covenant primarily and principally yet it belongs to it secondarily and less principally to wit as it is a Covenant made with Sinners to restrain them from Sin and to bring them unto Faith and Repentance The primary design of the Gospel-Covenant is indeed to promise gratuitous benefits to Sinners complying with its terms required and it is but its secondary design to threaten punishment in case of non-complyance And then further even this threatning of punishment in respect of its primary design is not to bring the punishment on the Sinner but it is to restrain from Sin and so preserve from Punishment And that the Punishment threatned is actually inflicted upon any who are called and commanded to comply with the terms of the Covenant but do not it comes to pass through their unbelief and impenitence as it were by accident in respect of the primary design of the Evangelical-Covenant as such And that this is true to wit That the Gospel-Covenant hath its
This I think I proved clearly both by Scripture and Reason in the Apology And I need to say no more of that matter till what I have there written be solidly answered which I never expect to see done Yet before I pass from this eighth Consideration I will ex superabundanti confirm what is here asserted by some few Testimonies both Divine and Humane But first I must desire the Reader to turn to the 103 and 104 Pages of the Apology and to read attentively and rightly understand what I there quoted out of the Learned and Judicious Turretin who shows that the New Covenant and Gospel comprehends both the Promise of Justification and the Promise of Glorification and that it requires more in order to the obtaining of Glorification in Heaven than to the obtaining of Justification on Earth He shows also that we ought to distinguish between the first closing with and entering into Covenant and the keeping of the Covenant we are entred into Faith enters us into the Covenant by receiving the promises and Faith together with sincere Obedience as its fruit and effect keeps the Covenant by retaining the Promises and Evangelically fulfilling the Commands Now the Gospel-Covenant being made for and propounded to us by God who is infinitely superiour to us and has a Soveraign Authority over us it obliges us both to accept it as it is propounded to us and to keep it as it is accepted by us that we may obtain the several Blessings and Benefits promised in it to those who first accept it and afterwards keep it It is true the Lord promiseth to enable his own people both to enter into Covenant and also to abide in the Covenant and keep it to the end but that no wise hinders his obliging them by the Covenant both to enter first into it and after that to abide in it and keep it This being premised I prove that the gospel-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 do something whereby we enter into Covenant and to do yet more for the due keeping of Covenant with God And First I prove by the Testimony of God in the Scriptures of Truth First Proof from Divine Testimony that the Gospel or New Covenant requires some Duties of us not indeed that we may be justified and glorified for the sake of those Duties but in order to other Gospel ends and purposes I begin with Gen. 17. in which Chapter we have an account of Gods renewing the Gospel Covenant with Abraham and instituting Circumcision to be a Sign and Seal to confirm it to him and his Seed after him Abraham was in Covenant with God before this time therefore God did but now renew it with and ratifie and confirm it to him and the words which he used in the doing of this are remarkable I will cite the most material of them And first in ver the 7th we have the words which contain and express the sum and substance of the Gospel-Covenant on Gods part And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee This is the promissory part of the Covenant that the Lord would be a God unto Abraham and to his Seed There is much in this it comprehends all Gods part of the Covenant that is all that he undertook to be unto and to do for Abraham and his Seed Secondly in the 1 9 10. verses we have the words which contain and express the sum and substance of the Gospel Covenant on the part of Abraham who was already before this time in Covenant with God ver 1. I am God almighty walk before me and be thou perfect upright or sincere Here Faith is implyed and sincere Obedience expressed Then again ver 9. God said unto Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations And ver 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee Every man child among you shall be circumcised The meaning of the words This is my Covenant is This is the sign or token of my Covenant which ye shall keep Every man child among you shall be circumcised This appears to be so from the following 11th verse where Circumcision is expresly said to be a token of the Covenant Circumcision then is here said to be the Covenant by a Sacramental Form of Speech because it was a token or sign of the Covenant The act of circumcising and submitting to be circumcised was indeed a part of the duty and condition of the Covenant but the Circumcision when it was done or the permanent effect was a token or sign of the Covenant So these three Verses the 1 9 and 10. express the Preceptive part of the Covenant and shew what was thereby required of Abraham to wit that he being already in Covenant by Faith should walk before God and be perfect or sincere that he should keep Covenant with God as his Seed also should do after him and that Circumcision cumcision being now instituted to be a token of the Covenant he and his Seed should be circumcised Now these things being so let Conscience if we have any say whether this gospel-Gospel-Covenant was such a Doctrine of Grace as required no Duty at all of Abraham or rather whether it was not a Doctrine of Grace which plainly required some Duty of him even that he should walk before Almighty God and be perfect or sincere that he should keep Gods Covenant and receive Circumcision as a sign and token of it But now let any Man tell me plainly how this gospel-Gospel-Covenant could be either kept or broken as in this Chapter it is said it might be if it was nothing but Gods absolute Promise without any Precept or a Doctrine of Grace which requireth nothing at all to be done by Man And to show that this Scripture is thus understood by Protestant Divines see the Dutch Annotations on Gen. 17.9 where you will find these formal express words As for thee or concerning thy part of the Covenant after that God had given and past his Promises he requireth likewise his Peoples Duty as the second compleating part of the Covenant See also to this purpose the Assemblies Annotations on Gen. 17.8 where they have these following words Yet this was but upon condition of the Peoples part of the Covenant which is Faith and Obedience In like manner Pools Annotations on Gen 17.9 have these very words following The agreement is mutual my part was expressed before now follows thy part and the condition to which my Promise and Blessing is annexed The second Divine Testimony to prove that the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace requires some Daties of us is Exod. 24.4 5 6 7 8. There
also the meaning of the words besides the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb is as if it had been said beside that entring into or striking of Covenant And then he adds for further clearing of the matter The Covenant was but one in substance but various in the time and manner of its dispensation The Dutch Annotations go the same way and very clearly assign the reason of its being said that the Covenant was made with Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant made with them in Horeb Their words are It was indeed one and the same Covenant but Renewed Repeated and Published here in the Fields of Moab unto many other Persons in another place and in another manner than at Mount Horeb or Sinai And with these agree the Assemblies Annotations on the place Their words are The same in substance but not altogether the same c. I know very well that there are some Learned Men who in this differ from those before-mentioned and from Deut. 29. ver 1. would prove that the Covenant aâ Horeb was the Covenant of Works and that this in the Land of Moab was the gospel-Gospel-Covenant of Grace I am not indeed altogether of their mind for I have already shewed that the Covenant in Exod 24. which was made with Israel at Horeb was not the Original Covenant of Works but the Gospel Covenant of Grace in Type and Figure But though they and I differ in that yet we both agree in this which is the main thing and sufficient for my purpose That the Covenant made with all Israel in the Land of Moab was really the Gospel Covenant of Grace So the Learned Alsted saith (y) Foedus in terrâ Moabitarum est Faedus Evangelii seu Fidei quod Redempvionis gratiae appellatur Quod Deus ibi promulgavit ut Populo poneret ob oculos ingens illud beneficium quo illud quod legi erat impossibile per Christum reddidit possibile Confer Deut. 29. 30. Cap. cum Rom. 10.6 c. Johan Henric. Alsted in Turri Babel destructâ pag. 532. The Covenant in the Land of Moab is the Covenant of the Gospel or Faith which is also called the Covenant of Redemption and Grace which God there promulgated that he might set before the Peoples Eyes that great benefit whereby that which was impossible to the Law is made possible by Christ Compare Deut. 29 and 30. Chapters with Rom. 10. ver 6 c. Now if it be the Gospel Covenant or Covenant of Grace then it is certa in and evident that the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or the Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires some Duties of us For the Text saith ver 9. Keep the words of this Covenant and do them And ver 10 11 12. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord the God and into his Oath c. These express words of the Text plainly show that this Covenant hath Precepts and requires Dutyes And that this Covenant which hath Precepts and requires Dutyes is the Gospel Covenant of Grace is yet more manifest from Deut. 30. where Moses speaking still of the same Covenant at the same time he told the People That though they should break it by sin yet they might be received into Grace and Favour again upon their sincere Repentance ver 1 2 3 4 5. Ruthersord of the Covenant of Life opened Part 1. pag. 189. which proves that this could not be the Covenant of Works because as Rutherford well observes The Covenant of Works once broken ceaseth to be a Covenant of Life for ever because the Nature of it is to admit of no Repentance at all 2 Moses speaking still of the same Covenant he says one of the Promises of it is That the Lord will circumcise the Heart of his People and the heart of their Seed to love the Lord their God with all their Heart and Soul that they may live ver 6. But so it is That the Promise of Heart Circumcision is certainly a Promise of the Gospel Covenant of Grace 3 Moses speaking still of the same matter and at the same time he saith as it is written in ver 11 12 13 14 This Commandment which I command thee this day it is not hidden from thee neither is it far off It is not in Heaven that thou should say Who shall go up for us to Heaven and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it Neither is it beyond the Sea that thou shouldest say Who shall go over the Sea for us and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it But the word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it By which words he plainly teaches us That the Covenant and Commandment of which he there writes is neither impossible nor hard to be understood nor yet is it impossible nor hard to be kept and observed but that through Grace circumcising the heart to love God it is both easie to be known and also easie to be kept and observed Now this cannot be truely said of the Covenant of Works For as Mr. Shepard of New England well observes The Coudition of Works is impossible to be wrought in us by the Spirit And let not any Man think this strange and uncouth to say Theses Sabbathae pag 95. That the Spirit of Grace cannot now work in us the Condition of the first Covenant the Covenant of Works for the Condition and Duty of that Covenant was That Man should be without all Sin in Habit or Act and that he should be sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life and continue so to be But that is now impossible because it implyes a Contradiction for any meer Man since Adam broke the first Covenant and we in him to be always without all Sin in Habit or Act and to be always Sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life For all Men are already guilty of Sin and the People of Israel were all Sinners and had broken the Covenant of Works before Moses spoke and when he spoke the foresaid words unto them And it implyes a contradiction that by any Power whatsoever a thing which hath been already should be made not to have been at all or that a thing which exists at present should not exist at present whil'st it doth exist It will signifie nothing here to say That yet the Spirit can make us sinlesly Holy de futuro if he please for though that be very true absolutely speaking the Spirit can make a Man sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life for time to come though he hath been a Sinner in times part for that implyes no contradiction And the Spirit of Grace hath de facto done the thing in and upon the Spirits of Just Men made perfect in Heaven yet it is nothing to the purpose here because that is not the Condition and Duty of the Covenant
of Works that Man should sin no more for the future but its Condition and Duty is that Man should never once sin at all either in time past present or to come And assoon as he hath once sinned he hath ipso facto so broken that Covenant that from that very moment it ceases to be unto him a Covenant of Life for ever as we heard before out of Rutherford because it admits of no Repentance with a Promise of Pardon and Life The Condition then and Duty of the Covenant of Works being now simply impossible to sinful Men it cannot be said with any colour of Truth that it is easie to be performed through Grace it cannot be said of the Covenant of Works as Moses hath it ver 14. The word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it The quite contrary is true with respect to the First Covenant the Covenant of Works the performing of its Duty and Condition is so far off from sinful Men such as the Israelites were that it is impossible to be brought near unto them till both ends of a real contradiction be made to meet in one and the same thing be made to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect And as it cannot be truely said to be very nigh so it cannot be truely said to be in the Mouth and Heart of sinful Men that they may do it That were to say that it is in Mens Mouth and Heart to do that which implys a contradiction and is impossible to be done But on the other hand it may be truely said of the Gospel or New Covenant and it's Duty and Condition that through Grace circumcising the Heart to love God The word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it Thus the Blessed Apostle Paul understood this Passage and quoted the Sense and Substance and partly the very words of Moses and applyed them unto and affirmed them of the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace as distinct from and opposite unto the Law and Covenant of Works For in Rom. 10.5 The Apostle first shews out of Levit. 18.5 in what Form of words Moses described the Law and Covenant of Works and its Righteonsness That the Man which doth those things shall live by them Secondly In vor 6 7. c he doth himself out of Moses Deut. 30. ver 11 12 13 14. describe and explain the nature of the Gospel Covenant and its Righteousness He calls it the Righteousness of Faith and shews how we obtain it by Christ's Purchasing it for us and giving it unto us we receiving it by Faith and shewing our Faith and Thankfulness for it by confessing him who purchased it which implyes a steadfast cleaving to the Lord with purpose of heart against all temptations to the contrary For these Reasons I do believe that the Covenant in Deut. 29. and 30. Chapter is not the First Covenant or Law of Works but the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace And consequently that the Gospel Covenant hath Precepts and requires Duty And this is no New Opinion of my inventing but is the real Truth as I have proved from the words of Moses and a Truth also now commonly received by the Orthodox I know that there are some Learned Men of a different Judgment the Arminians are of that sort and particularly Episcopius as appears from his Paraphrase and Observations on Rom 10. ver 5 6 8. which Exposition of his seems to be founded upon that Opinion of theirs That the Covenant of which Moses speaks there or elsewhere in the Books of the Law did not promise Eternal Life but only a Temporal Prosperous Life in the Land of Canaan to them who sincerely indeavoured to keep the Laws given them by Moses See Mat. 19.16 17. Joh. 5.39 which I think is contrary to Gal. 3.11 12. for the Life which the Apostle denyes to be possible to be obtained by the Law because all Men have broken it seems to be of the same kind with that Life which he affirms to be obtained by Faith But it is Spiritual and Eternal Life which is obtained by Faith therefore it is Spiritual and Eternal Life likewise which he denyes to be obtainable by the Works of the Law And the reason why it was not so obtainable was because no Man did or could keep the Law so as not to fall under its curse even such a curse as Christ redeems from Gal. 3.10 and 13. compared The Apostle sayes ver 21. If there had been a law given which could have given life verily righteousness should have been by the law He doth not any where say that the Law could not give Eternal Life because it had no promise of Eternal Life But elsewhere to wit in Rom. 8.3 he assigns the true reason why the Law of Works could not give life Eternal Life even becauseâ it was weak through the flesh It was the Sin of Man that disabled the Law of Works that it could not give that Eternal Life which after the Fall it promised only oeconomically that is it proposed and set Eternal Life before Mens Eyes in a form of words which before the Fall was really promissory of Eternal Life upon a possible condition but after the Fall did but serve to remind us what Man once was and what he should still have been what he might have done and what he might have attained unto by doing but that having broken that Covenant we are all lyable to Eternal Death and can never obtain Eternal Life by it and therefore that it behoves us to seek Eternal Life and Salvation by Christ only upon the terms of the Gospel and New Law or Covenant of Grace as was more fully explained before This only I briefly hint on the by I hope the R. Brother with whom I have to do will not flee from me into the Arminian Camp and from thence come out against me clad with their Goliaâs Armour for it will not well become Mr. Goodwin though he could dexterously serve himself with it which yet is very questionable But let him do in that matter as best pleaseth him I am resolved to abide where I am in the Camp of the Orthodox and thence I oppose the Authority and Reasons of Fr. Junius in his Parallels Second Book and Sixteenth Parallel where he explains Rom. 10.5 6 7 8. by comparing it with Leviticus the 18th and Deuteronomy the 30th Of the same Judgment with Junius is the Learned Professour of Saumur Stephanus de Brais as appears by his Paraphrase and Notes at the end of his Paraphrase on the Epistle to the Romans pag. 336 337. Rutherford was also of that mind as is evident by these his words This Covenant to wit of Grace hath the promise of a circumcised heart Deut. 30.6 and of the word of faith that is near in the mouth and of the Righteousness of Faith clearly differenced
Discipuli non Magistro sed Deo monente diffusi Praecepta in salutem dare c Cyprian lib. de Idolorum vanitate Edit Oxon cum Minutii Felicis Octavio An. 1678. That Christ appeared and made himself known to his Apostles after his Resurrection and stay'd with them Forty days that they might be instructed by him and learn of him Vital Precepts which they might teach and that the Disciples being dispersed throughout the World by the order not of a meer Master but of God they gave forth Precepts unto Men for their Salvation Thus Cyprian Now by those Vital Precepts of which he speaks which lead Men to Salvation cannot be meant the Precepts of the Old Law and Covenant of Works as such for they are not Vital but rather Mortal to Sinful Men It is indeed through Mens own fault that they are not Vital but Mortal to them but however yet it is true that they are Mortal and not Vital They are a killing Letter 2 Cor. 3.6 They must then be the Precepts of the Gospel and Law of Grace which though for the most part they are materially the same with yet they formally differ from the Precepts of the Old Covenant and Law of Works for as they are the Precepts of the New Covenant and Law of Grace they come under a New Form and Sanction and become Vital and Saving both by the Ordination of God in Christ and also by the Grace of the Spirit promised in the New Law or Covenant of Grace My Fourth Witness is Ambrose who on the 119. Psal ver 156. saith (l) Evangelium non solum fidei Doctrina sed etiam est morum Magisterium speculum justae conversationis Amb. Serm. 20. in Ps 118. alias 119. Edit Paris 1614. Col. 1068. The Gospel is not only a Doctrine of Faith but it is also an Authoritative Instruction or Law of Manners and a glass of just Conversation And again in the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans chap 3. ver last he or Hil. Diac. writes thus (m) Et quia lege Moysi cessante meliora praecepta daturus erat Deus Jeremiah Propheta cecinit dicens ecce dies venient dicit Dominus consummabo Domini Israel c. His utique qui venientem Christum ex promissione receperunt c. Idem Ambros vel potius Hil. Diaconus Comment in Epist ad Rom. ad versum ult cap. 3. And because the Law of Moses ceasing God was to give better Precepts Jeremiah the Prophet sung saying Behold the days shall come saith the Lord that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel c. that is with those who received Christ when he came according to promise Now these better Precepts which Ambrose or Hilary saith God was to give when the Levitical Law was to be Abrogated were no other in his Opinion than the Precepts of the New Covenant and Law of Grace as manifestly appears by his proving his Assertion out of Jerem. 31.31 where the Lord foretold his making of a New Covenant with the House of Israel c. And that Authour might well call them better Precepts both in respect of their perspicuity as more fully and clearly explained by Christ and also in respect of their Efficacy as accompanyed with a greater measure of the Grace of the Holy Spirit Jer. 31.33 with Heb. 8.9 10. He might likewise so call them with respect to the positive Institutions of the Gospel My Fifth Witness is Chrysostom who saith that (n) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Chrysost Homil. 1. in Cap. 1. Matth. ex Edit Commel An. 1617. One of the Capital Fundamental Points of our Religion in which our Life consists and which comprehend the Sum of our Preaching is that Christ gave to his Church saving Precepts He is discoursing there of the Harmony of the Four Evangelists and after what he had said of that matter he subjoyns a Request that we would diligently consider and observe that in the Capital Points of our Christian Religion wherein the Life of our Souls consists and which comprehend the Sum of Ministers Preaching there is not the least disagreement amongst the four Evangelists And then to the question Which are those Capital Essential Points of our Religion He Answers That they are these following to wit That God was Incarnate that he wrought Miracles that he was Crucified that he was Buryed that he rose again from the Dead that he ascended into Heaven that he will judge the World that he gave Saving Precepts that he did not introduce a Law contrary to the Old Testament That he is the Son that he is the only begotten Son that he is the true genuine Son that he is of the same Essence with the Father and as many points as there are of the like nature and then he asserts that in all these Points there is the greatest Harmony and Agreement of the Four Evangelists By this we see that Chrysostom held it to be a Capital Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion that Christ hath given Saving Precepts to his Church and consequently that the gospel-Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts For the Precepts of the First Old Covenant and Law of Works as such cannot now be saving to Sinners such as all Men are therefore the Precepts which are now saving to Mens Souls must be the Precepts of the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace which as we Christians have it is not contrary to it self as it obtained in the Church before the coming of Christ for it always had Saving Precepts and as we heard before out of Ireneus the Principal Precepts were the same under the Old Legal which they are now under the New Evangelical Administration of the Covenant of Life And yet we must not think that the Precepts of the Gospel are saving because we are Justifyed by and for Obedience to them for as Chrysostom observes on Rom. 3.27 28. The Lord Justifies Men (o) Chrysost Homil. 7. in Cap. 3. Epist ad Romanos ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not at all needing Works but requiring Faith only The Lords Gospel-Precept then requires Faith and only Faith as the Instrumental means or Receptive Applicative Condition of our Justification But our observance of the other Gospel-Precepts is required to other Gospel-ends and purposes and the Precepts themselves are Saving as they are taken into the Gospel Covenant and as Sincere Obedience to them through Grace prepares and disposes us for the full enjoyment of Eternal Life and Glory according to the Promises of the Gospel I might be large in demonstrating that Chrysostom is for Gospel Precepts and a New Law of Grace which hath both Precepts and Promises And indeed he sometimes carryes the matter further than I can approve of But however he is Orthodox in the thing under present consideration that the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace hath Saving Precepts This is so certain and evident that no sincere honest Man who reads and understands but his
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-Gospel-Covenant whereof he is Mediator had Precepts and required Duty But that the gospel-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 â 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 âin 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
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 â Ibid. p. 3â8 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-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
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
threatnings For as this is the voice of the Gospel He that believes and is Baptized shall be saved so the Antithesis or contrary proposition immediately added doth likewise pertain to the Gospel He that believeth not shall be damned The like Antitheses are also in these sayings He that believeth in the Son bath eternal Life he that believeth not the Son shall not see Life but the wrath of God abideth on him In like manner He that believeth on the Son is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already It is not to be doubted but that these are the most proper voices or words of the Gospel and yet they not only contain most sweet Promises concerning the Grace and Favour of God and Righteousness before God and concerning Eternal Life to all that by Faith embrace the Mediator revealed in the Gospel But they likewise contain most severe Threatnings reproving and condemning this sin which is a disbelieving the Son of God the Mediator and leaving under this eternal Condemnation all that believe not in his Son Thus Pezelius who there also shews that Flacius did abuse the Authority of Luther and wrest his words to make People believe that the Gospel hath no Threatnings of its own but that it only borrows the Threatnings of the Law as Mr. G. says after his Master Flacius 2. 2dly The whole Synod of Dort and that is the Delegates from all the best reformed Churches bear witness to this Truth That the Gospel hath its own Threatnings as is to be seen in their 14th Canon concerning the fifth head of Doctrine to wit Perseverance * Quemadmodum autem Deo placuit opus hoc suum gratiae per praedicationem Evangelii in nobis inchoare ita per ejusdem auditum lectionem meditationem adhortationes minas promissa nec non per usum Sacramentorum illud conservat continuat perficit Act. Synod Dordrac Part. 1. Pag. 313. But as it pleased God to begin in us this work of Grace by the Preaching of the Gospel so he preserves continues and perfects it by the hearing reading and meditating by the Exhortations Threatnings and Promises of the same Gospel and also by the use of the Sacraments These are the words of the foresaid 14th Canon which was subscribed by the whole Synod without exception Now this is such a Testimony for the Truth which I defend that the Gospel hath its own Threatnings as I think should be of more weight with true Protestants than the Testimony of that erroneous Person Flacius Illyricus and the few Disciples that he may have in the world at this day 3. 3dly The Reverend and Learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations bear Testimony to this Truth witness their Annotation on Rom. 2.6 Who shall recompence every Man according to his works This say they may well be applyed also to the recompencing according to the promises and threatnings of the Gospel c. This is a most clear irrefragable Testimony for in these words compared with what goes before concerning recompencing even Heathens according to the promises and threatnings of the Law they plainly acknowledge that the Gospel as distinct from and as opposed to the Law hath its own promises and threatnings According to which Christians shall be Recompenced 4. 4thly The Learned and Judicious Pool in his Annotations on Deut. 29. doth in a Remarkable instance bear witness to this truth for he saith that the wicked person of whom it is there written v. 19. That when he heareth the words of the curse he blesses himself in his heart saying I shall have peace tho I walk in the Imagination of my heart to add Drunkenness to Thirst Was one of those who think that the Gospel hath no threatnings See Pool's Annotation on the 21 verse of the 29th of Deutronomy where upon these words The Lord shall separate him to evil According to all the curses of the Covenant he says expresly that He to wit the Lord Intimates that the Covenant of grace which God made with them hath not only blessings belonging to it as this foolish person imagined but curses also to the Transgressors of it Here Mr. Pool says That that foolish person imagined that the Covenant of Grace had only blessings belonging to it and this is in effect the same thing as if he had said that the foolish Man imagined that the Covenant of Grace had only promises oâ blessings but no threatnings of curses belonging to it 5. 5thly The Judicious Hutcheson in his exposition on John's Gospel gives express Testimony to this truth Witness those formal words of his on the 47. verse of the 12th Chapter of John's Gospel p. 256. Albeit the Gospel be glad tydings of joy and contain Cordials and remedies against all curses and threatnings of the Law yet it contains also threatnings against despisers as terrible as any threatning of the Law These words do so plainly shew that he believed the Gospel hath threatnings of its own distinct from the threatnings of the Law that I need not say any thing to prove that to be their meaning For it is self-evident that they have that meaning and can have no other 6. 6thly Mr. Rutherford is again express in his Covenant of Life opened for the same truth that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath threatnings Witness his own formal words Part 1. Page 92. As the Commands and Threatnings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real Obligation upon such as are only externally in Covenant either to obey or suffer so the promise of the Covenant imposes an Engagement and Obligation upon such to believe the Promise Now if there are Threatnings of the Covenent of Grace then are there Threatnings of the Gospel also For the Gospel and the Covenant of Grace is all one See in the Second Volume of Pool's Annotations the Note on Heb. 12.29 together with the Explication of 2 Thes 1.8 9. 7. 7thly And lastly the Reverend and Learned Dr. Owen above all others doth fully and clearly give Testimony unto this truth that the Gospel hath its own proper threatnings distinct from the threatnings of the Law his words are as follows As the sum of all promises to wit of the Gospel is enwrapped in these words he that believeth shall be saved * Dr. Owen on Heb. 4 v. 1 2. Pag. 180. Vol. 2. Mark 16.16 So that of all these threatnings i. e. the sum of all these threatnings of the Gospel is in those that follow he that believeth not shall be damned And a like summary of Gospel-promises and threatnings we have John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting Life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see Life but the wrath of God abideth on him And threatnings of this nature are frequently scattered up and down in the New Testament See Rom. 2.8 9. 2 Thes 1.6 7 8 9 10. 1 Pet. 4.17 18. And these threatnings may be so far called Evangelical in as much as
sinless perfection whereas the promises of the Gospel are made to obedience in a lower degree of perfection that is to obedience which is sincere tho it be not sinlessly perfect And the consequence of this would be that the Covenant of Grace would be a Covenant of works contrary to Rom. 11.6 I Answer that this R. brother like a Sophister jumbles together and confounds things that should be separated and spoken unto distinctly To wit the conditional promises of Justification and Pardon of sin And the conditional promises of Glorification and Consummate salvation Of the first sort of these promises Evangelical Faith and Repentance are the Condition And of the second sort sincere obedience Evangelical flowing from faith with perseverance therein to the end is the condition Now 1 for the condition of the promise of Justification to wit Evangelical Faith and Repentance they are not at all required in any degree by the old Law strictly taken for the Covenant of works nay the old Covenant or Law of works as such is so far from requiring them that it doth not admit them but of its own nature it Rigorously insists upon and demands a sinlessly perfect perpetual obedience to all its precepts and a personal Righteousness absolutely compleat in all parts and in all degrees without the least sinful defect This and this only is the obedience which the old Covenant of works requires as its condition And upon this condition and for this obedience and personal Righteousness alone it promised to Men not pardon of sin but Justification and Life Eternal By this it plainly appears that the conditions of the promises of the old Covenant of works and of the new Covenant of Grace with respect to Justification differ not meerly in degree but they differ in kind 2. Tho the precepts of the Moral natural Law considered as stript of their old Covenant form Do require Evangelical Faith and Repentance as they require us to believe and obey the precepts of the New and Gospel-Covenant Yet this they do only mediately and consequentially For it is the New and gospel-Gospel-Covenant it self which doth immediately and directly by its own precepts require of us Evangelical Faith and Repentance in order to Justification and Pardon of sin 3. Tho the New and Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace doth require of us both Evangelical Faith and Repentance as necessary in order to Justification and Pardon of Sin Yet it is with this difference that it requires Faith as most properly the condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification but it requires Evangelical Repentance only as a Condition The Reason of this difference I assigned in the Apology thus Faith is most properly the Condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification because it is that condition or Instrumental means whereby we receive apply and trust the object Christ and his Righteousness by and for which only we are Justified and Pardoned but Evangelical Repentance is most fitly called a Condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification or Pardon of sin because it is a condition not receptive of the Object Christ as Faith is but dâspositive of the Subject man so necessary in order to his being Justified or Pardoned that the Lord Suspends the Pardoning of Man's Sins till he hath through Grace sincerely Repented of them Isa 55.7 And this is exactly agreeable to the Judgment of Mr. Durham as I shewed before and likewise to the Judgment of Mr. Hutcheson on John 3.18 Doctrine 4. His words are pag. 40. Albeit such as flee to Christ and expect not to be Condemned ought to study Holiness without which no man shall see God yet the Condition required for reversing the Sentence and Absolving the Self-condemned Sinner is only Faith put in Exercise as laying hold on Christ's Righteousness which alone can Answer the Law and endureth constantly whereas our Holyness is imperfect and variable like the Moon therefore it is he that believeth on him or hath Faith in Exercise not in the Habit only that is not Condemned 4. Hence it follows that tho Justifying Faith be required by a Precept of the Gospel-Covenant as our Confession of Faith Chap. 7. Art 3. saith expresly That it requires Faith and tho by Consequence Justifying Faith is an Act of Obedience to that Gospel-Precept which requires it yet it doth not follow that therefore we are Justified by it considered simply as an Act of Obedience For if so then since a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia we should be a-like Justified by any other Act of Obedience which is false But as Mr. Hutcheson said Faith above all other gracious Acts having an aptitude for that use and being only appointed by God to that Office justifies us or we are justified by it alone as laying hold on Christ and his Righteousness and as trusting in Christ and his Righteousness which alone can answer the Law and Justice of God 5. And hence appears one Essential specifical Difference between the Old Law or Covenant of Works and New Covenant of Grace that tho as Essenius saith Compend Dogm Cap. 11. pag. 428. Thes 12. Obedience be required in them both yet in the Old Covenant of Works Man 's own Personal Obedience was required not only as the Condition of his Justification but as the only Righteousness by and for which he could be justified according to that Covenant Whereas in the New Covenant of Grace there is a Mediator by and for whose Mediatorial Righteousness alone we are justified and not one Act of our own Personal Obedience is required as that Righteousness or any par of that Righteousness by and for which we are Justified and Pardoned Neither âaith nor Repentance are required by the Precepts of the Gospel as any part of that Obedience and Righteousness by and for which we are Justified but Repentance is only required as a Condition or Means to dispose and prepare the Subject Man who is to be justified And Faith is required as the Condition or Instrumental Means to receive apply and trust the Object to wit Christ and his Righteousness by and for which alone we are justified Now this alone though there are many other Respects in which they differ is abundantly sufficient to shew That there is more than a gradual even a specifical difference between the Two Covenants aforesaid with respect to Justification Their Conditions differ in kind and so doth the Righteousness for which the two Covenants do respectively justifie such Persons as come up to and comply with their Terms and Conditions Secondly As for the Condition of the New Covenant-Promise of Glorification and Consummate Salvation to wit sincere Eaangelical Obedience tho materially considered it is partly the same with yet it is also partly different from that Legal Obedience which was required as the Condition of the Old Law and Covenant of works for there are some Positive Precepts which now belong to the New and gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace that did not at all exist of
salvation and effectually called It is no more or Then certainly it is not of works That is of the Merits or Dignity of their works Otherwise Namely if it were of works only or of grace and works together grace is no more grace Namely for as much as grace excludes all debt Merit or worthyness and cannot consist therewith For grace is no wise grace if it be not every way grace Rom. 4.4 And if it be of works it is no more grace Namely but a deserved reward i. e. then their Election and Calling was not done of grace Otherwise the work is no more work That is no work of Merit Thus they excellently well expound that 6 verse of Rom. 11. And refer it to the Election mentioned in the 5 verse so as not to exclude but rather include the reserving of an Elected remnant of Jews and their effectual calling to Faith in Christ After the same manner doth Mr. Mayo explain the same words In the 2d Vol. of Pool's Annotations on Rom. 11.6 He writes thus The Apostle takes occasion here to shew that Election and Vocation is only by grace and not by works And here he delivers a truth which the Jews of old either could not or would not understand i. e. that there is no mixing of the Merit of good works and the free grace of God But one of these doth exclude and destroy the nature of the other For if Election and calling were c. Let the Reader consult the whole Passage It is too large for me to Transcribe but it is so well done that I do most heartily approve of it Now this being the true genuine sense of that place of Sctipture let Mr. Goodwin prove if he can that because Election from Eternity and Effectual calling in time is of grace and is not of Merit of works either foreseen before Election or really wrought before effectual calling Therefore the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath no conditional promises and doth require no duty no not Faith in Christ nor no obedience or work of obedience at all I am sure that no Man living can prove that Consequence by one solid Argument It may be my R. B. will be more moved with the words of the Learned Ainsworth then with mine and therefore I will cite him a passage out of a Writing of that Learned Author His words are * H. Ainsworth's censure upon the Anabaptists Dialogue c. pag. 20. No Scripture telleth that our Election to Life dependeth on this Condition of our Faith and Obedience Faith and Obedience are the effects not the cause of our Election and are Conditions following Election not going before it as it is written Acts 13.48 Here Ainsworth acknowledges that tho Faith and obedience be not the cause but the effects of Election yet that hinders not their being conditions And I add that tho they are effects not only of election but of effectual Vocation yet they are Conditions with respect to the subsequent blessings of the Covenant And if they be Conditions then there are Conditional Promises in the Gospel-Covenant and it requires of us some Duties and Works of Obedience and though this be most true yet doth it not follow from hence by any true Logick That the Gospel will be only the superannuated Law of Works revived with some abatements of its required Duties Prove this Consequence if you can I put you to it but take heed that you do not lay your self further open and discover your own weakness in the doing of it Sir if you had only to do with me it may be you might easily run me down for I acknowledge my self to be nothing and am ready to lay my self at the Feet of all my R. Brethren not excluding my present Antagonist But I must tell you That the Lord's Truth and commonly received Doctrine of the Reformed Churhes will not so easily be run down There is one thing more in his 56th Pag. that needs correction and that is what he saith of God's conditional Promises being made to Men upon such and such a condition I humbly conceive this is a mistake One Man indeed may make a promise to another Man upon a condition so as to suspend the very making of the promise upon the condition and if the other Man do not accept or perform the condition the promise is not made to him at all but I think it is otherwise between God and Man God is infinitely Superiour to us and he absolutely makes his conditional Promises to us without asking our consent I say that God's making of the conditional Promise is absolute but the Promise made is conditional and God prescribes the Condition to us and Commands us to perform it But then God performs the said Promise conditionally that is He suspends his own Transient Act of giving us the Benefit promised conditionally till we through Grace have performed the Condition And if the Condition be never performed by us God never gives the Benefit promised unto us This is no new Notion of mine I have not so good an Opinion of my own Abilities as to venture upon new Notions in Divinity It is enough for me and I hope I shall through Grace be thankful to God for it if he be pleased to enable me to contend as I ought to do for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints Jude v. 3. This Notion I say is none of mine but it is the Learned and Pious Rutherford's as is to be seen in his Book of the Covenant of Life opened Part I. P. 91 92. Nor is it true that the Promise is made to the Aged upon condition of Believing The Promise is made to them absolutely whether they Believe or not But the Blessing of the Promise and Covenant of Grace is given and bestowed only conditionally if they Believe The Promise is absolutely made It is called conditional from the thing conditionally given Thus Rutherford And accordingly whenever I say That God hath promised a Benefit to Men upon a Condition I desire it may be thus understood For I mean no more than that God hath made to Men a conditional Promise that he prescribes to them the Condition and will give them the Benefit promised if they perform the Condition prescribed and not till then But I do not mean that God conditionally makes the Promise to Men so as to suspend his making of it till they perform the Condition And it may be my R. B. meant no more than this and if so we are agreed as to this matter But further Object 2. He argues against the Gospel's having any Conditional Promises thus P. 57. If the Gospel be a New Law or Covenant of Grace that hath Conditional Promises so it should be expressed or it doth not concern me at all it will follow that God in the Promulgation of this New-Law or Covenant of Grace offers Life universally to all Men to Tartars Negroes and the Savages in America to
in the Barbarous Nations which are most invincibly ignorant of Christ and are under no obligation to Believe in him because the Gospel-Law or Covenant of Grace which can only be known by Supernatural Revelation is not at all Revealed and made known to them but they are guilty of gross Idolatry and other enormous Sins against the Light and Law of Nature for which they are justly Condemned Rom. 2.12 And this shews that my R. Brothers second amazing absurdity doth not concern me for whether it do or do not naturally spring from God's speaking generally to all Men without exception and saying Believe in Christ and you shall Live It doth not touch me and the Cause which I maintain for these two plain Reasons First Because I do utterly deny the Antecedent from which it is said naturally to spring I deny that God by the Gospel speaks generally to all the Men in the World without exception of the most barbarous Nations and Commands them all to Believe in Christ with a Promise of Life if they do Believe in him Secondly For the consequent which is said to spring naturally from the said Antecedent I disown it also to wit That God contrary to his Wisdom and Goodness promises Pardon to all Men upon the impossible condition of Believing in Christ by their meer Natural Powers I am so far from saying this that on the contrary I say there may be many Millions of Men in the World who cannot Believe in Christ by their meer Natural Powers to whom God doth not Promise Pardon of Sin upon the impossible condition of Believing in Christ by their meer Natural Powers And hence it plainly appears that by my Principle I am under no obligation either on the one hand to join with my R. Brother in denying that the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace hath any Conditional Promises or on the other hand to joyn with the Arminians in affirming that there is an universal sufficient Grace i. e. as Mr. G. expresses it That all Men have sufficient means afforded them to Believe in Christ and that God gives help enough to enable them to Believe if they will and whenever themselves please I thank God I can by my Principle walk safely in the middle way between these two Extreams and not incidere in Scyllam cupiens virare Charybdin And I think it had become Mr. G. to have been more modest than to have past such a Censure upon our most able and judicious Divines who have maintained that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises as that they could not defend the Truth against the Arminians but upon their Principle that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises they ought all to have turned Arminians For this is in effect to say That Whitaker Ames Twiss our British Divines of the Synod of Dort Rutherford Rivet Spanhem Turretin Isaac Junius Triglandius Pool and innumerable more who held that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises were all blind and did not see the mischievous Consequence of their opinions which Consequence if they had followed they themselves must all have turned Arminians and therefore neither did nor could rightly confute the Arminian errors but young Mr. Goodwin is the Man that is above them all inlightned to see that the Gospel hath no conditional promises and by that means he is qualified to be our Champion against those Hereticks who were too hard for the Synod of Dort for Ames Twiss Rutherford Spanhem Durham c. Because these old weak Men were fond of one Arminian opinion to wit that the Gospel hath conditional promises which hath an inseperable Connexion with the whole Arminian System Disc pag. 58. Obj. 3. Thirdly he argues thus against the Gospel's having conditional promises The Scriptures urged by my Reverend Brother do not signify that God passed his word to all Men by a new Law established amongst them that if they obey it and believe and repent they shall assuredly be saved For God always speaks the purposes of his mind and none of his words contradict his heart but he never decreed either absolutely or conditionally that all Men should be Eternally saved I Answer that my R. Brother's objection as here set down in his own express words doth not at all reach me nor make against the truth which I defend For I never said that God hath passed his word to all Men by a new Law established amongst them that if they obey it and believe and repent they shall assuredly be saved I am so far from saying this that in effect I have plainly said the contrary in the Apol. pag. 200. l. 21.22 23 24 25. There my express formal words are that there are Heathens who never heard nor could hear of the Gospel for want of an objective Revelation of it Now by these words I certainly meant and do still mean to signify to the world that God hath not passed his word to all Men even to the most Barbarous Nations by a new Law of Grace i. e. by the Gospel established among them That if they obey the Gospel and believe in Christ they shall assuredly be saved This objection then I might dismiss as impertinent and not militating against me who am not such an Vniversalist as Mr. G. would make people believe that I am tho I have declared the contrary and any body would think that I should know mine own mind better than another Man especially Man who knows not my principles but by my book unless he suffers himself to be imposed upon by believing the false reports of his good Friend I hope that for the future my R. B. will be so just as to take the measure of my principles from my Printed Books and not from the reports of the Accuser But it may be my R. brother will say that tho I be no such an Universalist yet it is certain that I hold that the Gospel hath conditional promises and that the conditional promises are to the whole visible Church even to the non-elect to whom the Gospel is Preached To which I say again that it is true and most certain that such is my Judgment and I am not singular in it for as I shewed in the Apology it is the Common Doctrine of the reformed Churches and Divines Mr. Rutherford saith If the former sense be intended as how can it be denied The word of the Covenant is Preached to you an offer of Christ is made in the Preached Gospel to you * Covenant of Life opened part 1. Chap. 13. pag. 87.88 Then it cannot be denied but the promise is to all the Reprobate in the visible Church whether they believe or not for Christ is Preached and promises of the Covenant are Preached to Simon Magus to Judas and all the Hypocrites who stumble at the word to all the Pharisees as is clear Mat. 13.20 21 22 23. Act. 13.44 45 46. Act. 18.5 6. Mat. 21.43 1 Pet. 2.7 8. And again a little after in the same book pag. 90.
he saith that promises are as properly made to professors within the visible Church Act. 2.39 As Commands and threatnings exhortations invitations and Gospel-requests are made to them But tho the Anabaptists ignorantly confound the promise and the thing promised the Covenant and Benefits Covenanted The promise is to you and so are the commands and threatnings whether ye believe or not c. And pag. 94. of the same book his formal express words are as followeth It is not inconvenient that the reprobate in the visible Church be so under the Covenant of Grace as some promises are made to them and some mercies promised to them conditionally and some reserved special promises of a new bea rt and of perseverance belong not to them For all the promises belong not the same way to the parties visibly and externally and to the parties internally and personally in Covenant with God So the Lord promiseth Life and Forgiveness shall be given to these who are Externally in the Covenant providing they believe but the Lord promiseth not a new heart and grace to believe to these that are only Externally in Covenant And he promiseth both to the Elect. Thus Mr. Rutherford Zanchy whom my R. brother doth highly Commend was certainly of the same Judgment witness his own express words â Respondeo deum vocare etiam reprobos et mandare ut ad se veniant Salutemque illis promittere si velint in Christum credere manifestum est omnes enim vocat per verbum et omnibus vitam promittit aeternam modo in Christum velint credere atque haec est voluntas conditionalis reprobos vero non illudi cum a domino vocantur manifestum tiam ost c. Zanch. depuls calumn de predest not 16. T. 7. pag. 254. I Answer saith Zanchy that God calls even the Reprobate and Commands them to come unto him and promises them salvation if they will believe in Christ it is manifest For he calls all by the word promises unto all Eternal Life provided that they will believe in Christ and this is his conditional will It is manifest also that the reprobates are not mocked nor deluded when they are called by the Lord c. I should never have done if I should quote all our Protestant Divines who are of this Judgment I must therefore forbear to cite any more of them at present and refer to the Apology especially in pag. 114. Having thus frankly and faithfully declared my Judgment in this matter and shewed it not to be singular I will now for the further clearing up of the truth personate my R. brother and for him argue against my self and then Answer the Arguments Obj. God did not decree to save all Men even the non-elect in the visible Church therefore he doth not promise salvation to any upon condition of Faith in Christ The reason of the Consequence is because every conditional promise of God's word presupposes an answerable decree and purpose of God's will for God always speaks the purposes of his mind and none of his words contradict his heart I Answer 1. By denying the Consequence for tho God did not decree to save all even the non-elect in the visible Church yet he promiseth to save some even all the elect in the visible Church on condition of Faith in Christ For he hath decreed to save them all he hath absolutely decreed their salvation on condition of Faith in Christ The decree of their salvation is absolute in respect of God decreeing but the object of the decree is conditional in respect of the salvation decreed That is God by his absolute will hath made faith the condition of their salvation and hath suspended the giving of salvation unto them upon the condition of their believing or till they perform the condition of believing in Christ 2. I Answer by denying the Consequence also with respect to the non-elect for tho God did not decree to save the non-elect in the visible Church as he decreed to save the elect yet he promiseth to save the non-elect in the visible Church conditionally that is provided that they believe in Christ as they are commanded to do And to the reason of the Consequence that every conditional promise of God's word presupposeth an Answerable decree of God's will because none of God's words contradict his will I Answer that in this case the decree of God's will which Answers the conditional promise to the non-elect is not a decree of Gods will to save the non-elect as he hath decreed to save the elect but it is the decree to make the conditional promise of salvation to the non-elect in the visible Church Whatever God doth in time that he decreed to do from Eternity But in time he promiseth salvation conditionally to the non-elect in the visible Church therefore from Eternity he decreed to promise them salvation on condition that they believe in Christ We must distinguish between God's decretory will strictly so called as it hath respect to the infallible salvation of the elect and his promissory will as it hath respect to the conditional promise of salvation to all elect and non-elect in the visible Church constituting a conditional connection between salvation as the benefit promised and faith in Christ as the condition required of all Now to apply this distinction every conditional promise of God's word doth not necessarily presuppose the foresaid decretory will but it sufficeth unto the verification of the conditional promise of salvation as such that there be in God the foresaid promissory will constituting a conditional connexion between salvation as the benefit promised and Faith in Christ as the condition required The conditional promise it self is not properly God's will but it is a sign of his promissory will And it is certain that the promise of God's word is a true sign of his will but in this case it is not a true sign of his foresaid decretory will therefore it must be a true sign of his promissory will and it gives us an infallible assurance that there is a conditional connexion between salvation as the benefit promised and Faith in Christ as the condition required of all so that whosoever performeth the condition he shall have the benefit promised whosoever believeth in Christ shall certainly be saved And therefore it may be truly said to such an one as Cain if thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted Gen. 4.7 And the Spirit by the word saith to every Man in the visible Church that reads and understands the 10th of the Romans if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved Rom. 10.9 3. Thirdly Mr. G. must admit of this Answer as good and satisfactory or he must find out a better for the objection is certainly sophistical and he is as much concerned to Answer it as I am And I doubt not to make him
may throw dirt at us in the Dark His inference then fails that if faith for instance be not a condition in a Law-sense it must be only in a Logical or Physical sense and so it will not be a proper condition For 1. Why may not some Logical condition be a proper condition 2. Tho Faith be not a condition in one Law-sense yet it is a condition in another Law-sense It is not a condition in the sense of the old Law of works but it is a condition in the Sense of the New Evangelical Law of Grace And from hence it appears that what he says of Logical and Physical Connexion in these propositions if a Man be reasonable he is capable of Learning c. And if Wood be laid to the fire it will burn is wholly impertinent to the present purpose For in these propositions the necessity of the Connexion between the Subjects and the Predicates arises from the very nature of the thing but in this conditional promise If thou sincerely believest thou shalt be Justified and Pardoned The necessary truth of the Connexion Doth not arise meerly from the nature of the things but from the Lord 's free and gracious will and positive Law-Constitution Revealed in the Gospel Rom. 10.8 9. And so Faith is neither A meer Logical nor Physical condition but it is a Moral Legal condition in a very safe and proper sense It is not Legal in the sense of the Law of works but it is Legal in the sense of the Law of Grace And so it is a gracious Evangelical condition What he talks p. 33. l. ult and p. 34. Of the orderliness of the Covenant and of the necessary consequence of Justification and Glory upon the duties of Faith and Repentance doth not one jot help him to break the force of our Arguments and to shew That the Covenant is not conditional and that the giving of the benefit is not suspended till the Condition be performed For we shewed in the Apology that the Covenant hath indeed an Order in it between the Duty and the Subsequent Benefit but that That Order is a Conditional Order constituted by the positive will of God revealed in the Gospel and that it is God's positive will to suspend his giving of the benefit for instance pardon of sin till we through his grace freely perform the duty of actual Faith So that we shall not be actually pardoned till we being adult have actually believed and then we shall be pardoned but not before This we proved and our Arguments remain unanswered and we know they can never be solidly answered We need no more Arguments to prove the Conditionality of the Covenant in the sense that we hold it to be conditional tho we are not without other Arguments and could tell him what it is like he knows well enough in what books written by Orthodox Divines he may find a great many more Arguments to this purpose To tell people confidently That because it is a Testament it can have no Condition is to deceive them For it may very well be a Testament and yet have a gracious Evangelical Condition A man can make his own Testament so as to prescribe proper conditions in it and sometimes doth so surely then the Lord could prescribe a Condition in his Testament and he hath done it But as he is a gracious Testator so the Condition prescribed in his Testament is gracious too It seems to be the fundamental mistake of some brethren to think that the Gospel of Christ is a Testament so absolute as not to partake of the nature of a proper Covenant whereas in truth the Gospel partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant And this it may very well do in different respects In respect of the absolute promises it partakes of the nature of an absolute Testament and in respect of the conditional promises it partakes of the nature of a conditional Covenant And then the absolute promise of Grace to perform the condition makes the conditional promises Eventually sure to all the elect And thus the Covenant is a Covenant of Grace indeed a Covenant well ordered in all things and sure 2 Sam. 23.5 But saith that R. B. pag. 33. By condition they mean not a condition properly in a Law or federal sense as we use the word in bargains between Man and Man Answer What then doth it follow that because we use not the word condition properly in the sense of a humane Law or Covenant therefore it cannot be a proper condition in another Law-sense to wit in the sense of a Divine Law of Grace This consequence we deny and so doth Mr. Fox and Mr. Durham and it lies on that brother to prove it for we do not take his word for a proof Again in pag. 34. He says That the conditional Particle If used in Testaments doth not suspend but demonstrate and design the thing promised Others would say but demonstrate and describe the Legatees and some certain time and manner of Conveyance From whence he would infer that there are no conditional promises in the Gospel I Answer 1. Suppose that were true of humane Testaments which are purely Testaments and do no ways partake of the nature of a conditional Covenant it doth not follow that it must be true also in the Divine Testament of the Gospel which partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant 2. It is not universally true of humane Testaments for I can make my Testament so as to suspend the giving of certain Legacies to persons named in it upon their performing of some condition so that if they perform the condition they shall have the Legacies but not till then And if they never perform the condition they shall never have the Legacies But that brother objects further that if the Author of the Apol. by suspension understand a legal suspension it is the same with a Legal condition which he has denied before for conditio est dispositionis suspensio ex eventu incerto ei opposito and has an obliging influence on the promiser and confers a title of right to the benefit promised Answer And we have shewed that this brother doth foully wrest the words of the Apol. to a sense quite different from that true sense which we professedly and expresly give of the word legal condition See in pag. 37.38 c. The explication which we give of it at large on purpose to prevent Mens misunderstanding of us as this Man doth The explication begins thus Which that our meaning to wit of a not Legal but Evangelical condition may be understood by all we explain thus we do not believe that our faith Repentance and sincere obedience which are conditions of Justification and Glorification according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace have the same place and office in this New Covenant and Law of Grace which most perfect and
sinless obedience had and was to have had in the first old Covenant and Law of works c. Let any honest understanding Man read what follows there in several pages together with our Arguments from Scripture and Reason and he will see it as clear as the light that we deny the condition of the Gospel-Covenant to be a legal condition onely in the sense that works were a condition in the legal Covenant and that yet notwithstanding that and in good consistency with our selves we hold it to be a federal legal condition in another sense For we all along maintain it to be a condition of the New Covenant and Law of Grace and so to be federal and legal that is Graciously and Evangelically federal and legal And in consequence of this we hold and have proved that the Lord by his conditional promises hath suspended his giving of the promised subsequent benefits till by his Grace the condition be performed And that brother by denying this suspension not only contradicts us but in effect denies that there are really any conditional promises in the Gospel and contradicts all those Scriptures whereby we have proved that it is God's positive will declared in his word to suspend his giving of the subsequent blessings promised till the condition required be by Grace performed And all the reason he gives for his so doing is that suspension doth always suppose and imply the event to be uncertain and that where there is a suspension of giving the promised benefit Till the condition required be performed there the performing of the condition hath an obliging influence upon God and gives us a title of right to the benefit promised Which is a wild assertion and a meer begging of the question It is that which he neither hath proved nor can solidly prove to Eternity For why may it not be certainly determined as to the event that such a promised benefit shall be infallibly given to such a person upon such a condition and yet that the actual giving of it shall be suspended till he have by grace both freely and certainly performed the condition so that he shall have it then and not before This not only may be but de facto it is so with respect to all God's elect And then tho they most certainly receive the benefit assoon as through Grace they perform the condition yet it doth by no true Logick follow that their performing the condition required gives them the right to receive the benefit promised for the Lord Christ purchased for them both the benefit and the right to it and possession of it and God for Christs sake alone gives it them assoon as the condition is performed In fine that brother pag. 45. Saith The performing of the duty is the effect of the Grace of God's Spirit and effects bear not the Name of conditions Answer This objection is borrowed from Episcopius the Arminian and it was Answered in the Apol. See there pag. 46.49 and 66.67 Where the world was told that the Grace of God whereby we believe is so far from hindering our Actual Faith from being the condition that on the contrary it conduceth much to make it tho not simply the condition yet The gracious Evangelical condition of the Covenant We shew'd also in the same place that God's grace doth not effect and produce our Actual Faith without the free Concurrence of our own faculties Now you shall see how Episcopius the Arminian urged this Argument and how Triglandius the Zealou Calvinist Answered it * Conditio ait Episcopius non est conditio quae ab eo qui eam praescribit in eo cui praescribitur efficitur et hoc me negare dico inquit Triglandius merus effectus prescribentis non potest esse conditio praescripta nedum praestita inquit Episcopius Resp Trigl fides et obedientia non sunt merus effectus dei praescribentis fidem et obedientiam nam non deus credit et obedit sed ipse homo Est itaque non solus deus causa fidei et obedientiae sed et ipse homo Deus causa prima et efficiens principalis a quo homo id habet ut credat obediat deo quod alias nec posset nec vellet homo ut causa 2da et subordinata ut pote qui credit et obedit virtute gratia dei Trigland ubi supra Cap. 18. pag. 276. A condition saith Episcopius is not a condition which is effected by him who prescribes it in the person to whom it is prescribed And quoth Triglandius I say that I deny that But saith Episcopius again the meer effect of the prescriber cannot be the condition prescribed much less the condition performed Triglandius Answers Faith and Obedience are not meer effects of God prescribing Faith and Obedience For God doth not believe and obey but Man himself Therefore God alone is not the cause of Faith and Obedience but Man himself is also the cause God is the first and principal efficient cause from whom Man hath that Power whereby he believes and obeys which otherwise he neither could nor would do But Man is the second and subordinate cause to wit who believes and obeys by the strength and Grace of God Thus Triglandius Answered the Arminian Champion By which Answer it appears that Faith is not so an effect of God's Grace as that it cannot be a condition of God's Covenant as by the help of God's Grace it is freely effected by us And therefore Mr. Durham on the Rev. pag. 242. Saith that Faith is the condition of the Covenant of Grace properly which can be said of no other Grace or Work And if this be true then it is false that there is no proper condition of the Covenant at all Mr. Durham we see held that Faith is properly the condition of the Covenant in such a sense as no other thing is And we agree with him therein As he also agrees with us that in another sound sense true Repentance and sincere obedience are conditions of the same Covenant of Grace Of the same Judgment was the very Learned and Judicious Rivet Witness what he writes in one of his 13 Disputations â Com promissiones Evangelii habeant perpetuo annexam conditionem fidei quod adversarii negare non possunt item poenitentiae et gratitudinis quae in reprobis non reperiuntur sequitur ad eos non pertinere redemptionis efficaciam Conditionem illam hae Scripturae probant c. Andr. Rivet Disput 6 de redemptione Thes 22. Since saith Rivet the promises of the Gospel have the condition of Faith perpetually Annexed to them which the Adversaries cannot deny as also the condition of Repentance and Gratitude which are not found in the reprobate it follows that the efficacy of redemption doth not belong to them These following Scriptures prove that condition c. Thus Rivet there and afterwards in his Animadversions on Grotius his notes on Cassander's consultation To
offended and incensed against us that are the poor Ministers thereof As if it were our own Gospel and the Law of our own will Which we propound unto you But know you this whosoever you are That it is Christ Jesus our Saviour that in our persons you are offended with all and against whom you Rebel In despising that Gospel we teach unto you Know you also that in your obedience and subjection to that Gospel which we Preach unto you you are not subject and obedient unto us but except you be reprobates unto your own Lord and Saviour who requireth onely this obedience at your hands tying the everlasting salvation of your Souls and the Merits of his passion thereunto To conclude this point then seeing that Christ will come in flaming fire to be avenged of them that shall not obey his Gospel let the terror of that fire make us run through water and fire rather than disobey the same Thus Bradshaw that Learned and Faithful Minister of Christ I wish that Mr. Goodwin and I may both of us believe and Live and Preach according to the import of that Text of Paul and this exposition of it by Mr. Bradshaw then shall we acknowledge the Gospel to be a Covenant or Law of Grace which hath precepts threatnings and conditional promises Which is the thing that I have proved and defended against the objections of some Brethren who tho they deny the Gospel to be a Law of Grace yet I hope do not live in disobedience to its precepts for tho the principles of many in the visible Church are better than their practice yet I must Charitably believe that the practice of these Brethren is better than their Principle Remarks and Animadversions on his 8th Chapter The eight Chapter of his Discourse is divided into two parts In the 1st he pretends to Answer the Texts of Scripture urged by me in the Apology And in the 2d to Answer the Testimonies of Fathers and Protestant Writers And accordingly I shall assign two Sections to my reply SECT I. IN the Contents of his eight Chapter he says in a Parenthesis that in the Apology I urged some Texts of Scripture As expresly giving the Name of a New Law to the Gospel This is a notorious falsehood And I challenge and defy him to shew any passage in the whole Apol. from beginning to end In which I say that any one Text of Scripture doth expresly give the Name of New Law to the Gospel I knew very well that there is not one Text of Scripture which doth expresly give the Name of New Law to the Gospel and therefore I never urged one Text to that purpose I said indeed in pag. 22. lin 16.17 That the Scriptures expressly call the gospel-Gospel-Covenant of Grace a Law but never said nor thought that the Scriptures do expressly call it a New-Law What I said of the Gospel's being called a New-Law was this that our Brethren should not be displeased with us because we call the Gospel a New-Law since they know if it be not their own fault Apol. p. 22. l. 41.42 43 44. That we call it the New-Law in no other sense than as we call the Covenant of Grace the new-New-Covenant From which words it is evident that I do not call the Gospel a New-Law because I think the Scripture calls it so expresly for I did not think any such thing but because I take the Gospel-Law for the Covenant of Grace which is expressly called the new-New-Covenant And I think that without offence we may call the Gospel-Law by the Name of a New-Law in the same and in no other sense than as we call the Covenant of Grace the New-Covenant For since in our Judgment the Gospel-Law and the Gospel-Covenant are the same thing and the Gospel-Covenant is expressly called the New-Covenant what just cause of offence can there be in calling the Gospel-Law the New-Law in the same sense that we call the Gospel-Covenant the New-Covenant And we are the more confirmed in this by finding that the most Ancient Fathers held the New-Law and the New-Covenant to be one and the same thing And they therefore called the Gospel-Law a New-Law because they found that the Scripture expressly calls the Gospel-Covenant a New-Covenant No Man can fairly and honestly deny this who reads and understands the Writings of Justin Martyr Ireneus Tertullian and Cyprian c. Who do all call the Gospel in its last fullest and clearest edition since the coming of Christ the New-Covenant and the New-Law as by two Names of the same Signification Yea it seems there was an old tradition even amongst the Jews that in the time of the Messias the Lord would make a New-Covenant with his People that is a New-Law I say it seems there was such a tradition amongst the Jews if we may believe what Paulus Fagius quotes out of their Writers For after he had cited their exposition of Canticles the 2d Chap. v. 10.11 12. Referring it to the time of the Messias he adds their descant on the words of the 12th verse ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which we render the time of the singing of Birds is come but they render the time of pruning is come The words are * Advenit enim tempus ut redimatur Israel Advenit tempus ut amputetur praeputium de quo dictum est Deut. 30. Chap. c. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã et circumcidet dominus deus tuus cor tuum et cor seminis ad diligendum dominum deum tuum et lex convertetur ad novitatem et renovabitur Israel Sicut dictum est Hierem. 31. et scindam cum domo Israel et cum domo Juda pactum novum hactenus Traditio Paul Fagius in Annot in Caput 10. v. 16. Paraphrascos chald Onkeli in Deuteronomium For the time is come that Israel should be redeemed The time is come that the foreskin should be out off Concerning which it is written in Deut. 30. And the Lord thy God shall circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy Seed to Love the Lord thy God And the Law shall be changed into newness and Israel shall be renewed As it is said in Jerem. 31. And I will make with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah a New-Covenant That is a Now-Law Thus far the tradition And it had been well if they had never had a worse tradition My design in this is only to shew that since 1. The Scripture doth expressly call the Gospel a Law as is now confessed 2. Since the Gospel-Law is the Gospel-Covenant made with the Church through Christ 3. Since the Gospel-Covenant is expressly called the New-Covenant in Scripture It follows in the 4th place by good Consequence that without any just cause of offence we may very well call the Gospel-Covenant the New-Law in the same sense that we find it called in Scripture the New-Covenant even altho it be Not in Scripture expresly called the New-Law As it
brethren had asserted a notorious falsehood in matter of fact in saying that New-Law of Grace was a New-word of an old but ill meaning To convince him of falsehood in this matter of fact as I expressly declare in pag. 24. lin 16.17 18 19. c. Was what I mainly intended in quoting Justin Martyr with others who expressly mention the words New-Law and New-Law of Grace in a good sense and meaning long before we were born And I am sure the words I cited out of Justin with the words of my other Witnesses do clearly and effectually prove what I alledged them for And if my Reverend brother be willing to be Judged as he says he is by any of the Subscribers after they have read the place whether he did not say true that Justin was not pertinently alledged in the Apology I now tell him plainly that he will certainly be Condemned by them as to this matter for assuredly several of the Subscribers have read the place in Justin and do Judge that it was cited very pertinently to the before-mentioned purpose And Mr. C. himself doth not deny but confess that Justin called the Gospel a New-Law for the Covenant in its Christian constitution is the Gospel and he confesses that that was the thing which Justin called a New-Law But Mr. C. Obj. 1. Justin says that this New-Law is posterior to Moses his Law but the Apologist's New-Law has been ever since the Fall of Adam Ans 1. What he calls the Apologist's New-Law is not the Apologist's it is not a Law of the Apologists own invention but it is the Lords own New-Law or Covenant of Grace This brother by this passage brings to my mind what I cited before out of Mr. Bradshaw on the 2d Thessal his words are When the Gospel requireth any thing at your hands which shall any ways cross your corrupt desires you are presently offended and incensed against us that are the poor Ministers thereof as if it were our own Gospel and the Law of our own will which we propound unto you But know you this whosoever you are that it is Christ Jesus our Saviour that in our persons you are offended withal c. See the rest before 2. I Answer it is not true that according to the Apology this New-Law or Covenant of Grace as we Christians have it and we have it in its Christian constitution hath been ever since the Fall of Adam The Apology saith no such thing but the quite contrary For there in the Apology I distinguish and say that this Law of Grace or gospel-Gospel-Covenant is both New and Old in different respects and I affirm expressly in so many formal words that the Law of Grace As we Christians have it is called new because we have the newest and clearest and last edition of it pag. 22. lin 48.49 And again in pag. 23. lin 5.6 That it will continue in its newest and excellentest form unto the end of the world Whence it manifestly appears that the Apology doth not say that the New Law of Grace in its last and clearest edition and in its newest and excellentest form of Administration as we Christians have it and as it is to continue unto the end of world Has ever been since the Fall of Adam and that it was before the Law of Moses On the contrary any Man who is not blind may see that we hold with Justin that the New-Law thus considered is indeed the new-gospel-New-Gospel-Covenant in its Christian constitution and that it is Posterior to the Law of Moses and preferable to it But now tho in this respect the Evangelical-Law of Grace as we have it in its last and excellentest form of Administration be newer than the Law of Moses yet 1. It follo vs not by any true Logick that therefore it is a new device of the Apologists Nor 2. Doth it follow that the substance of the same New-Law or Covenant of Grace hath not been in the Church ever since the first promise of Grace made to our first parents after the fall as in the Apology pag. 23. l. 1.2 3. I asserted it to have been and so to have been old in that respect tho it be also New in respect of the form of Administration In which Christans have had it since Christs time and will continue to have it till his second coming again I hope Mr. C. will not deny but that the essence and substance of the Gospel-Covenant hath always since the Fall of Adam had a being in the Church of God tho it hath been under several forms of Administration and we have it now under its last newest and excellentest form and therefore as such it hath been usually called the New-Law by Christian Writers even by the purest and ancientest of them since the Apostles If my R. B. think that the Gospel-Covenant as to the substance of it hath not been always in the Church since the Fall of Adam tho in respect of its Christian form of Administration it be posterior to the Law of Moses let him speak out and see what will be the issue Obj. 2. But Justin says Mr. C. calls Christ the New-Law therefore he took not Law in a strict sense Ans Indeed it is true that when Justin called Christ the New-Law he did not speak in a strict and proper sense but in a figurative and metonymical sense as was shewed before But what then I beseech you will any sober Man say that because Justin sometimes wrote figuratively therefore he always did so and never at all properly Or that because he wrote figuratively When he said Christ is the New-Law therefore he wrote figuratively when he said not that Christ is the New-Law but said expressly as he is truly quoted in the Apol. pag. 24. That Christ is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the New-Law-giver Obj. 3. But Justin says Mr. C. calls this Law a Testament 8 times in that page and 97 Times in that Dialogue and seldom I think not above 4 times a Law without the explicatory word Testament added Ans 1. I do not know certainly how often Justin calls the Gospel a Testament and how seldom a Law throughout that whole Dialogue for I have not had time nor indeed thought it worth the while to take the Poll but this I am sure of that Mr. C. is out in his reckoning for Justin doth not in that Page 228 call this Law Eight times ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a Testament Justin hath the Noun ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Testament or Covenant but Seven times in that Page And as for the Translator he hath the Latin nown Testamentum Testament not Eight times only but Nine times But the Translator was not Justin himself but Johannes Langus Here then we find that Mr. C. is certainly out in his Reckoning and if he hath mistaken in Numbering how often the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Testament or Covenant is to be found in one single Page What reason have we to
well pleased hear ye him And if there be not a precept obliging to duty there never was a precept either in Law or Gospel With what conscience then Mr. G. who knew this could endeavour to make the world believe that Cyprian by New-Law meant nothing but a Doctrine of Grace that requires no duty of Men at all I know not let him look to that But this I know that if I my self should put such a sense upon the foresaid words of Cyprian I should by so doing not only put away a good Conscience but I should also put off all sense of shame All the excuse that I can make for my Reverend brother is that it may be he was in too much haste and did not take time to consider and weigh Cyprian's proofs particularly his proof from Mat. 17.5 That the Gospel is a Law which hath not only promise but precept 3. I Answer that Cyprian says that the Gospel is a New-Yoke and proves it by Psal 2. v. 1.2 3. and Mat. 11.28 29 30. But Christ's Yoke signifies not only the promises to be believed but also the precepts of the Gospel to be obeyed as was shewed before And therefore Cyprian held the Gospel-Law and Covenant to be a Doctrine of Grace which hath both promises to be believed and also precepts to be obeyed But Mr. G. objects that by Cyprian's words as I my self have quoted them it is evident that he meant not that the Gospel is a Law which requires any duty at all For he says That it is another Administration and that by it the old Yoke should be made null and void Ans A wonderful profound Argument this is to prove that in Cyprian's Judgment the Gospel is not a Law of Grace that hath any precept because it is an Administration or a Disposition as the word in Cyprian is lib. 1. ad Quirinum cap. 11. And as it is cited Apol. pag. 25. But I pray Sir why may there not be an Administration or Disposition of a Precept as well as of a promise And why may there not be an Administration or Disposition both of precept and promise Was there not plainly both precept and promise in the Law of Moses And yet it is written Acts 7.53 That the People of Israel received the Law by the Disposition of Angels but did not keep it But says Mr. G. according to Cyprian by the New-Law of Grace the old intollerable Yoke of Ceremonial legal observances was removed Ergo it hath no precent obliging to duty Wonderful acuteness But however I will venture to deny the Consequence and put Mr. G. to prove it For I want Faith to believe whatever he saith meerly because he saith it And here I cannot believe him because with blessed Cyprian I believe God the Father himself saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him So much for vindication of the Citations out of Cyprian In the 3d place he comes to Holy Augustin Disc p. 65. And says that I force him to be a Witness for the Gospel-Covenant's being a New-Law Ans Dear Sir by your own imprudent meddling with things that you seem not to have throughly studied nor to understand you force me contrary to my inclination often to contradict you and to tell you that it is not true which you say And in this place particularly I am forced by you to tell you that it is most untrue that I force the words of Holy Augustin For I cited him to prove that the words New-Law were not new words but of Ancient usage in the Christian-Church above 12 hundred years ago And the Testimony which I quoted out of his book of Grace and free will Chap. 18. Doth as clearly prove this as ever matter of Fact was or can be proved by humane Testimony For he expressly calls the Gospel a New-Law and he proves it to be a New-Law of Grace And moreover he testifies more than I cited him for I cited him only to testify that the Gospel was in old times called a New-Law and he over and above testifies that it is a New-Law by which precepts are given unto Men. This his words testify without the least force or violence offered to them But it is Mr. G. who would force Augustin's words to make them say what he never meant yea to make him deny what he expressly affirms First he forces Augustins words to make them say what he never meant For whereas Augustin says that precepts are given unto Men by the New-Law he would force him to say only that precepts are given in the books of the New Testament Disc p. 66. l. 1. 2 3. That this is a force put on his words seems very evident by this that Augustin by the New-Law did not mean the books of the New Testament in which one may find both the Old and New-Law But he certainly meant the Gospel it self or the new-New-Covenant of Grace in its Christian constitution or form of Administration just as by the Old-Law he did not mean only the books of the Old Testament in which according to him the Old-Law was openly revealed and the New-Law or Gospel lay hidden and vailed but he meant by the Old-Law the old-Old-Covenant or the Covenant in its old constitution and legal form of Administration 2. He forces Augustine's words to make him deny what he expressly affirms For holy Augustin expressly affirms that even the Old-Law had promises His words quoted by me Apol. pag. 25. Are that The Grace which is come in the New-Law was promised in the Old-Law But Mr. Goodwin in his discourse p. 65. l. 31. 32 33. Forces him to deny that the Old-Law had any promises for saith he That great light of his Age makes the difference between the New and Old-Law to be that the Old-Law consisted wholly in precepts and commands c. Now he that holds that the Old-Law consisted wholly in precepts and commands doth ipso facto hold that the Old-Law had no promise By this I know assuredly that Mr. G. doth not understand the Principles of Augustin and writes of he knows not well what As to what he says at the end of the Paragraph of his having rescued Rom. 3.27 From it s perverted meaning I need say no more than I have said before for the clearing of that Text. I leave it to the intelligent Reader to Judge between him and me and to Determine according to evidence which of us hath perverted that Text. He that dare pervert the meaning of God's holy word I wonder not tho he endeavour to pervert tho shamefully enough every humane word and Testimony that is brought against him 4thly Mr. G. excepts against the Testomony of Salvian as not making for me because saith he it proves no more than that the Christian-Law or the Doctrine of Grace was dishonoured by some Mens abusing it to Licentiousness I Answer that Salvian's Testimony proves all that it was brought for and that was
only to prove that in the 5th Century the gospel-Gospel-Covenant was called a Law the Christian-Law This Mr. G. doth not deny but insinuates that by Christian-Law Salvian meant nothing but a Doctrine of Grace which hath no precepts and requires no duty of us at all But if my R. B. once read over all Salvian and understand what he reads I hope he will never be so shameless as to deny plain matter of fact For if I be put to it I shall if the Lord will prove by his express words that he called the Gospel not only the Christian-Law but the New-Law and that it is a New-Law which hath precepts that oblige to duty Thus I have justified my citations out of the four Fathers Justin Martyr Cyprian Augustin and Salvian and have confirmed and strengthened their Testimonies by shewing that they prove what they were cited for and more too Now we must see what exceptions Mr. G. brings against my Modern Witnesses And 1. He excepts against Bradwardin because he was a Papist I Answer behold here the Justice and fair dealing of those Men with whom we have to do They bring Bradwardin to witness for them against us and then he is a good witness tho he be a Papist But when we bring him to witness for us against them then he is no good witness and his Testimony signifies nothing because he is a Papist The truth is we had not mentioned Bradwardin in this cause if he had not been first publickly Summoned by Mr. G's good Friend our Accuser to witness against us And if they will confess that they did foolishly in first mentioning him against us they shall hear no more of him from us as a witness against them For I declare I do not at all value his Testimony meerly as it is his Testimony And I think that in the Apol. I have shewed sufficient reason why no true Christian should value his Testimony meerly because it is his Testimony And that with a non obstante notwithstanding that high esteem which Mr. G. saith he hath obtained among Men. And yet because it is in my Judgment unlawful to belye either the Pope or Devil I must forbear saying either that Bradwardin asserted works done by Grace to be strictly and properly meritorious or that with incomparable strength and closeness of reason he refuted the Pelagian Heresies in all Points till Mr. Goodwin hath clearly proved both these matters of Fact for I have some reason to doubt whether they be both true and as to one of them I gave one reason of my doubting in the Apology p. 164. and another in p. 133. 2dly He endeavours to elude the Testimony of the Professors of Leyden by saying That they only mean that the Gospel in a large and improper sense may be termed a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatings in the Books of the New Testament Answ Ah poor Writing I would I had wherewithal to cover thy Nakedness but that is out of my power for the Leyden Professors give no such Reason why the Gospel may be termed a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatnings in the Books of the New Testament But they say expressly as cited in the Apology p. 27. that the Gospel is sometimes called a Law because it also hath its Own Commandments and its Own Promises and Threatnings Mark ye 1. They do not say it may be improperly called a Law but that it is called a Law 2. They do not say that it is called a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatnings in the Books of the New Testament but because it also hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings that is plainly That as the old Covenant of Works had its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings so also the Gospel or New Covenant of Grace hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings 3dly As the Promises of the Gospel are its own so are the Commandments and Threatnings of it its own but the Promises are its own because they properly belong to it then also are the Commandments and Threatnings its own for the same reason because they properly belong to it For the worthy and Learned Professors make no difference but say that Commandments Promises and Threatnings are all its own Now this is the very true reason why I according to Scripture call the Gospel a Law As for what Mr. G. Disc p. 67. cites out of Polyander there it makes nothing against what he says here in the passage now under consideration but at the most shews that Gospel is a word of various signification which I have freely granted and fully spoken to before And as Polyander renounced the Popish Socinian and Arminian opinion concerning the New Law so do I and my Brethren renounce the self-same Opinion And yet in the sence of the Orthodox Ancient and Modern Divines we believe the Gospel to be a New Law of Grace and which is the same thing in other words a New Covenant of Grace which hath Commands Promises and Threatnings of its own 3dly He endeavours to put by the Testimony of Gomarus by saying That he understood the Gospel in its larger acceptation when he called it a Law in the place cited by me and pretends to have made this out in the 34th Page of his Discourse to which he refers his Reader Answ In my Remarks and Animadversions on his Sixth Chapter I have clearly and fully refuted that part of his Discourse and shewed how grosly he abuses Gomarus by wresting his words to an absurd sense which they are no ways capable of to wit that there the word Gospel is not taken by Gomarus for God's Covenant of Grace only but for all the second part of the Bible that is all the Books of the New Testament I proved from Gomarus his own words that by the word Gospel he neither did nor could understand there all the Books of the New Testament but that really he there understood by the Gospel the very Covenant of Grace it self both discover'd to and made with Man and recorded in the Books both of Old and New Testament and likewise that there he called the same Covenant of Grace God's Law because of the duty required in it and the condition prescribed by it To which I shall only add now that in the Apology p. 100. I cited the 29th Position which Gomarus lays down next before the 30th that here is under consideration and in that 29th Position he saith That the Gospel is called God's Covenant because it promulgates the mutual Obligation of God and Men concerning the giving them Eternal Life upon their performing a certain Condition and that it is called the Covenant concerning free Salvation by Christ because God in the Gospel of mere Grace publishes and offereth unto all Men whatsoever on condition of true Faith not only Christ and perfect Righteousness in him for Reconciliation and Eternal Life but also he
of the Church after the Apostles do expresly call the Gospel-Covenant by the Name of the New Law 3. Because many or our Reformed Divines since the Reformation have called the Gospel a New Law The Synod of Dort did so call it with Approbation as I have read in the Acts of the Synod See Act. Synod Dordrect part 2. p. 104. and Part 3. p. 124. and 139. and 208. That excellent Person Mr. Hugh Binning called the Gospel a New Law in his Sinners Sanctuary on Rom. 8.2 p. 72. And Mr. Durham expresly called it The Law of Grace Durham on the Revelation First Edit p. 259. For these Reasons I hold it very lawful to call the Gospel a New Law And yet if my Reverend Brother please I will agree with him upon the termes and with the proviso's aforesaid to lay aside the word New and will content my self with calling the Gospel a Law and a Law of Grace But if he will not agree to the Termes and Conditions before-mentioned then be it known to all Men whom it may concern that it is no fault of mine that we are not agreed as to this matter for I have offer'd to deny my self the use of my just liberty for Peace sake and more I cannot do with a good Conscience and therefore through Grace will not do it The Scriptures of truth often call the Gospel a Law and I have proved from Scripture that it is a Law of Grace therefore I believe it to be a Law and a Law of Grace a Law of Grace that hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Treatnings and as I believe so I Speak and Write I impose on no Man's Conscience and I hope no Protestant will seek to impose upon mine I will not deny my inward beliefe of the Gospel's being a New Covenant or Law of Grace but intend through Grace to live and die in the profession of that Faith But as for the use of the words New Law simply and without any addition of something that may explain their meaning I am content on the termes aforesaid to forbear it as Beza desired But if my R. Brother do not agree to the Termes mentâoned then I am at liberty and will endeavour to use my liberty as Prudence and Charity shall direct in calling or not calling the Gospel a New Law for though I can forbear calling it by that Name yet I cannot believe nor say that it is unlawful so to call it I shall Conclude with the Testimony of Tertullian who in his Book of Prescription against Hereticks tells us That in his Time i. e. near Fifteen hundred years ago and before the Roman Anti-Christ was born It was a part of the Rule of Faith or Creed universally believed by all Orthodox Christians That Christ Preached the New Law and Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven whereby Tertullian meant the New Covenant of Grace as that which requires Duty and prescribes Conditions unto Men and promises Blessings and Benefits for Christ's sake unto those who through the Grace of the Spirit perform the Duties and Conditions prescribed whereof the main and principal is Faith in Christ This is evident by what he Writes in his Book against the Jews Chap. 1. p. 122. and Chap. 2. p. 125. and Chap. 6. p. 131. And in his Fourth and Fifth Books against Marcion c. Lib. 5. c. 3. His words in his Book of Prescription against Hereticks are as followeth * Regula est autem fidei ut jam hinc quid defendamus profiteamur illa scilicet qua creditur unum omnino Deum esse nec alium praeter mundi conditorem qui universa ex nihilo produxerit per Verbum suum primo omnium emissum id verbum Filius ejus appellatum in nomine dei varie visum Patriarchis in Prophetis semper auditum postremò delatum ex Spiritu Dei et virtute in Virginem Mariam carnem factum in utero ejus et ex ea natum hominem et esse Jesum Christum exinde praedicasse novam legem et novam promissionem regni coelorum virtutes fecisse fixum Cruci tertia die resurrexisse in caeles ereptum sedisse ad dextram patris misisse vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti qui credentes agat venturum cum claritate ad sumendos Sanctos in vitae aeternae et promissorum coelestium fructum et ad prophanos judicandos igni perpetuo facta utriusque partis resuscitatione cum carnis restitutione Haec regulâ a Christo ut probabitur instituta nulla habet a pud nos quaestiones nisi quas Haereses inferunâ et quae Haereticos faciunt Tertull. lib. de praescript Adversus Haereticos p. 100. Edit Basil 1550. But the Rule of Faith that we may now hereby profess what we defend is that to wit whereby we believe that there is but one God and that he is no other than the Creator of the World who produced all things of nothing by his WORD who first before all Creatures proceeded from him or was begotten by him that that WORD called His Son variously appeared to the Patriachs in God's Name was always heard in the Prophets and at last by the Spirit and Power of God came upon the Virgin Mary was made Flesh in her Womb and of her was Born a Man and is Jesus Christ That afterwards he Preached the New Law and New Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven wrought Miracles was Crucified Rose again from the Dead the third Day and being taken up into Heaven sits at the Right-hand of God That he sent the Vicarious Power of the Holy Spirit who might Influence and Guide those who Believe That he will come again in Glory to take up the Saints into the Possession or Enjoyment of Eternal Life and of the Heavenly Blessedness promised and to Judge and Condemn the Prophane unto Eternal Fire after he hath Raised up both Parties to wit the Just and the Unjust having restored their Flesh or Bodies to them This Rule being Instituted by Christ as shall be proved it admits of no Controversies amongst us Christians but those which Heresies Introduce and which make Men Hereticks FINIS
mostly of Spiritual and Eternal Blessings Thus Dr. Owen In which passages and others that I have cited out of his Writings he agrees with us exactly and asserts what we mean by the Gospels being a Law as the Scripture calls it 2. Mr. Clarkson in his Book of Sermons and Discourses on several Divine Subjects newly Printed 1696 and commended to the Reader by the Reverend Mr. How and Mr. Mead. In the Sermon on Luke 13.3 pag. 10. his observation is that Repentance is an Evangelical Duty a Gospel a new Covenant Duty This should not be questioned by those who either believe what the Gospel delivers or understand what it is to be Evangelical But since it is denyed let us prove it And then he proves it by twelve Arguments After this in p. 12 when he comes to the application of this Doctrine he says It reproves those who reject this Duty as Legal Certainly those who find not this in the Gospel have found another Gospel besides that which Christ and his Apostles preached But let them take heed least whilst they will go to Heaven in a way of their own that way prove a by path and lead to the gates of Death instead of the place of Joy No way but Christ will bring to Heaven and that has three stages Faith Repentance and Obedience He that will sit down at the end of the first and never enter upon the second will never reach Heaven Indeed he that walks not in all walks not in any he is deluded misled by an ignis fatuus a false fire and if the Lord do not undeceive him will fall into the bottomless pit And in p. 20. he says No Repentance no Pardon It is not the cause but it is the condition without which no remission Solomon would not ask pardon but upon this condition 2 Chro. 6.26 27. nor does the Lord answer him but upon the same terms chap. 7.14 In fine for understanding the matter he is there treating of he desires us to observe three Propositions 1. Prop. All Sins are pardoned upon the first act of Faith and Repentance But tho' all be then pardoned yet not all alike Therefore observe 2. Sins past and repented of are pardoned absolutely because the condition is present and where the condition is present that which was conditional becomes absolute 3. Future Sins or Sins unrepented of are but pardoned to a Believer conditionally because the condition of Pardon is not in being is future he has not yet repented for those Sins c. Thus the Reverend Learned and Pious Mr. Clarkson See what follows there immediately His meaning is That the wilful Sins which Believers fall into after Conversion tho' at first Conversion they were pardoned virtually and conditionally yet they are not pardoned formally and obsolutely they are not actually pardoned till the guilty Believer hath actually renewed his Faith and Repentance Now these two worthy Ministers of Christ Dr. Owen and Mr. Clarkson were no Amyraldians and since we agree with them in this Point and teach the same Doctrine which they taught before us Mr. Goodwin in his Preface did very impertinently mention the opposition made to Amyrald in France See the end of his Preface and it was not fair nor just to do it with a manifest design to make People believe that he dangerously erred in this Point and we with him For to hold the gospel-Gospel-Covenant to be a Law of Grace in the sense that we hold it so to be was none of Amyralds singular or erroneous Opinions for which he was taxed by his Adversaries beyond the Seas Nay this is so far from being one of his singular Opinions that it was common to his Adversaries with him And for ought I know to the contrary they and he were all of one mind in believing the gospel-Gospel-Covenant to be a Law of Grace as aforesaid Some of them I know were but whether they were all de facto agreed in this or not for I do not pretend to know them all yet this is certain that if it be a revealed Truth that the gospel-Gospel-Covenant is a Law a Law of Grace especially with respect to the Elect all Christians ought to agree to it and to receive it with Faith and Love notwithstanding all Objections to the contrary And now that it is a revealed Truth I think I have clearly proved in the following Remarks and Animadversions on Mr. Goodwins Book and have also Answered all his Objections against it That my Proofs and Answers are good solid and sufficient I am fully convinced and firmly perswaded in my own mind yet I desire no Man to believe it upon my bare word but advise all Men who are concerned and into whose hands my Book shall come to read consider and then judge of my Proofs and Answers and believe as they will answer to God according to the evidence which I have offered for the Truth which I have asserted in this matter I have purposely avoided imitating my Reverend Brothers declamatory way of Writing because it is not so good a way to clear up the Truth and to inform the Judgment as it is to engage the Affections to an Opinion or Party and whether with or without Judgment all is one to some whose design is only to make or strengthen a Party I sincerely protest that I do not write for such an end and therefore I use no such means I likewise remember that Justin Martyr in his Paraenetical Discourse to the Greeks pag. 32. saith that such a Rhetorical declamatory way of Writing is (a) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã proper unto those who design to cheat People of the Truth and to steal it away from them And John Picus Earl of Mirandula in an Epistle to Hermolaus Barbarus saith that (b) Si non desipit audiror a fucato Sermone quid sperat alìud quam insidias Tribus maximè persuadetur vitâ docentis veritate rei sobrietate Orationis Hermol Barbaro Epist 4. in Vol. Epist illust vir If an Hearer and so if a Reader be not a Fool what doth he expect but to be ensnared by a fair painted Speech But there are three things that are most fit and proper means whereby to move and perswade the Mind of Man 1. The good Life of the Teacher 2. The Truth of the thing taught 3. A sober plain unaffected way of Speech in Teaching This was the way the Lords Prophets and Apostles of old used to perswade Men to the Faith and Practice of Religion and so should we do after their Example Having renounced the hidden things of dishonesty not walking in craftiness 2 Cor. 4.2 nor handling the Word of God deceitfully we should by manifestation of the Truth commend our selves to every Mans Conscience in the sight of God This I have sincerely desired and endeavoured to do as in the presence of the Lord who sees me and will judge me I have laboured not to corrupt the Gospel nor suffer it
to be corrupted but to dissipate the Darkness that hath been cast upon it 2 Cor. 2 1â and to set the Truth of it in a clear Light But with what success I have done this in the following Writing it is not expedient for me to declare Let others now judge of that matter as they may be concerned and as they will answer to God and their own Conscience The INDEX Chap. I. HIS gross Mistake in stating the Controversie How it ought to be stated Page 1 2. Chap. II. What only was inferred from the Gospels being called a Law in Scripture From the word Law its signifying a Doctrine not proved that it signifies nothing but a speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires neither Faith nor Repentance The contrary proved from Isa 2.3 Acts 16.31 from Buxtorf and partly from his own concession p. 3 4. From the Gospel Covenants requiring Faith and Obedience and obliging to Duty it follows not that it will be a law of Works and that Man will be justified by Works His Argument retorted The Popish Socinian and Arminian sense of the Gospels being a law disclaimed p. 5 6. Chap. III. He grants that no great weight can be laid on an Argument from an Etymology Proved not to be the Error of the Galatians that they held the Gospel to be a new Law in the sense we hold it so to be p. 7. Chap. IV. That he mistakes my design in appealing to the Fathers which was only to prove matter of fact His quotations out of the Fathers are impertinent and partly ridiculous p. 8. to 11. Chap. V. His whole Fifth Chapter one intire impertinency p. 11 12 13. Chap. VI. Sect. 1. Of several things carefully to be attended unto for the right understanding of our old Protestant Writers and the clearing up of the true sense of the passages cited out of them p. 14 15 16 17. Sect. 2. Mr. G. first set of Testimonies clearly answered p. 17 to 32. Sect. 3. His second set of Testimonies Answered also p. 32 to 34. That we do not confound the Notions of things intirely distinct in their Natures and Ideas In what sense we do really hold the Gospel to be a Law of Grace that requires Duty p. 34 35. That the Gospel hath Threatnings of its own p. 35 to 38. Psal 19.8 9. and Rom. 3.27 cleared and thence shewed that the Gospel requires Faith and Obedience p. 38 39. Chap. VII Sect. 1. His gross Mistakes shewed The ridiculous demonstration he would father upon me proved to be a ridiculous figment of his own Brain p. 39 40. Sect. 2. How the Moral Natural Law doth and doth not oblige to all manner of Duties and of its perfection p. 44 to 46. That the same Duty in different respects and under different formal Notions may be required by two distinct Laws p. 46. Proved that justifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance are commanded and required by the Gospel-Law p. 46 to 62. How Obedience is required both by Law and Gospel And that the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts which require sincere Obedience proved by Scripture and by many Testimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines p. 62 to 94. Sect. 3. Five Objections answered Several Directions given and Mistakes discovered p. 94 to 107. Sect. 4. Gospel-Threatnings further proved by Scripture and Consentaneous Testimonies of many Protestant Divines and Objections answered p. 107 to 118. Shewed that the Office of a Judge doth belong to the Mediator and that Christ the Mediator was is and will be Judge p. 112 113 114 115 116. Sect. 5. The Gospel hath Conditional Promises Seven Objections answered Mr. Bradshaws Exposition of 2 Thess 1.8 p. 119 to 155. Chap. VIII Sect. 1. The Texts of Scripture Rom. 3.27 Gal. 6.2 Isa 42.4 Luke 19.27 shewed to be pertinently cited and Rom. 3.27 more largely vindicated Proved that we give the same sense of it which Beza gave p. 155 to 162. Sect. 2. Justin Martyrs Testimony cleared proved that he was very pertinently cited and that he believed the Gospel to be a New Law which hath Precepts p. 162 to 170. Cyprian Augustine and Salvian their Testimonies shewed to have been pertinently cited p. 170 to 172. Testimonies of Modern Divines vindicated p. 172. to 175. His way of visiting the Sick p. 175. Chap. IX The Popish Socinian and Arminian Opinion again rejected p. 176. The Doctrine of Merit not included in our Hypothesis His Popish Argument answered p. 176 177 178. Answer to his Advice p. 178 179. The whole concluded with Tertullians Rule of Faith p. 180. Remarks on the First Chapter of Mr. Thomas Goodwin's Discourse of the Gospel THIS Reverend Brother in his First Chapter Pages 4 5. States the Controversie and in so doing First saith That if by the Gospels being a New Law is meant a Doctrine of Grace newly revealed after the Covenant of Works was broken wherein God hath declared in what order and manner he will save guilty condemned Sinners it is presently granted and the Controversie is at end To which I Answer That if he will grant that God in the Gospel hath not only declared the Order and Manner of his own acting in saving Sinners but also that he hath declared and prescribed to us the Order and Manner of our acting in subordination to his Grace for obtaining our own Salvation through Christ and likewise that the Order prescribed to us is a Conditional Order with respect to the subsequent Blessings of the Covenant then we declare here as we did declare before in our Apology that we mean no more by the Gospels being a new Law of Grace But he denyes that the Lord in the Gospel hath prescribed any Conditional Order to be observed by us And therefore saith Secondly What is denyed is this That the Gospel is a Law commanding new Precepts as Conditions of obtaining its Blessings and Established with a Sanction promising Life and Happiness to the observance of them and threatning the neglect Answer I know no Man that ever affirmed what this Reverend Brother here denyes A Law commanding New Precepts is a Phrase peculiar to Mr. Goodwin and with my consent he shall have the honour of being the first Inventer and Authour of it For my part though I have heard of a Law commanding new Duties yet do I not remember that I have heard before of a Law commanding new Precepts for Precept and Commandment being all one a Law commanding new Precepts is a Law commanding new Commandments I thought the Commandments themselves had not been the Object or if you will the subject matter of the Commandments themselves but that the Duties Commanded had been the Object or Subject matter of the Commandments But we let that pass the thing which is most material is that he imagines his Adversaries do hold that the Precepts of the Gospel Law are the conditions of obtaining its Blessings Now this is such a wild fancy that I doubt whether ever it came into a Mans head that
Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius Chrysostom Origen Theodoret with Photius to shew that by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Law they signified a Doctrine But these quotations serve only ad Pompam non ad Pugnam for they are every one of them impertinently alledged against me and do not prove any thing that I deny except two words out of Clemens Alexandrinus of which by and by For 1. I grant that the Law of the New Covenant as Eusebius appositely calls it is a Doctrine and a Doctrine of Grace of the greatest Grace that ever was as we told the World in the Apology p 28. out of Bishop Andrews yea I grant and believe that it is a pure Doctrine of Grace because it both prescribes and requires Purity and likewise is a means through the influence of the Spirit of Grace of effecting and working Purity in the Souls of Men And moreover because the Blessings and Benefits which it promises are first promised of pure Grace and afterwards according to promise are of pure free Grace given unto Men through Jesus Christ This I asserted in the Apology pag. 22. and passim 2. Neither there not any where else did I ever say or think that I know of that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Law doth always signifie a System of Precepts and Commands and so Origen's Testimony makes nothing against me 3. I assent likewise to every thing he hath quoted out of Theoderet on Isa 2. And 4. To all cited out of Chrysostom on Psal 49. And 5. As for the Testimony of Photius it is as the rest impertinently alledged and I am so for from opposing it that on the contrary I have my self upon the matter said the same thing in the Apology pag. 201 and there shewed plainly in what sense the Law is vacated to a Believer without being perfectly dissolved and ceaseth without being disannulled and how Christ by fulfilling and performing it hath entirely removed it so that it cannot possibly condemn a Penitent Believer who walks not after the Flesh but after the Spirit Whereunto I now add that Photius there seems plainly to understand by Law not the first Covenant of Works made with Man before and broken by the fall of our First Parents but the Old Mosaical Covenant or the Legal dark Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace under the Levitical Priesthood And so the words of Photius do very fitly express the Lords abolishing that legal dark way and introducing the Evangelical clear way of Administring the same Covenant of Grace which how it should make against the Gospels being a New Law of Grace I do not comprehend See Heb. 8.6 For to me it seems plainly to insinuate the contrary to wit That the Gospel Covenant now in its New Christian Constitution and more gracious form of Administration is indeed the new Law of Grace 6ly and Lastly We come to Clemens Alexandrinus out of whose Writings Mr. Goodwin quotes two short Sentences As first That according to Clemens the Law is the Light of our way Answ And what then doth that militate against my Principle Nothing less For that I firmly believe not because Clemens saith so but because the Holy Ghost saith so as it is written Prov. 6.23 The Commandment is a Lamp and the Law is Light It is confest then that the Law is the Light of our way and so is the Gospel too yea and the Gospel is the greater Light of the two And what can any reasonable Man make of this to prove that the Gospel is not a Law of Grace which hath its own Precepts If the Gospel hath its own Precepts will that hinder it from being the Light of our way I think that in all reason the contrary will follow to wit that if the Precepts and Commandments of the Law be a Light of our way as the Scripture says they are that then the Precepts of the Gospel if it have any are and must be also a Light of our way that directs and instructs us how we ought to walk now under the Christian form of administring the Covenant of Grace 2. He quotes Clemens saying Disc p. 22. That a Law is a true and good opinion of a thing And this he calls Clemens his definition of a Law And he affirms that this Clementin definition may be applyed to any Doctrine of Truth and Goodness Whereby saith he any Doctrine of Truth and Goodness may be signifyed But the Gospel is a Doctrine of Truth and Goodness therefore this Clementin definition of a Law may be applyed to the Gospel and it may be said of the Gospel that it is a true and good Opinion Answ This Reverend Brother by several passages in his Discourse and by this amongst the rest seems to be much in love with definitions and who can blame him since Aristotle said of old That (a) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Ariââor 2. Metaphys Cap. 3. we know all things by their definitions And here in Clemens Alexandrinus meeting with two or three pretty words they so pleased his fancy that he presently imagined them to be the thing which he is so much in love with to wit a definition A definition then they shall be and having thus got a definition of a Law he is sure thereby to know the Nature of a Law for according to Aristotle a Definition (b) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Aristot 2 post Cap. 8. shews us the very Essence of a thing Now this being the definition of a Law according to Mr. Goodwin That it is a true and good Opinion of a thing I demand of him whether this be the definition of Gods Law or of Mans Law If he say that it is the definition of Mans Law then he knows that it is utterly Impertinent For our Controversie is not about Mans Law but Gods Law And I hope he will not say that the definition of Mans Law is the definition of Gods Law 2. If he say that it is the definition of God's Law then according to Mr. Goodwin Gods true and good opinion of a thing is his Law For the definition of a thing and the thing defined are really and objectively the same and differ only in the manner and form of expression Upon this I could move many questions that would puzzle my Reverend Brother to answer and yet they are such as ought to be answered and resolved upon supposition that Gods true and good opinion of a thing is his Law but I will spare him and only ask him this question Whether he holds that God is an Opinator that he hath an Opinion of things and knows them opinatively If he deny then how can Gods Opinion be his Law if he have no Opinion and be no Opinator If he affirm that God is an Opinator that he hath an Opinion of things and knows them opinatively Then it will follow that Gods knowledge of things at least of the things which are the subject matter of his Laws is founded upon probable
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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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-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-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
Promises of God belong to the New Testament yea are the New Testament Yet it is observable that 1. He doth not say that all the Promises of God belong to the New Testament 2. He doth not say that the Promises are the whole of the New Testament I freely grant that the Evangelical Promises are the New Testament that is They are the New Testament in part And they are a Principal part of it too But what then Ergo they are the whole New Testament I utterly deny that consequence and I know Mr. G. cannot prove it to Eternity nor doth Luther affirm it So far was Luther from affirming it there That in the same place a little before the words quoted by Mr. Goodwin he says expresly as followeth (e) Hic altera pars Scripturae adest promissa Dei quae annunciant gloriam Dei dicunt Si vis legem implere non concupiscere sicut Lex exigit En tibi crede in Christum in quo promittuntur tibi gratia justititia pax Libertas omnia si credis habebis si non credis carebis Lutherus de libertate Christ ubi citatur a D.G. Here is the other part of the Scripture the Promises of God which declare the Glory of God And say If thou wilt fulfil the Law and not Covet as the Law requires Behold here for thee believe in Christ in whom are promised unto thee Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all things if thou believe thou shalt have them if thou believe not thou shalt want them Thus Luther In which Testimony of his we have these things observable 1. That the part of Gods Word which here he speaks of is that which contains the Promises of Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all and so it is the Gospel 2. This part of God's word that is the Gospel saith unto Man Crede in Christum Believe in Christ Now that is certainly a Precept or Command if there be any such thing as a Precept or Command in the whole Word of God 3. This part of God's Word that is the Gospel saith Si credis habebis if thou believest thou shalt have them to wit Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all Now that is as certainly a conditional Promise 4. This part of Gods Word that is the Gospel saith Si non credis carebis If thou do not believe thou shalt want them that is thou shalt want Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all And is not this a Conditional Threatning Mr. Goodwin may with as much Truth and Modesty deny that it is Light at Noon day as to deny that this is a Conditional Threatning to wit if a Man to whom the Gospel is Preached do not believe he shall want Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all Here then we see clearly by the words of Luther That the Gospel hath both Precept Promise and Threatning which is the same thing that I believe and from whence I conclude it to be a Law of Grace And that the Gospel is not without all Precepts is evident by many other Passages in Luthers little Treatise of Christian Liberty I Instance only in one at present and it is not far from the beginning of that small Tract His words are So (f) Sic Christus Johan 6.29 Cum Judaei interregarent quid facerent ut operaxentur opera Dei operum multitudine quâ illos videbat turgere repulsâ unum eis praescribit dicens Hoc est opus Dei ut credatis in eum quem misit ille hunc enim Pater signavit Deus Lutherus ubi supra Christ in John 6.29 When the Jews asked what they should do that they might work the works of God having rejected the multitude of Works with the Opinion whereof he saw them swoln or puft up he prescribes them one saying This is the Work of God that ye believe in him whom he hath sent for him hath God the Father Sealed But you may say How did Luther come to say that the Promises are the Gospel if the Gospel hath Precepts as well as Promises I Answer Luther said so because in his Judgment the Gospel hath not only absolute but Conditional Promises and the conditional promise of God in the Gospel alwayes implyes a Precept which prescribes the Condition Besides That the Promises absolute and conditional are the principal part of the Gospel and he might well enough give it its Denomination from the principal part especially when at the same time he so expressed his Sense as to shew that he intended not to exclude all Precepts and Threatnings from belonging to the Gospel Covenant Thus the Learned and Pious Rutherford Rutherford's Covenant of Life opened Part 1. Chap. 26. p. 21.5 The Covenant of Grace saith he Though it want not Precepts especially it is his Command that we believe in the Son of God yet stands most by Promises and this Covenant gets the Name of a Promise or the Promise Acts 2.39 Rom. 9.8 compared with Acts 3.25 Gen. 12.3 This may suffice for answer to what my R Brother quotes out of that small Tract of Luther concerning Christian Liberty which though Mr. Goodwin doth most highly commend and praise yet I hope he would not have us to practice the Liberty there allowed in its full latitude For assuredly that little Book if we should follow its advice would set us beyond Canterbury and teach us how we might be the Popes Humble Servants without any danger to our Souls provided we be as we most certainly are fully perswaded in our own minds that our Obedience to the almost Infinite Commands of the Pope and his Bishops is not necessary to our Justification and Salvation That this is true there needs no plainer proof than that which Luther there gives us in the following words (g) Si quis ergo hanc Scientiam haberet facile se posset gerere citra periculum in infinitis illis mandatis praeceptis Papae Episcoporum Monasteriorum Ecclesiarum Principum Magistratuum quae aliqui Stulti Pastores sic urgent quasi ad Justitiam salutem sint necessaria appellantes praecepta Eoclesiae cum sint nihil minus Christianus Liber sic dicet ego jejimabo orabo hoc hoc faciam quod per homines mandatumest non quod mihi illo sit opus ad justitiam aut salutem sed quod in hoc morem geram papae Episcopo Communitati illi illi magistratui aut proximo ad exemplum faciam c. Lutherus ibid. de libertate Christ ultra medium non procul a fine Videat etiam Eruditus Lector Lutheri Expositionem Verborum Apostoli 2. ad Phil. v. 6 7 8. sibi caveat ibid. paulo supra If then any Man had this knowledge he might easily behave himself so as to avoid danger in those infinite Mandates and Precepts of the Pope Bishops Monasteries Churches Princes and Magistrates which some foolish Pastors so urge and press as if they were necessary to
thus rightly understanding Beza that first he spoke of an Evangelical Repentance and afterwards of a Legal I reconcile him to his Elder Brother Calvin and confirm my Argument from his said 20th Epistle and so recover the advantage which I seemed to have lost by mistaking his sense of the word Contrition This is the only mistake that after many serious repeated thoughts I can find that I committed in citing and explaining the words of Authours and I did not do it as many do to make the Authour seem to speak for me but rather to make him seem to be in that against me By which the World may see my Honesty and Ingenuity in citing Authours But this on the by I return to what my Reverend Brother cites out of Beza against me His 1st Testimony out of Beza's Book concerning the Punishing of Hereticks That the Sum of the Gospel which is the Power of God to Salvation unto every Believer is this Disc p. 30 31. that it teacheth us to lay hold on Christ as made to us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption I own to be true and to make for me rather than for Mr. G For 1. Here it is plainly enough expressed that the Gospel requires Faith of us as that by which we apprehend and lay hold on Christ And elsewhere as was shewed in the Apology Beza saith expresly That Faith is the Condition and I also have several times said expresly that in my Judgment Faith is the only Condition i. e. the only receptive applicative Condition of the Gospel-Covenant and of Christ and his Righteousness as held forth to us in the said Covenant 2. Though in this short Sum of the Gospel Beza do not expresly mention Evangelical Repentance yet he doth not exclude it but rather includes and implyes it in that he says that Christ is made Wisdom and Sanctification unto his People which he is partly in requiring Repentance as a means necessary in order to pardon of Sin and partly in giving them Grace and inclining their hearts to repent Luke 24.47 Acts 5.31 and 11.18 And elsewhere as in his 20th Epistle Beza expresly asserts and proves that Evangelical Repentance is required in the Gospel as antecedently in order of Nature necessary to pardon of Sin Beza's second Testimony quoted out of his Antithesis Papatus Christianismi of the Papacy and Christianity makes nothing against me for I joyn with Beza in rejecting that Popish Opinion concerning the Evangelical Doctrine nihil aliud esse quam legem quandam perfectiorem Mosaicâ that it is nothing else but a certain Law more perfect than that of Moses The Third Testimony out of his Book of Predestination against Castellio is most impertinently alledged against me For I never thought otherwise than that in the Law strictly taken for the Covenant of Works as Beza takes it there is no mention of Gods gracious Purposes to save us by Christ the Redeemer and therefore that the Declaration of that Gracious Will of God belongs to the Gospel and to Beza's Words I add that it belongs only to the Gospel 7. H. Bullinger is next brought as a Witness against me I Answer That I admit what Bullinger saith as cited by my Reverend Brother to be a true definition or description of the Gospel but I deny it to be an accurate perfect definition because it doth not express all the Essential parts of the Gospel For instance it doth not express the promise of taking away the Heart of Stone and giving an Heart of Flesh and writing the Law in the Heart etc. Which is an Essential of the Gospel Covenant adequately considered I grant Bullinger supposes and implyes it but supposing and implying in a definition all the Essentials of the thing defined is not sufficient to make it an accurate full definition Otherwise if a Man in defining a thing express but one of its Essentials he might be said to have accurately and fully defined it because the other Essentials are supposed and implyed in that one they being all inseparably connected in the thing defined And yet all Men of any measure of Learning know that it is very absurd to say that a thing is accurately and perfectly defined by mentioning only one of its Essential Parts I do not say this to reflect upon Bullinger at all that be far from me But to shew that by that which he called a definition of the Gospel he did not mean an accurate perfect definition of it in respect of all its Essential parts but a description of it in respect of some of its Essential parts Disc p 32. in which the rest are supposed and implyed And even in this passage of his Sermon under consideration it is plainly implyed that the Gospel-Covenant is conditional and that Faith is the condition of it And in another passage of the same Sermon he says That God hath proposed Christ a Propitiation to wit that he might be our reconciliation for whose sake being pacified towards us he adopts us to he the Children of God Verùm non aliâ ratione quà m per sidem in ejus Sanguinem id est Si credamus c. But no other way or upon no other terms than by Faith in his Blood that is if we believe c. And in his Commentary on Heb. 8. he expresly affirms the Covenant of Grace to be Conditional As shall be shown by his own express words in my Remarks on the following Chapter And I wish Mr. G would seriously consider what the same Bullinger writes at large in his Commentary on 1 Tim. 2.4 By what I have read of that Learned and Holy Mans Writings I am sure that his Judgment in this matter and my Reverend Brothers do not agree and that he wrongs him in labouring to draw him to his Party 8. Next the Learned H. Zanchius is suborned to bear Witness against us I confess that Zanchy well deserves the high Commendation which Mr. G. gives him but I am heartily sorry that my R. B. should so abuse that Worthy Divine as to indeavour to make him contradict himself in Witness-bearing For if ever our Reverend Brother read and considered our Apology which he writes against he cannot but know that we appealed to Zanchy in pag. 99. and from his own express formal words proved that there are Tria Evangelii capita quae a nobis exiguntur ut praestemus poenitentia in Deum c. Three Heads or Principal parts of the Gospel which we are required to do Repentance towards God Faith in Jesus Christ and a Studious care to observe whatsoever Christ hath Commanded Now these being Zanchy's own express words it was very ill done by my Reverend Brother to endeavour to make the World believe that this same Zanchy held That the Gospel requires nothing of us at all And this he endeavours to do by alledging Three Short Sentences out of his Miscellanies whereof the first Two only say That the Gospel
manifestly false that Dr. Whitaker held the Gospel to be such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace as requires no Duty at all not so much as Faith in Christ For in his Answer to Campians Reasons Translated into English by Richard Stock and Printed at London 1606. In Pages 252 253. he writes thus Now you Campian add The Decalogue belongeth not to Christians God doth not care for our Works Touching the Decalogue and Works Gal. 3.10 Deut. 27.26 this Answer I Whitaker make you briefly In the Law the Old Covenant is contained Do this and live Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them The Law promiseth Life to them which obey the Law in all things They that offend in anything to them it threatneth Death and Damnation an hard Condition and which no Man can ever satisfie Christ doth propose to us another Condition much easier Believe and thou shalt be saved Mark 16.16 By this New Covenant the Old is abrogated so as whosoever believeth the Gospel is freed from the Condition of the Law For they that believe are not under the Law but under Grace Rom. 6.14 and Gal. 5.18 What needs many words Christians are delivered from the Curse of the Law but not from the Obedience of it Thus Whitaker Whereby it is plain that he believed a Conditional Gospel and that it requires of us the performance of its Conditoon in order to our being freed from the Condition and delivered from the Curse of the Law And here it may not be amiss to let the World know that under Queen Elizabeth whilst Dr. Whitaker was Regius Professor in Cambridge there was one Dr. Peter Baro a Frenchman who was for some time Margarets Professor and having Preached and afterwards Printed a Latine Sermon on Rom. 3.28 And having therein affirmed as Mr. Goodwin doth That Men are obliged to believe in Christ by the Moral Law and not by the Gospel as his Words were interpreted he was thereupon and on the account of some other prelections also supposed to be an Innovator and he fell under suspicion of inclining to those Doctrines afterwards called Arminian and for that reason under the displeasure of Dr. Whitaker who was a strict Calvinist Whereupon he resigned his place and removed to London But they did not leave him so For there was a Book written against his Latine Sermon aforesaid by E. H. one of Dr. Whitakers Party and Printed in the Year 1592. wherein the Anonymous Authour treats him very rudely much at the rate as some of late have treated their Brethren amongst us But that which is to my purpose is That the Zealous E. H. in his little Book which I have de fide ejusque ortu naturâ maintains against Baro That Justifying Faith is not Commanded by the Old Moral Law but by the New Law of Grace to wit the Gospel To one of Baro's Arguments he answers thus (m) O miseram caecam consequentiam Quasi verò non aliam jam inde ab initio temporum praeter hanc perfectissimam Decalogi nec minus perfectam promissionis scilicet vitae legem tulerit quâ populum suum in se credere sibique omnem fidem habere jusserit E. H. De fide ejusque ortu naturâ Pag. 44 45. Lond. 1592. O miserable and blind consequence As if forsooth God had not from the beginning given another Law besides that most perfect Law of the Ten Commandments no less perfect than it to wit the Law of the Promise and Life whereby he Commanded his People to believe in him and to repose all their Trust and Confidence in him And after he had in pag. 52 53 54. discoursed at large of this Law of Promise and Life and had both shewed it to be distinct from the Law of the Ten Commandments and called it the Law of Grace he adds these words Ecce tibi Baro Legem quâ fides praecipitur Behold here Baro Thou hast a Law a Law of Grace whereby Faith is Commanded Now by these words of E. H. one of Dr. Whitakers Party and by the Doctors own words it plainly appears That he and the other Orthodox Divines of Cambridge under Q. Elizabeth were so far from thinking that the Gospel was nothing but such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace as requires nothing of us no not Faith in Christ as Mr. G. would make the World believe that they rather some of them at least as for instance Mr. Perkins and this E. H. went the quite contrary way and held that Faith in Christ is Commanded only by the Gospel-Covenant And Baro who as was thought held as my Reverend Brother doth that it is Commanded only by the Natural Moral Law was cryed down as an Innovator and unsound Divine and at last constrained to resign his place and leave the University To all this I shall add That Dr. Nowel Dean of Pauls who was Dr. Whitaker's Uncle and Prolocutor in the Convocation 1562. Where the Articles of Religion which we have subscribed were Ratified and Confirmed wrote a Latine Catechisme which by Publick Order was commonly taught in the Grammar-Schools throughout England And in that Catechisme it s expresly affirmed that Evangelium requirit sidem The Gospel requires Faith Christ. Piet. prima institutio ad usum Scholarum Latine Scripta Cantab. 1626. pag. 3. Now this was the Catechisme which in all probability Whitaker Learned when he was a Boy at School and it is not very likely that when he was afterwards Regius Professor in Cambridge he had so far forgotten his Catechisme as to Publish to the World in Print That the Gospel is such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace as requires no duty at all not so much as Faith in Christ Eleventhly Mr. G suborns Gomarus to bear false Witness against me but certainly of all Men in the World Gomarus was the unfittest to be brought in to Witness against me because as was shewed from his own formal express words quoted in the Apology pag. 27. he hath spoken my Sence so clearly that after I had set down his Words and Reasons why the Gospel is called the Law of Grace yea the Law of God ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I immediately added these words And truly this was excellently said by Gomarus No Man we think can give a better account why the Gospel is called the Law of Grace Whence it manifestly appears that I hold the Gospel to be a Law of Grace no otherwise than as Gomarus held it to be such before I was born And then Gomarus his own express words shew Gom. Oper. Part. 3. Disp 14. Thes 30. that he held the Gospel to be a Law from the prescription or appointment of the Condition and Duty contained in it and to be a Law of Grace because of the Benefit promised in it Both which he proved by Scripture-Testimonies Now to make People believe that Gomarus
did not mean any such thing as his words clearly and necessarily import Mr. G quotes a Sentence out of the same Disputation Thes 25. Where he says (n) Evangelium hoc modo non incommodè definiri potest Doctrina Divina qua arcanum Dei foedus de gratuita salute per Christum hominibus in peccatum lapsis annunciatur cum electis inchoatur ac conservatur ad ipsorum salutem Dei Servatoris gloriam Gomar Oper. Part. 3. Disp 14. Thes 25. The Gospel may not unfitly be defined this way It is a Divine Doctrine whereby the secret Covenant of God concerning free Salvation by Christ is declared unto Men fallen into sin and is begun with the Elect and conserved or continued unto their Salvation and the Glory of God their Saviour But this will not do my R. Brothers Business For 1. Gomarus here doth not pretend accurately and fully to define the Gospel and therefore he only says it may not unfitly be defined this way And one may well enough express himself thus when he is to give only a general Description which is an imperfect definition of a thing 2. This Description of the Gospel goes before in the 25th Position Whereas the Testimony quoted out of him in the Apology comes after in the 30th Position in which Gomarus designedly explains himself and adds what he had before omitted in his description of the Gospel Thes 25. and expresly asserts the Gospel to be a Law and a Law of Grace and gives his Reasons for both 3. Here then Gomarus did not in the least contradict himself only in Thes 30. he explained and expressed what he had supposed and implyed and added what he had omitted in Thes 25. 4. Here also Mr. G should have considered Gomarus his 29. Position which I quoted at large in the Apology pag. 100 but shall not here repeat it for he cannot but have seen it since it is immediately before the 30th which he pretends to Answer These things being duely considered it is as clear as the Light that my R Brother dealt very disingenuously not to use a worse word when he thus concluded pag. 34. of his Discourse Therefore when Gomarus a little after calls the Gospel a Law he must necessarily understand the word Gospel as it signifies all the second part of the Bible not as it implyes only God's Covenant of Grace discovered to Man This is so far from being true de facto that it is impossible it should be true And my R.B. who hath read the place if he knows any thing cannot but know that it is false For it is most evident from Gomarus his words both as they are in his own Works and as they are cited in the Apology p. 27. and 100. That the Gospel he speaks of is not the Book of the New Testament but it is the very Covenant of Grace it self both discovered unto and made with Man and recorded in the Books both of the Old and New Testament It is the Covenant which hath a condition in it prescribed to us and required of us Yea It is the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 It is the Law which goes forth out of Sion as he proves from Isa 2.3 And that Mr. G himself hath acknowledged to be the very Gospel in its strict and proper Sense How to excuse my R. B. here from being guilty of a known falsincation I profess I know not But whatever be of that sure I am that Gomarus his own words cannot bear that sence which he would force upon them And I appeal to Schollars and Judicious honest Men to judge between us and determine which of us two gives the genuine true Sense of those words of Gomarus which I quoted in the Apology p. 27 and 100. Twelfthly Mr. G to back the foresaid Misinterpretation of Gomarus his Words concerning the Nature of the gospel-Gospel-Covenant brings the Testimony of the Heavenly Host of Holy Angels recorded in Luke 2. ver 13 14. but this doth not move me in the least from my steadfast belief of the Gospel Covenant its being a Law of Grace For from the Angels Doxology in Luke 2. neither Man nor Angel can ever prove by good consequence that the Covenant of the Gospel is not a Law of Grace The Angels not saying expresly that it is a Law of Grace proves nothing For it was no part of their Commission to say that it is or that it is not What they said is true indeed ay and it is true Gospel too as was acknowledged before in our first preliminary consideration But what then It doth not follow that therefore it is the whole Gospel and intire Covenant of Grace which God made with his Church through Christ the Mediator And if it be not the whole as it is not then what they said and what Gomarus and I after him say that the Gospel is a Law of Grace may both be true and so they certainly are But it seems Mr. G thinks that God is not at peace with him nor with me nor with any other Man nor bears any good Will to him or us if by the Gospel he require Faith and Repentance of us in order to the Pardon of our Sins by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ the Mediator of the Covenant And if that be really his settled Thought his Case is to be pityed and I heartily pray God for Christ's sake to pity him and to deliver him from an evil heart of Unbelief That he may through Grace come to the knowledge of the Truth and be perswaded that God's being at peace with him and bearing good Will to him is very well consistent with the Gospel-Covenant its requiring of him Faith and Repentance As for his descant upon the words of the Angels it is nothing but a flourish of Words and Rhetorick without Reason makes no Impression upon the Wise whatever Effect it may have upon others Now my R Brother his Premisses being false as I have shewed them to be his Conclusion as such must be of the same Nature And so it is not true as he pretends but really false that God from Heaven and some of the best Men whoever lived upon Earth do plainly tell us that the Gospel is no Law but a pure Act of Grace for they do not tell us any such thing And to the Lords People it is both It is both a Law and also a pure Act of Grace it is a Law of Grace As for what he says in page 35 of his Discourse that our Reformers were careful to distinguish the Gospel from a Law It is false in his Sense they were not careful to distinguish it from all kind of Law but from a certain kind of Law that is from the Law of Works This indeed they were careful to do and so are we too And as they would not so no more do we suffer Works under never so specious pretences to invade the Prerogative of Grace In fine what Mr.
G quotes there out of Chemnitius and Beza concerning the Papists confounding Law and Gospel its being the occasion of many pernicious Errors in the Church is impertinently alledged against us for we are so far from confounding the Law and the Gospel as Papists do that on the contrary we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace only but not at all to be a Law of Works in the Scriptural or Popish sense of that word And in our Apology we plainly stated the difference between the Law and Gospel and the Righteousness of the one and the other in so much that whoever reads understands believes and observes what we there wrote on that subject is so far out of danger of the Popish Errors in the matter of Justification and Salvation that it is plainly impossible for him to embrace any of them without first renouncing some of those great Truths which we have plainly there laid down in vindicating our selves from the Calumnies of the Informer and of the Accuser of the Brethren So much in Answer to his first set of Testimonies relating to the definition or description of the Gospel SECT III. His Second Set of Testimonies Examined and Answered HIS next set of Testimonies of Reformed Divines is to prove as he says pag. 36. by their express words that when they call the Gospel a Law they intend no more by it but a pure Doctrine of Grace To which I Answer 1. In general That in a sound sense I grant the Gospel Law is no other than a pure Doctrine of Grace as was said before But in his sense I deny that they held the Gospel-Law to be nothing but a pure Doctrine of Grace so as not to require any thing of us no not so much as Faith in Christ I shewed the contrary before from their own express words in the 20th Article of the Augustan Confession which Luther and Calvin both subscribed Secondly I give a particular Answer to the several Testimonies which Mr. G. alledges And 1. As for the Testimonies of Luther quoted out of his Commentaries on Gal. 2. and Isai 2. His First Testimony as to the first part of it concerns us not at all for we abhor that Opinion of Justitiaries as much as ever Luther did and we declare it to be Blasphemy to think say or write that the Gospel is no other than a Book which contains new Laws concerning Works as the Turks Dream of their Alcoran 2. As to the Second part of his first Testimony That the Gospel is a Preaching concerning Christ that he forgives Sins gives Grace Justifies and saves Sinners It is very true but is not the whole Truth for over and besides that it is also a Preaching concerning Christ that requires Faith in Christ According to the Augustan Confession and according to what we before heard from Luther himself in his little Book of Christian Liberty and which is far more according to the Scriptures of Truth 3. As to the third part of his Testimony That the Precepts found in the Gospel are not the Gospel but Expositions of the Law and Appendixes of the Gospel It is to be rightly understood As 1 They are not the whole Gospel Nor 2. Are they the principal part of the Gospel from which it chiefly hath its Denomination For the Promises are that part 3. It is confest that there are indeed Precepts found written somewhere in the Books of the New Testament which are no part of the Gospel Covenant in its last and best form of Administration but they belong to the first Law of Works or to the Typical Legal Form of Administring the Covenant of Grace yet there are other Precepts for instance that which Commands Faith in Christ as the Instrumental means of receiving and applying Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and this Precept even in Luthers Judgment as we have proved belongs to the Gospel And it is indeed one Article of the Gospel-Covenant that we believe in Christ Acts 16.31 Rom. 10.8 9 10. The Second Testimony from Luthers Commentary on Isai 2. is impertinently alledged and proves nothing but what we firmly believe that the Gospel is not a Law or Doctrine of Works for Justification but a Law or Doctrine of Faith even a new Doctrine as Luthers expression is or Law of Grace 2. In the second place he brings a Testimony of Calvin out of his Commentary on Isai 2.3 which as Mr. G alledges it is impertinent For it proves nothing against us We grant also to our R Brother that the way of arguing he mentions in Pag. 38. would be impertinent And I assure him it is not my way of arguing to conclude from the Gospels being named a Law that it is a Doctrine of Works For I do not believe that it is a Doctrine or Law of Works at all in the Scripture sense of that word i. e. a Doctrine of Works by and for which Justification and Salvation are to be sought after 3. Thirdly for the Testimony out of Musculus on Isai 2. I admit it as not being in the least against me And it is notorious that he was for the conditionality of the Covenant as we are 4. Nor Fourthly doth Gualters Testimony make against me in the least if it be not wrested by a false gloss put on his words as if he had said That the Law of Faith doth not require Faith But he doth not say so in the words quoted by Mr. G 5. The Passage quoted out of Vrsin on Isai 2.3 makes rather for us than against us and therefore it was impertinently alledged And it is well known that Vrsin was not against but for Conditions in the Gospel-Covenant And in my Remarks on the next Chapter I shall prove by his own express formal words that he believed as we do that the Gospel hath Precepts of its own which require of us Faith and Repentance 6. Nor doth the Passage cited out of Chemnitius his Common Places contradict my Principles but it rather confirms them And I am well assured that he held Justifying Faith to be Commanded and required by the Gospel See his common places in Folio pag. 219. 7. And lastly For Wittichius his Testimony the first part of it doth not so much as seem to be against me for it contains my Principle exprest to my mind I do heartily agree with him that no Works of ours neither Repentance nor yet Faith are or can be the cause of our Justification as perfect personal Works were to have been the cause and ground of Adam's Justification by the first Covenant and Law of Works if he had never broken it But for the second part of his Testimony if he intends thereby to deny that either Faith or Repentance are required as antecedently in order of Nature necessary unto Justification by and for the alone-Righteousness of Christ Then I do reject that part of his Testimony as unsound and contrary to Holy Scripture and to the Judgment of our more
Divines of the Westminster Assembly follow Calvin for thus they write in their Annotations on John 12.48 The word that I have spoken The Doctrine of Christ the Gospel which the Wicked now so securely Contemn shall once rise in Judgment against them and Condemn them See Mark 16.16 John 3.18 by so much the more heavily by how much greater means of Salvation they have neglected And Hutcheson follows the Assembly Men for thus he writes on John 12. ver 48. Doctr. 7. Albeit in the day of Judgment Wicked Men will be called to account for all their Sins against the Law yet their Contempt of the Gospel will be their saddest ditty For he that rejecteth me the word that I have spoken shall judge him That is The word of the Gospel Many other places of Holy Scripture evince this Truth that even the Gospel hath its Threatnings But I forbear to add any more in this place because I must speak to this matter again in my Animadversions on his next Chapter Thirdly and Lastly What Mr. G saith in pag. 40. that in Psal 19.8 9. and Rom 3 27. the Gospel is called a Law and what he there alledgeth to prove that it is so called not because it is a Doctrine of Works but a Doctrine of pure Grace doth really prove no more than that it is not a Law of Works by and for which a Man is justified and saved but only that it is a Law of Grace as I hold it to be Yet from its being only a Doctrine and Law of Grace to infer that it requires no Duty of us at all is plainly contrary to the words and meaning both of holy David and Paul For even in that 19th Psaâm the Law of the Lord. which Mr. Goodwin affirms to be the Gospel is by David expresly said to be the Commandment of the Lord. ver 8. And dare Mr. Goodwin say That the Commandment of the Lord doth not command any thing at all See Disc p. 9.10 nor lay any obligation to Duty upon his Conscience If he dare say so he is such a Man as it is not fit for me to have any thing more to do with but I ought to leave him to dispute that matter with the Lord God himself And as for blessed Paul did not he say to the Goaler Acts 16.31 Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã believe is of the Imperative Mood and therefore I hope it will not be denyed but that here is a command to believe on Christ Now I demand whether this was not pure Gospel If it was as I hope no Christian will deny and I am sure Mr. Goodwins Friend the accuser of the Brethren and informer Mr. Trail cannot honestly and fairly deny then I demand further Whether the Gospel doth not require and command Faith in Christ And if the Gospel require and command Faith in Christ then the Law of Faith which by Mr. Goodwins own confession signifies the Doctrine of the Gospel is a Law of Grace that requires and commands Duty to wit the Duty of Faith and not such a Doctrine of Grace as requires nothing at all That it is a Doctrine of Grace I never denyed in all my Life but this consequence I do utterly deny that because the Law of Faith is a Doctrine of Grace therefore it doth not require nor command Faith in Christ in order to Justification And I am not alone in this There are many others of good esteem in the Church for Orthodoxy who grant with me That Law of Faith signifies a Doctrine and yet maintain as I do that that same Doctrine prescribes and commands Faith in order to Justification At present I give three instances of this As 1 The Dutch Annotations on Rom 3.27 By the Law of Faith that is the prescript or the doctrine of Faith c By which words they declare that the Law of Faith is at once a Doctrine of Faith and a Prescript of Faith And who is so weak as not to know that for the Gospel to proscribe Faith to us is all one as to require and command it 2. The Assemblies Annotations on Rom. 3.27 Law of Faith that is the Precept or Doctrine of Faith which according to the Hebrew manner of speaking is called a Law Isa 2.3 or by that new order or Covenant of God which doth strip Man of all Worth and Righteousness of his own and cloath him by Grace with that of Christ 3. The last Annotations commonly called by the name of Pool on Rom. 3.27 Nay but by the law of faith i. e. The Gospel law which requires faith by which the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us and attained by us c. Thus the Reverend and Learned Authors of the several Annotations aforesaid do all acknowledge the Law of Faith to be a Doctrine of Faith and yet maintain that it prescribes commands and requires Faith in Christ in order to Justification By this we may see that these Protestant Divines wanted Mr. G. to tutour them and to teach them that a Doctrine of Grace hath no Precept and requires no Duty But because we shall hereafter meet again with this Logick That the Gospel is a Doctrine of Grace therefore it hath no Precept of its own and requires no Duty I will say no more of it here but pass to the next Chapter Animadversions on the Seventh Chapter SECTION I. 1. THis Chapter begins with a manifest Falshood to wit That my Arguments and Citations are all established meerly upon the ambiguities of the word Law The contradictory of that false Proposition is true That not one of my Arguments and Citations is established meerly upon the ambiguities of the word Law 2. He insinuates that I endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a Rule of Duty fortified with a sanction because we find it to be named a Law both in the Scriptures and Humane Writings This Assertion is as false as the former and the contrary is rather true that I endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a Law See Dr. Owen on Heb. 8.6 pag. 221. because I find it is in effect said to be a Rule of Duty fortified with a Sanction both in the Scriptures and Humane Writings And yet even this of the Gospels being said to be a Rule of Duty fortified with a Sanction must be rightly understood for I never said wrote nor thought that the Gospel is a Rule of Duty by and for which Duty we are justified and saved Or that it is fortified with a Sanction promising Justification or Salvation for the performance of our Duty I hold the contradictory of this to be true to wit The Gospel is not a Rule of Duty in such a sense nor fortified with such a Sanction The preceptive part of the Gospel-Covenant is indeed a Rule of Duty but in order to quite other ends than to be justified or saved for the sake of that Duty performed It is also
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-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-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-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 Gospâl 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
pag. 27. that the Gospel is sometimes called a Law because it also hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings It is also against Gomarus who as he is quoted in the same page 27 saith expresly That the Gospel is called the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 and the Law of God by way of Excellency Isa 2.3 from the prescription or appointment of the Condition and Duty contained in it But let it be against them or against all Mortals yet if he did well and solidly prove these three things mentioned I should confess he doth his work effectually were it not for this one thing on which the stress of his Cause lyes and which he begs but proves not nor can prove to wit That the Gospel Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator and that adequately or intirely considered in all its Articles is nothing but an Absolute Promise or a Bundle of Absolute Promises which require nothing of us at all For take the Gospel in this narrow Sense and I declare that I believe as firmly as he can do that it hath neither Precept nor Threatning nor Conditional Promise properly and essentially belonging to it But now I must again tell my Reverend Brother as I told him before That that is not the sense wherein I take it when I say it is a Law of Grace and I have shewed in the Apology that it ought not to be so taken nor is it so taken by our Protestant Divines when the word Gospel is used to signifie the whole Covenant of Grace which God hath made with us through Christ the Mediator Thus in few words it may appear that the main strength of his Cause lyes in the ambiguity of the word Gospel which certainly signifies more things than one and particularly it signifies more things than such a Doctrine of Grace as according to his fancy requires nothing of us at all And 1. First He asserts page 42. That the Precepts which the Gospel employs are not any parts of it self but are borrowed from the Law and then gives his goodly reasons for his assertion Before I give particular Answers to his reasons I will in the following Section premise some things that may give some light to help People to see on whose side the Truth lyes SECT II. AND with respect to his Notion of the Gospel Let it be considered 1. How the Gospel if it be nothing but an Absolute Promise that requires nothing can borrow Precepts from the Moral Law and then employ them in its own Service For mine own part I profess I neither do nor can understand how an Absolute Promise borrows a Precept and then employs it As he gives us to understand towards the end of the 42. page I understand well enough that Mr. Goodwin there insinuates and pag. 48. he expresly asserts this of the Gospels borrowing and employing the Laws Precepts And if any other Body can understand how a meer Absolute Promise doth this much good may the Notion do them But to me it is altogether useless because it is unintelligible 2. Consider That the Moral Natural Law is certainly most perfect in its kind and obliges to the most perfect i. e. sinlesly perfect performance of the several Duties that belong to it in that way which the Lord God intended it should oblige to the performance of them And it was needless to prove this against me for I never denyed it but alwayes believed it and oft times openly professed it And if my Reverend Brother understands what and whom he writes against he cannot but know that my R Brethren and I made Publick Profession of this to the World in the Printed Apology page 200 and 201. 3. Consider Thirdly That we must distinguish between the Moral Natural Law it s Obligative Power and its Actual Obligation And it is not to be denyed but that it hath its Obligative Power even then when for want of a particular Object or necessary Circumstances it doth not put forth its Power into Act and lay its Actual Obligation on a certain Subject For instance In the state of Innocency The Law had in it an Obligative Power unto several things which yet in that State it neither did nor could actually oblige our first Parents unto for want of a proper Object as to relieve the Poor when as yet there were none and to Educate their Children Religiously when as yet they had none 4. Consider Fourthly That the Moral Law either obliges absolutely and for the present or upon supposition and for the future which distinction differs not much from the former Thus in the State of Innocency the Law obliged Man absolutely and for that present time not to hate but to love God But it obliged him to love and relieve the Poor only for the future when there should be and on supposition that there should be Poor in the World 5 Consider Fifthly That the Moral Natural Law obliges to some Duties immediately and by it self but to others only mediately and by reason of some other thing intervening Thus in the State of Innocency by it self immediately it obliged Man not to hate but to love and reverence God But it then obliged him not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit only mediately and by reason of the positive Law which forbad it under pain of Death For it is certain and evident That without that positive Law forbidding it the Law of Nature by it self immediately would never have made it more unlawful to eat of that than of any other Fruit in the Garden of Eden It was therefore that positive Law forbidding it that first in order of Nature obliged Man not to eat of it and then by means of that positive Law the Law of Nature also came in and obliged Man not to eat of it The Law of Nature doth not Enact Divine Positive Laws for us but when they are Enacted by God and do oblige us by God's Authority Enacting them it then obliges us to the observance of them This it did before and still doth since the fall of our First Parents For the same reason holds with respect to all the positive Laws that ever God Enacted for Mankind 6. Consider Sixthly That God's Enacting some Positive Laws after he had given the Moral Natural Law unto Man in its full perfection doth not derogate any thing from the full perfection of the said Moral Law nor from the infinite Wisdom of God the Soveraign Law-giver And to say and write that for God to make any Positive New Law after he hath given unto Man the Moral Natural Law is inconsistent with the Moral Laws perfection and with Gods Infinite Wisdom is in effect both to dishonour Gods Law and to Blaspheme God's Majesty For it is a matter of Fact most certainly and evidently true that after the first giving unto Man and concreating with him and in him the Moral Natural Law God hath made and given to Man Positive Laws both before
Chemnitius also in his common places not only confesses that the Gospel is called a Law Isa 2.3 Mic. 4.2 and the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 but though he purposely sets himself to please the rigid Lutherans he likewise sayes that (d) Affirmativa de fiducia gratuitae misericordiae propter Christum non est vox Legis sicut Paulus clare dicit Gal. 3.12 Lex non est ex fide c. Chemnit loc com p. 219. The affirmative part concerning the Faith or confident trust of Free Mercy for Christs sake is not the voice of the Law as Paul clearly sayes Gal. 3.12 The law is not of faith Observe here that justifying Faith in Chemnitius's Opinion is not required by the Moral Natural Law but by the Gospel and that because Paul clearly saith that the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3.12 i. e. The Law requires not Faith to Justification See our last Annotations Pools on Gal. 3.12 The Law saith nothing of Faith in the Mediatour though Faith in God be commanded in the first Precept yet Faith in Christ is not commanded in the Law as that by which the Soul shall iive c. Hemmingius a moderate Lutheran and Disciple of Melancthon saith (e) Fidem omnes unanimiter ad Evangelium referunt Tract de gratia salutari Edit Hafniae 1591. loco de poenitentia All Divines unanimously refer Faith in Christ to the Gospel And he had reason to say so for before the Flacians I do not know that ever any Protestant Divine was of that Opinion that it is not the Gospel but the Moral Natural Law which requires Faith in Christ unto Justification and Salvation I am sure Luther was not of that mind for in his Book of Christian Liberty a little before the passage which Mr. Goodwin hath quoted out of it he brings in the very Gospel or God in and by the Gospel speaking unto Men and saying (f) En tibi crede in Christum in quo promittuntur tibi gratia Justitia Pax Libertas omnia si credis habebis si non credis carebis Luther de libert Christ Lo here for thee believe in Christ in whom are promised unto thee Grace Justice Peace Liberty and all If thou believe thou shalt have them if thou believe not thou shalt want them Here it is observable as was said before 1. That Luther speaks of the Gospel as distinguished from and opposed to the Law 2. He says That the Language of the Gospel so considered is crede in Christum c. believe in Christ And if that be not a Command how shall we know that ever there was such a Command in the World 3. Tho. Luther calls the Gospel there Promissa Dei the Promises of God yet it is most evident he did not think them to be all absolute Promises for he expresly mentions a Conditional Promise saying Si credis habebis If thou believest thou shalt have all those benefits that are promised in and through Christ 4. That the Conditional Promise of the Gospel the promise of great Blessings and Benefits made to us on condition that we believe in Christ doth carry in it a Gospel Command to believe in Christ Otherwise it is not imaginable how Luther could make the very Gospel and the Promises of God as opposed to the Law to say unto Man Crede in Christum Believe in Christ for that is a Precept if ever there was a Precept in the Word of God and being a Precept it must according to Luther be implyed in the Conditional Promise of the Gospel Whence we may learn this useful Lesson that in every Conditional Promise of the Gospel there are two things to be considered by us 1. The Promise it self of some gratuitous Benefit 2. The Gospel Command to perform the condition upon which the Benefit is promised The truth of this Observation was well understood by the Learned Dr. Whitaker and therefore he saith (g) Whitak praelect de Sacram. cap 4. Promissio gratiae conditionalis est requirit enim fidem c. The Promise of Grace is Conditional for it requires Faith c. And Dr. Nowell in his foresaid Latine Catechism taught in the Grammar-Schools throughout England speaking of the Gospel as distinct from the Law he saith (h) Verae Religionis partes sunt Obedientia quam Lex imperat fides quam Evangelium requirit A. Nowelli Christianae Pietatis prima Instit pag. 3. Edit Cantab. 1626. The Gospel requires Faith In like manner Sharpius tells us that the Gospel as distinct from the Law requires Faith and declares that the contrary Opinion which Mr. Goodwin has lately taken up is the Error of the Flacians (i) Errant Flaciani qui in Evangelio nullum praeceptum esse volunt cum manifeste praecipiatur ut credamus poenitentiam agamus fides autem est tantùm ex Evangelio ut poenitentia quae ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã dicitur Sharpii Curs Theolog. Sect. de Evangelio pag. 692. The Flacians saith he err who would have no Precept to be in the Gospel seeing it is manifestly commanded that we should believe and repent But Faith is only from the Gospel as is also that Repentance which in Greek is called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã With Sharpius agrees Dickson on Rom. 3.27 28. his words are these Argum. 10. Because by the Law of Faith or the Covenant of Grace which requires Faith to our Justification by the Righteousness of another Mans boasting in himself is excluded and not by the Law of Works or the Covenant of Works which exacts perfect Obedience and affords boasting to Men in their inherent Righteousness Therefore saith he we conclude that a Man is justified by Faith without the Works of the Law Thus Dickson Of the same Judgment was the late Reverend and Learned Mr. Pitcairn Principal of the New Colledge and Rector of the University of S. Andrews For in his Harmony of the Evangelists he writes thus (k) Pââcairn Harmon Evang. p. 274. Quisquis justificatur per Legem Christi hoo est per Evangelicam Christi Legem fidem praescribentem absolvitur Whosoever is justified he is absolved by the Law of Christ that is by the Evangelical Law of Christ which prescribes Faith And as was observed before the Assemblies Confession of Faith in the Seventh Chapter of Gods Covenant with Man Art 3. saith expresly That the Lord in the Covenant of Grace requires of Men Faith in Jesus Christ that they may be saved I might bring many more Testimonies to this purpose but these are sufficient to show that it hath been and is the common belief of our Protestant Divines except some raving bawling Flacians in Germany and the Cocceians in Holland that the Gospel commands and requires us to believe in Jesus Christ for Justification and Salvation The Case then is plainly thus That the Moral Natural Law requires Faith in God simply considered as God and Jesus Christ being God by Nature One God
with the Father and Spirit it requires Faith in him also considered simply under that formal Notion as God But the Law doth not by it self immediately require Faith in Christ the Mediatour as the instrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of him and his Righteousness for Justification It is the Gospel-Covenant which first by it self immediately constitutes and ordains Faith in the Mediatour Christ Jesus to be the instrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and Salvation and which likewise requires it of us as such and under that Notion Now when Faith in the Mediatour is once by the positive Law of Grace or gospel-Gospel-Covenant ordained to such an use and required of us for that purpose then I acknowledge that the Moral Natural Law obliges us to observe the positive Evangelical Law of Grace which hath ordained Faith to such an use and required it in order to such an end and so mediante Lege Evangelicâ positivâ by means of the positive Evangelical Law of Grace or new Covenant the Natural Law the Law of our Creation obliges us to believe in Christ the Mediatour to receive him and his Righteousness as aforesaid and to trust to be justified and saved by and for him and his Righteousness only So that justifying Faith in the Mediatour is required of us first directly and immediately by the Gospel Covenant only but secondarily mediately and by consequence it is also required by the Moral Natural Law This to me is very evident For 1. The Natural Moral Law cannot of it self immediately oblige us to believe in Christ the Mediatour unless he be otherwise discovered to us by Supernatural Revelation This I think none will deny for the Apostle saith Rom. 10.14 How shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard It is simply impossible for a Man to believe in Christ the Mediatour before he be revealed to him and he cannot be revealed by the Natural Moral Law without Supernatural Revelation therefore he cannot be obliged to believe in Christ the Mediatour by the Natural Moral Law immediately without a Supernatural Revelation because that just and good Law cannot oblige a Man to a simple and absolute impossibility Man in his Innocency could not be obliged by a Natural Law to believe a Supernatural Object without a Supernatural Revelation 2. The Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour to us doth of it self immediately oblige us to believe It doth not only discover Christ the Object but it doth likewise per se immediatè by it self immediately oblige us to believe the Object revealed so that all Natural Moral Law set aside and abstracting from any such Law the Supernatural Revelation of Christ would by it self immediately oblige us to believe And that 1. Because it is Gods own Supernatural Testimony which of it self hath an immediate Authority over our Conscience and obliges us to believe with a Faith of assent The true formal reason and objective moving cause of our obligation to believe a Mysterious Truth Supernaturally revealed to us is the Divine Testimony it self or the Soveraign Authority of God Supernaturally revealing If any Man say No it is not that but it is only the Natural Moral Law which obliges us to believe the Supernatural Tenimony of God I Answer That such a Man seems to be pecking towards the Socinians and does but discover his ignorance of those matters John says 1 John 5.10 he that believeth not God hath made him a lyar because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son See for this Essen compend dogmat cap. 9. pag. 284. Thes 34. arg 3. 2. The said Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour as God hath given it forth unto Man carries in it and with it a positive Command to believe on Christ This is so clear in Scripture that a Man must be blind that doth not see it if he do but read understand and consider Let Deut. 18.15 16 17 18 19. be consulted and there we shall find a Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour and a Prophetical Promise to send him into the World The people were afraid to converse immediately with God after the dreadful appearance at the giving of the Law in Horeb therefore they desired that Moses would be Mediatour between God and them This motion and desire of the people God approved of v. 16 17. and withal made them a promise by Moses that he would send them the true Mediatour Christ whom Moses in that did but typifie and adumbrate And at the same time by the same Moses God gave a Command to hearken unto Christ when he should come and backed his Command with a Threatning to punish them severely in case they did not hearken unto him Compare this with Acts 3.22 23. and it will evidently appear that here we have a Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour which contains in it a plain Command to hear him in all things and that hearing him in all things includes believing on him John 8.24 and 14.1 and the Command is enforced with a dreadful Threatning against every Soul which will not hear him and believe on him Now doth not this Supernatural Revelation by vertue of the Command included in it immediately oblige us to believe on Christ for Justification and Salvation Surely none but an Unbeliever can deny this And it not only doth oblige us but it would oblige us suppose that which is impossible that there were no Natural Moral Law in the World We have then a positive Law which immediately obliges our Conscience to believe in Christ the Mediatour besides the Natural Moral Law And thus was this matter understood above Twelve Hundred Years ago Witness that of Lactantius (l) Ipse Moses per quem sibi datam legem dum pertinaciter tuentur Judaei exciderunt a Deo Deum non Agnoverunt praedixerat fore ut Propheta maximus mittatur a Deo qui sit supra Legem qui voluntatem Dei ad homines perferat In Deuteronomio ità scriptum reliquit dixit Dominus ad me Prophetam excitabo eis de Fratribus corum sicut te dabo verbum meum in os ejus Et loquetur ad cos ea quae praecepero ei quisquis non audierit ea quae loquetur Propheta ille in nomine meo ego vindicabo in eum Denunciavit scilicet Deus per ipsum legiferum quòd Filium suum id est vivam praesentemque legem missurus esset illam veterem per mortalem datam soluturus ut Deus per eum qui esset aeternus legem sanciret aeternam Lactant. Divin Instit lib. 4. Cap. 17. Moses himself by whom the Law was given and which the Jews obstinately defending are fallen from God and have lost the knowledge of God foretold that it should come to pass that God would send a most Great Prophet who should be above the Law and should bring the Notice
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
with Water in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and to Eat and Drink the Blessed Bread and Wine in remembrance of Christ's Death till he come To this I shall subjoyn the Testimony of the Late Reverend and Learned Dr. Owen and then pass on From Deut. 18. ver 18 19. he infers that Christ was to be a Law giver His words are (n) Dr. Owens 1st Vol. on the Epist to the Hebrews exercitat 17. pag. 224. The Prophet here foretold was to be like unto him Moses wherein he was peculiar and exempted from comparison with all other Prophets which were to build on his Foundation without adding any thing to the Rule of Faith and Worship which he had Revealed or changing any thing therein In that is the Prophet here promised to be like unto him that is he was to be a Law-giver to the House of God as our Apostle proves and declares Chap. 3. ver 1 2 3 4 5. Moses was the great Law giver by whom God revealed his Mind and Will as to his whole Worship whilst the Church-State Instituted by him was to continue Such a Prophet was the Messias to be a Law-giver so as to Abolish the Old and to Institute New Rites of Worship This raising up of a Prophet like unto Moses declares That the Whole Will of God as to his Worship and the Churches Obedience was not yet Revealed Had it so been there would have been no need of a Prophet like unto Moses to lay New Foundations as he had done Thus the Doctor Now as I have distinguished of Faith so I distinguish of Repentance As there is a Faith in God which most certainly is commanded by the Natural Moral Law it self immediately so there is a Repentance towards God which is also Commanded by the Natural Moral Law it self immediately This I never denyed but always believed and in our Apology pag. 200. we plainly enough professed this our belief in these words Heathens who never heard nor could hear of the Gospel for want of an Objective Revelation of it they living and dying without Repentance and Faith in the True God under the guilt of Sins against the Law and Light of Nature will be Condemned by the Law but not by the Gospel which they could not know Rom 2.12 These words plainly show that our Judgment is That Heathens are guilty of Sins against the Law and Light of Nature in that they do not believe in the True God nor repent of their Sins although they have not the Gospel and so no Gospel-Promise to assure them of Pardon and that they shall be Condemned by the Law of Nature for their Unbelief and Impenitency against the Law of Nature together with their other Sins against the same Law And from this it appears That a great part of my Reverend Brothers Seventh Chapter is altogether Impertinent and that I am not at all concerned in it Mr. Goodwin here fights against a Man of Straw of his own making and setting up and valiantly runs him down again and I do not in the least envy him the Glory of such a Victory But though the Natural Moral Law doth oblige all Mankind of ripe years to a Natural Legal Repentance that is 1. To be heartily sorry for having offended God their Creator and Preserver by breaking his Law which they are under and outwardly also to express the inward sorrow of their Hearts 2 To hate their Sin as a great Evil in it self and the procuring Cause of Evil unto Men. 3. Not to act their Sin over again but to abstain from Sin and to keep God's Natural Moral Law for the future Yet there is another kind of Repentance which the Natural Moral Law doth not by it self immediately oblige all Mankind unto in all parts of the World and that is an Evangelical Repentance which ariseth from an apprehension and perswasion of God's Mercy in Christ to all such as are truely Penitent and to our selves if we do or shall truely Repent This is a Repentance towards God considered not meerly as our Creator Preserver and Ruler but as in Christ reconciling the World unto himself and as Ruling Graciously and Mercifully by Christ So that it hath a formal Object different from that of the other Natural Legal Repentance and it hath likewise a different Habitude and Relation unto God and is carryed out unto him after a different manner which is sufficient to give it another Form and to make it formally to differ from the foresaid Natural Legal Repentance Moreover it hath another Office and Use assigned to it for it is constituted and Ordained by God through Christ to be a Condition Dispositive of the Subject to be pardoned or a means to prepare and qualifie us for Receiving the Pardon of our Sins by Faith in Christ's Blood and for his Righteousness only apprehended applyed and trusted to by Faith Now such a Repentance as this a True Evangelical Repentance considered under this formal notion as arising from the foresaid perswasion of Gods Mercy in Christ to the truely Penitent and as a Condition or Means to dispose and prepare for pardon and as having pardon ensured to it by Promise through Christ I say Repentance of this kind and considered under this Notion is Commanded and Required by the Gospel-Law or Covenant firstly directly and immediately and then by the Natural Moral Law mediately and by consequence As the Gospel Commands us to believe that God is upon terms of Saving Pardoning Mercy to the truely Penitent so the Gospel or God by the Gospel makes True Repentance to be one of the Terms to be a Condition or Means to dispose and qualifie us for pardoning Mercy and makes Pardon sure to us by Promise through Christ upon our Repentance As also It is the Gospel and God by Gospel that requires the said dispositive Condition that Commands us to Repent that we may certainly obtain the Promised Pardon through Faith in Christ's Blood That God by the Gospel Commands us to Repent in order to obtain the Pardon of our Sins is as Clear as the Light at Noon to all that are not blind through Unbelief For doth not the Evangelical Prophet say Isai 55.7 Let the Wicked forsake his Way and the Vnrighteous Man his Thoughts and let him Return unto the Lord and he will have Mercy upon him and to our God for he will abundantly Pardon Or He will multiply to Pardon It cannot be said That this is the Voice of the first Covenant and Law of Works For that Covenant is so far from requiring Repentance as a means to obtain Pardon of Sin that it doth not so much as admit of Repentance as any means to such an end as we shall hear by and by from Mr. Caryll And if it be not the Voice of the Old Covenant and Law of Works it must be the Voice of the New Covenant and Law of Grace for there is no Medium no Third that can have any place here
And it is observable that here Repentance is required in the first place and then Pardon is promised as a great favour which shall follow after For the Promise runs in the Future Tense the Lord will have Mercy upon the wicked Man who hath truly repented and our God will abundantly pardon him He will pardon him all the Sins whereof he hath truly repented how many soever they have been And as John Baptist our Lord himself and his Apostles began their Preaching of the Gospel with the Preaching of Repentance so when our Lord Christ after his Resurrection enlarged the Apostles Commission and sent them to preach the Gospel to the Gentile World he told them that they must preach Repentance and Remission of Sin in his Name among all Nations beginning at Jerusalem Luke 24.47 So that it was a part of their Commission to preach the Gospel that they should preach Repentance as a means to obtain Remission of Sins through Faith in Christs name And it is certain that they acted according to their Commission Peter led the way and in his first Sermon after they were endued with Power from on high he said to the convinced humbled Jews who asked him and the rest of the Apostles what they should do That they should repent and be baptized every one of them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins Acts 2.37 38. Those Jews were deeply convinced that they had broken the Law and thereby fallen under its curse and destroyed their own Souls so that it was not then time to preach the Old Law of Works to them nor did Peter preach it then to them but he preached the gospel-Gospel-Covenant and New Law of Grace to them saying as before mentioned Repent c. for the remission of sins And by that first Gospel-Sermon he converted about Three Thousand Souls And as he began so he continued to do for his next publick Sermon to the people was of the same strain with the first for after he and his Brethren had born their Testimony to Christs Resurrection and by his Resurrection and the Miracle done in his Name had proved him to be indeed the true Christ whom God promised to send into the World for the Redemption of his People And likewise after he had charged them with and proved them guilty of the murder of Christ and had shewed that by ignorantly murdering Jesus of Nazareth they had unwittingly fulfilled the many Prophesies which foretold the sufferings of Christ for the Salvation of his People he immediately commanded and exhorted them to repent and be converted as the means to obtain the Pardon of their Sins and Salvation of their Souls Acts 3.19 Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And here by the way we may take notice that the antient Syriack Interpreter renders this place thus Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out and that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã See Act. 15.17 After the same manner it is rendred in the Tigurin Translation Irenaeus also a very Antient Father and Martyr above Fourteen Hundred Years ago thus quotes this Scripture (o) Poenitentiam igitur agite convertimini uti deleantur peccata vestra veniant vobis tempora refrigerii Domini Iren. lib. 3. adversus haereses cap. 12. Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out and that the times of the Lords refreshing may come unto you So Irenaeus But I lay not the stress of my Argument on that Old Translation for our own Translation is sufficient to my purpose since it plainly shews That the Gospel prescribes Repentance unto Sinners as a means to prepare and dispose them for obtaining the Pardon of their Sins which the Natural Moral Law by it self immediately doth not do but only requires a Natural Legal Repentance such as is before described and that Men should so sin no more for time to come but doth not ordain it to be a means nor require it as a means to obtain pardon nor yet ensure pardon to it through Christ as such a means And as Peter led the way in preaching the Gospel by preaching Repentance as a means to obtain pardon of Sin so the other Apostles followed according to the Commission which they all received from the Lord himself Paul as was shewn in the Apology was sent to the Gentiles to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God that they might receive forgiveness of sins c. Acts 26.17 18. And he was faithful to the Lord who sent him and approved himself so to be by testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks Repentance towards God and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ Acts 20.20 21. And the end in order to which he preached up the use of these means of Faith and Repentance was that people might receive forgiveness of Sins And if that was not Gospel-preaching how can it be proved that ever there was such a thing as Gospel-preaching in the World and that Paul was faithful to God and the Souls of Men in preaching the Gospel since Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ and that too in order to pardon of Sin to Justification and Salvation were the two great heads of Doctrine that he mainly insisted upon as evidently appears from Acts 26.17 18 19 20 c. compared with Acts 20.20 21. And that the other Apostles preached the same Gospel in the same way and to the same end it is needless to go about to prove it since they had all one Commission and were all faithful in preaching according to their Commission Now as this was Gospel in the days of the Apostles so it hath been and still is and ever will be Gospel to the end of the World For Christs Gospel is an everlasting Gospel and in all Ages hath been preserved and continued in the Church and hath been preached as to the sum and substance of it by certain faithful Ministers of Christ in all Ages Lactantius of old gave this as a mark to know the true Church by (o) Sciendum est illam esse veram Ecclesiam Catholicam in quâ est confessio poenitentia quae peccata vulnera quibus subjecta est imbecillitas carnis salubriter curat Lactant Divin Instit lib. 4. cap. 30. We must know saith he that that is the true Catholick Church in which is Confession and Repentance which wholesomely cures the sins and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is subject Here is nothing for Popish Merits and Satisfactions for his words signifie no more but this that Confession and Repentance is a wholesome means used in the true Church according to the Gospel 1 John 1.9 for obtaining
Law of Works This was briefly explained and proved in the Apology pag. 200 201. and it might be further confirmed if it were needful But it is not needful because to a Man who knows himself to be a Sinner and understands the Nature of that first Law as every Man of common understanding may do it is self-evident that that Law condemns him to Death for his Sin and that it is simply impossible for him to be justified unto Life by that very Law which every moment condemns him to death And yet it must be confessed that the first Law or Covenant of Works as fortisied with its Promissory Sanction is repeated both in the Old and New Testament where the Scripture saith to Sinful Man Do this and live Levit. 18.5 Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 But we must know that this was Occonomical and Gods design in it was not to oblige any sinful Man to seek or expect Life by his doing the Works of the first Law and Covenant which Promised Life to Man only on condition that he so kept it as never to sin at all nor by Sin to break it But then you will say What was Gods design in it I answer That so far as the Lord hath given me light to see into this matter his design seems to have been 1. By setting before us the form of the First Covenant of Works to recal to our minds what Man once was and what he should still have been That once he was without all Sin and able to have continued so and to have lived for ever by keeping Covenant with God 2. To convince us that now we are all in our Natural State Dead Men by that very Law and Covenant which would have secured Life to us if we had perfectly kept it but now brings us all under the guilt of Death Temporal and Eternal Death because we have broken it 3. To stir us up to confess our Sin and Misery and to put us upon searching Whether God hath in Mercy provided any remedy against our Sin and Misery 4. To make us willing to receive and use the Remedy as soon as God discovers it to us In a word to make us despair of ever obtaining Life by the Works of that Law which condemns us to death for our sins and to make us flee for Refuge unto Christ our Help and Hope as God offers him to us in the New Covenant or Law of Grace 2dly It is to be observed That as soon as any Man takes this course assoon as any Man takes hold of the New Covenant of Grace and heartily and sincerely by Faith closes with and receives Christ and his Righteousness as offered and held forth in the said New Covenant he is instantly acquitted from the guilt of Death he was under for breaking the Law and hath a Right to Life given him only on the account of the Lord Redeemer Christ and his Satisfactory Meritorious Righteousness received and applyed by Faith alone And so he is justifyed by Faith without Works For though Faith in Christ the Mediator be in it self a Heart-work yet it is not the Works of the Law it is not any of those Works which the First Covenant or Law of Works did require to Justification It is neither a Work which the Natural Moral Law by it self immediately required nor yet is it a Work in the Sense of the Law of Works for Works in the sense of that Law and Covenant they signifie that Obedience to the Law whereby a Man in his own person fulsills the Righteousness of the Law and that for which a Man is justified But Faith is not a Work in that Sense for as much as it is no part at all of that Obedience which sulfills the Law and for which a penitent Believer is justified It is only Christs Obedience unto Death even the Death of the Cross for which Believers are justified and Faith is no part of it but is the only instrumental means or receptive applicative condition whereby we come to have interest in it and to be justified by and for it alone 3. It is to be observed that though upon our first taking hold of Gods New Covenant and Law of Grace by Faith we are for Christs sake alone instantly acquitted from the guilt of Death and receive a right to Life yet God hath made it one of the Articles of the new Covenant that according to our time and talents we must afterwards yield sincere Obedience to his several Laws and Institutions both Moral Natural and Positive before we be admitted to full possession of Eternal Life in Heavenly Glory God doth not require this sincere Obedience in order to our being first justified but in order to our being at last glorified And he requires it as a necessary condition to qualifie and prepare us for the full possession of that Heavenly Glory which Christ hath purchased for us and God for Christs sake gives unto us Hence 4. It is to be observed That thus the Moral Natural Law it self comes to be in the hand of Christ the Mediatour of the new Covenant or Law of Grace and to belong to the Gospel so far as that sincere Obedience to it together with all Gods positive Laws and Institutions is made an Article of the Gospel Covenant and a condition necessary to be performed by us before we enjoy the ultimate benefit promised in the said Covenant 5. It is to be observed That we must distinguish carefully betwixt what the Moral Law as to the matter of its Precepts requires of Believers and what it requires as coming under a new ferm that is plainly as cloathed with a new sanction to wit the sanction of the new Covenant In the first sense the Moral Law as to the matter of its Precepts doth still require of all even of Believers a perfect ever sinless Obedience de futuro but there is this vast difference between the case of Believers and Unbelievers that though for every the least disobedience it condemn the Unbeliever yet doth it not nor can it condemn the true penirent Believer who walks not after the Flesh but the Spirit because the Apostle saith There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit Rom. 8.1 such are not under the Law not under its condemmng power but under Grace Rom. 6.14 In the second sense the Moral Law formally considered as cloathed with the new Covenant form that is with the sanction of the new Covenant so it requires not of true penitent Believers an ever sinless and most perfect personal perpetual Obedience as a means or condition necessary to qualifie and prepare them for the possession of Eternal Glory but it requires of them or God by it as taken into the Gospel requires of them only sincere Evangelical Obedience perseverance in true Faith and sincere Holiness under that formal consideration as a means or condition necessary to the end aforesaid
we have an account how God made a Covenant with the People of Israel in the Wilderness after they had received the Law of the Ten Commandments from the Lord appearing to them in terrible Majesty on Mount Sinai and pronouncing it with audible voice in the presence of Six Hundred Thousand People In that 24th of Exodus we read that when Moses had received from the Lord the other Laws to wit the Ceremonial and Judicial 1. He wrote them in a Book God himself with his own hand by his own immediate power wrote the Law of the Ten Commandments on Two Tables of Stone but for the other Laws Moses wrote them in a Book ver 4. compared with Heb. 9.19 2. He builded an Altar and Twelve Pillars the Altar seems to have been a symbol of God in Christ as one party in the Covenant and the Twelve Pillars represented the Twelve Tribes of Israel as the other party ver 4. so that here were the outward Signs and Symbols of a Covenant between God and the people of Israel 3. He ordered certain persons supposed to be the first-born to offer Sacrifices unto the Lord ver 3. 4. He divided the Blood of the sacrificed Beasts into two equal parts and mixed it with a little Water as appears from Heb. 9.19 whereby Christ was fitly represented who came by Water and Blood 1 John 5.6 and then having put it in Basons he sprinkled one half of it on the Altar ver 6. to signifie that God was appeased and atoned by this Blood of the Sacriâces as it represented the Blood of Christ or his Bloody Sacrifice and also that Christ was to be sanctitied with his own Blood and consecrated to the continual exercise of his Eternal Priesthood in the holy place above Heb. 9.12 5. He took the Book of the Covenant in which were written the Duties of the Covenant to wit in the Words and Laws of God mentioned before ver 4. and read it in the audience of the people whereunto they consented and signifyed their consent by saying All that the Lord hath said will we do and be obedient ver 7. Sixthly He took the other half of the Blood and sprinkled it on the People to signifie the Ratification of the Covenant on their parts with the application of the Vertue of Christ's Blood to their Consciences and their obtaining Redemption Justification Access unto and acceptance with God through it alone Seventhly Whilst he sprinkled the Blood upon the People he said Behold the Blood of the Covenant i e. whereby the Covenant is confirmed which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words ver 8. compared with Heb. 9. ver 20. From the Premisses we learn Two things 1. That this was a Type and Figure of the Covenant of Grace Confirmed and Ratified by the Blood of Christ It was a Type and Figure of the New Covenant in its Gospel-Form of Administration for this Covenant was Ratified and Confirmed by the Blood of the Sacrifices as Representative and Typical of the Blood of Christ and of the New Testament in his Blood So the Apostle instructs us in Heb. 9. ver 18 19 20 c. 2. That this Typical Figurative Covenant had Precepts which required Duties of God's People For Moses took the Book of the Covenant and read the Precepts to the People Exod. 24.7 compared with Heb. 9.19 And when they had heard there read they answered and said All that the Lord hath said will we do and be Obedient Exod. 24.7 Moses as God's Minister in God's Name told them by reading the Precepts to them what God required of them by this Covenant they on the other part by their Answer expressed their consent and promised to be Obedient Whether they were all Spiritually sincere or not and I think they were not yet they were then Serious and Morally sincere and in so far as they were such they did nothing but what was their Duty in giving their foresaid Consent and what Moses acting as God's Minister who did not know their hearts approved of and thereupon Ratified and Sealed the Covenant between God and them Now hence I think we have a plain Proof that the New Covenant the Covenant of Grace or Gospel hath Precepts which require Duties For if the Typical Figurative Covenant had Precepts and required Duties then the New Covenant in its Gospel-Form of Administration which was Typifyed and Figured by it hath likewise Precepts and requires Duties For a Covenant that hath Precepts and requires Duties doth not at all seem proper to Typify and Figure a Covenant that hath no Precept and requires no Duty If my R. B. venture to deny that the foresaid Covenant at Horeb did Typifie the New Covenant in its Gospel Form of Administration he will find that he hath the Apostle against him and also that he hath our own Confession of Faith Chap. 7. Art 5 6. and the Reformed Divines generally against him Even the Marrow of Modern Divinity a Book so much commended by Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Caryl c and so much esteemed by his good Friends will be against him as he may see if he turn to the 54 55 56 c. pages of that Book The Third Divine Testimony to prove that the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace requires some Duties of us is to be seen in Deut. 29. and 30. Chap. That the Covenant renewed with all Israel Old and Young Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14. is really the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Covenant of Grace in its Legal Form of Administration appears from hence that it 's said to be a Covenant which God made with them that they should be his People and that he would be their God as he had said and sworn unto Abraham Isaac and Jacob. But it was the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham and confirmed with an Oath That he would be the God of Abraham and his Seed and that they should be his People This same Covenant in Type and Figure as was shewed before Moses had engaged the People of Israel into at Horeb but they had broken it during their sojourning in the Wilderness Therefore by the Lords special Command he renewed it with them again in the Land of Moab It is indeed said Deut. 29.1 to be made with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant made with them in Horeb. But the Learned and Pious Rutherford shews the Reason of that expression Rutherford 's Covenant of Life opened Part 1. Chap. 11. p. 60 is 1. Because it was renewed again after their breach of it 3. Because there was some additions of Special Blessings Cursings and Ceremonial Commands that were not in the formerly proposed Covenant yet it was the same in substance c. And as Pool in his Annotations on the place observes the meaning of the words Covenant made with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab is That the Covenant was there renewed with them as
to love Mercy and to walk humbly with thy God And now let us hear what Mr. Danson saith upon this Danson's Synopsis of Quakerisme p. 49. His Words are these Because God designs to take away glorying in Justification Faith in God through the Messias is called a walking humbly with God Micah 6.8 That it does relate to the Law of Faith and but only by consequence if at all not directly to the Law of Providence or submission to afflictions I am induced to believe upon these two grounds 1. Because otherwise God returns no Answer which he seems plainly to design to the Query what the Lord will be pleased with or what satisfaction shall be given him for Israels Sin which is the Sum of the Questions ver 7. Will the Lord be pleased c. But understanding it thus there is a plain Answer viz. I do not expect any Righteousness of thy Gift but of thy Acceptance or thus I shall not be pleased with any Righteousness which thou bringest unless it be what I have first bestowed on thee by Faith 2. The Pride of Mans Heart makes him as loath to accept of a Righteousness freely offered him as to accept of the Punishment of his Iniquity justly inflicted It makes him as loath to part with the Priviledges he had in the Old Covenant as he that hath set up for himself sometime is to turn an Apprentice And therefore it is as true an Act of Humility to accept of Gods Righteousness as of Chastisements for Sin Thus he In which words he plainly acknowledges and endeavours to prove that the Prophet Micah preached not the Law of Works but the Gospel of Grace to the Israelites who desired to be informed by what means they might obtain God's favour And particularly this is the Voice of the Gospel and Law of Faith The Lord requires thee to walk humbly with thy God And surely that is a Precept requiring a Duty if ever there was a Precept in the World Now if one part of the Prophets answer be the Gospel of Grace who that is afraid to wrest God's word to his own destruction dare say the other part of it is the Law of Works Since the whole answer to the Question is short and both parts of it pronounced with one breath By what certain mark may we know which part is Law and which is Gospel if both be not Gospel Nay if one part of the Answer direct them to the Law of Works and Old Covenant of Works that by complying with its Terms they may find Grace and Favour with God Doth not the Prophet seem to seduce them from the only righâ way and means of obtaining God's Grace and Favour to wit by Faith in the Messias his Righteousness and to teach them to trust in and not part with the Priviledges they had in the Old Covenant of Works and to seek Peace and Reconciliation with God in part at least by their own Works of Righteousness or by complying with the Terms of the Law of Works If the Prophets answer to their question What they should do to be Reconciled unto God Tell them that they must comply with the Terms both of the Law of Works and of the Gospel of Grace He doth in effect teach them to seek for Justification and Reconciliation both by the Old Legal and by the New Gospel-Covenant that is both by their own Righteousness and also by anothers Righteousness to wit Christ's And then who could well blame them if they took his Advice and followed his Direction which he gave them in the Name of the Lord For avoiding of this inconvenience I for my part do think that if part then the whole Answer of the Prophet in ver 8. was Gospel and that he did but tell them what the Lord required of them by the Gospel-Covenant to be done on their part that they might obtain Justification and Salvation to wit first though it be last mentioned that by Faith they should walk humbly with their God for obtaining Justification and Reconcilation 2. That from a Principle of Faith they should do justly and love Mercy that they might declare their Thankfulness to God for his Grace and Favour to them through Christ and also that they might be fitted qualified and prepared to receive more Grace even the Grace of Eternal Life and Salvation for the only Satisfactory Meritorious Righteousness and Sacrifice of the Messias Thus I have proved by Divine Testimony out of the Old Testament That the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace in its old way of Administration had Precepts belonging to it and required Duty of the Confederate People of God But it may be some will say That though that be true yet the case is altered and now the Gospel-Covenant in its Evangelical form of Administration hath not one Precept and requires no Duty at all My Answer is 1. That that cannot be for though the Gospel-Covenant hath changed and put off its accidental Form of Administration yet it retains still and can never change its Essential Form and that is that it requires Faith in Christ in order to Justification and sincere Obedience to all God's Commandments which are in force and not Abrogated in order to Glorification and Consummate Salvation 2 I Answer That it 's Clear as the Light from the New Testament That the Gospel or Covenant of Grace now at this day hath Precepts and requires Duty of Christians which is the thing that I am next to prove by Divine Testimony taken out of the Scriptures of the New Testament And I begin with Matth. 11. v. 28 29.30 Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest Testimonies out the New Testament Take my Yoke upon you and learn of me for I am meek and lowly in heart and ye shall find rest unto your Souls For my Yoke easie and my Burden is light In which words there is not only a Command that all Distressed Souls believe and by Faith come unto Christ the Son unto whom the Father hath delivered all things and an Encouraging Promise of Rest to all that come to all that sincerely believe in Christ But 2. There is a Command laid upon Believers to take upon them Christ's Yoke and to learn Meekness and Humility of him and what else is the meaning of that but that the Lord will have Believers to obey his Precepts and imitate his Example By Christ's Yoke and Burden cannot be meant any thing but what includes his Precepts and Commandments Now Christ's Precepts which are called his Yoke and his Burden cannot possibly be the Precepts of the Law and Covenant of Works as such that is Precepts requiring Perpetual Personal Sinless Obedience as the Indispensable Means and Condition of Life and Happyness For 1. Christ here speaks not simply as God but as the Son of God Incarnate and as the Mediator between God and Men the Mediator of the New Covenant and as such
under that formal Consideration he lays upon no Man the Yoke and Burden of Personal Perpetual Sinless Obedience to the Precepts of the Old Law and Covenant of Works as the indispensably necessary Means and Condition of Life and Happyness 2 The Yoke and Burden of Personal perpetually Sinless Obedience to the Law of Works as the Condition of Life is so far from being Light and Easie that ever since the Fall of Man it hath been intollerably heavy and impossible to be born by any of the ordinary Sons of Adam by any meer Man 3. Christ here promises to all that come unto him and take his Easie Yoke and Light Burden upon them that he will give them Rest even Rest to their Souls which promise amongst other things which it singifies doubtless implyes That he will give their Souls Rest and Ease from the most heavy galling Yoke and insupportable Burden of Personal and ever-sinless Obedience to the Precepts of the Law of Works as the Condition of Life Christ here promises unto Believers Rest and Ease from the Condemning Power and Rigorous Exaction of the Law of Works and therefore he speaks not here of that Foederal Law and its Precepts as such but of the Gospel and its Precepts His Easie Yoke and Light Burden are the Precepts of the Gospel-Covenant that is the Precepts of the Moral Law as stript of their Old Covenant Legal Form and taken into the Gospel or New Covenant and cloathed with its New Gospel Form the Precepts of the Moral Law thus Evangelized together with the few positive Institutions and Ordinances of the Gospel are Christ's Yoke and Burden and a light Burden and easie Yoke they certainly are to True Believers and sincere Lovers of the Lord Jesus They are so light and easie through Grace that the Saints love them and delight in them As David said Psal 119.35 make me to go in the Path of thy Commandments for therein do I delight And ver 47. I will deligh my self in thy Commandments which I have loved The Gospel then hath Precepts and Christ by the Gospel-Covenant Commands Believers to take upon them his Easie Yoke and Light Burden and to all that do so he promises Rest even Rest to their Souls When Salvian of old had quoted this Text he immediately subjoyned these words (b) Non ergo nos ad laborem vocat Dominus sed ad refectionem quid namque a nobis exigit quid praestari sibâ a nobis jubet nisi solam tantummodo fidem castitatem humilitatem sobrietatem misericordiam Sanctitatem quae utique omnia non onerant nos sed ornant Nec solùm hoc sed adeo vitam praesentem ornant ut fuâuram plus ornare possint O bonum O pium O Inestimabilis Misericordiae Dominum âqui ad hoc nobis in praesenti Religionis munera tribuit ut ipsa in nobis postea quae nunc dat munera muneretur Salvian de Gubern Dei lib. 7. p. 234 235. Edit Oxon. 1633. The Lord then doth not call us to labour but to Refreshment for what doth he require of us what doth be Command to be done unto him or for him but only Faith alone Chastity Humility Sobriety Mercy Sanctity All which do not burden but beautifie and adorn us And not only that but they so much adorn the present Life that they may the more Adorn the Life to come O how good is the Lord how gracious how incstemably merciful Who to this end now in this present Life gives unto us the gifts of Religion that hereafter in the Life to come he may reward in us these very gifts which now he confers upon us Thus that Ancient Father Whereby it plainly appears that it was his Judgment that this Scripture speaks of the Precepts of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace and not of the Precepts of the Law or Covenant of Works as such And the Assemblies Annotations on Matth. 11.29 Take my Yoke upon you obeying my Commandments And on ver 30. my Yoke is easie that which I command you is good for you and easie In like manner the Dutch Annotations on Matth. 11.29 Take my Yoke upon you that is My Doctrine consisting as well in Commands as Promises See them on ver 30. where they say that Christ's Burden is Light because Christ makes it Light Rom. 8.26 1 John 5.3 4. and that it is said to be Light in opposition to the Importable Yoke of the Law Acts. 15.10 c. And our last English Annotations on Matth. 11.29 Take my Yoke upon you Our Lord by this Precept lets us know there can be no True Faith without Obedience to the Commands of Christ And the rest in the Text is not promised to either of them severally but to both joyntly A Second Testimony to prove this is that of our Saviour John 13.17 If ye know these things happy are ye if you do them In which words Christ Preached not the Law of Works but the Gospel of Grace to his Disciples For the Promise of Happyness is not made to Believers and sinful Mens doing the Law of Works but to their Evangelical Obedience unto the Precepts of the Gospel or New Covenant For 1. Consider Christ here speaks to sinful Men though Believers 2. He requires of them the doing of those things which he had taught them by his own Example As Love Humility Mutual Serviceableness For here is a Conditional Promise and in every Conditional Promise of God to Men there is implyed a Precept to perform the Condition 3. He promises them Happiness if they do these things although they were not without all Sin which shews plainly that it is not a Legal but a Gospel Promise It is a Gospel-Promise implying a Precept that requires Duty and expresly signifying the Lord's Will to give the Reward of happiness to them who perform the Duty The like Promise we have before in John 8.51 Verily verily I say unto you if a Man keep my saying He shall never see Death This is not a Legal Promise like that of the First Covenant of Works Repeated Occonemocally after the fall If thou keep the Law thou shalt live But it is a Gospel Promise which being Conditional doth plainly imply a Precept requiring the Condition and Duty of keeping Christ's saying upon which it is expresly promised that a Man shall never see Death that is shall never be punished with Eternal Death Indeed the Conditional Form of Words in which the Old Covenant of Works is repeated and proposed to Sinful Men after the Fall being Oeconomical in the Sense before explained it doth not imply a Precept of God intentionally obliging Men now to have no Sin at all as the Duty and Condition of that Covenant for they were Sinners already before that repetition of the form of the Old Covenant and what hath been implyes now a contradiction not to have been and the Infinitely Wise Just and Good God never Commands any Man to do a thing which
or the doctrine of Grace that is the Gospel 2. What is this Grace this Doctrine of Grace of Gospel said to do And that the express words of the 12 verse tell us plainly to be this that it teacheth us That dânying ungodliness and worldly lucts we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present World Now if the Gospel teach us that we should live soberly righteously and godly then it hath some Precept which makes it our Duty so to live For to teach us that we should live soberly righteously and godly is plainly to lay an obligation on our Conscience and to make it our Duty so to live especially considering that this Gospel is the Gospel of God and it is God who is infinitely superiour to us and hath a soveraign authority over us who by the Gospel teacheth us that we should live soberly righteously and godly Gods teaching us that we should do a thing certainly obliges to do it and therefore Gods teaching us by the Gospel that we should live soberly righteously and godly obliges us by the Gospel so to live and consequently the Gospel hath some Precept whereby God obligeth us to live soberly righteously and godly in this present World Thus the Learned Divines who were Authorized by their Superiours in Holland to write the Dutch Annotations on the Bible understood this Scripture as appears from their Annotation on Tit. 1.1 The truth which is according to godliness That is which is such that it must not only be known but also by exercising of true Godliness be put in practice and which prescribes and requires true Godliness and stirs up and brings men thereunto 1 Tim 6 3. compared with Annotation on Tit. 2.11 The grace of God which bringeth salvation that is say they The Doctrine of the Grace of god shewn us by Christ and contained in the Gospel And then in their Annotation on the 12th Verse they tell us That the said Doctrine of Grace instructeth us that we should live soberly in respect of our selves and justly in respect of our Neighbour and godly in respect of God And if any yet doubt whether those Learned Annotators held that the Gospel hath Precepts obliging us to Duty let such read their Annotation on Rom. 10.6 where they expresly mention the Command of Faith as a Command of the Gospel contradistinguished from the Commands of the Law And again a little after they say If Moses said this of the Commandments of the Law much more may the same be said of the Promises and Commands of the Gospel which are not only easie to be understood as the Law is but also are easie to observe by the power of Gods Spirit c. See also the last called Pools Annotations on Tit. 2.11 12. where they tell us That by the Grace of God which brings Salvation is meant the Gospel of our Lord Jesus and that where it cometh it directs all Men their Duties in their several stations and teaches us that we should live with respect to our selves in a just government of our Affections and Passions and with respect to others giving to every one their due and with respect to God piously discharging the Duties and paying the homage we owe unto him so long as we live in this World where we have Temptations to the contrary Now if the Gospel as it is a Doctrine of Grace direct us to our several Duties and teach us that we should live as aforesaid then undoubtedly it hath Precepts as well as Promises for without some Precepts it cannot direct our Duties and teach us that we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present World I hope the R. Brother with whom I have to do will not flee to the Popish distinction between Precepts and Counsels and then say that the Gospel teacheth us that we should live as is said not by Precept but by Counsel For he hath himself stopt that passage into the Popish Camp by what he hath published to the World in his Sermon on the Death of the Late Queen where he thus writes The greatness of God gives Authority to his Counsel Mr. Goodwins Sermon on the Death of the Queen pa. 7 8. We readily hearken to those who are above us and every word which they speak carries a weight in it and is forcibly impressed on our minds If a Friend adviseth us to what we apprehend may be an advantage we chearfully receive and follow his Counsel but the direction of a Superiour is a Command and adds the obligation of Duty to the consideration of our own benefit God then who is the greatest above all may very well guide all by his Counsel and it is not more a Duty than a Priviledge to observe the measures of his conduct Thus he And by this he hath left no room for the distinction between the Lords Advioe and Counsel on the one hand and his Precept and Command on the other So that if the Lords Gospel direct and teach us our Duty by Advice and Counsel it doth it also by Precept and Command since the Lords Advice and Counsel ought to be unto us a Precept and Command The Sixth and last Testimony out of the New Testament which I shall alledge to this purpose at present is in Rev. 14.6 7. where it is written I saw another Angel fly in the midst of Heaven having the Everlasting Gospel to preach unto them who dwell on the Earth saying with a loud voice fear God and give glory to him and worship him that made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and the Fountains of Waters This Scripture I quoted in the Apology on the Margent pag. 23. but the Answerer passed it over but for all that it stands still in the Bible as a Witness against those who say that the Gospel hath no Precept For it is evident from the words of the Text that the Moral Law the First Commandment of it and by consequence the other Commandments of the Moral Law are taken into the Gospel so as that sincere Evangelical Obedience to them is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace with respect to the obtaining possession of Salvation consummate in Heavenly Glory For the First Commandment of the Moral Law obliges us to fear God and give glory to him and to worship him who made the World if then this first Command be not taken into the Gospel-Covenant and sincere Obedience to it made one Article thereof none could preach the Everlasting Gospel to the Inhabitants of the Earth by saying Fear God and give glory to him and worship him that made the heavens and the earth c. But so it is that the Angel was represented in the Vision to John preaching the Everlasting Gospel and saying with a loud voice Fear God and give glory to him c. Therefore that Command to fear God and give glory to him c. is taken into the Gospel so as that sincere Obedience to
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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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-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
indisciplinatis condignam tradens Legem liberis autem side justificatis congruentia dans Praecepta Filiis adaperiens suam haereditatem Iren. advers haeres lib 4. c. 21. The Lord is the Master of the Family who rules all his Fathers house giving indeed to the Servants and those who are yet undisciplined a Law fit for them but to them who are free and justified by Faith he gives suitable Precepts and to the Children makes known their Inheritance Here Irenaeus distinguishes between the unconverted and the Law they are under on the one hand and the converted justified and adopted and the Precepts they are under on the other And gives to understand that the unconverted are yet under the Law of Works which rigorously exacts Duty and Service of them and condemns them for every Sin they commit but that the converted justified and adopted are not under the rigorous exaction and condemning power of the Law of Works but they are under the Law of Grace they are actually in a Covenant of Reconciliation with God which doth indeed prescribe Duty to them but not to be justified by and for their Duties of Obedience for they are justified by Faith in Christ but to be the way for them to walk in and the means to qualifie and prepare them for the possession of the Inheritance which by their Justification and Adoption they have a right unto and which in the way of holy Obedience to the Preceptive part of the Covenant he assures them of by the Promises of the Gospel That this is his meaning appears from his words aforesaid and from what follows in the same Chapter concerning the two Covenants Or his words may refer to the Jews and their Law on the one hand and to the Christians with their New Law of Grace on the other Again in another Chapter of the same Book he writes thus (f) Consummatae Vitae Praecepta in utroque Testamento cum sunt eadem eundem ostenderunt Deum qui particularia quidem Pracepta apta utrisque Proeceptis sed eminentiora summa sine quibus salvari non potest in utroque eadem suasit Iren. advers haereses lib. 4. cap. 22. Seeing the Precepts of a perfect Life are the same in both Testaments they show that the same God is the Author of both the Testaments who hath indeed prescribed particular Precepts suitable to both the Covenants but the more eminent and principal Precepts without which a Man cannot be saved are the same in both Testaments or Covenants Here are several things to be observed for understanding this passage of Irenaeus which though in the Translation which we have it be not elegantly expressed yet it bears a good and useful sense 1. Then observe That according to Irenaeus the Precepts of the Moral Natural Law are common to both Covenants the Old and the New 2. That he calls the two Testaments or Covenants Precepts and therefore I translate particularia praecepta apta utrisque Praeceptis particular Precepts suitable to both the Covenants and to translate them otherwise would render them unintelligible Now there can be no Reason given why he calls the two Covenants Precepts but because they both have Precepts and require Duties 3. Observe that he sayes God prescribed particular Precepts suitable to both Covenants and these can be no other than Gods positive Laws which pertained to the Legal Administration of the Covenant and are now abrogated and the positive institutions of the Gospel which pertain to the Evangelical Administration of the Covenant and are now in force Observe 4. that according to him without the observance of the more eminent and principal Precepts that is the Precepts of Faith and Repentance and of the Moral Natural Law a Man cannot be saved ãâã Which is true of Men at age for according to their Time and Talents after their Conversion and Justification it is necessary that they perform sincere Obedience to the Moral Law in order to their obtaining possession of Eternal Salvation For without holiness no man shall see the Lord Heb. 12.14 Hence in another Chapter of the same Book he says (g) Non indigebat Deus dilectione Hominis deerat autem Homini Gloria Dei quam nullo modo poterat percipere nisi per eam obsequentiam quae est erga Deum Idem ibid. lib. 4. cap. 31. God needed not Mans love but Man wanted the Glory which is from God which he could no way attain unto but by that Obedience which is towards God He means that Man cannot obtain Eternal Glory in Heaven but by Obedience Evangelical not as the procuring meriting cause of Glory but only as the means to be used on our part and the condition to be performed by us to qualifie us for Glory to be given us according to promise freely for Christs sake and as a testimony of our gratitude to God in Christ for our Redemption and Salvation See lib. 3. c. 20. This is manifest from what he writes in the 28th Chapter of the same 4th Book and in the 47th Chapter where he says expresly that the (h) Mors Domini est Salvatio eorum qui credunt in eum Iren. lib. 4. cap. 47. Lords Death is the Salvation of those that believe in him and yet both there and elsewhere he maintains that we are obliged to observe the Precepts of Christ in the Gospel in order to our obtaining Life and Salvation Yea in the 27th Chapter of that Book he says that now under the Gospel Covenant (i) Necesse fuit superextendi decreta libertatis augeri subjectionem quae est ergâ regem ut non retrorsus quis renitens indignus appareat ei qui se liberaverit Iren. l. 4. c. 27. It was necessary that the Decrees or Statutes of Liberty i. e. which appertain to the Doctrine of Grace and Redemption should be superextended i. e. should be enlarged above what they were before and that the subjection which is to the King should be increased that Man by resisting and drawing baok may not be found unworthy of and unthankful to him who redeemed him In a word Irenaeus goes further in this matter of the Gospels having Precepts that require Duty than I am willing to follow him so certain it is that he held that the Gospel hath Precepts which require Duties and that it is not a meer absolute promise or bare narrative that requires nothing of us at all I do not think that in Irenoeus time there can any be found that were of this absurd Opinion except the vile Gnosticks whose practice was very agreeable to such a Principle that the Gospel requires no Duty and for the Law it can do a Man no hurt if he be once a true Believer how loosely soever he live as Libertines think My third Witness is Cyprian who says (k) Vt de co ad vitalia Praecepta instrui possent discerent quae docerent per Orbem vsro
our purpose to transcribe here some things out of the Ninth Book of a Work of Theodoret which he Entitled Concerning the curing of the Affections and Prejudices of the Greeks or Heathens For thus that most Learned Bishop writes Those our Fishermen and Publicans and that our Tent-Maker brought the Gospel-Law into all Nations c. By this and more which he hath there to this purpose it is most evident that Bibliander there speaks of Christ not simply as God but as Mediatorial King and Judge and as such a King and Judge giving and executing Laws which could be no other but the Laws of the New Covenant or Gospel and so Theodoret calls them My Second Witness is the Famous and Learned Zach. Ursin's Sum of Christian Religion in English Printed at London An. 1645 pag. 2. ibid. pag. 126. ib. p. 125 127. Vrsinus mentioned before His words are The Law promiseth Life with Condition of perfect Obedience the Gospel promiseth the same Life on condition of our stedsast Faith in Christ and the inchoation or beginning of New Obedience unto God Again The Old and New Covenant i.e. the same Covenant of Grace in its Old and New manner of Administration agree in this that in both God requires of Men Faith and Obedience Walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17.1 And repent and believe the Gospel Mark 1.15 And again They differ 7. In their Bond or manner of Binding The Old Covenant bound them to the sincere Obedience of the whole Mosaical Law Moral Ceremonial and Civil The New bindeth us only to the Moral or Spiritual Law and to the use of the Sacraments And a little after he saith The New Testament or Covenant is for the most part taken for the Gespel This is one of the Resormed Divines whom Mr. Goodwin quotes against me But let any Man read and consider what I have quoted here out of Vrsin and what follows in pag. 131. of which I quoted some part before and I dare refer it to his own Conscience if he have any whether Vrsin be of that Opinion that the Gospel hath no Precepts but is a meer Absolute Promise or Narrative which requires no Duty of us at all Nay I appeal to the Conscience of my Brethren whether Vrsin was not so far from being of that Opinion that on the contrary he says it was the Opinion of the Flacian Sectaries which he zealously refutes as is manifest from what I cited out of him before and from what he says more ibid. p. 131. in the same place My Third Witness is Polanus who writes thus (u) Foedus gratiae est in quo Deus nobis promittit se fore Deum nostrum gratis propter Christum Nos vero vicissim obligati sumus ut Dei popul ãâã 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-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 âedus inter oleam vitem Non solum incolumis manet vitis si inseratur oleae sed etiam novas ãâã accipir tum uvas tum olivas gignit seu uvas pariter uvarum olivarum japore âreferenâes Imago illustris est Oleae id est Evangelio insita Legis doctrina fit mitior Sic enin demum âchoatur obedientia placet Deo cum Evangelio insita est Phil. Melanct. in orat de sympath âom 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
thee for ever And as for thee do thou walk before me and be thou perfect or sincere And these are the Conditions of the Covenant or Agreement By this also we see that above 100 years ago our Doctrine was maintained by the Reformed in Switzerland to wit That the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts which prescribe to us Conditions and require Duties of us Now what shall one think or say of those men who in Print boldly contradict this plain matter of Fact and some of them are not ashamed to say that Christ hath helped them to write such falshoods I am almost weary in transcribing Testimonies against such unchristian asserting of Falshoods in matter of Fact and therefore lest I should quite tire both my self and the Reader I will bring but a few more tho I could bring very many My 6th Witness then shall be that holy and faithful Minister of Christ Mr. Shephard of New England whose words are â Mr. Shephard's Theses Sabbaticae Thes 110. pag. 78. edit Lond. 1649. The Gospel under which believers now are requires no doing say they for doing is proper to the Law the Law promiseth life and requireth conditions but the Gospel say they promiseth to work the condition but requires none and therefore a believer is now wholly free from all Law But says Mr. Shephard the Gospel and Law are taken two ways 1. Largely the Law for the whole Doctrine contained in the Old Testament and the Gospel for the whole Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles contained in the New Testament 2. Strictly the Law pro lege Operum as Chamier distinguisheth and the Gospel pro lege fidei i.e. For the Law of Faith The Law of works strictly taken is that Law which reveals the Favour of God and Eternal Life upon condition of doing or of perfect Obedience The Law of Faith strictly taken is that Doctrine which reveals remission of sins and reconciliation with God by Christ's Righteousness only apprehended by Faith Now the Gospel in this latter Sense excludes all works and requires no doing in point of Justification and Remission of sins before God but only believing But take the Gospel largely for the whole Doctrine of Gods Love and Free Grace and so the Gospel requires doing for as it is an Act of God's free Grace to justifie a man without calling for any works thereunto so it is an Act of the same free grace to require works of a person justified and that such poor sinners should stand before the Son of God on his Throne to minister unto him and serve him in righteousness and holiness all the days of our lives Tit. 2 14. And for any to think that the Gospel requires no conditions is a sudden Dream against hundreds of Scriptures which contain conditional yet Evangelical Promises and against the Judgment of the most Judicious of our Divines c. Thus Mr. Shephard where it is observable 1. That according to him the Gospel even strictly taken as it respects Justification only requires the Duty and Condition of believing And therein I agree with him that it requires Faith and only Faith as that whereby we apprehend Christ's Righteousness for to do that is the Office of Faith alone and of no other Grace or Duty 2. It is observable that according to him the Gospel taken largely not for all the books of the New Testament but for the whole Doctrine of God's Love and free Grace so it requires doing of Justified Persons and it requires not only the Duty of believing but it also requires that we serve God in righteousness and holiness all the days of our lives This is plain and so plain that I hope no honest man who fears God and loves truth will ever dare to deny it For my own part I must profess to the world that I am perswaded it is my Duty to lose my life rather than impudently deny so plain a matter of Fact 3. It is to be observed that tho Mr. Shephard do not here mention Repentance in order to remission of sins yet afterwards in p. 94. of the same book he doth expresly mention it as well as Faith tho it have not the same use and office which Faith hath in Justification His words are Is not this preaching of the Gospel the iustrument and means of working that Faith in us which the Lord requires of us in the Gospel And must not Jesus Christ use the means for the end were not those 3000 brought unto Chrïst by Faith by Peter 's promise of remission of sins upon their Repentance Were not many filled with the Holy-Ghost when they heard this Gospel thus preached upon condition of believing Acts 10.43 c. This was written against one W.C. Whether the Spirit of that person hath possessed any others in our day I will not say let them who are concerned look to that This Testimony of Mr. Shephard I conclude with what he says in p. 79. As do and live hath been accounted good Law or the Covenant of Works so believe and live hath been in former times accounted good Gospel or the Covenant of Grace until now of late this wild Age hath found out new Gospels that Paul and the Apostles did never dream of Now observe here that in this believe and live which Mr. Shephard says in former times used to be accounted good Gospel there is 1. A Precept Believe for it is a Verb of the Imperative Mood which commands and requires the Duty of believing 2. There is a Promise to those who obey the Precept and perform the Duty through Grace That through Christ they shall live But Mr. Goodwin will have the Gospel to be an Absolute Promise without any Precept at all Therefore this is no good Gospel in his Account Whether then he be one of those who have found a New Gospel that Paul and the Apostles did never dteam of let him look to that I hope if he see his mistake he will rectisie it Nullus pudor ad meliora transire My 7th Witness is the Edinburgh Catechism published for the use of the Colledg and Schools in that City in the year 1627. In the Section concerning Christ's Office the words of the Catechism are these * Q. In quem finem constitutus est Rex R. Ut ferret nobis Legem Regiam fidei vitae regulam Jac. 2.8 4.12 Rom. 3 27. Mat. 28.20 ut corda nostra in Legis suae obsequium flecteret Heb. 10.16 Act. 16.14 c. Method Relig. Chrift Catechet in usum Academ Jac. Regis Schol. Edinburgensium a Joanne Adamsono Acad. moderatore primario Edinb A. 1627. For what end was Christ made a King Ans That he might enact a Royal Law for us to be the Rule of our Faith and Life Jam. 2.8 and 4.12 Rom. 3.27 Mat. 28.20 that he might bow and incline our hearts to observe his Law Heb. 10.16 Acts 16.14 that he might invincibly protect and defend us Deut. 33.29 Ps 119.114
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-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-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
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
obtain pardon of the sinful Defects of our Justifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance if Christ did not so believe and repent for us I answer very easily That we obtain pardon of the sinful Defects of our Faith and Repentance in consideration of Christs meritorious and satisfactory Obedience unto death even the death of the Cross His 5th Objection is ibid. p. 44. That the Moral Law by its first Precept commands us to believe in God but Christ is God This Argument he seems to lay great stress on and yet it may be easily answered For making this appear we must distinguish between what the first Precept of the Moral Law by it self immediately commands us to do and what it commands us to do only by vertue of a supernatural Revelation intervening and by means of a positive Gospel-Precept superadded to the Law of Nature This Distinction applied clears the Matter and answers the Argument Thus The first Precept of the Moral Law by it self immediately commands us to believe in God only The major Proposition in this sense is true but then the minor Proposition is false It is false That Christ is God only For he is not only God but Man also He is God-Man and Mediator between God and Men 1 Tim. 2.5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus And then the Conclusion is false taken as it ought to be in the same sense in which the Major proposition is true It is false that the first Precept of the Moral Law by it self immediately without the Intervention of a Supernatural Revelation and the superadition of a positive Gospel precept Commands us to believe in Christ the Mediator for Justification by his Righteousness imputed to us It is one thing to believe in God considered simply as God and only God and it is another thing to believe in Christ for Justification considered not simply as God or only as God but considered as God-Man and Mediator between God and Men. The first Command by it self immediately requires faith in God simply considered as God and only God and Christ being really and truly God I have granted and do grant that the first Commandment by it self immediately doth require faith in him considered only as God which yet is not a Justifying faith as such But then Christ being not only God but Man also he being God-Man and Mediator between God and Men I deny that the first Commandment by it self immediately requires faith in him as such i. e. as God-Man for Justification and I affirm that its only mediately that it requires Justifying faith in him as God-Man So that as I have often said it is the supernatural Revelation with the positive precept of the Gospel-Covenant that immediately and first in order of nature obliges us to believe with a Justifying faith in Christ God-Man and Mediator between God and Men. According to that Exod. 23.20 21. Behold I send an Angel before thee to keep thee in the way and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared Beware of him and obey his voice provoâe him not for he will not pardon your transgressions for my Name is in him See Deut. 18.15.18 19. and Mat. 17.5 Behold a voice out of the Cloud which said This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him In these Scriptures we have both a supernatural Revelation of the Eternal word and Son of God Designed to be Mediator and Actually mediating between God and Men and also a positive Gospel precept to believe in him and it is by means of the said Supernatural revelation and positive precept that the first Commandment of the Moral natural Law obliges us to believe in Christ the Mediator with a Justifying faith And the granting that the Moral Law doth thus require faith in Christ the Mediator in as much as it obliges us to believe all supernatural Revelations which God makes known unto us and to obey all positive Commands which he at any time lays upon us is so far from making against the Gospels having any positive precepts belonging to it that on the contrary it plainly makes for the Gospels having such precepts since it is by means of such precepts or precept that the Moral natural Law doth oblige Men to believe in Christ with a Justifying faith And the same I have said and do still say of Evangelical Repentance as a means of qualifying and disposing Sinners for obtaining the pardon of their sins by Faith in Christ And here I may stop and need not to go one step further in answering what he further Writes in his Seventh Chapter to prove that the Moral Natural Law commands Faith and Repentance for what I have said already doth sufficiently answer whatever in it doth really militate against me Most of it is altogether impertinent as where he strenuously proves what is not denyed but was plainly owned and asserted in the Apology that the Moral Natural Law requires Faith in God and a legal Repentance of all the sinful Race of Mankind that have the use of their Reason and can discern between Good and Evil The rest of it contains a meer non sequitur and is nothing but a drawing of consequences violently against the hair as that because the Moral Natural Law of it self requires a Legal Faith and trust in God and a Legal Repentance for Sin therefore it so requires a Justifying Faith in Christ the Mediator and an Evangelical Repentance for pardon of sin which doth not at all follow as I have shewed and proved at large and have no obligation on me to do it over again I am sensible that my following him to lay open his Impertinences and Inconsequent Reasonings hath already necessitated me to repeat too often the same things I must therefore restrain my self from pursuing him any further as I have done and endeavour to come unto a speedy close of what is necessary to be said on this Head concerning the Precepts that belong to the Gospel or Covenant of Grace And in order to this there is no more needful to be done but that 1. I desire the Reader carefully to attend unto a few things which will be useful to preserve him from being imposed upon 2. That I put my R. B. in mind of some of his Mistakes First then I desire the Reader that he may not be imposed upon to attend carefully to these few things 1. Whereas Mr. G. perpetually Talks of a New Law and industriously labours to make People believe that I hold the Gospel to be a New Law of Duties by and for which we are to be Justified and Saved I declare that this is a gross mistake to say no worse of it for I do not say that the Gospel is simply a New Law but with this mollifying restriction that it is a Law of Grace or a New Law of Grace So I say often in the Apology And the reason of my saying so
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
the same Christ being God and all the difference is only made by that which is the Circumstance tho a deplorable one of our own persons This is another great mistake for the object of faith in God before the fall is not altogether the same with the object of Justifying faith in Christ the Mediator since the fall And the object not being the same the Act of faith is not the same but is different in proportion to the difference of the object Moreover as the objective cause so the efficient cause is different for the Medicinal Grace of Christ which is the efficient cause of Justifying faith since the fall is of a different nature from that Grace of God as the Author of innocent nature thereby Man was enabled to believe in God before the * See Rutherford's Covenant of Life opened p. 49. lin 16 17. fall And seeing Justifying faith in Christ since the fall hath both a different efficient cause and a different object together with a different habitude unto its object it seems to be specifically distinct from the faith which Adam had in God before the fall For the different specification of Acts ariseth from the difference of the efficient cause and object of the said Acts and from the different way of their being conversant about their respective Objects It is not a meer different Circumstance of our Case since the Fall that causeth the difference of our Justifying Faith now from the Faith of Adam then before the Fall But it is 1. The Difference of the Efficient Cause or of that spiritual influence of Grace which causeth our Justifying Faith in Christ the Redeemer 2. It is the difference of the Object which is not now God formally and simply considered as God the Creator and Preserver and Ruler of innocent Nature but nextly and immediately it is Christ considered as God-Man and Mediator between God and Men and ultimatly it is God Justifying penitent believers by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ 3. It is the difference of our Faith its Habitude and Relation from such a different Cause to such a different Object These Three differences are sufficient to make a different faith but it doth by no Logick follow from hence that every difference of Circumstance in the same state of lapsed Nature since the first Apostacy would make our Faith in Christ to be of a different Nature and Kind Now our Justifying Faith being thus different from the Faith of Adam before the Fall it may very well and it really doth fall under a different positive Precept such as that Acts 16.31 And yet I never denied but that the first Commandment of the moral natural Law doth also require this Faith but it doth not require it after the same manner as the positive Precept of the Gospel requires it 4. Fourthly Whereas from page 48 to 54. he endeavours to prove That because the natural Moral Law obliges all men to a natural Legal Repentance therefore it doth also of it self immediately oblige them to an Evangelical Repentance and that this it doth so as that there is no Positive Precept of the Gospel which requires of Christians and obliges them unto the said Evangelical Repentance In all his Discourse there he grosly mistakes in drawing his Consequence which doth not come naturally but is forcibly drawn against the clear Evidence of Scripture as I have proved before And therefore I utterly deny his Consequence and affirm on the contrary That over and besides the moral natural Law there are Evangelical Precepts belonging to the New Covenant or Law of Grace which requires of us an Evangelical Repentance considered under this formal Notion as arising from the perswasion of Gods Mercy in Christ to the truly penitent and as a means to prepare and dispose us for pardon and as having pardon ensured to it by Promise through Christ To such a Repentance thus considered the moral natural Law doth not by it self immediately oblige us and yet it was never denied by us but that mediately it doth oblige us to it in as much as it obliges us to obey the Positive Precepts of the Gospel which require such a Repentance of men to whom the Gospel is Preached 5. Fifthly Whereas he says in page 51. That the moral natural Law not only urgeth the unregenerate to Repentance but also moveth them to build their hopes of Life upon it That is a very gross and dangerous mistake For it is a great sin for unregenerate men or indeed any men whatsoever to build their hopes of life upon their Repentance surely then the holy Law of God doth not move them to it otherwise it should move them to sin which is false and borders upon Blasphemy The Truth is The Law of God doth not move men to any such Thing it rather moves sinners to despair of ever obtaining life by and for their Repentance or any thing they do or can do And since as Mr. G. says p. 51. The Gospel instructs us to put our whole and entire confidence in Christ and his Righteousness alone Where the Light of the Gospel iâ superadded to that of the Law there the Law is a School-Master to bring men to Christ and Objectively moves them not to seek nor hope for Justification and Salvation on the Account of any thing done by Themselves but rather to seek and hope for life and salvation only in Christ and on the alone account of his Righteousness and Death Thus I have refuted his first grand Assertion which he takes so much pains to prove in his Seventh Chapter That the Gospel hath no precepts and requires no obedience I have shew'd that it hath precepts and requires duty and obedience of all those unto whom it is Preached and have answered his objections against the truth revealed in the sacred Scriptures and believed by the faithful Orthodox Ministers and People of the Lord in all the Ages of the Church SECT IV. His second assertion is that the Gospel hath no threatnings This I have refuted before in my remarks on his sixth Chap. but as I said there I must make some further Animadversions on it here in its proper place For the clearing up of the truth in this matter consider then that the Gospel-Govenant hath some threatnings against the unbelievers and unregenerate to whom it is preached and other threatnings against regenerate believers First the Gospel-Covenant hath some threatnings against unregenerate unbelievers to whom the Gospel is Preached and the design and use of such threatnings is to bring Men off from their unbelief and to move them to believe in Christ and to give themselves up to him in Covenant that by him they may be saved both from the punishment threatned in the Law and Covenant of works and also from that further degree of punishment threatned in the Gospel against all that neglect and refuse to accept and make use of the Soveraign and saving remedy provided by God and offered in
the New Covenant or Law of Grace This I proved sufficiently before from John 3.18 19. and Mark 16.15 16. compared with Rom. 2.16 and John 12.48 To which Places may be added Mat. 11.21 22 23 24. and Mat. 21.43 44. and others Secondly The Gospel-Covenant hath Threatnings against Regenerate Believers That in case they should not persevere to the end in faith and holiness but should totally and finally fall away they should be most severely punished for their Apostacy For the clearing of this I will briefly do these Two Things 1. Show that there really are threatnings against regenerate believers in case they should Apostatize 2. That those threatnings belong to the Gospel And 1. That there are such threatnings appears from John 15.6 If a Man abide not in me he is cast forth as a branch and is withered and Men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned Here is a threatning against those who are in Christ that if they abide not in him they shall be burned The like conditional threatning we have against the believing Romans who were beloved of God and called to be Saints Rom. 8.13 If ye live after the flesh ye shall die but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live And Rom. 11. v. 20 21 22. Thou standest by faith be not high minded but fear For if God spared not the natural branches take heed lost he also spare not thee Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God Towards thee goodness If thou continue in his goodness Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off So we have recorded in the Scripture a most terrible threatning against the believing Hebrews if they should totally and finally Apostatize and that we might be sure that the threatning is not only against hypocritical Professors of the Christian Religion but that it is also against Regenerate Believers upon supposition of their Apostacy the Apostle Paul includes himself in the number of those against whom he denounceth the Threatning as it is written Heb. 10.26 27. If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledg of the Truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin but a certain fearful looking for of Judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries See also to this Purpose Heb. 10.38 of which we spake in the Apology p. 55. And take notice of what Mr. Dickson observes on Heb. 2.3 How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation The Apostle saith Dickson Joyneth himself with them in the Threatning And again on Heb. 12.25 much more shall not we escape if we turn away from him that speaketh from Heaven He Joyneth himself * Dickson 's Exposition of the Epistles in English edit Lond. 1659. Observations on Epistle to the Hebrews page 222.223 and 273. saith Mr. Dickson in the same danger with the People if he should turn away or refuse Then saith he Preachers should do well to lay the edg of their threatnings to their own Hearts and to Enroll themselves amongst the threatned c. From these places of Scripture and others that might be alledged to the same purpose it manifestly appears that there are threatnings against Regenerate Believers if they fall away Now in the second Place That the said Threatnings do not belong only to the Law of Works but that they are truly Threatnings that belong to the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace may thus appear Regenerate Believers are not under the Law Rom. 6.14 They are not under the Threatning Condemning Power of the Law of Works They are not only causally but actually Redeemed from the Law 's Curse Therefore the Threatnings wherewith they are conditionally Threatned are not Threatnings that belong to the Law of Works as such but they are Threatnings that belong to the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace under which Believers are I grant indeed That 1. True Regenerate Believers are not absolutely under those Threatnings and that they are not bound to believe that those Threatnings shall be Executed upon them Nay 2. on the contrary if they know themselves to be true Regenerate Believers and that none such shall ever totally and finally fall away from Christ I grant that they ought to believe that the said threatnings shall never be executed upon them Yet for all that it is evident by the Scriptures before mentioned that true regenerate believers are conditionally under the said threatnings and are bound to believe that they would be executed and fulfilled upon them if they should totally and finally fall away And our God in great wisdom and mercy hath thus ordered his Covenant that the belief of the foresaid conditional threatnings may be a means to preserve his own people from Apostacy and to make them persevere in faith and holiness to the end According to that Jerem. 32.40 I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me Compared with Rom. 11.20 21 22. And Heb. 4.1 and 12.28 29. And 1 Pet. 1.5 Who are kept by the Power of God through faith unto salvation Mr. G. doth or may know that this is no new singular opinion of mine that the Gospel hath its own threatnings for as I shewed in the Apology p. 27. the Learned Professors of Leyden were of the same Judgment before me And so was Mr. Rutherford as appears by what I quoted out of him there in p. 63. And Monsieur Turretin as was shewed there also in p. 103. Whereunto I now add other Testimonies as 1. The learned and diligent Pezelius writing against Flacius above an hundred years ago gave Testimony to this truth that the Gospel hath its own threatnings â Sunt Testimonia vocis Divinae nota piis omnibus quae ostendunt reâe dici quod Evangelium habeat comminationes severissimas utenim haec est Evangelii vox qui crediderit Baptizatus fuerit salvus erit sic antithesis mox addita similiter ad Evangelium pertinet qui non crediderit condemnabitur similes antitheses sunt in his dictis qui credit in filium habet vitam aeternam qui non credit filio non videbit vitam sed ira Dei manet super eum Item qui credit in Filium non Judicatur qui autem non credit jam Judicatus est Eas esse voces Evangelii propriissimas non dubium est tamen non solum sunt promissiones dulcissimae de gratia Dei de Justitia coram Deo de salute aeterna sed etiam comminationes sunt severissimae arguentes hoc peccatum quod est incredulitas in Filium Dei Mediatorem relinquentes sub aeterna condemnatione omnes non credentes in hunc Filium 4th Par. Obj. Resp Theolog. Collect. ex Scriptis Ph. Melanct. opera Christoph Pezelii loc de definit Evang. pag. 161. There are saith Pezelius Testimonies of Gods word known to all the Godly which shew that it is rightly said that the Gospel hath most severe
but to save the world then Now neither of these inferences would come freely and naturally from Christ's words if Mr. G. did not draw them both by force and violence And first it doth not follow by any rule of right reasoning Christ did not then come to Judge but to save the world Therefore he doth not threaten an unbeliever For both are very well consistent and he might do both He might both come then not to Judge but to save the world and he might likewise threaten an unbeliever and he may at this day threaten such a person His Judged that is Damned but saved as was shewed before Nor secondly doth it follow by any true Logick Christ did not then in his State of Humiliation come to Judge but to save the world Therefore now in his State of Glorious Exaltation he doth not Judge and Condemn an unbeliever For if it be an unbeliever that lives and dies in unbelief either he is not Judged and Condemned at all which I hope Mr. G. will not say unless he renounce his Creed and abjure the Christian faith or if he be Judged and Condmned he is Judged and Condemned by Christ For it is written John 5.22 That the father Judgeth no Man but hath Committed all Judgment to the Son I conceive the grounds of Mr. G's mistake are these two 1. His not distinguishing between the threatning of Condemnation and the Condemnation it self threatned 2. His not distinguishing on the one hand between Christ's first coming in a State of Humiliation to Preach the everlasting Covenant or Law of Grace and to ratify and confirm it by his Death and also to purchase for his People the salvation promised in the said Covenant or Law of Grace And on the other his ordination to be the Judge of quick and dead Acts 10.42 Together with his second glorious coming to Judge the world at the last day according to the Gospel Acts 17.31 Rom. 2.16 For if he had duly considered how distinct these things are the one from the other he might easily have seen that his consequence is non-consequent There is no consequential and true reasoning from the denial of the Condemnation threatned to the denial of the threatning it self Nor is there any Consequential and true Reasoning from the denial of Christs Judging and Condemning the world then at his first coming in a State of Humiliation to the denial of his Judging and Condemning of an unbeliever now immediately after his Death and hereafter at the general resurrection For as hath been said Christ doth both He did not first come to Condemn but to save the world And yet he both then threatned and now still threatens unbelievers He did not first come to Judge but to save the world And yet he doth now both Judge and Condemn the Soul of an impenitent unbeliever immediately after Death and will further both Judge and Condemn him Soul and Body after the Resurrection Children that have learned their Catechism do in part know these things See the assemblies Annotations on John 3. v. 17. And on John 12.47 And Pool's Annotations 2d volume on John 12.47 * Discourse of the true nature of the Gospel c. 7. p. 54. But if Christ's words in John 12.47 Will not prove that he doth not threaten nor Judge and Condemn an unbeliever Mr. G. undertakes to prove it by words of his own therefore he says Christ knew that salvation of Sinners was the work which he came into the world to perform and that the office of a Judge did not belong to a Mediator he accordingly disowns it This is the third Argument which he brings to strengthen and confirm the second And when it is put in form it is thus Obj. 3. Christ is a Mediator and the Saviour of the world therefore Christ is not the Judge of the world nor doth he threaten to Condemn an unbeliever And because he knew that the Consequence would be denied as most false and impious and contrary to a fundamental Article of the Christian Religion He labours to prove it But how doth he prove it Why his way of proving it is extraordinary and perculiar to himself For in order to prove that because Christ is a Saviour and Mediator therefore he is not the Judge of the world no not of an unbeliever in the world he asserts two things 1. That Christ knew that the office of a Judge did not belong to a Mediator 2. That Christ disowned the office of Judge as not belonging to a Mediator 1. Mr. Goodwin affirms that Christ knew that the office of a Judge did not belong to a Mediator Now Reverend Sir if I dare be so bold let me ask you how do you know that Christ knew this Surely if you know this which is a secret unknown to other Men it must be by Christ's telling you that he knows it I demand then where and how did Christ tell you this secret Hath he told you it in any part of the Holy Scriptures of the old or New Testament If so be pleased to do me the favour to tell me the Chapter and Verse that I may likewise know it For tho I have read the Bible yet seriously I profess not to have met with any one passage in it which discovers to me that secret That Christ knew that the office of a Judge did not belong to him because he is a Mediator Or will you say that Christ hath not told you this secret by Scripture but by an immediate Revelation without Scripture If you give me this answer I reply 1. That you must prove that you have such an immediate Revelation from Christ for I cannot believe you in this matter upon your bare word 2. If you had it by immediate Revelation only I hope you will not be offended with me tho I do not believe it till it be immediately revealed to me also 3. Christ hath been so far from telling you either mediately or immediately by an outward and written or by an inward and unwritten Revelation that he knows that the office of a Judge did not belong to him since he is Mediator That he has plainly enough told you the contrary if you had eyes to see and a heart to believe it for thus it is written and they are the express formal words of Christ himself in John 5.22 The father Judgeth no Man but hath committed all Judgment to the Son Now the Son is certainly Mediator Therefore the Father hath committed all Judgment to the Mediator And since the Father hath committed all Judgment to the Son and Mediator surely the office of a Judge belongs to the Mediator by vertue of the Father's Commission And this Christ knows to be true and hath told it plainly unto us by his Evangelist John And if you would have it told you yet more plainly be pleased to read and consider the 27 verse of the same 5th Chapter of John Where Christ says That the Father hath given the
before where he thus writes â Aâque hâec universa in una Persona Christi unici Mediatoris Dei Hominum ita continentur nodo indissolubili juncta connexa sunt ut qui couatur unum ex illis Christo adimere conetur Christum solvere quam esse notam certissimam spiritus Antichristi Johannes Apostolus dilectus Discipulus Domini Docet in prima sua Catholica âpistâa coque crimine Antichristianismi summi sacrilegii tenentur omnes haeresiarchae eorum sectatores pertinaces qui Schismate impio imprimis Christum divellere conati sunt quod nullo mo so potest fieri Bibliander ubi supra Pag. 198 199. And all these things are so contained and joyned and connected together by an undissoluble Knot in the one Person of Christ the only Mediator between God and Men that whosoever endeavours to take one of them from Christ he endeavours to Destroy Christ which to be a most certain mark of the Spirit of Antichrist the Apostle John and beloved Disciple of the Lord teaches us in his first general Epistle And of this Crime of Antichristianism and of the highest Sacriledg are guilty all Authors or inventers of Heresies and their obstinate Followers who by an ungodly Schism do principally indeavour to divide Christ which can no way be done Thus the Learned and pious Bibliander I hope therefore my Reverend brother will joyn with us and for the future acknowledge that the office of a Lord and Judge too doth belong to Christ the Mediator and that eo nomine because he is Mediator and as he is Mediator For as the Dutch Annotators have it on 1 Cor. 15.25 He must Reign as King That is Accomplish his Kingly office as Mediator c. In short as I hope we shall so I wish we may all agree in that of Salvian an Ancient and Zealous writer of the fifth century * Nos ita judicandum humanum genus a Christo dicimus ut tamen etiam nunc omnia Deum prout rationabile putat regere ac dispensare credamus ita in futuro judicio judicaturum affirmemus ut tamen semper etiam in hoc saeculo judicasse doceamus Dum enim semper gubernat Deus semper judicat quia Guberuatio ipsa est judicium Salvian Lib. 1. de Gubernatione Dei Pag. 15. Vid. etiam Lib. 2. Pag. 55. ubi haec habet unde tu qui ad solatium arbitror peccatorum tuorum considerari actus nostros a Deo non putas ex hoc ipso aspici te a Christo semper intellige puniendum forsitan propediem esse cognosce We so say that Mankind will be Judged by Christ as that yet we believe also that God now at present doth rule and dispence all things as he things reasonable or sit and let us so affirm that Christ will Judge at the Day of Judgment which is to come hereafter as notwithstanding to teach also that he hath always judged in this world For whilst God doth always govern he doth always Judge also because the very Governing Act it self of God and so of Christ the Mediatorial King is Judgment Thus Salvian And I think this may suffice for Answer to Mr. G's Third Objection 4. Obj. Lastly He appeals to the express words of Christ himself in John 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God And says page 55. He is confident we will have regard to these words Answer Indeed his Confidence in this is well grounded for we really have as we ought a very great regard to these and all the other words of our most blessed and glorious Lord and they have a Commanding power over us to induce us to receive them with faith and love But what then must we therefore have regard to Mr. G's Consequence which he draws from them by force and violence That doth not at all follow And for my own part I declare that I reject his Consequence which is that the Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace hath no threanings since he that believeth not is Condemned already Because he hath not believed in the Name of the only-begotten Son of God And whereas he says that the unbeliever is already Condemned by the old Law of works and therefore there is no need that he be Condemned again by the Gospel and a new Law of Grace I Answer that a Man who lives under the Preaching of the Gospel and yet remains still in unbelief is already Condemned both by Law and Gospel by the old Covenant and also by the New so long as he continues in his unbelief as I shewed before And it doth not become us to say unto God that he needs not to do the same thing twice when we know that he hath twice done it especially when we may plainly see that tho the same person be twice over Condemned yet it is in different respects and for two different causes First he is Condemned by the old Law of works for not keeping it perfectly and personally so as never to break it either by original or actual sin And thus all Unbelievers in the world are condemned even Heathens that never heard the joyful sound of the Gospel and never had a Gospel-Offer of Mercy upon the Terms of the New Covenant and Law of Grace Secondly He is condemned also by the Gospel or New Covenant Law of Grace for not accepting the Gospel-Offer of Mercy for not receiving and applying to himself the Remedy tendred to him in the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace Here this Unbeliever is guilty of a sin which the foresaid Heathens who have only the Law of Nature are not guilty of he is guilty of a sin which is directly and immediately against the saving Remedy mercifully provided and offered him in the Gospel and therefore there is sufficient Reason for condemning him again by the Gospel-Covenant I say for condemning him to a greater Degree of Punishment than that of meer Heathens who are guilty only of sins against the Law of Nature but are guilty of no sin against the Gospel of Christ are not at all guilty of any sin in neglecting or refusing to receive Christ by Faith and the Salvation offered through him in the Gospel-Covenant Our Saviour says in this very Text That the Unbeliever who is guilty of Positive Unbelief against the Gospel is condemned already not only and meerly because he hath broken God's natural moral Law but because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God And then as it were to obviate Mr. G's Objection he adds immediately This is the Condemnation that light is come into the world and Men loved Darkness rather than Light Because their deeds were Evil. See what was quoted before in the remarks on Mr. G's sixth Chapter out of Mr. Hutcheson's Exposition on John 3. v. 18.19 As for Mr.
G's Confirmation or Illustration of his fourth objection by a comparison taken from An Earthly Physitian who threatens his patient with Death if he do not take the prescribed Physick And yet the threatning is no part of the medicine nor doth the Physitian design to murder his patient by the said threatning It is like all the rest of no force at all against the Gospel's having threatnings of its own For the just Consequence can be no other but this That just so tho the Gospel threaten an unbeliever with Eternal Death if he do not by a true Faith receive Christ and his Righteousness offered to him in the new Covenant or Law of Grace yet the threatning is no part of Christ and his Righteousness which is to be received as the spiritual Physick of the Soul nor doth the Gospel design by the said threatning to damn the unbeliever but rather it designs to take him off from his unbelief and to induce him thereby to believe in Christ and by believing to receive and apply the Spiritual Physick offered him to preserve his Soul from Eternal Death This now is the just Consequence and it is so far from militating against my principle that it rather makes for it and is an Illustration of it For these two things I willingly grant 1. That tho the Gospel Covenant do threaten an unbeliever with Eternal Death and the threatning is a secondary subservient part of the said Gospel-Covenant yet the threatning is no part of the Spiritual Physick it self to wit of Christ and his Righteousness revealed and offered in the Gospel-Covenant to be received by faith that by the Spiritual Physick so received the Soul may be saved from Eternal Death 2. I grant that the Gospel doth not design by its threatning to damn the Soul of the unbeliever but rather it designs to preserve him from Damnation by taking him off from his unbelief and by perswading him to believe in Christ that through him he may have Eternal Life And here I desire it may be remembred That I do not speak of the design of any person but of the design of the Gospel-threatning and I say that the designed use of it is not to damn the unbeliever but rather to bring him off from his unbelief and so to preserve him from Damnation According to that of Paul 2. Cor. 5.11 Knowing the terror of the Lord we perswade Men. And that of Jude Others save with fear pulling them out of the fire Judes Epistle v. 23. And this way of endeavouring to save Souls by Gosper-threatnings was according to the Commission for Preaching the Gospel which the Apostles received from Christ As was shewed before from Mark 16.15 16. I conclude this with the words of the Judicious Mr. Hutcheson * Hutcheson on John 3. v. 17. pag. 39.40 Christ did nothing at his first coming to procure Condemnation to any but on the contrary he offered Salvation to lost Man tho accident ally by reason of Man's Corruption and not making use of him his coming did heighten Mens Condemnation as John 3. v. 18.19 And again in Doctr. 6. he saith Albeit Christ may be eventually for the falling of many and his coming will afford sad matter of ditty against them yet all the blame of this lyeth upon themselves who stumble at the Rock they should build themselves upon who reject their own mercy by offer and by opposition thereunto do harden and blind themselves so much also do these words teach being understood of the nature of his work and carriage as is above explained SECT V. His Third assertion is p. 42.56 That the Gospel hath no conditional promises He grants that the Gospel hath promises which look like conditional promises but denies that they are really conditional and affirms that they are only Declarations of the Connexion of the blessings of Grace p. 42. His discourse he calls his poor Writing p. 59. Which is very true for a poor Writing it appears to be and in this part of it especially it seems to be both poor and blind yet the Author of it may be rich and sharp-sighted tho the discourse be poor and blind and if he be so indeed the more he is to be blamed for writing on this subject in such a poor and blind manner For he knows well enough that many Sound and Learned Divines have solidly proved the Conditionality of some promises of the Gospel and that generally they profess to believe their conditionality Many instances of this were given in the Apology And I do not think that Mr. G. will be so immodest or will have so little regard to Truth and honesty as to deny so plain a matter of fact I could add very many more witnesses of this matter of fact unto those produced in the Apology but I shall only Name one in this place and that is the âell-known Mr. Th. Shepherd of New England who says in these formal express words For any to think the Gospel requires no Conditions is a sudden Dream against a hundred of Scriptures which contain conditional yet Evangelical promises and against the Judgment of the most Judicious of our Divines * Shepherd's Theses Sabbaticae p. 78. And as to what Mr. Goodwin saith here That the Gospel promises which seem to be conditional are only Declarations of the Connexion of the blessings of Grace I Answer that it was clearly proved in The Apology p. 45 50 57 58 59. That the Gospel hath Promises really conditional and being conditional there must be a Connexion and they must declare that Connexion between the Condition and the Subsequent Blessings of Grace promised on Condition but then it is and must be a Conditional Connexion such as I shewed it to be by Scripture and Reason And in page 114. I shewed this to have been the Judgment of the Synod of Dort and set that whole matter in a clear Light which I received from the Collegiate Suffrage of the British Divines in that Synod And so long as I have Scripture and Reason with the most Judicious of our Divines even the Synod of Dort for the Truth that I defend I do not in the least fear any hurt that Mr. G's poor writing as he calls it can do to our Just and Righteous Cause which in the Lord's Strength I stand for and through Grace am resolved so to do But though his writing can do no hurt to me nor to the Truth of God which I defend yet it may do hurt to the Souls of poor ignorant people and therefore for their sakes I will briefly answer his Objections against the Gospel's having any Conditional Promises And Obj 1. First He argues thus p. 56. If any promises of the Gospel were conditional they would not differ in kind but only in degree from the promises of the Law for both would be made to obedience with this only difference that the promises of the Law are made to obedience in the highest degree of
Old and so could not then belong to the Old Law or Covenant of Works Therefore since the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace hath now some Positive Precepts different from the Precepts of the first Old Covenant and Law of Works it follows necessarily That the Obedience required by the Precepts of the Gospel must be partly also different from the Obedience required by the first Covenant and Old Law of Works But now if we consider the Obediences required by the said Two Covenants as the Two Conditions of their respective Covenants so they differ formally in Kind and not meerly in Degree for they proceed from different Principles they have different formal Motives and serve to different ends and purposes The most perfect legal obedience required as the Condition of the first Covenant and Law of works was The very Righteousness by and for which Man was to have been justified and to have lived by that Covenant if he had kept it But now the sincere Evangelical obedience required as a Condition on our part of the new Covenant promise of Glorification and Consummate salvation is not any the least part of that meritorious Righteousness for which alone we obtain possession of Eternal Glory and Consummate salvation And as for the promises themselves of the two Covenants they also are specifically different because they have different impulsive and moving causes of their first making and are performed for different and formal fundamental Reasons In the Covenant of Works it was indeed of God's free goodness and gracious condescention that he promised a Reward to our first Parents on condition of perfect Obedience But in the Second and New Covenant of Grace it is of his Rich Mercy in Christ that he promised us Eternal Life and Glory on condition of our sincere Evangelical Obedience and Perseverance in Faith and Holiness to the End So that they have different impulsive Causes of their first making And being so made they are at last performed for different formal Motives and Reasons If the first Covenant of Works had been kept the Promise of âââe would have been performed and made good to man for his own personal Obedience as his Righteousness his only Righteousness in the sight of God But now the Gospel or New Covenant-Promise of Eternal Life and Glory is performed and made good to the People of God not for their own personal sincere Obedience but only for the most perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to them So that as the impulsive causes of making in like manner the formal Motives and Fundamental reasons of performing the said several promises of the two Covenants do greatly differ and therefore the promises themselves differ in kind Now it is in Christ that all the promises of God are yea and it is in Christ that they are Amen unto the Glory of God 2 Cor. 1.20 Thus I have Answered his first Argument at large And hence it manifestly appears that his Consequence is inconsequent and will not hold to wit that upon our principle the Covenant of grace would be a Covenant of works for I have shewed that the two Covenants differ specifically and in kind and that tho both require obedience and works yet they are much different from one another and in order to far different ends and purposes The works required by the first and old Covenant were legal works that were to be the only Righteousness by and for which Man was to be justified and to live but the works required by the second new and Gospel-Covenant are Evangelical works which are no part of the Righteousness by and for which we are justified and pardoned saved and glorified Thus it is manifest that we do not absurdly confound the two Covenants of Law and Gospel but he draws silly Consequences from our Principles which he seems not to understand and builds Castles in the Air which tumble down for want of a solid Foundation And the worst of it is that he wrests the Holy Scripture which ought carefully to be avoided as that which may be the occasion of some other's destruction if not of our own The place of Scripture which he wrests both in p. 56. and 63. Is that in Rom. 14.6 Where to make it serve his purpose he supposes 1. That in the words Then is it no more of works by the relative it must necessarily be meant the Covenant of Grace 2. He supposes that by the said words then is it no more of works must needs be meant Then the Covenant of grace requires no sort of obedience nor any kind of works in order to any Gospel end and purpose 3. He supposes that the works there excluded by the Apostle are not only meritorious works but any sort of Commanded duties tho no way Meritorious nor conceived so to be And then from the words of St. Paul thus perverted he infers his Conclusion that it would be a flat Contradiction to Rom. 11.16 If the Covenant of Grace had any conditional promises and if it required any duty and obedience or any sort of work at all I freely grant that this Consequence is good from the foresaid three suppositions But I utterly deny all the three suppositions and I know my R. B. cannot prove them to Eternity If he thinks he can let him try his Skill for I put him to it But withal I advise him to take heed what he doth God will not be mocked nor suffer his word to be abused without controll If he shall say that he doth not suppose the three things aforesaid I Answer that he doth and must suppose them or else he grossly abuses the words of the Apostle by wresting and wringing out of them a sense that was never in them For understand the Apostle's words as he meant them and they make nothing for his purpose at all nor will they bear the inference that he deduces from them To make this appear consider 1. That the thing which the Apostle assirms there to be of Grace and denies to be of works is not the Covenant of Grace of which he doth not there speak but it is either the Election or the reserving of the Remnant of which he speaks in the foregoing verse 2 Consider that by saying it is of grace and not of works he means that grace and not works was the impulsive moving cause of the said Election or of the rescrving of a Remnant at that time But he doth not at all mean that because the Covenant is of Grace therefore it requires no works no obedience nor duties at all 3. Consider that the works whish he excludes are only Meritorious works because they are such works as are utterly inconsistent with and Destructive of Grace Now my Judgment is that the Particle it in our Translation of v. 6. Refers to the word Election in v. 5. And then the sense is as the Dutch Annotators on Rom. 11.6 Give it us thus And if it be by grace Namely that those are Elected to
all the Nations from Peru to Japan on condition they Obey the Command of the Gospel and Believe and Repent I Answer That consequence is false No such thing doth follow from the aforesaid Antecedent unless God Promulgate the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace to all those People and Nations without exception as he hath Promulgated it to us in these parts of the World For the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace being a positive Constitution of God and having the force of a positive Law not knowable by the meer Light of Nature it doth not oblige any Man to Believe it and to be Subject and Obedient unto it unless it be sufficiently Promulgated to him Either then prove that the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace which are the same is sufficiently Promulgated to all the before-mentioned People and Nations or else you must let go that consequence as utterly inconsequent This you seem to be sensible of and therefore you undertake to prove that God hath Promulgated the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace to all Men in the world without exception a bold undertaking Now let us hear the proof why thus it is If God in giving his Moral Law to all reasonable Creatures said universally to Angels and Men do this and you shall live by the same rule if the Gospel is a New Law God speaks generally to all Men Believe and you shall live Here is my R. Brother's Argument but I heartily wish for his own Credit he had suppressed it and never suffered it to see the light For I think such a ridiculous weak Argument is not to be met with in any learned Author and to make the weakness of it appear I Answer 1. That his Supposition from whence he infers his Position is not true if it be understood of the Moral-Natural-Law only materially considered before God put it into the form of a Covenant by adding to it the conditional Promise If ye do this ye shall live In that case by giving unto Man the Precepts of the Moral Natural Law without the Promise of Life God had said unto him Do this which those Precepts require but he had not said unto him Thou shalt live if thou do this My R. Brother may remember that he himself in Pag. 50. affirms That Adam as soon as he had Existence was presently bound to Obey God in all that he would Command him though he had made no Promise to him of any Reward And if Adam was bound to obey God in all that he would Command him then cerrainly he was bound to obey him in all that he did Command him though he had made no Promise to him of any Reward But I hope Mr. G. will not say that Adam was bound also to believe actually that he should live for any determinate time without a conditional Promise of Life to him if he continued in his Obedience For if God would he might have Annihilated Adam again even after he had been perfectly Obedient for a time and before he had committed any the least Sin I say God might have done this by his Absolute Soveraignty if he had not engaged himself not to do it by the Promise of Life to Adam For God's giving of Life with the Precepts of the Natural Law to Adam did not of it self without the Promise of Life necessarily oblige him not to Annihilate him Before and without the Promise of Life God by his Absolute Power and Soveraign Free-Will might have Annihilated or not Annihilated Adam And therefore in giving the Moral Law to Adam without the Premise of Life God did not say to him Do this and thou shalt live He said indeed to him Do this but he did not thereby say to him Thou shalt live if thou do this And without God's saying to him by Promise Thou shalt live if thou do this Adam could have no Infallible Assurance that God would not use his Power and Soveraign Free-Will in Annihilating him He could not by all that God had done for him in Creating him and Concreating in him the Principles and Precepts of the Law of Nature have any Infallible Assurance that he would continue to him the happy Life he had given him and that he would afterwards prefer him to a better that is to an Heavenly and Eternal Life The doing of this depended on God's Free-Will and therefore Adam's Assurance that it should be done depended upon the Revelation of God's Will and the Promise of God to Man That if he never Sinned he should never Die but live happily sorever And this was not only possible but it seems to have been so De facto For in Creating Man after his own Image God gave him the Principles and Precepts of the Moral Law but it can never be proved that God gave him the Promise of Life till some time after that he said unto him as it is written Gen. 2.16 17. In the day that thou catest thereof thou shalt surely die In which words the contrary promise is implied But 2dly If Mr. G. say That by God's giving unto man the moral Law he means God's giving him the moral Law formally as a Covenant with its federal Sanction of Threatning and Promise then indeed I grant That by giving unto Adam the moral Law as a federal Law God said unto him Do this and thou shalt live but if thou do it not thou shalt die But then tho God said this to Adam by giving him that federal Law yet it is not so clear that he saith the same thing at this day to all Adam's Posterity even to the most barbarous Heathens by giving unto them the moral natural Law I do grant That together with the humane Nature God gives the first Principles and Precepts of the moral natural Law unto all mankind that have the use of Reason even to the most Barbarous Heathens yea that he gives also the Principles of the Natural Law to their Infants I say he gives them in Power but not in Act but that God gives unto every one of the most barbarous Nations the same promise which he gave at first unto Adam and that he says unto every one of them Do this and thou shalt live Keep the Precepts of the Law of Nature and thou shalt live Eternally Let him prove this at his leisure It will not suffice to say that God virtually and constructively made the said promise to every one of them as they were seminally and federally in Adam for tho that be very true and we know it by the written word or we should never have known it in an ordinary way yet it is nothing to our present purpose For now all the question is about the truth of Mr. G's words which suppose that God in giving his Moral Law to all reasonable Creatures said Universally to Men do this and you shall Live Now did God ever say this Universally to all mankind even to the most Barbarous Nations And doth he say so at this day And
promises in the Gospel-Covenant But now let me ask this R. B. a few questions as 1. Is it not now every whit as impossible if not more impossible for the non-elect in the visible Church to keep the Law of works most perfectly as to believe in Christ sincerely 2. Doth not Mr. G. himself hold that notwithstanding the said impossibility God now requires of them perfect obedience to the Law of works under pain of Eternal Death and Misery 3. Doth he not hold also that God by the Law and Covenant of works doth promise them Life and Happiness upon condition that they most perfectly obey that Law and keep that Covenant of Works This I take to be his Judgment from what he writes in Chap. 7. pag. 56. Compared with what he quotes with approbation out of Melancton in Chap. 6. pag. 29.30 Concerning the promises of the Law as contra-distinguished from the gracious promises of the Gospel Now if this be so that according to Mr. G. Godpromiseth to the non-elect by the Law and Covenant of works Mat. 19.17 Rom. 10.5 That they shall have Not indeed pardon of sin and salvation properly so called but Life and Happiness on condition that they most perfectly keep the Law and Covenant of works I say if this be Mr. G' s. Judgment I demand 4. Whether it be not as evidently repugnant to the wisdom and Goodness of God and as plainly a mocking of those wretched Men to promise them Eternal Life and Happiness by the Covenant of works upon the impossible condition that they most perfectly fulfill the Law of works As it is to promise them pardon and salvation by the Gospel or Covenant of Grace on the impossible condition of believing in Christ So that my R. B. his Argument militates against himself and he is as much bound to Answer it as we are Unless he deny the conditional promises of the Law as he doth those of the Gospel and when once I know that he doth deny both I shall cease from retorting his own Argument upon him and shall take another way of dealing with him In the mean time this may serve for the first Answer 2. I Answer that this Arminian objection was sufficiently answered in the Apology out of the writings of the professors of Leyden of Dr. Owen of the Synod of Dort and of Dr. Twiss For there it was shewed 1. That as for the non-elect to whom the Gospel is Preached in the visible Church God doth not require them to believe in Christ by their meer natural powers without any help without his putting forth so much as his finger to help them For together with the Gospel-Command to believe they receive more Common-Grace more light and power from the Lord than they make a good use of and as Dr. Owen says Apol. pag. 23. and pag. 114.115 where real Conversion is not attained It is always from the Interposition of an Act of Wilfulness and Stubbornness in those enlightened and convicted They do not sincerely improve what they have received and faint not meerly for want of strength to preceed but by a free Act of their own wills they refuse the grace which is further tendred unto them in the Gospel 2. There it was shewed out of the Writings of Dr. Twiss where he Answers this same objection which Mr. G. hath borrowed from the Arminians that as for the non-elect in the visible Church their inability to believe in Christ according to the Gospel is not a meer physical impotency but it is a Moral impotency Jer. 6.10 Which hath its immediate Foundation in and its next rise from their own wills so that if they earnestly would believe then they could believe but they cannot believe because they will not Whereas the inability of the poor wretch of whom Mr. G. speaks and to whom he compares the unconverted is not at all a Moral impotency but it is a meer Physical natural impotency There is nothing in the Man 's own will that causes him to refuse wilfully to come up out of the Dungeon in which he is a starving but that which hinders him from coming up is the natural weakness of his Limbs which are all supposed to be broke so that the poor wounded Man cannot come up out of the Dungeon to receive the Food that is offered him suppose he were never so earnestly willing and desirous to do it Now Dr. Twiss shews that there is a vast difference between these two impotencies between impotency Moral and impotency meerly Physical that impotency Moral is highly culpable and deserves to be punished because it is willful and affected whereas impotency meerly Physical is not culpable at all but is wholly excuseable and that therefore it is a shameful thing in the Arminians to confound these two impotencies to wit Moral and Natural impotency as if there were no difference See for this the Apol. 109.110 Where the express formal words of Dr. Twiss are quoted at large If then Mr. G. have a mind to dispute against this Distinction I desire it may be remembred that he disputes not so much against me as against Dr. Twiss and in the Doctors Judgment he doth a thing which will have a shameful issue to confound impotency Moral with impotency natural as he plainly doth 3. I Answer that what Mr. G. supposes to strengthen his Arminian Objection is manifestly false to wit that God always Commands the non-elect in the visible Church to believe by their Meer natural powers without any help since he will not so much as put forth his finger to help them I say this is false because 1. It is contrary to Scripture which saith that Gods Spirit shall not always strive with such Men Gen. 6.3 According to our Translation and that plainly implies that for a time God's Spirit doth strive with them and I suppose it will not be said that God's Spirit strives with them to hinder them but rather to help them So in Prov. 1.23 The wisdom of God saith to such Men turn ye at my reproof Behold I will pour out my Spirit unto you and I will make known my words unto you Here is not only a Command to turn unto God but a promise also of some help to enable them to turn And then it follows immediately in the 24. verse because I have called and ye refused I have stretched out my hand and no Man regarded c. In which words the Lord himself saith that he stretches out his hand to such Men but Master Goodwin saith that the Lord will not so much as put out his finger to help them for he compares the Lord in this matter to a merciless Man who offers food to a poor wretch starving in a Dungeon with all his Limbs broken on condition that he âome up and receive it and yet he refuses to put forth a finger to give him the least list Thus Mr. G. represents God to the world upon the Principles of the Calvinists whereas God in
priority is enough for that pag. 33. To which I Answer 1. That I never wrote nor thought that the condition of the Gospel-Covenant is not in our power in any sense but only that it is not in our meer natural power with which it is very well consistent that it be in our Supernatural Power which we receive from the Spirit of God and with his assistance freely use in performing the said condition of the Covenant For the truth of this I appeal to the common sense and reason of all honest Men who will be at the pains to read and consider what they will find Written in the Apol. pag. 36. Last Paragraph and pag. 47. at the end And pag. 48. from l. 1. to l. 13. and pag. 49. from l. 9. to 20. and pag. 50. Where by the Testimonies of Augustin and Bradwardin I expresly shew that the performing of the condition is in our power through the grace of God and that we have a subordinate Dominion and Power over our own Act. And Lastly in pag. 67. I shew from Dr. Twiss that we not only have Supernatural Power from God to produce the Act which is the condition but that at the same time when we produce it we have a Power a natural Power not to produce it Whence I conclude that it is a gracious Evangelical condition freely performed by us See our confession of Faith Chap. 10. Act. 1. Now let any Judge by this whether I do absolutely deny the condition to be in our Power Nay tho I deny it in one sense to be in our Power yet in another sense I do most clearly affirm it to be in our power As for the condition it s not being uncertain nor Meritorious it is true I did and do maintain that it is not uncertain with respect to God and the event nor is it in the least truly and properly Meritorious but I deny the Consequence that therefore it is not properly a condition Evangelical And whereas in the 4th place he says that I deny it to be a legal condition it is true I have denied and shall deny it to be a Legal condition in the sense explained at large from the end of pag. 37. to 41. It is not so a legal condition as to have the same place and Office in the new-New-Covenant and Law of Grace which perfect and personal sinless obedience was to have had in the first Old Covenant and Law of works c. But to infer from hence that because I deny it to be a legal condition in this sense therefore I deny it to be a legal condition in all and every sense whatsoever is a poor fallacious way of arguing And how can this R. B. seriously think that I should ever deny it to be a legal condition in any sense at all when as he knows that I do all along call it the condition of the Covenant and Law of Grace If then I believe it to be the condition of the Covenant of Grace I cannot chuse but believe it to be a federal condition and so if I believe it to be the condition of the Law of Grace I cannot chuse but in some sense believe it to be a legal condition But you may say in what sense do I believe it to be a legal condition Why I Answer look in what sense the gospel-Gospel-Covenant is a Law in the same sense Faith for instance is the legal condition of it and so I believe it to be Now we do not say that the gospel-Gospel-Covenant is meerly and simply a Law but that it is a Law of Grace properly a Law of Grace And therefore faith is not a condition meerly and simply legal as the condition of the old Law of works was but it is a condition graciously legal because it is the condition of the Law of Grace and we are effectually enabled to perform it by the God of all Grace This that Brother might have easily perceived by our words to be our meaning if he had sought the Truth sincerely when he read our Apology But tho he stile himself a seeker p. 103. Yet it appears too evident by his Parenthesis p. 33. l. 29.30 31. That he sought some other thing than the truth for there he brings me in saying That the Gospel is a Law and that this Law is the condition of the Covenant or Gospel and yet it is not a legal condition But where do I say so That the Law is the condition of the Covenant I defy any Man living to find those words or any words of the like import in all the Apol. I leave it to others whom it may become to write after this manner The Gospel or the Covenant is a Law and that Law is the condition of the Covenant And so the same thing is the condition of it self For shame give over such little tricke and have regard to truth and honesty But now was there nothing in the Apoâ that gave occasion to fasten upon us such a notorious falsehood I Answer I profess sincerely that there is nothing in it all from beginning to end that could give any just occasion or so much as a colourable pretence to charge me with holding that the Gospel is a Law or Covenant and that that Law is the condition of the Covenant We have said indeed in the explication of our sense of the Law of Grace pag. 22. l. 35.36 That this Law of Grace is the conditional part of the Covenant of Grace But to be the conditional part of the Covenant is quite another thing than the condition of the Covenant for the conditional part of the Covenant is that which Prescribes and Commands the condition and which promises a blessing and benefit to the person who performs it And therefore must be quite another thing than the condition it self Here then some body has discovered his ignorance and writes he knows not what or if not that He has discovered somewhat worse and that which I forbear to call by its proper Name Because he might say that it is bitter Language to tell him his fault in plain terms It is sweet unto some Men publickly to mis-represent their brethren to the People for such ends as they know best but it is bitter to them for to find themselves publickly reproved for it We desire all whom it may concern to learn to understand our Apol. before they take upon them to dispute against it and censure it And they may easily understand it if they will for it is purposely written in a plain stile that all may know what our Judgment is concerning the nature of the New-Covenant See pag. 68. from lin 16. to 21. Where we briefly and plainly distinguish between the absolute and conditional part of it and shew what the one and the other is as we had also done so largely before that none can mistake our meaning unless they have very weak heads or which is worse wilfully shut their Eyes that they
is expressly called the New-Covenant I desire that this may be remembered and withal that all the Clamour Mr. G. after C. and D. makes against the Gospel's being a New-Law is in truth against the Gospel's being a New-Covenant that hath any precept obliging us to any Duty with conditional promises and threatnings For as we have declared often we mean by the Gospel's being a New-Law that it is a New-Covenant which by its preceptive part obliges us to certain duties with promises to encourage us to the performance of them and threatnings to restrain us from the neglect of them And principally we mean by its being a New-Law that it is a New-Covenant with precept and promise and that the threatning is but the secondary less principal part which is subservient to the principal This being premised let us see how he Answers the Texts of Scripture urged by me in the Apol. And 1st he begins with Rom. 3.27 And says in the Contents of the Chapter That he hath recovered it to its right sense Now who that reads this would not think that in the Apol. I had interpreted this place of Scripture and had put a wrong sense upon it since writing against me he saith that he hath recovered it to its right sense And yet in this controversy about the Gospel's being a Law or not a Law I did not at all interpret that place of Scripture nor give any sense of it right or wrong It is true I quoted it twice to wit in p. 22. and 24. But all that I said of it was that from Rom. 3.27 It appears that the Gospel is Called a Law it s called the Law of Faith expresly Was this to interpret iâ and to put a wrong sense on it from which Mr. Goodwin must recover it Doth not he himself acknowledge this to be true Has not he confessed and brought Texts of Scripture to prove that the Gospel is called a Law and doth he not here confess with me that the Gospel is called the Law of Faith in Rom. 3.27 How is it possible then that he should recover it to its right sense from which I had wrested it Since I did not give any sense of it but only quoted it to shew that in the Holy Scripture the Gospel-Covenant is called a Law the Law of Faith and that the brethren ought not to be displeased with us for calling the Gospel a Law because the Holy Scripture expressly calls it a Law and the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 Here Disc p. 59. it is where he calls his book a poor Writing and if this Chapter together with the rest do not prove it to be poor and blind and naked I am much mistaken But because I am a fallible Man and liable to mistake as other Men are I will now affirm no such thing of his discourse but will hear and consider what he saith for recovering Scripture to its Right sense from which I did not wrest it first then p. 59. he says that by the words Law of Faith In Rom. 3.27 The Apostle means no more than that Doctrine of Grace which declares a believing Sinner to be Justified by the Righteousness of Christ which by Faith he receiveth But now what if a body should deny that the Apostle means no more and should affirm that he also means that the Law of Faith is a Doctrine of Grace which requires Faith as the receptive condition or instrumental means of Justification by the Mediator's Righteousness Might he not prove what he had affirmed by an Argument taken from this Text where the Law of Faith is expressly opposed to the Law of works where is boasting then It is excluded by what Law Of works Nay but by the Law of Faith Thus the Law of works is the Lââ or Doctrine which requires works that we may be justified by the Righteousness of our own works which doth not exclude boasting Therefore the Law of Faith is the Law or Doctrine which requires Faith that we may be Justified only by and for Christ the Mediators Righteousness which doth exclude boasting And further might not a Man for this Interpretation alledge the Testimony of our Confession of Faith which Chap. 7. Act. 3. Saith that the Lord in the Covenant of Grace i. e. the Law of Faith freely offers unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ requiring of them Faith in him that they may be saved But Mr. G. opposes two things to this 1. He saith this Interpretation doth not exclude boasting 2. It is contrary to the Judgment of all the right Protestants who have commented on the Epistle to the Romans First he saith p. 59. that this Interpretation Doth not exclude boasting but rather greatly promotes it For why should not a Man Glory in his Faith if it be an Act of obedience to this New-Law i. e. this Evangelical Law of Faith which by its statute makes his Justification to depend on this his performance I Answer I do not know the tempers of all Men nor of Mr. G. it may be for ought I know that he or some other of like temper doth really think that he might justly boast of and Glory in his Faith if the Evangelical Law or New-Covenant did require Faith of him in order to his being justified by and for Christ's Mediatorial Righteousness But I would ask such a Man a few questions And 1. What is a Man's believing that he may be justified Gal. 2.16 Is that believing a doing nothing or a doing something I hope Sir you will not say that it is a doing nothing For if it were a doing nothing then Paul's meaning in Gal. 2.16 Would be this we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be Justified by the Faith of Christ that is We have done nothing in Jesus Christ that we might be Justified by doing nothing of Jesus Christ Which if it be not an abominable wresting of the Apostles words and a turning them into non-sense let all Men Judge that have the sober use of their reason But if you say that believing in Christ is a doing something I ask again is that doing something the doing of some good thing or some evil thing I hope you dare not say that it is a doing of some evil thing And therefore you must say that it is a doing of some good thing And then I ask again is that good thing required and Commanded by any Law of God or is it not at all commanded If you say that it is not at all Commanded nor forbidden by any Law of God Then I say 1. That it is not Morally good but of an indifferent middle nature between Moral good and evil For what is not at all Commanded nor forbidden is perfectly indifferent and neither Morally good nor evil 2. Then it follows necessarily that you are not at all bound to believe and that you do not sin tho you never believe in Christ 3. Then it follows that to be justified by Faith
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
it may be Mr. G. will say that tho these were Protestants yet they were not right Protestants For the word right seems to be put in on purpose that he may have an evasion when pressed with the Authority and Testimony of Protestant Divines who are for our Interpretatation and against his But if he should say that the Divines I have named are not right Protestants yet I hope he will not say that Beza was not a right Protestant since he himself appeals to Beza p. 60. And therefore to Beza we will go who in his large Annotations on Rom. 3.27 Writes thus * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã per quam legem i. e. qua Doctrina sicut interdum Hebraeis ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Torah in genere est doctrina quae aliquid praescribit qua ratione Evangelium vocat legem fidei i. e. doctrinam quae salutem proponit sub conditione si credideris quam et ipsam deus dat nobis ut praestare possimus oppositam doctrinae quae justitiam et salutem proponit cum conditione si omnia feceris quam unus Christus in sese pro nobis et implere potuit et implevit c. Beza in Rom. 3. v. 27. By what law that is by what Doctrine As sometimes among the Jews the word Torah Law signifies in general a Doctrine which prescribes any thing Accordingly the Apostle calls the Gospel the aw of Faith i. e. a Doctrine which proposes salvation on condition if thou believest which very condition God also gives us power to perform and this is opposed to the Doctrine to wit of the Law which proposes Righteousness and Salvation with the condition if thou shalt do all which Christ alone ân himself could and did perform for us Thus Beza In whose words the world may see plainly That 1. He says the word Law among the Jews signifies indeed a Doctrine but a Doctrine that prescribes something 2. That the Law of works is a Doctrine that prescribes works of perfect obedience as the condition of life 3. That the Law of Faith or Gospel is a Doctrine which prescribes Faith as the condition and which proposes salvation upon condition of believing 4. That the condition of the Law of Works none but Christ hath performed or could performed 5. That God gives us power to perform the condition of the Gospel or the condition which the Law of Faith requires to justification And that in Beza's Judgment the Law and Doctrine of Faith obâigeth us to believe in order to Justification is evident also by what follows where he saith that it doth flagitare require Faith of us and Faith only as that whereby we apprehend and receive the Righteousness which Christ hath purchased for us and freely gives unto us for our Justification And altho he hold that the Law of Faith obligeth us to believe in Christ for Justification yet he shews how it excludes all boasting Now this is the very sense which we give of the Law of Faith that it is such a Doctrine of Grace as hath the force of a Law ând obliges us to believe and proposes and promises to us the great blessing of free Justification by Christs imputed Righteousness upon condition if we believe which condition God gives us power to perform This being as clear as the light with what Conscience did my Reverend brother tell the world in Print that Beza was for him against us and that Beza gives the same sense of Rom. 3.27 Which he gives And of this he gives no other reason but this that Beza calls the Law of Faith a Doctrine which can be no Argument of his denying that the Law of Faith commands Faith because in the very same place he calls The Law of works a Doctrine likewise And yet it is confest by all that the Law of works commands works Here again the poverty of Mr. G's discourse appears and not only that but its nakedness too in so much that it wants a covering to hide its shame and by this I hope Mens eyes will be oppened to see what credit is to be given to him who thus shamefully abuseth Beza by clipping his Tongue and not suffering him to speak the truth but fathering upon him an opinion which is most evidently contrary unto his words 2. Here likewise I desire it may be observed that in the old Geneva Translation of our English Bibles which is of an hundred years standing at least there is this short note on Rom. 3.27 By what Doctrine Now the Doctrine of works hath this condition joyned with it if thou dost and the Doctrine of Faith hath this condition if thou believest Altho then of old our forefathers by Law of Faith understood a Doctrine of Faith yet they held it to be such a Doctrine as prescribes the duty and requires the condition of believing and that makes it to be an Evangelical Law just as we hold it to be What he talks in pag. 60.61 62. Of all the Popish Commentators on Rom. 3.27 And of Estins the Jesuit c. Is nothing but ad populum phalerae and is partly impertinent and partly ridiculous 2. Secondly He saith That Gal. 6.2 refuses to serve my design But I answer It 's plain from the Apology page 22. line 16 17. that my whole design in quoting Gal. 6.2 was to show that the Scripture calls the Gospel-covenant a Law and so it may be called there notwithstanding of what Mr. G. says to the contrary For though the words Law of Christ do not import the whole of the Gospel-covenant yet they import a part of it to wit the preceptive part For certainly he that loves his Neighbour as Christ loved him doth believe in Christ with a Faith working by love and he that so believes in Christ doth certainly fullfil the Condition of the Gospel-Govenant and by Consequence he that loves his Neighbours as Christ loved him doth fulfill the condition of the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace which is the Law of Christ As to what Mr. G. objects That Estins on the place affirms that Christ is given to men as a Legislator whom they may obey I answer That Dr. Owen affirms the same thing as is evident by his express formal words quoted before in the Remarks on the 7th Chapter It is true he doth not there prove Christ to be a Legislator from Gal. 6.2 but that is no matter he affirms that he is a Legislator and then he hath an Evangelical law And this being a Truth I for my part do like it never the worse because an Adversary believes it I wish our Adversaries both Papists and Arminians did with us receive not only that but all other Truths If Mr. G. say that the word Gospel or Gospel-Covenant is not expressed in Gal. 6.2 I answer Nor did I say that it is But there is expresly the word Law and I thought that sufficient to the purpose for which I quoted that Text. And though I should pass
from that Text to please my Reverend Brother yet the other Texts do abundantly answer my whole design and prove that the Gospel is expresly called ãâã Law in Scripture 3. And therefore it is not true which he says in the 3d place That Isa 42.4 is not effectual to prove my Assertion for my Assertion there is That the Scripture expresly calls the Gospel a law which it really doth in that very place as Mr. G. himself confesseth in Page 63. and I desire no more to prove my Assertion which only was concerning the word Law its being there used of the Gospel but not at all concerning what sense it is used in I meddled not with the sense of the word Law there and then and all that I shall do now shall be to desire the Reader to take the sense not from me but from Mr. Pool in these words The ãâã shall wait for his Law i. e. shall gladly receive his Doctriue Pool's Annotations on Isa 42.4 and Commands from time to time Mr. G. seems to be afraid that the receiving of Commands from Christ will undo men but Mr. Pool thought that the converted Isles would gladly receive Christ's Doctrine and Commands And it seems the Apostle John thought so too and therefore said 1 John 5.3 That his Commandments are not grievous 4. There is one Text more to wit Luke 19.27 which he says I urged to prove That the Gospel is a new Law with Promises and Threatnings But that is another mistake for I did not urge it to prove that but I quoted it to prove That Christ will account them his Enemies and punish them as such who do not like his Gospel because it is a Law of Grace which obligeth men to duty with a promise of blessing to the performers and with a threatning of misery and punishment to the neglecters refusers and despisers This is as clear as the light to any that reads and understands the Apology Pag. 22 line 19 20 21 22 23. As for Rom. 11.26 which he quotes I have spoken to it before and shewed how he wrests that Scripture Lastly For his wondering at my saying That the Law or Covenant of Grace is both new and old in different respects I regard it not if he had not been resolved to cavil at my words and to wrest them from their genuine obvious sense he would have found in them no cause of wondering Let any man of common Sense and Honesty read the Apology Page 22. at the end and Page 23. at the beginning and then let him judge whether there be any thing in that part of it but words of Truth and Soberness So much for answer to the first part of his Eighth Chapter concerning Texts of Scripture SECT II. In the second part of his Eighth Chapter he pretends to answer the Testimonies of Fathers and Protestant Divines which I alledged in the Apology to prove that new law of grace are not new words of an old ill meaning To all that he writes on this Head one general answer might suffice to wit That he impertinently gives his own sense of their words whereas that was not the Original Question In what sense the Fathers and Protestant Divines have heretofore called the Gospel a law a law of grace aed sometimes a new law but whether they did ever so call it all whether they did ever use those words or whether they did not use them and so whether the words be old or but new and of an old ill meaning This was the State of the controversie as manifestly appears by the Apology Page 24. line 15 16 17 c. And Mr. G. is so far from denying this matter of Fact that he plainly confesses it and moreover brings some other Testimonies to prove That the Gospel was called a Law by the Ancients and by some modern Writers as we have seen before Now this was all that I designed to prove by the Humane Testimonies which I cited in the Apology I might therefore stop here since my Testimonies remain in full force with respect to the matter of Fact for the Proof whereof they were alledged by me But since Mr. G. hath endeavoured to pervert the sense of my witnesses I will ex super abundanti consider what he hath said to wrest their words from their genuin sense And I begin with Justin Martyr Mr. G. first confesseth that Justin called the Gospel a Law and if he had been so ingenuous to confess likewise that he called it a New-law as he certainly did and as I proved by his express words then he had confessed also That I did very pertinently quote Justin and that his Testimony clearly proved the matter of fact for the proof whereof it was alledged to wit That new law is not a new word of an old ill meaning but it seems we must not expect that Mr. G. will be so ingenuous as to confess the whole Truth Secondly He saith That by law Justin meant no more than a new Doctrine of Grace to wit a Doctrine that requires no Duty of us at all And this he pretends to prove by the Design which Justin had in answering Trypho the Jew whereunto I answer That Justin did not mean by calling the Gospel a new law that it is no more but a Doctriue of grace more excellent than the Jewish law and its ceremonies which requires no duty of us at all Nor doth any such thing appear by the words and Design of Justin Now to clear this I will shew the True Occasion of Justin's mentioning the new law or Covenant and his real design in so doing which my R. B. hath not faithfully done The True Occasion then was this Trypho the Jew in the foregoing Page 227. had confessed that there were Precepts in the Gospel so great and wonderful that he doubted whether it was possible for any man to keep them but withal he affirmed That he did wonder also that the Christians who made so great profession of being of the True Religion and of excelling all other men and yet kept not the law of Moses observed not the Solemn Feasts and Sabbaths were not circumcised and moreover trusted in a crucified man did nevertheless hope to obtain any mercy from God since they did not keep his law Hast thou not read said Trypho That the man who was not circumcised the Eighth Day should be cut off from his People and that this was ordained alike with respect to Strangers and those who were bought with money This Covenant saith the Jew you Christians despise and regard not the Precepts of it and yet ye would perswade your selves That you know God though you do none of those things which they do that fear God If thou hast any thing to say in thine own defence against these things and canst shew what ground you have to hope for mercy from God tho you do not keep his Law we shall most willingly hear thee Thus argued the Jew And hence
it was that Justin took occasion to mention the new law and Covenant in his Answer to the foresaid Discourse of the Jew which Answer he thus begins There never was O Trypho nor ever will be another God besides him who created the whole world and we have no other God than you none but that same God who brought your fathers out of Egypt Nor do we trust in any other for there is no other but in him in whom you trust also to wit the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And we trust in him and hope to be saved not by Moses nor by the Law to wit of Moses But I have read O Trypho that there should be a latter or after-Law and a Testament or Covenant c. As these words and what follows them are cited in the Apol. p. 24. This New-Law or Covenant Justin saith all Men must keep That would be saved Then alluding to Isa 42.6 He saith Christ was given to be this Eternal and latter-Law unto us and a sure Covenant after which there is neither Law nor precept nor Commandment How that passage of Justin is to be understood I have shewed before Then he proves out of Isaiah and Jeremiah that Christ was to come and that through him God would make this New and last Law or Covenant with his Church consisting Jews and Gentiles And since God was to do thus he concludes from the conversion of the Gentiles from Idols to Faith in the crucified Jesus and from their Holiness of Life and perseverance in Faith and Holiness to the Death that the Messias was already come and that this was the New-Law and Covenant which the Christians lived under and according to the terms whereof they hoped to be saved through Christ believed on For saith Justin we are the true Spiritual Israel the spiritual progeny of Jacob and Isaac and Abraham who in his uncircumcision by Faith obtained a good Testimony from God and was blessed and called the Father of many Nations even we who are brought near unto God by this crucified Christ This he confirms from Isaiah 55. v. 3.4 5. Then tells them this very Law ye Jews disgrace and vilify his New and Holy Covenant where he manifestly distinguishes the Covenant from the Lord himself neither do ye to this day receive it nor repent of your evil deeds The Legislator is come and present and you see him not The poor receive the Gospel and the blind see but you do not understand Then he tells them that they needed another Spiritual Circumcision and Sabbath and Unleavened bread and washing That God was not like them pleased with those external Rites and Ceremonies but that now by the New Law and Covenant he called them to true Evangelical Repentance and Faith in the Blood of Christ which alone can wash away sin and expiat the guilt of it To prove this he cites those Scriptures mentioned by Mr. G. he stops not there but goes on and tells the Jews that their External Rites Washings and Sacrifices were but Types and Shadows of the inward Spiritual Washing and Purification of Gods People by the Blood Spirit and word of Christ Wherefore he exhorts Trypho and his Company to Faith and Repentance according to the Tenour of the new-New-Covenant And that he doth in the words of Isaiah Chap. 55. from v. 3. To the end Now this was not the old Law and Covenant of works but the New Law or Covenant of Grace which Justin in the words of Isaiah Preached to these Jews ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã pag. 231. This is that very thing which this New Law-giver Judges fit and meet to require of you From the premisses it is manifest that Justin did not think the New-Law or Covenant to be a Doctrine of Grace in such a sense as to require nothing of us at all for there and through the whole Dialogue he shews that Faith and Repentance and Evangelical obedience are required by the Gospel-Law and Covenant and says expressly that this Covenant all Men must keep that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God Thus he Answered the Jew's objection and shewed that Christians had ground to hope for Mercy and Salvation tho they kept not the old Sinaitical Covenant because they had received from God a New-Law and Covenant of Grace which they kept and keeping it they were sure to obtain the pardon of their Sins and salvation of their Souls through the Blood and Death of Christ the Mediator and surety of that New and better Covenant That this is the true sense of Justin is evident by what I quoted out of him before in my remarks on Mr. G' s. 7th Chapter by what I have here related concerning the Jew's Objection and his Answer to it which was the true occasion of his mentioning the New Law and Covenant And by what he writes in pag. 243. 263 323 327. I might now pass from Justin to a vindication of the Testimonies of Cyprian from the exceptions made against them by Mr. G. if another Reverend Brother in his niblings at our Apol. had not pretended to prove in his Book on Rom. 4. That I impertinently quoted Justin Martyr His words in pag. 35. Are these I shall saith Mr. C. only instance his first citation out of Justin Martyr and I am willing to be Judged by any of the Subscribers that will take the pains to read it if Justin intends any thing more than the recommending the Christian Constitution and proving it preferable to the Mosaical for he says This new law is posterior to Moses his Law but the Apologists new law has been ever since the Fall of Adam Thus Mr. C. whose Arguments are to be considered before I pass any further I answer then thus That Justin intended the recommending of the Christian Constitution of the Covenant af Grace and proving it preferable to the Mosaical was never denied by me tho I deny that he intended no more than the recommending of it in Mr. C. his sense for I did and do most firmly believe That that was part of his Design and the other part of it was to prove against the Jew That the New Law or Covenant of Grace was now to be kept as it is in its Christian Constitution and that the keeping of it as such was sufficient to the obtaining of salvation and that the keeping of it in its Mosaical Constitution or form of Administration was not now necessary as Trypho pretended But then good Sir consider that in prosecution of that design he expressly calls the Christian constitution of it as such a New-Law and Covenant of the greatest or most excellent Authority of all which all Men now must keep whosoever they be that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God Now I appeal to all Men of Common sense and reason if withal they have but common honesty whether this citation was not very pertinent to my purpose which was to prove that the accuser of the
believe that he is not much more mistaken in numbering how often it is to be found throughout the whole Book He that mistakes in reckoning Eight sure is not to be trusted in reckoning 97 nay since he puts the 8 into the 97 to make up his full number he must be mistaken in that number 97 as he is in the number 8. And for ought I know he may be much more mistaken in the making up of his whole number but it is not worth the while to insist upon this any longer And then for the other how seldom Justin calls the Gospel a Law whether more than four times I will not insist upon that neither though therein he is mistaken also But I Answer 2. That suppose it were true which he saith as it is not true nay suppose Justin had called the Gospel ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a Testament not only Ninety seven times but Ninety seven hundred times and had but twice called it a new-Law yet that would make nothing against us but would make for us and would fully answer the main end for which we cited the Testimony of Justin which was to prove against our Accuser that New-Law is not a new Word of an old ill meaning For here we see that above Fifteen hundred years agoe Justin used the word and called it a New-Law in a good sense and our other Witnesses add that it is of Grace a Law of Grace which was the thing to be proved 3. Ans What doth Mr. C. mean by saying That Justin calls it so often a Testament and but seldom a Law without the Explicatory word Testament added Would he make simple people believe that Justin Martyr wrote in English and used the English word Testament so often I hope he did not design any such thing VVhy what then is the Mystery VVhy thus it is Justin wrote in Greek and the word he so often used is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Now it seems Mr. C. would make the VVorld believe that the Noun ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã always signifies a Testament an absolute Testament or Promise without any Condition but that it never signifies a Covenant a Conditional Covenant or Promise of a benefit to them that shall perform the Condition prescribed in the Covenant But be it known to all whom it may concern that if this was his design it was no good one For the Greek word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã doth not always signifie a Testament in his sense but it really signifies both a Testament and a Covenant and therefore to obviate such Cavilling in the Apology p. 24. l. 37 38. In Translating the First Testimony out of Justin Martyr I did twice render the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Testament or Covenant whereby the VVorld may see I used no little Tricks of Art but down-right Honesty in Citing and Translating Justin whereas it seems my Reverend Brother would have the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to be Translated Testament only and not Covenant at all and this makes some suspect that there may be Persons in the VVorld who care as little for the word Covenant as for the word Law and it may be would be glad if people were brought to believe that new-New-Covenant of Grace is a new word of an ill-meaning as well as New Law of Grace But I demand of Mr. C. whether it was not a Covenant a Conditional Covenant which God made with Israel in the day when he took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt If he grant that it was as I think it will not be denyed and if any should deny it it might be easily proved then ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifies a Conditional Covenant and not an absolute Testament only For in Heb. 8. v. 9. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is the word that is used by the Apostle to signifie that Mosaical Covenant And then in v. 10. the same word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and no other is used also to signifie the New and Better Covenant in its last Edition which God hath made with the Gospel-Church through Christ Incarnat In like manner the same Hebrew word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Berith is used in Jeremich 31. v. 32. to signifie the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant And in v. 31 33. it is used to signifie the said new and better Covenant in its last and most excellent form of Administration But so it is that the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant was a Conditional Covenant otherwise how did the people break it Jer. 31. v. 32. therefore both the Greek word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and the Hebrew ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifie a Conditional Covenant a Covenant which prescribes a duty and condition and promises a benefit to them who perform the prescribed Condition And consequently from the bare signification of the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it can no more be proved that the Gospel-Covenant is an absolute Testament without any Condition than it can be proved from the bare signification of the same word that the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant was an absolute Testament without any condition for the same word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifies both the Covenants Now then if the said Mosaical Covenant was a Conditional Covenant to the Israelites though it be called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which signifies both a Covenant and a Testament VVhy may not the Evangelical New Covenant be a Conditional Covenant or Law of Grace to us Christians though it be called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which signifies both a Covenant and a Testament And since such is the signification of the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I am willing to be informed by my Reverend Brother how Justin Martyr can reasonably be thought to have added the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or Testament as Explicatory of the word Law to Trypho the Jew and to teach him that by Law he meant nothing but an absolute Testament whenas by what I have said it plainly appears that Justin and Trypho both believed That both the words Hebrew and Greek signified a conditional Covenant which is the same thing with a Federal-Law And that Justin believed this is evident both by his quoting Jer. 31. v. 31 32. in that very Page against the Jew and also by his using the words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to signifie the same thing For as he is Quoted in the Apology p. 24. he sayes that all Men whosoever they be that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God must now keep this Covenant or Testament which is of the greatest Authority of all If all Men must keep it under the penalty of not obtaining possession of the Inheritance of God because it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the most excellent and of the greatest Authority of all then it is plain that it is a Law which prescribes some Duty to Christians so that their obtaining of the Promised Benefit is suspended till they through Grace perform the
said duty From all which I may safely conclude that Justin believed the Christian constitution of the Gospel to be not only a New Testament but a new-New-Covenant also and a New-Law of Grace and this he affirmed that all Men might know it to be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by the powerful Grace of God which followed or Accompanied it By what hath been said it may evidently appear not only to the Subscribers but to all other intelligent Readers that Justin Martyr was very pertinently cited in the Apology and that both the R. brethrens exceptions against his Testimony are of no force at all and have but given me an occasion to set the truth in a clearer light As for Mr. C. His wishing that I had not attempted to prove the New-Law out of the Fathers since Daille who was better acquainted with them says it is in vain to make them Judges in many of the controversies between us and the Papists and yet the late question concerning the New-Law is a more nice point I Answer that I freely confess my self to be nothing if compared with the great Daille in that or any other part of Learning yet I have a desire to Learn of Daille and he teaches me that tho we are not to make them Judges in the controversies between us and the Papists yet we may make very good use of them as he instances in his Treatise of the right use of the Fathers English Translation pag. 183. 184 185 186 187. And at the end of pag. 187. He saith There sometimes arise such troublesome Spirits as will needs broach Doctrines devised of their own heads which are not at all grounded upon any principle of the Christian Religion I say therefore that the Authority of the Ancients may very properly and seasonably be made use of against the impudence of these Men By shewing that the Fathers were utterly ignorant of any such fancies as these Men propose to the world and if this can be proved we ought then certainly to conclude that no such Doctrine was ever Preached to mankind either by our Saviour Christ or by his Apostles For what probability is there that those Holy Doctors of former ages from whose hands Christianity hath been derived down to us should be ignorant of any of those things which had been revealed and recommended by our Saviour as important and necessary to salvation Thus Daille 2. I Answer that my R. brother quite mistakes the matter for the Apology did not alledge those Fathers As Judges in matter of right but as witnesses in matter of fact So it is expressly declared pag. 24. Of the Apology in those following words to prove this it being matter of fact there needs no more but to shew from the Testimony of credible Witnesses who lived many hundred years ago that the words to wit New-Law of Grace are not new but were used in the Christian Church in a good sense and meaning long before we were born This was the thing for the proof whereof we alledged the Testimony of those few Ancient Fathers And we are still perswaded upon good grounds that they speak home to the point in question and do prove the accuser to have asserted a notorious falsehood in matter of fact in saying confidently in Print that New Law of Grace is a new word of an old but ill meaning 3. Ans We think it was very seasonable and highly incumbent upon us to bring forth the Testimonies of Fathers and other Orthodox Divines who lived and died in the true Faith long before we had a being when we were publickly accused in Print either through ignorance or malice both of using new words and of Preaching a New and Heretical Gospel and thereby if possible to convince our Brethren that they were quite out and that we were no such persons as they proclaimed us to be that we used no other words nor Preached any other Doctrine than what had been used and Preached by Ancient Fathers and Modern Orthodox Divines who lived and died in the true Faith of Christ many years before us without being suspected or accused of Preaching a New-Gospel And so much for Vindication of the pertinency of the Citations out of Justin Martyr In the next place Mr. Goodwin undertakes to shew that my citations out of Cyprian are not to the purpose For 1. Tho saith he Cyprian in his 11th Epistle Speaks frequently of the Law of the Gospel yet he thereby means only that due Discipline which ought to be observed in all the Churches of Christ I Answer it is true that Cyprian there by the Law of the Gospel means Christ's Law of Discipline instituted in the Gospel but then it is as true that the said Law of Discipline is a part of the Gospel-Law for it is an adjunct or Appendix of the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace in its Christian constitution or form of Administration Hence Dr. Ames saith that Holy Discipline instituted by Christ is a part of the Gospel His words are * Sicut autem est pars regni Christi sic etiam eadem ratione est pars evangelii neque igitur totum christi regnum neque totum evangelium recipiunt qui rejiciunt disciplinam Ames Medul Theolog. lib. 1. Chap. 37. Thes 12. But as it is a part of the Kingdom of Christ so also in the same respect it is a part of the Gospel therefore they who reject Discipline do neither receive the whole Kingdom of Christ nor the whole Gospel Thus Dr. Ames and the late Reverend Mr. Gale who was Mr. Goodwin's Master saith in his Idea Theologiae Chap. 8. Sect. 3. pag. 175. That by the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is meant the Gospel-Laws which Christ hath given to his Church c. 2. His exception against my other Citations out of Cyprian's first book to Quirinus where in his 10th and 13th Chapters he expressly calls the Gospel a New-Law and a New-Yoke Is that he meant no more by the New-Law than what Justin Martyr did that is a New-Doctrine and Institution of Grace Ans 1. Here Mr. G. confesses that by New-Law Cyprian meant as much as Justin Martyr and no more But I have clearly proved from Justin Martyr's own words that by New-Law he meant the New-Covenant-Law which hath precepts as well as promises and by its precepts obliges us to duty Therefore Cyprian by New-Law meant the New-Covenant-Law which hath precepts as well as promises and by its precepts obliges us to duty 2. I Answer that this is as clear as the light at noon from those three Texts of Holy Scripture whereby Cyprian proves that a New-Law of Grace was to be given For two of them to wit Isa 2.3 and Mic. 4.2 expressly call the Gospel a Law as Mr. Goodwin himself confesseth and the 3d Text to wit Mat. 17.5 Contains in it one of the principal precepts of the Evangelical New-Law of Grace For the words are This is my beloved Son in whom I am
promiseth unto his Elect and perfecteth in them the prescribed Condition of Faith and Repentance These are Gomarus his own words truly Translated which together with his 30th Position that next follows in order do sufficiently refute Mr G' s Gloss and may make him Blush for so grosly abusing that Great Man and most Zealous Anti-Arminian Fourthly Mr. G. having passed over the Testimony of Dr. Andrews the learned Bishop of Winchester comes in the last place to Dr. Twiss and pretends by a short Answer to take off his Testimony and to shew that it is nothing to the purpose And his short Answer is That all which can be concluded from the words of Dr Twiss is only this That God hath appointed a set and stated order in our Salvation according to which He proceeds I reply That this Answer is short indeed and that is no fault at all but the fault of it is that it is most false as doth most evidently appear by Dr. Twiss his own express and formal words quoted at large in the Apology I appeal to any Man of common sense that can read and understand English if withall he be a Man of Common Honesty and Ingenuity whether 1. Dr. Twiss doth not say that in the very Gospel there is a Positive Law according to which God proceeds in his dealings with Men. 2. That the said positive law is not only a Law to God himself but that it is a positive law to us appointing unto us a set and stated order of walking and prescribing a condition to be performed by us through Grace that we may obtain Salvation for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness only 3. That the said order is by necessary consequence a conditional order with respect to us and that it is required of us to observe the Conditional Order and to perform the condition in order to obtain the blessing and benefit promised conditionally in the Gospel These three things are so evident by the words of Dr Twiss that it is needless to use further reasoning to make them more evident and therefore I shall forbear doing it at present and only refer the matter to the judgment of every understanding conscientious Reader who shall be at the pains to peruse my Citations out of Twiss Thus I have clearly vindicated all the Citations that Mr. Goodwin hath excepted against and endeavoured to elude and have shewed that they stand in full force and do very pertinently prove the matter for the proof whereof they were brought in the Apology and that his Exceptions are so poor and mean yea false and foul that he had done more prudently and had better consulted his own credit and reputation as an Ingenuous Man and a Schollar if he had done by all my Witnesses as he did by Dr. Andrews passed them all over and said nothing to them at all But before he make an end of his Eighth Chapter he undertakes in P. 68. to instruct Ministers how to deal with a poor dying Sinner and 1. when a Minister comes to visit a Sinner on his Death-bed that hath lived in Lewdness to that time of his Sickness Mr. G. would not have him to advise and exhort and in the Lord's Name to command and beseech such a sinner to do any thing in order to his obtaining Salvation through the Mercy of the Father the Meritorious Righteousness of the Son and the Grace of the Spirit no though the Minister know that the Man hath lived to that day in Unbelief and Impenitence and in the practice of all manner of wickedness yet he must have a care that he do not exhort him to Faith in Christ and Repentance towards God he must not tell him that Faith and Repentance are both duties indispensably necessary to Salvation and required of him by the gospel-Gospel-Covenant and therefore that if now he do not believe in Christ with all his heart and if now he do not repent unfeignedly of all his sins and pray to God through Christ for Grace to enable him so to do he will be undone for ever But that on the other hand if he now cry to God mightily for Grace to help him in time of need and through Grace now at last believe and repent and turn to the Lord in heart and affection his many and great sins shall be pardoned and his Soul shall be saved through Christ according to the Tenour of the New Covenant or law of Grace This must not the Minister do because this would fright the wicked man and make him think that the Minister were sending him to Hell Well but what must the Minister do then why that Mr. G. tells us in the second place and the sum of his Advice you may take thus Poor Sinner by the Covenant of life and salvation God requires neither Faith nor Repentance of thee he requires no Duty of thee at all by the Gospel for that is all Promise absolute Promise but if God hath Decreed to save thee he hath Blessings in store for thee and all Blessings of the Covenant are inseparably linked together and thou shalt have one and all of them never trouble thy head then about Believing in Christ and Repenting of thy Sins for these are Duties which the Gospel requires not of thee But look thou on Faith and Repentance as Blessings given not as Duties required by the Gospel and laying thy hand on thy heart if thou findest the Blessings of Faith and Repentance there then all is well and thou mayest be assured of thy Interest in all other blessings This it seems is his way of visiting the Sick and thus he would Instruct other Ministers to Visit them and if we may believe himself he hath by this sufficiently answered that part of our Apology in Page 32 33. which relates to this matter But whether this be a sufficient Answer I am content without adding one word more of Reply to refer it unto the Judgment of the Intelligent and Godly Reader Remarks on his 9th Chapter MR. Goodwin's Design in this his last Chapter is to make simple unlearned People believe That our Opinion of the Gospel's being a New Covenant or Law of grace which hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings doth too much agree with the Popish Socinian and Arminian Opinion concerning the New Law And it appears to be very dangerous to agree with them in that Opinion First because as he says The Papists do in that opinion lay the surest foundation for that dear Article of their Faith the merit of works Secondly because the Arminians and Socinians do zealously espouse it as a most effectual engine to overthrow Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ Whether this be altogether true or not is not my present business to enquire if they really do what Mr. G. charges them with they certainly do a very ill thing And we are fo far from agreeing with them therein that we utterly detest and abhor it And
promised ought to perform his Promise in point of faithfulness which is comprehended in universal Justice but he is not always bound so to do in regard of particular Justice Nor is this the necessary effect of a Promise that he who hath performed the condition annexed to the Promise may be said to have right to demand the thing Promised as a reward due to him on the account of Justice For what if I should promise a poor Man that I will give him an Alms if he will come and call on me at my House surely that Promise will not make it cease to be an Alms nor will it by reason of that Promise become an act of particular Justice or a Retribution of a Reward as of due debt Thus Essenius Answered that Argument of Bellarmin for the Merit of Works and Mr. G's Argument being in effect the very same there needâ no other Answer to be given unto it And before he had so publickly made use of this poor Popish Argument he should have consider'd the import of the Fifth Article of the 16th Chapter of our own Confession of Faith where it is said expresly that We cannot by our best works Merit Pardon of Sin or Eternal Life at the hand of God by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the Glory to come and the infinite distance that is between us and God whom by them we can neither profit nor satisfie for the debt of our former sins but when we have done all we can we have done but our duty and are unprofitable servants and because as they are good they proceed from his Spirit and as they are wrought by us they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they cannot endure the Severity of God's Judgment If my R. Brother had consider'd understood and believed this part of the Confession of Faith he would never have taken it for granted that Merit is nothing but the dueness of a reward to some work done For our Confession of Faith teaches us that many things are necessary to make a work Meritorious besides the Reward 's being due to it 1. It is necessary that there be a proportion between the work done and the blessing or reward promised 2. That there be not an infinite distance between Man the Worker and God the Rewarder 3. That the Work done be profitable unto God for whom it is done 4. That before our Works can Merit the pardon of Sin they must be able to satisfie God's Justice for the Debt of Sin 5. That our Works be not due to God by vertue of his Command requiring them 6. That the Works be our own done by our own strength 7. That they be most perfect and done as well as they ought to be These are the Conditions necessary to make a work Meritorious of pardon of sin and Eternal Life And if these things be so What deserves Mr. G's Question What is Merit but when the reward is due to some work done but to be hissed at And yet for his information that he may hereafter know my Principles better than he seems to do I tell him that in my Judgment to speak strictly the Reward is not due to the VVork nor to the VVorker for the VVork's sake and yet I hold the Reward to be due But to whom and for whom I Answer The Reward to wit of Eternal Life it is due to the Penitent Believer in whose heart Christ dwells by Faith and it is due to him by the Promise of God who is faithful and cannot lie and it is due to him for the sake of Christ who as he hath satisfied the Justice of God for all our sins so he hath Merited for us all the Blessings and Benefits of the New Covenant from first to last Now this being my Hypothesis founded upon the VVord of God and agreeable to our Confession of Faith as I have fully and clearly proved in the foresaid Remarks on my Reverend Brother's Discourse of the Gospel I refer it to all Men of Understanding Sobriety and Conscience to Judge whether this be true which he sayes That the Merit of VVorks is really included in my Hypothesis At last being conscious to himself that he can never prove that our Principle agrees with the Popish Arminian and Socinian Doctrines as he had asserted in the Contents of his 9th Chapter he gives over his Accusing us Falsly and concludes with Counsel and Advice to forbear such Phrases and Modes of Speech as by the Enemies of the Gospel are made use of to very ill purposes and that is to lay aside the use of the words New Law VVhereunto I Answer That I am very willing to be Counselled and Advised by those that are wiser than my self and though I remember something of the Fox in the Apologue yet I will agree with my Reverend Brother that for my own part I will forbear calling the gospel-Gospel-Covenant absolutely and simply a New Law without any Explicatory addition provided 1. That he and his Friend for whom he VVrites will confess the Truth of that which I have proved to wit that it is a Notorious Falshood in matter of Fact that New Law of Grace is a New VVord of an old Ill-meaning Provided 2. That as I shall not use the Adjective New when I call the Gospel Covenant a Law or a Law of Grace so he will himself use the word Law and call the Gospel by that Name as the Scripture doth and not be offended with us for calling it a Law and a Law of Grace and for believing with Mr. Pool on Isa 2.3 that it is frequently called a Law because it hath the Nature and Power of a Law c. and with the Professors of Leyden that it is sometimes called a Law because it hath also its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings Provided also that he will with us believe the Gospel to be a Law in the same sense as the Professors of Leyden and Mr. Pool held it to be a Law 3. Provided that my agreeing not to use the Adjective New when I call the Gospel a Law and a Law of Grace shall not be construed to such a sense as if I thereby signified that I account it unlawful to call the Gospel a New Law for I do not so account it but on the contrary I hold it very lawful to call the Gospel a New Law in the same sense we call it a New Covenant The Reasons why I hold it lawful to call the Gospel a New Law are these 1. Because tho the Phrase be not wholly and Verbatim found in Scripture yet it is not contrary to Scripture yea the one halfe of it the Noân Substantive Law is expresly in Scripture and the other halfe is agreeable to Scripture as joined to to the word Law and is expresly in Scripture as joyned with the equivalent word COVENANT 2. Because the Ancient Fathers in the best and purest times
doth he say it so clearly as that they can understand that promise of Life and are bound to believe it without a Supernatural Revelation Let my Reverend Brother prove this and I am satisfied as to that matter But 2. I Answer that his position which he infers from the foresaid supposition to wit that ergo God in giving the Gospel Law to some Men speaks generally to all Men without exception of the most Barbarous Heathens believe and you shall Live Is not only notoriously false as considered absolutely in it self but likewise if it be considered relatively as having respect unto and as inferred from the said supposition it is so visibly Inconsequential and Illogical that I admire my R. Brother did not perceive it For what Man of any competent measure of Learning is so void of reason as deliberately to think and say that because the Moral Law which as to its principles and precepts is natural and by nature's light known to all even to the Heathens Rom. 2.14 15. Is sufficiently promulgated to all mankind even to the most Barbarous Nations Therefore by parity of reason the positive Gospel-Law of Grace Believe in Christ Crucified and thou shalt Live Which is supernatural and cannot possibly be known but by Supernatural Revelation Rom. 10.14 Is likewise sufficiently promulgated to all mankind without exception even to the most Barbarous Nations who have not and who never had that Supernatural Revelation by which alone it can be known For my part I cannot but think that that Man is forsaken of common sense and reason who deliberately and seriously thinks and says that there is a parity of reason between the promulgation of the foresaid two Laws of nature and of Grace and that because the one to wit the Law of nature is and must be sufficiently promulgated to all Men without exception therefore the other to wit the Supernatural Law of Grace is and must be likewise sufflciently promulgated to all Men without exception even to the most Barbarous Nations who never had the foresaid Supernatural Revelation by which alone it can be known And since it is palpably evident that there is no parity of reason between the two cases and that there is no Consequential arguing from the Universal promulgation of the natural Law to prove the Universal promulgation of the Supernatural Law of Grace Mr. G. may be ashamed to assirm that the Two amazing absurdities which he mentions will naturally Spring from hence For it is plainly ridiculous to say as he doth that they both naturally Spring from his foresaid Argument or that they naturally Spring from God's speaking generally to all Men believe and you shall Live Now that this may clearly appear I will set down my R. Brother's own words pag. 57. l. 9.10 c. From this saith he two amazing absurdities will naturally Spring the one is that God should by this his new Law promise pardon and Life on condition they believe on his Son to people who never heard that there is such a thing as the Christian Religion in the world nor such a person as Christ and to whose Ears not so much as the sound of his Name ever arrived These are his own express words and in them is contained the first amazing absurdity And I ingenuously confess with my mouth what I believe in my heart that what he speaks of is an amazing absurdity to wit that God should promise pardon and life on condition of Faith in Christ to people who never heard of Christ at all i. e. To whom Christ was never supernaturally revealed at all But with all I must say that I am amazed to find Mr. G. affirming that the said amazing absurdity doth naturally Spring from this That God by the Gospel or Law of Grace speaks generally to all Men believe and you shall live And if he will prove what he here affirms he will amaze me yet more The thing then he hath to prove is that which he affirms to wit That from God's speaking generally upon supposition that he doth speak generally by the Gospel-new-Law to all Men believe and you shall live There will naturally Spring this Consequence that God by the said Gospel-new-Law promises life on condition of believing in Christ to people who never heard of Christ and Christian Religion That is in fewer words but of the same sense and meaning From God's speaking generally by the Gospel to all Men in the world concerning Faith in Christ and Life through him it follows naturally that God doth not by the Gospel speak generally to all Men in the world concerning Faith in Christ and Life through him I do my R. B. no wrong by fixing upon him a consequence of my feigning I do abhor to do such a thing assuredly it is not of my feigning but it was framed in his own head and is Printed with his Name prefixed to it I appeal to his own words for the truth of this Now if this be not an amazing absurdity let him prove the truth of the Consequence And then we shall be all amazed at his Acumen as of one who can Conjure quià libet ex quolibet and Demonstrate by a natural Consequence that because God hath generally promulgated the Gospel to all Men therefore he hath not generally promulgated the Cospel to all Men. But Reverend Sir I hope upon second thoughts you will see how you run your self into the Briers by misrepresenting the truth and by indeavouring to render it odious to your ignorant followers And I wish you may be so ingenuous as to confess for the undeceiving of the people that our Principles are not such as some take them to be and that no such absurdity as is pretended doth naturally Spring from them For my part I never said nor thought that God by the Gospel Speaks generally to all Men without exception believe and you shall live I published the contrary to the world in that very book which this brother now writes against See Apol. pag. 200. But if I were of that Opinion I should from it infer the quite contrary to that which you infer and should say Now from this Opinion if it be true there will naturally spring this other Truth that all Men generally without exception have heard the Gospel and that there is such a Person as Christ and such a Religion as that called Christian In short you know well enough that in my Judgment God hath not Promulgated the Gospel to all Men in the World even to the most barbarous Nations by speaking universally to them all and saying that if they do all Believe in Christ they shall be saved And that therefore many are invincibly and inculpably ignorant of Christ and of the Gospel because God hath no ways Revealed Christ and his Gospel to them unto this day nor doth he either by Precept Command them or by Promise Encourage them to Believe in Christ This is commonly called a Negative Infidelity which is no Sin