Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
hand_n	doctrine_n	precept_n	relative_a	35	3	18.4739	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49184	Remarks on the R. Mr. Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel proving that the Gospel-covenant is a law of grace, answering his objections to the contrary, and rescuing the texts of Holy Scripture, and many passages of ecclesiastical writers both ancient and modern, from the false glosses which he forces upon them / by William Lorimer ...	Lorimer, William, d. 1721.	1696 (1696)	Wing L3074; ESTC R22582	263,974	188

is impossible to be done by any power whatsoever which is even impossible to be done by the help of his Spirit and Grace But the Conditional Promise of our Saviour in John 8.51 is of another Nature it is not merely oeconomical but real and intentional really requiring the condition and obliging Men to keep his saying and intentionally promising unto all who do or shall keep his saying that they shall never see Death This plainly appears from the double asseveration wherewith our Saviour spoke the foresaid Promise saying Verily verily I say unto you if a man keep my saying be shall never see doath Whence I conclude that the Gospel is not without all Precepts for here is implyed a Precept to keep Christs saying A Third Tellimony we have in Rom. 10.8 9 10. That is the Word of Faith which we preach that 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 for with the Heart Man believeth unto Righteousness and with the Mouth confession is made unto Salvation Observe here 1 That by the Word of Faith is meant the Gospel which according to the Dutch Annotations on the place is so called because by it we are exhorted and brought to Faith 2. Observe that besides Faith in the Heart which is required unto Righteousness and Justification there is here required Confession with the Mouth as necessary to the obtaining of consummate Salvation And by Confession with the Mouth is meant an outward Profession of the inward Faith of the Heart and living suirable to our holy Profession Hence Mr. Ma●o in the last English Annotatiens on Rom. 10.9 saith There are but these two things which the Gospel principally requires in order to our Salvation The one is the Confession of Christ with our Mouths and that in spight of all Persecution and Danger to own him for our Lord and for our Jesus and to declare that we are and will be ruled and saved by him and by him only The other is to believe in our Hearts that God hath raisod him from the Dead Whence I conclude again that the Gospel is not without all Precepts for it hath besides the Precept of believing on Christ with the Heart another Principal Precept of confessing him with the Mouth that is of living suitably to our Faith A Fourth Testimony to prove that the Gospel hath Precepts we have in those places of the New Testament where some are commended for their obeying and being subject to the Gospel and others are blamed and threatned for their disobeying the Gospel 1. We find that some are commended for obeying the Gospel and being subject to it Thus the believing Romans are commended for obeying the Gospel Rom. 6.17 God be thanked that ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you This form of Doctrine is the Gospel as the Dutch Annotation on the place tells us saying expresly that the Gospel is a Doctrine of Godliness and Righteousiness And Paul gave God thanks for this that the believing Romans had from the Heart obeyed it Which they could never have done if the Gospel Doctrine had had no Precept requiring their Obedience For speaking of a Doctrine Precept and Obedience are relative one to another so that take away the Precept of a Doctrine and you take away the possibility of Obedience to that Doctrine which hath no Precept On the other hand if we once grant that there is such a thing as Obedience to the Doctrine of the Gospel we must by consequence grant also that the Doctrine of the Gospel hath some Precept which requires that Obedience otherwise it can be no Obedience to that Doctrine Again in 2 Cor. 9.13 we read that the Saints glorified God for the believing Corinthians their professed subjection unto the Gospel of Christ Now it is unconceivable how they could be subject to the Gospel if it had no preceptive commanding Authority over their Consciences For Subjection is relative unto and presupposes a superiour commanding Authority in that whereunto there is Subjection This common sense teaches us But so it is that the Corinthians were subject to the Gospel and therefore the Gospel is not without all Precepts but it had a preceptive commanding Authority over them to which they were subject 2. We find that others are blamed and threatned for not obeying the Gospel Rom. 10.16 They have not all obeyed the gospel 1 Pet. 4.17 What shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God And 2 Thess 1.7 8. The Lord shall take vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ But now according to the principle of the Flacian Sectaries that the Gospel hath no Precept there could be no such thing as disobedience to the Gospel For where there is no Gospel Law or Precept there can be no Transgression against the Gospel This one of the Brethren who was for that way plainly saw and granting the consequence declared it to the World in Print Dansons Confer p. 18. that he and his Party knew no Sins against the Gospel And indeed if the Gospel had no Precept there could be no Sin against it But the Apostles Paul and Peter tell us expresly that there is such a thing as not obeying the Gospel and that persons who obey it not shall be severely punished for their disobedience And if so then surely their disobeying the Gospel is a Sin against the Gospel whence it follows by necessary consequence that the Gospel hath some Precept which was to be demonstrated And if it be said that the Moral Law commands Obedience to the Gospel I answer be it so that is so far from weakening that it rather strengthens the Argument For if it command Obedience to the Gospel then it commands Obedience to the Precept of the Gospel for without the Gospels having some Precept there might indeed be Obedience to the Law in other things but there could be no Obedience to the Gospel at all nor could there be Obedience to the Law in that matter because upon that false supposition the Law should command a Chimerical impossibility which is absurd to affirm of the Just Law of the infinitely Wise God Therefore from the Moral Law its obliging us to obey the Gospel it necessarily follows that the Gospel hath some Precept to be obeyed A Fifth Testimony we have in Tit. 2.11 12. where it is written that 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 godly in this present world In this Scripture we are to observe two things 1. What is meant by the Grace of God which bringeth Salvation and which hath appeared unto all Men or which bringeth Salvation unto all Men and hath appeared And it is generally confessed to be objective Grace

Gospel requires Repentance of us in order to pardon of Sin seems to be like those of whom Lactantius of old in the Seventh Book and First Chapter of his Institutions said that they will not believe our Doctrine Nec si Solem quidem ipsum gestemus in manibus No not though we carry before them even the Sun it self in our hands that is though we bring them the clearest evidence imaginable Matth. 11.19 But however it be with such persons yet Wisdom is and will be justified of her Children As for Luther since he approved and subscribed the Ausburgh Confession we may from it take an estimate of his Judgment And besides that Chemnicius in his common places page 219 220. shews out of Luthers first Disputation against the Antinomians That he also held that Repentance taken intirely in its essential perfection is required by the Gospel I wish Luther had been something more accurate in the handling of that matter but as it is it sufficeth to show that he was far from thinking that Evangelical Repentance is required by the Natural Moral Law only and not at all by the Gospel and that on the contrary he believed that Evangelical Repentance as Evangelical is from the Gospel and not from the Law And so the Lutherans generally except the Flacians if there be yet any of that Sect remaining in Germany maintain that Evangelical Repentance as Evangelical is required by the Gospel And I wonder not at all to find them unanimous in this so far as I am acquainted with their Writings because after Melancthon they hold Faith to be an essential part yea to be the essentiating form of Evangelical Repentance I am not indeed of their mind in this yet I think it is a truth that though Faith be not the very essential form it self of Evangelical Repentance yet it contributes much towards the giving its specifical form and the making it truly Evangelical and without Faith it would not be Evangelical Calvin and his Followers differ from the Lutherans in this That they make not Faith to be an Essential part of Repentance but hold them to be Two distinct Graces co-existent and influential the one upon the other And that Calvin believed as we do That the Gospel requires of us Evangelical Repentance in order to Pardon of Sin I plainly proved from his Writings which are quoted in the Apology p. 92 93. If any should object that Calvin on Rom. 10. ver 8. writes thus (t) Colligimus sicut lex opera exiglt Evangelium nihil aliud postulare nisi ut fidem afferant homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam Calvin Comment in Rom. 10.8 We gather That as the Law requires Works to wit unto Justification so the Gospel requires nothing but that Men bring Faith to receive the Grace of God I Answer That this makes altogether for us For 1. Here Calvin says expresly That the Gospel requires Faith then he did not believe it to be such a Doctrine of Grace as requires nothing of us at all 2. Calvin here saith That the Gospel requires nothing but Faith to receive the Grace of God And so we say the very same thing For we have told the World in our Apology That Faith is the only receptive Condition of Justification that is it is the only thing which the Gospel requires as the Instrumental Means or Condition whereby we Apprehend Receive and Apply Christ and his Righteousness to our own Souls for our Justification As for Repentance it is not of that Nature it is not naturally sitted for nor is it by God appointed and ordained to that use and Office in the matter of Justification but it is only fitted for and ordained unto this Use and Office to be the Means or Condition dispositive of the subject man which is to be pardoned and Justifyed And this Calvin does not here deny and we have proved that elsewhere he affirms and maintains it as we do As for the Followers of Calvin I might be large in showing that generally they except a few Cocceians hold that the Gospel-Covenant requires Evangelical Repentance in order to Pardon of Sin but I will content my self at present with a few clear irrefragable Testimonies Having mentioned Zanchy and Sharpius before I pass them and begin with Vrsin and Pareus whose words are these It was said in the definition of the Gospel and in the third difference between the Law and the Gospel that the Gospel requireth both Faith and Repentance or New Obedience and so is the Preaching both of Remission of Sins and of Repentance Against this Flacian Sectaries keep a stir and reason after this sort Obj. There is no Precept or Command belonging to the Gospel but to the Law The Preaching of Repentance is a Precept or Commandment Therefore the Preaching of Repentance belongeth not to the Gospel but to the Law Answer We deny the Major if it be generally meant For this Precept is proper unto the Gospel Zacharias Ursinus his Sum of Christian Religion Enlarged By Pareus in Latine and Translated into English and Printed at London An 1645. pag. 131. that it commandeth us to believe it to embrace the benefit of Christ and now being justifyed to begin New Obedience or that Righteousness which the Law requireth of us Repl. Yea but the Law also willeth us to believe God Therefore it is not proper unto the Gospel to Command us to believe Answer Both the Law and the Gospel commandeth Faith and Conversion to God but diversly c. Thus Vrsin and Pareus tell us plainly what their Judgment was and by Consequence what the Judgment of the Old Calvinists was in Germany for this their large Catechisme was generally received and Taught in Schools of the Reformed both in Germany and elsewhere as in Scotland c. Another Instance of this Nature we have in Wendelin a zealous Calvinist who in his Systema majus lib. 1. cap. 19. Thes 7. writeth thus (u) Mandatum amplectendi Mediatorem cum side etiam conjungit resipiscentiam Secundum illud Johannis Baptistae Marc. 1.15 resipiscite credite Evangelio Sic ipse Deus de Coelo mediatorem patefacit verâ fide amplecti jubet Matth. 17.5 Hic est Filius ille meus dilectus in quo acquiesco ipsum audite Hanc resipiscentiam quatenus Salutaris ad Deum conversio est hoc est Sanctificatio inchoata vel continuata ad Evangelium pertinere patet Quod 4. Argumentis probat M. Frid. Wendelin Christ Theolog. System Maj. lib. 1. cap. 19. Thes 7. pag. 754 755. The Command to receive and embrace the Mediator joins Repentance also with Faith according to that of John the Baptist Mark 1.15 Repent and believe the Gospel So God himself from Heaven reveals the Mediator and Commands to embrace him with a True Faith Matth. 17.5 This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased Hear ye him This Repentance as it is a saving Conversion unto God that is

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-Covenant also and a New-Law of Grace and this he affirmed that all Men might know it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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-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