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 Lâ—â— 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
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 miâ—taken 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-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
to the end before mentioned it prescribes the exercise of Faith and Repentance And so the Gospel is a Law in a very true and good sense and that sense the same which we affirmed it to be in our Apology Whence it appears that my Reverend Brother has here yielded the cause and is come over to our Camp and if he would be consistent with himself here might be an end of the Controversie about the Gospels being a Law with respect to Justification For assuredly we mean no more than that it prescribes seeking by Faith and Repentance and chiefly by Faith as aforesaid And this is the commonly received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as I proved in the Apology and shall yet further prove it if need be But he objects up and down his book that if the Gospel Covenant did prescribe or require any work or works whatsoever and did oblige us to any Duty then it would be another Law of Works and we should still be justified by Works I Answer By denying the Consequence Indeed it is true That if the Gospel require a Work or Duty it requires a Work or Duty for that is an Identical Proposition and no reasonable Man hath so little Wit as to deny the Truth of it But it is utterly false that if the Gospel require any Works then it is another Law of Works in the Scripture-Sense of the Word For by Law of Works the Scripture always means such a Law or Covenant of Works as would justifie a Man by and for his Works if he had them as he ought to have had them But though the Gospel require of us some works yet it is no Law of Works for it doth not require any Works that we may be justifyed either in whole or in part by and for those Works as such Nor are we for them in the least justityed at the Bar of God They are not any of them the least part of that Rigateousness by and for which we are justifyed This we have declared and explained to fully and clearly in our Apology that we cannot but wonder that any Christian that is endued with Common Honesty and hath read and understood our said Apology should persist in accusing us of holding Justification by Works or in asserting confidently that it follows by good consequence from our Principles That consequence my Reverend Brother can never prove For though Repentance be a Work yet is it not according to our Principles required by the Evangelical Law as a Work to Justifie us or as a Work for which we are to be justifyed in the least degree but only as a means or condition in the Subject Man to dispose and prepare him for Justification by Faith only in Christ's Blood and Righteousness And again Though Faith be a Work in it self yet doth not the Evangelical Law require it as a Work to be a part of that Righteousness by and for which we are justifyed but it requires Faith only as the Instrumental Means or Condition by which we receive and apply to our selves and also trust to Christ and his satisfactory meritorius Righteousness as that by and for which alone we are Justifyed before Gods Tribunal Let Mr. G. try when he will he shall find it impossible to prove from my Principles as I have here truely and sincerely set them down that the Gospel would be another Law of Works and that we would be Justifyed by Works if the Gospel required Faith and Repentance as aforesaid I might with more appearance of reason prove from my R. B. Principle That if Faith be required only by the Natural Moral Law and if we be Justifyed by Faith as we certainly are and if Faith be a Work as in its own Nature it certainly is then we are justifyed by a Work of the Natural Moral Law and so are in tantum justifyed by the Law of Works and look how he can answer this Argument drawn from his Principle with as much facility if not more shall I answer his Sophisme drawn from my Principle That the Gospel is a Law of Grace I need say no more to answer all he brings in his Second Chapter but to declare that as he says pag. 12. That all but Papists Socinians and Arminians harmoniously agree in explaining such places as call the Gospel a Law after such a manner as may not give the least colour to the Opinion of the Gospels being a Law in the sense of the three mentioned Parties so I do entirely agree with them in that manner of explaining them and do with them utterly reject the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense of the Gospels being a New Law But then it follows not that the Gospel is no New Law in any Sense because it is not one in the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense Our Authour in pag. 10. says the Gospel is called a Law but no otherwise than as it is a comfortable instruction to poor convinced Sinners what riches of Mercy there are in store and as it teacheth them how they may trust and hope in the God of all Grace But this is not true in his Exclusive Sense for besides that it is a Law as it teacheth how such Sinners should ex officio in point of Duty trustand hope in the God of all Grace through Jesus Christ In fine Though in pag. 14. he mincingly say That the word Judge in Micah 4.3 may very well import no more than that Christ will judge what course of Salvation is best for us to take that he will determine the case and it is better for us to acquiesce in the Decision of his Vnerring Judgment which cannot be deceived nor will ever mislead us than to pursue our own mistaken apprehensions which bewilder us continually Yet even this will sufficiently evince that the Supernatural Gospel-Revelation of that Judgment and Determination of Christ our Lord and Saviour is a Law to us for as soon as it comes to our knowledge it doth of it self immediately oblige us to acquiesce in his Judgment and Determination and to take that course for Salvation which he hath judged best for us to take So that let Mr. G. shuffle never so much he will never be able to avoid his being obliged by the Doctrine of the Gospel immediately to believe in Christ Matth. 17.5 and to take that course which he hath prescribed in order to Salvation Acts 16.31 I shall conclude my Animadversions on this Second Chapter with the Judgment of the Learned and Judicious Mr. Pool who was neither Papist Socinian nor Arminian as it is expressed in his Annotation on Isa 2.3 Out of Zion shall go forth the Law The New Law the Doctrine of the Gospel which is frequently called a Law because it hath the Nature and Power of a Law obliging us no less to the Belief and Practice of it than the Old Law did Remarks on the Third Chapter IN the beginning of this Chapter he doth me a manifest wrong in saying That
I concluded but with no certainty from the Gospels being called a Law in the New Testament that it is a Rule of Works c. It is utterly false that I concluded or endeavoured to conclude that from the Gospels being called a Law He cannot to Etornity prove this from any Words of mine in the Apology All that I concluded from the Gospels being called a Law either in the New or Old Testament was that our Brethren should not be offended with us for calling the Gospel a Law since the Scripture calls it by that name Apol. p 22. Next Against some Body who from the Etymology of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law had inferred that by it is signifyed a Rule of Duty enacted with a Sanction of Penalty or Recompence he says That he knows no great weight can be laid on Arguments drawn from an Etymology And if he knows this why did he against his knowledge lay great weight on the Etymology of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah and in his second Chapter from the Derivation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Horah which signifies he teacheth conclude with confidence that Torah Law when used for the Gospel signifies nothing but a Doctrine which requires no Duty of us at all 2 Why doth he here again in his Third Chapter p. 17. conclude that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the Gospel is named by it signifies no more but such a Doctrine as aforesaid because the Septuagint render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as most fitting to express such a sense Is not this Argument grounded upon the Etymology of Torah and consequently it is grounded upon an uncertainty by his own Confession But it seems that same way of arguing which is of no force against our Brethren must be esteemed to be of great force against us because so is the Will and Pleasure of this Reverend Brother All the rest of this Chapter is taken up in giving the World an account of his Sense of Gal. 2.19 which he had from Luther and I do not doubt to make it appear before we have done that as Luther held the Gospel to be a Law so he held that the Gospel-Law requires of us Faith in Christ and Evangelical Repentance And I am sure that both Jerome and Primasius Two Ancient Fathers who in their Commentaries on Gal. 2 19. did that way interpret the words of Paul I through the Law am dead to the Law as if he had said I through the Evangelical Law am dead to the Old Law I say I am sure that both of them by the Evangelical Law understood such a Gospel-Law as hath not only Promises but also hath its own Precepts and Threatnings as manifeâ—â—ly appears by what they write in their Commentaries on Gal. 3.13 And having briefly hinted this That Jerome Primasius and Luther who all Three go one way and there think to have found the Evangelical Law yet did not by the Evangelical Law understand a mere Speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires nothing at all neither Faith nor Repentance I might very well pass over Mr. G's fine flourish upon the Words of the Apostle as not worth my taking any further notice of had not he dropped several gross falsehoods in giving his Sense of that Text. As 1. That the Error of the Galathians against which Paul wrote was that they held the Gospel to be a New Law Disc p. 18. in the same Sense that we hold it so to be This I say is a gross falsehood for it is manifest that those Galathians were Judaizing Christians whose Error was That Men cannot be Justifyed and Saved unless over and besides their believing in Christ and repenting of their Sins they be Circumcised and keep the Law of Moses See Acts 15.1 compared with Gal. 2.4 Gal. 4. ver 9 10 21. and 5 ver 1.2 3 4 5 6. If then those Erroneous Galathians had any true and right Notion at all of Justification by Christ's Imputed Righteousness yet it is plain They thought that Christ's Imputed Righteousness received by Faith was not alone sufficient for Juâ—tification but thaâ— Men muâ—â— joyn to it their own Mosaical Ceremonial and Moral Righteousness as a part of their Justifying Righteousness before God Now can our Reverend Brother with a good Conscience say that I or any of my Brethren are for such a way of Justification by the Righteousness of Moses his Law joyned with the Imputed Righteousness of Christ as that by and for which we are Justified and Live 2. In Page 19 20 21 he all along insinuates plainly That we hold we are Justifyed in part by our own Works done in obedience to the New Gospel Law and that the defect of Christ's Righteousness is made up by the super-addition of our own Righteousness to his so that we are Justifyed before Gods Tribunal not only by Christ's Imputed Righteousness but also in part by and for our own Works and Righteousness This is another falsehood so gross that I wonder my Reverend Brother should ever be guilty of it if he hath read and understood our Apology pag 38 39 40 45 80 89 90 91 193 196 200 201. This Opinion which he would father upon us we have in our Apology rejected and do now here again reject it with abhorrency And therefore it any do hereafter persist to charge us with this Error which we abhor let them look to it that they do not force us in our own just defence to proclaim them to the World to be Men possess'st with a caluminating lying Spirit But I hope I shall never be forced upon the doing of that which is so much against my Christian temper which inclines me rather to conceal and cover the Failings of Brethren than to discover them and proclaim them to the World I do sincerely desire and through Grace shall endeavour if it be possible and as much as lyeth in me to live peaceably with all Men Rom. 12.18 And to live lovingly too with my Reverend Brethren giving them all due respect and being ever ready to serve them in the Lord. Remarks on the Fourth Chapter IN this Chapter at the very beginning he mistakes my purpose and design in appealing to the Fathers in this Controversie which was not by them as Judges to prove any matter of right as he pretends but only by them as Witnesses to prove matter of Fact to wit That they called the Gospel a Law in a good sense See Apol. p. 24. and that therefore it is no new word of an Old but Ill meaning as our Accuser had affirmed it to be and doth Mr. G. refute this No he is so far from refuting it that he confirms the Truth of what I said and with me proves the Accuser of the Brethren to have asserted a notorious falshood in matter of Fact in the face of a Learned Age. Then he quotes
Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius Chrysostom Origen Theodoret with Photius to shew that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ariâ—â—or 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) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 Psaâ—m 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
I meant nothing but the new Covenant of Grace and only said that this Gospel-Covenant might be called a Law without just cause of offence to the Brethren because the Scriptures of Truth call it a Law Now if I did all this in the Apology Page 21 22 23 27. as I certainly did and God Angels and Men know it to be true then my Reverend Brother did not do well to go about to deceive the People and make them believe that I introduce a new Law of Works to be justified and saved by and for them and that my Arguments to prove it are all grounded upon the ambiguity of the word Law unexplained All which is utterly false I confess indeed what is true that though my purpose and design was not to prove but to explain and declare what we meant yet en passant on the by and to shew that our explication was agreeable to Scripture I dropped four passages of Scripture and referred to more in the Margent which do abundantly prove the thing they were quoted for But it is as clear as the Light at Noon-day that my Proof from the said four passages of Scripture in the Line and from the other referred to on the Margent is not in the least established upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law but upon the plain sense and meaning of the Scriptures there alledged Nor could an Argument from those Scriptures there quoted or referred to be grounded upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law because the word Law is not to be sound in any of them Let any Man read them all over and he shall find what I say to be true to wit that the word Law is not in any of them I acknowledge likewise that a few Lines after in the same 22th Page I quote three Scriptures where the word Law is but then it is again as clear as the Light that I quoted those three Scriptures to prove nothing but this That our Brethren should not dislike our calling the Gospel-Covenant a Law because the Scriptures of Truth call it so expresly And my R. Brother acknowledges now with me that it is so called in two of the places to wit Isa 42.4 and Rom. 3.27 and in several others which he hath quoted As for my other Argument from Humane Authority neither is that established on the ambiguity of the word Law but on the word it self its being found in the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines long before we were born From whence I clearly proved that the Word is not new but old And if the Testimonies of my Witnesses prove more as they really do even that the Gospel-Covenant was not onely of old called a Law but that it really is a Law of Grace which requires some Duty of us that was beside my design and purpose which was only to prove matter of fact as appears from the express words of the Apology pag. 24. lin 16 17 18 19 20 21. If any object that in the Preface and Index of the First Section of the Second Chapter it is said expresly that we have proved the Gospel to be a new law of Grace by the Word of God or Scripture and by the Testimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I Answer It is true it is said so But then consider that the said Preface and Index were Written and Printed after the Apology was Finished and Printed though in the Book they are both put before it as it is the custom to write Prefaces and Indexes last and yet place them first in Books Now when I wrote the Preface and Index taking a review of all that was said on that head in the Apology I found that my Quotations from Scripture and Doctors had proved more than I designed 1. I designed only to explain our meaning and by citing the four Scriptures in the Line and others in the Margent to show that our explication was agreeable to Scripture 2. By alledging the Testimonies of Antient and Modern Doctors of the Church I designed only to prove matter of fact to wit that new law of Grace was no new word but old This was what I designed in writing that part of the Apology But by looking it over after it was Printed I found that the Scriptures cited and referred to and the Testimonies of Doctors there alledged do really prove that the Gospel-Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediatour is a new Law of Grace which requires some Duties of us and which promises to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake only if we through Grace perform the said Duties And for this reason it was that in the Preface and Index I said that we had proved the Gospel in the sense there given to be a new Law of Grace both by Scripture and by the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines If any do further object That Humane Testimony can only prove matter of fact I answer It 's true Humane Testimony simply as such can solidly prove no more nor did I bring Humane Testimonies to prove any thing but that the Gospel Covenant was in their time called a New Law and a New Law of Grace and that they believed it to be such a Law which is nothing but matter of Fact Yet Men by giving Testimony to Matter of Fact may at the same time and in the same Testimony bring such Arguments from Scripture or Reason as shall likewise prove matter of right And this my Witnesses did especially Justin Martyr Cyprian Austin the Professors of Leyden Gomtrus Dr. Andrews and Dr. Twiss they both called the Gospel-Covenant a Law a New Law a New Law of Grace which proves the matter of fact and moreover in their Testimonies to the matter of Fact they alledged such places of Scripture or gave such reasons as do prove the matter of Right to wit That the Gospâ—l Covenant is a New Law of Grace and may and ought to be so accounted Now having first told the World how easily he could answer my Arguments and wipe off all my Citations upon a supposition which is of his own feigning and notoriously false as I have proved he next comes to answer my Arguments that is indeed my one Argument from Scripture for in effect there is no more but one and that one is there brought to confirm our Explication of the words Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace and to shew that what we mean by those words is consonant to the Scriptures of Truth as is evident from the 21. and 22. pag. of the Apology Well But be it Argument or Arguments he undertakes to give us a clear Answer to it and in order thereunto he proposes to do three things 1. To shew that the Gospel hath no Precepts or Commandments 2. That it hath no Threatnings 3. That it hath no Conditional Promises This is directly against the Professors of Leyden who in their Synopsis of purer Divinity say expresly as their words are quoted in the Apology
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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) Pâ—â—cairn 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
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
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 Sacriâ—ces 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-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-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-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
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-Gospel-Law into all Nations c. By this and more which he hath there to this purpose it is most evident that Bibliander there speaks of Christ not simply as God but as Mediatorial King and Judge and as such a King and Judge giving and executing Laws which could be no other but the Laws of the New Covenant or Gospel and so Theodoret calls them My Second Witness is the Famous and Learned Zach. Ursin's Sum of Christian Religion in English Printed at London An. 1645 pag. 2. ibid. pag. 126. ib. p. 125 127. Vrsinus mentioned before His words are The Law promiseth Life with Condition of perfect Obedience the Gospel promiseth the same Life on condition of our stedsast Faith in Christ and the inchoation or beginning of New Obedience unto God Again The Old and New Covenant i.e. the same Covenant of Grace in its Old and New manner of Administration agree in this that in both God requires of Men Faith and Obedience Walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17.1 And repent and believe the Gospel Mark 1.15 And again They differ 7. In their Bond or manner of Binding The Old Covenant bound them to the sincere Obedience of the whole Mosaical Law Moral Ceremonial and Civil The New bindeth us only to the Moral or Spiritual Law and to the use of the Sacraments And a little after he saith The New Testament or Covenant is for the most part taken for the Gespel This is one of the Resormed Divines whom Mr. Goodwin quotes against me But let any Man read and consider what I have quoted here out of Vrsin and what follows in pag. 131. of which I quoted some part before and I dare refer it to his own Conscience if he have any whether Vrsin be of that Opinion that the Gospel hath no Precepts but is a meer Absolute Promise or Narrative which requires no Duty of us at all Nay I appeal to the Conscience of my Brethren whether Vrsin was not so far from being of that Opinion that on the contrary he says it was the Opinion of the Flacian Sectaries which he zealously refutes as is manifest from what I cited out of him before and from what he says more ibid. p. 131. in the same place My Third Witness is Polanus who writes thus (u) Foedus gratiae est in quo Deus nobis promittit se fore Deum nostrum gratis propter Christum Nos vero vicissim obligati sumus ut Dei popul 〈◊〉 simus 20. Capita sive Articuli ejus duo sunt unum ex parte Dei Alterum ex nostra parte 21. Ex parte Dei est gratuita promissio qua Deus nobis pollicetur se Deum nostrum sore c. 28. Alterum caput foederis est ex nostra parte obligatio qua Deus nos sibi obstrinxit ut ipsi populus simus 29. Dei populum esse est ambulare coram Deo cum integritate Gen 17.1 seu vivere sub oculis Dei ut bonos liberos decet 30. Quod fit viva in Deum side obedientiâ legis c. Amand. Polan Syllog Thes Theolog. contra Bellarm. Part. 2. De Foedere inter Deum homines Thes 19 20 21 28 29 30. pag. 174 175 176. The Covenant of Grace is that wherein God promiseth to us that he will be our God freely for Christ's sake And we again are obliged to be his People The Heads or Articles of it are two One on Gods part the other on our part On God's part it is a Free Promise whereby God promiseth to us to be our God c. The other Head or Article of the Covenant it is an Obligation on our part whereby God hath bound us to himself to be his People To be the People of God is to walk before God with Integrity Gen. 17.1 Or to live under the Eyes of God as becometh good Children which is done by a lively Faith in God and observance of his Law Thus Polanus whereby it manifestly appears that he believed as we do that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duty My fourth Witness is Melancthon who long before Polanus taught this Doctrine that the Moral Law is so grafted into the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace that sincere Obedience to it is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant His words are (x) Vt in multis Naturae partibus admirandae imagines magnarum reium sunt propositae Sic mirifica est amiciria in naturâ quasi mutuum â—edus inter oleam vitem Non solum incolumis manet vitis si inseratur oleae sed etiam novas 〈◊〉 accipir tum uvas tum olivas gignit seu uvas pariter uvarum olivarum japore â—referenâ—es Imago illustris est Oleae id est Evangelio insita Legis doctrina fit mitior Sic enin demum â—choatur obedientia placet Deo cum Evangelio insita est Phil. Melanct. in orat de sympath â—om 4. declam 210. As in many parts of nature there are proposed admirable images or representations of great things so there is a wonderful friendship in nature and as it were a mutual Covenant between the Olive and Vinetrees For if the Vine be grafted into the Olivetree it not only remains safe and lives but it also receives new strength and brings forth both Grapes and Olives or Grapes which have the savour and taste both of Grapes and Olives It is an illustrious or clear image and representation The Doctrine of the Law being ingrafted in o the Olivetree that is into the Gospel it becomes milder For so it is that then Obedience is begun and pleaseth God when it is ingrafted into the Gospel Thus Melancthon shews by an elegant similitude how the Moral Law is taken into the Gospel-Covenant whereby it is otherwise modified than it was as it pertained to the first Covenant of Works and comes under a new form and sanction by which means our Obedience to the Moral Law is accepted as pleasing to God through Christ if it be sincere tho' it be imperfect Let those who have the Book see what Christopher Pezelius saith upon this I will quote a few of his words (y) Lex per se nihil novit vel de merito vel de efficaciâ Filii Dei de beneficiis Spiritus sancti qui essunditur in corda credentium per Christum Nihil igitur expresse docet de Auxilio quomodo fiant in nobis bona opera Deinde semper immutabiliter Lex requirit integram Obedientiam ab omnibus sine discrimine renatis non renatis damnat immutabiliter non habentes integram obedientiam
that he might provide for the happiness of and might bountifully reward us his Subjects 2 Tim. 4.8 Joh. 10 28. and that he might destroy all his Ensmies being brought down and made his Footstool Ps 110.1 And afterwards in the Section concerning the Covenant of God there are these Questions and Answers * Q. Quid nobis promissum est in scedere gratiae R. Remissio peccatorum nova Justitia vita aeterna Q. Qua conditione haec facta nobis est promissio R Sub conditione fidei obedientiae ex fide Q. What is promised to us in the Covenant of Grace Ans Remission of Sins a new Righteousness and Eternal Life Q. Vnder what condition is that promise made to us Ans Vnder the condition of Faith and Obedience of Faith John 3.16 and 13.17 Gal. 6.16 Rom. 1.5 Thus the Edenburgh-Catechism written for the use of the Colledg and Schools there by Mr. John Adamson Principal who was afterwards a Member of the General Assembly at Glasgow in the year 1638. if I be not misinform'd and his Name I saw at St. Andrews in the List of the Names of the Members of that Synod But that which is material is this That the Catechism saith Christ was made a King that he might give us a Royal Law to be the Rule of our Faith and Life This in such a way he could not do as Mediatorial King unless the Gospel-Covenant whereof he is Mediator had Precepts and required Duty But that the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts and requires Duty according to that Catechism is evident from this That it asserts the subsequent Blessings of the Covenant of Grace are promised to us under the condition of Faith and the Obedience of Faith and proves its assertion by John 3.16 and 13 17. Gal. 6.16 and Rom. 1.5 My 8th Witness is the Famous Mr. Durham before mentioned His words in p. 238. are The Covenant of Grace saith he is compared to free Adoption or a man's entitling of a Stranger to his Inheritance upon condition of his receiving that and to marriage betwixt Man and Wife which is frequent in Scripture not because the Covenant of Grace requireth not holiness and works but because it doth not require them actually to precede a Person 's Title to all the priviledges covenanted and doth freely entitle him to the same upon his entry therein as a Wife is entitled to what is the Husband 's upon her Marriage with him altho afterwards she be to perform the duties of that Relation rather as Duties called for by it than as Conditions of it Hence we may call the Covenant of Works a Servile Covenant and the Covenant of Grace a Filial or Conjugal Covenant and therefore altho holy Duties be required in both yet there is difference and the one is of Works and the other of Grace Thus that learned and good man Where it is as clear as the Sun that he was for the Gospel-Covenant its having Precepts and requiring Duty My 9th Witness is the Learned and Holy Mr. Rutherford who speaks fully to the Point under consideration For thus he writes Faith in God and the Moral Law that is Obedience to the moral Law in an Evangelick way are commanded in the Covenant of Grace and also some Duties touching the Seals are therein contained Again Ibid. p. 92. As the Commands and Threatnings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation upon such as are only externaly in Covenant either to obey or suffer so the Promise of the Covenant imposes an ingagement and obligation upon such to believe the Promise †Rutherford's Treatise of the Coveuant of Grace ed. Edinb An. 1655. p. 20. Again ibid. p. 154. Law-Obedience says he doth much differ from Gospel Obedience as Law-Commands from Gospel-Commands Again Ibid. p. 189. Obj. Does not the Law Command the Sinner offending God to mourn and be humbled and confess Ans It doth But it injoyns not Repentance as a way of Life with a Promise of Life to the Repenter Nor does the Law as a Covenant of Works command Justifying Faith and Reliance upon God-Redeemer or Immanuel but rather as the Law of Nature or as the Law of Thankfulness to a Ransoming Redeeming God the Law doth this tho in a special Covenant way the Gospel Commands Faith in Christ. Again ibid. p. 191. This I grant which I desire the Reader carefully to observe the Law and the Covenant of Grace do not one and the same way Command Faith and forbid unbelief I speak now of the Covenant of Works and of the Covenant of Grace as they are two Covenants specifically and formally different Again he puts the Question ib. p. 192. 103. Whether doth the Lord Mediator as Mediator command the same good Works in the Covenant of Grace which are Commanded in the Covenant of Works And then Answers According to tht matter of the thing Commanded quoad rem mandatam He Commands the same and charges upon all and every one the Moral Duty even as Mediator but simply they are not the same Quoad modum mandandi It shall not be needful to dispute whether they be Commands differing in Nature for not only doth the Mediator Command Obedience upon his interposed Authority as Law-giver and Creator but also as Lord Redeemer upon the Motive of Gospel-Constraining-Love in which notion he calls Love the keeping of his Commandments if they Love him John 14. the New Commandment of Love Finally ib. p. 198 199. he says The Obedience of Faith or Gospel-Obedience hath less of the Nature of Obedience than that of Adam or of the Elect Angels or that of Christ It 's true we are called Obedient Children and they are called the Commandments of Christ and Christ hath taken the Moral Law and made use of it in an Evangelick way yet we are more as it were patients â—in obeying Gospel-Commands not that we are meer patients as Libertines Teach for Grace makes us Willing but we have both Supernatural Habits and influence of Grace Furnished to us from the Grace of Christ who hath Merited both to us and so in Gospel Obedience we offer more of the Lords own and less of our own because he both Commands and gives us grace to Obey By all this and more that I could quote out of Mr. Rutherford's Writings it 's manifest that he believed as we do that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duty and that it is not a meer absolute promise that requires no duty or us at all My 10th Witness is the late Reverend and Learned Doctor Owen whose memory I honour tho it be said that I bestowed some Disadvantageous remarks upon him but it is not true for to tell the World that he retracted what he had before confidently Written when it pleased the Lord to give him further Light as he apprehended is so far from being to his disadvantage that it is on the contrary very much for his Honour and plainly shews
of our obedience But all this is the proper office of the Moral Law which it compleatly discharges without any asistance I Answer 1. It is not true that the Moral natural Law without the assistance of any positive Law doth by it self immediately instruct us in and oblige us to all the particulars of our Duty For as at the first Creation when the Moral natural Law was perfectly and clearly written in Man's heart it did not by it self immediately in the first instant after his Creation oblige him not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge till God had given him another positive Law and Precept not to Eat of it and then by means of the positive Law the Moral natural Law obliged him not to eat of it So now the same Moral Law would never by it self immediately oblige us to several duties if there were not a positive Law and Precept of Christ which did first make them to be duties and oblige us to the doing of them Of this sort is Baptism with water in the Name of Father Son and Holy-Ghost The Moral Natural Law would never by it self immediately oblige men to be so Baptized if the Lord Christ as King and Head of his Church had not by a new Act of his Royal Authority made a positive Law and given a positive Precept obliging men to be baptized as aforesaid which being done the moral natural Law doth also oblige us to be baptized but it is only mediately and by consequence It is mediante lege positiva sed non perse immediate So it is the Gospel-Law or Covenant of Grace which by it self immediately obliges us to Justifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance in the Sense before-mentioned and proved and then the moral natural Law does also mediately and by necessary consequence oblige us to the same Duties 2. I answer That since the making of the Gospel-Covenant with fallen man the moral natural Law hath so belonged to it that the requiring sincere Obedience to the moral Law hath been one Article of the Gospel-Covenant The said moral Law then not only as separated from the Gospel covenant but even as included in it in the sense before explained doth instruct us what to do draw the Lines of our Duty and set the limits of our Obedience upon Gospel-grounds and to Gospel-ends and purposes as hath been fully and clearly proved by Testimonies of God and Men. See Tit. 2.11 12. If he now Object and say that this proves that the Precepts are no parts of the Gospel but borrowed from the Law I answer It proves no such thing and what he talks of borrowing Precepts from the Law is false and unintelligible For I demand who it is that borrows Precepts from the Law Either it must be the Gospel or God But it can be neither And 1. It is not the Gospel that borrows Precepts from the Law for borrowing is a Personal Act but the Gospel is no Person therefore it cannot Borrow Again the Gospel according to this Brother is nothing but an Absolute Promise or bundle of Absolute Promises let him then prove if he can that an absolute Promise borrows a Precept and shew how it doth so borrow for we neither do nor can believe it upon his bare word 2. It is not God who borrows Precepts from the Law For 1. He that borrows a thing doth want and need that thing before he borrow it and he borrows it to supply his want But God never wanted and needed the precepts of the Law 2. The thing which one borrows is not his own before he borrows it but belongs to another Person but the Law and its Precepts were always Gods own and therefore he could never borrow the Precepts of the Law from another to whom they belonged The Truth is God is the Author and Owner both of the Law and of the Gospel and he first made the Law and Subjected man unto it and obliged him to keep it perfectly but Man having transgressed it God made the Gospel-Covenant and proposed it to Man and therein offered him a Remedy against the Sin and Misery he had brought on himself and his Posterity by the breach of the Law He commanded Man also by Faith to accept of the Remedy offered in the Gospel-Covenant and for the future to perform sincere obedience to the Law which he had formerly Transgressed Here is no borrowing Precepts from the Law but after the Law was broken and thereby Man Ruined God of his Soveraign Free-grace so made and Proposed to Man the Gospel-covenant or which is the same the New Law of Grace as thereby 1. To oblige him to believe in Christ and by Faith to receive the Remedy offered And 2. For the future to give sincere Obedience to the Moral Law in order to his obtaining full possession of the Happiness purchased by Christ the Mediator and promised in the Gospel-covenant whereof Christ is Mediator And thus it was that the Moral Law came to belong to the Gospel not by the Gospel's nor by God's borrowing the precepts of the Law which to imagine is Ridiculous but by God's making sincere obedience to his own Moral Law to be one of the Terms of his Gospel Covenant and by his so framing the Gospel-Covenant as by it to require of Man sincere obedience to the Moral Law According to that Gen. 17.1 I am the Almighty God walk before me and be thou perfect upright or sincere And Tit. 2.11 12. The Grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all Men teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly Lusts we should live Soberly Righteously and Godlily in this present world Looking for that blessed hope c. Obj. 2. Secondly my R. B. indeavours to prove that the Gospel can have no precepts because if it had any precepts God would not be infinitely wise and unchangeable and his Moral natural Law which he first gave to Man at his Creation would not be perfect This Consequence he labours to prove in pag. 43. And I freely grant that the Gospel could have no precepts if from its having precepts it did follow by good and necessary Consequence that God would not on that supposition be infinitely wise and absolutely unchangeable and that his Moral natural Law would not be perfect For certainly God is infinitely wise and absolutely unchangeable this is as sure and evident as it is that there is a God at all It is certain also and I have always believed it and here before asserted it that the Moral natural Law is most perfect in its kind and obliges to the most perfect i. e. sinlessly perfect performance of the several duties which belong to it In that way which the Lord God intended It should oblige to the performance of them If my R. B. believe this as firmly as I do then we are agreed as to this matter of the infinite wisdom and unchangeableness of God and the perfection of his Moral natural Law in its
kind But tho we be agreed in this yet we do differ and shall differ about the Consequence for I do utterly deny that it follows by any good and necessary Consequence that God would not be infinitely wise and unchangeable and his Moral Law perfect in its kind if the Gospel have any precepts and if God have ever given to Man any new positive Law since he first created him with the Moral natural Law written in his heart And it is not without good reason that I deny Mr. Goodwins Consequence as utterly false and blasphemous For 1 according to his own Principle Gods making unto Man a new promise doth not impeach his infinite wisdom and absolute unchangeableness for in pag. 49. He saith that Repentance is a duty to which Man was tyed before any New Covenant of Grace was made and before God had revealed any thoughts of favour to him or any purposes of grace in that first promise of the Seed of the Woman breaking the Serpents head In these words he plainly acknowledges that when God first created Man and gave him the Moral Law he had not then made him any promise of Gospel grace and mercy but the first promise of that nature was made to Man after the fall And yet I do not think that Mr. Goodwin dare say that Gods making that New promise to Man did impeach his wisdom as defective or infer any change in his nature or will And if a new promise did not then I say that no more did a new precept impeach Gods wisdom as defective or infer any change in his nature or will For there is nothing can be said against a new precept as inconsistent with the infinity of Gods wisdom and his unchangeableness but the like may be said against a new promise And if I durst give my self leave to prat boldly and blasphemously against a new Gospel promise I have no more to do but to take what Mr. G. says against a New Gospel Precept and with the varying of a few words apply it to a New Gospel-Promise and I thereby prove That it 's not consistent with the Wisdom and Immutability of God to make a New Gospel-Promise just as he proves That it is inconsistent with his Wisdom and Unchangeableness to give a New Gospel-Precept For my part I dare not imitate Mr. G. in his way of Reasoning here but there want not Infidels too many who by his way of disproving a New Gospel Precept will endeavour to disprove a New Gospel-Promise and will not stick to say after the Example of my R. B. That for God to make a New Gospel-Promise after the first Legal Covenant of Works and the Legal Promise implied in it would argue That his Wisdom was deficient as not knowing at first all that was good for man and necessary to be promised to him and believed by him c. 2. God gave a new precept to Man before the fall which was really different from the Moral natural Law For instance the Command not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge c. Gen. 2.17 was such a precept This is so clear that Mr. G. has in effect confessed it pag. 47. For there he saith that the Moral natural Law regarded the Act of eating the fatal Fruit as a thing indifferent and that indeed it was a thing indifferent before the prohibition To wit by the new precept which came after the Moral natural Law and therefore must needs be really distinct from it There he confesses 1. That the Moral natural Law did not at first and by it self immediately forbid the Act of eating the foresaid Fruit. 2. That therefore it remained still a thing indifferent to eat or not to eat of that Fruit till the new precept was given 3. That it was the new precept Gen. 2.17 Which first by it self immediately prohibited the eating of it and obliged Man not to eat it and that without this it would have still remainded indifferent notwithstanding any thing that the Moral natural Law did or could say Now if before the fall God gave Man a new positive precept which first obliged him to a certain duty and forbad the Commission of the contrary sin and if this new positive precept requiring duty and forbidding Sin was then very well consistent both with the wisdom and unchangeableness of God and also with the perfection of his Moral natural Law tho it and the Moral natural Law were two things really distinct I say if it was so then before the fall I put my R. Brother to prove that after the fall it was inconsistent with Gods infinite wisdom and immutability and with the perfection of his moral Law to give unto man any New Gospel-Precept which should oblige him to Duty whereunto the moral natural Law did not by it self immediately oblige him before If Mr. G. continue to affirm this he must prove it for I utterly deny that God's giving a new Gospel Precept is inconsistent with his VVisdom and Immutability and with the perfection of his Moral natural Law and I am perswaded that he can never prove that inconsistency no more then he can prove it inconsistent with Gods wisdom and immutability and with his Moral Laws perfection to give unto Adam before the Fall the new positive Precept of not Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledg after he had written the said Moral Natural Law in his heart at his first Creation If he say as in effect he doth That the moral natural Law obliged Adam not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge because it commanded him to obey God in whatever he should require And so God's requiring Adam by a New positive Precept to abstain from eating the said Fruit is well consistent with his wisdom and with his moral Laws Perfection I answer That my R. B. may see if he will open his Eyes that this makes against him and for me For 1. He must and he doth grant That the abstaining from eating of that Fruit was first required by a new positive Precept in Order of Nature before the moral natural Law commanded any such Abstinence so that it commanded the said Abstinence only mediately and by consequence after that it was first immediately commanded by the New positive Precept superadded to the Law of Nature 2. He knows well enough that it is our professed belief that in like manner tho the Moral Natural Law the general Law of our Creation doth Command us to obey God in whatever he requires of us by any new Special Gospel Precept yet doth God first in order of Nature require our obedience to the Gospel by the New Gospel-Precept immediately and then by means of that special new Gospel-Precept the general Law of our Creation comes to take hold of our Conscience with respect thereunto and obliges us to obey God therein So that here are two Precepts that oblige us to the same thing but in different ways First There is the
special New-Gospel-Precept which by it self immediately obliges us to such a special Act of Gospel Obedience Secondly There is the general old Law of our Creation or the Natural Precept which obliges us to yeild obedience unto the special New Gospel-Precept and so it is with respect to all the new positive Laws which ever God gave unto his People either under the Old or New Testament The Law of nature did not and could not enact those new Laws for the Church But after that God had once enacted them by a new Exertion of his Legislative Authority then the natural Law the general Law of Creation obliged the Church and People of God to the Observance of those new and special positive Laws 3. The reason why I deny that the giving of new positive Gospel-Precepts unto man after the first giving of the natural Law to him doth any way impeach the infinite wisdom and immutability of God It is because it was not for want of foresight of what man would afterwards need and what his sad Circumstances would require that ever God gave him any new Gospel-Precept or Promise as Mr. G. would insinuate But on the contrary it was because God by his infinite wisdom did foresee that Man would after the fall want and his sad Circumstances would need both new Gospel promises and precepts and because he had unchangeably purposed from Eternity to give him after the fall such Gospel promises and precepts as would be suitable to his sad Circumstances and through the Grace of the Holy Spirit would be an excellent useful means to recover him out of that sad state of sin and misery into which he had plunged himself by his own folly and wickedness 4. The reason why I deny Mr. G's Consequence that the giving unto Man any new Gospel precept would impeach the wisdom and unchangeableness of God is because that his way of Arguing against any new Gospel Precept is upon the matter the very same way that the infidels of old Disputed against the truth of the Christian Religion and endeavoured to prove that either God could not be infinitely wise and unchangeable or if he was such that then the Christian Religion could not possibly be of God because there are new precepts in the Gospel and a new way of worshipping God prescribed by the Christian Religion different in several particulars from that which was before prescribed by God himself both before and under the Law of Moses That thus the Infidels disputed against the truth of the Christian Religion is evident by what is to be seen in Marcellinus his Epistle to Augustin and by Augustin's answer to it and it is to be noted that * Oper. August Tom. 2. Epist 4. 5. Austin in his Answer neither did nor could truly deny that ever God gave any new precepts to his People So far was he from that way of Answering the Infidels that on the contrary he confessed that God had indeed at different times given to his Church new precepts different from former precepts but with all he shewed that this did no ways impeach either the wisdom or immutability of God His excellent and Learned answer begins thus * Aliud praecepit quod huic tempori aptum esset qui multo magis quam homo novit quid cuique tempori accommodate adhibeatur c. Aug. Marcellino Epist 5. God who knows much better than Man what precepts are suitable to every time hath given other precepts which might be fit and proper for this time to wit of the Gospel The same is evident also by what Austin in his Epistle to Deogratias writes in answer to an objection made by an Heathen against the Christian Religion where he shews that the Gospel and true Religion hath been always the same in substance tho at different times God hath given some different precepts and prescribed different ways of worship unto his Church In that answer of his to the Heathen these words are Remarkable But says †Quid autem qnando fiat quod ad unam eandemque fidelium piorum liberationem pertineat comilium Deo tribuamus nobis obedientiam teneamus Aug. Deo gratias Epist 49. Austin as to what is to be done and when every thing is to be done that pertains or conduces unto one and the same salvation of Faithful and Godly men let us ascribe Counsel unto God and take obedience to our selves i. e. Let us leave it to God to Determine that matter by his wise Counsel and let us know that it is our duty to obey his orders and to observe his precepts as he gives them out unto us And without going upon this ground with the Learned and Holy Austin we shall never be able to give a solid satisfactory answer to the foresaid objection of Infidels against the truth of our Christian Religion And there is no cause at all to fear that our granting now different precepts to have been given to the Church at different times will any wise impeach the wisdom and unchangeableness of God Because as the Ancient Author of the Questions and Answers to the Greeks which are amongst the works of Justin Martyr * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaest Respons ad Graecos inter Opera Just Maryr edit Paris 1636. pag. 205. says excellently well in another what is applicable to this case God will restore the Creation and bring it into a better state by renewing it that he may purge it from all that absurdity which hath befallen it through the sluggishness of rational beings Not that by judicious Consideration and looking further into things he doth afterwards find out that which is better than what he did at first but because long before and even before the Creation of the World he had decreed to do it For it is not possible that afterwards any thing can be added either to the knowledge or power of God which he had not before So much for Answer to his Second main objection 3. His 3d Objection is in pag. 44. where he argues thus Christ obeyed the Law and therein fulfilled all Righteousness therefore the Law was perfect since it was the rule of the most perfect obedience that ever was and which excelled that of Angels Answ Whom doth this Brother dispute against here For my part I do not know any of us that opposeth this I am sure if he understands the Apology which he writes against he cannot but know that it is not denied but affirmed there that the Law is perfect and requires most perfect sinlessly perfect obedience and that under pain of Death Eternal See pag. 200. 201. of the Apology 4. His 4th objection is Ibid. pag. 44. That if the Law be perfect then it wants no precepts but it enjoyns every duty under the severest penalties I Answer that as the Law is most perfect in its kind so indeed it wants not any one precept that belongs to it But because it wants not
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 provoâ—e 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
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-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-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-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 â—ome 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-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-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-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
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-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-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-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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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
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-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-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-New-Law therefore he wrote figuratively when he said not that Christ is the new-New-Law but said expressly as he is truly quoted in the Apol. pag. 24. That Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament Justin hath the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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-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-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
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-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 Noâ—n 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
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 mentâ—oned 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