to love Mercy and to walk humbly with thy God And now let us hear what Mr. Danson saith upon this Danson's Synopsis of Quakerisme p. 49. His Words are these Because God designs to take away glorying in Justification Faith in God through the Messias is called a walking humbly with God Micah 6.8 That it does relate to the Law of Faith and but only by consequence if at all not directly to the Law of Providence or submission to afflictions I am induced to believe upon these two grounds 1. Because otherwise God returns no Answer which he seems plainly to design to the Query what the Lord will be pleased with or what satisfaction shall be given him for Israels Sin which is the Sum of the Questions ver 7. Will the Lord be pleased c. But understanding it thus there is a plain Answer viz. I do not expect any Righteousness of thy Gift but of thy Acceptance or thus I shall not be pleased with any Righteousness which thou bringest unless it be what I have first bestowed on thee by Faith 2. The Pride of Mans Heart makes him as loath to accept of a Righteousness freely offered him as to accept of the Punishment of his Iniquity justly inflicted It makes him as loath to part with the Priviledges he had in the Old Covenant as he that hath set up for himself sometime is to turn an Apprentice And therefore it is as true an Act of Humility to accept of Gods Righteousness as of Chastisements for Sin Thus he In which words he plainly acknowledges and endeavours to prove that the Prophet Micah preached not the Law of Works but the Gospel of Grace to the Israelites who desired to be informed by what means they might obtain God's favour And particularly this is the Voice of the Gospel and Law of Faith The Lord requires thee to walk humbly with thy God And surely that is a Precept requiring a Duty if ever there was a Precept in the World Now if one part of the Prophets answer be the Gospel of Grace who that is afraid to wrest God's word to his own destruction dare say the other part of it is the Law of Works Since the whole answer to the Question is short and both parts of it pronounced with one breath By what certain mark may we know which part is Law and which is Gospel if both be not Gospel Nay if one part of the Answer direct them to the Law of Works and Old Covenant of Works that by complying with its Terms they may find Grace and Favour with God Doth not the Prophet seem to seduce them from the only righâ— way and means of obtaining God's Grace and Favour to wit by Faith in the Messias his Righteousness and to teach them to trust in and not part with the Priviledges they had in the Old Covenant of Works and to seek Peace and Reconciliation with God in part at least by their own Works of Righteousness or by complying with the Terms of the Law of Works If the Prophets answer to their question What they should do to be Reconciled unto God Tell them that they must comply with the Terms both of the Law of Works and of the Gospel of Grace He doth in effect teach them to seek for Justification and Reconciliation both by the Old Legal and by the New Gospel-Covenant that is both by their own Righteousness and also by anothers Righteousness to wit Christ's And then who could well blame them if they took his Advice and followed his Direction which he gave them in the Name of the Lord For avoiding of this inconvenience I for my part do think that if part then the whole Answer of the Prophet in ver 8. was Gospel and that he did but tell them what the Lord required of them by the Gospel-Covenant to be done on their part that they might obtain Justification and Salvation to wit first though it be last mentioned that by Faith they should walk humbly with their God for obtaining Justification and Reconcilation 2. That from a Principle of Faith they should do justly and love Mercy that they might declare their Thankfulness to God for his Grace and Favour to them through Christ and also that they might be fitted qualified and prepared to receive more Grace even the Grace of Eternal Life and Salvation for the only Satisfactory Meritorious Righteousness and Sacrifice of the Messias Thus I have proved by Divine Testimony out of the Old Testament That the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace in its old way of Administration had Precepts belonging to it and required Duty of the Confederate People of God But it may be some will say That though that be true yet the case is altered and now the Gospel-Covenant in its Evangelical form of Administration hath not one Precept and requires no Duty at all My Answer is 1. That that cannot be for though the Gospel-Covenant hath changed and put off its accidental Form of Administration yet it retains still and can never change its Essential Form and that is that it requires Faith in Christ in order to Justification and sincere Obedience to all God's Commandments which are in force and not Abrogated in order to Glorification and Consummate Salvation 2 I Answer That it 's Clear as the Light from the New Testament That the Gospel or Covenant of Grace now at this day hath Precepts and requires Duty of Christians which is the thing that I am next to prove by Divine Testimony taken out of the Scriptures of the New Testament And I begin with Matth. 11. v. 28 29.30 Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest Testimonies out the New Testament Take my Yoke upon you and learn of me for I am meek and lowly in heart and ye shall find rest unto your Souls For my Yoke easie and my Burden is light In which words there is not only a Command that all Distressed Souls believe and by Faith come unto Christ the Son unto whom the Father hath delivered all things and an Encouraging Promise of Rest to all that come to all that sincerely believe in Christ But 2. There is a Command laid upon Believers to take upon them Christ's Yoke and to learn Meekness and Humility of him and what else is the meaning of that but that the Lord will have Believers to obey his Precepts and imitate his Example By Christ's Yoke and Burden cannot be meant any thing but what includes his Precepts and Commandments Now Christ's Precepts which are called his Yoke and his Burden cannot possibly be the Precepts of the Law and Covenant of Works as such that is Precepts requiring Perpetual Personal Sinless Obedience as the Indispensable Means and Condition of Life and Happyness For 1. Christ here speaks not simply as God but as the Son of God Incarnate and as the Mediator between God and Men the Mediator of the New Covenant and as such
mostly of Spiritual and Eternal Blessings Thus Dr. Owen In which passages and others that I have cited out of his Writings he agrees with us exactly and asserts what we mean by the Gospels being a Law as the Scripture calls it 2. Mr. Clarkson in his Book of Sermons and Discourses on several Divine Subjects newly Printed 1696 and commended to the Reader by the Reverend Mr. How and Mr. Mead. In the Sermon on Luke 13.3 pag. 10. his observation is that Repentance is an Evangelical Duty a Gospel a new Covenant Duty This should not be questioned by those who either believe what the Gospel delivers or understand what it is to be Evangelical But since it is denyed let us prove it And then he proves it by twelve Arguments After this in p. 12 when he comes to the application of this Doctrine he says It reproves those who reject this Duty as Legal Certainly those who find not this in the Gospel have found another Gospel besides that which Christ and his Apostles preached But let them take heed least whilst they will go to Heaven in a way of their own that way prove a by path and lead to the gates of Death instead of the place of Joy No way but Christ will bring to Heaven and that has three stages Faith Repentance and Obedience He that will sit down at the end of the first and never enter upon the second will never reach Heaven Indeed he that walks not in all walks not in any he is deluded misled by an ignis fatuus a false fire and if the Lord do not undeceive him will fall into the bottomless pit And in p. 20. he says No Repentance no Pardon It is not the cause but it is the condition without which no remission Solomon would not ask pardon but upon this condition 2 Chro. 6.26 27. nor does the Lord answer him but upon the same terms chap. 7.14 In fine for understanding the matter he is there treating of he desires us to observe three Propositions 1. Prop. All Sins are pardoned upon the first act of Faith and Repentance But tho' all be then pardoned yet not all alike Therefore observe 2. Sins past and repented of are pardoned absolutely because the condition is present and where the condition is present that which was conditional becomes absolute 3. Future Sins or Sins unrepented of are but pardoned to a Believer conditionally because the condition of Pardon is not in being is future he has not yet repented for those Sins c. Thus the Reverend Learned and Pious Mr. Clarkson See what follows there immediately His meaning is That the wilful Sins which Believers fall into after Conversion tho' at first Conversion they were pardoned virtually and conditionally yet they are not pardoned formally and obsolutely they are not actually pardoned till the guilty Believer hath actually renewed his Faith and Repentance Now these two worthy Ministers of Christ Dr. Owen and Mr. Clarkson were no Amyraldians and since we agree with them in this Point and teach the same Doctrine which they taught before us Mr. Goodwin in his Preface did very impertinently mention the opposition made to Amyrald in France See the end of his Preface and it was not fair nor just to do it with a manifest design to make People believe that he dangerously erred in this Point and we with him For to hold the Gospel-Covenant to be a Law of Grace in the sense that we hold it so to be was none of Amyralds singular or erroneous Opinions for which he was taxed by his Adversaries beyond the Seas Nay this is so far from being one of his singular Opinions that it was common to his Adversaries with him And for ought I know to the contrary they and he were all of one mind in believing the Gospel-Covenant to be a Law of Grace as aforesaid Some of them I know were but whether they were all de facto agreed in this or not for I do not pretend to know them all yet this is certain that if it be a revealed Truth that the Gospel-Covenant is a Law a Law of Grace especially with respect to the Elect all Christians ought to agree to it and to receive it with Faith and Love notwithstanding all Objections to the contrary And now that it is a revealed Truth I think I have clearly proved in the following Remarks and Animadversions on Mr. Goodwins Book and have also Answered all his Objections against it That my Proofs and Answers are good solid and sufficient I am fully convinced and firmly perswaded in my own mind yet I desire no Man to believe it upon my bare word but advise all Men who are concerned and into whose hands my Book shall come to read consider and then judge of my Proofs and Answers and believe as they will answer to God according to the evidence which I have offered for the Truth which I have asserted in this matter I have purposely avoided imitating my Reverend Brothers declamatory way of Writing because it is not so good a way to clear up the Truth and to inform the Judgment as it is to engage the Affections to an Opinion or Party and whether with or without Judgment all is one to some whose design is only to make or strengthen a Party I sincerely protest that I do not write for such an end and therefore I use no such means I likewise remember that Justin Martyr in his Paraenetical Discourse to the Greeks pag. 32. saith that such a Rhetorical declamatory way of Writing is (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper unto those who design to cheat People of the Truth and to steal it away from them And John Picus Earl of Mirandula in an Epistle to Hermolaus Barbarus saith that (b) Si non desipit audiror a fucato Sermone quid sperat alìud quam insidias Tribus maximè persuadetur vitâ docentis veritate rei sobrietate Orationis Hermol Barbaro Epist 4. in Vol. Epist illust vir If an Hearer and so if a Reader be not a Fool what doth he expect but to be ensnared by a fair painted Speech But there are three things that are most fit and proper means whereby to move and perswade the Mind of Man 1. The good Life of the Teacher 2. The Truth of the thing taught 3. A sober plain unaffected way of Speech in Teaching This was the way the Lords Prophets and Apostles of old used to perswade Men to the Faith and Practice of Religion and so should we do after their Example Having renounced the hidden things of dishonesty not walking in craftiness 2 Cor. 4.2 nor handling the Word of God deceitfully we should by manifestation of the Truth commend our selves to every Mans Conscience in the sight of God This I have sincerely desired and endeavoured to do as in the presence of the Lord who sees me and will judge me I have laboured not to corrupt the Gospel nor suffer it
requiring no Faith nor Practice in order to obtaining pardon of Sin and Eternal Life through and for the alone Righteousness of Christ 3. What he alledges out of Schindler and Cocceiut their Lexicons to prove that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah which is rendred Law signifies any instruction given us not only by the Precepts but the Promises of God is wholly impertinent and makes nothing against me For in my Judgment the New Law of Grace is instructive both by Precept and Promise Hence I say in the Apology p. 22. that it is a Covenant-Law which makes rich offers of Grace of Justifying and Glorifying Grace c. And again a little after that this Law of Grace is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace it is that part of the Covenant of Grace which respects the way of God's dispensing to us the subsequent Blessings and Benefits of the Covenant such as pardon of Sin and Eternal Salvation Briefly As it is a Law of Grace to us it is that part of the Covenant which prescribes to us the Condition to be performed through Grace on our part and which promises us Pardon and Life for Christ's sake alone when we through Grace perform the Condition and therefore it must needs be very instructive both by Precept and Promise 4. What Mr. G. often says that the Gospels being called a Law signifies no more but that it is a Doctrine I utterly deny it in his sense of the word Doctrine nor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah its being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Horah prove any such thing Buxtorf who understood the Hebrew as well as any Man in these latter Ages tells us in his Lexicon pag. 337. that the whole word of God is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law quod nos de Dei voluntate erga nos nostro officio erga Deum proximum nostrum doceat erudiat Because it instructs us and teaches us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Thus Buxtorf Now if the whole Word of God be called a Law for that reason then the Gospel Covenant which is a principal part of the word of God is called a Law for the same reason to wit because it teacheth us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Accordingly it is freely granted that the Gospel Govenant is a Doctrine and a Doctrine of Grace but withal it is to be alwayes remembred that it is a Doctrine which not only promises gracious Benefits and Blessings on Gods part but also requires a Condition to be performed and terms to be complyed with through Grace on our part Hence the Evangelical Prophet Isa 2.3 saith he the Lord will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths And proves what he had said by this reason for out of Sion shall go forth the Law c. Mr. G. confesses that by Law here is meant the Gospel and then it follows that the Gospel is a Doctrine which reacheth us the Lords ways not only the ways wherein he walks with us but also the ways and paths wherein we walk with him Mr G would have the wayes which the Lord teacheth his People by the Gospel to be only the ways which the Lord himself walks in He would have them to denote only the order which God hath constituted for himself to observe in justifying Sinners But certainly that Interpretation is too short for the ways which God hath prescribed unto us to walk in are called Gods ways in Scripture Gen. 18.19 and he is also said to teach them his People Psal 86.11 and 119. ver 32 33 c. John 6.45 and particularly he teacheth us that it is our Duty to believe in Christ for Justification and Salvation And as Christ is the way unto the Father so Faith is the way unto Christ This the Gospel Law the Law of Faith teacheth us this Faith it prescribes to us and requires of us Acts 16.31 and consequently the Gospel in being said to be a Law it is said to be such a Doctrine as teacheth us the way we are to walk in such a Doctrine as prescribes to us some Means to be used and Condition to be performed by us brough Grace that we may through Christ his Righteousness and Intercession obtain the promised Blessings of Justification and Glorification And this my Reverend Brother sometimes hath Light to discern and Freedom to confess in part as in pag. 15. where he says That according to the usual Language of Gods word to walk in Gods ways is to observe his orders and appointments the expression here may denote no more than that they would punctually keep to the way of Salvation marked out by him and seek to be justifyed no otherwise than by Christ's Blood and Righteousness as the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes Thus he Now 1. Concerning this seeking to be justifyed by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only which the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes I demand of Mr. Goodwin whether it be something or nothing If he say that it is nothing Then 1. The Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes to us seeking that is it prescribes nothing And that is an odd way of prescribing to prescribe and yet to prescribe nothing 2 It is as odd a way of seeking for to seek by doing nothing But if to avoid this absurdity he say that seeking is something then I affirm that that something must be some Work or Act of the Soul And if so then we have what we desire to wit that the Gospel is a Law For he says that the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes seeking and seeking is some Work or Act therefore the Gospel prescribes some Work or Act. And what it prescribes to us unto that it obliges us and so by necessary consequence it is a Law that obliges us to Work and Act and by that means to seek Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only 2ly It is further to be observed That the seeking which the Gospel Law prescribes is very comprehensive as the word seeking is used in the Scriptures of Truth It is a word that signifies the diligent use of the Means which the Lord hath appointed for obtaining the thing sought But so it is that as is proved in the Apology the Lord hath appointed Faith and Repentance to be means to be used on our part for obtaining Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only Repentance is the means or condition dispositive of the Subject Man that he may be pardoned and justified by Faith in Christ's Blood and Righteousness only And Faith is the only means instrumental or Condition receptive and applicative of the object Christ and his Righteousness by and for which Object alone Man is justified and pardoned And therefore the Gospel-Law by prescribing the foresaid seeking which signifies the diligent use of all appointed means
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
Grounds and Motives that it is accompanyed with a Fear of the contraryes being true and that it 's possible for him to be deceived For these are the Natural Properties of an Opinion 1. It is founded upon a probable ground and motive 2. It is accompanyed with a fear of the contraries being true 3. Ei potest subesse falsom though it be true yet it is but contingently true and so it might have been false or may yet be falfe for any thing that can be certainly known to the contrary from the probable Motive and Ground on which it is founded And then the consequence of this would be that God is not infinitely Wise Ommscient and Infallible And so upon Mr. G 's own Principle of Gods being an Opinator as well as upon the Arminians Principle God might possibly be surprized if not at the Arrival of new Colonies in Heaven as his Expression is in p. 1. of the Epistle to the Reader yet at many things which are done here upon Earth But I hope my R. Brother meant well though his kind love to definitions hath dazled his sight and caused him to embrace a Phantosme instead of his Beloved I mean caused him to take that for a definition of Gods Law which is no definition at all no not a good description of it I insist not therefore on this but supposing his thoughts to have been sound I shall only advise him Linguam corrigere to mend his Words and not to be so fond of definitions for the future And so I return to Clemens concerning whom I say 1. That he doth not say that a true and good Opinion of a thing is the definition of Gods Law nor doth he there so much as say that it is a definition of Mans Law or that it is a definition at all 2. What he said of a Law in the general he did not apply to the Gospel nor is it applicable to the Gospel of Christ If Mr. G will needs be applying it let him apply it to some other Gospel if he knows of any other but he shall never have my consent to apply it unto Christ's Gospel and thereby to make the Gospel an Opinion 3. I advise my Reverend Brother to read but two or three lines further there in Clemens Alexandrinus and he will find that he affirms a Law in the judgment of some (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alexand. Strom. Lib. 1. pag. 256 257. op Lugd. Batav 1616. to be right reason or a right word commanding things which ought to be done and forbidding things which ought not to be done And from thence he concludes that it was rightly and congruously said that the Law was given by Moses to be the rule of Just and Vnjust Thus Clemens And I am content that this be applyed unto the preceptive part of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace to wit that it commands some things to be done and forbids others and that it is a Rule of Just and Unjust But I cannot comprehend how from any thing here in Clemens M. G. can prove with any colour of reason that the said Clemens was of his Opinion That the Gospel is such a Law and Doctrine of Grace as hath no Precept and requires nothing of us at all I need say no more in answer to his Impertinent Chapter but that in his Conclusion he harps upon the same string again and as before abusively calls the Evangelical Law according to our sense of it a new Law of Works for as hath been said It is no Law of Works new or old according to the Scripture use of the Words Law of Works but it is really a New Law of Grace And so in direct opposition to my Reverend Brother I conclude that according to Scripture This New Law of Grace is the Everlasting Gospel and by the Testimonies of the Fathers cited in the Apology and others which I have ready to produce it appears that this Name Law and New Law whereby the Gospel is called is venerable for Age. For that the Gospel-Covenant is a New Law of Grace it is a Doctrine which was well known and believed in the first Ages of Christ's Church and which had its Original before the Birth of Antichrist and I am very well assured will continue in Christ's Church after the Period of that Man of Sin Remarks on the Fifth Chapter THIS Chapter is one intire Impertinency grounded upon the before-mentioned Mistake That I framed an Argument from the sound of the Word Law to prove the Gospel to be a Real Law that obliges to Duty For 1. All that I argued from the Gospels being called a Law in Scripture was that the Brethren should not be offended with us for calling it by that Name since the Lord himself in Scripture had so called it 2. From its being called a Law both by the Fathers and Orthodox Protestant Divines I argued that it is not a new word of an old but ill meaning And in both respects my arguing was close and consequential But for its being a Law that prescribes to us and obliges us to some Duties in order to Gospel-ends and purposes That I said plainly enough See Apol. p. 22.33 depends on the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace for I affirmed it to be the conditional part of the Covenant and I proved the Covenant to be Conditional with respect to its subsequent Blessings and Benefits So that this Controversie whether the Gospel be a Law of Grace or not resolves it self into the question Whether the Covenant of Grace be Conditional and whether it requires of us any Duty with respect to its subsequent Blessing and Benefits And my Reverend Brother will never do any thing to purpose against me in this Controversie unless he solidly and effectually prove what is impossible to be proved That the Covenant of Grace is not at all Conditional and that it doth not require any Duty of us at all in the foresaid respect And if he do that he doth his Work indeed but till that be done he doth nothing to any purpose and all his labour is lost And particularly his Labour is lost in quoting Roman Authours to wit Isodore Paulus Merula Brisonius Juvenal Ovid Cicero Papinian and Justinian to prove that the word Lex Law hath various significations For this is proving what was not at all denyed in the Apology nor was any other thing concluded from the bare Word its being found in Scripture and in Ancient Authours but that we may use the Word without just cause of offence and that it is not a New Word of an old but ill meaning To as little purpose doth he quote Cyprian and Augustin to shew that by the word Law they frequently mean no more than a Doctrine For 1. Suppose it were true that frequently they mean no more than a Doctrine in my Reverend Brothers Sense yet if they do sometimes mean more by it and particularly If they mean more by
it in the places cited by me that is enough to my purpose 2 If by no more than a Doctrine he understand no more than an absolute Promise or no more than a mere speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires no Duty of us at all no not so much as to believe in Christ then I say that his Two Quotations out of Cyprian and Augustin do not prove that by the word Law they there meant no more than a Doctrine in that Sense For 1. By his own Confession Cyprian in his 63. Epistle of Goulartius his Edition calls our Saviours Instruction how to administer the Lords Supper an Evangelical Law but I hope he dare not say that our Saviours Instruction how to administer that Ordinance was nothing but an Absolute Promise or a mere Speculative Doctrine that obligeth Christians to no Duty Nay Cyprian himself as Quoted and Translated by Mr. Goodwin said that he was to send Epistles to his Brethren That the Evangelical Law and the declared Doctrine of our Lord might be observed and that the Brethren might not depart from what Christ had taught and practised This Evangelical Law then according to Blessed Cyprian is a Doctrine that was to be Observed and Practised according to Christs Institution and Example And consequently it was a positive Law that obliged to Duty 2. For Augustin if he tells us as Mr. G. says pag. 27. of his Discourse that by the word Law we may apprehend not merely a Statute but any other Doctrine because he styles not only the Five Books of Moses but the Prophets in whose Writings there are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel by that Name I answer That makes nothing against me For 1. When I called the Gospel a Law I never meant a mere Statute exclusive of Gracious Promises so far was I from such a meaning that I said expresly it is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace Apol. p. 22. That is it is that part which prescribes the Condition and graciously promises a Benefit for Christ's sake to the performer of the Condition Again I said expresly in page 33. that the Conditional Promise of Eternal Life to the Believer together with the prescription of the Condition of a Lively Faith is the very thing which Dr. Twiss and we after him call the Law according to which God proceeds c. 2 If the Prophets are styled by the Name of Law in whose Writings are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel together with Precepts obliging the Duty then may the Gospel it self without offence be termed a Law in which there are both Gracious Promises and Excellent Precepts Yet 3dly It is incumbent upon Mr. Goodwin to prove that in Augustin's Judgment or that in real Truth the Prophets are called by the Name of Law precisely because there are gracious Promises in them and not at all because there are many Excellent Divine Precepts in them Are there not Gracious Promises of the Gospel to be sound in the Five Books of Moses and yet I trow those Five Books are not called the Law precisely because of the Evangelical Promises that are in them and not because they contain the whole Sum of Legal Precepts given by Moses unto the People of Israel Augustin in his Fifteenth and last Book of the Trinity takes occasion from what he had said of Gods being called Love 1 John 4.16 to speak of the various acceptation of the word Law and says that sometimes it is taken more generally for all the Scriptures of the Old Testament or for the Prophets or Psalms and sometimes more specially and properly for the Law given at Sinai Now this doth not in the least militate against any thing I have said in the Apology For I can grant with Augustin that the word Law is sometimes used in a more general comprehensive Sense and at other times in a more special restrained Sense and yet consistently enough hold that the Gospel is called a Law in Scripture and that it is a Law of Grace Thus I have briefly shewed that this whole Chapter is Impertinent But though there be nothing in it to his purpose against me yet there is something in it to my purpose against him For page 26 27. of his Discourse he tells us That a Law is a Doctrine See also his Serm. on the Q. Death p. 7 8. which teacheth us what is best for us to do if we will be taught by the Counsel of those who are wiser than our selves And in this sense saith he I will easily grant the Gospel to be a Law for it is the instruction of God whose Wisdom is beyond all denyal infinitely superiour to ours to our perishing Souls c. Now if the Gospel be a Law in this sense then certainly it is a Practical Doctrine that obligeth us to Duty Doth not the Infinitely wise God his instructing us to believe in Christ for Justification oblige our Consciences to believe in him and hath it not the force and effect of a Law I bless God I own its obliging force and it is and I hope ever shall be a Law to me a Gracious Evangelical Law And I hope my R. Brother will in time do so likewise Since he saith that thrice Blessed is that Person whom Gods Enlightning Grace hath made so wise as to follow it Remarks on the Sixth Chapter SECTION I. Some Preliminary Considerations necessary for the right understanding of our Protestant Writers and the clear Answering of Mr. G 's Quotations from their Writings FOR the better clearing up of the matter in Controversie and scattering of the Mist which my R. Brother hath cast before Peoples Eyes in this Chapter it will be expedient to premise some things before I come to answer his Quotations from the Writings of Protestant Divines And First It is to be considered that the word Gospel signifying good or glad tydings it may be applyed to and affirmed of several parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As 1. God's Eternal Decree to save for Christ's sake a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind as revealed in the Scriptures of Truth is Gospel for it is good and glad tydings to the visible Church 2. The absolute Prophecy and Promise to send Christ into the World to redeem Man and to seek and save that which is lost is Gospel also for it is good and glad tydings The like I say of Christ's being actually come into the World 3. The Absolute Promise to take away the Heart of Stone and to give an Heart of Flesh to give the Redeemed Saving Faith and Repentance is Gospel also since it is good and glad Tydings Now we never said that the Gospel in any of these Three Senses is a Law commanding us to do any Duty or perform any Condition But 4. The word Gospel in a more large and comprehensive Sense is taken for the Intire Covenant of Grace which God hath made with his Church through the Mediator his Son
Justification and Salvation calling them the Precepts of the Church when they are nothing less For a free Christian will say thus I will fast I will Pray I will do this and that which is Commanded by Men not that I need to do it for Justification or Salvation but that in doing it I may obey the Pope the Bishop such a Community and such a Magistrate or that I may give my Neighbour a good Example c. Thus Luther Now whether my R Brother have any occasion for this Doctrine he knows best himself it may be of some use to him the next time he Travels to Rome But for my self I declare I have no occasion for it nor do I ever intend to make use of it Mr Goodwin did well to tell the World that Luther wrote that Book before he had declared War against the Pope but then he might have been more sparing in his Praises of it and in urging Luther's Testimony therein against me and my Reverend Brethren since he was but newly crept out of the Monastery and had received but a small measure of Light when he wrote that Treatise And yet what is quoted out of it against me doth not advantage my R. Brother nor yet prejudice me and the Cause which I defend Though Luther was not without his failings as no Man is more or less yet he was really a great and good Man and I heartily bless God for the good that was in him and done by him and his testimony shall be alwayes respectfully received by me so far as I find it consonant to the Scriptures of Truth and to the Established Doctrine of our own better Reformed Church 4. In the fourth place Mr G. quotes the Excellent Melancthon again but to no purpose for I assent to all that Melancthon there writes Set aside the glosses of Mr. G and Melancthons own words do not prejudice my Cause at all And elsewhere Melancthon is clearly for me and holds as I do That the Gospel properly taken requires of us Faith and Repentance and promises Grace to enable us to believe and repent c. And I desire no more to prove the Gospel to be a Law of Grace in our sense of the word This I shall if the Lord will clearly prove from Melancthons own words in my Animadversions on Mr. G 's Seventh Chapter and then it will plainly appear that he doth but abuse Melancthon and the People too in thus indeavouring to make them believe that Melancthon was of his absurd Opinion 5. His next Witness against me is the famous Calvin but I fear no harm from him for I take him to be an honester Man than to contradict himself in Witness-bearing And I am sure he hath already borne Witness for us in the Apology and declared that he believed as we do that the Gospel-Covenant is Conditional and requires of Men both Faith and Repentance in order to the Pardon of their Sins and Salvation of their Souls See Apol. pag. 51.92 93 94 which is sufficient to prove that he held the Gospel to be a Law of Grace as we do And in the place which my R. Brother refers to and in the words which he quotes there is nothing but what is well consistent with what I most truely and faithfully cited both out of his Institutions and Commentaries And indeed what is here quoted by Mr. G. is very impertinently alledged against me For I do sincerely confess that to invest Christ with a new Legislative Power and to dignifie the Gospel with the title of a New Law in the Popish Sense of the Word is indeed a mere fiction and that those who go the Popish way have feigned Christ to be the Maker of an Evangelical Law which should have supplyed the defect even of the Moral Law given unto Israel by the hand of Moses But notwithstanding this it is as clear as the Light That Calvin did not believe the Gospel-Covenant to be nothing but a bundle of mere absolute Promises of Grace For besides what was quoted in the Apology Calvin in his Commentary on the Third of Jonah saith as followeth (h) Quoties veniam proponit Deus peccatoribus simul additur haec conditio ut resipiscant nec tamen sequitur poenitentiam esse causam impetrandae gratiae gratis enim se Deus offert neque aliunde inducitur quà m suâ liberalitate sed quia non vult homines abuti suâ indulgentia facilitate ideo legem illam apponit ut scilicet poeniteat ipsos vitae prioris in melius mutentur Calvin Comment in 3 Cap. Jonae As often as God proposeth or promiseth Pardon to Sinners together with the Proposal or Promise this Condition is added that they repent yet it doth not follow that Repentance is the cause of obtaining the Grace of Pardon for God offers himself freely nor is he induced thereunto by any other thing than his own liberality But because he will not have Men to abuse his Indulgence and readiness to forgive therefore he joyns that Law to his Promise to wit that Sinners repent of their former ill Life and be changed to the better Thus Calvin And this Repentance he affirms to be a part of the Sumof the Gospel Instit Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Sect. 19. as was shewed in the Apology pag. 95. Therefore my R B doth but abuse Calvin and wrest his words to a Sense he never meant notwithstanding the Commendation which he gives of him 6. Beza is brought to Witness against us but to as little purpose for I demonstrated from Beza his own express words in the Apology that he believed there is a Conditional Gospel-Covenant that Faith in Christ is the only receptive applicative Condition and yet that true Repentance is required as indispensably necessary in grown Persons in order to pardon of Sin And here I must rectifie what I said in the Apology pag. 95. That it may be and it would seem that Beza had some peculiar conceit That all Repentance of what kind soever is properly from the Law and but improperly from the Gospel because he said in his 20th Epistle That Contrition did not proporly proceed from the Gospel Now I confess that in so understanding Beza there I mistook his true meaning to my own disadvantage and my mistake arose from the word Contrition by which Beza meant nothing but what the Papists ordinarily call by the name of Attritio and that is a Legal Repentance which as Beza rightly observed proceeds not properly from the Gospel but from the Law But I thought that by the word Contrition he had meant what we commonly call Contrition from Psal 51.17 and which is a true Evangelical Repentance enjoyned by the Gospel But since I have learned from his other Writings that by the word Contrition he meant not an Evangelical but a Legal Repentance when in the latter part of that Epistle he said that Contrition is not properly from the Gospel but from the Law and by
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
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
also the meaning of the words besides the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb is as if it had been said beside that entring into or striking of Covenant And then he adds for further clearing of the matter The Covenant was but one in substance but various in the time and manner of its dispensation The Dutch Annotations go the same way and very clearly assign the reason of its being said that the Covenant was made with Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant made with them in Horeb Their words are It was indeed one and the same Covenant but Renewed Repeated and Published here in the Fields of Moab unto many other Persons in another place and in another manner than at Mount Horeb or Sinai And with these agree the Assemblies Annotations on the place Their words are The same in substance but not altogether the same c. I know very well that there are some Learned Men who in this differ from those before-mentioned and from Deut. 29. ver 1. would prove that the Covenant a◠Horeb was the Covenant of Works and that this in the Land of Moab was the Gospel-Covenant of Grace I am not indeed altogether of their mind for I have already shewed that the Covenant in Exod 24. which was made with Israel at Horeb was not the Original Covenant of Works but the Gospel Covenant of Grace in Type and Figure But though they and I differ in that yet we both agree in this which is the main thing and sufficient for my purpose That the Covenant made with all Israel in the Land of Moab was really the Gospel Covenant of Grace So the Learned Alsted saith (y) Foedus in terrâ Moabitarum est Faedus Evangelii seu Fidei quod Redempvionis gratiae appellatur Quod Deus ibi promulgavit ut Populo poneret ob oculos ingens illud beneficium quo illud quod legi erat impossibile per Christum reddidit possibile Confer Deut. 29. 30. Cap. cum Rom. 10.6 c. Johan Henric. Alsted in Turri Babel destructâ pag. 532. The Covenant in the Land of Moab is the Covenant of the Gospel or Faith which is also called the Covenant of Redemption and Grace which God there promulgated that he might set before the Peoples Eyes that great benefit whereby that which was impossible to the Law is made possible by Christ Compare Deut. 29 and 30. Chapters with Rom. 10. ver 6 c. Now if it be the Gospel Covenant or Covenant of Grace then it is certa in and evident that the Gospel-Covenant or the Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires some Duties of us For the Text saith ver 9. Keep the words of this Covenant and do them And ver 10 11 12. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord the God and into his Oath c. These express words of the Text plainly show that this Covenant hath Precepts and requires Dutyes And that this Covenant which hath Precepts and requires Dutyes is the Gospel Covenant of Grace is yet more manifest from Deut. 30. where Moses speaking still of the same Covenant at the same time he told the People That though they should break it by sin yet they might be received into Grace and Favour again upon their sincere Repentance ver 1 2 3 4 5. Ruthersord of the Covenant of Life opened Part 1. pag. 189. which proves that this could not be the Covenant of Works because as Rutherford well observes The Covenant of Works once broken ceaseth to be a Covenant of Life for ever because the Nature of it is to admit of no Repentance at all 2 Moses speaking still of the same Covenant he says one of the Promises of it is That the Lord will circumcise the Heart of his People and the heart of their Seed to love the Lord their God with all their Heart and Soul that they may live ver 6. But so it is That the Promise of Heart Circumcision is certainly a Promise of the Gospel Covenant of Grace 3 Moses speaking still of the same matter and at the same time he saith as it is written in ver 11 12 13 14 This Commandment which I command thee this day it is not hidden from thee neither is it far off It is not in Heaven that thou should say Who shall go up for us to Heaven and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it Neither is it beyond the Sea that thou shouldest say Who shall go over the Sea for us and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it But the word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it By which words he plainly teaches us That the Covenant and Commandment of which he there writes is neither impossible nor hard to be understood nor yet is it impossible nor hard to be kept and observed but that through Grace circumcising the heart to love God it is both easie to be known and also easie to be kept and observed Now this cannot be truely said of the Covenant of Works For as Mr. Shepard of New England well observes The Coudition of Works is impossible to be wrought in us by the Spirit And let not any Man think this strange and uncouth to say Theses Sabbathae pag 95. That the Spirit of Grace cannot now work in us the Condition of the first Covenant the Covenant of Works for the Condition and Duty of that Covenant was That Man should be without all Sin in Habit or Act and that he should be sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life and continue so to be But that is now impossible because it implyes a Contradiction for any meer Man since Adam broke the first Covenant and we in him to be always without all Sin in Habit or Act and to be always Sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life For all Men are already guilty of Sin and the People of Israel were all Sinners and had broken the Covenant of Works before Moses spoke and when he spoke the foresaid words unto them And it implyes a contradiction that by any Power whatsoever a thing which hath been already should be made not to have been at all or that a thing which exists at present should not exist at present whil'st it doth exist It will signifie nothing here to say That yet the Spirit can make us sinlesly Holy de futuro if he please for though that be very true absolutely speaking the Spirit can make a Man sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life for time to come though he hath been a Sinner in times part for that implyes no contradiction And the Spirit of Grace hath de facto done the thing in and upon the Spirits of Just Men made perfect in Heaven yet it is nothing to the purpose here because that is not the Condition and Duty of the Covenant
is impossible to be done by any power whatsoever which is even impossible to be done by the help of his Spirit and Grace But the Conditional Promise of our Saviour in John 8.51 is of another Nature it is not merely oeconomical but real and intentional really requiring the condition and obliging Men to keep his saying and intentionally promising unto all who do or shall keep his saying that they shall never see Death This plainly appears from the double asseveration wherewith our Saviour spoke the foresaid Promise saying Verily verily I say unto you if a man keep my saying be shall never see doath Whence I conclude that the Gospel is not without all Precepts for here is implyed a Precept to keep Christs saying A Third Tellimony we have in Rom. 10.8 9 10. That is the Word of Faith which we preach that if thou shalt confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy Heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved for with the Heart Man believeth unto Righteousness and with the Mouth confession is made unto Salvation Observe here 1 That by the Word of Faith is meant the Gospel which according to the Dutch Annotations on the place is so called because by it we are exhorted and brought to Faith 2. Observe that besides Faith in the Heart which is required unto Righteousness and Justification there is here required Confession with the Mouth as necessary to the obtaining of consummate Salvation And by Confession with the Mouth is meant an outward Profession of the inward Faith of the Heart and living suirable to our holy Profession Hence Mr. Maâ—o in the last English Annotatiens on Rom. 10.9 saith There are but these two things which the Gospel principally requires in order to our Salvation The one is the Confession of Christ with our Mouths and that in spight of all Persecution and Danger to own him for our Lord and for our Jesus and to declare that we are and will be ruled and saved by him and by him only The other is to believe in our Hearts that God hath raisod him from the Dead Whence I conclude again that the Gospel is not without all Precepts for it hath besides the Precept of believing on Christ with the Heart another Principal Precept of confessing him with the Mouth that is of living suitably to our Faith A Fourth Testimony to prove that the Gospel hath Precepts we have in those places of the New Testament where some are commended for their obeying and being subject to the Gospel and others are blamed and threatned for their disobeying the Gospel 1. We find that some are commended for obeying the Gospel and being subject to it Thus the believing Romans are commended for obeying the Gospel Rom. 6.17 God be thanked that ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you This form of Doctrine is the Gospel as the Dutch Annotation on the place tells us saying expresly that the Gospel is a Doctrine of Godliness and Righteousiness And Paul gave God thanks for this that the believing Romans had from the Heart obeyed it Which they could never have done if the Gospel Doctrine had had no Precept requiring their Obedience For speaking of a Doctrine Precept and Obedience are relative one to another so that take away the Precept of a Doctrine and you take away the possibility of Obedience to that Doctrine which hath no Precept On the other hand if we once grant that there is such a thing as Obedience to the Doctrine of the Gospel we must by consequence grant also that the Doctrine of the Gospel hath some Precept which requires that Obedience otherwise it can be no Obedience to that Doctrine Again in 2 Cor. 9.13 we read that the Saints glorified God for the believing Corinthians their professed subjection unto the Gospel of Christ Now it is unconceivable how they could be subject to the Gospel if it had no preceptive commanding Authority over their Consciences For Subjection is relative unto and presupposes a superiour commanding Authority in that whereunto there is Subjection This common sense teaches us But so it is that the Corinthians were subject to the Gospel and therefore the Gospel is not without all Precepts but it had a preceptive commanding Authority over them to which they were subject 2. We find that others are blamed and threatned for not obeying the Gospel Rom. 10.16 They have not all obeyed the gospel 1 Pet. 4.17 What shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God And 2 Thess 1.7 8. The Lord shall take vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ But now according to the principle of the Flacian Sectaries that the Gospel hath no Precept there could be no such thing as disobedience to the Gospel For where there is no Gospel Law or Precept there can be no Transgression against the Gospel This one of the Brethren who was for that way plainly saw and granting the consequence declared it to the World in Print Dansons Confer p. 18. that he and his Party knew no Sins against the Gospel And indeed if the Gospel had no Precept there could be no Sin against it But the Apostles Paul and Peter tell us expresly that there is such a thing as not obeying the Gospel and that persons who obey it not shall be severely punished for their disobedience And if so then surely their disobeying the Gospel is a Sin against the Gospel whence it follows by necessary consequence that the Gospel hath some Precept which was to be demonstrated And if it be said that the Moral Law commands Obedience to the Gospel I answer be it so that is so far from weakening that it rather strengthens the Argument For if it command Obedience to the Gospel then it commands Obedience to the Precept of the Gospel for without the Gospels having some Precept there might indeed be Obedience to the Law in other things but there could be no Obedience to the Gospel at all nor could there be Obedience to the Law in that matter because upon that false supposition the Law should command a Chimerical impossibility which is absurd to affirm of the Just Law of the infinitely Wise God Therefore from the Moral Law its obliging us to obey the Gospel it necessarily follows that the Gospel hath some Precept to be obeyed A Fifth Testimony we have in Tit. 2.11 12. where it is written that The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present world In this Scripture we are to observe two things 1. What is meant by the Grace of God which bringeth Salvation and which hath appeared unto all Men or which bringeth Salvation unto all Men and hath appeared And it is generally confessed to be objective Grace
thee for ever And as for thee do thou walk before me and be thou perfect or sincere And these are the Conditions of the Covenant or Agreement By this also we see that above 100 years ago our Doctrine was maintained by the Reformed in Switzerland to wit That the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts which prescribe to us Conditions and require Duties of us Now what shall one think or say of those men who in Print boldly contradict this plain matter of Fact and some of them are not ashamed to say that Christ hath helped them to write such falshoods I am almost weary in transcribing Testimonies against such unchristian asserting of Falshoods in matter of Fact and therefore lest I should quite tire both my self and the Reader I will bring but a few more tho I could bring very many My 6th Witness then shall be that holy and faithful Minister of Christ Mr. Shephard of New England whose words are †Mr. Shephard's Theses Sabbaticae Thes 110. pag. 78. edit Lond. 1649. The Gospel under which believers now are requires no doing say they for doing is proper to the Law the Law promiseth life and requireth conditions but the Gospel say they promiseth to work the condition but requires none and therefore a believer is now wholly free from all Law But says Mr. Shephard the Gospel and Law are taken two ways 1. Largely the Law for the whole Doctrine contained in the Old Testament and the Gospel for the whole Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles contained in the New Testament 2. Strictly the Law pro lege Operum as Chamier distinguisheth and the Gospel pro lege fidei i.e. For the Law of Faith The Law of works strictly taken is that Law which reveals the Favour of God and Eternal Life upon condition of doing or of perfect Obedience The Law of Faith strictly taken is that Doctrine which reveals remission of sins and reconciliation with God by Christ's Righteousness only apprehended by Faith Now the Gospel in this latter Sense excludes all works and requires no doing in point of Justification and Remission of sins before God but only believing But take the Gospel largely for the whole Doctrine of Gods Love and Free Grace and so the Gospel requires doing for as it is an Act of God's free Grace to justifie a man without calling for any works thereunto so it is an Act of the same free grace to require works of a person justified and that such poor sinners should stand before the Son of God on his Throne to minister unto him and serve him in righteousness and holiness all the days of our lives Tit. 2 14. And for any to think that the Gospel requires no conditions is a sudden Dream against hundreds of Scriptures which contain conditional yet Evangelical Promises and against the Judgment of the most Judicious of our Divines c. Thus Mr. Shephard where it is observable 1. That according to him the Gospel even strictly taken as it respects Justification only requires the Duty and Condition of believing And therein I agree with him that it requires Faith and only Faith as that whereby we apprehend Christ's Righteousness for to do that is the Office of Faith alone and of no other Grace or Duty 2. It is observable that according to him the Gospel taken largely not for all the books of the New Testament but for the whole Doctrine of God's Love and free Grace so it requires doing of Justified Persons and it requires not only the Duty of believing but it also requires that we serve God in righteousness and holiness all the days of our lives This is plain and so plain that I hope no honest man who fears God and loves truth will ever dare to deny it For my own part I must profess to the world that I am perswaded it is my Duty to lose my life rather than impudently deny so plain a matter of Fact 3. It is to be observed that tho Mr. Shephard do not here mention Repentance in order to remission of sins yet afterwards in p. 94. of the same book he doth expresly mention it as well as Faith tho it have not the same use and office which Faith hath in Justification His words are Is not this preaching of the Gospel the iustrument and means of working that Faith in us which the Lord requires of us in the Gospel And must not Jesus Christ use the means for the end were not those 3000 brought unto Chrïst by Faith by Peter 's promise of remission of sins upon their Repentance Were not many filled with the Holy-Ghost when they heard this Gospel thus preached upon condition of believing Acts 10.43 c. This was written against one W.C. Whether the Spirit of that person hath possessed any others in our day I will not say let them who are concerned look to that This Testimony of Mr. Shephard I conclude with what he says in p. 79. As do and live hath been accounted good Law or the Covenant of Works so believe and live hath been in former times accounted good Gospel or the Covenant of Grace until now of late this wild Age hath found out new Gospels that Paul and the Apostles did never dream of Now observe here that in this believe and live which Mr. Shephard says in former times used to be accounted good Gospel there is 1. A Precept Believe for it is a Verb of the Imperative Mood which commands and requires the Duty of believing 2. There is a Promise to those who obey the Precept and perform the Duty through Grace That through Christ they shall live But Mr. Goodwin will have the Gospel to be an Absolute Promise without any Precept at all Therefore this is no good Gospel in his Account Whether then he be one of those who have found a New Gospel that Paul and the Apostles did never dteam of let him look to that I hope if he see his mistake he will rectisie it Nullus pudor ad meliora transire My 7th Witness is the Edinburgh Catechism published for the use of the Colledg and Schools in that City in the year 1627. In the Section concerning Christ's Office the words of the Catechism are these * Q. In quem finem constitutus est Rex R. Ut ferret nobis Legem Regiam fidei vitae regulam Jac. 2.8 4.12 Rom. 3 27. Mat. 28.20 ut corda nostra in Legis suae obsequium flecteret Heb. 10.16 Act. 16.14 c. Method Relig. Chrift Catechet in usum Academ Jac. Regis Schol. Edinburgensium a Joanne Adamsono Acad. moderatore primario Edinb A. 1627. For what end was Christ made a King Ans That he might enact a Royal Law for us to be the Rule of our Faith and Life Jam. 2.8 and 4.12 Rom. 3.27 Mat. 28.20 that he might bow and incline our hearts to observe his Law Heb. 10.16 Acts 16.14 that he might invincibly protect and defend us Deut. 33.29 Ps 119.114
is because the Gospel consists mostly in Promises though it be not without but partly consist in Precepts also This I have shewed in the Apology that there are not only Promises in the Gospel to those who observe its Precepts but that there are in it Promises of Grace to his People to fit them for and to assist them in the observance of its Precepts and therefore it is fitly called not simply a Law but a Law of Grace So I call it and believe it to be and so it was called and believed to be by other Orthodox Divines before I was born But though I believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace that requires Duties to be performed by the Grace of the Spirit and accepted through the Mediation of Christ yet I never said nor believed that it is a Law which requires Duties by and for which we are Justified and Saved So far am I from saying or believing any such thing that I have published the contrary to the World in several parts of the Apology and particularly in Page 38 39 40.54 Indeed it is my professed belief that Faith it self is not any the least part of that Righteousness by and for which we are Justified before God 2. The Second thing to be carefully attended unto is that by the Gospel or Law of Grace I do not understand the Books of the New Testament but the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ as it is Recorded in the Scriptures both of Old and New Testament 3. The Third thing to be attended unto is that I always acknowledged that the First Commandment of the Moral Law obligeth to believe all the Supernatural Revelations and obey all the Positive Precepts of the Gospel from which Principle it is so far from following that the Gospel hath no Precepts of its own that on the contrary it plainly follows that it hath Precepts of its own otherwise the Moral Natural Law would never oblige us to obey them 4. The Fourth thing to be attended unto is That since the Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace hath Precepts of its own those Precepts must of themselves immediately oblige us to the performance of certain Duties and by means of them the Natural Moral Law obliges us to the same Duties tho not to be Justified and Saved for the sake of those Duties but in order to other Gospel ends and purposes If these Four things be carefully attended unto they will preserve People through the Blessing of God from being imposed upon by the false Representation which Mr. G. gives of our Doctrine which Wrong I freely forgive him and heartily pray God both to give him Repentance and Forgiveness 2. The Second and last thing I am here to do is to shew my Reverend Brother some more of his Mistakes in this part of his Seventh Chapter concerning the Precepts of the Gospel 1. And First whereas he says in Page 44. That the obedience of a Believer is not called Evangelical because it is obedience to the Gospel but because of the Principles of Faith and Love from which it flows and in respect of the Evangelical Motives which animate and encourage it This I take to be a mistake if he excludes the Gospel Covenants requiring such Obedience from being one of the said Motives and my reason is because the Gospel's requiring it in order to Gospel-ends and purposes is the principal reason wherefore we call it Evangelical Obedience For it is the Gospel that of it self directly and immediately requires us to obey the Moral Law in such an Evangelical way to wit sincerely with a renewed heart from Principles of Faith in and Love to Christ the Mediator and God as our Redeemer and Saviour by Christ And further as the Authority and Veracity of God revealing Truths to be believed is the formal reason of our Faith which makes and denominates it a Divine Faith so the Authority and Will of God commanding Duties to be done is the formal reason of our obedience which gives it the Denomination of Divine Obedience or obedience to God And if this be true of obedience to God in general that it is called a Divine legal obedience because it is obedience to God's Authority and Will Commanding it by his Law then by Parity of Reason it is true of that special sort of obedience to wit Evangelical Obedience that it is called Evangelical because it is obedience to Gods Authority and Will Commanding and requiring it by his Gospel It were very strange if the Formal Reason of Obedience did contribute nothing to the giving it its Name as well as its Nature 2. Secondly Whereas in Page 45. he says That in John 14.1 Christ himself told his Disciples that they should act faith on him because they were obliged to it by the same Command which required them to believe in God This is another Mistake and the mistake is the grosser for this Reason because by this mistake Mr. G. imposes upon our Saviour and makes him to say that which he did not say nor is it implyed in nor necessarily consequent from his words Our Lord Christ doth not say Believe in me because ye are obliged to it by the same Command which requires you to believe in God This is Mr. G's Fancy or Fiction which he should not have Fathered upon Christ Who saith no such thing in John 14.1 But only saith there let not your heart be troubled Ye believe in God believe also in me Or as the words might be rendred ye believe in God and ye believe in me Now I appeal both to common sense and to common honesty and natural Conscience whether to say ye believe in God believe also in me be all one and the same thing as to say ye should believe on me because ye are obliged to believe on me by the same command and by no other which requires you to believe in God For suppose the Disciples had been obliged to believe in Christ by another Command or both by the same and also by another Command yet Christ might well have used the same words and have said ye believe in God believe also in me I do therefore put Mr. G. to prove that because our Lord Christ said ye believe in God believe also in me Therefore he told his Disciples that they should believe on him not because they were obliged to it by any positive precept of the Gospel but only because they were obliged to it by the same Command of the Moral natural Law which required them to believe in God Mr G. must not dictate to us his own fancies but must prove to us the foresaid Consequence if he would have us to believe what he there says For he ought not to think that we will believe it upon his bare word 3. Thirdly whereas he says in p. 47. That the act and object of faith to wit faith in God before the fall and faith in Christ after the fall Is
threatnings For as this is the voice of the Gospel He that believes and is Baptized shall be saved so the Antithesis or contrary proposition immediately added doth likewise pertain to the Gospel He that believeth not shall be damned The like Antitheses are also in these sayings He that believeth in the Son bath eternal Life he that believeth not the Son shall not see Life but the wrath of God abideth on him In like manner He that believeth on the Son is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already It is not to be doubted but that these are the most proper voices or words of the Gospel and yet they not only contain most sweet Promises concerning the Grace and Favour of God and Righteousness before God and concerning Eternal Life to all that by Faith embrace the Mediator revealed in the Gospel But they likewise contain most severe Threatnings reproving and condemning this sin which is a disbelieving the Son of God the Mediator and leaving under this eternal Condemnation all that believe not in his Son Thus Pezelius who there also shews that Flacius did abuse the Authority of Luther and wrest his words to make People believe that the Gospel hath no Threatnings of its own but that it only borrows the Threatnings of the Law as Mr. G. says after his Master Flacius 2. 2dly The whole Synod of Dort and that is the Delegates from all the best reformed Churches bear witness to this Truth That the Gospel hath its own Threatnings as is to be seen in their 14th Canon concerning the fifth head of Doctrine to wit Perseverance * Quemadmodum autem Deo placuit opus hoc suum gratiae per praedicationem Evangelii in nobis inchoare ita per ejusdem auditum lectionem meditationem adhortationes minas promissa nec non per usum Sacramentorum illud conservat continuat perficit Act. Synod Dordrac Part. 1. Pag. 313. But as it pleased God to begin in us this work of Grace by the Preaching of the Gospel so he preserves continues and perfects it by the hearing reading and meditating by the Exhortations Threatnings and Promises of the same Gospel and also by the use of the Sacraments These are the words of the foresaid 14th Canon which was subscribed by the whole Synod without exception Now this is such a Testimony for the Truth which I defend that the Gospel hath its own Threatnings as I think should be of more weight with true Protestants than the Testimony of that erroneous Person Flacius Illyricus and the few Disciples that he may have in the world at this day 3. 3dly The Reverend and Learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations bear Testimony to this Truth witness their Annotation on Rom. 2.6 Who shall recompence every Man according to his works This say they may well be applyed also to the recompencing according to the promises and threatnings of the Gospel c. This is a most clear irrefragable Testimony for in these words compared with what goes before concerning recompencing even Heathens according to the promises and threatnings of the Law they plainly acknowledge that the Gospel as distinct from and as opposed to the Law hath its own promises and threatnings According to which Christians shall be Recompenced 4. 4thly The Learned and Judicious Pool in his Annotations on Deut. 29. doth in a Remarkable instance bear witness to this truth for he saith that the wicked person of whom it is there written v. 19. That when he heareth the words of the curse he blesses himself in his heart saying I shall have peace tho I walk in the Imagination of my heart to add Drunkenness to Thirst Was one of those who think that the Gospel hath no threatnings See Pool's Annotation on the 21 verse of the 29th of Deutronomy where upon these words The Lord shall separate him to evil According to all the curses of the Covenant he says expresly that He to wit the Lord Intimates that the Covenant of grace which God made with them hath not only blessings belonging to it as this foolish person imagined but curses also to the Transgressors of it Here Mr. Pool says That that foolish person imagined that the Covenant of Grace had only blessings belonging to it and this is in effect the same thing as if he had said that the foolish Man imagined that the Covenant of Grace had only promises oâ— blessings but no threatnings of curses belonging to it 5. 5thly The Judicious Hutcheson in his exposition on John's Gospel gives express Testimony to this truth Witness those formal words of his on the 47. verse of the 12th Chapter of John's Gospel p. 256. Albeit the Gospel be glad tydings of joy and contain Cordials and remedies against all curses and threatnings of the Law yet it contains also threatnings against despisers as terrible as any threatning of the Law These words do so plainly shew that he believed the Gospel hath threatnings of its own distinct from the threatnings of the Law that I need not say any thing to prove that to be their meaning For it is self-evident that they have that meaning and can have no other 6. 6thly Mr. Rutherford is again express in his Covenant of Life opened for the same truth that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath threatnings Witness his own formal words Part 1. Page 92. As the Commands and Threatnings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real Obligation upon such as are only externally in Covenant either to obey or suffer so the promise of the Covenant imposes an Engagement and Obligation upon such to believe the Promise Now if there are Threatnings of the Covenent of Grace then are there Threatnings of the Gospel also For the Gospel and the Covenant of Grace is all one See in the Second Volume of Pool's Annotations the Note on Heb. 12.29 together with the Explication of 2 Thes 1.8 9. 7. 7thly And lastly the Reverend and Learned Dr. Owen above all others doth fully and clearly give Testimony unto this truth that the Gospel hath its own proper threatnings distinct from the threatnings of the Law his words are as follows As the sum of all promises to wit of the Gospel is enwrapped in these words he that believeth shall be saved * Dr. Owen on Heb. 4 v. 1 2. Pag. 180. Vol. 2. Mark 16.16 So that of all these threatnings i. e. the sum of all these threatnings of the Gospel is in those that follow he that believeth not shall be damned And a like summary of Gospel-promises and threatnings we have John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting Life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see Life but the wrath of God abideth on him And threatnings of this nature are frequently scattered up and down in the New Testament See Rom. 2.8 9. 2 Thes 1.6 7 8 9 10. 1 Pet. 4.17 18. And these threatnings may be so far called Evangelical in as much as
Son Authority to execut Judgment because he is the Son of Man On which place the assemblies Annotations have this note Authority to execute Judgment is Supream power to Govern and Administer all things Because he is the Son of Man That is Not only as he is God but also as he is Man that all Men may see their Judge Rev. 1.7 And on the same John 5.27 The Dutch Annotators say as followeth And hath given him power to execute Judgment also i. e. To Govern all things with power of Life and Death and especially at the last day Mat. 28.18 Rom. 14.9 Rev. 1.18 Because he is the Son of Man that is Because he having assumed the humane nature into the unity of his person is appointed by God for a Judge and Mediator and shall also as Man execute the same office Dan. 7.13 John 17.2 Acts 10.42 and 17.31 The last English Annotations 2d volume have the like note on John 5.27 But especially Mr. Hutcheson in his exposition on John 5.27 Is full and clear His words are these †Hutcheson on John pag. 76. on the 27th verse of the 5th Chapter Christ declareth that not only as God he hath a Fountain of Life equally with the Father but That he hath Authority given him from the Father to execute or do Judgment even because he is the Son of Man By executing or doing Judgment of which v. 22. We are to understand a Dominion and Government over all things and particularly the power of Life and Death to Condemn or absolve Which will be especially verified in the Judgment of the last day of which he speaketh v. 28.29 And Christ saith Authority is given him to do this Because he is the Son of Man or as he is the Son of Man Whereby we are not to understand his humane nature simply considered but his office and his humane nature as united in one person with the Godhead that because he is God-Man the Mediator of sinners and took on our nature for that end therefore he hath all power committed to him as Mediator for the good of the Church the Exercise whereof he fully entred upon after his resurrection Mat. 28.18 Rom. 14.9 Rev. 1.18 Pril 2.8 9 10 11. And he is the visible Actor and Judge in these Administrations which could be done by none but him who is God also and particularly in the last day wherein he shall be Judge in visible Shape Acts 10.42 and 17.31 Ibid. Doctrin 3. Mr. Hutcheson saith that Christ hath a donative Kingdom as Mediator God-Man for the good of his Church c. And Doct. 6. He saith that Christ in the work of Redemption and Administration of all things for the elect's behoofe is the Father's Commissioner and hath a delegated Authority c. And a little after in the same place he saith That as the Son of Man and Mediator this Authority is given to Christ as to a delegate Thus Hutcheson By all which you may easily see that Christ knows very well That the office of a Judge belongs to the Mediator And truly it is matter of wonder to me that ever a Sober Man should have Printed and Published to the world That Christ knew that the office of a Judge did not belong to a Mediator And yet not content with this Mr. G. 2dly Asserts that Christ hath disowned the office of a Judge as not belonging to a Mediator I seriously profess it grieves me to find such things in the Ingenious Mr. Goodwins book and tho he hath made himself my adversary without any just cause given by me that I know of yet I am not willing to Animadvert on this assertion of his so severely as the nature of the thing deserves I shall only tell my Reverend Brother 1. That here he asserts that whch he can never prove and I advise him as his friend not to attempt the proof of it for by so doing he will but make the matter worse and some of the Lovers and Honourers of our Lord Christ may be ready to appear against Mr. G. in this cause of Christ and to maintain the negative that Christ never disowned the office of a Judge as that which did not belong to a Mediator I hope Mr. G. will never be so impertinent as to alledg for proof of his assertion that in Luk. 12.14 Christ said Man Who made me a Judge or a divider over you For that relates wholly to another matter and the meaning is that Christ was not called to the office of a civil Judge Mediator or Arbitrator between the two Brothers who differed about the dividing of the Inheritance And yet I do not know any place of Scripture that seems to be so much for his purpose if he can but make people believe that the Meer sound of the words is the sure and best means to find out the true meaning of a Text. 2. I think it may not be amiss to tell my Reverend brother That the most vile Sect of the old Gnosticks the Disciples of Valentinus were all for Christ's being a Saviour but would not have him to be a Lord For if he be once admitted to be a Lord and King he may prove to be a Judge too and to have power both to threaten and also Judge and Condemn unbelievers and wicked livers such as the old Gnosticks were And that is a dangerous business to such as them Hence as the Ancient father Ireneus tells us * Salvatorem dicunt nec enim Dominum eum Nominare volunt c. Iren. adversus haereses Lob. 1. Cap. 1. They say that Christ the Saviour for they will not call him Lord did nothing in publick for the space of thirty years They thought belike that it did not belong to the office of a Saviour to be a Lord or a Judge therefore they would not have him called Lord but Saviour For that sweet word Saviour in their Judgment Savoured of nothing but free grace to ill livers Whereas the word Lord or Judge Savours of power to command obedience and Authority to threaten and punish the disobedient which very thing made the word it self so unsavoury to them that they were not willing to pronounce it with their lips But I am sure Mr. G. should know and I hope he doth know better things The Reverend Dr. Owen in the Prolegomena to the 1 volume of his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us a great and useful truth That Christ is our Saviour as he is our great Prophet Priest and King and that he carries on the Work of our Salvation in executing the three several parts of his Mediatorial Office to wit of Prophet Priest and King and all sober Divines that I know are of that mind and some of them too give very hard Words unto and pass a severe censure upon such Men as are for dividing of Christ and for receiving him and his Doctrine by halves Witness Bibliander in that book which I mentioned
before where he thus writes †Aâ—que hâ—ec universa in una Persona Christi unici Mediatoris Dei Hominum ita continentur nodo indissolubili juncta connexa sunt ut qui couatur unum ex illis Christo adimere conetur Christum solvere quam esse notam certissimam spiritus Antichristi Johannes Apostolus dilectus Discipulus Domini Docet in prima sua Catholica â—pistâ—a coque crimine Antichristianismi summi sacrilegii tenentur omnes haeresiarchae eorum sectatores pertinaces qui Schismate impio imprimis Christum divellere conati sunt quod nullo mo so potest fieri Bibliander ubi supra Pag. 198 199. And all these things are so contained and joyned and connected together by an undissoluble Knot in the one Person of Christ the only Mediator between God and Men that whosoever endeavours to take one of them from Christ he endeavours to Destroy Christ which to be a most certain mark of the Spirit of Antichrist the Apostle John and beloved Disciple of the Lord teaches us in his first general Epistle And of this Crime of Antichristianism and of the highest Sacriledg are guilty all Authors or inventers of Heresies and their obstinate Followers who by an ungodly Schism do principally indeavour to divide Christ which can no way be done Thus the Learned and pious Bibliander I hope therefore my Reverend brother will joyn with us and for the future acknowledge that the office of a Lord and Judge too doth belong to Christ the Mediator and that eo nomine because he is Mediator and as he is Mediator For as the Dutch Annotators have it on 1 Cor. 15.25 He must Reign as King That is Accomplish his Kingly office as Mediator c. In short as I hope we shall so I wish we may all agree in that of Salvian an Ancient and Zealous writer of the fifth century * Nos ita judicandum humanum genus a Christo dicimus ut tamen etiam nunc omnia Deum prout rationabile putat regere ac dispensare credamus ita in futuro judicio judicaturum affirmemus ut tamen semper etiam in hoc saeculo judicasse doceamus Dum enim semper gubernat Deus semper judicat quia Guberuatio ipsa est judicium Salvian Lib. 1. de Gubernatione Dei Pag. 15. Vid. etiam Lib. 2. Pag. 55. ubi haec habet unde tu qui ad solatium arbitror peccatorum tuorum considerari actus nostros a Deo non putas ex hoc ipso aspici te a Christo semper intellige puniendum forsitan propediem esse cognosce We so say that Mankind will be Judged by Christ as that yet we believe also that God now at present doth rule and dispence all things as he things reasonable or sit and let us so affirm that Christ will Judge at the Day of Judgment which is to come hereafter as notwithstanding to teach also that he hath always judged in this world For whilst God doth always govern he doth always Judge also because the very Governing Act it self of God and so of Christ the Mediatorial King is Judgment Thus Salvian And I think this may suffice for Answer to Mr. G's Third Objection 4. Obj. Lastly He appeals to the express words of Christ himself in John 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God And says page 55. He is confident we will have regard to these words Answer Indeed his Confidence in this is well grounded for we really have as we ought a very great regard to these and all the other words of our most blessed and glorious Lord and they have a Commanding power over us to induce us to receive them with faith and love But what then must we therefore have regard to Mr. G's Consequence which he draws from them by force and violence That doth not at all follow And for my own part I declare that I reject his Consequence which is that the Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace hath no threanings since he that believeth not is Condemned already Because he hath not believed in the Name of the only-begotten Son of God And whereas he says that the unbeliever is already Condemned by the old Law of works and therefore there is no need that he be Condemned again by the Gospel and a new Law of Grace I Answer that a Man who lives under the Preaching of the Gospel and yet remains still in unbelief is already Condemned both by Law and Gospel by the old Covenant and also by the New so long as he continues in his unbelief as I shewed before And it doth not become us to say unto God that he needs not to do the same thing twice when we know that he hath twice done it especially when we may plainly see that tho the same person be twice over Condemned yet it is in different respects and for two different causes First he is Condemned by the old Law of works for not keeping it perfectly and personally so as never to break it either by original or actual sin And thus all Unbelievers in the world are condemned even Heathens that never heard the joyful sound of the Gospel and never had a Gospel-Offer of Mercy upon the Terms of the New Covenant and Law of Grace Secondly He is condemned also by the Gospel or New Covenant Law of Grace for not accepting the Gospel-Offer of Mercy for not receiving and applying to himself the Remedy tendred to him in the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace Here this Unbeliever is guilty of a sin which the foresaid Heathens who have only the Law of Nature are not guilty of he is guilty of a sin which is directly and immediately against the saving Remedy mercifully provided and offered him in the Gospel and therefore there is sufficient Reason for condemning him again by the Gospel-Covenant I say for condemning him to a greater Degree of Punishment than that of meer Heathens who are guilty only of sins against the Law of Nature but are guilty of no sin against the Gospel of Christ are not at all guilty of any sin in neglecting or refusing to receive Christ by Faith and the Salvation offered through him in the Gospel-Covenant Our Saviour says in this very Text That the Unbeliever who is guilty of Positive Unbelief against the Gospel is condemned already not only and meerly because he hath broken God's natural moral Law but because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God And then as it were to obviate Mr. G's Objection he adds immediately This is the Condemnation that light is come into the world and Men loved Darkness rather than Light Because their deeds were Evil. See what was quoted before in the remarks on Mr. G's sixth Chapter out of Mr. Hutcheson's Exposition on John 3. v. 18.19 As for Mr.
he saith that promises are as properly made to professors within the visible Church Act. 2.39 As Commands and threatnings exhortations invitations and Gospel-requests are made to them But tho the Anabaptists ignorantly confound the promise and the thing promised the Covenant and Benefits Covenanted The promise is to you and so are the commands and threatnings whether ye believe or not c. And pag. 94. of the same book his formal express words are as followeth It is not inconvenient that the reprobate in the visible Church be so under the Covenant of Grace as some promises are made to them and some mercies promised to them conditionally and some reserved special promises of a new bea rt and of perseverance belong not to them For all the promises belong not the same way to the parties visibly and externally and to the parties internally and personally in Covenant with God So the Lord promiseth Life and Forgiveness shall be given to these who are Externally in the Covenant providing they believe but the Lord promiseth not a new heart and grace to believe to these that are only Externally in Covenant And he promiseth both to the Elect. Thus Mr. Rutherford Zanchy whom my R. brother doth highly Commend was certainly of the same Judgment witness his own express words †Respondeo deum vocare etiam reprobos et mandare ut ad se veniant Salutemque illis promittere si velint in Christum credere manifestum est omnes enim vocat per verbum et omnibus vitam promittit aeternam modo in Christum velint credere atque haec est voluntas conditionalis reprobos vero non illudi cum a domino vocantur manifestum tiam ost c. Zanch. depuls calumn de predest not 16. T. 7. pag. 254. I Answer saith Zanchy that God calls even the Reprobate and Commands them to come unto him and promises them salvation if they will believe in Christ it is manifest For he calls all by the word promises unto all Eternal Life provided that they will believe in Christ and this is his conditional will It is manifest also that the reprobates are not mocked nor deluded when they are called by the Lord c. I should never have done if I should quote all our Protestant Divines who are of this Judgment I must therefore forbear to cite any more of them at present and refer to the Apology especially in pag. 114. Having thus frankly and faithfully declared my Judgment in this matter and shewed it not to be singular I will now for the further clearing up of the truth personate my R. brother and for him argue against my self and then Answer the Arguments Obj. God did not decree to save all Men even the non-elect in the visible Church therefore he doth not promise salvation to any upon condition of Faith in Christ The reason of the Consequence is because every conditional promise of God's word presupposes an answerable decree and purpose of God's will for God always speaks the purposes of his mind and none of his words contradict his heart I Answer 1. By denying the Consequence for tho God did not decree to save all even the non-elect in the visible Church yet he promiseth to save some even all the elect in the visible Church on condition of Faith in Christ For he hath decreed to save them all he hath absolutely decreed their salvation on condition of Faith in Christ The decree of their salvation is absolute in respect of God decreeing but the object of the decree is conditional in respect of the salvation decreed That is God by his absolute will hath made faith the condition of their salvation and hath suspended the giving of salvation unto them upon the condition of their believing or till they perform the condition of believing in Christ 2. I Answer by denying the Consequence also with respect to the non-elect for tho God did not decree to save the non-elect in the visible Church as he decreed to save the elect yet he promiseth to save the non-elect in the visible Church conditionally that is provided that they believe in Christ as they are commanded to do And to the reason of the Consequence that every conditional promise of God's word presupposeth an Answerable decree of God's will because none of God's words contradict his will I Answer that in this case the decree of God's will which Answers the conditional promise to the non-elect is not a decree of Gods will to save the non-elect as he hath decreed to save the elect but it is the decree to make the conditional promise of salvation to the non-elect in the visible Church Whatever God doth in time that he decreed to do from Eternity But in time he promiseth salvation conditionally to the non-elect in the visible Church therefore from Eternity he decreed to promise them salvation on condition that they believe in Christ We must distinguish between God's decretory will strictly so called as it hath respect to the infallible salvation of the elect and his promissory will as it hath respect to the conditional promise of salvation to all elect and non-elect in the visible Church constituting a conditional connection between salvation as the benefit promised and faith in Christ as the condition required of all Now to apply this distinction every conditional promise of God's word doth not necessarily presuppose the foresaid decretory will but it sufficeth unto the verification of the conditional promise of salvation as such that there be in God the foresaid promissory will constituting a conditional connexion between salvation as the benefit promised and Faith in Christ as the condition required The conditional promise it self is not properly God's will but it is a sign of his promissory will And it is certain that the promise of God's word is a true sign of his will but in this case it is not a true sign of his foresaid decretory will therefore it must be a true sign of his promissory will and it gives us an infallible assurance that there is a conditional connexion between salvation as the benefit promised and Faith in Christ as the condition required of all so that whosoever performeth the condition he shall have the benefit promised whosoever believeth in Christ shall certainly be saved And therefore it may be truly said to such an one as Cain if thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted Gen. 4.7 And the Spirit by the word saith to every Man in the visible Church that reads and understands the 10th of the Romans if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved Rom. 10.9 3. Thirdly Mr. G. must admit of this Answer as good and satisfactory or he must find out a better for the objection is certainly sophistical and he is as much concerned to Answer it as I am And I doubt not to make him
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