our Saviour Jesus Christ In which Sense it comprehends the Absolute and Conditional Promises together with the prescription of the Condition to the performers of which the Conditional Promises were made on the account of Christ and his Righteousness Now it is in this sense that we say the Gospel taken for the Covenant of Grace is a Law of Grace It is a Law as it prescribes the Condition and obliges us to compliance therewith and it is a Law of Grace as it promises to penitent Believers most gracious Benefits and Blessings and likewise as it promises to the Elect Special Effectual and Victorious Grace whereby they do most freely and yet most certainly Believe and Repent And that in this sense the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace as to be also a Law of Grace that requires something to be done by us through Grace is evident from the Assemblies Confession of Faith Chap. 7. Art 3. where it says expresly That in the Covenant of Grace the Lord freely offered unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ requiring of them Faith in him that they may be saved and promising to give unto all those that are ordained to Life his Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe And no less evident it is from the larger Catechisme where to the question How is the Grace of God manifested in the Second Covenant It answers That the Grace of God is manifested in the Second Covenant in that he freely provideth and offereth to Sinners a Mediator and Life and Salvation by him and requiring Faith as the Condition to Interest them in him promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit c. Likewise the Confession of Faith Chap. 3. Art 8. saith That the Doctrine of Predestination affords matter of Praise Reverence and Admiration of God and of Humility Diligence and abundant Consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel Accordingly the Lord himself in the Scriptures of Truth assures us that Unbelievers and Wicked Men to whom the Word is Preached do not obey the Gospel and that they shall be Damned for not obeying it In Rom. 10.16 the Apostle proves their disobedience to the Gospel from their Unbelief as the Effect from the Cause See also 2 Thess 1.7 8 9. 1 Pet. 4.17 from all which it is evident that the Gospel in the sense aforesaid is a Law of Grace to the People of God And I hope my R Brother will not be such an Unbeliever as to refuse its being a Law of Grace to him also Secondly It is to be considered that there is a difference to be put between an accurate perfect Definition of a thing which doth indeed contain whatever is essential to the thing defined and a Popular Description of a thing which yet in a large Sense may be called a definition but then it is acknowledged to be definitio imperfecta oratorum propria An imperfect definition and such as is proper for Orators to make use of and accordingly my R Brother pag. 28. lin 8. hath these numerical words as signifying the same thing when they professedly define or describe the Gospel Now it is not necessary that a popular definition or description should alwayes contain every thing that is essential unto that which is so defined or described Thirdly It is to be considered that the Gospel taken in a limited restrained sense for one part of supernatural Revealed Religion may be and indeed ought to be defined or described one way but taken in a more large comprehensive Sense for another or more parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As for instance For the Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator it may be and indeed ought to be defined or described another way so that what is not Essential to it taken in a limited restrained Sense yet may be and is Essential to it taken in a more large and comprehensive Sense Fourthly It is to be well considered and carefully remembred that when our first Reformers deny the Gospel to be a Law as they frequently do It is in the Popish Socinian or Arminian Sense and it is mostly in the Popish Sense for it was with the Papists for the most part that they had to do when they denyed the Gospel to be a Law For instance Mr. Fox in his Book against the Papists de Christo gratis Justificante denyes the Gospel to be a Law in their sense as we also do and yet as was shewed in the Apology pag. 96.128 he maintain'd that Faith is the proper Condition of Justification and that Evangelical Repentance is a Condition preparatory and dispositive of the Subject to be justified which is sufficient to show That though he denyed the Gospel to be a Law in the Popish Sense yet he did in effect hold it to be a Law of Grace in our Sense Fifthly It is to be considered hat there is a vast difference between a Law of Works and a Law of Grace For according to the Scriptural Sense of the word a Law of Works is a Law the observance and keeping of which is a mans Justifying Righteousness it is the Righteousness by and for which he is Justifyed at the Bar of Gods governing Justice But a Law of Grace is not such our Obedience to the Law of Grace is not our Justifying Righteousness at the Bar of Gods Justice either in part or in whole It is only either 1. That whereby we are disposed for being Justifyed by Faith in Christ and his Righteousness only such as is Evangelical Repentance Or 2. It is that whereby we receive apply and trust to Christ and his Righteousness by and for which alone we are Justifyed at the Bar of God's Justice such as is true Faith only Or. 3. It is that whereby we are qualified and disposed for the actual possession of that Eternal Glory and Happyness which we received a Right unto before in our Justification and which immediately after this Life is given to us in the full possession as to the Soul for the sake of Christ's Meritorious Righteousness only such as is sincere Evangelical Obedience Now though we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace which obliges us to Faith Repentance and sincere Obedience as means in order to the ends aforesaid yet we utterly deny that it is a Law of Works nor doth it follow from our Principles Sixthly It is to be considered that we ought to distinguish between the Moral Natural Law and meer positive Laws Now it is granted by us all That the Lord after his Incarnation did not give unto his People a New Moral Natural Law nor did he perfect and fill up the defects of the Old Moral Natural Law neither did he enlarge the obligation of it so as to make it oblige People to some Moral Natural Duties which it obliged no Body unto under the Old Testament In this sense Papists Socinians and Arminians hold Christ to have been a New Law giver but this Opinion we
Law of Works This was briefly explained and proved in the Apology pag. 200 201. and it might be further confirmed if it were needful But it is not needful because to a Man who knows himself to be a Sinner and understands the Nature of that first Law as every Man of common understanding may do it is self-evident that that Law condemns him to Death for his Sin and that it is simply impossible for him to be justified unto Life by that very Law which every moment condemns him to death And yet it must be confessed that the first Law or Covenant of Works as fortisied with its Promissory Sanction is repeated both in the Old and New Testament where the Scripture saith to Sinful Man Do this and live Levit. 18.5 Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 But we must know that this was Occonomical and Gods design in it was not to oblige any sinful Man to seek or expect Life by his doing the Works of the first Law and Covenant which Promised Life to Man only on condition that he so kept it as never to sin at all nor by Sin to break it But then you will say What was Gods design in it I answer That so far as the Lord hath given me light to see into this matter his design seems to have been 1. By setting before us the form of the First Covenant of Works to recal to our minds what Man once was and what he should still have been That once he was without all Sin and able to have continued so and to have lived for ever by keeping Covenant with God 2. To convince us that now we are all in our Natural State Dead Men by that very Law and Covenant which would have secured Life to us if we had perfectly kept it but now brings us all under the guilt of Death Temporal and Eternal Death because we have broken it 3. To stir us up to confess our Sin and Misery and to put us upon searching Whether God hath in Mercy provided any remedy against our Sin and Misery 4. To make us willing to receive and use the Remedy as soon as God discovers it to us In a word to make us despair of ever obtaining Life by the Works of that Law which condemns us to death for our sins and to make us flee for Refuge unto Christ our Help and Hope as God offers him to us in the New Covenant or Law of Grace 2dly It is to be observed That as soon as any Man takes this course assoon as any Man takes hold of the New Covenant of Grace and heartily and sincerely by Faith closes with and receives Christ and his Righteousness as offered and held forth in the said New Covenant he is instantly acquitted from the guilt of Death he was under for breaking the Law and hath a Right to Life given him only on the account of the Lord Redeemer Christ and his Satisfactory Meritorious Righteousness received and applyed by Faith alone And so he is justifyed by Faith without Works For though Faith in Christ the Mediator be in it self a Heart-work yet it is not the Works of the Law it is not any of those Works which the First Covenant or Law of Works did require to Justification It is neither a Work which the Natural Moral Law by it self immediately required nor yet is it a Work in the Sense of the Law of Works for Works in the sense of that Law and Covenant they signifie that Obedience to the Law whereby a Man in his own person fulsills the Righteousness of the Law and that for which a Man is justified But Faith is not a Work in that Sense for as much as it is no part at all of that Obedience which sulfills the Law and for which a penitent Believer is justified It is only Christs Obedience unto Death even the Death of the Cross for which Believers are justified and Faith is no part of it but is the only instrumental means or receptive applicative condition whereby we come to have interest in it and to be justified by and for it alone 3. It is to be observed that though upon our first taking hold of Gods New Covenant and Law of Grace by Faith we are for Christs sake alone instantly acquitted from the guilt of Death and receive a right to Life yet God hath made it one of the Articles of the new Covenant that according to our time and talents we must afterwards yield sincere Obedience to his several Laws and Institutions both Moral Natural and Positive before we be admitted to full possession of Eternal Life in Heavenly Glory God doth not require this sincere Obedience in order to our being first justified but in order to our being at last glorified And he requires it as a necessary condition to qualifie and prepare us for the full possession of that Heavenly Glory which Christ hath purchased for us and God for Christs sake gives unto us Hence 4. It is to be observed That thus the Moral Natural Law it self comes to be in the hand of Christ the Mediatour of the new Covenant or Law of Grace and to belong to the Gospel so far as that sincere Obedience to it together with all Gods positive Laws and Institutions is made an Article of the Gospel Covenant and a condition necessary to be performed by us before we enjoy the ultimate benefit promised in the said Covenant 5. It is to be observed That we must distinguish carefully betwixt what the Moral Law as to the matter of its Precepts requires of Believers and what it requires as coming under a new ferm that is plainly as cloathed with a new sanction to wit the sanction of the new Covenant In the first sense the Moral Law as to the matter of its Precepts doth still require of all even of Believers a perfect ever sinless Obedience de futuro but there is this vast difference between the case of Believers and Unbelievers that though for every the least disobedience it condemn the Unbeliever yet doth it not nor can it condemn the true penirent Believer who walks not after the Flesh but the Spirit because the Apostle saith There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit Rom. 8.1 such are not under the Law not under its condemmng power but under Grace Rom. 6.14 In the second sense the Moral Law formally considered as cloathed with the new Covenant form that is with the sanction of the new Covenant so it requires not of true penitent Believers an ever sinless and most perfect personal perpetual Obedience as a means or condition necessary to qualifie and prepare them for the possession of Eternal Glory but it requires of them or God by it as taken into the Gospel requires of them only sincere Evangelical Obedience perseverance in true Faith and sincere Holiness under that formal consideration as a means or condition necessary to the end aforesaid
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
to the end before mentioned it prescribes the exercise of Faith and Repentance And so the Gospel is a Law in a very true and good sense and that sense the same which we affirmed it to be in our Apology Whence it appears that my Reverend Brother has here yielded the cause and is come over to our Camp and if he would be consistent with himself here might be an end of the Controversie about the Gospels being a Law with respect to Justification For assuredly we mean no more than that it prescribes seeking by Faith and Repentance and chiefly by Faith as aforesaid And this is the commonly received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as I proved in the Apology and shall yet further prove it if need be But he objects up and down his book that if the Gospel Covenant did prescribe or require any work or works whatsoever and did oblige us to any Duty then it would be another Law of Works and we should still be justified by Works I Answer By denying the Consequence Indeed it is true That if the Gospel require a Work or Duty it requires a Work or Duty for that is an Identical Proposition and no reasonable Man hath so little Wit as to deny the Truth of it But it is utterly false that if the Gospel require any Works then it is another Law of Works in the scripture-Scripture-Sense of the Word For by Law of Works the Scripture always means such a Law or Covenant of Works as would justifie a Man by and for his Works if he had them as he ought to have had them But though the Gospel require of us some works yet it is no Law of Works for it doth not require any Works that we may be justifyed either in whole or in part by and for those Works as such Nor are we for them in the least justityed at the Bar of God They are not any of them the least part of that Rigateousness by and for which we are justifyed This we have declared and explained to fully and clearly in our Apology that we cannot but wonder that any Christian that is endued with Common Honesty and hath read and understood our said Apology should persist in accusing us of holding Justification by Works or in asserting confidently that it follows by good consequence from our Principles That consequence my Reverend Brother can never prove For though Repentance be a Work yet is it not according to our Principles required by the Evangelical Law as a Work to Justifie us or as a Work for which we are to be justifyed in the least degree but only as a means or condition in the Subject Man to dispose and prepare him for Justification by Faith only in Christ's Blood and Righteousness And again Though Faith be a Work in it self yet doth not the Evangelical Law require it as a Work to be a part of that Righteousness by and for which we are justifyed but it requires Faith only as the Instrumental Means or Condition by which we receive and apply to our selves and also trust to Christ and his satisfactory meritorius Righteousness as that by and for which alone we are Justifyed before Gods Tribunal Let Mr. G. try when he will he shall find it impossible to prove from my Principles as I have here truely and sincerely set them down that the Gospel would be another Law of Works and that we would be Justifyed by Works if the Gospel required Faith and Repentance as aforesaid I might with more appearance of reason prove from my R. B. Principle That if Faith be required only by the Natural Moral Law and if we be Justifyed by Faith as we certainly are and if Faith be a Work as in its own Nature it certainly is then we are justifyed by a Work of the Natural Moral Law and so are in tantum justifyed by the Law of Works and look how he can answer this Argument drawn from his Principle with as much facility if not more shall I answer his Sophisme drawn from my Principle That the Gospel is a Law of Grace I need say no more to answer all he brings in his Second Chapter but to declare that as he says pag. 12. That all but Papists Socinians and Arminians harmoniously agree in explaining such places as call the Gospel a Law after such a manner as may not give the least colour to the Opinion of the Gospels being a Law in the sense of the three mentioned Parties so I do entirely agree with them in that manner of explaining them and do with them utterly reject the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense of the Gospels being a New Law But then it follows not that the Gospel is no New Law in any Sense because it is not one in the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense Our Authour in pag. 10. says the Gospel is called a Law but no otherwise than as it is a comfortable instruction to poor convinced Sinners what riches of Mercy there are in store and as it teacheth them how they may trust and hope in the God of all Grace But this is not true in his Exclusive Sense for besides that it is a Law as it teacheth how such Sinners should ex officio in point of Duty trustand hope in the God of all Grace through Jesus Christ In fine Though in pag. 14. he mincingly say That the word Judge in Micah 4.3 may very well import no more than that Christ will judge what course of Salvation is best for us to take that he will determine the case and it is better for us to acquiesce in the Decision of his Vnerring Judgment which cannot be deceived nor will ever mislead us than to pursue our own mistaken apprehensions which bewilder us continually Yet even this will sufficiently evince that the Supernatural Gospel-Revelation of that Judgment and Determination of Christ our Lord and Saviour is a Law to us for as soon as it comes to our knowledge it doth of it self immediately oblige us to acquiesce in his Judgment and Determination and to take that course for Salvation which he hath judged best for us to take So that let Mr. G. shuffle never so much he will never be able to avoid his being obliged by the Doctrine of the Gospel immediately to believe in Christ Matth. 17.5 and to take that course which he hath prescribed in order to Salvation Acts 16.31 I shall conclude my Animadversions on this Second Chapter with the Judgment of the Learned and Judicious Mr. Pool who was neither Papist Socinian nor Arminian as it is expressed in his Annotation on Isa 2.3 Out of Zion shall go forth the Law The New Law the Doctrine of the Gospel which is frequently called a Law because it hath the Nature and Power of a Law obliging us no less to the Belief and Practice of it than the Old Law did Remarks on the Third Chapter IN the beginning of this Chapter he doth me a manifest wrong in saying That
I concluded but with no certainty from the Gospels being called a Law in the New Testament that it is a Rule of Works c. It is utterly false that I concluded or endeavoured to conclude that from the Gospels being called a Law He cannot to Etornity prove this from any Words of mine in the Apology All that I concluded from the Gospels being called a Law either in the New or Old Testament was that our Brethren should not be offended with us for calling the Gospel a Law since the Scripture calls it by that name Apol. p 22. Next Against some Body who from the Etymology of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law had inferred that by it is signifyed a Rule of Duty enacted with a Sanction of Penalty or Recompence he says That he knows no great weight can be laid on Arguments drawn from an Etymology And if he knows this why did he against his knowledge lay great weight on the Etymology of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah and in his second Chapter from the Derivation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Horah which signifies he teacheth conclude with confidence that Torah Law when used for the Gospel signifies nothing but a Doctrine which requires no Duty of us at all 2 Why doth he here again in his Third Chapter p. 17. conclude that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the Gospel is named by it signifies no more but such a Doctrine as aforesaid because the Septuagint render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as most fitting to express such a sense Is not this Argument grounded upon the Etymology of Torah and consequently it is grounded upon an uncertainty by his own Confession But it seems that same way of arguing which is of no force against our Brethren must be esteemed to be of great force against us because so is the Will and Pleasure of this Reverend Brother All the rest of this Chapter is taken up in giving the World an account of his Sense of Gal. 2.19 which he had from Luther and I do not doubt to make it appear before we have done that as Luther held the Gospel to be a Law so he held that the Gospel-Law requires of us Faith in Christ and Evangelical Repentance And I am sure that both Jerome and Primasius Two Ancient Fathers who in their Commentaries on Gal. 2 19. did that way interpret the words of Paul I through the Law am dead to the Law as if he had said I through the Evangelical Law am dead to the Old Law I say I am sure that both of them by the Evangelical Law understood such a Gospel-Law as hath not only Promises but also hath its own Precepts and Threatnings as manifeâ—â—ly appears by what they write in their Commentaries on Gal. 3.13 And having briefly hinted this That Jerome Primasius and Luther who all Three go one way and there think to have found the Evangelical Law yet did not by the Evangelical Law understand a mere Speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires nothing at all neither Faith nor Repentance I might very well pass over Mr. G's fine flourish upon the Words of the Apostle as not worth my taking any further notice of had not he dropped several gross falsehoods in giving his Sense of that Text. As 1. That the Error of the Galathians against which Paul wrote was that they held the Gospel to be a New Law Disc p. 18. in the same Sense that we hold it so to be This I say is a gross falsehood for it is manifest that those Galathians were Judaizing Christians whose Error was That Men cannot be Justifyed and Saved unless over and besides their believing in Christ and repenting of their Sins they be Circumcised and keep the Law of Moses See Acts 15.1 compared with Gal. 2.4 Gal. 4. ver 9 10 21. and 5 ver 1.2 3 4 5 6. If then those Erroneous Galathians had any true and right Notion at all of Justification by Christ's Imputed Righteousness yet it is plain They thought that Christ's Imputed Righteousness received by Faith was not alone sufficient for Juâ—tification but thaâ— Men muâ—â— joyn to it their own Mosaical Ceremonial and Moral Righteousness as a part of their Justifying Righteousness before God Now can our Reverend Brother with a good Conscience say that I or any of my Brethren are for such a way of Justification by the Righteousness of Moses his Law joyned with the Imputed Righteousness of Christ as that by and for which we are Justified and Live 2. In Page 19 20 21 he all along insinuates plainly That we hold we are Justifyed in part by our own Works done in obedience to the New Gospel Law and that the defect of Christ's Righteousness is made up by the super-addition of our own Righteousness to his so that we are Justifyed before Gods Tribunal not only by Christ's Imputed Righteousness but also in part by and for our own Works and Righteousness This is another falsehood so gross that I wonder my Reverend Brother should ever be guilty of it if he hath read and understood our Apology pag 38 39 40 45 80 89 90 91 193 196 200 201. This Opinion which he would father upon us we have in our Apology rejected and do now here again reject it with abhorrency And therefore it any do hereafter persist to charge us with this Error which we abhor let them look to it that they do not force us in our own just defence to proclaim them to the World to be Men possess'st with a caluminating lying Spirit But I hope I shall never be forced upon the doing of that which is so much against my Christian temper which inclines me rather to conceal and cover the Failings of Brethren than to discover them and proclaim them to the World I do sincerely desire and through Grace shall endeavour if it be possible and as much as lyeth in me to live peaceably with all Men Rom. 12.18 And to live lovingly too with my Reverend Brethren giving them all due respect and being ever ready to serve them in the Lord. Remarks on the Fourth Chapter IN this Chapter at the very beginning he mistakes my purpose and design in appealing to the Fathers in this Controversie which was not by them as Judges to prove any matter of right as he pretends but only by them as Witnesses to prove matter of Fact to wit That they called the Gospel a Law in a good sense See Apol. p. 24. and that therefore it is no new word of an Old but Ill meaning as our Accuser had affirmed it to be and doth Mr. G. refute this No he is so far from refuting it that he confirms the Truth of what I said and with me proves the Accuser of the Brethren to have asserted a notorious falshood in matter of Fact in the face of a Learned Age. Then he quotes
is expressly called the New-Covenant I desire that this may be remembered and withal that all the Clamour Mr. G. after C. and D. makes against the Gospel's being a New-Law is in truth against the Gospel's being a New-Covenant that hath any precept obliging us to any Duty with conditional promises and threatnings For as we have declared often we mean by the Gospel's being a New-Law that it is a New-Covenant which by its preceptive part obliges us to certain duties with promises to encourage us to the performance of them and threatnings to restrain us from the neglect of them And principally we mean by its being a New-Law that it is a New-Covenant with precept and promise and that the threatning is but the secondary less principal part which is subservient to the principal This being premised let us see how he Answers the Texts of Scripture urged by me in the Apol. And 1st he begins with Rom. 3.27 And says in the Contents of the Chapter That he hath recovered it to its right sense Now who that reads this would not think that in the Apol. I had interpreted this place of Scripture and had put a wrong sense upon it since writing against me he saith that he hath recovered it to its right sense And yet in this controversy about the Gospel's being a Law or not a Law I did not at all interpret that place of Scripture nor give any sense of it right or wrong It is true I quoted it twice to wit in p. 22. and 24. But all that I said of it was that from Rom. 3.27 It appears that the Gospel is Called a Law it s called the Law of Faith expresly Was this to interpret iâ— and to put a wrong sense on it from which Mr. Goodwin must recover it Doth not he himself acknowledge this to be true Has not he confessed and brought Texts of Scripture to prove that the Gospel is called a Law and doth he not here confess with me that the Gospel is called the Law of Faith in Rom. 3.27 How is it possible then that he should recover it to its right sense from which I had wrested it Since I did not give any sense of it but only quoted it to shew that in the Holy Scripture the Gospel-Covenant is called a Law the Law of Faith and that the brethren ought not to be displeased with us for calling the Gospel a Law because the Holy Scripture expressly calls it a Law and the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 Here Disc p. 59. it is where he calls his book a poor Writing and if this Chapter together with the rest do not prove it to be poor and blind and naked I am much mistaken But because I am a fallible Man and liable to mistake as other Men are I will now affirm no such thing of his discourse but will hear and consider what he saith for recovering Scripture to its Right sense from which I did not wrest it first then p. 59. he says that by the words Law of Faith In Rom. 3.27 The Apostle means no more than that Doctrine of Grace which declares a believing Sinner to be Justified by the Righteousness of Christ which by Faith he receiveth But now what if a body should deny that the Apostle means no more and should affirm that he also means that the Law of Faith is a Doctrine of Grace which requires Faith as the receptive condition or instrumental means of Justification by the Mediator's Righteousness Might he not prove what he had affirmed by an Argument taken from this Text where the Law of Faith is expressly opposed to the Law of works where is boasting then It is excluded by what Law Of works Nay but by the Law of Faith Thus the Law of works is the Lâ—â— or Doctrine which requires works that we may be justified by the Righteousness of our own works which doth not exclude boasting Therefore the Law of Faith is the Law or Doctrine which requires Faith that we may be Justified only by and for Christ the Mediators Righteousness which doth exclude boasting And further might not a Man for this Interpretation alledge the Testimony of our Confession of Faith which Chap. 7. Act. 3. Saith that the Lord in the Covenant of Grace i. e. the Law of Faith freely offers unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ requiring of them Faith in him that they may be saved But Mr. G. opposes two things to this 1. He saith this Interpretation doth not exclude boasting 2. It is contrary to the Judgment of all the right Protestants who have commented on the Epistle to the Romans First he saith p. 59. that this Interpretation Doth not exclude boasting but rather greatly promotes it For why should not a Man Glory in his Faith if it be an Act of obedience to this New-Law i. e. this Evangelical Law of Faith which by its statute makes his Justification to depend on this his performance I Answer I do not know the tempers of all Men nor of Mr. G. it may be for ought I know that he or some other of like temper doth really think that he might justly boast of and Glory in his Faith if the Evangelical Law or New-Covenant did require Faith of him in order to his being justified by and for Christ's Mediatorial Righteousness But I would ask such a Man a few questions And 1. What is a Man's believing that he may be justified Gal. 2.16 Is that believing a doing nothing or a doing something I hope Sir you will not say that it is a doing nothing For if it were a doing nothing then Paul's meaning in Gal. 2.16 Would be this we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be Justified by the Faith of Christ that is We have done nothing in Jesus Christ that we might be Justified by doing nothing of Jesus Christ Which if it be not an abominable wresting of the Apostles words and a turning them into non-sense let all Men Judge that have the sober use of their reason But if you say that believing in Christ is a doing something I ask again is that doing something the doing of some good thing or some evil thing I hope you dare not say that it is a doing of some evil thing And therefore you must say that it is a doing of some good thing And then I ask again is that good thing required and Commanded by any Law of God or is it not at all commanded If you say that it is not at all Commanded nor forbidden by any Law of God Then I say 1. That it is not Morally good but of an indifferent middle nature between Moral good and evil For what is not at all Commanded nor forbidden is perfectly indifferent and neither Morally good nor evil 2. Then it follows necessarily that you are not at all bound to believe and that you do not sin tho you never believe in Christ 3. Then it follows that to be justified by Faith
it may be Mr. G. will say that tho these were Protestants yet they were not right Protestants For the word right seems to be put in on purpose that he may have an evasion when pressed with the Authority and Testimony of Protestant Divines who are for our Interpretatation and against his But if he should say that the Divines I have named are not right Protestants yet I hope he will not say that Beza was not a right Protestant since he himself appeals to Beza p. 60. And therefore to Beza we will go who in his large Annotations on Rom. 3.27 Writes thus * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per quam legem i. e. qua Doctrina sicut interdum Hebraeis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah in genere est doctrina quae aliquid praescribit qua ratione Evangelium vocat legem fidei i. e. doctrinam quae salutem proponit sub conditione si credideris quam et ipsam deus dat nobis ut praestare possimus oppositam doctrinae quae justitiam et salutem proponit cum conditione si omnia feceris quam unus Christus in sese pro nobis et implere potuit et implevit c. Beza in Rom. 3. v. 27. By what law that is by what Doctrine As sometimes among the Jews the word Torah Law signifies in general a Doctrine which prescribes any thing Accordingly the Apostle calls the Gospel the aw of Faith i. e. a Doctrine which proposes salvation on condition if thou believest which very condition God also gives us power to perform and this is opposed to the Doctrine to wit of the Law which proposes Righteousness and Salvation with the condition if thou shalt do all which Christ alone â—n himself could and did perform for us Thus Beza In whose words the world may see plainly That 1. He says the word Law among the Jews signifies indeed a Doctrine but a Doctrine that prescribes something 2. That the Law of works is a Doctrine that prescribes works of perfect obedience as the condition of life 3. That the Law of Faith or Gospel is a Doctrine which prescribes Faith as the condition and which proposes salvation upon condition of believing 4. That the condition of the Law of Works none but Christ hath performed or could performed 5. That God gives us power to perform the condition of the Gospel or the condition which the Law of Faith requires to justification And that in Beza's Judgment the Law and Doctrine of Faith obâ—igeth us to believe in order to Justification is evident also by what follows where he saith that it doth flagitare require Faith of us and Faith only as that whereby we apprehend and receive the Righteousness which Christ hath purchased for us and freely gives unto us for our Justification And altho he hold that the Law of Faith obligeth us to believe in Christ for Justification yet he shews how it excludes all boasting Now this is the very sense which we give of the Law of Faith that it is such a Doctrine of Grace as hath the force of a Law â—nd obliges us to believe and proposes and promises to us the great blessing of free Justification by Christs imputed Righteousness upon condition if we believe which condition God gives us power to perform This being as clear as the light with what Conscience did my Reverend brother tell the world in Print that Beza was for him against us and that Beza gives the same sense of Rom. 3.27 Which he gives And of this he gives no other reason but this that Beza calls the Law of Faith a Doctrine which can be no Argument of his denying that the Law of Faith commands Faith because in the very same place he calls The Law of works a Doctrine likewise And yet it is confest by all that the Law of works commands works Here again the poverty of Mr. G's discourse appears and not only that but its nakedness too in so much that it wants a covering to hide its shame and by this I hope Mens eyes will be oppened to see what credit is to be given to him who thus shamefully abuseth Beza by clipping his Tongue and not suffering him to speak the truth but fathering upon him an opinion which is most evidently contrary unto his words 2. Here likewise I desire it may be observed that in the old Geneva Translation of our English Bibles which is of an hundred years standing at least there is this short note on Rom. 3.27 By what Doctrine Now the Doctrine of works hath this condition joyned with it if thou dost and the Doctrine of Faith hath this condition if thou believest Altho then of old our forefathers by Law of Faith understood a Doctrine of Faith yet they held it to be such a Doctrine as prescribes the duty and requires the condition of believing and that makes it to be an Evangelical Law just as we hold it to be What he talks in pag. 60.61 62. Of all the Popish Commentators on Rom. 3.27 And of Estins the Jesuit c. Is nothing but ad populum phalerae and is partly impertinent and partly ridiculous 2. Secondly He saith That Gal. 6.2 refuses to serve my design But I answer It 's plain from the Apology page 22. line 16 17. that my whole design in quoting Gal. 6.2 was to show that the Scripture calls the Gospel-covenant a Law and so it may be called there notwithstanding of what Mr. G. says to the contrary For though the words Law of Christ do not import the whole of the Gospel-covenant yet they import a part of it to wit the preceptive part For certainly he that loves his Neighbour as Christ loved him doth believe in Christ with a Faith working by love and he that so believes in Christ doth certainly fullfil the Condition of the Gospel-Govenant and by Consequence he that loves his Neighbours as Christ loved him doth fulfill the condition of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace which is the Law of Christ As to what Mr. G. objects That Estins on the place affirms that Christ is given to men as a Legislator whom they may obey I answer That Dr. Owen affirms the same thing as is evident by his express formal words quoted before in the Remarks on the 7th Chapter It is true he doth not there prove Christ to be a Legislator from Gal. 6.2 but that is no matter he affirms that he is a Legislator and then he hath an Evangelical law And this being a Truth I for my part do like it never the worse because an Adversary believes it I wish our Adversaries both Papists and Arminians did with us receive not only that but all other Truths If Mr. G. say that the word Gospel or Gospel-Covenant is not expressed in Gal. 6.2 I answer Nor did I say that it is But there is expresly the word Law and I thought that sufficient to the purpose for which I quoted that Text. And though I should pass
to be corrupted but to dissipate the Darkness that hath been cast upon it 2 Cor. 2 1â— and to set the Truth of it in a clear Light But with what success I have done this in the following Writing it is not expedient for me to declare Let others now judge of that matter as they may be concerned and as they will answer to God and their own Conscience The INDEX Chap. I. HIS gross Mistake in stating the Controversie How it ought to be stated Page 1 2. Chap. II. What only was inferred from the Gospels being called a Law in Scripture From the word Law its signifying a Doctrine not proved that it signifies nothing but a speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires neither Faith nor Repentance The contrary proved from Isa 2.3 Acts 16.31 from Buxtorf and partly from his own concession p. 3 4. From the Gospel Covenants requiring Faith and Obedience and obliging to Duty it follows not that it will be a law of Works and that Man will be justified by Works His Argument retorted The Popish Socinian and Arminian sense of the Gospels being a law disclaimed p. 5 6. Chap. III. He grants that no great weight can be laid on an Argument from an Etymology Proved not to be the Error of the Galatians that they held the Gospel to be a new Law in the sense we hold it so to be p. 7. Chap. IV. That he mistakes my design in appealing to the Fathers which was only to prove matter of fact His quotations out of the Fathers are impertinent and partly ridiculous p. 8. to 11. Chap. V. His whole Fifth Chapter one intire impertinency p. 11 12 13. Chap. VI. Sect. 1. Of several things carefully to be attended unto for the right understanding of our old Protestant Writers and the clearing up of the true sense of the passages cited out of them p. 14 15 16 17. Sect. 2. Mr. G. first set of Testimonies clearly answered p. 17 to 32. Sect. 3. His second set of Testimonies Answered also p. 32 to 34. That we do not confound the Notions of things intirely distinct in their Natures and Ideas In what sense we do really hold the Gospel to be a Law of Grace that requires Duty p. 34 35. That the Gospel hath Threatnings of its own p. 35 to 38. Psal 19.8 9. and Rom. 3.27 cleared and thence shewed that the Gospel requires Faith and Obedience p. 38 39. Chap. VII Sect. 1. His gross Mistakes shewed The ridiculous demonstration he would father upon me proved to be a ridiculous figment of his own Brain p. 39 40. Sect. 2. How the Moral Natural Law doth and doth not oblige to all manner of Duties and of its perfection p. 44 to 46. That the same Duty in different respects and under different formal Notions may be required by two distinct Laws p. 46. Proved that justifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance are commanded and required by the Gospel-Law p. 46 to 62. How Obedience is required both by Law and Gospel And that the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts which require sincere Obedience proved by Scripture and by many Testimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines p. 62 to 94. Sect. 3. Five Objections answered Several Directions given and Mistakes discovered p. 94 to 107. Sect. 4. Gospel-Threatnings further proved by Scripture and Consentaneous Testimonies of many Protestant Divines and Objections answered p. 107 to 118. Shewed that the Office of a Judge doth belong to the Mediator and that Christ the Mediator was is and will be Judge p. 112 113 114 115 116. Sect. 5. The Gospel hath Conditional Promises Seven Objections answered Mr. Bradshaws Exposition of 2 Thess 1.8 p. 119 to 155. Chap. VIII Sect. 1. The Texts of Scripture Rom. 3.27 Gal. 6.2 Isa 42.4 Luke 19.27 shewed to be pertinently cited and Rom. 3.27 more largely vindicated Proved that we give the same sense of it which Beza gave p. 155 to 162. Sect. 2. Justin Martyrs Testimony cleared proved that he was very pertinently cited and that he believed the Gospel to be a New Law which hath Precepts p. 162 to 170. Cyprian Augustine and Salvian their Testimonies shewed to have been pertinently cited p. 170 to 172. Testimonies of Modern Divines vindicated p. 172. to 175. His way of visiting the Sick p. 175. Chap. IX The Popish Socinian and Arminian Opinion again rejected p. 176. The Doctrine of Merit not included in our Hypothesis His Popish Argument answered p. 176 177 178. Answer to his Advice p. 178 179. The whole concluded with Tertullians Rule of Faith p. 180. Remarks on the First Chapter of Mr. Thomas Goodwin's Discourse of the Gospel THIS Reverend Brother in his First Chapter Pages 4 5. States the Controversie and in so doing First saith That if by the Gospels being a New Law is meant a Doctrine of Grace newly revealed after the Covenant of Works was broken wherein God hath declared in what order and manner he will save guilty condemned Sinners it is presently granted and the Controversie is at end To which I Answer That if he will grant that God in the Gospel hath not only declared the Order and Manner of his own acting in saving Sinners but also that he hath declared and prescribed to us the Order and Manner of our acting in subordination to his Grace for obtaining our own Salvation through Christ and likewise that the Order prescribed to us is a Conditional Order with respect to the subsequent Blessings of the Covenant then we declare here as we did declare before in our Apology that we mean no more by the Gospels being a new Law of Grace But he denyes that the Lord in the Gospel hath prescribed any Conditional Order to be observed by us And therefore saith Secondly What is denyed is this That the Gospel is a Law commanding new Precepts as Conditions of obtaining its Blessings and Established with a Sanction promising Life and Happiness to the observance of them and threatning the neglect Answer I know no Man that ever affirmed what this Reverend Brother here denyes A Law commanding New Precepts is a Phrase peculiar to Mr. Goodwin and with my consent he shall have the honour of being the first Inventer and Authour of it For my part though I have heard of a Law commanding new Duties yet do I not remember that I have heard before of a Law commanding new Precepts for Precept and Commandment being all one a Law commanding new Precepts is a Law commanding new Commandments I thought the Commandments themselves had not been the Object or if you will the subject matter of the Commandments themselves but that the Duties Commanded had been the Object or Subject matter of the Commandments But we let that pass the thing which is most material is that he imagines his Adversaries do hold that the Precepts of the Gospel Law are the conditions of obtaining its Blessings Now this is such a wild fancy that I doubt whether ever it came into a Mans head that
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
is a Doctrine which Declares and Proclaims that Salvation is to be had freely in Christ by Faith and by Faith only See Disc p. 32. All which is very true but nothing at all to the purpose For the Gospel doth that and more too It declares that Salvation is to be had freely in Christ by Faith alone because it is Faith alone which receives apprehends and applyes Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and Salvation This we hold as Zanchy did but withal Zanchy held and we after him do hold also That the Gospel requires of us Repentance towards God Faith in Jesus Christ and a studious Care to observe whatsoever Christ hath commanded To which add what Zanchy believed as well as we That the Gospel promiseth Grace to enable us to believe repent and obey the Gospel and when through Grace we do so it further promises us Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life for Christ's sake alone And nothing more is necessary to make the Gospel a Law of Grace according to our declared known sense of that word His Third Testimony out of Zanchy is yet more Impertinent to wit See Disc p. 33. That the Gospel is the joyful Preaching of that Eternal and Free Love of God this is Eternal Election towards us in his Beloved Son Christ For I would fain know what Mr. G can justly infer from this Sentence of Zanchy to his purpose against us This we grant to be true as was said in our first preliminary Consideration that the Revelation of Gods Eternal Decree to save through Christ a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind is Gospel because it is good and glad tydings to the Church But what then Dare Mr. G infer that because it is Gospel therefore no other thing is Gospel Then it seems by his Logick one may prove that one part of a thing is the whole thing and that the whole thing is but one part of it But I forbear to expose such weak arguing If therefore the Joyful Preaching of God's Free Election through Christ be not the whole but a part of the Gospel then though this part do not require Faith and Repentance yet another part of it may and really doth require them in the Judgment of Zanchy as was clearly proved in the Apology by his express formal words quoted out of his Book of Christian Religion 3d. Vol. of his Works p. 509. And since it comes in my way to make mention of this Book of the Learned Zanchy I will here give the World a further account of it and of his Faith out of it The Book is Entitled Jerom Zanchy his Faith concerning the Christian Religion It contains a full Confession of his Faith which he wrote in the Seventieth year of his Age and in his own Name and in the Name of his Family he Published it and Dedicated it to Count Vlysses Martinengus It is an Excellent Judicious Confession of Faith I have seen it in Quarto and Octavo and in Folio with his other Works and now I have it by me in Octavo Printed at Newstad 1585. with Annotations of his own Writing upon it for further clearing of matters in it I have diligently read it and having quoted some passages out of it in the Apology I will now quote some more out of it both to make Mr. G. ashamed if possible and so to bring him to Repenâ—ance for abusing the Authority of Zanchy to the deceiving of the People and also to confirm what I quoted out of him in the Apology Thus then Zanchy writes in Chap. 13. Pag. 101. Sect. 6. Edition in Octavo (i) Evangelium haec tria tantùm requirit primùm ut serio dolore c. Zanch de Relig. Christ Cap. 13. p. 101. Sect. 6. The Gospel requires only these three things First That being touched with a serious grief c. as quoted in the Apology p. 99. And in the next Page to wit 102. he adds (k) Ad tria autem omnia Christi mandata referuntur nimirum ut abnegatâ impietate saecularibus desideriis sobrie quoad nos juste quoad proximum piè quoad Deum vivamus in hoc saeculo expectantes bonam spem adventum Gloriae Magni Dei. Hanc credimus summam esse corum quae a nobis exigit Christus suâ Evangelicâ doctrinâ Eòque illos esse verè Evangelicos verèque Christianos qui in horum studium serio incumbunt Idem ibid. But all the Commands of Christ are referred to three to wit That having denyed or renounced Vngodliness and Worldly Lusts we should live soberly with respect to our selves justly with respect to our Neighbour and Godly with respect to God in this present World looking for the Blessed Hope and the Glorious Coming of the Great God This we believe to be the sum of those things which Christ requires of us by his Evangelical Doctrine And that therefore they are truely Evangelick and truely Christian who seriously apply themselves to the Study and practice of those things Again in pag. 103. sect 7. (l) Credimus non parvum discrimen esse inter Legem Evangelium 1. Quia Legis materia tantùm sunt mandata additis irrevocabilibus maledictionibus si vel minimâ in parte ea violentur Habet quidem promissiones non solùm terrenarum verùm etiam aeternarum benedictionum Sed omnes cum conditione perfectissimae obedientiae nullas autem gratuitas At verò Evangelium propriè felix ost nuncium Christum redemptorem peccata gratis remittentem servantem gratis etiam proponens Nihilque a nobis exigens ad salutem consequendam nisi veram in Christo fidem quae sine poenitentiâ sineque studio faciendae Divinae voluntatis i.e. Vivendi sobriè justè piè ut supra explicatum est esse non potest idem ibid. We believe that there is no small difference between the Law and the Gospel First Because the matter of the Law are only Commandments whereunto are added Irrevocable Curses if they be in the least part violated It hath indeed Promises also and that not only of Earthly but of Eternal Blessings But all with the Condition of most perfect Obedience but it hath no Gracious or Merciful Promises at all But now the Gospel is properly happy and glad Tydings proposing Christ the Redeemer as forgiving sins freely and as freely likewise saving Sinners and requiring nothing of us in order to the obtaining of Salvation but a true Faith in Christ which cannot be without Repentance and without an endeavour to do the Will of God that is to live Soberly Justly and Godly as was explained before Now here observe 1. That Zanchy saith That the Gospel taken in its proper sense requires Faith of us and obliges us to believe in Christ for Salvation 2. That though he say it requires nothing but Faith yet he doth no more contradict me than he doth contradict himself For as he saith so I say That it
requires nothing but Faith as that by which we apprehend receive and apply Christ and his Righteousness to our selves for Justification and Salvation Yet 3. He here saith That True Faith in Christ cannot be without Repentance and Evangelical Obedience And before in the same Book pag. 100. Sect. 5. He had said that the Gospel requires of us not only Faith in Jesus Christ but likewise Repentance towards God and an Endeavour to observe all that Christ hath Commanded See this fully and clearly proved by his own express words cited in the Apology p. 98 99. All this with much more that I could cite out of Zanchy plainly shews That according to him the Gospel is a Law not of Works but of Grace which obligeth us to do several things in order to our obtaining Justification and Salvation by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ And so that Zanchy is really for us and not against us as Mr. G falsely pretends By this Instance amongst others it may appear what credit is to be given unto his Citations of Authours Ninthly He appeals to Nine Reformed Divines whom he refers to without quoting their words and pretends that they all earnestly maintained that the Gospel in the peculiar Nature of it Disc p. 33. is no other than a Systeme of Promises Answ 1. What doth Mr. G mean by the Gospel in the peculiar Nature of it If he mean nothing but a bundle of Absolute Promises which require no Duty of us at all I do freely grant that the Gospel taken in that restrained and limited Sense is no other than a Systeme of Promises and those Promises absolute too And that this is Mr. G 's meaning appears by his whole Book But if he shall say that by the Gospel in the peculiar Nature of it he means the intire Covenant of Grace in its Evangelical Christian Form of Administration Then I deny that the Gospel in that sense is no other than a Systeme of Promises so as to have no Precepts of its own at all Answ 2. If any of the Nine Authours referred to do any where say That the Gospel in its peculiar Nature i. e. taken for the intire Covenant of Grace is no other than a Systeme of Promises It is like that by Systeme of Promises they mean a Systeme of Promises which are partly Absolute and partly Conditional and then in the Conditional Promises they imply and include the Precepts and Threatnings For 1. The Conditional Promise of God to Man implyes Gods Precept obliging Man to perform the Condition 2. The Word of God which promises to Man a benefit only if he perform a certain Condition doth necessarily imply the Threatning of not having the said benefit if he do not perform the Condition And in this sense it is possible that some of our Orthodox Divines have sometimes said that the Gospel is no other than a Systeme of Promises and yet they meant that the Conditional Promises do imply and include both Precepts and Threatnings Answ 3. Though I have not all those Nine Authours by me at present and so cannot now examine the several passages referred to yet I am sure Mr. G doth wrong to several of them in in giving out that they are of his Opinion for by what I remember to have read in them and have quoted out of them in the Apology and in my Remarks on the 7th Chapter I know as certainly that what Mr. Goodwin saith of them is false in his sense as I know it to be true that ever there were such Men and such Books in the World And particularly I know what he says to be false with respect to Pareus Rivet Gerard Walleus c. I say it is false that they earnestly maintained That the Gospel taken for the intire Covenant of Grace is a System of meer absolute Promises which hath neither Conditional Promise nor Precept Tenthly He brings Dr. Whitaker against Duraeus to witness against us That the Gospel is nothing but a Declaration and Narrative of Grace that requires nothing to be done by us Answ 1. Dr. Whitaker is there defending what Luther had written And though it is well known and confest by Lutherans themselves that Luther was not alwayes so cautious and exact in expressing his sense of things as other Divines use to be yet Whitaker thought that what he had written was capable of a good Sence to wit That since according to Luther the word Gospel signified nothing else but the Preaching and Publishing of the Grace and Mercy of God merited and purchased for us by Christ's Death The Apostle Paul might be accounted the best Evangelist and his Epistles with John's Gospel might be preferred before the Gosels of Matthew Mark and Luke because Paul did most of all Preach and Publish the Grace and Mercy of God through Christ both by Word and Writ And therefore Whitaker undertook the defence of Luther in this matter First against Campian and afterwards against Duroeus Now Luthers definition of the Gospel on which he founded his Argument which the Jesuits found fault with affirming that he had cast a Bone among the Four Evangelists and had preferred Paul's Epistles before the Three first Evangelists seems plainly to be taken from the signification of the Original Word For Gospel or good Tydings and so it is rather definitio nominis quà m rei a definition of the word Gospel than of the intire thing signifyed by the word Or admitting it to be a definition of the thing yet it is but an imperfect definition commonly called a Description which doth not necessarily contain all the Essentials of the thing defined or rather described And this way of defining that is describing things being ordinarily allowed to Orators as such Dr. Whitaker being a great Orator and using his Rhetorick very much as his Adversaries also did though in Controversial Writings he might well think it allowable to defend in Luther and likewise in his own Writings to use such a definition or description of the Gospel And yet not intend to tell the World as Mr. Goodwin would have it That in his Judgment the Gospel is a Declaration of Grace and Mercy in such a sence as to exclude all Duty and to require nothing of us at all no not so much as Faith in Christ That this could not be either Luther or Whitakers meaning in so defining or describing the Gospel is hence evident That they both maintain the Gospel to be a Declaration of God's Mercy and Grace purchased by Christ in that sense wherein Paul in his Epistles asserted it to be a Declaration of God's Mercy and Grace purchased by Christ But as I shall clearly prove in my Remarks on the next Chapter Paul in his Epistles never asserted the Gospel to be a Declaration of God's Mercy and Grace purchased by Christ in such a sense as excludes all Duty and requires nothing at all no not so much as Faith in Christ Answ 2. It is most
did not mean any such thing as his words clearly and necessarily import Mr. G quotes a Sentence out of the same Disputation Thes 25. Where he says (n) Evangelium hoc modo non incommodè definiri potest Doctrina Divina qua arcanum Dei foedus de gratuita salute per Christum hominibus in peccatum lapsis annunciatur cum electis inchoatur ac conservatur ad ipsorum salutem Dei Servatoris gloriam Gomar Oper. Part. 3. Disp 14. Thes 25. The Gospel may not unfitly be defined this way It is a Divine Doctrine whereby the secret Covenant of God concerning free Salvation by Christ is declared unto Men fallen into sin and is begun with the Elect and conserved or continued unto their Salvation and the Glory of God their Saviour But this will not do my R. Brothers Business For 1. Gomarus here doth not pretend accurately and fully to define the Gospel and therefore he only says it may not unfitly be defined this way And one may well enough express himself thus when he is to give only a general Description which is an imperfect definition of a thing 2. This Description of the Gospel goes before in the 25th Position Whereas the Testimony quoted out of him in the Apology comes after in the 30th Position in which Gomarus designedly explains himself and adds what he had before omitted in his description of the Gospel Thes 25. and expresly asserts the Gospel to be a Law and a Law of Grace and gives his Reasons for both 3. Here then Gomarus did not in the least contradict himself only in Thes 30. he explained and expressed what he had supposed and implyed and added what he had omitted in Thes 25. 4. Here also Mr. G should have considered Gomarus his 29. Position which I quoted at large in the Apology pag. 100 but shall not here repeat it for he cannot but have seen it since it is immediately before the 30th which he pretends to Answer These things being duely considered it is as clear as the Light that my R Brother dealt very disingenuously not to use a worse word when he thus concluded pag. 34. of his Discourse Therefore when Gomarus a little after calls the Gospel a Law he must necessarily understand the word Gospel as it signifies all the second part of the Bible not as it implyes only God's Covenant of Grace discovered to Man This is so far from being true de facto that it is impossible it should be true And my R.B. who hath read the place if he knows any thing cannot but know that it is false For it is most evident from Gomarus his words both as they are in his own Works and as they are cited in the Apology p. 27. and 100. That the Gospel he speaks of is not the Book of the New Testament but it is the very Covenant of Grace it self both discovered unto and made with Man and recorded in the Books both of the Old and New Testament It is the Covenant which hath a condition in it prescribed to us and required of us Yea It is the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 It is the Law which goes forth out of Sion as he proves from Isa 2.3 And that Mr. G himself hath acknowledged to be the very Gospel in its strict and proper Sense How to excuse my R. B. here from being guilty of a known falsincation I profess I know not But whatever be of that sure I am that Gomarus his own words cannot bear that sence which he would force upon them And I appeal to Schollars and Judicious honest Men to judge between us and determine which of us two gives the genuine true Sense of those words of Gomarus which I quoted in the Apology p. 27 and 100. Twelfthly Mr. G to back the foresaid Misinterpretation of Gomarus his Words concerning the Nature of the Gospel-Covenant brings the Testimony of the Heavenly Host of Holy Angels recorded in Luke 2. ver 13 14. but this doth not move me in the least from my steadfast belief of the Gospel Covenant its being a Law of Grace For from the Angels Doxology in Luke 2. neither Man nor Angel can ever prove by good consequence that the Covenant of the Gospel is not a Law of Grace The Angels not saying expresly that it is a Law of Grace proves nothing For it was no part of their Commission to say that it is or that it is not What they said is true indeed ay and it is true Gospel too as was acknowledged before in our first preliminary consideration But what then It doth not follow that therefore it is the whole Gospel and intire Covenant of Grace which God made with his Church through Christ the Mediator And if it be not the whole as it is not then what they said and what Gomarus and I after him say that the Gospel is a Law of Grace may both be true and so they certainly are But it seems Mr. G thinks that God is not at peace with him nor with me nor with any other Man nor bears any good Will to him or us if by the Gospel he require Faith and Repentance of us in order to the Pardon of our Sins by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ the Mediator of the Covenant And if that be really his settled Thought his Case is to be pityed and I heartily pray God for Christ's sake to pity him and to deliver him from an evil heart of Unbelief That he may through Grace come to the knowledge of the Truth and be perswaded that God's being at peace with him and bearing good Will to him is very well consistent with the Gospel-Covenant its requiring of him Faith and Repentance As for his descant upon the words of the Angels it is nothing but a flourish of Words and Rhetorick without Reason makes no Impression upon the Wise whatever Effect it may have upon others Now my R Brother his Premisses being false as I have shewed them to be his Conclusion as such must be of the same Nature And so it is not true as he pretends but really false that God from Heaven and some of the best Men whoever lived upon Earth do plainly tell us that the Gospel is no Law but a pure Act of Grace for they do not tell us any such thing And to the Lords People it is both It is both a Law and also a pure Act of Grace it is a Law of Grace As for what he says in page 35 of his Discourse that our Reformers were careful to distinguish the Gospel from a Law It is false in his Sense they were not careful to distinguish it from all kind of Law but from a certain kind of Law that is from the Law of Works This indeed they were careful to do and so are we too And as they would not so no more do we suffer Works under never so specious pretences to invade the Prerogative of Grace In fine what Mr.
Orthodox Divines But I suppose Wittichius means only that saving Faith and Repentance are not required as antecedently necessary in order of time but that we are justifyed assoon as we believe and repent And so I agree with him Or it may be he meant that Faith is not necessarium justificationis praerequisitum ut simpliciter opus a necessary praerequisite unto Justification considered simply as a work And so I likewise agree with him For though Faith be really an inward Heart work and though it be pre required as necessary unto Justification yet it is neither praerequired nor required unto Justification simply and precisely as a work and under that formal consideration But only as the receptive applicative Condition or as the Instrumental means appointed by God for receiving applying and trusting Christ and his Righteousness alone unto Justification Thus I have examined and answered Mr. G 's second set of Testimonies and shewed that not one of them rightly understood makes against me What he writes in the close of this Sixth Chapter hath in effect and upon the matter Diso p. 41. been answered before And 1. It is not true that we confound the Notions of things which are entirely distinct in their Natures and Idea's For if one take the Gospel in his sense for a bundle of meer absolute promises of what God in Christ will do without requiring any thing at all to be done by us we freely grant that it is no Law at all to us in any proper sense But now the World knows very well or may know by our Apology that that is not the thing which we mean by the Gospel when we affirm it to be a Law of Grace But in truth the thing which we have declared we mean by the Gospel when we affirm it to be a Law of Grace is no other but the Covenant of Grace made with us through Christ which comprehends not only Absolute but Conditional Promises also and which prescribes to us the performance of the Condition and tells us we must through Grace perform it or we shall not have the benefits promised In this true proper comprehensive sense the Gospel is indeed a Law to us a Law of Grace but not a Law of Works For as hath been said though it require Duties of us which are indeed Works yet the Gospel Covenant doth not require them of us under that formal Notion as Works to be justifyed and glorifyed by and for them But 1. It requires Evangelical Repentance not as a Work to be Justified by and for either in whole or in part but as a Condition in the Subject or Person to be Justifyed necessary to dispose and qualifie him for Justification by and for Christ's Righteousness only 2. It requires true Faith in Christ not as a work to be justified for it in whole or in part but as the only condition or instrumental means whereby we apprehend receive apply and trust to Christ and his Righteonsness as the only Righteousness whereby and for which alone we are justifyed at the Bar of Gods Justice 3 It requires Obedience flowing from Faith Obedience I say to the whole revealed Will of God not simply as Obedience or Works for which we are glorifyed but as Evangelically sincere and growing up to perfection as a testimony of our thankfulness for our Redemption and Justification as a means of glorifying God of Crediting our Holy Religion of Edifying our Neighbour and of evidencing the sincerity of our Faith and finally as a Condition necessary by the Constitution of God to prepare and qualifie us for obtaining Possession of Eternal Glory for the alone meritorious Righteousness of Christ our Lord and Saviour So that the Gospel thus requiring these things is not a Law of Works but of Grace especially considering that it is by Grace that we do these things required and that the Grace whereby we do them is promised in the Gospel and by the Spirit given according to the promise And that when through Grace we have done them then God of his rich Mercy and Free Grace gives us for Christs sake the blessings and benefits promised to those who do the Duties required Secondly As to what my Reverend Brother saith That the Gospel hath no minatory sanction that no Threatning doth properly belong to it I answer 1. That if one take the Gospel as he doth for a bundle of meer absolute Promises then it is very true that in that sense it hath no minatory sanction no threatning doth properly belong to it and for my part I declare that I never said nor thought nor could deliberately think that a Threatning was any part of it either properly or improperly as taken in that too narrow limited sense for meer absolute Promises of what God in Christ will do for us without requiring any thing to be done by us But 2. Take the Gospel in that sense in which I take it for the intire Gospel-Covenant which God hath not only declared to but made with his Church through the Mediator Jesus Christ then my Answer is That though the Gospel taken oven in this comprehensive sense for the whole of the new Covenant of Grace made with us through Christ should have no Threatning properly belonging to it yet that would not hinder it from being a Law of Grace For it is properly enough a Law of Grace to us 1. As it prescribes to us its condition to be performed by us 2. As it promises Grace to enable us to perform its condition 3. As it promises to us great and gratuitous benefits upon our performing its condition through Grace 3. I answer That over and besides the Threatning of the first Covenant and Law of Works which Mr. G. fancies that the Gospel promise doth borrow and employ in its own service the Gospel-Covenant hath as plainly appears to me its own additional Threatning which I think is thus to be understood that though a Threatning doth not belong to the Gospel-Covenant as a Gospel-Covenant primarily and principally yet it belongs to it secondarily and less principally to wit as it is a Covenant made with Sinners to restrain them from Sin and to bring them unto Faith and Repentance The primary design of the Gospel-Covenant is indeed to promise gratuitous benefits to Sinners complying with its terms required and it is but its secondary design to threaten punishment in case of non-complyance And then further even this threatning of punishment in respect of its primary design is not to bring the punishment on the Sinner but it is to restrain from Sin and so preserve from Punishment And that the Punishment threatned is actually inflicted upon any who are called and commanded to comply with the terms of the Covenant but do not it comes to pass through their unbelief and impenitence as it were by accident in respect of the primary design of the Evangelical-Covenant as such And that this is true to wit That the Gospel-Covenant hath its
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
Pardon of Sin by Faith in Christs Blood Hence in the same Book he saith (p) Vitam nobis morte acquisivit Christus morte superatâ nulla igitur spes alia consequendae immortalitatis Homini datur nisi crediderit in eum illam crucem portandam patiendamque susceperit Lactant. Divin Institut lib. 4. cap. 19. Christ by his Death hath purchased Life for us having overcome Death therefore Man hath no other ground of hope given him of obtaining Immortality unless he believe in him and take up and patiently bear that Cross to wit of Christ Julius Firmicus also writeth thus (q) Misericordia Dei dives est libenter ignoscit Relictis nonaginta novem ovibus amissam quaerit unam reverso Pater prodigo Filio vestem reddit parat coenam Nulla vos desperare faciat criminum multitudo Deus summus per Filium suum Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum volentes liberat poenitentibus libenter ignoscit nec multa exigit ut ignoscat Fide tantùm poenitentiâ potestis redimere quicquid sceleratis Diaboli persuasionibus perdidistis Julius Firmicus Maternus lib. de errore profan Relig. pag. 11. Edit Oxon. 1678. God 's Mercy is rich he willingly forgives Having left the ninety and nine sheep he seeks the one which was lost And the Father bestows a Garment upon and prepares a Supper for the Prodigal Son when he returns Let not any multitude of your Sins cause you to despair the most high God by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord delivers or redeems those that are willing and willingly forgives the penitent nor doth he require of us many things that he may forgive By Faith and Repentance only ye may recover whatever ye have lest by the wicked perswasions of the Devil The word redimere is not here used by this Antient Authour in a strict and proper but in a large improper sense and signifies to recover as I have translated it And so the word to save is taken largely and improperly in Holy Scripture when Men are said by Christ or his Apostles to save themselves Luke 7.50 Thy faith hath saved thee Acts 2.40 Save your selves from this untoward generation 1 Tim. 4.16 In doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee And that I have rightly Translated the foresaid word used by Julius Firmicus Maternus will evidently appear to any that shall be at the pains to read in the same Book Page 61. Line 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 c. And again Page 65 66. for by his own words there first to the Heathens and then to the Emperours it doth plainly appear that he was sound and orthodox in the point of our Redemption by the Obediential Sufferings of Christ God-Man and Mediatour between God and Men. But though it be thus that he maintained we are properly redeemed by Christ only and that none could ever obtain Life but by the Merit of his Obedience and Death yet it is withal most certain that he held not only Faith in Christ Jesus but also Repentance towards God to be necessary yea and antecedently necessary in order to the obtaining pardon of Sin For these are his express words (r) Quaere potius spem salutis quaere exordium lucis quaere quod te summo Deo aut commendet aut reddat Et cum veram viam salutis inveneris gaude tunc erectâ Sermonis libertate proclama 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum ab his calamitatibus post poenitentiam tuam summi Dei fueris indulgentiâ liberatus Ibid. pag. 6 7. Seek rather the hope of Salvation seek the beginning or rising of the Light seek that which may either commend thee or restore thee to God and when thou hast found the true way of Salvation rejoyce and then with an uplifted or loud freedom or boldness of speech proclaim it saying as the Heathens used to do in the Worship of Isis when they had found the Body of Osiris We have found it rejoyce we together when by the mercy of the most high God thou shalt be delivered from these calamities after thy Repentance And as the Apostles and Fathers after them as is shewn more largely in the Apology taught that the Gospel requires Evangelical Repentance in order to pardon of Sin so did our first Reformers and Protestant Divines since the Reformation As for our first Reformers abroad let the Augustan Confession which they all subscribed bear witness what their Judgment in that matter was I have spoken to this before and shewed from the express words of the Augustan Confession quoted at large in the Apology Pag. 88. That the Gospel requires Repentance in order to pardon of Sin and at the same time offers Remission of Sins freely for Christs sake to all that are truly penitent Melancthen who drew up that Confession and wrote an Apology for it is so clear in the case that it is matter of wonder to me that any should be so immodest as to deny so plain and certain a matter of fact For after he had said in his common places That the Particle gratis freely in Rom. 3.24 doth not exclude Faith but excludes the condition of our own worthiness and transfers the cause of the benefit from us unto Christ and moreover having said that the Particle freely doth neither exclude our own Obedience but only transfers the cause of the benefit from the worth of our Obedience unto Christ that the benefit may be sure Finally having said that the Gospel preaches Repentance but that our reconciliation may be iure it teaches that our Sins are pardoned and that we please God not for the dignity or merit of our Repentance or newness of Heart and Life but for Christs sake only and that this consolation is necessary to pious Consciences From the premisses he makes his inference in these words following (s) Atque hinc judicari potest quomodo haec consentiant quòd diximus Evangelium concionari de poenitentiâ tamen gratis promittere reconciliationem Definit itaque Christus Evangelium Luc. ultimo plane ut artifex cum jubet docere poenitentiam remissionem peccatorum in nomine suo Est igitur Evangelium praedicatio poenitentiae promissio quam ratio non tenet naturaliter c. Melancth loc com loco de Evang pag. 398. And hence it may be judged how these things agree that we said the Gospel preaches concerning Repentance and yet it freely promises Reconciliation Christ therefore in the last of Luke chap. 24. ver 47. defines the Gospel plainly or altogether as an Artist when he commands to teach Repentance and Remission of Sins in his Name The Gospel then is a preaching of Repentance and a Promise which Reason doth not naturally attain unto c. Thus Melancthon and I could quote more out of his Writings to this purpose but this is enough He who cannot see by this little that Melancthon believed the
necessary simply necessary yea and antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining pardon of Sin His Arguments are distributed into three Classes Some of them prove its necessity others prove its antecedency All together strongly prove that it 's antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining of Pardon This is to be seen in pag. 249 250. 3. He enquires whether Repentance may be called a Condition as well as Faith And Answers that it may not be called a Condition in the same Sense as Faith is called one For Faith is the only Condition whereby we close with the Covenant and whereby we close with receive and apply Christ and his Righteousness as held forth to us in the Covenant-Promise But then he says That in a large Sense it may be called and it is a Condition necessary with Faith concomitantly in the same subject to qualifie and dispose it in a congruous suitable way to receive Pardon of Sin by Faith in Christ alone This is to be seen in pag. 253 254 255 256. And this is the same thing which we believe and have openly professed to the World in our Apology So that there is not an hairs breadth of difference between his judgment and mine except it be in the wording of it And this manifestly appears from our calling Repentance the Condition or Means which only qualifies and disposes the Subject for receiving Pardon by Faith alone whereas we call Faith the Instrumental Means or Condition whereby we receive and apply the Object to wit the Promise and Christ with his Righteousness as held forth to us in the Promise for Justification and Salvation This is sufficient to show that Mr. Durham is of the same Judgment with us as to this matter and that therefore we justly bring him in to Witness for us I would have quoted his own words but they are so many and would swell my Discourse to such a Bulk that I choose rather to refer the Reader to the Book and Pages where he will see if he be in any doubt that I have faithfully given his Sense in few words Our Fourth Witness shall be the Famous Confession of Faith Composed by the most Learned of the Reformed Divines of Poland Lithuania and the Provinces thereon depending together with Divines from Germany and which they gave in at Torn in the Year 1645 unto the Lutheran and Popish Doctors all Assembled there to Confer about Religion for several Moneths together Their words are these (x) Non controvertitur hîc an ad remissionem peccatorum requiratur conversio mentis ad Deum interna peccatorum dum dolore detestatio asserimuus enim talem poenitentiam ut perpetuam conditionem ad peccatorum remissionem requisitam fuisse in utroque Testamento qua peccator non quidem eam meretur hoc enim efficit solum meritum satisfactio Christi cum eam nobis fide viva applicamus sed per eam praerequisita conditio impletur quâ aptus fit at Divinam misericordiam consequendam Confession Doctrinae Ecclesiarum Reformatarum in Regno Poloniae maguo Ducatu Lithuaniae annexisque Regni Provinciis in Colloquio Thoruniensi exhibit D. 1. Septembris A. D. 1645. Cap. 6. De Sacramentis Sect. De Poenitentiâ 1. It is not Controverted here whether the Conversion of the Mind to God and the inward Detestation of Sins with Sorrow be required unto the Remission of Sins for we assert that as a perpetual Condition unto the Remission of Sins such a Repentance was required under both Testaments whereby a Sinner doth not indeed merit it for the alone Merit and Satisfaction of Christ doth that when we apply it to our selves by a lively Faith but by it the pre-required Condition is performed whereby he is made fit and disposed to obtain the Divine Mercy Thus that Confession of Faith and those many Learned Judicious Divines who drew it up bear witness to the Truth with us That Repentance is pre-required and always was pre-required as a necessary Condition whereby a Sinner is qualified and made meet to receive the Pardon of his Sins by Faith in Christ's Blood I could bring more Testimonies both from the Word of God and the Writings of Holy Sound and Orthodox Ministers of Christ for the Confirmation and Elucidation of this Truth but I have been too large already upon this Point and therefore this may super abundantly suffice to show That though the Natural Moral Law oblige all Mankind in all parts of the World to one sort of Faith and Repentance yet there is another sort of them there is an Evangelical Faith and Repentance unto which the Evangelical Law of the New Covenant doth only by it self immediately oblige us And the Moral Natural Law obliges us to them but mediately only and by consequence in as much as it obliges us to observe all God's Positive Laws which it pleaseth him at any time to Enact for us Consider Eighthly That under the Gospel God hath made sincere Obedience to his Moral Natural Law and to all his Positive Laws which are in Force and not Abrogated one of the Articles of the New Covenant taken in its Latitude He hath made our performance of such sincere Obedience to his Laws a Condition necessary to qualifie and prepare us for obtaining full possession of Eternal Life and Happiness in Heavenly Glory for the sake of Christ and his Meritorious Righteousness only 1. For clearing of this It is to be observed that in the first federal Law of Works given and prescribed unto Man before the Fall there are Three things to be distinguished 1. There is the preceptive part of it 2. The Minatory Sanction 3. The Promissory Sanction 1. There is the Preceptive part which obligeth to Duty and except the Positive Precepts of Sanctisying or keeping Holy to God the Seventh day precisely in order from the Creation and of not eating the Forbidden Fruit All the rest of the Preceptive part of that Law of Works is in force still and obliges Mankind to an Ever Sinless Obedience de futuro 2. There is the Minatory Sanction or Threatning which binds over Transgressors to suffer the Punishment threatned And this is still in force with respect to all Impenttent Unbelievers They are all whil'st they continue in that State under the Curse of the first broken Law and Covenant and are lyable to a further degree of the same Punishment for every Sin which they shall commit in this World Yet by the Gospel there is a Door of Hope to get out of this State opened through Christ unto those to whom God sends it 3. There is the Promissory Sanction or the Promise of Life unto those who keep the Precepts without any Sin whatsoever Now this is not in force since the fall so as that any Man should be obliged ex intentione Dei to believe or hope that he shall obtain Eternal Life by his keeping the Preceptive part of the first Covenant or
of our obedience But all this is the proper office of the Moral Law which it compleatly discharges without any asistance I Answer 1. It is not true that the Moral natural Law without the assistance of any positive Law doth by it self immediately instruct us in and oblige us to all the particulars of our Duty For as at the first Creation when the Moral natural Law was perfectly and clearly written in Man's heart it did not by it self immediately in the first instant after his Creation oblige him not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge till God had given him another positive Law and Precept not to Eat of it and then by means of the positive Law the Moral natural Law obliged him not to eat of it So now the same Moral Law would never by it self immediately oblige us to several duties if there were not a positive Law and Precept of Christ which did first make them to be duties and oblige us to the doing of them Of this sort is Baptism with water in the Name of Father Son and Holy-Ghost The Moral Natural Law would never by it self immediately oblige men to be so Baptized if the Lord Christ as King and Head of his Church had not by a new Act of his Royal Authority made a positive Law and given a positive Precept obliging men to be baptized as aforesaid which being done the moral natural Law doth also oblige us to be baptized but it is only mediately and by consequence It is mediante lege positiva sed non perse immediate So it is the Gospel-Law or Covenant of Grace which by it self immediately obliges us to Justifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance in the Sense before-mentioned and proved and then the moral natural Law does also mediately and by necessary consequence oblige us to the same Duties 2. I answer That since the making of the Gospel-Covenant with fallen man the moral natural Law hath so belonged to it that the requiring sincere Obedience to the moral Law hath been one Article of the Gospel-Covenant The said moral Law then not only as separated from the Gospel covenant but even as included in it in the sense before explained doth instruct us what to do draw the Lines of our Duty and set the limits of our Obedience upon Gospel-grounds and to Gospel-ends and purposes as hath been fully and clearly proved by Testimonies of God and Men. See Tit. 2.11 12. If he now Object and say that this proves that the Precepts are no parts of the Gospel but borrowed from the Law I answer It proves no such thing and what he talks of borrowing Precepts from the Law is false and unintelligible For I demand who it is that borrows Precepts from the Law Either it must be the Gospel or God But it can be neither And 1. It is not the Gospel that borrows Precepts from the Law for borrowing is a Personal Act but the Gospel is no Person therefore it cannot Borrow Again the Gospel according to this Brother is nothing but an Absolute Promise or bundle of Absolute Promises let him then prove if he can that an absolute Promise borrows a Precept and shew how it doth so borrow for we neither do nor can believe it upon his bare word 2. It is not God who borrows Precepts from the Law For 1. He that borrows a thing doth want and need that thing before he borrow it and he borrows it to supply his want But God never wanted and needed the precepts of the Law 2. The thing which one borrows is not his own before he borrows it but belongs to another Person but the Law and its Precepts were always Gods own and therefore he could never borrow the Precepts of the Law from another to whom they belonged The Truth is God is the Author and Owner both of the Law and of the Gospel and he first made the Law and Subjected man unto it and obliged him to keep it perfectly but Man having transgressed it God made the Gospel-Covenant and proposed it to Man and therein offered him a Remedy against the Sin and Misery he had brought on himself and his Posterity by the breach of the Law He commanded Man also by Faith to accept of the Remedy offered in the Gospel-Covenant and for the future to perform sincere obedience to the Law which he had formerly Transgressed Here is no borrowing Precepts from the Law but after the Law was broken and thereby Man Ruined God of his Soveraign Free-grace so made and Proposed to Man the Gospel-covenant or which is the same the New Law of Grace as thereby 1. To oblige him to believe in Christ and by Faith to receive the Remedy offered And 2. For the future to give sincere Obedience to the Moral Law in order to his obtaining full possession of the Happiness purchased by Christ the Mediator and promised in the Gospel-covenant whereof Christ is Mediator And thus it was that the Moral Law came to belong to the Gospel not by the Gospel's nor by God's borrowing the precepts of the Law which to imagine is Ridiculous but by God's making sincere obedience to his own Moral Law to be one of the Terms of his Gospel Covenant and by his so framing the Gospel-Covenant as by it to require of Man sincere obedience to the Moral Law According to that Gen. 17.1 I am the Almighty God walk before me and be thou perfect upright or sincere And Tit. 2.11 12. The Grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all Men teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly Lusts we should live Soberly Righteously and Godlily in this present world Looking for that blessed hope c. Obj. 2. Secondly my R. B. indeavours to prove that the Gospel can have no precepts because if it had any precepts God would not be infinitely wise and unchangeable and his Moral natural Law which he first gave to Man at his Creation would not be perfect This Consequence he labours to prove in pag. 43. And I freely grant that the Gospel could have no precepts if from its having precepts it did follow by good and necessary Consequence that God would not on that supposition be infinitely wise and absolutely unchangeable and that his Moral natural Law would not be perfect For certainly God is infinitely wise and absolutely unchangeable this is as sure and evident as it is that there is a God at all It is certain also and I have always believed it and here before asserted it that the Moral natural Law is most perfect in its kind and obliges to the most perfect i. e. sinlessly perfect performance of the several duties which belong to it In that way which the Lord God intended It should oblige to the performance of them If my R. B. believe this as firmly as I do then we are agreed as to this matter of the infinite wisdom and unchangeableness of God and the perfection of his Moral natural Law in its
priority is enough for that pag. 33. To which I Answer 1. That I never wrote nor thought that the condition of the Gospel-Covenant is not in our power in any sense but only that it is not in our meer natural power with which it is very well consistent that it be in our Supernatural Power which we receive from the Spirit of God and with his assistance freely use in performing the said condition of the Covenant For the truth of this I appeal to the common sense and reason of all honest Men who will be at the pains to read and consider what they will find Written in the Apol. pag. 36. Last Paragraph and pag. 47. at the end And pag. 48. from l. 1. to l. 13. and pag. 49. from l. 9. to 20. and pag. 50. Where by the Testimonies of Augustin and Bradwardin I expresly shew that the performing of the condition is in our power through the grace of God and that we have a subordinate Dominion and Power over our own Act. And Lastly in pag. 67. I shew from Dr. Twiss that we not only have Supernatural Power from God to produce the Act which is the condition but that at the same time when we produce it we have a Power a natural Power not to produce it Whence I conclude that it is a gracious Evangelical condition freely performed by us See our confession of Faith Chap. 10. Act. 1. Now let any Judge by this whether I do absolutely deny the condition to be in our Power Nay tho I deny it in one sense to be in our Power yet in another sense I do most clearly affirm it to be in our power As for the condition it s not being uncertain nor Meritorious it is true I did and do maintain that it is not uncertain with respect to God and the event nor is it in the least truly and properly Meritorious but I deny the Consequence that therefore it is not properly a condition Evangelical And whereas in the 4th place he says that I deny it to be a legal condition it is true I have denied and shall deny it to be a Legal condition in the sense explained at large from the end of pag. 37. to 41. It is not so a legal condition as to have the same place and Office in the New-Covenant and Law of Grace which perfect and personal sinless obedience was to have had in the first Old Covenant and Law of works c. But to infer from hence that because I deny it to be a legal condition in this sense therefore I deny it to be a legal condition in all and every sense whatsoever is a poor fallacious way of arguing And how can this R. B. seriously think that I should ever deny it to be a legal condition in any sense at all when as he knows that I do all along call it the condition of the Covenant and Law of Grace If then I believe it to be the condition of the Covenant of Grace I cannot chuse but believe it to be a federal condition and so if I believe it to be the condition of the Law of Grace I cannot chuse but in some sense believe it to be a legal condition But you may say in what sense do I believe it to be a legal condition Why I Answer look in what sense the Gospel-Covenant is a Law in the same sense Faith for instance is the legal condition of it and so I believe it to be Now we do not say that the Gospel-Covenant is meerly and simply a Law but that it is a Law of Grace properly a Law of Grace And therefore faith is not a condition meerly and simply legal as the condition of the old Law of works was but it is a condition graciously legal because it is the condition of the Law of Grace and we are effectually enabled to perform it by the God of all Grace This that Brother might have easily perceived by our words to be our meaning if he had sought the Truth sincerely when he read our Apology But tho he stile himself a seeker p. 103. Yet it appears too evident by his Parenthesis p. 33. l. 29.30 31. That he sought some other thing than the truth for there he brings me in saying That the Gospel is a Law and that this Law is the condition of the Covenant or Gospel and yet it is not a legal condition But where do I say so That the Law is the condition of the Covenant I defy any Man living to find those words or any words of the like import in all the Apol. I leave it to others whom it may become to write after this manner The Gospel or the Covenant is a Law and that Law is the condition of the Covenant And so the same thing is the condition of it self For shame give over such little tricke and have regard to truth and honesty But now was there nothing in the Apoâ— that gave occasion to fasten upon us such a notorious falsehood I Answer I profess sincerely that there is nothing in it all from beginning to end that could give any just occasion or so much as a colourable pretence to charge me with holding that the Gospel is a Law or Covenant and that that Law is the condition of the Covenant We have said indeed in the explication of our sense of the Law of Grace pag. 22. l. 35.36 That this Law of Grace is the conditional part of the Covenant of Grace But to be the conditional part of the Covenant is quite another thing than the condition of the Covenant for the conditional part of the Covenant is that which Prescribes and Commands the condition and which promises a blessing and benefit to the person who performs it And therefore must be quite another thing than the condition it self Here then some body has discovered his ignorance and writes he knows not what or if not that He has discovered somewhat worse and that which I forbear to call by its proper Name Because he might say that it is bitter Language to tell him his fault in plain terms It is sweet unto some Men publickly to mis-represent their brethren to the People for such ends as they know best but it is bitter to them for to find themselves publickly reproved for it We desire all whom it may concern to learn to understand our Apol. before they take upon them to dispute against it and censure it And they may easily understand it if they will for it is purposely written in a plain stile that all may know what our Judgment is concerning the nature of the New-Covenant See pag. 68. from lin 16. to 21. Where we briefly and plainly distinguish between the absolute and conditional part of it and shew what the one and the other is as we had also done so largely before that none can mistake our meaning unless they have very weak heads or which is worse wilfully shut their Eyes that they
may throw dirt at us in the Dark His inference then fails that if faith for instance be not a condition in a law-Law-sense it must be only in a Logical or Physical sense and so it will not be a proper condition For 1. Why may not some Logical condition be a proper condition 2. Tho Faith be not a condition in one law-Law-sense yet it is a condition in another Law-sense It is not a condition in the sense of the old Law of works but it is a condition in the Sense of the New Evangelical Law of Grace And from hence it appears that what he says of Logical and Physical Connexion in these propositions if a Man be reasonable he is capable of Learning c. And if Wood be laid to the fire it will burn is wholly impertinent to the present purpose For in these propositions the necessity of the Connexion between the Subjects and the Predicates arises from the very nature of the thing but in this conditional promise If thou sincerely believest thou shalt be Justified and Pardoned The necessary truth of the Connexion Doth not arise meerly from the nature of the things but from the Lord 's free and gracious will and positive Law-Constitution Revealed in the Gospel Rom. 10.8 9. And so Faith is neither A meer Logical nor Physical condition but it is a Moral Legal condition in a very safe and proper sense It is not Legal in the sense of the Law of works but it is Legal in the sense of the Law of Grace And so it is a gracious Evangelical condition What he talks p. 33. l. ult and p. 34. Of the orderliness of the Covenant and of the necessary consequence of Justification and Glory upon the duties of Faith and Repentance doth not one jot help him to break the force of our Arguments and to shew That the Covenant is not conditional and that the giving of the benefit is not suspended till the Condition be performed For we shewed in the Apology that the Covenant hath indeed an Order in it between the Duty and the Subsequent Benefit but that That Order is a Conditional Order constituted by the positive will of God revealed in the Gospel and that it is God's positive will to suspend his giving of the benefit for instance pardon of sin till we through his grace freely perform the duty of actual Faith So that we shall not be actually pardoned till we being adult have actually believed and then we shall be pardoned but not before This we proved and our Arguments remain unanswered and we know they can never be solidly answered We need no more Arguments to prove the Conditionality of the Covenant in the sense that we hold it to be conditional tho we are not without other Arguments and could tell him what it is like he knows well enough in what books written by Orthodox Divines he may find a great many more Arguments to this purpose To tell people confidently That because it is a Testament it can have no Condition is to deceive them For it may very well be a Testament and yet have a gracious Evangelical Condition A man can make his own Testament so as to prescribe proper conditions in it and sometimes doth so surely then the Lord could prescribe a Condition in his Testament and he hath done it But as he is a gracious Testator so the Condition prescribed in his Testament is gracious too It seems to be the fundamental mistake of some brethren to think that the Gospel of Christ is a Testament so absolute as not to partake of the nature of a proper Covenant whereas in truth the Gospel partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant And this it may very well do in different respects In respect of the absolute promises it partakes of the nature of an absolute Testament and in respect of the conditional promises it partakes of the nature of a conditional Covenant And then the absolute promise of Grace to perform the condition makes the conditional promises Eventually sure to all the elect And thus the Covenant is a Covenant of Grace indeed a Covenant well ordered in all things and sure 2 Sam. 23.5 But saith that R. B. pag. 33. By condition they mean not a condition properly in a Law or federal sense as we use the word in bargains between Man and Man Answer What then doth it follow that because we use not the word condition properly in the sense of a humane Law or Covenant therefore it cannot be a proper condition in another Law-sense to wit in the sense of a Divine Law of Grace This consequence we deny and so doth Mr. Fox and Mr. Durham and it lies on that brother to prove it for we do not take his word for a proof Again in pag. 34. He says That the conditional Particle If used in Testaments doth not suspend but demonstrate and design the thing promised Others would say but demonstrate and describe the Legatees and some certain time and manner of Conveyance From whence he would infer that there are no conditional promises in the Gospel I Answer 1. Suppose that were true of humane Testaments which are purely Testaments and do no ways partake of the nature of a conditional Covenant it doth not follow that it must be true also in the Divine Testament of the Gospel which partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant 2. It is not universally true of humane Testaments for I can make my Testament so as to suspend the giving of certain Legacies to persons named in it upon their performing of some condition so that if they perform the condition they shall have the Legacies but not till then And if they never perform the condition they shall never have the Legacies But that brother objects further that if the Author of the Apol. by suspension understand a legal suspension it is the same with a Legal condition which he has denied before for conditio est dispositionis suspensio ex eventu incerto ei opposito and has an obliging influence on the promiser and confers a title of right to the benefit promised Answer And we have shewed that this brother doth foully wrest the words of the Apol. to a sense quite different from that true sense which we professedly and expresly give of the word legal condition See in pag. 37.38 c. The explication which we give of it at large on purpose to prevent Mens misunderstanding of us as this Man doth The explication begins thus Which that our meaning to wit of a not Legal but Evangelical condition may be understood by all we explain thus we do not believe that our faith Repentance and sincere obedience which are conditions of Justification and Glorification according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace have the same place and office in this New Covenant and Law of Grace which most perfect and
sinless obedience had and was to have had in the first old Covenant and Law of works c. Let any honest understanding Man read what follows there in several pages together with our Arguments from Scripture and Reason and he will see it as clear as the light that we deny the condition of the Gospel-Covenant to be a legal condition onely in the sense that works were a condition in the legal Covenant and that yet notwithstanding that and in good consistency with our selves we hold it to be a federal legal condition in another sense For we all along maintain it to be a condition of the New Covenant and Law of Grace and so to be federal and legal that is Graciously and Evangelically federal and legal And in consequence of this we hold and have proved that the Lord by his conditional promises hath suspended his giving of the promised subsequent benefits till by his Grace the condition be performed And that brother by denying this suspension not only contradicts us but in effect denies that there are really any conditional promises in the Gospel and contradicts all those Scriptures whereby we have proved that it is God's positive will declared in his word to suspend his giving of the subsequent blessings promised till the condition required be by Grace performed And all the reason he gives for his so doing is that suspension doth always suppose and imply the event to be uncertain and that where there is a suspension of giving the promised benefit Till the condition required be performed there the performing of the condition hath an obliging influence upon God and gives us a title of right to the benefit promised Which is a wild assertion and a meer begging of the question It is that which he neither hath proved nor can solidly prove to Eternity For why may it not be certainly determined as to the event that such a promised benefit shall be infallibly given to such a person upon such a condition and yet that the actual giving of it shall be suspended till he have by grace both freely and certainly performed the condition so that he shall have it then and not before This not only may be but de facto it is so with respect to all God's elect And then tho they most certainly receive the benefit assoon as through Grace they perform the condition yet it doth by no true Logick follow that their performing the condition required gives them the right to receive the benefit promised for the Lord Christ purchased for them both the benefit and the right to it and possession of it and God for Christs sake alone gives it them assoon as the condition is performed In fine that brother pag. 45. Saith The performing of the duty is the effect of the Grace of God's Spirit and effects bear not the Name of conditions Answer This objection is borrowed from Episcopius the Arminian and it was Answered in the Apol. See there pag. 46.49 and 66.67 Where the world was told that the Grace of God whereby we believe is so far from hindering our Actual Faith from being the condition that on the contrary it conduceth much to make it tho not simply the condition yet The gracious Evangelical condition of the Covenant We shew'd also in the same place that God's grace doth not effect and produce our Actual Faith without the free Concurrence of our own faculties Now you shall see how Episcopius the Arminian urged this Argument and how Triglandius the Zealou Calvinist Answered it * Conditio ait Episcopius non est conditio quae ab eo qui eam praescribit in eo cui praescribitur efficitur et hoc me negare dico inquit Triglandius merus effectus prescribentis non potest esse conditio praescripta nedum praestita inquit Episcopius Resp Trigl fides et obedientia non sunt merus effectus dei praescribentis fidem et obedientiam nam non deus credit et obedit sed ipse homo Est itaque non solus deus causa fidei et obedientiae sed et ipse homo Deus causa prima et efficiens principalis a quo homo id habet ut credat obediat deo quod alias nec posset nec vellet homo ut causa 2da et subordinata ut pote qui credit et obedit virtute gratia dei Trigland ubi supra Cap. 18. pag. 276. A condition saith Episcopius is not a condition which is effected by him who prescribes it in the person to whom it is prescribed And quoth Triglandius I say that I deny that But saith Episcopius again the meer effect of the prescriber cannot be the condition prescribed much less the condition performed Triglandius Answers Faith and Obedience are not meer effects of God prescribing Faith and Obedience For God doth not believe and obey but Man himself Therefore God alone is not the cause of Faith and Obedience but Man himself is also the cause God is the first and principal efficient cause from whom Man hath that Power whereby he believes and obeys which otherwise he neither could nor would do But Man is the second and subordinate cause to wit who believes and obeys by the strength and Grace of God Thus Triglandius Answered the Arminian Champion By which Answer it appears that Faith is not so an effect of God's Grace as that it cannot be a condition of God's Covenant as by the help of God's Grace it is freely effected by us And therefore Mr. Durham on the Rev. pag. 242. Saith that Faith is the condition of the Covenant of Grace properly which can be said of no other Grace or Work And if this be true then it is false that there is no proper condition of the Covenant at all Mr. Durham we see held that Faith is properly the condition of the Covenant in such a sense as no other thing is And we agree with him therein As he also agrees with us that in another sound sense true Repentance and sincere obedience are conditions of the same Covenant of Grace Of the same Judgment was the very Learned and Judicious Rivet Witness what he writes in one of his 13 Disputations †Com promissiones Evangelii habeant perpetuo annexam conditionem fidei quod adversarii negare non possunt item poenitentiae et gratitudinis quae in reprobis non reperiuntur sequitur ad eos non pertinere redemptionis efficaciam Conditionem illam hae Scripturae probant c. Andr. Rivet Disput 6 de redemptione Thes 22. Since saith Rivet the promises of the Gospel have the condition of Faith perpetually Annexed to them which the Adversaries cannot deny as also the condition of Repentance and Gratitude which are not found in the reprobate it follows that the efficacy of redemption doth not belong to them These following Scriptures prove that condition c. Thus Rivet there and afterwards in his Animadversions on Grotius his notes on Cassander's consultation To
fortified with a Sanction but with a Sanction that promiseth Justification and Salvation not for the Duties sake but for Christs sake only Now both his Propositions being false no wonder that the inference he draws from them be ridiculous insignificant and of no force at all against me for I do freely grant that it is a fallacious way of reasoning to argue from the meer ambiguity of a word that hath several significations But that was not nor is it my way of arguing And this being the case as I have truly represented it and as manifestly appears from the Apology it self the ridiculous demonstration to wit a Law is a Law the Gospel is a Law therefore the Gospel is a Law I say this ridiculous demonstration which Mr. Goodwin in pag 41. would lay at my door returns home to himself and calls him its true Father and justly it may for assuredly it is a Bratt of his own brain and breeding and for that reason he seems to be very fond of it calling it a pretty way of arguing and saying without doubt it is unanswerable And yet if we look upon this pretty little rogue as the Image of his Brain that begat it and if we strip the Baby of its identick dress or fools coat it is very easily answered For being formed according to the tenour of his Discourse concerning the various significations of the word Law it amounts to no more than this A meer nominal Law that requires nothing is a real proper Law that requires something but the Gospel is a meer nominal Law that requires nothing therefore the Gospel is a real proper Law that requires something The Proposition is that which I suppose he would father upon me but I justly disown it as none of mine and so I do by the other identical Proposition a Law is a Law Let this Brother prove if he can by any good consequence that there is any such thing expressed or implyed in any part of the Apology I am so well assured that there is no such thing there that I defy him or any Man to prove the affirmative that there it is And by and by we shall find himself clearing me of that imputation and blaming me for proving the Gospel to be a Law because it hath Precepts requiring Duty fortified with a sanction of Promises and Threatnings Which is a demonstration that either this Brother asserts that which he knows to be false or else that he contradicts himself and writes he knows not what The Proposition then or Major is the birth of his own Brain and whether it was begotten against his Conscience as Bastards use to be let him look to it I assert nothing pro or con in that matter As for the Assumption or second Proposition he will not he cannot deny it to be his own to wit That the Gospel is a Law a meer nominal Law which requires no Duty of us at all for it is the great thing he contends for with all his Might throughout his Book Now it appearing thus that the Argument is his own much good may it do him and his Cause which the World may know to be a very good one by this token that it is supported by such pretty honest Devices And thus the pretty unanswerable Argument is easily answered when stript of its Identical dress For both Propositions are false The Major Proposition is self evidently false when stript of its Identical dress And if he will not suffer his Baby to be stript of its Fools coat my Answer is That it is his own and he may do with his own what he pleases The Minor I have proved to be false and shall further prove it to be false before we have done And therefore though the conclusion as to the matter concluded be very true according to the Logick Rule ex falsis verum yet it is not therefore formally true as it is concluded and because it is concluded and inferred from such false premisses But he pretends in pag. 42. to have provided a proper remedy against this malady of arguing from the ambiguity of a word of various signification by clearing the sense of the word Law which he says he has largely done But cui bono to what good purpose was all that waste of Time Paper and Ink since it doth not reach me at all for I defy him to shew me where in the Apology I did ever so much as once endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a proper Law from the meer sound of the word Law which is of a various signification But though I did not so argue yet my R. B. hath assumed to himself the liberty of arguing from the ambiguity of the word Gospel almost throughout his whole Discourse to prove that the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace as to require no Duty of us at all Turpe est igitur doctori quum culpa redarguit ipsum I think it had been more to the purpose to have cleared the sense of the ambiguous word Gospel so as to have shewed that in Holy Scripture or the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines it is never taken for the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ the Mediator including the conditional part of it but always and every where for a meer absolute Promise or Promises which require no Duty of us at all If my Reverend Brother had done this he had done his work and had answered me effectually and had made me his Proselite too But I do not blame him for not doing this because it is plainly impossible to be done But what if my purpose and design in the First Section of the Second Chapter of the Apology which he pretends to answer was not so much to argue and prove the Gospel to be a Law As 1. To instruct our Accuser who seemed not to know our Principles and to let him know what we really mean by a new Law of Grace 2 To rebuke him for saying ignorantly that new Law of Grace was a new word of an old but ill meaning and to prove by Testimonies of credible Witnesses Antient and Modern that new Law of Grace was no new word of an old but ill meaning but that he in saying so against us the Subscribers was a false Witness against his Brethren And to show that this was my purpose and design there needs no more but to read the Apology Page 20 21 22 24. 3. Further What if for the Instruction and Information of our Accuser I told him and the World plainly 1. That God most freely made the Covenant and enacted the Law of Grace with us through Jesus Christ 2. That God by this Law of Grace both obliges and encourages us to certain Duties and also by the Promises of it obliges himself to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake if we perform the Duties prescribed and comply with the terms injoyned 3. What if I plainly declared that by new Law of Grace