G quotes there out of Chemnitius and Beza concerning the Papists confounding Law and Gospel its being the occasion of many pernicious Errors in the Church is impertinently alledged against us for we are so far from confounding the Law and the Gospel as Papists do that on the contrary we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace only but not at all to be a Law of Works in the Scriptural or Popish sense of that word And in our Apology we plainly stated the difference between the Law and Gospel and the Righteousness of the one and the other in so much that whoever reads understands believes and observes what we there wrote on that subject is so far out of danger of the Popish Errors in the matter of Justification and Salvation that it is plainly impossible for him to embrace any of them without first renouncing some of those great Truths which we have plainly there laid down in vindicating our selves from the Calumnies of the Informer and of the Accuser of the Brethren So much in Answer to his first set of Testimonies relating to the definition or description of the Gospel SECT III. His Second Set of Testimonies Examined and Answered HIS next set of Testimonies of Reformed Divines is to prove as he says pag. 36. by their express words that when they call the Gospel a Law they intend no more by it but a pure Doctrine of Grace To which I Answer 1. In general That in a sound sense I grant the Gospel Law is no other than a pure Doctrine of Grace as was said before But in his sense I deny that they held the Gospel-Law to be nothing but a pure Doctrine of Grace so as not to require any thing of us no not so much as Faith in Christ I shewed the contrary before from their own express words in the 20th Article of the Augustan Confession which Luther and Calvin both subscribed Secondly I give a particular Answer to the several Testimonies which Mr. G. alledges And 1. As for the Testimonies of Luther quoted out of his Commentaries on Gal. 2. and Isai 2. His First Testimony as to the first part of it concerns us not at all for we abhor that Opinion of Justitiaries as much as ever Luther did and we declare it to be Blasphemy to think say or write that the Gospel is no other than a Book which contains new Laws concerning Works as the Turks Dream of their Alcoran 2. As to the Second part of his first Testimony That the Gospel is a Preaching concerning Christ that he forgives Sins gives Grace Justifies and saves Sinners It is very true but is not the whole Truth for over and besides that it is also a Preaching concerning Christ that requires Faith in Christ According to the Augustan Confession and according to what we before heard from Luther himself in his little Book of Christian Liberty and which is far more according to the Scriptures of Truth 3. As to the third part of his Testimony That the Precepts found in the Gospel are not the Gospel but Expositions of the Law and Appendixes of the Gospel It is to be rightly understood As 1 They are not the whole Gospel Nor 2. Are they the principal part of the Gospel from which it chiefly hath its Denomination For the Promises are that part 3. It is confest that there are indeed Precepts found written somewhere in the Books of the New Testament which are no part of the Gospel Covenant in its last and best form of Administration but they belong to the first Law of Works or to the Typical Legal Form of Administring the Covenant of Grace yet there are other Precepts for instance that which Commands Faith in Christ as the Instrumental means of receiving and applying Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and this Precept even in Luthers Judgment as we have proved belongs to the Gospel And it is indeed one Article of the gospel-Gospel-Covenant that we believe in Christ Acts 16.31 Rom. 10.8 9 10. The Second Testimony from Luthers Commentary on Isai 2. is impertinently alledged and proves nothing but what we firmly believe that the Gospel is not a Law or Doctrine of Works for Justification but a Law or Doctrine of Faith even a new Doctrine as Luthers expression is or Law of Grace 2. In the second place he brings a Testimony of Calvin out of his Commentary on Isai 2.3 which as Mr. G alledges it is impertinent For it proves nothing against us We grant also to our R Brother that the way of arguing he mentions in Pag. 38. would be impertinent And I assure him it is not my way of arguing to conclude from the Gospels being named a Law that it is a Doctrine of Works For I do not believe that it is a Doctrine or Law of Works at all in the Scripture sense of that word i. e. a Doctrine of Works by and for which Justification and Salvation are to be sought after 3. Thirdly for the Testimony out of Musculus on Isai 2. I admit it as not being in the least against me And it is notorious that he was for the conditionality of the Covenant as we are 4. Nor Fourthly doth Gualters Testimony make against me in the least if it be not wrested by a false gloss put on his words as if he had said That the Law of Faith doth not require Faith But he doth not say so in the words quoted by Mr. G 5. The Passage quoted out of Vrsin on Isai 2.3 makes rather for us than against us and therefore it was impertinently alledged And it is well known that Vrsin was not against but for Conditions in the Gospel-Covenant And in my Remarks on the next Chapter I shall prove by his own express formal words that he believed as we do that the Gospel hath Precepts of its own which require of us Faith and Repentance 6. Nor doth the Passage cited out of Chemnitius his Common Places contradict my Principles but it rather confirms them And I am well assured that he held Justifying Faith to be Commanded and required by the Gospel See his common places in Folio pag. 219. 7. And lastly For Wittichius his Testimony the first part of it doth not so much as seem to be against me for it contains my Principle exprest to my mind I do heartily agree with him that no Works of ours neither Repentance nor yet Faith are or can be the cause of our Justification as perfect personal Works were to have been the cause and ground of Adam's Justification by the first Covenant and Law of Works if he had never broken it But for the second part of his Testimony if he intends thereby to deny that either Faith or Repentance are required as antecedently in order of Nature necessary unto Justification by and for the alone-Righteousness of Christ Then I do reject that part of his Testimony as unsound and contrary to Holy Scripture and to the Judgment of our more
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
Chemnitius also in his common places not only confesses that the Gospel is called a Law Isa 2.3 Mic. 4.2 and the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 but though he purposely sets himself to please the rigid Lutherans he likewise sayes that (d) Affirmativa de fiducia gratuitae misericordiae propter Christum non est vox Legis sicut Paulus clare dicit Gal. 3.12 Lex non est ex fide c. Chemnit loc com p. 219. The affirmative part concerning the Faith or confident trust of Free Mercy for Christs sake is not the voice of the Law as Paul clearly sayes Gal. 3.12 The law is not of faith Observe here that justifying Faith in Chemnitius's Opinion is not required by the Moral Natural Law but by the Gospel and that because Paul clearly saith that the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3.12 i. e. The Law requires not Faith to Justification See our last Annotations Pools on Gal. 3.12 The Law saith nothing of Faith in the Mediatour though Faith in God be commanded in the first Precept yet Faith in Christ is not commanded in the Law as that by which the Soul shall iive c. Hemmingius a moderate Lutheran and Disciple of Melancthon saith (e) Fidem omnes unanimiter ad Evangelium referunt Tract de gratia salutari Edit Hafniae 1591. loco de poenitentia All Divines unanimously refer Faith in Christ to the Gospel And he had reason to say so for before the Flacians I do not know that ever any Protestant Divine was of that Opinion that it is not the Gospel but the Moral Natural Law which requires Faith in Christ unto Justification and Salvation I am sure Luther was not of that mind for in his Book of Christian Liberty a little before the passage which Mr. Goodwin hath quoted out of it he brings in the very Gospel or God in and by the Gospel speaking unto Men and saying (f) En tibi crede in Christum in quo promittuntur tibi gratia Justitia Pax Libertas omnia si credis habebis si non credis carebis Luther de libert Christ Lo here for thee believe in Christ in whom are promised unto thee Grace Justice Peace Liberty and all If thou believe thou shalt have them if thou believe not thou shalt want them Here it is observable as was said before 1. That Luther speaks of the Gospel as distinguished from and opposed to the Law 2. He says That the Language of the Gospel so considered is crede in Christum c. believe in Christ And if that be not a Command how shall we know that ever there was such a Command in the World 3. Tho. Luther calls the Gospel there Promissa Dei the Promises of God yet it is most evident he did not think them to be all absolute Promises for he expresly mentions a Conditional Promise saying Si credis habebis If thou believest thou shalt have all those benefits that are promised in and through Christ 4. That the Conditional Promise of the Gospel the promise of great Blessings and Benefits made to us on condition that we believe in Christ doth carry in it a Gospel Command to believe in Christ Otherwise it is not imaginable how Luther could make the very Gospel and the Promises of God as opposed to the Law to say unto Man Crede in Christum Believe in Christ for that is a Precept if ever there was a Precept in the Word of God and being a Precept it must according to Luther be implyed in the Conditional Promise of the Gospel Whence we may learn this useful Lesson that in every Conditional Promise of the Gospel there are two things to be considered by us 1. The Promise it self of some gratuitous Benefit 2. The Gospel Command to perform the condition upon which the Benefit is promised The truth of this Observation was well understood by the Learned Dr. Whitaker and therefore he saith (g) Whitak praelect de Sacram. cap 4. Promissio gratiae conditionalis est requirit enim fidem c. The Promise of Grace is Conditional for it requires Faith c. And Dr. Nowell in his foresaid Latine Catechism taught in the Grammar-Schools throughout England speaking of the Gospel as distinct from the Law he saith (h) Verae Religionis partes sunt Obedientia quam Lex imperat fides quam Evangelium requirit A. Nowelli Christianae Pietatis prima Instit pag. 3. Edit Cantab. 1626. The Gospel requires Faith In like manner Sharpius tells us that the Gospel as distinct from the Law requires Faith and declares that the contrary Opinion which Mr. Goodwin has lately taken up is the Error of the Flacians (i) Errant Flaciani qui in Evangelio nullum praeceptum esse volunt cum manifeste praecipiatur ut credamus poenitentiam agamus fides autem est tantùm ex Evangelio ut poenitentia quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur Sharpii Curs Theolog. Sect. de Evangelio pag. 692. The Flacians saith he err who would have no Precept to be in the Gospel seeing it is manifestly commanded that we should believe and repent But Faith is only from the Gospel as is also that Repentance which in Greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 With Sharpius agrees Dickson on Rom. 3.27 28. his words are these Argum. 10. Because by the Law of Faith or the Covenant of Grace which requires Faith to our Justification by the Righteousness of another Mans boasting in himself is excluded and not by the Law of Works or the Covenant of Works which exacts perfect Obedience and affords boasting to Men in their inherent Righteousness Therefore saith he we conclude that a Man is justified by Faith without the Works of the Law Thus Dickson Of the same Judgment was the late Reverend and Learned Mr. Pitcairn Principal of the New Colledge and Rector of the University of S. Andrews For in his Harmony of the Evangelists he writes thus (k) Pâ—â—cairn Harmon Evang. p. 274. Quisquis justificatur per Legem Christi hoo est per Evangelicam Christi Legem fidem praescribentem absolvitur Whosoever is justified he is absolved by the Law of Christ that is by the Evangelical Law of Christ which prescribes Faith And as was observed before the Assemblies Confession of Faith in the Seventh Chapter of Gods Covenant with Man Art 3. saith expresly That the Lord in the Covenant of Grace requires of Men Faith in Jesus Christ that they may be saved I might bring many more Testimonies to this purpose but these are sufficient to show that it hath been and is the common belief of our Protestant Divines except some raving bawling Flacians in Germany and the Cocceians in Holland that the Gospel commands and requires us to believe in Jesus Christ for Justification and Salvation The Case then is plainly thus That the Moral Natural Law requires Faith in God simply considered as God and Jesus Christ being God by Nature One God
to love Mercy and to walk humbly with thy God And now let us hear what Mr. Danson saith upon this Danson's Synopsis of Quakerisme p. 49. His Words are these Because God designs to take away glorying in Justification Faith in God through the Messias is called a walking humbly with God Micah 6.8 That it does relate to the Law of Faith and but only by consequence if at all not directly to the Law of Providence or submission to afflictions I am induced to believe upon these two grounds 1. Because otherwise God returns no Answer which he seems plainly to design to the Query what the Lord will be pleased with or what satisfaction shall be given him for Israels Sin which is the Sum of the Questions ver 7. Will the Lord be pleased c. But understanding it thus there is a plain Answer viz. I do not expect any Righteousness of thy Gift but of thy Acceptance or thus I shall not be pleased with any Righteousness which thou bringest unless it be what I have first bestowed on thee by Faith 2. The Pride of Mans Heart makes him as loath to accept of a Righteousness freely offered him as to accept of the Punishment of his Iniquity justly inflicted It makes him as loath to part with the Priviledges he had in the Old Covenant as he that hath set up for himself sometime is to turn an Apprentice And therefore it is as true an Act of Humility to accept of Gods Righteousness as of Chastisements for Sin Thus he In which words he plainly acknowledges and endeavours to prove that the Prophet Micah preached not the Law of Works but the Gospel of Grace to the Israelites who desired to be informed by what means they might obtain God's favour And particularly this is the Voice of the Gospel and Law of Faith The Lord requires thee to walk humbly with thy God And surely that is a Precept requiring a Duty if ever there was a Precept in the World Now if one part of the Prophets answer be the Gospel of Grace who that is afraid to wrest God's word to his own destruction dare say the other part of it is the Law of Works Since the whole answer to the Question is short and both parts of it pronounced with one breath By what certain mark may we know which part is Law and which is Gospel if both be not Gospel Nay if one part of the Answer direct them to the Law of Works and Old Covenant of Works that by complying with its Terms they may find Grace and Favour with God Doth not the Prophet seem to seduce them from the only righâ— way and means of obtaining God's Grace and Favour to wit by Faith in the Messias his Righteousness and to teach them to trust in and not part with the Priviledges they had in the Old Covenant of Works and to seek Peace and Reconciliation with God in part at least by their own Works of Righteousness or by complying with the Terms of the Law of Works If the Prophets answer to their question What they should do to be Reconciled unto God Tell them that they must comply with the Terms both of the Law of Works and of the Gospel of Grace He doth in effect teach them to seek for Justification and Reconciliation both by the Old Legal and by the New gospel-Gospel-Covenant that is both by their own Righteousness and also by anothers Righteousness to wit Christ's And then who could well blame them if they took his Advice and followed his Direction which he gave them in the Name of the Lord For avoiding of this inconvenience I for my part do think that if part then the whole Answer of the Prophet in ver 8. was Gospel and that he did but tell them what the Lord required of them by the Gospel-Covenant to be done on their part that they might obtain Justification and Salvation to wit first though it be last mentioned that by Faith they should walk humbly with their God for obtaining Justification and Reconcilation 2. That from a Principle of Faith they should do justly and love Mercy that they might declare their Thankfulness to God for his Grace and Favour to them through Christ and also that they might be fitted qualified and prepared to receive more Grace even the Grace of Eternal Life and Salvation for the only Satisfactory Meritorious Righteousness and Sacrifice of the Messias Thus I have proved by Divine Testimony out of the Old Testament That the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace in its old way of Administration had Precepts belonging to it and required Duty of the Confederate People of God But it may be some will say That though that be true yet the case is altered and now the Gospel-Covenant in its Evangelical form of Administration hath not one Precept and requires no Duty at all My Answer is 1. That that cannot be for though the Gospel-Covenant hath changed and put off its accidental Form of Administration yet it retains still and can never change its Essential Form and that is that it requires Faith in Christ in order to Justification and sincere Obedience to all God's Commandments which are in force and not Abrogated in order to Glorification and Consummate Salvation 2 I Answer That it 's Clear as the Light from the New Testament That the Gospel or Covenant of Grace now at this day hath Precepts and requires Duty of Christians which is the thing that I am next to prove by Divine Testimony taken out of the Scriptures of the New Testament And I begin with Matth. 11. v. 28 29.30 Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest Testimonies out the New Testament Take my Yoke upon you and learn of me for I am meek and lowly in heart and ye shall find rest unto your Souls For my Yoke easie and my Burden is light In which words there is not only a Command that all Distressed Souls believe and by Faith come unto Christ the Son unto whom the Father hath delivered all things and an Encouraging Promise of Rest to all that come to all that sincerely believe in Christ But 2. There is a Command laid upon Believers to take upon them Christ's Yoke and to learn Meekness and Humility of him and what else is the meaning of that but that the Lord will have Believers to obey his Precepts and imitate his Example By Christ's Yoke and Burden cannot be meant any thing but what includes his Precepts and Commandments Now Christ's Precepts which are called his Yoke and his Burden cannot possibly be the Precepts of the Law and Covenant of Works as such that is Precepts requiring Perpetual Personal Sinless Obedience as the Indispensable Means and Condition of Life and Happyness For 1. Christ here speaks not simply as God but as the Son of God Incarnate and as the Mediator between God and Men the Mediator of the New Covenant and as such
Discipuli non Magistro sed Deo monente diffusi Praecepta in salutem dare c Cyprian lib. de Idolorum vanitate Edit Oxon cum Minutii Felicis Octavio An. 1678. That Christ appeared and made himself known to his Apostles after his Resurrection and stay'd with them Forty days that they might be instructed by him and learn of him Vital Precepts which they might teach and that the Disciples being dispersed throughout the World by the order not of a meer Master but of God they gave forth Precepts unto Men for their Salvation Thus Cyprian Now by those Vital Precepts of which he speaks which lead Men to Salvation cannot be meant the Precepts of the Old Law and Covenant of Works as such for they are not Vital but rather Mortal to Sinful Men It is indeed through Mens own fault that they are not Vital but Mortal to them but however yet it is true that they are Mortal and not Vital They are a killing Letter 2 Cor. 3.6 They must then be the Precepts of the Gospel and Law of Grace which though for the most part they are materially the same with yet they formally differ from the Precepts of the Old Covenant and Law of Works for as they are the Precepts of the New Covenant and Law of Grace they come under a New Form and Sanction and become Vital and Saving both by the Ordination of God in Christ and also by the Grace of the Spirit promised in the New Law or Covenant of Grace My Fourth Witness is Ambrose who on the 119. Psal ver 156. saith (l) Evangelium non solum fidei Doctrina sed etiam est morum Magisterium speculum justae conversationis Amb. Serm. 20. in Ps 118. alias 119. Edit Paris 1614. Col. 1068. The Gospel is not only a Doctrine of Faith but it is also an Authoritative Instruction or Law of Manners and a glass of just Conversation And again in the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans chap 3. ver last he or Hil. Diac. writes thus (m) Et quia lege Moysi cessante meliora praecepta daturus erat Deus Jeremiah Propheta cecinit dicens ecce dies venient dicit Dominus consummabo Domini Israel c. His utique qui venientem Christum ex promissione receperunt c. Idem Ambros vel potius Hil. Diaconus Comment in Epist ad Rom. ad versum ult cap. 3. And because the Law of Moses ceasing God was to give better Precepts Jeremiah the Prophet sung saying Behold the days shall come saith the Lord that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel c. that is with those who received Christ when he came according to promise Now these better Precepts which Ambrose or Hilary saith God was to give when the Levitical Law was to be Abrogated were no other in his Opinion than the Precepts of the New Covenant and Law of Grace as manifestly appears by his proving his Assertion out of Jerem. 31.31 where the Lord foretold his making of a New Covenant with the House of Israel c. And that Authour might well call them better Precepts both in respect of their perspicuity as more fully and clearly explained by Christ and also in respect of their Efficacy as accompanyed with a greater measure of the Grace of the Holy Spirit Jer. 31.33 with Heb. 8.9 10. He might likewise so call them with respect to the positive Institutions of the Gospel My Fifth Witness is Chrysostom who saith that (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Homil. 1. in Cap. 1. Matth. ex Edit Commel An. 1617. One of the Capital Fundamental Points of our Religion in which our Life consists and which comprehend the Sum of our Preaching is that Christ gave to his Church saving Precepts He is discoursing there of the Harmony of the Four Evangelists and after what he had said of that matter he subjoyns a Request that we would diligently consider and observe that in the Capital Points of our Christian Religion wherein the Life of our Souls consists and which comprehend the Sum of Ministers Preaching there is not the least disagreement amongst the four Evangelists And then to the question Which are those Capital Essential Points of our Religion He Answers That they are these following to wit That God was Incarnate that he wrought Miracles that he was Crucified that he was Buryed that he rose again from the Dead that he ascended into Heaven that he will judge the World that he gave Saving Precepts that he did not introduce a Law contrary to the Old Testament That he is the Son that he is the only begotten Son that he is the true genuine Son that he is of the same Essence with the Father and as many points as there are of the like nature and then he asserts that in all these Points there is the greatest Harmony and Agreement of the Four Evangelists By this we see that Chrysostom held it to be a Capital Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion that Christ hath given Saving Precepts to his Church and consequently that the gospel-Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts For the Precepts of the First Old Covenant and Law of Works as such cannot now be saving to Sinners such as all Men are therefore the Precepts which are now saving to Mens Souls must be the Precepts of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace which as we Christians have it is not contrary to it self as it obtained in the Church before the coming of Christ for it always had Saving Precepts and as we heard before out of Ireneus the Principal Precepts were the same under the Old Legal which they are now under the New Evangelical Administration of the Covenant of Life And yet we must not think that the Precepts of the Gospel are saving because we are Justifyed by and for Obedience to them for as Chrysostom observes on Rom. 3.27 28. The Lord Justifies Men (o) Chrysost Homil. 7. in Cap. 3. Epist ad Romanos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not at all needing Works but requiring Faith only The Lords Gospel-Precept then requires Faith and only Faith as the Instrumental means or Receptive Applicative Condition of our Justification But our observance of the other Gospel-Precepts is required to other Gospel-ends and purposes and the Precepts themselves are Saving as they are taken into the Gospel Covenant and as Sincere Obedience to them through Grace prepares and disposes us for the full enjoyment of Eternal Life and Glory according to the Promises of the Gospel I might be large in demonstrating that Chrysostom is for Gospel Precepts and a New Law of Grace which hath both Precepts and Promises And indeed he sometimes carryes the matter further than I can approve of But however he is Orthodox in the thing under present consideration that the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace hath Saving Precepts This is so certain and evident that no sincere honest Man who reads and understands but his
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
that tho he was a fallible man as we all are yet he was in that an humble Man and a sincere lover of Truth And I wish Mr. G. may follow his Example for assuredly it will be more for his Reputation and Honour than obstinately to persist in the Flacian Error which some it seems have drawn him into And since he professeth to have so great an esteem for Dr. Owen I desire him and all that are concerned to consider what I shall Cite out of the Doctor 's Vindication of the Gospel in his Answer to Biddle's Socinian Catechism His words are Take the word Law strictly in reference to a Covenant end that he who performs it shall be Justified by his performance thereof so we may say * Dr. Owen 's Answer to Biddle 's Catechism pag. 384. he to wit Christ gave the Law Originally as God but as Mediator he gave no such Law or no Law in that Sense but revealed fully and clearly our Justification with God upon another account Again If they the Socinians shall say That Christ may be said to reveal the Ten Commandments because he promulged them a-new with new Motives Reasons and Encouragements I hope he will give us leave to say also That what he calls a New Commandment is not so termed in respect of the matter of it but its new Enforcement by Christ We grant †Ibid. p. 3â—8 Christ revealed that Law by Moses with its New Covenant-Ends as he was the great Prophet of his Church by his Spirit from the Foundation of the World but this Smalcius denies Again That there are Precepts and Promises attending the New Covenant is granted but that it consists in any addition of Precepts to the Mosaical Law carried on in the same Tenour with it with other Promises is a Figment directly destructive of the whole Gospel and the Mediation of the Son of God ibid. page 393. And in the next page he says That Moses was a Mediator of a Covenant of Works properly and formally so called and that the Church of the Jews lived under a Covenant of Works is a no less pernicious Figment than the Former The Covenant of Works was Do this and live On perfect Obedience you shall have Life Mercy and Pardon of Sins were utter strangers to that Covenant and therefore by it the Holy Ghost tells us That no man could be saved The Church of old had The Promises of Christ Rom. 9.5 Gen. 3.15 and 12.3 were Justified by Faith Ger. 15.6 Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Obtained Mercy for their Sins and were Justified in the Lord Isa 42.24 Had the Spirit for Conversion Regeneration and Sanctification Ezek. 11.9 and 36.26 expected and obtained Salvation by Jesus Christ Things as remote from the Covenant of Works as the East from the West It 's true the Administration of the Covenant of Grace which they lived under was dark legal and low in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh but the Covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find acceptance is the same and the Justification of Abraham their Father the pattern of ours Rom. 4.4 5. And afterwards in the same book chap. 33. p. 652. the Doctor says N. 3. Nor doth Biddle inform us what he intends by keeping the Commands of God Whether an exact perfect and every way compleat keeping of them up to the highest Degree of all things in all things circumstances and concernments of them Or whether the keeping of them in an universal sincerity accepted before God according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace be intended Ner 4. What Commandments they are which he chiefly respects and under what consideration Whether all the Commandments of the Law of God as such Or whether the Gospel-Gommands of Faith and Love which the places 1 John 5.3 and Mat. 11.30 from whence he answers do respect And in the following page Doctorr Owen's 5th Answer is That to keep the Commandments of God not as the Tenour of the Covenant of Works nor in an absolute perfection of Obedience and Correspondency to the Law but sincerely and uprightly unto acceptation according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace and the Obedience it requires through the assistance of the Spirit and Grace of God is not only a thing possible but easy pleasant and delightful Thus we say That a person regenerate by the assistance of the Spirit and Grace of God may keep the Commandments of God in yielding to him in answer to them that sincere Obedience which in Jesus Christ according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace is required Yea it is to him an easy and pleasant thing so to do This is sufficient to show that Dr. Owen was far from thinking that the Gospel Covenant hath no precepts but is a meer absolute promise or Doctrine of Grace that requires nothing of us at all He says the quite contrary as appears by his words to wit that it hath precepts as well as promises and that it requires of us sincere obedience in order to our obtaining possession of Eternal salvation in Heavenly Glory I could bring many more very many worthy and Orthodox Modern Divines to bear Testimony to the point under consideration that the Gospel hath precepts and requires Duties but these are enough at present therefore I shall forbear mentioning any more except the late Reverend and Ingenious Mr. Gilbert who in his short discourse concerning the guilt of sin and pardon of it c. In the second page grants expresly that there are both Gospel-precepts and Gospel-sins and tells us 1. That Gospel precepts are mainly the same for substance with those of the Law but not exacting their observance with the same Rigour Namely for Justification And I add nor yet for salvation 2. That Gospel-sins are the Transgression of such Gospel-precepts Thus I have proved both by many clear Testimonies of God and also of good Men Ancient and Modern that the Gospel-Covenant is not without all precepts it is not such a Doctrine of grace as requires nothing of us at all but it is a Doctrine of Grace that obliges us to Duty and requires of us sincere obedience to its Evangelical precepts in an Evangelical way for our due keeping of Covenant with God in Christ and in order to our obtaining the Consummate Life and happiness through Christ promised in the Covenant Now from the foresaid Considerations and Testimonies of God and good Men it will not be difficult to gather a short and clear answer to my Reverend Brother's Reasons and Arguments which he brings to prove that the Gospel is such a Doctrine of Grace as hath no precepts and requires no duty at all SECT III. And first he argues from the nature and use of precepts They are designed says he pag. 42. As the Rule of our Actions they instruct us what to do they draw the lines of our Duty and set the limits
sinless perfection whereas the promises of the Gospel are made to obedience in a lower degree of perfection that is to obedience which is sincere tho it be not sinlessly perfect And the consequence of this would be that the Covenant of Grace would be a Covenant of works contrary to Rom. 11.6 I Answer that this R. brother like a Sophister jumbles together and confounds things that should be separated and spoken unto distinctly To wit the conditional promises of Justification and Pardon of sin And the conditional promises of Glorification and Consummate salvation Of the first sort of these promises Evangelical Faith and Repentance are the Condition And of the second sort sincere obedience Evangelical flowing from faith with perseverance therein to the end is the condition Now 1 for the condition of the promise of Justification to wit Evangelical Faith and Repentance they are not at all required in any degree by the old Law strictly taken for the Covenant of works nay the old Covenant or Law of works as such is so far from requiring them that it doth not admit them but of its own nature it Rigorously insists upon and demands a sinlessly perfect perpetual obedience to all its precepts and a personal Righteousness absolutely compleat in all parts and in all degrees without the least sinful defect This and this only is the obedience which the old Covenant of works requires as its condition And upon this condition and for this obedience and personal Righteousness alone it promised to Men not pardon of sin but Justification and Life Eternal By this it plainly appears that the conditions of the promises of the old Covenant of works and of the new Covenant of Grace with respect to Justification differ not meerly in degree but they differ in kind 2. Tho the precepts of the Moral natural Law considered as stript of their old Covenant form Do require Evangelical Faith and Repentance as they require us to believe and obey the precepts of the New and Gospel-Covenant Yet this they do only mediately and consequentially For it is the New and Gospel-Covenant it self which doth immediately and directly by its own precepts require of us Evangelical Faith and Repentance in order to Justification and Pardon of sin 3. Tho the New and Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace doth require of us both Evangelical Faith and Repentance as necessary in order to Justification and Pardon of Sin Yet it is with this difference that it requires Faith as most properly the condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification but it requires Evangelical Repentance only as a Condition The Reason of this difference I assigned in the Apology thus Faith is most properly the Condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification because it is that condition or Instrumental means whereby we receive apply and trust the object Christ and his Righteousness by and for which only we are Justified and Pardoned but Evangelical Repentance is most fitly called a Condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification or Pardon of sin because it is a condition not receptive of the Object Christ as Faith is but dâ—spositive of the Subject man so necessary in order to his being Justified or Pardoned that the Lord Suspends the Pardoning of Man's Sins till he hath through Grace sincerely Repented of them Isa 55.7 And this is exactly agreeable to the Judgment of Mr. Durham as I shewed before and likewise to the Judgment of Mr. Hutcheson on John 3.18 Doctrine 4. His words are pag. 40. Albeit such as flee to Christ and expect not to be Condemned ought to study Holiness without which no man shall see God yet the Condition required for reversing the Sentence and Absolving the Self-condemned Sinner is only Faith put in Exercise as laying hold on Christ's Righteousness which alone can Answer the Law and endureth constantly whereas our Holyness is imperfect and variable like the Moon therefore it is he that believeth on him or hath Faith in Exercise not in the Habit only that is not Condemned 4. Hence it follows that tho Justifying Faith be required by a Precept of the Gospel-Covenant as our Confession of Faith Chap. 7. Art 3. saith expresly That it requires Faith and tho by Consequence Justifying Faith is an Act of Obedience to that Gospel-Precept which requires it yet it doth not follow that therefore we are Justified by it considered simply as an Act of Obedience For if so then since a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia we should be a-like Justified by any other Act of Obedience which is false But as Mr. Hutcheson said Faith above all other gracious Acts having an aptitude for that use and being only appointed by God to that Office justifies us or we are justified by it alone as laying hold on Christ and his Righteousness and as trusting in Christ and his Righteousness which alone can answer the Law and Justice of God 5. And hence appears one Essential specifical Difference between the Old Law or Covenant of Works and New Covenant of Grace that tho as Essenius saith Compend Dogm Cap. 11. pag. 428. Thes 12. Obedience be required in them both yet in the Old Covenant of Works Man 's own Personal Obedience was required not only as the Condition of his Justification but as the only Righteousness by and for which he could be justified according to that Covenant Whereas in the New Covenant of Grace there is a Mediator by and for whose Mediatorial Righteousness alone we are justified and not one Act of our own Personal Obedience is required as that Righteousness or any par of that Righteousness by and for which we are Justified and Pardoned Neither â—aith nor Repentance are required by the Precepts of the Gospel as any part of that Obedience and Righteousness by and for which we are Justified but Repentance is only required as a Condition or Means to dispose and prepare the Subject Man who is to be justified And Faith is required as the Condition or Instrumental Means to receive apply and trust the Object to wit Christ and his Righteousness by and for which alone we are justified Now this alone though there are many other Respects in which they differ is abundantly sufficient to shew That there is more than a gradual even a specifical difference between the Two Covenants aforesaid with respect to Justification Their Conditions differ in kind and so doth the Righteousness for which the two Covenants do respectively justifie such Persons as come up to and comply with their Terms and Conditions Secondly As for the Condition of the New Covenant-Promise of Glorification and Consummate Salvation to wit sincere Eaangelical Obedience tho materially considered it is partly the same with yet it is also partly different from that Legal Obedience which was required as the Condition of the Old Law and Covenant of works for there are some Positive Precepts which now belong to the New and gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace that did not at all exist of
may throw dirt at us in the Dark His inference then fails that if faith for instance be not a condition in a Law-sense it must be only in a Logical or Physical sense and so it will not be a proper condition For 1. Why may not some Logical condition be a proper condition 2. Tho Faith be not a condition in one Law-sense yet it is a condition in another Law-sense It is not a condition in the sense of the old Law of works but it is a condition in the Sense of the New Evangelical Law of Grace And from hence it appears that what he says of Logical and Physical Connexion in these propositions if a Man be reasonable he is capable of Learning c. And if Wood be laid to the fire it will burn is wholly impertinent to the present purpose For in these propositions the necessity of the Connexion between the Subjects and the Predicates arises from the very nature of the thing but in this conditional promise If thou sincerely believest thou shalt be Justified and Pardoned The necessary truth of the Connexion Doth not arise meerly from the nature of the things but from the Lord 's free and gracious will and positive Law-Constitution Revealed in the Gospel Rom. 10.8 9. And so Faith is neither A meer Logical nor Physical condition but it is a Moral Legal condition in a very safe and proper sense It is not Legal in the sense of the Law of works but it is Legal in the sense of the Law of Grace And so it is a gracious Evangelical condition What he talks p. 33. l. ult and p. 34. Of the orderliness of the Covenant and of the necessary consequence of Justification and Glory upon the duties of Faith and Repentance doth not one jot help him to break the force of our Arguments and to shew That the Covenant is not conditional and that the giving of the benefit is not suspended till the Condition be performed For we shewed in the Apology that the Covenant hath indeed an Order in it between the Duty and the Subsequent Benefit but that That Order is a Conditional Order constituted by the positive will of God revealed in the Gospel and that it is God's positive will to suspend his giving of the benefit for instance pardon of sin till we through his grace freely perform the duty of actual Faith So that we shall not be actually pardoned till we being adult have actually believed and then we shall be pardoned but not before This we proved and our Arguments remain unanswered and we know they can never be solidly answered We need no more Arguments to prove the Conditionality of the Covenant in the sense that we hold it to be conditional tho we are not without other Arguments and could tell him what it is like he knows well enough in what books written by Orthodox Divines he may find a great many more Arguments to this purpose To tell people confidently That because it is a Testament it can have no Condition is to deceive them For it may very well be a Testament and yet have a gracious Evangelical Condition A man can make his own Testament so as to prescribe proper conditions in it and sometimes doth so surely then the Lord could prescribe a Condition in his Testament and he hath done it But as he is a gracious Testator so the Condition prescribed in his Testament is gracious too It seems to be the fundamental mistake of some brethren to think that the Gospel of Christ is a Testament so absolute as not to partake of the nature of a proper Covenant whereas in truth the Gospel partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant And this it may very well do in different respects In respect of the absolute promises it partakes of the nature of an absolute Testament and in respect of the conditional promises it partakes of the nature of a conditional Covenant And then the absolute promise of Grace to perform the condition makes the conditional promises Eventually sure to all the elect And thus the Covenant is a Covenant of Grace indeed a Covenant well ordered in all things and sure 2 Sam. 23.5 But saith that R. B. pag. 33. By condition they mean not a condition properly in a Law or federal sense as we use the word in bargains between Man and Man Answer What then doth it follow that because we use not the word condition properly in the sense of a humane Law or Covenant therefore it cannot be a proper condition in another Law-sense to wit in the sense of a Divine Law of Grace This consequence we deny and so doth Mr. Fox and Mr. Durham and it lies on that brother to prove it for we do not take his word for a proof Again in pag. 34. He says That the conditional Particle If used in Testaments doth not suspend but demonstrate and design the thing promised Others would say but demonstrate and describe the Legatees and some certain time and manner of Conveyance From whence he would infer that there are no conditional promises in the Gospel I Answer 1. Suppose that were true of humane Testaments which are purely Testaments and do no ways partake of the nature of a conditional Covenant it doth not follow that it must be true also in the Divine Testament of the Gospel which partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant 2. It is not universally true of humane Testaments for I can make my Testament so as to suspend the giving of certain Legacies to persons named in it upon their performing of some condition so that if they perform the condition they shall have the Legacies but not till then And if they never perform the condition they shall never have the Legacies But that brother objects further that if the Author of the Apol. by suspension understand a legal suspension it is the same with a Legal condition which he has denied before for conditio est dispositionis suspensio ex eventu incerto ei opposito and has an obliging influence on the promiser and confers a title of right to the benefit promised Answer And we have shewed that this brother doth foully wrest the words of the Apol. to a sense quite different from that true sense which we professedly and expresly give of the word legal condition See in pag. 37.38 c. The explication which we give of it at large on purpose to prevent Mens misunderstanding of us as this Man doth The explication begins thus Which that our meaning to wit of a not Legal but Evangelical condition may be understood by all we explain thus we do not believe that our faith Repentance and sincere obedience which are conditions of Justification and Glorification according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace have the same place and office in this New Covenant and Law of Grace which most perfect and
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
to the end before mentioned it prescribes the exercise of Faith and Repentance And so the Gospel is a Law in a very true and good sense and that sense the same which we affirmed it to be in our Apology Whence it appears that my Reverend Brother has here yielded the cause and is come over to our Camp and if he would be consistent with himself here might be an end of the Controversie about the Gospels being a Law with respect to Justification For assuredly we mean no more than that it prescribes seeking by Faith and Repentance and chiefly by Faith as aforesaid And this is the commonly received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as I proved in the Apology and shall yet further prove it if need be But he objects up and down his book that if the Gospel Covenant did prescribe or require any work or works whatsoever and did oblige us to any Duty then it would be another Law of Works and we should still be justified by Works I Answer By denying the Consequence Indeed it is true That if the Gospel require a Work or Duty it requires a Work or Duty for that is an Identical Proposition and no reasonable Man hath so little Wit as to deny the Truth of it But it is utterly false that if the Gospel require any Works then it is another Law of Works in the Scripture-Sense of the Word For by Law of Works the Scripture always means such a Law or Covenant of Works as would justifie a Man by and for his Works if he had them as he ought to have had them But though the Gospel require of us some works yet it is no Law of Works for it doth not require any Works that we may be justifyed either in whole or in part by and for those Works as such Nor are we for them in the least justityed at the Bar of God They are not any of them the least part of that Rigateousness by and for which we are justifyed This we have declared and explained to fully and clearly in our Apology that we cannot but wonder that any Christian that is endued with Common Honesty and hath read and understood our said Apology should persist in accusing us of holding Justification by Works or in asserting confidently that it follows by good consequence from our Principles That consequence my Reverend Brother can never prove For though Repentance be a Work yet is it not according to our Principles required by the Evangelical Law as a Work to Justifie us or as a Work for which we are to be justifyed in the least degree but only as a means or condition in the Subject Man to dispose and prepare him for Justification by Faith only in Christ's Blood and Righteousness And again Though Faith be a Work in it self yet doth not the Evangelical Law require it as a Work to be a part of that Righteousness by and for which we are justifyed but it requires Faith only as the Instrumental Means or Condition by which we receive and apply to our selves and also trust to Christ and his satisfactory meritorius Righteousness as that by and for which alone we are Justifyed before Gods Tribunal Let Mr. G. try when he will he shall find it impossible to prove from my Principles as I have here truely and sincerely set them down that the Gospel would be another Law of Works and that we would be Justifyed by Works if the Gospel required Faith and Repentance as aforesaid I might with more appearance of reason prove from my R. B. Principle That if Faith be required only by the Natural Moral Law and if we be Justifyed by Faith as we certainly are and if Faith be a Work as in its own Nature it certainly is then we are justifyed by a Work of the Natural Moral Law and so are in tantum justifyed by the Law of Works and look how he can answer this Argument drawn from his Principle with as much facility if not more shall I answer his Sophisme drawn from my Principle That the Gospel is a Law of Grace I need say no more to answer all he brings in his Second Chapter but to declare that as he says pag. 12. That all but Papists Socinians and Arminians harmoniously agree in explaining such places as call the Gospel a Law after such a manner as may not give the least colour to the Opinion of the Gospels being a Law in the sense of the three mentioned Parties so I do entirely agree with them in that manner of explaining them and do with them utterly reject the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense of the Gospels being a New Law But then it follows not that the Gospel is no New Law in any Sense because it is not one in the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense Our Authour in pag. 10. says the Gospel is called a Law but no otherwise than as it is a comfortable instruction to poor convinced Sinners what riches of Mercy there are in store and as it teacheth them how they may trust and hope in the God of all Grace But this is not true in his Exclusive Sense for besides that it is a Law as it teacheth how such Sinners should ex officio in point of Duty trustand hope in the God of all Grace through Jesus Christ In fine Though in pag. 14. he mincingly say That the word Judge in Micah 4.3 may very well import no more than that Christ will judge what course of Salvation is best for us to take that he will determine the case and it is better for us to acquiesce in the Decision of his Vnerring Judgment which cannot be deceived nor will ever mislead us than to pursue our own mistaken apprehensions which bewilder us continually Yet even this will sufficiently evince that the Supernatural Gospel-Revelation of that Judgment and Determination of Christ our Lord and Saviour is a Law to us for as soon as it comes to our knowledge it doth of it self immediately oblige us to acquiesce in his Judgment and Determination and to take that course for Salvation which he hath judged best for us to take So that let Mr. G. shuffle never so much he will never be able to avoid his being obliged by the Doctrine of the Gospel immediately to believe in Christ Matth. 17.5 and to take that course which he hath prescribed in order to Salvation Acts 16.31 I shall conclude my Animadversions on this Second Chapter with the Judgment of the Learned and Judicious Mr. Pool who was neither Papist Socinian nor Arminian as it is expressed in his Annotation on Isa 2.3 Out of Zion shall go forth the Law The New Law the Doctrine of the Gospel which is frequently called a Law because it hath the Nature and Power of a Law obliging us no less to the Belief and Practice of it than the Old Law did Remarks on the Third Chapter IN the beginning of this Chapter he doth me a manifest wrong in saying That
Grounds and Motives that it is accompanyed with a Fear of the contraryes being true and that it 's possible for him to be deceived For these are the Natural Properties of an Opinion 1. It is founded upon a probable ground and motive 2. It is accompanyed with a fear of the contraries being true 3. Ei potest subesse falsom though it be true yet it is but contingently true and so it might have been false or may yet be falfe for any thing that can be certainly known to the contrary from the probable Motive and Ground on which it is founded And then the consequence of this would be that God is not infinitely Wise Ommscient and Infallible And so upon Mr. G 's own Principle of Gods being an Opinator as well as upon the Arminians Principle God might possibly be surprized if not at the Arrival of new Colonies in Heaven as his Expression is in p. 1. of the Epistle to the Reader yet at many things which are done here upon Earth But I hope my R. Brother meant well though his kind love to definitions hath dazled his sight and caused him to embrace a Phantosme instead of his Beloved I mean caused him to take that for a definition of Gods Law which is no definition at all no not a good description of it I insist not therefore on this but supposing his thoughts to have been sound I shall only advise him Linguam corrigere to mend his Words and not to be so fond of definitions for the future And so I return to Clemens concerning whom I say 1. That he doth not say that a true and good Opinion of a thing is the definition of Gods Law nor doth he there so much as say that it is a definition of Mans Law or that it is a definition at all 2. What he said of a Law in the general he did not apply to the Gospel nor is it applicable to the Gospel of Christ If Mr. G will needs be applying it let him apply it to some other Gospel if he knows of any other but he shall never have my consent to apply it unto Christ's Gospel and thereby to make the Gospel an Opinion 3. I advise my Reverend Brother to read but two or three lines further there in Clemens Alexandrinus and he will find that he affirms a Law in the judgment of some (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alexand. Strom. Lib. 1. pag. 256 257. op Lugd. Batav 1616. to be right reason or a right word commanding things which ought to be done and forbidding things which ought not to be done And from thence he concludes that it was rightly and congruously said that the Law was given by Moses to be the rule of Just and Vnjust Thus Clemens And I am content that this be applyed unto the preceptive part of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace to wit that it commands some things to be done and forbids others and that it is a Rule of Just and Unjust But I cannot comprehend how from any thing here in Clemens M. G. can prove with any colour of reason that the said Clemens was of his Opinion That the Gospel is such a Law and Doctrine of Grace as hath no Precept and requires nothing of us at all I need say no more in answer to his Impertinent Chapter but that in his Conclusion he harps upon the same string again and as before abusively calls the Evangelical Law according to our sense of it a new Law of Works for as hath been said It is no Law of Works new or old according to the Scripture use of the Words Law of Works but it is really a New Law of Grace And so in direct opposition to my Reverend Brother I conclude that according to Scripture This New Law of Grace is the Everlasting Gospel and by the Testimonies of the Fathers cited in the Apology and others which I have ready to produce it appears that this Name Law and New Law whereby the Gospel is called is venerable for Age. For that the Gospel-Covenant is a New Law of Grace it is a Doctrine which was well known and believed in the first Ages of Christ's Church and which had its Original before the Birth of Antichrist and I am very well assured will continue in Christ's Church after the Period of that Man of Sin Remarks on the Fifth Chapter THIS Chapter is one intire Impertinency grounded upon the before-mentioned Mistake That I framed an Argument from the sound of the Word Law to prove the Gospel to be a Real Law that obliges to Duty For 1. All that I argued from the Gospels being called a Law in Scripture was that the Brethren should not be offended with us for calling it by that Name since the Lord himself in Scripture had so called it 2. From its being called a Law both by the Fathers and Orthodox Protestant Divines I argued that it is not a new word of an old but ill meaning And in both respects my arguing was close and consequential But for its being a Law that prescribes to us and obliges us to some Duties in order to Gospel-ends and purposes That I said plainly enough See Apol. p. 22.33 depends on the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace for I affirmed it to be the conditional part of the Covenant and I proved the Covenant to be Conditional with respect to its subsequent Blessings and Benefits So that this Controversie whether the Gospel be a Law of Grace or not resolves it self into the question Whether the Covenant of Grace be Conditional and whether it requires of us any Duty with respect to its subsequent Blessing and Benefits And my Reverend Brother will never do any thing to purpose against me in this Controversie unless he solidly and effectually prove what is impossible to be proved That the Covenant of Grace is not at all Conditional and that it doth not require any Duty of us at all in the foresaid respect And if he do that he doth his Work indeed but till that be done he doth nothing to any purpose and all his labour is lost And particularly his Labour is lost in quoting Roman Authours to wit Isodore Paulus Merula Brisonius Juvenal Ovid Cicero Papinian and Justinian to prove that the word Lex Law hath various significations For this is proving what was not at all denyed in the Apology nor was any other thing concluded from the bare Word its being found in Scripture and in Ancient Authours but that we may use the Word without just cause of offence and that it is not a New Word of an old but ill meaning To as little purpose doth he quote Cyprian and Augustin to shew that by the word Law they frequently mean no more than a Doctrine For 1. Suppose it were true that frequently they mean no more than a Doctrine in my Reverend Brothers Sense yet if they do sometimes mean more by it and particularly If they mean more by
all reject as false and absurd and as reflecting on God's Moral Law as if it had been imperfect before Whereas in truth Gods Moral Natural Law was alwayes most perfect in its kind and obliged to all Moral Natural Duties even unto the highest degree of sinless perfection And therefore what Christ did with respect to the said Moral Law was to fulfil it most perfectly in his Life to explain it by his Doctrine to clear up the true and full meaning of it and to vindicate it from the false glosses of the Pharisaical Jews to suffer and satisfie God's Justice for his Peoples breach of it And to impose it explained as aforesaid on his own Disciples and Followers as the Rule and Law of their Moral Natural Allegiance and Obedience unto God But then for mere Positive Laws as before his Incarnation he had given some such unto his Church so after his Incarnation the old Positive Laws being abrogated he gave unto his Church some new positive Laws such as those that relate to the Two Sacraments the first day of the Week as the Christian Sabbath and the Order and Discipline that is to be observed in his Church under the New Testament And though it is freely granted by us that when such Positive Laws are once enacted by our Lords Royal Authority the Moral Natural Law it self doth oblige us to obey them yet we are first in order of Nature obliged to give Obedience to them by the Institution of them and by the Soveraign Authority which doth institute and enact them And the Law of Nature by it self immediately would never make them Laws nor oblige us to do the things which are the subject matter of them if they were not first made Laws by a new exertion of the Lords Legislative Power which doth by those positive Laws themselves first and immediately oblige us to obey them Seventhly Consider that we ought to distinguish between a Laws being Old or New Quoad ipsam rei materiam substantiam aut quoad rei modum circumstantiam in regard of matter and substance or in regard of manner and circumstance Thus the Moral Command to love the Brethren is both Old and New in different respects It 's Old in respect of the matter and substance and yet it is New in respect of that special manner of loving the Brethren as Christ loved us Witness John 13.34 and 1 John 2.7 8. So likewise the Positive Command to believe in the Messias is both Old and New in respect of different Circumstances of time It is old even as old as the first Promise after the fall Gen 3.15 as it had respect unto Christ to come But it is new as it hath respect unto Christ already come and Crucified Dead and Buried Risen from the Dead Ascended into Heaven and there most highly dignifyed and glorifyed For no Man under the Old Testament was obliged or could be obliged to believe in Christ under this consideration But now we are all to whom the Gospel is Preached ind sp nsably obliged thus to believe on him In like manner though the positive Command to believe in the Messiah be as old as the first promise Gen. 3.15 yet the Command to believe that the Man Jesus of Nazareth is the true Messiah is new and could not be so old Eighthly Consider that we should distinguish between a Law that hath only Legal Promises without any promise of Mercy and Grace in it at all and a Law that hath all Merciful and Gracious Promises belonging to it and those many great and precious Now the first Covenant of Works is a Law that hath only Legal Promises without any Promise of Mercy or of renewing and pardoning Grace in it at all It is a Law that required personal perpetual and ever-sinless Obedience and promised Life to Man on Condition of such Obedience and for such Obedience only would have Justifyed him and therefore it is called the Law of Works But the Covenant of Grace is a Law that hath all merciful and gracious Promises belonging to it and those many great and precious and therefore it is rightly called the Law of Grace And with respect to the Elect who are the most proper subjects of it as a Law of Grace its predominant is Grace Grace runs through it all and appears in all the parts of it 1. There is Grace in the mandatory part of it in that part of it which prescribes its Condition in that legal ever finless perfection is not rigidly insisted on but Evangelical sincerity in the performance of it is required as a Condition which also is accepted through Christ and the sinful defect thereof together with all other sin is freely forgiven for Christ's sake 2. There is Grace Rich and Glorious Grace in the promissory part of it in that it promises to the Elect special Effectual Victorious Grace to cause them freely yet certainly perform the condition in Gospel sincerity And in that when they through Grace perform the Condition it further promises them most Gracious Benefits and Glorious Blessings and all through and for Christ and his Righteousness 3. There is Grace also in the very minatory Sanction for the design of the Threatning is not to bring on Men the Punishment threatned but to curb the Flesh in them and to restrain them from those Sins which their own corrupt Nature inclines them unto and which the Devil and the World tempt them unto So that the very threatning is useful to them and it is a Mercy to them even to such as the believing Romans that they are under that conditional threatning Rom. 8.13 if ye live after the Flesh ye shall dye And since Grace doth thus appear in all the parts of it See Heb. 12.25 it is very fitly called the Law of Grace yea I do not refuse to joyn heartily with my R. Brother in calling it a Doctrine of Grace but withal I must declare that I do not at all like it the worse nor is it unto me the less gracious because it prescribes unto me something to be done by me through my Lords Grace But I like it the better for that since it doth not in the least detract from the Grace of it Now if the Premisses be duely considered and if the foresaid distinctions be rightly applyed as there may be occasion it will be easie thereby to Answer all his Testimonies from Reformed Protestant Divines SECT II. His first set of Testimonies Examined and Answered FOR his first set of Testimonies to prove from our Protestant Divines definition or Description of the Gospel that they believed it to be a pure Doctrine of Grace 1. I Answer thereunto in general that if that be all they prove I profess sincerely in a true and sound Sense to believe the same thing to wit that the Gospel is a pure Doctrine of Grace as I have said and explained it before From whence it doth not follow by any good consequence that it
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.
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
Gospel requires Repentance of us in order to pardon of Sin seems to be like those of whom Lactantius of old in the Seventh Book and First Chapter of his Institutions said that they will not believe our Doctrine Nec si Solem quidem ipsum gestemus in manibus No not though we carry before them even the Sun it self in our hands that is though we bring them the clearest evidence imaginable Matth. 11.19 But however it be with such persons yet Wisdom is and will be justified of her Children As for Luther since he approved and subscribed the Ausburgh Confession we may from it take an estimate of his Judgment And besides that Chemnicius in his common places page 219 220. shews out of Luthers first Disputation against the Antinomians That he also held that Repentance taken intirely in its essential perfection is required by the Gospel I wish Luther had been something more accurate in the handling of that matter but as it is it sufficeth to show that he was far from thinking that Evangelical Repentance is required by the Natural Moral Law only and not at all by the Gospel and that on the contrary he believed that Evangelical Repentance as Evangelical is from the Gospel and not from the Law And so the Lutherans generally except the Flacians if there be yet any of that Sect remaining in Germany maintain that Evangelical Repentance as Evangelical is required by the Gospel And I wonder not at all to find them unanimous in this so far as I am acquainted with their Writings because after Melancthon they hold Faith to be an essential part yea to be the essentiating form of Evangelical Repentance I am not indeed of their mind in this yet I think it is a truth that though Faith be not the very essential form it self of Evangelical Repentance yet it contributes much towards the giving its specifical form and the making it truly Evangelical and without Faith it would not be Evangelical Calvin and his Followers differ from the Lutherans in this That they make not Faith to be an Essential part of Repentance but hold them to be Two distinct Graces co-existent and influential the one upon the other And that Calvin believed as we do That the Gospel requires of us Evangelical Repentance in order to Pardon of Sin I plainly proved from his Writings which are quoted in the Apology p. 92 93. If any should object that Calvin on Rom. 10. ver 8. writes thus (t) Colligimus sicut lex opera exiglt Evangelium nihil aliud postulare nisi ut fidem afferant homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam Calvin Comment in Rom. 10.8 We gather That as the Law requires Works to wit unto Justification so the Gospel requires nothing but that Men bring Faith to receive the Grace of God I Answer That this makes altogether for us For 1. Here Calvin says expresly That the Gospel requires Faith then he did not believe it to be such a Doctrine of Grace as requires nothing of us at all 2. Calvin here saith That the Gospel requires nothing but Faith to receive the Grace of God And so we say the very same thing For we have told the World in our Apology That Faith is the only receptive Condition of Justification that is it is the only thing which the Gospel requires as the Instrumental Means or Condition whereby we Apprehend Receive and Apply Christ and his Righteousness to our own Souls for our Justification As for Repentance it is not of that Nature it is not naturally sitted for nor is it by God appointed and ordained to that use and Office in the matter of Justification but it is only fitted for and ordained unto this Use and Office to be the Means or Condition dispositive of the subject man which is to be pardoned and Justifyed And this Calvin does not here deny and we have proved that elsewhere he affirms and maintains it as we do As for the Followers of Calvin I might be large in showing that generally they except a few Cocceians hold that the Gospel-Covenant requires Evangelical Repentance in order to Pardon of Sin but I will content my self at present with a few clear irrefragable Testimonies Having mentioned Zanchy and Sharpius before I pass them and begin with Vrsin and Pareus whose words are these It was said in the definition of the Gospel and in the third difference between the Law and the Gospel that the Gospel requireth both Faith and Repentance or New Obedience and so is the Preaching both of Remission of Sins and of Repentance Against this Flacian Sectaries keep a stir and reason after this sort Obj. There is no Precept or Command belonging to the Gospel but to the Law The Preaching of Repentance is a Precept or Commandment Therefore the Preaching of Repentance belongeth not to the Gospel but to the Law Answer We deny the Major if it be generally meant For this Precept is proper unto the Gospel Zacharias Ursinus his Sum of Christian Religion Enlarged By Pareus in Latine and Translated into English and Printed at London An 1645. pag. 131. that it commandeth us to believe it to embrace the benefit of Christ and now being justifyed to begin New Obedience or that Righteousness which the Law requireth of us Repl. Yea but the Law also willeth us to believe God Therefore it is not proper unto the Gospel to Command us to believe Answer Both the Law and the Gospel commandeth Faith and Conversion to God but diversly c. Thus Vrsin and Pareus tell us plainly what their Judgment was and by Consequence what the Judgment of the Old Calvinists was in Germany for this their large Catechisme was generally received and Taught in Schools of the Reformed both in Germany and elsewhere as in Scotland c. Another Instance of this Nature we have in Wendelin a zealous Calvinist who in his Systema majus lib. 1. cap. 19. Thes 7. writeth thus (u) Mandatum amplectendi Mediatorem cum side etiam conjungit resipiscentiam Secundum illud Johannis Baptistae Marc. 1.15 resipiscite credite Evangelio Sic ipse Deus de Coelo mediatorem patefacit verâ fide amplecti jubet Matth. 17.5 Hic est Filius ille meus dilectus in quo acquiesco ipsum audite Hanc resipiscentiam quatenus Salutaris ad Deum conversio est hoc est Sanctificatio inchoata vel continuata ad Evangelium pertinere patet Quod 4. Argumentis probat M. Frid. Wendelin Christ Theolog. System Maj. lib. 1. cap. 19. Thes 7. pag. 754 755. The Command to receive and embrace the Mediator joins Repentance also with Faith according to that of John the Baptist Mark 1.15 Repent and believe the Gospel So God himself from Heaven reveals the Mediator and Commands to embrace him with a True Faith Matth. 17.5 This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased Hear ye him This Repentance as it is a saving Conversion unto God that is
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-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
also the meaning of the words besides the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb is as if it had been said beside that entring into or striking of Covenant And then he adds for further clearing of the matter The Covenant was but one in substance but various in the time and manner of its dispensation The Dutch Annotations go the same way and very clearly assign the reason of its being said that the Covenant was made with Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant made with them in Horeb Their words are It was indeed one and the same Covenant but Renewed Repeated and Published here in the Fields of Moab unto many other Persons in another place and in another manner than at Mount Horeb or Sinai And with these agree the Assemblies Annotations on the place Their words are The same in substance but not altogether the same c. I know very well that there are some Learned Men who in this differ from those before-mentioned and from Deut. 29. ver 1. would prove that the Covenant a◠Horeb was the Covenant of Works and that this in the Land of Moab was the gospel-Gospel-Covenant of Grace I am not indeed altogether of their mind for I have already shewed that the Covenant in Exod 24. which was made with Israel at Horeb was not the Original Covenant of Works but the Gospel Covenant of Grace in Type and Figure But though they and I differ in that yet we both agree in this which is the main thing and sufficient for my purpose That the Covenant made with all Israel in the Land of Moab was really the Gospel Covenant of Grace So the Learned Alsted saith (y) Foedus in terrâ Moabitarum est Faedus Evangelii seu Fidei quod Redempvionis gratiae appellatur Quod Deus ibi promulgavit ut Populo poneret ob oculos ingens illud beneficium quo illud quod legi erat impossibile per Christum reddidit possibile Confer Deut. 29. 30. Cap. cum Rom. 10.6 c. Johan Henric. Alsted in Turri Babel destructâ pag. 532. The Covenant in the Land of Moab is the Covenant of the Gospel or Faith which is also called the Covenant of Redemption and Grace which God there promulgated that he might set before the Peoples Eyes that great benefit whereby that which was impossible to the Law is made possible by Christ Compare Deut. 29 and 30. Chapters with Rom. 10. ver 6 c. Now if it be the Gospel Covenant or Covenant of Grace then it is certa in and evident that the Gospel-Covenant or the Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires some Duties of us For the Text saith ver 9. Keep the words of this Covenant and do them And ver 10 11 12. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord the God and into his Oath c. These express words of the Text plainly show that this Covenant hath Precepts and requires Dutyes And that this Covenant which hath Precepts and requires Dutyes is the Gospel Covenant of Grace is yet more manifest from Deut. 30. where Moses speaking still of the same Covenant at the same time he told the People That though they should break it by sin yet they might be received into Grace and Favour again upon their sincere Repentance ver 1 2 3 4 5. Ruthersord of the Covenant of Life opened Part 1. pag. 189. which proves that this could not be the Covenant of Works because as Rutherford well observes The Covenant of Works once broken ceaseth to be a Covenant of Life for ever because the Nature of it is to admit of no Repentance at all 2 Moses speaking still of the same Covenant he says one of the Promises of it is That the Lord will circumcise the Heart of his People and the heart of their Seed to love the Lord their God with all their Heart and Soul that they may live ver 6. But so it is That the Promise of Heart Circumcision is certainly a Promise of the Gospel Covenant of Grace 3 Moses speaking still of the same matter and at the same time he saith as it is written in ver 11 12 13 14 This Commandment which I command thee this day it is not hidden from thee neither is it far off It is not in Heaven that thou should say Who shall go up for us to Heaven and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it Neither is it beyond the Sea that thou shouldest say Who shall go over the Sea for us and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it But the word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it By which words he plainly teaches us That the Covenant and Commandment of which he there writes is neither impossible nor hard to be understood nor yet is it impossible nor hard to be kept and observed but that through Grace circumcising the heart to love God it is both easie to be known and also easie to be kept and observed Now this cannot be truely said of the Covenant of Works For as Mr. Shepard of New England well observes The Coudition of Works is impossible to be wrought in us by the Spirit And let not any Man think this strange and uncouth to say Theses Sabbathae pag 95. That the Spirit of Grace cannot now work in us the Condition of the first Covenant the Covenant of Works for the Condition and Duty of that Covenant was That Man should be without all Sin in Habit or Act and that he should be sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life and continue so to be But that is now impossible because it implyes a Contradiction for any meer Man since Adam broke the first Covenant and we in him to be always without all Sin in Habit or Act and to be always Sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life For all Men are already guilty of Sin and the People of Israel were all Sinners and had broken the Covenant of Works before Moses spoke and when he spoke the foresaid words unto them And it implyes a contradiction that by any Power whatsoever a thing which hath been already should be made not to have been at all or that a thing which exists at present should not exist at present whil'st it doth exist It will signifie nothing here to say That yet the Spirit can make us sinlesly Holy de futuro if he please for though that be very true absolutely speaking the Spirit can make a Man sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life for time to come though he hath been a Sinner in times part for that implyes no contradiction And the Spirit of Grace hath de facto done the thing in and upon the Spirits of Just Men made perfect in Heaven yet it is nothing to the purpose here because that is not the Condition and Duty of the Covenant
of Works that Man should sin no more for the future but its Condition and Duty is that Man should never once sin at all either in time past present or to come And assoon as he hath once sinned he hath ipso facto so broken that Covenant that from that very moment it ceases to be unto him a Covenant of Life for ever as we heard before out of Rutherford because it admits of no Repentance with a Promise of Pardon and Life The Condition then and Duty of the Covenant of Works being now simply impossible to sinful Men it cannot be said with any colour of Truth that it is easie to be performed through Grace it cannot be said of the Covenant of Works as Moses hath it ver 14. The word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it The quite contrary is true with respect to the First Covenant the Covenant of Works the performing of its Duty and Condition is so far off from sinful Men such as the Israelites were that it is impossible to be brought near unto them till both ends of a real contradiction be made to meet in one and the same thing be made to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect And as it cannot be truely said to be very nigh so it cannot be truely said to be in the Mouth and Heart of sinful Men that they may do it That were to say that it is in Mens Mouth and Heart to do that which implys a contradiction and is impossible to be done But on the other hand it may be truely said of the Gospel or New Covenant and it's Duty and Condition that through Grace circumcising the Heart to love God The word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it Thus the Blessed Apostle Paul understood this Passage and quoted the Sense and Substance and partly the very words of Moses and applyed them unto and affirmed them of the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace as distinct from and opposite unto the Law and Covenant of Works For in Rom. 10.5 The Apostle first shews out of Levit. 18.5 in what Form of words Moses described the Law and Covenant of Works and its Righteonsness That the Man which doth those things shall live by them Secondly In vor 6 7. c he doth himself out of Moses Deut. 30. ver 11 12 13 14. describe and explain the nature of the Gospel Covenant and its Righteousness He calls it the Righteousness of Faith and shews how we obtain it by Christ's Purchasing it for us and giving it unto us we receiving it by Faith and shewing our Faith and Thankfulness for it by confessing him who purchased it which implyes a steadfast cleaving to the Lord with purpose of heart against all temptations to the contrary For these Reasons I do believe that the Covenant in Deut. 29. and 30. Chapter is not the First Covenant or Law of Works but the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace And consequently that the Gospel Covenant hath Precepts and requires Duty And this is no New Opinion of my inventing but is the real Truth as I have proved from the words of Moses and a Truth also now commonly received by the Orthodox I know that there are some Learned Men of a different Judgment the Arminians are of that sort and particularly Episcopius as appears from his Paraphrase and Observations on Rom 10. ver 5 6 8. which Exposition of his seems to be founded upon that Opinion of theirs That the Covenant of which Moses speaks there or elsewhere in the Books of the Law did not promise Eternal Life but only a Temporal Prosperous Life in the Land of Canaan to them who sincerely indeavoured to keep the Laws given them by Moses See Mat. 19.16 17. Joh. 5.39 which I think is contrary to Gal. 3.11 12. for the Life which the Apostle denyes to be possible to be obtained by the Law because all Men have broken it seems to be of the same kind with that Life which he affirms to be obtained by Faith But it is Spiritual and Eternal Life which is obtained by Faith therefore it is Spiritual and Eternal Life likewise which he denyes to be obtainable by the Works of the Law And the reason why it was not so obtainable was because no Man did or could keep the Law so as not to fall under its curse even such a curse as Christ redeems from Gal. 3.10 and 13. compared The Apostle sayes ver 21. If there had been a law given which could have given life verily righteousness should have been by the law He doth not any where say that the Law could not give Eternal Life because it had no promise of Eternal Life But elsewhere to wit in Rom. 8.3 he assigns the true reason why the Law of Works could not give life Eternal Life even becauseâ— it was weak through the flesh It was the Sin of Man that disabled the Law of Works that it could not give that Eternal Life which after the Fall it promised only oeconomically that is it proposed and set Eternal Life before Mens Eyes in a form of words which before the Fall was really promissory of Eternal Life upon a possible condition but after the Fall did but serve to remind us what Man once was and what he should still have been what he might have done and what he might have attained unto by doing but that having broken that Covenant we are all lyable to Eternal Death and can never obtain Eternal Life by it and therefore that it behoves us to seek Eternal Life and Salvation by Christ only upon the terms of the Gospel and New Law or Covenant of Grace as was more fully explained before This only I briefly hint on the by I hope the R. Brother with whom I have to do will not flee from me into the Arminian Camp and from thence come out against me clad with their Goliaâ—s Armour for it will not well become Mr. Goodwin though he could dexterously serve himself with it which yet is very questionable But let him do in that matter as best pleaseth him I am resolved to abide where I am in the Camp of the Orthodox and thence I oppose the Authority and Reasons of Fr. Junius in his Parallels Second Book and Sixteenth Parallel where he explains Rom. 10.5 6 7 8. by comparing it with Leviticus the 18th and Deuteronomy the 30th Of the same Judgment with Junius is the Learned Professour of Saumur Stephanus de Brais as appears by his Paraphrase and Notes at the end of his Paraphrase on the Epistle to the Romans pag. 336 337. Rutherford was also of that mind as is evident by these his words This Covenant to wit of Grace hath the promise of a circumcised heart Deut. 30.6 and of the word of faith that is near in the mouth and of the Righteousness of Faith clearly differenced
under that formal Consideration he lays upon no Man the Yoke and Burden of Personal Perpetual Sinless Obedience to the Precepts of the Old Law and Covenant of Works as the indispensably necessary Means and Condition of Life and Happyness 2 The Yoke and Burden of Personal perpetually Sinless Obedience to the Law of Works as the Condition of Life is so far from being Light and Easie that ever since the Fall of Man it hath been intollerably heavy and impossible to be born by any of the ordinary Sons of Adam by any meer Man 3. Christ here promises to all that come unto him and take his Easie Yoke and Light Burden upon them that he will give them Rest even Rest to their Souls which promise amongst other things which it singifies doubtless implyes That he will give their Souls Rest and Ease from the most heavy galling Yoke and insupportable Burden of Personal and ever-sinless Obedience to the Precepts of the Law of Works as the Condition of Life Christ here promises unto Believers Rest and Ease from the Condemning Power and Rigorous Exaction of the Law of Works and therefore he speaks not here of that Foederal Law and its Precepts as such but of the Gospel and its Precepts His Easie Yoke and Light Burden are the Precepts of the Gospel-Covenant that is the Precepts of the Moral Law as stript of their Old Covenant Legal Form and taken into the Gospel or New Covenant and cloathed with its New Gospel Form the Precepts of the Moral Law thus Evangelized together with the few positive Institutions and Ordinances of the Gospel are Christ's Yoke and Burden and a light Burden and easie Yoke they certainly are to True Believers and sincere Lovers of the Lord Jesus They are so light and easie through Grace that the Saints love them and delight in them As David said Psal 119.35 make me to go in the Path of thy Commandments for therein do I delight And ver 47. I will deligh my self in thy Commandments which I have loved The Gospel then hath Precepts and Christ by the Gospel-Covenant Commands Believers to take upon them his Easie Yoke and Light Burden and to all that do so he promises Rest even Rest to their Souls When Salvian of old had quoted this Text he immediately subjoyned these words (b) Non ergo nos ad laborem vocat Dominus sed ad refectionem quid namque a nobis exigit quid praestari sibâ— a nobis jubet nisi solam tantummodo fidem castitatem humilitatem sobrietatem misericordiam Sanctitatem quae utique omnia non onerant nos sed ornant Nec solùm hoc sed adeo vitam praesentem ornant ut fuâ—uram plus ornare possint O bonum O pium O Inestimabilis Misericordiae Dominum â—qui ad hoc nobis in praesenti Religionis munera tribuit ut ipsa in nobis postea quae nunc dat munera muneretur Salvian de Gubern Dei lib. 7. p. 234 235. Edit Oxon. 1633. The Lord then doth not call us to labour but to Refreshment for what doth he require of us what doth be Command to be done unto him or for him but only Faith alone Chastity Humility Sobriety Mercy Sanctity All which do not burden but beautifie and adorn us And not only that but they so much adorn the present Life that they may the more Adorn the Life to come O how good is the Lord how gracious how incstemably merciful Who to this end now in this present Life gives unto us the gifts of Religion that hereafter in the Life to come he may reward in us these very gifts which now he confers upon us Thus that Ancient Father Whereby it plainly appears that it was his Judgment that this Scripture speaks of the Precepts of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace and not of the Precepts of the Law or Covenant of Works as such And the Assemblies Annotations on Matth. 11.29 Take my Yoke upon you obeying my Commandments And on ver 30. my Yoke is easie that which I command you is good for you and easie In like manner the Dutch Annotations on Matth. 11.29 Take my Yoke upon you that is My Doctrine consisting as well in Commands as Promises See them on ver 30. where they say that Christ's Burden is Light because Christ makes it Light Rom. 8.26 1 John 5.3 4. and that it is said to be Light in opposition to the Importable Yoke of the Law Acts. 15.10 c. And our last English Annotations on Matth. 11.29 Take my Yoke upon you Our Lord by this Precept lets us know there can be no True Faith without Obedience to the Commands of Christ And the rest in the Text is not promised to either of them severally but to both joyntly A Second Testimony to prove this is that of our Saviour John 13.17 If ye know these things happy are ye if you do them In which words Christ Preached not the Law of Works but the Gospel of Grace to his Disciples For the Promise of Happyness is not made to Believers and sinful Mens doing the Law of Works but to their Evangelical Obedience unto the Precepts of the Gospel or New Covenant For 1. Consider Christ here speaks to sinful Men though Believers 2. He requires of them the doing of those things which he had taught them by his own Example As Love Humility Mutual Serviceableness For here is a Conditional Promise and in every Conditional Promise of God to Men there is implyed a Precept to perform the Condition 3. He promises them Happiness if they do these things although they were not without all Sin which shews plainly that it is not a Legal but a Gospel Promise It is a Gospel-Promise implying a Precept that requires Duty and expresly signifying the Lord's Will to give the Reward of happiness to them who perform the Duty The like Promise we have before in John 8.51 Verily verily I say unto you if a Man keep my saying He shall never see Death This is not a Legal Promise like that of the First Covenant of Works Repeated Occonemocally after the fall If thou keep the Law thou shalt live But it is a Gospel Promise which being Conditional doth plainly imply a Precept requiring the Condition and Duty of keeping Christ's saying upon which it is expresly promised that a Man shall never see Death that is shall never be punished with Eternal Death Indeed the Conditional Form of Words in which the Old Covenant of Works is repeated and proposed to Sinful Men after the Fall being Oeconomical in the Sense before explained it doth not imply a Precept of God intentionally obliging Men now to have no Sin at all as the Duty and Condition of that Covenant for they were Sinners already before that repetition of the form of the Old Covenant and what hath been implyes now a contradiction not to have been and the Infinitely Wise Just and Good God never Commands any Man to do a thing which
that he might provide for the happiness of and might bountifully reward us his Subjects 2 Tim. 4.8 Joh. 10 28. and that he might destroy all his Ensmies being brought down and made his Footstool Ps 110.1 And afterwards in the Section concerning the Covenant of God there are these Questions and Answers * Q. Quid nobis promissum est in scedere gratiae R. Remissio peccatorum nova Justitia vita aeterna Q. Qua conditione haec facta nobis est promissio R Sub conditione fidei obedientiae ex fide Q. What is promised to us in the Covenant of Grace Ans Remission of Sins a new Righteousness and Eternal Life Q. Vnder what condition is that promise made to us Ans Vnder the condition of Faith and Obedience of Faith John 3.16 and 13.17 Gal. 6.16 Rom. 1.5 Thus the Edenburgh-Catechism written for the use of the Colledg and Schools there by Mr. John Adamson Principal who was afterwards a Member of the General Assembly at Glasgow in the year 1638. if I be not misinform'd and his Name I saw at St. Andrews in the List of the Names of the Members of that Synod But that which is material is this That the Catechism saith Christ was made a King that he might give us a Royal Law to be the Rule of our Faith and Life This in such a way he could not do as Mediatorial King unless the Gospel-Covenant whereof he is Mediator had Precepts and required Duty But that the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts and requires Duty according to that Catechism is evident from this That it asserts the subsequent Blessings of the Covenant of Grace are promised to us under the condition of Faith and the Obedience of Faith and proves its assertion by John 3.16 and 13 17. Gal. 6.16 and Rom. 1.5 My 8th Witness is the Famous Mr. Durham before mentioned His words in p. 238. are The Covenant of Grace saith he is compared to free Adoption or a man's entitling of a Stranger to his Inheritance upon condition of his receiving that and to marriage betwixt Man and Wife which is frequent in Scripture not because the Covenant of Grace requireth not holiness and works but because it doth not require them actually to precede a Person 's Title to all the priviledges covenanted and doth freely entitle him to the same upon his entry therein as a Wife is entitled to what is the Husband 's upon her Marriage with him altho afterwards she be to perform the duties of that Relation rather as Duties called for by it than as Conditions of it Hence we may call the Covenant of Works a Servile Covenant and the Covenant of Grace a Filial or Conjugal Covenant and therefore altho holy Duties be required in both yet there is difference and the one is of Works and the other of Grace Thus that learned and good man Where it is as clear as the Sun that he was for the Gospel-Covenant its having Precepts and requiring Duty My 9th Witness is the Learned and Holy Mr. Rutherford who speaks fully to the Point under consideration For thus he writes Faith in God and the Moral Law that is Obedience to the moral Law in an Evangelick way are commanded in the Covenant of Grace and also some Duties touching the Seals are therein contained Again Ibid. p. 92. As the Commands and Threatnings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation upon such as are only externaly in Covenant either to obey or suffer so the Promise of the Covenant imposes an ingagement and obligation upon such to believe the Promise †Rutherford's Treatise of the Coveuant of Grace ed. Edinb An. 1655. p. 20. Again ibid. p. 154. Law-Obedience says he doth much differ from Gospel Obedience as Law-Commands from Gospel-Commands Again Ibid. p. 189. Obj. Does not the Law Command the Sinner offending God to mourn and be humbled and confess Ans It doth But it injoyns not Repentance as a way of Life with a Promise of Life to the Repenter Nor does the Law as a Covenant of Works command Justifying Faith and Reliance upon God-Redeemer or Immanuel but rather as the Law of Nature or as the Law of Thankfulness to a Ransoming Redeeming God the Law doth this tho in a special Covenant way the Gospel Commands Faith in Christ. Again ibid. p. 191. This I grant which I desire the Reader carefully to observe the Law and the Covenant of Grace do not one and the same way Command Faith and forbid unbelief I speak now of the Covenant of Works and of the Covenant of Grace as they are two Covenants specifically and formally different Again he puts the Question ib. p. 192. 103. Whether doth the Lord Mediator as Mediator command the same good Works in the Covenant of Grace which are Commanded in the Covenant of Works And then Answers According to tht matter of the thing Commanded quoad rem mandatam He Commands the same and charges upon all and every one the Moral Duty even as Mediator but simply they are not the same Quoad modum mandandi It shall not be needful to dispute whether they be Commands differing in Nature for not only doth the Mediator Command Obedience upon his interposed Authority as Law-giver and Creator but also as Lord Redeemer upon the Motive of Gospel-Constraining-Love in which notion he calls Love the keeping of his Commandments if they Love him John 14. the New Commandment of Love Finally ib. p. 198 199. he says The Obedience of Faith or Gospel-Obedience hath less of the Nature of Obedience than that of Adam or of the Elect Angels or that of Christ It 's true we are called Obedient Children and they are called the Commandments of Christ and Christ hath taken the Moral Law and made use of it in an Evangelick way yet we are more as it were patients â—in obeying Gospel-Commands not that we are meer patients as Libertines Teach for Grace makes us Willing but we have both Supernatural Habits and influence of Grace Furnished to us from the Grace of Christ who hath Merited both to us and so in Gospel Obedience we offer more of the Lords own and less of our own because he both Commands and gives us grace to Obey By all this and more that I could quote out of Mr. Rutherford's Writings it 's manifest that he believed as we do that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duty and that it is not a meer absolute promise that requires no duty or us at all My 10th Witness is the late Reverend and Learned Doctor Owen whose memory I honour tho it be said that I bestowed some Disadvantageous remarks upon him but it is not true for to tell the World that he retracted what he had before confidently Written when it pleased the Lord to give him further Light as he apprehended is so far from being to his disadvantage that it is on the contrary very much for his Honour and plainly shews
the New Covenant or Law of Grace This I proved sufficiently before from John 3.18 19. and Mark 16.15 16. compared with Rom. 2.16 and John 12.48 To which Places may be added Mat. 11.21 22 23 24. and Mat. 21.43 44. and others Secondly The Gospel-Covenant hath Threatnings against Regenerate Believers That in case they should not persevere to the end in faith and holiness but should totally and finally fall away they should be most severely punished for their Apostacy For the clearing of this I will briefly do these Two Things 1. Show that there really are threatnings against regenerate believers in case they should Apostatize 2. That those threatnings belong to the Gospel And 1. That there are such threatnings appears from John 15.6 If a Man abide not in me he is cast forth as a branch and is withered and Men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned Here is a threatning against those who are in Christ that if they abide not in him they shall be burned The like conditional threatning we have against the believing Romans who were beloved of God and called to be Saints Rom. 8.13 If ye live after the flesh ye shall die but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live And Rom. 11. v. 20 21 22. Thou standest by faith be not high minded but fear For if God spared not the natural branches take heed lost he also spare not thee Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God Towards thee goodness If thou continue in his goodness Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off So we have recorded in the Scripture a most terrible threatning against the believing Hebrews if they should totally and finally Apostatize and that we might be sure that the threatning is not only against hypocritical Professors of the Christian Religion but that it is also against Regenerate Believers upon supposition of their Apostacy the Apostle Paul includes himself in the number of those against whom he denounceth the Threatning as it is written Heb. 10.26 27. If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledg of the Truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin but a certain fearful looking for of Judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries See also to this Purpose Heb. 10.38 of which we spake in the Apology p. 55. And take notice of what Mr. Dickson observes on Heb. 2.3 How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation The Apostle saith Dickson Joyneth himself with them in the Threatning And again on Heb. 12.25 much more shall not we escape if we turn away from him that speaketh from Heaven He Joyneth himself * Dickson 's Exposition of the Epistles in English edit Lond. 1659. Observations on Epistle to the Hebrews page 222.223 and 273. saith Mr. Dickson in the same danger with the People if he should turn away or refuse Then saith he Preachers should do well to lay the edg of their threatnings to their own Hearts and to Enroll themselves amongst the threatned c. From these places of Scripture and others that might be alledged to the same purpose it manifestly appears that there are threatnings against Regenerate Believers if they fall away Now in the second Place That the said Threatnings do not belong only to the Law of Works but that they are truly Threatnings that belong to the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace may thus appear Regenerate Believers are not under the Law Rom. 6.14 They are not under the Threatning Condemning Power of the Law of Works They are not only causally but actually Redeemed from the Law 's Curse Therefore the Threatnings wherewith they are conditionally Threatned are not Threatnings that belong to the Law of Works as such but they are Threatnings that belong to the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace under which Believers are I grant indeed That 1. True Regenerate Believers are not absolutely under those Threatnings and that they are not bound to believe that those Threatnings shall be Executed upon them Nay 2. on the contrary if they know themselves to be true Regenerate Believers and that none such shall ever totally and finally fall away from Christ I grant that they ought to believe that the said threatnings shall never be executed upon them Yet for all that it is evident by the Scriptures before mentioned that true regenerate believers are conditionally under the said threatnings and are bound to believe that they would be executed and fulfilled upon them if they should totally and finally fall away And our God in great wisdom and mercy hath thus ordered his Covenant that the belief of the foresaid conditional threatnings may be a means to preserve his own people from Apostacy and to make them persevere in faith and holiness to the end According to that Jerem. 32.40 I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me Compared with Rom. 11.20 21 22. And Heb. 4.1 and 12.28 29. And 1 Pet. 1.5 Who are kept by the Power of God through faith unto salvation Mr. G. doth or may know that this is no new singular opinion of mine that the Gospel hath its own threatnings for as I shewed in the Apology p. 27. the Learned Professors of Leyden were of the same Judgment before me And so was Mr. Rutherford as appears by what I quoted out of him there in p. 63. And Monsieur Turretin as was shewed there also in p. 103. Whereunto I now add other Testimonies as 1. The learned and diligent Pezelius writing against Flacius above an hundred years ago gave Testimony to this truth that the Gospel hath its own threatnings †Sunt Testimonia vocis Divinae nota piis omnibus quae ostendunt reâ—e dici quod Evangelium habeat comminationes severissimas utenim haec est Evangelii vox qui crediderit Baptizatus fuerit salvus erit sic antithesis mox addita similiter ad Evangelium pertinet qui non crediderit condemnabitur similes antitheses sunt in his dictis qui credit in filium habet vitam aeternam qui non credit filio non videbit vitam sed ira Dei manet super eum Item qui credit in Filium non Judicatur qui autem non credit jam Judicatus est Eas esse voces Evangelii propriissimas non dubium est tamen non solum sunt promissiones dulcissimae de gratia Dei de Justitia coram Deo de salute aeterna sed etiam comminationes sunt severissimae arguentes hoc peccatum quod est incredulitas in Filium Dei Mediatorem relinquentes sub aeterna condemnatione omnes non credentes in hunc Filium 4th Par. Obj. Resp Theolog. Collect. ex Scriptis Ph. Melanct. opera Christoph Pezelii loc de definit Evang. pag. 161. There are saith Pezelius Testimonies of Gods word known to all the Godly which shew that it is rightly said that the Gospel hath most severe
before where he thus writes †Aâ—que hâ—ec universa in una Persona Christi unici Mediatoris Dei Hominum ita continentur nodo indissolubili juncta connexa sunt ut qui couatur unum ex illis Christo adimere conetur Christum solvere quam esse notam certissimam spiritus Antichristi Johannes Apostolus dilectus Discipulus Domini Docet in prima sua Catholica â—pistâ—a coque crimine Antichristianismi summi sacrilegii tenentur omnes haeresiarchae eorum sectatores pertinaces qui Schismate impio imprimis Christum divellere conati sunt quod nullo mo so potest fieri Bibliander ubi supra Pag. 198 199. And all these things are so contained and joyned and connected together by an undissoluble Knot in the one Person of Christ the only Mediator between God and Men that whosoever endeavours to take one of them from Christ he endeavours to Destroy Christ which to be a most certain mark of the Spirit of Antichrist the Apostle John and beloved Disciple of the Lord teaches us in his first general Epistle And of this Crime of Antichristianism and of the highest Sacriledg are guilty all Authors or inventers of Heresies and their obstinate Followers who by an ungodly Schism do principally indeavour to divide Christ which can no way be done Thus the Learned and pious Bibliander I hope therefore my Reverend brother will joyn with us and for the future acknowledge that the office of a Lord and Judge too doth belong to Christ the Mediator and that eo nomine because he is Mediator and as he is Mediator For as the Dutch Annotators have it on 1 Cor. 15.25 He must Reign as King That is Accomplish his Kingly office as Mediator c. In short as I hope we shall so I wish we may all agree in that of Salvian an Ancient and Zealous writer of the fifth century * Nos ita judicandum humanum genus a Christo dicimus ut tamen etiam nunc omnia Deum prout rationabile putat regere ac dispensare credamus ita in futuro judicio judicaturum affirmemus ut tamen semper etiam in hoc saeculo judicasse doceamus Dum enim semper gubernat Deus semper judicat quia Guberuatio ipsa est judicium Salvian Lib. 1. de Gubernatione Dei Pag. 15. Vid. etiam Lib. 2. Pag. 55. ubi haec habet unde tu qui ad solatium arbitror peccatorum tuorum considerari actus nostros a Deo non putas ex hoc ipso aspici te a Christo semper intellige puniendum forsitan propediem esse cognosce We so say that Mankind will be Judged by Christ as that yet we believe also that God now at present doth rule and dispence all things as he things reasonable or sit and let us so affirm that Christ will Judge at the Day of Judgment which is to come hereafter as notwithstanding to teach also that he hath always judged in this world For whilst God doth always govern he doth always Judge also because the very Governing Act it self of God and so of Christ the Mediatorial King is Judgment Thus Salvian And I think this may suffice for Answer to Mr. G's Third Objection 4. Obj. Lastly He appeals to the express words of Christ himself in John 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God And says page 55. He is confident we will have regard to these words Answer Indeed his Confidence in this is well grounded for we really have as we ought a very great regard to these and all the other words of our most blessed and glorious Lord and they have a Commanding power over us to induce us to receive them with faith and love But what then must we therefore have regard to Mr. G's Consequence which he draws from them by force and violence That doth not at all follow And for my own part I declare that I reject his Consequence which is that the Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace hath no threanings since he that believeth not is Condemned already Because he hath not believed in the Name of the only-begotten Son of God And whereas he says that the unbeliever is already Condemned by the old Law of works and therefore there is no need that he be Condemned again by the Gospel and a new Law of Grace I Answer that a Man who lives under the Preaching of the Gospel and yet remains still in unbelief is already Condemned both by Law and Gospel by the old Covenant and also by the New so long as he continues in his unbelief as I shewed before And it doth not become us to say unto God that he needs not to do the same thing twice when we know that he hath twice done it especially when we may plainly see that tho the same person be twice over Condemned yet it is in different respects and for two different causes First he is Condemned by the old Law of works for not keeping it perfectly and personally so as never to break it either by original or actual sin And thus all Unbelievers in the world are condemned even Heathens that never heard the joyful sound of the Gospel and never had a Gospel-Offer of Mercy upon the Terms of the New Covenant and Law of Grace Secondly He is condemned also by the Gospel or New Covenant Law of Grace for not accepting the Gospel-Offer of Mercy for not receiving and applying to himself the Remedy tendred to him in the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace Here this Unbeliever is guilty of a sin which the foresaid Heathens who have only the Law of Nature are not guilty of he is guilty of a sin which is directly and immediately against the saving Remedy mercifully provided and offered him in the Gospel and therefore there is sufficient Reason for condemning him again by the Gospel-Covenant I say for condemning him to a greater Degree of Punishment than that of meer Heathens who are guilty only of sins against the Law of Nature but are guilty of no sin against the Gospel of Christ are not at all guilty of any sin in neglecting or refusing to receive Christ by Faith and the Salvation offered through him in the Gospel-Covenant Our Saviour says in this very Text That the Unbeliever who is guilty of Positive Unbelief against the Gospel is condemned already not only and meerly because he hath broken God's natural moral Law but because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God And then as it were to obviate Mr. G's Objection he adds immediately This is the Condemnation that light is come into the world and Men loved Darkness rather than Light Because their deeds were Evil. See what was quoted before in the remarks on Mr. G's sixth Chapter out of Mr. Hutcheson's Exposition on John 3. v. 18.19 As for Mr.
Old and so could not then belong to the Old Law or Covenant of Works Therefore since the gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace hath now some Positive Precepts different from the Precepts of the first Old Covenant and Law of Works it follows necessarily That the Obedience required by the Precepts of the Gospel must be partly also different from the Obedience required by the first Covenant and Old Law of Works But now if we consider the Obediences required by the said Two Covenants as the Two Conditions of their respective Covenants so they differ formally in Kind and not meerly in Degree for they proceed from different Principles they have different formal Motives and serve to different ends and purposes The most perfect legal obedience required as the Condition of the first Covenant and Law of works was The very Righteousness by and for which Man was to have been justified and to have lived by that Covenant if he had kept it But now the sincere Evangelical obedience required as a Condition on our part of the new Covenant promise of Glorification and Consummate salvation is not any the least part of that meritorious Righteousness for which alone we obtain possession of Eternal Glory and Consummate salvation And as for the promises themselves of the two Covenants they also are specifically different because they have different impulsive and moving causes of their first making and are performed for different and formal fundamental Reasons In the Covenant of Works it was indeed of God's free goodness and gracious condescention that he promised a Reward to our first Parents on condition of perfect Obedience But in the Second and New Covenant of Grace it is of his Rich Mercy in Christ that he promised us Eternal Life and Glory on condition of our sincere Evangelical Obedience and Perseverance in Faith and Holiness to the End So that they have different impulsive Causes of their first making And being so made they are at last performed for different formal Motives and Reasons If the first Covenant of Works had been kept the Promise of â—â—â—e would have been performed and made good to man for his own personal Obedience as his Righteousness his only Righteousness in the sight of God But now the Gospel or New Covenant-Promise of Eternal Life and Glory is performed and made good to the People of God not for their own personal sincere Obedience but only for the most perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to them So that as the impulsive causes of making in like manner the formal Motives and Fundamental reasons of performing the said several promises of the two Covenants do greatly differ and therefore the promises themselves differ in kind Now it is in Christ that all the promises of God are yea and it is in Christ that they are Amen unto the Glory of God 2 Cor. 1.20 Thus I have Answered his first Argument at large And hence it manifestly appears that his Consequence is inconsequent and will not hold to wit that upon our principle the Covenant of grace would be a Covenant of works for I have shewed that the two Covenants differ specifically and in kind and that tho both require obedience and works yet they are much different from one another and in order to far different ends and purposes The works required by the first and old Covenant were legal works that were to be the only Righteousness by and for which Man was to be justified and to live but the works required by the second new and Gospel-Covenant are Evangelical works which are no part of the Righteousness by and for which we are justified and pardoned saved and glorified Thus it is manifest that we do not absurdly confound the two Covenants of Law and Gospel but he draws silly Consequences from our Principles which he seems not to understand and builds Castles in the Air which tumble down for want of a solid Foundation And the worst of it is that he wrests the Holy Scripture which ought carefully to be avoided as that which may be the occasion of some other's destruction if not of our own The place of Scripture which he wrests both in p. 56. and 63. Is that in Rom. 14.6 Where to make it serve his purpose he supposes 1. That in the words Then is it no more of works by the relative it must necessarily be meant the Covenant of Grace 2. He supposes that by the said words then is it no more of works must needs be meant Then the Covenant of grace requires no sort of obedience nor any kind of works in order to any Gospel end and purpose 3. He supposes that the works there excluded by the Apostle are not only meritorious works but any sort of Commanded duties tho no way Meritorious nor conceived so to be And then from the words of St. Paul thus perverted he infers his Conclusion that it would be a flat Contradiction to Rom. 11.16 If the Covenant of Grace had any conditional promises and if it required any duty and obedience or any sort of work at all I freely grant that this Consequence is good from the foresaid three suppositions But I utterly deny all the three suppositions and I know my R. B. cannot prove them to Eternity If he thinks he can let him try his Skill for I put him to it But withal I advise him to take heed what he doth God will not be mocked nor suffer his word to be abused without controll If he shall say that he doth not suppose the three things aforesaid I Answer that he doth and must suppose them or else he grossly abuses the words of the Apostle by wresting and wringing out of them a sense that was never in them For understand the Apostle's words as he meant them and they make nothing for his purpose at all nor will they bear the inference that he deduces from them To make this appear consider 1. That the thing which the Apostle assirms there to be of Grace and denies to be of works is not the Covenant of Grace of which he doth not there speak but it is either the Election or the reserving of the Remnant of which he speaks in the foregoing verse 2 Consider that by saying it is of grace and not of works he means that grace and not works was the impulsive moving cause of the said Election or of the rescrving of a Remnant at that time But he doth not at all mean that because the Covenant is of Grace therefore it requires no works no obedience nor duties at all 3. Consider that the works whish he excludes are only Meritorious works because they are such works as are utterly inconsistent with and Destructive of Grace Now my Judgment is that the Particle it in our Translation of v. 6. Refers to the word Election in v. 5. And then the sense is as the Dutch Annotators on Rom. 11.6 Give it us thus And if it be by grace Namely that those are Elected to
priority is enough for that pag. 33. To which I Answer 1. That I never wrote nor thought that the condition of the Gospel-Covenant is not in our power in any sense but only that it is not in our meer natural power with which it is very well consistent that it be in our Supernatural Power which we receive from the Spirit of God and with his assistance freely use in performing the said condition of the Covenant For the truth of this I appeal to the common sense and reason of all honest Men who will be at the pains to read and consider what they will find Written in the Apol. pag. 36. Last Paragraph and pag. 47. at the end And pag. 48. from l. 1. to l. 13. and pag. 49. from l. 9. to 20. and pag. 50. Where by the Testimonies of Augustin and Bradwardin I expresly shew that the performing of the condition is in our power through the grace of God and that we have a subordinate Dominion and Power over our own Act. And Lastly in pag. 67. I shew from Dr. Twiss that we not only have Supernatural Power from God to produce the Act which is the condition but that at the same time when we produce it we have a Power a natural Power not to produce it Whence I conclude that it is a gracious Evangelical condition freely performed by us See our confession of Faith Chap. 10. Act. 1. Now let any Judge by this whether I do absolutely deny the condition to be in our Power Nay tho I deny it in one sense to be in our Power yet in another sense I do most clearly affirm it to be in our power As for the condition it s not being uncertain nor Meritorious it is true I did and do maintain that it is not uncertain with respect to God and the event nor is it in the least truly and properly Meritorious but I deny the Consequence that therefore it is not properly a condition Evangelical And whereas in the 4th place he says that I deny it to be a legal condition it is true I have denied and shall deny it to be a Legal condition in the sense explained at large from the end of pag. 37. to 41. It is not so a legal condition as to have the same place and Office in the new-New-Covenant and Law of Grace which perfect and personal sinless obedience was to have had in the first Old Covenant and Law of works c. But to infer from hence that because I deny it to be a legal condition in this sense therefore I deny it to be a legal condition in all and every sense whatsoever is a poor fallacious way of arguing And how can this R. B. seriously think that I should ever deny it to be a legal condition in any sense at all when as he knows that I do all along call it the condition of the Covenant and Law of Grace If then I believe it to be the condition of the Covenant of Grace I cannot chuse but believe it to be a federal condition and so if I believe it to be the condition of the Law of Grace I cannot chuse but in some sense believe it to be a legal condition But you may say in what sense do I believe it to be a legal condition Why I Answer look in what sense the gospel-Gospel-Covenant is a Law in the same sense Faith for instance is the legal condition of it and so I believe it to be Now we do not say that the gospel-Gospel-Covenant is meerly and simply a Law but that it is a Law of Grace properly a Law of Grace And therefore faith is not a condition meerly and simply legal as the condition of the old Law of works was but it is a condition graciously legal because it is the condition of the Law of Grace and we are effectually enabled to perform it by the God of all Grace This that Brother might have easily perceived by our words to be our meaning if he had sought the Truth sincerely when he read our Apology But tho he stile himself a seeker p. 103. Yet it appears too evident by his Parenthesis p. 33. l. 29.30 31. That he sought some other thing than the truth for there he brings me in saying That the Gospel is a Law and that this Law is the condition of the Covenant or Gospel and yet it is not a legal condition But where do I say so That the Law is the condition of the Covenant I defy any Man living to find those words or any words of the like import in all the Apol. I leave it to others whom it may become to write after this manner The Gospel or the Covenant is a Law and that Law is the condition of the Covenant And so the same thing is the condition of it self For shame give over such little tricke and have regard to truth and honesty But now was there nothing in the Apoâ— that gave occasion to fasten upon us such a notorious falsehood I Answer I profess sincerely that there is nothing in it all from beginning to end that could give any just occasion or so much as a colourable pretence to charge me with holding that the Gospel is a Law or Covenant and that that Law is the condition of the Covenant We have said indeed in the explication of our sense of the Law of Grace pag. 22. l. 35.36 That this Law of Grace is the conditional part of the Covenant of Grace But to be the conditional part of the Covenant is quite another thing than the condition of the Covenant for the conditional part of the Covenant is that which Prescribes and Commands the condition and which promises a blessing and benefit to the person who performs it And therefore must be quite another thing than the condition it self Here then some body has discovered his ignorance and writes he knows not what or if not that He has discovered somewhat worse and that which I forbear to call by its proper Name Because he might say that it is bitter Language to tell him his fault in plain terms It is sweet unto some Men publickly to mis-represent their brethren to the People for such ends as they know best but it is bitter to them for to find themselves publickly reproved for it We desire all whom it may concern to learn to understand our Apol. before they take upon them to dispute against it and censure it And they may easily understand it if they will for it is purposely written in a plain stile that all may know what our Judgment is concerning the nature of the New-Covenant See pag. 68. from lin 16. to 21. Where we briefly and plainly distinguish between the absolute and conditional part of it and shew what the one and the other is as we had also done so largely before that none can mistake our meaning unless they have very weak heads or which is worse wilfully shut their Eyes that they
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
requiring no Faith nor Practice in order to obtaining pardon of Sin and Eternal Life through and for the alone Righteousness of Christ 3. What he alledges out of Schindler and Cocceiut their Lexicons to prove that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah which is rendred Law signifies any instruction given us not only by the Precepts but the Promises of God is wholly impertinent and makes nothing against me For in my Judgment the New Law of Grace is instructive both by Precept and Promise Hence I say in the Apology p. 22. that it is a Covenant-Law which makes rich offers of Grace of Justifying and Glorifying Grace c. And again a little after that this Law of Grace is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace it is that part of the Covenant of Grace which respects the way of God's dispensing to us the subsequent Blessings and Benefits of the Covenant such as pardon of Sin and Eternal Salvation Briefly As it is a Law of Grace to us it is that part of the Covenant which prescribes to us the Condition to be performed through Grace on our part and which promises us Pardon and Life for Christ's sake alone when we through Grace perform the Condition and therefore it must needs be very instructive both by Precept and Promise 4. What Mr. G. often says that the Gospels being called a Law signifies no more but that it is a Doctrine I utterly deny it in his sense of the word Doctrine nor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah its being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Horah prove any such thing Buxtorf who understood the Hebrew as well as any Man in these latter Ages tells us in his Lexicon pag. 337. that the whole word of God is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law quod nos de Dei voluntate erga nos nostro officio erga Deum proximum nostrum doceat erudiat Because it instructs us and teaches us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Thus Buxtorf Now if the whole Word of God be called a Law for that reason then the Gospel Covenant which is a principal part of the word of God is called a Law for the same reason to wit because it teacheth us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Accordingly it is freely granted that the Gospel Govenant is a Doctrine and a Doctrine of Grace but withal it is to be alwayes remembred that it is a Doctrine which not only promises gracious Benefits and Blessings on Gods part but also requires a Condition to be performed and terms to be complyed with through Grace on our part Hence the Evangelical Prophet Isa 2.3 saith he the Lord will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths And proves what he had said by this reason for out of Sion shall go forth the Law c. Mr. G. confesses that by Law here is meant the Gospel and then it follows that the Gospel is a Doctrine which reacheth us the Lords ways not only the ways wherein he walks with us but also the ways and paths wherein we walk with him Mr G would have the wayes which the Lord teacheth his People by the Gospel to be only the ways which the Lord himself walks in He would have them to denote only the order which God hath constituted for himself to observe in justifying Sinners But certainly that Interpretation is too short for the ways which God hath prescribed unto us to walk in are called Gods ways in Scripture Gen. 18.19 and he is also said to teach them his People Psal 86.11 and 119. ver 32 33 c. John 6.45 and particularly he teacheth us that it is our Duty to believe in Christ for Justification and Salvation And as Christ is the way unto the Father so Faith is the way unto Christ This the Gospel Law the Law of Faith teacheth us this Faith it prescribes to us and requires of us Acts 16.31 and consequently the Gospel in being said to be a Law it is said to be such a Doctrine as teacheth us the way we are to walk in such a Doctrine as prescribes to us some Means to be used and Condition to be performed by us brough Grace that we may through Christ his Righteousness and Intercession obtain the promised Blessings of Justification and Glorification And this my Reverend Brother sometimes hath Light to discern and Freedom to confess in part as in pag. 15. where he says That according to the usual Language of Gods word to walk in Gods ways is to observe his orders and appointments the expression here may denote no more than that they would punctually keep to the way of Salvation marked out by him and seek to be justifyed no otherwise than by Christ's Blood and Righteousness as the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes Thus he Now 1. Concerning this seeking to be justifyed by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only which the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes I demand of Mr. Goodwin whether it be something or nothing If he say that it is nothing Then 1. The Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes to us seeking that is it prescribes nothing And that is an odd way of prescribing to prescribe and yet to prescribe nothing 2 It is as odd a way of seeking for to seek by doing nothing But if to avoid this absurdity he say that seeking is something then I affirm that that something must be some Work or Act of the Soul And if so then we have what we desire to wit that the Gospel is a Law For he says that the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes seeking and seeking is some Work or Act therefore the Gospel prescribes some Work or Act. And what it prescribes to us unto that it obliges us and so by necessary consequence it is a Law that obliges us to Work and Act and by that means to seek Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only 2ly It is further to be observed That the seeking which the Gospel Law prescribes is very comprehensive as the word seeking is used in the Scriptures of Truth It is a word that signifies the diligent use of the Means which the Lord hath appointed for obtaining the thing sought But so it is that as is proved in the Apology the Lord hath appointed Faith and Repentance to be means to be used on our part for obtaining Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only Repentance is the means or condition dispositive of the Subject Man that he may be pardoned and justified by Faith in Christ's Blood and Righteousness only And Faith is the only means instrumental or Condition receptive and applicative of the object Christ and his Righteousness by and for which Object alone Man is justified and pardoned And therefore the Gospel-Law by prescribing the foresaid seeking which signifies the diligent use of all appointed means
Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius Chrysostom Origen Theodoret with Photius to shew that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law they signified a Doctrine But these quotations serve only ad Pompam non ad Pugnam for they are every one of them impertinently alledged against me and do not prove any thing that I deny except two words out of Clemens Alexandrinus of which by and by For 1. I grant that the Law of the New Covenant as Eusebius appositely calls it is a Doctrine and a Doctrine of Grace of the greatest Grace that ever was as we told the World in the Apology p 28. out of Bishop Andrews yea I grant and believe that it is a pure Doctrine of Grace because it both prescribes and requires Purity and likewise is a means through the influence of the Spirit of Grace of effecting and working Purity in the Souls of Men And moreover because the Blessings and Benefits which it promises are first promised of pure Grace and afterwards according to promise are of pure free Grace given unto Men through Jesus Christ This I asserted in the Apology pag. 22. and passim 2. Neither there not any where else did I ever say or think that I know of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law doth always signifie a System of Precepts and Commands and so Origen's Testimony makes nothing against me 3. I assent likewise to every thing he hath quoted out of Theoderet on Isa 2. And 4. To all cited out of Chrysostom on Psal 49. And 5. As for the Testimony of Photius it is as the rest impertinently alledged and I am so for from opposing it that on the contrary I have my self upon the matter said the same thing in the Apology pag. 201 and there shewed plainly in what sense the Law is vacated to a Believer without being perfectly dissolved and ceaseth without being disannulled and how Christ by fulfilling and performing it hath entirely removed it so that it cannot possibly condemn a Penitent Believer who walks not after the Flesh but after the Spirit Whereunto I now add that Photius there seems plainly to understand by Law not the first Covenant of Works made with Man before and broken by the fall of our First Parents but the Old Mosaical Covenant or the Legal dark Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace under the Levitical Priesthood And so the words of Photius do very fitly express the Lords abolishing that legal dark way and introducing the Evangelical clear way of Administring the same Covenant of Grace which how it should make against the Gospels being a New Law of Grace I do not comprehend See Heb. 8.6 For to me it seems plainly to insinuate the contrary to wit That the Gospel Covenant now in its New Christian Constitution and more gracious form of Administration is indeed the new Law of Grace 6ly and Lastly We come to Clemens Alexandrinus out of whose Writings Mr. Goodwin quotes two short Sentences As first That according to Clemens the Law is the Light of our way Answ And what then doth that militate against my Principle Nothing less For that I firmly believe not because Clemens saith so but because the Holy Ghost saith so as it is written Prov. 6.23 The Commandment is a Lamp and the Law is Light It is confest then that the Law is the Light of our way and so is the Gospel too yea and the Gospel is the greater Light of the two And what can any reasonable Man make of this to prove that the Gospel is not a Law of Grace which hath its own Precepts If the Gospel hath its own Precepts will that hinder it from being the Light of our way I think that in all reason the contrary will follow to wit that if the Precepts and Commandments of the Law be a Light of our way as the Scripture says they are that then the Precepts of the Gospel if it have any are and must be also a Light of our way that directs and instructs us how we ought to walk now under the Christian form of administring the Covenant of Grace 2. He quotes Clemens saying Disc p. 22. That a Law is a true and good opinion of a thing And this he calls Clemens his definition of a Law And he affirms that this Clementin definition may be applyed to any Doctrine of Truth and Goodness Whereby saith he any Doctrine of Truth and Goodness may be signifyed But the Gospel is a Doctrine of Truth and Goodness therefore this Clementin definition of a Law may be applyed to the Gospel and it may be said of the Gospel that it is a true and good Opinion Answ This Reverend Brother by several passages in his Discourse and by this amongst the rest seems to be much in love with definitions and who can blame him since Aristotle said of old That (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ariâ—â—or 2. Metaphys Cap. 3. we know all things by their definitions And here in Clemens Alexandrinus meeting with two or three pretty words they so pleased his fancy that he presently imagined them to be the thing which he is so much in love with to wit a definition A definition then they shall be and having thus got a definition of a Law he is sure thereby to know the Nature of a Law for according to Aristotle a Definition (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristot 2 post Cap. 8. shews us the very Essence of a thing Now this being the definition of a Law according to Mr. Goodwin That it is a true and good Opinion of a thing I demand of him whether this be the definition of Gods Law or of Mans Law If he say that it is the definition of Mans Law then he knows that it is utterly Impertinent For our Controversie is not about Mans Law but Gods Law And I hope he will not say that the definition of Mans Law is the definition of Gods Law 2. If he say that it is the definition of God's Law then according to Mr. Goodwin Gods true and good opinion of a thing is his Law For the definition of a thing and the thing defined are really and objectively the same and differ only in the manner and form of expression Upon this I could move many questions that would puzzle my Reverend Brother to answer and yet they are such as ought to be answered and resolved upon supposition that Gods true and good opinion of a thing is his Law but I will spare him and only ask him this question Whether he holds that God is an Opinator that he hath an Opinion of things and knows them opinatively If he deny then how can Gods Opinion be his Law if he have no Opinion and be no Opinator If he affirm that God is an Opinator that he hath an Opinion of things and knows them opinatively Then it will follow that Gods knowledge of things at least of the things which are the subject matter of his Laws is founded upon probable
thus rightly understanding Beza that first he spoke of an Evangelical Repentance and afterwards of a Legal I reconcile him to his Elder Brother Calvin and confirm my Argument from his said 20th Epistle and so recover the advantage which I seemed to have lost by mistaking his sense of the word Contrition This is the only mistake that after many serious repeated thoughts I can find that I committed in citing and explaining the words of Authours and I did not do it as many do to make the Authour seem to speak for me but rather to make him seem to be in that against me By which the World may see my Honesty and Ingenuity in citing Authours But this on the by I return to what my Reverend Brother cites out of Beza against me His 1st Testimony out of Beza's Book concerning the Punishing of Hereticks That the Sum of the Gospel which is the Power of God to Salvation unto every Believer is this Disc p. 30 31. that it teacheth us to lay hold on Christ as made to us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption I own to be true and to make for me rather than for Mr. G For 1. Here it is plainly enough expressed that the Gospel requires Faith of us as that by which we apprehend and lay hold on Christ And elsewhere as was shewed in the Apology Beza saith expresly That Faith is the Condition and I also have several times said expresly that in my Judgment Faith is the only Condition i. e. the only receptive applicative Condition of the Gospel-Covenant and of Christ and his Righteousness as held forth to us in the said Covenant 2. Though in this short Sum of the Gospel Beza do not expresly mention Evangelical Repentance yet he doth not exclude it but rather includes and implyes it in that he says that Christ is made Wisdom and Sanctification unto his People which he is partly in requiring Repentance as a means necessary in order to pardon of Sin and partly in giving them Grace and inclining their hearts to repent Luke 24.47 Acts 5.31 and 11.18 And elsewhere as in his 20th Epistle Beza expresly asserts and proves that Evangelical Repentance is required in the Gospel as antecedently in order of Nature necessary to pardon of Sin Beza's second Testimony quoted out of his Antithesis Papatus Christianismi of the Papacy and Christianity makes nothing against me for I joyn with Beza in rejecting that Popish Opinion concerning the Evangelical Doctrine nihil aliud esse quam legem quandam perfectiorem Mosaicâ that it is nothing else but a certain Law more perfect than that of Moses The Third Testimony out of his Book of Predestination against Castellio is most impertinently alledged against me For I never thought otherwise than that in the Law strictly taken for the Covenant of Works as Beza takes it there is no mention of Gods gracious Purposes to save us by Christ the Redeemer and therefore that the Declaration of that Gracious Will of God belongs to the Gospel and to Beza's Words I add that it belongs only to the Gospel 7. H. Bullinger is next brought as a Witness against me I Answer That I admit what Bullinger saith as cited by my Reverend Brother to be a true definition or description of the Gospel but I deny it to be an accurate perfect definition because it doth not express all the Essential parts of the Gospel For instance it doth not express the promise of taking away the Heart of Stone and giving an Heart of Flesh and writing the Law in the Heart etc. Which is an Essential of the Gospel Covenant adequately considered I grant Bullinger supposes and implyes it but supposing and implying in a definition all the Essentials of the thing defined is not sufficient to make it an accurate full definition Otherwise if a Man in defining a thing express but one of its Essentials he might be said to have accurately and fully defined it because the other Essentials are supposed and implyed in that one they being all inseparably connected in the thing defined And yet all Men of any measure of Learning know that it is very absurd to say that a thing is accurately and perfectly defined by mentioning only one of its Essential Parts I do not say this to reflect upon Bullinger at all that be far from me But to shew that by that which he called a definition of the Gospel he did not mean an accurate perfect definition of it in respect of all its Essential parts but a description of it in respect of some of its Essential parts Disc p 32. in which the rest are supposed and implyed And even in this passage of his Sermon under consideration it is plainly implyed that the Gospel-Covenant is conditional and that Faith is the condition of it And in another passage of the same Sermon he says That God hath proposed Christ a Propitiation to wit that he might be our reconciliation for whose sake being pacified towards us he adopts us to he the Children of God Verùm non aliâ ratione quà m per sidem in ejus Sanguinem id est Si credamus c. But no other way or upon no other terms than by Faith in his Blood that is if we believe c. And in his Commentary on Heb. 8. he expresly affirms the Covenant of Grace to be Conditional As shall be shown by his own express words in my Remarks on the following Chapter And I wish Mr. G would seriously consider what the same Bullinger writes at large in his Commentary on 1 Tim. 2.4 By what I have read of that Learned and Holy Mans Writings I am sure that his Judgment in this matter and my Reverend Brothers do not agree and that he wrongs him in labouring to draw him to his Party 8. Next the Learned H. Zanchius is suborned to bear Witness against us I confess that Zanchy well deserves the high Commendation which Mr. G. gives him but I am heartily sorry that my R. B. should so abuse that Worthy Divine as to indeavour to make him contradict himself in Witness-bearing For if ever our Reverend Brother read and considered our Apology which he writes against he cannot but know that we appealed to Zanchy in pag. 99. and from his own express formal words proved that there are Tria Evangelii capita quae a nobis exiguntur ut praestemus poenitentia in Deum c. Three Heads or Principal parts of the Gospel which we are required to do Repentance towards God Faith in Jesus Christ and a Studious care to observe whatsoever Christ hath Commanded Now these being Zanchy's own express words it was very ill done by my Reverend Brother to endeavour to make the World believe that this same Zanchy held That the Gospel requires nothing of us at all And this he endeavours to do by alledging Three Short Sentences out of his Miscellanies whereof the first Two only say That the Gospel
with Water in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and to Eat and Drink the Blessed Bread and Wine in remembrance of Christ's Death till he come To this I shall subjoyn the Testimony of the Late Reverend and Learned Dr. Owen and then pass on From Deut. 18. ver 18 19. he infers that Christ was to be a Law giver His words are (n) Dr. Owens 1st Vol. on the Epist to the Hebrews exercitat 17. pag. 224. The Prophet here foretold was to be like unto him Moses wherein he was peculiar and exempted from comparison with all other Prophets which were to build on his Foundation without adding any thing to the Rule of Faith and Worship which he had Revealed or changing any thing therein In that is the Prophet here promised to be like unto him that is he was to be a Law-giver to the House of God as our Apostle proves and declares Chap. 3. ver 1 2 3 4 5. Moses was the great Law giver by whom God revealed his Mind and Will as to his whole Worship whilst the Church-State Instituted by him was to continue Such a Prophet was the Messias to be a Law-giver so as to Abolish the Old and to Institute New Rites of Worship This raising up of a Prophet like unto Moses declares That the Whole Will of God as to his Worship and the Churches Obedience was not yet Revealed Had it so been there would have been no need of a Prophet like unto Moses to lay New Foundations as he had done Thus the Doctor Now as I have distinguished of Faith so I distinguish of Repentance As there is a Faith in God which most certainly is commanded by the Natural Moral Law it self immediately so there is a Repentance towards God which is also Commanded by the Natural Moral Law it self immediately This I never denyed but always believed and in our Apology pag. 200. we plainly enough professed this our belief in these words Heathens who never heard nor could hear of the Gospel for want of an Objective Revelation of it they living and dying without Repentance and Faith in the True God under the guilt of Sins against the Law and Light of Nature will be Condemned by the Law but not by the Gospel which they could not know Rom 2.12 These words plainly show that our Judgment is That Heathens are guilty of Sins against the Law and Light of Nature in that they do not believe in the True God nor repent of their Sins although they have not the Gospel and so no Gospel-Promise to assure them of Pardon and that they shall be Condemned by the Law of Nature for their Unbelief and Impenitency against the Law of Nature together with their other Sins against the same Law And from this it appears That a great part of my Reverend Brothers Seventh Chapter is altogether Impertinent and that I am not at all concerned in it Mr. Goodwin here fights against a Man of Straw of his own making and setting up and valiantly runs him down again and I do not in the least envy him the Glory of such a Victory But though the Natural Moral Law doth oblige all Mankind of ripe years to a Natural Legal Repentance that is 1. To be heartily sorry for having offended God their Creator and Preserver by breaking his Law which they are under and outwardly also to express the inward sorrow of their Hearts 2 To hate their Sin as a great Evil in it self and the procuring Cause of Evil unto Men. 3. Not to act their Sin over again but to abstain from Sin and to keep God's Natural Moral Law for the future Yet there is another kind of Repentance which the Natural Moral Law doth not by it self immediately oblige all Mankind unto in all parts of the World and that is an Evangelical Repentance which ariseth from an apprehension and perswasion of God's Mercy in Christ to all such as are truely Penitent and to our selves if we do or shall truely Repent This is a Repentance towards God considered not meerly as our Creator Preserver and Ruler but as in Christ reconciling the World unto himself and as Ruling Graciously and Mercifully by Christ So that it hath a formal Object different from that of the other Natural Legal Repentance and it hath likewise a different Habitude and Relation unto God and is carryed out unto him after a different manner which is sufficient to give it another Form and to make it formally to differ from the foresaid Natural Legal Repentance Moreover it hath another Office and Use assigned to it for it is constituted and Ordained by God through Christ to be a Condition Dispositive of the Subject to be pardoned or a means to prepare and qualifie us for Receiving the Pardon of our Sins by Faith in Christ's Blood and for his Righteousness only apprehended applyed and trusted to by Faith Now such a Repentance as this a True Evangelical Repentance considered under this formal notion as arising from the foresaid perswasion of Gods Mercy in Christ to the truely Penitent and as a Condition or Means to dispose and prepare for pardon and as having pardon ensured to it by Promise through Christ I say Repentance of this kind and considered under this Notion is Commanded and Required by the Gospel-Law or Covenant firstly directly and immediately and then by the Natural Moral Law mediately and by consequence As the Gospel Commands us to believe that God is upon terms of Saving Pardoning Mercy to the truely Penitent so the Gospel or God by the Gospel makes True Repentance to be one of the Terms to be a Condition or Means to dispose and qualifie us for pardoning Mercy and makes Pardon sure to us by Promise through Christ upon our Repentance As also It is the Gospel and God by Gospel that requires the said dispositive Condition that Commands us to Repent that we may certainly obtain the Promised Pardon through Faith in Christ's Blood That God by the Gospel Commands us to Repent in order to obtain the Pardon of our Sins is as Clear as the Light at Noon to all that are not blind through Unbelief For doth not the Evangelical Prophet say Isai 55.7 Let the Wicked forsake his Way and the Vnrighteous Man his Thoughts and let him Return unto the Lord and he will have Mercy upon him and to our God for he will abundantly Pardon Or He will multiply to Pardon It cannot be said That this is the Voice of the first Covenant and Law of Works For that Covenant is so far from requiring Repentance as a means to obtain Pardon of Sin that it doth not so much as admit of Repentance as any means to such an end as we shall hear by and by from Mr. Caryll And if it be not the Voice of the Old Covenant and Law of Works it must be the Voice of the New Covenant and Law of Grace for there is no Medium no Third that can have any place here
from the Righteousness of the Law by doing for so Paul Covenant of Life opened Part. 1. pag. 61. Rom. 10.5 6 7. c. expounds Moses Deut. 30 11 12 13 14. Thus Rutherford I might bring many others agreeing with these but I shall content my self with a sew As Friedlibius who though a Lutheran yet in Answer to an Objection of Bellarmins from Deut 30.11 12 sayes (z) Loquitur Moses non de doctrinâ Legis sed Evangelii Rom. 10.6 7 8. cui per gratiam Divinam in hâc vitâ facilè obedientia praestari potest P. H. Friedlib Theolog. exegeticae Tom. 1. in vet T. edit 2. An. 1660. p. 301 302. Moses speaks not of the Doctrine of the Law but of the Gospel Rom. 10.6 7 8. which by the Grace of God may be easily obeyed in this Life And in like manner the New England Elders by the Covenant in Deutâ— 29. and 30. chap. understood the Gospel or Covenant of Grace For thus they write The Synod of Elders and Messengers of the Churches in Massachuseâ—s Colony c. in their Propositions concerning the Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches Printed at Cambridge in New-England 1662. pa. 4. They that according to Scripture are Members of the visible Church they are in Covenant For it is the Covenant that constituteth the Church Duet 29.12 13. They must enter into Covenant that they might be established the People or Church of God Whence I observe that the Synod believed that the Covenant mentioned in Deut. 29.12 13. was the Covenant of Grace as then in its Legal Administration Again That confederation say they i e Covenanting explicit or implicit the latter preserveth the essence of confederation the former is Duty and most desirable is necessary to make a Member of the visible Church Ibid. pa. 5 6. appears 1. Because the Church is constituted by Covenant for there is between Christ and the Church the mutual engagement and relation of King and Sabjects Husband and Spouse this cannot be but by Covenant internal if you speak of the invisible Church external of the visible A Church is a company that can say God is our God and we are his People this is from the Covenant between God and them Deut. 29.12 13. Ezek. 16.8 2 The Church of the Old Testament was the Church of God by Covenant Gen. 17. Deut. 29. and was reformed still by renewing of the Covenant 2 Chron. 15.12 and 23.16 and 34.31 32. Neh. 9. 38. Now the Churches of the Gentiles under the New Testament stand upon the same Basis or Root with the Church of the Old Testament and therefore are constituted by Covenant as that was Rom. 11.17 18. Eph. 2.11 12 19. and 3.6 Heb. 8.10 Again Deut. 30.6 The Grace signified by Circumcision is say they there promised to Parents and Children Ibid. pag. 8. importing the Covenant to both with Circumcision sealed Gen 17. and that is a Gospel Promise as the Apostle citing part of that Context as the voice of the Gospel shews Rom. 10.6 8. compared with Deut. 30.11 14. and it reacheth to the Jews in the latter days ver 1 5. This last clause reminds me of the words of Paulus Fagius one of our Reformers who sayes (a) Diligenter observandum est ex consensu Hebraeorum caput hoc ad Regnum Christi pertinere Vnde etiam Bechai dicit hoc loco promissionem esse quod rege Messiab omnibus qui de foedere sunt circumcisio cordis contingat citans Joelem cap. 2. Paulus Fagius in Annot. ad onkeli paraphrasin Chald. cap. 30. Deut. It is diligently to be observed that by the consent of the Jews that 30th Chapter of Deuteronomy belongs to the Ringdom of Christ Whence also Rabbi Bechai saith that here is a promise that under the Reign of the Messiah all that are of the Covenant shall be circumcised in heart quoting to that purpose the second Chapter of Joel I shall shut up this with the Annotation of Mr. Pool on Deut. 30.11 For this commandment which I command thee c. He doth not here speak of the Law simply or as it is in it self but as it is mollified and accompanied with the Grace of the Gospel whereby God circumciseth Mens Hearts to do this as is expressed ver 6. The meaning is that although the practice of Gods Law strictly and severely be now far from us and above our strength yet considering the advantage of Gospel Grace whereby God enables us in some measure to our Duty and accepts of our sincere indeavours instead of perfection and imputes Christs perfect Righteousness to us that believe now it is near and easie to us And so this place well agrees with Rom. 10.6 c. where S. Paul expounds or applys this place to the Righteousness of Faith by which alone the Law is such as it is here described Thus Pool with whom agrees the Annotation on Rom. 10. ver 6 7 8 9. in the Second Vol. of Pool's Annotations From all which it plainly appears to me that Moses in Deut. 30. speaks not of the Old Covenant of Works but of the Gospel or New Covenant of Grace and what he says of the Law is to be understood of the Law as taken into the Gospel and as sincere Obedience to the Law is made a Duty and Condition of the Gospel Covenant of Grace And thus I have proved by a Third Divine Testimony that the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace hath Precepts and requires of us some Duty I might also prove this from the 19. and 119. Psalms which Mr. Goodwin acknowledges to contain a Description of the Gospel under the Name of the Law of the Lord. For if that be true it is clear as the Light that the Gospel hath Precepts and requires Duty See his Discourse pag. 8 9 10. Let any Man of ordinary Sense and Reason but read those Two Psalms and I appeal to his own Conscience whether he doth not there meet with Precepts requiring Duty Mr. Goodwin I am sure did there meet with Precepts even where the Gospel in his Judgment is described Witness his Discourse pag. 9. lin 39 40 41. And he that will say that he cannot see Precepts there may as well say That he cannot see the Wood for Trees Indeed such a Man may say any thing nor is any thing he says to be regarded because he saith it for he must have lost his Senses A Fourth Divine Testimony for this Truth out of the Old Testament we may find in Micah the 6. ver 8. even as it was Expounded by the late Reverend Mr. Danson who before he took his leave taught my R Brother that wholesom Lesson which he hath learned exactly that the Gospel hath no Precepts and that there are no sins against the Gospel Consider we then what the Prophet Micah saith ver 8. He hath shewed thee O Man what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do Justly and
Homilies on Matthew can fairly or I think will deny it It is adviseable that we all consider well what we do either in affirming or denying plain matters of Fact My Sixth Witness is the Famous Augustin the great Defender of the Freeness of God's Grace in Mans Justification and Salvation against all Merit-Mongers who in one of his Epistles writes thus (p) Itaque ab Exordio generis humani quicunque in eum crediderunt eumque utcunque intellexerunt secundum ejus praecepta piè justè vixerunt quando libet ubilibet fuerint per eum procul dubio Salvi factisunt August Epist 49 Deo gratias Oper. Tom. 2. Therefore from the beginning of Mankind whosoever believed in Christ and did in some measure know him and lived Piously and Justly according to his Precepts whensoever and wheresoever they lived without all doubt they were saved by him Here Augustin speaks of Christ not simply as God but as Mediator of the gospel-Gospel-Covenant and so his Precepts which they who believed in him observed and were saved must be the Precepts of that Covenant of which he is the Mediator and Surety for they could not be formally the Precepts of the first Legal Covenant of Works And that this was Augustins mind doth yet more clearly appear by what he writes elsewhere (q) Cum verò etiam Evangelica praecepta homo praevaricatur velut quatriduanus mortuus putet Nec de illo tamen desperandum est propter ejus gratiam qui non lentè dixit sed magnâ voce clamavit Lazare veni forâs August Epist 89. Hilario Oper. Tom. 3. But when a Man prevaricates also against the Precepts of the Gospel he stinks like one who hath been four days dead yet must we not despair of him because of the Graco of Christ who cryed with a loud voice and said Lazarus come forth In these words as they refer to what went before he manifestly shows that in his judgment the Gospel hath its Precepts For he had spoken of the Law given to Adam in Paradice of the Natural Law of Reason in all Mankind and of the Law of Moses given to the People of Israel and then in the words here quoted he speaks of the Precepts of the Gospel as formally distinct from the Precepts of the former Laws And this is consentaneous to what he writes in his Book of Faith and Works (r) Hoc est Evangelizare Christum non tantùm dicere quae credenda funt de Christo sed etiam quae observanda ei qui accedit ad Compagem Corporis Christi August de Fide Operibus Cap. 9. Oper. Tom. 4. This saith he is to preach the Gospel of Christ not only to tell People what things are to be believed concerning Christ but also what things are to be observed and done by him who becomes a Member of and enters into Vnion and Communion with the Body of Christ My Seventh Witness is Jerome who at once testifyes that in his Judgment the Gospel hath both Precepts and Threatnings His words are (r) Quomodo Christus Jesus ex maledicto nos legis liberavit factus pro nobis maledictum Ita de maledicto quoque Evangelii quod statutum est super eos qui ejus praecepta non fecerint eruit nos Factus pro nobis ipse maledictum Hieronyinus lib. 2. Comment in Epist ad Gal. cap. 3. v. 13. As Christ Jesus redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for us So he hath also delivered us from the Curse of the Gospel which is decreed or oppointed for those who do not observe its Precepts Having been himself made a Curse for us Thus Jerome by which words it is most manifest that he holds that the Gospel as distinct from and opposite to the Law hath both its own proper Precepts and also it s own proper threatnings My Eighth and last Witness is Primasius a Learned Father of the Sixth Century and a Disciple of Augustins in Africa (r) Quaeritur utrum non sit maledictus qui Evangelica praecepta non servat Eos qui Evangelii praecepta contemnunt maledictos esse Salvator edocuit dicens discedite à me maledicti in ignem aeternum Primasius Uticensis Comment in Epist ad Gal. Cap. 3. v. 13. It is demanded whether he be not Cursed who heaps not the Precepts of the Gospel Even our Saviour himself hath taught that they are Cursed who despise the Precepts of the Gospel Saying Depart from me ye Cursed into Everlasting Fire Thus Primasius And he also speaks of the Gospel as distinct from the Law and yet affirms that the Gospel so considered hath Precepts and that they are Cursedwho despise its Precepts I might bring many others of the Ancients to Witness for us that the Gospel hath Precepts and is not a mere Absolute Promise which requires nothing of us at all But these shall suffice at present And so from the Ancient Doctors I pass to the Modern Divines who flourished since the Reformation Testimonies of Modern Divines And I shall begin with Theodore Bibliander Famous among the Reformed Divines in Swizzerland and one of the Authours or the Tigurin Translation of the Bible Thus then he writes (s) Theodor. Bibliand in Relatime Fideli ad omnium Ordinum Reipublicae Christianae Principes viros populumque Christ c. Basiliae An. 1545. pag. 185 186. Whatsoever Democracy Aristocracy or Monarchy is obedient to Christ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and is governed by his most Holy Laws shall justly be accounted a Christian Politie or Commonwealth but that which rejects the Laws of Christ whether it bear the Name of a Christian Polity or openly oppose the Name of Christ we shall account it to be Antichristian That Commonwealth shall be Christian and dear to God and therefore happy and blest whose Magistrates duely obey the Laws of Christ and whose People order their Lives according to the Prescript of the Christian Doctrine and with a ready mind obey the Magistrate not as serving Men but Christ in all things which are not contrary to the Laws of Christ And that he speaks of Christ not simply as God but as Mediatour between God and Man and Surety of the Gospel-Covenant and consequently that he speaks also of his Laws not meerly as Laws of God but Laws of the Lord Mediator and Surety of the Gospel-Covenant is evidentby what follows (t) Ibid. 196 197. Christ is the faithful Eliakim Esa 22. whom God the Father hath trusted with and on his Shoulder hath laid the Key of the House of David and hath fastned him in a sure place that he may be for a Glorious Throne to his Fathers House The same Christ is the Supreme Judge unto whom the Father hath given all Power and all Judgment so that he himself judges no Man Whose Law the Isles expected and have received what they expected Concerning whose Laws it will not be alien from
our purpose to transcribe here some things out of the Ninth Book of a Work of Theodoret which he Entitled Concerning the curing of the Affections and Prejudices of the Greeks or Heathens For thus that most Learned Bishop writes Those our Fishermen and Publicans and that our Tent-Maker brought the Gospel-Law into all Nations c. By this and more which he hath there to this purpose it is most evident that Bibliander there speaks of Christ not simply as God but as Mediatorial King and Judge and as such a King and Judge giving and executing Laws which could be no other but the Laws of the New Covenant or Gospel and so Theodoret calls them My Second Witness is the Famous and Learned Zach. Ursin's Sum of Christian Religion in English Printed at London An. 1645 pag. 2. ibid. pag. 126. ib. p. 125 127. Vrsinus mentioned before His words are The Law promiseth Life with Condition of perfect Obedience the Gospel promiseth the same Life on condition of our stedsast Faith in Christ and the inchoation or beginning of New Obedience unto God Again The Old and New Covenant i.e. the same Covenant of Grace in its Old and New manner of Administration agree in this that in both God requires of Men Faith and Obedience Walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17.1 And repent and believe the Gospel Mark 1.15 And again They differ 7. In their Bond or manner of Binding The Old Covenant bound them to the sincere Obedience of the whole Mosaical Law Moral Ceremonial and Civil The New bindeth us only to the Moral or Spiritual Law and to the use of the Sacraments And a little after he saith The New Testament or Covenant is for the most part taken for the Gespel This is one of the Resormed Divines whom Mr. Goodwin quotes against me But let any Man read and consider what I have quoted here out of Vrsin and what follows in pag. 131. of which I quoted some part before and I dare refer it to his own Conscience if he have any whether Vrsin be of that Opinion that the Gospel hath no Precepts but is a meer Absolute Promise or Narrative which requires no Duty of us at all Nay I appeal to the Conscience of my Brethren whether Vrsin was not so far from being of that Opinion that on the contrary he says it was the Opinion of the Flacian Sectaries which he zealously refutes as is manifest from what I cited out of him before and from what he says more ibid. p. 131. in the same place My Third Witness is Polanus who writes thus (u) Foedus gratiae est in quo Deus nobis promittit se fore Deum nostrum gratis propter Christum Nos vero vicissim obligati sumus ut Dei popul 〈◊〉 simus 20. Capita sive Articuli ejus duo sunt unum ex parte Dei Alterum ex nostra parte 21. Ex parte Dei est gratuita promissio qua Deus nobis pollicetur se Deum nostrum sore c. 28. Alterum caput foederis est ex nostra parte obligatio qua Deus nos sibi obstrinxit ut ipsi populus simus 29. Dei populum esse est ambulare coram Deo cum integritate Gen 17.1 seu vivere sub oculis Dei ut bonos liberos decet 30. Quod fit viva in Deum side obedientiâ legis c. Amand. Polan Syllog Thes Theolog. contra Bellarm. Part. 2. De Foedere inter Deum homines Thes 19 20 21 28 29 30. pag. 174 175 176. The Covenant of Grace is that wherein God promiseth to us that he will be our God freely for Christ's sake And we again are obliged to be his People The Heads or Articles of it are two One on Gods part the other on our part On God's part it is a Free Promise whereby God promiseth to us to be our God c. The other Head or Article of the Covenant it is an Obligation on our part whereby God hath bound us to himself to be his People To be the People of God is to walk before God with Integrity Gen. 17.1 Or to live under the Eyes of God as becometh good Children which is done by a lively Faith in God and observance of his Law Thus Polanus whereby it manifestly appears that he believed as we do that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duty My fourth Witness is Melancthon who long before Polanus taught this Doctrine that the Moral Law is so grafted into the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace that sincere Obedience to it is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant His words are (x) Vt in multis Naturae partibus admirandae imagines magnarum reium sunt propositae Sic mirifica est amiciria in naturâ quasi mutuum â—edus inter oleam vitem Non solum incolumis manet vitis si inseratur oleae sed etiam novas 〈◊〉 accipir tum uvas tum olivas gignit seu uvas pariter uvarum olivarum japore â—referenâ—es Imago illustris est Oleae id est Evangelio insita Legis doctrina fit mitior Sic enin demum â—choatur obedientia placet Deo cum Evangelio insita est Phil. Melanct. in orat de sympath â—om 4. declam 210. As in many parts of nature there are proposed admirable images or representations of great things so there is a wonderful friendship in nature and as it were a mutual Covenant between the Olive and Vinetrees For if the Vine be grafted into the Olivetree it not only remains safe and lives but it also receives new strength and brings forth both Grapes and Olives or Grapes which have the savour and taste both of Grapes and Olives It is an illustrious or clear image and representation The Doctrine of the Law being ingrafted in o the Olivetree that is into the Gospel it becomes milder For so it is that then Obedience is begun and pleaseth God when it is ingrafted into the Gospel Thus Melancthon shews by an elegant similitude how the Moral Law is taken into the gospel-Gospel-Covenant whereby it is otherwise modified than it was as it pertained to the first Covenant of Works and comes under a new form and sanction by which means our Obedience to the Moral Law is accepted as pleasing to God through Christ if it be sincere tho' it be imperfect Let those who have the Book see what Christopher Pezelius saith upon this I will quote a few of his words (y) Lex per se nihil novit vel de merito vel de efficaciâ Filii Dei de beneficiis Spiritus sancti qui essunditur in corda credentium per Christum Nihil igitur expresse docet de Auxilio quomodo fiant in nobis bona opera Deinde semper immutabiliter Lex requirit integram Obedientiam ab omnibus sine discrimine renatis non renatis damnat immutabiliter non habentes integram obedientiam
kind But tho we be agreed in this yet we do differ and shall differ about the Consequence for I do utterly deny that it follows by any good and necessary Consequence that God would not be infinitely wise and unchangeable and his Moral Law perfect in its kind if the Gospel have any precepts and if God have ever given to Man any new positive Law since he first created him with the Moral natural Law written in his heart And it is not without good reason that I deny Mr. Goodwins Consequence as utterly false and blasphemous For 1 according to his own Principle Gods making unto Man a new promise doth not impeach his infinite wisdom and absolute unchangeableness for in pag. 49. He saith that Repentance is a duty to which Man was tyed before any New Covenant of Grace was made and before God had revealed any thoughts of favour to him or any purposes of grace in that first promise of the Seed of the Woman breaking the Serpents head In these words he plainly acknowledges that when God first created Man and gave him the Moral Law he had not then made him any promise of Gospel grace and mercy but the first promise of that nature was made to Man after the fall And yet I do not think that Mr. Goodwin dare say that Gods making that New promise to Man did impeach his wisdom as defective or infer any change in his nature or will And if a new promise did not then I say that no more did a new precept impeach Gods wisdom as defective or infer any change in his nature or will For there is nothing can be said against a new precept as inconsistent with the infinity of Gods wisdom and his unchangeableness but the like may be said against a new promise And if I durst give my self leave to prat boldly and blasphemously against a new Gospel promise I have no more to do but to take what Mr. G. says against a New Gospel Precept and with the varying of a few words apply it to a New Gospel-Promise and I thereby prove That it 's not consistent with the Wisdom and Immutability of God to make a New Gospel-Promise just as he proves That it is inconsistent with his Wisdom and Unchangeableness to give a New Gospel-Precept For my part I dare not imitate Mr. G. in his way of Reasoning here but there want not Infidels too many who by his way of disproving a New Gospel Precept will endeavour to disprove a New Gospel-Promise and will not stick to say after the Example of my R. B. That for God to make a New Gospel-Promise after the first Legal Covenant of Works and the Legal Promise implied in it would argue That his Wisdom was deficient as not knowing at first all that was good for man and necessary to be promised to him and believed by him c. 2. God gave a new precept to Man before the fall which was really different from the Moral natural Law For instance the Command not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge c. Gen. 2.17 was such a precept This is so clear that Mr. G. has in effect confessed it pag. 47. For there he saith that the Moral natural Law regarded the Act of eating the fatal Fruit as a thing indifferent and that indeed it was a thing indifferent before the prohibition To wit by the new precept which came after the Moral natural Law and therefore must needs be really distinct from it There he confesses 1. That the Moral natural Law did not at first and by it self immediately forbid the Act of eating the foresaid Fruit. 2. That therefore it remained still a thing indifferent to eat or not to eat of that Fruit till the new precept was given 3. That it was the new precept Gen. 2.17 Which first by it self immediately prohibited the eating of it and obliged Man not to eat it and that without this it would have still remainded indifferent notwithstanding any thing that the Moral natural Law did or could say Now if before the fall God gave Man a new positive precept which first obliged him to a certain duty and forbad the Commission of the contrary sin and if this new positive precept requiring duty and forbidding Sin was then very well consistent both with the wisdom and unchangeableness of God and also with the perfection of his Moral natural Law tho it and the Moral natural Law were two things really distinct I say if it was so then before the fall I put my R. Brother to prove that after the fall it was inconsistent with Gods infinite wisdom and immutability and with the perfection of his moral Law to give unto man any New Gospel-Precept which should oblige him to Duty whereunto the moral natural Law did not by it self immediately oblige him before If Mr. G. continue to affirm this he must prove it for I utterly deny that God's giving a new Gospel Precept is inconsistent with his VVisdom and Immutability and with the perfection of his Moral natural Law and I am perswaded that he can never prove that inconsistency no more then he can prove it inconsistent with Gods wisdom and immutability and with his Moral Laws perfection to give unto Adam before the Fall the new positive Precept of not Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledg after he had written the said Moral Natural Law in his heart at his first Creation If he say as in effect he doth That the moral natural Law obliged Adam not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge because it commanded him to obey God in whatever he should require And so God's requiring Adam by a New positive Precept to abstain from eating the said Fruit is well consistent with his wisdom and with his moral Laws Perfection I answer That my R. B. may see if he will open his Eyes that this makes against him and for me For 1. He must and he doth grant That the abstaining from eating of that Fruit was first required by a new positive Precept in Order of Nature before the moral natural Law commanded any such Abstinence so that it commanded the said Abstinence only mediately and by consequence after that it was first immediately commanded by the New positive Precept superadded to the Law of Nature 2. He knows well enough that it is our professed belief that in like manner tho the Moral Natural Law the general Law of our Creation doth Command us to obey God in whatever he requires of us by any new Special Gospel Precept yet doth God first in order of Nature require our obedience to the Gospel by the New Gospel-Precept immediately and then by means of that special new Gospel-Precept the general Law of our Creation comes to take hold of our Conscience with respect thereunto and obliges us to obey God therein So that here are two Precepts that oblige us to the same thing but in different ways First There is the
the same Christ being God and all the difference is only made by that which is the Circumstance tho a deplorable one of our own persons This is another great mistake for the object of faith in God before the fall is not altogether the same with the object of Justifying faith in Christ the Mediator since the fall And the object not being the same the Act of faith is not the same but is different in proportion to the difference of the object Moreover as the objective cause so the efficient cause is different for the Medicinal Grace of Christ which is the efficient cause of Justifying faith since the fall is of a different nature from that Grace of God as the Author of innocent nature thereby Man was enabled to believe in God before the * See Rutherford's Covenant of Life opened p. 49. lin 16 17. fall And seeing Justifying faith in Christ since the fall hath both a different efficient cause and a different object together with a different habitude unto its object it seems to be specifically distinct from the faith which Adam had in God before the fall For the different specification of Acts ariseth from the difference of the efficient cause and object of the said Acts and from the different way of their being conversant about their respective Objects It is not a meer different Circumstance of our Case since the Fall that causeth the difference of our Justifying Faith now from the Faith of Adam then before the Fall But it is 1. The Difference of the Efficient Cause or of that spiritual influence of Grace which causeth our Justifying Faith in Christ the Redeemer 2. It is the difference of the Object which is not now God formally and simply considered as God the Creator and Preserver and Ruler of innocent Nature but nextly and immediately it is Christ considered as God-Man and Mediator between God and Men and ultimatly it is God Justifying penitent believers by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ 3. It is the difference of our Faith its Habitude and Relation from such a different Cause to such a different Object These Three differences are sufficient to make a different faith but it doth by no Logick follow from hence that every difference of Circumstance in the same state of lapsed Nature since the first Apostacy would make our Faith in Christ to be of a different Nature and Kind Now our Justifying Faith being thus different from the Faith of Adam before the Fall it may very well and it really doth fall under a different positive Precept such as that Acts 16.31 And yet I never denied but that the first Commandment of the moral natural Law doth also require this Faith but it doth not require it after the same manner as the positive Precept of the Gospel requires it 4. Fourthly Whereas from page 48 to 54. he endeavours to prove That because the natural Moral Law obliges all men to a natural Legal Repentance therefore it doth also of it self immediately oblige them to an Evangelical Repentance and that this it doth so as that there is no Positive Precept of the Gospel which requires of Christians and obliges them unto the said Evangelical Repentance In all his Discourse there he grosly mistakes in drawing his Consequence which doth not come naturally but is forcibly drawn against the clear Evidence of Scripture as I have proved before And therefore I utterly deny his Consequence and affirm on the contrary That over and besides the moral natural Law there are Evangelical Precepts belonging to the New Covenant or Law of Grace which requires of us an Evangelical Repentance considered under this formal Notion as arising from the perswasion of Gods Mercy in Christ to the truly penitent and as a means to prepare and dispose us for pardon and as having pardon ensured to it by Promise through Christ To such a Repentance thus considered the moral natural Law doth not by it self immediately oblige us and yet it was never denied by us but that mediately it doth oblige us to it in as much as it obliges us to obey the Positive Precepts of the Gospel which require such a Repentance of men to whom the Gospel is Preached 5. Fifthly Whereas he says in page 51. That the moral natural Law not only urgeth the unregenerate to Repentance but also moveth them to build their hopes of Life upon it That is a very gross and dangerous mistake For it is a great sin for unregenerate men or indeed any men whatsoever to build their hopes of life upon their Repentance surely then the holy Law of God doth not move them to it otherwise it should move them to sin which is false and borders upon Blasphemy The Truth is The Law of God doth not move men to any such Thing it rather moves sinners to despair of ever obtaining life by and for their Repentance or any thing they do or can do And since as Mr. G. says p. 51. The Gospel instructs us to put our whole and entire confidence in Christ and his Righteousness alone Where the Light of the Gospel iâ— superadded to that of the Law there the Law is a School-Master to bring men to Christ and Objectively moves them not to seek nor hope for Justification and Salvation on the Account of any thing done by Themselves but rather to seek and hope for life and salvation only in Christ and on the alone account of his Righteousness and Death Thus I have refuted his first grand Assertion which he takes so much pains to prove in his Seventh Chapter That the Gospel hath no precepts and requires no obedience I have shew'd that it hath precepts and requires duty and obedience of all those unto whom it is Preached and have answered his objections against the truth revealed in the sacred Scriptures and believed by the faithful Orthodox Ministers and People of the Lord in all the Ages of the Church SECT IV. His second assertion is that the Gospel hath no threatnings This I have refuted before in my remarks on his sixth Chap. but as I said there I must make some further Animadversions on it here in its proper place For the clearing up of the truth in this matter consider then that the Gospel-Govenant hath some threatnings against the unbelievers and unregenerate to whom it is preached and other threatnings against regenerate believers First the Gospel-Covenant hath some threatnings against unregenerate unbelievers to whom the Gospel is Preached and the design and use of such threatnings is to bring Men off from their unbelief and to move them to believe in Christ and to give themselves up to him in Covenant that by him they may be saved both from the punishment threatned in the Law and Covenant of works and also from that further degree of punishment threatned in the Gospel against all that neglect and refuse to accept and make use of the Soveraign and saving remedy provided by God and offered in
salvation and effectually called It is no more or Then certainly it is not of works That is of the Merits or Dignity of their works Otherwise Namely if it were of works only or of grace and works together grace is no more grace Namely for as much as grace excludes all debt Merit or worthyness and cannot consist therewith For grace is no wise grace if it be not every way grace Rom. 4.4 And if it be of works it is no more grace Namely but a deserved reward i. e. then their Election and Calling was not done of grace Otherwise the work is no more work That is no work of Merit Thus they excellently well expound that 6 verse of Rom. 11. And refer it to the Election mentioned in the 5 verse so as not to exclude but rather include the reserving of an Elected remnant of Jews and their effectual calling to Faith in Christ After the same manner doth Mr. Mayo explain the same words In the 2d Vol. of Pool's Annotations on Rom. 11.6 He writes thus The Apostle takes occasion here to shew that Election and Vocation is only by grace and not by works And here he delivers a truth which the Jews of old either could not or would not understand i. e. that there is no mixing of the Merit of good works and the free grace of God But one of these doth exclude and destroy the nature of the other For if Election and calling were c. Let the Reader consult the whole Passage It is too large for me to Transcribe but it is so well done that I do most heartily approve of it Now this being the true genuine sense of that place of Sctipture let Mr. Goodwin prove if he can that because Election from Eternity and Effectual calling in time is of grace and is not of Merit of works either foreseen before Election or really wrought before effectual calling Therefore the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath no conditional promises and doth require no duty no not Faith in Christ nor no obedience or work of obedience at all I am sure that no Man living can prove that Consequence by one solid Argument It may be my R. B. will be more moved with the words of the Learned Ainsworth then with mine and therefore I will cite him a passage out of a Writing of that Learned Author His words are * H. Ainsworth's censure upon the Anabaptists Dialogue c. pag. 20. No Scripture telleth that our Election to Life dependeth on this Condition of our Faith and Obedience Faith and Obedience are the effects not the cause of our Election and are Conditions following Election not going before it as it is written Acts 13.48 Here Ainsworth acknowledges that tho Faith and obedience be not the cause but the effects of Election yet that hinders not their being conditions And I add that tho they are effects not only of election but of effectual Vocation yet they are Conditions with respect to the subsequent blessings of the Covenant And if they be Conditions then there are Conditional Promises in the gospel-Gospel-Covenant and it requires of us some Duties and Works of Obedience and though this be most true yet doth it not follow from hence by any true Logick That the Gospel will be only the superannuated Law of Works revived with some abatements of its required Duties Prove this Consequence if you can I put you to it but take heed that you do not lay your self further open and discover your own weakness in the doing of it Sir if you had only to do with me it may be you might easily run me down for I acknowledge my self to be nothing and am ready to lay my self at the Feet of all my R. Brethren not excluding my present Antagonist But I must tell you That the Lord's Truth and commonly received Doctrine of the Reformed Churhes will not so easily be run down There is one thing more in his 56th Pag. that needs correction and that is what he saith of God's conditional Promises being made to Men upon such and such a condition I humbly conceive this is a mistake One Man indeed may make a promise to another Man upon a condition so as to suspend the very making of the promise upon the condition and if the other Man do not accept or perform the condition the promise is not made to him at all but I think it is otherwise between God and Man God is infinitely Superiour to us and he absolutely makes his conditional Promises to us without asking our consent I say that God's making of the conditional Promise is absolute but the Promise made is conditional and God prescribes the Condition to us and Commands us to perform it But then God performs the said Promise conditionally that is He suspends his own Transient Act of giving us the Benefit promised conditionally till we through Grace have performed the Condition And if the Condition be never performed by us God never gives the Benefit promised unto us This is no new Notion of mine I have not so good an Opinion of my own Abilities as to venture upon new Notions in Divinity It is enough for me and I hope I shall through Grace be thankful to God for it if he be pleased to enable me to contend as I ought to do for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints Jude v. 3. This Notion I say is none of mine but it is the Learned and Pious Rutherford's as is to be seen in his Book of the Covenant of Life opened Part I. P. 91 92. Nor is it true that the Promise is made to the Aged upon condition of Believing The Promise is made to them absolutely whether they Believe or not But the Blessing of the Promise and Covenant of Grace is given and bestowed only conditionally if they Believe The Promise is absolutely made It is called conditional from the thing conditionally given Thus Rutherford And accordingly whenever I say That God hath promised a Benefit to Men upon a Condition I desire it may be thus understood For I mean no more than that God hath made to Men a conditional Promise that he prescribes to them the Condition and will give them the Benefit promised if they perform the Condition prescribed and not till then But I do not mean that God conditionally makes the Promise to Men so as to suspend his making of it till they perform the Condition And it may be my R. B. meant no more than this and if so we are agreed as to this matter But further Object 2. He argues against the Gospel's having any Conditional Promises thus P. 57. If the Gospel be a New Law or Covenant of Grace that hath Conditional Promises so it should be expressed or it doth not concern me at all it will follow that God in the Promulgation of this New-Law or Covenant of Grace offers Life universally to all Men to Tartars Negroes and the Savages in America to
confess that it is so that it is a meer Sophism or else to make him eat his own words For mark I pray that in his discourse of the Gospel he says pag. 57. lin 6.7 8. 1. That God in giving his Moral Law to all reasonable Creatures said universally to Men do this and you shall Live 2. He must own that do this and you shall live or if you do this you shall live is a conditional promise of the Law or Covenant of works because a little before in the same book and Chapter he says pag. 56. lin 18.19 That The promises of the Law were made to Men on condition that its precepts were obeyed These are his own express words From which two passages it manifestly appears that according to his Judgment God's Law or Covenant of works had a conditional promise of Life Life was promised in the Law and Covenant of works to Adam and all his posterity on condition that they personally perpetually and perfectly kept its precepts This is Mr. G' s own Doctrine which he hath published to the world Now let his Argument against conditional promises of the Gospel be applied to the conditional promises of the Law and it will as strongly and effectually disprove all conditional promises of the Law which he owns as it will disprove all conditsonal promises of the Gospel which he denies Thus then I form the Argument and turn it against Mr. Goodwin himself and the conditional promises of the Law which he maintains God did not either absolutely or conditionally decree to give Life Eternal Life to Adam or any of his posterity by the Law and Covenant of works or on condition of keeping the Law and Covenant of works for if he had so decreed it he would have taken effectual care that Adam and his posterity should never have died but should have had Eternal Life on that condition and by keeping that Law and Covenant of works since the intents of his mind and will always obtain infallibly their desir'd effect Therefore God never promised Life to Adam and his posterity on condition of their keeping the Law and Covenant of works The reason of the Consequence is because God always speaks the purposes of his mind and none of his words contradict his heart Or which is the same thing because every conditional promise of God's word presupposes an answerable decree and purpose of God's will Here is his own Argument turned against himself and thereby the conditional promise of the Law which he maintains is as strongly and effectually disproved as is the conditional promise of the Gospel which we defend It is plain then that since his Argument militates as strongly against himself as against us he is as much concerned to Answer it as we are And if he can Answer it as it militates against himself he can by the same means Answer it as it militates against us One Answer will serve us both If therefore he do not like our Answer let him find out a better And it will serve our turn as well as his I hope this may be a means to open his eyes and to convince him that his Argument against the conditional promises of the Gospel is a putid Sophism For it is a certain evidence that an Argument is Sophistical and proves nothing when if it prove any thing it proves too much even more than we would have it to prove or than we can with a safe Conscience admit This may suffice for an Answer to the foresaid objection But for clearing the truth and for our edification I will urge an other Argument which seems to have more strength than the former Obj. 4. I will suppose then that some ingenious brother may demand if this be true that God hath promised in the Gospel pardon and salvation unto the nonâ—elect who hear the glad tydings of the Gospel upon condition of Faith and Repentance will it not hence clearly follow that there is a conditional will in God that God's will depends on something without it self in the Creature and that it hangs in suspence untill the condition be performed or not performed The reason of the Consequence is because every conditional Promise signifies and testifies that the Promiser doth will and purpose to give the Benefit promised if the Condition required be performed otherwise the Promise would be false deceitful and delusive which the Promise of the God of Truth cannot possibly be But there cannot be a Conditional Will in God nor can his Will depend upon any thing nor hang in suspence at all Therefore it seems God cannot make any conditional Promise unto the Non-Elect who hear the glad Tidings of the Gospel that they shall be Pardoned and Saved if they Believe and Repent This is the Argument whereunto I Answer 1. That whoever looks narrowly into this Argument may easily and plainly see that it must needs be Sophistical and Fallacious because as was said before either it proves nothing or it proves too muth to wit that God could not in the first Covenant or Law of Works promise the continuance of Life unto Adam and in him to his Posterity in the State of Innocency upon Condition of Personal perfect and ever Sinless Obedience But that is certainly false and contrary to the Judgment of all Divines even of Mr. G. himself for they all hold as well as I that the first Covenant was Conditional and that God before the Fall promised unto Adam Immunity from Death and Eternal Life on condition of perfect and ever Sinless Obedience We are then all alike concerned to answer the aforesaid Sophism taken from the Inconditionality and Independenâ—y of God's Will 2. I Answer That it is great weakness and a degree of Infidelity to disbelieve and deny that which God hath clearly Revealed in his Holy Word because do not clearly perceive the way and manner how God Wills one thing to be upon condition of another thing 's being What though we should never know the way and manner how God conditionally Wills the things which he hath Conditionally Promised Is it a wise course think ye to disbelieve and deny the Being of Conditional Promises and God's willing the things Promised conditionally both which he hath clearly Revealed because he hath not Revealed and therefore we do not know the way and manner of his willing things conditionally It were easily to prove that to disbelieve and deny things clearly Revealed because we do not clearly understand God's modus volendi way and manner of willing which is not Revealed is the ready way to make all the world turn Infidels or Deists To prevent which let us all follow the Wise Counsel of Calvin which he gives in these following Words * Saepe in scriptis meis admoneo nihil hic melius esse docta ignorantia quia Phreneticorum instar delirant qui plus sibi permittunt sapere quam parsit Jam vides ut mihi certa sit illa Dei voluntas
promises in the gospel-Gospel-Covenant But now let me ask this R. B. a few questions as 1. Is it not now every whit as impossible if not more impossible for the non-elect in the visible Church to keep the Law of works most perfectly as to believe in Christ sincerely 2. Doth not Mr. G. himself hold that notwithstanding the said impossibility God now requires of them perfect obedience to the Law of works under pain of Eternal Death and Misery 3. Doth he not hold also that God by the Law and Covenant of works doth promise them Life and Happiness upon condition that they most perfectly obey that Law and keep that Covenant of Works This I take to be his Judgment from what he writes in Chap. 7. pag. 56. Compared with what he quotes with approbation out of Melancton in Chap. 6. pag. 29.30 Concerning the promises of the Law as contra-distinguished from the gracious promises of the Gospel Now if this be so that according to Mr. G. Godpromiseth to the non-elect by the Law and Covenant of works Mat. 19.17 Rom. 10.5 That they shall have Not indeed pardon of sin and salvation properly so called but Life and Happiness on condition that they most perfectly keep the Law and Covenant of works I say if this be Mr. G' s. Judgment I demand 4. Whether it be not as evidently repugnant to the wisdom and Goodness of God and as plainly a mocking of those wretched Men to promise them Eternal Life and Happiness by the Covenant of works upon the impossible condition that they most perfectly fulfill the Law of works As it is to promise them pardon and salvation by the Gospel or Covenant of Grace on the impossible condition of believing in Christ So that my R. B. his Argument militates against himself and he is as much bound to Answer it as we are Unless he deny the conditional promises of the Law as he doth those of the Gospel and when once I know that he doth deny both I shall cease from retorting his own Argument upon him and shall take another way of dealing with him In the mean time this may serve for the first Answer 2. I Answer that this Arminian objection was sufficiently answered in the Apology out of the writings of the professors of Leyden of Dr. Owen of the Synod of Dort and of Dr. Twiss For there it was shewed 1. That as for the non-elect to whom the Gospel is Preached in the visible Church God doth not require them to believe in Christ by their meer natural powers without any help without his putting forth so much as his finger to help them For together with the Gospel-Command to believe they receive more Common-Grace more light and power from the Lord than they make a good use of and as Dr. Owen says Apol. pag. 23. and pag. 114.115 where real Conversion is not attained It is always from the Interposition of an Act of Wilfulness and Stubbornness in those enlightened and convicted They do not sincerely improve what they have received and faint not meerly for want of strength to preceed but by a free Act of their own wills they refuse the grace which is further tendred unto them in the Gospel 2. There it was shewed out of the Writings of Dr. Twiss where he Answers this same objection which Mr. G. hath borrowed from the Arminians that as for the non-elect in the visible Church their inability to believe in Christ according to the Gospel is not a meer physical impotency but it is a Moral impotency Jer. 6.10 Which hath its immediate Foundation in and its next rise from their own wills so that if they earnestly would believe then they could believe but they cannot believe because they will not Whereas the inability of the poor wretch of whom Mr. G. speaks and to whom he compares the unconverted is not at all a Moral impotency but it is a meer Physical natural impotency There is nothing in the Man 's own will that causes him to refuse wilfully to come up out of the Dungeon in which he is a starving but that which hinders him from coming up is the natural weakness of his Limbs which are all supposed to be broke so that the poor wounded Man cannot come up out of the Dungeon to receive the Food that is offered him suppose he were never so earnestly willing and desirous to do it Now Dr. Twiss shews that there is a vast difference between these two impotencies between impotency Moral and impotency meerly Physical that impotency Moral is highly culpable and deserves to be punished because it is willful and affected whereas impotency meerly Physical is not culpable at all but is wholly excuseable and that therefore it is a shameful thing in the Arminians to confound these two impotencies to wit Moral and Natural impotency as if there were no difference See for this the Apol. 109.110 Where the express formal words of Dr. Twiss are quoted at large If then Mr. G. have a mind to dispute against this Distinction I desire it may be remembred that he disputes not so much against me as against Dr. Twiss and in the Doctors Judgment he doth a thing which will have a shameful issue to confound impotency Moral with impotency natural as he plainly doth 3. I Answer that what Mr. G. supposes to strengthen his Arminian Objection is manifestly false to wit that God always Commands the non-elect in the visible Church to believe by their Meer natural powers without any help since he will not so much as put forth his finger to help them I say this is false because 1. It is contrary to Scripture which saith that Gods Spirit shall not always strive with such Men Gen. 6.3 According to our Translation and that plainly implies that for a time God's Spirit doth strive with them and I suppose it will not be said that God's Spirit strives with them to hinder them but rather to help them So in Prov. 1.23 The wisdom of God saith to such Men turn ye at my reproof Behold I will pour out my Spirit unto you and I will make known my words unto you Here is not only a Command to turn unto God but a promise also of some help to enable them to turn And then it follows immediately in the 24. verse because I have called and ye refused I have stretched out my hand and no Man regarded c. In which words the Lord himself saith that he stretches out his hand to such Men but Master Goodwin saith that the Lord will not so much as put out his finger to help them for he compares the Lord in this matter to a merciless Man who offers food to a poor wretch starving in a Dungeon with all his Limbs broken on condition that he â—ome up and receive it and yet he refuses to put forth a finger to give him the least list Thus Mr. G. represents God to the world upon the Principles of the Calvinists whereas God in
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
it was that Justin took occasion to mention the new law and Covenant in his Answer to the foresaid Discourse of the Jew which Answer he thus begins There never was O Trypho nor ever will be another God besides him who created the whole world and we have no other God than you none but that same God who brought your fathers out of Egypt Nor do we trust in any other for there is no other but in him in whom you trust also to wit the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And we trust in him and hope to be saved not by Moses nor by the Law to wit of Moses But I have read O Trypho that there should be a latter or after-Law and a Testament or Covenant c. As these words and what follows them are cited in the Apol. p. 24. This New-Law or Covenant Justin saith all Men must keep That would be saved Then alluding to Isa 42.6 He saith Christ was given to be this Eternal and latter-Law unto us and a sure Covenant after which there is neither Law nor precept nor Commandment How that passage of Justin is to be understood I have shewed before Then he proves out of Isaiah and Jeremiah that Christ was to come and that through him God would make this New and last Law or Covenant with his Church consisting Jews and Gentiles And since God was to do thus he concludes from the conversion of the Gentiles from Idols to Faith in the crucified Jesus and from their Holiness of Life and perseverance in Faith and Holiness to the Death that the Messias was already come and that this was the New-Law and Covenant which the Christians lived under and according to the terms whereof they hoped to be saved through Christ believed on For saith Justin we are the true Spiritual Israel the spiritual progeny of Jacob and Isaac and Abraham who in his uncircumcision by Faith obtained a good Testimony from God and was blessed and called the Father of many Nations even we who are brought near unto God by this crucified Christ This he confirms from Isaiah 55. v. 3.4 5. Then tells them this very Law ye Jews disgrace and vilify his New and Holy Covenant where he manifestly distinguishes the Covenant from the Lord himself neither do ye to this day receive it nor repent of your evil deeds The Legislator is come and present and you see him not The poor receive the Gospel and the blind see but you do not understand Then he tells them that they needed another Spiritual Circumcision and Sabbath and Unleavened bread and washing That God was not like them pleased with those external Rites and Ceremonies but that now by the New Law and Covenant he called them to true Evangelical Repentance and Faith in the Blood of Christ which alone can wash away sin and expiat the guilt of it To prove this he cites those Scriptures mentioned by Mr. G. he stops not there but goes on and tells the Jews that their External Rites Washings and Sacrifices were but Types and Shadows of the inward Spiritual Washing and Purification of Gods People by the Blood Spirit and word of Christ Wherefore he exhorts Trypho and his Company to Faith and Repentance according to the Tenour of the new-New-Covenant And that he doth in the words of Isaiah Chap. 55. from v. 3. To the end Now this was not the old Law and Covenant of works but the New Law or Covenant of Grace which Justin in the words of Isaiah Preached to these Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 231. This is that very thing which this New Law-giver Judges fit and meet to require of you From the premisses it is manifest that Justin did not think the New-Law or Covenant to be a Doctrine of Grace in such a sense as to require nothing of us at all for there and through the whole Dialogue he shews that Faith and Repentance and Evangelical obedience are required by the Gospel-Law and Covenant and says expressly that this Covenant all Men must keep that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God Thus he Answered the Jew's objection and shewed that Christians had ground to hope for Mercy and Salvation tho they kept not the old Sinaitical Covenant because they had received from God a New-Law and Covenant of Grace which they kept and keeping it they were sure to obtain the pardon of their Sins and salvation of their Souls through the Blood and Death of Christ the Mediator and surety of that New and better Covenant That this is the true sense of Justin is evident by what I quoted out of him before in my remarks on Mr. G' s. 7th Chapter by what I have here related concerning the Jew's Objection and his Answer to it which was the true occasion of his mentioning the New Law and Covenant And by what he writes in pag. 243. 263 323 327. I might now pass from Justin to a vindication of the Testimonies of Cyprian from the exceptions made against them by Mr. G. if another Reverend Brother in his niblings at our Apol. had not pretended to prove in his Book on Rom. 4. That I impertinently quoted Justin Martyr His words in pag. 35. Are these I shall saith Mr. C. only instance his first citation out of Justin Martyr and I am willing to be Judged by any of the Subscribers that will take the pains to read it if Justin intends any thing more than the recommending the Christian Constitution and proving it preferable to the Mosaical for he says This new law is posterior to Moses his Law but the Apologists new law has been ever since the Fall of Adam Thus Mr. C. whose Arguments are to be considered before I pass any further I answer then thus That Justin intended the recommending of the Christian Constitution of the Covenant af Grace and proving it preferable to the Mosaical was never denied by me tho I deny that he intended no more than the recommending of it in Mr. C. his sense for I did and do most firmly believe That that was part of his Design and the other part of it was to prove against the Jew That the New Law or Covenant of Grace was now to be kept as it is in its Christian Constitution and that the keeping of it as such was sufficient to the obtaining of salvation and that the keeping of it in its Mosaical Constitution or form of Administration was not now necessary as Trypho pretended But then good Sir consider that in prosecution of that design he expressly calls the Christian constitution of it as such a New-Law and Covenant of the greatest or most excellent Authority of all which all Men now must keep whosoever they be that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God Now I appeal to all Men of Common sense and reason if withal they have but common honesty whether this citation was not very pertinent to my purpose which was to prove that the accuser of the
only to prove that in the 5th Century the Gospel-Covenant was called a Law the Christian-Law This Mr. G. doth not deny but insinuates that by Christian-Law Salvian meant nothing but a Doctrine of Grace which hath no precepts and requires no duty of us at all But if my R. B. once read over all Salvian and understand what he reads I hope he will never be so shameless as to deny plain matter of fact For if I be put to it I shall if the Lord will prove by his express words that he called the Gospel not only the Christian-Law but the New-Law and that it is a New-Law which hath precepts that oblige to duty Thus I have justified my citations out of the four Fathers Justin Martyr Cyprian Augustin and Salvian and have confirmed and strengthened their Testimonies by shewing that they prove what they were cited for and more too Now we must see what exceptions Mr. G. brings against my Modern Witnesses And 1. He excepts against Bradwardin because he was a Papist I Answer behold here the Justice and fair dealing of those Men with whom we have to do They bring Bradwardin to witness for them against us and then he is a good witness tho he be a Papist But when we bring him to witness for us against them then he is no good witness and his Testimony signifies nothing because he is a Papist The truth is we had not mentioned Bradwardin in this cause if he had not been first publickly Summoned by Mr. G's good Friend our Accuser to witness against us And if they will confess that they did foolishly in first mentioning him against us they shall hear no more of him from us as a witness against them For I declare I do not at all value his Testimony meerly as it is his Testimony And I think that in the Apol. I have shewed sufficient reason why no true Christian should value his Testimony meerly because it is his Testimony And that with a non obstante notwithstanding that high esteem which Mr. G. saith he hath obtained among Men. And yet because it is in my Judgment unlawful to belye either the Pope or Devil I must forbear saying either that Bradwardin asserted works done by Grace to be strictly and properly meritorious or that with incomparable strength and closeness of reason he refuted the Pelagian Heresies in all Points till Mr. Goodwin hath clearly proved both these matters of Fact for I have some reason to doubt whether they be both true and as to one of them I gave one reason of my doubting in the Apology p. 164. and another in p. 133. 2dly He endeavours to elude the Testimony of the Professors of Leyden by saying That they only mean that the Gospel in a large and improper sense may be termed a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatings in the Books of the New Testament Answ Ah poor Writing I would I had wherewithal to cover thy Nakedness but that is out of my power for the Leyden Professors give no such Reason why the Gospel may be termed a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatnings in the Books of the New Testament But they say expressly as cited in the Apology p. 27. that the Gospel is sometimes called a Law because it also hath its Own Commandments and its Own Promises and Threatnings Mark ye 1. They do not say it may be improperly called a Law but that it is called a Law 2. They do not say that it is called a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatnings in the Books of the New Testament but because it also hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings that is plainly That as the old Covenant of Works had its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings so also the Gospel or New Covenant of Grace hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings 3dly As the Promises of the Gospel are its own so are the Commandments and Threatnings of it its own but the Promises are its own because they properly belong to it then also are the Commandments and Threatnings its own for the same reason because they properly belong to it For the worthy and Learned Professors make no difference but say that Commandments Promises and Threatnings are all its own Now this is the very true reason why I according to Scripture call the Gospel a Law As for what Mr. G. Disc p. 67. cites out of Polyander there it makes nothing against what he says here in the passage now under consideration but at the most shews that Gospel is a word of various signification which I have freely granted and fully spoken to before And as Polyander renounced the Popish Socinian and Arminian opinion concerning the New Law so do I and my Brethren renounce the self-same Opinion And yet in the sence of the Orthodox Ancient and Modern Divines we believe the Gospel to be a New Law of Grace and which is the same thing in other words a New Covenant of Grace which hath Commands Promises and Threatnings of its own 3dly He endeavours to put by the Testimony of Gomarus by saying That he understood the Gospel in its larger acceptation when he called it a Law in the place cited by me and pretends to have made this out in the 34th Page of his Discourse to which he refers his Reader Answ In my Remarks and Animadversions on his Sixth Chapter I have clearly and fully refuted that part of his Discourse and shewed how grosly he abuses Gomarus by wresting his words to an absurd sense which they are no ways capable of to wit that there the word Gospel is not taken by Gomarus for God's Covenant of Grace only but for all the second part of the Bible that is all the Books of the New Testament I proved from Gomarus his own words that by the word Gospel he neither did nor could understand there all the Books of the New Testament but that really he there understood by the Gospel the very Covenant of Grace it self both discover'd to and made with Man and recorded in the Books both of Old and New Testament and likewise that there he called the same Covenant of Grace God's Law because of the duty required in it and the condition prescribed by it To which I shall only add now that in the Apology p. 100. I cited the 29th Position which Gomarus lays down next before the 30th that here is under consideration and in that 29th Position he saith That the Gospel is called God's Covenant because it promulgates the mutual Obligation of God and Men concerning the giving them Eternal Life upon their performing a certain Condition and that it is called the Covenant concerning free Salvation by Christ because God in the Gospel of mere Grace publishes and offereth unto all Men whatsoever on condition of true Faith not only Christ and perfect Righteousness in him for Reconciliation and Eternal Life but also he
promiseth unto his Elect and perfecteth in them the prescribed Condition of Faith and Repentance These are Gomarus his own words truly Translated which together with his 30th Position that next follows in order do sufficiently refute Mr G' s Gloss and may make him Blush for so grosly abusing that Great Man and most Zealous Anti-Arminian Fourthly Mr. G. having passed over the Testimony of Dr. Andrews the learned Bishop of Winchester comes in the last place to Dr. Twiss and pretends by a short Answer to take off his Testimony and to shew that it is nothing to the purpose And his short Answer is That all which can be concluded from the words of Dr Twiss is only this That God hath appointed a set and stated order in our Salvation according to which He proceeds I reply That this Answer is short indeed and that is no fault at all but the fault of it is that it is most false as doth most evidently appear by Dr. Twiss his own express and formal words quoted at large in the Apology I appeal to any Man of common sense that can read and understand English if withall he be a Man of Common Honesty and Ingenuity whether 1. Dr. Twiss doth not say that in the very Gospel there is a Positive Law according to which God proceeds in his dealings with Men. 2. That the said positive law is not only a Law to God himself but that it is a positive law to us appointing unto us a set and stated order of walking and prescribing a condition to be performed by us through Grace that we may obtain Salvation for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness only 3. That the said order is by necessary consequence a conditional order with respect to us and that it is required of us to observe the Conditional Order and to perform the condition in order to obtain the blessing and benefit promised conditionally in the Gospel These three things are so evident by the words of Dr Twiss that it is needless to use further reasoning to make them more evident and therefore I shall forbear doing it at present and only refer the matter to the judgment of every understanding conscientious Reader who shall be at the pains to peruse my Citations out of Twiss Thus I have clearly vindicated all the Citations that Mr. Goodwin hath excepted against and endeavoured to elude and have shewed that they stand in full force and do very pertinently prove the matter for the proof whereof they were brought in the Apology and that his Exceptions are so poor and mean yea false and foul that he had done more prudently and had better consulted his own credit and reputation as an Ingenuous Man and a Schollar if he had done by all my Witnesses as he did by Dr. Andrews passed them all over and said nothing to them at all But before he make an end of his Eighth Chapter he undertakes in P. 68. to instruct Ministers how to deal with a poor dying Sinner and 1. when a Minister comes to visit a Sinner on his Death-bed that hath lived in Lewdness to that time of his Sickness Mr. G. would not have him to advise and exhort and in the Lord's Name to command and beseech such a sinner to do any thing in order to his obtaining Salvation through the Mercy of the Father the Meritorious Righteousness of the Son and the Grace of the Spirit no though the Minister know that the Man hath lived to that day in Unbelief and Impenitence and in the practice of all manner of wickedness yet he must have a care that he do not exhort him to Faith in Christ and Repentance towards God he must not tell him that Faith and Repentance are both duties indispensably necessary to Salvation and required of him by the Gospel-Covenant and therefore that if now he do not believe in Christ with all his heart and if now he do not repent unfeignedly of all his sins and pray to God through Christ for Grace to enable him so to do he will be undone for ever But that on the other hand if he now cry to God mightily for Grace to help him in time of need and through Grace now at last believe and repent and turn to the Lord in heart and affection his many and great sins shall be pardoned and his Soul shall be saved through Christ according to the Tenour of the New Covenant or law of Grace This must not the Minister do because this would fright the wicked man and make him think that the Minister were sending him to Hell Well but what must the Minister do then why that Mr. G. tells us in the second place and the sum of his Advice you may take thus Poor Sinner by the Covenant of life and salvation God requires neither Faith nor Repentance of thee he requires no Duty of thee at all by the Gospel for that is all Promise absolute Promise but if God hath Decreed to save thee he hath Blessings in store for thee and all Blessings of the Covenant are inseparably linked together and thou shalt have one and all of them never trouble thy head then about Believing in Christ and Repenting of thy Sins for these are Duties which the Gospel requires not of thee But look thou on Faith and Repentance as Blessings given not as Duties required by the Gospel and laying thy hand on thy heart if thou findest the Blessings of Faith and Repentance there then all is well and thou mayest be assured of thy Interest in all other blessings This it seems is his way of visiting the Sick and thus he would Instruct other Ministers to Visit them and if we may believe himself he hath by this sufficiently answered that part of our Apology in Page 32 33. which relates to this matter But whether this be a sufficient Answer I am content without adding one word more of Reply to refer it unto the Judgment of the Intelligent and Godly Reader Remarks on his 9th Chapter MR. Goodwin's Design in this his last Chapter is to make simple unlearned People believe That our Opinion of the Gospel's being a New Covenant or Law of grace which hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings doth too much agree with the Popish Socinian and Arminian Opinion concerning the New Law And it appears to be very dangerous to agree with them in that Opinion First because as he says The Papists do in that opinion lay the surest foundation for that dear Article of their Faith the merit of works Secondly because the Arminians and Socinians do zealously espouse it as a most effectual engine to overthrow Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ Whether this be altogether true or not is not my present business to enquire if they really do what Mr. G. charges them with they certainly do a very ill thing And we are fo far from agreeing with them therein that we utterly detest and abhor it And
as we said in the Apol. p. 39. So we say again that To affirm that we agree with Papists Arminians or Socinians in this or any other opinion that lays a Foundation for the merit of works and is an effectual Engine to overthrow Justification by the imputed Righteousness of Christ is as false as any thing that ever came out of the mouth of the Father of lies Since then we never hold the Gospel to be a New-Law in the sense that Papists Arminians and Socinians hold it to be a New-Law to wit which lays a Foundation for the merit of works and is an Engine to overthrow Justification by the imputed Righteousness of Christ His many citations out of Popish-School-men and some out of Socinus and Episcopius are utterly impertinent to prove our agreement with them in their Erroneous Doctrines I advise therefore my R. brother to forbear asserting or insinuating such things for the future He thereby doth himself more hurt than he can possibly do unto us for those that know both him and us will never believe any such thing of us upon his Testimony concerning us He blames me for being so liberal in bestowing Titles of dishonour upon those who differ from me as to call them Antinomians But Reverend Sir where do I in the Apol. call any that differ from me Antinomians but such as are Antinimians and most of them were so called by sound Protestants before I was born or was capable of understanding any thing of these matters As for the Congregational brethren I am sure that in the Apol. I was so far from calling them Antinomians that I declared I did not so much as suspect them to be Antinomians and highly commended many of them for their zealous and vigorous opposing of Antinomianism If any of the perswasion of our Reverend Brethren have fallen into Antinomianism that is no dishonour to them from whose Principles these Men are fallen so long as they themselves continue stedfast and indeavour to reclaim such as at any time fall into any Antinomian error My R. brother knows well enough that it was his good Friend the Informer and Accuser who necessitated us in our own just vindication to mention those Names of distinction and without that necessity put upon us he should never have heard of such Names from me And for his declaring that he will brand me with none of those hated Names Disc p. 74. I thank him for doing me justice since he cannot charge me with any erroneous opinion either of Papists Arminians or Socininians without doing me a manifest injury And yet within the compass of six lines after he had declared that he did not so much as think me to be on the side either of Papists Arminians or Socinians he undertakes Disc p. 74. to prove that the merit of works which I disclaim Is really included in my Hypothesis And his Argument to prove it we have in these following words What is merit but when the reward is due to some work done Now if the Gospel be in that respect a Law that it requires duties as conditions of having a claim to its blessings and promises them to the performance of those conditions then to them performed tho of never so little consideration the blessings must be given not as the fruits of meer Grace but as the result of a just debt This is his Argument whereby he would prove that the Doctrine of merit is included in my Hypothesis It may be he learned this Argument from the Papists when he was at Rome but whether that be so or not yet certain it is that it is one of their poor Arguments for the Merit of Works which they use against us and our Protestant Divines have so often Answered it and Baffled it that Mr. G. might have been ashamed to bring it again upon the Stage Alsted many years ago brought in the Papists urging this Argument for Merit of Works against Protestants and he gave it a clear Answer His Words are * Vita aeterna promittitur bonis operibus Matth. 19.17.29 1 Tim. 4.8 Jac. 1 1◠at promissio facta cum conditione operis facit ut qui opus impleverit meruisse rem promissam eamque ut mercedem jure suo exigere posse dicatur R. 1. Non recte hoc dicitur quia quod redditur ex promisso non redditur ex merito aliud enim est si dicam debes hoc mihi quia promisisti et aliud debes hoc mihi quia dedi tibi seu feci hoc tibi 3. Promissione◠illae quibus vita aeterna promittitur bonis operibus non jus sed possessionem vitae aeternae promittunt Itaque bona opera non sunt conditiones antecedentes causales meritoriae sed conse quentes respectu Juris ad vitam aeternam praeparatoriae quantum ad ejus possessionem Nam vita aeterna nobis debetur jure haereditatis seu adoptionis filiorum Dei in Christo quibus convenit ut vi vant vitam filiis dignam Joh. Henr. Alstedius in Turr. Babel destructa p 248. Eternal Life is prmised to good Works Matth. 19.17.29 1 Tim. 4.8 Jac. 1.12 But a Promise made with a Condition of a Work makes that it may be said That he who hath done the work hath Merited the thing promised and may justly demand it as a due Reward Answ 1. This is not rightly said because what is given only on the account of a Promise is not given on the account of Merit For it is one thing to say thou owest me this because thou hast promised it and it is another thing to say thou owest me this because I have given unto thee or done for thee that which is equivalent to it in worth and value 3. Those Promises whereby Eternal Life is promised to good works do not promise the right unto but the Possession of Eternal Life Therefore good works are not conditions antecedent causal and meritorious but consequent in respect of the right to Eternal Life and preparatory in order to the possession thereof For Eternal Life is due to us by right of Inheritance or Adoption of the Sons of God in Christ whom it becomes to lead a life suitable to Sons And Essenius thus Answers the self-same Objection of Bellarmin in these following words †Qui benè promisit promissis stare debet ratione fidelitatis quae in justitiâ universali continetur non tamen semper ratione justitiae particularis neque promissio hoc efficit necessario ut qui adjectam conditionem praestiterit tem promissam tanquam mercedem ex debito jure suo exigere posse dicatur Quid si enim pauperi promiserim me ei daturum eleemosynam ubi me domi meae compellaverit certè propter istam promissionem non desinet esse eleemosyna neque fiet actus Justitiae particularis aut retributio mercedis ex debito Essen Gonipond Dogmat. cap. 15. de Justific Thes 16. p. 563. He that hath rightly
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