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
promised ought to perform his Promise in point of faithfulness which is comprehended in universal Justice but he is not always bound so to do in regard of particular Justice Nor is this the necessary effect of a Promise that he who hath performed the condition annexed to the Promise may be said to have right to demand the thing Promised as a reward due to him on the account of Justice For what if I should promise a poor Man that I will give him an Alms if he will come and call on me at my House surely that Promise will not make it cease to be an Alms nor will it by reason of that Promise become an act of particular Justice or a Retribution of a Reward as of due debt Thus Essenius Answered that Argument of Bellarmin for the Merit of Works and Mr. G's Argument being in effect the very same there needâ— no other Answer to be given unto it And before he had so publickly made use of this poor Popish Argument he should have consider'd the import of the Fifth Article of the 16th Chapter of our own Confession of Faith where it is said expresly that We cannot by our best works Merit Pardon of Sin or Eternal Life at the hand of God by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the Glory to come and the infinite distance that is between us and God whom by them we can neither profit nor satisfie for the debt of our former sins but when we have done all we can we have done but our duty and are unprofitable servants and because as they are good they proceed from his Spirit and as they are wrought by us they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they cannot endure the Severity of God's Judgment If my R. Brother had consider'd understood and believed this part of the Confession of Faith he would never have taken it for granted that Merit is nothing but the dueness of a reward to some work done For our Confession of Faith teaches us that many things are necessary to make a work Meritorious besides the Reward 's being due to it 1. It is necessary that there be a proportion between the work done and the blessing or reward promised 2. That there be not an infinite distance between Man the Worker and God the Rewarder 3. That the Work done be profitable unto God for whom it is done 4. That before our Works can Merit the pardon of Sin they must be able to satisfie God's Justice for the Debt of Sin 5. That our Works be not due to God by vertue of his Command requiring them 6. That the Works be our own done by our own strength 7. That they be most perfect and done as well as they ought to be These are the Conditions necessary to make a work Meritorious of pardon of sin and Eternal Life And if these things be so What deserves Mr. G's Question What is Merit but when the reward is due to some work done but to be hissed at And yet for his information that he may hereafter know my Principles better than he seems to do I tell him that in my Judgment to speak strictly the Reward is not due to the VVork nor to the VVorker for the VVork's sake and yet I hold the Reward to be due But to whom and for whom I Answer The Reward to wit of Eternal Life it is due to the Penitent Believer in whose heart Christ dwells by Faith and it is due to him by the Promise of God who is faithful and cannot lie and it is due to him for the sake of Christ who as he hath satisfied the Justice of God for all our sins so he hath Merited for us all the Blessings and Benefits of the New Covenant from first to last Now this being my Hypothesis founded upon the VVord of God and agreeable to our Confession of Faith as I have fully and clearly proved in the foresaid Remarks on my Reverend Brother's Discourse of the Gospel I refer it to all Men of Understanding Sobriety and Conscience to Judge whether this be true which he sayes That the Merit of VVorks is really included in my Hypothesis At last being conscious to himself that he can never prove that our Principle agrees with the Popish Arminian and Socinian Doctrines as he had asserted in the Contents of his 9th Chapter he gives over his Accusing us Falsly and concludes with Counsel and Advice to forbear such Phrases and Modes of Speech as by the Enemies of the Gospel are made use of to very ill purposes and that is to lay aside the use of the words New Law VVhereunto I Answer That I am very willing to be Counselled and Advised by those that are wiser than my self and though I remember something of the Fox in the Apologue yet I will agree with my Reverend Brother that for my own part I will forbear calling the Gospel-Covenant absolutely and simply a New Law without any Explicatory addition provided 1. That he and his Friend for whom he VVrites will confess the Truth of that which I have proved to wit that it is a Notorious Falshood in matter of Fact that New Law of Grace is a New VVord of an old Ill-meaning Provided 2. That as I shall not use the Adjective New when I call the Gospel Covenant a Law or a Law of Grace so he will himself use the word Law and call the Gospel by that Name as the Scripture doth and not be offended with us for calling it a Law and a Law of Grace and for believing with Mr. Pool on Isa 2.3 that it is frequently called a Law because it hath the Nature and Power of a Law c. and with the Professors of Leyden that it is sometimes called a Law because it hath also its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings Provided also that he will with us believe the Gospel to be a Law in the same sense as the Professors of Leyden and Mr. Pool held it to be a Law 3. Provided that my agreeing not to use the Adjective New when I call the Gospel a Law and a Law of Grace shall not be construed to such a sense as if I thereby signified that I account it unlawful to call the Gospel a New Law for I do not so account it but on the contrary I hold it very lawful to call the Gospel a New Law in the same sense we call it a New Covenant The Reasons why I hold it lawful to call the Gospel a New Law are these 1. Because tho the Phrase be not wholly and Verbatim found in Scripture yet it is not contrary to Scripture yea the one halfe of it the Noâ—n Substantive Law is expresly in Scripture and the other halfe is agreeable to Scripture as joined to to the word Law and is expresly in Scripture as joyned with the equivalent word COVENANT 2. Because the Ancient Fathers in the best and purest times
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
at Evangelium non modo auxilium nobis promittit sed quantum ad renatos pertinet hanc etiam dulcissimam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adhibet quod sicut persona gratis recipitur propter Christum sic Obedientia inchoata quanquam imperfecta contaminata placeat in reconciliatis fide propter Mediatorem Haec doctrina Evangelii nisi addatur Praeceptis legalibus quae repetuntur enarrantur atque etiam sanciuntur necessario immutabiliter in Concionibus Evangelicis erit doctrina bonorum operum non modo manca mu ila sed etiam iâ—utilis c. Quart par objectionum resp Theolog. quae sunt collectae ex scriptis Melanct. opera Christoph Pezelii Edit Neapoli Nem. An. 1582. p. 167 168. The Law of it self knows nothing either of the merit or efficacy of the Son of God and of the benefits of the Holy Spirit which by Christ is poured out into the hearts of Believers Nothing therefore doth it expresly teach of the help by which and of the way how good works are wrought in us Moreover the Law doth always and immutably require perfect Obedience of all without discrimination regenerate and unregenerate and of it self immutably damns all that have not that perfect Obedience But the Gospel not only promiseth us help but as for the regenerate with respect to them it mitigates the severity of the Law with this sweet temper and moderation that as the person is freely received into favour for Christs sake so the begun Obedience though imperfect and polluted yet is pleasing to God in persons reconciled through Faith for the Mediators sake This Doctrine of the Gospel unless it be added to the Legal Precepts which are both repeated and preached and also are brought under a sanction and confirmed necessarily and immutably in Gospel Sermons the doctrine of good Works will not only be lame and maimed but it will also be unprofitable c. Thus Pezelius shews the difference between the Law Precepts as fortified with the sanction of the first Law of Works and the same Precepts as they are brought under a new sanction and have put on a new form in the Gospel In this last sense the Precepts of the Moral Law belong to the New Covenant and are Precepts of the Gospel Yea the same Pezelius in the same Book hath demonstrated at large against the Flacians that over and beside the Precepts of the Moral Law which are now Evangelized the Gospel hath some Precepts which are proper to it self and require Evangelical Faith and Repentance which the Moral Law by it self immediately doth not require at all Some of his words are (z) At nihil cum hoc somnio commune habet dicere in Evangelio mandatum peculiare esse non patefactum in lege viz. de side in Christum cum qua pugnat incredulitas in Filium Mediatorem In lege fidei i.e. doctrinâ Evangelii non tantùm est promissio gratuita misericordiae Dei propter Filium Mediatorem sed etiam mandatum quod praecipit ut agnoscamus Mediatorem credamus illi promissioni Hoc praeceptum toto genere differt a praeceptis legalibus quae concionantur de Morali Obedientiâ Ac ut Puerile esset ex eo quod Lex Promissiones habet inferre quia Evangelium a lege differat non esse ullam Promissionem assignandam Evangelio sic ingens stupor est sic argumentari Lex habet Mandata ergo nullum peculiare Mandatum assignandum est Evangelio ne videatur introduci Lex nova seu Lex Evangelica c. Idem in codem libro pag. 152 153. But it hath nothing common with this Popish dream concerning a new Law in their sense to say that in the Gospel there is a peculiar Precept not revealed in the Law to wit concerning Faith in Christ to which is repugnant not believing in the Son the Mediator In the Law of Faith that is in the Doctrine of the Gospel there is not only a gracious promise of the mercy of God for the sake of the Son the Mediator but there is a Precept which commands us to acknowledge the Mediator and believe that promise This Precept in its whole kind differs from the Legal Precepts which preach of Moral Obedience And as it would be Childish from this that the Law hath Promises to infer that since the Law differs from the Gospel therefore there is no Promise to be assigned to the Gospel so it is great stupidity to argue thus The Law hath Precepts therefore no peculiar Precept is to be assigned unto the Gospel lest a new Law or an Evangelical Law should seem to be introduced c. See what follows there especially consult what he writes in Pag. 100 101 102 109 110 111 112 113 114 126 127 128 129 135 136 149 150 151. And in Pag. 82 83 84 85 86 87 where he invincibly proves against Flacius that the Gospel hath Precepts that besides the Precepts which in respect of the matter of them are common both to the Law of Works and Gospel of Grace there are Precepts which by themselves immdiately require Evangelical Faith and Repentance and that these Precepts are proper and peculiar to the Gospel Thus we see that the Opinion which is lately brought in amongst us that the Gospel hath no Precepts which require Duty and that there are no Sins against the Gospel is nothing but the old Errour of Flacius and his Party which they broached in opposition to the Learned Pious and Prudent Melancthon and which was confuted and exploded by the Reformed above an hundred years ago My 5th Withess is Henry Bullinger who tho he be suborned to be a false Witness against me yet is he a true Witness that is as much for me in this Cause as my heart can desire For thus he writes on those words of the Apostle Heb. 8.8 for finding fault with them he saith Behold the days come c. * Quod vero hunc attinet locum Testamentum hoc foedus illud Dei pactum est quo Deus voluntatem suam erga nos testatus est prorsusque nobiscum certis convenit conditionibus Coeterum cas conditiones patribus nostris Abrahae imprimis sic praescripsit Ero Deus tuus illa rerum omnisufficientia ero inquam Deus tuus seminis tui post te in fempiternum Tu vero ambula coram me esto integer haec scederis sive pacti conditiones sunt Henr. Bullinger Comment in Epist ad Hebraeos cap. 8. v. 8. pag. 533. edit Tigur 1582. As to what concerns this place The Testament is the Covenant and that compact of God whereby God hath testified his Will towards us and hath fully agreed with us upon certain conditions and those conditions he hath thus prescribed unto our Fathers and in the first place unto Abraham saying I will be thy God that All-sufficieucy of all things I say I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed after
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 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
Son Authority to execut Judgment because he is the Son of Man On which place the assemblies Annotations have this note Authority to execute Judgment is Supream power to Govern and Administer all things Because he is the Son of Man That is Not only as he is God but also as he is Man that all Men may see their Judge Rev. 1.7 And on the same John 5.27 The Dutch Annotators say as followeth And hath given him power to execute Judgment also i. e. To Govern all things with power of Life and Death and especially at the last day Mat. 28.18 Rom. 14.9 Rev. 1.18 Because he is the Son of Man that is Because he having assumed the humane nature into the unity of his person is appointed by God for a Judge and Mediator and shall also as Man execute the same office Dan. 7.13 John 17.2 Acts 10.42 and 17.31 The last English Annotations 2d volume have the like note on John 5.27 But especially Mr. Hutcheson in his exposition on John 5.27 Is full and clear His words are these †Hutcheson on John pag. 76. on the 27th verse of the 5th Chapter Christ declareth that not only as God he hath a Fountain of Life equally with the Father but That he hath Authority given him from the Father to execute or do Judgment even because he is the Son of Man By executing or doing Judgment of which v. 22. We are to understand a Dominion and Government over all things and particularly the power of Life and Death to Condemn or absolve Which will be especially verified in the Judgment of the last day of which he speaketh v. 28.29 And Christ saith Authority is given him to do this Because he is the Son of Man or as he is the Son of Man Whereby we are not to understand his humane nature simply considered but his office and his humane nature as united in one person with the Godhead that because he is God-Man the Mediator of sinners and took on our nature for that end therefore he hath all power committed to him as Mediator for the good of the Church the Exercise whereof he fully entred upon after his resurrection Mat. 28.18 Rom. 14.9 Rev. 1.18 Pril 2.8 9 10 11. And he is the visible Actor and Judge in these Administrations which could be done by none but him who is God also and particularly in the last day wherein he shall be Judge in visible Shape Acts 10.42 and 17.31 Ibid. Doctrin 3. Mr. Hutcheson saith that Christ hath a donative Kingdom as Mediator God-Man for the good of his Church c. And Doct. 6. He saith that Christ in the work of Redemption and Administration of all things for the elect's behoofe is the Father's Commissioner and hath a delegated Authority c. And a little after in the same place he saith That as the Son of Man and Mediator this Authority is given to Christ as to a delegate Thus Hutcheson By all which you may easily see that Christ knows very well That the office of a Judge belongs to the Mediator And truly it is matter of wonder to me that ever a Sober Man should have Printed and Published to the world That Christ knew that the office of a Judge did not belong to a Mediator And yet not content with this Mr. G. 2dly Asserts that Christ hath disowned the office of a Judge as not belonging to a Mediator I seriously profess it grieves me to find such things in the Ingenious Mr. Goodwins book and tho he hath made himself my adversary without any just cause given by me that I know of yet I am not willing to Animadvert on this assertion of his so severely as the nature of the thing deserves I shall only tell my Reverend Brother 1. That here he asserts that whch he can never prove and I advise him as his friend not to attempt the proof of it for by so doing he will but make the matter worse and some of the Lovers and Honourers of our Lord Christ may be ready to appear against Mr. G. in this cause of Christ and to maintain the negative that Christ never disowned the office of a Judge as that which did not belong to a Mediator I hope Mr. G. will never be so impertinent as to alledg for proof of his assertion that in Luk. 12.14 Christ said Man Who made me a Judge or a divider over you For that relates wholly to another matter and the meaning is that Christ was not called to the office of a civil Judge Mediator or Arbitrator between the two Brothers who differed about the dividing of the Inheritance And yet I do not know any place of Scripture that seems to be so much for his purpose if he can but make people believe that the Meer sound of the words is the sure and best means to find out the true meaning of a Text. 2. I think it may not be amiss to tell my Reverend brother That the most vile Sect of the old Gnosticks the Disciples of Valentinus were all for Christ's being a Saviour but would not have him to be a Lord For if he be once admitted to be a Lord and King he may prove to be a Judge too and to have power both to threaten and also Judge and Condemn unbelievers and wicked livers such as the old Gnosticks were And that is a dangerous business to such as them Hence as the Ancient father Ireneus tells us * Salvatorem dicunt nec enim Dominum eum Nominare volunt c. Iren. adversus haereses Lob. 1. Cap. 1. They say that Christ the Saviour for they will not call him Lord did nothing in publick for the space of thirty years They thought belike that it did not belong to the office of a Saviour to be a Lord or a Judge therefore they would not have him called Lord but Saviour For that sweet word Saviour in their Judgment Savoured of nothing but free grace to ill livers Whereas the word Lord or Judge Savours of power to command obedience and Authority to threaten and punish the disobedient which very thing made the word it self so unsavoury to them that they were not willing to pronounce it with their lips But I am sure Mr. G. should know and I hope he doth know better things The Reverend Dr. Owen in the Prolegomena to the 1 volume of his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us a great and useful truth That Christ is our Saviour as he is our great Prophet Priest and King and that he carries on the Work of our Salvation in executing the three several parts of his Mediatorial Office to wit of Prophet Priest and King and all sober Divines that I know are of that mind and some of them too give very hard Words unto and pass a severe censure upon such Men as are for dividing of Christ and for receiving him and his Doctrine by halves Witness Bibliander in that book which I mentioned
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-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