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
promises in the Gospel-Covenant But now let me ask this R. B. a few questions as 1. Is it not now every whit as impossible if not more impossible for the non-elect in the visible Church to keep the Law of works most perfectly as to believe in Christ sincerely 2. Doth not Mr. G. himself hold that notwithstanding the said impossibility God now requires of them perfect obedience to the Law of works under pain of Eternal Death and Misery 3. Doth he not hold also that God by the Law and Covenant of works doth promise them Life and Happiness upon condition that they most perfectly obey that Law and keep that Covenant of Works This I take to be his Judgment from what he writes in Chap. 7. pag. 56. Compared with what he quotes with approbation out of Melancton in Chap. 6. pag. 29.30 Concerning the promises of the Law as contra-distinguished from the gracious promises of the Gospel Now if this be so that according to Mr. G. Godpromiseth to the non-elect by the Law and Covenant of works Mat. 19.17 Rom. 10.5 That they shall have Not indeed pardon of sin and salvation properly so called but Life and Happiness on condition that they most perfectly keep the Law and Covenant of works I say if this be Mr. G' s. Judgment I demand 4. Whether it be not as evidently repugnant to the wisdom and Goodness of God and as plainly a mocking of those wretched Men to promise them Eternal Life and Happiness by the Covenant of works upon the impossible condition that they most perfectly fulfill the Law of works As it is to promise them pardon and salvation by the Gospel or Covenant of Grace on the impossible condition of believing in Christ So that my R. B. his Argument militates against himself and he is as much bound to Answer it as we are Unless he deny the conditional promises of the Law as he doth those of the Gospel and when once I know that he doth deny both I shall cease from retorting his own Argument upon him and shall take another way of dealing with him In the mean time this may serve for the first Answer 2. I Answer that this Arminian objection was sufficiently answered in the Apology out of the writings of the professors of Leyden of Dr. Owen of the Synod of Dort and of Dr. Twiss For there it was shewed 1. That as for the non-elect to whom the Gospel is Preached in the visible Church God doth not require them to believe in Christ by their meer natural powers without any help without his putting forth so much as his finger to help them For together with the Gospel-Command to believe they receive more Common-Grace more light and power from the Lord than they make a good use of and as Dr. Owen says Apol. pag. 23. and pag. 114.115 where real Conversion is not attained It is always from the Interposition of an Act of Wilfulness and Stubbornness in those enlightened and convicted They do not sincerely improve what they have received and faint not meerly for want of strength to preceed but by a free Act of their own wills they refuse the grace which is further tendred unto them in the Gospel 2. There it was shewed out of the Writings of Dr. Twiss where he Answers this same objection which Mr. G. hath borrowed from the Arminians that as for the non-elect in the visible Church their inability to believe in Christ according to the Gospel is not a meer physical impotency but it is a Moral impotency Jer. 6.10 Which hath its immediate Foundation in and its next rise from their own wills so that if they earnestly would believe then they could believe but they cannot believe because they will not Whereas the inability of the poor wretch of whom Mr. G. speaks and to whom he compares the unconverted is not at all a Moral impotency but it is a meer Physical natural impotency There is nothing in the Man 's own will that causes him to refuse wilfully to come up out of the Dungeon in which he is a starving but that which hinders him from coming up is the natural weakness of his Limbs which are all supposed to be broke so that the poor wounded Man cannot come up out of the Dungeon to receive the Food that is offered him suppose he were never so earnestly willing and desirous to do it Now Dr. Twiss shews that there is a vast difference between these two impotencies between impotency Moral and impotency meerly Physical that impotency Moral is highly culpable and deserves to be punished because it is willful and affected whereas impotency meerly Physical is not culpable at all but is wholly excuseable and that therefore it is a shameful thing in the Arminians to confound these two impotencies to wit Moral and Natural impotency as if there were no difference See for this the Apol. 109.110 Where the express formal words of Dr. Twiss are quoted at large If then Mr. G. have a mind to dispute against this Distinction I desire it may be remembred that he disputes not so much against me as against Dr. Twiss and in the Doctors Judgment he doth a thing which will have a shameful issue to confound impotency Moral with impotency natural as he plainly doth 3. I Answer that what Mr. G. supposes to strengthen his Arminian Objection is manifestly false to wit that God always Commands the non-elect in the visible Church to believe by their Meer natural powers without any help since he will not so much as put forth his finger to help them I say this is false because 1. It is contrary to Scripture which saith that Gods Spirit shall not always strive with such Men Gen. 6.3 According to our Translation and that plainly implies that for a time God's Spirit doth strive with them and I suppose it will not be said that God's Spirit strives with them to hinder them but rather to help them So in Prov. 1.23 The wisdom of God saith to such Men turn ye at my reproof Behold I will pour out my Spirit unto you and I will make known my words unto you Here is not only a Command to turn unto God but a promise also of some help to enable them to turn And then it follows immediately in the 24. verse because I have called and ye refused I have stretched out my hand and no Man regarded c. In which words the Lord himself saith that he stretches out his hand to such Men but Master Goodwin saith that the Lord will not so much as put out his finger to help them for he compares the Lord in this matter to a merciless Man who offers food to a poor wretch starving in a Dungeon with all his Limbs broken on condition that he â—ome up and receive it and yet he refuses to put forth a finger to give him the least list Thus Mr. G. represents God to the world upon the Principles of the Calvinists whereas God in
offended and incensed against us that are the poor Ministers thereof As if it were our own Gospel and the Law of our own will Which we propound unto you But know you this whosoever you are That it is Christ Jesus our Saviour that in our persons you are offended with all and against whom you Rebel In despising that Gospel we teach unto you Know you also that in your obedience and subjection to that Gospel which we Preach unto you you are not subject and obedient unto us but except you be reprobates unto your own Lord and Saviour who requireth onely this obedience at your hands tying the everlasting salvation of your Souls and the Merits of his passion thereunto To conclude this point then seeing that Christ will come in flaming fire to be avenged of them that shall not obey his Gospel let the terror of that fire make us run through water and fire rather than disobey the same Thus Bradshaw that Learned and Faithful Minister of Christ I wish that Mr. Goodwin and I may both of us believe and Live and Preach according to the import of that Text of Paul and this exposition of it by Mr. Bradshaw then shall we acknowledge the Gospel to be a Covenant or Law of Grace which hath precepts threatnings and conditional promises Which is the thing that I have proved and defended against the objections of some Brethren who tho they deny the Gospel to be a Law of Grace yet I hope do not live in disobedience to its precepts for tho the principles of many in the visible Church are better than their practice yet I must Charitably believe that the practice of these Brethren is better than their Principle Remarks and Animadversions on his 8th Chapter The eight Chapter of his Discourse is divided into two parts In the 1st he pretends to Answer the Texts of Scripture urged by me in the Apology And in the 2d to Answer the Testimonies of Fathers and Protestant Writers And accordingly I shall assign two Sections to my reply SECT I. IN the Contents of his eight Chapter he says in a Parenthesis that in the Apology I urged some Texts of Scripture As expresly giving the Name of a New Law to the Gospel This is a notorious falsehood And I challenge and defy him to shew any passage in the whole Apol. from beginning to end In which I say that any one Text of Scripture doth expresly give the Name of New Law to the Gospel I knew very well that there is not one Text of Scripture which doth expresly give the Name of New Law to the Gospel and therefore I never urged one Text to that purpose I said indeed in pag. 22. lin 16.17 That the Scriptures expressly call the Gospel-Covenant of Grace a Law but never said nor thought that the Scriptures do expressly call it a New-Law What I said of the Gospel's being called a New-Law was this that our Brethren should not be displeased with us because we call the Gospel a New-Law since they know if it be not their own fault Apol. p. 22. l. 41.42 43 44. That we call it the New-Law in no other sense than as we call the Covenant of Grace the New-Covenant From which words it is evident that I do not call the Gospel a New-Law because I think the Scripture calls it so expresly for I did not think any such thing but because I take the Gospel-Law for the Covenant of Grace which is expressly called the New-Covenant And I think that without offence we may call the Gospel-Law by the Name of a New-Law in the same and in no other sense than as we call the Covenant of Grace the New-Covenant For since in our Judgment the Gospel-Law and the Gospel-Covenant are the same thing and the Gospel-Covenant is expressly called the New-Covenant what just cause of offence can there be in calling the Gospel-Law the New-Law in the same sense that we call the Gospel-Covenant the New-Covenant And we are the more confirmed in this by finding that the most Ancient Fathers held the New-Law and the New-Covenant to be one and the same thing And they therefore called the Gospel-Law a New-Law because they found that the Scripture expressly calls the Gospel-Covenant a New-Covenant No Man can fairly and honestly deny this who reads and understands the Writings of Justin Martyr Ireneus Tertullian and Cyprian c. Who do all call the Gospel in its last fullest and clearest edition since the coming of Christ the New-Covenant and the New-Law as by two Names of the same Signification Yea it seems there was an old tradition even amongst the Jews that in the time of the Messias the Lord would make a New-Covenant with his People that is a New-Law I say it seems there was such a tradition amongst the Jews if we may believe what Paulus Fagius quotes out of their Writers For after he had cited their exposition of Canticles the 2d Chap. v. 10.11 12. Referring it to the time of the Messias he adds their descant on the words of the 12th verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render the time of the singing of Birds is come but they render the time of pruning is come The words are * Advenit enim tempus ut redimatur Israel Advenit tempus ut amputetur praeputium de quo dictum est Deut. 30. Chap. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et circumcidet dominus deus tuus cor tuum et cor seminis ad diligendum dominum deum tuum et lex convertetur ad novitatem et renovabitur Israel Sicut dictum est Hierem. 31. et scindam cum domo Israel et cum domo Juda pactum novum hactenus Traditio Paul Fagius in Annot in Caput 10. v. 16. Paraphrascos chald Onkeli in Deuteronomium For the time is come that Israel should be redeemed The time is come that the foreskin should be out off Concerning which it is written in Deut. 30. And the Lord thy God shall circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy Seed to Love the Lord thy God And the Law shall be changed into newness and Israel shall be renewed As it is said in Jerem. 31. And I will make with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah a New-Covenant That is a Now-Law Thus far the tradition And it had been well if they had never had a worse tradition My design in this is only to shew that since 1. The Scripture doth expressly call the Gospel a Law as is now confessed 2. Since the Gospel-Law is the Gospel-Covenant made with the Church through Christ 3. Since the Gospel-Covenant is expressly called the New-Covenant in Scripture It follows in the 4th place by good Consequence that without any just cause of offence we may very well call the Gospel-Covenant the New-Law in the same sense that we find it called in Scripture the New-Covenant even altho it be Not in Scripture expresly called the New-Law As it
it is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant And then the Gospel is preached in part by saying Fear God and give glory to him c. This is the plain obvious sense of the words and they must be violently wrested to put another sense upon them The Dutch Annotators therefore faithfully gave the meaning of the words when in their Annotation on Rev. 14.7 they said in these words This is the first part of the Gospels voice whereby the worshippers of the Beast are warned and exhorted to honour fear and serve God only in Christ I might cite many other passages out of the New Testament and Old too to prove that the Gospel hath Precepts and requires Duty of us but these are sufficient And I am perswaded that every sincere lover and seeker of Truth will or may easily find by the Divine Testimonies aforesaid taken out of the New Testament that the Gospe-Covenant in its new and most Evangelical form of administration is not a meer absolute promise without any Precept but that as it hath Promises so it hath Precepts belonging to it which require Duties of us and of all to whom it is preached Thus having finished my first Proof from Divine Testimony I pass to my second Proof from Humane Testimony And before I proceed any further I desire it may be remembered that I do not argue from Humane Testimony to confirm and strengthen my Argument from Divine Testimony or to prove any other thing than matter of fact to wit that I and my Reverend Brethren are not Innovators nor singular in our interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and in our belief that according to the Scripture the Gospel hath Precepts which require Duty since long before we were born other Holy Men and Eminent Ministers of Christ and bright shining Lights in Christs Church have interpreted the Scripture as to this matter just as we do and have believed according to Scripture what we believe at this day That the Gospel hath Precepts and doth oblige us to Duties This being premised to prevent misunderstanding of us I come to produce my Humane Witnesses which I divide into two ranks or classes The 1. of Antient Doctors of the Church The 2 of Modern Divines And I begin with Antient Fathers and Doctors of the Church Testimonies of Antient Fathers and because I would be brief I shall cite but few and yet I shall bring as many of them as may suffice to prove the matter of fact in question My first Witness is Justin Martyr who in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew calls the New Testament or Covenant as we Christians have it in its last and excellentest form of administration (c) Justin Martyr Dialog cum Tryphone Edit Paris 1633. p. 292. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Commandment whereby he plainly declares that he believed the New Covenant hath Precepts and that it is not a meer absolute Promise which requireth nothing of us at all Again afterwards in the same Dialogue he calls the New Testament or Gospel-Covenant (c) Justin Martyr ibid. p. 351. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mandate or Precept for the same Reason because it hath Precepts that require Duty And then two pages after he saith that we are called and we are the true Children of God (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who keep the Commandments of Christ I suppose it will be objected that Justin Martyr in pag. 351. sayes that Christ is the Testament or Covenant of God And in pag. 228. he sayes That Christ is given the eternal and last Law unto us and the sure Testament or Covenant after which there is neither Law nor Precept nor Commandment I answer It is true he doth say so but then it is as true that his speech is not and cannot be proper but figurative It is only by a Figure of Speech that Justin calls Christ by the name of Covenant or Testament and therein he doth but follow the Prophet Isaiah Justin ibid. p. 351. and also quotes the 42.6 and 49.8 of Isaiah where it is written I the Lord will give thee Christ for a Covenant of the people Look then how the words of Isaiah are to be understood and the same way are the words of Justin to be understood Now for understanding the words of Isaiah let them who please consult the Dutch Annotations on Isa 42.6 And I will give thee for a covenant of the people that is for a Mediatour of the Covenant c. And Pools Annotations on Isa 42.6 I will give thee for a covenant of the people To be the Angel of the Covenant as Christ is called Mal. 3.1 or the Mediatour in and by whom my Covenant of Grace is made and confirmed with mankind And the same Pool on Isa 49.8 sayes that to be given for a Covenant of the people is To be the Mediatour and Surety of that Covenant which is made between God and them as Christ is called Heb. 7.22 and 8.6 to renew and confirm the Covenant which the Messiah is said to do Dan. 9.27 by his own Blood by which God and Men are reconciled and united one to another and therefore he may well be called the Covenant by a known Metonymy which is very usual in such cases Thus the Learned Pool And by this we may learn how to understand Justin when he calls Christ the New Law and Covenant to wit that by a Metonymy he calls him the New Law and Covenant because he is the Mediatour and Surety of it he is the Ratifier and Confirmer of it he is the Angel or Messenger of it He is not the Covenant then in propriety of speech that is a figment as ridiculous and contradictious as Transubstantiation but he is the Covenant by a Figure called Metonymy And that Justin so meant is plain because when he speaks properly without a Figure he calls Christ (c) Justin ibid pag. 229 231. passim the New Lawgiver as was shewed in the Apology pag. 24. and calls the Covenant his Law and Covenant and so manifestly distinguishes the Law and Covenant from him It is therefore the New Covenant it self which Justin properly calls the New Law the Mandate the Precept and says that (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Mart. ibid. pag. 228. after the said Covenant there is no Law nor Precept nor Commandment By which words he gives us plainly to understand that the Gospel-Covenant or Testament is the last Law Precept and Commandment after which God gives no other to the Sons of Men. Much more I could alledge out of Justin Martyr to prove that he believed that the New Covenant or Law of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duties But that may be done another time as I see occasion At present I need not desire any more of my first Witness My second Witness is Irenaeus who saith (e) Pater familias Dominus est qui universae domni Paternae dominatur servis quidem adhuc
is because the Gospel consists mostly in Promises though it be not without but partly consist in Precepts also This I have shewed in the Apology that there are not only Promises in the Gospel to those who observe its Precepts but that there are in it Promises of Grace to his People to fit them for and to assist them in the observance of its Precepts and therefore it is fitly called not simply a Law but a Law of Grace So I call it and believe it to be and so it was called and believed to be by other Orthodox Divines before I was born But though I believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace that requires Duties to be performed by the Grace of the Spirit and accepted through the Mediation of Christ yet I never said nor believed that it is a Law which requires Duties by and for which we are Justified and Saved So far am I from saying or believing any such thing that I have published the contrary to the World in several parts of the Apology and particularly in Page 38 39 40.54 Indeed it is my professed belief that Faith it self is not any the least part of that Righteousness by and for which we are Justified before God 2. The Second thing to be carefully attended unto is that by the Gospel or Law of Grace I do not understand the Books of the New Testament but the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ as it is Recorded in the Scriptures both of Old and New Testament 3. The Third thing to be attended unto is that I always acknowledged that the First Commandment of the Moral Law obligeth to believe all the Supernatural Revelations and obey all the Positive Precepts of the Gospel from which Principle it is so far from following that the Gospel hath no Precepts of its own that on the contrary it plainly follows that it hath Precepts of its own otherwise the Moral Natural Law would never oblige us to obey them 4. The Fourth thing to be attended unto is That since the Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace hath Precepts of its own those Precepts must of themselves immediately oblige us to the performance of certain Duties and by means of them the Natural Moral Law obliges us to the same Duties tho not to be Justified and Saved for the sake of those Duties but in order to other Gospel ends and purposes If these Four things be carefully attended unto they will preserve People through the Blessing of God from being imposed upon by the false Representation which Mr. G. gives of our Doctrine which Wrong I freely forgive him and heartily pray God both to give him Repentance and Forgiveness 2. The Second and last thing I am here to do is to shew my Reverend Brother some more of his Mistakes in this part of his Seventh Chapter concerning the Precepts of the Gospel 1. And First whereas he says in Page 44. That the obedience of a Believer is not called Evangelical because it is obedience to the Gospel but because of the Principles of Faith and Love from which it flows and in respect of the Evangelical Motives which animate and encourage it This I take to be a mistake if he excludes the Gospel Covenants requiring such Obedience from being one of the said Motives and my reason is because the Gospel's requiring it in order to Gospel-ends and purposes is the principal reason wherefore we call it Evangelical Obedience For it is the Gospel that of it self directly and immediately requires us to obey the Moral Law in such an Evangelical way to wit sincerely with a renewed heart from Principles of Faith in and Love to Christ the Mediator and God as our Redeemer and Saviour by Christ And further as the Authority and Veracity of God revealing Truths to be believed is the formal reason of our Faith which makes and denominates it a Divine Faith so the Authority and Will of God commanding Duties to be done is the formal reason of our obedience which gives it the Denomination of Divine Obedience or obedience to God And if this be true of obedience to God in general that it is called a Divine legal obedience because it is obedience to God's Authority and Will Commanding it by his Law then by Parity of Reason it is true of that special sort of obedience to wit Evangelical Obedience that it is called Evangelical because it is obedience to Gods Authority and Will Commanding and requiring it by his Gospel It were very strange if the Formal Reason of Obedience did contribute nothing to the giving it its Name as well as its Nature 2. Secondly Whereas in Page 45. he says That in John 14.1 Christ himself told his Disciples that they should act faith on him because they were obliged to it by the same Command which required them to believe in God This is another Mistake and the mistake is the grosser for this Reason because by this mistake Mr. G. imposes upon our Saviour and makes him to say that which he did not say nor is it implyed in nor necessarily consequent from his words Our Lord Christ doth not say Believe in me because ye are obliged to it by the same Command which requires you to believe in God This is Mr. G's Fancy or Fiction which he should not have Fathered upon Christ Who saith no such thing in John 14.1 But only saith there let not your heart be troubled Ye believe in God believe also in me Or as the words might be rendred ye believe in God and ye believe in me Now I appeal both to common sense and to common honesty and natural Conscience whether to say ye believe in God believe also in me be all one and the same thing as to say ye should believe on me because ye are obliged to believe on me by the same command and by no other which requires you to believe in God For suppose the Disciples had been obliged to believe in Christ by another Command or both by the same and also by another Command yet Christ might well have used the same words and have said ye believe in God believe also in me I do therefore put Mr. G. to prove that because our Lord Christ said ye believe in God believe also in me Therefore he told his Disciples that they should believe on him not because they were obliged to it by any positive precept of the Gospel but only because they were obliged to it by the same Command of the Moral natural Law which required them to believe in God Mr G. must not dictate to us his own fancies but must prove to us the foresaid Consequence if he would have us to believe what he there says For he ought not to think that we will believe it upon his bare word 3. Thirdly whereas he says in p. 47. That the act and object of faith to wit faith in God before the fall and faith in Christ after the fall Is
he saith that promises are as properly made to professors within the visible Church Act. 2.39 As Commands and threatnings exhortations invitations and Gospel-requests are made to them But tho the Anabaptists ignorantly confound the promise and the thing promised the Covenant and Benefits Covenanted The promise is to you and so are the commands and threatnings whether ye believe or not c. And pag. 94. of the same book his formal express words are as followeth It is not inconvenient that the reprobate in the visible Church be so under the Covenant of Grace as some promises are made to them and some mercies promised to them conditionally and some reserved special promises of a new bea rt and of perseverance belong not to them For all the promises belong not the same way to the parties visibly and externally and to the parties internally and personally in Covenant with God So the Lord promiseth Life and Forgiveness shall be given to these who are Externally in the Covenant providing they believe but the Lord promiseth not a new heart and grace to believe to these that are only Externally in Covenant And he promiseth both to the Elect. Thus Mr. Rutherford Zanchy whom my R. brother doth highly Commend was certainly of the same Judgment witness his own express words †Respondeo deum vocare etiam reprobos et mandare ut ad se veniant Salutemque illis promittere si velint in Christum credere manifestum est omnes enim vocat per verbum et omnibus vitam promittit aeternam modo in Christum velint credere atque haec est voluntas conditionalis reprobos vero non illudi cum a domino vocantur manifestum tiam ost c. Zanch. depuls calumn de predest not 16. T. 7. pag. 254. I Answer saith Zanchy that God calls even the Reprobate and Commands them to come unto him and promises them salvation if they will believe in Christ it is manifest For he calls all by the word promises unto all Eternal Life provided that they will believe in Christ and this is his conditional will It is manifest also that the reprobates are not mocked nor deluded when they are called by the Lord c. I should never have done if I should quote all our Protestant Divines who are of this Judgment I must therefore forbear to cite any more of them at present and refer to the Apology especially in pag. 114. Having thus frankly and faithfully declared my Judgment in this matter and shewed it not to be singular I will now for the further clearing up of the truth personate my R. brother and for him argue against my self and then Answer the Arguments Obj. God did not decree to save all Men even the non-elect in the visible Church therefore he doth not promise salvation to any upon condition of Faith in Christ The reason of the Consequence is because every conditional promise of God's word presupposes an answerable decree and purpose of God's will for God always speaks the purposes of his mind and none of his words contradict his heart I Answer 1. By denying the Consequence for tho God did not decree to save all even the non-elect in the visible Church yet he promiseth to save some even all the elect in the visible Church on condition of Faith in Christ For he hath decreed to save them all he hath absolutely decreed their salvation on condition of Faith in Christ The decree of their salvation is absolute in respect of God decreeing but the object of the decree is conditional in respect of the salvation decreed That is God by his absolute will hath made faith the condition of their salvation and hath suspended the giving of salvation unto them upon the condition of their believing or till they perform the condition of believing in Christ 2. I Answer by denying the Consequence also with respect to the non-elect for tho God did not decree to save the non-elect in the visible Church as he decreed to save the elect yet he promiseth to save the non-elect in the visible Church conditionally that is provided that they believe in Christ as they are commanded to do And to the reason of the Consequence that every conditional promise of God's word presupposeth an Answerable decree of God's will because none of God's words contradict his will I Answer that in this case the decree of God's will which Answers the conditional promise to the non-elect is not a decree of Gods will to save the non-elect as he hath decreed to save the elect but it is the decree to make the conditional promise of salvation to the non-elect in the visible Church Whatever God doth in time that he decreed to do from Eternity But in time he promiseth salvation conditionally to the non-elect in the visible Church therefore from Eternity he decreed to promise them salvation on condition that they believe in Christ We must distinguish between God's decretory will strictly so called as it hath respect to the infallible salvation of the elect and his promissory will as it hath respect to the conditional promise of salvation to all elect and non-elect in the visible Church constituting a conditional connection between salvation as the benefit promised and faith in Christ as the condition required of all Now to apply this distinction every conditional promise of God's word doth not necessarily presuppose the foresaid decretory will but it sufficeth unto the verification of the conditional promise of salvation as such that there be in God the foresaid promissory will constituting a conditional connexion between salvation as the benefit promised and Faith in Christ as the condition required The conditional promise it self is not properly God's will but it is a sign of his promissory will And it is certain that the promise of God's word is a true sign of his will but in this case it is not a true sign of his foresaid decretory will therefore it must be a true sign of his promissory will and it gives us an infallible assurance that there is a conditional connexion between salvation as the benefit promised and Faith in Christ as the condition required of all so that whosoever performeth the condition he shall have the benefit promised whosoever believeth in Christ shall certainly be saved And therefore it may be truly said to such an one as Cain if thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted Gen. 4.7 And the Spirit by the word saith to every Man in the visible Church that reads and understands the 10th of the Romans if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved Rom. 10.9 3. Thirdly Mr. G. must admit of this Answer as good and satisfactory or he must find out a better for the objection is certainly sophistical and he is as much concerned to Answer it as I am And I doubt not to make him
cujus testes sunt scripturae cur fieri hoc vel illus Deus velit quo modo velit ne Angelicae quidem mentes in solidum capiunt Calvin 〈◊〉 pons ad Calumnias Nebulonis de occulta Dei Providentia pag. 641. I often in my Writings put Men in mind that nothing here is better than a learned Ignorance because they rave like Mad-Men who adventure or take upon them to be more wise and to know more than is meet Now thou seest how that Will of God to which the Scriptures bear Testimony is certainly known to me and yet the same Will is secret and hid from me because the understanding of the very Angels doth not fully know and comprehend why God Wills this or that to be and how he Wills it By which Words Calvin gives us to understand that if we would act like reasonable Men we should firmly Believe whatever God hath in the Scriptures Revealed to be although we do not understand the way and manner of his willing it to be But now if you say doth it appear indeed that God hath Revealed in the Scriptures that he hath made Conditional Promises to all in the visible Church I answer Yes It doth appear very plainly as hath been shewed already For 1. To all in the visible Church who hear the Gospel Preached the Conditional Promises are general without exception witness Mark 16.15 16. Acts 2.21 Rev. 22.17 and John 6.40 These Conditional Promises could not be more generally and universally expressed and therefore they belong to all Men that hear them upon the same condition of Faith and Calling upon the Name of the Lord. Accordingly the Church of England in her 17th Article which we have all subscribed saith that as a Remedy against the Abuse of the Doctrine of Predestination and to prevent Desperation We must receive God's Promises in such Wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture 2. The Holy Spirit in the Sacred Scripture applies the general Conditional Promise to every one in particular and says Rom. 10.9 If thou shalt confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy Heart that God hath raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved This every one who hears the Gospel Preached is bound to Believe and therefore he is bound to apply it Conditionally to himself and to say in his Heart if I then shall so confess and Believe I shall be Saved And if he do not do this he in effect gives the Spirit of God the Lye whence it necessarily follows that God hath promised Salvation Conditionally unto all that hear the Gospel whoever they be whether they be Elect or Non-Elect 3. Cain was one of the Non-Elect and God certainly knew him to be such yet God made a Conditional Promise of Acceptance unto him The Lord God with his own Blessed Mouth immediately said unto Cain in particular If thou dost well Shalt thou not be accepted Gen. 4.7 That Interrogation Shalt thou not be accepted is equivalent to an Affirmation and it is as if the Lord had said Cain Thou shalt certainly be accepted if thou dost well See Onkelo's Chaldee Paraphrase with P. Fagius's Notes on Gen. 4.7 4. The Command to Believe on Christ belongs without exception to all in the visible Church unto whom the Gospel is Preached therefore the Conditional Promise of Pardon and Salvation which is annexed to the Command belongs likewise unto all without exception Because the Conditional Promise is therefore annexed to the Command that by the said Promise all may be induced to Obey the Command 5. The Conditional Threatning Joh. 8.24 annexed to the Command belongs to all without exception therefore so doth the Conditional Promise because there is the like reason for the one as for the other If the Conditional Threatning belong to all to deter them from Unbelief the Conditional Promise belongs unto all to persuade them unto Faith Thus doth it plainly appear to be Revealed in the Scriptures of Truth that God hath made Conditional Promises to all in the visible Church And therefore we ought to believe it although we do not clearly know God's modus volendi his way of willing one thing upon condition of another thing 3. Thirdly I answer That however formidable this Objection may be in some Men's Apprehensions yet to me it appears to be a Sophism which is capable of an easie and fair Solution And in order to the solving of it I distinguish between God's Will considered absolutely and entitatively in it self and as it were subjectively and considered respectively and terminatively unto the things Willed or considered objectively Now when we consider God's Will the first way when we consider God's Will absolutely in it self and if we may so say as it is subjectively in God or rather as it is God It is freely confessed that it is not Conditional that it doth not depend on any thing nor hang in suspence at all For God's Will so considered is not distinct from his Nature but is really himself And it is most certain that God is not Conditional that he is not Dependent on any thing nor doth he at all hang in suspence as if he were doubtful what to do But if we consider the respect which God's Will hath unto the things Willed and its termination upon the things Willed as also if we consider the object of God's Will or the things Willed as one part of the intire object or one of the things Willed hath a relation unto the other so God's Will may very well be denominated Conditional that is God's Will which in it self and as it is subjectively in God or rather to speak properly and strictly the same with God is most absolute independent and determinate may be said to be respectively terminatively and objectively Conditional For this is no more but to say that the respect of God's Will unto and it's termination upon the things Willed is Conditional or that the object as it hath respect unto God's Will and as it is the term of God's Will is Conditional And this may very well be and yet God's Will in it self is not Conditional but most absolute and independent For the respect of God's Will unto and the termination of his Will upon its object and the object as respecting and terminating God's Will are really distinct from his Will God's Will remains the same absolute and independent in it self though it be many several ways related to and terminated upon its objects and though several Denominations be given unto it upon that account Let this distinction be applied unto the Objection and the Sophistry of it presently appears For 1. from God's promising Salvation unto any Elect or Non-Elect upon condition of Faith it follows indeed that God's promissory Will is Conditional to give them Pardon and Salvation if they Believe and so perform the Condition But pray consider How is it Conditional Is it conditionally in it self subjectively or rather
entitatively considered so as to be dependent and hang in suspence No such matter nor doth any such thing follow from God's making Conditional Promises It is only Conditional respectively terminatively and objectively and that is all which follows from God's making Conditional Promises and willing the things promised Conditionally The Lord our God with an absolute independent Will doth Will that if Men truly Believe and Repent they shall be Pardoned and Saved whosoever they be but not Pardoned and Saved if they do not Believe and Repent 2. We apply the same distinction to the minor or second Proposition of the Objection and grant that there cannot be a Conditional Will in God that is a Will in it self and subjectively or entitatively Conditional and so as to be in it self dependent and to hang in suspence But then we utterly deny that the Will of God which is absolute independent and determinate it it self cannot be respectively terminatively and objectively Conditional in the Sence before explained This distinction was approved and used by Dr. Ames as I shewed in the Apology p. 105 106. and by our Brittish Divines in the Synod of Dort as from their Collegiate Suffrage I proved in the Apology p. 114. So did Dr. Twiss approve it witness what he writes against Corvinus His words are * Neque enim negamus decreta Dei quoad res volitas dici posse conditionata quatenus scilicet neque vita aeterna nisi sub conditione fidei conferenda sit c. In Corvin Defens Arminii contra Tilen p. 355. For neither do we deny but that the Decrees of God may be called Conditional in respect of the things Willed to wit as neither eternal Life is to be given but upon Condition of Faith c. The like he hath in his English Books both against Hoard and other Arminians and also against Mr. Cotton And as this distinction is approved by those great Divines so is it by all other Learned Men that I know who rightly understand these Matters See Ainsworth's Censure upon the Anabaptists Dialogue c. p. 10. where he saith God 's Will always lays no such necessity seeing he Willeth some things Conditionally which are not effected unless the Condition be observed as he would a Sinner's Life not Death Conditionally if he return to God he would the destruction of Niniveh but Conditionally except they Repented other things God Willeth absolutely and those must needs come to pass For none resist or hinder his absolute Will Isa 46.10 11. Job 23.13 Psal 33.10 11. So much sufficeth for Answer to the fourth grand Objection Object 5. p. 58. Fifthly Mr. G. objects That if the Conditional Promise be to all in the visible Church that if they Believe they shall be Saved then by the same rule we must say That the Conditional Threatning is to all that if they Believe not they shall be Eternally Damned I Answer And what Absurdity is in this that all in the visible Church who do not yet Believe are Threatned with Eternal Damnation if they live and die in Unbelief For understand the Conditional Threatning in the same Sence as I have shewed the Conditional Promise ought to be understood and it is a certain Truth That as the Conditional Promise is to all in the same Sence the Conditional Threatning is to all in general and to every one in particular John 3.36 and 8.24 Mark 16.15 16. But Mr. Goodwin says no The Conditional Threatning is not to all nor yet to any if they do not Believe And I pray why so To this he says That the Reason why none are Threatned with Death if they do not Believe is because the Threatning is not denounced against Men for not Believing in Christ but for not perfectly obeying the Law of Works as he hath proved before VVhereunto I reply that I have also answered him before and have proved the contrary And here I must advise him to take better heed what he writes for the future and not to contradict the Scripture in express terms The Holy Scripture saith John 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed Mr. G. saith No it is not so But he that Believeth not is Condemned because he hath not perfectly obeyed the Law of VVorks Now choose you Whether you will Believe the Scripture contradicting him or Believe him contradicting the Scripture Obj. 6. Sixthly Out of what he writes in Pag. 57. this Argument may be formed against God's making Conditional Promises to the Non-Elect in the visible Church If God promise them Pardon on Condition that they Believe by their meer Natural Powers deprived as they are without his All-Conquering Grace he acts in a way Repugnant to his Wisdom and Goodness for he knows it to be impossible for them to Believe by their meer Natural Powers without his All-Conquering Grace and to Promise them Pardon upon such a Condition as he knows to be impossible for them to perform would be an illuding and mocking of them * Mr. G's Discourse p. 57. As if a Man should offer Food to a wretch who hath not a Limb whole starving in a Dungeon on condition that he would come up and receive it and yet should refuse to put forth a Finger to give him the least lift in such a case that merciless Man would but mock and make a sport of the Misery of the poor wretch â—ust so if God should Promise Pardon to the Non-Elect in the visible Church on Condition that they Believe by their meer Natural Powers which they cannot do and should withall refuse to put forth his Finger to help them he should but mock them and make a sport of their Misery which to do is repugnant to his Wisdom and Goodness And therefore God by the Gospel makes no Conditional Promise to the non-elect in the visible Church I Answer this objection shews that Mr. Goodwin is better at declairning than at fair arguing and close reasoning and seems to intimate him to be of the Man's mind who said flectere si nequeo superos Acheronta movebo For this Argument if it may be called an Argument is fetched from Hell and borrowed from the Devil that is from the Arminians who if Mr. G. have not wronged them in his Epistle to the Reader must needs be Incarnate Devils For he says Their opinions tear the Volume of Gods word to pieces and un-God God himself They pull him out of his Throne and strike the Scepter out of his Hands and snatch the Crown from his Head This is certainly more than all the Devils in Hell can do but if Mr. Goodwin say true and do not slander the Arminians they have done it they have un-Godded God himself And yet for all this he goes down to that Arminian Hell to borrow an Argument from those worst of Devils to defend and secure the Wisdom and Goodness of the God of Heaven from being impeached by the Calvinian Doctrine of conditional
what Grotius had written that prima remissio unde caeterae ortum habent nullam in nobis requirit conditionem The first Remission of sin from which the rest flow requires no condition in us he Answers thus * Ad primam remissionem peccatorum non requiri conditionem Verum non est quia non remittitur peccatum adulto nisi poenitententi et credenti Andr. Rivet Animadvers in notas H. Grotii in Cass p. 38. lin 9.10.11 edit in 8◠It is not true that no condition is required in order to obtaining the first Remission of Sins for Sin is not remitted to a grown person unless he repent and believe And when Grotius in his Animadversions again on Rivet had explained himself and told him that by the first Remission or Reconciliation to which no condition is required he meant nothing but the means of Grace which make way for Repentance and Remission Such as are mentioned Act. 2. Rivet replies †Multi sunt quibus via illa ad poenitentiam proponitur qui eam non ingrediuntur collatio loci Actor 2. nos docet nullam remissionem peccati obtineri nisi peccatores compuncti sunt corde v. 37. quibus ita dispositis annunciatur remissio peccatorum quae non fit sine proevia illa conditione quam Deus efficit per gratiam suam in ijs quibus vult peccata remittere conferantur loci-Nam etsi sine ulla conditione proevia in homine deus curet annunciari peccatoribus remissionem peccatorum non tamen eam confert actu nisi per poenitentiam haec quae sunt verissima satis intellexi et exposui suo loco quancum potui perspicue c. Andr. Rivet Exam. Animadversionum H. Grotii pag. 22. There are many to whom that way to Repentance is proposed who do not enter into it The comparing of that place Act. 2. Teaches us that no Remission of Sin is obtained unless Sinners be pricked in their heart v. 37. Vnto whom being so disposed Remission of sins is Preached which Remission is not granted to them without that previons or antecedent condition which God by his Grace works in those whose sins he will remit or pardon Let the places be compared For altho without any previous condition in Man God causeth Remission of sins to be Preached unto Sinners yet he doth not Actually confer or give that Remission but by Repentance or upon condition of Repentance These things which are most true I understood well enough and in its own place I explained as clearly as I could c. Thus the great Rivet confuted Grotius but of late we have got another way of confuting him For there are some who indeavour silently to confute Rivet the most judicious and successful confuter of Grotius and then they give out to the people that they have confuted Grotius Now from the premises it appears that all which that person hath said against conditions in the Gospel-Covenant is light as vanity and that whereas it is pretended that there are no conditional promises in the Gospel-Covenant because there are no conditions in it the Contradictory thereunto is really true That there are conditions in the Gospel-Covenant because there are conditional promises in it as was Demonstrated in the Apol. and as hath been generally believed by the reformed Churches unto this day And tho Mr. Goodwin stiffly deny that there are any conditional promises in the Gospel-Covenant yet I do not see how that is consistent with his concession in pag. 55. towards the end that mercy and pardon is offered by the Lord to unbelievers as a pardon is offered to a Rebel by his Prince but they reject the mercy and refuse to accept of the pardon offered them in the Gospel And that aggravates their guilt and brings upon them a greater punishment For as an unbeliever cannot be said to reject the mercy and refuse to accept the pardon which was never so much as once offered to him by the Lord So it cannot be proved that ever mercy and pardon was offered to the unbeliever without the conditional promise of the Gospel If mercy and pardon be at all offered it must be by the Gospel for the Law offers no such thing to any And if it be offered by the Gospel only I demand how it is offered by the Gospel and by what part of the Gospel Either it is by the Revelation or precept or threatning or promise of the Gospel But 1. It is not offered by the meer Revelation of the Gospel For according to Mr. G. the Revelation of the Gospel is only a Revelation of Mercy and Pardon to the elect but a Revelation of Mercy and Pardon to the elect only cannot be an offer of mercy and pardon to the nonelect Besides that the meer Revelation of the Gospel is common to the Church and to the Angels Eph. 3.10 1 Pet. 1.12 But tho the Gospel be revealed to the Angels yet it doth not by its Revelation make any offer of Mercy and Pardon to them So that the meer Supernatural Revelation of the Gospel is no offer of Mercy and Pardon to the non-elect in the visible Church 2. It is not offered by the meer precept of the Gospel For according to Mr. G. the Gospel hath no precept of its own And tho it had a precept yet that precept would only require some duty of them but by it self could never offer any such benefit as Mercy and Pardon unto them 3. It is not offered by the threatning of the Gospel for according to him the Gospel hath no threatning and if it had a meer threatning alone without a promise is no means of offering Mercy and Pardon to a Man It remains therefore in the 4th place that since Mercy and Pardon is offered to the non-elect unbeliever it must be by the promise of the Gospel But it cannot be by the absolute promise for the absolute promise is not made to the non-elect unbeliever besides that the absolute promise is always fulfilled and so the non-elect should be certainly pardoned and saved And since it is so evident that it cannot be by the absolute promise it must of necessity be by the conditional promise that Mercy and Pardon is offered to non-elect unbelievers in the visible Church And consequently the Gospel hath a conditional promise for without a conditional promise it is unaccountable how Mercy and Pardon can be either offered to or rejected by those unbelievers Thus we have fully and clearly Answered the objections against the Gospel's having conditional promises and have shewed that the denial of them is inconsistent with the Gospel-offer of Mercy and Pardon made to unbelievers in the visible Church I should now pass to the next Chapter but that I must first briefly consider Mr. G's way of Interpreting the places of Scripture which seem to contain conditional promises so as to show that they contain no such thing And the way not to leave one conditional promise in all
I meant nothing but the new Covenant of Grace and only said that this Gospel-Covenant might be called a Law without just cause of offence to the Brethren because the Scriptures of Truth call it a Law Now if I did all this in the Apology Page 21 22 23 27. as I certainly did and God Angels and Men know it to be true then my Reverend Brother did not do well to go about to deceive the People and make them believe that I introduce a new Law of Works to be justified and saved by and for them and that my Arguments to prove it are all grounded upon the ambiguity of the word Law unexplained All which is utterly false I confess indeed what is true that though my purpose and design was not to prove but to explain and declare what we meant yet en passant on the by and to shew that our explication was agreeable to Scripture I dropped four passages of Scripture and referred to more in the Margent which do abundantly prove the thing they were quoted for But it is as clear as the Light at Noon-day that my Proof from the said four passages of Scripture in the Line and from the other referred to on the Margent is not in the least established upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law but upon the plain sense and meaning of the Scriptures there alledged Nor could an Argument from those Scriptures there quoted or referred to be grounded upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law because the word Law is not to be sound in any of them Let any Man read them all over and he shall find what I say to be true to wit that the word Law is not in any of them I acknowledge likewise that a few Lines after in the same 22th Page I quote three Scriptures where the word Law is but then it is again as clear as the Light that I quoted those three Scriptures to prove nothing but this That our Brethren should not dislike our calling the Gospel-Covenant a Law because the Scriptures of Truth call it so expresly And my R. Brother acknowledges now with me that it is so called in two of the places to wit Isa 42.4 and Rom. 3.27 and in several others which he hath quoted As for my other Argument from Humane Authority neither is that established on the ambiguity of the word Law but on the word it self its being found in the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines long before we were born From whence I clearly proved that the Word is not new but old And if the Testimonies of my Witnesses prove more as they really do even that the Gospel-Covenant was not onely of old called a Law but that it really is a Law of Grace which requires some Duty of us that was beside my design and purpose which was only to prove matter of fact as appears from the express words of the Apology pag. 24. lin 16 17 18 19 20 21. If any object that in the Preface and Index of the First Section of the Second Chapter it is said expresly that we have proved the Gospel to be a new law of Grace by the Word of God or Scripture and by the Testimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I Answer It is true it is said so But then consider that the said Preface and Index were Written and Printed after the Apology was Finished and Printed though in the Book they are both put before it as it is the custom to write Prefaces and Indexes last and yet place them first in Books Now when I wrote the Preface and Index taking a review of all that was said on that head in the Apology I found that my Quotations from Scripture and Doctors had proved more than I designed 1. I designed only to explain our meaning and by citing the four Scriptures in the Line and others in the Margent to show that our explication was agreeable to Scripture 2. By alledging the Testimonies of Antient and Modern Doctors of the Church I designed only to prove matter of fact to wit that new law of Grace was no new word but old This was what I designed in writing that part of the Apology But by looking it over after it was Printed I found that the Scriptures cited and referred to and the Testimonies of Doctors there alledged do really prove that the Gospel-Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediatour is a new Law of Grace which requires some Duties of us and which promises to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake only if we through Grace perform the said Duties And for this reason it was that in the Preface and Index I said that we had proved the Gospel in the sense there given to be a new Law of Grace both by Scripture and by the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines If any do further object That Humane Testimony can only prove matter of fact I answer It 's true Humane Testimony simply as such can solidly prove no more nor did I bring Humane Testimonies to prove any thing but that the Gospel Covenant was in their time called a New Law and a New Law of Grace and that they believed it to be such a Law which is nothing but matter of Fact Yet Men by giving Testimony to Matter of Fact may at the same time and in the same Testimony bring such Arguments from Scripture or Reason as shall likewise prove matter of right And this my Witnesses did especially Justin Martyr Cyprian Austin the Professors of Leyden Gomtrus Dr. Andrews and Dr. Twiss they both called the Gospel-Covenant a Law a New Law a New Law of Grace which proves the matter of fact and moreover in their Testimonies to the matter of Fact they alledged such places of Scripture or gave such reasons as do prove the matter of Right to wit That the Gospâ—l Covenant is a New Law of Grace and may and ought to be so accounted Now having first told the World how easily he could answer my Arguments and wipe off all my Citations upon a supposition which is of his own feigning and notoriously false as I have proved he next comes to answer my Arguments that is indeed my one Argument from Scripture for in effect there is no more but one and that one is there brought to confirm our Explication of the words Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace and to shew that what we mean by those words is consonant to the Scriptures of Truth as is evident from the 21. and 22. pag. of the Apology Well But be it Argument or Arguments he undertakes to give us a clear Answer to it and in order thereunto he proposes to do three things 1. To shew that the Gospel hath no Precepts or Commandments 2. That it hath no Threatnings 3. That it hath no Conditional Promises This is directly against the Professors of Leyden who in their Synopsis of purer Divinity say expresly as their words are quoted in the Apology
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
special New-Gospel-Precept which by it self immediately obliges us to such a special Act of Gospel Obedience Secondly There is the general old Law of our Creation or the Natural Precept which obliges us to yeild obedience unto the special New Gospel-Precept and so it is with respect to all the new positive Laws which ever God gave unto his People either under the Old or New Testament The Law of nature did not and could not enact those new Laws for the Church But after that God had once enacted them by a new Exertion of his Legislative Authority then the natural Law the general Law of Creation obliged the Church and People of God to the Observance of those new and special positive Laws 3. The reason why I deny that the giving of new positive Gospel-Precepts unto man after the first giving of the natural Law to him doth any way impeach the infinite wisdom and immutability of God It is because it was not for want of foresight of what man would afterwards need and what his sad Circumstances would require that ever God gave him any new Gospel-Precept or Promise as Mr. G. would insinuate But on the contrary it was because God by his infinite wisdom did foresee that Man would after the fall want and his sad Circumstances would need both new Gospel promises and precepts and because he had unchangeably purposed from Eternity to give him after the fall such Gospel promises and precepts as would be suitable to his sad Circumstances and through the Grace of the Holy Spirit would be an excellent useful means to recover him out of that sad state of sin and misery into which he had plunged himself by his own folly and wickedness 4. The reason why I deny Mr. G's Consequence that the giving unto Man any new Gospel precept would impeach the wisdom and unchangeableness of God is because that his way of Arguing against any new Gospel Precept is upon the matter the very same way that the infidels of old Disputed against the truth of the Christian Religion and endeavoured to prove that either God could not be infinitely wise and unchangeable or if he was such that then the Christian Religion could not possibly be of God because there are new precepts in the Gospel and a new way of worshipping God prescribed by the Christian Religion different in several particulars from that which was before prescribed by God himself both before and under the Law of Moses That thus the Infidels disputed against the truth of the Christian Religion is evident by what is to be seen in Marcellinus his Epistle to Augustin and by Augustin's answer to it and it is to be noted that * Oper. August Tom. 2. Epist 4. 5. Austin in his Answer neither did nor could truly deny that ever God gave any new precepts to his People So far was he from that way of Answering the Infidels that on the contrary he confessed that God had indeed at different times given to his Church new precepts different from former precepts but with all he shewed that this did no ways impeach either the wisdom or immutability of God His excellent and Learned answer begins thus * Aliud praecepit quod huic tempori aptum esset qui multo magis quam homo novit quid cuique tempori accommodate adhibeatur c. Aug. Marcellino Epist 5. God who knows much better than Man what precepts are suitable to every time hath given other precepts which might be fit and proper for this time to wit of the Gospel The same is evident also by what Austin in his Epistle to Deogratias writes in answer to an objection made by an Heathen against the Christian Religion where he shews that the Gospel and true Religion hath been always the same in substance tho at different times God hath given some different precepts and prescribed different ways of worship unto his Church In that answer of his to the Heathen these words are Remarkable But says †Quid autem qnando fiat quod ad unam eandemque fidelium piorum liberationem pertineat comilium Deo tribuamus nobis obedientiam teneamus Aug. Deo gratias Epist 49. Austin as to what is to be done and when every thing is to be done that pertains or conduces unto one and the same salvation of Faithful and Godly men let us ascribe Counsel unto God and take obedience to our selves i. e. Let us leave it to God to Determine that matter by his wise Counsel and let us know that it is our duty to obey his orders and to observe his precepts as he gives them out unto us And without going upon this ground with the Learned and Holy Austin we shall never be able to give a solid satisfactory answer to the foresaid objection of Infidels against the truth of our Christian Religion And there is no cause at all to fear that our granting now different precepts to have been given to the Church at different times will any wise impeach the wisdom and unchangeableness of God Because as the Ancient Author of the Questions and Answers to the Greeks which are amongst the works of Justin Martyr * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaest Respons ad Graecos inter Opera Just Maryr edit Paris 1636. pag. 205. says excellently well in another what is applicable to this case God will restore the Creation and bring it into a better state by renewing it that he may purge it from all that absurdity which hath befallen it through the sluggishness of rational beings Not that by judicious Consideration and looking further into things he doth afterwards find out that which is better than what he did at first but because long before and even before the Creation of the World he had decreed to do it For it is not possible that afterwards any thing can be added either to the knowledge or power of God which he had not before So much for Answer to his Second main objection 3. His 3d Objection is in pag. 44. where he argues thus Christ obeyed the Law and therein fulfilled all Righteousness therefore the Law was perfect since it was the rule of the most perfect obedience that ever was and which excelled that of Angels Answ Whom doth this Brother dispute against here For my part I do not know any of us that opposeth this I am sure if he understands the Apology which he writes against he cannot but know that it is not denied but affirmed there that the Law is perfect and requires most perfect sinlessly perfect obedience and that under pain of Death Eternal See pag. 200. 201. of the Apology 4. His 4th objection is Ibid. pag. 44. That if the Law be perfect then it wants no precepts but it enjoyns every duty under the severest penalties I Answer that as the Law is most perfect in its kind so indeed it wants not any one precept that belongs to it But because it wants not