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
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
REMARKS ON THE R. Mr. GOODWINS Discourse of the Gospel PROVING That the Gospel-Covenant is a Law of Grace Answering his Objections to the contrary and rescuing the Texts of Holy Scripture and many Passages of Ecclesiastical Writers both Ancient and Modern from the False Glosses which he forces upon them By WILLIAM LORIMER Minister of the Gospel It was said in the definition of the Gospel That the Gospel requireth both Faith and Repentance or New Obedience Against this the FLACCIAN SECTARIES keep a stir c. Zach. Vrsins Sum of Christian Religion English Translation pag. 131. London 1645. Si conversus fueris ingemueris salvus eris In hoc testimonio conditionali Deus praecepto utitur promisso Dicens quippe si conversus fueris c. ostendit ex conversionis conditione promissionem salutis omnino pendere c. Dicit igitur Dominus si hoc feceris hoc habebis Si parueris praecepto potieris beneficio Fulgent lib. 1. de peceat Remissione cap. 11. LONDON Printed for Iohn Lawrence at the Angel in the Poultry 1696. ERRATA PAge 2. line 39. read not pr 3. l. 7. r. that it is p. 5. l. 30. r. Righteousness p. 7. l. 46. r. that men must p. 10. l. 23. r. falsum p. 10 l. 49. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 11. l. 9. r. to this p. 48. l. 1. r. l0 p. 62 l. 49. for at r. ad p. 85. l. 48. r. Tom. 2. p. 87. l. 30. r. into p. 88. l. 45. r. mutila p. 99. l. 45. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 48. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for thereby r. whereby p. 112 l. 17. r. bid p. 113. l. 34. for perculiar r. peculiar p. 119. l. 26. for hus r. thus p. 130. l. ult r. etiam p. 133. l. 23. r. we do not and l. 49. after Scripturae r. occulta autem sit eadem quia p. 136. l. 49. for ust r. just p. 139. at the end for canno r. adjuvare p. 142. l. 33. r. internis l. 46. r. ipsis p. 148. l. 43. r. efficitur Et hoc me negare dico inquit Triglandius p. 159. l. 43. r. Law p. 162. l. 32. r. at all p. 163. l. 46. r. of Jews ibid. l. 50. r. whereof p. 166. l. 42. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 176. l. 12. for hold r. held What other Errata may be in regard of a Letter or wrong Pointing the Courteous Reader is desired to mend them The Preface to the READER THOSE who have attentively read our Apology and have seen how fully and clearly we vindicated our selves from the Calumnies wherewith the R. B. our Accuser had Aspersed us in his Letter of Information may possibly wonder to find the Reverend Mr. Goodwin coming in to the Accusers assistance and undertaking to make good the same Charge against us that we are Corrupters of the Old and Preachers of a New Gospel to the great danger of Peoples Souls See the Preface to his Discourse of the true Nature of the Gospel and Chap. 4. Pag. 25. Lin. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. and Chap. 9. Pag. 74. Lin. 11 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 32 33. But if they duly consider Mr. Goodwins Principles they may cease wondering for he professes to believe that the Gospel-Covenant is no Law of Grace that is that it hath neither Precept nor Conditional Promise nor Threatning of its own at all And so that it reâ—uires no Duty at all not so much as Faith in Christ and consequently that there are no Sins against the Gospel The holding of this Opinion he judges to be of high importance to the Salvation of his own Soul See Epistle to the Reader pag. 1. lin 15 16. for it seems he is afraid that if the Gospel have any Precept of its own and require any Duty or threaten any Sinner then be is undone and that if * See his Disc p. 54. Christ as Mediatour be Judge then he shall be condemned Now it is no matter of wonder at all that a Man of such Principles doth accuse us and make a Clamour against us as dangerous persons for indeed we do believe that the Gospel-Covenant which God hath made with his Church through the Mediatour Jesus Christ is a Law of Grace which hath not only Absolute Promises but hath also Precepts Conditional Promises and Threatnings of its own That it requires some Duties and that those who neglect to perform such Duties are guilty of Sins not only against the Moral Law but against the Gospel also We do likewise believe that the Office of a Judge doth belong to a Mediator and that Christ is both Mediator and Judge and that as Judge he will condemn some yea many impenitent Vnbelievers for Sins against the Gospel So that here is a contradictory opposition between the Gospel which we stand for the defence of with a resolution through Grace so to do * See Mark 8.36 37 38. and the Gospel that Mr. Goodwin would obtrude upon the World which we think is so far from being the true Gospel of Christ that it is the Error of Flacius Illyricus which was condemned and exploded by Famous Orthodox Divines of the Reformed Church long before we were born And I hope the Reverend Mr Trail will yet join with us in condemning that Error of the Flacians as no part of Christs Gospel but a very gross and dangerous Mistake especially as improved by Mr. Goodwin But whether he will do so or not I am sure the late Reverend and Learned Dr. Owen and his worthy successor Mr. Clarkson were of the same Faith with us and are on our side in this matter For 1. Dr. Owen in his 3d Volume on the Hebrews pa. 220. li. 4 5 6. says that The first Promise Gen. 3.15 had in it the nature of a Covenant grounded on a Promise of Grace and requiring Obedience in all that received the Promise And pag. 221. on Heb. 8.6 It to wit the new Covenant is now so brought in as to become the entire Rule of the Churches Faith Obedience and Worship in all things This is the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 established say we but it is reduced into a fixed state of a Law or Ordinance c. Again p 222. Every Covenant saith the Dr. that is proposed unto Men and accepted by them requires somewhat to be performed on their part otherwise it is no Covenant Again in pag. 22â— I Dr. Owen do not say the Covenant of Grace is Absolute without Conditions if by Conditions we intend the Duties of Obedience which God requires of us in and by vertue of that Covenant And then from pag. 235 c. the Dr. in many particulars assigning the difference between the Old Sinai Covenant as such and the New Gospel-Covenant when he gives the fifth difference he says That the New Covenant hath for its Precepts the Decalogue with some positive Laws and for its Promises they are
to the end before mentioned it prescribes the exercise of Faith and Repentance And so the Gospel is a Law in a very true and good sense and that sense the same which we affirmed it to be in our Apology Whence it appears that my Reverend Brother has here yielded the cause and is come over to our Camp and if he would be consistent with himself here might be an end of the Controversie about the Gospels being a Law with respect to Justification For assuredly we mean no more than that it prescribes seeking by Faith and Repentance and chiefly by Faith as aforesaid And this is the commonly received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as I proved in the Apology and shall yet further prove it if need be But he objects up and down his book that if the Gospel Covenant did prescribe or require any work or works whatsoever and did oblige us to any Duty then it would be another Law of Works and we should still be justified by Works I Answer By denying the Consequence Indeed it is true That if the Gospel require a Work or Duty it requires a Work or Duty for that is an Identical Proposition and no reasonable Man hath so little Wit as to deny the Truth of it But it is utterly false that if the Gospel require any Works then it is another Law of Works in the Scripture-Sense of the Word For by Law of Works the Scripture always means such a Law or Covenant of Works as would justifie a Man by and for his Works if he had them as he ought to have had them But though the Gospel require of us some works yet it is no Law of Works for it doth not require any Works that we may be justifyed either in whole or in part by and for those Works as such Nor are we for them in the least justityed at the Bar of God They are not any of them the least part of that Rigateousness by and for which we are justifyed This we have declared and explained to fully and clearly in our Apology that we cannot but wonder that any Christian that is endued with Common Honesty and hath read and understood our said Apology should persist in accusing us of holding Justification by Works or in asserting confidently that it follows by good consequence from our Principles That consequence my Reverend Brother can never prove For though Repentance be a Work yet is it not according to our Principles required by the Evangelical Law as a Work to Justifie us or as a Work for which we are to be justifyed in the least degree but only as a means or condition in the Subject Man to dispose and prepare him for Justification by Faith only in Christ's Blood and Righteousness And again Though Faith be a Work in it self yet doth not the Evangelical Law require it as a Work to be a part of that Righteousness by and for which we are justifyed but it requires Faith only as the Instrumental Means or Condition by which we receive and apply to our selves and also trust to Christ and his satisfactory meritorius Righteousness as that by and for which alone we are Justifyed before Gods Tribunal Let Mr. G. try when he will he shall find it impossible to prove from my Principles as I have here truely and sincerely set them down that the Gospel would be another Law of Works and that we would be Justifyed by Works if the Gospel required Faith and Repentance as aforesaid I might with more appearance of reason prove from my R. B. Principle That if Faith be required only by the Natural Moral Law and if we be Justifyed by Faith as we certainly are and if Faith be a Work as in its own Nature it certainly is then we are justifyed by a Work of the Natural Moral Law and so are in tantum justifyed by the Law of Works and look how he can answer this Argument drawn from his Principle with as much facility if not more shall I answer his Sophisme drawn from my Principle That the Gospel is a Law of Grace I need say no more to answer all he brings in his Second Chapter but to declare that as he says pag. 12. That all but Papists Socinians and Arminians harmoniously agree in explaining such places as call the Gospel a Law after such a manner as may not give the least colour to the Opinion of the Gospels being a Law in the sense of the three mentioned Parties so I do entirely agree with them in that manner of explaining them and do with them utterly reject the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense of the Gospels being a New Law But then it follows not that the Gospel is no New Law in any Sense because it is not one in the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense Our Authour in pag. 10. says the Gospel is called a Law but no otherwise than as it is a comfortable instruction to poor convinced Sinners what riches of Mercy there are in store and as it teacheth them how they may trust and hope in the God of all Grace But this is not true in his Exclusive Sense for besides that it is a Law as it teacheth how such Sinners should ex officio in point of Duty trustand hope in the God of all Grace through Jesus Christ In fine Though in pag. 14. he mincingly say That the word Judge in Micah 4.3 may very well import no more than that Christ will judge what course of Salvation is best for us to take that he will determine the case and it is better for us to acquiesce in the Decision of his Vnerring Judgment which cannot be deceived nor will ever mislead us than to pursue our own mistaken apprehensions which bewilder us continually Yet even this will sufficiently evince that the Supernatural Gospel-Revelation of that Judgment and Determination of Christ our Lord and Saviour is a Law to us for as soon as it comes to our knowledge it doth of it self immediately oblige us to acquiesce in his Judgment and Determination and to take that course for Salvation which he hath judged best for us to take So that let Mr. G. shuffle never so much he will never be able to avoid his being obliged by the Doctrine of the Gospel immediately to believe in Christ Matth. 17.5 and to take that course which he hath prescribed in order to Salvation Acts 16.31 I shall conclude my Animadversions on this Second Chapter with the Judgment of the Learned and Judicious Mr. Pool who was neither Papist Socinian nor Arminian as it is expressed in his Annotation on Isa 2.3 Out of Zion shall go forth the Law The New Law the Doctrine of the Gospel which is frequently called a Law because it hath the Nature and Power of a Law obliging us no less to the Belief and Practice of it than the Old Law did Remarks on the Third Chapter IN the beginning of this Chapter he doth me a manifest wrong in saying That
Grounds and Motives that it is accompanyed with a Fear of the contraryes being true and that it 's possible for him to be deceived For these are the Natural Properties of an Opinion 1. It is founded upon a probable ground and motive 2. It is accompanyed with a fear of the contraries being true 3. Ei potest subesse falsom though it be true yet it is but contingently true and so it might have been false or may yet be falfe for any thing that can be certainly known to the contrary from the probable Motive and Ground on which it is founded And then the consequence of this would be that God is not infinitely Wise Ommscient and Infallible And so upon Mr. G 's own Principle of Gods being an Opinator as well as upon the Arminians Principle God might possibly be surprized if not at the Arrival of new Colonies in Heaven as his Expression is in p. 1. of the Epistle to the Reader yet at many things which are done here upon Earth But I hope my R. Brother meant well though his kind love to definitions hath dazled his sight and caused him to embrace a Phantosme instead of his Beloved I mean caused him to take that for a definition of Gods Law which is no definition at all no not a good description of it I insist not therefore on this but supposing his thoughts to have been sound I shall only advise him Linguam corrigere to mend his Words and not to be so fond of definitions for the future And so I return to Clemens concerning whom I say 1. That he doth not say that a true and good Opinion of a thing is the definition of Gods Law nor doth he there so much as say that it is a definition of Mans Law or that it is a definition at all 2. What he said of a Law in the general he did not apply to the Gospel nor is it applicable to the Gospel of Christ If Mr. G will needs be applying it let him apply it to some other Gospel if he knows of any other but he shall never have my consent to apply it unto Christ's Gospel and thereby to make the Gospel an Opinion 3. I advise my Reverend Brother to read but two or three lines further there in Clemens Alexandrinus and he will find that he affirms a Law in the judgment of some (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alexand. Strom. Lib. 1. pag. 256 257. op Lugd. Batav 1616. to be right reason or a right word commanding things which ought to be done and forbidding things which ought not to be done And from thence he concludes that it was rightly and congruously said that the Law was given by Moses to be the rule of Just and Vnjust Thus Clemens And I am content that this be applyed unto the preceptive part of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace to wit that it commands some things to be done and forbids others and that it is a Rule of Just and Unjust But I cannot comprehend how from any thing here in Clemens M. G. can prove with any colour of reason that the said Clemens was of his Opinion That the Gospel is such a Law and Doctrine of Grace as hath no Precept and requires nothing of us at all I need say no more in answer to his Impertinent Chapter but that in his Conclusion he harps upon the same string again and as before abusively calls the Evangelical Law according to our sense of it a new Law of Works for as hath been said It is no Law of Works new or old according to the Scripture use of the Words Law of Works but it is really a New Law of Grace And so in direct opposition to my Reverend Brother I conclude that according to Scripture This New Law of Grace is the Everlasting Gospel and by the Testimonies of the Fathers cited in the Apology and others which I have ready to produce it appears that this Name Law and New Law whereby the Gospel is called is venerable for Age. For that the Gospel-Covenant is a New Law of Grace it is a Doctrine which was well known and believed in the first Ages of Christ's Church and which had its Original before the Birth of Antichrist and I am very well assured will continue in Christ's Church after the Period of that Man of Sin Remarks on the Fifth Chapter THIS Chapter is one intire Impertinency grounded upon the before-mentioned Mistake That I framed an Argument from the sound of the Word Law to prove the Gospel to be a Real Law that obliges to Duty For 1. All that I argued from the Gospels being called a Law in Scripture was that the Brethren should not be offended with us for calling it by that Name since the Lord himself in Scripture had so called it 2. From its being called a Law both by the Fathers and Orthodox Protestant Divines I argued that it is not a new word of an old but ill meaning And in both respects my arguing was close and consequential But for its being a Law that prescribes to us and obliges us to some Duties in order to Gospel-ends and purposes That I said plainly enough See Apol. p. 22.33 depends on the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace for I affirmed it to be the conditional part of the Covenant and I proved the Covenant to be Conditional with respect to its subsequent Blessings and Benefits So that this Controversie whether the Gospel be a Law of Grace or not resolves it self into the question Whether the Covenant of Grace be Conditional and whether it requires of us any Duty with respect to its subsequent Blessing and Benefits And my Reverend Brother will never do any thing to purpose against me in this Controversie unless he solidly and effectually prove what is impossible to be proved That the Covenant of Grace is not at all Conditional and that it doth not require any Duty of us at all in the foresaid respect And if he do that he doth his Work indeed but till that be done he doth nothing to any purpose and all his labour is lost And particularly his Labour is lost in quoting Roman Authours to wit Isodore Paulus Merula Brisonius Juvenal Ovid Cicero Papinian and Justinian to prove that the word Lex Law hath various significations For this is proving what was not at all denyed in the Apology nor was any other thing concluded from the bare Word its being found in Scripture and in Ancient Authours but that we may use the Word without just cause of offence and that it is not a New Word of an old but ill meaning To as little purpose doth he quote Cyprian and Augustin to shew that by the word Law they frequently mean no more than a Doctrine For 1. Suppose it were true that frequently they mean no more than a Doctrine in my Reverend Brothers Sense yet if they do sometimes mean more by it and particularly If they mean more by
manifestly false that Dr. Whitaker held the Gospel to be such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace as requires no Duty at all not so much as Faith in Christ For in his Answer to Campians Reasons Translated into English by Richard Stock and Printed at London 1606. In Pages 252 253. he writes thus Now you Campian add The Decalogue belongeth not to Christians God doth not care for our Works Touching the Decalogue and Works Gal. 3.10 Deut. 27.26 this Answer I Whitaker make you briefly In the Law the Old Covenant is contained Do this and live Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them The Law promiseth Life to them which obey the Law in all things They that offend in anything to them it threatneth Death and Damnation an hard Condition and which no Man can ever satisfie Christ doth propose to us another Condition much easier Believe and thou shalt be saved Mark 16.16 By this New Covenant the Old is abrogated so as whosoever believeth the Gospel is freed from the Condition of the Law For they that believe are not under the Law but under Grace Rom. 6.14 and Gal. 5.18 What needs many words Christians are delivered from the Curse of the Law but not from the Obedience of it Thus Whitaker Whereby it is plain that he believed a Conditional Gospel and that it requires of us the performance of its Conditoon in order to our being freed from the Condition and delivered from the Curse of the Law And here it may not be amiss to let the World know that under Queen Elizabeth whilst Dr. Whitaker was Regius Professor in Cambridge there was one Dr. Peter Baro a Frenchman who was for some time Margarets Professor and having Preached and afterwards Printed a Latine Sermon on Rom. 3.28 And having therein affirmed as Mr. Goodwin doth That Men are obliged to believe in Christ by the Moral Law and not by the Gospel as his Words were interpreted he was thereupon and on the account of some other prelections also supposed to be an Innovator and he fell under suspicion of inclining to those Doctrines afterwards called Arminian and for that reason under the displeasure of Dr. Whitaker who was a strict Calvinist Whereupon he resigned his place and removed to London But they did not leave him so For there was a Book written against his Latine Sermon aforesaid by E. H. one of Dr. Whitakers Party and Printed in the Year 1592. wherein the Anonymous Authour treats him very rudely much at the rate as some of late have treated their Brethren amongst us But that which is to my purpose is That the Zealous E. H. in his little Book which I have de fide ejusque ortu naturâ maintains against Baro That Justifying Faith is not Commanded by the Old Moral Law but by the New Law of Grace to wit the Gospel To one of Baro's Arguments he answers thus (m) O miseram caecam consequentiam Quasi verò non aliam jam inde ab initio temporum praeter hanc perfectissimam Decalogi nec minus perfectam promissionis scilicet vitae legem tulerit quâ populum suum in se credere sibique omnem fidem habere jusserit E. H. De fide ejusque ortu naturâ Pag. 44 45. Lond. 1592. O miserable and blind consequence As if forsooth God had not from the beginning given another Law besides that most perfect Law of the Ten Commandments no less perfect than it to wit the Law of the Promise and Life whereby he Commanded his People to believe in him and to repose all their Trust and Confidence in him And after he had in pag. 52 53 54. discoursed at large of this Law of Promise and Life and had both shewed it to be distinct from the Law of the Ten Commandments and called it the Law of Grace he adds these words Ecce tibi Baro Legem quâ fides praecipitur Behold here Baro Thou hast a Law a Law of Grace whereby Faith is Commanded Now by these words of E. H. one of Dr. Whitakers Party and by the Doctors own words it plainly appears That he and the other Orthodox Divines of Cambridge under Q. Elizabeth were so far from thinking that the Gospel was nothing but such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace as requires nothing of us no not Faith in Christ as Mr. G. would make the World believe that they rather some of them at least as for instance Mr. Perkins and this E. H. went the quite contrary way and held that Faith in Christ is Commanded only by the Gospel-Covenant And Baro who as was thought held as my Reverend Brother doth that it is Commanded only by the Natural Moral Law was cryed down as an Innovator and unsound Divine and at last constrained to resign his place and leave the University To all this I shall add That Dr. Nowel Dean of Pauls who was Dr. Whitaker's Uncle and Prolocutor in the Convocation 1562. Where the Articles of Religion which we have subscribed were Ratified and Confirmed wrote a Latine Catechisme which by Publick Order was commonly taught in the Grammar-Schools throughout England And in that Catechisme it s expresly affirmed that Evangelium requirit sidem The Gospel requires Faith Christ. Piet. prima institutio ad usum Scholarum Latine Scripta Cantab. 1626. pag. 3. Now this was the Catechisme which in all probability Whitaker Learned when he was a Boy at School and it is not very likely that when he was afterwards Regius Professor in Cambridge he had so far forgotten his Catechisme as to Publish to the World in Print That the Gospel is such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace as requires no duty at all not so much as Faith in Christ Eleventhly Mr. G suborns Gomarus to bear false Witness against me but certainly of all Men in the World Gomarus was the unfittest to be brought in to Witness against me because as was shewed from his own formal express words quoted in the Apology pag. 27. he hath spoken my Sence so clearly that after I had set down his Words and Reasons why the Gospel is called the Law of Grace yea the Law of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I immediately added these words And truly this was excellently said by Gomarus No Man we think can give a better account why the Gospel is called the Law of Grace Whence it manifestly appears that I hold the Gospel to be a Law of Grace no otherwise than as Gomarus held it to be such before I was born And then Gomarus his own express words shew Gom. Oper. Part. 3. Disp 14. Thes 30. that he held the Gospel to be a Law from the prescription or appointment of the Condition and Duty contained in it and to be a Law of Grace because of the Benefit promised in it Both which he proved by Scripture-Testimonies Now to make People believe that Gomarus
fortified with a Sanction but with a Sanction that promiseth Justification and Salvation not for the Duties sake but for Christs sake only Now both his Propositions being false no wonder that the inference he draws from them be ridiculous insignificant and of no force at all against me for I do freely grant that it is a fallacious way of reasoning to argue from the meer ambiguity of a word that hath several significations But that was not nor is it my way of arguing And this being the case as I have truly represented it and as manifestly appears from the Apology it self the ridiculous demonstration to wit a Law is a Law the Gospel is a Law therefore the Gospel is a Law I say this ridiculous demonstration which Mr. Goodwin in pag 41. would lay at my door returns home to himself and calls him its true Father and justly it may for assuredly it is a Bratt of his own brain and breeding and for that reason he seems to be very fond of it calling it a pretty way of arguing and saying without doubt it is unanswerable And yet if we look upon this pretty little rogue as the Image of his Brain that begat it and if we strip the Baby of its identick dress or fools coat it is very easily answered For being formed according to the tenour of his Discourse concerning the various significations of the word Law it amounts to no more than this A meer nominal Law that requires nothing is a real proper Law that requires something but the Gospel is a meer nominal Law that requires nothing therefore the Gospel is a real proper Law that requires something The Proposition is that which I suppose he would father upon me but I justly disown it as none of mine and so I do by the other identical Proposition a Law is a Law Let this Brother prove if he can by any good consequence that there is any such thing expressed or implyed in any part of the Apology I am so well assured that there is no such thing there that I defy him or any Man to prove the affirmative that there it is And by and by we shall find himself clearing me of that imputation and blaming me for proving the Gospel to be a Law because it hath Precepts requiring Duty fortified with a sanction of Promises and Threatnings Which is a demonstration that either this Brother asserts that which he knows to be false or else that he contradicts himself and writes he knows not what The Proposition then or Major is the birth of his own Brain and whether it was begotten against his Conscience as Bastards use to be let him look to it I assert nothing pro or con in that matter As for the Assumption or second Proposition he will not he cannot deny it to be his own to wit That the Gospel is a Law a meer nominal Law which requires no Duty of us at all for it is the great thing he contends for with all his Might throughout his Book Now it appearing thus that the Argument is his own much good may it do him and his Cause which the World may know to be a very good one by this token that it is supported by such pretty honest Devices And thus the pretty unanswerable Argument is easily answered when stript of its Identical dress For both Propositions are false The Major Proposition is self evidently false when stript of its Identical dress And if he will not suffer his Baby to be stript of its Fools coat my Answer is That it is his own and he may do with his own what he pleases The Minor I have proved to be false and shall further prove it to be false before we have done And therefore though the conclusion as to the matter concluded be very true according to the Logick Rule ex falsis verum yet it is not therefore formally true as it is concluded and because it is concluded and inferred from such false premisses But he pretends in pag. 42. to have provided a proper remedy against this malady of arguing from the ambiguity of a word of various signification by clearing the sense of the word Law which he says he has largely done But cui bono to what good purpose was all that waste of Time Paper and Ink since it doth not reach me at all for I defy him to shew me where in the Apology I did ever so much as once endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a proper Law from the meer sound of the word Law which is of a various signification But though I did not so argue yet my R. B. hath assumed to himself the liberty of arguing from the ambiguity of the word Gospel almost throughout his whole Discourse to prove that the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace as to require no Duty of us at all Turpe est igitur doctori quum culpa redarguit ipsum I think it had been more to the purpose to have cleared the sense of the ambiguous word Gospel so as to have shewed that in Holy Scripture or the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines it is never taken for the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ the Mediator including the conditional part of it but always and every where for a meer absolute Promise or Promises which require no Duty of us at all If my Reverend Brother had done this he had done his work and had answered me effectually and had made me his Proselite too But I do not blame him for not doing this because it is plainly impossible to be done But what if my purpose and design in the First Section of the Second Chapter of the Apology which he pretends to answer was not so much to argue and prove the Gospel to be a Law As 1. To instruct our Accuser who seemed not to know our Principles and to let him know what we really mean by a new Law of Grace 2 To rebuke him for saying ignorantly that new Law of Grace was a new word of an old but ill meaning and to prove by Testimonies of credible Witnesses Antient and Modern that new Law of Grace was no new word of an old but ill meaning but that he in saying so against us the Subscribers was a false Witness against his Brethren And to show that this was my purpose and design there needs no more but to read the Apology Page 20 21 22 24. 3. Further What if for the Instruction and Information of our Accuser I told him and the World plainly 1. That God most freely made the Covenant and enacted the Law of Grace with us through Jesus Christ 2. That God by this Law of Grace both obliges and encourages us to certain Duties and also by the Promises of it obliges himself to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake if we perform the Duties prescribed and comply with the terms injoyned 3. What if I plainly declared that by new Law of Grace
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
This I think I proved clearly both by Scripture and Reason in the Apology And I need to say no more of that matter till what I have there written be solidly answered which I never expect to see done Yet before I pass from this eighth Consideration I will ex superabundanti confirm what is here asserted by some few Testimonies both Divine and Humane But first I must desire the Reader to turn to the 103 and 104 Pages of the Apology and to read attentively and rightly understand what I there quoted out of the Learned and Judicious Turretin who shows that the New Covenant and Gospel comprehends both the Promise of Justification and the Promise of Glorification and that it requires more in order to the obtaining of Glorification in Heaven than to the obtaining of Justification on Earth He shows also that we ought to distinguish between the first closing with and entering into Covenant and the keeping of the Covenant we are entred into Faith enters us into the Covenant by receiving the promises and Faith together with sincere Obedience as its fruit and effect keeps the Covenant by retaining the Promises and Evangelically fulfilling the Commands Now the Gospel-Covenant being made for and propounded to us by God who is infinitely superiour to us and has a Soveraign Authority over us it obliges us both to accept it as it is propounded to us and to keep it as it is accepted by us that we may obtain the several Blessings and Benefits promised in it to those who first accept it and afterwards keep it It is true the Lord promiseth to enable his own people both to enter into Covenant and also to abide in the Covenant and keep it to the end but that no wise hinders his obliging them by the Covenant both to enter first into it and after that to abide in it and keep it This being premised I prove that the Gospel-Covenant is not without all Precepts it is not such a Doctrine of Grace as requires nothing of us at all but it is a Doctrine of Grace that obliges us to do something whereby we enter into Covenant and to do yet more for the due keeping of Covenant with God And First I prove by the Testimony of God in the Scriptures of Truth First Proof from Divine Testimony that the Gospel or New Covenant requires some Duties of us not indeed that we may be justified and glorified for the sake of those Duties but in order to other Gospel ends and purposes I begin with Gen. 17. in which Chapter we have an account of Gods renewing the Gospel Covenant with Abraham and instituting Circumcision to be a Sign and Seal to confirm it to him and his Seed after him Abraham was in Covenant with God before this time therefore God did but now renew it with and ratifie and confirm it to him and the words which he used in the doing of this are remarkable I will cite the most material of them And first in ver the 7th we have the words which contain and express the sum and substance of the Gospel-Covenant on Gods part And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee This is the promissory part of the Covenant that the Lord would be a God unto Abraham and to his Seed There is much in this it comprehends all Gods part of the Covenant that is all that he undertook to be unto and to do for Abraham and his Seed Secondly in the 1 9 10. verses we have the words which contain and express the sum and substance of the Gospel Covenant on the part of Abraham who was already before this time in Covenant with God ver 1. I am God almighty walk before me and be thou perfect upright or sincere Here Faith is implyed and sincere Obedience expressed Then again ver 9. God said unto Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations And ver 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee Every man child among you shall be circumcised The meaning of the words This is my Covenant is This is the sign or token of my Covenant which ye shall keep Every man child among you shall be circumcised This appears to be so from the following 11th verse where Circumcision is expresly said to be a token of the Covenant Circumcision then is here said to be the Covenant by a Sacramental Form of Speech because it was a token or sign of the Covenant The act of circumcising and submitting to be circumcised was indeed a part of the duty and condition of the Covenant but the Circumcision when it was done or the permanent effect was a token or sign of the Covenant So these three Verses the 1 9 and 10. express the Preceptive part of the Covenant and shew what was thereby required of Abraham to wit that he being already in Covenant by Faith should walk before God and be perfect or sincere that he should keep Covenant with God as his Seed also should do after him and that Circumcision cumcision being now instituted to be a token of the Covenant he and his Seed should be circumcised Now these things being so let Conscience if we have any say whether this Gospel-Covenant was such a Doctrine of Grace as required no Duty at all of Abraham or rather whether it was not a Doctrine of Grace which plainly required some Duty of him even that he should walk before Almighty God and be perfect or sincere that he should keep Gods Covenant and receive Circumcision as a sign and token of it But now let any Man tell me plainly how this Gospel-Covenant could be either kept or broken as in this Chapter it is said it might be if it was nothing but Gods absolute Promise without any Precept or a Doctrine of Grace which requireth nothing at all to be done by Man And to show that this Scripture is thus understood by Protestant Divines see the Dutch Annotations on Gen. 17.9 where you will find these formal express words As for thee or concerning thy part of the Covenant after that God had given and past his Promises he requireth likewise his Peoples Duty as the second compleating part of the Covenant See also to this purpose the Assemblies Annotations on Gen. 17.8 where they have these following words Yet this was but upon condition of the Peoples part of the Covenant which is Faith and Obedience In like manner Pools Annotations on Gen 17.9 have these very words following The agreement is mutual my part was expressed before now follows thy part and the condition to which my Promise and Blessing is annexed The second Divine Testimony to prove that the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace requires some Daties of us is Exod. 24.4 5 6 7 8. There
we have an account how God made a Covenant with the People of Israel in the Wilderness after they had received the Law of the Ten Commandments from the Lord appearing to them in terrible Majesty on Mount Sinai and pronouncing it with audible voice in the presence of Six Hundred Thousand People In that 24th of Exodus we read that when Moses had received from the Lord the other Laws to wit the Ceremonial and Judicial 1. He wrote them in a Book God himself with his own hand by his own immediate power wrote the Law of the Ten Commandments on Two Tables of Stone but for the other Laws Moses wrote them in a Book ver 4. compared with Heb. 9.19 2. He builded an Altar and Twelve Pillars the Altar seems to have been a symbol of God in Christ as one party in the Covenant and the Twelve Pillars represented the Twelve Tribes of Israel as the other party ver 4. so that here were the outward Signs and Symbols of a Covenant between God and the people of Israel 3. He ordered certain persons supposed to be the first-born to offer Sacrifices unto the Lord ver 3. 4. He divided the Blood of the sacrificed Beasts into two equal parts and mixed it with a little Water as appears from Heb. 9.19 whereby Christ was fitly represented who came by Water and Blood 1 John 5.6 and then having put it in Basons he sprinkled one half of it on the Altar ver 6. to signifie that God was appeased and atoned by this Blood of the Sacriâ—ces as it represented the Blood of Christ or his Bloody Sacrifice and also that Christ was to be sanctitied with his own Blood and consecrated to the continual exercise of his Eternal Priesthood in the holy place above Heb. 9.12 5. He took the Book of the Covenant in which were written the Duties of the Covenant to wit in the Words and Laws of God mentioned before ver 4. and read it in the audience of the people whereunto they consented and signifyed their consent by saying All that the Lord hath said will we do and be obedient ver 7. Sixthly He took the other half of the Blood and sprinkled it on the People to signifie the Ratification of the Covenant on their parts with the application of the Vertue of Christ's Blood to their Consciences and their obtaining Redemption Justification Access unto and acceptance with God through it alone Seventhly Whilst he sprinkled the Blood upon the People he said Behold the Blood of the Covenant i e. whereby the Covenant is confirmed which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words ver 8. compared with Heb. 9. ver 20. From the Premisses we learn Two things 1. That this was a Type and Figure of the Covenant of Grace Confirmed and Ratified by the Blood of Christ It was a Type and Figure of the New Covenant in its Gospel-Form of Administration for this Covenant was Ratified and Confirmed by the Blood of the Sacrifices as Representative and Typical of the Blood of Christ and of the New Testament in his Blood So the Apostle instructs us in Heb. 9. ver 18 19 20 c. 2. That this Typical Figurative Covenant had Precepts which required Duties of God's People For Moses took the Book of the Covenant and read the Precepts to the People Exod. 24.7 compared with Heb. 9.19 And when they had heard there read they answered and said All that the Lord hath said will we do and be Obedient Exod. 24.7 Moses as God's Minister in God's Name told them by reading the Precepts to them what God required of them by this Covenant they on the other part by their Answer expressed their consent and promised to be Obedient Whether they were all Spiritually sincere or not and I think they were not yet they were then Serious and Morally sincere and in so far as they were such they did nothing but what was their Duty in giving their foresaid Consent and what Moses acting as God's Minister who did not know their hearts approved of and thereupon Ratified and Sealed the Covenant between God and them Now hence I think we have a plain Proof that the New Covenant the Covenant of Grace or Gospel hath Precepts which require Duties For if the Typical Figurative Covenant had Precepts and required Duties then the New Covenant in its Gospel-Form of Administration which was Typifyed and Figured by it hath likewise Precepts and requires Duties For a Covenant that hath Precepts and requires Duties doth not at all seem proper to Typify and Figure a Covenant that hath no Precept and requires no Duty If my R. B. venture to deny that the foresaid Covenant at Horeb did Typifie the New Covenant in its Gospel Form of Administration he will find that he hath the Apostle against him and also that he hath our own Confession of Faith Chap. 7. Art 5 6. and the Reformed Divines generally against him Even the Marrow of Modern Divinity a Book so much commended by Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Caryl c and so much esteemed by his good Friends will be against him as he may see if he turn to the 54 55 56 c. pages of that Book The Third Divine Testimony to prove that the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace requires some Duties of us is to be seen in Deut. 29. and 30. Chap. That the Covenant renewed with all Israel Old and Young Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14. is really the Gospel-Covenant or Covenant of Grace in its Legal Form of Administration appears from hence that it 's said to be a Covenant which God made with them that they should be his People and that he would be their God as he had said and sworn unto Abraham Isaac and Jacob. But it was the Gospel-Covenant or Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham and confirmed with an Oath That he would be the God of Abraham and his Seed and that they should be his People This same Covenant in Type and Figure as was shewed before Moses had engaged the People of Israel into at Horeb but they had broken it during their sojourning in the Wilderness Therefore by the Lords special Command he renewed it with them again in the Land of Moab It is indeed said Deut. 29.1 to be made with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant made with them in Horeb. But the Learned and Pious Rutherford shews the Reason of that expression Rutherford 's Covenant of Life opened Part 1. Chap. 11. p. 60 is 1. Because it was renewed again after their breach of it 3. Because there was some additions of Special Blessings Cursings and Ceremonial Commands that were not in the formerly proposed Covenant yet it was the same in substance c. And as Pool in his Annotations on the place observes the meaning of the words Covenant made with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab is That the Covenant was there renewed with them as
also the meaning of the words besides the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb is as if it had been said beside that entring into or striking of Covenant And then he adds for further clearing of the matter The Covenant was but one in substance but various in the time and manner of its dispensation The Dutch Annotations go the same way and very clearly assign the reason of its being said that the Covenant was made with Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant made with them in Horeb Their words are It was indeed one and the same Covenant but Renewed Repeated and Published here in the Fields of Moab unto many other Persons in another place and in another manner than at Mount Horeb or Sinai And with these agree the Assemblies Annotations on the place Their words are The same in substance but not altogether the same c. I know very well that there are some Learned Men who in this differ from those before-mentioned and from Deut. 29. ver 1. would prove that the Covenant a◠Horeb was the Covenant of Works and that this in the Land of Moab was the Gospel-Covenant of Grace I am not indeed altogether of their mind for I have already shewed that the Covenant in Exod 24. which was made with Israel at Horeb was not the Original Covenant of Works but the Gospel Covenant of Grace in Type and Figure But though they and I differ in that yet we both agree in this which is the main thing and sufficient for my purpose That the Covenant made with all Israel in the Land of Moab was really the Gospel Covenant of Grace So the Learned Alsted saith (y) Foedus in terrâ Moabitarum est Faedus Evangelii seu Fidei quod Redempvionis gratiae appellatur Quod Deus ibi promulgavit ut Populo poneret ob oculos ingens illud beneficium quo illud quod legi erat impossibile per Christum reddidit possibile Confer Deut. 29. 30. Cap. cum Rom. 10.6 c. Johan Henric. Alsted in Turri Babel destructâ pag. 532. The Covenant in the Land of Moab is the Covenant of the Gospel or Faith which is also called the Covenant of Redemption and Grace which God there promulgated that he might set before the Peoples Eyes that great benefit whereby that which was impossible to the Law is made possible by Christ Compare Deut. 29 and 30. Chapters with Rom. 10. ver 6 c. Now if it be the Gospel Covenant or Covenant of Grace then it is certa in and evident that the Gospel-Covenant or the Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires some Duties of us For the Text saith ver 9. Keep the words of this Covenant and do them And ver 10 11 12. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord the God and into his Oath c. These express words of the Text plainly show that this Covenant hath Precepts and requires Dutyes And that this Covenant which hath Precepts and requires Dutyes is the Gospel Covenant of Grace is yet more manifest from Deut. 30. where Moses speaking still of the same Covenant at the same time he told the People That though they should break it by sin yet they might be received into Grace and Favour again upon their sincere Repentance ver 1 2 3 4 5. Ruthersord of the Covenant of Life opened Part 1. pag. 189. which proves that this could not be the Covenant of Works because as Rutherford well observes The Covenant of Works once broken ceaseth to be a Covenant of Life for ever because the Nature of it is to admit of no Repentance at all 2 Moses speaking still of the same Covenant he says one of the Promises of it is That the Lord will circumcise the Heart of his People and the heart of their Seed to love the Lord their God with all their Heart and Soul that they may live ver 6. But so it is That the Promise of Heart Circumcision is certainly a Promise of the Gospel Covenant of Grace 3 Moses speaking still of the same matter and at the same time he saith as it is written in ver 11 12 13 14 This Commandment which I command thee this day it is not hidden from thee neither is it far off It is not in Heaven that thou should say Who shall go up for us to Heaven and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it Neither is it beyond the Sea that thou shouldest say Who shall go over the Sea for us and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it But the word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it By which words he plainly teaches us That the Covenant and Commandment of which he there writes is neither impossible nor hard to be understood nor yet is it impossible nor hard to be kept and observed but that through Grace circumcising the heart to love God it is both easie to be known and also easie to be kept and observed Now this cannot be truely said of the Covenant of Works For as Mr. Shepard of New England well observes The Coudition of Works is impossible to be wrought in us by the Spirit And let not any Man think this strange and uncouth to say Theses Sabbathae pag 95. That the Spirit of Grace cannot now work in us the Condition of the first Covenant the Covenant of Works for the Condition and Duty of that Covenant was That Man should be without all Sin in Habit or Act and that he should be sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life and continue so to be But that is now impossible because it implyes a Contradiction for any meer Man since Adam broke the first Covenant and we in him to be always without all Sin in Habit or Act and to be always Sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life For all Men are already guilty of Sin and the People of Israel were all Sinners and had broken the Covenant of Works before Moses spoke and when he spoke the foresaid words unto them And it implyes a contradiction that by any Power whatsoever a thing which hath been already should be made not to have been at all or that a thing which exists at present should not exist at present whil'st it doth exist It will signifie nothing here to say That yet the Spirit can make us sinlesly Holy de futuro if he please for though that be very true absolutely speaking the Spirit can make a Man sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life for time to come though he hath been a Sinner in times part for that implyes no contradiction And the Spirit of Grace hath de facto done the thing in and upon the Spirits of Just Men made perfect in Heaven yet it is nothing to the purpose here because that is not the Condition and Duty of the Covenant
to love Mercy and to walk humbly with thy God And now let us hear what Mr. Danson saith upon this Danson's Synopsis of Quakerisme p. 49. His Words are these Because God designs to take away glorying in Justification Faith in God through the Messias is called a walking humbly with God Micah 6.8 That it does relate to the Law of Faith and but only by consequence if at all not directly to the Law of Providence or submission to afflictions I am induced to believe upon these two grounds 1. Because otherwise God returns no Answer which he seems plainly to design to the Query what the Lord will be pleased with or what satisfaction shall be given him for Israels Sin which is the Sum of the Questions ver 7. Will the Lord be pleased c. But understanding it thus there is a plain Answer viz. I do not expect any Righteousness of thy Gift but of thy Acceptance or thus I shall not be pleased with any Righteousness which thou bringest unless it be what I have first bestowed on thee by Faith 2. The Pride of Mans Heart makes him as loath to accept of a Righteousness freely offered him as to accept of the Punishment of his Iniquity justly inflicted It makes him as loath to part with the Priviledges he had in the Old Covenant as he that hath set up for himself sometime is to turn an Apprentice And therefore it is as true an Act of Humility to accept of Gods Righteousness as of Chastisements for Sin Thus he In which words he plainly acknowledges and endeavours to prove that the Prophet Micah preached not the Law of Works but the Gospel of Grace to the Israelites who desired to be informed by what means they might obtain God's favour And particularly this is the Voice of the Gospel and Law of Faith The Lord requires thee to walk humbly with thy God And surely that is a Precept requiring a Duty if ever there was a Precept in the World Now if one part of the Prophets answer be the Gospel of Grace who that is afraid to wrest God's word to his own destruction dare say the other part of it is the Law of Works Since the whole answer to the Question is short and both parts of it pronounced with one breath By what certain mark may we know which part is Law and which is Gospel if both be not Gospel Nay if one part of the Answer direct them to the Law of Works and Old Covenant of Works that by complying with its Terms they may find Grace and Favour with God Doth not the Prophet seem to seduce them from the only righâ— way and means of obtaining God's Grace and Favour to wit by Faith in the Messias his Righteousness and to teach them to trust in and not part with the Priviledges they had in the Old Covenant of Works and to seek Peace and Reconciliation with God in part at least by their own Works of Righteousness or by complying with the Terms of the Law of Works If the Prophets answer to their question What they should do to be Reconciled unto God Tell them that they must comply with the Terms both of the Law of Works and of the Gospel of Grace He doth in effect teach them to seek for Justification and Reconciliation both by the Old Legal and by the New Gospel-Covenant that is both by their own Righteousness and also by anothers Righteousness to wit Christ's And then who could well blame them if they took his Advice and followed his Direction which he gave them in the Name of the Lord For avoiding of this inconvenience I for my part do think that if part then the whole Answer of the Prophet in ver 8. was Gospel and that he did but tell them what the Lord required of them by the Gospel-Covenant to be done on their part that they might obtain Justification and Salvation to wit first though it be last mentioned that by Faith they should walk humbly with their God for obtaining Justification and Reconcilation 2. That from a Principle of Faith they should do justly and love Mercy that they might declare their Thankfulness to God for his Grace and Favour to them through Christ and also that they might be fitted qualified and prepared to receive more Grace even the Grace of Eternal Life and Salvation for the only Satisfactory Meritorious Righteousness and Sacrifice of the Messias Thus I have proved by Divine Testimony out of the Old Testament That the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace in its old way of Administration had Precepts belonging to it and required Duty of the Confederate People of God But it may be some will say That though that be true yet the case is altered and now the Gospel-Covenant in its Evangelical form of Administration hath not one Precept and requires no Duty at all My Answer is 1. That that cannot be for though the Gospel-Covenant hath changed and put off its accidental Form of Administration yet it retains still and can never change its Essential Form and that is that it requires Faith in Christ in order to Justification and sincere Obedience to all God's Commandments which are in force and not Abrogated in order to Glorification and Consummate Salvation 2 I Answer That it 's Clear as the Light from the New Testament That the Gospel or Covenant of Grace now at this day hath Precepts and requires Duty of Christians which is the thing that I am next to prove by Divine Testimony taken out of the Scriptures of the New Testament And I begin with Matth. 11. v. 28 29.30 Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest Testimonies out the New Testament Take my Yoke upon you and learn of me for I am meek and lowly in heart and ye shall find rest unto your Souls For my Yoke easie and my Burden is light In which words there is not only a Command that all Distressed Souls believe and by Faith come unto Christ the Son unto whom the Father hath delivered all things and an Encouraging Promise of Rest to all that come to all that sincerely believe in Christ But 2. There is a Command laid upon Believers to take upon them Christ's Yoke and to learn Meekness and Humility of him and what else is the meaning of that but that the Lord will have Believers to obey his Precepts and imitate his Example By Christ's Yoke and Burden cannot be meant any thing but what includes his Precepts and Commandments Now Christ's Precepts which are called his Yoke and his Burden cannot possibly be the Precepts of the Law and Covenant of Works as such that is Precepts requiring Perpetual Personal Sinless Obedience as the Indispensable Means and Condition of Life and Happyness For 1. Christ here speaks not simply as God but as the Son of God Incarnate and as the Mediator between God and Men the Mediator of the New Covenant and as such
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
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